This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “noble” cause corruption. Documentation follows. Eric Worrall writes:
h/t IceAgeNow – the American EPA has stunned observers, with a list of inert additives for pesticide formulations they intend to ban, which includes the noble gas Argon.
Its hard to imagine a more inoffensive substance than Argon. As a noble gas, Argon is chemically inert – it participates in no chemical reactions whatsoever, except under exotic conditions – there are no known chemical compounds which can survive at room temperature which include Argon. Argon is not a greenhouse gas.
But Argon is incredibly useful to industry – among other things, is used as a “shield” gas. Anyone who welds Aluminium or Stainless Steel will be familiar with Argon, which is used with MIG and TIG welders, to blow oxygen away from the electric welding arc, to prevent oxidative damage to the weld joint.
Any effort to regulate the use of this harmless substance would do incalculable damage to American industrial competitiveness, for no benefit whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon
So why on Earth would the EPA plan to ban something as inoffensive as Argon? IceAgeNow has a theory – they think Argon is part of a list supplied by a scientifically illiterate NGO, which the EPA plans to rubber stamp.
If anyone with any real scientific training whatsoever had seen this silly list before it was published, or had taken the trouble to do 5 minutes of research on each entry in the list, to discover how ridiculous and ignorant the inclusion of Argon on a list of dangerous chemicals to be banned really is, then the EPA would not be facing their current very public embarrassment.
From Anthony: When I first saw this story, I though surely this must be some sort of spoof or misunderstanding that led to this. Sadly, no. The EPA even has a press release about it:
EPA Proposes to Remove 72 Chemicals from Approved Pesticide Inert Ingredient List
Release Date: 10/23/2014
Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn Milbourn.cathy@epa.gov 202-564- 4355 202-564-4355
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting public comment on a proposal to remove 72 chemicals from its list of substances approved for use as inert ingredients in pesticide products.
“We are taking action to ensure that these ingredients are not added to any pesticide products unless they have been fully vetted by EPA,” said Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “This is the first major step in our strategy to reduce risks from pesticides containing potentially hazardous inert ingredients.”
EPA is taking this action in response to petitions by the Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, Physicians for Social Responsibility and others. These groups asked the agency to issue a rule requiring disclosure of 371 inert ingredients found in pesticide products. EPA developed an alternative strategy designed to reduce the risks posed by hazardous inert ingredients in pesticide products more effectively than by disclosure rulemaking. EPA outlined its strategy in a May 22, 2014 letter: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0003 to the petitioners.
Many of the 72 inert ingredients targeted for removal, are on the list of 371 inert ingredients identified by the petitioners as hazardous. The 72 chemicals are not currently being used as inert ingredients in any pesticide product. Chemicals such as, turpentine oil and nitrous oxide are listed as candidates for removal.
Most pesticide products contain a mixture of different ingredients. Ingredients that are directly responsible for controlling pests such as insects or weeds are called active ingredients. An inert ingredient is any substance that is intentionally included in a pesticide that is not an active ingredient.
For the list of 72 chemical substances and to receive information on how to provide comments, see the Federal Register Notice in docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558. To access this notice, copy and paste the docket number into the search box at: http://regulations.gov. Comments are due November 21, 2014.
General information on inert ingredients can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/inert-ingredients-overview-and-guidance.
=======================================
Here is the GovSpeak document outlining the removal of 72 items:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/22/2014-24586/proposed-removal-of-certain-inert-ingredients-from-approved-chemical-substance-list-for-pesticide
And here is the list:
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs
Supporting document to docket# EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558
Listing of 72 chemical substances proposed for removal from the currently approved inert ingredient list.
The full list: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558
My locally saved file: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0002 (PDF)
[added] By the way, in case you did not know it, you breath in Argon every day. Argon is the third most common gas in the earth’s atmosphere at 0.93%. That makes it more common than that dangerous carbon dioxide (at ~0.03%)they keep whinging about.
