Vic Crone is a climate denier

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
54
1

Screen Shot 2016-09-15 at 1.13.16 pm
Just in case you needed another reason not to vote for right wing Vic Crone – she doesn’t believe humans are causing climate change – do we want a flat earther running Auckland City?

How on earth have we gotten this far in the election campaign before we knew this?

 

Allowing a climate denier to lead Auckland when the pressing issue will be climate change is like hiring a monkey to write a book

So when the oceans rise what will climate denier Vic Crone tell Aucklanders? That it’s just God getting into the bath tub?

Throw this rubbish onto the trash heap – Vic Crone is to rational debate what drinking is to driving

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

54 COMMENTS

  1. Silly shallow woman she is!!!!

    Like another take the money & run type Key clone eh!!!!!!

    YOUR COMMENTS ARE CORRECT SHE HASN’T A CLUE.

  2. Same with Wellington’s Jo Coughlan, who is advocating for more highways to be built. These are not candidates who seem to understand the magnitude of the crisis presented by increasing CO2 and concommittant climate change.

    If people elect representatives like these, then we are sealing our own doom.

    • Do you sense a pattern here?
      Then you are correct. They are both from the political right. You can spot them from a long way off – candidates claiming to be independent whilst being financed and supported by the National Party, but lacking the courage to be honest about it.

        • they are not associated with, members of, a political party.

          Who are “they”, Paul? Can you be more concise?

          If you’re referring to the right -wing candidates, they have proven links to the National Party.

          Would you like me to provide the references? Or can you operate Google without supervision?

    • Coughlan has Business Wgtn backing. Her senseless proposals for more roading defies logic.

      She is also a denier of many other realities including climate.

      Roading contractors just love it. Sucking money out of ratepayers pockets to create debt future ratepayers service.

      The whole road transport sector including car whole sale and retail, importers of machinery to construct and maintain roads, and the investor state promoting roading schemes and opposing alternatives, are all frothing at the mouth with excitement to find and back such a stupid candidate. They will provide the PR and support for her bid for them.

    • They will all be electric cars in the future, that is what is now the plan a bit down the line, but they forget, that electric cars use about as much electricity as a water heater over a year, so where is that going to come from?

      When I listen to Crone and even many other candidates, they only think about three years into the future, as that is when the next elections are due, so they offer NO answers for the long term. Their discussions are only about rates, efficiencies, a bit more public transport and housing, and how the rubbish will be collected and how long libraries may be opened.

      All else is not discussed, at least not honestly, as it is in the too hard basked. Climate change is just such an issue that is too hard to talk about, and to win votes with, so they rather ignore it, or talk about it in somewhat non committal terms.

      • Electric cars also use dirty tyres made from oil.

        (7 gallons of oil to make one car tyre)
        (20 Gallons of oil to make one truck tyre.

        Also those tyres shed small particles with every turn on the bitumen road with (PAH’s) Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon’s.

        How much oil does it take to make just one metre of the single land road?

        One metre uses over 3500 gallons for just each side of road.

        Roads promote extremely very dirty transport travel!

        These women need to wake up and realise they are killing themselves expanding roads and using synthetic petroleum tyres and poisoning use with PAH’s.

        Use rail they don’t need tyres.!!!

        US Government ATSDR website toxic registry portal. – Tyre dust as (PAH’s.)

        http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/31/3554997.htm – How dangerous is rubber dust?

        How much rubber dust is there, where does it go, and is it harmful?

        Each time a tyre rotates, it loses a layer of rubber about a billionth of a metre thick. If you do some numbers, this works out to about four million million million carbon atoms lost with each rotation.

        A busy road with 25,000 vehicles travelling on it each day will generate around nine kilograms of tyre dust per kilometre.

        In the USA, about 600,000 tonnes of tyre dust comes off vehicles every year.

        Are our waterways and our underground water supplies now being poisoned by PAH’s. (tyre dust particles?)

        ATSDR SAYS; “In soils, PAHs are most likely to stick tightly to particles; certain PAHs move through soil to contaminate underground water” Refer to below; “What happens to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) when they enter the environment?”

    • Aucklanders have two other women to choose from, that is for mayor, try Chloe Swarbrick, or those for a more pro hard nosed approach, try Penny Bright, I suggest.

      Why do we have to vote as the crap MSM want to tell us we have to vote? I will vote for neither, I will protest vote against the virtually corrupt establishment we have.

      I felt angry this morning, where they did on Morning Report only seek views from Phil Goff and Vic Crone on financing future infrastructure in Auckland, both dodging questions about asset sales, which I bet, THEY BOTH WILL IN THE END.

  4. Speaking of which, John Key barely believes it as well, and thinks its impact will be in 100 years time. A lot of National MPs either don’t believe in it or don’t take it seriously

  6. It says in that news report that she got the “tick” from Paul Henry, so I guess, that is sending the message to the superficial, shallow thinking and poorly informed voters in Auckland: Vote for Vic Crone(yism). Henry himself is a climate change denier, same as there are many out in the public. People are mostly in denial, as every day I see NO change in attitudes and behaviour, they do in their majority think they can continue wasting, polluting and living at the expense of the future generations and are hell bent on carrying on as usual.

