Dozens of farm workers became violently ill only weeks after Trump lifted ban on insecticide

[scombrid]

You mean in the same post where I said I haven't reviewed the science about how bad it is?

Yet you offered up an opinion anyway. Yeah, that post.

I am not in anyway part of the "Trump base".

Did I say you were?

- - - Updated - - -

... chloropaioahois ....

... chlorposppesaia ....

dismal, are you looking up the right thing?

It's that derangement he's worried about. It must be infectious.

 

[dismal]

Yet you offered up an opinion anyway. Yeah, that post.



Did I say you were?

- - - Updated - - -

... chloropaioahois ....

... chlorposppesaia ....

dismal, are you looking up the right thing?

It's that derangement he's worried about. It must be infectious.

Great post.

 

[scombrid]

Trump basically continued the status quo.

Incorrect.

But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

Not an applicable comparison given that Trump's EPA is behaving very differently from Obama's.

 

[dismal]

Trump basically continued the status quo.

Incorrect.

But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

Not an applicable comparison given that Trump's EPA is behaving very differently from Obama's.

Obama dropped a bunch of turds on his way out. Things that were not high enough priority for him to do in his 8 years as President that took on crucial importance as he was leaving. This appears to be one of them.

 

[scombrid]

No Dismal I don't include you in Trump's base. I view you as among those taking advantage of Trump's base as a means to an end; the end being things like gutting EPA. My curiosity is in how the same people that viewed Obama and Clinton as corporate shills for MONSANTO! et al. perceive moves like Pruitt slamming on the breaks on regulating something like chlorpyrifos. These people railed against Roundup(R) (and the generic glyphosate) and chlorpyrifos are way more dangerous than glyphosate.

 

[scombrid]

Obama dropped a bunch of turds on his way out. Things that were not high enough priority for him to do in his 8 years as President that took on crucial importance as he was leaving. This appears to be one of them.

That is an interesting perception given that there was no executive order involved and that EPA action in 2015 was forced by a 9th Circuit ruling.

 

[dismal]

Obama dropped a bunch of turds on his way out. Things that were not high enough priority for him to do in his 8 years as President that took on crucial importance as he was leaving. This appears to be one of them.

That is an interesting perception given that there was no executive order involved and that EPA action in 2015 was forced by a 9th Circuit ruling.

There are ways to drop turds that do not involve executive orders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.a33f955f66af

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not a mod. Report it if you feel insulted enough. But note how insulting it is to us when you do it.

I mainly feel you made yourself look bad so I'm OK leaving it up for all to see.

Well bless your heart.

 

[Underseer]

Yet another act of vileness from the Tangerine Turd....

[FONT=&]In March 2017, one of the first orders of business for the freshly confirmed EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was to lift the ban on the pesticide, chlorpyrifos. Caving to the demands of their swampy benefactors, Pruitt announced they would lift the ban, rejecting the findings of scientists at the EPA. From the New York Times in March 2017:[/FONT]

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, moved late on Wednesday to reject the scientific conclusion of the agency’s own chemical safety experts who under the Obama administration recommended that one of the nation’s most widely used insecticides be permanently banned at farms nationwide because of the harm it potentially causes children and farm workers.
​

[FONT=&]Mega-corporation Dow Chemical had lobbied to lift the ban and so it was done. The ban was lifted despite evidence it caused “significant health consequences” for farm workers and young children exposed to it in drinking water. Almost immediately after the ban was lifted, dozens of California farmworkers became extremely ill after a nearby farmer sprayed chlorpyrifos on his orchard. From the New York Times:[/FONT]

For 37 mostly female farm-workers in California's Central Valley, U.S. policy under Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt became personal not long after sunup one day in May 2017.
Picking cabbage that morning, the workers noticed a tarry smell drifting from a nearby orchard. Mouths and lips tingled or went numb. Throats went dry. Soon some workers were vomiting and collapsing.
​

[FONT=&]The farmer “misapplied” the chlorpyrifos to his crops. Is there any doubt this would be banned if it were affecting suburban Republican voters and their children? Exposing these farm workers and their young children to a harmful pesticide is environmental racism at its worst. [/FONT]

Every day, in every way, trumpo proves that he's a total cunt.

