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.
And they want to ban tripoli! Yes, I know it’s a silica based rock, but to want to ban a whole city!!!???!!! That’s a ballsy move, even for a fed.
Why does the EPA ignore this settled science and yet pay attention to the climate science which everyone now admits is unsettled. Other than smoking, coffee may be the most hazardous thing in our environment.
Bruce N. Ames (inventor of Ames Test for carcinogens), Lois Swirsky Gold
Biotherapy (1998), Volume 11, Issue 2-3, pp 205-220
The Causes and Prevention of Cancer: The Role of Environment
The idea that synthetic chemicals such as DDT are major contributors to human cancer has been inspired, in part, by Rachel Carson’s passionate book, Silent Spring. This chapter discusses evidence showing why this is not true. We also review research on the causes of cancer, and show why much cancer is preventable.
Epidemiological evidence indicates several factors likely to have a major effect on reducing rates of cancer: reduction of smoking, increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, and control of infections. Other factors are avoidance of intense sun exposure, increases in physical activity, and reduction of alcohol consumption and possibly red meat. Already, risks of many forms of cancer can be reduced and the potential for further reductions is great. If lung cancer (which is primarily due to smoking) is excluded, cancer death rates are decreasing in the United States for all other cancers combined.
Pollution appears to account for less than 1% of human cancer; yet public concern and resource allocation for chemical pollution are very high, in good part because of the use of animal cancer tests in cancer risk assessment. Animal cancer tests, which are done at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), are being misinterpreted to mean that low doses of synthetic chemicals and industrial pollutants are relevant to human cancer. About half of the chemicals tested, whether synthetic or natural, are carcinogenic to rodents at these high doses. A plausible explanation for the high frequency of positive results is that testing at the MTD frequently can cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell replacement, a risk factor for cancer that can be limited to high doses. Ignoring this greatly exaggerates risks. Scientists must determine mechanisms of carcinogenesis for each substance and revise acceptable dose levels as understanding advances.
The vast bulk of chemicals ingested by humans is natural. For example, 99.99% of the PESTICIDES WE EAT are naturally present in plants to ward off insects and other predators. Half of these natural pesticides tested at the MTD are rodent carcinogens. Reducing exposure to the 0.01% that are SYNTHETIC will not reduce cancer rates. On the contrary, although fruits and vegetables contain a wide variety of naturally-occurring chemicals that are rodent carcinogens, inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables doubles the human cancer risk for most types of cancer. Making them more expensive by reducing synthetic pesticide use will increase cancer. Humans also ingest large numbers of natural chemicals from cooking food. OVER A THOUSAND CHEMICALS HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN ROAST COFFEE: MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE TESTED (19/28) ARE RODENT CARCINOGENS. There are MORE RODENT CARCINOGENS IN A SINGLE CUP OF COFFEE than potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues in the average American diet in a year, and there are still a thousand chemicals left to test in roasted coffee. This does not mean that coffee is dangerous but rather that animal cancer tests and worst-case risk assessment, build in enormous safety factors and should not be considered true risks.
The reason humans can eat the tremendous variety of natural chemical “rodent carcinogens” is that humans, like other animals, are extremely well protected by many general defense enzymes, most of which are inducible (i.e., whenever a defense enzyme is in use, more of it is made). Since the DEFENSE ENZYMES ARE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AGAINST NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS, one does not expect, nor does one find, a general difference between synthetic and natural chemicals in ability to cause cancer in high-dose rodent tests.
The idea that there is an epidemic of human cancer caused by synthetic industrial chemicals is false. In addition, there is a steady rise in life expectancy in the developed countries. Linear extrapolation from the maximum tolerated dose in rodents to low level exposure in humans has led to grossly exaggerated mortality forecasts.
Such extrapolations can not be verified by epidemiology. Furthermore, relying on such extrapolations for synthetic chemicals while ignoring the enormous natural background, leads to an imbalanced perception of hazard and allocation of resources. It is the progress of scientific research and technology that will continue to lengthen human life expectancy.
