September 11, 2000

Subject: The Global Oil Price Crisis -- a Blessing in Disguise: Two comments on The Big Meltdown + Germany's Greens say end of "oil age" in sight + Radioactivity in Coal burning power plants + THAW SHUCKS + INTO THINNER AIR

Hello everyone

While the world is in the grip of the fear of another global recession precipitated by ever higher fuel prices, it is important to keep some facts in mind which may help us see that this crisis could turn out to be a real blessing in disguise as it will hopefully forces us all to move away from our incredible dependency on cheap oil - yes it is still cheap since the costs for all the damages caused to our health and environment are not factored into the price we pay at the pump - and also on dirty coal to fulfill so much of our energy needs.


According to an oil industry expert heard on the BBC Worlds News, overall we now consume more than 77 million barrels of oil everyday, which amounts to 28.1 BILLION barrels a year! Could you imagine setting fire to a colossal pile of 28.1 billions barrels of oil and picture the pollution it would create and all the oxygen it would destroy? That's exactly what we are doing *every year*...

According to the data from the pro-nuclear industry article below (featured here only because it reveals the radioactive environmental contamination coming from coal burning around the world!) it is predicted, based on projections of future energy needs, that from the beginning of the industrial age up to the year 2040, coal combustion will total a staggering 637,409 million tons of coal.

Now add to this air pollution all the global warming-causing C02 emissions from all the forests and wood being burned around the world, and all the trash and toxic material being "disposed of" (dumped into the atmosphere really!) through burning, and you begin to have a pretty good idea of the urgency to shift to non-polluting and environmentally sustainable -- and *non nuclear* -- sources of energy, some of which have been hinted at in recent new energy compilations...

See "Miracle in the Void: The New Energy Revolution" at:
"New Energy - Green Victory This Year" at:
"The Earth Day Clean Energy Agenda" at:
"Two Living Geniuses - Dr. Randell Mills and James Lovelock" at: )

The melting of the Arctic ice cover is only one of many other signs Nature is giving us that time is running out to stop messing up our environment and killing our living planet and sole life support system - *and ourselves*!

We must all demand clean, sustainable energy sources from our governments... and use them. Now!

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

Subject: RE: Green Files #12: The Big Meltdown:
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000

Dear Jean:

Just wanted to tell you, not only how much I appreciate all your efforts and
the wealth of knowledge you pass on, but also how much I love hearing your
replies -- in particular the one in this compilation to "M.J.E." wherein you
reaffirm your enlightened beliefs of oneness. The quotes "There is nothing
to do but to be..." and "Be the change you want to see in the world." are
torches that reignite my inner flame! Keep those fires burning!

In Light and Love,


Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: The Big Meltdown

Dear Jean

The continued use of fossil fuel only serves the large oil companies and
their profit margins

World economies need to find other ways to trade resources.
Research into other forms of energy could be a start.

The sun is looking at us saying please use me, I am here to
serve you, not destroy you.

Sometimes, I hold my head in my hands and wonder, what are doing to our
precious earth.

Jean, thank you for your continued awareness that strikes the cord of many of
us. Thank you for being our voice out there.

Althea Avery Gray

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000
From: Mark Graffis <>
Subject: Germany's Greens say end of "oil age" in sight

GERMANY: September 7, 2000

BERLIN - Germany's Greens party said yesterday that soaring oil prices
meant petroleum could soon be a thing of the past, and the
environmentalists urged more support for renewable energy and energy
efficiency programmes.

"The end of the age of oil is in sight," Greens science spokesman
Hans-Josef Fell said in a statement. "Persistently high oil prices are
the result of the start of the running out of oil in the world."

Oil prices climbed to yet another 10-year peak yesterday with
international benchmark Brent crude futures at $33.56 a barrel as
anxious dealers feared OPEC would fail to ease a supply shortage when
its ministers meet on Sunday.

Fell said research showed that world oil production would peak in
coming years and the only way to keep prices under control was to
promote renewable energy and cut demand.

The Greens are junior coalition partners to the Germany's ruling
Social Democrats and have managed to push the government to introduce
an "eco-tax" on fuel that has come under fire in recent months as oil
prices rocketed.