![air_composition[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/air_composition1.png?quality=75)
![atmospheric[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/atmospheric1.gif)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
”Any effort to regulate the use of this harmless substance would do incalculable damage to American industrial competitiveness”
This is not an “effort to regulate” Argon or any of the other fairly benign entries on the list like Boron Oxide and Crystalline Silica (Tripoli) but rather removal from the (pre)approved list of inert ingredients available to pesticide formulators without jumping through EPA hoops. Once removed from the list a company that wished to use it in a formulation would have to prove its safe and of course pay a fee.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0001
”If an application for registration of a pesticide product includes inert ingredients not on the approved list, the inert ingredient will need approval and require payment of a fee”
”any proposed future use of the inert ingredient would need to be supported by data provided to and reviewed by the EPA as part of a new inert ingredient submission request. The type of data needed to evaluate a new inert ingredient may include, among others, studies to evaluate potential carcinogenicity, adverse reproductive effects, developmental toxicity, genotoxicity as well as environmental effects associated with any chemical substance that is persistent or bioaccumulative”
This is a strike against museums, which use the nitrogen/argon suffocation method to rid themselves of pests without leaving chemical residues on their artwork. How dare they.
The EPA is a bunch of philistines.
/hyperbole
/ha ha but serious
Handy for lefties to rewrite history.
”If an application for registration of a pesticide product includes inert ingredients not on the approved list, the inert ingredient will need approval and require payment of a fee”
So it’s a fund-raising effort, then.
Of all the ‘splanations I’ve read here, that’s the only one that makes any sense. This is an attempt to rectify an earlier screw-up that included AR on an approved list of inert ingredients in the first place. That I can believe.
Argon and Xenon are banned substances for international athletes. It seems that training on a low oxygen atmosphere gives you an advantage when you breathe the real thing in competition. Are they really trying to detoxify pesticides? I can see a problem with that.
Not for the insects. I think there is a large insect lobby in Washington along wiht the rats.
They simply got a list of everything that is in pesticides, declare that they intend to ban each one of them, and wait for the comments.
This way they can spend their time going on vacation without punching out, pretending they are CIA agents, and months later come back and read the comments; then they will take those ingredients off the list that need no banning.
I found a very interesting CAS entry http://www.chemicalbook.com/ProductChemicalPropertiesCB0330440_EN.htm on argon, while doing a search of the CAS number. It seems that someone has concluded that argon is manufactured from amonia, nitrogen, and hydrogen, thru a very complex series of intermediaries. If someone is actually synthesizing argon by this route, it appears that they have discovered the philosopher’s stone (or is spending a fortune on transmutation energy, instead of doing simple fractionation of liquid air) I wonder if the activists just did a CAS search or an MSDS search on these substances, and then just threw any scary ones on to their list. And the EPA is just rubber-stamping it, because they don’t know any better.
As a former govt official or a highly technical agency, I am embarrassed that the competence of the federal government has sunk this low. I have already submitted a comment to them about this. It is appalling.
Argon is an element. Tricky to manufacture really.
heh.
Argon is produced (non-anthropogenicly) by decay of potassium all the time.
@frank
You’re wrong. The average human has 120g of potassium in their body, 0.012% of which is K40, the radioactive isotope. So every human is a little anthropogenic argon factory by decay of K40 through electron capture and the emission of 1.460 MeV gamma ray and a neutrino.
Eh, that would explain why my body has been decaying.
Actually, there is a very rational explanation for this. While discussing the chemicals to be banned, the bureaucrats discussed the issue. They talked about a large number of chemicals and what would happen once those are gone from pesticide. Having discussed the issue of “are gone” they decided that it would be wise to also include argon in the list. Adams modeled Vogons on British civil servants for a reason.
Oof.
If one reads just a little more closely, the reason for removing Argon from the list is simply that it is no longer being used, i.e., why waste taxpayer funds monitoring for it if it is no longer used?
“EPA is considering removing from this list a set of 72 chemical substances that are no longer being used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide product.”
Since argon is being used, we have now established that Google use is beyond the technical capabilities of the EPA. Seriously, try googling argon use pesticide. It’s right up there on the top half of the first page.
“We are taking action to ensure that these ingredients are not added to any pesticide products unless they have been fully vetted by EPA,”
Barry, I think the quote above is a clear statement of their intent.
Your quote is merely a statement about what it is that they want to withdraw approval for.
Barry: It is pointless and stupid to ban elements and compounds simply because they aren’t being used.
You ask “…why waste taxpayer funds monitoring for it if it is no longer used?”
Are you serious? Are you telling us the EPA has been wasting time and money monitoring for inert gasses? How long has this been going on? If you really want to save taxpayer funds, ban the EPA. They clearly don’t know what they are doing.
