Letter: Repairing holes in the ozone layer
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your report (8 March) that an ozone hole is threatening Britain signals a need for politicians to reverse their present assumptions about what industry is allowed to do.
In the coming months a new pollution story on the scale of loss of the ozone layer is likely to "break". This is the threat from "hormone pollution" - a threat to the continued quality of life for future generations (sexual health, fertility and so on) for the human race, as well as for much wildlife. Already the chemical industry is lining up to "rubbish" an important forthcoming book on the threat of pollutants which are "hormone mimics" (Our Stolen Future by Dr Theo Colburn) and is arranging a hue and cry among researchers to look for a single cause and effect to "explain" the problem. This is an impossible quest, as it is clear that many human- made chemicals have an effect in degrading sexual development and fertility.
The lesson is not to be surprised by the threat from pollutants that destroy the ozone layer, or disrupt hormones. The system has been to allow the use of chemicals so long as there were no known proven problems. Neither John Major nor, judging from his recent "environment" speech at the Royal Society, Tony Blair, has any intention of reversing this presumption. It must be reversed: only those chemicals which are proved to be safe should be allowable.
Chris Rose
Campaign Programme and
Communications Director
Greenpeace UK
London N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments