By the end of winter, the pole has lost its entire budget of ozone formed over it, so the only ozone it has has diffused in from regions closer to the equator. Then in spring, visible light arrives in these regions to drive photocatalytic decay processes, but no UV to make more ozone. The result is an ozone hole. Depletion *everywhere* makes the ozone hole larger, deeper, start sooner, and last longer.
The poles are not "most effected", they simply "amplify a symptom".
The polar ozone holes form over a region where "no one" lives, and UV protection is lost over a region that is getting no UV.
For the same reason that poor people tend to be more hurt by an economic downturn than rich people, They had less to start with.
Basically, for various reasons having to do with how ozone is formed, the poles are a thin spot for ozone. So thin that if you remove some of the ozone, by adding CFCs to the air or whatever, they will go from being merely thin to being flat-out holes. Kind of like how the shallow parts of a puddle will dry up before the deep parts do.
Ozone is created by the sun busting up O2 to make 2 O and then those 2 O finding 2 O2 and making 2 O3. Since it is entirely accomplished by ultraviolet light from the sun, it make sense that the poles which recieve less direct sunlight would inherently have a thinner ozone layer.
because in polar reason iceberg r melting due to ozone depletion.
There is no ozone depletion problem. The ozone layer ebbs and flows like it always has.
Actually, it would be the radiation from the Sun accelerate the decomposition of the ozone.
Just the nature of magnetic polar activity
Since they are more closed and exposed by ozone
