-=> ROY J. TELLASON wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-

 WC> I thought it was because it drifted into the ozone layer where it
 WC> worked as a catalyst to break down the protective ozone layer.

 RJT> I understand that this is the rationale that's been given in some
 RJT> cases,  but it makes no sense to me why the "ozone hole" that was
 RJT> reported should only show up over the south pole.  
 
It doesn't, it's showing up over both poles southern and northern.

 RJT> Nor is it conclusive
 RJT> that flourocarbons were the cause of it,  and that it didn't to some
 RJT> degree occur naturally.  The first reports of that were grabbed by the
 RJT> eco-freaks and used as a rationale,  but the study of that stuff isn't
 RJT> over yet.

Ten years after we stop using it entirely it will still be destroying 
the ozone layer because one it takes time to migrate up there and as the 
reaction is catalytic in nature one clorine atom photodisassociated 
from Freon destroys many ozone molecules.
The study has been rather comprehensive.
UV light, ozone and Freon are not at all hard to produce and study 
in the laboratory and ongoing research is going on at both poles
as well as airborne flights to recover gas samples.

 RJT> There are lots of conspiracy theories out there,  and I don't take many
 RJT> of them seriously,  though from time to time I do find them
 RJT> entertaining.

 The increased rate of melanoma outbreak in Australia occurred
 right after the southern ozone hole migrated over that continent.
 
 WC> The loss of the ozone layer is a demonstrated fact

 RJT> Fluctuation in it may be,  but "loss"?  I'm not so sure of that.

 Scientists measure increasing size of the holes each year.

 WC> and clorine liberated by photochemical reactions with
 WC> flourocarbons is an acknowledged cause of that destruction.

 RJT> Ok,  what's your source for this info?

Many sources from the net as well as NASA sponsored research 
and the PBS show NOVA.
 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5