Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for the ‘Health’ Category

One Year, One Facility, 1.7 Million Pounds of Hazardous Waste Burned in Open Air

leave a comment »

Lylla Younes and Abrahm Lustgarten have an interactive graphic in ProPublica that shows, just for one location, the hazardous wastes that are burned in the open. Their introduction:

At least 61 active burn and denotation sites currently operate in the U.S. Most are run directly by the Department of Defense or its contractors, and do not publicly report what they burn. ProPublica obtained the delivery manifests for the only burn site that is commercially licensed and allowed to accept explosives from off-site, run by a company called Clean Harbors in Colfax, Louisiana.

In 2015, the site received more than 1.7 million pounds of hazardous explosives waste from across the country — from the U.S. military as well as from commercial users like Disney, which sends unexploded fireworks to the facility to be destroyed. Here’s what the facility burned or detonated that year. Related story.

You can filter the list by (for example), lead, or arsenic, or others.

Take a look.

Written by LeisureGuy

21 July 2017 at 2:37 pm

Open Burns, Ill Winds: The Pentagon’s handling of munitions and their waste has poisoned millions of acres

leave a comment »

Abrahm Lustgarten reports in ProPublica:

RADFORD, VIRGINIA — Shortly after dawn most weekdays, a warning siren rips across the flat, swift water of the New River running alongside the Radford Army Ammunition Plant. Red lights warning away boaters and fishermen flash from the plant, the nation’s largest supplier of propellant for artillery and the source of explosives for almost every American bullet fired overseas.

Along the southern Virginia riverbank, piles of discarded contents from bullets, chemical makings from bombs, and raw explosives — all used or left over from the manufacture and testing of weapons ingredients at Radford — are doused with fuel and lit on fire, igniting infernos that can be seen more than a half a mile away. The burning waste is rich in lead, mercury, chromium and compounds like nitroglycerin and perchlorate, all known health hazards. The residue from the burning piles rises in a spindle of hazardous smoke, twists into the wind and, depending on the weather, sweeps toward the tens of thousands of residents in the surrounding towns.

Nearby, Belview Elementary School has been ranked by researchers as facing some of the most dangerous air-quality hazards in the country. The rate of thyroid diseases in three of the surrounding counties is among the highest in the state, provoking town residents to worry that emissions from the Radford plant could be to blame. Government authorities have never studied whether Radford’s air pollution could be making people sick, but some of their hypothetical models estimate that the local population faces health risks exponentially greater than people in the rest of the region.

More than three decades ago, Congress banned American industries and localities from disposing of hazardous waste in these sorts of “open burns,’’ concluding that such uncontrolled processes created potentially unacceptable health and environmental hazards. Companies that had openly burned waste for generations were required to install incinerators with smokestacks and filters and to adhere to strict limits on what was released into the air. Lawmakers granted the Pentagon and its contractors a temporary reprieve from those rules to give engineers time to address the unique aspects of destroying explosive military waste.

That exemption has remained in place ever since, even as other Western countries have figured out how to destroy aging armaments without toxic emissions. While American officials are mired in a bitter debate about how much pollution from open burns is safe, those countries have pioneered new approaches. Germany, for example, destroyed hundreds of millions of pounds of aging weapons from the Cold War without relying on open burns to do it.

In the United States, outdoor burning and detonation is still the military’s leading method for dealing with munitions and the associated hazardous waste. It has remained so despite a U.S. Senate resolution a quarter of a century ago that ordered the Department of Defense to halt the practice “as soon as possible.” It has continued in the face of a growing consensus among Pentagon officials and scientists that similar burn pits at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan sickened soldiers.

Federal records identify nearly 200 sites that have been or are still being used to open-burn hazardous explosives across the country. Some blow up aging stockpile bombs in open fields. Others burn bullets, weapons parts and — in the case of Radford — raw explosives in bonfire-like piles. The facilities operate under special government permits that are supposed to keep the process safe, limiting the release of toxins to levels well below what the government thinks can make people sick. Yet officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, which governs the process under federal law, acknowledge that the permits provide scant protection.