Do you work for the EPA by chance?
Did you have some hand in this idiotic regulation?
@Barry:
You just don’t give up, do you? Banning something because it is no longer being used is bureaucratic stupidity. That is not in the EPA’s remit. They are supposed to be protecting the environment, not banning the most harmless atoms in existence, for the sole reason that they are no longer used. What if someone wants to use them again? They can’t; they’ve been banned.
Really, Barry, try to pick your battles better. The EPA can’t seem to do it. But you should be able to, before you dig any deeper.
It is used with our ICP instrument.
Barry, taxpayer funds are not being wasted monitoring it. It is on an approved list of ingredients. If it is removed from the list, taxpayer funds will be wasted to reapprove it if someone wants to use it.
At this point I believe the EPA itself has become a waste of taxpayer funds and should be banned or at least removed from the approved list of government agencies.
Strangely, I am cheering. If you set out to discipline the agency, they will immediately wrap themselves in the usual memes: “Saving the planet”, “Saving the children”, etc. One needs a few truly obvious stupidities that are indefensible to the average voter ( a low bar) to actually have the political cojones to do anything.
The average voter hears the word ‘Argon’ and worries about pesticides possibly poisoning superman.
“Saving the planet”, “Saving the children”… I guess they are adding “Saving the Insects” to that list.
Reading the regulatory notice shows that the ingredients proposed for removal from the approved list are not longer used in pesticides.
That’s very helpful, Rattus.
Although your paraphrase changed “currently” to “not longer”, I bet you saw that right up there in the head-post. Maybe just two paragraphs below this;
““We are taking action to ensure that these ingredients are not added to any pesticide products unless they have been fully vetted by EPA,” said Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “This is the first major step in our strategy to reduce risks from pesticides containing potentially hazardous inert ingredients.”
But, thanks, we wouldn’t have caught that important bit.
“This is the first major step in our strategy to reduce risks from pesticides containing potentially hazardous inert ingredients.”
That says it all. Jerry, Rattus, Juan, look up the defiition of “inert”.
Jim Jones (and every other commenter here who doesn’t understand what ‘inert’ means) is a proven idiot.
Norway Rat,
Check out the replies to ‘Barry’. One clueless commenter is more than enough here, no need to double up.
Rattus Norvegicus is correct Mr Stealey, and you are the one that appears clueless
The Environmental Protection Agency does not want to ban Argon per se; they want to ban the production of more Argon. They have found that the half-life of Argon (by using sophisticated computer models) is essentially forever.
Maybe I missed something, but are not pesticides supposed to be … I don’t know … HAZARDOUS? It is how it is defined, no? “Pesticides” are designed to be so hazardous as to actually cause DEATH, are they not?
So, how does the EPA expect the new pesticides of the future to work? Make them water-based and DROWN the pests?
“Its hard to imagine a more inoffensive substance than Argon”
Neon.
Yes indeed. Neon is Argon’s very weedy and self effacing little brother. Neon reacts with absolutely nothing no matter how much you torture it.
Neon will raise one’s voice when inhaled. I find that offensive.
But… but, neon KILLS!
Just ask the commenters who like to point out that if you are in a room with 100% CO2, it is fatal. It’s the same with neon.
EPA: Ban neon NOW!!
But these are INERT chemicals that are NO LONGER used that they INTEND to ban because they MIGHT BE hazardous! (By the way, if some chemical is “inert” it cannot be hazardous. )
I also like how they include Formaldehyde. I guess no more using smoke…
That’s just bizarre. I’m not even sure how you would go about adding argon to a pesticide or how you would keep it in there if you did. At room temperature it is a gas.
You guys really need to fix your system of government. Why not give democracy a try? If you had elected people in control of agencies like the EPA then you might be able to stop this kind of nonsense. I understand you guys do elect people, but they don’t control anything and spend most of their time giving speeches to empty rooms. I also understand pork is involved. (Do the Jewish representatives use lamb instead? I must confess I’m not quite clear on the whole pork thing.) Anyway if you are going to go to the bother of electing people why not get them to run the government for you? Just a thought.