From: "David Crockett Williams" <>
Subject: Feds: Radioactivity in Coal burning power plants
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000

This is an important bit of information authentication which should be used to further the more rapid development of the new-energy technologies to replace nuclear and fossil fuel power such as those referenced in our DOE Strategic Plan public input this year archived at and those we hope to develop at the proposed New-Energy Research Center here at Capital Hills in Tehachapi, as part of a globalwide researchers support network of such facilities, which I hope to get up an running on an interim basis at least by New Years via financial contacts now being made.

Adam Trombly reported to me on the phone in May 1997 that he made a proposal in 1989 to install his fuel-less Zero Point Energy new-energy generators in the four corners coal fired power plants at a cost that would have been less than the cost of smoke scrubbers that still have not been installed. He said the response was his life being threatened (again). In that phone call he said he had a solid state oscillating electromagnetic ZPE fuel-less electric power generator then in constant over-unity operation for six years already and was moving towards manufacturing in Germany but he was still being oppressed, having survived over 40 assasination attempts by then since the early 1980's for his work in this area. He founded Project Earth with Buckminster Fuller years ago.

He is the expert climatologist who predicted in 1988 that the combustion of oxygen by fossil fuels combined with the deforestation of trees that produce oxygen was reducing atmospheric oxygen levels critically thus drastically influencing ozone layer depletion (ozone layer is made from sunlight acting on oxygen) and that [not only is this little understood factor contributing to global climate change and polar ice meltings but] all the phytoplankton in the oceans (half of Earth's oxygen supply) are threatened with total destruction by the year 2009 due to increasing solar irradiation coming through the depleting protective ozone layer shield.

(NOTE FROM JEAN: See also INTO THINNER AIR at the end of this compilation for the latest on ozone depletion.)

On the phone in May 1997 he said all of their advance computer climate modeling predictions over the last decade were coming true as accurate and on target, witness the increasing storm severities and velocities as well as more forest fires, disease vectors, etc., due to global climate change.

The gist of the piece below seems to be a promotion of the nuclear power alternative, not good.

David Crockett Williams

Global Emergency Alert Response

Global Peace Walk 2000

--forwarded post--

From: <>
Subject: Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger
Date: Thursday, August 24, 2000 2:41 AM

This page is from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory website.

Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger
by Alex Gabbard

Over the past few decades, the American public has become increasingly
wary of nuclear power because of concern about radiation releases from
normal plant operations, plant accidents, and nuclear waste. Except for
Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, releases have been found to be
almost undetectable in comparison with natural background radiation.
Another concern has been the cost of producing electricity at nuclear
plants. It has increased largely for two reasons: compliance with
stringent government regulations that restrict releases of radioactive
substances from nuclear facilities into the environment and construction
delays as a result of public opposition.

* * * *

Americans living near coal-fired plants are
exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near
nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.

* * * *

Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of
containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred
coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for
generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared
with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic
justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons.
First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source
of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health
and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as
well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring
radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.

Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon,
and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact
of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8,
1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living
near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than
those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.
This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.

The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major
sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several
implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to
health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation
burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if
radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and
operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less
economically competitive.

Finally, radioactive elements released in coal ash and exhaust produced
by coal combustion contain fissionable fuels and much larger quantities
of fertile materials that can be bred into fuels by absorption of
neutrons, including those generated in the air by bombardment of oxygen,
nitrogen, and other nuclei with cosmic rays; such fissionable and
fertile materials can be recovered from coal ash using known
technologies. These nuclear materials have growing value to private
concerns and governments that may want to market them for fueling
nuclear power plants. However, they are also available to those
interested in accumulating material for nuclear weapons. A solution to
this potential problem may be to encourage electric utilities to process
coal ash and use new trapping technologies on coal combustion exhaust to
isolate and collect valuable metals, such as iron and aluminum, and
available nuclear fuels.

Makeup of Coal and Ash

Coal is one of the most impure of fuels. Its impurities range from trace
quantities of many metals, including uranium and thorium, to much larger
quantities of aluminum and iron to still larger quantities of impurities
such as sulfur. Products of coal combustion include the oxides of
carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur; carcinogenic and mutagenic substances; and
recoverable minerals of commercial value, including nuclear fuels
naturally occurring in coal.

