Central Chemical Corp.

History of Central Chemical Corp.
In important ways, the circumstances surrounding Thomas’s entry into the fertilizer business were not propitious. First, Thomas began business near the end of a half-century-long relocation of the fertilizer industry’s center. Though fertilizer use continued to increase in the Mid-Atlantic states and elsewhere during the period from 1870 to 1920, the manufacture of fertilizer began to shift to the Southern states in the late nineteenth century. By 1902, Charleston had replaced Baltimore as the fertilizer capital of the country. The Mid-Atlantic states’ share of total fertilizer use decreased from 34% in 1880 to 14% in 1920. By contrast, in 1920 the South-Atlantic states used about 50% of all fertilizers consumed in the U.S. Thus, Hagerstown could no longer enjoy proximity to the major centers of fertilizer-material production, and, while previously situated between the two highest-fertilizer-use regions of the country, it now found itself on the northern edge of a region that now dwarfed all others.

Second, Thomas’s decision to continue in the practice (apparently favored by Hagerstown companies) of making fertilizer primarily from bone and organic materials came at the start of a rapid increase in the demand for mixed fertilizers, but also at the beginning of a precipitous decline in the use of bone and bone products as a source of phosphorous in fertilizers. With the growing use of potash and phosphate rock, consumption of mixed fertilizers grew from 46% of the total in 1880 to around 70% in 1920. During the period from 1890 to 1910, when Thomas was focusing on his presumably unmixed “dissolved bone” fertilizers, mixed fertilizers were capturing market share.

Furthermore, the period from 1880 to 1920 is also characterized by the decreasing use of organic materials in general. Though organic materials provided about 91% of the total nitrogen in 1900, by 1917 the total nitrogen contribution from organics had dropped to 46.5%. With regard to phosphates, bone meal, dissolved bones and boneblack, and phosphoro-guano use peaked in 1890, but their use dropped to a negligible amount by 1910 as the use of superphosphates from phosphate rock increased dramatically..

Third, even as Thomas had begun his business trading fertilizer for livestock from relatively distant places, the fertilizer industry was increasingly turning to local distribution. Though mid-nineteenth-century fertilizer plants typically were situated in East Coast harbor cities, twentieth-century plants were dispersed to be closer to areas of consumption.

Finally, even though the name “Thomas’ Dissolved Bone” suggests that Thomas produced his own superphosphates initially, the use of bone in the production of superphosphates was on its way out as described above. For all practical purposes, then, Thomas had set his business on the track of the second, smaller type of fertilizer company, which only mixed fertilizer and did not produce superphosphates. For the next 90 years, even when Central Chemical had affiliates across the nation, it would remain in this “smaller” category – relying on large suppliers for its materials. For reasons noted above, this was not a problem at the turn of the century vis-à-vis the larger companies. Starting in the 1890s, however, many agricultural societies began to advocate home mixing of fertilizer materials by farmers. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the fertilizer industry fought this effort successfully by insisting on the value of industrial mixing processes and the farmer’s comparative disadvantages in mixing.

Though in its early years, Central Chemical advertised itself as “Exporters – Manufacturers – Importers,” by the 1970s it had become little more than a middle-man between larger suppliers and farmers. It did not import its own materials, but purchased granulated materials from suppliers. There is no evidence that Central Chemical was exporting products out of the country anymore. And its manufacturing capacity consisted of mixing pre-processed granulated materials in various proportions. At this point, its consulting capacity became equally important to its factory processes.

Though Central Chemical and its subsidiaries were taking in a combined $25 million in sales by the late 1970s, an employee remembers that there was always a sense of trouble on the horizon. The vulnerability of a company that adds very little value to its product and relies entirely on contracts with larger suppliers requires no explanation. It appears that not long after Central Chemical became a bulk blender, its large suppliers began pushing their advantages. In the early 70s, Central Chemical’s supplier, Agrico Chemical Company, put pressure on Central Chemical to enter into a long-term contract. When Central Chemical refused, Agrico withheld di-ammonium phosphate and granular triple super phosphate at a time of national shortage in these materials. Central Chemical responded by filing an antitrust lawsuit against Agrico in federal court. For most of the next decade much of the time, resources, and energy of what was still a closely-held corporation would be consumed in this litigation. Ultimately the lawsuit proved unsuccessful.

All of this came at the same time that local, state, federal regulators were investigating the Hagerstown plant for its pesticide-disposal practices. In the 1970s the State of Maryland ordered two separate cleanups of the site; the EPA was just getting started.

Ultimately the push to eliminate the middle man that drove the switch to bulk blending began to turn on the blenders themselves. The larger companies and farmers wised up, and realized that they could both save money by dealing directly with each other. Farmers began buying direct-application materials from the same suppliers used by Central Chemical. By the early 1980s, Central Chemical’s network of fertilizer blenders had contracted substantially. Blending operations like those of the Hagerstown plant could no longer make the case for themselves. Crushed under the weight of increasingly serious environmental liability for its mid-century disposal practices, the Central Chemical Corporation contracted its operations substantially. The Hagerstown plant ceased operations in 1984 and the office headquarters moved from the old Thomas building to an office outside Hagerstown.