Consider Radford’s permit, which expired nearly two years ago. Even before then, government records show, the plant repeatedly violated the terms of its open burn allowance and its other environmental permits. In a typical year, the plant can spew many thousands of pounds of heavy metals and carcinogens — legally — into the atmosphere. But Radford has, at times, sent even more pollution into the air than it is allowed. It has failed to report some of its pollution to federal agencies, as required. And it has misled the public about the chemicals it burns. Yet every day the plant is allowed to ignite as much as 8,000 pounds of hazardous debris.

“It smells like plastic burning, but it’s so much more intense,” said Darlene Nester, describing the acrid odor from the burns when it reaches her at home, about a mile and a half away. Her granddaughter is in second grade at Belview. “You think about all the kids.” . . .

Continue reading.

And definitely look at the graphic that shows where the military burns toxic wastes in the open air, in a kind of war against the American people (and its own troops). Is the military really that ignorant?

Written by LeisureGuy

20 July 2017 at 8:54 am

Why Canada Is Able to Do Things Better

leave a comment »

Jonathan Kay writes in the Atlantic:

When I was a young kid growing up in Montreal, our annual family trips to my grandparents’ Florida condo in the 1970s and ‘80s offered glimpses of a better life. Not just Bubbie and Zadie’s miniature, sun-bronzed world of Del Boca Vista, but the whole sprawling infrastructural colossus of Cold War America itself, with its famed interstate highway system and suburban sprawl. Many Canadians then saw themselves as America’s poor cousins, and our inferiority complex asserted itself the moment we got off the plane.

Decades later, the United States presents visitors from the north with a different impression. There hasn’t been a new major airport constructed in the United States since 1995. And the existing stock of terminals is badly in need of upgrades. Much of the surrounding road and rail infrastructure is in even worse shape (the trip from LaGuardia Airport to midtown Manhattan being particularly appalling). Washington, D.C.’s semi-functional subway system feels like a World’s Fair exhibit that someone forgot to close down. Detroit’s 90-year-old Ambassador Bridge—which carries close to $200 billion worth of goods across the Canada-U.S. border annually—has been operating beyond its engineering capacity for years. In 2015, the Canadian government announced it would be paying virtually the entire bill for a new bridge (including, amazingly, the U.S. customs plaza on the Detroit side), after Michigan’s government pled poverty. “We are unable to build bridges, we’re unable to build airports, our inner city school kids are not graduating,” is how JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon summarized the state of things during an earnings conference call last week. “It’s almost embarrassing being an American citizen.”Since the election of Donald Trump, there’s been no shortage of theories as to why America’s social contract no longer seems to work—why the United States feels so divided and dysfunctional. Some have focused on how hyper-partisanship has dismantled traditional checks and balances on public decision-making, how Barack Obama’s rise to power exacerbated the racist tendencies of embittered reactionaries, and how former churchgoers have embraced the secular politics of race and nationalism.

All of this rings true. But during my travels up and down the American East Coast in recent years, I’ve come to focus on a more mundane explanation: The United States is falling apart because—unlike Canada and other wealthy countries—the American public sector simply doesn’t have the funds required to keep the nation stitched together. A country where impoverished citizens rely on crowdfunding to finance medical operations isn’t a country that can protect the health of its citizens. A country that can’t ensure the daily operation of Penn Station isn’t a country that can prevent transportation gridlock. A country that contracts out the operations of prisons to the lowest private bidder isn’t a country that can rehabilitate its criminals.The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a group of 35 wealthy countries, ranks its members by overall tax burden—that is, total tax revenues at every level of government, added together and then expressed as a percentage of GDP—and in latest year for which data is available, 2014, the United States came in fourth to last. Its tax burden was 25.9 percent—substantially less than the OECD average, 34.2 percent. If the United States followed that mean OECD rate, there would be about an extra $1.5 trillion annually for governments to spend on better schools, safer roads, better-trained police, and more accessible health care. . .

Continue reading.