Coal ash is composed primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron,
calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and
sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium. Fly ash is
primarily composed of non-combustible silicon compounds (glass) melted
during combustion. Tiny glass spheres form the bulk of the fly ash.

Since the 1960s particulate precipitators have been used by U.S.
coal-fired power plants to retain significant amounts of fly ash rather
than letting it escape to the atmosphere. When functioning properly,
these precipitators are approximately 99.5% efficient. Utilities also
collect furnace ash, cinders, and slag, which are kept in cinder piles
or deposited in ash ponds on coal-plant sites along with the captured
fly ash.

Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per
million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the
amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the
amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to
Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values
of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and
3.2 ppm, respectively. Using these values along with reported
consumption and projected consumption of coal by utilities provides a
means of calculating the amounts of potentially recoverable breedable
and fissionable elements (see sidebar). The concentration of fissionable
uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been
established to be 0.71% of uranium content.

Uranium and Thorium in Coal and Coal Ash

As population increases worldwide, coal combustion continues to be the
dominant fuel source for electricity. Fossil fuels' share has decreased
from 76.5% in 1970 to 66.3% in 1990, while nuclear energy's share in the
worldwide electricity pie has climbed from 1.6% in 1970 to 17.4% in
1990. Although U.S. population growth is slower than worldwide growth,
per capita consumption of energy in this country is among the world's
highest. To meet the growing demand for electricity, the U.S. utility
industry has continually expanded generating capacity. Thirty years ago,
nuclear power appeared to be a viable replacement for fossil power, but
today it represents less than 15% of U.S. generating capacity. However,
as a result of low public support during recent decades and a reduction
in the rate of expected power demand, no increase in nuclear power
generation is expected in the foreseeable future. As current nuclear
power plants age, many plants may be retired during the first quarter of
the 21st century, although some may have their operation extended
through license renewal. As a result, many nuclear plants are likely to
be replaced with coal-fired plants unless it is considered feasible to
replace them with fuel sources such as natural gas and solar energy.

As the world's population increases, the demands for all resources,
particularly fuel for electricity, is expected to increase. To meet the
demand for electric power, the world population is expected to rely
increasingly on combustion of fossil fuels, primarily coal. The world
has about 1500 years of known coal resources at the current use rate.
The graph above shows the growth in U.S. and world coal combustion for
the 50 years preceding 1988, along with projections beyond the year
2040. Using the concentration of uranium and thorium indicated above,
the graph below illustrates the historical release quantities of these
elements and the releases that can be expected during the first half of
the next century, given the predicted growth trends. Using these data,
both U.S. and worldwide fissionable uranium-235 and fertile nuclear
material releases from coal combustion can be calculated.

Because existing coal-fired power plants vary in size and electrical
output, to calculate the annual coal consumption of these facilities,
assume that the typical plant has an electrical output of 1000
megawatts. Existing coal-fired plants of this capacity annually burn
about 4 million tons of coal each year. Further, considering that in
1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was
burned in the United States (from 833 million short tons mined, or 74%),
the number of typical coal-fired plants necessary to consume this
quantity of coal is 154.

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical
plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal
contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm,
respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium
(containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that
year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to
801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971
tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from
combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide
combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium
(containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the
United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040,
cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937
are predicted to be:

U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

Radioactivity from Coal Combustion

The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include not
only uranium and thorium but also daughter products produced by the
decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and
lead. Although not a decay product, naturally occurring radioactive
potassium-40 is also a significant contributor.

* * * *

The population effective dose
equivalent from coal plants is 100
times that from nuclear plants

* * * *

According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP), the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is
17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton. This
figure can be used to calculate the average expected radioactivity
release from coal combustion. For 1982 the total release of
radioactivity from 154 typical coal plants in the United States was,
therefore, 2,630,230 millicuries.

Thus, by combining U.S. coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons)
through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040
(2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to
the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the
expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of
477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of
radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of
coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries.

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population
exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants
amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year
for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from
coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the complete
nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal,
the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year; the equivalent dose
for coal use, from mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is
not listed in this report and is probably unknown.

