SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The UN treaty to protect the ozone layer has prevented a likely surge in skin cancer in Australia, New Zealand and northern Europe, a study published on Tuesday said.
If the 1987 Montreal Protocol had never been signed, the ozone hole over Antarctica would have grown in size by 40 percent by 2013, it said.
Ultra-violet levels in Australia and New Zealand, which currently have the highest mortality rates from skin cancer, could have risen by between eight and 12 percent.
In northern Europe, depletion of the ozone layer over the Arctic could have boosted ultra-violet levels in Scandinavia and Britain by more than 14 percent, it said.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/world-already-reaping-benefits-from-ozone-treaty-150526.htm
[Abstract]: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150526/ncomms8233/full/ncomms8233.html
[Editor's Comment: Original Source]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 28 2015, @12:08PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:36PM
A very valid point and one I would have overlooked without you posting it. Thank you. My only problem with this is the conclusion that the hole would have been larger at that specific size. It may have eroded further or less. My guess is that it would have been less as there was a massive awareness of the problem and many people were already seeking CFC alternatives on their own before the laws were enacted. This, in my mind, makes it impossible to draw a conclusive result as there are too many variables and it is not unknown for a company to alter their was due to the publics interest in alternative products. This is why there are fads, things like gluten-free products, and more organics available today. The number (and size of the hole) could have gone down due to other pressures besides a law. While this is doubtful, and corporations are much more evil almost thirty years later, there is that potential and to state that the number 40% is authoritative seems disingenuous and not very good science.
I could be mistaken, and the number may seem trivial to some, but if I am not mistaken then, no matter how trivial, allowing for bad scientific conclusions to be authoritatively stated is certainly in the slippery slope range. Also consider the recent article here that was entirely about bad science and how it has impacted the field. Making people, giving them excuses, disbelieve science (to favor religion perhaps) is not a very good thing in my humble opinion.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."