No methyl iodide on our food

California is on the verge of approving a potent carcinogenic gas for use on strawberry fields and other food crops. The chemical -- methyl iodide -- is so toxic that scientists in labs use only small amounts with special protective equipment, yet agricultural applications mean it could be released directly into the air and water.

On April 30, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation proposed that the state approve use of methyl iodide for agricultural purposes, despite ongoing outcry from prominent scientists and the general public. Arysta LifeScience, a manufacturer of the chemical and the world's largest privately-held pesticide company, has invested in a substantial lobbying campaign to gain approval in one of the world's most productive agricultural regions.

Methyl iodide has been subject to ongoing controversy in its approval process. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved methyl iodide for agricultural use in 2007, amid criticism from more than 50 prominent scientists that the process was hidden from public view and the research focus was too limited. California followed with its own review. Even though a report from an independent panel of scientists in the California study declared that "methyl iodide is a highly toxic chemical and we expect that any anticipated scenario for the agricultural or structural fumigation use of this agent would result in exposures to a large number of the public and thus would have a significant adverse impact on public health," the Department of Pesticide Regulation nonetheless proposed that the chemical be approved.

There is little to debate about methyl iodide's toxicity. It is a known neurotoxin, disrupts thyroid function, damages developing fetuses, and has caused lung tumors in laboratory animals. California already classifies it as a human carcinogen. Fumigating fields with the gas -- even with the strictest regulations -- would no doubt still result in unacceptable exposures to farmworkers and and surrounding populations.

We have one last chance to stop methyl iodide from being used on our food. The DPR is accepting public comments on it's proposal through June 14. Submit your comment today and send the incontrovertible message that we don't want the public or our food exposed to this poison.

Harmful chemicals in our environment that never get reported

My bold:

The 33-year old law that was supposed to ensure that Americans know what chemicals are in use around them, and what health and safety hazards they might pose, has produced a regulatory black hole, a place where information goes in – but much never comes out.

The reason is that under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the chemical industry has been allowed to stamp a “trade secret” claim on the identity of two-thirds of all chemicals introduced to the market in the last 27 years, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis of data obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These include substances used in numerous consumer and children’s products.

EWG’s analysis also showed that:

* The public has no access to any information about approximately 17,000 of the more than 83,000 chemicals on the master inventory compiled by the EPA.
* Industry has placed “confidential business information” (CBI) claims on the identity of 13,596 new chemicals produced since 1976 – nearly two-thirds of the 20,403 chemicals added to the list in the past 33 years.
* Secrecy claims directly threaten human health. Under section 8(e) of TSCA, companies must turn over all data showing that a chemical presents “a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” By definition compounds with 8(e) filings are the chemicals of the greatest health concern. In the first eight months of 2009 industry concealed the identity of the chemicals in more than half the studies submitted under 8(e).
* From 1990 to 2005, the number of confidential chemicals more than quadrupled – from 261 to 1,105 -- on the sub-inventory of substances produced or imported in significant amounts (more than 25,000 pounds a year in at least one facility). In July 2009 the EPA released the identity of 530 of these chemicals, lowering the number of these moderate- and highproduction volume secret chemicals to 575.
* At least 10 of the 151 high volume confidential chemicals produced or imported in amounts greater than 300,000 pounds a year are used in products specifically intended for use by children age 14 or younger.

More:

Americans have no way to learn crucial information about more than 65 percent of new chemicals approved by the U.S. government since 1977, including the substances’ makeup and what health and safety hazards they might pose. Those “details” are being kept secret under federal policies that allow industry to claim that the chemicals’ very existence is a trade secret, the Environmental Working Group has learned.

This cloak of secrecy applies even to chemicals that industry identifies as presenting “a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” Under the law, companies must tell EPA anytime they find such a risk. EWG has learned, however, that in the first quarter of this year, industry used confidentiality claims to conceal the identity of more than half the chemicals it reported to Environmental Protection Agency under this requirement.

Since the EPA began keeping an inventory of known chemicals under the weak Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the number of agents declared to be “confidential” has ballooned to nearly 17,000, according to the information the agency provided.

And the Washington Post:

Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States -- from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners -- nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.

The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry. But critics -- including the Obama administration -- say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.

At a time of increasing public demand for more information about chemical exposure, pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy. Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation.

Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line.

Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.

Some companies have successfully argued that the federal government should not only keep the names of their chemicals secret but also hide from public view the identities and addresses of the manufacturers.

h/t to Lisa Frack of the Enviroblog.

(Note: I can't label specifics until I get my tags under 5000.... very frustrating and time consuming. So I can't label the TSCA, the EWG, and others... yet.)

When you have nothing to lose

You apparently show the nation you don't give a shit:

The Environmental Protection Agency is working on new clean air rules that would allow coal-fired power plants to be built closer to national parks.

