First, let’s go back a month, this from the Will Steger Foundation:
On Tuesday [August 2nd 2011], State Senator Torres Ray said, “I’m delighted to participate in the air quality awareness event organized by the Sierra Club in Minneapolis. Air Pollution caused by humans is an increasing danger for people and the environment. I’m very concerned about the threat to public health posed by cities’ air pollution. Many children and seniors in our City are being diagnosed with asthma disorders and need to take strong measures to address it.”
…
Residents are also calling upon the Obama administration to protect children’s health by issuing strong protections from air pollution like smog. The EPA was scheduled to release its final rule on smog on July 29 but announced last week that it would delay finalizing the rule. The new ozone standard would protect some of America’s most vulnerable populations, including children and the elderly, from respiratory illnesses like asthma. “EPA’s Science Advisory Board and health professionals have advocated a stricter standard for most of the 40 years that we’ve been monitoring ozone in the air we breathe,” said Dr. Simcik, a faculty member at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. “We need an educated public to support these experts and politicians in protecting both our health and our economy.” Dr. Simcik and other concerned citizens of Minneapolis urged the Obama administration to stand up for public health and to issue long overdue clean air protections that protect public health.
###
So the Sierra Club wants to reduce Ozone. But now in the story below the FDA wants to protect it by banning OTC inhalers. Wait…What?
(Yes I know, tropospheric -vs- stratospheric ozone, different animals. But the inhaler imagery with kids has become an icon for eco-crusades, so that’s why I’m pointing it out)
From MSNBC, madness lunacy %$!!@*&^^!! over ozone and an inconsequential amount of CFC’s:
Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government’s latest attempt to protect the Earth’s atmosphere.
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.
The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.
But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.
But I wonder, will the American Lung Association get all flustered and launch an ad campaign like they did last November over California’s Proposition 23?
I doubt it, because as we all know, kids with inhalers are needed to combat big oil and CO2.
The eco-world has gone beserkers with this one, even CBS News is asking: Why? Me too especially since global ozone is predicted to recover:
The graph above is from a 2004 EPA report which says:
Assuming only halocarbons from human activities are affecting ozone and global compliance with the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer is expected to recover by the middle of the 21st century.
And this is well before the FDA decided they had to ban inhalers. Something smells about this.
What will really happen is that this will turn regular people and children into scofflaws, and they’ll buy over the counter inhalers in other countries like Mexico and have them shipped here. It will be another giant sucking sound.
A few points need clarification: Since MDIs were introduced around 1970, hospitalization rates for asthma have gone down, while death rates for asthma have risen — probably because pts able to self medicate delay seeking medical attention during a crisis. It’s also true OTC epinephrine inhalers (OTC) cause more cardiac dysrythmias than albuterol preps (Rx). –Asthma rates have risen over the yrs merely due to better recognition of the problem. — Pollution doesn’t cause asthma, a genetic problem, but exacerbates it. And it’s not the ozone, but the atmospheric conditions that favor higher concentrations of particulate matter &/or humidity in the air. –About half my asthmatic pts have complained that the new MDIs with HFA propellant are not as effective as the old CFC propelled units.
And re: the ozone hole: more UV penetration actually increases the forces of evolution (that’s biologically good) in “unprotected” species and has minimal effect on those of us who wear scales, feathers, hair or clothes. So, where’s the problem anyways?
If The Sierra Club is involved then lies will abound. They are eco-terrorists.
Oh- and I forgot to add an interesting bit of history: prior to its politicization (cf- “Reefer Madness”) smoking marijuana was the recommended treatment of choice for asthma.
One person dies of Asthma every 7 hours, on average, in the UK. 250,000 people die of the desease every year, worldwide. If just 10% of the money thrown at so called climatologists to produce their endless stream of garbage pseudo-science was spent on Asthma research we could probably save 200.000 of those people, reduce the hospital costs of the repeated emergency hospital emissions, the distress of families watching their children die on the ground before their eyes and immeasurably reduce the costs of care for elderly sufferers like myself.
Think about it Trenberth et al next time you apply for a grant.
wow those asthma pumps are more powerful then a solar flare? That’s what destroys ozone!
http://getdemotivated.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2902&g2_serialNumber=1 .
It is the same kind of madness as the fuss about surgical anesthetic gases.
So, essentially, they want to off the kids today to save the great great great grand kids in the future. Perhaps they ought to funnel some more money into sex-ed instead. :p
@Dave Springer on September 23, 2011 at 11:56 pm:
You should like this then. Remember the delta smelt, that little fish that is being “protected” by denying irrigation water to California farms, resulting in the destruction of established orchards and vineyards, even though it is genetically identical to a smelt found elsewhere?
Federal scientists giving false testimony? The testimony of a zealot, preaching certain doom unless their plan is enacted? The mind boggles! What’s next, they’ll accuse a government-funded anti-coal activist and Climate Scientist™ of altering the historical temperature record to promote his anti-development neo-Malthusian agenda?
