Major Landmark lawsuit filed against the EPA for immoral human experimentation

UPDATE: A new website chronicles the issue here http://epahumantesting.com/

Exclusive to WUWT by David W. Schnare

Statement of ATI’s Lead Counsel

on

American Tradition Institute v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(US District Court, Easter District of Virginia No. 1:12-cv-1066)

There are few occasions in life that emerge directly from the core of an individual and almost never are those memorialized in a law suit. On Friday, September 21, 2012, I took five copies of a complaint to the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, filing one of them with the court and having each of the rest stamped and then sent to four senior government officials, Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson and EPA General Counsel Scott Fulton. I sent them summons to appear and defend themselves in part because of my first name.

I was named after David Steiner, a man who died of starvation in Buchenwald concentration camp on May 3, 1945. Tattooed on his body was the number 59059. He was witness to horrors that, today, we have a hard time even contemplating, something that I thought would never exist on this planet again – the abhorrent practice of giving human subjects poisons in order to determine what subsequently happens to them.

I have always been deeply affected by the circumstances of my great-uncle’s death. It is a heavy burden to carry the name of such a victim. As I matured, I committed my life to giving to our civilization that which David Steiner was never able to give himself. I have given 37 years of service to the United States, most of that in an effort to protect human health and the environment as a professional at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

I was able to secure a position of responsibility and trust at EPA in large part because the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offered me the opportunity to obtain graduate degrees and prepare myself for a career in public service. Until a few weeks ago, I had been a strong supporter of each. Then Steven Milloy asked me to represent him and other members of the American Tradition Institute who have stories much like mine, or otherwise cannot countenance such human experimentation.

Steve’s story is worse than death. His uncle, Zoran Galkanovic, was incarcerated at the Mauthausen concentration camp. Upon threat of death, Mr. Galkanovic was forced to rise each morning and identify those individuals at the concentration camp too ill to work, knowing they would subsequently be executed that very day. Because of the inhumanity forced on Mr. Galkanovic, Mr. Milloy has accepted as a family responsibility the fight against any government who subjects its citizens to inhumane treatment. Who knew it would be our government? Who knew it would be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Who knew that human experimentation would be done on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill? Who knew it would be an official body of that University that approved this research?

On first blush, I simply could not believe Mr. Milloy. Then I looked carefully at the facts and at the law. This case involves the intentional exposure of human subjects to “fine particulate” matter, also known as PM2.5. EPA obtained their PM2.5 from a diesel truck. It is difficult to overstate the atrocity of this research. EPA parked a truck’s exhaust pipe directly beneath an intake pipe on the side of a building. The exhaust was sucked into the pipe, mixed with some additional air and then piped directly into the lungs of the human subjects. EPA actually has pictures of this gas chamber, a clear plastic pipe stuck into the mouth of a subject, his lips sealing it to his face, diesel fumes inhaled straight into his lungs.

Unbelievable as that may seem, consider the additional fact that EPA has officially concluded that this gas is a genotoxic carcinogen and that there is no exposure level below which it can be considered safe. In fact, EPA Administrator Jackson testified to Congress that of all deaths occurring in the United States, 1 in 4 “is attributable to PM2.5.” She told them “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.”

Under the law, under EPA regulations and under EPA policy, this human experimentation is strictly prohibited. To conduct human experimentation, the human subjects must be properly informed of the risks they face and these risks must be less than the potential benefit of the experiment. My family knows how that works too.

Few today know the ravages of Polio, but some of us are old enough to remember it too well. Susan Paidar was a childhood neighbor, the same age as one of my brothers. She died in an iron lung. And, she was one of the last victims of this terrible disease, in small part because of the courage of one of my brothers. In 1952, at age 6, my brother Rick was selected to be in the first human test group for the Salk vaccine. He was offered the possibility of never having to worry about polio again. He was a human subject and there was a real benefit from that human experimentation.

In the section describing the mandatory benefit that must be offered to the human subjects, EPA’s PM2.5 “informed consent” baldly states “there is no benefit.” Worse, the form never informs the subjects that they will be inhaling diesel fumes, never tells them the gas is a carcinogen, never tells them about all the other toxic substances in diesel exhaust pouring into their lungs, never tells them that because PM2.5 is genotoxic, it might cause disease in children they might wish to have.

