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)
We use a lot of argon in semiconductor fabrication. In fact it is vital to implant processes. Most low-power, high speed switching on which our current tech survives depends on implant. Your smartphone, your computer, your anti-lock brakes, your medical devices, your pollution control systemss all depend on argon-based implant technology to make it work.
The EPA seems to want to turn back the clock to the early 70’s. Smog-filled skies will be the norm in all cities again, giving the EPA someone to punish while they kill the technology needed to clean up the mess.
And, there seem to be plenty of people who are misled into believing that the answer was YES. Brian’s statement is a perfect example. He is stressing about the fact that argon is used in semiconductor fabrication as if the EPA’s action has anything whatsoever to do with this.
It’s not much different from a ban in that you can’t include argon in your pesticide, whereas, before,
you could.
If you do seek approval for a pesticide with argon as an ingredient, you won’t receive a special dispensation, you’ll have to wait for them to re-evaluate the substance and then it will be put back on the approved list.
It will, so to speak, see the ban lifted and everyone will be permitted to include it to their hearts’ content. I would do it myself if I could figure out how.
There is the wider issue of how and why this all came about and why the EPA now considers the science of inert ingredients in pesticides not settled.
It’s way different from a ban.
One difference is that the rule only applies to the use of argon in pesticides (for which it is currently NOT even being used), hence making Brian Epps comment, the statement in the original post that “But Argon is incredibly useful to industry – among other things, is used as a “shield” gas”, and many other comments completely irrelevant. I would say that is a pretty huge difference.
A second difference is that usually when people ban something, they don’t first check to see if anybody is using it beforehand. They are only removing ingredients from their pre-approved list if these ingredients are not currently being used in any pesticide formulation. That’s a pretty strange way to go about banning something.
A third difference is that I tend to think of a ban as being a bit stronger than, “You have to get our permission to use this rather than just using it without having to get any approval whatsoever.” If you tell your teenage child that they have to get your permission before they take you car, I don’t think this would constitute a ban on their using your car.
As for your description of how the approval process works: I can’t say your description is definitely incorrect but it is not obvious to me from their description that it is correct either. How did you come to this conclusion that this is how it works?
I agree that the argon for welding etc. is a red herring.
Plenty of substances are banned from use in food products, but allowed in non-food applications. Cavilling over this is as uninteresting as the semiconductor thing.
“EPA is taking this action in response to petitions by the Center for Environmental Health, Beyond Pesticides, Physicians for Social Responsibility and others.”
So, it wasn’t that the list of approved inert ingredients was screaming for revision, it was some focus groups clamoring for inclusion of all ingredients on labels. As has been pointed out, that wasn’t so straight-forward so a different approach was taken.
It was seen that 72 substances could be removed from the approved list without hindering the manufacturers, since they weren’t being used anyhow. This might mollify the focus groups and buy some time to deal with the actual dilemma; what to do with the ingredients that are being used but whose safe use has been questioned.
The irony is that each substance remaining on the list must now be individually re-assessed in order to remain approved.
In the meantime, constraints will not be put on their use until they fail to meet the new standard.
You find my description of the approval process suspect, but, if you imagine for a minute, a product by product approval for all inert ingredients would be worse than cumbersome. It really is not like handing Junior the car keys.
The existence of a list of approved ingredients indicates a general acceptance and the fact that the whole list wasn’t scrapped suggests they have no intention of changing that.
The question still remains:
What possible concern can the ‘environmental protection’ agency have with argon??
They are wasting taxpayer assets even more than ‘climate studies’ funding does — anbd that’s saying a lot.
The people defending the EPA here are few and far between. About in line with the proportion of lunatics in society.
Also about in line with the proportion of people here who are willing to read the actual EPA documents (rather than merely relying unskeptically on what somebody tells them the EPA is doing because that is what they want to hear).
Why don’t you read the EPA letter to the petitioners and learn what they are doing and their rationale for doing it? It’s right here: http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=09000064818b04e7&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf [PDF file]
Of course, I know you won’t do so because doing so takes a lot more energy than sniping from the sidelines and it also entails the risk of having some of your ideologically-driven beliefs challenged.
As usual, misdirection and lame thinking.
WHAT possible concern does the EPA have with regulating argon? That would mean argon affects the environment, when any educated person knows that argon has a hard time affecting anything.
Did I say lame thinking?
Add: lunatic thinking by someone who sees “ideology” in everything.
Sadly predictable. Yes, it is misdirection to actually suggest that you READ their justification for what they are doing when you can instead just harp on it based on your own ignorance of what they are doing and why.
Joeldshore:
The EPA is a political tool fit to the hand of the present administration and adhere to the policy of fostering alarmism for political ends.
The whole organization is suspect. I am an environmentalist but I have seen too many environmental scams fostered by the authorities. How eloquently you defend the huge, bumbling capricious beauracracy. But I see it differently.
Still waiting for any credible reason why the environmental protection agency needs to protect the environment from an inert trace gas.
Anything other commentary — especially politics — is deflection.
In the 1970’s we used MEK to clean the surface of aircraft fuel bladders during assembly. That was some nasty stuff.
Brian Epps, the EPA is already increasing smog filled skies in our cities by the mandated use of ethanol in our motor fuels. I read a study a while back in Brazil that showed a 20% increase in ozone pollution when using ethanol as a motor fuel vs gasoline.
Ethanol in gasoline use in the US was mandated by an Act of Congress which was signed by Pres Bush in 2007, not the EPA.
Reblogged this on Flying Tiger Comics and commented:
A story NOT from the Onion…
Does EPA know the damage oxygen does? When they realize it, look out.