What should happen when such scientists so betray the public trust?
We shall now breathlessly await for Mann, Trenberth, SkepSci et al to insist federal judges be blocked from criticizing scientists due to the “chilling effect” it’ll have on scientific research.
The Montreal Protocol began under Ronald Reagan in 1987. In 1988, the drug companies that sold inhaled meds formed IPAC. They knew they were less than a decade away from losing their patents on various CFC-propelled asthma/COPD inhaled blockbuster meds such as albuterol. They knew they could continue to charge brand prices on these meds by embracing the Montreal Protocol and pushing for the ban of CFC as a propellant, which is exactly what they did.
Millions of patients around the world now suffer every day as a result of the poorly-tested HFA-propelled replacements, which have been shown to be inferior in virtually all clinical trials and FDA MedWatch data. Many physicians support our campaign to keep these lifesaving CFC inhalers.
This did not have to happen, and it would not have happened, were it not for the Clinton/Gore/Browner (EPA) desire to ram this (Decision IX/19 Part 5) through the Ninth meeting of the Parties of the Montreal Protocol in 1997.
CFC inhalers release small amounts of propellant that, in and of themselves, can’t possibly perceptibly damage the ozone layer. In addition, malignant melanomas are caused primarily by UV-A waves, NOT UV-B waves. The ozone layer ONLY blocks UV-B waves.
It was proven that just FOUR Space Shuttle launches did more harm to the ozone layer than the entire US patient population did in one year of CFC inhaler use. When was the last time you heard anyone object to the commercialization of space travel due to ozone layer concerns?
To help us get a medical exemption to the Clean Air Act to bring back CFC inhalers (and stop the needless suffering and death of a lot of adults and children), and help deliver a death blow to junk science, please sign our petition at SaveCFC.com
As an asthmatic, this angers me in ways that I cannot express and expect to show up in this thread. The reason the epinephrine inhalers are so popular is because they work better, faster, and cost less than the prescription. Also if you find yourself on empty you don’t have to get a doctors appointment which costs even more money. Keep in mind this is to save yourself from an ER visit or death.
And to add to guidoLaMota’s point the new inhalers have crap for propellant, and you lose half or more of the doses due to insufficient pressure, while yes the L-Albuterol is the best asthma treatment the delivery method sucks, and the regular Albuterol mainly due to the R-Albuterol content can be just as damaging as epinephrine if not worse.
ferd berple at 8:02 pm: “what happened between 1940 and 1950 that caused US heart disease to spike? …. Artificial food introduced during WWII.”
Margarine and vegetable shortening (aka Crisco) both became dominant during WWII due to rationing and shortages of dairy butter. Both concoctions are made from hydrogenated vegetable oils.
There is widespread controversy in nutritional circles about the detrimental effects of hydrogenated vegetable fats and other substances (wheat, corn, high fructose corn syrup) on American health. The nutritional debate is similar to climate in many ways.
I think most people here realize that this is just the tip of the eco-control iceberg. And you can rest assured that the rules put in place for the “little people” won’t affect the climate/eco elites at the top. Government “scientists” making six figure salaries and rich activists like Al Gore can well afford to bear the costs they wish to impose on the rest of us…
And I’m STILL waiting for the climate
hypocritesscientists/elites to STOP using ALL products made from petroleum (along will ALL energy derived from fossil fuels)…Heh, remember ‘made from poly-unsaturated fats’. What they didn’t tell you was that the process of ‘making’ was to saturate the fats.
============
The CFC-containing inhalers were banned in the UK some time ago (EU rules & regs, IIRC).
Salbutamol relievers were changed by 2007.
Certainly there have been a number of complaints that the new CFC-free inhalers aren’t as effective as the old ones.
It’s nothing to do with pollution, but all with creating a nice little earner for doctors and bureaucrats by handing them a monopoly over a treatment that was up until now self-administered.
Vetenarians run the same type of scams, they hog a monopoly over a range of simple, safe drugs that could be trivially self-administrated for a few pence, so they can blackmail pet owners into spending hundreds of pounds just for the pointless visit(s) (which also stresses the already sick animal…)
Dishman says: September 23, 2011 at 7:33 pm
[The patent holder on the non-CFC inhalers had a better lobbying campaign.]
Patent expired, need new law to ban usefull and effective current product that is no longer patented in order to create market for new patented product. The fact that the science does not support the ban is not important.
See also: DDT
The article makes this specious argument “…stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.”
Of course the ozone layer blocks harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun but what does that have to do with the “ozone hole”? Anyone exposing flesh in a polar region where the the “ozone hole” occurs is going to be more subject to frostbite than sunburn.