    As I commented in other posts, she will, same like the other “leading” contenders for the Mayor job also only be another one that has signed up to neoliberalism, to serving big business and the vested interest holding elite in this city of Auckland, and she will be tasked to do the job they expect.

    We do no longer have democracy as it is meant to be applied, we have endless misinformation, pandering to interests of business lobby groups and only lip service to voters, who will never get what they really wanted.

    • Oh, Andy sweetheart just spotted a little flaw with a title, did he? He has to rub it in, as he has little else to comment and contribute.

    • Andy, did you know that if you reverse the letters of climate you get etamilc?

      And if you think about it, etamilc could be a new slogan for promoting cheese or yoghurt or butter.

      All of which is about as relevant and as interesting as your comment.

    • They have a whole bunch of out dwn expressions Andy. Like Racists / climate denier/ flat earther / Xenophobe / Sexist /
      Just expressions to label out instead of thinking.

        • They are all generic insults that “progressives” use in place of thinking and debating

          Then, as far as climate change is concerned, there isn’t a debate. The science is settled, the planet is doomed, and we need to “take action”

          I’m not sure why we need to “take action” if there’s nothing we can do, but there isn’t s debate, so I can’t really discuss it

          • They are all generic insults that “progressives” use in place of thinking and debating

            From experience, debating with racists, bigots, homophobes, et al, is a waste of time. Your own prejudices are well known, Andy.

            • Your own prejudices are well known, Andy.
              Which of “racist, homophobe, bigot” are you applying to me, or all of the above?

      • Paul, it’s quite simple. If you don’t want to be a racist, homophobic, misogynistic bigot, then don’t act like one. Or say racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bigoted things.

        By the way, what is that website you’ve linked to? Are you pimping for Thai sex-workers?

        • Priss ;

          “By the way, what is that website you’ve linked to? Are you pimping for Thai sex-workers?”

          I have never seen such vitriol on the site for quite a while.

          Andy is right. There is no debate. There is no freedom of speech.
          Just a lot of name calling, abuse and those that partake should be throughly ashamed of themselves.

          It seems like 19th century witch hunts or 20th century lynch mobs,
          every body in a frenzy feeding off each other.

          There are highly respected people around the globe that simply
          do not agree with your opinion (and others).
          It’s called freedom of opinion / speech.

          Here is an article with Sarkcozy the latest to change his mind
          (Not that I have a lot of time for him) but more important an
          explanation as to why the Globalist’s are pushing this ‘Dominate Social Theme’.
          http://www.prisonplanet.com/ex-french-president-questions-global-warming.html

          But your last above comment to Paul needs calling out mate.
          Totally uncalled for.

          Here is my reply to you that you probably will never see as it was
          held up for a while after you attempted to slight my character.
          The bulk of it is what I attempted to convey.

          Priss;

          “Signed, Agent99, Control (I’m kidding!)”

          Are you? or are you just baiting for a response.

          You are certainly acting like a troll.
          You haven’t gone through the links at the top provided in my
          reply to Martyn and Frank have you? Otherwise you would
          not be talking such DRIBBLE.

          Webster Tarpley is the man you should be listening/reading.
          He has intel contacts globally, rest contained in reply.

          And Dr. Steve Pieczenik Phd. IS ex-CIA AND EX-CFR.

          All those 4 authors are above reproach.

          I could say you may have a heavy dose of “Confirmation
          Bias.”
          If you do not know what that is, explained in Martyn’s article
          below. You may of missed it as my comment was 3 days late
          and towards the end.
          Last link labeled MUST READ.

          https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/09/01/trump-goes-full-blown-
          fascist-with-new-immigration-speech/

          I am fully aware that Key employed an extra 500 personnel
          for intel purposes in the revamp a while back. It was news.

          UK employed 1500 to go out on social media platforms (facebook, twitter and others) for the sole purpose of trying
          to control the conversations or deflect minds away from any
          subject that might conflict with the Gvt’s narrative.
          At the very least try to put doubt in some peoples minds.
          Ridicule is part of their MO.

          This is especially true of the ‘Hot Button’ topics of GMO’s,
          Fluoride, Vaccines, Global Warming, and Geoengineering
          that is now confirmed as the major driver of the extreme
          weather patterns we experience. (After deposition hearings
          the first court case to stop is about to take place in Canada!)

          Like Hillary,the Banks,the 9/11 narrative IS TO BIG TO FAIL!

          Bit of hope?
          http://myeclinik.com/5-big-signs-global-engine-deceit-lies-control-coming-end/

          The Dam has broken mate. People don’t believe MSM anymore.
          More to the point the term ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ does not
          work anymore!
          The EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!!
          They now know these ‘Conspiracies’ mostly ARE TRUE.!!

          And a treat for you to how and why even our politicians may
          not know. View this. Hot off the press. You are the first.

          http://www.infowars.com/served-shadow-government-subpoenaed/

          Even the Military are not obliged to inform Gvt of all their
          actions. They hold allegiance to the Queen only. (clue?)

          Freudian slip? Either way duly noted.

          Cheers.

