Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Ozone As Pesticide 200

Posted by CowboyNeal from the things-bugs-totally-hate dept.
Makarand writes "Purdue University researchers in the search for alternatives to insect fumigants that damage Earth's ozone layer have found that ozone gas can be used as a potent pesticide without causing any environmental harm. Farmers could use ozone generators to get rid of insects in their grain bins by releasing ozone in them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ozone As Pesticide More

Ozone As Pesticide

Comments Filter:

  • Billions of Insects Killed (Score:5, Funny)

    by Giant Ape Skeleton ( 638834 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:28PM (#5413665) Homepage
    PETA protest to follow...

  • 20 years from now... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:29PM (#5413667)
    "Scientists say the ozone layer is too thick after 2 decades of overuse of ozone as a pesticide. This will result in global warming, and the eventual extinction of humans, unless some sort of ozone layer thinning can be done."

    • Re:20 years from now... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by t0ny ( 590331 )
      Actaully, the ozone layer filters out radiation. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is what is causing global warming.

      Part of the problem with this is that O3 is denser than air, and will, for the most part, rise high enough into the atmosphere. O3 is also a very bad resperatory irritant, and inhaling large quantities could even cause death. Mild but prolonged exposure can also cause health problems.

      Stangely enough, however, passing O3 thru something like olive oil before breathing is supposed to be theraputic for resperatory problems.

    • Thank God! I'll finally be able to have a decent car air conditioner again!

  • Ozone gas - Toxic? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lothar ( 9453 )
    Might be wrong here, but I thought high levels of ozone near the ground was toxic to humans?

    • Re:Ozone gas - Toxic? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbender@gmaEE ... inus threevowels> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:39PM (#5413726)
      That's correct, but the amount used here is not near enough to be toxic. However, during the summer months we routinely have smog alarms around here which caution folks to go outside for prolonged times, mostly due to the ozone in the air. It's, of course, not concentrated so high that it would kill you, but things such as severe headaches are typical issues. Note that the article states that the ozone used as a pesticide would not contribute to the overall smog problem - or at least not significantly, I think the article is not absolutely clear on that.

      • Re:Ozone gas - Toxic? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rmarll ( 161697 )
        would not contribute to the overall smog problem - or at least not significantly, I think the article is not absolutely clear on that.

        Depends on how much it's used and for how long doesn't it? In 20 years are we going to be buying ozone depleators for our homes? Are farming communities going to become little cancer farms?

        Not to say I have a real problem with it as of yet, but given humanity's track record I'm not sure I share the same confidence that the perdue staff does.
        • Oh, I do share your sentiments. I was merely quoting the article, personally I'm not sure what to think about it. The fact that this would seem to increase already existing ground-level ozone concentration was my first thought when reading about the article, in fact.
        • It breaks down in 20 minutes to pure oxygen, unless shielded by a nobel gas. It is one of the most potent oxidizing agents known.

          In other words, they'd have to dump a metric assload of the shit to do any damage.
        • Well...

          We talk about the threat to *us* from this ozone, but what about what's been used up to now -- powerful and *definitely* toxic pesticides, right? I'm assuming here that the pesticides currently being used are a lot more harmful, otherwise ozone wouldn't be seen as a positive replacement.

          I guess the main thing to keep in mind is that, just as it is at the present, the main population affected by this would be migrant farm workers, who apparently suffer many health problems due to the insecticides and herbicides that they come into contact with during harvesting. If the use of ozone is less harmful, then I'm all for it.

          I'm guessing that by the time the harvesting comes, most of the ozone will have drifted away. The same cannot be said of pesticides, which are even on the food we buy at the store.

          The big question in my mind is -- since ozone is more or less natural, will use of ozone as a pesticide be allowed for organic farming?

          AND NOW, TO GET REALLY OFFTOPIC

          Speaking of Organic farming, there was a new law added as a rider to the Omnibus Bill that actually allows chicken farms to label their chickens as organic *even if they feed them non-organic feed* if the price of organic feed rises to twice the price of normal feed. Since organic feed is *usually* around 3 times the cost of normal feed, this means they would always be feeding their chickens non-organic feed. There are some senators trying to overturn this crazy law. Call your senators to support the Organic Restoration Act, which would ensure that farmers claiming to sell organic poultry and livestock actually are feeding them organic feed.

