In my email today:
From: The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher
Date: 4/27/2012
EPA Compromises the Integrity of Science
Dear Colleague:
“Which do you find more shocking: that the Environmental Protection Agency conducts experiments on humans that its own risk assessment would deem potentially lethal, or that it hides the results of those experiments from Congress and the public because they debunk those very same assessments?”
This critical question forms the basis for the attached Washington Times article: “Did Obama’s EPA relaunch Tuskegee experiments?” By Steve Milloy.
Moreover, this is one more piece of evidence that EPA uses science to play games, manipulate data, and generate faulty outcomes to justify their regulations. Here is a compelling example that highlights faulty science: “EPA researchers who conducted the experiments published the case study of the 58-year woman in the government journal Environmental Health Perspectives in which they casually disregard the woman’s preexisting conditions and blame her atrial fibrillation on PM2.2. They also failed to disclose the existence- let alone the results – of the other 40 experiments.”
If you are interested in understanding how the EPA continues to compromise the integrity of science, please read the full article here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/24/did-obamas-epa-relaunch-tuskegee-experiments/.
In Freedom,
/s/
Dana Rohrabacher
Member of Congress
=================================================================
I suppose next, the EPA will try to shut down the Volcanoes National Park because it is “too dangerous”.
Anything for the cause. The fate of one for the good of the masses. That fits the socialist theme. The ends justify the means. If you have to lie, do so. We are above them and they cannot reach us.
If anyone is to conduct experiments of any kind on human beings, they must adhere to the Nuremberg Code. Fair point that the EPA is doing things to people and they do not know the outcomes and the people affected are not aware that they are lab rats.
That is immoral.
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html
1) The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
2)….
These principles were the result of the Nuremberg Trials following WWII.
How soon we forget.
Enviro Mengeles!
I was caused to pause for thought when I visited Volcanoes National Park in 2009. I had done work on numerous emissions reductions projects to take SO2 out of flue gas and also to remove sulfur from gasoline and diesel. Often, these projects involved capturing at most 10s of tonnes per day of sulfur. Yet when I was in Hawaii, they were no allowing people to hike up to the caldera because the volcano had become more active and SO2 emissions were up to 1700 t/d. Egads – that means that volcano is emitting more sulfur than all the refineries, cars and trucks in America.
“they also failed to disclose the existence – let alone the results – of the other 40 experiments.”
When they wrote their protocol they would have had to state that they were going to incorporate all their findings. If they didn’t then they are in breach of their protocol, have not published all their data, and so have obtained their funding fraudulently.
No grant body would sign off on withholding data, this is exactly the sort of thing that give Big-Pharma a bad reputation.
Shame that with the complete courrution of the West the best you can hope for is a slap on the wrist, scape goat or other such minimal measure so the corruption can continue.
Move along, nothing to see here, pay your taxes or you will banged up once the debt collectors have stirped you clean.
Sorry Ms. Jackson, Canadian researchers are already onto the cure for cancer.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150635846921971
Most of the particulates come from non-human sources. The particulate rules are to allow the control of all sorts of human activities, including farming and ploughing, as there is no ‘cure’ for the ‘problem’.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/take-that-nature-regulating-particulates/
Has a graph in it of global particulates. You will notice they are mostly in desert areas:
http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/particulates-483897main_global-pm2-5-map.jpg
by my read on that graph, per the EPA assertion, folks across all of North Africa, Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, north India and huge chunks of China ought to be all dead now… They didn’t need to do this “experiment”, they just needed to look at the US Government maps. But that would have told them they were wrong. But if you get a bunch of folks, some with preexisting conditions, and stress them, maybe you can find a nice poster child… even if a dying one.
Some serious budget cuts for the EPA should be mandated.
This deserves Drudge headlines with the flashing police car light! It’s something you would have expected to see only in the USSR under Stalin. Congress should cut off all of their funding and PURGE THE EPA NOW!
I don’t see the problem, to make an omlet, yout have to break a few eggs. To achieve utopia, you have to break a few hundred million…
/sarc
Sigh, No, I don’t know what a yout is either. 🙁 I meant to type “you”. The bigger question is, why is my computer no longer flagging my typo’s?
[It may be a browser issue. Check your settings. ~dbs.]
So: the 41 experimental subjects: should they sue the EPA for knowingly, according to Jackson’s statements, put them at imminent risk of death? Does the exposure have lasting effects, (probably, according to Jackson), so should any future health issues be at the cost of the EPA?
If it weren’t for the internet, we would never know about these things.
FOIA: the names of the subjects so that they can be notified.
Oh, Mann, what a web.
Something missing here. Were these experimental subjects volunteers? Signed waivers, etc. ? Where’s the paperwork? There’s no indication in the article as to the protocol, or volunteer status of the subjects.
If they (the subjects) were not fully aware volunteers, then those with any connection whatsoever to the experiments should be hauled into court and severely punished.
Barack Obama said to be considering Genghis Khan for his replacement.
/snark
Eugenics loving… scary but not at all surprising. Sadly it seems most either don’t understand just how bad things have gotten or simply understand all to well and are desensitized to it.