Medical ethicist, Professor John D. Dunn, MD, JD, called EPA’s human experimentation “scandalously unethical and immoral” and said “There can be no further tolerance of this misconduct.” This is not the EPA I knew. This is not the University of North Carolina I knew. This is not the American Tradition of our nation. But, this is why I traveled to the U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia – to put a stop to it.

David W. Schnare, Esq., MSPH, PhD.

Director

Environmental Law Center

American Tradition Institute.

=============================================================

Steve Milloy will have a related major announcement tomorrow at junkscience.com

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
177 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J
September 23, 2012 9:15 pm

neill says:
September 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Who are the lab rats…….homeless folk, making an extra couple a bucks?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
in my experience. . . grad students of the humanities and social sciences, so you’re more or less right

intrepid_wanders
September 23, 2012 9:17 pm

Zeke says:
September 23, 2012 at 8:38 pm
“EPA Administrator Jackson testified to Congress that of all deaths occurring in the United States, 1 in 4 “is attributable to PM2.5.” She told them “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.”
That is interesting. There are no symptoms from inhaling this particuate matter, just sudden death of one in four people. Science says. And for the public good, transportation and shipping must be removed. Science says. What a slinking unelected female pirate lusting for the plunder of what belongs to others, chanting scientese. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, that’s all I’m hearing…

Zeke,
Yes, your easy answer could be correct, but the problem is not just with fossil hydrocarbons. PM2.5 is not the threshold of “asthma sufferers”. It goes down to PM6 for pollen, but what about mold? Has the EPA whipped that issue? Is there no longer a threat of the modernization of homes using drywall and the mold increase? I ask this because asthma baffles a lot of the medical community in why “cleaner communities” seem to have the highest occurrence of asthma related illness.
Your EPA sponsored direction will help NO asthmatics. In fact, the FDA adherence to the Montreal Protocol will have caused more asthma related deaths than PM2.5 could ever.
You think you know, but you don’t.

September 23, 2012 9:18 pm

Careful. Smacks a bit of “the moon landing was faked”. What would they have to gain from this? Were these people under contract to be monitored for long term effects? Did they plan to monitor them surreptitiously? Surely they didn’t expect them to keel over immediately. How would they have planned to use the results?. Trancendental rant, opposite sign?

Zeke
September 23, 2012 9:22 pm

“If you bought it, a truck brought it.”
I’d say the drivers who delivered everything you used today do more for the “public good” than unelected, illigitimate female sirens who sign treaties with the UN and foreign governments to undermine US domestic energy policy.

Mark and two Cats
September 23, 2012 9:31 pm

Another Tuskegee Experiment carried out by another government agency, this one to aid and abet those who would vilify carbon energy.
EPA promotes their vision of what the environment should be over human life. They will only be happy when industry comes to a halt, and people return to a pastoral existence with no borders and no private ownership (except for the inner Party).

Mark and two Cats
September 23, 2012 9:36 pm

“…then sent to four senior government officials, Attorney General Eric Holder…”
—————————————————————
If this ever makes it to court (doubtful), Holder will be found to have had no knowledge of it.

PhilMBB
September 23, 2012 9:37 pm

Anthony and Julie – That picture shows a full-blown plethysmograph unit, where the patient does indeed breath in and out. The unit used where the patient only exhales is a Spirometer, usually a small desktop unit. I am a patient that has used both for my asthma and COPD. Check out Wikipedia, it’s pretty factual.

Spector
September 23, 2012 9:37 pm

Of course, the often touted ideal of transitioning exclusively natural ‘green’ energy means that the planet will be unable to support most of its current human population as these energy sources, even with massive government subsidization, have never been able to provide any more a small fraction of our current energy needs. I suspect some of the violence we have seen recently in the third world is a result of people not being able to feed their children due to increasing food costs driven by rising energy costs. That is another form of human experimentation.

