Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Merc14

EPA Conducted dangerous tests on kids

18 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

In order to justify even harsher clean air regulations the out of control EPA conducted pollution experiments on older people and kids

http://www.breitbart...nts-on-Children

The Environmental Protection Agency is under fire for exposing children to pollution as part of an experiment at the University of Southern California.

This information is coming to light from the website junkscience.com after an investigation from the EPA's Office of the Inspector General stated in a recent report that the EPA’s pollution experiments on older people, done at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, were more harmful to the subjects than what the EPA presented.

The IG also said that while the experiment's subjects did consent to exposure, the “risks were not always consistently represented.”

“Further, the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies’ consent forms. An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures,” the IG report said.

In February of 2013, JunkScience.com reported that the EPA gave USC money in the mid 2000’s to find out whether diesel exhaust could “induce reproducible gene expression” in children. From a USC grant in the EPA extramural research grants database, the original December 14, 2012 document showed diesel exposures to children. What now sits on that database is a strongly edited description of the diesel tests on the children. Part of the the experiment's goal was to examine how particulate matter affects "Asthma in Susceptible Children."

rest of article here http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/02/EPA-Conducted-Pollution-Experiments-on-Children

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I don't see the problem.

What else was supposed to be done to find out the answer they wanted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't see the problem.

What else was supposed to be done to find out the answer they wanted?

Maybe you should let them know they can dump diesel exhaust into your kid's lungs next time. Better yet, you can volunteer yourself to suck on an exhaust pipe to further the EPA's mission. How about it? Please, let us know how it goes. ;)

Edited by Merc14
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The test was to find out what happens to kids. I wouldn't be particularly helpful.

Regardless, consent forms were filled, no one was seriously hurt. And from what's being said it was monitored by professionals.

While I can understand someone not liking the idea, the reality is that it's something that should be tested.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The test was to find out what happens to kids. I wouldn't be particularly helpful.

Regardless, consent forms were filled, no one was seriously hurt. And from what's being said it was monitored by professionals.

While I can understand someone not liking the idea, the reality is that it's something that should be tested.

On you! Why aren't you there? Maybe you are! If so I am sure that if you found out that what you were told of the danger level was far below the actual exposure, you'd be fine.

Hey, I am all for sacrificing your health for the betterment of the EPA. Hell, send me photos of your lungs, I'll use them as wallpaper on the ****ty computer in the garage.

Regardless, why aren't you contributing to the cause? Sorry, maybe you are and I missed it. What tests are you involved in to further the EPA's mission?

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a child and the test was for the effects on children.

If so I am sure that if you found out that what you were told of the danger level was far below the actual exposure, you'd be fine.

So that the danger level wasn't as high as I initially thought, so the amount of danger I was in was less? Sure. I'd be totally ok with that.

Why exactly are you so angry about this?

Theres no long term effects of this, it got data that was wanted, no laws were broken. What's the problem?

is it the EPA you've got a gripe with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a child and the test was for the effects on children.

So that the danger level wasn't as high as I initially thought, so the amount of danger I was in was less? Sure. I'd be totally ok with that.

Why exactly are you so angry about this?

Theres no long term effects of this, it got data that was wanted, no laws were broken. What's the problem?

is it the EPA you've got a gripe with?

Merc believes the EPA needs to be abolished and will use any stick to beat it with.

He would rather have industry free to pollute us with diesel smoke without any restrictions.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merc believes the EPA needs to be abolished and will use any stick to beat it with.

He would rather have industry free to pollute us with diesel smoke without any restrictions.

Br Cornelius

Ahhh, the old Ad Hominem argumnet, a br specialty and the attack mode of choice of the weak minded. Of course I don't want industry polluting and running amok but neither do I want out of control regulatory agencies. I also think the IRS should be dissolved, as it is now out of control as well.

The EPA has grown far beyond its originally intended mandate and is legislating and making law through regulation. It needs to be abandoned and replaced by something that regulates, not legislates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear your real intention from the horses mouth.

What exactly would have reduced the fatality causing smog problem of the USA without the EPA exactly ?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear your real intention from the horses mouth.

What exactly would have reduced the fatality causing smog problem of the USA without the EPA exactly ?