Gosh, who could have predicted that science was right about that pesticide?

 

[Underseer]

Obama dropped a bunch of turds on his way out. Things that were not high enough priority for him to do in his 8 years as President that took on crucial importance as he was leaving. This appears to be one of them.

That is an interesting perception given that there was no executive order involved and that EPA action in 2015 was forced by a 9th Circuit ruling.

He wasn't saying that.

This is the "liberals are exactly as bad" what-aboutism tu quoque excuse that conservatives use to admit that they are wrong and liberals are right about something.

It doesn't actually matter what Obama did or didn't do. What matters is that everyone switch to talking about Obama now instead of how wrong Dismal was.

The thing to do when they fall back on what-aboutism is to figure out what they are trying to avoid talking about and firmly steer the conversation back to that. They would not change the subject in such an obvious way unless they are afraid of talking about something.

 

[Derec]

Didn't the article say that the farmer misapplied the insecticide? Whether or not chlorpyrifos should be banned or not, misusing chemicals might lead to injuries or worse.

Might as well ban DHMO if you are concerned that misuse can result in injuries.

 

[bilby]

Okay, but did you read the alt facts version with conservative blinders on? In that version, it says whatever conservatives want it to say.

Hmm, I read it again. It still says nothing to suggest there was ever a ban.

Apart from the bits of your source, that I quoted, and even bolded. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

In your version of reality, exactly what dates was the ban in place? Please provide support.

The ban was in place from October 31, 2015, as a result of a ruling made on August 10, 2015, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ordered that the EPA should revoke all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos (or take other actions that the EPA chose not to take). The revocation of all tolerances is synonymous with a ban - as Scott Pruitt, amongst others, made clear in subsequent statements. Indeed, this is obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of chemistry - a tolerance of zero for exposure to a chemical or substance can only be achieved by not using that substance at all.

In English when we say "lifted a ban" there generally needs to have been a ban at some point. Trump basically continued the status quo. But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

Hmm.

From your link:

In 2007 Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively, PANNA) submitted an administrative petition requesting a chlorpyrifos ban. On August 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in PANNA v. EPA ordered the EPA to respond to PANNA's petition by "revok[ing] all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos", den[ying] the Petition or [issuing] a "proposed or final tolerance revocation" no later than October 31, 2015. The EPA was "unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos [met] the safety standard of section 408(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)" and therefore proposed "to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos."
...
n November 2016, the EPA reassessed its ban proposal after taking into consideration recommendations made by the agency’s Science Advisory Panel which had rejected the EPA’s methodology in quantifying the risk posed by chlorpyrifos. Using a different methodology as suggested by the panel, the EPA retained its decision to completely ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA concluded that, while “uncertainties” remain, a number of studies provide “sufficient evidence” that children experience neurodevelopment effects even at low levels of chlorpyrifos exposure.

(my bold)

So according to your source, there was indeed a ban from October 2015, which was continued after a review in November 2016, and then lifted by the EPA under Scott Pruitt in 2017.

Even Scott Pruitt said there was a ban:

By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.
— Statement by Scott Pruitt, EPA, Administrator March 29, 2017

(also from your link).

The only 'facts oopsie' I see here is your implication that there was not a ban, and the claim that "Trump basically continued the status quo", both of which are contradicted by the link you provided as evidence of an alleged 'facts oopsie'.

I am not sure why you are unable to read or comprehend this information - which you yourself introduced; But if you really cannot, then I really can't help you.

 

[bilby]

No Dismal I don't include you in Trump's base. I view you as among those taking advantage of Trump's base as a means to an end; the end being things like gutting EPA. My curiosity is in how the same people that viewed Obama and Clinton as corporate shills for MONSANTO! et al. perceive moves like Pruitt slamming on the breaks on regulating something like chlorpyrifos. These people railed against Roundup(R) (and the generic glyphosate) and chlorpyrifos are way more dangerous than glyphosate.

