Slashdot Mirror


EPA Bans CFC-Based Asthma Inhalers

bonch writes "The EPA has banned over-the-counter asthma inhalers as part of an agreement with other nations to avoid using chlorofluorocarbons, a substance once used in aerosol sprays. Alternative albuterol inhalers cost almost three times as much as the $20 epinephrine inhalers sold by online retailers."

394 comments

  1. government idiots by p51d007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government, EPA...what a bunch of idiots. Here we have an inexpensive asthma product, that helps MILLIONS of people each day, and now thanks to the government, it will costs those people MORE for a different product. One of the scariest things ever said was... "I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to HELP you".

    1. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Corporations, what a bunch of idiots. Here we have an ozone depleting product, that will affect BILLIONS of people each day, and now thanks to the government, it will save those people MORE by keeping intact the ozone layer. Once of the scariest things ever said was... "I'm from the corporation, and I'm here to SAVE the planet".

    2. Re:government idiots by petteyg359 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If the asthma is aggravated by the atmosphere, and the supposed relief mechanism just puts more crap in the atmosphere, then that relief mechanism is doing it bass-ackwards.

    3. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't even know you could still get the aerosol ones. I use a Symbicort puffer everyday, pretty much costs me nothing. Admittedly though, I'm not in the US.

    4. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unregulated, appointed regulation.
      Some of these Gov regulatory branches need to have checks and balances put in place.

      I saw a great shirt that said "The ATF should be a convenience store not a Gov Bureau."

    5. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK and other countries already banned them. Also, most patients with basic treatment are on albuterol and not epi.

    6. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDIOTS

      That is who runs this country. Why else take a product that works and replace it with something that costs more and is less effective.

      Oh yes let's see where we have seen that before... R12 or Halon anyone?

      Sigh - time to reboot this Govt!

    7. Re:government idiots by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The amount of "crap in the the atmosphere" from all inhalers ever made, combined, is trivial. These are the only OTC rescue inhalers on the market. People will die from this bullshit.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:government idiots by Kvasio · · Score: 0

      +1, outbreak of common sense

    9. Re:government idiots by causality · · Score: 2

      People will die from this bullshit.

      That's usually what it takes to get bureaucrats to take notice. It doesn't matter how predictable the problems are. Once somebody dies, suddenly they see something as a problem.

      I am ignorant about the inner workings of these inhalers. So I am curious, what's the reason they cannot simply use compressed air to provide the aerosol? Why must it be a CFC or albuterol?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    10. Re:government idiots by causality · · Score: 2

      I saw a great shirt that said "The ATF should be a convenience store not a Gov Bureau."

      In a free country, it would be.

      The regulation of things like alcohol, tobacco and guns should have never involved the feds in the first place. The states are more than capable of handling it. The whole federalism thing works when it's tried.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    11. Re:government idiots by EdZ · · Score: 1

      These are the only OTC rescue inhalers on the market. People will die from this bullshit.

      In the US, maybe. In the UK, I've never even seen an epinephrine inhaler, salbutamol (albuterol) is the standard.

    12. Re:government idiots by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not really. Right now inhalers are among the most significant remaining sources of CFCs.

      The other remaining source is Halon fire suppression systems. Halon is no longer produced, but remaining stocks are still in use.

    13. Re:government idiots by ravenshrike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The amount of CFCs pumped into the atmosphere by asthma inhalers is negligible at best. Even if every person on the planet used one, which they don't.

    14. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am ignorant about the inner workings of these inhalers. So I am curious, what's the reason they cannot simply use compressed air to provide the aerosol? Why must it be a CFC or albuterol?

      There's already an alternative called HFA and the makers of Primatene Mist have known this ban was coming for years. Why aren't they ready? My guess is maximizing profit.

    15. Re:government idiots by sexconker · · Score: 1

      These are the only OTC rescue inhalers on the market. People will die from this bullshit.

      In the US, maybe. In the UK, I've never even seen an epinephrine inhaler, salbutamol (albuterol) is the standard.

      In the Canada, maybe. In the US, I've never even seen an epinephrine inhaler, salbutamol (albuterol) is the standard.

      And I have asthma!

    16. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Corporations, what a bunch of idiots. Here we have an ozone depleting product, that will affect BILLIONS of people each day, and now thanks to the government, it will save those people MORE by keeping intact the ozone layer. Once of the scariest things ever said was... "I'm from the corporation, and I'm here to SAVE the planet".

      Yeah, fuck those asthma sufferers. Even though there are more pollutants pumped into the atmosphere from running your car for less than a second, those people deserve to have the medicine they depend on to breath cost more. If their combined medicinal use affects the lungs of even an ANT in a million years, I want them strung up and caned.

      Now watch me light up this joint.

    17. Re:government idiots by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2

      Not really. Right now inhalers are among the most significant remaining sources of CFCs.

      The other remaining source is Halon fire suppression systems. Halon is no longer produced, but remaining stocks are still in use.

      Of course they are, because every other source has been eliminated.

    18. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source?

    19. Re:government idiots by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      The whole federalism thing works when it's tried.

      Federalism is exactly what we have now, and it doesn't appear to be working that well. You'd probably be better classified as an anti-Federalist.

      There is a rationale for the ATF and other federal regulation however: for things which span multiple states, or are easily transported between states, it can be argued that these things need to be regulated at the national level instead of allowing each state to do it its own way, as coordination between 50 different states with 50 different laws is logistically unlikely. Of course, by Federalizing the law and enforcement, you have to get compromise and everyone to agree to one law, and that doesn't work all that well either. As we've seen, getting places as different as New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, and Montana to agree on a common set of gun laws is basically impossible.

    20. Re:government idiots by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      And that's good. Though the concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere has peaked, it still is significant to cause large ozone hole in the Antarctic region.

      Banning remaining CFC sources will accelerate the healing of ozone layer. And it's not like there are no good replacements available.

    21. Re:government idiots by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      They may be the most significant source, but the question is whether they're producing significant amounts of CFCs. From what I've heard, the ozone hole is beginning to close, and CFC inhalers are/ were still being used. While it's true that CFCs would ideally not be used period, a certain very carefully measured usage, which saves lives, might not be damaging. The problem is widespread usage, not small amounts.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    22. Re:government idiots by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In maybe. In Canada, I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an epinephrine inhaler. Yeah, nope, the Canadian Lung Association doesn't list any such thing.

      Slashdot, is this some kind of made up or trivial story to drive up hits or something?

    23. Re:government idiots by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      I'm in Canada, and several in my family have asthma... I've seen two types of inhalers: the salbutamol inhalers, and the steroid inhalers (beclometasone). I have seen epinephrine in the form of an auto-injector pen, but it strikes me as though an inhaler for anaphylaxis wouldn't be that useful....

    24. Re:government idiots by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Well, there are adequate replacements for CFCs. Why existing drugs were not reformulated using non-CFC propellants is beyond me. It'd been known for quite some time that CFCs would be banned.

      I think, treaty creators were counting on industry to quickly produce replacement drugs - there was quite enough time for that. So it looks like it's yet another failure of pharma industry.

    25. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we have an ozone depleting product, that will affect BILLIONS of people each day

      [citation needed] There's a lot of speculation about the "hole" in the ozone layer ever since it was discovered in the 1980's. The truth is that the hole grows and shrinks quite dramatically over time and this behavior seems to be wholly independent of human activities. Consider it a pre-cursor to the great anthropogenic global warming hoax.

    26. Re:government idiots by Svartalf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Do you KNOW for a fact that it's an Ozone Depleting Product? You only have what you've been told...which is conflicting at best, in light of the chemistries involved. Given that this is the case...saying it'll affect BILLIONS as you say...that's an appeal to emotion without any real facts. You're not winning anyone over really- and most of the stuff in question is being challenged right now because our country's coming apart because of things like the premise you put forward.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    27. Re:government idiots by cvtan · · Score: 2

      You can't put enough compressed air in a container to work well at a reasonable pressure. CFCs and other chemicals of that type (propane in propane tanks for the BBQ are another example) become liquids at room temperature and moderate pressures (something like 60-100psi). As the gas above the liquid is used, the pressure in the container remains constant (vapor pressure) until the liquid is depleted and only then does the pressure start going down. This works much better for propelling out a fixed dose of drug. If you used air, the pressure would decrease with each use and change the amount of drug ejected. This doesn't explain why the makers of Primatene have not found an alternative propellant. They have known about this coming ban for years and it is difficult to purchase this item these days.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    28. Re:government idiots by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a physician I know that endotracheal epinephrine does have its uses in severe asthma and status asthmaticus - it is the ultimate bronchodilator; however I have never prescribed it or recommended it for daily use. The side effects can be quite severe, including cardiac arrhythmias leading to death. I can't imagine that this stuff was allowed to be on sale without a prescription in the US.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    29. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantitative proof or GTFO.

    30. Re:government idiots by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      In maybe. In Canada, I didn't even realize there was such a thing as an epinephrine inhaler. Yeah, nope, the Canadian Lung Association doesn't list any such thing.

      Slashdot, is this some kind of made up or trivial story to drive up hits or something?

      Only in America. Primatine Mist is pure epinephrine. It does have smooth muscle relaxation properties that are useful in Asthma but has the potential for significant cardiac side effects (remember that a number of asthmatics have concomitant heart disease and that uncontrolled epinephrine use isn't such a good idea). Albuterol and other prescription drugs are SAFER than Primatine Mist. But that drug has been available for decades and has been grandfathered in as an OTC drug.

      Makes sense? No. American? Of course.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    31. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't find the idiocy in your own statement I'll leave you to continue on with the concept you've made an intelligent argument.

    32. Re:government idiots by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Banning remaining CFC sources will accelerate the healing of ozone layer. And it's not like there are no good replacements available.

      Do you have asthma? I do, and I find that the non-CFC HFA inhalers don't work for me. I have resorted to (illegally) ordering CFC inhalers from India and/or using a portable nebulizer, which is both less effective and less portable than the inhalers with propellants.

      The problem with the HFA inhalers is that they don't propel the medicine strongly enough and the propellant itself may even be an irritant to some people. I have had times where it has at least seemed to make my asthma worse, not better.

      OTOH, I'm not a big fan of primatene mist either. It is dangerous and actually causes pain in my chest. Although in an emergency it is often the only option available other than the ER for someone with asthma.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    33. Re:government idiots by WorBlux · · Score: 2

      1. Ozone regenerates 2. It's a very small amount, and is less toxic to the human body than alternatives.

    34. Re:government idiots by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      HFA is a weaker propellant, and has a pretty nasty taste & odor to boot.

      Primatene's problem is complicated, because the ban isn't entirely motivated by love for Mother Earth(tm). The DEA wants Primatene off the market, because it's basically aerosolized ephedrine ready for meth production.

      * If Primatene is reformulated with HFA, it has to be re-approved by the FDA

      * Re-approval would be expensive, and the resulting drug would have only limited patent protection due to massive amounts of prior art.

      * The DEA wants reformulated Primatene to include additional ingredients that (supposedly) won't affect asthmatic users, but will taint the ephedrine so it can't be used for meth production.

      * A new version reformulated to DEA standards WOULD be profitably patentable, but the FDA isn't thrilled about adding chemicals of no benefit to users to a product used by extremely vulnerable people whose breathing is pretty fragile to begin with. They know that somewhere out there are at least a few dozen people likely to die if they use the new formula, and have made it clear that they're going to hold approval of the new version to the highest possible standards and nix it at the *slightest* hint of trouble.

      * Primatene's maker is happy about patentability, but worried about lawsuits. Catch-22.

      It's more complicated than what I wrote above, but that pretty much sums it up. It's the perfect storm of stupid symbolic environmentalism, corporate greed, and the war on drugs. Made worse by the fact that the majority of longterm Primatene users are poor and lack proper health care (people with health insurance use albuterol, unless they have very mild asthma and accidentally go somewhere without their inhaler, at which point they run to Walgreen's and buy Primatene to keep around "just in case"). That's also the main theory of why Advair (combination of a steroid and long-but-slow-acting alpha agonist) has a signficantly higher death rate among poor and minority users with seemingly moderate & controlled asthma -- they get prescriptions for Advair and albuterol, buy the Advair, but skip the albuterol because the new formulation is expensive & they don't need it very often. The problem is, when they DO have an acute attack, all they have on hand is Advair, which isn't suitable as a rescue inhaler, and a small percentage of them end up dying under circumstances where albuterol would have saved them. It's a hard theory to ethically test, but one that explains a bothersome side effect (death) of Advair whose victims are overwhelmingly poor Americans.

    35. Re:government idiots by thesh0ck · · Score: 1

      Here is the link to the primatine press release saying they are working on a new product. No doom here, they WILL STILL be selling this OTC. http://www.primatene.com/doc/PressRelease07-27-2011.pdf

    36. Re:government idiots by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      All I can say, that it sucks to be asthmatic :(

      I don't think treaty creators counted on pharma industry to be so inept. Probably, since CFC ban should have been postponed until good replacements became available.

    37. Re:government idiots by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Asthma is aggravated mainly by particulates. CFC's are stable and do not react biologically. In fact some of them are so nonreactive that they are used as non-stick coatings.

    38. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, these are both safety of life products that are used in trivial quantities on the atmospheric scale, and the replacements have two serious problems
      1) They don't work as well
      2) Being more expensive inhibits their use.

      The CFC powered rescue inhaler uses a particular CFC because it doesn't degrade the medicine, is biocompatible, and has a vapor pressure above atmospheric at room temperature. If you used compressed nitrogen, then each succeeding shot would give you less medicine as the pressure bleeds off. If you used ammonia, well, it's poisonous and causes asthma. There aren't a whole lot of good options.

      Similarly, Halon is not poisonous and does not damage most things; it catalytically supresses fire. I've been through a Halon dump. I lived through breathing it. Purple K is fine for engines but bad for people and destroyes electronics.

    39. Re:government idiots by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      The difference is, in America albuterol is fairly expensive (about $55 per inhaler) compared to Primatene (about $15-20), and Primatene is available without a prescription. For people without health insurance (and jobs where taking the day off to go to the doctor means not getting paid) whose asthma isn't quite bad enough to put them at daily risk of death, Primatene is an important safety net. If the FDA approved albuterol as OTC, it would be almost moot... but Primatene's OTC status was largely due to historical legacy. The FDA rarely takes away OTC status, but tends to be quite resistant to adding new drugs to the list.

    40. Re:government idiots by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Look, if it was hair or body spray that some fake-tanned douchebag burned through a can a day, I'd agree on the whole environmental thing. But right now our health care costs are bullshit enough as it is. Two of my best friends have pretty bad asthma and they spend a lot of money as it is trying to stay healthy (and this is WITH OTC inhalers.

    41. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we have an inexpensive asthma product, that helps MILLIONS of people each day, and now thanks to the government, it will costs those people MORE for a different product.

      Meanwhile, in Canada and Europe, MILLIONS are amazed that American asthma suffers are forced to pay for life-saving medication that is given away for free in any other developed nation.

    42. Re:government idiots by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously suggesting these inhalers destroy the planet? Really?

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    43. Re:government idiots by swamp_ig · · Score: 1

      In Australia, salbutamol inhalers are less than $20 each and available over the counter.

      Surely if you do a cost-benifit analysis, subsidizing inhalers works out a hell of a lot cheaper than a string of emergency department visits.

    44. Re:government idiots by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      Wait, who gave the EPA the authority to ban drugs?

      I don't know the nuances of the limits to their authority, honestly. But if a bureaucratic agency 'bans' something they don't have the authority to take out of the marketplace, what can they do to manufacturers, distributors and retailers who continue to make and move the product?

      It seems that producers think they have to launch lawsuits when a bureaucracy oversteps its authority. Why not but the onus back on the bureaucracy to stop them?

    45. Re:government idiots by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't think treaty creators counted on pharma industry to be so inept.

      The pharma industry wasn't inept. It found a solution that was three times more expensive.

      Probably, since CFC ban should have been postponed until good replacements became available.

      Like never extending the ban in the first place to inhalers? Or more reasonably, just wait till the patents run out on the non-CFC based inhalers. I find it interesting how human health of millions is a lower priority than closing a minor loophole in a CFC treaty. This is far from the first time that environmental concerns have taken priority over human lives.

      Another CFC story is the insulation on the Space Shuttle's external tanks. The spray on foam originally used a CFC compound for a "blowing agent". When they switched to HCFC compound around 1995, the foam didn't adhere as well and there were quality problems. This apparently wasn't a factor in the Columbia accident (the foam detached from an area that still used CFC blowing agent), but they apparently did have a noticeable increase in foam collisions with the underbelly of the Shuttle during launch which is a safety issue.

      Another example is the tradeoff between car mass and car mileage. Even with crush zones, air bags, and seat belts, a heavier car still is somewhat safer than a lighter car. There have been several cases where gas mileage restrictions have been imposed on car makers, but no similar safety restriction (say no more than a certain number of accident-caused deaths per million passenger-miles) have been imposed.

    46. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Right now inhalers are among the most significant remaining sources of CFCs.

      And the ozone layer is recovering. Leave well enough alone.

    47. Re:government idiots by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Not producing adequately priced product is exactly an example of ineptness. A replacement should be ideally as cheap as CFCs or at least not much more expensive. With air conditioning and refrigeration it was achieved successfully.

      But yes, medical CFCs should not have been banned too soon.

    48. Re:government idiots by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      IIRC, CFCs were mostly notorious for their longevity in terms of causing damage. Whereas there exist active [carbon|water|etc] cycles for ICE emissions.

      But that's a minor point anyways. The big points are:
      A) The environmental scientists, EPA, and co are much much much more knowledgeable than us slashdot plebs, so armchair internet criticism is kinda weak to say in the least.
      B) In reality, issues with pollution are a "death by 1000 cuts" kind of thing. So any one cut [ie source] is probably "insignificant", but they still need to be dealt with. If only to keep the "death by 1000 cuts" from happening. Think tragedy of the commons, stuff like that.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    49. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend has a bumper sticker that says exact that with a picture of a guy in a ski mask holding an automatic weapon.

    50. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Primatene sucks, and barely works. It's cheap because its costs have been paid off for decades, and it's just a brand. But millions of people don't use it, even though it's cheap, because it sucks. The EPA isn't just protecting the health of the rest of us by protecting the Ozone Layer from CFCs - it's flushing this crap product out of the market. The asthma industry has had decades to switch away from CFCs, longer than practically all others. And even this final shutdown has been coming for 3 years, plenty of time to switch.

      If you want to be angry at a government agency, be angry at the FDA which requires the non-CFC version, that actually works, to be a prescription. Which drives up its costs, and lets the doctor industry take their cut for peddling it. There's no reason the non-CFC version should cost 50-100% more than the OTC version. It's the doctor/drug cartel that keeps this stuff so profitable and expensive.

