Showing posts with label chemicals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemicals. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

FDA Director Scott Gottlieb Addresses Public On Eliminating E-Cigarette Use Among Youths


Source: Politico



There is no doubt that among adults in the nation, electronic cigarettes have reduced numbers of combustible cigarettes over the past decade.  Which has corresponded with an increased sale/use overseas incidentally.  What is of question is the degree of toxicity associated with the use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes for short).



Furthermore, the tobacco industry which has moved into the e-cigarette space has taken advertising to a new level of concern among users.  So much so that the Food and Drug Administration has had to deal with the emerging threat to young teens (and children) in some cases - with the new e-cigarette products.  What do I mean specifically?  Let me explain in short below before I show what is the end result or what is coming.



What is wrong with e-cigarettes?



electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been advertised as a 'safer alternative' to the traditional combustion based cigarette.  While there may be merits (a few), the emerging data shows that the transition is more of a change from one dangerous habit to another.  Which is to say, each method of obtaining your tobacco (nicotine) fix has advantages and disadvantages.  The differences are that the emergence of the e-cigarette bring a whole host of unknown dangers which have yet to be explored.  To name a few, here are some questions about parameters surrounding the use of e-cigarettes:



What are the long term effects of inhaling large amounts of propylene glycol?


What are the long term effects of inhaling large amounts of trace metals?


What are the long term effects of breathing in products of partial (incomplete) combustion?


How does a laboratory or agency measure the total amount of nicotine delivered in a given 'vape' inhalation?


Has that inhalation been standardized or studied for chemical analysis?



These are open ended questions.  Some of which have research projects which have already begun to shed results.  In a past blog (over a year ago), I listed an article from the trade journal 'Chemical & Engineering News' which shed light on the profile of chemicals (heavy and light metals) which are inhaled during the process of vaping.  Specifically, aside from the metals - what are the long term effects of inhaling propylene glycol?  This was asked in an editorial from 'Nature Neuroscience' a few years ago.



Additionally, in a different blog post, I showed the relative amounts of nicotine sold in a traditional bottle of e-liquid with the equivalent amount of combustible cigarettes (through dimensional analysis).  Check them out.  Which bring us to the real danger behind the growing use of e-cigarettes -- that is among young (new users) under the age of 18 years old.



To start to explore the dangers associated with advertising to people under the age of 18 years of age, let's start a search using a search engine.  Type into a search engine the following statement: "Bubble making liquid"  Below is one of many pictures advertising liquids that kids can use to make bubbles:




Source: E-Bay



The image shown above, as mentioned, is a small bottle of liquid used to make bubbles for kids to handle.  Now, the next search type into a search engine the following: "Candy juice" The following is one result shown below:




Source: E-Juice Deals



The result above shows a commonly sold bottle of e-liquid.  An e-liquid is essentially made up of the following ingredients (chemicals): nicotine, propylene glycol, and flavoring.  Finally, let's line both of these products up next to one another as shown below:





Looking at the two products above, a person has to really focus to find differences.  And I am an adult.  What if a child was asked to tell the differences?  Therein lies the issue at hand.  Aside from the increase among teens in e-cigarette use are the young children who are potentially exposed to dangerous amounts of nicotine (which can be poison).  How?



What if a child spills e-liquid on his/her skin?  The concentration of the nicotine can compare to that of the 'LD50' -- Lethal Dose where 50% of the tested population is killed off.  Check out how e-liquid concentrations compare to the LD50 of nicotine -- click here.  Chemicals associated with the use of e-cigarette remain unanswered which means that the interpretation is that e-cigarettes must be safe.  Whereas, decades of cigarette use by tobacco companies along with federal agencies have clearly established that smoking combustible cigarettes is dangerous and leads to cancer.



Take home message: unknown dangers could potentially still exist with e-cigarettes and marketers should not be targeting children and teenagers in the mean time.



What Does Director Scott Gottlieb Say Regarding E-Cigarettes?



With the above being stated, what does the Food and Drug Administration write/publish about the emerging dangers surrounding e-cigarettes?  In the text of the speech below, FDA Director Scott Gottlieb states the current position of the Food and Drug Administration at this moment in time.  Shown below is the entire speech given by FDA Director Scott Gottlieb on January 18, 2019:



I want to begin by thanking you for attending this important meeting, and by recognizing the work of the FDA staff that has continued despite the partial lapse in FDA funding. The current shutdown represents one of the most significant operational challenges in FDA’s recent history. But, as an agency, we’re committed to fulfill our public health mandate, to the best of our abilities, under current circumstances.

We’ve had to make hard decisions in the last month to preserve key functions to maintain our critical consumer protection role.

And as our biggest user fee program, PDUFA, begins to run out of money, we have many more hard decisions ahead of us. As application workload declines, because we haven’t received new applications, we’re going to be required to furlough additional staff. We simply won’t have enough PDUFA-related work to support all of our staff. This is among the hardest and most painful decisions we have to make. It’s another consequence of the prolonged shutdown. We’ll maintain our critical safety functions, and preserve as much of our review functions for as long as we can.

We’re in unfamiliar territory. This is a watershed moment in the life of this agency. We’ll come out stronger for having faced together this challenge, and for having prevailed. But the road between now and the end will be marked by continued hardships for our people, and continued impacts on our work as we focus on preserving certain functions. I’ve said many times, everything we do here is important. And everyone who works here is critical to our mission. To the extent that many things aren’t getting done, and many of our people find themselves furloughed, there are very important activities that aren’t occurring.