          For your information.
          Prior to 9/11 there were several movies about planes flying into buildings.
          One of them at least was the Twin Towers themselves.

          Many subjects are placed in this way so that when events
          occur some time in the future we are sort of subconsciously
          prepared. It’s called PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING.

          • Iain, if you’re going to invoke “freedom of speech”, I think you’ll find it works both ways. You can’t just post on a Forum (generally) and not expect a response (generally).

            What, if you or I post something, do you think we’re entitled not to be responded to?

              • Oh you must not have bumped into the anonymous avitars known as GOSMAN, Andrew and Dave. They are my enemy.

                These guys would single handedly spam TDB with versions of mein Kampf except replace Hittler and Jew with the Labour Party and pro climate policy.

                They are that stupid they’re a coalition of the stupid.

  9. Her ailment could probably be explained by her “Tin-foil Hat” collection! Add to that her whiny sounding voice, oh fuck!? Its a Pullah Benefit Clone!
    Add to that her business kudos? Zero ponzi-scheme share price was $48 a few short years ago. Now, $17.00. I’d fuck’n sack too! National should stick on their list.

  10. It doesn’t matter about an odd “mare”.

    It doesn’t even matter much about a “spare” Key.

    What matters: Americans and Chinese working together to reduce emissions and frankly the Americans have been fed so much crap it might take some serious coastal flooding before they realise they’ve been conned by vested interests.

  11. What vehicle tyres are made as a threat to your health, of so read it and weep Ms Crone.

    Quote;

    Health Hazard Evaluation surveys conducted by NIOSH at six facilities indicated that exposures to 1,3-butadiene in those facilities were significantly below the OSHA standard of 1,000 ppm. The range of reported exposures was 0.06 ppm to 39 ppm. The types of facilities surveyed included those which manufactured helmets and visors, synthetic rubber, rubber tires and tubes, automotive weather stripping, braided hoses, and plastic components for aircraft.6-11(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    “It is recommended that 1,3-butadiene be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen, teratogen, and as a possible reproductive hazard. Consequently, appropriate engineering and work practice controls should be used to reduce worker exposure. These recommendations are based on long-term animal studies which demonstrated carcinogenicity, teratogenicity and adverse effects upon the testes and ovaries.”

    https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/

    NIOSH-Issued Publications 1,3-Butadiene CH2=CH-CH=Ch2

    NIOSH Homepage
    Workplace Safety & Health Topics

    NIOSH Publications & Products NIOSH-Issued Publications

    1,3-Butadiene CH2=CH-CH=Ch2
    Recommend on Facebook Tweet Share

    DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 84-105

    Current Intelligence Bulletin 41

    Foreword

    Current Intelligence Bulletins are reports issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, for the purpose of disseminating new scientific information about occupational hazards. A Current Intelligence Bulletin may draw attention to a hazard previously unrecognized or may report new data suggesting that a known hazard is either more or less dangerous than was previously thought.

    Current Intelligence Bulletins are prepared by the staff of the Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer, NIOSH, (Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45226) and are distributed to representatives of organized labor, industry, public health agencies, academic institutions, and public interest groups as well as to those federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor, which have responsibilities for protecting the health of workers. It is our intention that anyone with the need to know should have ready access to the information contained in these documents; we welcome suggestions concerning their content, style, and distribution.

    It is recommended that 1,3-butadiene be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen, teratogen, and as a possible reproductive hazard. Consequently, appropriate engineering and work practice controls should be used to reduce worker exposure. These recommendations are based on long-term animal studies which demonstrated carcinogenicity, teratogenicity and adverse effects upon the testes and ovaries.

    On the basis of this information, it is recommended that producers and users of 1,3-butadiene disseminate this information to their workers and customers and that professional and trade associations and unions inform their members of the potential hazards of working with 1,3-butadiene.

    It is also recommended that the present Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 1,000 ppm for exposure to 1,3-butadiene be reexamined. The excess risk of cancer to workers exposed to specific airborne concentrations of 1,3-butadiene has not yet been determined, but the probability of developing cancer would be decreased by reducing exposure.

    [signature]
    J. Donald Millar, M.D., D.T.P.H. (Lond.)
    Assistant Surgeon General
    Director, National Institute for
    Occupational Safety and Health
    Centers for Disease Control

    Abstract

    Inhalation exposure of rats and mice to 1,3-butadiene induced a carcinogenic response at multiple sites. Mammary fibroadenomas/carcinomas, uterine sarcomas, Leydig cell adenomas of the testes, thyroid follicular cell adenomas, exocrine tumors of the pancreas, and Zymbal gland carcinomas were identified in rats exposed at concentrations of l,000 or 8,000 ppm of 1,3-butadiene. Mice exposed to 625 or 1,250 ppm of 1,3-butadiene developed a high incidence of malignant lymphomas; an increased incidence of other tumors, including hemangiosarcoma; and testicular and ovarian atrophy.

    The offspring of pregnant rats exposed to 1,3-butadiene at 8,000 ppm had major skeletal defects. In addition, fetal toxicity was observed when pregnant dams were exposed at 200 ppm, 1,000 ppm, and 8,000 ppm.