Translate

Friday, August 29, 2014

Herbicide and Pesticide Exposure Linked to Parkinson's Disease


Herbicide and Pesticide Exposure Linked to Parkinson's Disease
A recent study from UCLA has confirmed that exposure to the herbicide Paraquat is linked with a heightened risk of Parkinson's disease. This combines with other research that has found other chemicals used on our foods and landscapes significantly increase the risk of Parkinson's.
The researchers, from UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health, studied 357 Parkinson's diseasecases along with 754 control subjects - adults from Central California. The researchers determined increased exposure to the herbicide Paraquat through geographic mapping linking their home locations to agricultural use of the chemical on farms. Those living closer to farms that sprayed the herbicide were found to have a 36% increased risk of Parkinson's.
However, those who experienced a head injury combined with increased Paraquat exposure tripled their chances of having Parkinson's disease.
Researchers from Mexico's Unidad de Medicina Familiar also studied cases of Parkinson's together with exposure to the herbicide Paraquat among Mexican workers. They also found a positive association between exposure to this chemical and Parkinson's disease.
Paraquat is N,N′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium dichloride.
Learn safe detoxification methods.
A study published last year from the Louvain Center for Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology of Brussels' Catholic University of Louvain concluded that pesticide exposure was also significantly linked to Parkinson's. Here the researchers analyzed and calculated the data from twelve peer-reviewed clinical studies that investigated Parkinson's disease together with pesticide exposure. They collected research conducted between 1985 and 2011.
The meta-analysis found that all twelve studies individually and collectively established a link between pesticide exposure and Parkinson's disease.
After calculating meta-data ratios and relative risk, the researchers found that Parkinson's disease incidence as diagnosed by a neurologist was more than two-and-a-half times for those exposed to more pesticides compared to those less exposed. Other risk calculations showed the increased incidence of Parkinson's disease to range from nearly double to 28% - which was the average of all cases studied.
But when the research focused upon farm workers involved in the growing of bananas, pineapples or sugarcane, the incidence of Parkinson's disease more than doubled that of lower-exposure individuals.
The researchers concluded:
The present study provides some support for the hypothesis that

occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of Parkinson's disease.

Since this review study came out, other studies have investigated some of the worst pesticides, and the mechanisms by which they produce Parkinson's disease.
A study from Korea's Yonsei University studied the broad spectrum pesticide Rotenone – and how it damages nerve cells and pathways. The researchers found that Rotenone induces cell death in a process called with G2/M cell cycle arrest. G2/M cell cycle arrest blocks the process of mitosis that enables cells and their DNA to replicate – and more importantly among nerve cells - repair any DNA damage. Thus the insecticide basically blocks the ability of the nerve cell to repair itself – lending to the cells eventually dying off or mutating.

Friday, August 8, 2014

Herbicide Tests and Storage in the U.S.


Agent Orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam were tested or stored elsewhere, including many military bases in the United States. Below is information from the Department of Defense (DoD) on projects to test, dispose of, or store herbicides in the U.S.
- See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/tests-storage/usa.asp#Maryland

Maryland


Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields A, B, and C
Dates: 1946-47
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots.
Agents: 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-T triethanolamine, tributylphosphate, ethyl 2,4-D, butyl 2,4,5-Ttriet 2,4-D
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields C, D, and E
Dates: 1948
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots.
Agents: 2,4,5-T, isopropyl phenol carbamate, LN-2426, 2,4-D
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields C, D, and E
Dates: 1949
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Ennis, DeRose, Newman, Williamson, DeRigo, and Thomas.
Agents: Triethelyne. 2,4,5-T, carbamates
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Fields A, B, D, and E
Dates: 1950
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Ennis, DeRose, Acker, Newman, Williamson, and Zimmerly.
Agents: 2464, butyl 2,4-D, 974, butyl 2,4,5-T, q:q 143 and 974
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Camp Detrick, MD - Field F
Dates: 1950-51
Project Description: The experiments were directed mainly towards the investigation of plant inhibitors applied as sprays or to the soil in the solid form to be taken up by the roots. Experiments were done by Acker, DeRose, McLane, Newman, Williamson, Baker, Dean, Johnson, Taylor, Walker, and Zimmerly.
Agents: 2464, carbamate, butyl 2,4-D, 143 and 974 (orange?),2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, Orange
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Area B, Camp Detrick, MD
Dates: Spring/Summer 1953
Project Description: Personnel at Camp Detrick tested the feasibility of using an experimental spray tower for applying a mixture of chemical anticrop agents to broad-leaf crops.
Agents: 3:1 mixture 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Detrick, MD; Fort Ritchie, MD
Dates: 1956-57
Project Description: In 1956 And 1957, defoliation and desiccation were carried out at Fort Detrick and Fort Ritchie, Maryland by the Chemical Corps and Biological Warfare Research. These were bench tests.
Agents: Various, 577 compounds
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Detrick, MD
Dates: 8/1961 - 6/1963
Project Description: From 8/1961 to 6/1963, compounds were spray-tested in the greenhouse to evaluate them as effective defoliants, desiccants, and herbicides.
Agents: 1410 compounds
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Ritchie, MD
Dates: 1963
Project Description: Various studies were done to explore the effectiveness of different herbicides. They were all field trials. These studies were done by personnel from the US Army Biological Laboratories.
Agents: Tordon, 2,4-D, Orange, diquat, endothal, and combinations of each with Tordon
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Fort Meade, MD
Dates: 1963
Project Description: Various studies were done to explore the effectiveness of different herbicides. They were all field trials. These studies were done by personnel from the US Army Biological Laboratories.
Agents: Cacodylic acid, Dowco 173, butyediol
DoD Involvement: Yes

Location: Poole's Island, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Dates: 7/14/1969 -
Project Description: During the week of 7/14/1969, personnel from Naval Applied Science Laboratory in conjunction with personnel from Limited War Laboratory conducted a defoliation test along the shoreline.
Agents: Orange, Orange plus foam, Orange plus foam Orange, Foam
DoD Involvement: Yes
- See more at: http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/tests-storage/usa.asp#Maryland