Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

EPA

Let's get back to normalcy. Does normalcy fit into your schedule?
Post Reply
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

EPA

#1

Post by RTH10260 »

:( thank you Obama
E.P.A. Approved Toxic Chemicals for Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show
The compounds can form PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” which have been linked to cancer and birth defects. The E.P.A. approvals came despite the agency’s own concerns about toxicity.

By Hiroko Tabuchi
July 12, 2021 Updated 9:48 a.m. ET

For much of the past decade, oil companies engaged in drilling and fracking have been allowed to pump into the ground chemicals that, over time, can break down into toxic substances known as PFAS — a class of long-lasting compounds known to pose a threat to people and wildlife — according to internal documents from the Environmental Protection Agency.

The E.P.A. in 2011 approved the use of these chemicals, used to ease the flow of oil from the ground, despite the agency’s own grave concerns about their toxicity, according to the documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times. The E.P.A.’s approval of the three chemicals wasn’t previously publicly known.

The records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by a nonprofit group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, are among the first public indications that PFAS, long-lasting compounds also known as “forever chemicals,” may be present in the fluids used during drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

In a consent order issued for the three chemicals on Oct. 26, 2011, E.P.A. scientists pointed to preliminary evidence that, under some conditions, the chemicals could “degrade in the environment” into substances akin to PFOA, a kind of PFAS chemical, and could “persist in the environment” and “be toxic to people, wild mammals, and birds.” The E.P.A. scientists recommended additional testing. Those tests were not mandatory and there is no indication that they were carried out.

“The E.P.A. identified serious health risks associated with chemicals proposed for use in oil and gas extraction, and yet allowed those chemicals to be used commercially with very lax regulation,” said Dusty Horwitt, researcher at Physicians for Social Responsibility.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/clim ... icals.html
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: EPA

#2

Post by AndyinPA »

Not the slightest bit surprised.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

Re: EPA

#3

Post by RTH10260 »

E.P.A. to Block Pesticide Tied to Neurological Harm in Children
The agency will reverse a Trump-era decision to keep chlorpyrifos, one of the most common pesticides, in use.

By Coral Davenport
Aug. 18, 2021 Updated 4:20 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it is banning a common pesticide, widely used since 1965 on fruits and vegetables, from use on food crops because it has been linked to neurological damage in children.

The Environmental Protection Agency said this week it would publish a regulation to block the use of chlorpyrifos on food. One of the most widely used pesticides, chlorpyrifos is commonly applied to corn, soybeans, apples, broccoli, asparagus and other produce.

The new rule, which will take effect in six months, follows an order in April by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that directed the E.P.A. to halt the agricultural use of the chemical unless it could demonstrate its safety.

Labor and environmental advocacy groups estimate that the decision will eliminate more than 90 percent of chlorpyrifos use in the country.

In an unusual move, the new chlorpyrifos policy will not be put in place via the standard regulatory process, under which the E.P.A. first publishes a draft rule, then takes public comment before publishing a final rule. Rather, in compliance with the court order, which noted that the science linking chlorpyrifos to brain damage is over a decade old, the rule will be published in final form, without a draft or public comment period.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/clim ... rifos.html
Uninformed
Posts: 2095
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:13 pm
Location: England

Re: EPA

#4

Post by Uninformed »

If you can't lie to yourself, who can you lie to?
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Re: EPA

#5

Post by AndyinPA »

Good for him!
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

EPA

#6

Post by RTH10260 »

Trump appointees interfered to weaken EPA assessment of toxic chemical
Watchdog finds PFBS toxicity value was altered in 2021 report, as scientists say episode part of ‘larger rot at the agency’

Tom Perkins
Thu 23 Mar 2023 09.00 GMT

Trump administration appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) meddled in agency science to weaken the toxicity assessment of a dangerous chemical, a new report by the US body’s internal watchdog has found.

In response to what it labeled “political interference”, the Biden administration in February 2021 pulled the assessment, republished it months later using what it said is sound science, and declared it had resolved the issue.

But EPA scientists who spoke to the Guardian say several employees willingly worked with the Trump appointees to weaken the assessment, and they were never reprimanded or fired.

The scientists say the controversy is part of a deeper problem afflicting the EPA: industry influence on career staff, and an unwillingness from the EPA to address it.