Today, we’re joined by a broad range of stakeholders to discuss approaches to eliminating youth use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products. Specifically, our focus is the potential role that drug therapies may play in the broader effort to eliminate e-cigarette and other tobacco use among young people, as well as the appropriate methods for evaluating such therapies.

I’m deeply troubled that we find ourselves at this crossroads today. In recent years, we’ve appeared poised to slay one of the most pernicious public health challenges of our times – the death and disease caused by cigarette smoking. Significant strides had been made to reduce conventional smoking among both youth and adults.

In fact, this past November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that smoking rates among adults reached an all-time low in 2017 — 14% of adults reported cigarette smoking “every day” or “some day,” marking a 67% decrease since 1965.

Sadly, this progress is being undercut – even eclipsed – by the recent, dramatic rise in youth vaping. A few years ago, it would have been incredible to me that we’d be here, discussing the potential for drug therapy to help addicted youth vapers quit nicotine.

Instead, in recent years, there had been reason to hope that e-cigarettes could play a different role in the nicotine product continuum of risk.

When I announced the FDA’s Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation in July 2017, I believed – and I still believe – that e-cigarettes present an important opportunity for adult smokers to transition off combustible products and onto nicotine delivery products that may not have the same level of risks associated with them. The FDA’s plan was founded on the principle that what primarily causes the death and disease from tobacco use isn’t the nicotine in these products, but rather the harmful chemicals associated with cigarette combustion.

But, we also know that nicotine isn’t a benign substance. We know that initiation to, and addiction to, nicotine by never-smokers – predominantly youth and young adults – raises its own set of public health concerns. Over the past year, the FDA’s concerns about the public health impacts, as well as the very personal impacts, of youth use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products, has spiked along with the escalating popularity of these products.

Although we knew that rates of youth use of e-cigarettes had surpassed use of combustibles a few years ago, these rates had recently appeared to level off. Reported e-cigarette use among high school students, which peaked at 16.0 percent in 2015, had decreased to 11.3 percent in 2016 and held steady in 2017. But, in late 2017 and early 2018, anecdotes from policymakers, from parents, and from the press suggested an alarming rise in youth use of e-cigarettes generally and, in particular, the product made by JUUL Labs. Indeed, the ubiquity of this one product became so entrenched so quickly that it gave rise to its own verb – juuling.

And so, over the course of 2018, I announced a series of escalating regulatory actions to try to investigate the root causes of this spike in youth e-cigarette use and to arrest the momentum of these trends. 

Unfortunately, data from the 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey confirm that youth use of e-cigarettes has become an epidemic. From 2017 to 2018, there was a 78% increase in current e-cigarette use among high school students and a 48% increase among middle school students. The total number of middle and high school students currently using e-cigarettes rose to 3.6 million — that’s 1.5 million more students using these products than the previous year. Additionally, more than a quarter (27.7 percent) of high school current e-cigarette users are using the product regularly (on 20 or more days in the past month). And more than two-thirds (67.8 percent) are using flavored e-cigarettes.

These numbers have risen significantly since 2017.

Data from the Monitoring the Future study found similar trends: From 2017 to 2018, current (past 30-day) e-cigarette use reportedly increased from 6.6 percent to 10.4 percent among 8th grade students; 13.1 percent to 21.7 percent among 10th grade students; and 16.6 percent to 26.7 percent among 12th grade students.

This youth use continues to grow. Even if we’re successful at implementing our regulatory steps to address the access and appeal of these products to kids, those actions will take time to have their full effect. Meanwhile, the appeal of these products to children, and the resulting increase in youth use, shows no sign of abating.

I fear that the survey data that we’ll get for next year will show continued increases in youth use of e-cigarettes. We’ll be in the field between March and May with the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey. I’ll tell you this. If the youth use continues to rise, and we see significant increases in use in 2019, on top of the dramatic rise in 2018, the entire category will face an existential threat.

I find myself debating with tobacco makers and retailers the merits of selling fruity flavors in ways that remain easily accessible to kids. But if the epidemic continues to mount, I’m sure that the debate will change to one of whether these products should continue to be marketed at all without authorized pre-market tobacco applications. It could be “game over” for some these products until they can successfully traverse the regulatory process. I think the stakes are that high. And would be a blow for all of the currently addicted adult smokers who, I believe, could potentially benefit from these products.

But the major marketers of these products don’t seem to fully understand the scope of this challenge, or they don’t seem to be fully committed to their own stated commitments to curtail this youth use.

I’ve met with senior executives from five of the largest manufacturers of e-cigarette products, and I’ll be calling some of them back to meet again. The companies gave us written commitments about the steps they would take to stop youth use of their products. Are they living up to what were very modest promises?  We all need to ask ourselves that question.

It matters if the e-cig makers can’t honor even modest, voluntary commitments that they made to the FDA. It informs how we shape our regulatory policies and our enforcement activities.

Because we’re not dependent on their voluntary action. The FDA is committed to reversing the youth trends, and, in November, we announced our development of a revised policy framework for certain electronic nicotine delivery systems (or ENDS products), including e-cigarettes. Evidence shows that minors are especially attracted to flavored ENDS products, and that youth access these products from both brick and mortar retailers as well as online.

We’ll be focused on ways to ensure that flavored ENDS products are sold in ways that make them less accessible and appealing to minors. We also plan to revisit our policy for certain flavored cigars and cigarillos, which, data show, appeal to minors and continue to be important among first-time cigar users. And, if data continue to show upwards trends in youth use of tobacco products, we’ll continue to expand what we do.

