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.
The EPA and FWS need disbanded and replaced with a citizen-scientist organization.
Cornflakes are not used in pesticides so they should be on the list according to Barry.
No!
This is about removing things from a list of approved ingredients. If cornflakes were on that list, this EPA initiative would suggest removing them from the list. Geddit?
The use of inert gas for grain, fruit and vegetable storage is common. Also used in museums and libraries. Bugs find it difficult to survive without oxygen.
Is an inert gas then a pesticide ?
“Inert atmosphere” means without oxygen rather than totally unreactive. Nitrogen, argon, helium, and carbon dioxide are common components of inert gas mixtures.
Will the EPA ban all of them ?
An interesting proposition
Generally, yes. Under current law, if something is sold as a pest control, it must be approved by the EPA and carry a registration number. This leads to some rather absurd results (as you might expect): for example, a gallon of bleach sold just for laundry use needs no EPA Reg. number. But if the the label of the bleach mentions that it cleans AND disinfects — then yes, it must show the EPA number!
Also, “inert” in the context of pest control products has a specialized meaning: it does NOT mean “inert” in the sense you say “inert gas”. An inert ingredient in a pest control is simply one which is not itself being used as a pesticide in the mix. It will be some sort of carrier for the actual pesticide, helping it to adhere, or disperse, or volatilize, or mix or emulsify better or something.
And yes, counterintuitive as it may seem, if an inert gas (in the scientific meaning) is used as you are describing to kill things, it becomes an “active ingredient” and must likewise carry an EPA Reg. number!
Perhaps it does make a little sense. This is actually house cleaning of sorts, I guess:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0001
>>> EPA is proposing to remove certain chemical substances from the current listing of inert ingredients approved for use in pesticide products because the inert ingredients are no longer used in any registered pesticide product. <<<
So I guess what they are doing is removing them from the inert listing so if in the future they are ever used, they have to be put back on the list. That way there has to be lots of hearings and lots of submissions before it can be used ever again.
But then again, this is the EPA. Who know what they are doing? They surely do not.
Not only is Argon useful, this proposed ban of Argon is also very useful.
“False in one, False in all.”
If the EPA can be so wrong about one, Argon, it can be wrong about everything.
Argon can and should be used to dismantle Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)
Wow. That’s pretty far out there. This isn’t saying anything about the hazard or utility of argon, just that it no longer on the list of approved inert ingredients in pesticides. Mainly because it isn’t used any more anyway.
Next up Oxygen because it “oxidizes” things.
I mean without oxygen there wouldn’t be rust or forest fires. Look how nasty that stuff is.
This government is totally out of control.
Ridiculous.
Why do the health Naz_s always tell us to take more antioxidants? Antioxidants stop oxidation. Oxidation causes aging, tumors and lack of sexual vigor. Oxidation comes from oxygen. No oxygen, no oxidation. Oxygen kills. Eliminate oxygen now!
Makes sense! Stop breathing = Stop Aging!
Why is Resorcinol on the list? It is an antiseptic, a disinfectant and sterilizer. You can find Resorcinol in treatments for acne and a wide range of skin complaints, in tea, and in throat lozenges.
But the argon in the atmosphere is the product of radioactive decay (of potassium 40). So it must be dangerous…
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.
Am I reading this correctly. There is the adjective “inert” in front of ingredients.?
This is quite incomprehensible and I must say that the US has trumped the UK in the stupidity stakes with this one.
For the moment anyway…
Naw, UK will turn out stupider than USA, we’ve got Millysband, DickEd Davey, Cleg & Camoron
The primary pollutant to general well being in the USA right now begins in the White House. Get rid of these ratbags
ASAP!
The EPA isn’t going far enough with just Argon. Di-hydrogen monoxide kills countless numbers of people every year when they are exposed to very large amounts of it. And this poison also is known to do countless millions if not billions of dollars in property damage every year as well.
I’m going to start my own eco-NGO and give the EPA my list of chemicals and substances that should be banned. Di-hydrogen monoxide will be at the top of that list.
And while I’m at it, I think I’ll put that evil demonic nitrogen on the list too. /sarc
Something not being in current use is no reason to remove it from a list of permitted ingredients. Presumably it’s accepted to be safe – otherwise you’d ask some sort of environmental protection agency to do some sort of study to find out.
Removing it now is, in reality, forever. No-one is going to bother with the time, effort, cost and NGO objection-fest needed to get it back on the permitted list, Sneaky and insidious.
Well I see alot of opportunity for start up businesses that will now need to study Argon safety.
Hold on, I need to start my application for an Argon testing grant. It is titled “Argon safety in Industrilaized Societies”. The title alone has to be worth a few dollars of grant money.
If you title it “Argon safety and climatic impacts” you’ll probably get the EPA to fund it…
The EPA didn’t ban argon. By removing argon from the approved list of inert ingredients for pesticides, it just means that a company who decides to use it would have to get its use approved (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0001):
They specifically chose to remove inert ingredients that are not currently being used in any pesticide formulation and, in fact, their comments asks companies to check and confirm that they got it right and that indeed these substances are not currently being used:
It is not entirely clear to me what the EPA’s motivation is for removing from the list substances that are not actually being used, but I assume it has something to do with streamlining their workload in insuring that pre-approved inert ingredients are in fact safe. Their justification is probably something to the effect of “Why try to keep up with whether a substance is safe to use when it is not being used anyway?”