Glyphosate is about as harmless as you could imagine any pesticide being; It specifically targets a metabolic pathway that only exists in plants, and is as near as damn it non-toxic to animals (including humans). Given that it replaces much more dangerous herbicides, such as Paraquat, the net benefit to humanity of the widespread use of Glyphosate is very clear indeed.

Chlorpyrifos, by contrast, is really nasty stuff; It is a neurotoxin, and is lethal to most animals (including humans) even in fairly small doses; Incautious use of this substance poses a clear and obvious risk. Whether it should be completely banned, or merely heavily regulated to ensure its use only by trained and competent persons is another question, but certainly it is not a material that should be sprayed around without considerable care to ensure that people are not exposed to significant doses - and the significant dose in this case is very small indeed. So small, that The EPA was "unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos [met] the safety standard of section 408(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)" and therefore proposed "to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos." - in other words, they could not set a low enough exposure level that they could reasonably expect would comply with the FFDCA, so they set the tolerance to zero, which is synonymous with a ban on its use.

The use of pesticides cannot sanely be treated as a partisan political issue; Each needs to be assessed objectively based on the actual risk to health and/or the environment that they pose. 'Banning chemicals' is a stupid idea; 'Never banning chemicals' is also a stupid idea. Chemicals ain't chemicals, and pesticides ain't pesticides. Some, like Glyphosate, are massively beneficial, and almost completely harmless to humans; Others like chlorpyrifos are marginally beneficial and pose a high risk to humans.

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are not something you want to fuck about with; They can be very dangerous in even very small doses - which makes them great for killing lots of insects very cheaply indeed, but very risky for anyone who is exposed alongside those insects.

 

[bilby]

Didn't the article say that the farmer misapplied the insecticide? Whether or not chlorpyrifos should be banned or not, misusing chemicals might lead to injuries or worse.

Might as well ban DHMO if you are concerned that misuse can result in injuries.

That rather depends on how likely it is that a given mis-application will occur, and the dangers that such errors incur.

The very small toxic dose level (LD50 ~100mg/kg) for chlorpyrifos makes it particularly hazardous, and makes mis-application far more likely. It's a lot easier to accidentally ingest a few milligrams of something than it is to accidentally ingest a few kilograms of it. The dose makes the poison, and the hazardous dose varies very widely from one substance to the next.

If you offered me a million dollars to drink a 10ml of ready to use Roundup (LD50 >10,000mg/kg), I would take the offer (the surfactants in it would make me feel a bit sick, but hey, it's $1million - it's only like drinking dishwater). But drinking 10ml of chlorphyrifos would likely kill me before I could collect my money, and would certainly make me gravely unwell. And I routinely drink a few hundred ml of DHMO with no ill effects, even though nobody pays me.

Safe use guidelines must include a margin for error, because to err is human. I seriously doubt the farmer in question was trying to hurt anyone; But when you fuck about with stuff that is dangerous in small doses, it's easy to do a lot of harm by mistake. Which is why we have regulations and tolerances that are set with plausible error scenarios in mind.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Didn't the article say that the farmer misapplied the insecticide? Whether or not chlorpyrifos should be banned or not, misusing chemicals might lead to injuries or worse.

Might as well ban DHMO if you are concerned that misuse can result in injuries.

That rather depends on how likely it is that a given mis-application will occur, and the dangers that such errors incur.

The very small toxic dose level (LD50 ~100mg/kg) for chlorpyrifos makes it particularly hazardous, and makes mis-application far more likely. It's a lot easier to accidentally ingest a few milligrams of something than it is to accidentally ingest a few kilograms of it. The dose makes the poison, and the hazardous dose varies very widely from one substance to the next.

100 mg/kg is considered moderately toxic.

 

[Axulus]

Apart from the bits of your source, that I quoted, and even bolded. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

In your version of reality, exactly what dates was the ban in place? Please provide support.

The ban was in place from October 31, 2015, as a result of a ruling made on August 10, 2015, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ordered that the EPA should revoke all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos (or take other actions that the EPA chose not to take). The revocation of all tolerances is synonymous with a ban - as Scott Pruitt, amongst others, made clear in subsequent statements. Indeed, this is obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of chemistry - a tolerance of zero for exposure to a chemical or substance can only be achieved by not using that substance at all.