          Thank You

          END OF INCREDIBLY OFFTOPIC COMMENT

        • I'm very wary of adding to ground level ozone, but if it'll eliminate that waxy sh-t from my fruits and vegetables and allow me to eat the "best part" once again, I'd consider it. The health benefits might counteract the negative.
          Just a thought.
    • Humans are probably fine as long as they aren't in sidethe grain silos. Heck, Sharper Image sells personal Ozone Air Purifiers [google.com] (not that they work [epinions.com].)

      However, the article is light on details in this regard:

      Maier said Purdue's ozone insecticide process uses such low concentrations of ozone that it rapidly dissipates. It would not add to ground-level ozone, which is a component of smog, he said.

      My guess is that people near the ozone develop some irritation symptoms: runny nose, itchy eyes, etc, but then the symptoms go away (Which is what happens to me near some of those Sharper Image Ozone Air Purifiers). The ozone is a pollutant, but just not in sufficient levels to be called "smog".
      • There were a few companies selling ozone generators to clean the air in your home. Unfortunately, Ozone indoors at high concentrations tends to cause a myriad of health problems (asthma being one of them).

        Nothing really new in this article. The indoor marijuana growing industry has been using this technology for years, although a reduction in pest (spider mites) was just a side benefit to the odor reduction. Even in those situations, the rooms are set up with positive pressure, and a quick venting system. Failure to do that can lead to injury to the grower.

        Probably will be okay for farmer Ted as long as he doesn't go into the silo.

    • If you read the article, you'd know that they intend to use the ozone gas in closed bins that store the grain.

      So, they want to use ozone in a closed environment, but if this is possible, what's the harm of using CFCs in a closed environment?

      CFCs are great because they act like water (as a solvent) in many ways, but have none of the harmful effects on electronic components. You can completely submerge a PC in CFCs and turn it on, without shorting anything out.

      Industry used CFCs for a long time until it was linked to environmental issues. Yes, they were also used as propellents in aerosols, but why did industry drop CFCs from closed environments? They feared leakage.

      So, somehow a farm's grain bin is better at keeping ozone out of the environment...go figure.
      • The difference is that a small leakage of ozone leaks a gas that will break down in relatively short order; a small leakage of CFCs leaks a gas that will never break down and will simply accumulate.

        The problem with CFCs is that no environment is ever fully closed, and the things are damned near indestructible.
        • CFCs are a catalyst in high atmosphere, breaking down the fine layer of ozone protecting us.

          Although a catalyst, which means that in theory one molecule of CFC could destroy all the ozone layer, each molecule actually destroys an average of 150 000 ozone molecules before being destroyed or combined with another componant.

          CFCs are terrible for the Ozone layer and leakage is to be avoided at all cost, thus the ban. Ozone is an unstable gaz and when leaked, it will break down relatively quickly and is not a catalyst, so it does not accumulate overtime at ground level. Its like carbon monoxyde. A little leakage is not a big deal. And since it cost to produce Ozone, you bet that most farmers will ensure that there is minimum leakage in their silos.

    • Re:Ozone gas - Toxic? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rrkap ( 634128 )

      It's one of the main componants of summer smog and is usually the most harmful (CO and particulates are more harmful in winter). It irritates lungs and eyes.

      Widespread use of ozone for pest control would probably cause more severe air quality problems in places like California's Central Valley, which already has a bad smog problem, due to its topology as well as a combination of unregulated agricultural equipment, pollution blowing in from the coastal cities (especially significant in the Sacramento Valley) and from the usual pollution that comes from any city.

  • Smog? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fjornir ( 516960 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:30PM (#5413677)
    But the process won't add to the ground-level ozone that is a component of smog, they said. Maier said Purdue's ozone insecticide process uses such low concentrations of ozone that it rapidly dissipates. It would not add to ground-level ozone, which is a component of smog, he said. Can anyone clarify this reasoning? It seems to me that if a lot of farmers were using this that the 'low concentrations' at each location would add up. Yes, I know, that's only a thought experiment, but...
    • But the process won't add to the ground-level ozone that is a component of smog, they said.

