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”.
“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?
@ur momisugly 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
@ur momisugly 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.