      What's idiotic is the kneejerk attacks on government agencies that protect us, without knowing anything about what you're talking about. "The government" isn't some monolithic entity. The EPA controls damaging substances to protect us

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    51. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3

      Ozone regenerates but only accumulates when CFCs aren't destroying it. CFCs in inhalers are just one part of the CFC pollution that we backed away from over several decades. Most of the sources individually are a very small amount, but combined they deplete the ozone layer. Which causes increases in cancer, not just among humans but among other animals around the world. Each small source has its claim to exemption, and some worked those claims for many years while alternatives were developed. This single last brand using CFCs is cheaper because it's generating pollution its competitors don't, which simply externalizes its costs from asthma people to cancer people affected by the ozone depletion.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    52. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      So people will die because the alternative has an odor. I see.

      And Primatene won't sacrifice its profits to reformuate in accordance with the law that's been known to it for years and years. Unless maybe it can put other useless crap into the new formula to protect its profits for another generation or three.

      The problem here is the many profit protections in the cartel that prevent non-CFC inhalers from competing each other into the $10 price range occupied by Primatene. If "the government" is a villain here, it's in failing to break up that cartel in favor of competition. Or just in failing to provide universal healthcare financing for something as obvious as asthma inhalers.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    53. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't give people free medication to save lives - that's Socialism!

    54. Re:government idiots by Guppy · · Score: 2

      * The DEA wants reformulated Primatene to include additional ingredients that (supposedly) won't affect asthmatic users, but will taint the ephedrine so it can't be used for meth production.

      Primatene Mist contains Epinephrine, not Ephedrine (Primatene tablets contain Ephedrine).

    55. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If the CFC ban were postponed, then when that time came we'd be in exactly the situation we're in now. there's been no lack of time to replace that revenue stream with one that doesn't externalize its costs elsewhere, like to cancer victims from ozone layer depletion.

      It's clear that the pharmacos only act when both forced by law and enticed by profits, simultaneously. Giving them more time would only give them more time to lobby for more time, or to kill the regulation entirely.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    56. Re:government idiots by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is yet another case of government regulation having no cost/benefit analysis done before it is passed. It's the same thing as Alar in the 90's, Alar was banned because it was a possible carcinogen but analysis done showed that the reduced availability of inexpensive fresh fruit from the ban probably caused 10-50x more cases of cancer than alar would have. Banning CFC's for medical use was stupid, the total amount of CFC's used in all the inhalers ever produced caused about as much ozone depletion as one day of output from a midsized volcano.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    57. Re:government idiots by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes but there is one little thing everyone seems to be missing...this will KILL PEOPLE DEAD and that is NOT any 'guessing" or "estimates" or anything else but a cold hard fact. We already have too damned many old folks in this country and poor folks that have to choose between having medicine and food, you think TRIPLING the cost is just hunky dory?

      Either the government should be force to eat the difference or they should STFU, simple as that. this isn't some theoretical thing here, a severe asthma attack can KILL YOU and many will now not be able to afford their meds. of course considering the whole "cheering the poor dying" we had at the republican debates not too long ago frankly anything that helps waste poor folks would probably be seen as a win by certain political movements.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    58. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Because it's destroying the ozone layer and causing cancer. Everyone knows that.

      You Republicans, er "libertarians", are really nuts. Worshiping the corporate propaganda can do that to you.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    59. Re:government idiots by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Nobody gave the EPA the authority to ban drugs. A treaty requires bans the CFC that is used as the propellant of some asthma inhalers. This treaty was ratified by the US Senate, and is years old. Treaties trump almost anything in US law, and Congress probably required the EPA to come up with the plan to meet the treaty timetables, The drug companies have had a long time to come up with a substitute, but apparently don't really think it's worth the effort of all the testing required .

    60. Re:government idiots by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

      Ahh yes the evil corporations, the ones who MANUFACTURE THE FUCKING MEDICINE IN THE FIRST PLACE! Those rotten corporations, the ones who develop all of the medicines that people need and use.

      Those rotten sons of bitches, bane of clueless know-nothings the world over.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    61. Re:government idiots by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Everything you said about the DEA with respect to Primatene Mist is bullshit. Primatene Mist has epinephrine, not ephedrine. The DEA did seem to have a slanted view of Primatene tablets, but that seems to be in its favor rather than against.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    62. Re:government idiots by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 0

      That is the most cretinous argument I think I've so far read. Notwithstanding the fact that recent papers showed the hole in the ozone layer is caused primarily by cosmic rays (I don't expect you to have read it), the total amount of CFC emitted by the world's asthmatics is so tiny compared to the size of the ozone layer that its effect can only be but a tiny pin prick.

      This kind of over-regulation based on the flimsy evidence of politically motivated activists is destroying not only our economies, but public trust in science and the scientific method.

    63. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This change was already being adhered to for the last 4+ years. They changed all the inhalers to HFA's years ago. The out-of-pocket cost went up by about 30-50% at the time. They've only gone up about 5 or 10% since then, which in terms of American pharmaceuticals isn't much.

      FWIW: IAARPh

    64. Re:government idiots by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Except it all contributes. It like when you say "its only 50 cents" and then spend that on 5000 different things.

      A cow burping sounds harmless enough, but the fact is its a problem for the planet because there are so many millions of cows who do it. You think too small in your little ego trip.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    65. Re:government idiots by 517714 · · Score: 1

      A treaty. Perhaps you were not aware that when the US signs a treaty, it is binding on our citizens and government, and can even pre-empt the Constitution according to the SCOTUS. If you don't like that, perhaps you will make your voice heard before the UN treaty on gun control that Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are working on takes away your 2nd Amendment rights.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    66. Re:government idiots by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      In other news, "insults" is not the plural of "datum."

      The ozone hole was first mapped in the 1970s, and has since proven to grow and shrink regularly since that time.

    67. Re:government idiots by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not producing adequately priced product is exactly an example of ineptness.

      You think they should have priced it five times as much? Ten times as much?

      A replacement should be ideally as cheap as CFCs or at least not much more expensive. With air conditioning and refrigeration it was achieved successfully.

      There's a reason that the Montreal Protocol and subsequent banning of CFCs was so popular with industry. They made a lot of money off of the ban of CFCs. Perhaps now, the replacements are more in line with what CFCs used to cost, just as eventually, inhaler costs will probably decline to what they were.

    68. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to HELP you"

      Oh, good god. First, who the hell ever actually said that beyond paranoid conspiracy theorists and badly scripted villians? Yes, government can and does suck, yes, abuse of power sucks, but freaking nutjobs raving about how teh ebil government is out to suck out your souls don't freakin' help.

      SECOND, this is old news. Years old. Damn near a freaking decade old. This is old news about an old medicine. See, inhaled epinephrine isn't that great a medication. It's the ibuprofen to albuterol's toradol, OTC, modestly useful in limited situations, but more often than not used by folks who probably either need the real prescription medication or don't actually have asthma.

      And the EPA has not freaking BANNED the crappy things, anyways. They banned the freaking CFC's, and the manufactures of Primatine are taking their sweet damned time getting the new HFA inhalers out.

      You wanna get mad about something? Get mad about the #$&#*&@ drug companies taking advantage of the change from CFCs to the new propellant to "re-patent" the same goddamn medication as a "new formulation" and charge those MILLIONS of people each day you're so worried about 3-10x more than the exact same medication they had a year prior.

      Get mad because poor inner city people, the folks MOST Likely to need asthma medication, are gonna be the folks LEAST likely to be able to afford that crap.

      Someone else in this stupid freaking thread said "People are gonna die from this." Guess what, sunshine, people HAVE died from this. People who can't afford insurance, but make too much to qualify for assistance from governments, or the drug companies pitiful "compassionate discount" programs, or whatever else bullshit they want to call it.

      The Government screws up plenty, don't get me wrong.

      But this blood is on the hands of the drug companies, THAT bullshit is what you get mad about.

      Posting anon because I don't happen to trust nutters like YOU.

    69. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      One rich guy driving his twin turbo V12 AWD for all of 5 minutes should account for every one of these inhalers.

      Just keep letting people use cheap inhalers, and ban one, just ONE rich guy from driving his twin turbo V12 AWD supercar for a year. Problem solved. Sacrifice one to save a few right?!?

    70. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With air conditioning and refrigeration it was achieved successfully.

      With AC, expensive patented CFCs were replaced with expensive patented non-CFCs just as Du Pont's patent on Freon ran out. (Some have suggested the ozone scare was engineered by Du Pont for just that effect -- IMO the facts show it as more a case of good luck, where the profit motive for once encouraged a corporation to (over)promote actual science instead of trying to bury it under antiscience.) Medical CFCs are out of patent since the 80s, thus cheaper, but the current substitute (HFA) is still patented, thus expensive.

      I don't see the ineptness there -- it would have been inept (though better for humanity) if they had neglected to file the patent, leaving HFA inhalers the same cost as CFC inhalers.

    71. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried that plastic tube they use for kids? It worked for me after the change over. It is this tube with a soft end that fits over the mouth and nose and the other end is for the inhaler to go into. I press and then the puff goes into the tube, then I breathe as deeply as I can repeatedly a few times. About a minute later I repeat. In this way it works as well as the old inhalers did for me. It's worth a shot, the pharmacy just gave me one when I came back in and said something was not right with the new inhaler. I still had my old one thankfully.

    72. Re:government idiots by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about something -- in an emergency, could you use injectable epinephrine and some sort of nebulizer?

      What about atropine?

      [I used to keep epinephrine on hand for the livestock, and for spider bites etc., but the extremely short shelf life wasn't worth it. Conversely atropine keeps forever and works nearly as well against those bites/stings that cause rapid swelling. -- I have some dated 1991 that still works just fine.]

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    73. Re:government idiots by bonch · · Score: 0

      How does that refute the post you were replying to, and why were you too afraid to post it under your account?

    74. Re:government idiots by bonch · · Score: 2

      Common sense? You think asthma inhalers are depleting the ozone? They're completely negligible; volcanoes deplete more ozone.

    75. Re:government idiots by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

      Funny you compare Albuterol with Toradol. Toradol is not safe for extended use. In fact, you aren't supposed to take it for more than about a week at a time. It can cause severe damage to vital organs. Don't get me wrong, it is a miraculous drug. But, like Albuterol, is not a perfect fit in all situations.

      Albuterol is actually not as effective as an Epinephrine inhaler when someone is suffering from an Asthma attack. The time period until relief is achieved is much longer, and some people get very little relief from Albuterol. Some cannot cannot actually use Albuterol, and it's side effects can be quite dangerous. Primatene has very few side effects, and few long term risks with normal levels of usage.

      Regarding the propellants, the CFC propellant in Primatene is much more effective at delivering the medicine than HFA-based propellants. That is one of the reasons for the delay. Armstrong actually bought the Primatene product from the previous owner just a couple of years ago. But go ahead an oversimplify it as a case of greedy pharmas looking to take advantage of us. Never mind the fact that they bought the line knowing (admittedly) that they had to get a "replacement" up and running quickly. Current estimates are 6 months after the new year to get FDA approval.

      Calling their toll free number yields a live person, who will assure asthma sufferers that they plan to have the replacement product as soon as they are allowed to ship it. At the same time, they admit that the new propellant will not be quite as fast. Okay for most, as long as it is not your loved one expiring.

      --
      The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
    76. Re:government idiots by mpe · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting how human health of millions is a lower priority than closing a minor loophole in a CFC treaty.

      Especially given that it's unlikely that anyone would have noticed the USA not doing this...

      This is far from the first time that environmental concerns have taken priority over human lives.

      As well as ending up causing more pollution than the status quo. e.g. chemical A is replaced with chemical B. Chemical B is only slightly less toxic than chemical A, but several times as much is required to do the same job.

    77. Re:government idiots by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Ok, Ozone regenerates. Over what time span? Did the giant hole in our atmosphere close yet?

    78. Re:government idiots by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Well, there are adequate replacements for CFCs. Why existing drugs were not reformulated using non-CFC propellants is beyond me. It'd been known for quite some time that CFCs would be banned.

      Easy. They were exempt, and thus people would continue as they always did.

      Why produce a CFC-free inhalant, when the ban is years away? Producing new requires R&D money. Producing old is just getting profit as R&D is done.

      Humans are lazy. They won't change if they don't have to. And since inhalers were exempt, no one bothered producing the CFC free stuff in any quantity to push prices down.

      The same happens to everything else - even if you give a generous transition period, things don't happen until the last minute.

    79. Re:government idiots by mpe · · Score: 1

      Well, there are adequate replacements for CFCs. Why existing drugs were not reformulated using non-CFC propellants is beyond me. It'd been known for quite some time that CFCs would be banned.

      Presumably because "reformulated" drugs would be new drugs in terms of patents. Bringing out such drugs when there were competing generics would not be a smart move financially speaking.

    80. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you! God, if all 6 billion people used CFC inhalers 24/7/365 then maybe, MAYBE there might be a potential problem. Did anyone who made this new regulation actually SEE an inhaler? I mean, it has maybe 10 mL of actual fluid in it. You leave more coffee on your spoon in the morning than the amount of CFC these things contain.

    81. Re:government idiots by Froggie · · Score: 1

      The story is more 'Americans pull buttcheeks apart for big pharma to screw them with huge charges for simple products. Again.'

      It has nothing to do with CFCs. The question is 'why does an asthma inhaler cost $60?'

    82. Re:government idiots by Froggie · · Score: 1

      > The pharma industry wasn't inept. It found a solution that was three times more expensive.

      No, it found a solution it could sell for 3 times more.

    83. Re:government idiots by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...watch me light up this joint.

      Yeah, well, make sure to pass it around...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    84. Re:government idiots by Froggie · · Score: 1

      Ah, the USA: the only country where people will fight to the death to defend their constitutional right to be shot more frequently by criminals.

    85. Re:government idiots by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      The new HFA inhalers don't get their cost increase from the new propellants. They get it from the prescription system.

      The Ventolin HFA albuterol measured-dose inhaler, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, costs US$60 at pretty much any pharmacy in the USA. The exact same inhaler, manufactured by the same company, on the same production lines, costs the equivalent of about US$9 at the pharmacies I've checked in Bangkok, Thailand. The only difference between the two is that the printed label, the packaging, and the package insert are printed in English and Thai script.

      US pharmacy clerks are usually surprised to learn this. I remember one of them trying to tell me it wasn't the same drug.

      This, incidentally, comes from first-person observation. I am in Bangkok typically twice a year. I have asthma. I buy the inhalers myself, at the local pharmacies.

    86. Re:government idiots by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      CFCs function as photocatalysts. More precisely, their breakdown product of free radical chlorine does.

      Ozone + Cl ---UV Light---> Oxygen + Cl

      So a little CFC can break down thousands of times it's own mass of ozone before the Cl radicals eventually find something else to react with.

      CFCs also make very potent greenhouse gas.

    87. Re:government idiots by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      In point of fact, in the twenty years since CFCs were generally banned, the hole in the ozone layer has shrunk by 50%. Banning CFCs is one of the most effective environmental policies we've seen to date, after the recovery of the Great Lakes following the control of emissions that caused "acid rain".

      It is possible to 1) see an environmental problem, 2) determine that it's being caused by us, 3) control or eliminate what we're doing to cause it, and so 4) repair the damage we're doing to ourselves by shitting up our environment.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    88. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the USA: the only country where people will fight to the death to defend their constitutional right to shoot at criminals.

      There, I fixed that for you.

    89. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't infer ineptness where greed will suffice.

      Albuterol inhalers used chlorofluorocarbon propellants until 2008 but have since switched to HFA. They could have done this with Epinephrine (andrenaline) inhalers, too, but all the meaningful patents on Epinephrine have expired whereas they can still charge royalties for Albuterol.

    90. Re:government idiots by john.r.strohm · · Score: 2

      Current standard ER procedure for acute asthma, in the US at least, is 125 mg intravenous Solu-Medrol (methylprednisolone, a POWERFUL corticosteroid anti-inflammatory drug), and albuterol and ipratropium bromide (Atrovent (tm)) nebulizer treatments. If the patient can't tolerate albuterol (about 1 in 16 asthmatics can't), the second choice is terbutaline.

      Blood tests and chest X-rays are typically taken at the same time, since other conditions can masquerade as moderate or acute asthma.

      Where I live, the ambulance crews have recently started putting asthma patients on albuterol nebulizers in the ambulance, as well as starting IVs with saline (to save time starting the IV in the hospital).

      Yes, I've been through this routine a few times.

    91. Re:government idiots by john.r.strohm · · Score: 2

      Yes, I have severe chronic asthma.

      First, before you do ANYTHING else, confess your sins to your doctor and TELL HIM ABOUT THE CHEST PAIN from the Primatene Mist. This may be a warning sign of cardiac (heart) issues developing. Epinephrine WILL hit the heart, far harder than albuterol does.

      The proper way to use Primatene Mist in an asthma emergency is to take the puffs and then head for the emergency room. Or call for an ambulance. Primatene Mist buys you about 15 minutes of transit time. That's all it does.

      Nebulizers are actually far MORE efficient than measured-dose inhalers (MDIs) at delivering the drugs.

      If you are already using a spacer, talk with your physician about inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators.

      If you are not already using a spacer, talk with your physician about getting one. They make a HUGE difference in efficiency of measured-dose inhaler (MDI) delivery. They bring them up fairly close to nebulizer efficiency for most patients, although not all. (My source on this is a resident at National Jewish Hospital, in 1995, when I was referred there for full workup for acute uncontrolled asthma. They saved my life, in so many words.)

      If your physician gives you any argument WHATSOEVER about prescribing you a spacer, fire him and find one who is not incompetent.

    92. Re:government idiots by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Informative

      The pharmaceutical companies probably welcomed this move. The existing CFC laden medication is available over the counter, which means that it's cheaper. By banning it, they get to sell more of their prescription-only substitutes, which cost 1.5 - 3x more.

      Although I have to say, you're being screwed anyway. We don't have an over-the-counter equivalent in the UK. The drug in question is an epinephrine inhaler, which is a poor choice as a bronchodilator because it has too many side effects like elevated heart rate. The prescription replacement, albuterol (we call is salbutamol) is a selective beta-2 adrenoceptor agonist - it stimulates the epinephrine receptors in the air passages, but not the ones in your heart, so fewer side effects like dry mouth and palpitations.

      You're paying $20 over the internet for a "cheap" epinephrine inhaler (which as we explain, is an inferior medicine for the purpose).
      You'll pay a minimum of $30 for a prescribed albuterol inhaler.

      Our list price (for our national health service) for a 200 dose albuterol inhaler is £1.50 ( about $2.30 )

      Who's screwing you? Ah yes, the evil corporations, the ones who manufacture the fucking medicine.... the HMOs..... etc, etc, etc.

    93. Re:government idiots by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      why does an asthma inhaler cost $60

      It doesn't. The UK BNF [1] list price (the amount it costs the National Health Service) for a 200-dose albuterol inhaler is £1.50 (about $2.30)

      The manufacturer is still making a profit at that price - it's not some socialist hippy factory churning out inhalers for the state. It's just what happens when you apply the bargaining power of a whole country.

