Allergies to the Sun are perhaps more common than one may expect. Most of them aren’t too serious and often result in little more than inflammation or a rash, the most common type is a polymorphous light eruption and this can bring on irritation after just a few seconds exposure to the Sun.
Quite ironic really but some sunscreen lotions that are meant to protect against the Sun actually contain photochemicals that react in Sunlight and themselves cause an allergic reaction.
Whatever it is there’s probably someone, somewhere that’s allergic to it. A few people are even allergic to water (aquagenic urticaria) and can only drink or bathe in deionised water.
Turning to your ozone question, the thinning of the ozone layer was consequent to human emissions of a range of gases termed ozone depleting substances and including the synthetic chlorofluorocarbons hydrofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, the most significant of which was HFC-12 dichlorodifluoromethane or by it’s trade name of Freon, a gas commonly used in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.
UVC, along with UVB, has mutagenic properties, this can cause gene mutation and affect DNA, one common consequence is skin cancer but other health issues are possible. Here’s a bit of light reading about UVC mutations, most of which might as well be written in hieroglyphics as far as I’m concerned:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15748...
I think it would be difficult to bring a lawsuit against any companies or governments regarding CFC chemicals. At the time that most of the gases were being produced it wasn’t known that they were damaging the ozone layer. Even when this was known the governments didn’t legislate against the use of CFC’s and the like for some time. Although known to be dangerous, the manufacturers and users of these substances weren’t breaking the law.
I guess any suit would have to follow the same path as action taken against the tobacco companies – namely proving that the parties concerned knowingly and deliberately caused the release of such substances. Proving the issue, to the standard required in law, would be difficult as the companies would simply claim they weren’t aware of the dangers; this is what the tobacco companies successfully did for 50 years.
<<
No. we don't all agree about that. UV rays have been around long before CFCs
My dad had a "sun" allergy
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi...
He was red haired and freckle-faced in his youth
UV is naturally very hazardous. Our ancestors who lived in Africa retained a great deal of melanin in their skin which absorbs UV light. Only when we left the tropical areas, some of our ancestors lost some of the melanin so that they could still manufacture vitamin D in the skin in the less sunny areas to the north in Eurasia.
NASA apparently doesn't believe our CFC reduction has effected the ozone
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/11/at...
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/02...
and if you think those sources are biased
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/f...
Interestingly ozone alarmists are pretty much the same people as AGW alarmists. Ozone guy and Trevor are both far leftists. They see the world with a left tilt. They also seem to be incapable of distinguishing theory from fact. It was a THEORY that the hole was related to our halogen emissions. Since then, it doesn't appear to the be the case but since it was hyped up, they know they can't afford to acknowledge that they may have been wrong and grossly exaggerating because that might indicate they are also probably wrong about AGW and grossly exaggerating because for them, the political cause is over everything.
Ozone guy, as an environmental consultant, I can tell you that emissions of chlorinated compounds is strictly regulated. I oversee a site that that had a chlorinated release offsite but hydrologically upgradient (meaning it will flow toward us), presumably PCE and its daughter products including TCE, and 12 DCA, etc. If you treat this site with a typical dual phase extraction (DPE), you will produce hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid and that is forbidden by the Air Quality Control District but not because they are worried about the ozone layer. Basically what you aren't getting, is that the original PCE breaks down to TCE which breaks down into its daughter products which further break down. Here are some ways PCE might breakdown naturally. Your contention that it remains intact is wrong.
http://eawag-bbd.ethz.ch/tce2/tce2_map.h...
the ozone holes are at the poles.
not where people live.
when you fly a commercial jet, you get more UV radiation than on the ground.
if you're concerned, take the bus.
"Personally I think human arrogance is embarrassing, to think we know everything.
Something as simple as Coal burning for example could render our species extinct because we just simply wont be able to survive hotter temperatures. "
Well, maybe you better be embarrassed.
It's not going to get that hot.
"Question about the SUNS solar Rays, UVC, and Ozone connection in relation to morbidity?"
Better to avoid use of "UVC", since the categories have muddied up. Best to stick with wavelengths. I like to use UV-215 thru UV-280, the wavelengths uniquely absorbed by ozone (the Hartley bands).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet...
... this says UVC is inclusive of wavelengths that are absorbed by nitrogen and oxygen in our atmosphere, namely UV-215 thru UV-100. These wavelengths are non-detect at Earth's surface, whether or not there is ozone protection.
"So, I was thinking it seems unlikely that there would be human who literally are allergic to the sun etc."
Correct. There are humans that are allergic to the products that sunlight produces in their bodies, however.
"and then it occurred to me that, what we perceive as natural and given us warmth and vitamin D for millennia may actually be harmful due to human intervention."
Always been harmful. We have just enhanced the more harmful compounds. And flooded more areas of the Earth, to get our "piece of land", where more of the dangerous rays arrive.
"Specifically speaking, the depletion of Ozone."
"As we know this allows more harfum UV rays to penetrate earth and this is why we see more skin cancers."
Also, More cataracts in anything with corneas in their eyes, and more starvation since crops are smaller, have less nutrition, and once-arable land is sterilized.
"Could other health issues be caused by mutation genes due to UVC radiation?"
Melanoma is a pretty broad category.
"AND, if so what types of diseases would they likely be?"
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi...
"Additionally, has anyone with skin cancer considered a lawsuit against companys or governments regarding CFC chemicals, which I think we can all agree, started this whole snowball ?"
False, or at least only partly true. The ozone layer has been shown to have stated depleting in the late 1700s, when human populations exceeded 1 billion worldwide. Water vapor that makes it to the ozone layer, depletes it too.
What I do not understand though, is we have aquifers that we are treating to remove CFCs from groundwater, and what do they do? They are permitted and approved to vent these compounds into the air, where they get dissolved in rain to re-enter the aquifer elsewhere, and of course they also end up in the ozone layer.
{EDIT:
"... Your contention that it remains intact is wrong."
If I am so "wrong", why are they finding increasing levels of TCE in the ozone layer? I mean, it has been in the news in the last week or so...
]
[EDIT: "It is a known Fact that since the CREATION of OZONE life was able to begin on earth, so it is therefore simple to understand that any depletion could be deleterious to LIFE."
Minor quibble. LIFE released free oxygen, and from that oxygen was made ozone. Loss of ozone protection puts multicellular life *at Earth's surface* at risk, not all life.
"And the quantity theory is just Stupid, saying that there is more skin cancer because there is MORE people."
Per capita rates have been increasing, so this factors out simple increases in population, if not the hazards of being immersed in an ambient with other environmental hazards.
"Actually more skin cancers in areas with LESS OZONE** Fact."
Better look at the statistics again. Fewer per capita new cancer cases in latitudes closer to the equator, because the know to take precautions. There is less ozone protection near the equator, because trade winds loft more water vapor into the ozone layer.
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/fil...
You can see the record-sized ozone hole in 2006. But also note the red band of reduced ozone over the equator... It is like that year around, full sunlight, and people are directly exposed. We simply cannot grow any volume of significant food crops there... the plants that can live there, spend all their time making "sunscreen".
]
