Why an Ultraviolet Monitoring System Should Be Established on the Ground in the Andes Mountains

Jim Scanlon

This article was originally sent in 1992 to prominent NASA ozone and ultraviolet scientists. This report is an outstanding example of how a citizen scientist with no formal academic training in science prepared a serious proposal to a government science agency. While various circumstances and new knowledge have changed some of the assertions in the proposal, the need for ground-based measurements of solar ultraviolet remains as valid today as when this report was written. Editor.

In March 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revised its estimate of stratospheric ozone depletion once again from 1% per decade to 2%. The loss over the last 10 years is now estimated at 3% for the Northern Hemisphere, with a slightly greater loss for the south. (There are estimates of this loss of 5-8%.) Any loss in stratospheric ozone will increase the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching earth. This radiation is harmful to life.

So far, the scientific estimates of stratospheric ozone destruction have underestimated the loss. The discovery of the"ozone hole" over Antarctica was delayed for several years because satellite instruments did not recognize the magnitude of the loss. The discovery was made by ground-based instruments. The effects of parcels of ozone depleted air moving towards the equator, over Chile and Argentina and perhaps other places, still have not been recognized.

So it is not a question of "if" there will be human, environmental and economic effects caused by changing levels of stratospheric ozone, but, "how much" and "what" these effects will be and "when" they will occur.

Ground-based measurements are desperately needed on the surface of the earth where life exists to observe trends in ultraviolet (UV) radiation. It is wrong and dangerous to allow an empirical vacuum to continue as to the amount of UV reaching the surface of the earth. There is anecdotal, indirect evidence that UV radiation is increasing, but it will be dismissed (no matter how good or convincing it is) because it is anecdotal and, therefore, "not scientific". To delay measurement invites losing public trust and the consequences that follow.

There is no U.S. ground-based UV monitoring system. The Robertson-Berger Meter Sunburn network is under-funded and on the verge of closing. There is one modern spectroradiometer funded by the National Science Foundation in a populated area in Ushuaia in southern Argentina. It has been in "operation" for three years, but so far nothing has been published in English. In 1991, Nature published a collection of short reports on Antarctic research that covered more than a dozen pages with no mention of ground-based UV monitoring. Science, News and Comments (17 January 1992) makes no mention of UV research in reporting on Antarctic research.

Lacking actual observations, it seems clear that if ozone is being depleted, and if this allows more UV to reach the earth, then those parts that have always received high amounts of UV in the past will get more and more. The important questions are "how much" and "will increased amounts of UV make life more difficult?"

Mountainous areas of earth receive high amounts of UV because there is less of our atmosphere above them. These areas are the Andes, the Himalaya, the Rocky Mountains, the Atlas and small areas of east Africa. Only the Andes and the Himalaya have large human populations, with the Andes having the overwhelmingly larger number. For example, La Paz, Bolivia and Lhasa, Tibet/Peoples Republic of China are at the same altitude (3,600 meters). La Paz has a
population of 1,500,000; Lhasa has approximately 100,000. The Andes contain major urban centers at altitudes greater than 2,500 meters, including Bogota, Quito, Arequipa and La Paz. The ancient city of Potosi is over 4,000 meters high. Additional millions of non-urbanized people live on the Peruvian-Bolivian Altiplano, which averages over 3,000 meters in altitude.

There are theoretical reasons for believing that air moving over mountains may form types of clouds that enhance stratospheric ozone destruction. This may be happening over parts of the Andes. The Department of Potosi seems to be experiencing stronger than normal UV radiation in winter.

So it appears that very large numbers of people within the natural environment of the Andean nations are being subjected to increased amounts of UV radiation, and they will be subjected to ever-increasing amounts. No steps have been taken to actually measure what is happening. The Andes have always received large amounts of UV; now they will get more. They have always had problems with UV; now they will be greater. Is there some limit as to how much they can
tolerate? To take just one example (there are many examples), the amount of chlorine in the stratosphere is expected to increase over the next several decades. How much more can ecosystems at high altitudes take? Can anything be done to mitigate the problem? When? When will we establish base lines? Argentina and Chile have minimal high altitude populations, but they have large numbers of people in the far south close to the annual springtime ozone depletion over Antarctica. They also have very large populations subjected to increased UV when the "ozone hole" breaks up and ozone-poor air moves north. Is intermittent intense exposure worse?

The order of priorities for a simple, inexpensive network of surface measurements, would appear to be the five Andean nations with large high-altitude populations, plus Chile and Argentina. These countries form a natural, contiguous unit with a common language, culture and history. Their urban areas are modern
in every sense of the word. They all have highly-educated, technically-competent investigators. Even their problems are mainly identical -- public health, development, external debt and dislocations and interference due to coca production.

Industrial nations of the Northern Hemisphere are primarily responsible for the emission of the novel chemicals that change stratospheric ozone, i.e., CFCs, nitrous oxide, smelters, rocket launchings, stratospheric aircraft and possibly subsonic aircraft operating in the troposphere.

Efforts to control these industrial emissions, while highly commendable, have been reactive and selective. The focus so far has been on the production of CFCs only, with few provisions for other substances or recovery, reuse and ultimate destruction.

The cost of obtaining basic information in South America would not be large in comparison to the U.S. and Europe. The cost of instruments is low, from $20,000 to $60,000. Highly-trained and motivated professionals are available at low cost. New instruments costing as little as $5,000 are available. The only drawbacks are political. No one can be expected to be eager to fund a program which might produce unpleasant evidence that one is harming one's neighbors and friends. The affected countries would, quite naturally, use any "bad news" in bargaining, or extorting, debt reduction, favorable trade terms, aid, etc. However, the "die is cast." The effects will come about. The longer the delay, the greater the risk the problem will be more unmanageable. Meanwhile, the U.S. will spend in South America an estimated $1.2 billion in drug interdiction. (New York Times, 25 January 1992).

The future of life on earth is at stake. It has taken over 3,500,000,000 years of evolution to build and maintain atmospheric oxygen. Complex life developed only over the last 600,000,000 years. Life has emerged out of the protective shelter of water only in the past 400,000,000 years or so. CFCs, nitrous oxide from industrial processes and jet engines, to name just a few, have been in existence for barely 50 years. It seems that something more than the Montreal Protocol is needed and quickly! The Andean countries seem to be the most exposed to, and at risk from, increased UV radiation. They are not well-equipped or disposed to act on their own. They have the people, but they need help with very small amounts of money and equipment.

Satellite measurements are expensive and essential, but they have their limits. They are not enough.

The Arctic Ozone Expedition, occurring now in the northern winter of 1991-92, will undoubtedly produce evidence of a"surprising" decrease in stratospheric ozone. The Antarctic "ozone hole" of 1992 will undoubtedly be larger and longer-lasting due to the effects of the ash and sulfur dioxide from Mount Pinatubo's eruption. The media will "blame" nature.

We urgently need ground-based networks to measure UV radiation reaching earth. The Andean Altiplano is the logical place to start. We must end this empirical vacuum!