      [1] Registration required, but an invaluable resource for all manner of purposes to do with drugs.

    94. Re:government idiots by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      In the UK, the cost of an albuterol inhaler to the National Health Service is £1.50 (about $2.30)

      You'd pay the standard prescription fee (£7.40 or $11.30) for it over the pharmacy counter. Which is true of any medication or medical device in the UK, unless you are exempt (basically, only non-pregnant, employed, adults of working age pay for prescription drugs here. And we don't pay for contraceptive medicine.)

    95. Re:government idiots by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      And that's still a pretty good markup.

      You'd pay about $11.40 in the UK - but that's because it's the standard prescription charge. You'd pay that even if the prescription had 5 inhalers on it, though.

      The actual list price cost the NHS pays for them is £1.50

      (yes, I'm making this comment a lot on this article. It deserves saying.)

    96. Re:government idiots by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      Small specialty retail markup years ago was routinely 100% or more. That's just the cost of doing business.

    97. Re:government idiots by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think $9 is probably reasonable, given the labour costs, having to hire people qualified as pharmacists, having to keep good stocks of a lot of medicine and thus facing a reasonably expensive wastage problem, etc. Do you need a 'scrip to get those inhalers, or is the pharmacy in Thailand just running on market forces?

      Our system reinforces this point with the standard prescription charge - you're really paying for the overhead, when the drugs are that cheap. Putting the BNF list price in there really underscores what the inhaler actually costs though (not even to produce - that's the wholesale price so includes the manufacturers profits).

    98. Re:government idiots by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      Every medication I have ever needed in Bangkok has been OTC there, no prescription required. I did have to do a bit of research once to figure out the correct dosage, when one of my required maintenance meds was not available in Thailand, but a similar (but not equivalent) one was. Most people would have to do an office visit to a doctor for this, but brief office visits are very inexpensive.

      I am told that narcotic pain meds are very strictly controlled there. I don't know for certain, I've never needed them there. I have no problem at all with this. If I feel like I've got enough pain that I need narcotics to control it, something is bad enough wrong that I want to see a doctor about it, IMMEDIATELY.

    99. Re:government idiots by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Yes, because a twin turbo V12's exhaust gasses contain CFCs. Right.

      CO2 is one thing (unrelated to ozone depletion). CFCs are quite another - and a major contributor to catalytic loss cycles in the stratosphere, as well as being potent greenhouse gasses (although their concentration is very low, so while they are often 5 to 10,000 times more potent than CO2 in GWP, that's offset by the low concentration).

      They'll have to switch to the well-understood HCFCs, which are just as bad as CFCs but they break down before reaching the stratosphere, thus negating the ozone depletion effect. They are more expensive to make, however.

    100. Re:government idiots by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not the OP, but.... yes. It's just chemistry.

      The two compounds in Primatente Mist are CFC-12 and CFC-114, or dichlorodifluoromethane and 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane respectively. These are well studied in stratospheric ozone chemistry and are responsible for the catalytic loss cycle by breaking down in the presence of UV light and giving halogen radicals that attack ozone. The atomic chlorine (it usually appears as a chlorine radical) catalytically destroys ozone:

      O3 + Cl. > ClO. + O2
      O + ClO. > Cl. + O2

      The mono-atomic oxygen there is a simplification of other processes that form it, but it's a good simplification of what happens overall - the chlorine is long-lived in the stratosphere, so very small amounts destroy a large amount of ozone.

      It's not the only loss cycle of course - there are natural and man-made processes going on up there, but it is one of the ones that has had such a huge effect.

    101. Re:government idiots by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      A very small amount of CFC can destroy a huge, huge amount of ozone - the process is catalytic, and the responsible radicals are very long lived in the stratosphere. It's why the stratosphere still hasn't recovered yet, despite the Montreal Protocol taking effect years ago.

      The alternative is to use an HCFC which has virtually the same properties (including the damaging of the ozone layer), but crucially these tend to break down long before they reach the stratosphere where the damage occurs. They cost more to make than regular CFCs though.

    102. Re:government idiots by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      That paper doesn't say quite what you think - for one thing, it acknowledges that halogens are responsible for the actual breakdown, but it is suggesting that that the energy involved in driving the reaction is not solely from photochemical processes (ie, UV light from the sun), but galactic cosmic rays also.

      Whether you agree with that or not (I am personally skeptical - I believe UV light from the sun is the primary engine of the stratosphere based on the chemistry), the paper does not question the role of CFCs in ozone destruction - it fully supports it.

      And while the amount of CFCs released may be tiny, the resulting process is a catalytic cycle. A tiny, tiny amount of CFC (after being broken apart in the stratosphere) can be responsible for a huge amount of ozone destruction - the damaging products of CFC breakdown (especially the chlorine and bromine-containign radicals) are long lived and very damaging because they are regenerated.

    103. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /sarcasm

      there fixed that for you.

    104. Re:government idiots by The+Immutable · · Score: 1

      If i hit you in the head with a hammer, then punch you in the face, the punch didn't hurt right?

    105. Re:government idiots by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If you think car safety has ever been sacrificed for greater efficiency, you don't know what you're talking about. We're struggling to get the 40MPG that primitive Datsuns from the '70s with fridge-like aerodynamics got because we have to deal with the obscene amount of weight added by all the safety improvements, especially since the early 2000s. And no reduction in weight has ever been mandated.

      If we wanted to sacrifice safety, modern cars would have a body like a Geo Metro or base-model CRX (except with composite or molded plastic panels), with 600cc-1.3L engines and robotized manual gearboxes with automatic pulse-and-glide systems, and we'd be getting 60MPG+ easy.

      Weight is the arch-enemy of performance and efficiency and should not be seen as anything other than that just because it might lend some sliver of safety in an accident that can very easily be compensated for. As an extreme counterpoint, the safest cars in the world are Formula One cars, and they have their minimum fully-loaded weight with driver set at a bit over 1400lbs. Teams often have to add ballast to meet it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    106. Re:government idiots by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Yes but there is one little thing everyone seems to be missing...this will KILL PEOPLE DEAD

      Melanoma will KILL PEOPLE DEAD too.

    107. Re:government idiots by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The EPA and DEA do way more harm to this nation than good. I think its a basic question of morality. There is no way its right to force Asthma patients to inhale chemicals they don't need and might be harmful to them especially, in the name of preventing morons from voluntarily consuming chemicals that they know will destroy their body.

      If people want to do meth *great* let them, and lets let them die off too while were at it. I say we get rid of the DEA entirely. Run some PSA, and reasonably frequency, with honest facts about the actual dangers of the various illicit drugs out there. We decriminalize the use and possession of ALL illicit drugs. If normal police officer, FBI, or ATF agent in the course of their other duties sees a dealer arrest the son of bitch. We can then lock'em up and throw away the key, as deterrent. But lets run no specific anti drug operations. Then we pass a law that says emergency rooms and physicians DO NOT have to treat any patient suffering from illegal drug use, even if they are at immediate risk of death.

      We will save the nation billions. The problem of hard drugs will solve it self. The drug gangs will be deprived of the money that has built them, and we can quit ruin peoples lives because they happened to be found with an ounce of weed when they were 17.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    108. Re:government idiots by indeterminator · · Score: 1

      Do you KNOW for a fact that it's an Ozone Depleting Product?

      Do you KNOW for a fact that it is not?

      Also, do you KNOW for a fact that you die if someone kills you? I mean, you only have what you've been told (I'm assuming you have no first hand experience on being killed). Now, by your logic, I can use you not knowing for sure as the perfect excuse to kill you.

      (Note for the overly sensitive, I'm not going to kill anyone, it's just an example for my reductio ad absurdum)

    109. Re:government idiots by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      If i hit you in the head with a hammer, then punch you in the face, the punch didn't hurt right?

      Not if I was unconscious from the hammer blow.

    110. Re:government idiots by BergZ · · Score: 1

      I thought that the president could sign any treaty he likes but that his signature means almost nothing until the treaty is ratified by congress.

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
    111. Re:government idiots by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Consider:
      * The scale of CFC dispersal into the atmosphere from these things is so small that it's literally like complaining that raw sewage pollution is ruining the ocean when a 5 year old toddler pees his pants while buliding a sandcastle on the beach.
      * Those who need these things are not in a position to go without. You get them, or you live a miserable life, or potentially die.

      The cost/benefit analysis in this case is CLEARLY in favour of making CFC use in medicinal asthma inhalers an exception to the CFC ban. If the alternatives were the same price, I'd be all for it. But those asthmatics who are less well-heeled may find a 3x increase in medicate prices a little difficult. I am all for banning CFCs and crimping corporate profits in favour of the environment, but this is just silly.

      --
      I hate printers.
    112. Re:government idiots by OAB_X · · Score: 1

      So, will the EpiPen work?

    113. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's to hoping you need one and don't have one. Then you can choke to death on your own argument.

    114. Re:government idiots by budgenator · · Score: 0

      I suppose that's why every weather balloon launched carries a chloride scavenger, oh wait that would involve a more effective two pronged approach, rather than just an ineffective approach and a healthy dose of scare-mongering to maintain funding.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    115. Re:government idiots by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      I know very few things as a fact, because I'm not a doctor, nor a scientist, nor a statesman, nor a professor, nor a soldier, nor a Muslim, nor Chinese, etc. There are many things I am not, and many things I only know because others have done and continue to do the work for me. This is the nature of humanity and the foundation of civilization, society, and justice.

      There is one thing I do know as a fact. Your post is FUD. It's designed to sow fear by planting seeds of uncertainty and doubt. Yet you have no facts, either. You only state claims... and then have the balls to accuse others of fallacious arguments in spite of your own appeal to emotion. Do you deny the existence overwhelming amount of scientific study by respected experts that claims CFCs contribute to ozone depletion? Whether you disagree with it or not germane to that question; I'm merely asking if you agree that those studies exist and are generally perceived respectably by their peers.

      Skepticism is healthy, but skepticism in the face of expert opinion while simultaneously lacking any facts of your own is lunacy. Yes, an appeal to authority is a fallacy. So what? Logic isn't a tool for revealing falsehood. It's a tool for preserving truth. That's an important distinction. A fallacious argument is not one with a false conclusion. It is merely an argument that is not deductively true as long as all premises are true. It is possible to make a valid (non-fallacious) argument that is un-sound (has a false premise). Such an argument would not have a true conclusion.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    116. Re:government idiots by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean when you have an ambulance handy, I meant an alternative for when you have only yourself handy.

      I've used atropine as an emergency anti-inflammatory following a mystery bite or sting (might have been a scorpion) -- injected all around the area -- and the swelling, which was moving so fast you could watch it grow, shrank at the same pace. It was quite amazing to watch.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    117. Re:government idiots by wwphx · · Score: 1

      sudo Mod You Up. I can't find the article, but the amount of CFCs in inhalers is purely negligible compared to natural (and other artificial) sources of CFCs. It's a pure money-grab for certain pharma companies.

      What I don't like is my albuterol inhaler had a nice little counter to tell you how many hits you'd taken, my new ones don't.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    118. Re:government idiots by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Though the math is beyond me, I imagine it would take an impractical number of weather balloons to achieve anything. The actual amount of free-radical chlorine in the atmosphere is tiny per unit volume of air - but that little bit goes a long way.

    119. Re:government idiots by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      You CAN use sunscreen, which is VERY cheap. What are you gonna do if the guy next to you collapses because of an attack because he can't afford his meds? you gonna use NYC CPR and go "get the fuck up or you are gonna fuckin die"?. If we can blow billions dropping Tomahawks on brown people then we can either pay the difference and show the old folks who worked so damned hard for this country for years we care, or we need to STFU and let them have the old inhalers back.

      This is just another case of passing regulation with NO way to pay for it and dumping it off on the people. Did they ask YOU to vote on this? Did anyone ask YOU what you thought? Because they sure as fuck didn't ask me or my fellow Americans if we wanted to gouge old folks for inhalers. bet the drugs companies are probably gonna make another 200% profit out of this, just you watch. anything they say is for the environment? Somebody is making out like a bandit. it has become a code word like terrist/for teh childrenz.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    120. Re:government idiots by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

      But yes, medical CFCs should not have been banned too soon.

      The US first banned CFCs in conventional aerosols in 1978. That's 23 years ago. 23 years is an extremely long time in modern pharmaceuticals, and the pharmaceutical industry has moved on and developed suitable alternatives. The only thing is that these alternatives are under patent. The latest and greatest always is.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    121. Re:government idiots by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Well, one way would be to make sure medicine was available to poor people, rather than just letting them die. Plenty of countries manage to treat asthmatics without overpriced OTC inhalers.

      Also, suncream may not be cheap in many parts of the world. Ozone depletion doesn't just affect the country that caused it.

    122. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are, and idiot.

      Asthma kills 5,000 people in the USA every year. Meanwhile the ozone layer is approaching pre-industrial levels. The "hole" over the Antarctic is nearly sealed. Obviously, the amount of CFC's produced by this life saving medicine was not enough to prevent the continuing self-repair of the ozone layer. However, without this medicine, death rates due to asthma related illnesses stand to increase ten-fold among children in poor communities. The rich were already using the more expensive, perscription only medicine.

      I anticipate the Obama administration using this as an example of why Obamacare is needed, "look at these poor children that can't afford perscription asthma medicine because of greedy rich people!". Completely ignoring the fact that they were the administration that did away with the safe, effective, affordable version.

    123. Re:government idiots by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      As someone who has asthma, if they're spending 'a lot of money' and they're using Primatene Mist, they're spending that money foolishly. There are much, much better things out there for treating asthma.

    124. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the jackasses in charge don't do anything about the major ozone killers, I'll take negligible any day.

      By the way, is that low cost because because they're subsidised with government funds, or simply put more money into it's research?

    125. Re:government idiots by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Fairly quickly. Ozone is formed when UV rays hit diatomic oxygen. In fact it breaks down and reforms all the time. CFC's push the equilibrium more to the diatomic state rather than the triatomic state, but as pointed out below it does recover. And since this is a lifesaving application, I dont see why there can't be some leeway.

    126. Re:government idiots by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yes epinephrine - in fact anything that can be injected IV can be inserted into the trachea - directly or nebulized. Except bicarbonate which will cause necrosis of the mucus membranes. Why would you want to administer endotracheal atropine? Epinephrine works on primarily the beta-adrenergic receptors in small doses on the smooth muscle of the bronchioles, causing relaxation of said muscle and thus bronchodilation. Atropine on the other hand works on muscarinic receptors. It probably would decrease the production of mucus, but it certainly would have much greater effects on the heart (where all that blood from the lungs goes right away) increasing the heart rate and oxygen demand from the myocardium suddenly and possibly quite dangerously. I wouldn't want to play with endotracheal atropine unless as an absolute last resort.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    127. Re:government idiots by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Solumedrol will take 6 hours to work however, since it deals with the inflammatory stage of asthma and not the bronchospasm.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    128. Re:government idiots by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Subcutaneous epinephrine IS indicated in refractory asthma - ie an asthma attack that has not responded to other treatments like inhaled/nebulized salbutamol (albuterol) or ipatropium bromide (atrovent). However if your asthma is that severe, you also need medical attention. The epi-pen is to get you to the hospital alive. Without IV steroids you have a good chance of continuing to have problems once the epinephrine wears off.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    129. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Albuterol to toradol is indeed a horrible comparison, I'll give you that. I was simply going for the OTC to prescription comparison. But if you want honesty in comparisons, albuterol is still a BETTER medication than epi, if only because it is safer. Albuterol may take a few moments longer to "kick in" than epi, but it's MUCH less likely to cause severe tachycardia, arrhythmia, or compromise heart perfusion. Claiming primatine has "very few side effects" compared to albuterol is either dishonest as hell or you are "cherry picking" your information sources.

      I'm gonna have to ask you to produce data to verify your claim, or that you clarify your claim, that the CFC was a more "effective" propellant. CFC inhalers were less touchy, needed less maintenance, I'll give you that. You also got the immediate sensation of "cold" when you inhaled that let you know if you got a dose, and you don't get that with HFA. But you shouldn't have been getting that anyways. You should have been using a spacer with your CFC device just like you should with your HFA. Granted, I'm a little out of date on current asthma literature, but I've not seen ANY data showing there have been more deaths associated with HFA based inhalers vs before.

      I'm gonna again have to demand data showing that HFA based primatine would not work "as fast" as CFC. Some guy at the end of an 800 number does not count, they'll say anything to keep people talking to them.

    130. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be nice if they gave everybody a free pony too, but that's not going to happen here either. There are too many republicans and democrats who don't want to piss off the healthcare and insurance lobbies.

    131. Re:government idiots by DJ+Particle · · Score: 1

      Which means the CFCs we had banned already have already given the desired effect. Why ban additional ones? Why not at least let the athsmatics among the poor and uninsured have their Primatene? Obviously it's negligible enough, since the ozone hole has shrunk so much already with the current bans in place!

      When I was going through major allergy-related athsma attacks a few years back and had no insurance, Primatene was my savior!

    132. Re:government idiots by DJ+Particle · · Score: 1

      That's your list price because of the price controls you have over there regarding medications, with insurance that anyone is allowed to have.

      Do you have any idea how much Albuterol would cost for an uninsured American? I brought up some prices on Google, and they were all between $50-$75 for a single inhaler! Progressive Medical: $65.50, VpxlStore: $74.27, Life-assist.com: $57.75 (shall I go on?). Compare to about $12 for Primatene (and about $10 for the generic equivalent). Sure, insured Americans pay less than $10 for Albuterol, but as I'm sure you know, getting insurance in the USA is not always easy, especially if you're too poor to buy private insurance (or are ineligible for private insurance because you broke your arm when you were 6 or some other "pre-existing condition"), can't get a job that offers insurance, but still not poor enough to get subsidized insurance from the government, and a LOT of people fall into that void over here. So who is screwing us? Hint: It's not the makers of the OTC Medication.

    133. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious liberal democratic troll...

    134. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama doesn't need proof that his jobs program will work your are just suppose to believe him.

      so STFU

    135. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CFC ban was really a load of crap. DuPont, the maker had that law enacted because they were losing their patent on it. I know people that worked there and told me about it. I also know people at NASA that could't find the ozone hole when they went to measure it. Still, people believe it and get mad at you if you ask them about the tooth fairy, Santa and a successful socialist state.

    136. Re:government idiots by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      You might have an argument if CFCs were an absolute requirement for cheap, OTC inhalers. Given the size of the market, the pharmaceutical companies will find an alternative--just like the refrigerator manufacturers did. As a short-term solution, they can use HCFCs, which are damaging in the same way, but much less so because they break down sooner (one of the issues with CFCs is that they're very long-lived, giving them time to get to the stratosphere).