It's part of an effort by the Bush administration to put looser environmental regulations in place before leaving office.

*cough* Thanks, Georgie. We'll *cough* be thinking of you after you're gone.

Wait a second.... Just what have you been putting in my food?

And why on earth would we take the word of a corporation during the Bush era?

Institute, WV (AHN) - An explosion at a West Virginia chemical plant Thursday night killed one worker while critically injuring another and produced a fireball seen 12 miles away in Charleston.

The explosion at the Bayer CropScience chemical plant in Institute happened at about 10:30 p.m.

A Bayer official told Kanawha County officials that the three chemicals involved in the explosion were dimethyl disulfide, methylisobutylketone and hexane.

[snip]

Methomyl is is a highly toxic compound in EPA toxicity class I, classified as a restricted use pesticide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency because of its high acute toxicity to humans, according to a pesticide information profile on the Cornell University website.

Because Methomyl is poisonous to humans, affecting the nervous system through inhalation, as well as contact, when it is used on crops, farm workers are not allowed back into the field for one to seven days depending on the crop.

Methomyl is used on "vegetable, fruit and field crops, cotton, commercial ornamentals, and in and around poultry houses and dairies," and works by inhibiting the proper functioning of the nervous system of insects, according to information from Cornell University.

Officials say no toxic chemicals have been released outside the plant, according to local reports.

You'll have to put white duct tape all over this post

Because Preznit Bush said there's no global warming and what he says is law:

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - An Environmental Protection Agency chief was given a warning against the potential rejection of California's proposal to enforce it's own carbon emission laws, as doing so would compromise the EPA's credibility, eventually calling for the chief's resignation.

The warning, sent out by Margot Oge, head of the agency's office of transportation and air quality, was directed to EPA Director Stephen Johnson, who was also informed that despite opposing claims, barring California's intentions to enact its own environmental laws had no legal or technical basis.

The documents were among the findings uncovered upon submission of EPA records released Tuesday upon the request of California Sen. Barbara Boxer.

[snip]

The submitted records were in relation to California's ongoing push to enact its own laws regarding greenhouse emission standards, which 16 states have showed intentions of backing up and eventually adopting for their own areas.

[snip]

The LA Times reported that another document showed EPA staff insisting on California's vulnerability to global warming consequences, running counter to Johnson's statement that the state had no "compelling and extraordinary conditions" to earn it its own tailpipe law.

Johnson was accused of making decisions while being swayed by political pressures, an allegation which he denied.

But Johnson is truly a loyal Bushie:

Johnson’s injection of President Bush’s politics into science is notorious. Earlier this year, he censored documents with white duct tape on the EPA’s decision-making process on the California waiver. Asked whether global warming was “a major crisis” facing the world, Johnson replied, “I don’t know what you mean by major crisis.”

Ironically, Boxer said today that the documents revealed an EPA “in crisis.”

Global warming? What global warming? There's no global warming! Ohhhh... THAT global warming...

Hot water from the tap should never be used for cooking or drinking.

Oh. Wow. Thanks:

Lead is rarely found in source water, but can enter it through corroded plumbing. The Environmental Protection Agency says that older homes are more likely to have lead pipes and fixtures, but that even newer plumbing advertised as “lead-free” can still contain as much as 8 percent lead. A study published in The Journal of Environmental Health in 2002 found that tap water represented 14 to 20 percent of total lead exposure.

Scientists emphasize that the risk is small. But to minimize it, the E.P.A. says cold tap water should always be used for preparing baby formula, cooking and drinking. It also warns that boiling water does not remove lead but can actually increase its concentration.

So... don't drink the hot water while you are showering?

And how do you check for lead in your house? Low grades at the elementary school? Are we poisoning our kids by making them drink water? Do they have a test that enables people to check their water supply? WTF?

He'd rather be sued by California than by the auto industries?

WASHINGTON — Environmental Protection Agency head Stephen Johnson was told by staffers that California had a compelling case for the federal Clean Air Act waiver that he later denied and that the agency was likely to lose in court if sued, Sen. Barbara Boxer said Wednesday.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar didn't dispute Boxer's conclusions, based on a Senate committee investigation.

"Her staff has been shown all the information unfiltered," Shradar said. "What this shows is that the administrator was provided a wide range of opinions upon which to make his decision. He feels he made the right decision."

Johnson's denial of the waiver stopped California from moving ahead with its tough laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Sixteen other states were prepared to follow California's lead had the waiver been issued.

Boxer, D-Calif., heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is investigating the EPA's rejection of the waiver. Under the Clean Air Act, California is the only state that can obtain a waiver allowing it to have tougher emission standards than those imposed by the federal government. But once the waiver is granted, other states can adopt similar rules.