    Epidemiological studies of workers employed in facilities producing styrene-butadiene rubber indicated an increased, but not statistically significant, risk of mortality from neoplasms of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues and from leukemia.

    Based on these data, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that 1,3-butadiene be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen and teratogen and as a possible reproductive hazard.

    Background

    Physical and Chemical Properties
    1,3-Butadiene is a colorless, noncorrosive, flammable gas. It is slightly soluble in water, more soluble in methanol and ethanol, and readily soluble in common organic solvents such as cyclohexane. Additional chemical and physical properties are listed in Table 1(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html).

    Table 1. Chemical and Physical Properties1-3(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    table icon

    Chemical Identity:
    1,3-Butadiene

    CAS Registry No.:
    106-99-0

    Synonyms:
    Biethylene, bivinyl, butadiene, buta-1,3-diene, alpha-gamma-butadiene, divinyl, erythrene, NCI-C50602, pyrrolylene, vinylethylene

    Molecular Weight:
    54.10

    Molecular Formula:
    C4H6

    Structural Formula:
    CH 2:CHCH:CH 2

    Boiling point
    -4,41°C (at 760 mmHg)

    Freezing point:
    -108.9°C

    Heat of vaporization, J/g (cal/g), 25°C
    389 (93)

    Explosive limits, vol % butadiene in air
    lower – 2.0
    upper – 11.5

    Vapor pressure
    2 atm at 15.3°C
    5 atm at 47.0°C

    Recognition (Odor) Threshold
    1.3 ppm

    Production, Use, and Potential for Occupational Exposure
    In the United States (U.S.), approximately 78% (3,240 million pounds) of all 1,3-butadiene is produced as a coproduct in the manufacture of ethylene, and 22% (910 million pounds) is produced by dehydrogenation of n-butene and n-butane.4(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) and polybutadiene rubber (BR) account for the two largest uses of 1,3-butadiene in the U.S., approximately 2,880 million pounds (primarily in the tire industry); polychloroprene (neoprene) rubber production ranks third, 320 million pounds. Other uses are in styrene-butadiene copolymer latexes used as carpet backing and paper coating materials; in acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) resins used to make high impact resistant pipes and parts for automobiles and appliances; and in the production of nitrile rubber, adiponitrile/hexamethylenediamine for nylon, polybutadiene polymers, thermoplastic elastomers, and methyl methacrylate-butadiene-styrene and nitrile resins. As an intermediate, 1,3-butadiene is used in the production of various chemicals such as 1,4-hexadiene, 1,5-cyclooctadiene, and fungicides such as tetrahydrophthalic anhydride.4(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) Approximately 65,000 workers (Table 2(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)) are potentially exposed to 1,3-butadiene as estimated from data compiled from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) National Occupational Hazard Survey (NOHS).5(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Table 2. Number of Workers Potentially Exposed by Industry

    table icon

    SIC*(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) Code
    Description
    Workers Potentially Exposed

    26
    Paper and allied products
    1,221

    28
    Chemical and allied products
    44,980

    29
    Petroleum and coal products
    84

    30
    Rubber and plastics products, NEC
    9,086

    33
    Primary metal industries
    55

    34
    Fabricated metal products
    96

    35
    Machinery, except electrical
    1,210

    36
    Electrical equipment and supplies
    121

    37
    Transportation equipment
    145

    38
    Instruments and related products
    175

    39
    Miscellaneous manufacturing industries
    2,244

    73
    Miscellaneous business services
    5,339

    80
    Medical and other health services
    493

    *Standard Industrial Classification Code [return to table](https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Health Hazard Evaluation surveys conducted by NIOSH at six facilities indicated that exposures to 1,3-butadiene in those facilities were significantly below the OSHA standard of 1,000 ppm. The range of reported exposures was 0.06 ppm to 39 ppm. The types of facilities surveyed included those which manufactured helmets and visors, synthetic rubber, rubber tires and tubes, automotive weather stripping, braided hoses, and plastic components for aircraft.6-11(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Exposure Standards and Guides

    Based on the 1968 Threshold Limit Value (TLV®) of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists,12(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) promulgated a standard for occupational exposure to 1,3-butadiene of 1,000 ppm (2,200 mg/m3) determined as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration.13(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) The TLV® of 1,000 ppm was based on the absence of significant progressive injury to rats and guinea pigs exposed at 600, 2,300, or 6,700 ppm of 1,3-butadiene during an 8-month daily exposure period and only mild irritation experienced by human subjects exposed at 8,000 ppm.12(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    The ACGIH included 1,3-butadiene in their Notice of Intended Changes for the 1983-84 Threshold Limit Values, based upon reported animal carcinogenicity data. The Intended Change identified 1,3-butadiene as an industrial substance suspect of carcinogenic potential for man. No numerical TLV® was assigned.14(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Toxicity

    Results of Animal Studies
    Acute — Inhalation exposure studies with 1,3-butadiene have shown the lethal concentration for 50 percent (LC50) of the mice and rats tested to be 122,000 ppm and 129,000 ppm, respectively,15(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) an LC100 of 250,000 ppm was reported for rabbits exposed to 1,3-butadiene.16(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) Toxic effects of exposure in the animals progressed from light anesthesia, to running movements and tremors, to deep anesthesia and death.