Wonderful to see displayed above the Milloy piece a Penn State banner ad flashing that I can earn my degree in “Energy and Sustainability Policy” without leaving home!
http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/degrees-and-certificates/energy-and-sustainability-policy-bachelors/overview?cm_mmc=ENERGY+AND+SUSTAINABILITY+POLICY+11-12-_-Google+Display+Network-_-Online%3ABanner%3ARectangleLeaderboard-_-728×90+Green+{GOO38203}&gclid=CNrMjtud3a8CFQ1vhwoddFLeDA
It really would be a shame to miss the hands on experience of Armendariz crucifixion labs though.
2.5 microns is pretty small. That’s smaller than pollens, but viruses are smaller still. I’m afraid I just ain’t buyin’ the narrative. I would imagine that most PM2.5 particulates are natural in origin and there’s damn little we can do to severely limit concentrations to less than 35 mcg per m^3. It seems the EPA is casting about for yet another excuse to shut down coal.
wrong thread, sorry, that post was meant for the http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/breaking-epas-crucifier-resigns/ thread.
Has EPA crucified its crucifier? Whatever happend to drawing and quartering? Is this EPA’s new commitment to separation of church and state? What will happen to EPA’s environmental religious dogma?
Now a member of Congress knows about EPA having become Soviet like administrative body I am completely satisfied, No?
But how about the judicial system?
If you ask me EPA is committing crimes against the American people.
I really wonder what’s the value of an American passport today.
You folks are starting to seriously worry us, your Northern neighbours…you know, the ones with all the oil your Prez doesn’t think you need, especially not at the favourable rates being offered. But that’s petty stuff compared to all the other horrors in the works. As one of our pundits recently said, if the current adminstration of activist lunatics, backed by the pitchfork crowds in the streets and parks aren’t turfed out of power come November, we…not only you and us up here in Canada, but the entire free world… are all finished. Not figuratively, but literally, as a civilization. No system can take another four years of such damage; it’s safer to be in a full-fledged war against superior enemies at this rate. It’s your business, of course, but we’ll all reap the results and we have right to worry and whine….such as when your bureaucratic muppets with microbrains and too much authority start violating the Nuremberg Code. Good Lord, what’s coming up next?
This is just silly nonsense until primary documents are produced to verify the allegations.
Where is the substance to this accusation? Without references, it’s just the ramblings of yet another conspiracy theorist. Not saying it’s not, but no references suggests there has been no verification of this story before it was posted.
When I was 6 (1952) and living in East London I can remember walking a mile to school in smog so thick and yellow you couldn’t see more than a few feet. You could taste the smog in your mouth and it made your throat sore. This used to happen each winter but the smogs were not quite so bad as 1952. Many people with chest problems died in the smogs.
Now 60 years later I am still here as are most of my classmates and I can still swim 50 metres under water without much problem.
Friends:
I am commenting on this item because it has international significance. I am not commenting on US politics (I find right-wing politics distasteful and all US politics is right-wing).
The US often berates other nations for inadequate provision of human rights. In this case, the experiments provide a prima facie case of an agency of the US government acting contrary to international law by depriving US citizens of their human rights. Therefore, the US can expect a retort about hypocrisy whenever it comments on the human right in another country unless those responsible for the experiments are prosecuted.
I explain the apparent breach of international law as follows.
Contrary to some above comments in this thread, the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the CIOMS code are ethical norms and are not enshrined in International Law.
However, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) conducted a study of international humanitarian customary law which provides a report that identifies 161 rules of such law. It says:
“Customary international law, on the other hand, derives from “a general practice accepted as law.” Such practice can be found in official accounts of military operations but is also reflected in a variety of other official documents, including military manuals, national legislation and case law. The requirement that this practice be “accepted as law” is often referred to as “opinion juris.” This characteristic sets practices required by law apart from practices followed as a matter of policy, for example.”
A characteristic of Customary International Law (CIL) is that norms can be identified at the stage at which they are emergent. According to the study by the Red Cross, the status of CIL has been attained by rules that prohibit the following acts:
* Genocide;
* Slavery or slave trade;
* The murder or causing the disappearance of individuals;
* Torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
* Prolonged arbitrary detention;
* Systematic racial discrimination; and
* A consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.
Inflict an experiment upon a person when it is suspected the experiment will cause physical harm to that person is clearly “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”. Hence, the experiments reported in the above article provide a prima facie case of a crime according to international law.
Richard
Robert M.
a “yout” is New York pronuciation of youth. See “My Cousin Vinny”
Here is an interesting link that lists particle sizes by substance. Look it over and consider how likely we might be to keep anything 2.5 microns or smaller out of the air:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html
Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.
sean71 says:
April 30, 2012 at 12:30 pm
“Where is the substance to this accusation? Without references, it’s just the ramblings of yet another conspiracy theorist.”
