By John Dale Dunn MD JD (via email)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in September of 2011 that small-particle (2.5 microns or less) air pollution is lethal. “Particulate matter causes premature death. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.”
At the hearing, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA) asked, “How would you compare [the benefits of reducing airborne PM2.5] to the fight against cancer?” Ms. Jackson replied, “Yeah, I was briefed not long ago. If we could reduce particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact as finding a cure for cancer in our country.” Cancer kills a half-million Americans a year — 25 percent of all deaths in the U.S. annually.
That same month, September 2011, Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a journal sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, reported an experiment that exposed a 58-year-old lady to high levels of small particles in a chamber. After 49 minutes in the chamber, the lady, who was obese with hypertension and a family history of heart disease, who also had premature atrial heartbeats on her pre-experiment electrocardiogram, developed a rapid heart beat irregularity called atrial fibrillation/flutter, which can be life threatening. She was taken out of the chamber, and she recovered, but she was hospitalized for a day. Weeks later, an abnormal electrical heart circuit was fixed by cardiologists, as reported in EHP.
It is illegal, unethical, and immoral to expose experimental subjects to harmful or lethal toxins. The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd Ed. (2011), published by the Federal Judicial Center, on page 555 declares that exposing human subjects to toxic substances is “proscribed” by law and cites case law. The editor of EHP refused a request to withdraw the paper and conduct an investigation.
The EPA’s internal policy guidance on experimental protocols prohibits, under what is called the “Common Rule,” experiments that expose human subjects to lethal or toxic substances. Milloy referenced the “Common Rule” that governs EPA policy on research conduct in human experimentation in his letter to the inspector general of the EPA requesting an investigation of the matter.
A full report on the research study shows that 41 other people were exposed to what the EPA says are harmful or lethal levels of small particles, with some enduring up to 10 times the EPA’s declared safe level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The EPA human experiments described were conducted from January 2010 to June 2011, according to the information obtained by JunkScience.com on a Freedom of Information Act request, and ended three months before Ms. Jackson’s congressional testimony, but she still asserted dramatic claims of PM2.5’s lethality — thousands of deaths at stake and hundreds of billions in economic consequences from the deaths and disabilities caused by small particles.
According to the congressional testimony of Lisa Jackson, these experiments risked the lives of these 42 people. So what could have possessed these EPA researchers to do the experiments? The authors reveal the reason in their case report on the lady:
Although epidemiologic data strongly support a relationship between exposure to air pollutants and cardiovascular disease, this methodology does not permit a description of the clinical presentation in an individual case. To our knowledge, this is the first case report of cardiovascular disease after exposure to elevated concentrations of any air pollutant.
The people at the EPA claim that they must control air pollution to prevent the deaths of thousands. Then they expose human subjects to high levels of air pollution. Is it possible that they are lying, or unethical, or both?
In the experimental protocol, seven subjects were exposed to levels 10 times greater than the 24-hour safe limit for small particles, and all of the other 40 subjects were exposed to more than the 35 micrograms per cubic meter that the EPA says is the 24-hour safety limit. The researchers failed to report that none of the other subjects had any adverse effects, which is unscientific, since researchers are obligated to report results both for and against their hypothesis.
The only way out for the EPA in this episode is to acknowledge the reality that ambient levels or even higher levels of PM2.5 are not toxic or lethal, based on their own research, and to admit that their claims of thousands of lives lost from small particles is nonsense. Or they can stay with their assertions about small particle toxicity and face charges of criminal and civil neglect.
The individuals who were the subjects of this experiment certainly might be concerned if the EPA claim of small particle toxicity and lethality is true. There is good reason to believe that the EPA itself doesn’t believe the claims. However, based on congressional testimony by EPA officials, any death now or later of the subjects of this experiment from heart and lung disease or cancer would be under the cloud of concern about the EPA claims that small particles kill. What were the EPA officials and researchers thinking?
John Dale Dunn MD JD
Consultant Emergency Services/Peer Review
Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine Residency
Carl R. Darnall Army Med Center
Fort Hood, Texas
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is it possible that they are lying, or unethical, or both?
Both is most likely.
Is this another result of those who advocate the end to animal testing? Using humans to replace guinea pigs, rats, and chimpanzees? Again… people in the decision making process who are completely disconnected from reality. It is the logical end for those who believe mankind is a viral infection of Gaia. If only, I could renounce my humanity, I could start getting proper medical care from the local veterinary. Not only would my medical care increase… I would save a lot of money, as the animal ape, that I really am. GK
Were there any controls? How are the controls doing? How many controls were there? Were the controls age/sex matched? Wish I had more time to comment. Will check back tonight.