      The concerns of people who depend on cheap inhalers are important, but that's not a reason to prevent a switch that shouldn't affect you. It's not an either-or situation.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    137. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you say "government should eat the difference" you really mean that "me and you should eat the difference" right? Cause that how it works when the 'government' pays for something - it's our taxes.

    138. Re:government idiots by flyneye · · Score: 1

      M'gonna go fire my Green (painted) Potato Gun I've got the propellant down to 3 second burst of "Final Net" from 5 seconds. I figure that counts as green and a perfect way to celebrate. Hell I'll probably waste out 3 or 4 cans this weekend. Gotta celebrate this kinda stuff with a Bang!
      I been recycling motor oil into chiminea fuel, it's a lil stinky but sure beats burning trees. Gotta work on the Pontiac Chieftan out back tho it still burns more oil than gas and gets about 5 mile to the gallon, piece of history, just cant kill the damn thing, better to restore it. It'd take hoover dam to convert that whale to electric, I ain't no Neil f**kin' Young , so internal combustion it remains unless I figure out how much motor oil to burn and produce steam power sufficient to task.
                  Just yer ol' uncle fly doin' his part to recycle all green like.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    139. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dems are working on a bill to ban volcanoes entirely by 2012.
      The Kyoto agreements in the future will include a similar clause that fines countries by the day for volcano venting and subjects them to confiscation.

    140. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ozone regenerates due to solar radiation. That's why there is a "hole" over Antartica for a portion of the year because solar radiation is non-existant for almost six months out of the year. There will always be a hole over Anartica when CFCs are completely gone from the atmoshpere because of this.

    141. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, but CFCs destroy it. Like everything else in nature, the ozone layer's thickness is a balance. Between generation by sunlight and destruction by the existing destructive chemistry plus the CFCs that humans added. When we spray CFCs they push the balance, and the ozone layer thickness gets so thin it's got a hole in it - or a bigger hole than before.

      We don't care about the Antarctic ozone hole that humans and the rest of our contemporary species evolved with. What we care about is the bigger hole we made, that extends over Australia and New Zealand, and the one we made over the Arctic that extends over Europe, Asia and North America. And over the people and other animals under those holes.

      But all that seems perfectly obvious, and has been well understood for several generations. You're just a polluter lobbying for ignorance and stupidity.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    142. Re:government idiots by budgenator · · Score: 1

      So does removing a little bit, I'm not saying send up balloons specifically to scavenge chlorine, but if your sending one up anyways, why not dual purpose?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    143. Re:government idiots by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Republicans cheering the poor dying? Let's compare that to the democrats cheering everyone dying: specifically, Obama's "just let her take a pill" referring to an old person being denied treatment under Obamacare and being only able to get a palliative. Under leftist medical programs, the government determines everything medical: who gets treated, which treatments are the only legal ones, and what medicines you can buy. If you're seriously ill and you've made an enemy in the bureaucracy, you're as good as dead.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    144. Re:government idiots by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Given that the ozone is recovering (and faster than initially predicted), and that it will continue improving without additional restrictions on CFCs, it is not reasonable to outlaw CFC for asthma inhalers until an effective and reasonably priced alternative is available.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    145. Re:government idiots by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes but there is one little thing everyone seems to be missing...this will KILL PEOPLE DEAD and that is NOT any 'guessing" or "estimates" or anything else but a cold hard fact.

      No, that's a steaming pile of bullshit. The US signed a treaty** along with 194 other nations to remove CFC's from inhalers by the 1st Jan 2010, most of the other nations have already done this, including my country. The cold hard facts are, it hasn't killed anyone and inhaler prices did not triple.

      ** To the Senate of the United States:
      I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate.
      The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986.
      In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential.
      I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.

      Ronald Reagan The White House December 21, 1987

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    146. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ozone layer thickness is never in balance even under natural conditions, that's been understood for several generations.

      Antarctic ozone depletion "is a recurring phenomenon due to the extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere every winter. In the Arctic, on the other hand, wintertime temperatures are warmer on average than at the South Pole, and weather conditions vary considerably from one year to the next. This explains why ozone depletion can be less significant there. This year, the record ozone loss observed [in the Arctic] was caused by extreme weather." Extreme cold weather.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110406085634.htm

      Here's a question; what Dobson level is considered dangerous?

    147. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's in balance. The balance has a range. CFCs push it out of the range in which it's relatively safe for people. I already said that the Antarctic hole doesn't matter to us - until we enlarge it to cover Australia and New Zealand, and create one that ranges into Europe, Asia and North America. You're arguing a strawman.

      You're the kind of person who argues that since most CO2 is produced by the ecosystem independent of humans, that it doesn't matter when humans overload the atmosphere with enough extra CO2 to cause changes that damage us. Or that because those changes have occurred in remote times, that it's OK to produce them now even though the changes damage us.

      Or who argues that since there are so many gallons of water in the ocean, it couldn't possibly make any difference if a few thousand more gallons were poured into your car while you're driving to work. After all, there's water in the car's radiator.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    148. Re:government idiots by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I don't have asthma, I do have an allergic condition that sometimes requires that I use a bronchodilator. I have a prescription for an albuterol inhaler. I also have over the counter epinephrine inhalers.

      My prescription inhaler costs about $37.00, my over the counter inhaler cost about $18.00.
      Epinephrine isn't as good because of all of the side effects that you mentioned, but I like having it as an option. It provides an incentive for the albuterol inhaler manufacturers to not raise their prices too high.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    149. Re:government idiots by stonewallred · · Score: 1
      Since China, Mexico, India, and many places in the USA (chillers for example) routinely dump 1000s of tons of CFC's and HCFCs into the atmosphere, including R-12 (not US as we "banned" it), I fail to see how what is released via inhalers does any harm. Especially since each inhaler contains far less than an ounce.

      If the companies sold 100,000,000 million inhalers, and each inhaler released a total of .1 ounce of CFC-12(commonly known as R-12) that would be less that 318 pounds of R-12.

      With chillers in China and Mexico dumping 1000+ pounds of R-12 each week, India and Mexico, and China and Vietnam and every other 3rd world country venting out all refrigerants from car ACs to home refrigerators, to commercial cooling equipment, the 318 pounds is not going to have any effect.

      Other than raise our health care costs and increase the amount of folks who can't afford to treat their illness, and eventually turning to disability in order to get medical care for something they could treat OTC for a small price.

    150. Re:government idiots by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      What motive do the pharmaceutical companies have to even look for such an alternative without banning CFCs in inhalers?

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    151. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So what? You don't care about the data. You and they are worthy not of more data, or any more logic beyond what I charitably offered already. You'll get only insults now, since you disrespect the truth - and its bearers. Liar. Polluter.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    152. Re:government idiots by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Sunscreen is also now thought to be a major contributor to coral dieoff, as the oils and chemicals from the sunscreen wash off in the ocean and cause pollution.

      I read an interesting article a few months back about research into corals natural sunscreen excretions and whether they could be used for human sunblock.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    153. Re:government idiots by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      That's ok, the US keep trying to take away our communist PBS subsidies via trade treaties, so soon our medications will be as expensive as theirs.

      BTW, while on the topic of expensive medications, did you see the article in the mainstream press today about Blackmores doing a deal to have pharmacists being automatically prompted to recommend vitamin suppliments to counteract side effects for perscription drugs.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    154. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, the argument is fully reversible. Cancer will KILL PEOPLE DEAD and that is not guessing or estimates either.

      As for the extra costs of the CFC-free alternatives, I'd suggest you look to the US political system instead of chemistry. TFA notes that the alternatives are available on subscription, not over-the-counter, and available only from a limited number of suppliers (fow now). That raises the prices.

    155. Re:government idiots by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      portable nebulizer, which is both less effective and less portable than the inhalers with propellants.

      I agree with the less portable part (obviously), but less effective? I find even a minute or two on my nebulizer to be much more effective than an a hit of an inhaler...

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    156. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because they were allowed to obtain patent protection on the HFA inhalers, it's not the FDA's fault.

    157. Re:government idiots by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      Often when something is banned from the marketplace and its replacement is significantly more expensive, you will find the people who profit from the added cost were among those lobbying for the ban, if not drafting it.

      I haven't dug into the details behind this particular case, but I wouldn't be surprised if utility or manufacturing patents are involved in the price increase.

    158. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ignored the fact that the Arctic record loss this year was attributed to extreme cold weather. How do we stop that from happening? The highest losses in the Arctic and Antarctic regions happen in their respective winter months (coldest and least solar radiation months). At that point the ozone layer in those regions average 100 DU.

    159. Re:government idiots by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Even if that's true - I don't just accept uncited Anonymous Coward assertions - the way we stop it from happening is by making sure that CFCs aren't leaving the hole already bigger when nature enlarges it.

      And of course the extreme cold weather is part of climate change, which you also no doubt have some inane excuse to tell yourself "doesn't exist", then
      "isn't our fault", and eventually "is too late to change", and finally "is good for us".

      Duh. Where you went wrong is that your counter "arguments" imply that the Earth is round. And that's just hating on the oil corps, dontcha know.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    160. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternatives are hydro-fluoro carbons, HFC, not HCFC. There's there chlorine in the alternatives. But what does it matter, the eviro-nuts are going after hydro-fluoro carbons next because they are greenhouse gases.

    161. Re:government idiots by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      There's chlorine in the *current* products - Permatente Mist contains CFC-12 and CFC-114 - dichlorodifluoromethane and 1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane.

      Both of those compounds contain chlorine - that's what makes them effective ozone destroying compounds.

      They're also many hundreds of times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but that is offset by the very low concentrations - the same is true of HCFCs.

      You also say "there's chlorine in the alternatives" and go on to call them HFCs - there is no chlorine in an HFC molecule (there are several different ones).

    162. Re:government idiots by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And it is THIS, this right here, that is a perfect example of why we shouldn't buy into the bullshit over inhalers. I have yet to see anyone give any evidence that the trivial amount used in an asthma inhaler can actually affect squat, and we have had scientists flip flopping for years over a ton of stuff. Sunscreen good, now sunscreen bad. Coffee bad, no wait, coffee good now, helps postpartum depression. Sugar bad, no wait a tick, make that HFCS that is bad, sugar is okay.

      Remember this isn't some intellectual exercise, this bullshit is gonna KILL OLD FOLKS DEAD because there are already so damned many drugs they are getting gouged on that many have to choose between food and medicine. Just another sorry pathetic example of "our" elected officials fucking over the poor and the elderly while giving another hand out to big pharma, which I bet my last dollar is making a minimum 200% markup over the previous inhalers.

      Frankly with all the bickering and hand outs to big money I wouldn't piss on a congress critter is they was on fire. Just sorry backstabbing scum, the whole stinking lot.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    163. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a typo. It should have said "there's no chlorine in the alternatives." I was responding to the alternative "HCFC". What's the name brand or chemical name? I thought the point of the alternatives was to take the chlorine out. Our does that first C stand for something else, like carbon?

      At work they tried to rush into using a HFC / HFE alternative and I had to remind them that 3Ms own FAQ website stated that the alternatives breakdown hydro-carbon based o-rings, which were used in our Cooling Equipment, and products owned by our customer. A small breakdown in the o-rings in our customers parts would cause catatroshpric failures.

    164. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do the ozone layer minimums happen during the same time frame every year (each Arctic and Antarctic springtimes respectively) ? Why is the minimum on average never less than 100 DU ? Record low was 85 DU in 2006 "...The two factors combined, 2006 sees the worst level of depletion in recorded ozone history. The depletion is attributed to the temperatures above the Antarctic reaching the lowest recording since comprehensive records began in 1979....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion.

    165. Re:government idiots by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      They happen at specific times of year due to the way the climate works. Over the winter time there is a buildup of various precursor compounds related to the depletion cycle that get trapped in the Arctic and Antarctic (eg, CFCs and NOx compounds that don;t destroy ozone directly but break down to form things that do). When the spring arrives the amount of UV energy falling on that region increases and starts a very rapid breakdown of compounds - many of which release the chlorine radical and other species that have a chlorine or bromine radical. This sudden increase in concentration of these catalytic ozone depleters causes a sudden drop in ozone concentration over a short period of time.

      The species are also long lived, so the ozone layer doesn't fully recover by the next spring cycle and it starts again with fresh breakdown products.

    166. Re:government idiots by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      No, you don't necessarily need to remove the chlorine, although that is beneficial (the fluorine is just too electronegative to really want to leave the parent carbon, so it doesn't act in the catalytic ozone depletion cycle like chlorine and bromine do). The idea behind HCFCs is that the addition of at least one hydrogen makes the compound much easier to break down, so the majority of it is destroyed in the lower layers of the atmosphere long before it gets up into the stratosphere where the destruction cycle occurs.

      They're still not ideal - they're very potent greenhouse gasses (on the order of hundreds or thousands of times more than CO2), and they still can release the damaging radicals, but due to their ease of breakdown relative to plain CFCs their effect on the ozone layer is negligible (but not zero).

      The only difference between HFCs and HCFCs is that the latter contain chlorine while the former only contain fluorine. Both contain hydrogen in at least one position to make them more susceptible to breakdown before they reach the stratosphere (although with only fluorine, HFCs have no effect on the ozone layer, they too are potent greenhouse gasses).

    167. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how much green house gases does ONE vacation flight by the first lady emit? or , say ao gore for instance. I'm thinking they could give up ONE TRIP, and we asthma sufferers could emit inhaler CFC's for only , like 1,000 years with the same effect.
      YOU , Doc Ruby sound like YOU'RE in it for the money as well. How about we put some reason in the equation. Or is that possible while YOU write new RX's and get a free vacation once / year from the drug Lords ?

    168. Re:government idiots by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Note that scientists aren't saying that sunscreen is bad for humans, what they are saying is the current formulation of sunscreens are typically partially water soluble and in solution they are bad for coral.

      They are investigating other options which are more environmentally friendly.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    169. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously? Wow. Every inhaler on the face of the earth could be used until depleted all at once and would have such a minascule effect as to be laughable! Pharmasuticals are just like everything else, money money money!

    170. Re:government idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um - ok - any CFC is INHALED INTO THE LUNGS not sprayed into the air. Think people.

  2. Re:wrong calculation by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

    What "ozone layer" is this you speak of?

  3. Re:wrong calculation by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    What about those people who cannot afford the $60 inhalers? They're just SOL because Pharma convinced the FDA to ban a trivial source of CFCs?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  4. Re:wrong calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's utter bullshit. The amount of compressed gas in asthma inhalers is minuscule. Even when you multiply that by thousands, the amount would be extremely modest. Besides, negative health outcomes by people who don't have inhalers they need (because they can't afford the 'green' ones) would far, far exceed any damage to the ozone layer.

    God damn hippies.

  5. Reducing competition through regulation by kidsizedcoffin · · Score: 1

    And the pharmaceutical companies that patented the new "environmentally friendly" inhalers didn't do any lobbying on the issue I'm sure.

    1. Re:Reducing competition through regulation by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since this has been the plan for YEARS NOW, I don't think you're correct.

      The lobbying was in delaying the change.

      But hey, don't let facts and common sense stop you from using a pop culture fad belief as an excuse to rant.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. Re:wrong calculation by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    s/E/F/;

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  7. Re:wrong calculation by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    OK, so, since the money will be saved by banning the $20 inhalers, how about the government pays the difference between whatever the new inhaler costs and the $20 that the old one did?

  8. What is the impact of those inhalers? by guruevi · · Score: 1

    It may be an outrage to you but is it justifiable if you look at the big picture? Sure some may die because of these decisions but how many more die indirectly from producing and releasing these gasses?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 2

      gee, one you can count, the other you can't. And by the way, as an asthma sufferer, fuck you. Try sleeping when breathing through a straw, see how it feels. This is a money grab by those with a prescription pad. Otherwise, why not produce Ephedrine OTC inhalers with environmentally friendlier gasses? Oh right, money.

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    2. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh by the way, as a fellow citizen living under the same ozone layer, fuck you. Please explain how you think destroying the ozone layer is an acceptable outcome so that you can save $40.

    3. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Actually, the lack of Ephedrine OTC inhalers probably has something to do with how easy it is to make crystal meth out of Ephedrine... it's *almost* as easy using Pseudoephedrine, but the reaction chain with Ephedrine is shorter, cheaper, and doesn't involve turning it into a volatile explosive.

      Asthma sufferers aren't the only ones who've been screwed over by that particular industry... Ephedrine remains one of the most effective sinus medications on the planet, but it's almost impossible to get any more. People have to make do with Pseudoephedrine, which is significantly less potent.

      Unless, of course, you meant something other than Ephedrine inhalers?

    4. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      ...how many more die indirectly from producing and releasing these gasses?

      Zero, since they contribute an insignificant amount. The world would be better off if you died instead of the ahsma sufferers who will as a result of this.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    5. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! Will you tree hugging, Prius driving, hemp wearing, smelly ass hippies STFU!!??

      "Sure some may die because of these decisions but how many more die indirectly from producing and releasing these gasses?"

      PLEEEEASE!!! Please enlighten us with your hippie wisdom! I really do want to know "how many more die indirectly from producing and releasing these gasses"!

      Come back when you've done some actual research and stop talking out of your ass.

    6. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      you're lying and you know it. that is TOTAL exaggeration to presume that inhalers alone have any effect and their usefulness IS proven. Inhalers aren't destroying your ozone layer - your extremism is destroying people. Im all for alternatives to CFCs -that DONT REQURE A DOCTOR. A doctor means cost (as much as 200$ a visit for the "40" dollar inhaler), lack of privacy, lack of access around the clock, and above all, you playing with lives (yes lives) to make some roundabout point that barely applies. For all the uses of CFC's, inhalers must be the LEAST impacting. No one is messing. I reiterate - fuck you.

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    7. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I was posing the question, not postulating that asthma sufferers must die for the benefit of humanity. If the other inhalers work just as good then why are they priced so high? The government has a job and that is protecting their subjects from harm. If that harm comes from the healthcare industry, then they need to be fought against. We're fighting against drugs instead of drug manufacturers, we're fighting against terrorists instead of those that destroy a country from the outside.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:What is the impact of those inhalers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a pox on your house, you evil sheep of the state

  9. But more profitable by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    that's all that matters to these people. Lining their pockets and making everyone else suffer the consequences.

  10. Re:wrong calculation by Nimey · · Score: 1

    One wonders if the price on the newer inhalers will come down, since there will be volume efficiencies when more of them are made.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  11. only if by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    the people using them agree to pay for the damage they cause.

    1. Re:only if by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 1

      a) they don't cause significant damage. Obvious: ozone layer is not widening. b) if they want to do this MAKE ALBUTEROL OTC!

      --
      CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
    2. Re:only if by publiclurker · · Score: 1, Troll

      It might surprise you to know that they have banned a number of other things that use CFC's, hence the repair of the ozone layer. that doesn't mean that other people should be allowed to continue to spew it out, no matter how self-entitled they may feel they are.

    3. Re:only if by xstonedogx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      -1, Irrelevant

      No one is surprised that other CFC devices are banned. We're talking about devices that save people's lives, not hair spray.