      I was wondering what is the explanation for this as well.
      Well in that case, maybe they can take the harmful ground level ozone from metropolitan areas and transfer it to farmer's fields where it... won't.. be harmful? :-/

    • Re:Smog? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ozone quickly decays. Artificially producing small amounts of ozone and releasing it does not significantly add to the concentration in the air because the small extra amount quickly disappears through decay. Smog contains substances that increase the rate at which ozone is created from oxygen plus ultraviolet radiation, that effect causes much more ozone to be generated at ground level than artificial means could and significantly shifts the equilibrium of production and decay towards a higher concentration.

    • Re:Smog? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jensend ( 71114 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @02:24PM (#5413893)
      IIRC, it wouldn't add up- it would break down. Ozone is not the stablest form of oxygen, after all. If quantities are small enough it will combine with other materials in the air or break down to O2+O. I've got a "Ionic Breeze" air purifier from Sharper Image [sharperimage.com], and it manifests this behavior- if the quantity of ozone it's put out into an area is small, the ozone doesn't build up and you can have it running indefinitely without any trouble even if you don't have much air circulation. If you have it putting out a fair bit for a while, though, it gets to the point where it's created an environment in which the ozone concentration is high enough that it doesn't break down. Then it gets quite smelly really quickly.

    • Re:Smog? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MsWillow ( 17812 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @03:25PM (#5414137) Homepage Journal
      It could be that farms are big, empty places, and the amount of ozone per cubic mile of atmosphere, coupled with the lack of high hydrocarbons per cubic mile of atmosphere, make it a non-issue. As farms tend not to be near major concentrations of pollutants, this small amount of ozone would be OK, and quite probably, less harmful to the environment than the pesticides. Plus, as an added bonus, the ozone won't leave a residue that may cumulatively be nasty for us to ingest.
    • Yes, because once it dissapates, it's gone forever.

      Out of sight, out of mind.

      Sounds about as logical as the way auto dealers justified building still more and more huge vehicles. They cited a study that if a car weighs 100 pounds more than your car, you have a higher chance of fatality. So I guess the idea is to sell cars so big that everyone will have a car bigger than every other car on the road.

  • Makes total sense. (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:31PM (#5413680) Homepage Journal

    After reading this story I was thinking back and can confirm: Not a single photocopy clerk in our building has ever caught malaria from infected mosquitos.
  • Ozone produced near the ground does not rise into the upper atmosphere to add to the ozone layer. It will sit near the ground and if the area has weak wind currents (like many vally areas) it will stay in that area and become air polution. LA is notable as an area that has significant ozone polution.

    • Re:Near Ground Ozone _IS_ an environmental problem (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tony-A ( 29931 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:45PM (#5413760)
      Seems like grain silos and smog tend to be in different areas. I think smog comes from reacting ozone with unburned hydrocarbons.
    • While ground-level ozone is bad for people, ground-level pesticides are worse for you. Furthermore, the real problem with ground-level ozone is that irt reacts with volitile hydrocarbons to make icky smog. This is not so much of a problem in rural areas (like, say, farms).
    • So, how about we just store all the grain in LA?
    • I don't know if this is why but it's true -- LA has very few bugs, one of the major things contributing to southern California's outdoor lifestyle. Many people don't even have screens, and leave their windows and doors open all the time. The patio is treated like just another room in the house. This would be unthinkable on the east coast, where you'd get eaten alive!

      Not only that, but smog makes for wonderful sunsets.

  • Low Concentrations (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rosonowski ( 250492 ) <rosonowski&gmail,com> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:33PM (#5413694)
    Well, low concentrations are present even in your body. Your immune system uses the ozone to punch holes in bacteria.

    After a rainstorm, that funky smell is ozone, created by the lightning passing through the atmosphere.

    So, small amounts isn't too bad.

    • Re:Low Concentrations (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      After a rainstorm, that funky smell is ozone, created by the lightning passing through the atmosphere.