    Subchronic — Except for moderately increased salivation at 4,000 and 8,000 ppm concentrations, exposure of rats on a daily basis for 3 months at 1,3-butadiene concentrations of 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, or 8,000 ppm produced no effects in the animals related to the exposures.16(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) Rats and guinea pigs exposed daily for 8 months at a 6,700 ppm concentration of 1,3-butadiene experienced a slightly reduced body-weight gain compared to controls. No significant effects were noted in animals exposed at concentrations of 600 or 2,300 ppm.17(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Chronic — In a chronic inhalation study, rats exposed for two years, 6 hours per day, 5 days per week at 1,3-butadiene concentrations of 1,000 or 8,000 ppm developed tumors at multiple sites. Occurrences of mammary fibroadenomas/carcinomas, thyroid follicular cell adenomas, and uterine stromal sarcomas in female rats exposed at both concentrations were statistically significant when compared with the controls. Male rats had significant increases in the incidence of testicular Leydig cell adenomas at 1,000 ppm and 8,000 ppm exposures and for pancreatic exocrine tumors at 8,000 ppm when compared with the controls.18(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Mice exposed at 1,3-butadiene concentrations of 625 or 1,250 ppm, 6 hours per day, 5 days per week for 61 weeks developed cancer at multiple sites. A statistically significant increase of tumors in exposed male and female mice compared to the controls included hemangiosarcomas of the heart, malignant lymphomas, papillomas of, the stomach, and alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas and carcinomas of the lungs. Exposed female mice also had a statistically significant increase of granulomatous tumors of the ovary at exposures of 625 and 1,250 ppm and mammary gland carcinomas at a concentration of 1,250 ppm when compared with the controls. In addition, 1,3-butadiene was associated with the induction and early onset of non-neoplastic changes in both sexes of mice. These non-neoplastic changes included atrophy of the ovaries, testes, and nasal olfactory epithelium; hyperplasia and metaplasia of the respiratory epithelium; and liver necrosis.19(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Teratogenicity and Reproductive Effects — An inhalation study of pregnant Sprague-Dawley rats exposed at 200, 1,000, or 8,000 ppm of 1,3-butadiene for 6 hours per day on days 6-15 of gestation produced dose-related maternal and fetal toxicity when compared to an unexposed group of controls. Depressed body weight gain among dams was observed at all concentrations, and fetal growth was significantly retarded among rats exposed at the 8,000 ppm. Fetal deaths, though not statistically significant, were higher for all exposed groups, and at 8,000 ppm, a statistically significant increase in major skeletal abnormalities was recorded (skull, spine, sternum, long bones and ribs).20(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Mutagenicity — 1,3-Butadiene was not found to be a direct-acting mutagen, but in the presence of a liver microsomal activating system, it was transformed into mutagenic metabolites.21(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Human Health Effects

    Acute Effects
    Occupational exposure at 2,000, 4,000 or 8,000 ppm concentrations of 1,3-butadiene is reported to cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. Coughing, drowsiness, and fatigue have also been reported at higher, but not specified, exposure concentrations. These physiological responses dissipated upon removal of the workers from the area where 1,3-butadiene had accumulated.17(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html),22(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html),23(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) Dermatitis and frostbite may result from exposure to liquid and evaporating 1,3-butadiene.24(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Epidemiology Studies
    A retrospective cohort study was conducted at two SBR production facilities in the U.S. The combined cohorts consisted of 2,756 white males who had an average length of employment of approximately 10 years. No historical exposure data were available. Environmental sampling conducted at the time of the study characterized the most likely chemical exposures to be 1,3-butadiene, styrene, and benzene. Average exposure concentrations of 1,3-butadiene in the two facilities were 1.24 ppm (range, 0.11-4.17 ppm) and 13.5 ppm (range, 0.34-174 ppm). No statistically significant excesses in total or cause-specific mortality were observed for the total worker populations of either facility. However, a subgroup of workers from one cohort had a non-statistically significant excess mortality for cause-specific categories of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues.25(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Eight facilities that produced SBR in the U.S. and Canada provided data for another retrospective study.26(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) The study covered a period of 36 years and included a total worker population of 13,920 black and white males. No significant excesses in cause-specific mortality were observed; however, some cancers (digestive system, kidney, lymph nodes, and larynx) occurred at a higher rate in white males compared with the general population, and the black male population had a non-statistically significant elevated risk of arteriosclerotic disease. The small number of workers in the cohorts from the 8 facilities studied and the relatively short latency periods of workers exposed inhibited the capability to identify statistically significant increases in risk of mortality or cause-specific disease. Also, environmental data were insufficient to characterize and quantify the workers’ chemical exposures.