The GOP does not believe in investing in the US. For example, for the US as a country to be competitive and productive, it’s vital to ensure that its citizens are (a) healthy, and (b) educated. Thus if the country took its own interests to heart, there would be universal healthcare, and well-funded at that, including treatments and hospitals for the mentally ill (rather than simply having the police shoot them, or putting them in prison), nursing homes for the incapacitated and elderly, and investments in seeing that more medical professions (doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses, pharmacists) are trained—and not allowing any forced shortages to arise as might happen if some specialty set informal limits the supply of new doctors in the specialty. I don’t think this is happening—some specialties just don’t have that many people in them. So the government should institute programs, subsidies, new medical school, so that the supply of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and so on could be increased to serve the greater demand resulting from a broader national effort to achieve the goal of a healthy citizenry.

And having an educated citizenry requires paying teachers a lot more to increase the talent supply, and funding of most effective teaching practices, with a constant search for better teaching practices, and building a database of documents and on-line videos to make available nationally courses for teachers and would-be teachers on what those best practices are. This might take the form of watching a video recorded live of a master teacher teaching one class session, then that video with commentary, the master teaching stopping the action at certain points to explain what’s happening: why s/he made the choices and said the words s/he did, how it might be done better, and so on, then back to the next teaching moment.

In other words, apply ingenuity and resources to ensure that our nation’s teachers are great at their jobs. That will make those future generations more capable.

And obviously the nation is better for everyone—you might say it would improve the general welfare—if the infrastructure were well-maintained and kept in good shape. And those jobs would be most welcome, but obviously money is required.

What I’m talking about, I suddenly realize, is artificial selection in meme evolution, exactly as we used artificial selection in lifeforms in order to domesticate plants and animals (and ourselves, in the sense that tribes rid themselves of uncooperative members). The goals (healthy citizenry, educated citizenry, good infrastructure) are sufficiently broad that many memes can be selected to drive toward those goals, just a not littering became a thing when Lady Bird Johnson took on the campaign to beautify America. Very quickly, littering was socially unacceptable and by and large people stopped littering. (This was helped by very young children being able to understand what littering is and that it’s bad, so not littering became a basic value adopted in childhood.)

And in fact the GOP will never approve of taxing the public to the point where all these benefits could be delivered to the public, because the goal of the GOP is to enable a select few to become wealthy by looting the country: skimping on healthcare, skimping on education, skipping on infrastructure, and thus being able to keep much of that money for themselves through the eternal demand for more tax cuts.

The US could do it right, but I think it is unlikely at this point. Still, perhaps the public will awaken to the fact that the wealthy are shortchanging them:

The US is not, though Donald Trump continually says it is, the most heavily taxed national on earth. Quite the contrary: U.S. taxes are quite low—and we’re getting what we pay for. Chart above is from this page.

Written by LeisureGuy

18 July 2017 at 9:06 pm

Climate change: a plausible worst-case scenario for humanity

leave a comment »

Jason Kottke has a striking photo for a striking blog post. The photo:

And the post reflects the photo:

After talking with dozens of climatologists and related researchers, David Wallace-Wells writes about what will happen to the Earth and human civilization without taking “aggressive action” on slowing climate change. It is a sobering piece.

Since 1980, the planet has experienced a 50-fold increase in the number of places experiencing dangerous or extreme heat; a bigger increase is to come. The five warmest summers in Europe since 1500 have all occurred since 2002, and soon, the IPCC warns, simply being outdoors that time of year will be unhealthy for much of the globe. Even if we meet the Paris goals of two degrees warming, cities like Karachi and Kolkata will become close to uninhabitable, annually encountering deadly heat waves like those that crippled them in 2015. At four degrees, the deadly European heat wave of 2003, which killed as many as 2,000 people a day, will be a normal summer. At six, according to an assessment focused only on effects within the U.S. from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, summer labor of any kind would become impossible in the lower Mississippi Valley, and everybody in the country east of the Rockies would be under more heat stress than anyone, anywhere, in the world today. As Joseph Romm has put it in his authoritative primer Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know, heat stress in New York City would exceed that of present-day Bahrain, one of the planet’s hottest spots, and the temperature in Bahrain “would induce hyperthermia in even sleeping humans.” The high-end IPCC estimate, remember, is two degrees warmer still.