Zero exposure to rodent carcinogens cannot be achieved. Low levels of rodent carcinogens of natural origin are ubiquitous in the environment. It is thus impossible to obtain conditions totally free of exposure to rodent carcinogens or to background radiation. Major advances in analytical techniques enable the detection of extremely low concentrations of all substances, whether natural or synthetic, often thousands of times lower than could be detected 30 years ago.
Risks compete with risks: society must distinguish between significant and trivial risks. Regulating trivial risks or exposure to substances erroneously inferred to cause cancer at low-doses, can harm health by diverting resources from programs that could be effective in protecting the health of the public. Moreover, wealth creates health: poor people have shorter life expectancy than wealthy people. When money and resources are wasted on trivial problems, society’s wealth and hence health is harmed.
On the graphs that show the composition of the atmosphere, why is water vapor always left out? Too variable for a stagnant chart so pretend it doesn’t exist?
Hardly ‘always’! Usually the tables are for a ‘dry’ atmosphere and this is clearly indicated, also the range of water contribution is usually given in a footnote.
The following is typical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Some show the composition including water, e.g.:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
I can explain. Under FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide,Rodenticide Act) the registrant of a pesticide can change, subtract and even in some cases add inerts to the statement of formula through the notification process. All these items will still be allowed in pesticides, but they will not be allowed as inerts. They will be listed as active ingredients and be controlled through the approval process. It is not a huge deal just more work for registrants. They will have less flexibility changing statements of formula.
So, an inert gas “will not be allowed as inert”: EPA has a power to change the basics of chemistry? How, exactly, an addition of argon to a pesticide could make a pesticide more toxic? Your explanation… what, exactly, does it explain? That bureaucrats, as usual, have no clue about what they are doing? We knew that without your explanation, thank you.
Well I think the EPA A$$h0les have figured out that by using argon as a propellant, other substances, heretofore not yet under their jurisdiction, can be used to circumvent their existing restrictions…?
Or… Argon is becoming a strategic substance so this is a back door to restrict its use?
ok… too common to be strategic…scratch that.
My friend was going to make a joke about this ruling but he said all the best ones argon.
Ha ha that’s one for slapping your knee on.
Trimellitic acid andydride?
Oh, that mischievous Andy, and his corrosive personality!
“Any effort to regulate the use of this harmless substance would do incalculable damage to American industrial competitiveness, for no benefit whatsoever.”
For the EPA clowns, that’s a feature, not a bug. >:-(
Evidently part of the logic for removal is a conclusion that some of the inert chemicals are not currently being used in commercially available pesticides.
Argon is useful as a propellant, as is Nitrous Oxide used as a propellant in food manufacturing also scheduled for removal.
It seems premature to remove these inert propellants merely because current formulations do not use them.
They should ban that nasty dihydrogen monoxide whilst they are at it – It can burn the skin, and can be deadly if inhaled!!!
“An inert ingredient is any substance that is intentionally included in a pesticide that is not an active ingredient.”
Soooo … I look forward to when they try this with pharmaceutical excipients too >.>
I don’t even.
hope they are not going to ban co2 next.
http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/co2gen.asp
I posted this over at hotwhopper, they replied they were going to leave it up to show how dumb I am. No sense of humor over there.
We have entered the secret pirate lair, but all the pirates arrrgon.
Folks, as wyoskeptic says at October 29, 2014 at 10:23, settle down and read. The EPA is not proposing to ban the use argon, even in pesticides.
Our host here at WUWT certainly is busy person, running one of the most read blogs in the world, while working to provide for his family. He can’t research everything fully. That’s were we loyal readers come in. It is we who need to do the background research. And from my 30 years of dealing with the EPA, I can tell you that the “devil is in the details.”
You have to read the NPRM’s and the supporting documents if you want to understand what is going on. This take a lot of time and work. So commenters, before shooting off your mouth, read. Give Anthony the help he needs. My next comment will be addressed to Anthony telling him what I have found in my search for details.
Anthony-
As far as I can ascertain, This is what this EPA notice is all about.
Back in 2006, several organizations petitioned the EPA to require the label listing of 371 inert ingredients in pesticides that they considered hazardous. In 2009 the EPA granted the petition and initiated the rule making process by issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM).