From my old memory, the ozone hole was first noticed by a Dutch group of scientists in the early 50’s, before widespread CFC use. And as I understand things, the jet streams do not allow much mixing of NH and SH air (others may know a lot more about this) so … As most of the CFC’s were produced and released in the NH, how did all that nasty bad stuff get to the South Pole and clobber the ozone? And what effect does Mt. Erebus (an active volcano in Antarctica) have on the atmosphere, regularly spewing tons of SO2? Which may not be quite as bad for ozone, but still can take it out. Finally, just how much CFC comes from inhalers? I used Freon driven air brushes back in the 60’s, gotta believe one can of that held far more than a box of asthma relievers.
I had symptoms of asthma roughly twenty-five years ago in late Spring, brought on by rather severe hayfever, and wound up purchasing and occasionally using an inhaler. Just having it could have helped reduce symptoms, as stress is one possible trigger for asthma. I believe the symptoms may have returned the following year, though weren’t as bad, and I also believe I still had the same inhaler. Afterward that, though, there was never a repeat of the asthma.
To even think of having to go to the expense and trouble of visiting a doctor for that is absurd, and an outrage.
I’m a little confused by the original post and the comments. I thought the decision to phase-out these CFCs was made when the U.S. signed the Montreal Protocol, which basically committed us (for better or worse) to phasing out production and use of certain chemicals over different time frames. However, most of the comments suggest that EPA/Obama made the decision to eliminate the use in inhalers. Which is correct?
Where to start? First off, I still firmly believe the CFC ban was nearly pure pseudo-scientific bullshit. I’ll reference this article from the American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html
Removing CFC propellants from metered dose inhalers (MDI) was an act by the FDA in accordance with EPA restrictions which went into place with the signing of the Montreal Protocol many years earlier. CFCs were to be removed from MDIs by the end of 2007. This included a wide range of drugs including beta-2 agonists like albuterol and salmeterol as well as corticosteroids such as fluticasone and triamcinolone. It did not address OTC MDIs. There is only one OTC MDI and it delivers a metered dose of epinephrine (i.e. “adrenalin”). Ironically, this drug should be Rx-only and the much safer albuterol should be OTC. The reason albuterol remains Rx-only is largely a function of insurance prescription reimbursement and the jealous control over medications that physicians wish to maintain. From a pharmacologic and clinical safety perspective there is absolutely no good reason why albuterol MDIs and folic acid (in dosage units greater than 1 mg or more) should be Rx-only while drugs like epinephrine MDIs, regular insulin and ibuprofen are available OTC. The reason this situation exists is economic, not scientific.
When the CFC ban finally came to MDIs the pharmaceutical industry responded by coming up with an alternative propellant – hydrofluoroalkanes (HFA). This made dirt cheap generic inhalers like albuterol MDI suddenly patented, proprietary drugs by virtue of the propellant. The cost of asthma maintenace nearly tripled. CFCs are nearly ideal propellants for inhaled medications as they are stable and chemically and biologically inert. But the pharmaceutical industry didn’t put up too much of a fuss over this ridiculous regulation because it was a money maker for them – both the brand and generic manufacturers. They have recaptured the R&D that went into HFA development, testing and approval many times over since 2007. This is a classic example of sacrificing cost-effective management of human disease at the alter of environmental PC.
In 2006 and early 2007 several generic manufacturers will still producing CFC MDIs. They stopped not because they ran out of active ingredients, but because the CFCs were no longer available. I have had mild asthma for over 30 years and I can attest that the new HFA formulation don’t work as well (even though they cost much more…for the good of the “ozone layer”). An though normally I would be the LAST person to defend Obama, this one really wasn’t his fault. This BS started with Clinton and continued through the Bush years. There may have been a defensible position for removing CFCs from aerosol can products, less of one for banning them as refrigerants, even less of one to ban them as fire containment systems, but absolutely NO good reason for removing them as propellants for medications.
Robert Doyle ,
I’ve seen the ALA commercial . I have a gut feeling that the funding for it probably originated at the EPA .
At peak usage in 1996, global CFC inhaler emissions were between 9,000 and 10,000 tons/year, which represented less than 1% of total CFC emissions.
If anyone knows how much total sratospheric ozone there is, or how much stratospheric ozone is created and destroyed every year naturally, please reply.
jphilips says:
September 23, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Philip Bradley says: September 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm
…The incidence of asthma is strongly correlated with air cleanliness. The cleaner the air the higher the incidence of asthma.
I believe cigarettes are beneficial to asthmatics too!!!
– ridiculous.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Living in a second hand smoke environment allowed me to be the ONLY non-asthmatic in my maternal line.
Tests done by my allergist showed I had the highest IgE level he had ever seen. He could not believe I was not an asthmatic. He also warned me never to give blood because those high IgE levels could kill the recipient.
It is well know that small doses of an allergen allows an individual to build up immunity. So there is a well documented basis for “dirty” air being beneficial to asthmatics.
Pollution has been reduced by a huge amount since I was a kid in the 1950’s and 60’s. This idiocy is in the nit-picking money making category not the protecting the environment category.
Of note is the Rockefeller (Banking/oil) ownership of the pharmaceutical industry – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rockefeller_Foundation
Yes, the EPA has given the ALA $20 million over the years, at least.