But, already, I’ve heard too many painful stories from parents of teenagers, pediatricians, and young people themselves. The stories make clear that, for many young e-cigarette users, addiction has already taken hold. Perhaps the kids didn’t realize that what they were inhaling contained nicotine, a highly addictive chemical. Perhaps they simply thought that e-cigarettes were safer than combustible cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and other forms of nicotine delivery about which they’d been warned. Perhaps the “cool factor” outweighed other concerns.

For these addicted young people, the reasons that they tried e-cigarettes may not matter anymore. These young people are hooked on vaping, and their worried parents, physicians, and the public health community are searching for tools to help them quit.

This is why, as a public health agency, the FDA must examine the problem of underage use of e-cigarettes holistically. When it comes to youth use of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, we recognize that there are many facets to the issue. We must not only seek to develop evidence-based programs to prevent youth and young adults from using tobacco in any form; we must also explore evidence-based approaches to address existing youth tobacco use.

Although there is a large body of research on adult smoking cessation, the methods to treat adolescents and teens who’re addicted to vaping are not well understood. There is little information about how drug or behavioral interventions might support youth e-cigarette cessation, as well as youth tobacco use more generally. The data and other information presented at today’s hearing will be vitally important to helping the FDA and other stakeholders begin to address these information gaps.

I thank you in advance for your contributions, and I speak for myself and my colleagues on the panel in saying that we look forward to the insights that you will share. I also want to be clear that we are listening closely to all perspectives.

Already, the issue of how the FDA should address underage use of e-cigarettes, while preserving the harm reduction potential for adults, has sparked powerful commentary from a range of stakeholders. We welcome this dialogue and feedback as we further refine our strategies to address this epidemic. The FDA is committed to addressing this crisis in a comprehensive way, and to finding enduring solutions.

Thank you.



Wow - If the rates continue to rise among youths, the category faces an existential threat.  What?  That is huge.  If the rates continue to climb, the Food and Drug Administration Director Scott Gottlieb is basically stating that the benefits among adults with lower use is eclipsed by the danger among youths.  Banning e-cigarettes among adults for the benefit of children would be a major action by the FDA.  Regardless, vaping (e-cigarette) companies need to change their methodology toward increasing their customer base -- especially, if that increase includes youth (new smokers).  The future will certainly be exciting for those interested in this industry.  Stay Tuned!



Related Blog Posts:


Scientific Evidence Points To Dangerous Chemicals Associated With Vaping


 How much nicotine is in a bottle of e-liquid? Is the level toxic?


EPA Administrator Nominee Andrew Wheeler's Opening Statement - Confirmation Hearing!


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?




Friday, January 25, 2019

How Do Scientists Track Bees Inside BeeHives? Use QR Codes?



Source: C&E News



Tracking bees can be a complicated job.  Especially, when from the macroscopic level (human eye), each bee appears to be the same in appearance.  Which causes a person (at least me), how would a scientist studying bees track individual bees within a bee colony (or beehive)?  Further, why would a scientist want to keep track of individual bees within a beehive?  Well, in short, your answers are below.



How Do Insecticides Affect Bees?



Over the last couple of decades, there has been controversy surrounding the use of insecticides (certain classes of insecticides).  An insecticide is a substance (chemical or compound) which is used to kill an insect.  The difficult question is whether certain insecticides which are aimed to kill specific insects also have adverse (negative) impacts on unintended target insects (such as bees).  The specific class of chemicals in question are the 'neonicotinoids' which are shown below on this graphic:








The chemical structures of the neonicotinoid family of compounds shown on the left hand side of the infographic above are shown below in greater detail:


(1) Acetamiprid,
Acetamiprid Structural Formulae V.1.svg


Source:   - Own workCC0Link




(2) Clothianidin,




Partially condensed, Kekulé, skeletal formula


Source:  - Own workCC0Link



(3) Imidacloprid,





Imidacloprid.svg

Source: NEUROtiker  Link



(4) Nitenpyram,




Nitenpyram

Source: - Own workLink




(5) Nithiazine,





Nithiazine.svg

Source: Ed (Edgar181) - Link




(6) Thiacloprid 





Thiacloprid structure.svg


Source: Edgar181 -  Link




(7) Thiamethoxam



Thiamethoxam.svg

Source:Epop -  Link




The compounds above are classified as neonicotinoids due to their chemical similarity to the chemical structure of nicotine shown below:



Nicotine.svg


Source: Nicotine - Harbin - Link





As a chemist, I always tend to wonder what aspects of each molecule make that molecule great for binding to a given receptor.  You may think that I am speaking gibberish at the moment, but let's take a brief exploration into the mechanism (mode of action) by which these chemicals operate in the insects body (to become toxic) provided by Compound Chemistry:



This leads us on to how neonicotinoids exert their effects on insects. They are effective against a wide range of different pests, and all act in a similar manner. Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides – meaning they are water-soluble, and can be absorbed by plants and distributed through their tissues. When insects ingest them, they bind to and block nicotinic receptors for the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the central nervous system of insects. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter in many organisms, including humans. The effect of blocking the receptors for this neurotransmitter is overstimulation, which leads to paralysis and eventual death for the insects.
We also have nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, both in our central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system, so you might wonder why the neonicotinoids don’t pose just as big a danger to us. This is because, although both insects and us have the receptors, they are differently structured, and the upshot of this is that the neonicotinoids don’t bind to our receptors as strongly as they do to those of the insects. As such, they are much more toxic to insects than they are to us, or other mammals.
An insect doesn’t need to ingest a great deal of a neonicotinoid pesticide for it to exert its deadly effect. The exact figure is, of course, variable, depending on the specific species of insect. Values for the median lethal dose (the dose that kills 50% of test subjects) range from 1 to 90 nanograms per insect. For comparison, the lethal dose figure for neonicotinoids is several orders of magnitude lower than for older insecticides such as the controversial DDT.