      Actually, the "funky smell" after a rainstorm is not ozone. It is another chemical which is released by small organisms called nematodes that live in the soil. Nematodes release this chemical in response to precipitation. I'd cite the source of this information if I could remember where I read it. Basically, the article was about researchers figuring out the composition and source of the "smell of rain." Because most people associate this smell with "freshness", it has commercial value as a perfume to be added to laundry detergents, household cleaners, etc.

    • Re:Low Concentrations (Score:4, Informative)

      by dpete4552 ( 310481 ) <slashdot@tuxcont[ ].com ['act' in gap]> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @07:11PM (#5415488) Homepage
      American Lung Association :
      Ozone is a potent lung irritant and exposure to elevated levels is a contributor to the exacerbation of lung disease; it is especially dangerous for persons with asthma and other chronic lung diseases, children, and the elderly. Residential indoor ozone is produced directly by ozone generators and indirectly by ion generators and some other electronic air cleaners. There is no difference, despite some manufacturers' claims, between outdoor ozone and ozone produced by these devices.

      The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action in 1995 against two manufacturers of ozone generating devices. The FTC charged that they made unsubstantiated claims about the ability of their products to clean air of various indoor air pollutants and to prevent or relieve allergies, asthma and other conditions.

      Consumer Reports (1992), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (Boeniger, 1995), and the U.S. EPA (1995) concluded that tabletop and room unit ozone generators are not effective in improving indoor air quality. Studies have found that while some indoor air pollutant concentrations decline in the presence of ozone, other pollutants increase. In fact, upon reaction with ozone, some previously undetected, toxic chemicals emerge in indoor air, including formaldehyde and other alehydes (Boeniger, 1995).

      There is a lack of evidence in the scientific literature that would support the effectiveness of ozone at low concentrations in removing organic contaminants from indoor air (Boeniger, 1995). A recent study by the U.S. EPA demonstrates that ozone is not effective for killing airborne molds and fungi even at high concentrations (6-9 ppm) (U.S. EPA, 1995). At higher concentrations, especially above 0.08 ppm, ozone is a potent irritant that can bring about diminished lung function, cough, inflammation associated with biochemical changes, and *increased* responsiveness to allergens (Horstman, et al., 1990).
      http://www.alaw.org/air_quality/information_and_ referral/indoor_air_quality/ozone_generatiors.html



      EPA:
      Some manufacturers or vendors suggest that ozone will render almost every chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading.

      ...a review of scientific research shows that, for many of the chemicals commonly found in indoor environments, the reaction process with ozone may take months or years...contrary to specific claims by some vendors, ozone generators are not effective in removing carbon monoxide or formaldehyde...

      ...for many of the chemicals with which ozone does readily react, the reaction can form a variety of harmful or irritating by-products.

      ozone does not remove particles (e.g., dust and pollen) from the air, including the particles that cause most allergies

      Ozone is not considered useful for odor removal in building ventilation systems

      When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs. Relatively low amounts of ozone can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath and, throat irritation. It may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma as well as compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections.

      Some studies show that ozone concentrations produced by ozone generators can exceed health standards even when one follows manufacturer's instructions.

      The concentration of ozone would have to greatly exceed health standards to be effective in removing most indoor air contaminants. In the process of reacting with chemicals indoors, ozone can produce other chemicals that themselves can be irritating and corrosive. http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html
      Ozone generators are nothing but a dangerous scam.
  • 10 years from now someone discovers the increased quantity of ground level ozone is causing cancer (or whatever).

    Suppose it's still better than DDT though.
    • DDT, if judiciously used, is also effective and useful. The problem is, it was intially used widely and without controls placed on it's use.

      Then it was totally banned, for political reasons, and due to the hysteria that had been whipped up against it.

      As it says on this site [malaria.org]:
      Malaria kills over one million people, mainly children, in the tropics each year, and DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit the disease. Attaran et al. explain that the scientific literature on the need to withdraw DDT is unpersuasive, and the benefits of DDT in saving lives from malaria are well worth the risks.