Crispin in Waterloo
September 23, 2012 9:38 pm

PM 2.5 includes everything smaller than 2.5 microns. Cleaner diesel emissions mandated in Europe were a lowering of the PM 2.5 level. The technology now exists to measure PM 0.02 (aethalometers) and it turns out the PM 2.5 drop was matched by a dramatic rise in nanoparticles.
So when saying there is a drop in PM2.5 you have to ask how it was measured. If it was a light scattering instrument it can’t detect anything below PM 0.1 and usually only from PM 0.25 for example a Grimm 180.
Nanoparticles are so small they get into the blood cells and can cross the blood-brain barrier. But pass diseases on to our children? Maybe, but it sounds like Lamarkism. There is a consensus against Lamark you know…
The lawsuit is obviously designed to get the EPA to say diesel exhaust is not poisonous, undercutting their own emissions standards.
Diesel exhaust and coal station exhaust are very different in the PM profiles. “Dirty” diesel engines produce large particles – large enough to see. Visibly clean modern engines produce invisible nanoparticles too small to see even in large numbers because they don’t scatter light.
Researchers are now trying to find out the comparative risks for each, but recall they all qualify as “anything smaller than” PM 2.5 which is a cutoff point not a “size”.

September 23, 2012 9:49 pm

the steiner story is a bit odd
“I was named after David Steiner, a man who died of starvation in Buchenwald concentration camp on May 3, 1945. Tattooed on his body was the number 59059.”
Auschwitz was the only camp that systematically tatooed. maybe he came from that camp??
there were transfers..
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/tattoos1.html
and Buchenwald was turned over to the Soviets in April of 1945.. april 8th. The soviets used it to hold Nazi’s.. so maybe the may 3 date is off
I dunno. spidey senses are tingling.

September 23, 2012 10:05 pm
September 23, 2012 10:06 pm

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
READ MORE
http://epahumantesting.com/

September 23, 2012 10:24 pm

Steven Mosher says:
September 23, 2012 at 9:49 pm

No it wasn’t turned over to the Soviets on April 8th. The main Buchenwald camp wasn’t liberated until April 11th 1945 by the US Army. Even after that people still died because of the lack of food, Edward R. Murrow watched a man die on April 12th from starvation.

On April 11, 1945 the Third U.S. Army reached the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. There were still 21,000 inmates still within the camp after the SS had fled in front of the advancing Allied front.

http://www.otr.com/murrow_buchenwald.shtml
Here is a recording of his report:
http://www.otr.com/ra/450415%20CBS%20Edward%20Murrow%20On%20Buchenwald.mp3
As you can hear in it the inmates of Buchenwald were numbered tattooed.

Zeke
September 23, 2012 10:29 pm

“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.”
Trucks and our powerful and quick delivery system give us food, clothing, medicine, fuel and wine from around the world, which are not subject to the vagaries and depredations of local conditions, supplies, and prices. Individuals from around the world now sell on ebay and because of this new worldwide market based on SHIPPING, small economies have grown by as much as 25% (ref, can’t find it just now) Equating the destruction of shipping and delivery with curing cancer is the most immoral, infernal claim I have ever heard from a…oh wait, she wasn’t elected, was she.

Logan in AZ
September 23, 2012 10:29 pm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=diesel+particulates
It is easy and free to search Medline, but you might need some background knowledge. If you can remember the word ‘pubmed’, the first google hit will have a link to the search page.
It is common to find substantial disagreements in medical literature, and I just read an abstract that describes the allergic aspect as unclear. But, if memory serves, Diesel particulates are an adjuvant for the induction of immediate hypersensitivity (Type I). That means mixing particulates with an antigen and producing a larger immunoglobulin E response in an animal. (IgE mediates the Type I response.)
As for the genotoxic aspect, one would suspect anything with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). As for the Lamark remark, one might enter the keyword ‘epigenetic’ into Medline…and study some of the twenty-five thousand hits. Trans-generational epigenetics exists, but the connection to any form of pollution is probably unclear.