Sorry sean71 has so little reading comprehension. The article’s link explains that the EPA’s Lisa Jackson testified before Congress about it:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/24/did-obamas-epa-relaunch-tuskegee-experiments
I don’t understand why EPA – even if they did follow the rules – couldn’t have used monkeys for this experiment. The only reason I can come up with is because they would have taken too much heat from PETA.
The reason to doubt the EPA is not the morality issue, it’s the ethics issue. They (the EPA) credibly prove that they hide proof that contradicts a pre-determined agenda. Milloy is just reporting on what was provided to him in a FOIA request. There will come a time when they will get their administrative act “together” and won’t be providing any such contradictory information. Maybe have UVA do the research and then claim academic freedom when the science doesn’t support the academics?
Smokey says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
I think sean71 is asking for the docs about how the study was conducted aka things like consent forms and such. Its doubtful though that the EPA will release that info anytime soon.
1. because it has to create the fake docs.
2. It has to run damage control with the docs it has.
3. because the EPA never gives anything up willingly.
richardscourtney says: (I find right-wing politics distasteful and all US politics is right-wing).
I hope for the day that all US politics are/return to rightwing… however only a stalinist could or would consider the current leftwing/centerleftwing ideology that is the current 2 party system in the US “rightwing”.
Yer might help if people read the articles before commenting. Try here as well first before placing foot in mouth.
http://junkscience.com/
This, as almost everything else on here [and other right-minded sites], indicates too much government.
There are a plethora of bodies that exist ‘because they can’ – but which seek to invoke “Elf’n’Safe-tee”, or “Rights” (of child-rapists) or anti-discrimination [so those who are hoped will vote for them get advantages], and so on – can I say ‘ad nauseam’? – so that societies alter at the whim of those fundamentally opposed to theit tenets.
Much more and I risk slander or libel of the last two Prime Ministers of the United Kingdon. The present incumbent inspires enough confidence to cover a small pin-head – thinly.
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2012 at 12:46 pm
And how do you feel about compulsory sterilization for the purpose of combating climate change? Paid for in India by the UK Govt thru various cut-outs and financial deceptions?
http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/5586-uk-climate-policy-helps-fund-forced-sterilisation-of-indias-poor.html
Temp:
At April 30, 2012 at 1:22 pm you quote me as having said:
“(I find right-wing politics distasteful and all US politics is right-wing).”
Then you respond to that by saying;
“I hope for the day that all US politics are/return to rightwing… however only a stalinist could or would consider the current leftwing/centerleftwing ideology that is the current 2 party system in the US “rightwing”. “
Only a Stalinist!?
Quad Erat Demonstrandum.
Perhaps you would care to address the substantive (and practical) point in my post; it said,
“The US often berates other nations for inadequate provision of human rights. In this case, the experiments provide a prima facie case of an agency of the US government acting contrary to international law by depriving US citizens of their human rights. Therefore, the US can expect a retort about hypocrisy whenever it comments on the human right in another country unless those responsible for the experiments are prosecuted.”
Or do you prefer they were not prosecuted for some right-wing reason?
Richard
Curiousgeorge:
I am gob-smacked by your question at April 30, 2012 at 1:40 pm which asks me;
“And how do you feel about compulsory sterilization for the purpose of combating climate change? Paid for in India by the UK Govt thru various cut-outs and financial deceptions?”
I answer:
You would already know how I feel about that if you had read what I wrote.
I feel disgusted at it.
And I am also disgusted by your attempt to avoid discussion of the need to prosecute human experimentors in the US by asking me how I feel about something else.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
“Or do you prefer they were not prosecuted for some right-wing reason?”
I fully support jailing obama for his many crimes both from US laws and international treaties that he has in many cases clearly broken.
“The US often berates other nations for inadequate provision of human rights. In this case, the experiments provide a prima facie case of an agency of the US government acting contrary to international law by depriving US citizens of their human rights. Therefore, the US can expect a retort about hypocrisy whenever it comments on the human right in another country unless those responsible for the experiments are prosecuted.”
First “international law” is an insanely subjective term due to the fact that
1. its not really legally binding law.
2. most people claiming international laws have been broken don’t know the first thing about international law.
3. international law has almost always been applied to support or punish people based on race, ideology, religion, politics and a host of other things. Rarely is it ever applied equally.
As to the US “berating” are you claiming that china doesn’t have millions of people tortured and jailed solely for politics? How about genocide all across africa? What about the gasing of kurds in iraq? The torturing, raping of christens and burning of christen churches/businesses in egypt in the last 6 months? The list goes on and on…. but instead of addressing any of this real issues they whine tha the jews may have shot some 12 year old that was packing a coat full of explosives trying to get on a bus full of kids… o the horror the jews shot a 12 year old.
Most people who whine about the US whining about the rest of the world know nothing about the world. They know nothing about the mass killing, raping, death, violence or simply reality that the rest of the world faces. Sane people wish for the day the rest of the world was only as evil as the evil bush lead US.
temp:
I am replying to your diatribe at April 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm so others are aware that I have not avoided it.