I am old enough to remember when the “noble gases” were called “inert gases”, a more meaningful name even if not 100% accurate since, as the article mentioned, it is possible to get them to react with certain other chemicals under exotic conditions.
If they do intend to ban argon will they ban the other inert or noble gases too? If not, why not?
Their ignorance and stupidity knows no bounds.
“While the aerospace industry is one of the primary users of gas tungsten arc welding, the process is used in a number of other areas…….Because the resulting welds have the same chemical integrity as the original base metal or match the base metals more closely, GTAW welds are highly resistant to corrosion and cracking over long time periods, GTAW is the welding procedure of choice for critical welding operations like sealing spent nuclear fuel canisters before burial.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tungsten_arc_welding
And, this is relevant to argon in pesticides how exactly?
And, argon is relevant to environmental protection how, exactly?
It’s simpler than all that. Like they’re attacking coal, oil, and natural gas, they’re also attacking pesticides. The goal is to get global food production down to levels that will result in global warming being blamed for food shortages and famine.
joelshore,
You need to learn how to pick your battles. Is this really the hill you want to die on?
The EPA’s remit is environmental protection. What danger is argon to the environment? Are there not lots of other things more dangerous — as in, ‘everything else’?
Jaakko Kateenkorva, I recall that somebody interviewed Greenies, at a conference somewhere in the US, to check whether they were prepared to ban Dihydrogen oxide. They were overwhelmingly in favour of a ban. I think I saw that here on wattsupwiththat.com, but a good few years ago, so you may need to trawl the archives, to find it.
As for that mentality, though? No trawling needed. It’s on public display, every day.
Part of the Penn and Teller “Bullshit” series….
There seems to be a pattern regarding the regulations being proposed.
Kill industry (jobs).
Reduce available electrical power.
Reduce available heating oil.
Don’t restrict travel of people infected with deadly diseases.
Reduce the availability of medical insurance and affordability.
Some scary folks are running the show for now.
(1) How do you kill industry jobs by removing from a list of PRE-APPROVED chemicals for a certain specific use only those chemicals that are no longer being used for this purpose, with outreach done to be sure that the list only contains substances not being used by industry?
(2) I don’t see any shortages of electrical power or heating oil.
(3) In regards to medical insurance, I wouldn’t want to let actual data interfere with your ideology, but here’s a bit for you anyway:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/172403/uninsured-rate-sinks-second-quarter.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Healthcare
http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/Number-of-Uninsured-Adults-Continues-to-Fall.html
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2014/jul/Health-Coverage-Access-ACA
http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/survey-estimates-net-gain-of-9-3-million-american-adults.html
joeldshore:
quick reply on the medical issue, as one example:
Bronze plan, the folks who can afford it the least, higher costs for drugs.
So okay, they have insurance now, they just can’t afford to use it.
But you’re right, the have insurance, sort of.
http://www.healthpocket.com/healthcare-research/infostat/obamacare-expands-drug-coverage-but-out-of-pocket-expenses-go-up/?_ga_variation=1&utm_expid=60784014-14.Zlx56I0SQAqKSdO9tJpZVg.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fisearch.avg.com%2Fpages%2Fabt%2Fsps4%2Fsearch.aspx%3Fq%3Dnot%2Busing%2Binsurance%2Bdue%2Bto%2Bout%2Bof%2Bpocket%2Bexpenses%26cid%3D%257bB755E210-4E13-42B9-816B-0294ED70722C%257d%26mid%3Da466ee90e67847d096d0d154345a4dc4-06ce4fc639803a2e3563922518183d8e94088cb9%26lang%3Den%26ds%3DAVG%26pr%3Dpr%26d%3D2012-07-05%2B14%253a23%253a23%26v%3D15.3.0.11%26pid%3Davg%26sg%3D0%26sap%3Ddsp%26tc%3Dtest3%26snd%3Dpg%26pagenum%3D3%26sap_acp%3D0#.VFOgBGR0xpg
Jim:
If you read your own link, you will see that it is hardly the clear-cut issue that you make it out to be. That very article notes that “The Obamacare requirement to include drug coverage as a standard benefit will expand the population receiving insurance assistance with drug costs. In the existing individual and family health insurance market, nearly one out of five health plans do not include prescription drug coverage.”
Yes, it looks like in the bronze plans, the out-of-pocket expenses for prescriptions would be higher in many cases than plans in the pre-Obamacare market that did cover drug costs. But, that is the deal with having different tiers of plans. And, that very article also makes the very important point: “People whose income is at or below 250% of the Federal Poverty Level will qualify for cost-sharing reductions if they enroll in a Silver Plan.” So, the idea is to encourage people to get a higher-tier plan than the bare-bones minimum of the bronze plan by offering subsidies for them if necessary.
Look, one cannot design ANY change of the insurance system that is going to leave 100% of the people better off in all possible cases. However, the goal is to overall help those who are most in need (both in terms of finances and in terms of having pre-existing conditions that make their health care costs very higher), and the data on sharply dropping number of uninsured people and other data seem quite positive in that regard.
Not sure if it has been mentioned. Argon is produced industrially by the fractional distillation of liquid air
since the atmosphere contains about 1% and therefore it is easy to separate for use.
So what is the big deal? Remove it from the air so as to use it for a good purpose and then return it back to the atmosphere. Result is amount in atmosphere remains the same. Go figure!
Since compressed air contains 1% argon, compressed air is now a pollutant.
Retards.
My guess is that the bureaucrat compiling this list majored in Art History.