Br Cornelius

Ask China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Once again, you are making an emotional post, calling for the end of something without considering the alternatives. Dissolve the EPA? Oh, because businesses will be responsible enough to regulate themslelves, right? Don't be naive.

Here is the alternative, Merc.

http://www.cbsnews.c...s-smog-problem/

Edited by Agent0range

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, the old Ad Hominem argumnet, a br specialty and the attack mode of choice of the weak minded. Of course I don't want industry polluting and running amok but neither do I want out of control regulatory agencies. I also think the IRS should be dissolved, as it is now out of control as well.

The EPA has grown far beyond its originally intended mandate and is legislating and making law through regulation. It needs to be abandoned and replaced by something that regulates, not legislates.

I'm sure you know that all federal agencies, through the NPRM process, makes rules that carry the weight of laws.

I understand your point, and agree with it up to a point, but as we're seeing with Duke in NC with the coal ash, and many other cases running to SEC and Madoff, the regulatory agencies don't really regulate. They snort coke at parties with those they are supposed to be regulating, and that's not good.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask China.

Like unions, the EPA was absolutely necessary at its inception. What industry was dioing to our environment in teh 60's was beyond a disaster, it was a nightmare. I know because I lived minutes from Love Canal and teh other horrors in that area of western NY. . Also like unions, it grew to become a monster that destroys more than it saves. A mud puddle in the backyard is not a wetland but that is what EPA has become.

Our disagreement is that you are a big giovernment, big brother lovin' guy and I am not. Government unchecked always becomes dangerous and/or evil and ours is just abouty there now and EPA is a big part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, you are making an emotional post, calling for the end of something without considering the alternatives. Dissolve the EPA? Oh, because businesses will be responsible enough to regulate themslelves, right? Don't be naive.

Here is the alternative, Merc.

http://www.cbsnews.c...s-smog-problem/

No, it needs to be replaced with another organization with a less intrusive mandate. The destruction of the coal industry via regulatory mandate is not about pollution any longer, it is about appeasing the radical left environmentalist arm of the democrat party. The IRS suppressing right wing fundraising is another example of a government agency wildly our of control. I realize that the left cheers these overreaches but they should consider that sooner or later these powers will be used against them. That is the story history tells over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not the principle of the departments you reference (i.e., EPA and IRS); alas the problem lies with the current people running those departments or with people who have significant influence over those departments. Let's not be hasty and call for a dismissal of the EPA and IRS because you are opposed to those who have power and influence within them - push to get those you oppose out the door. Don't cut off your hand because of a hang-nail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is not the principle of the departments you reference (i.e., EPA and IRS); alas the problem lies with the current people running those departments or with people who have significant influence over those departments. Let's not be hasty and call for a dismissal of the EPA and IRS because you are opposed to those who have power and influence within them - push to get those you oppose out the door. Don't cut off your hand because of a hang-nail.

Gut EPA and replace it with an organization that works with business to utilize teh latest technology to both improve teh economy and protect and repair teh environment. It should be controlled by a bipartisan group that doesn't se business as bad.

Case in point is why are we not pursuing new generation nuclear power? The tech is far from the watercooled plants of yesteryear and is both safe and clean. Thorium based power plants are another safe and clean option but teh radical environmentalists are firmly entrenched against nuclear power in any form while they simultaneously close down coal fired plants through onerous regulations. The result is less power for a growing nation.

This is insane yet makes perfect sense in our new world of all encroaching government. The EPA should be more akin to the National Institues for Health or the National Science Foundation than the IRS and the only way to accomplish that is raze it and start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual OIG report if anyone is interested in reading it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/215909101/EPA-Human-Study-Subjects

Warning, it's not quite as dramatic as many of the media outlets are portraying - i.e. Obama did not actually strap down children and old people and stick hoses in their mouths attached to semi-truck exhaust pipes until they pledged their undying loyalty to Allah and the New World Order run by the Jewwwwwssssss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Merc nuclear is never safe and clean, and thorium reactors are as yet just another pipe dream to keep the nuclear fantasy alive. Show me an operation fast breeder reactor or pebble bed thorium reactor. You can't because they don't exist as commercial propositions.

Nuclear has just hit a wall in the UK because the EU competition commission wont let them subsidize it enough to make it commercially viable against the alternatives (including wind and solar).

You should look beyond the rhetoric for a change.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.