Yes, there are many violations of international law in many countries. Those of us who oppose such atrocities do NOT discriminate on the basis of WHO did them: we attempt to raise awareness of them all with the aim of bringing as many perpetrators to justice as possible.
An atrocity is wrong whatever the politics of the government responsible. However, there are people (notably the US political right-wing) who think atrocities by governments of e.g. North Korea or China are worse than similar atrocities by governments of e.g. Israel or Zimbabwe.
The US attempts to condemn some of the atrocities but not others. And I have pointed out that the clear atrocity of human experimentation in the US will ensure that those whom the US condemns will rebut such condemnation as mere hypocrisy unless the US prosecutes the experimenters.
You may not like it but that rebuttal is inevitable unless the US prosecutes the experimenters.
Your rejection of international law needs no comment when – at the same time – you list some activities which show the need for more enforcement of it. Please remember the old adage;
‘First they came for the Jews but I was not a Jew so I took no notice. Then they came for etc…’
Richard
Barack Obama and his criminal administration should be facing felony charges.
richardscourtney says:
Those of us who oppose such atrocities do NOT discriminate on the basis of WHO did them:
really well this guy bases it solely on WHO did them
richardscourtney says:
“However, there are people (notably the US political right-wing) who think atrocities by governments of e.g. North Korea or China are worse than similar atrocities by governments of e.g. Israel or Zimbabwe. ”
richardscourtney claims that the jews are somehow killing hundreds of thousands yearly, jailing millions, etc, etc, etc.
What next will this richardscourtney claim… expelling CO2 is a crime against humanity? You should really have a talk with him and explain to richardscourtney that torturing, raping, jailing and murdering of people on an hourly basis is a little worse then maybe doing it once or twice and year in which often the people are caught and punished…
Just saying maybe you richardscourtney should have a long talk with this richardscourtney guy who claims such insane things.
Also I would point out that the US government has not been “rightwing” in decades. Once again only a real nut case such as a hardcore stalinist would view the US as rightwing.
“Dr. Dave says:
2.5 microns is pretty small. That’s smaller than pollens, but viruses are smaller still. ”
The human lung has a blind spot for particulate removal for certain sizes over a narrow band, about 10-60 nm. We have a hard time getting rid of particulates this sort of size, compared with large and smaller.
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2004/Nonoparticles-On-Brain2004.htm
This is why biological weapons have a bacteria/virus bound to particles of a specific size.
temp:
I object to your post at April 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm which is a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote.
It puts words in my mouth that I have not uttered and would not utter.
I ask others to read what I actually wrote and to judge it for themselves.
And I tell you to go wash your mouth out. I will not reply to any more of your despicable and offensive nonsense until you have provided an apology.
Richard
I was indeed asking what evidence junkscience has for the blog post. If its made up, its a bit of a joke posting it here.
[SNIP: This is getting way off topic and too vituperative and personal. -REP]
[SNIP: Peter, I appreciate your position, but I’ve already declared this conversation off-topic. Let’s drop it, OK? -REP]
REP, I understand and appreciate your position as well and I don’t envy you; the conversation has is indeed gone far, far off-topic. However, richardscourtney made an off-topic, false and slanderous comparison, part of which was ably rebuffed by temp, but he also exploited a well known quotation and it remains on record without rebuffal. May I just politely request that richardscourtney, he specifically, not use “First they came for the Jews but I was not a Jew so I took no notice. Then they came for etc…” again? I feel that his use of this quotation in the context of his arguments insults me personally.
[REPLY: OK, but this really is the end. -REP]
REP: Thank you.
Back on topic, I heard here and there about the possibility of simply defunding and striking the EPA off and returning environmental regulation to the states. Given the damage the agency has caused, the idea has much merit, but is there a mechanism, first for dismantling the agency, and then for setting up an oversight department perhaps, to ensure that things don’t devolve to the the free-for-all in the sixties? Or is environmental “health” economically and politically necessary enough to assume that the states and the various courts can manage this without Federal oversight? I don’t know wnough about how the US works.
I can fully believe this of an administration bureaucracy, and for the guy who’s claiming that this admin is right wing? … He clearly has a very poor understanding of US politics. If this is true, it’s just one more distrubing thing to lay alongside Fast and Furious and other such scandals that should be investigated thoroughly by Congress. And yes, the EPA deserves some very, very deep budget cuts. We have to start saving money somewhere.
“And yes, the EPA deserves some very, very deep budget cuts. We have to start saving money somewhere.” –aharris
Ha ha! Well put. I suspect by “very deep” you mean reduction to the size of a regional DMV office, with similar pay grades? Jackson would be in her element with a rubber stamp and the ubiquitous cup of coffee at her counter. Cancelling the ban against a beneficial trace gas and stopping the ongoing shut-down of the US economy would indeed save a few dollars as well, I’d say.
temp says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm
richardscourtney says:
“Or do you prefer they were not prosecuted for some right-wing reason?”
I fully support jailing obama for his many crimes both from US laws and international treaties that he has in many cases clearly broken.