      That's a site with a political agenda, though, and only environmentalists are permitted to mix a political agenda with their science.
    • Sheesh, is there anything in the world that isn't bad for you in some way or another?
      • Well, let's go down the list and see:

        Sunlight: skin cancer, sunburn
        Tobacco--
        Cigarettes: lung cancer
        Pipes/Cigars: mouth cancer
        Chewing: tounge cancer
        Sugar: diabetes, obesity
        Salt: high blood pressure
        Cholesterol: cholesterol
        Red meat: see cholesterol
        Chicken--
        Meat: full of antibiotics
        Eggs: cholesterol
        Veal: more antibiotics than chicken
        Jogging: shin splints
        Running: heart failure
        Sex: as if we'd know

        Please feel free to expand on this list. I am releasing it under the LGPL.

  • Ozone layer must be removed... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sydney Weidman ( 187981 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:36PM (#5413704) Homepage
    because it is infringing on our patent. Please cease and desist immediately or we will be forced to initiate legal action.

  • Right... (Score:2, Funny)

    by orkysoft ( 93727 )
    Why don't they just put people in those areas? Humans make Ozone [slashdot.org]! :-P

  • Already used for tap water (Score:5, Informative)

    by Papineau ( 527159 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:39PM (#5413721) Homepage

    Ozone is already used in quite a few water treatment facilities. It's germicide properties are long known.

    There's even a company (TSO3 [tso3.com]) which uses it to sterilize chirurgical instruments, instead of high temps.

    Using ozone to kill bugs is simply another use for it, although I wonder if they try to get it back or if they release it in the atmosphere.

  • Mountain toxic, river poison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sunnan ( 466558 ) <sunnan@handgranat.org> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:39PM (#5413723) Homepage Journal
    Is producing more poison, esp that damage the nerve system like this, a good thing?

    I don't know.

    I'd rather see a decline in the monocultures that are vulnerable to insect attacks. Growing for example hemp alongside your other crops helps against pests and is a lot less harmful to the environment.

    Growing a single crop is almost begging for trouble, and using pesticides is not going to the root of the problem. The insects will evolve.
    • While I'm completely for the recommercialization of Hemp in the US, I'd venture to say the highly unstable ozone is a hell of a lot safer in the long run than things like DDT that stick around in the food chain for years and years.
      • Right, of course I believe that things like DDT is even worse - a lot worse. I'm not contesting that.

        I was questioning the continuing use of monoculture as an agricultural practise, which is what makes things like poison seem "necessary".

  • That reminds me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joelt49 ( 637701 ) <joelt49@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:44PM (#5413746) Homepage
    this reminds me of a story I saw once on 20/20 about a type of machine that released small amounts of ozone, trying to help people with asthma. Unfortunately, it only aggravated the symptoms. So, I see big lawsuits coming from farmers with asthma. Although the article claims it won't cause environmental damage, who knows. If it stays around, though, it might just sit there, and no further treatements will be necessary. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

  • Ozone a great pesticide, but be careful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CraigoFL ( 201165 ) <slashdot@@@kanook...net> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:46PM (#5413761)
    I recently bought a house with a pool. While reading up on pool maintenance at this excellent site [poolmanual.com] I came across this interesting page [poolmanual.com] on using ozone instead of chlorine as a pool cleaner. Apparently it works very well at killing bacteria and other contaminents, but it is very expensive and very unstable. Most states don't even allow you to use it as a primary sanitizer for your pool.

    Ozone might be effective and more environmentally friendly, but it might be too expensive or dangerous for widespread use. Of course, farm work has never been especially cheap or safe... this is just one aspect out of many.

  • Ozone + Grain = Explosion! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:49PM (#5413768) Homepage Journal
    Ozone is a superoxydizer. That's how it kills bacteria and insects. Grain silos already have explosion problems with normal atmospheres - the suspended grain dust tends to form an explosive mixture. Put a superoxydizer in there, and and it might get worse.

    There are health issues - though probably not that big - perhaps more free radicals in the air to give you lung cancer, and whatever you get when the ozone recombines with other gases, etc. Maybe nitrous oxides?

    Bruce

    • Re:Ozone + Grain = Explosion! (Score:5, Informative)

      by IIRCAFAIKIANAL ( 572786 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @03:22PM (#5414107) Journal
      I had never heard of this (and I lived in rural Alberta for much of my life) so I hunted around and found this [netcom.com]. Just thought I would share it.