    Recommendations

    There are several classifications for identifying a substance as a carcinogen. Such classifications have been developed by the National Toxicology Program,19(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) the International Agency for Research on Cancer,27(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) and OSHA.28(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) NIOSH considers the OSHA classification the most appropriate for use in identifying carcinogens in the workplace. This classification is outlined in 29 CFR 199O.lO3*(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html).28(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) Since exposure to 1,3-butadiene has been shown to produce malignant tumors in rats and mice, it meets the OSHA criteria; therefore, NIOSH recommends that 1,3-butadiene be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. In addition, there is a possible reproductive hazard to workers exposed to 1,3-butadiene based on maternal and fetal toxicity observed in 1,3-butadiene exposed rats; an indication of teratogenicity in exposed rats; and suggestion of testicular and ovarian atrophy in mice exposed to 1,3-butadiene.

    NIOSH also recommends that the present OSHA standard of 1,000 ppm TWA for 1,3-butadiene be reexamined based on the health effects in animals exposed at concentrations of 1,3-butadiene at or below the standard. In addition, the excess risk of cancer to workers exposed to specific airborne concentrations of 1,3-butadiene has not yet been determined but the probability of developing cancer would be decreased by reducing exposure. As prudent public health policy, employers should voluntarily assess the conditions under which workers may be exposed to 1,3-butadiene and to the fullest extent possible take all reasonable precautions to reduce exposure.

    Guidelines recommended in the Appendix for minimizing worker exposure to 1,3-butadiene are general in nature and should be adapted to specific work situations as required.

    Note

    *”‘Potential occupational carcinogen’ means any substance, or combination or mixture of substances, which causes an increased incidence of benign and/or malignant neoplasms, or a substantial decrease in the latency period between exposure and onset of neoplasms in humans or in one or more experimental mammalian species as the result of any oral, respiratory or dermal exposure, or any other exposure which results in the induction of tumors at a site other than the site of administration. This definition also includes any substance which is metabolized into one or more potential occupational carcinogens by mammals.” [return to text](https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    References

    1. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Third Edition. Butadiene. John Wiley & Sons, New York, Vol. 4, pp. 313-337 (1979).

    2. Tatken RL, Lewis RJ (ed): Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. 1981-2 Edition. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 83-107. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, Volume 1 (June 1983).

    3. Cox JP: Odor Control and Olfaction. Edited by Ralph B. Duclos, Pollution Sciences Publishing Company, Lynden, Washington, p. 161 (1975).

    4. Killilea TF: CEH Marketing Research Report on Butadiene, SRI Chemical Economics Handbook. SRI International, Menlo Park, California, pp. 300,5800A-300,5803U (1979).

    5. Sundin DS: Workers potentially exposed to 1,3-butadiene. Unpublished data available from U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Occupational Hazard Survey data base, Cincinnati, Ohio (data collected 1972-1974).

    6. Burroughs GE: Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-1-426, Firestone Synthetic Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio (1977).

    7. Evans WA, Elesh E: Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 77-114-529, The Standard Products Company, Lexington, Kentucky. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio (1978).

    8. Roper CP Jr: Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 74-120-260, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Gadsden, Alabama. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio (1976).

    9. Gunter BJ, Lucas JB: Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 72-86-38, Gates Rubber Company, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio (1973).

    10. Belanger PL, Elesh E: Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 79-36-656, Bell Helmets, Inc., Norwalk, California. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio (1980).

    11. Burroughs GE: Health Hazard Evaluation Determination Report No. 78-110-585, Piper Aircraft Corporation, Vero Beach, Florida. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio (1979).

    12. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Threshold Limit Values of Air-borne Contaminants for 1968, Recommended and Intended Changes. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio (1968).

    13. Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1 (1982).

    14. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in the Work Environment with Intended Changes for 1983-84. ACGIH, Cincinnati, Ohio (1983).

    15. Shugaev BB: Concentrations of hydrocarbons in tissues as a measure of toxicity. Arch Environ Health 18:878-882 (1969).

    16. Crouch CN, Pullinger DH, Gaunt IF: Inhalation toxicity studies with 1,3-butadiene – 2. 3 month toxicity study in rats. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 40:796-802 (1979).

    17. Carpenter CP, Shaffer CB, Weil CS, et al.: Studies on the inhalation of 1,3-butadiene; with a comparison of its narcotic effect with benzol, toluol, and styrene, and a note on the elimination of styrene by the human. J Ind Hlth Tox 26(3):69-78 (1944).

    18. Owen PE: The toxicity and carcinogenicity of butadiene gas administered to rats by inhalation for approximately 24 months. Final Report. Volumes 1-4, Addendum. Unpublished report submitted to The International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, Inc. by Hazleton Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, England (November 1981).

    19. Powers M: Board Draft of NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 1,3-butadiene (CAS No. 106-99-0) in B6C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). NTP-83-071/NIH Publication No. 84-2544. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program (October 28, 1983).

    20. Owen PE, Irvine LFH: 1,3-Butadiene: Inhalation teratogenicity study in the rat, Final Report. Unpublished report submitted to The International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, Inc. by Hazleton Laboratories Ltd, Harrogate, England (November 1981).

    21. deMeester C, Poncelet F, Roberfroid M, et al.: The mutagenicity of butadiene towards Salmonella typhimurium. Toxicol Lett 6:125-130 (1980).

    22. Wilson RH: Health hazards encountered in the manufacture of synthetic rubber. JAMA 124(11):701-703 (1944).

    23. Occupational Diseases A Guide to Their Recognition. Revised Edition. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-181. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, pp. 138-139 (June 1977).