“The US often berates other nations for inadequate provision of human rights. In this case, the experiments provide a prima facie case of an agency of the US government acting contrary to international law by depriving US citizens of their human rights. Therefore, the US can expect a retort about hypocrisy whenever it comments on the human right in another country unless those responsible for the experiments are prosecuted.”
First “international law” is an insanely subjective term due to the fact that …..
As to the US “berating” are you claiming that china doesn’t have millions of people tortured and jailed solely for politics? How about genocide all across africa? What about the gasing of kurds in iraq? The torturing, raping of christens and burning of christen churches/businesses in egypt in the last 6 months? The list goes on and on…. but instead of addressing any of this real issues they whine tha the jews may have shot some 12 year old that was packing a coat full of explosives trying to get on a bus full of kids… o the horror the jews shot a 12 year old.
Earlier this evening I watched the end of a programme I’d recorded about the Minoan civilisation which postulated that its collapse was due to the Santorini eruption, made a good case for it. What happened in the last fifty years to those who survived was surmised to be that the nature’s violence not only destroyed the people and the way of life, but in the remnants also the trust in those who set themselves up as being in control of it, the priests and government; the people went their own way in matters spiritual. The same story played out on different stages in our world history. The other is patrotrism blinding to one’s own violence and inhumanity while berating others, the mote and beam scenario:
http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm :
“‘Depleted’ uranium is in many ways a misnomer. For ‘depleted’ sounds weak. The only weak thing about depleted uranium is its price. It is dirt cheap, toxic, waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, uranium is one of earth’s heaviest elements and DU packs a Tyson’s punch, smashing through tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, spontaneously catching fire as it does so, and burning people alive. ‘Crispy critters’ is what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be close. And, when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater distance he wrote: “The children’s skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. I vomited.” (Daily Mirror)
…
“A Terrible Legacy
Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, cases of lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers also increasing ‘at an alarming rate’. In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women, the highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.1
…
“This is a crime against humanity which may rank with the worst atrocities of all time.
“We must also count the numberless thousands of miscarried babies. Nobody knows how many Iraqis have died in the womb since DU contaminated their world. But it is suggested that troops who were only exposed to DU for the brief period of the war were still excreting uranium in their semen 8 years later and some had 100 times the so-called ‘safe limit’ of uranium in their urine. The lack of government interest in the plight of veterans of the 1991 war is reflected in a lack of academic research on the impact of DU but informal research has found a high incidence of birth defects in their children and that the wives of men who served in Iraq have three times more miscarriages than the wives of servicemen who did not go there.
“Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a heart of stone: …. Significantly, some of the defects are almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test sites in the Pacific.
“Doctors report that many women no longer say ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’ but simply, ‘Is it normal, doctor?’ Moreover this terrible legacy will not end. The genes of their parents may have been damaged for ever, and the damaging DU dust is ever-present.
“Blue on Blue
What the governments of America and Britain have done to the people of Iraq they have also done to their own soldiers, in both wars. And they have done it knowingly. For the battlefields have been thick with DU and soldiers have had to enter areas heavily contaminated by bombing. Moreover, their bodies have not only been assaulted by DU but also by a vaccination regime which violated normal protocols, experimental vaccines, nerve agent pills, and organophosphate pesticides in their tents. Yet, though the hazards of DU were known, British and American troops were not warned of its dangers. Nor were they given thorough medical checks on their return-even though identifying it quickly might have made it possible to remove some of it from their body. Then, when a growing number became seriously ill, and should have been sent to top experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, many were sent to a psychiatrist.”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/nuclear_testing.htm
http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html
temp says:
April 30, 2012 at 11:46 am
Eugenics loving… scary but not at all surprising. Sadly it seems most either don’t understand just how bad things have gotten or simply understand all to well and are desensitized to it.
That was the plan – “sustainability” replaced eugenics, and the naif greens repeat with utmost seriousness and deep concern that the world is overpopulated..
..lambs to the slaughter:
http://globalnoncompliance.webnode.com/news/how-does-divide-and-rule-work-/
“Plato would be proud of today’s psychopathic elites!”
And when coupled to the Industrial Military complex are those who do know, desensitised or overwhelmed?
@ Myrrh says:
April 30, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Just so you know, DU has been in use for decades in aircraft to balance a variety of control surfaces – rudder,etc. Including commercial airliners. People have it on their desks. Unless you ingest it, it’s pretty harmless. Not much different than lead in that respect.
It would appear the folks that were experimented on have a huge class action case against the EPA, given the testimony before congress by the head of the EPA as to the lethality of the experiments.
Any enterprising lawyers out there seeking to make a name for themselves in an election year? Either they will pay you to shut up or shut you up permanent. A surprising number of high profile legal cases in the USA are settled as a result of accidental death or suicide, with the evidence lost in the confusion.
If the EPA believed the dust was deadly, then all involved in the experiment are guilty of attempted murder. If the EPA didn’t believe the dust was deadly, they are guilty of perjury.
If I was the EPA, I’d confess to perjury. Less jail time.