    4. Re:only if by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Does the concept "dose makes the toxin" have any meaning to you? It applies to natural systems as well.

      If you've limited the other sources to the point the ozone hole is closing reasonably quickly, what added benefit is there from limiting even smaller sources?

      Ozone is produced in the upper atmosphere and reaches an equillibrium. It can withstand some amount of ozone destruction from various sources and still be fine.

      The problem was that with large amounts of CFCs being used for refrigeration and general aerosol propellant, far more was going into the atmosphere than it could tolerate. We reduced CFC use drastically for that reason.

      What you're saying is much like someone noting that eating two bottles of aspirin will kill you. Thus, we must stop people from taking 2 aspirin pills.

      It doesn't follow.

      Chemistry is not like religion. In religion something that's evil is evil in all forms. In chemistry, it depends on whether there is enough of it, or the right conditions for it to cause problems.

    5. Re:only if by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      "The people using them" are already paying (with their health) for the pollution that others caused (and didn't pay for).

      If you're trying to be fair, get every polluter to pay for remediation of their own particulate emissions, and use that to pay the difference. And the asthmatics' doctor bills.

    6. Re:only if by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      these devices have substitutes. Stop thinking that you are somehow entitled to special treatment just because you think you are so much more important than everyone else.

    7. Re:only if by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      none of you hand waving changes the fact that there are substitutes for using CFC's. Just because you think you are entitled to special handouts does not mean that you are.

    8. Re:only if by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Uh. I don't use an asthma inhaler. So, how am I getting this special handout you speak of?

      I know that I tend to write long posts, and there is a lot of tl:dr around here, but please bear with me.

      My point is a general one.

      Was the point of the regulation simply to regulate or proscribe? Or was it to stop damage to the environment?

      What the real intent was is often lost once a regulation goes into effect. The intent is to stop a harm. After the harm is alleviated, human instinct (just like you are displaying above) is to continue to punish any use even if it is harmless.

      This comes from the instincts we developed when we were still troop monkeys on the savannahs. It worked well there, but is a little out of place in this case.

      This is the same sort of thinking that leads to many rather silly absolute moral strictures in religion.

      Eating pork got prohibited in some cultures since some fraction of those who eat it die from trichinosis. Once we learn that with proper cooking or freezing (and good agricultural measures to deal with the parasite in pigs) it's safe, there are still groups that proscribe it.

      It's now not dangerous, but it's not halal, or kosher or whatever dictum limits it. It has become a moral offense rather than a public danger.

      The real harm is gone, but the moral stricture that was put on it lives on like some zombie.

  12. Very Old News by nbetcher · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is actually extremely old news. A treaty was signed over a decade ago to ban various uses of CFCs in phases. The OTC epinephrine inhalers were pulled off of the market by the manufacturer some time ago due to a different reason (which I forget), then they decided to not restart production on it because CFC inhalers would be banned as of 1/1/2010.

    Anyone that has asthma will tell you that things dramatically changed for them in 2010 when their old albuterol (fast-acting, for emergencies) inhalers were reformulated to not include CFCs (dubbed HFA, aka Hydrofluoroalkane) . Most HFA-using patients state that they cannot "feel" the aerosol or that it doesn't work nearly as well as the CFC-based ones.*

    Point being, CFC inhalers haven't been around for a couple of years and we knew they were going away over a decade ago!

    (*From my professional experience.)

    1. Re:Very Old News by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Oh, so that's what happened. I noticed that the inhaler I got about that time didn't seem to be doing anything. At least not during inhalation. I remember back during the 80s that it was a lot more obvious that I was getting medicine than it is these days.

      I also noticed that the inhalers don't seem to last as long as they used to. Not sure if that's at all related, but I find lately that invariably when I need an inhaler it's gone bad because I haven't used it in a few months. Which was never a case when I was a kid.

    2. Re:Very Old News by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought as well. We've known that CFCs were going to be phased out of medical applications for several years (see the wikipedia page on albuterol [salbutamol] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salbutamol). It sounds like the cost issue is related to patents on CFC-free albuterol inhalers, so there's minimal market competition to bring the price down.

      One of the questions that I have, and that has been posed by several other poster, is why epinephrine inhalers cannot be formulated to use non-CFC propellants. The trick could be that the aforemetioned patents cover all FDA-approved non-CFC inhalers, so no-one has moved to make a compliant product until they had to.

      It also sounds like several of the patents were set to expire in 2012, so this could quickly become a non-issue.

    3. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The treaty was signed, yes, but it was NEVER ratified by the U.S. Senate and therefore carries no legal weight. This is another example of administration bureaucrats enacting law without legal authority to do so.

    4. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. I am so sad my old inhaler ran out of medication. What I really want to know is if the CFC's from just the inhalers really have that much effect. I also don't like the fact they are telling me it works just the same, when I FEEL it in my lungs and how well I can breathe. But, honestly, if the inhaler isn't working well enough, it does provide me enough time to get to my own nebulizer and so it really doesn't effect me that much except the time for the neb.

    5. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange. I am familiar with something similar, because I use an electronic cigarette. Us e-smokers have a term, "throat hit," for the sensation you get on the back of the tongue and throat when you inhale the vapor. Most people want a good amount of TH because it's more similar to smoking a real cigarette. Some people choose their brand of nicotine liquid based mostly on the throat hit provided. In fact some people report being able to drop the nicotine completely if they have some other way of introducing TH. People do this though various methods -- ethanol in the liquid, some people even use hot pepper extract. Among e-cig smokers it is well known that this is a very strong psychological effect which can actually make or break your e-smoking experience.

      It sounds like a joke, but if the back-of-the-throat sensation is what is lacking perhaps you could introduce something that would make that a little more noticeable. I have no doubt of the psychological power involved here, I experience it myself.

    6. Re:Very Old News by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Oh, so that's what happened. I noticed that the inhaler I got about that time didn't seem to be doing anything. At least not during inhalation. I remember back during the 80s that it was a lot more obvious that I was getting medicine than it is these days.

      I also noticed that the inhalers don't seem to last as long as they used to. Not sure if that's at all related, but I find lately that invariably when I need an inhaler it's gone bad because I haven't used it in a few months. Which was never a case when I was a kid.

      I haven't noticed any change in the spray, but they sure as fuck self deplete faster, which sucks because I get a 6 month supply to SAVE money, only to have them all be dead, new out of the box, in 3 months.

    7. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I got my first HFA 4 years ago, my asthma had been under control for about 7 years. By that I mean, the only asthma / allergy related medicine I needed was my inhaler before exercise or maybe once a month for emergencies. Shortly after starting the HFAs, which I was told was my only option at the time, my asthma started to get worse and I developed a persistent cough. Now, after trying multiple medications, it's under control again, but to keep it under control I take an allergy pill and Symbicort in the morning, nasal spray twice a day, and my HFA once or twice a day. My medical costs for asthma went from about $40 a year to around $1000 since my insurance doesn't do much to cover Symbicort. Also, for everyone who says the new medicine is better for the environment, I can't imagine that the environment impact of my new regime is less than 3 inhalers a year.

    8. Re:Very Old News by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      I noticed that the inhaler I got about that time didn't seem to be doing anything. At least not during inhalation.

      Perhaps they can mix in a little Capsicum Annuum to give it a little kick... :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the EPA is enacting a regulation as allowed under its enabling law.

    10. Re:Very Old News by Mr_Perl · · Score: 1

      Agreed that it's old news. I checked a few online retailers, like amazon, after reading this and primatene is selling out. Good marketing ploy at least by some clever person.

      I buy non-cfc albuterol, and it's not 3x as expensive as the OTC stuff these guys are hawking. It's actually a little cheaper.

      --

      My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
    11. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These new inhalers need to be primed before use. Pump it 3-4 times with 30 seconds in between, and you will visually see the difference once the medicine actually is expelled out.

    12. Re:Very Old News by westlake · · Score: 1

      Most HFA-using patients state that they cannot "feel" the aerosol or that it doesn't work nearly as well as the CFC-based ones.*
      (*From my professional experience.)

      Is this a psychological effect --- or can you point to any clinical studies?

      The propellant, after all, is not the medication.

    13. Re:Very Old News by MikeB0Lton · · Score: 1

      I've noticed with the HFA propellant I now actually have to follow the cleaning instructions that come with the inhaler because it will periodically cake up and clog. Try taking the cartridge out and running some water through the inhaler. This even surprised my pharmacist. The CFC version seemed to have enough pressure to clear out the opening each time.

    14. Re:Very Old News by raddan · · Score: 1

      I noticed the change. But my new inhaler works just as well as the old one.

      Most people don't breathe deeply enough when using their inhalers- they just puff it into their mouths. You really need to pull it in. If you do it correctly, you can even suck in no-propellant inhalents like I had when I was a kid in the 80's.

    15. Re:Very Old News by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      You were supposed to prime the old inhalers too. Manufacturers always recommend that. Every primed spray is money in their pocket.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    16. Re:Very Old News by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I buy non-cfc albuterol, and it's not 3x as expensive as the OTC stuff these guys are hawking. It's actually a little cheaper.

      Is this in the US? If you know of an HFA inhaler for less than $20 USD for sale in the US please post the source.

      Some Indian pharmacies sell both HFA and CFC salbutamol inhalers for under $3. In many countries Salbutamol inhalers can be had for around $6 without a prescription at any pharmacy.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    17. Re:Very Old News by storkus · · Score: 1

      As an asthmatic, I can totally back this up: the old Freon-12 (dichloro-difluoromethane) based inhaler worked MUCH better than the new Freon-114a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) based inhalers. Both have the same ingredient--albuterol aka salbutamol--but the micro-dispersion is different and thus not as much gets down into the deep lungs. Add to that that all of these new formulations are patented, and you get the same drug for 13x as much now (around $50 with tax) from Wal-Mart compared to $4 before. Ouch.

      The ban now just affects Primatine, which is inhaled epinephrine: that is, an inhaled version of the Epi Pen. I'm guessing the same problems are in play in the conversion, not the least of which is that I believe R-114a has a lower boiling point and therefore higher pressure in the canister; the old Primatine inhalers were made of plastic-encased glass, as I recall.

    18. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the switch, the non CFC inhalers are NOT as effective. You have to use more than normal to feel the effect. Also since the ban, we now have two to four different inhalers as opposed to the one before. This is way more expensive. I can't imagine the small amount of CFC that could possibly get into the atmosphere (as we inhale it into our lungs, we don't spray it in the air) can be that damaging. The statement that a few deaths don't matter as compared to the "big picture"....is bull. If it were you or your loved one....it would be a different story....wake up people...this is government/drug company deals again.

    19. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ~2 years ago, my HMO transitioned from oldschool inhalers over to HFA in advance of the EPA rule -- the new kind worked better for me. About a year later, my prescription spontaneously changed back, and it not only didn't work as well, it also tasted awful! When I contacted my doctor, she said the pharmacy & doctors were getting more complaints than they could handle at a time, so they were going to only switch small groups at a time over, but she'd switch me right away, happy to find at least one patient liked it.

      IIRC, there have been studies indicating that the HFA inhalers really do work better than the old ones. Just as importantly in my view, the fine unflavored mist lets me use it directly in my mouth; I always had to use a spacer with the old one.

    20. Re:Very Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I've been pretty annoyed since they changed my albuterol inhalers. They don't seem to work as well, and they seem not to last as long. Of course it's hard to gauge exactly how well an inhaler is working, period, unless you're having a serious attack, but I do think there's at least a noticable difference.

      That being said, I sincerely doubt that those of us with asthma are destroying the planet. I can agree with regulating a lot of things, but not vital personal medical devices. People have to come first.

  13. propellant versus drug by Montressor · · Score: 2

    TFA doesn't explain why changing the propellant chemical means that the active medical ingredient has to change as well. Why can't epinephrine be delivered via a non-CFC propellant?

    1. Re:propellant versus drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have to change. However, it has to pass FDA approval with the new propellant, which is an expensive process. Since epinephrine is non-prescription (hence cheap) no company is willing to bear this expense.

    2. Re:propellant versus drug by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Because if the summary were to talk about the same medication it wouldn't be able to claim an outrageous three fold increase in cost!

    3. Re:propellant versus drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're combining two separate events:

      1. The removal of CFC's as a propellant
      2. The removal of Ephedrine as a medicinal ingredient

      The EPA is behind the first CFC/Propellant issue. The DEA is presumably behind the second with the "Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act" of 2005, which imposed tracking requirements on the sale of ephedrine (see the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephedrine#Legality). I'm assuming this would prevent the stuff being sold over-the-counter.

    4. Re:propellant versus drug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      epinephrine inhalers are the over the counter inhalers. They are dumb. Albuterol inhalers had their propellant replaced with HFA's but they still have albeuterol. CFC inhalers puff out larger droplet sizes than HFA. Droplet size affects the location along the wind pipe that the droplets stick. The heavier CFC droplets tend to land more along the throat and trachea, while the smaller HFA droplets make it deeper into the lungs. The relief felt for someone with problems higher up in the lung and into the trachea will not feel as good a relief from the HFA inhalers.
      They should have left the CFC units available, but limit them to those who actually have a medical reason for them. But because they are vastly cheaper the poor folks of this country would never switch over voluntarily.

    5. Re:propellant versus drug by mike.rimov · · Score: 1

      The big issue is that the Epinephrine Inhalers were grandfathered, which is why they were allowed over the counter.

      The FDA has been trying to figure out how to get rid of them for years because of heart issues -- by changing the propellent, it becomes a new "drug" -- propellants "might" react with the active ingredient, creating something harmful.... (FDA logic).

      By being a new drug, that means it would have to be FDA approved now -- no more grandfather clause -- and the FDA has no plans on approving the epi-inhalers.

  14. Re:wrong calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it won't. There are no other non-prescription inhalers available. This is nothing more than a ploy to hurt us poor folks even more.

    Fuck you, FDA.

  15. Re:wrong calculation by Baseclass · · Score: 1

    Once the pharmaceutical companies start losing enough sales the price will come down.
    Alternatively you could switch to a prescription inhaler, that is if you have insurance.

    --
    ^^vv<><>BA
  16. Re:wrong calculation by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    dear AC, you're wrong.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

    A single chlorine atom would keep on destroying ozone (thus a catalyst) for up to two years (the time scale for transport back down to the troposphere) were it not for reactions that remove them from this cycle by forming reservoir species such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) and chlorine nitrate (ClONO2). On a per atom basis, bromine is even more efficient than chlorine at destroying ozone, but there is much less bromine in the atmosphere at present. As a result, both chlorine and bromine contribute significantly to the overall ozone depletion. Laboratory studies have shown that fluorine and iodine atoms participate in analogous catalytic cycles. However, in the Earth's stratosphere, fluorine atoms react rapidly with water and methane to form strongly bound HF, while organic molecules which contain iodine react so rapidly in the lower atmosphere that they do not reach the stratosphere in significant quantities. Furthermore, a single chlorine atom is able to react with 100,000 ozone molecules.

  17. The cost is not the worst problem by spike2131 · · Score: 1

    Alternative albuterol inhalers cost almost three times as much as the $20 epinephrine inhalers sold by online retailers."

    The worst part is that epinephrine you can get any time you want (like, say, in the middle of an asthma attack), but albuterol requires a prescription, which means schlepping to a doctor with all the associated costs and inconveniences.

    Albuterol works a lot better, sure, but sometimes - when you need an inhaler and you need it NOW - its nice to know the good old Primatine Mist is available over the counter at the nearest drugstore.

     

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    1. Re:The cost is not the worst problem by westlake · · Score: 1

      Albuterol works a lot better, sure, but sometimes - when you need an inhaler and you need it NOW - its nice to know the good old Primatine Mist is available over the counter at the nearest drugstore.

      The puffer is something an asthmatic carries with him all the time. You can't depend on the store being open when you need it.

    2. Re:The cost is not the worst problem by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Or being able to drive to the store when you need it.

    3. Re:The cost is not the worst problem by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      Right. House keys are something home owners carry with them all the time so they don't lock themselves out of their homes. You can't depend on a locksmith being available to get you into your house when you need it.

  18. Re:wrong calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Slashdot so I wont be surprised if you are modded down to -1 Troll but, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!

    As I understand it, the ozone hole is currently closing. Clearly, these inhalers are not having a detrimental effect on the atmosphere.

    But hey, Slashdot never lets facts get in the way of their zealot adherence to the religion of the environment (A.K.A. The human haters club!)

  19. Re:wrong calculation by Kvasio · · Score: 0

    And what about people using $20 inhalers repaying to the rest of the world for global damage caused by ozone depletion?

  20. Re:wrong calculation by nbetcher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I recommend not going to Walgreens or CVS - go to an independent pharmacy, you'll get better care there anyways and cheaper prices. Then, don't get Proventil or Proair, get Ventolin! Ventolin is the cheapest and Glaskosmith-Kline has $15 rebate checks they give to pharmacies sometimes (and no, I don't work for ANY Pharmas). You also may want to check their website because they have programs you can enroll in to get your meds for cheap/free, plus they may even have some coupons you can use there.

  21. Why Prescription? by djl4570 · · Score: 1

    Albuterol inhalers have been around for over twenty years. The patents are lapsed. Does anyone know why albuterol inhalers are prescription only?

    1. Re:Why Prescription? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patents are lapsed. Does anyone know why albuterol inhalers are prescription only?

      Patents have nothing to do with prescription. Hell, Merck, Pfizer and friends would love to sell you anything you want with no doctor required.

      I believe it's the FDA that controls whether or not something is prescription-only or not. And a piss poor job of it they do - how I envy Canadia and their common sense.

    2. Re:Why Prescription? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone know why albuterol inhalers are prescription only?

      Pharma and the AMA have both lobbied for this. It costs more it obtain the same thing via prescription. More billing opportunities for doctors/hospitals. Higher prices for the pharma companies.

      The environmental rational behind this is a smoke screen. The most efficient way to effect policy change in the US is to conflate your agenda with 'saving the environment.'

    3. Re:Why Prescription? by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Why Prescription? by causality · · Score: 1

      Albuterol inhalers have been around for over twenty years. The patents are lapsed. Does anyone know why albuterol inhalers are prescription only?

      Because in the "land of the free" we really hate the idea that adult people might decide for themselves what goes into their own bodies. That's what it boils down to.

      If it were my decision to make, you could get just about anything over-the-counter that you like with no questions asked. The reason you'd still go to a doctor is because it's a really good idea and you'd be a fool not to seek good professional advice about important medical issues, not because someone threatens you with jail for circumventing a system.