The current study (discussed briefly below) aims to check to see the lower limit of exposure to the toxic insecticides.  At what concentration, does a change of behavior occur?  How long does the exposure take to translate into adverse effects on beehive colonies.



What about the current scientific study of bees?




You may have thought that the content above is a 'divergence' from the study at hand.  The title of the current study is Neonicotinoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermoregulation.  The study which aimed to track the behavior of bees as a result of 'dosing' the bees with different concentrations of insecticides.  Why is this important?



Because the insecticides which are commonly used on crops have been associated with adverse (negative impacts) phenomenon such as 'colony collapse disorder' -- which is when the majority of the 'worker bees' leave a beehive and the colony (or hive) will eventually perish.  Why does this phenomenon occur?



One contribution (a part of the aim for the current study) is the exposure of the 'worker bees' to the insecticide (in this case imidacloprid) while carrying out their duty as 'pollinators'.  Pollination is the process of fertilizing the flower to produce seeds (offspring) -- i.e. the next generation.  The importance of pollination to the agriculture industry cannot be overstated. 



For the study published, the insecticide of choice was imidacloprid.  The range of concentrations varied between 0.1 nanograms and 9 nanograms.  What?  Yes, the lowest concentration which served as the control group was between 0.0000000001-0.000000001 grams.  Whereas for the group being dosed with a toxic dose was around 9 times the top of the control group range = 9 nanograms or 0.000000009 grams.  Or stated in terms of 'parts per billion' -- control group = 0.1-1 parts per billion...and the toxic dose was 9 ppb (parts per billion).



A recent write up of the study appeared in a trade journal -- Chemical & Engineering New.  Here is the brief which appeared in a recent (late last year) issue of C&E News:




Source: C&E News


Wait...How did the scientists track the bees in the beehive?  The scientists glued small QR codes onto the bees.  Then the tracking was accomplished by using robotic platform with an imaging system known as BEEtag.  An example is shown below (24 seconds in length):







What were the results of the study published?



The results of the study using the BEEtag imaging platform were straightforward.  At the control concentration of 0.1 ppb of imidacloprid, no change in bee behavior was observed.  Whereas at concentrations of 6-9 ppb showed noticeable change (adverse effect) in beehive behavior.  The indication was that the bees exposed to toxic amounts of imidacloprid were observed to move eventually toward the outside of the beehive.  Additionally, the workers were less active and became more sedentary.



Nonetheless, the imaging technology used above has opened the door to observing negative impacts of chemical exposure previously only speculated about.  This is tremendously exciting to say the least.  For further details of the study, click on the title of the study above.  Next steps include to see if the other compounds (chemicals) in the neonicotinoid family of substances produce the same adverse effects at the equivalent doses.  Stay tuned.



Related Blog Posts:


NIDA Director Nora Volkow: How Health Communicators and Journalists Can Help Replace Stigma with Science


What is the next big step in Mental Health Research?


Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why 'Space Force' is nothing new...


Scientists should find similarities rather than focus on differences


Why Chemistry Matters from the mouths of Nobel Laureates!


President Trump finally fills the Office of Science and Technology Policy position - Yeah!









Monday, July 2, 2018

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%



Source: PBS



Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are a contentious subject in the debate on climate change.  Whenever calculations or models are created regarding the atmosphere and effects due to pollutants, different results appear depending on the parameters taken into account in the model itself.  Recently, a report discussed in an article from the journal 'Nature' titled "Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates" states the issue as follows:


Methane leaks from the US oil and gas industry are 60% greater than official estimates, according to an analysis of previously reported data and new airborne measurements.

Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, scientists say that the unaccounted-for emissions could have significant impacts on the climate and the country’s economy. The lost gas alone is worth an estimated US$2 billion a year, scientists say.

The analysis1, published on 21 June in Science, is one of the most comprehensive looks yet at methane output from US oil and gas production, and reinforces previous studies that suggested emissions outpaced government estimates. That research prompted the US government to develop regulations that would restrict methane emissions from oil and gas production — rules that US President Donald Trump is now attempting to roll back.

The latest study shows that the US oil and gas supply chain emits about 13 million metric tons of methane, the main component of natural gas, every year. That's much higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) estimate of about 8 million metric tons.

This discrepancy probably stems from the fact that the EPA’s emissions surveys miss potential sources of methane leaks, such as faulty equipment at oil and gas facilities, says study leader Ramón Alvarez, an atmospheric chemist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group in Austin, Texas.



The author of the article goes onto state the obvious dangers of methane as a greenhouse gas compared to other offenders such as CO2 - carbon dioxide.  Methane has roughly 80 times more warming power on the planet compared to carbon dioxide.  How did two different studies conclude such a large difference in methane emissions?  According to the article above, the scientist took into account information from oil and gas industry (local municipal data) which was absent in the EPA report.  This naturally leads a person to wonder why the information was left out.  The answer is uncovered below.



How was 60% of a methane estimate left out of a report?




The news journal 'Politico' sent out the following e-mail with news of the report's major difference as shown below:



DEMOCRATS: BRING BACK THE ICR: Democrats are rallying around a return of an EPA information collection request in the aftermath of reports last week that oil and gas methane emissions are much greater than previously thought. A group of Democrats sent a letter to Pruitt on Wednesday calling on him to reinstate a formal ICR — which would require companies to report detailed technical information about methane emissions from their operations — after he withdrew the Final Methane ICR in March 2017. "With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters," the Democrats wrote.