““A Terrible Legacy
Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said etc, blah blah blah, etc”
Yes and global warming is real… the studies are a joke under which this stuff is supposed. Long before DU hit the middle east they had lots of toxic chemicals and such. As for the post war fallout… lets not forget that they blew up huge amount of chem weapons depots along with alot of other fun fill stuff during the first war… much of which would explain far better the supposed problems which these reports claim… and I use the term “claim” loosely since if those studies were done today they would probably be using computer models to get the results they wanted.
About the only thing thats legit in those arguments is yes DU is dangerous(most of all when flying at you) and that the US military likes to use soldiers as guinea pigs… the other stuff not even close to being scientific in its nature. The US is blamed for pretty much everything across the world… much like pretty much everything is blamed on “man”.
Here is what I would do if I were in congress.
I would have an inquiry summoning Lisa P. Jackson.
I would ask her agian if “deaths allegedly caused by PM2.5 are supposed to occur within a day or so of exposure”.
If she says no, I would immediatly place her under citizens arrest on a charge of lying to congress, since that is her prevous testimony.
I would do this mysrlf, on the spot, because I know no one else would (they want the power to regulate she gives them) and because it is legal.
If she hems and haws and evades the question, I would bring up these experiments.
Then I would inform her that she is under citizens arrest either on a charge of reckless endangerment or attempted murder if her previous testimony was true, or lying to congress if her previous testimony was false.
I would then call 911 and physically block any attempt by her to leave the rooms, as allowed by law.
I would preffer to do so while on air, preferrably live, if not, have staffers record and release it on utube.
While waiting for the police, I would show the people her previous testimony and the information on this experiment.
The EPA would have a choice, either admit that they recklessley endengered peoples lives or that what they told us about PM2.5 is false. I would also show the people the actual results of the test, and further inform her that she was also under arerest on a charge of missapropriating government funds, specifically to regulate something that the actual test has shown is harmless.
She then has a choice, harmless test and a charge of lying to congress and missapropriating funds, or reckless endangerment at the very least if it really is dangerous (which the test results show to be false).
Either way she is going down.
Further arrests wuld follow (I would find out who was involved in these tests or was in charge over them and knew of them, march right in to their offices, and just do it).
The only way the great mass of people would ever even hear about this would be to do something dramatic like this. And it shows that the EPA has gone beyond merely policy and into the realm of actual criminal behavior. I doubt that you would get a conviction, but you don’t need to, you simply need show the people that she must be guildty of the one or the eother, there really is no other choice. Then, once they are sure she must be guilty, and she weasels out anyway, those that help her get off are finally seen by the people for what they are. That way, you not only tar and feather and run out of town (in terms of public perception) the entire EPA but also the administration that supports them.
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. Lincoln.
Dr. Dave says:
April 30, 2012 at 12:50 pm
“Here is an interesting link that lists particle sizes by substance. Look it over and consider how likely we might be to keep anything 2.5 microns or smaller out of the air:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/particle-sizes-d_934.html”
=========================================================================
Sorry Dr. Dave, I see lots things on the list that can be controlled. Most particularly, particles from engine exhaust (reciprocating diesel and gasoline, jet engines, etc.) are all below 2.5 microns. I know because I have measured them. Your reference says “up to 2.5” for combustion sources, which of course means they are below 2.5 microns.
Originally, back in the 1970s, EPA didn’t have size cuts on particulate, just whatever they got on their ambient air samplers. Which did include a lot of fine desert sand. The 2.5 micron cut point was established because it was believed that particles smaller than 2.5 microns could find their way into the lungs.
REP and others:
It is now 7 am here and I have risen from bed to find assertions here that I
* “made an off-topic, false and slanderous comparison”
and
* “insulted somebody personally”
I object to those lies,
My comments were NOT “off-topic”: they addresed direct effects of the human expriments by the EPA,
I slandered nobody.
I made NO “comparison” but said every perpetrator of any atrocity should be brougfht to justice,
I point out that the only personal insults were aimed at me (e.g. Stalinist),
And, importantly, my reminder of “First they came for, etc..” was and is directly pertinent.
I expect that those who have claimed otherwise witll be required to apologise for their blatantly untrue smears of me or be subjected to ‘time out’ for misbehaviour.
Richard
This article is just silly. There are three clear implicit claims that are unsubstantiated;
1- That the EPA intentionally exposed people to PM2.5s without their knowledge or consent.
2- That they claimed health effects when the person had an unrelated heart condition.
3- That the health risks from PM2.5s are overstated by comparing the morbidity caused with cancer rates.
Without any evidence of how the research was carried out it makes sense to look at how all the other research into PM2.5 is performed. A brief search of the literature, and there has been a LOT, reveals that the epidemiological studies rely on the variation in exposure that people experience because of their place of work or residence. The health outcomes of people in areas with high pollution and low pollution are compared. People are NOT sat in a room and exposed to manufacture levels of particulates, the general background level and its variation is used.
It seems unlikely that any other method was used in the research that the EPA spokesperson was referring to.