During combustion, the volume of coal is reduced by over 85%, which
increases the concentration of the metals originally in the coal.
Although significant quantities of ash are retained by precipitators,
heavy metals such as uranium tend to concentrate on the tiny glass
spheres that make up the bulk of fly ash. This uranium is released to
the atmosphere with the escaping fly ash, at about 1.0% of the original
amount, according to NCRP data. The retained ash is enriched in uranium
several times over the original uranium concentration in the coal
because the uranium, and thorium, content is not decreased as the volume
of coal is reduced.

All studies of potential health hazards associated with the release of
radioactive elements from coal combustion conclude that the perturbation
of natural background dose levels is almost negligible. However, because
the half-lives of radioactive potassium-40, uranium, and thorium are
practically infinite in terms of human lifetimes, the accumulation of
these species in the biosphere is directly proportional to the length of
time that a quantity of coal is burned.

Although trace quantities of radioactive heavy metals are not nearly as
likely to produce adverse health effects as the vast array of chemical
by-products from coal combustion, the accumulated quantities of these
isotopes over 150 or 250 years could pose a significant future
ecological burden and potentially produce adverse health effects,
especially if they are locally accumulated. Because coal is predicted to
be the primary energy source for electric power production in the
foreseeable future, the potential impact of long-term accumulation of
by-products in the biosphere should be considered.

* * * *

The energy content of nuclear fuel
released in coal combustion is greater
than that of the coal consumed

* * * *

Energy Content: Coal vs Nuclear



For the 100 years following 1937, U.S. and world use of coal as a heat
source for electric power generation will result in the distribution of
a variety of radioactive elements into the environment. This prospect
raises several questions about the risks and benefits of coal
combustion, the leading source of electricity production.

First, the potential health effects of released naturally occurring
radioactive elements are a long-term issue that has not been fully
addressed. Even with improved efficiency in retaining stack emissions,
the removal of coal from its shielding overburden in the earth and
subsequent combustion releases large quantities of radioactive materials
to the surface of the earth. The emissions by coal-fired power plants of
greenhouse gases, a vast array of chemical by-products, and naturally
occurring radioactive elements make coal much less desirable as an
energy source than is generally accepted.

Second, coal ash is rich in minerals, including large quantities of
aluminum and iron. These and other products of commercial value have not
been exploited.

Third, large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive
species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These
products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory
differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities
of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if
such amounts were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste
products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the
biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that
accumulate on electric utility sites are not protected from weathering,
thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes
through air and water movement and the food chain.

Fourth, by collecting the uranium residue from coal combustion,
significant quantities of fissionable material can be accumulated. In a
few year's time, the recovery of the uranium-235 released by coal
combustion from a typical utility anywhere in the world could provide
the equivalent of several World War II-type uranium-fueled weapons.
Consequently, fissionable nuclear fuel is available to any country that
either buys coal from outside sources or has its own reserves. The
material is potentially employable as weapon fuel by any organization so
inclined. Although technically complex, purification and enrichment
technologies can provide high-purity, weapons-grade uranium-235.
Fortunately, even though the technology is well known, the enrichment of
uranium is an expensive and time-consuming process.

Because electric utilities are not high-profile facilities, collection
and processing of coal ash for recovery of minerals, including uranium
for weapons or reactor fuel, can proceed without attracting outside
attention, concern, or intervention. Any country with coal-fired plants
could collect combustion by-products and amass sufficient nuclear
weapons material to build up a very powerful arsenal, if it has or
develops the technology to do so. Of far greater potential are the much
larger quantities of thorium-232 and uranium-238 from coal combustion
that can be used to breed fissionable isotopes. Chemical separation and
purification of uranium-233 from thorium and plutonium-239 from uranium
require far less effort than enrichment of isotopes. Only small
fractions of these fertile elements in coal combustion residue are
needed for clandestine breeding of fissionable fuels and weapons
material by those nations that have nuclear reactor technology and the
inclination to carry out this difficult task.

Fifth, the fact that large quantities of uranium and thorium are
released from coal-fired plants without restriction raises a paradoxical
question. Considering that the U.S. nuclear power industry has been
required to invest in expensive measures to greatly reduce releases of
radioactivity from nuclear fuel and fission products to the environment,
should coal-fired power plants be allowed to do so without constraints?