Eugene WR Gallun
September 23, 2012 11:01 pm

This article does not pass the smell test. References to WWII death camp experiments suggest wild exageration. Though lawsuits may have been filed that does nothing to verify what is in the lawsuits. Lots of ridiculous lawsuits are filed everyday.
What is needed is a full description of the experiment. What does the grant application say? Have the experimenters been contacted? And so on. And so on. Need a lot more information if such charges are to be taken seriously.
This post is about “inhalation” from a truck tailpipe? I can only wonder from what “pipe” the author has been “inhaling”.
After all the years of manufactured hysteria about global warming i think most WUWT readers are pretty immune to hype. Yet, saying that, this article does play into what are basic human ways of processing infomation.
All people are ready to believe bad about people and instituions they already believe are bad.
All people are less ready to believe bad about people and institutions they believe are good.
On WUWT the EPA is considered bad and so people here are more inclined to give credence to bad things said about it. (Call it “wishful thinking.) But that does not override the fact that most people here are “fact checkers” first and foremost.
Of course, some of us (usually me) like to go for the joke no matter what and leave the serious lifting to others. Some people here are going to have great fun with this article unseriously accepting the zany premise and trying to see how many jokes they can get out of it. And since conspiracy theories have been big here lately with “Lew’s sewer science” a continued feature there has been some humor “pump priming”. )
And any credibility this post has comes about because Anthony put it up. If this appeared on the front page of the National Inquirer what person who comes to this site would read it? People here sometimes forget that Anthony likes to put up the occasional “offbeat” post. A little variety is the spice of a successful web site.
Admittedly the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment done on poor black men (1932-1972) was real. When begun there was no effective cure for syphilis and so no effective treatment was withheld. The study was intended to help find a cure for the disease by studying its progress. The subjects were simply not told that they had the disease. That was NOT hamrless. Lacking knowledge about their condition these men unwittingly spread the diease to others resulting in unnecessary deaths. In the 1940’s when penicillin was found to be a cure for syphilis and that treatment was withheld from these known sufferers the experimenters became the true equivalent of death camp “doctors”.
But I don’t think the post under discussion is exposing anything of a Tuskegee nature.
Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun
September 23, 2012 11:06 pm

Michael Kelly says
Sept 23 10:05pm
I thought the EPA only killed jobs.
I hate people who are funnier than me.
Eugene WR Gallun

Ian H
September 23, 2012 11:16 pm

The more I think about this the stranger it seems. It isn’t just your over the top rhetoric that is odd. There is also a considerable lack of facts in the article about what it is you are doing.
What specific relief you are asking the court for? Is this a class action? I presume you are representing a participant as you won’t get far without a real party of interest. You’ll have a very hard time proving damages here. While it might be embarrassing for the EPA to have to argue that there were no negative effects in light of their previous public statements, the burden of proof in demonstrating damages falls on you. The experiment is finished. The participants are (as far as anyone can tell) unharmed, or at least no more harmed than anyone who works for one day in a truck loading bay. So good luck with that.

Phil
September 23, 2012 11:20 pm

Instillation of Six Different Ultrafine Carbon Particles Indicates a Surface Area Threshold Dose for Acute Lung Inflammation in Mice
Tobias Stoeger, Claudia Reinhard, Shinji Takenaka, Andreas Schroeppel, Erwin Karg, Baerbel Ritter, Joachim Heyder, and Holger Schulz
VOLUME 114 | NUMBER 3 | March 2006 • Environmental Health Perspectives

It would certainly be most interesting to extrapolate our experimental findings to man and environmental settings. Converting the experimental threshold of 20 cm2 particle surface area from mouse to human, using the same approach described above, results in an estimated critical surface area of about 30,000 cm2 for a human. We choose to relate this extrapolated threshold level to particle surface areas encountered at sites of high air pollution, such as busy urban areas with UFP concentrations of up to 10 μg/m3. A very rough approximation [assuming UFPs in urban air derived mainly from mobile sources with a specific surface area comparable to DEP (110 m2/g), rest ventilating of 15 m3/day, and deposition efficiency of 70%] suggests that lung burdens of urban residents may exceed 150 cm2/day, which is two orders of magnitude lower than the critical surface dose extrapolated from our data. …. Assuming that deposited particles accumulate in the lungs (Brauer et al. 2001; Semmler et al. 2004), the surface threshold could be reached within months for people living in those areas,

Could it be that someone decided to actually verify the extrapolation to man from mouse as suggested in this paper?
However, different types of carbon particles have significantly different effects. This study compared six different kinds of carbon particles: PrintexG and Printex90 (presumably toner), SootH and SootL (areosols generated from propane flames), ultrafine carbon particles (ufCP) generated by spark discharge and standard SRM1650a diesel exhaust particles (DEP).

At respective mass-doses, particle-caused detrimental effects ranked in the following order: ufCP > SootL ≥ SootH > Printex90 > PrintexG > DEP.