    24. Weaver NK: International Labor Organization Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Third (Revised) Edition. 1,3-Butadiene. International Labor Office, Geneva, Volume 1 A-K, pp. 347-348 (1982).

    25. Meinhardt TJ, Lemen RA, Crandall MS, et al.: Environmental epidemiologic investigation of the styrene-butadiene rubber industry: Mortality patterns with discussion of the hematopoietic and lymphatic malignancies. Scan J Work Environ Health 8:250-259 (1982).

    26. Matanoski GM, Schwartz L, Sperrazza J, et al.: Mortality of workers in the styrene-butadiene rubber polymer manufacturing industry. Final report. Unpublished report submitted to The International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers, Inc. by Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland (June 1982).

    27. World Health Organization: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. IARC Monographs, Supplement 1 (1979)

    28. Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR 1990.103 (1982).

    29. Leidel NA, Busch KA, Lynch JR: Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-173. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1977)

    30. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. Second Edition. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 77-157-B Volume 2, P&CAM S91, pp. S-91-1 to S-91-9, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1977).

    31. Hagopian JH, Bastress EK: Recommended Industrial Ventilation Guidelines. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 76-162. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1976).

    32. Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 29 CFR 1910.134 (1982).

    Appendix Guidelines for Minimizing Employee Exposure to 1,3-Butadiene

    It is recommended that 1,3-butadiene be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen and teratogen and as a possible reproductive hazard. These recommendations are based on long-term animal studies which demonstrated carcinogenicity teratogenicity and adverse effects upon the testes and ovaries. Consequently, appropriate engineering and work practice controls should be used to reduce worker exposure to the fullest extent feasible. The area in which 1,3-butadiene is used should be restricted to only those employees essential to the process or operation. The guidelines listed below are general in nature and should be adapted to specific work situations as required.

    Exposure Monitoring

    Initial and routine worker exposure surveys should be made by competent industrial hygiene and engineering personnel. These surveys are necessary to determine the extent of worker exposure and to ensure that controls already in place are operational and effective. NIOSH’s Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual may be helpful in developing efficient programs to monitor worker exposure to 1,3-butadiene.29(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) The manual discusses how to determine the need for exposure measurements and select sampling times.

    Worker exposures should be estimated by 8-hour TWA and short-term (15-minute) exposures calculated from personal or breathing zone samples. Short-term samples should be taken during periods of maximum expected exposure by using all available knowledge of the work areas, procedures, and processes. Area and source measurements may be useful in identifying problem areas, processes, and operations.

    A detailed analytical method for 1,3-butadiene is in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Second Edition.30(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html)

    Controlling Worker Exposure

    There are four basic methods of limiting worker exposure to 1,3-butadiene, none of which is a simple industrial hygiene or management decision. Careful planning and thought should be used prior to implementation.

    Product Substitution
    Substitution, when feasible, of an alternative material with a lower potential health risk is an important method for reducing exposure. Extreme care must be used when selecting substitutes. Possible health effects from potential exposure to alternatives for 1,3-butadiene should be fully evaluated prior to selection.

    Contaminant Controls
    Airborne concentrations of 1,3-butadiene can be most effectively controlled at the source of contamination by enclosure of the operation and use of local exhaust ventilation. Guidelines for selected processes and operations can be found in NIOSH’s Recommended Industrial Ventilation Guidelines.31(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) When a process or operation is being enclosed, a slight vacuum should be used to create negative pressure so that leakage will cause external air to flow into the enclosure and minimize contamination of the workplace. This can be accomplished with a well-designed local exhaust ventilation system that physically encloses the process as much as possible with sufficient capture velocity to keep the contaminant from entering the workplace atmosphere. The design of ventilation systems should take into account the reactive characteristics of 1,3-butadiene.

    Ventilation equipment should be checked at least every three months to ensure adequate performance. System effectiveness should also be checked soon after any change in production, process, or control that might result in significant increases in airborne exposure to 1,3-butadiene.

    Worker Isolation
    If feasible, workers may be isolated from direct contact with the work environment by the use of automated equipment operated from a closed control booth or room. The control room should be maintained at a greater air pressure than that surrounding the process equipment so that air flows out of, rather than into, the room. This type of control will not protect workers who must perform process checks, adjustments, maintenance, assembly-line tasks, and related operations. Therefore, special precautions are often necessary to prevent or limit worker exposure in these situations and frequently involve the use of personal protective equipment.

    Personal Protective Equipment
    Personal protective equipment, which may include goggles, gloves, coveralls, footwear, and respirators, should not be the only means of preventing or minimizing exposure during routine operations. Since 1,3-butadiene is a skin irritant and can produce frostbite, personal protective clothing and equipment should be selected that is appropriate for the potential exposures.

    The use of respiratory protection requires that a respiratory protection program be instituted according to the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.13432(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/84-105/default.html) and that the respirators have been approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and by NIOSH. This program should include training on proper fit testing and use and procedures for respirator maintenance inspection, cleaning and evaluation.

