Aerosol, not aerosole. The propellant gas was usually freon, chloro-fluro carbons. It was one of the ones suspected of adding chlorine to the ozone layer which caused depletion of the ozone and thin spots primarily over the poles. Ozone, O3, helps filter out ultraviolet light from the sun, which are the burning rays and can cause mutation.
Since then, the freons have been replaced with more stable forms and nitrogen gas so that their contribution to ozone depletion should be minimal. However, the chlorine lasts for a long time.
Freons are also used as refrigerants which is why air conditioner and refrigerator repair facilities are careful to recycle the older freon so that they can continue to service older equipment. Again, the newer gases are more stable and newer equipment is designed for their use.
The primary source of pollution from aerosol cans may now be by taking up space in landfills because not all areas have recycling.
2007-05-29 18:33:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Gerald G 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No aerosol products produced in the U.S. contain flurocarbons because they were outlawed. They should not have been and the same junk science was used back then. The ficticious claim was that CFC's were depleting the ozone in the atmosphere and causing an "Ozone Hole" over Antartica. This is pure poppycock.
CFC's are heavier than air. There is simply no way to get them from your hair salon up to the upper reaches of the stratosphere. Besides, the sun creates more ozone 24/7.
This whole business of an ozone hole is very misleading as well. You see, the sun creates ozone so, since the sun shines most directly on the equator the ozone levels are predictably highest near the equator. Consquently, sunlight is at it's weakest or least direct at the poles. One would expect the ozone levels to be lowest at the poles.
It has also been noted that the size of the "ozone hole" expands and shrinks during the year. Does that surprise anyone? It should not. You see the days are six months long in Antartica. That means it is dark there six months out of the year. No one ever measured the ozone levels before. It is far more likely that it has always been this way but not to the zealots. Even though there is no evidence this phenomina is cause by man, we outlawed flurocarbons. This is the environmental equlivilent of shoot first and ask questions later. It has nothing to do with science.
None of the predicted environmental disasters that have been predicted by so called scientists for the last thirty years has been at all valid. The earth is not as fragile as they want you to believe. It is a very effecient system that automatically compensates for changes before you even realize there has been a change.
I realize that the schools and all childrens's literature has been taken over with this new secular religion called evnironmentalism but you really need to stop believeing these people. Here in America, we live longer healthier lives than at any time in our history yet so many of us run around wringing our hands as we move from dire prediction to dire prediction. It is a waste of your valuable time.
.
2007-05-29 18:40:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Some aerosols have CFCs that cause damage to the ozone layer. This can lead to health problems such as skin cancer and asthma for humans and loss of environment for animals such as polar bears and penguins. (less light will be reflected back into the atmosphere, causing more to be trapped- which will lead to an increase in temperature - which will then lead to the ice melting- which will then lead to problems for the polar bears and penguins who need the ice to survive.)
The cans themselves are bad for the environment because it would take a very long time for the can to decompose. It should be properly recycled- which would help the environment- because less raw materials would have to be used.
2007-05-29 18:37:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by Vera Z 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The cans contain gas inside the can to propel the liquid inside the can. In the U.S. they have to use something less harmful. Lots of cans use stuff like oxygen now, and there making refillable ones that you just pump air into the can and there you go. Bottom line is make sure the can your using says no cfc's on the back of it.
2007-06-02 00:46:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Aeresol cans emit CFCs. These fluorocarbons pollute the atmosphere and diminish the ozone layer. The ozone layer is what protects us from harmful UV rays from the sun.
2007-05-30 05:33:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by tertiahibernica 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
it could easily make a difference in a destructive way for many human beings in those situations on how they attain life, yet on an identical time human beings have the skill to overcome those stumbling blocks and be triumphant in life. the persons who effectively conquer those stumbling blocks might use their destructive reports to lead them to try to stay a extra effectual life understanding that there must be some thing extra effectual accessible for them rather of staying in that undesirable ecosystem and that they try to overcome their undesirable genetics via warding off a possibility threats to them which includes alcohol in the event that they comprehend their mom or dad replaced into an alcoholic.
2016-11-23 16:55:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is the gas that they claim is harmful. The gas is necessary to cause the content to spray.
2007-05-29 18:17:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by howdigethere 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
because most of them contains CFC's (aka chlorofluorocarbons) which deplete the o-zone layers.
2007-05-29 18:18:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by confused 3
·
1⤊
0⤋