[snip]

Investigators were permitted to look at the full documents and take notes from them, however. At a news conference Wednesday, Boxer released excerpts from the notes showing that EPA staffers apparently believed that California had a solid case for the waiver.

The notes quoted Johnson's briefing memo as saying that the agency was likely to be sued regardless of what decision it reached. The memo said that the EPA was "almost certain to win" if a lawsuit was brought by the auto industry because the waiver had been granted and that the EPA was "likely to lose" a suit brought by California if the waiver was denied.

So... ignoring the added pollution to a state fighting a losing battle with a burgeoning driving population, it was easier to side with the auto manufacturers? Really? Nothing to do with supporting corporations over common sense? Nothing to do with Republican indifference to human suffering? How would letting auto makers make more gas guzzling polluting cars help anyone in the end? They'd rather sue the EPA than go back to the designs they had during the 70s when some cars had 30 to 40 mpg ratings?

The next car I buy will be a fuel efficient one. That means car buyers like me will go to Japanese or other foreign cars. Which hurts the US auto industry. Which apparently they are unable to understand.

Just an hilarious side story: We get several paper deliveries up and down our street, The Los Angeles Times and the local Daily Bulletin, a few New York Times. Usually these papers are thrown out of the windows of old cars in the early morning onto our driveways.

But some nut is driving ... a Hummer ... to deliver papers. A HUMMER.

Words fail me...

Barbara Boxer takes the EPA to task

Tell EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to explain why he denied California's waiver request!

Recently, I chaired a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee field hearing in Los Angeles to investigate why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a request from California and 18 other states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.

Despite our invitation, EPA Administrator Johnson refused to attend the hearing and explain why, over the unanimous recommendations of technical and legal staffers at the agency, he denied California's common-sense waiver request. He has also failed to respond to the Committee's demand that the EPA release all documents pertaining to the agency's decision.

Join 17,030 Americans and email EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson now: Demand that he release all the documents surrounding his decision to reject California's waiver request!

Bush demands that California pollute more

The Bush administration's decision to deny California permission to regulate and reduce global warming emissions from cars and trucks is an indefensible act of executive arrogance that can only be explained as the product of ideological blindness and as a political payoff to the automobile industry.

The decision, announced Wednesday by Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, overrode the advice of his legal and technical staffs, misconstrued the law and defied both Congress and the federal courts. It also stuck a thumb in the eyes of 17 other state governors who have grown impatient with the federal government's failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and wanted to move aggressively on their own.

The Clean Air Act of 1970 gave California authority to set its own clean air standards if it first received a federal waiver. The law also said that other states could then adopt California's standards. In 2004, California asked permission to move ahead with a law requiring automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and light trucks by 30 percent by 2016. That would require improvements in fuel economy far beyond those called for in the energy bill signed this week.

Over the years, California has made 50 waiver requests to regulate smog-forming pollutants and other gases and has never been denied. This was the first request involving emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to regulate.

Hmmm. Bush doesn't really seem sincere about global warming and alternate energy sources, does he? How strange....

There goes FEMA's plan

Of gassing the poor to death:


(photo taken from article.)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency since early 2006 has suppressed warnings from its own field workers about health problems experienced by hurricane victims living in government-provided trailers with levels of a toxic chemical 75 times the recommended maximum for U.S. workers, congressional lawmakers said yesterday.

A trail of e-mails obtained by investigators shows that the agency's lawyers rejected a proposal for systematic testing of the levels of potentially cancer-causing formaldehyde gas in the trailers, out of concern that the agency would be legally liable for any hazards or health problems. As many as 120,000 families displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita lived in the suspect trailers, and hundreds have complained of ill effects.

[snip]

FEMA tested new trailers last September and October after rejecting more stringent standards suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency, Waxman said. In May, the agency reported finding formaldehyde in those trailers at 1.2 parts per million, but it said levels dropped to 0.3 parts per million after four days of ventilation.

FEMA said that met a standard used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for its manufactured homes. But Paulison said yesterday that FEMA now recognizes that ventilating trailers is impractical during the Gulf Coast's summer heat and humidity. Lawmakers noted that FEMA issued the advice at the beginning of last summer.

Mary C. DeVany, an occupational health and safety engineer advising the Sierra Club, testified that the exposure limit of 0.3 parts per million is 400 times the normal limit for year-round exposure set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. DeVany called the move a "misapplication and skewing of scientific results . . . to minimize adverse health effects."

Who made money on this deal? Follow the money and you'll find one of Bush's fat cronies. Make him pay it back. All of it.

Update: Eli of Multi Medium has more on why FEMA decided not to test for formaldehyde in the trailers.