      Here [warren-group.com] is a less amusing but more informative site about it as well.

      Farming is dangerous work. Between the War Amps commercials ("I lost my arms playing around a thresher!") and the possibility of falling into a grain silo and drowning, it's dangerous enough without adding the whole "exploding silo's" to the mix.

      It's hard, easy to go bankrupt, and dangerous. I have nothing but respect for the people that take on that profession.
    • There are health issues - though probably not that big - perhaps more free radicals in the air to give you lung cancer, and whatever you get when the ozone recombines with other gases, etc.

      You mean besides the fact that Ozone is toxic to humans too?

      Ozone sickness is a real danger for pilots that operate above 35,000 feet in unsealed aircraft cockpits or cockpits that use fresh air from outside. This is one of the reasons commercial airliners recycle their air.
    • Given that the O3 is going to used in small concentrations (relative to the O2 (~20%) which is already there) I would doubt that the risk of an explosion would increase by that much.

  • The grain will burn! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:49PM (#5413770) Homepage
    Ozone is also a much better oxidant than O2. Gotta be VERY careful with that grain, a bunch of it can just burn at a smallest spark. The environment at the grain elevators also becomes much more explosive. Right now it's prohibited to smoke or create any open fire on the facilities there. Why? Because flour (it's not really flour, but microscopic particles of wheat) suspended in the air is highly explosive. Now imagine this air has high ozone content. Also, there always WILL be leaks from grain storage and ozone is poisonous.

  • I didn't know this was new... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Blondie-Wan ( 559212 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:50PM (#5413773) Homepage
    Several years ago I was a laborer at the NCO Club at Eglin AFB, Florida, and we once brought in some ozone generators specifically for pest control. I don't know how common the practice is, but it's definitely been done before.

    Is the discovery that it can be used directly around foodstuffs what makes it news? I didn't even know that was a big deal, but now that I think about it, I don't recall us using those generators in the kitchen.

  • In many large grain elevators inert gases such as nitrogen may be pumped into the silo's while the others gases are pumped out. N2 is pretty inert and is non-toxic. What is toxic is the lack of oxygen. Best yet, most of our atmosphere is nitrogen.

  • Ozone is highly toxic to humans (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:58PM (#5413802) Homepage
    The article says "It isn't clear how the ozone kills the insects," but apparently it does, and apparently in low concentrations. We are told that it "uses such low concentrations of ozone that it rapidly dissipates. It would not add to ground-level ozone." Ah, that word "dissipates." But as Barry Commoner reminded us, "everything must go someplace." "Dissipation" isn't the same as vanishing!

    And generally speaking things that kill one kind of life (e.g. insects) are hazardous to others (e.g. humans).

    See this factsheet [kesmist.com], which notes, in part:

    HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE FACT SHEET
    Common Name: OZONE
    CAS Number: 10028-15-6
    DOT Number: None

    * Ozone can affect you when breathed in.

    * Ozone may cause mutations. Handle with extreme caution.

    * Ozone can cause reproductive damage. Handle with extreme caution

    * Repeated exposure can cause lung damage.

    * ODOR THRESHOLD = 0.045 ppm.

    * The range of accepted odor threshold values is quite broad. Caution should be used in relying on odor alone as a warning of potentially hazardous exposures.

    WORKPLACE EXPOSURE LIMITS

    OSHA: The legal airborne permissible exposure limit

    (PEL) is 0.1 ppm averaged over an 8-hour workshift.

    NIOSH: The recommended airborne exposure limit is 0.1 ppm which should not be exceeded at any time.

    ACGIH: The recommended airborne exposure limit is 0.1 ppm averaged over an 8-hour workshift.

    • Ozone also gives a nice mellow high (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @02:13PM (#5413862) Homepage Journal
      Having worked around tesla coils and other equipment that creates/gives off a lot of ozone, I can tell you, if you are going to die some way, this is probably one of the best.

      You get very very high if the concentration of ozone in the air gets too high. It's a very mellow high as well.