It appears that, as usual in a government run by elites who are hellbent on imposing the Secular Utopia, laws are only for the little people.
Below find an example of just how far these people will go to protect the industry (actually more of a documentary). After watching I felt like I had been supporting organizations that (logically) commit legal torture/murder. Strong words but it’s a strong and heart wrenching documentary.
http://www.burzynskimovie.com/index.php?id=110&option=com_content&view=article
My uncle died fighting in 1945 flying a plane P-47 Thunderbold against the Nazis. (Lt. Luiz Lopes Dornelles, 89 missions, Honours: South Atlantic Campaign, Cross of Gallantry (The highest award of war Brazilian), Cross Blood Flying Cross with two stars Tape A, Tape B Flying Cross with 03 stars Distinguished Flying Cross with two palms (USA), Air Medal with 03 palms (USA) and Presidential Unit Citation (U.S.)).
He died to protect the world against Josef Mengele and his successors, not to continue with pseudo-scientific experiments on humans.
Wait. I have (had) Atrial Fibulation. It started as occasional incidents and progressed over a couple of years until it went constant for about 6 months. I had a procedure done which, so far, has stopped it from happening again. The greatest risk from ‘AFib’ is a stroke. That is small. What kind of fibulation did she reall have?
I believe that it depends on the nature of the dust. I have seen a clinical review of exposure over many years (ie health checks on workers particularly those working in areas of high dust when OHS requirements were less stringent) to high levels of a certain dust which is soluble in body fluids. The findings showed that there was no identifiable harm to any individual from the exposure and that some individuals actually had reduced problems. such as some smokers and some with existing respiratory problems such as pneumonia. On the other hand there are exposure problems with some non-soluble dusts such as silica, coal dust, and asbestos which are exaggerated in smokers. I understand threshold levels for many dusts have been determined on rats and mice. It is stupid to set limits on air and water quality well below those which may occur naturally.
David Mellon says: June 4, 2012 at 5:27 am
[Were there any controls?]
Dave, you do realize that this is about the EPA?
There are no stupid questions, but sometimes…
I should think it is obvious that high levels of small particles, while probably not exactly healthy, are not very dangerous either. Reason: billions of people live and survive to a normal life-span in areas where there is always a high level o particulates in the air.
Have a look at this map:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/showImageLarge.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.0901623.g004
It showes that the two largest concentrations of people on this planet – in the Gangetic plain and Northern China – both live in areas where the PM2.5 is twice or more than EPA:s “safe level”.
As you can see the level of particulates does not correlate particularily well with industrial areas, but much better with deserts and areas of intense farming on loess or other wind-erosion prone soils. So to really lower the amount of particulates you would have to drastically change farming methods (which might be feasible) and prohibit deserts which seems rather more difficult.
It is not the size of the particles but what they are made of that is important. Many pollen particles are far larger than this limit imposed by the EPA and do no harm unless you happen to be allergic to any of them then you could have a problem. Some mould particles are smaller than this limit and are dangerous in large quantities.
The EPA must get its house in order and use science not convenient supposition.
So we may understand this more clearly.
From January 2010 to June 2011 – forty one (41) people were exposed to what is claimed to be a harmful or lethal dose of small-particle (2.5 microns or less) polluted air – some ten times as much as the recommended limit.
The only effect was that one of these subjects, a woman with an existing cardiac condition, developed atrial fibrillation which is now cured.
After these experiments in September of 2011 Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress that small-particle (2.5 microns or less) air pollution is lethal. Yet these (unethical) experiments demonstrate the falsity of that statement all experimental subjects are still alive.
Is there any conclusion other than Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson lied in her testimony to Congress?
They must have taken a cue from CARB (California air resource board). CARB used junk science produced by an employee of CARB who claimed he had a PhD when in fact he lied about having a PhD.
Hien Tran lied about having a PHD from U.C. Davis but really purchased his degree at a diploma mill. Tran was the project coordinator and lead author of a report entitled “Methodology for Estimating Premature Deaths Associated with Long-term Exposure to Fine Airborne Particulate Matter in California.” This report was the main support document of a draconian regulation proposed by the CARB that would cost California diesel users billions of dollars, a cost that eventually the consumer would pay for in higher food, construction and transportation costs. These costs would be incurred in the retrofitting of almost all diesel engines for on- or off-road, even relatively new ones, with new pollution controls for the sole purpose of limiting particulate matter as small as 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Although there have been some epidemiological studies in the past that claim there is a health risk, those studies were highly speculative and done with poor data. In fact, there is a significant study that says that PM2.5 is not a health risk in California.
Lying to Congress or misleading Congress should be a crime. False testimony leads to bad policy decisions that can have enormous consequences.