The damage to lung function caused by PM2.5 has inevitable consequences for cardiac health. The idea that the conditions are independent or can be separated reveals a profound ignorance of the links between cardio-vascular disease and respiratory disease. Claiming that cardia problems are are a different health problem is just wrong.
The damage and shortened life span caused by PM2.5 pollution is quite well defined by the epidemiological studies on the health impacts of different levels of particulates. They are certainly comparable with the shortened life expectancy from cancers. But additionally there is clear evidence that PM2.5s are themselves implicated as carcinogens.
I understand there are people who want to attack the EPA because they see it as a fascistic authoritarian regulator. But an attack like this based on so many egregious errors and lack of insight into the subject just makes the attacker look very silly.
This may give an insight into how research in this fieldis actually done, and the sort of results that are found.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19554969
Myrrh says:
April 30, 2012 at 5:48 pm
However, uranium is one of earth’s heaviest elements and DU packs a Tyson’s punch, smashing through tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, spontaneously catching fire as it does so, and burning people alive. ‘Crispy critters’ is what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be close.
Not “close” – *inside* the tank or APC. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the pyrophoric reaction only takes after the projectile penetrates *armor*, not ordinary construction materials, and all armor-piercing warheads will produce a pyrophoric reaction – that’s what they’re designed to do.
And, when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater distance he wrote: “The children’s skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. I vomited.” (Daily Mirror)
I call “bullshit.” A DU projectile is a solid round. It doesn’t burst and doesn’t kill at a distance. And speaking from firsthand experience, any ordnance having the sort of effect on a human body that Pilger describes will *not* leave the eyes intact.
Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993.
The children were dying because there was almost no oversight of the UN’s Oil for Food program – a lot of cash flowed into Iraq, i.e., into Saddam’s pockets, but damn-little food or medicine made it through, and only a small portion of that was released to the general population.
The only weapon system we have that uses depleted uranium projectiles is the 30mm gun on the A-10. Since there were only a few areas in which A-10s engaged armored vehicles in Iraq in 2003, battlefields are hardly “covered” with DU, and since there were no A-10s shooting up tanks in Iraq *prior* to 2003, Iraqi mothers could hardly have been affected by DU in 1991 and the years immediately following. However, they could easily have been affected by Saddam’s own chemical weapons (you know, those elusive WMDs that the Left keeps claiming didn’t exist?), which he applied liberally to the Kurds in the north and east, and to the Swamp Arabs living south of Al-Kut.
In a similar vein, has anyone seen the posts at Robert Felix’s website claiming that world governments are spraying tiny aluminum particles into the upper stratosphere to reflect sunlight to reduce global warming. I have no idea if it is true but if it is, than things really are worse than we thought…
http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/raindrops-falling-heads-part-1/
http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/aware-geo-engineers-playing-god-weather-part-ii/
temp says:
April 30, 2012 at 6:57 pm
@ Myrrh: “Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said etc, blah blah blah, etc”
Yes and global warming is real… the studies are a joke under which this stuff is supposed. Long before DU hit the middle east they had lots of toxic chemicals and such.
In 2000, Drs. Mohammed M. Ali and Iqbal H. Shah wrote in Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq, “However, since 1991 there has been no countrywide child-mortality survey, and the mortality levels have been the source of considerable speculation and debate…” which blows the Lancet article right out of the water. If you like irony, the doctors who *did* do two surveys (one on childhood mortality, the other on mothers’ mortality rates during childbirth) had their findings published in — Lancet:
“Results from the two [2000] surveys on childhood and maternal mortality in Iraq clearly show that childhood mortality in the south/centre increased during the period of the UN sanctions that followed the Gulf conflict. Information from several other studies and surveys shows an increase in the rates of malnutrition and in babies born with low birthweight. In the 10 years since the Gulf conflict, infant and under-5 mortality has more than doubled in the south/centre. Childhood mortality rates in the south/centre are now much higher than those 20–24 years ago.”
The kids weren’t developing cancer and leukemia — they were dying of malnutrition.
Bill Tuttle says:
May 1, 2012 at 6:55 am
That doesn’t surprised me that the studies were what they wanted to say and not based on science.
also
“Results from the two [2000] surveys on childhood and maternal mortality in Iraq clearly show that childhood mortality in the south/centre increased”
“hildhood mortality rates in the south/centre are now much higher than those 20–24 years ago.””
This doesn’t surprise me either. Between the revolts that the swamp arabs tried and were badly punished for and the fact power and other things were moved from the “center” aka pro-sadam areas not surprising they were having reductions as well.