      I don't know how dangerous to your brain it is though. It hasn't caused any major problems for me yet. But around electrical equipment that gives off sparks, it's really easy to get a build up of ozone gas, or as we call it at work, happy gas. :-)

      Plus ozone definitely has a distinct smell, I find.

      Just some interesting tips.

      Yes though, ozone is deadly, and I am not recommending "recreational" use of ozone. I have to inhale it, you don't.
    • In this case, it breaks down into diatomic oxygen (whereas ozone is triatomic).I think that counts as dissipating.

  • BTW: ozone problem is political not enviromental (Score:3, Interesting)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @01:59PM (#5413805)

    FYI, There has always been less ozone on the poles because there is less light there, and if the ozone layer was going away - it would go away by the ozone layer moving to lower and lower altitudes, not by dissapating. This is because most ozone is created by certain frequencies of sunlight passing through regular O2.

    Arguments like the freon argument are a fraud and have much more to do with DOW chemical loosing its patent on freon and having a patent on the only known replacement then they do to do with freon destroying the layer.
    • You would do well to look around the various publications about CFC effects on Ozone.

      CFC's are chlorine and fluorine containing hydrocarbons that were used as refrigerants, wlectronic cleaners, etc. A common CFC is Freon 12, C(F)2(Cl)2. In the atmosphere, C(F)2(Cl)2 undergoes the following reaction:

      C(F)2(Cl)2 + hv -> C(F)2(Cl) + Cl
      k5 = 1.0 x 10^-7 sec^-1

      The Cl then reacts with O3(Ozone):
      Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
      k6 = 2.1 x 10^-11 cm^3 molecule^-1 sec^-1

      ClO + O -> Cl + O2
      k7 = 3.8 x 10^-11 cm^3 molecule^-1 sec^-1

      In short, a Chlorine breaks off of the Freon, and then just hangs around in the ozone layer, converting Ozone into Oxygen. As Chlorine is just a catalyst in this reaction, it continues breaking down Ozone as long as it is present.

      It should be noted, for the sake of anyone at least somewhat versed in chemistry, that these Cl-O3 reactions may be slow, but they are still orders of magnitude faster than the O3 production reactions, which are about 10^-33 cm^6 molecule^-2 sec^-1.
      • For a compound that can be poured into open bowl and left there for days without notable loss, I find it a strech that it would dissapate into the upper atmosphere. It is also a strech that it would all happen to end up on the poles, end even more of a strech that any Cl in the upper atmosphere is caused by CFC's compared to the evaporation of say a billion tons of sea water anually. Not to mention a vast array of other natural pheonomia (like volcanos) that would put man made production to shame.

        However, if you consider that freon was banned on the very same month that DOW's patent ran out - then it is not such a strech to believe it's more about cold blooded greed than facts.
        • There is a major flaw in the science in your post. While sea water and volcanos do emit large amounts of Cl, they tend to emit it as water soluble compounds, so it is removed by rain, pretty quickly. CFCs and the like aren't nearly so water soluble, so they make it up to the ozone layer.

  • How does it work? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by megazoid81 ( 573094 )
    It isn't clear how the ozone kills the insects, but Mason said the bugs may inhale the gas, which then could act like a neurotoxin.

    Here's one hypothesis. Ozone (O_3) is really unstable and disintegrates into regular oxygen (O_2) and a nascent oxygen atom (O) at the drop of a hat. Once the ozone is inside the insect, this free oxygen radical, in search of electrons, can wreak havoc with the internal chemistry of the insect at a very fundamental level.

    [unsure] Isn't it harmful even for humans to inhale ozone? [/unsure]

  • A bug zapper is an efficient ozone factory with its high voltage, corona discharge, and ultraviolet light all bonding oxygen atoms together. Plus the byproduct of the generation process kills bugs too.

    Can we patent the use of a bug zapper to produce ozone with a plurality of killing bugs in the process?

  • Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Saturday March 01, 2003 @02:57PM (#5413988)
    This is not necessarily a wonderful development. Ozone is a very chemically reactive molecule. Introduced into a grain silo, it is not going to be selective. It will not seek out bugs and pests first. What it will do is react with the organic molecules in the grain - generating all kinds of degradation products, many of which are going to be toxic, mutagenic, teratogenic, etc. Is that a good tradeoff for a few fewer beetle legs in your Cheerios?

    n.b.: I buy Marcal paper goods, because they are trying to recycle and whiten their paper products using as many non-chlorinated oxidizing chemicals as they can. The paper industries use of chlorine and hypochlorite is a major source of the organochlorines in the environment.

  • It's still not clear from reading the article or anyone's comments whether or not this will have any effect on the upper atmosphere's ozone layer.

    Sure, it may kill bugs, and may may be safe in the lower atmosphere, and may not harm the upper atmosphere's ozone layer, but will it actually help it?

  • Is ozone the hip new thing? [slashdot.org]

    Where can I invest in this "ozone"?

  • Turnabout. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Saturday March 01, 2003 @04:24PM (#5414431) Homepage
    This discussion has a couple places where i see people asking, if smog is bad for people and ozone is in smog, why isn't this ozone bad for humans? Well, i would like to ask the opposite question.

    I'm from Houston. I am, incidentally, at Purdue now, but that's just a coincidence. Anyway, i'm from Houston.

    Houston has a *lot* of ozone in the air. Houston surpassed LA as the nation's most polluted city a couple years ago. Houston also has a *LOT* of mosquitos.

    If ozone kills insects, why hasn't all the ozone in the air in Houston killed some of the insects there?

    Everyone keeps saying "well, the ozone they used wasn't dense enough to be harmful to humans." So if the ozone in the air is dense enough to be harmful to humans, as it seems to be back in Houston, it should be armageddon to mosquitoes, no? And someone else said that the ozone in smog is different from normal ozone becuase it's reacted with hydrocarbons. Okay, i guess that makes sense, but now that i think about it i very clearly remember days when the Houston city government released a "ozone warning". Not a smog warning, an "ozone warning". Did they actually mean "smog which contains ozone as one of its chemical components but also contains something that makes mosquitos immortal"?

    Or have the insects in big cities just built up some kind of immunity to ozone? If that's possible, what's to stop the insects that live in grain vats from building up an immunity?

    What am i missing?
  • Interesting timing. From Science daily today [sciencedaily.com]

    "Led by TSRI President Richard Lerner, Ph.D. and Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry Paul Wentworth, Jr, Ph.D., who made the original discovery, the team has been slowly gathering evidence over the last few years that the human body produces the reactive gas [ Ozone ]--most famous as the ultraviolet ray-absorbing component of the ozone layer--as part of a mechanism to protect it from bacteria and fungi. "

  • How about Carbon Dioxide (CO2)?
    Or as someone mentioned in an earlier post (I'm not familiar with this one for pest control) Nitrogen gas?

    I have a friend who is an organic farmer in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. He had some cars of grain for export to Japan via the port of Seattle. Somehow, they ended up on a siding in Utah for a few days, and picked up cotton weevils (probably hanging around on the ground; there is lots of spilled cargo on sidings). Now, they won't eat grain, but like any crop, the grade does down if there are too many bugs in it. And you can't use pesticides, because, again, it's not organic grain at that point. He was getting 3x standard grain price for his organic crop, so there's a major loss potential there.

    This was about 15 years ago. What he did was use a method developed by the University of Manitoba.
    They travelled to Utah, bought rolls of poly and duct tape. They sealed the cars involved (I think there were three).
    Then they pumped CO2 into the cars, with a fairly low-tech system involving compressed gas cylinders bought at the local welding supply store. Kills all bugs dead in 24 hours.

    At the port, the grain is screened (separates dead bugs from grain) and since there were no live bugs to propegate, he got his grade and his $C 9.00 a bushel ($ US 6.00) for organic wheat. The port grain handlers said there wasn't any living bugs, of any kind, that they could find.
  • Is anyone else as impressed as I by the sheer number of "Well, what'll it do after 20 years?" posts? Certainly, it's a logical and obvious question given the original ozone depletion problem, but it's still very refreshing to see so many people asking about ill effects that might not manifest themselves without decades of prolonged use by every farmer in the first world.

Slashdot Top Deals

The system was down for backups from 5am to 10am last Saturday.

Close