Lisa Jackson and the EPA is a good example of the federal government out of control. Laws and policies need to be enacted to force leaders of those organizations to confirm any so-called research presented to Congress to be independently confirmed as correct. This is white collar crime and is being perpetuated by representatives of the government itself.
In answer to David Melons questions: it sounds like the EPA is completely out of controls.
David, don’t bother. There’s no information. The 1 positive was reported as a case study, and would not receive a passing grade at an elementary school science fair. The remaining cases were simply released to Steve Milloy as a table of Name, Date, Particulate Concentration, Duration, and reaction.
JunkScience has been doing a series where he sends it off to a different authority each week or so to get them to act. It’s been a farce so far, with only the original journal even replying, and then with a “no”.
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/18/epa-human-experiments-debunk-notion-of-killer-air-pollution-agency-hides-exculpatory-results/
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/24/did-obamas-epa-relaunch-tuskegee-experiments/
http://junkscience.com/2012/05/01/epa-denies-milloy-charge-of-conducting-unethical-human-experiments-facts-show-otherwise/
http://junkscience.com/2012/05/07/journal-editor-rejects-milloy-request-to-retract-false-case-report-of-epa-human-experiment/
http://junkscience.com/2012/05/14/epa-inspector-general-asked-to-review-illegal-human-experimentation/
http://junkscience.com/2012/05/23/epa-asked-to-investigate-scientific-misconduct/
http://junkscience.com/2012/06/01/nih-asked-to-investigate-misconduct-at-environmental-health-perspectives-in-epa-human-testing-scandal/
Let me see, you put someone with a compromised cardiovascular system who was already a candidate for irregular heart electrical activity into a situation where they would experience some cardiovascular stress and they have a cardiac electrical event. Sure, why didn’t they just have her climb stairs slowly for a few hours, probably would have gotten the same result.
This is the level of scientific understanding at the EPA. It is an political advocacy group masquerading as a scientific body. This house needs to be cleaned!
Steve Keohane says:
Is it possible that they are lying, or unethical, or both?
Both is most likely.
I’m voting for lying, unethical, AND stupid.
Taking a look at her numbers, and her general health (high blood pressure,
overweight, family medical history, etc.), she should never have been part
of any study like this, let alone any that put her pulmonary system at risk.
The fact that she presented later with re-entrant tachycardia is another
risk factor, which, although unknown at the time, could have been fatal.
This shows what little respect these ‘watermelons’ have for the
rest of us – we’re simply nothing more than glorified lab rats to them….
If there’s any good side to this, the woman got a catheter ablation
that may have saved her from problems further down the line
(and could point at the reason for the heart problems in her family).
There they go again. A recent newspaper article over here in PDRofEU UK, claimed that consuming only three glasses of wine a week would save 4,500 lives annually, with absolutley no eveidence to support it whatsoever. Even the Doctors trade union, the BMA, (which John Brignal of Number Watch defines as Bloody Mendacious & Arrogant) conceded a couple of years ago that the three units of alcohol daily recommendation for safe drinking, (small glaas of wine per unit), was plucked out of thin (possibly warming or cooling) air, & were based on no actual evidence whatsoever, just somebody’s opinion at the BMA that that was the safe Politically Correct amount to consume! Ho hum! I suspect in the months & years ahead these figures will mysteriously multiply until they are at such ridiculous levels just as they did for seconhand smoking, up to & including people dying prematurely in their 70s & 80s to ge tthe munbers up!
This is a serious problem and the experiment was highly unethical. The truth of fine particulates is that in order to establish a relationship with mortality requires a long term cohort study meaning that exposure in the long term is required. Cohort studies have shown increased mortality and morbidity in communities expose to higher concentrations of fine particles in the long term. With respect to acute premature deaths amongst the elderly and sick it has long been understood that an air quality episode may hasten their demise causing a blip (small increase) in mortalities, however it is also known that when the air quality improves the rate of mortality for some week sis below the long term average.
EPA is just carrying out its mission. Like any other army, it requires a certain amount of research to perfect its methods of mass murder.
eyesonu says:
June 4, 2012 at 6:27 am
“Lying to Congress or misleading Congress should be a crime.”
Unless you are a member thereof.
Where are the controls — people placed in the “chamber” under the same protocol but without the particles?
Further proof of what I’ve been saying for decades: the EPA needs to be completely overhauled or junked for perpetrating politicized “junk science.” Bureaucracies become inbred and delude themselves into believing they are omnipotent. They become a law unto themselves. The inhumanity of this experiment proves they are out of control, as did the bogus CO2 finding and the quote from an EPA regulator on “crucifying” American businesses who don’t buckle under.
Maybe Congress should require them to use only self-generated solar and wind power. That should finish them off.