This question has significant economic repercussions. Today nuclear
power plants are not as economical to construct as coal-fired plants,
largely because of the high cost of complying with regulations to
restrict emissions of radioactivity. If coal-fired power plants were
regulated in a similar manner, the added cost of handling nuclear waste
from coal combustion would be significant and would, perhaps, make it
difficult for coal-burning plants to compete economically with nuclear

Because of increasing public concern about nuclear power and
radioactivity in the environment, reduction of releases of nuclear
materials from all sources has become a national priority known as "as
low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA). If increased regulation of
nuclear power plants is demanded, can we expect a significant
redirection of national policy so that radioactive emissions from coal
combustion are also regulated?

Although adverse health effects from increased natural background
radioactivity may seem unlikely for the near term, long-term
accumulation of radioactive materials from continued worldwide
combustion of coal could pose serious health hazards. Because coal
combustion is projected to increase throughout the world during the next
century, the increasing accumulation of coal combustion by-products,
including radioactive components, should be discussed in the formulation
of energy policy and plans for future energy use.

One potential solution is improved technology for trapping the exhaust
(gaseous emissions up the stack) from coal combustion. If and when such
technology is developed, electric utilities may then be able both to
recover useful elements, such as nuclear fuels, iron, and aluminum, and
to trap greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraging utilities to enter mineral
markets that have been previously unavailable may or may not be
desirable, but doing so appears to have the potential of expanding their
economic base, thus offsetting some portion of their operating costs,
which ultimately could reduce consumer costs for electricity.

Both the benefits and hazards of coal combustion are more far-reaching
than are generally recognized. Technologies exist to remove, store, and
generate energy from the radioactive isotopes released to the
environment by coal combustion. When considering the nuclear
consequences of coal combustion, policymakers should look at the data
and recognize that the amount of uranium-235 alone dispersed by coal
combustion is the equivalent of dozens of nuclear reactor fuel loadings.
They should also recognize that the nuclear fuel potential of the
fertile isotopes of thorium-232 and uranium-238, which can be converted
in reactors to fissionable elements by breeding, yields a virtually
unlimited source of nuclear energy that is frequently overlooked as a
natural resource.

In short, naturally occurring radioactive species released by coal
combustion are accumulating in the environment along with minerals such
as mercury, arsenic, silicon, calcium, chlorine, and lead, sodium, as
well as metals such as aluminum, iron, lead, magnesium, titanium, boron,
chromium, and others that are continually dispersed in millions of tons
of coal combustion by-products. The potential benefits and threats of
these released materials will someday be of such significance that they
should not now be ignored.

-- Alex Gabbard of the Metals and Ceramics Division

Please go at to review all the references also provided.

September 8, 2000
News summaries from GRIST MAGAZINE


Adding weight to arguments that global warming is upon us, a study
appearing today in the journal Science concludes that 26 bodies of
water in the Northern Hemisphere are freezing an average of 8.7 days
later and thawing out 9.8 days earlier than they did 150 years ago.
The study was a based on direct human observations and records, not
on extrapolations or calculations. David R. Easterling, chief
scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in the U.S., said the
study "provides independent evidence that the warming we have seen
over the 20th century is real." But the study authors noted that
although some of the warming they found may be attributable to human
causes, some of it "may be related to other drivers, such as changes
in solar activity." Meanwhile, a draft report from the U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the air temperature of
the planet may rise between 1 and 5 degrees Celsius by 2100, an
increase from its previous estimate of between 1 and 3.5 degrees,
says the IPCC's Robert Watson.

straight to the source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Associated Press,
Paul Recer, 09.07.00

straight to the source: Washington Post, Curt Suplee, 09.08.00

straight to the source: South Africa Independent, Agence
France-Presse, 09.07.00

September 11, 2000

The ozone hole over Antarctica is the biggest it's ever been, 11
million square miles, or three times the size of the U.S., scientists
at NASA said on Friday. Synthetic compounds in refrigerants, aerosol
sprays, and foam-blowing agents cause depletion of the ozone layer.
The amount of such chemicals in the atmosphere is leveling off,
thanks to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which halted the production of
most of them, but the effects of past production are only now just
being felt and experts say it could be another 20 years before ozone
levels recover noticeably.

straight to the source: MSNBC, Associated Press, 09.08.00