So DEP was the least harmful and ufCP the most harmful. Some quotes:

Results: Grade of inflammatory response to carbon is strongly dose- and particle-dependent. …
Only SootL and ufCP … elevated total protein levels (in BALF) (bronchoalveolar lavage fluid) …
Even at the highest doses, none of the six investigated particles types significantly altered LDH (lactate dehydrogenase) levels within 24 hrs after (exposure)…
…only SootL and ufCP caused significant accumulation of neutrophis in BALF…
…ufCP gave the most marked inflammatory response ….
However, DEP and PrintexG failed to cause a significant PMN (polymorphonuclear leukocytes – a marker of inflammation) influx
…the instillation of ufCP generated the highest cytokine levels at each dose …
PrintexG and DEP generally failed to increase IL-1β (an inflammatory cytokine) levels significantly. …
… Only … ufCP significantly elevated TNF-α (another inflammatory cytokine) concentration in BAL …
… all doses of ufCP and … the highest dose of Printex90 … significantly increased BALF concentrations of MIP2 (a potent neutrophil attractant that represents the murine functional homolog to human IL-8) …
PrintexG and DEP did not alter MIP2 levels at this time point
DEP, which contained the highest fraction of organics, tended to be a less potent effector of inflammation than particles with the least (organic content) (Printex90).
…The particle surface area from 5 to 40 cm2 shown in Figure 2C suggests the existence of a dose-response threshold, below which no significant inflammatory reaction was detected…

In short, one wonders whether the study in this post distinguished between the different types of carbon particles or whether DEP is being blamed for everything.

Phil
September 23, 2012 11:36 pm

Logan in AZ
From the paper I mentioned above:

Coefficients of determination from regression analysis and subsequent multiple linear regression modeling (Table 2) suggest a less significant contribution to PMN recruitment and proinflammatory cytokine release for OC compared with particle surface area. This finding contrasts with recent investigations, which related the induction of oxidative stress to the OC—in particular, to the content of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—of DEP (Li et al. 2002). For the applied flame soot particles, the mass fraction of the 16 PAHs listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 1% for SootH and only 0.02% for SootL (Schroeppel et al. 2003); the mass fraction for DEP (SRM1650a) is 0.03%. In our study, however, at all doses investigated, SootL proved to be at least as potent as SootH and was always more potent than DEP. These results suggest that the PAH content of particles is not the major organic component driving the inflammatory response in our study. Particle-induced oxidative stress is expected to stimulate the production and release of inflammatory mediators (Donaldson et al. 2003). Beck-Speier et al. (2005) demonstrated a high oxidative potential for ufCP compared with Printex90 or DEP (SRM1650a). Consistently, an in vitro assay proved that ufCP particles are by far more potent in inducing oxidative stress in alveolar macrophages than Printex90 (Beck-Speier et al. 2001). In agreement with that, our in vivo study demonstrated that ufCP particles are the most potent inducers of acute proinflammatory responses, suggesting that oxidative stress is a main effector.

PaddikJ
September 23, 2012 11:46 pm

Re: Julie Dinkins-Borkowski contra Anthony

That is a Pulmonary function test machine. People with cf use those to determine lung function. It has nothing to do with diesel or human experiments. I thought I was reading the onion.
REPLY: That’s the picture supplied by the EPA for the experiment . . . Anthony

And that was all the response required. If Ms Dinkins-Borkowski has a problem with that piece of equipment being used in that experiment, she should take it up with the EPA. To argue about what it does, or might do, is pointless until the EPA has been asked. I may or may not be “psyop’ed,” but my reading comprehension is just fine, thank you very much. Ms Dinkins-Borkowski may want to have hers checked. I am surprised and a little disappointed that Anthony let her go off-point to his response so easily.
This is one of most potentially explosive things I’ve seen in a long time. If I were Anthony, I would tread very, very carefully.

September 24, 2012 12:02 am

For those wondering if the story is true: Washington Times mention the study (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/apr/22/picket-epa-conducts-human-testing-air-pollution-re/)
It looks like the paper is this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279446/

Velcro
September 24, 2012 12:42 am

Hmmm!
I can smell something odd about this article

September 24, 2012 1:10 am

For those doubting there is a good basis for legal action, wouldn’t it be smarter to actually read the evidence Milloy has gathered before looking entirely vacant?