Posted on 10/29/2014 6:50:04 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE
This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “noble” cause corruption. Documentation follows.
From 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. See details 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.
A spoof?
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.
EPA-argon-list
The full list: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558
Is that sort of like, why they call them NEON tubes?
They are trying to ban welding!
Nothing but mild steel can be welded without Argon.
.
“Isn’t argon used in most double and triple-paned glass windows? And in the vaccuum tubes still used in some electric guitar amps?”
No and no. Windows use nitrogen and vacuum tubes ideally have no gas in them.
“Argon is used in neon lighting too.”
No it’s not...
Uh, yes it is. By neon of course I mean the general category of lighting. Don’t nitpick on some technicality that neon is not the gas used in every situation.
“If I recall correctly, it’s red.”
No...
Neon has the famous bright orange glow, argon is a deep purple, nitrogen is a reddish purple.
Yep, the same naming principle applies :-).
“No...”
You’re right!
It’s been 40 years since I worked for a company that made neon dance floors. We used three tubes in each floor channel; Red,Yellow, and Blue. So, depending on which tubes we lit, we got Red/Yellow/Blue/Orange/Purple/Green. All three tubes lit was a fugly color we called Burple! Fun company to work for! Met a lot of lovely cocktail waitresses!
“For instance, voltage-regulator tubes contain various inert gases such as argon, helium or neon, which will ionize at predictable voltages.”
There used to be voltage regulator tubes 50 years ago... They were not vacuum tubes though. And they weren’t used in TVs though. Except for antiques, the only vacuum tube we use today as consumers are the magnetron in your microwave oven.
There are a few exceptions to this, for instance some audio buffs think tube amplifiers sound better. They still use traveling wave tubes but most of that has switched over to semiconductors. Some radio transmitters still use them.
“Some special purpose tubes” - rare and neither audio amplifier tubes nor “vacuum” tubes. And what you experienced was more likely implosion, not explosion.
The typical amplifier triode has a heated cathode - the glow you see and which emits a stream of thermionic electrons - a plate (anode), and inbetween a grid which “regulates” the amount of electrons which reach the plate. A small (music) signal is applied to the grid which controls the (larger) cathode-to-plate current - bingo! amplification! (To drive a loudspeaker usually a transformer is used to convert the high-voltage/low-current signal of the tube to a low-voltage/high-current signal able to drive the speaker.) The presence of *any* gases in the tube would inhibit the flow of electrons from the cathode to the plate and you’d be looking for a replacement. Well, that’s the basic principle.
The EPA should be threatened with a close down
Thanks Robert A. Cook, PE.
It isn’t about argon, or about safety, or about the environment, it is about power.
Has Obama sold out to the Chinese?
Actually, high powered “audiophile” amplifiers manufactured today still use the 6L6GC vacuum tube, and they are very expensive! But they do not use any inert gas whatsoever.
>> “Has Obama sold out to the Chinese?” <<
.
In union with Bill Clinton, and George W Bush.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.