As a result of the disparity in results from the Environmental Protection Agency's study, democratic congressional leaders sent EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt the follow letter of inquiry into the matter shown below:




Dear Administrator Pruitt: 
On March 2, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA announced that it was withdrawing Information Collection Request (ICR) 2548.01, which would have required oil and gas companies to provide information on methane emissions from their operations.  On March 8, 2017, two of us sent a letter asking that you reinstate the ICR given the urgent need to collect accurate data on methane emissions in order to set and enforce appropriate and cost-effective standards to reduce such emissions.  In the extremely short response we received from the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation on May 23, 2017, we were informed that the rationale for withdrawing the ICR was to, "allow the Administrator time to assess the need for the requested information." 
Since the date of our original letter, a number of events have occurred that highlight the urgent need to reissue the ICR and collect accurate methane emission data.  First, the U.S. Senate rejected the Congressional Review Act effort to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) methane waste rule, the only such effort to fail in a vote, which demonstrated strong bipartisan support for reducing methane emissions.  Second, both BLM and the EPA have moved to undo, weaken, or avoid promulgating methane regulations, policies that should be informed with the best available science, not vague notions of industry "burdens" and incomplete knowledge of the public benefit of cutting emissions.  Third, the most recent release of EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks showed that methane emissions from oil and gas production operations increased 34% from 1990 to 2016, and the growth of methane emissions from natural gas production operations outpaced the growth of natural gas productions, 58% to 52%. 
Even more concerning, a new report in the journal Science from 24 authors representing 12 universities, two government labs, and more, reported that methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain were roughly 60 percent higher than EPA inventory estimates, and that emissions from production operations were more than double the EPA estimates.  According to a story in The New York Times about the study, the 13 million metric tons of methane lost by the oil and gas industry each year is worth approximately $2 billion and would be enough to fuel roughly 10 million homes. 
Methane emissions exacerbate the worst impacts of climate change, result in significant air pollution through the concurrent release of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds, waste a valuable resource, and, when occurring on public lands, deprive American taxpayers and states of a valuable source of royalty payments.  With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters.  We believe that EPA needs to reissue the ICR as soon as possible, or provide a comprehensive explanation why it will not.  Therefore, we ask that by July 31, 2018, you provide us with the results of your assessment of the need to require methane emission data, as mentioned in the May 23, 2017, response, including a full explanation of how those results were arrived at.  If that assessment is not done, please confirm when you expect to complete it.//Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter. 


Had EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requested the information on potential leaks and measurements around the facilities of the oil and gas industry, there would be no issue at hand -- presumably.  Now, in the 'reactive state' or 'reactive mindset' Americans find themselves in, again, scientific data shows large differences in greenhouse gases which negatively impact our environment.  The news regarding the large difference is extremely disappointing to say the least.


Conclusion...



I have stated the obvious point of disappointment from day 1 of the Trump administration.  Why does President Trump believe that there is no reason to have a 'Science Adviser' in the White House?  According to answers he gave in a campaign questionnaire on science issues, he suggested that science would be able to weigh in on each matter of relevance toward making policy.  Here is a campaign questionnaire given to President Trump on science issues in 2015.



Furthermore, instead of 'draining the swamp,' President Trump has appeared to over fill the swamp further with even more corrupt minded politicians and administrators.  See recent post with video here.  The time has come to admit that the current administration does not have our best interest (the public's best interest) or safety in mind when making policy.  Sadly enough, suppressing science (which I will touch on in an upcoming post) along with leaving science out of policy making seems to be high on the priority list of policy making.  Which runs counter intuitive to consumer/public safety.



The EPA is a watchdog, not a barrier to protect corrupt business practices to fill the pockets of wealthy business stakeholders.  We deserve to have en EPA which looks out for public safety by regulating the oil and gas industry to limit the pollutants which arrive in our neighborhoods and in the skies above us.



Related Blog Posts:



French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards


Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!















Wednesday, May 30, 2018

How Dangerous Are Cigarettes?



Source: Mirror.co.uk



By now there are probably few people who are not aware of the dangerous aspects (health dangers) of smoking cigarettes.  The adverse health impact of smoking cigarettes is very visible in our society today.  People are dying of lung cancer due to smoking.  Additionally, the tobacco industry lost a landmark case in the late '90's' for covering up the fact that nicotine is addictive and the industry was aware of that fact.  Currently, the movement is now shifting toward 'vaping'.  I wrote a blog post about the potential hazards of vaping which can be found here.  For this blog post, I thought that I would talk a little about cigarettes and the dangers behind them.



Cigarette Production Is Dangerous




Recently, I stumbled upon a video created by the U.S. Food and Drug Regulatory Agency regarding the dangers of cigarettes (3 minutes in length):






Let's take a step back and review the crucial steps outlined in the video above:


1) Plant

2) Harvesting/Processing

3) Combustion


Below, each of the above steps are slightly elaborated on for the purpose of clarity for the reader:



1) Plant Stage:



As indicated in the video, plants have natural 'pesticides' defense mechanisms to keep bugs and invaders away.  Just so happens that the pesticide commonly found in tobacco plant is the addictive component in cigarettes -- Nicotine.  In the late 90's, a huge lawsuit ensued around the tobacco companies disregard for evidence that was in their hands regarding the 'addictive nature' of nicotine.  One of the largest legal battles gave the largest monetary settlement which cost the tobacco companies hundreds of millions of dollars.