“The issue is part of the larger rot at the agency of career staff working with industry to weaken the EPA,” a current agency scientist familiar with the situation said. The scientist did not use their name for fear of reprisal.

The controversy centered around a 2021 toxicity report for PFBS, a type of PFAS compound that is toxic at low levels. Research has linked the chemical to kidney disease, reproductive problems and thyroid damage, and it has been found throughout the environment, including in an estimated 860,000 Americans’ drinking water.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” due to their longevity in the environment, and are a growing health hazard.

In its recent report, the EPA’s office of inspector general described “unprecedented” interference by former Trump-appointed EPA chief Andrew Wheeler and other political appointees, who ordered the alteration of the PFBS toxicity value just as the assessment was about to be published in late 2020. The revised assessment went live just four days before Trump left office in 2021.




https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... pfbs-toxic
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

EPA

#7

Post by RTH10260 »

NOT from the EPA but fits here
Toxic PFAS not necessary to make fabric stain repellent, study finds
Research found that ‘forever chemicals’ had ‘no practical benefit’ in repelling water and stains as compared with untreated fabric

Tom Perkins
Fri 7 Apr 2023 11.00 BST

A new peer-reviewed study calls into question how well PFAS-based products repel water and stains in furniture, shoes, clothing, carpeting, outdoor gear and other consumer goods made of fabric.

Most water and stain repellents applied to fabrics worldwide use toxic PFAS as a main ingredient, and though the controversial chemicals are in thousands of products, water and stain repellency are two of their main consumer functions.

The study, which did not name brands, compared the performances of furniture fabric treated with PFAS to untreated fabric. It found the types of fabric, wear and how consumers manage stains to be much more important in determining how well fabrics repelled water and stains, and the study’s authors characterized PFAS as having “no practical benefit”.

“It was surprising to us that it was so clear, but the reason we did the study is because we had been talking with textile manufacturers who said PFAS don’t make much difference, but nobody had studied it scientifically,” said Carol Kwiatkowski, a co-author and senior science and policy associate with Green Science Policy Institute, the non-profit behind the study.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 14,000 chemicals often used to make products resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down, and are linked to cancer, liver problems, thyroid issues, birth defects, kidney disease, decreased immunity and other serious health problems.

PFAS on treated fabric can break off and end up in indoor air, attach to dust, or be dermally absorbed, and the pollution is especially a problem for homes with small children. The product is commonly applied to stain-resistant apparel and products for babies and children.

The repellants are also a major source of PFAS pollution in public spaces like airports or schools where carpeting is often heavily treated with the chemicals. Some products are treated with stain repellents during production, but dozens of brands also offer home sprays that expose consumers to the chemicals.



https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... lent-study
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14349
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

EPA

#8

Post by RTH10260 »

EPA accused of failing to regulate use of toxic herbicides despite court order
Instead of yanking products, EPA made Monsanto and others amend labels before reapproving dicamba, lawsuit claims

Tom Perkins
Mon 24 Apr 2023 10.00 BST

The US Environmental Protection Agency has in effect ignored a 2020 federal court order prohibiting the use of Monsanto and other producers’ toxic dicamba-based herbicides that are destroying millions of acres of cropland, harming endangered species and increasing cancer risks for farmers, new fillings in the lawsuit charge.

Instead of permanently yanking the products from the market after the 2020 order, the EPA only required industry to add further application instructions to the herbicides’ labels before reapproving the products.

A late 2021 EPA investigation found the same problems persist even with new directions added to the label, but the agency still allows Monsanto, BASF and other producers to continue using dicamba.

“The new litigation was prompted by the EPA’s decision to ignore the court’s ruling and move forward with reapproving the pesticide,” plaintiffs in the lawsuit wrote in a statement. “In re-approving dicamba, the EPA once again failed to weigh the true costs to farmers and the environment.”

The fillings are a continuation of the 2020 lawsuit, which was brought by the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America. The groups are asking the court to again order the EPA to rescind approval of the controversial products.

The EPA’s move is another example of the agency “treating the pesticide industry not as regulated companies, but as clients”, said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director with the Center For Biological Diversity.

The EPA’s pesticide office is included in allegations that career managers are influenced by or have colluded with industry, and in some cases falsified science to make dangerous substances appear less toxic. About one-third of the pesticide office’s funding comes from industry fees.




https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... es-dicamba
Post Reply

Return to “Biden Administration”