    Medical Surveillance

    A medical surveillance program should be made available that can evaluate both the acute and chronic effects of 1,3-butadiene exposure. Effects such as upper respiratory irritation, dermatitis, and irritation should alert management that unacceptable facute exposure to 1,3-butadiene may be occurring. A careful history should be taken initially and updated yearly. Unusual medical findings for a worker should prompt medical personnel to consider specific tests for the individual.

    NIOSH Homepage(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/)
    · NIOSH A-Z(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/az/a.html)

    · Workplace Safety & Health Topics(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/)

    · Publications and Products(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pubs/)

    · Programs(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/programs.html)

    · Contact NIOSH(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/contact/)

    File Formats Help:

    How do I view different file formats (PDF, DOC, PPT, MPEG) on this site?

    Content source:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Education and Information Division

  12. If you try hard enough you can cherry-pick data and provide phony explanations to promote almost any absurd argument you want.

    For instance, this guy

    https://www.rt.com/news/359373-australian-mp-climate-change-un/

    manages to cherry-pick the period when emissions of sulphurous gases were at a maximum and were generating clouds of aerosols that blocked the sun and caused temperatures to stabilize (instead of rising), and conflates one phenomenon with another to deny that humans are wrecking the planet.

    In a sane and civil society such people would be charged with disorderly conduct or charged with inciting anti-social behavior.

    However, in this totally insane and corrupt culture, fuckwits and people with a vested interest in fossil fuel consumption don’t just have free rein to misrepresent facts and talk utter nonsense, they are actively encouraged to misrepresent facts and talk utter nonsense.

    I am frequently asked how long we have left: the evidence now suggests we have between 15 and 45 years before humans render the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most other vertebrate species. That does not mean another 15 to 45 years of business-as-usual before we need to act to prevent catastrophe; it means some time between 2030 and 2060 most of the Earth will be too hot to support the species we need to survive.

    • That’s a cheerful note to end on. if we only have 15 years left then we might as well have a jolly good time while it lasts.

      Perhaps we could all arrange a mass suicide on January 1st 2031 ?

      • Show us not tell us

        If it is so miserable for you living under the improvements consistently put into play by the left, then you are free to go first and things will further improve slightly for the rest.

    • Afewknowthetruth;

      “In a sane and civil society such people would be charged with disorderly conduct or charged with inciting anti-social behavior.

      However, in this totally insane and corrupt culture, fuckwits and people with a vested interest in fossil fuel consumption don’t just have free rein to misrepresent facts and talk utter nonsense, they are actively encouraged to misrepresent facts and talk utter nonsense.”

      Is this really the state of the indoctrination and emotional fever that this subject brings out in it’s followers?
      So much so that you seem to have been totally blinded to the quality and the contents of this speech.

      Your quote again.
      “If you try hard enough you can cherry-pick data and provide phony explanations to promote almost any absurd argument you want.”

      Isn’t this what you have just done?
      It just never occurred to you that this man was speaking the truth with sound
      statistics.
      We have just talked about ‘Confirmation Bias’ recently.

      Did you miss this mans credentials at the start.
      Did you miss the standing ovation that went on at the end for ages and the
      huge line of politicians across the spectrum that queued to shake his hand
      enthusiastically.
      This speech was impressive.!

      This article explains simply what is behind this push for Global Carbon Taxes.
      http://www.prisonplanet.com/ex-french-president-questions-global-warming.html

      And a reply to before you seem to have missed with your fear monger headline.
      (like your last paragraph above)

      ‘NASA Warns Of Mass Extinction If We Don’t Fix Climate Change’
      Iain Mclean says:
      September 7, 2016 at 1:09 am

      Afewknowthetruth;

      Time for your Paradigm Shift?

      You know how the MSM works now. Their MO.
      You know about the global governance plan. Global taxes on nations/control
      You should know what a Dominant Social Theme is the TPTB push. (meme related.)

      In fact they always Double Down when caught fraudulently changing the data to
      suit. 2009.
      You know about Confirmation Bias and how it works.

      Time for some research;
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=Global+warming&x=16&y=11
      And don’t believe any google adds I see sitting there. Google adds,yer right.!

      It is not demeaning to admit someone my have been fooled.
      Putin stated it was all a hoax years ago.

      And you should know too Martyn but you’re excused for the pension to protect.

      It’s like being a ‘Closet Trump Voter’ is’int it. There is plenty of them.

      Cheers.

  13. Leaving aside the climate thing, I think the situation displays a certain lack of political aptitude on behalf of Ms Crone

    On subjects such as these, even if she has her own views, she is best to keep her mouth shut. That’s how experienced politicians work, like for example Mr Key

    • Of course, Andy. Abysmal ignorance and personal incredulity combined with a total lack of any political principles is just what Homo sapiens needs as he hurtles towards the collapse of civilisation. If not outright extinction.

      How are the clowns down Christchurch doing in their battle to build their homes in a wait-for-it flood area? Or is it just the right to sell to suckers that they want?

      • If you genuinely believe in outright extinction then “political principles” are probably the least of our worries

        As for Christchurch, yes we are making progress at stopping all further development and rebuild. As you know, Christchurch is doomed and has no future. That is why I left.

Comments are closed.