On top of the addictive nature of the chemical  nicotine, plants also have a wide range of chemicals stored in their arsenal to carry out day to day operations.  In addition to the arsenal of compounds needed for daily operation, plants also uptake chemicals found in the soil.  Which means that toxic metals like arsenic or lead (not to mention cadmium) could potentially be incorporated into the cigarette's composition solely based on growth location.  Additionally



For instance, what if a tobacco field was next to a chemical plant?  Any chemicals which made their way into the air and further into the soil could potentially end up in the cigarette that you hold in your hand.  These are just the chemicals which make their way into your cigarette by being in the soil in which the tobacco plant is grown in.  Rarely do people consider chemicals leaching (entering) into a plant if diffusing from a far off chemical or industrial plant.  Location matters.



2) Harvesting/Processing Stage:


The next stage after the planting the tobacco plant and allowing them to grow is the 'harvesting/processing' stage.  The plant is taken from the ground and exposed to the 'curing process' during which 'tobacco specific nitrosoamines' are formed.  Termed 'TSNA's' by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), these compounds are known carcinogens which cause cancer in both the lungs and esophagus.  The tobacco plant is dried out during the curing process and treated with specific chemicals to prepare the plant for processing into a cigarette.



During the 'processing stage' of the production of cigarettes, at different stages chemicals are added to the tobacco plant to mask undesirable features in a cigarette such as harshness or odors along with undesirable tastes.  These chemicals or sugars can eventually become acid aldehydes which are known carcinogens.  Other chemicals may be added during the processing stage to enhance other qualities of the cigarette which contribute to the desirability of the final product which resides in the consumer's hand.  The point is that during the harvesting/processing stage, the tobacco is exposed to a large number of chemicals which was previously unknown to any reader of this article.  One large assumption is that all harmful chemicals are produced in the combustion process -- which is far from true.



3) Combustion Stage:



In the combustion stage, the cigarette has been formed into the familiar product sold in packages shown in the introductory photo above.  The process of burning the cigarette is defined as a 'combustion' process explained beautifully by the Government of Canada below:



Combustion is referred to as a chemical reaction.
Here is an example of a chemical reaction: a nail getting rusty (the metal oxidizes in the presence of oxygen).
Matter is changed by combustion.
Combustion modifies the order and organization of atoms in chemicals.
Order and organization
Just in the same way building blocks can be put together, taken apart and re-assembled to form a new construction, atoms can be put together, taken apart and re-assembled to form new chemicals.
In combustion, oxygen from the air and intense heat cause the atoms of the chemicals naturally present in the tobacco plant to reorganize into new chemicals.
The example shown here demonstrates this modification using building blocks as an analogy.
When a cigarette burns, the chemicals in the tobacco are changed into new chemicals!
Many of these new chemicals are toxic.



To understand the chemistry behind a combustion reaction, here is an image taken from the University of Indiana -- with a quick but concise lesson on combustion reactions shown below:








As shown in the image above, the combustion reaction is portrayed in the first reaction line with a pile of wood reacting with "Oxygen (O2)" producing black smoke and heat.  These are not conventional symbols (or chemical language), the reaction is represented in the basic sense -- visually.  Here is the combustion reaction of paper shown below:




Source: byjus.com



In the reaction above, methane reacts with 2 moles of oxygen to produce carbon dioxide along with 2 moles of water.  For more about moles, visit previous blog posts.   Or consult the wikipedia page for Avogadro's Number by clicking here.  The point is that during the combustion reaction, atoms rearrange themselves.  In the product phase, there is extra energy given off as 'heat'.  Below is a spectrum of different thermal (heat driven) processes: distillation, pyrolysis, and combustion.  On the x-axis is temperature.




Source: Bat-Science



By clicking on the 'Source link' below the image, the enlarged (larger) image will appear.  The point of the picture above is to show that if different amounts of heat is applied to the same tobacco (chemical), then different products will be given off.  This is a very important concept to grasp when thinking in terms of energy and chemistry reactions.



Depending on the source (different measures), the combustion of cigarette smoke produces a range of chemical products.  But wait, above, in the simple combustion reaction the products were: Carbon dioxide, Water, and Smoke along with Heat?  Yes, that smoke contains harmful (toxic) chemicals.  Here is an infographic produced by 'Compound Chemistry' detailing a multitude of compounds contained in cigarette smoke:







Again, by clicking on "Compound Chemistry" in the 'Source' - below the picture, a larger (the original) image will appear in a webpage.  The number of compounds (chemicals) found in cigarette smoke are limited by the ability to measure the exact composition of chemicals.  Additionally, combustion produces partial decomposition products too.  As technology improves, the ability to measure a more precise composition of chemicals will emerge over time.



Conclusion...




Chemistry is pervasive throughout the world.  Molecules are made up of atoms of space.  The atoms are connected with bonds which are made up of shared electrons.  These forces (bonds) can be broken with sufficient energy (i.e. heat) such as in the combustion reaction.  Upon which other molecules are formed.  Why do I stress this obvious aspect of chemistry?



The reason is that during the process of growing tobacco to the process of combustion involves the making and breaking of chemical bonds which results in various chemicals.  The take home message in the post above is that more chemicals exist which are harmful in cigarettes than are advertised or reported by the tobacco industry.  In the future, I will talk more about vaping and the parameters which contribute to the dangerous chemicals which are produced in the process of enjoying vaporizing 'juice'.







Related Blog Posts:



Chemistry Reactions Are Amazing - See For Yourself


Chemists Learn To Build Up Nanoparticles -- One Atom At A Time!






