Book Review: Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray Essay

In Trashing the Planet, Dixy Lee ray of light marshals the evidence of friendship to perforate the fragile hot air b aloneoons of the global warming, ozone reduction, and acid rain vanquish theorists. With scientific facts and sound philosophy she also demolished the nonsensical arguments s as well asl the hysterical crusades against pesticides, alar, dioxin, PCBs, radon, asbestos, and nuclear power. Few of us have escaped the greenish propaganda onslaught unscathed virtually everyone has been victimized with needless worries over aver dangers lurking in the most common and benign substances in our homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods. Few of us have the academic background, the access to the scientific data, and the time to investigate the stiffness of the continuous outpouring of environmental doomsday scenarios. irradiation covers a extensive range of environmental topics, including acid rain, the greenhouse effect, ozone depletion, pesticides, etc. She attempts to use lendable scientific data to clarify environmental issues, to separate facts from factoids, to unmask the doom-crying opponents of all progress, and to re-establish a sense of reason and balance with respect to the environment and redbrick technology. (Merline, 14) In the course of this exercise, several interesting facts be presented, among them (Merline, 2001) The amount of ultraviolet illumination radiation reaching the earth has decreased since 1974, contrary to what one would sojourn if the earths protective ozone layer (which filters out most of the sunlights ultraviolet rays) has been depleted from the use of chlorofluorocarbons. Several known carcinogens, such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as arsenic, cadmium, and chromium, are found naturally in human cells. As Ray argues, it is the dosethe size or amount of exposure to carcinogensthat is important. (Lee Ray, pg. 58)In addition, 11% of the radiation we are exposed to comes from our own bodies. A innate of 82% of our exposure to radiation comes from natural sources, including radon, cosmic rays, elements in the earth, etc. The remaining 18% comes from man-made sources such as medical X-rays (11%), nuclear medicine (4%), consumer products (3%). All other sources, including nuclear power, account for less than 1% of our exposure to radiation. (Lee Ray, 1991)Concerning radon gas, Ray notes that energy conservation as urged by the U.S. government will approximately double the number of cancer deaths due to exposure to radon gas, because sealing up a home for the exercise of energy conservation inevitably leads to higher levels of indoor radon. (Lee Ray, pg. 69) Yet contempt this, no warnings have been issued about the dangers of this form of energy conservation. In fact, as Ray depicts out, our government has actively promoted energy-efficient homes with everything from do-it-yourself literature to tax breaks for insulating your home. (Lee Ray, pg. 78)Rays three assertions-that ozone would b e produced in the lower zephyr unheeding of human activity, that it is produced by the fundamental interaction of sunlight and hydrocarbons, and that those hydrocarbons are largely produced by names-are, respectively, a technical truth hiding a falsehood, a sloppily garbled half-truth, and a bit of these two mixed with an outright lie. Specifically, sea level ozone is formed when sunlight splits nitrogen dioxide into nitric oxide and atomic atomic number 8. The atomic group O controverts with molecular oxygen to form ozone.Now it is technically true that, in nature, oxides of nitrogen are produced by certain bacteria, forest fires, and lightning, so that a small amount of sea-level ozone would indeed be produced in the absence seizure of human activity. However, the main source of oxides of nitrogen in southern atomic number 20 is combustion nitrogen combining with oxygen at high temperatures. So whether its from gas water, heaters and ovens, coal-fired power plants, or aut omobiles, most of the nitrogen dioxide in the air-and, thus, most of the sea-level ozone-is directly produced by human beings. (Lee Ray, 1991)As for Rays second claim, hydrocarbons contribute to increasing the level of ozone in smogginessginess by a very indirect route. Ozone in the lower atmosphere often reacts with water to form hydroxyl radicals. These hydroxyl radicals will every react with impurities in the air to break them down or react at night with nitrogen dioxide to form nitric acid, which is either wash out of the atmosphere by rain or broken down by sunlight the next day into hydroxyl radicals, nitric oxide, and atomic oxygen (Merline, 2001).In L.A. smog, the soupy mix of unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons reacts with hydroxyl radicals and oxygen to form organic peroxides. These, in turn, react with nitric oxide to form nitrogen dioxide. By generating even more than nitrogen dioxide than was produced by combustion, these peroxides contribute more of the source material that sunlight will turn into ozone (Lee Ray, 1991). Thus, the ozone level goes up when hydrocarbons are added to the soup, but ozone is not created by a simple interaction between sunlight and hydrocarbons, as Dr. Ray asserted.As for Rays third claim-that hydrocarbons come from trees-here she was particularly devious. Her characterization of hydrocarbons as those wonderful things that you tint coming off pine away trees is technically correct to the degree that the terpenes, which are indeed given off by trees, are a family of hydrocarbons. (One of these terpenes is pinene, which gives pine trees their pleasant smell terpenes also react with oxygen and ozone to form a bluish haze in forested areas.)However, hydrocarbons comprise a immense family of compounds, encompassing everything from methane (natural gas) to such plastics as polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene (Styrofoam) (Lee Ray, 1991). Just as the hydrocarbons in smog are not from Styrofoam, neither are they from trees they are, in fact, unburned gasoline vapors-compounds such as ethane and ethylene. Moreover, pinene reacts with ozone to form pinol, which combines with water to form a hydrate that has a melting point higher than the boiling point of water. (Merline, 2001)As for my assertion to the thoughts developed by Dixy Ray that acid rain unveils plant nutrients and is thus beneficial to forests, this is a sterling example of twisting the truth. The moroseness of rain does, indeed, break down silicates and oxides, converting them to clay and sandy soils, and releasing ions of such beneficial metallic elements as sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and manganese in the process.However, when the rain is too acidic, it not only burns the leaves of trees but can also release aluminum ions, which are toxic to fish, into rivers and lakes. Much of the concern voiced by environmentalists stems from a belief that technological advances are fouling our nest. The author takes p ains to point out that technology often improves our environment, making it safer and cleaner for humans to red-hot in. One example is with forage irradiation. Deemed harmless by several heath groups, including the World Health Organization, irradiation helps to eliminate microorganisms that can cause food spoilage. Despite the obvious benefits to consumers from low spoilage rates, many consumer groups have fought irradiation for health reasons. ReferencesLee Ray, Dixy (with Lou Guzzo). 1991. Trashing the Planet How Science Can Help Us Deal With Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone Layer, and Nuclear Waste (Among Other Things). Regnery Gateway. Retrieved on October 6, 2006.Merline, J.W. 2001. Trashing the planet. Consumers explore Magazine. Retrieved on October 6, 2006.