In English when we say "lifted a ban" there generally needs to have been a ban at some point. Trump basically continued the status quo. But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

Hmm.

From your link:

In 2007 Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively, PANNA) submitted an administrative petition requesting a chlorpyrifos ban. On August 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in PANNA v. EPA ordered the EPA to respond to PANNA's petition by "revok[ing] all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos", den[ying] the Petition or [issuing] a "proposed or final tolerance revocation" no later than October 31, 2015. The EPA was "unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos [met] the safety standard of section 408(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)" and therefore proposed "to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos."
...
n November 2016, the EPA reassessed its ban proposal after taking into consideration recommendations made by the agency’s Science Advisory Panel which had rejected the EPA’s methodology in quantifying the risk posed by chlorpyrifos. Using a different methodology as suggested by the panel, the EPA retained its decision to completely ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA concluded that, while “uncertainties” remain, a number of studies provide “sufficient evidence” that children experience neurodevelopment effects even at low levels of chlorpyrifos exposure.

(my bold)

So according to your source, there was indeed a ban from October 2015, which was continued after a review in November 2016, and then lifted by the EPA under Scott Pruitt in 2017.

Even Scott Pruitt said there was a ban:

By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.
— Statement by Scott Pruitt, EPA, Administrator March 29, 2017

(also from your link).

The only 'facts oopsie' I see here is your implication that there was not a ban, and the claim that "Trump basically continued the status quo", both of which are contradicted by the link you provided as evidence of an alleged 'facts oopsie'.

I am not sure why you are unable to read or comprehend this information - which you yourself introduced; But if you really cannot, then I really can't help you.

Bilby, surely even you understand that your examples are crap:

Ban proposal

Steps to ban

IOW, the EPA was in process of implementing a ban, but the ban was not yet in effect:

As a result of Trump and Pruitt’s actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-reverses-insecticide-ban-dow-chemicals/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Apart from the bits of your source, that I quoted, and even bolded. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

The ban was in place from October 31, 2015, as a result of a ruling made on August 10, 2015, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ordered that the EPA should revoke all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos (or take other actions that the EPA chose not to take). The revocation of all tolerances is synonymous with a ban - as Scott Pruitt, amongst others, made clear in subsequent statements. Indeed, this is obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of chemistry - a tolerance of zero for exposure to a chemical or substance can only be achieved by not using that substance at all.

In English when we say "lifted a ban" there generally needs to have been a ban at some point. Trump basically continued the status quo. But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

Hmm.

From your link:

In 2007 Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively, PANNA) submitted an administrative petition requesting a chlorpyrifos ban. On August 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in PANNA v. EPA ordered the EPA to respond to PANNA's petition by "revok[ing] all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos", den[ying] the Petition or [issuing] a "proposed or final tolerance revocation" no later than October 31, 2015. The EPA was "unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos [met] the safety standard of section 408(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)" and therefore proposed "to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos."
...
n November 2016, the EPA reassessed its ban proposal after taking into consideration recommendations made by the agency’s Science Advisory Panel which had rejected the EPA’s methodology in quantifying the risk posed by chlorpyrifos. Using a different methodology as suggested by the panel, the EPA retained its decision to completely ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA concluded that, while “uncertainties” remain, a number of studies provide “sufficient evidence” that children experience neurodevelopment effects even at low levels of chlorpyrifos exposure.

(my bold)

So according to your source, there was indeed a ban from October 2015, which was continued after a review in November 2016, and then lifted by the EPA under Scott Pruitt in 2017.

Even Scott Pruitt said there was a ban:

By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.
— Statement by Scott Pruitt, EPA, Administrator March 29, 2017

(also from your link).

The only 'facts oopsie' I see here is your implication that there was not a ban, and the claim that "Trump basically continued the status quo", both of which are contradicted by the link you provided as evidence of an alleged 'facts oopsie'.

I am not sure why you are unable to read or comprehend this information - which you yourself introduced; But if you really cannot, then I really can't help you.

Bilby, surely even you understand that your examples are crap:

Ban proposal

Steps to ban

IOW, the EPA was in process of implementing a ban, but the ban was not yet in effect:

As a result of Trump and Pruitt’s actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-reverses-insecticide-ban-dow-chemicals/

So it was President Blackenstein's fault after all for not banning it and Democrats are exactly the same as Republicans. Thank you for conservosplaining this to us.

 

[Axulus]

But in some cases, no alternatives were available. For instance, almond growers need chlorpyrifos to combat leaffooted plant bugs and stink bugs, which both feed on and damage developing nuts, scientists found.

“It’s still one of those tools … that’s good to have there in situations when you do need it,” Goodell said.

Several farm groups put out statements praising Pruitt’s announcement. California Citrus Mutual president Joel Nelsen said the decision shows that the EPA is taking more of a science-based approach to regulating pesticides.

Among chlorpyrifos’ uses for citrus growers is to battle the Asian citrus psyllid, which can carry the deadly tree disease huanglongbing.

http://www.capitalpress.com/Califor...alternatives-to-chlorpyrifos-despite-reprieve

A total blanket ban, especially for those situations where no alternative exists, is extreme. Regulation is the way to go here. Banning certain uses when viable alternatives exist also makes sense.

The OP doesn't make the case for a ban but rather for proper handling of something dangerous. There are many substances that are deadly if mishandled where a ban would be absurd.

 

[dismal]

Apart from the bits of your source, that I quoted, and even bolded. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

The ban was in place from October 31, 2015, as a result of a ruling made on August 10, 2015, by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ordered that the EPA should revoke all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos (or take other actions that the EPA chose not to take). The revocation of all tolerances is synonymous with a ban - as Scott Pruitt, amongst others, made clear in subsequent statements. Indeed, this is obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of chemistry - a tolerance of zero for exposure to a chemical or substance can only be achieved by not using that substance at all.

In English when we say "lifted a ban" there generally needs to have been a ban at some point. Trump basically continued the status quo. But of course who can forget that there were frequent threads here about Obama being Hitler for not banning chlorfrypoiosis right?

Hmm.

From your link:

In 2007 Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively, PANNA) submitted an administrative petition requesting a chlorpyrifos ban. On August 10, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in PANNA v. EPA ordered the EPA to respond to PANNA's petition by "revok[ing] all tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos", den[ying] the Petition or [issuing] a "proposed or final tolerance revocation" no later than October 31, 2015. The EPA was "unable to conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos [met] the safety standard of section 408(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)" and therefore proposed "to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos."
...
n November 2016, the EPA reassessed its ban proposal after taking into consideration recommendations made by the agency’s Science Advisory Panel which had rejected the EPA’s methodology in quantifying the risk posed by chlorpyrifos. Using a different methodology as suggested by the panel, the EPA retained its decision to completely ban chlorpyrifos. The EPA concluded that, while “uncertainties” remain, a number of studies provide “sufficient evidence” that children experience neurodevelopment effects even at low levels of chlorpyrifos exposure.

(my bold)

So according to your source, there was indeed a ban from October 2015, which was continued after a review in November 2016, and then lifted by the EPA under Scott Pruitt in 2017.

Even Scott Pruitt said there was a ban:

By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making – rather than predetermined results.
— Statement by Scott Pruitt, EPA, Administrator March 29, 2017

(also from your link).

The only 'facts oopsie' I see here is your implication that there was not a ban, and the claim that "Trump basically continued the status quo", both of which are contradicted by the link you provided as evidence of an alleged 'facts oopsie'.

I am not sure why you are unable to read or comprehend this information - which you yourself introduced; But if you really cannot, then I really can't help you.

Bilby, surely even you understand that your examples are crap:

Ban proposal

Steps to ban

IOW, the EPA was in process of implementing a ban, but the ban was not yet in effect:

As a result of Trump and Pruitt’s actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-reverses-insecticide-ban-dow-chemicals/

The strange part is all the insults about my reading comprehension from people who can't comprehend what they read.