How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


What Is Dimensional Analysis?














Thursday, May 24, 2018

Update: EPA Throws Journalists Out Of PFAS Conference - Why?


Source: EPA



The week began with an update (a blog post) regarding the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to hold 'a conference' to explore the dangers of PerFluoroOctanoic Acid (PFOA) and PerFluoroOctaneSulfonic Acide (PFOS).  This conference was in response to the breaking news last week that the White House was suppressing a health report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which was about to be released regarding the safety of the chemicals above.  The levels of the PerFluoroAlkyl compounds which were found in various geographical areas were disturbing as uncovered by Politico news.  Below is the disturbing update regarding the conference at the EPA -- which began with quite a hiccup to say the least -- or was it a hiccup?



Day 1 of PFAS Conference at EPA




As I just stated, the two day conference which was held at the EPA started roughly to say the least.  According to early reports by 'Politico Energy' the following disturbing event occurred at the beginning of the conference:



MAKE SOME ROOM — PFAS SUMMIT ENTERS DAY 2: It's the second and final day of EPA's summit on dangerous chemicals cropping up in drinking water supplies around the country. Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler will deliver opening remarks, but the rest of today's agenda is pretty vague, mostly listing "open discussions" among the state regulators, federal officials and other participants.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced Tuesday that he would take the first step toward regulating PFOA and PFOS. Today's proceedings will be closed to the press, an agency spokesman tells ME. EPA initially tried to bar reporters from most of Tuesday's proceedings, before reversing itself a few hours later, but the outcry over that move overshadowed much of the event (more on that below).
'NOBODY EVER ASKED US': Ahead of today's meeting, Pro's Annie Snider and Emily Holden confirmed that a controversial — and still unreleased — HHS chemical safety assessment will find that the contaminants can be dangerous at much lower exposures than EPA has previously said were safe. "Nobody ever asked us to change the numbers," Patrick Breysse, the head of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry within HHS, told POLITICO. Breysse, who worked on the study, said the agencies involved were "getting close to finalizing it in January," but paused its release to come up with a better communications strategy to describe its findings. At the time, as POLITICO reported last week, a White House official worried of a "public relations nightmare" if the study were made public and asked EPA to intervene. While speaking on a panel at EPA's summit Tuesday, Breysse said the minimum risk levels reported last week for PFOA, PFOS and two other similar chemicals will remain the same when the assessment is released "soon."
Following up: Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito told reporters she is "not totally pleased" with EPA's response to the blocked release of a health study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis and would be following up with agency later this week after a national summit on the issue. "I think the health study that HHS put forward needs to be released," she said. "I want to have the full information and I want to find out what kind of levels are acceptable and then remediate the problems." And does she think Pruitt can adequately respond to her concerns? "Time will tell, honestly," she said.
— Separately, Sen. Tom Udall demanded to know why EPA tried to bar reporters from Tuesday's session — a decision that was eventually reversed a few hours later. Udall sent a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt to express concern over EPA's "disturbing treatment" of journalists. "This intimidation of journalists seeking to cover a federal official presiding over important policy-making is un-American and unacceptable," Udall wrote, calling on Pruitt to apologize to reporters.
But EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox defended the agency in a statement, noting an Associated Press reporter who had been physically removed from EPA headquarters, "showed up" after being told ahead of time the event was at capacity. "When we were made aware of the incident, we displaced stakeholders to the overflow room who flew to Washington for this meeting so that every member of the press could have a seat," he said.



Which was after the evening reporting by news agencies which resulted in a tweet by Senator Tom Udall shown below:






Here is the 6 and 1/2 minute video below from CNN:





Wow.  Read more about the event (barring of news) from two additional news sources -- Politico and Reason Blog.  According to reporting on the website 'Reason' the conference was proposed based on chemical levels reported earlier by Politico as shown below:



The Summit is being held on the heels of the revelation in Politico that the EPA is apparently suppressing a new report on the safety of PFAS from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That report suggested that the EPA's safe level of exposure at 70 parts per trillion is about six times too high. Most of the concerns about exposure to PFAS are based on a large number of epidemiological studies that detect fairly subtle health effects. Subtle, however, does not mean no effects.


Wow.  That was only on the first day of the conference.



Day 2 of PFAS Conference at EPA




After the press being thrown out of the EPA hosted conference on the first day, the EPA took a few heavy hits from congressional leaders and the press -- and rightfully so.  One would think that the possibility of throwing the press out of the conference on the second day would be not possible.  But, leave it to the Pruitt Administration to have the gull to attempt the ejection of the free press from the conference again as reported by Politico:



EPA staff Wednesday morning barred POLITICO and reporters from at least two other publications from entering a national summit on toxic chemicals, a day after a partial media blackout at the same event brought criticism from congressional Democrats and a pledge by the White House to investigate the incident.
The agency on Tuesday had allowed a select group of reporters to cover the first hour of the summit's introductory remarks, including comments by Administrator Scott Pruitt, but then escorted press out. EPA reversed its decision to ban media after news coverage of the policy and reports from the Associated Press that one of its journalists was forcibly ejected from the building by a security guard. Reporters were invited back for Tuesday afternoon.
But on Wednesday, the agency again said no reporters would be allowed to attend.
The event, where attendees are discussing whether and how to regulate a class of chemicals linked to immune disorders and certain cancers, included federal and state officials, health groups and industry interests on Tuesday. On Wednesday, it is limited to the agencies that handle chemical oversight and state regulators, according to an EPA statement.