      The main role the FDA should have is to ensure honest labeling, i.e. that when you buy a drug, it is what it says it is and contains no harmful impurities. A secondary role would be continuing to require clinical trials before a company may make positive claims of efficacy for a given substance. But in the absence of such claims, there's no good non-nanny-state reason why an adult person should not be able to purchase and consume whatever he or she wants and then bear the consequences.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Why Prescription? by causality · · Score: 1

      Abuse

      Yes. We all know that requiring a prescription has prevented the abuse of other drugs such as oxycodone (Oxycontin). When that was made prescription-only, all the drug abusers and recreational users just gave up and admitted defeat.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Why Prescription? by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      Patents have nothing to do with prescription. While albuterol is no longer patented, the HFA delivery mechanism is, and that is apparently enough to demand "brand name" prices. I used to pay $5 copay on something that cost $10 or so, now I'm paying $20 copay on something that costs $55 or so. I think it was just a convenient excuse by pharma to get another bite on the patent apple.

      These patents appear to expire in 2014 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5605674 and 2015 - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5766573

    7. Re:Why Prescription? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      But in the absence of such claims, there's no good non-nanny-state reason why an adult person should not be able to purchase and consume whatever he or she wants and then bear the consequences.

      I can think of one good reason - the same reason why we restrict alcohol sales.

      If someone isn't familiar with the effects of a substance, or is unable or unwilling to use it responsibly, they could jeopardize other people.

      There are many useful prescription drugs - albuterol being one of them - that I think should be available immediate over-the-counter. On the other hand I don't see society being well served by people being able to buy unlimited quantities of things such as growth hormones or narcotic pain killers.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    8. Re:Why Prescription? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Prescription requirements don't have anything to do with patents. Albuterol is pretty safe, but it does have a few adverse side effects, some of which can be serious. Asthma is one of those things that is sometimes considered trendy too. Asthma should often be treated with something other than just rescue inhalers. All in all it's not a bad idea to have asthmatics actually visit a doctor for a diagnosis rather than treating themselves.

      I have a few asthmatic friends and I've never heard one of them complain about having to get a prescription. They get it, get their inhaler and carry it with them. No mad searching for a drugstore when you can't breathe.

    9. Re:Why Prescription? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't attack me, I'm just answering the question.

      I happen to be in the "legalize but regulate and tax" camp, even for hard drugs.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Why Prescription? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone isn't familiar with the effects of a substance, or is unable or unwilling to use it responsibly, they could jeopardize other people.

      That still doesn't explain why you are for banning a substance because some might abuse it, yet are completely NOT against people committing crimes

      Thankfully the crimes are illegal, despite you not wanting them to be.
      Unfortunately something that can be used for a crime is illegal, specifically because of people like you.

      When you finally get your way, and hammers can't be sold in walmart but murder is legal, you will see why you are wrong.

    11. Re:Why Prescription? by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 1

      At least in the States, the FDA makes the decision on if a medication is Rx only or OTC. Plus with the beauty of patents, when the inhalers went from CFC to HFA, that was enough to get a new patent. Albuterol inhalers went from being a cheap generic med back to expensive brand only. Yay, patents!

      --

      ==================
      Hippie Logger Jock
      ==================
    12. Re:Why Prescription? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I don't know what message you thought you were replying to, but your conclusions don't go with what I wrote at all. Of course since you wrote it AC (as one should when making such wholly illogical statements) you probably won't come back to read my reply.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    13. Re:Why Prescription? by causality · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't attack me, I'm just answering the question.

      I happen to be in the "legalize but regulate and tax" camp, even for hard drugs.

      It wasn't an attack. It was more like, yes that is the "standard answer" provided by the establishment. It just happens not to coincide with reality. I didn't see anyone else pointing that out. Meanwhile, there is a downside: people who really do need this medicine will now have a harder time getting it, all in an effort to stop people from abusing drugs they will have few or no problems obtaining anyway...

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  22. Re:wrong calculation by hedwards · · Score: 1

    Right, because asthma is so trendy that we've all gone out and gotten it.

    It's one thing to charge people for the side effects of their own decisions and quite another to charge people for something they were born with. Ultimately, I'd be more than happy to subsidize these for other people, because I wouldn't need it myself.

  23. Why do the alternatives have to be prescription? by tirk · · Score: 1

    OK, ban the CFC propelled inhalers, fine. But why do the alternatives only have to be prescription? What is in them that makes it that you still can't create cheaper over the counter versions? If it's a patent issue then I'd think the government would have the intelligence to release such a patent for the good of the people. But that's not going to happen since getting a seat in the government means taking money from corporations, one wouldn't want to upset your path into office. But then us sheeple just vote for the candidate that spends the most on advertising. How many people actually research candidates (not the rheteroic they produce, but the history of votes and actions they have done). Sorry, I'm getting off topic, my on topic comment really is just that the real issue isn't the ban itself, but the lack of inexpensive over the counter alternatives. Are there really just no other options then a CFC propellent for an over the counter inhaled propellent? Use nitrous oxide, let them enjoy the asthma medicine at the same time.....

  24. Re:wrong calculation by geekoid · · Score: 1

    This has NOTHING TO DO with Pharma. moron.

    well then they will get them for 10 bucks at wal-mart.

    Wasn't this done in 2008?

    http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048235.htm

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  25. Make up your damn minds! by BitHive · · Score: 1, Troll

    From TFA:

    The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.

    So now that global warming has been exposed as a fraud we're supposed to be scared of the Sun as well? Leave it to tree huggers to care more about ozone, which is poisonous, than human life.

    I don't know about you but I'm perfectly capable of purchasing sunscreen. For the amount of money I'd save with the tried-and-true inhalers I could probably buy enough sunscreen to protect myself from this so-called "ultraviolet" light for a decade or more.

    I am continually amazed that people want the government to pass laws in the name of environmental protection -- if someone is polluting your air or water you don't need to call the EPA, you should be exercising your individual property rights the way our founding fathers intended.

    1. Re:Make up your damn minds! by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "So now that global warming has been exposed as a fraud we're supposed to be scared of the Sun as well? Leave it to tree huggers to care more about ozone, which is poisonous, than human life."

      I have a wonderful UV lamp that I use to disinfect stuff. Would you care to sit a few days under it?

    2. Re:Make up your damn minds! by maxume · · Score: 1

      Satire?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Make up your damn minds! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I... I... I don't know. Earth-shattering irony? Ignorance on an epic scale? Someone help me out here.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Make up your damn minds! by SuperAbe · · Score: 1

      I actually can't tell if this is a Poe or not.....oh, wait....did I just Poe myself? (And are recursive Poe's even redundant?)

    5. Re:Make up your damn minds! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The ignorance displayed in your post is stunning. Harmful UV rays harm a lot more than just human beings. It impacts plant life and other animals as well, and in a very negative way.

    6. Re:Make up your damn minds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He put quotes around "ultraviolet." He's joking. No one is THAT stupid and understands how to use so-called "quotes."

    7. Re:Make up your damn minds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly certain the GP is being ironic.

    8. Re:Make up your damn minds! by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I think you should inhale your sunscreen, and stick it to these...what was it? "tree huggers"?

    9. Re:Make up your damn minds! by Ragun · · Score: 1

      I pray this is satire. Yet really, this could go either way.

    10. Re:Make up your damn minds! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "So now that global warming has been exposed as a fraud"

      It hasn't.

      "...we're supposed to be scared of the Sun as well?"

      There are many ways the Sun is harmful to us, it has always been this way.

      "Leave it to tree huggers to care more about ozone, which is poisonous, than human life."

      Ozone preserves human life, if you remove it millions will die.

      "I don't know about you but I'm perfectly capable of purchasing sunscreen. For the amount of money I'd save with the tried-and-true inhalers I could probably buy enough sunscreen to protect myself from this so-called "ultraviolet" light for a decade or more."

      Just because you are unfortunate enough to live in a greedy country where most doesn't care about human life doesn't mean you have a right to side with them (those who don't care)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    11. Re:Make up your damn minds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      serious troll. Nice try in your attempt to make the arguments of the climate change skeptics look ridiculous. They don't need your help. Though they certainly do need some help. (probably professional)

    12. Re:Make up your damn minds! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if trolling or just stupid......

      I am going to assume the former, no one could be that stupid, surely?

  26. Re:wrong calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what about people that could not afford the $20 inhalers in the first place??

  27. primatiene mist if having an attack by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    Oh great.

    I used to be able to count on getting to any 24hr pharmacy (and most local 24hr supermarkets) and purchasing Primatene Mist (or an equivalent) if suffering an asthma attack.

    So now I have to stock up on the works-less-well-for-me albuterol from a doctor's prescription? And if I am out have to run to the ER to get the now-only-available-by-prescription medicines? (Yes, yes: In a perfect world I would never run out, and always have a Rx solution on hand, but sh*t happens.)

    Not. Happy.

    I would rather they simply switch from a CFC propellant to something else, and keep such medicines as over-the-counter and CFC free.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
    1. Re:primatiene mist if having an attack by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you could just see your doctor, maybe manage your asthma better. Maybe have a prescription available in your wallet if you really need it. If you're running to the 24 hour pharmacy in the middle of the night chances are you're doing it wrong.

      Get a peak flow meter, learn how to use it. Works great for most people and gives them a 12-24 hour window of alert time before you really get symptomatic.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:primatiene mist if having an attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have asthma. I live a busy life. My attacks are rare. Going to see a doctor when my inhaler seems to be running out is a pain the butt. Over the counter is 100x more convenient, and for the two times a year I have an attack I'd rather just buy over the counter. Buying a peak flow meter to test myself and worrying about having a prescription on me are definitely not things I want to have to deal with everyday.

    3. Re:primatiene mist if having an attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, gee, I guess the rest of the world will just have to deal with increased chance of skin cancer then! We wouldn't want to make you ever so slightly more burdened in your life. Seriously, get over yourself, faggot.

    4. Re:primatiene mist if having an attack by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      So wait... your management of your asthma is to drive to a 24 hour store to buy an inhaler if you have an attack?

      I assume the way you manage fires in your kitchen is to drive to a 24 hour store to buy a fire extinguisher if a fire breaks out.

      If you have a condition serious enough to require intervention, you need to keep a prescription on you or near you at all times. I note you say you do "in a perfect world" but come on. This has been coming for many years but it was only a matter of time - salbutamol is more effective overall with fewer side effects and a single inhaler contains about 200 doses, so it's not like you'll be short.

      If salbutamol doesn't work for you, then there are other options.

      They considered swapping the epinephrine-only inhalers for ones with HCFCs in them, but the side effects of the drug as a whole mean they prefer to phase it out as an inhaler rather than change it to an HCFC version (not to mention that it would require re-approval by the FDA, making it expensive).

  28. Re:wrong calculation by BitHive · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This contradicts my instincts about the chemistry of our atmosphere. Just who performed these "laboratory studies"? If they were funded by government money in any way then they are probably part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to debunk my gut feelings.

  29. Cost falls with mass production, life improves by retroworks · · Score: 2

    The cost of unleaded gasoline was astronomical in the early 1970s - because unleaded gasoline was produced in relatively small batches and could not compete at scale with leaded gasoline. When leaded gasoline was banned, we were all told that we'd be paying more for gasoline. In fact, the price of unleaded gasoline production fell. The important thing is that the mean blood lead level in 1975 was 15.5 g/dl. The mean blood lead level today is less than 2g/dl. Urban IQs are rising. What does this mean for phasing CFCs out of inhalers? I don't know, but the people who scream every time a new technology has to make transition to scale tend not to make the world any better.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Cost falls with mass production, life improves by causality · · Score: 3, Informative

      The important thing is that the mean blood lead level in 1975 was 15.5 g/dl. The mean blood lead level today is less than 2g/dl.

      That can't be right. That would be what, about a third of a kilogram of lead in the average person's body?

      The average adult has about 5 pints of blood in their body. A pint is a little more than half a liter. So that's approximately 2.5 liters * 10 * 15.5, which works out to about 387 grams of lead. I think that's enough to kill a blue whale.

      From reading the Wikipedia article on lead poisoning, I assume you meant micrograms.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Cost falls with mass production, life improves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Urban IQ's are rising ???
      That is, without a doubt, the single most shocking statement I have ever read !

    3. Re:Cost falls with mass production, life improves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When leaded gasoline was banned"

      It's not banned, small aircraft use it exclusively.

    4. Re:Cost falls with mass production, life improves by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The cost of unleaded gasoline was astronomical in the early 1970s - because unleaded gasoline was produced in relatively small batches and could not compete at scale with leaded gasoline. When leaded gasoline was banned, we were all told that we'd be paying more for gasoline. In fact, the price of unleaded gasoline production fell.

      Unleaded gas wasn't patented. The prices will only fall when the patents on the new propellants expire.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Cost falls with mass production, life improves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the very same Wikipedia, a human has about 5 liters of blood, not 5 pints. However, yours and his points still stand. Lead levels are declining, and 15g/dl would kill a sperm whale. He probably had issues with getting Slashdot to do Unicode and thus couldn't type a mu.

    6. Re:Cost falls with mass production, life improves by tepples · · Score: 1

      From reading the Wikipedia article on lead poisoning, I assume you meant micrograms.

      That or Slashdot is stripping the micro sign again due to measures introduced years ago to prevent vandalism using bidirectional characters and ASCII art.

    7. Re:Cost falls with mass production, life improves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From reading /., I assume that the GP actually wrote micrograms, but that some braindead "code" decided to kill the micron. Slashdot's Razor: Don't attribute to incompetence what's better explained by utter incompetence.

  30. Re:I say we ban the EPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're getting deep into ecological debt as it is. Do you really want us to live as a bunch of locusts until the planet is bare and we all die?

  31. Re:wrong calculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pharmacist here. I can't recommend the Ventolin enough. It is cheaper and it has a dose counter.

  32. My costs went up substantially, and less effective by assemblerex · · Score: 5, Informative

    The new inhaler with no insurance? $60. Before? $30
    Less pressure, not as effective in getting the meds to my lungs.
    I now order them from mexico, same old good stuff that works.

  33. Re:wrong calculation by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Except that the summary is overtly lying - the albuterol inhalers cost as little as $30. It's even in the linked article.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  34. Re:wrong calculation by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 2

    here's a novel idea - why are albuterol inhalers (I've had them for 20 years now) prescription at all? they want to do this? MAKE ALBUTEROL OVER THE COUNTER!

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
  35. Re:I say we ban the EPA by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and that Clean Water Act. Awful. Lake Erie was quite beautiful aflame.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  36. Re:wrong calculation by Cwix · · Score: 1

    How much CFC do you really think is in there?

    I'm all for certain types of regulations, but this one is just stupid. Why doesnt the FDA encourage the use of a different propellent instead?

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  37. OK that article is a canned article by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    being propagated through the media. Probably written by some anti regulation type; or it's plain shoddy 'reporting'.

    a) There is a non- CFC primatine mist coming out.

    http://www.empr.com/update-on-primatene-mist-discontinuation/article/208381/

    b) this has been a phased roll out since 2008

    c) albuterol was the first to be regulated to be CFC free.

    d) The corporation the make CFC products stalled in making a replacement in order to maximize there profits, and probably to make regulation seem bad.

    e) the only impact CFC inhalers, not over the cuonter inhalers. So you will see OTC inhalers, probably soon.

    Whoever wrote that article should be slapped up side the head for sowing discontent in the populace with factual lies.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:OK that article is a canned article by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      a) There is a non- CFC primatine mist coming out.

      http://www.empr.com/update-on-primatene-mist-discontinuation/article/208381/ [empr.com]

      That article says, 'pending FDA approval'. Last article I read said the FDA was going to require an [expensive] clinical trial before approving it, and the manufacturer didn't have the revenue stream to support that. But, good for them for making it FDA's problem. If the FDA has backed down, good for them.

      e) the only impact CFC inhalers, not over the cuonter inhalers. So you will see OTC inhalers, probably soon.

      Hrm? Primatine Mist is OTC and CFC. Clarify please?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:OK that article is a canned article by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Hey, suppressing facts to support a narrative has a long history. It's respectable as long as your cause supports the correct political outcome. Reference:

      "Accounts of the Soviet labor system should be suppressed even if true, since otherwise the French working class might become anti-Soviet."
      -- Jean-Paul Sartre, 1933

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:OK that article is a canned article by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Hrm? Primatine Mist is OTC and CFC. Clarify please?

      I hold in my hand generic of Primatine Mist, purchased over the counter. The warnings on the package state: 'Contains CFC 12, 114, substances which harm public health and environment by destroying ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.' HTH I'm typing on tiny keyboard by meds cabinet.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:OK that article is a canned article by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that with all the current uproar about the costs of healthcare that the FDA can't get it together and get the non-CFC OTC inhalers approved. Surely since it's just a new propellant, not a new drug, they could fast track it. I suppose they're much too busy trying to get grandfathered generics under their thumb while adding orders of magnitude to the price to do anything good like that though.

    5. Re:OK that article is a canned article by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's what I thought. Not sure why the GP thought OTC and CFC were exclusive. At least that's how I parsed the near-English.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  38. Re:wrong calculation by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

    Can we have something other than a Wikipedia article as a source? It seems to me that just because a single chlorine atom CAN react with 100,000 ozone molecules doesn't mean it will or that it does on average.

    What's the actual damage to the ozone layer from these devices?
    Is the cost of that damage more or less than the cost of banning these devices?

  39. Re:wrong calculation by geekoid · · Score: 1

    They do and have been, for years.
    companies delayed in getting there non CFC OTC inhalers approved. They are in the process of approval. I f the corporation moved right away, the OTC non CFC inhalers would be on the shelves. But they didn't and now the blame the government and push this story out to every media. Just look, it's the same exact story in every media.

    If the FDA delays, then I would bet the companies would delay there release of the OTC non CFC because the make more money from those.

    1-2 million people, squirting CFC into the air every day? it adds up.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  40. other issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're hitting this up? I feel like there's much bigger fish to fry. Fuel used by ships in international waters is pretty much a free for all. I bet one ship, hitting a headwind once throws more crap into the atmosphere than all the inhalers in the US combined for a year.

    1. Re:other issues by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's a question of comprehensive change.

      Once you start picking and choosing, you end up with something you can't justify in all cases, and the loopholes grow until those ship motors are being used in backyard generators.

  41. Re:I say we ban the EPA by trout007 · · Score: 1

    Plus now all the people there that used to have jobs are unemployed so they the time to enjoy the lake.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  42. Re:wrong calculation by moodyblue · · Score: 1

    Man are you a member Sierra Club? What are there too many people on the planet, I know lets start with the people with asthma and work up list of chronic diseases by the "damage" they do to the "planet"!

    A*hole.

  43. Re:wrong calculation by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Walgreens as always given me excellent service.

    I haven't used the for Asthma, but other thing. Certainly no worse then my 'local' pharmacy; which was more expensive so I don't go back.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  44. Re:wrong calculation by causality · · Score: 1

    I can't recommend the Ventolin as it kills babies.

    It's okay. Babies don't have jobs and cars so they can't drive to drugstores to buy Ventolin. See, it's self-correcting!