International law is, at best, a hoped-for standard of behavior. Under federal law in the United States the various proclamations of international organizations have no legal effect, unless there is a treaty signed by the President and ratified by the Senate which contains some language creating a crime not already contained in the U.S. Code. Of course, if there is some pre-existing law in the U.S. which criminalizes the same conduct as the precatory language contained in a document released by an NGO or some other body claiming authority over the various sovereign nations – e.g., the “International Court” in the Hague – then a claim of a violation of ‘international law’ is unnecessary to prosecute and punish an offender. However, no matter how morally righteous an organization or group may be, no matter how many Americans may share their position on some act, without such a treaty signed and ratified under American constitutional law, there is no crime and cannot be a trial or punishment. One of the definitions of the word, “sovereign”, is “being independent of other nations or states” and the United States – and all of the rest of the world’s nations I would add – are fully sovereign in this sense of the word. That means that no other nation’s laws apply within the boundaries of another nation, without that second nation agreeing to such an application in accordance with its laws. I regularly read on the Internet and hear on television people who advocate some course of action or another based upon “international law” and am just as regularly depressed by the number of Americans who fail to understand that what they think of as being “law” is not what is meant by the phrase “international law” and who therefore agree that the U.S. ought to apply “international law”. The federal laws of the United States are the law of our land and no other. It has, unfortunately, become fashionable for appellate courts – both state and federal – to recite some provision of another country’s laws with approval and apply or attempt to apply that law to a court case which is entirely domestic to the U.S. Even disputes between foreign nationals which are properly heard in U.S. courts are supposed to be decided under U.S. law – again, either state or federal – to the exclusion of any other laws or pseudo-laws issued by any NGO or nation, group of nations or NGOs. I freely acknowledge that what I have written here is going to be disagreeable to a great many people, both within and without the United States. But, whether you like it or not, that is – albeit greatly simplified for reasons of space – the law of the United States and that law is the law which applies to persons in the United States, not the wishful thinking of some who believe themselves to be our moral superiors and infinitely wiser than we are, both as individuals and as citizens of the United States.
Ah, but we now have the entire democrat party, its officials and its fund-raisers – and, most important of all – its autocratic, imperialistic and anointed judges-for-life by democrat politicians and their cheerleaders in the ABCNNBCBS “press corpse” – USING international “opinion” and international law as the foundation FOR US law.
The US constitution IS now and WILL BE aborted by these socialists in favor of international opinions and international treaties and international courts. Regardless of what the actual law and actual US precedence is. (Was.) The socialist judges, 4 at least now on the Supreme Court, hundreds more in the appellate courts, are loyal to socialism and their social activism, NOT to the written law.
Excellent reminder, Ike. Yes, there will be huffing and puffing from some quarters. Any mention of “international law” also leads to the citing of predictable UN General Assembly resolutions…which are often construed as “international law”… and a lot of spluttering when reminded that the paid-for squawks of the “general rabble” have no relevance other than occasional entertainment value on page eighteen of the local paper.
I propose that after the EPA is moved to share office space with one of DC’s DMV offices, the the primary henerator of “international law”. the UN, needs to be put on a funding “diet,” say $200,000 annually, and to be relocated to a sustainable, solar-powered loft office above an economy falaffel restaurant either in Riyadh or the Gaza strip in order to better serve its directors.
RACookPE1978 says:
May 1, 2012 at 9:31 am
The US constitution IS now and WILL BE aborted by these socialists in favor of international opinions and international treaties and international courts. Regardless of what the actual law and actual US precedence is. (Was.) The socialist judges, 4 at least now on the Supreme Court, hundreds more in the appellate courts, are loyal to socialism and their social activism, NOT to the written law.
Aren’t they bound to uphold the Constitution?
This hidden study by the EPA, along with the information about the EPA regulating farm dust, should be handed out at every farmers market.
Thank you Dana Rohrabacher, I will send this off to those I know in the farm community.
Please everyone else do the same.
Myrrh says:
May 1, 2012 at 10:16 am
Aren’t they bound to uphold the Constitution?
Each took an oath to do so, but — as with many presently in the Senate — they feel no overwhelming compulsion to adhere to it.
The Constitution has only one mandate for Congress — to pass an annual budget. The House proposes the budget, the Senate passes it. The Senate Dems have been oathbreakers for over three years…
Myrrh says:
May 1, 2012 at 10:16 am
They are but they read what they want to the constitution to say not what it does say. In socialism everything is up to the “interpretation” of the “state”. Thus “unbridged free speech” means to a socialist “unbridged free speech as the state approves”.
As the saying goes… everyone is equal… but some are more equal then others.
Bill Tuttle says:
May 1, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Myrrh says:
May 1, 2012 at 10:16 am
Aren’t they bound to uphold the Constitution?
Each took an oath to do so, but — as with many presently in the Senate — they feel no overwhelming compulsion to adhere to it.
The Constitution has only one mandate for Congress — to pass an annual budget. The House proposes the budget, the Senate passes it. The Senate Dems have been oathbreakers for over three years…
==========
In Britain a short while back, they arrested a judge for refusing to confirm his oath of office which is under Common Law:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/857455-judge-arrested-as-british-constitution-group-storms-court
I don’t quite recall the details, but I think they elected one of the group to be ‘sheriff’ and arrested him for fraud, passing himself off a a judge, the ‘other’ police stepped in and whisked the judge away, but, the point was made.
p.s. Council tax is a property tax.
The only difference between government today and government during WWII is government today is controlled by more sociopaths. This is a dog bites man story. We should be publishing stories about people who resist this sociopathic behavior because they are few are far between.