New, Highly Toxic Pesticide Is Greenhouse Gas 4,780 Times More Potent Than CO2

[babsbunny]

http://www.enn.com/press_releases/3042

From: Center for Biological Diversity
Published July 13, 2009 10:27 AM

San Francisco- Public health and environmental advocates Friday asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to deny a request from Dow AgroSciences for a permit allowing it to release large amounts of sulfuryl fluoride onto farm fields in four states. The chemical is a toxic pesticide whose global warming effects are thousands of times stronger than carbon dioxide.

"The hazards of using sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture have not been evaluated. It is also 4,780 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide," said Dr. Brian Hill, a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network. "Either one of those facts makes permitting these tests a major mistake."

[denem]

1. The headline figure, 4,780 Times More Potent Than CO2, is irrelevant.

The question is how much of it is going to be released, what does it do, how does it interact with other atmospheric gages and how safe is it. The money quote is: "The hazards of using sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture have not been evaluated.". That's quite enough, and not good enough.

Tons of this stuff employed in agriculture is insignificant compared to the countless millions of CO2, released 24/7. from coal, automobiles, planes etc., and the mention the methane bubbling away in the antic, not to mention from animals The issue as far as global warming is, does it in amy way act as a catalyst for the other greenhouse gasses.

[Chemisse]

2. Why introduce more greenhouse gases?

No matter how tiny the amounts released might be.

We need to be going in the other direction.

[denem]

4. OK. Then ban the sale of 1000 more autos.

That introduces more greenhouse gasses. I'm more concerned about an untested, highly toxic gas released into the atmosphere.

[bahrbearian]

3. We still have an active EPA?

We'll have to see.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say ...

Environmental fate

Based on the first high frequency, high precision, in situ atmospheric and archived air measurements of sulfuryl fluoride it was determined that sulfuryl fluoride has an atmospheric lifetime of 30-40 years <7>, much longer than the 5 years earlier estimated <8>. Moreover, sulfuryl fluoride has been reported to be a greenhouse gas which is about 4000-5000 times more efficient in trapping infrared radiation (per kg) than carbon dioxide (per kg).<9> <7> <10>. It is important to note, however, that amounts of sulfuryl fluoride released into the atmosphere (about 2000 metric tons per yr<7>) are far, far lower than the amounts of CO2 released by hydrocarbon-burning vehicles, industry, and other processes (about 30 billion metric tons per year). The most important loss process of sulfuryl fluoride is dissolution of atmospheric sulfuryl fluoride in the ocean followed by hydrolysis <7><11>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuryl_fluoride#Environmental_fate

[crickets]

6. "The hazards of using sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture have not been evaluated."

If this pesticide is carried to populated areas by the wind, in what concentrations can it be expected to occur and for how long? What will be the short and long term effects on the health and safety of people and pets in the area?

How much of the soil around agricultural areas will also be affected? What is the long term effect on soil and just how long does this substance remain in the soil? Will it percolate into groundwater? In what amounts, and how will this affect municipal and private wells, and for how long?

Will food grown in treated soil contain traces? How much? How will this affect food safety?

These are BASIC questions that should absolutely be answered before using such a substance. I live in Georgia in a rural area surrounded by farms and already distrust the well I use for drinking water, so much so that I'm soon getting a filtration system. I should have done it immediately on moving to my current home but put it off because of the bother and expense. What a wake up call.

Thus far, EPA has not carefully reviewed the health risks for those exposed to the chemical or considered the impacts of the releases on endangered species and other wildlife.

The EPA is not doing its damned job. No news flash there, but it has to be said.

[Wednesdays]

7. K&R

:kick:

[troubledamerican]

8. Thank CHRIST we have Harry Reid in the Senate to fight strong

And Diane Feinstein and Jane Harman and Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and ....

[crickets]

9. Kick for the late night crowd. -nt