Carbon is not only warming the atmosphere, it’s also polluting it.

Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent. . .

Continue reading.

President Trump, of course, leads a party that not only does not believe climate change is real but also actively opposes any steps to stop or slow climate change. I think it is likely that the worst case scenario will come to pass. It’s depressing, but I won’t have to witness it. My grandchildren, OTOH, are going to wonder why they must suffer for our bad decisions.

Written by LeisureGuy

10 July 2017 at 9:17 am

Why Eating Meat in America Is Like Going on a Trip to the Drug Store

leave a comment »

Martha Rosenberg writes at AlterNet:

Recently, Organic Consumers Association, along with Friends of the Earth and Center for Food Safety filed suit against chicken giant Sanderson Farms for falsely marketing its products as “100% Natural” even though it contains many unnatural and even prohibited substances. Sanderson chicken products tested positive for the antibiotic chloramphenical, banned in food animals, and amoxicillin, not approved for use in poultry production. Sanderson Farms products also tested positive for residues of steroids, hormones, anti-inflammatory drugs and even ketamine, a drug with hallucinogenic effects.

This is far from the first time unlabeled human drugs have been found in U.S. meat. The New York Times reported that most chicken feather-meal samples examined in one study contained Tylenol, one-third contained the antihistamine Benadryl, and samples from China actually contained Prozac. The FDA has caught hatcheries injecting antibiotics directly into chicken eggs. Tyson Foods was caught injecting eggs with the dangerous human antibiotic gentamicin.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has reported the presence of the potentially dangerous herbs fo-ti, lobelia, kava kava and black cohosh in the U.S. food supply as well as strong the antihistamine hydroxyzine. Most of the ingredients are from suppliers in China.

Animal Pharma still mostly under the radar

Many people have heard of Elanco, Eli Lilly’s animal drug division, and Bayer HealthCare Animal Health. But most big Pharma companies, including Pfizer, Merck, Boehringer Ingolheim, Sanofi and Novartis operate similar lucrative animal divisions. Unlike “people” Pharma, Animal Pharma largely exists under the public’s radar: drug ads do not appear on TV nor do safety or marketing scandals reach Capitol Hill. Still, conflicts of interest abound.

“No regulation currently exists that would prevent or restrict a veterinarian from owning their own animals and/or feed mill,” says the Center for Food Safety. “If a licensed veterinarian also owns a licensed medicated feed mill, they stand to profit by diagnosing a flock or herd and prescribing their own medicated feed blend.”

Because the activities of Animal Pharma are so underreported, few Americans realize that most of the meat they eat is banned in other industrialized countries. One example is ractopamine, a controversial growth-promoting asthma-like drug marketed as Optaflexx for cattle, Paylean for pigs, and Topmax for turkeys and banned in the European Union, China and more than 100 other countries. Also used in U.S. meat production is Zilmax, a Merck drug similar to ractopamine that the FDA linked to 285 cattle deaths during six years of administration. Seventy-five animals lost hooves, 94 developed pneumonia and 41 developed bloat in just two years, Reuters reported.

The European Union boycotts the U.S.’ hormone-grown beef. The routinely used synthetic hormones zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengestrol acetate pose “increased risks of breast cancer and prostate cancer,” says the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures. “Consumption of beef derived from Zeranol-implanted cattle may be a risk factor for breast cancer,” according to an article in the journal Anticancer Research.

The European Union has also traditionally boycotted U.S. chickens because they are dipped in chlorine baths. In the U.S. it’s perfectly legal to ‘wash’ butchered chicken in strongly chlorinated water, according to a report in the Guardian:

These practices aren’t allowed in the EU, and the dominant European view has been that, far from reducing contamination, they could increase it because dirty abattoirs with sloppy standards would rely on it [chlorine] as a decontaminant rather than making sure their basic hygiene protocols were up to scratch.

Other germ-killing or germ-retarding chemicals routinely used in U.S. food production include nitrites and nitrates in processed meat (declared carcinogens by the World Health Organization in 2016), the parasiticide formalin legally used in shrimp production, and carbon monoxide to keep meat looking red in the grocery store no matter how old it really is. Many thought public revulsion at the ammonia puffs used to discourage E. Coli growth in the notorious beef-derived “pink slime” in 2012 forced the product into retirement. But the manufacturer is fighting back aggressively.