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  45. Re:wrong calculation by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

    here's a novel idea - why are albuterol inhalers (I've had them for 20 years now) prescription at all? they want to do this? MAKE ALBUTEROL OVER THE COUNTER!

    The answer is in the question.
    The lifetime of pharma patents is 21 years + extra time for other things.

    Patents on non-CFC albuterol inhalers started expiring in 2009.
    More patents will expire over the next few years and non-CFC generics will show up within the next 5 years.
    Until those patents run out, it won't be over the counter and it won't be generic.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  46. Re:wrong calculation by xstonedogx · · Score: 0

    Right or wrong, you have that backwards.

    An expense that someone suffers due to a physical infirmity is not "charging people." Someone provides them with a service or product that they need and expects to be compensated in return.

    What you are suggesting is charging Paul to pay for Peter rather than having Peter pay his own way. There may be some value in subsidizing keeping people alive, but that's a political conversation I sure as hell don't want to have on /.

  47. Re:wrong calculation by hey! · · Score: 2

    This contradicts my instincts about the chemistry of our atmosphere. Just who performed these "laboratory studies"? If they were funded by government money in any way then they are probably part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to debunk my gut feelings.

    Alright, comrades, the jig's up. BitHive caught us red (of course) handed. Now everyone will know about our scheme:

    (1) Threaten everyone with gut debunking.
    (2) They start hollerin' for single payer.
    (3) ???
    (4) Redistribute wealth!

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  48. Re:wrong calculation by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    One wonders if the price on the newer inhalers will come down, since there will be volume efficiencies when more of them are made.

    Short answer is "No." CFC inhalers for prescription inhalers has been banned in the US for several years, the price has not gone down. There is no reason to expect over the counter inhalers will go down. When the prescription ones dropped CFC as the propellant, they received new patents now they are protected. This was nothing more than the pharmaceutical companies getting the OTC banned from competing with them.

  49. More patent nonsense. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    The high price of the albuterol inhalers in the USA is due to the control of manufacturing of the propellant by the patent holder. Albuterol inhalers sold in India and made in Australia by well-known brands cost about $2 becasue they don't care about the CFC in the propellant.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  50. Re:wrong calculation by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    If the US had a decent health care system this would NOT be an issue.

  51. Re:My costs went up substantially, and less effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The new inhaler with no insurance? $60. Before? $30
    Less pressure, not as effective in getting the meds to my lungs.
    I now order them from mexico, same old good stuff that works.

    Aren't you happy that you are able to sacrifice your health, though, for the good of the planet?

    Comrade Captain Planet demands we much all offer our lives for him.

  52. Re:I say we ban the EPA by sexconker · · Score: 1

    We're getting deep into ecological debt as it is. Do you really want us to live as a bunch of locusts until the planet is bare and we all die?

    Seems pretty self correcting to me.
    Locusts exist and do what they do, and after the big swarm dies off the planet is actually better off in terms of biomass and biodiversity.
    New (or regrown) plants take the place of the eaten plants, while the biomass the locusts ate is then eaten by predators (who are in turn eaten by larger predators, etc.). The plant biomass that was eaten by the locusts effectively moves up the food chain, and new plant biomass is created as plants grow back in the now-empty space.

    As long as more biomass moves up the food chain than down (due to starvation due to the lack of crops), then complex life forms receive a net benefit, and thus life gets an extra boost in its fight against entropy.

  53. Re:wrong calculation by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    You might want to read that article closer. The ozone hole is closing, even with the effects of CFCs from inhalers still acting on it (plus all the other CFCs still floating around from other sources). Therefore, inhaler based CFCs seem not to be a serious issue.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  54. Re:I say we ban the EPA by blair1q · · Score: 1

    And the sunsets! Those gorgeous, orange (*cough*) sunsets (*wheeze*).

  55. Re:wrong calculation by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    The suggestion that everyone should be forced to cooperate in the national Prisoner's Dilemma game is controversial, but not that controversial. You are individually better off if you defect, but everyone is better off if everyone cooperates.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  56. Re:wrong calculation by Cwix · · Score: 2

    Well last I hear the ozone layer was clearing up, and considering the number of countries that have yet to ban CFC's, I think it is more important that people get the opportunity to breathe.

    FDA should fast track the other inhalers, and the EPA should hold off on the ban until they are available. People WILL die without access to inhalers, Another year of cfc's is a drop in the bucket, and there is no evidence that it will kill anyone. Hell they have been warning us about the ozone layer for at least 15 years now, and no one has died yet, another year to get a medicine to the people wont make a difference in the long run.

    NOTE: I am against doing things that destroy our habitat, but this seems like a situation that could be better handled. I consider myself a nature lover, and dont want to see the earth get destroyed by our actions. This will do relatively little to the environment and will prevent people from dying. Time to weigh the costs here.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  57. check the facts please ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For gods sake stop screaming "EPA are idiots" and check for once that epinephrine inhalers are not recommended in general due to the side effects of the DRUG. This is why FDA refused the CFC exception for epinephrine. So yes, other inhalers might be more expensive but a) you get rid of ozone destroying CFC as most countries have meanwhile completely abandoned and results show slowly in the layer. And b) people stop using over-the-counter self medication that is not recommended by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Expert Panel Report 3 asthma guidelines.

    "Although over-the-counter epinephrine inhalers have been on the market for decades and can relieve acute asthma symptoms, these medications are known to have serious side effects when used in higher doses. In addition, they are not recommended by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Expert Panel Report 3 asthma guidelines. As a result, last year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied the request for “essential-use” designation for these chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propelled devices. The ruling means that epinephrine inhalers will become unavailable in the United States after Dec. 31, 2011.

    According to several lung experts, the coming change provides the perfect opportunity for respiratory patients to talk with their doctor or respiratory therapist about epinephrine’s downsides and learn why it is a good thing these inhalers are being removed from the market."

    http://www.yourlunghealth.org/healthy_living/aah/04.09/articles/inhalers/

  58. Re:wrong calculation by xero314 · · Score: 1

    Except that the summary is overtly lying - the albuterol inhalers cost as little as $30. It's even in the linked article.

    $30 plus a $100 per year to have your Dr. write you a prescription.

  59. Re:wrong calculation by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Yes, but you can't buy albuterol without a prescription. Most people who use Primatene as their primary asthma rescue drug are poor and lack insurance. The need to take time off from work and get an official prescription can be a substantial barrier. The cost of the albuterol isn't $30... it's $30, plus the cost of the doctor visit, plus the lost wages from taking part or all of the day off from work.

  60. Re:wrong calculation by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

    As a general rule, you shouldn't feed the trolls. :) The GP was clearly trolling, IMO, because he was spewing an obvious right-wing shill statement about paying his own way... one he'll happily keep spewing as long as his largest medical expense is a $50 prescription, but as soon as he has to pay out of pocket for a $100,000 operation, he'll start nattering about insurance and paying his own way... completely forgetting that insurance is an industry built on spreading that kind of cost around so that every pays a small portion of it, rather than making the individual pay the whole cost. It boggles the mind, but people who fall into that category also don't seem to understand that limiting tort and having a socialized health care system like most of the civilized world has done actually reduces costs for everybody involved.

  61. CFC/HFC Inhaler differences by Guppy · · Score: 2

    Anyone that has asthma will tell you that things dramatically changed for them in 2010 when their old albuterol (fast-acting, for emergencies) inhalers were reformulated to not include CFCs (dubbed HFA, aka Hydrofluoroalkane) . Most HFA-using patients state that they cannot "feel" the aerosol or that it doesn't work nearly as well as the CFC-based ones.*

    There are a number of significant differences between CFC and HFC inhalers. One is that most drugs are less soluble in HFCs than CFCs; newer HFCs inhalers are generally formulated using a suspension of solid particles in propellant (this may have something to do with the clogging & self-depletion problems reported with HFC inhalers). There might also be issues given the density differences between CFCs and HFCs -- I would expect the heavier gas would do a better job carrying the medication deeper down into the lungs.

    1. Re:CFC/HFC Inhaler differences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone that has asthma will tell you that things dramatically changed for them in 2010 when their old albuterol (fast-acting, for emergencies) inhalers were reformulated to not include CFCs (dubbed HFA, aka Hydrofluoroalkane) . Most HFA-using patients state that they cannot "feel" the aerosol or that it doesn't work nearly as well as the CFC-based ones.*

      There are a number of significant differences between CFC and HFC inhalers. One is that most drugs are less soluble in HFCs than CFCs; newer HFCs inhalers are generally formulated using a suspension of solid particles in propellant (this may have something to do with the clogging & self-depletion problems reported with HFC inhalers). There might also be issues given the density differences between CFCs and HFCs -- I would expect the heavier gas would do a better job carrying the medication deeper down into the lungs.

      To add to the clogging issue. This is so true. The new HFCs clog so much more than the CFCs did. I can't actually recall the CFCs clogging on me at all or needed to be rinsed.

      -=As a note=- to those of us suffering from asthma, please for the love of God, after rinsing make sure every droplet of water is out of your inhaler before you use it again. It will not only shoot a jet of water into your mouth (unpleasant) it seems like it sucked the remaining water up into the canister and left the rest of the canister unable to spray anything else out (unwanted).

      I miss my old white Warrick CFC inhaler. You just don't feel like you're getting all the medicine like you used to. Plus the new HFCs taste....funny.

  62. Speaking as an asthmatic by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    /.'ers are being characteristically reactionist. I use the new inhalers, and have done so for several years now. This story should be modded anti-government flamebait.

    Furthermore, epinephrine inhalers are less effective than salabuterol inhalers, with more side effects (epinephrine can be very unpleasant). That's the real reason they're going away-- reformulating them for a new propellant is not worth the cost.

    1. Re:Speaking as an asthmatic by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      /.'ers are being characteristically reactionist.

      Heh yep. We know how to set up wireless networks, that proves we're the geniuses of the world!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Speaking as an asthmatic by letsief · · Score: 1

      First of all, HFA inhalers are significantly more expensive than CFC inhalers, because there are no generics available. HFA epinephrine inhalers would likely have the same problem.

      In addition, no one claims epinephrine inhalers work as well as albuterol inhalers, but you can't get those over-the-counter.

    3. Re:Speaking as an asthmatic by Xyzzy+Magic · · Score: 1

      HFA inhalers are significantly more expensive than CFC inhalers ...

      True: according to TFA, a HFA inhaler is $60, twice that of a CFC. However, all but the most uncontrolled asthmatics can get 1-3 years of use out of an inhaler, as each one carries ~200 doses, each enough to bring almost anything not ER-worthy under control. Anybody that's so poor that they can't save up (or borrow & slowly pay off) $60 over 1-2 years would probably qualify for Medicaid, and if not, there are quite a few programs/resources to help (community sliding-scale prescription clinics, manufacturer free/low-cost meds, etc.).

    4. Re:Speaking as an asthmatic by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      Or you guys could fix your pricing issue. The same salbutamol inhaler in the UK is about $3 for 200 doses.

      Ah, the power of a single payer healthcare system.

    5. Re:Speaking as an asthmatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: Its OK that these inhalers cost more because taxes will kick in to pay for those that cant afford the new prices.

    6. Re:Speaking as an asthmatic by letsief · · Score: 1

      First of all, HFA inhalers typically have about 100 doses, not 200. One dose is almost always two "puffs" from the inhaler.

      I don't know where you're getting this idea that a single inhaler can last someone 1-3 years. "Well-controlled" asthma is considered to be someone that only needs to use their inhaler 3 times per week, not counting any additional doses used when exercising. If you exercise 3 times a week like you're supposed to, that means an inhaler could last you about 3 months.

      Except, the medications designed to keep asthma under control are expensive. They make HFA albuterol inhalers look cheap. Depending on the medication and the dose, each of those medications can run $60-$120 per month. Some people, like me, need two. Often, people need to take other medications to combat their triggers (e.g., allergy medication to deal with allergy-induced asthma attacks, or GERD medications). Those aren't terribly expensive, but these things add up.

      It would be great if everyone could afford to keep their asthma under control, but that's not the case. And it's low-income suffers that are most at-risk. Yes, in an ideal world people wouldn't use albuterol inhalers on a daily basis, but that's better than just trying to push yourself through the symptoms of an attack unmedicated.

  63. Mod parent up! by raddan · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up!

  64. !Cost Externalization == !Tragedy Of Commons by cmholm · · Score: 1

    This shouldn't have been news. It's been know since 2008 that the gig was up by 1/1/2012. Yes, it's "only" 70 tons of CFCs a year. But, there are already enough hassles with attempted exemptions and dealing with CFCs that are a by-product of other compounds.

    CFCs seemed like a great product. Non-toxic, very useful. Unfortunately, once a cost was discovered for using it, we could either continue externalizing the cost (hello melanoma, good bye rice production), or internalize it (product substitution, or elimination).

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  65. Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by Guppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quantitative proof or GTFO.

    Well, I'll take a shot at it. Please excuse me if I miss a decimal point somewhere, corrections are welcome.

    About 14g of material in a Primatene Mist Inhaler. Non-propellant mass is ascorbic acid, dehydrated alcohol (34%), hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, purified water (actual mass of drug is negligible). Don't know the breakdown, but guesstimating about 4g of CFC-12 and CFC-114 propellant per inhaler, since alcohol is ~1/3 mass, and ascorbic acid is listed before the alcohol (ingredients should be listed in order of descending weight, so at least 1/3 ascorbic acid).

    In one of the recent news interviews about this, FDA spokesman estimated 1-2 million Primatene Mist users out there. Let's say 12 vials per year * 2mil users (I don't really know how many vials an asthmatic goes through), and call it 20 million vials. That would be 24,000kg of CFCs per year, or 24 metric tons.

    For reference, reported peak production of CFC-12 was reached in 1988, at 421,002 metric tons (1000kg in a metric ton), and 8,938 metric tons in 2004 (last reported year). So total usage is not tiny, but still a small fraction of the overall CFC usage.

  66. Re:I say we ban the EPA by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Michigan and Ohio have a pretty dismal employment situation, but blaming that on environmental regulation is a bit of a stretch. While environmental regulation does make products more expensive to produce, so do a number of other factors that contributed to the decline in manufacturing jobs.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  67. Re:wrong calculation by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Okay, so put that in the summary instead of lying about the costs of the drug.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  68. Re:wrong calculation by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    All very good points, but the summary didn't use them - instead it deliberately just used the higher number in the article.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  69. ban all lifesaving devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should just ban all lifesaving devices as humans have been proven to be bad for the environment

  70. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For reference, reported peak production of CFC-12 was reached in 1988, at 421,002 metric tons [afeas.org] (1000kg in a metric ton), and 8,938 metric tons in 2004 (last reported year). So total usage is not tiny, but still a small fraction of the overall CFC usage.

    Are you familiar with the term, "boundary condition"?

    Asthma inhalers are only one example of a much larger class of products that contain these ozone-destroying propellants. Is CFC-12 the only ingredient that can be used effectively for inhalers? Do inhalers have to use ANY propellant? Or do they include the propellant so that they can minimize the amount of the active ingredient so that the consumer needs to buy lots and lots of inhalers?

    Do you remember how many different ways the EPA attacked the pollution in the Great Lakes a few decades ago? They approached it from hundreds of different directions, and for each one you could have said, "Why are they going after this one itty-bitty thing?".

    But here we are in 2011, and the Great Lakes are no longer the open-air toilet that they were in the 1970s. You can catch beautiful salmon and lake trout off the coast of Gary, Indiana for chrissake. Cleveland doesn't smell like a decaying corpse any more.

    The same arguments were made in the 1980s and 1990s about the EPA. Yesterday, one of the geniuses in the Republican debate, some guy who make his money selling cardboard pizzas, said, "The first thing I'd do after being elected is close down the EPA".

    So it's finally happened. The Tea Party has driven the GOP so far over the cliff that they're coming out in favor of...pollution, people dying from lack of health care and executing innocent people. I hear they're planning a big campaign in favor of mercury in baby food and lead paint in pre-schools. They boo a question from a soldier serving in Iraq because he's gay. They consider police, firemen, schoolteachers and paramedics "bottom-feeders", "parasites" and "scum". Think about that for just a second. For them, domestic enemy number one is police, firemen, schoolteachers and paramedics. They have a plan for recruiting better teachers for our schools. And do you know what that plan is? They plan to recruit better teachers by taking away their collective bargaining rights, paying them less, reducing their benefits and making class sizes bigger. I'm not joking. That's what the most "moderate" of the GOP candidates said last night. Mitt Romney's plan to recruit higher-quality teachers is to make it a lot more unpleasant and less lucrative to be a schoolteacher. Guy's a friggin' genius. The number one thing the GOP likes about him is that he's a "job creator" except during his tenure at Bain & Company he laid off a lot more people than he hired and as governor of Massachusetts they were number 46 out of 50 in new jobs. And that other whiz kid, the down's syndrome-looking one from Texas (no, not Ron Paul, the other goof) who brags about his "Texas Miracle" which apparently was he somehow turned all the decent middle-class jobs into minimum wage jobs, and he did so by spending $25billion in federal tax money from the Obama stimulus.

    I'm sorry I got off on this rant. So back to my original point, fuck you and your Primatene Mist. Did you ever think that maybe if the air quality in the urban US wasn't so polluted that maybe we wouldn't have the current epidemic of asthma among children in the inner city? The EPA has been under attack by knuckleheads like you for a couple of decades now. They need to be made a lot stronger and more effective, not have their budget slashed every time the Republicans take over one or more branch of government.

    I'm sorry for ranting, but my fuck you still stands.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  71. Re:wrong calculation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Yes, still closing after 30 years of prohibiting the chemicals that tore it open. IOW, taking too long. Eliminating the other sources, like inhalers, accelerates the closing.

    We don't suffer from the sign of the change in the hole's size. We suffer from its existence. The sooner it closes, the better.

    The EPA should go even further, and eliminate more of the particles that cause asthma sufferers to suffer. By eliminating coal and other burnt fuels.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  72. air would work fine by r00t · · Score: 1

    First of all, you can have a single-use inhaler. This is after all a product for emergency use.

    Second of all, you can go with a refillable device. Air passes through a regulator. It works for SCUBA. This is heavier of course, with greater up-front cost, but it saves you money if you use the device frequently. Refills are just jars of dry powder or a liquid, along with air from a compressor.

  73. Don't work as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have Asthma and when they started to reformulate the inhailers to use not CFCs I found out they seem to not work nearly as well. They also taste just horrible and at times the Asthma seems to get worse. I really miss my old style Maxair autoinhailer. :-( It is extremely frustrating to me. After researching it a bit I found out that most common replacement appears to be R134a and from what the Internet shows is that some people have a pretty big sensitivity to it. Of course with the Internet you should take things with a grain of salt but R12 (the old type they used) was one very safe compound that seemed to work extremely well to deliver the medicine but apparently R134a is quite different and that is why the medicine had to be changed so much.

    Extremely annoying that they did this. It should have been left alone.