Gropenator Ahnold

Is doing at least one thing right, pushing California to be green. The recent California fires:

...to Linda Adams, who heads California's Environmental Protection Agency, it is only a sign of things to come.

"We can expect a lot more of this. More fires, more drought. This is global warming," says Ms Adams.

While the administration of President George W Bush has been accused of wilfully ignoring climate change, the State of California has already taken unilateral action.

[snip]

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has charged Ms Adams with implementing what she calls "the most comprehensive law in the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions".

She is referring to Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), or the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed last year by California's Democratic-led assembly, with the backing of the governor, a Republican.

[snip]

The legislation obliges California to cut emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. Work has begun on quantifying the level of emissions, after which a cap will be enforced, and industries will be able to buy and sell permits allowing a certain amount of pollution.

[snip]

While California's law has yet to be implemented fully, it is already being used as a template for nationwide action that American environmentalists hope will turn their country from a laggard on climate change, to a leader.

Fabian Nunez, the speaker of California's state parliament, says that was exactly the intention.

"If you look at Congress and the White House you would think that climate change is not a big issue with Americans, but that is false. The growing awareness about climate change across America has been incredible," he says.

"The intent for us when we passed AB32 was not only our commitment to California; there is a sense of state activism.

"When you look around and see that our president has essentially turned a blind eye to the issue of climate change, it raises a lot of concerns. So we wanted to help put the pressure on the federal government, and we think that's worked quite well thus far.

Update: Other things Ahnold is not doing so well.

Cookie Jill from skippy the bush kangaroo:

gov. seeks to cut mental services for homeless

a nationally lauded program that has helped thousands of mentally ill homeless men and women break the cycle of psychiatric hospitalization, jail time and street life is now on gov. arnold schwarzenegger's list of budget cuts.

Toxic indifference from the White House

Toxic World Trade Center dust is linked to sarcoidosis:

Rescue workers and firefighters in New York City contracted a serious lung-scarring disease called sarcoidosis at a much higher rate after the Sept. 11 attacks than before, said a study that is the first to link the disease to exposure to toxic dust at Ground Zero.

The study, published by nine doctors including the medical officer monitoring city firefighters, Dr. David Prezant, found that firefighters and rescue workers contracted sarcoidosis in the year after Sept. 11, 2001, at a rate more than five times higher than the years before the attacks.

Unlike previous studies that have linked exposure to the toxic dust cloud that enveloped lower Manhattan after the World Trade Center's collapse to many different respiratory illnesses, this study zeroes in on one disease.

Sarcoidosis, which can be life-threatening, causes an inflammation in the lungs that deposits tiny cells in the organs, leaving scar tissues that damage them. Several rescue workers and others exposed to WTC dust have claimed they contracted the disease from their work at Ground Zero.

Just remember:

NEW YORK -- In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

How many times must we be shown the Bush administration is indifferent to US citizens? ... Hell, indifferent to humanity?

Present day Noah's Ark

The Italians have the right idea:

ROME, April 6 (UPI) -- Italian environmentalists are drafting a plan to protect the country's biodiversity.

The World Wide Fund for Nature and the Environmental Protection Agency are working together on the plan, which will be used to protect Italian plants, animals and ecosystems.

The two groups will focus on key "eco-regions" -- the Alps and the Mediterranean -- ANSA reported. The Alps, one of the last surviving natural areas in central Europe, are home to 13,000 plants and 30,000 animals.

The WWF says the Mediterranean has 25,000 plants, 62 species of amphibians and 179 kinds of reptiles.

The WWF is coordinating Italy's efforts with groups from Germany, Austria and Switzerland to protect areas that cross international borders. ANSA said 20 different groups are targeting the Mediterranean region.

A recent report said over 45 percent of Italy's vertebrates, 40 percent of its plants and 30 percent of its natural environments are threatened.

As do the Norwegians:

Norway is building a Doomsday bunker that has every known crop seed in the world.

So... will we stop denying the coming catastrophe or continue trying to ignore it?

The {UN} report claims that global warming will lead to desertification, droughts and rising seas and that those living in the tropics will be the worst hit -- from sub-Saharan Africa to the Pacific islands. Billions could face water shortages, and ocean levels might rise for centuries to come. It could lead to a sharp drop in crop yields in Africa and bring heatwaves to Europe and North America. Europe's Alpine glaciers will disappear and much of the coral that comprises Australia's Great Barrier Reef will die from bleaching.
The scientific conclusions -- based on 29,000 sets of data -- also said that up to 30 percent of the Earth's species faced a higher risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in the 1980s and '90s. "The urgency of this report prepared by the world's top scientists should be matched by an equally urgent response from governments," said Hans Verolme, director of the global climate change program at the conservation organization WWF. "Doing nothing is not an option."