This was such an outrageous action that Politico's Editor even made a statement on behalf of the press about the restriction of access to the conference:



"The summit was focused on an important public health crisis that has affected drinking water supplies across the country, and chemicals that are present in the bloodstreams of nearly all Americans," she said. "We believe it is important that the news media have access to the entirety of this discussion to keep the public informed with fact-driven, accountability coverage of this important issue — we would much rather be writing about the agency's efforts to address this health problem than about reporters being excluded."



Even more congressional leaders took to their twitter accounts.  Senator Tom Carper of the Environmental and Public Works Committee posted on twitter:



"I can’t believe I have to say this two days in a row, but @EPA works for the American people," Carper wrote. "Unfortunately, it’s clear that this EPA is more concerned with protecting the EPA chemical summit from the public than it is with protecting the public from harmful chemicals."



I am really amazed at the obvious lack of understanding of the current Administration that the government works for the people of the United States.  Their actions are funded by tax-payer money.  The actions of the EPA over the last couple of days have called on the Society of Environmental Journalists to take action and send a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt which is shown below:



May 23, 2018
Scott Pruitt, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code: 1101A
William Jefferson Clinton Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20460
via e-mail: Pruitt.scott@Epa.gov
Dear Administrator Pruitt:
The Society of Environmental Journalists strenuously objects to the Environmental Protection Agency’s selective barring of news reporters from your “National Leadership Summit” on per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, and to the EPA physically forcing an Associated Press reporter from the premises.
It beggars understanding that the EPA would prevent any reporters from covering a topic of such intense nationwide interest and concern. But these are just the latest additions to your pattern of antagonism toward the press, and disregard for the public’s right to know what EPA is or is not doing to protect their health and the environment.
This meeting, organized well in advance to gather input on a critical public health policy initiative, as a matter of course should have admitted news reporters in order to inform the public about what occurred. But as recently as a couple weeks ago, your staff was informing reporters that there would be no room for the press at this invitation-only event, because there was not enough space in the room selected for it.
This is patently ridiculous. Surely, larger rooms were available at the EPA headquarters or in a nearby federal building or hotel.
Evidently your staff relented at some point on May 22 and agreed to admit reporters for some news organizations. But not all: The Associated Press, CNN and E&E News, all highly respected news outlets serving enormous national audiences, were turned away at the door.
A female AP reporter has recounted that when, in response to being barred, she asked to speak with a public affairs staffer, guards instead laid hands on her and removed her from the building by force. This is completely unacceptable.
The livestream of the May 22 event provided by EPA - which has been offered as some sort of alternative to on-the-scene coverage - turned out to be highly selective as well, with most of the summit’s morning session held without being broadcast online.
Finally, though you allowed press coverage the afternoon of the summit’s first day, your agency once again excluded at least some reporters on the session’s second day, May 23.
While informing the public via news media is just good policy, holding the meeting open to the public is also legally required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 USC § 1-16) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. §552b). According to your own agency’s press release, the summit included representatives from more than 40 states, tribes and territories, 20 federal agencies, congressional staff, industry groups and non-governmental organizations, and the agency intends to use information from the summit to help it develop a management plan. There is no justification for secrecy here.
On behalf of SEJ’s 1,400 members and all other journalists covering the EPA, we urge you to:
• Repudiate this hostile approach to dealing with the press and public.
• Consistently open up important meetings, announcements and events to the public and press.
• Never discriminate against a news outlet based on the content or editorial slant of its coverage.
• Make arrangements to accommodate rather than restrict access by the press and public — and to answer their questions.
• Withdraw your objections to the publication by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of a draft assessment of water contamination by these chemicals. According to news reports, that study is still being withheld from the public.
Your failure to release this report, along with the difficulties inflicted on reporters trying to cover the summit, inhibit public understanding of how the EPA is regulating water quality and constitutes an abuse of the free press and the public’s right to know. We emphatically urge you to end these practices immediately.


The behavior described (the actions of the EPA officials toward the press) are unprofessional and violate unwritten rules and regulations within the government.  Since when does any EPA official have the right to handle another personal in a physical capacity.  The EPA official could be brought up on charges of assault.  At the very least, the EPA official should have called a security official.  But the above removal of a person in the press are just another reminder that this administration believes that they exist outside or above the law -- which is very unfortunate.



Conclusion...




I would hope that after the unfortunate events, the nation can move on and learn from the events of the past.  The current Administration at the EPA needs a strict reminder from congress regarding the behavior toward the public.  Each public official should remember that ultimately the tax-payer is deciding their course in the future.  Based on the actions over the last few days, the EPA seems to have been taken over and funded exclusively by the Private sector.



The blatant disregard for the public should make any citizen sick to their stomach.  After all, the fall-out of the decisions being discussed and made result in resources which we need for every day living.  No person should have to drink or be exposed to contaminated water just because the federal regulating agency (i.e. EPA) is unwilling to do their job.  Further more, disease needs not be spread due to a lack enforcement on government, state, and local facilities.




Related Blog Posts:


Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Congress Asks Defense Department and Environmental Protection Agency about Dangerous Chemicals


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Why Would A President Choose To Deregulate The Environmental Protection Agency?


What Does America Drinking Water Look Like With Little-to-No Regulation?


Why Is The Science March Important?


Write Your Elected Official And They Will Write Back?


Should Pollution Concern Us?


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


The Biotech Industry Takes A Stance Against Immigration Ban


STEM Outreach Is Useful For All Participants!


20 Questions Politicians Answer Regarding Science Issues


How Do Chemists Discover New Drugs? A Brief Introduction!


A Perfect Example Of Why Science Outreach Is Critical: Science Needs Simplification!