  74. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do inhalers have to use ANY propellant? Or do they include the propellant so that they can minimize the amount of the active ingredient so that the consumer needs to buy lots and lots of inhalers?

    No you asshole. They use propellant because when you're having a fucking asthma attack, you can't generate enough negative pressure with your lungs to properly atomize the medicine!

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  75. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by jdpars · · Score: 1

    About your last point, really consider this: Which is going to help more asthmatic children in urban areas: forcing their parents to buy them more expensive medication, or removing the pollutants from the inhalers? And also thank you for pointing out individuals in the GOP's lackluster lineup, rather than blatant remarks about all conservatives.

  76. Who remembers Proventil? by jshark · · Score: 1

    I've been using Albuterol since it was brand-name Proventil, then it got cheap when the generic Albuterol became available. Now it's the *same* drug (presumably - IANAD), but new propellant(?), and no longer generic(!), and, odd, no longer cheap(!$). Hmmm. One could wonder who's really running this ship? (yes, sarcasm)

    --
    If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough.
  77. 2005 by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

    My Dad died of COPD in 2005, and we knew about the upcoming CFC ban years before that. I can only assume that the makers of Primatine Mist had a replacement ready to go 10 years ago...the only reason to pretend they don't is to get a bump from customers hoarding their product before the 'drop dead' date.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  78. Re:My costs went up substantially, and less effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I now order them from mexico, same old good stuff that works.

    You should get them from China, it's cheaper and comes fortified with Melamine additives for extra protein.

  79. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, engineers resolved the notion of the user powered pump quite some time ago. It's really cool, you just squeeze or depress the mechanism and out comes the product. For the lazy though they've come up with the ingenious notion of replacing the aerosol with carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide when used in human consumables. Either way there are alternatives to CFCs and most cost no different or even less than CFC propellant. The problem isn't the propellant it's the drug manufacturers that feel like charging more.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  80. Meanwhile China pollutes on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So while we get all paranoid about inhalers containing CFCs (Which, worked better than the alternatives IMO, even though the documentation says otherwise....) China, india, and other such countries are pumping untold amounts of toxins in the air which are probally even more hazardous than the relative small number of inhalers produced and sold worldwide.... Just sayin...

  81. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by VirginMary · · Score: 0

    Assuming your numbers and the scaled up to the world population we'd have 24 tons * (7/.3) equals 560 tons. And I don't accept the argument that people in most countries may not use them. We all have to behave in a sustainable way. To me that means that we have to ask: What if every person on our planet behaved the way I did?

    --
    When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
  82. Re:My costs went up substantially, and less effect by AbRASiON · · Score: 2

    Athsmatic here in Australia - and AGREED! They did this to us nearly 10 years ago and the difference is noticable.
    A friend brought one back from Greece still with CFC in it 5 years ago and I still remember getting a hit from it, it's SO MUCH BETTER. The non CFC variant is simply not as good - no it's not a placebo, it's been 10 damn years.

  83. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

    No you asshole. They use propellant because when you're having a fucking asthma attack, you can't generate enough negative pressure with your lungs to properly atomize the medicine!

    You haven't seen the propellant-free finger-triggered atomizers? They've been around for oh, 150 years. Considering the particulate that's being delivered to the back of the throat, and the new micro-encapsulating manufacturing processes, I doubt that the medicine needs to be applied with any force whatever. The same medicine can (and often is) used in liquid form or even with a cutaneous application.

    And there have been safe CFC-free propellants available for many years for asthmatics without fingers. But inhalers are probably the worst treatment for asthma around. As long as they're profitable, though, they will be widely used.

    The inhaler bronchodilators are pushed because they are very expensive and require constant prescription refilling or over-the-counter buying. They are not even very effective. If they're used more than a few times there's a good chance they're making the asthma worse. There are plenty of better medications available. None of the drug approaches to asthma actually cure it, though. There are however lifestyle changes that have been shown to effectively cure it (eliminating the environmental triggers in the home, for example - see Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America), and even relaxation techniques that are a lot more effective than inhalers once learned. But since those can't be patented, well, you know...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  84. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    No you asshole.

    You shouldn't talk to people like that, Lord Kano. Your mom and I raised you better than that.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  85. selfish corporations by SuperBanana · · Score: 0

    The amount of CFCs pumped into the atmosphere by asthma inhalers is negligible at best.

    You mean by millions upon millions of people with asthma, using them weekly or daily? Let's remember that we banned the use of ozone-depleting CFCs from sealed refrigeration systems back in the early 90's and mandated their recovery, twenty years ago. This is a use where the CFCs are being purposefully released.

    The inhaler industry has seen the writing on the wall for the last twenty years, apparently been given a free pass on the Montreal Protocol which banned CFCs, and apparently decided profit was more important than the environment all those years. The EPA is finally bitch-slapping them into doing something.

    Further, CFCs have enormous impact on both the ozone AND they act as a 'super' greenhouse gas, much worse than CO2.

    Do you seriously not see the irony in inhaler companies using ozone-depleting greenhouse gasses in their products? It's almost as bad as GE (PCB polluter extraordinaire) selling water purification systems.

    1. Re:selfish corporations by teaserX · · Score: 2

      Do you seriously not see the irony in inhaler companies using ozone-depleting greenhouse gasses in their products? It's almost as bad as GE (PCB polluter extraordinaire) selling water purification systems.

      That's not irony. That's a self-sustaining business model.

      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
  86. I seriously hope i don't die because of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im so pissed because ive USED the non-cfc ones and they don't work! -- I have problems if the climate is really dry and I wound up buying backstock a few years ago, but its almost gone. :( --- I'm a bit freaked out and considering international alternatives at least while i can. Such assholes. The EPA shouldnt be involved in CDC matters.

  87. Obama Sign Secret Executive Order Baning EPA Ban . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like we know.

    Obama baby is a real additict.

    He knows what he whants.

    Get in betweenist em and 'ese drug ... watch out for y'r 'ead.

    Basically, Obama boy likes 'es cocaine with a shot of Jack and a CFC "asma 'hailer" blow'n up he ars. He get a big buz that way.

    Then 'e go's off to 'ese basement to do some sexual things w'i'ese kidnapped 'cldredes and eatz 'lese bod'es when 'ese finished'se.

    What's a nasty niggers'se.

  88. Ventolin efficacy not what it used to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spot on... you've echoed my sentiments exactly. Ventolin _has_ changed over the last few years, and it's not a subjective thing. Not long ago I found an old Ventolin inhaler I had stashed away and forgotten about. I used it the next time I needed relief. It was literally a breath of fresh ...errr Ventolin. It was a decent puff and immediately felt relieved. I agree the new inhalers don't last very long at all. I usually by three or more in one go, and get a stern 'talking to' from the pharmacist even after I explain I'll keep one in the car, one in my work bag, etc. etc.. I attribute that to the gas propellent not having the same something or other - density? mass? I don't know but it certainly does not work lie it used to. I hope I'm not in this situation but I do feel the change will cause fatalities sooner or later.

  89. Re:My costs went up substantially, and less effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know whats up in America, but in Australia I can get a 200 dose CFC free salbutamol (albuterol for you crazy americans) inhaler for $7 (completely unsubsidized by health care). For reference that is less than most burger meals from mcdonalds. As to the efficacy, I've never had any problems with it at all, and most literature I've seen points to either no difference or better distribution of drug with HFA inhalers.

  90. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by MakinBacon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I take it you've never used any of the environmentally friendly inhalers before, because they are fucking terrible. I've been using them for a few years (The EPA went apeshit insane on albuterol a few years ago, and I had no idea that there was an OTC alternative), and they get routinely clogged up by both dust and even dried medicine, and I can ensure you that this was never a problem with the old inhalers. Thankfully, my asthma is really mild and I rarely need these, but if I ever have a real emergency, I'm fucked.

  91. Major asthmatics don't use OTCs anyway by Xyzzy+Magic · · Score: 0

    Anybody with asthma that hits them to a significant amount (i.e. even a tiny fraction of what's needed to die) doesn't use an OTC inhaler unless they're suicidally dumb. We use prescriptions like Albuterol, which has been available in HFA (i.e. not CFC) form for years now, and anyone with insurance is on a preventative medication.

    One prescription inhaler holds a couple hundred treatments, which will last a moderate asthmatic a year or two, if not longer; according to TFA, they cost ~$60. (I wonder if that's the cost with a particular insurance/HMO, or uninsured?) Anybody that can't afford $60 every couple of years would almost certainly qualify for Medicaid and there are various programs out there to help Americans with serious conditions that are stuck between "too poor" and "not poor enough".

  92. Smart move EPA!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the EPA, eliminates these, they also will potentially end of killing some of the lower end asthmatics who can't afford the more expensive spray. Not only does this mean that there are fewer asthmatics who can breed. It also means that all the carbon emissions from the asthmatics who do die will be eliminated. Anything and everything to eliminate green house gases from the atmosphere I say.

    After all if we keep polluting our air with C02, pretty soon it is going to be hot enough for the dinosaurs to come back and eat people. What would you rather have a few dead asthmatics, or the entire human race wiped out by dinosaurs. Thanks again EPA. Good catch!

  93. Hi, I'm from New Zealand :) by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

    We have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world because millions of foreigners created a hole in the ozone layer above us.

    I just thought I'd say thanks.

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
  94. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by gmack · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have used those along with several forms of liquid and several forms in pill. One day I mentioned to my specialist that the compressed air version of my medication worked better than the same chemical in powered form (also inhaled) and he replied that I was correct: the most effective way to get something into the blood stream is through the lungs and the most effective way to do that with with the compressed air versions.

    Any doctor pushing a bronchodilator for anything other than the rare emergency use is simply incompetent . Lifestyle changes don't work in all cases although they do help depending on what the triggers are and I have found that relaxation techniques are a great way to avoid a panic attack and passing out but aren't entirely effective. In my case the magic treatment that finally got me off daily Ventolin, along with making sure my house is clean and avoiding smokers (even when they aren't smoking), was Alvesco and that is compressed air inhaled.

    As an aside, I really worry about the US when I find out that an Albuterol inhaler there costs $20. My CFC free version of Ventolin cost me $12 in Canada and in Spain I pay less than 10 Euros. The Americans are getting ripped off.

  95. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by gmack · · Score: 1

    For the rest of the world non CFC inhalers seem to be cheaper than what you Americans pay for the CFC version.

  96. Re:I say we ban the EPA by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    The worst thing Nixon did to the American people was promote HMOs.

    Instead of an organisation dedicated to maintaining your health, you got organisations dedicated to trying to deny you healthcare to make as much profit as possible.

  97. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by durrr · · Score: 1

    We'd probably be fucked as you bitch about other people having to sacrifice every tiny details while doing jack shit yourself.

  98. Than name it correctly please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    24 metric tons divided by 8,938 metric tons turns out to be less than 0.003 (3ppm).

    I would definitily call that way lower than "tiny" and at best (overstated) "a small fraction".

    ... with your provided data ofcourse.

  99. Re:My costs went up substantially, and less effect by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    Buy it from the UK. That $60 inhaler is $3 here.

  100. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I take it you've never used any of the environmentally friendly inhalers before, because they are fucking terrible. I've been using them for a few years (The EPA went apeshit insane on albuterol a few years ago, and I had no idea that there was an OTC alternative), and they get routinely clogged up by both dust and even dried medicine, and I can ensure you that this was never a problem with the old inhalers. Thankfully, my asthma is really mild and I rarely need these, but if I ever have a real emergency, I'm fucked.

    If you have health insurance, you really ought to look into some of the less damaging treatments for asthma. Inhalers are sort of old school.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  101. Use common sense by ShadowFoxx · · Score: 1

    as some one with asthma, the new inhalers suck sorry... there is a big differance. and to the person that mentioned "primatine mist". The only time I ever use primatine is if for some reason I'm in a pinch and the only way to get releaf is to go to a wallgreens which sells primatine... primatine sucks even more... While I'm a big fan of eliminating sources of CFC's... when it comes to a health issue like this there needs to be a viable replacement first.

  102. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    The Americans are getting ripped off.

    Getting ripped off is one of our most beloved and enduring institutions. That, and war-for-profit.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  103. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by OAB_X · · Score: 1

    If you have health insurance, you really ought to look into some of the less damaging treatments for asthma. Inhalers are sort of old school.

    No, old-school is the air compressor with the mask which would have the medications vaporiser while you inhaled them over a 15 minute period.

  104. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by OAB_X · · Score: 1

    I take it you've never used any of the environmentally friendly inhalers before, because they are fucking terrible. I've been using them for a few years (The EPA went apeshit insane on albuterol a few years ago, and I had no idea that there was an OTC alternative), and they get routinely clogged up by both dust and even dried medicine, and I can ensure you that this was never a problem with the old inhalers. Thankfully, my asthma is really mild and I rarely need these, but if I ever have a real emergency, I'm fucked.

    Used both, yes, the new propellant is not as good as the old stuff, no it is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

  105. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by wwphx · · Score: 1

    I want my inhaler propellants to be helium, that would be awesome! Of course, we're not really making any new helium, so that might be a problem.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  106. Re:wrong calculation by hedwards · · Score: 1

    The point is that we all had dice rolled for us when we were conceived. Some didn't make it through the first few cell divisions and others will make it to old age without significant health problems. A lot of that is just blind luck. We don't get to choose who our parents are or what genetic consequences might result. We don't get to choose whether or not our parents smoke or engaged in unwise activities while being a baby.

    And yes, it is charging people for having an infirmity. I didn't personally choose to spend those days in the ER as a kid, they were the result of something beyond my control. Folks lucky enough not to have to deal with that should show some appreciation and recognize that it was primarily luck, not any sort of action. The next time the die is cast, they might not be so lucky.

  107. Irony by metrometro · · Score: 1

    So many people blaming the EPA regulation for reducing the effectiveness of an asthma medication, yet no one asking why they have asthma in the first place, and whether tougher EPA air standards might help.

    Asthma is massively more common today, particularly in children, than only a few decades ago. Skin cancer is not, in large part thanks to a decades old agreement to phase out CFCs -- one of the great international regulatory successes of our time. Let's keep it that way, and also work on cleaner air for the asthma patients.

  108. Not epinephrine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary is killing me. Albuterol isn't epinephrine. It's Ventolin. It only works on respiratory smooth muscles. Epinephrine works on the heart and blood vessels too.

  109. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by gknoy · · Score: 1

    You left out calling anyone a commie that dares to suggest the government should take money from ME to pay for OTHER PEOPLE. (Not that I feel that way, but apparently huge numbers of Americans do.)

  110. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by gknoy · · Score: 1

    For those of us who don't know, can you elaborate on what some of these less damaging treatments are?

  111. Re:My costs went up substantially, and less effect by metamatic · · Score: 1
    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  112. Slashdot character support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From reading the Wikipedia article on lead poisoning, I assume you meant micrograms.

    Slashdot filters out the mu character, thus automatically converting abbreviations from micrograms to grams.

  113. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    For those of us who don't know, can you elaborate on what some of these less damaging treatments are?

    A couple I'm familiar with are the long-acting beta agonists such as Foradil and the leukotriene modifiers like Atrovent.

    The most effective long-term treatment is simply cleaning out your home's heating ducts and getting rid of the triggers. With bio-feedback and relaxation exercise the acute symptoms for which many people rely on inhalers are reduced and eliminated.

    Most asthma is triggered at home. There's good evidence that building materials are a big culprit. It would be easier to regulate the unhealthy chemicals used in building materials than treating the millions with asthma. The incidence of asthma in children is increasing at a very fast pace.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  114. In the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the UK, inhalers are a prescription drug that outlawed CFCs an age ago. They now use HFA 134a. They cost £7.40 - the same as any prescription drug bought under the NHS.

  115. Read the units: dl = 10 litres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A decalitre is abbreviated as "dl". It's a horrible halfway size for those of us more used to m,k,M,G etc but that's what it is.
    The other bit that hurts my head is rounding a pint down about 100ml and then pretending that from the very rough calculation the full three digits matter. Lots of people do it but kids today need to learn that is they put rough figures into their calculators they can't pretend to get a precise value at the end no matter what it says on the screen (it's normally how I spot the difference between salesmen and engineers or scientists).

    1. Re:Read the units: dl = 10 litres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the wikipedia article on SI units dl (or dL) is decilitre and dal (or daL) is decalitre, there is a bit of a difference between the two. In The USA, Canada and Australia it is common usage to use an uppercase L (to prevent confusion between a lowercase L, uppercase i and the numeral 1) for the abbreviation of litre, but most other countries use a lowercase L.

  116. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by VirginMary · · Score: 1

    How do you know what I do or don't do? Just because you're a selfish son of a bitch does not mean that I am, too! I don't drive because I think it is bad for the environment. 30 years ago when I wanted to have 3 kids I decided to have none after reading a UN sponsored report about overpopulation. I recycle, installed all kinds of water- and energy-saving devices in my home and have been a founding member of a political party promoting environmental awareness and societal changes towards a more sustainable behaviour in my country. I know many Americans don't believe in planning for the future unless it's their own immediate personal one but that does not mean that all other people feel the same way. (My apologies for the non-anthropogenic global warming denying non Tea Party morons in the US, I know there some of you out there!) My entire adult life I have tried to live in a way that when I look back on my life I don't have to feel guilty for how I lived. Ultimately I feel I would have no right to criticise anybody else unless I try to set a better example. Yes, there is much more I could do, but, I would say I am way ahead of the curve on this one!

    --
    When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
  117. Fail American Healthsystem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Salbutamol ( albuterol) based CFC-free inhalers cost £2 (so what? $3) to manufacture. IF people are willing to $60 for a better asthma treatment than adrenaline-based (epinephrine) inhalers (a type which was phased out in the UK due to other complications) well more fool them.

    Maybe if america didn't have such a retarded, big drug companies pushing brandnames on drugs making generics hard to penetrate the market then MAYBE you would also get cheaper,better alternatives. Salbutamol-based inhalers didn't use to be cheap, it wasn't until the patent expired over 10years ago that the price started to be driven down via generics.

    Don't blame successive presidents of Regen (CFC drive) , Bush Jr (actual law on CFC inhalers) or Obama (bringing into law) for bringing in something to drop CFC's (a proven greenhouse gas) blame them, the gov'n and big drug companies for ripping of the american people

  118. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by black+soap · · Score: 1

    The problem doesn't have anything to do with the FDA requiring the old drugs with new propellants to be retested as new drugs?

  119. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Actually no. The drug manufacturer may file a 505(b)(2) application with the FDA instead of a traditional new drug application allowing them to forgo pre-clinical and clinical trials in most cases. Instead the manufacturer is able to cite facts established from the drug upon which this new version is based. Further, in so doing, the manufacturer can receive a 3 to 5 year market exclusivity on the product depending upon the extent of the change.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  120. Re:Quantitative? I'll take a shot at it. by black+soap · · Score: 1

    That would require them to actually be interested in making a cheap OTC available, rather than a more-profitable prescription-only drug.