Antibiotics are the least of unlabeled animal drugs

According to the Center for Food Safety, Animal Pharma uses over 450 animal drugs, drug combinations and other feed additives “to promote growth of the animals and to suppress the negative effects that heavily-concentrated confinement has on farm animals.”

The revelations about Sanderson Farms should come as no surprise given that despite new antibiotic regulations rolled out in 2013, and even more recently, antibiotic use in farm operations is on the rise. Sanderson Farms revelations are no surprise.

Last year I asked Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, how the 2013 FDA guidance asking Pharma to voluntarily restrict livestock antibiotics by changing the approved uses language on labels was working out. Dr. Hansen told me “growth production” had been removed from labels but the drugs are still routinely used for the new indication of “disease prevention.”

After the guidance was published, a Reuters investigation found Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue Farms, George’s and Koch Foods using antibiotics “more pervasively than regulators realize.” Pilgrim’s Pride’s feed mill records show the antibiotics bacitracin and monensin are added “to every ration fed to a flock grown early this year.” (Pilgrim’s Pride threatened legal action against Reuters for its finding.) Also caught red-handed using antibiotics, despite denying it on their website, was Koch Foods, a supplier to Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants. Koch’s Chief Financial Officer, Mark Kaminsky, reportedly said that he regretted the wording on the website.

But antibiotics are the least of the unlabeled drugs and chemicals lurking in meat. According to the Associated Press, U.S. chickens . . .

Continue reading.

Some people may think I have a jaundiced view of big business and its (lack of) ethics and its total focus on growing profits regardless of what that takes. This articles shows an example of what drives that view.

Written by LeisureGuy

8 July 2017 at 9:23 am

Interesting benefit of genetic test: Knowing in advance whether a medication will work

leave a comment »

Updated to reflect new understanding of the reasons for the rules regarding medical tests.

A new thing, at least to me, are genetic tests specifically aimed at finding which medications are effective and which are not. For example, I know one person who was depressed, went on antidepressants, and found that did nothing whatsoever to help. He had a genetic test done, which revealed that, yes, the antidepressant he was taking (Prozac) would do nothing for him, given his genetic makeup, but a relatively new antidepressant (Pristiq) would work well. His doctor switched him to Pristiq and improvement was quickly obvious.

Another example: a friend of the family was told about the benefits of such a test but decided to pass on it. Her family doesn’t take any regular medication and so the information seemed useless—until she discover that Novocaine had no effect at all on her son, a discovery made by drilling into his teeth after getting Novocaine.

Here’s a sample of the sort of report that is produced. It is several pages, so scroll down.

There a couple of places doing this. The report at the link is from GeneSight.com. They will not sell direct to patients because they consider the test a “prescription,” but I pointed out that one does not ingest anything, so what exactly was the risk? The risk, it turns out, that with some tests people have taken drastic action because they misinterpreted the results, so states in general have laws that medical test results must go to a medical professional and not directly to the patient exactly to avoid such mistakes. Over time, things change: pregnancy tests are now available over the counter, but once were available only through a doctor. The morning-after pill is available over the counter now. But each instance required separate deliberation of risks and benefits by each state legislature involved, and the feds get into it, too, with FDA approval needed.

The site does offer a way to possibly locate a local clinic or doctor who will do the test, and some will not add a charge, acting as a middleman with no fee.

In time, I think this test will become available to the public because, really, all you can do with it is to offer a copy to your various doctors so they will know how to treat you.

But that will require coming to terms with risks. For example, a person hears (vaguely) about it and orders it on his or her own, then gets the report and photocopies it for the whole family, saying, “You all can use this since we’re the same family”—i.e., does not understand fully what is involved and what it means—could do some serious harm, particularly as copies make their way to cousins and second cousins.

So for public safety, and until more experience is obtained, the requirement that it be done by a medical professional protects the public until the risks are fully understood.