I can understand that it may seem intuitively obvious that argon is safe and its removal from the list may seem bureaucratic. But, the fact is that government agencies are bureaucratic, as are any large organization, such as a large company (heck, some might argue that “large” means greater than, maybe, about 10 people).
I hope that you will correct the headline of this post since it is quite inaccurate to claim that argon is being banned by the EPA.
Of course it’s not banned. It’s just not approved for use.
Need to be a scientavist to understand the nuance.
Since you seem so confused by these distinctions, let me help you:
(1) This rule only applies to the use of argon as an inert ingredient in pesticides, where it is no longer currently used. Hence, the following statement in this post is completely irrelevant: “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.”
(2) There is a difference between a substance being banned and having to ask permission before using a substance. If you told your teenager that they had to ask your permission before taking the family car, do you think it would be accurate for the teenager to claim that you had banned his using the car?
(3) Read this comment for more explanation of what the EPA is doing here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/29/the-epa-jumps-the-shark-banning-argon/#comment-1774371
Basically, I think we are at the point now where Anthony needs to admit that it is he who jumped the shark, jumping to wildly incorrect conclusions based more on his own beliefs about the EPA than anything else.
If my teenager used to have permission to drive the car and I took it away, I think most sane people would view that as a bad. Of course, insane people sometimes think sane people are confusing.
bad –> ban.
Well you’re not exactly “banning” something that isn’t being used anyway. Yes, it’s semantics, but it’s accurate. Might as well say that whale oil is banned as an automobile fuel.
Joeldshore:
Once Argon is removed from the approval list it is banned in practical effect, because if someone wishes to use it, they must go through the lengthy, cumbersome and expensive process of an EPA review. And when they do so, one fine day a fellow will show up at their HQ office and say:
“We of the Sierra Club oppose your application for a permit to use Argon as an inert ingredient in your product. However, if you contribute $2 million to the Sierra Club, we will withdraw our opposition.
This is how it works in our society and for thirty years the EPA has worked hand in glove with the Sierra Club thugs. And guess how much $ the Sierra Club thugs have been granted by poohtus, under this and that grant
And guess how much of that money finds its way back into the hedge accounts ($ HongKong) of certain
elected officials and EPA officials?
No, Virginia, you must not sit in Santa’s lap without your chasity belt fastened.
You’re right about the term “banned”.
I don’t think your assumption about their motivation is very imaginative.
EPA has maintained a list of approved inert ingredients. They have criteria for approval; principally, focused on the absence of residues in food products.
Removing Argon from that list is a statement that those approval criteria are not deemed adequate for those 72 substances or elements, although there continue to be many inert ingredients on the approved list.
All of this was initiated by pressure from focus groups. It’s naive to think that bureaucracies will self-correct eventually, especially when demands come from just one side.
Technically, the question mark at the end of the headline obviates your desired correction.
“Removing Argon from that list is a statement that those approval criteria are not deemed adequate for those 72 substances or elements”
No, the substances being removed from the lists are not being used any longer, anyway, and it seems like they are trying very hard to ensure that none of them are still being used before removing them. I would think this is something we could get behind; a government body is getting rid of unnecessary regulations!
Next to be banned: helium.
Mickey Mouse was unavailable for comment.
I like another one on the list: ‘Trimellitic acid andydride’. There’s no such thing. You’d think on an important regulatory document they would go to the trouble of checking the spelling of the chemicals they seek to regulate/free from regulation: ‘andydrides’ are not found on this planet ‘anhydrides’ are.
We can’t leave dangerous chemicals unregulated, even if they’re noble.
What I want to know is… why isn’t the EPA focused on regulating nitrogen. The levels of nitrogen pollution in our atmosphere are horrifying. And we have all of these places like Costco Tire Centers injecting nitrogen into our vehicles without adequate protection against leakage.It’s totally irresponsible. Don’t they care about our children? Just say No to N.
You can leave the nitrogen in the air I breathe, just remove the nitrogen oxides.
“Idiocracy” at its finest.
In the absence of a leadership czar (President), NGOs rule from the shadows.
Well at least we know now, there isn’t a soul at the EPA who has passed freshman chemistry. I guess that is transparency of sorts.
“So why on Earth would the EPA plan to ban something as inoffensive as Argon?”
Because they can.
So the solution here is to answer “yes” to any question by the EPA about whether you use something or not. Because if you say “not any more”, then the EPA will remove it from the approved list, and you won’t be able to use it any more.
EPA party balloons will have to go first, surely …
http://www.livescience.com/38990-looming-helium-shortage.html
One of the roots of such wasteful, foolish, thuggish, and tyrannous government is the ease with which it can create almost unlimited amounts of money out of thin air. Near-infinite money buys near-infinite government, and a bureaucracy that is generously funded can entertain an open-ended dream about how to expand its realm.
Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.
The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit government’s ability to create and spend near-infinite amounts of money.
The most discouraging aspect of this report is that it serves as a reminder that the EPA is fully committed to bringing POTUS’ agenda to fruition.