The USSR used to have a similar problem of electing a bunch of people to a meaningless circus while the bureaucracy ran amok. They had all sorts of problems as a result, so they changed their system to one where criminals control everything. They haven’t looked back ever since. I don’t actually recommend the Russian system myself, although putting the Russian mafia in charge of the EPA does admittedly have some appeal. In particular having the Russian mafia deal with the person who added Argon to this list sounds to me like a pretty good idea.
Seal a room or a mobile chamber, pump in a mix of nitrogen and argon while reducing the oxygen content to 0.1-0.3%. Argon works better than nitrogen for some reason. It’s a 25% improvement in time before the insects die. Argon coincidentally will also kill certain fungi that will survive in a nitrogen atmosphere.
One minor quibble. I don’t know that this use of Argon would be classified as inactive, or indeed as an additive.
However I’m impressed by the merits of your method. You’d probably have to make sure all the EPA people were in the building before you sealed it up though, or the treatment would be ineffective.
As another respondent correctly states, if argon were being used in that way, it would not be considered and inert ingredient. It would have to get its own certification number for use as an active ingredient.
Remember, this is part of the same government that is populated by politicians that:
a: Want to, at the behest of big business and the Chamber of Commerce, import half the population of Nicaragua to this country, adding millions of workers that will help depress wages for said workers.
But….
b: If those same businesses built a factory in Nicaragua, and kept the profit from that factory off shore, the politicians would be indignant claiming the businesses were being unfair to American workers.
So…if you’re looking for intelligence, logic or consistency from Mordor on the Potomoc….good luck with that.
First Co2. NOW argon. Who doubts that oxygen will be next?
Naw, but oxygen will be named a “controlled substance” and it’s use will be taxed.
The answer to the question is in the first paragraph.
A tree is known by it’s fruit, treehuggers by their deeds.
The fruits of the EPA have grown bitter indeed.
Please, nobody tell them just how corrosive pure oxygen is…
I think that people are missing the point….
If people want to understand this “ban” you need to understand:
a) Architecture
b) Anthropology
c) Psychology
Oh I admit that understanding organic chemistry and agriculture could be useful — not to mention entomology and pesticides but the other aspects are more important…
A good architect understands exactly where to put an unneeded window based on the culture and psychology of the client. During the presentation phase the client can contribute by insisting that a window in some ludicrous/ridiculous placement be removed. Later when the client complains that the design is “wrong” the architect can pull out the review documents, show the client that the unwanted/needed window was removed and that was the only issue they raised and that they had indeed contributed — therefore — “check please”. (Cheque Please! if you’re Canuck or Brit.)
Now, I am not insisting that this is a bogus review with an intent to focus people on irrelevant issues so that the real objective of a total ban on insecticides can be levied — but then I’m not sayin’ that it ain’t either — iffin’ you know what I mean.
So they want to ban trace amounts of mercaptan — from a pesticide???? — uh-huh!
Maybe people with the appropriate knowledge should look at that list and comment on why the other substances cannot be “trace compounds” in a substance intended to poison insects — it might provide some interesting thinking time.
Maybe this is about suckering people into wasted effort. Just sayin’
+1 good point. The EPA is corrupt and devious.
WillR, this is why it pays to read all the comments. Good point.
You are spot on correct. We all look at the list and pick out the silly item that is banned.
If we are prudent we realise that banning it’s use in one context sets the precedent that “it is bad” and enables the ban to spread to other contexts.
But the real issue is the levels at which they are banned. How many of these substances are being restricted to levels that become uneconomic to measure and so must be banned entirely from any manufacturing process?
And… if you think a little further on your own points — anything and everything can become a crime if the regulations are carefully crafted– with the subsequent heavy penalties.
Yes — it is about destroying industry — through pointless activity and regulation.
At 1% of the atmosphere, every 23 breaths we take, one of them is argon. Surely the threshold shouldn’t below that proportion.
Assuming that mercaptans are deliberately added, this would be because the smell foul. this would act as a warning to humans and various other animals that something is not right and thus “Keep Away”. They might not be “active” in the killing of pests meaning, but they definitely have an “active” role in safety of use.
P.S. mercaptans are of course quite toxic as are most reduced sulfur compounds.
The EPA climate policy was written by a convicted embezzler and con-artist with no sicentific credentials.
The EPA cuts insider deal secret deals with NGOs by way of faux lawsuits to bypass the little bit of scrutiny they submit to whenever it is convenient or profitable tot he NGOs.