I appreciate the insight and corrections I got, and now I understand better what is involved.

BTW, IMPORTANT NOTE: If the test is a cheek swab for DNA, as these are, it’s important not to have any food or drink for an hour before the swab is taken. If you have to go through a medical professional for the test, that can be explained. If test kits are sent directly to people, I can readily imagine someone taking a swab between bites of a hamburger.

Written by LeisureGuy

6 July 2017 at 3:54 pm

EPA chief met with Dow CEO before deciding on pesticide ban

leave a comment »

First, note correction to story:

In a story June 27, The Associated Press, relying on schedules provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, reported erroneously that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris for about a half-hour at a Houston hotel. A spokeswoman for the EPA says the meeting listed on the schedule was canceled, though Pruitt and Liveris did have a “brief introduction in passing.”

A corrected version of the story is below:

EPA chief met with Dow CEO before deciding on pesticide ban

Records show the Trump administration’s top environmental official met briefly with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely-used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains

Michael Biesecker reports for Associated Press:

The Trump administration’s top environmental official met briefly with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency’s push to ban a widely used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children’s brains, according to records obtained by The Associated Press.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s schedule showed he was slated to meet with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9 for about a half-hour at a Houston hotel. Rachelle Schikorra, a spokeswoman for Dow, said the formal meeting “never happened due to schedule conflicts.”

EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman also said the formal meeting was canceled. She said Pruitt and Liveris did have a “brief introduction in passing” at the energy conference in Houston they were both attending.

“They did not discuss chlorpyrifos,” Bowman said. “During the same trip he also met with the Canadian minister of natural resources, and CEOs and executives from other companies attending the trade show.”

Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency’s scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants.

EPA released a copy of Pruitt’s March meeting schedule earlier this month following several Freedom of Information Act requests. Though his schedule for the intervening months has not yet been released, Bowman said Pruitt has had no other meetings with the Dow CEO. There was a larger group meeting that Pruitt attended which also included two other Dow executives, but she said that didn’t involve chlorpyrifos.

Dow, which spent more than $13.6 million on lobbying in 2016, has long wielded substantial political power in the nation’s capital.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February mandating the creation of task forces at federal agencies to roll back government regulations, he handed the pen to Dow’s chief executive, who was standing at his side. Liveris heads a White House manufacturing working group. His company also wrote a $1 million check to help underwrite Trump’s inaugural festivities.

The American Academy of Pediatrics urged Pruitt on Tuesday to take chlorpyrifos off the market. The group representing more than 66,000 pediatricians and pediatric surgeons said it is “deeply alarmed” by Pruitt’s decision to allow the pesticide’s continued use.

“There is a wealth of science demonstrating the detrimental effects of chlorpyrifos exposure to developing fetuses, infants, children, and pregnant women,” the academy said in a letter to Pruitt. “The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous.”

The AP reported in April that Dow is also lobbying the Trump administration to “set aside” the findings of federal scientists that organophosphate pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, are harmful to about 1,800 critically threatened or endangered species.

The chemical is similar to one developed as a weapon in World War II. Dow has been selling Chlorpyrifos for spraying on citrus fruits, apples, cherries and other crops since the 1960s. It is among the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the United States. Dow sells about 5 million pounds domestically each year.

As a result, traces of the chemical are commonly found in sources of drinking water. A 2012 study at the University of California at Berkeley found that 87 percent of umbilical-cord blood samples tested from newborn babies contained detectable levels of chlorpyrifos.

Dow, which sells chlorpyrifos through its subsidiary Dow AgroSciences, contends it helps American farmers feed the world “with full respect for human health and the environment.”

Under pressure from federal regulators over safety concerns, Dow voluntarily withdrew chlorpyrifos for use as a home insecticide in 2000. EPA also placed “no-spray” buffer zones around sensitive sites, such as schools, in 2012. But environmental and public health groups said those proposals don’t go far enough and filed a federal lawsuit seeking a national ban on the pesticide.

In October 2015, the Obama administration proposed banning the pesticide’s use on food. . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

1 July 2017 at 6:13 pm

%d bloggers like this: