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)
Perhaps they got muddled up with Krypton. That is dangerous to some alien superheroes
Argon gas is used as a fumigant in several different environments, where conventional pesticides with potential residuals might prove hazardous or cause future contact with humans.
I’m guessing that argon gas can continue to be used as a fumigant.
http://dialonepestcontrol.com/pest-control/bed-bugs/luggage-treatment/
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/inertgases.pdf
The EPA has been relocated to Springfield and is now operating under the leadership of Krusty.
If they are going to ban Ar then they need to ban DHMO as well. DHMO is a very potent greenhouse gas and much more reactive then Ar. There is a huge pool of liquefied DHMO near my house which is allowed to evaporate into the air we breathe The EPA needs to completely remove that pool. N2 holds more heat in our atmosphere then any other gas. N2 is a very inefficient LWIR radiator to space so it holds heat much longer than CO2 or H2O. It is much more reactive than Ar so it should be banned too. O2 is also a poor LWIR radiator to space and even more reactive than Ar, it should be banned. People need to be protected from inhaling these terrible gases. People usually fill their tires with a mixture of gases that includes Ar. That needs to be stopped. People should also not be allowed in any structures where Ar is present..
I like to dive into pools of DHMO, preferably before they evaporate.
A friend of mine *seriously* explained to a politician the nature of Nitrogen. The politician (possibly Sweedish) thought it would be smart to pass a law banning and limiting it’s use. Somehow, the idiotic yet seemingly honest and good-willed politician genuinely believed that nitrogen was a bad thing. My friend did not know how this politician got to hold his beliefs. From what I recall (unreliably), he also thought it would increase his political capital to be seen as pro-environment.
Anthony…..Old Engineer is dead on the money. This post and resulting comments will probably define the low point for this blog and various commenters . Argon is NOT being BANNED. If you want to weld , make light bulbs, use as a propellant, make windows with it, or use for ANY PURPOSE you may; EXCEPT use as an INERT ingredient in a PESTICIDE, which I doubt you could anyway as they are all either powders or liquids.
“This is the first major step in our strategy to reduce risks from pesticides containing potentially hazardous inert ingredients.”
And has the EPA demonstrated a scenario wherein argon, for example, could be a “hazardous” inert ingredient in pesticides? Lacking a concrete example it would be time to bring in the “illegal overreach” patrol. The agency should not be allowed to define what is a permissible activity, only to proscribe environmentally hazardous activities as limited by its charter.
Sounds like the waste water standards.
The acceptable concentration of Fluoride in treated waste water is less than that in city water.
Makes treating city waste water another SNAFU.
Skimming the replies, I get the impression a lot of readers are not acquainted with pesticide regulations; this is not surprising, since the laws are pretty extensive and rarely studied (not being relevant to most people). I’ll try to provide some background.
The EPA has to approve pesticides before they can be marketed.
This includes new “formulations” (mixes of ingredients), unless all changed ingredients are on a list of inert substances.
This list was assembled decades ago, and many of the “inert substances” on the list have since been found to be “active” (ie, they can directly kill some pests).
So, the EPA has been in the process of removing the not-really-inert substances from the list.
When a substance is removed from the list, it is not banned. It “only” makes pesticide reformulations involving the substance go through EPA testing again.
It does not affect use of the substance outside pesticides.
That said, there is no reason I could think of for argon to be removed from the list. And sending a pesticide through EPA testing again can be expensive and time consuming.
Thanks for the helpful info, Ibidem. As you noted, in the best of situations, sending a pesticide through EPA testing again can be expensive and time consuming.
Unfortunately, we now have a radicalized federal government run by a man who literally taught the teachings of Alinsky. When an agency has the power to approve/disapprove an activity, you can now count on collusion between greens and embedded activists, in the form of all sorts of non-linear disruptive tactics. One such tactic used to great effect by the EPA has been “sue and settle”. Once this tactic has been employed, any entity caught in the crossfire is subject to the rulings of motivated judges or the scheming of factions within the agency, and all bets are off, especially appeals to reason.
Normally, in a free society, protection from such abuses of power would come from an aggressive and independent press. Today I would not count on it.
Does anyone know where the original list of 371 chemicals might be found?
I’m curious what’s on it, and a quick web search only showed comments about the proposal for dropping the 72.
Are we back in the Middle Age faith? The very thought that Humans are the central point in Universe and all around caused by Human’s bad actions and/or thoughts 🙂
Way past time to move the EPA away from the executive branch of government and give it to the people as represented by congress. Currently it is a political tool and is used to stick it to the people. Perhaps the next president will do the right thing here.
…Because, heaven knows that Congress never uses anything as a political tool.
Why don’t we give all the executive branch functions to Congress…We could call what remains, “the formerly-executive branch”?
Non-sequiturs.
The EPA’s remit is to protect the environment. I would like to hear an explanation, no matter how far-fetched, of how argon causes environmental problems. We need a chuckle.
The EPA is expanding far beyond its scope. That’s what happens when a bunch of complete amateurs with a devious, unstated agenda gets into power. The same incompetents who are always complaining about an Administration six years in the past are now screwing things up royally.
So expect more “blame Bush” idiocy from this group of incompetents.
Maybe the question should be why are there any inert ingredients used in pesticides. And it isn’t just pesticides.
Your average laundry or dish washer detergent, specially powder ones, are mostly inert ingredients. Consumers are paying money to cart home rubbish. Most of the active ingredient is made by Monsanto.
It’s too bad that the EPA doesn’t have the same percentage of inert ingredients, as a gallon jug of Roundup. They could use a little Roundup around the EPA.
George,
With regard to pesticides, any ingredient that isn’t directly a pest-killer or maimer is considered inert.
So, either the manufacturer just happened to have some stuff lying about and so tossed it in or he thought it might help to prevent caking or gelling or foaming.
Ibidem This might be a start
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558-0001
Did a search for argon at regulations.gov and got “1,022 results for ‘argon’ “.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=argon;fp=true;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO
Have no idea what this means…
it’s also used in those low energy light bulbs – you know the ones to replace the banned incandescent globes. Also used in double-glazed windows. It fills the spaces between the panes. So a couple of emissions reduction (sic) uses soon to be banned. Argon is also obtained commercially by the distillation of liquid air.
“hazardous inert”
What a superb oxymoron.
potentially hazardous inert ingredients.- where is our modern day age George Orwell to satirise these scientific illiterates in a novel?
It seems in the case of Obama’s EPA, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
The only thing that needs to be band as dangerous to all life on the planet is the EPA itself!
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/270917/speedreads-no-the-epa-is-not-banning-argon
Herp,
Maybe you can explain how argon affects the environment. Of all the atoms and compounds the EPA claims jurisdiction over, I cannot think of a single one that has less effect.
The EPA’s remit is to protect the environment. Do they not have to demonstrate at least some evidence of environmental harm from the use of argon?
These EPA bureaucrats seem to be astonishingly clueless. It’s as if someone just appointed pals and political supporters to cushy jobs…
…oh, wait…
Idle curiosity, how did organic halides and flammable alkanes/enes make it onto a list of “inert” substances?
wonder how many of the EPA instruments use argon in them.
Why call it the EPA, it’s an arm of the progressive liberals that are planning the destruction of prosperity for the human race. The sad part about it is the fact that 50% of the human race is below average intelligence and the mid point is dropping. 😉 So, nothing is going to change no matter what party is in control.
Steve Hill,
I am convinced that this whole agenda comes from the erstwhile Soviet Union. They have had long term plans in place, and they support anything that reduces prosperity or hobbles our economy. Just because the Berlin Wall came down means nothing; the same people are in charge. They do not like us at all, and in fact they blame us for their problems. V. Putin expertly capitalizes on that feeling, just like Obama always blames the Bush Administration.
Morality is a big target of theirs. They’ve been very successful at demonizing moral behavior, to the extent that even mentioning morality typically brings a snicker or two from the peanut gallery. Just try mentioning moral behavior to Susan B. Anthony types. They take it as a code word, and either go on the attack, or make fun of such an old-fashhioned concept. Often they do both, and it’s not limited to feminists. All low information voters presume morality is simply old timey baggage, because that is what they have been taught. Parrots like to repeat things.
I took a History class recently where we watched a newsreel from the 1930’s, in which a large mob with lots of identical printed signs reading: SMASH THE BOY SCOUTS!! was demonstrating over unemployment. I asked our [leftist] prof what that meant, and what the Boy Scouts had to do with unemployment. He laughed and said he didn’t know.
But I know. It is part of a long term plan to undermine all the good things about America. It is still going on today. The EPA’s demonization of CO2, and now it’s ridiculous scrutiny of argon, are all attacks on the country’s success. Everywhere we look we see the same thing: official attacks on whatever forms the basis of our former exceptionalism.
When you look at these events from that perspective, it’s easy to see what’s going on. The world is not filled with friendly countries. Some are simply our competitors, and that’s good. But many of them are actively working to destroy us, and that is no exaggeration. Destruction can be accomplished other than by wars, for example by ramping up the nation’s debt by 400%+, and by demonizing the Boy Scouts.
Now we have a federal department that has redirected its energy to ‘Muslim outreach’, and another that is attacking harmless substances like CO2 for no apparent reason. But there is always a reason.
My favorite on that list of “inert” ingredients: Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK).
When I was in the (US) Navy, we used to joke about this stuff. Inert would not be a good descriptor of it – it has a flash point of 16 degrees F and will dissolve anything vinyl or synthetic like no one’s business. Truly nasty stuff. Looking at it cross-eyed can make it flash over.
MEK alone could be used as a pesticide. AND it is water soluable. Hardly inert….
‘Inert’ in the context of a pesticide is defined as an ingredient which is not the ‘active’ pesticide, as such MEK qualifies. For example a can of Raid has Pyrmethrin, pyrethrins and piperonyl butoxide as active ingredients and as inert ingredients: petroleum distillates.
Oh, look, it’s Phil again. The ‘expert’ on everything. ☺
What would Phil. do without the internet?
When will stealey post anything meaningful?
I have worked with Argon on plenty of occasions, even made chemical compounds with it.