Denial doesn’t help ozone depletion

Dear Editor,

I would like to respond to the letter to the editor (Oct. 17 Guardian) in which Eleanor Roosevelt College freshman Kartavya Vyas suggests that “depletion of the ozone layer is not a crisis” and that “environmental protection is oftentimes exaggerated by scientists.”

Among other things, Kartavya suggests:

1. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are made in insufficient amounts to be harmful;

2. Regulation of CFC production is absurd;

3. “Disappearing ozone is not as huge a problem as we once thought;”

4. “Decrease in ozone may in fact be beneficial toward curing certain diseases;” and

5. “Human beings are ignorant of the facts and only rely on unsupported media stories and wild guesses — be it environmental protection or U.S. politics.”

The 1974 Nobel Prize was awarded to three scientists in recognition of their ozone research discoveries. Two of them (M. Molina and P. Crutzen) are here at UCSD. Further, an international agreement (the Montreal Protocol) was signed by 146 nations, including the United States to stop CFC production. Could freshman Vyas know more than the Nobel Prize awardees, the world scientific community and 146 countries?

Let’s examine the facts. Worldwide, we humans were producing over a million metric tons of CFCs per year. CFCs are very stable, lasting over 100 years in the troposphere. In the stratosphere, one CFC can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules because CFCs act by a free radical chain reaction mechanism. CFCs are responsible for the ozone hole over Antarctica (24 million square miles), which has only one-third of its original ozone. As a result, children in Australia must by law wear hats and long sleeved shirts when outdoors to protect them from harmful UV radiation. Because of the international agreement referred to above, stratospheric CFC levels have at least begun to stabilize. Without stratospheric ozone, life as we know it could not exist on the surface of Earth. Ozone in the troposphere (near the surface of Earth) is harmful to life, although stratospheric ozone is essential. As Mark Twain said: “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as much as you please.”

— Milton H. Saier, Jr.

Professor of molecular biology, UCSD

Uses of Adderall could be misinterpreted

Dear Editor,

I would like to clarify my position on the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder with stimulants. I have seen stimulants improve functioning when prescribed by physicians for people with diagnosed ADHD. However, stimulants have a high potential for addiction and can cause problems for individuals without a diagnosable condition or not under proper medical care. Also, inattention, distractibility and lack of focus can be caused by a number of issues, including lack of sleep, depression, medical illness or anxiety.

Any student who is concerned about their use of stimulants or having persistent problems with inattention can come to Psychological and Counseling Services for help to find other ways to function more effectively. While this was the main point of Katie Westfall’s thought-provoking Oct. 10 article, my brief quotation could have been misinterpreted. Thank you for reporting on these important issues.

— Jerry Phelps, Ph.D.

Psychologist, Psychological and Counseling Services