Long story made short. The EPA had lots of problems with this approach, and found after some research that people didn’t read the labels anyway. So they looked for a different approach.
To quote from a EPA letter of May 22, 2014 from James J. Jones, Assistant EPA Administrator:
“I believe that the EPA can achieve greater reduction in the risks from use of pesticides containing
potentially hazardous inert ingredients through a series of non-rule actions designed to reduce the
presence of hazardous inert ingredients in specific pesticide products. Moreover, I expect that the agency
would be able to develop and implement these actions in a timelier manner than rulemaking. I therefore
intend to pursue a combination of regulatory and focused non-regulatory actions that do not rely on
rulemaking. “
See: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0003
The first thing on the to-do list for the EPA was to revise the list of approved inert ingredients, to remove those that were no longer used, so that the EPA wouldn’t have to consider them further. That’s what this request for comments is all about: Does anyone object to removing these elements and compounds from further consideration of being hazardous?
So in this case, no, the EPA is not proposing to ban argon.
So if I understand you properly the list of inert substances will no longer include Argon, therefore Argon will no longer fall under the EPA purview?
Yes, I do think that the EPA should have to take the time to include these 72 potential product constituents in its review of what should be banned.
The EPA is starting the process of analyzing and removing specific ingredients from its current approved list (they were supposed to start this in 2006 but they have been too busy with C02 and other very important regulatory stuff that superseded true public protection). The EPA wants to do an end run around the process by stating that they (approved inert ingredients) aren’t used and therefore they (EPA) shouldn’t have to follow rulemaking process; why not just save the 72 ingredients for last in their analysis … why pull them out in the beginning?
Lets just say that after analysis we find that half of the approved inert ingredients (outside of the 72) are bad and need to go away. Who is to say that some of the 72 unused ingredients couldn’t have been used as a cheap safe replacement … SORRY, the damage has already been done … now you need to spend a few million dollars to prove to the EPA that argon is not “safe at any speed”.
Right now the turd is in the EPAs pocket. They don’t like it there and are trying to get rid of it.
The more of the EPA budget that is spent on reviewing inert ingredients to determine if they are unsafe the better … less budget available for polar bear protection.
Surely it’s obvious. Behind all of this are people that know only too well what to ‘ban’ to create disruption and dismantle the developed western world. Apologies if that sounds conspiratorial but that’s the only thing that makes any sense. It started with the ozone layer stuff and the banning of fluoro/chloro carbons (the stuff that that screws up is much more than AC and aerosol cans.) So if this current one ‘bites’ no more argon arc welding, inert gas blanketing when processing metals, etc. etc. The non-scientific thickos in our administrations (I wonder how many are in the know) just rubber stamp it. I’m afraid the cuckoos are truly in the nest and have been for some while.
Very amusing, and I have no sympathy for banning something from present or future use, which was found acceptable for past use (“Forbid all buggy whips!”). But there are some interesting biological effects from otherwise “inert” gases.
Nitrogen, under pressure, produces the dangerous “nitrogen narcosis” encountered in SCUBA diving.
Xenon, at sufficient concentration, is an ideal anesthetic.
The mentioned use of argon in fumigation is news to me, but illustrates the point.
Some of these effects may be related to the size of the molecule itself, and its solubility in tissue. There is no chemistry to speak of, but an ability to interfere with or impede normal biochemical processes.
I had rather enjoyed my time with nitrogen narcosis … no hangover, no damage, everybody happy.
Sweat drenched work in a below zero freezer is a slightly safer environment than SCUBA diving.
It would be easier to straight out ban mankind! Problem solved.
Aluminium welding could become difficult without Argon.
In the food production industry they use Argon gas to keep fruit and veggies fresh in a sealed package.
Only they are not fresh when they are being sold. They are tasteless.
Argon is inert all right but the fruit itself contains substances that react with each other.
The fruit section in an American supermarket is a petrified orchard.
Alexander,
You seem to misunderstand how Argon is used, the process involves using Argon to remove the oxygen from the packaging and removing the oxygen extends the shelf life of the fruit or veg, having no oxygen in the package has no effect on the taste or appearance of the produce, it’s very safe and it means less fruit and veg is wasted. This is the only reason it is classed as a preservative.