The EPA does not base its policies on science, but rather on the demands of big green NGOs and other non-scienctific extremists.
End the EPA as it is now organized.
Hunter hit the nail on the head. I can envision a scenario where some nincompoop at the EPA decided Argon should be banned (for what ever reason) and then asked his/her buddy, Richard Windsor, who of course has nothing to do with the EPA in ANY capacity, to mention casually to a mutual friend at the “Physicians for Social Responsibility” that the EPA was looking at Argon. Lo and behold, the Physicians, and lots of their friends declare it harmful. To head off a lawsuit, the EPA complies with the NGO finding and thereby saves the taxpayers millions in legal fees. Gina McCarthy then adds those millions to the list of savings due to EPA regulation.
And typically in these faux settlements there is a nice fee for the NGO’s troubles.
Will this prevent using ‘air’ during manufacture and handling?
Well, a couple of others pop up on the list to my attention.
Ethane. A clear, odorless gas. C2 H6. Quite similar to methane, in fact. You know. Methane, butane, ethane, propane. And so on.
Resorcinol. A flavinoid. Can be found in tea. It is one of the natural phenols found in Argan Oil. It is a drug used in Acne medication.
http://www.drugs.com/cons/resorcinol-topical.html
From above:
Uses For resorcinol
Resorcinol is used to treat acne, seborrheic dermatitis, eczema, psoriasis, and other skin disorders. It is also used to treat corns, calluses, and warts.
So, it can be used in medicine, but is to be banned from Pesticides.
Now, ain’t that precious?
Then there is tripoli … isn’t that Silica? (Or were they referring to the capital of Libya?)
Rotenone. Organic pesticide. It occurs naturally in the seeds of several plants, including the Jicama Vine. (Wikipedia.)
http://www.simplegiftsfarm.com/rotenone.html
Some green gardeners are gonna be pissed.
Then there is Benzoyl Peroxide. The EPA must LIKE Acne, since it is used in medications to treat ACNE!
http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1344/benzoyl-peroxide-top/details
Head shake, face palm and raspberry.
Obviously, there are no chemists working at the EPA.
For crying out loud.
They not proposing to ban the use of argon in industrial settings.
They are proposing to ban the use of argon in pesticides.
While that may still be stupid, don’t create a crisis where there is none.
Well, except for the few companies that use argon to kill insects infesting delicate artifacts, mostly in museums. For them it’s a problem because it increases their reporting requirements. But who cares about them. There’s filing fees to collect.
My comment was directed at previous comments regarding “argon windows” and “crippling industry,” etc.
Don’t create a crisis where there is none.
While there may come a day when they attempt additional Argon regulations, however stupid that may be, this is not it.
mark wagner – argon is exempt from paperwork at present due to the exemption it currently benefits from. If it’s taken off the list, it will no longer be exempt and you’ll have to file paperwork on it just like every other potentially harmful substance. No new regulation would have to be passed, the exemption removal does all the harm just by itself.
I agree that one should not “create a crisis where there is none”. We also should not be asleep at the switch when someone is doing something regulatorily noxious. Both are equivalent hazards.
As has been pointed out, this seems to ban the use of argon as an inert/inactive ingredient in pesticides, meaning it is in the mix for some technical reason — Ican’t imagine what, but typically inert ingredients are used to help a pesticide adhere to a surface, dry quickly, spread out thin (or not), etc. If someone is using argon as a pest control in and of itself, then it must be approved and labeled by the EPA as such. It would be an entirely separate issue.
If you accept the precedent that Argon should be banned then you need to justify taking the risk in in using it for industry.
That isn’t easy.
They are proposing to ban the use of argon in pesticides.
But, why?
Mark, the point of the post was to show there is no need to remove inert ingredients from an approved list for pesticides. The fact that uses for argon was the most frequently cited here by commenters was just to show how silly it is, not that it was to banned for all uses.
There is a long list of radioactive isotopes of Argon. Most of them with extremely short half-lives.
HA! Just like the attention span of most EPA regulators.
LOL, good one ther—
What was I saying?
If you want the Congress to spend money on something, ask them to take the funds away from the EPA. Their purpose was important, but their results amount to more harm than good. We should not be paying them any more.
They not proposing to ban the use of argon in industrial settings.
Not yet anyway. Camel’s nose, tent flap etc. They are mad with power.