So, when it’s 20 below and dark for 14 hours a day, you go into a supermarket and whine because the apples, oranges, bananas, grapes and avocados are tasteless and a petrified orchard.
Enjoy your turnips, you ingrate, though they’re not fresh, either.
I love to browse the petrified orchard section of the supermarket. It’s better than the smell of napalm in the morning.
Sparks,
Before explaining the obvious, read my message.
Repeat: the fruit itself contains substances that react with each other. The longer you keep the fruit in storage, the less it resembles fresh fruit when being sold, no matter in what inert atmosphere it is being kept. Everyone who ever tasted a fresh, ripe fruit, knows that what is being sold in American supermarkets is tasteless. Americans are fed artificial, terrible foods containing all kinds of preservatives and additives that make them obese and unhealthy. I don’t see any reason for being “grateful” when I spend money honestly earned by hard work for something that would go straight into the garbage container in most third-world countries.
To those who say that I should be “grateful” for seeing apples and bananas at night in the winter, I say this: however dysfunctional and oppressive is Russian society, in every Russian city you can find, almost on every street, a small food store that works 24 hours a day, in any kind of weather (down to minus 40 degrees), and offers a multitude of foods, including fresh, ripe fruits and vegetables, thousand times tastier than anything you can find in the Western supermarket, Unfortunately, generations of people in the USA don’t even know, how real food tastes and looks. Only UK is worse in this respect.
But there are always natural-born slaves who are “grateful” for whatever imitation food they are gobbling up.
Banning Argon after it is no longer used.
And what a headline! “EPA ACTION SAVES WORLD FROM MASS EXTERMINATION BY DEADLY ARGON GAS”.
The EPA is proposing to review the inert ingredients currently used by pesticide manufacturers for potential risks to human and/or environmental health (“inert” doesn’t mean the substance is harmless to humans or the planet; it just means it’s not actively harming the pests that the product is targeting).
It’s a long list, so to start, they’re removing any ingredients that are no longer in use, so that they can focus on assessing the toxicity of ingredients that actually are in use.
Since argon isn’t used as a pesticide inert ingredient, the impact on American industry is basically zero. Your comment about the utility of argon in industrial welding applications is irrelevant, unless welders are now using long-obsolete spray-cans of argon-containing pesticide to flush oxygen away from their welding arcs.
Moreover, substances taken off the list wouldn’t be banned. If for some reason a pesticide manufacturers decides in the future to reintroduce argon as an inert ingredient in some future formulation, they’ll merely have to request that the EPA subject argon to the same assessment of toxicity that the EPA will have conducted on other pesticide inert ingredients.
“merely”? Do you really believe any request to EPA to reactivate an ingredient would in any way be within a light year of the word “merely”?
That’s too logical. Give me back my conspiracy theories!
Argon isn’t used as a pesticide ingredient.
Is a fumigant, or asphyxiant, a pesticide ?
eg http://www.ehow.com/how_7925929_use-gas-kill-bed-bugs.html
Can you fumigate or asphyxiate bugs/insects with Argon?
Argon is not a “fumigant” nor an “asphyxiant” anymore than any heavy gas. A pesticide will kill bugs, Argon does not.
Why not just leave the 72 “unused” ingredients for last? Better yet why not take an educated guess and prioritize the entire list?
If it is true that they will have trouble focusing on the potential toxicity of the “non-72” while the 72 are still on the list then mebbe we need to get them a big bag of Ritalin.
In addition (and more seriously): The more of the EPA budget that is spent on reviewing inert ingredients to determine if they are unsafe, the better … less budget available for polar bear protection.
Maybe the EPA is just as poor at spelling as this nuts and berries purveyor of “natural products”.
http://www.planetnatural.com/product/organic-argon-oil/
If an assistant administrator publishes a consultation, now wonder cresol and phthalates are in the same list with argon.
It looks like from this statement that if they are not going to ban it, they are going to regulate it:
“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.”
The next step is to ban it (like CO2).
“Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety…” What’s he going to ban next, the mixture of Kool-Aid and Cyanide?…oh wait…
Ethane is on the list?
When can we ban the EPA? They’ve far outlived their usefulness.