Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2012, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If such people existed there would be no need for the EPA test, they could just do their study on them.
You must have missed the part of science class concerning experimental design... in particular the part having to do with controls. You cannot measure the actual exposure to particulates days, weeks or years after the fact. Without that data, any epidemiological study is little more than a collection of anecdotes.

But more importantly, the development of long term pathology from chronic exposure to an environmental pathogen cannot be understood without studying the immediate biological response to acute exposure... and this is what the study was designed to explore. Living organisms deal with environmental particulates all the time and already have built in response mechanisms that under normal circumstances and normal exposures can deal with it. There is however a set of variable circumstances under which those natural mechanisms are overwhelmed, or worse malfunction to produce pathology. We must understand the underlying mechanisms when they are working well before we can explain what is happening when they are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Again the issue is they are claiming it's a health risk even at the low exposures in the general population, if you're going to say it causes premature deaths, heart attacks, asthma and a host of other things that's a significant health risk.
As with Nomander, make an effort to wrap your head around the difference between acute exposure and chronic exposure, and then perhaps you will be less likely to confuse your mole hills with your mountains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2012, 04:25 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,118,333 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Can I seek volunteers for a test to the effect of a hollow point bullet when fired at point blank range to the back of their head?

Is it legal? Is it ethical? Are you fine with that if people agree?
Haha what a terrible analogy as I don't think medical science needs much more information on the effects of "a hollow point bullet when fired at point blank range to the back of their head." Try another analogy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2012, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
As for your evaluation of the experiment, I already asked you a question concerning such. That was, how do you see it as to "very high ethical standards" when they place people in a test with an element they believe is extremely lethal to humans with minimal contact and short delay exposure?
They did not "place people in a test with an element they believe is extremely lethal to humans with minimal contact and short delay exposure."

That's how.

Particulates (in general) are not believed to be "extremely lethal" unless the exposure is chronic and long term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
How is it "very high ethical standards" that the results of the test showed only 1 (the woman with the preexisting condition) as having a complication, when none of the other test subjects, who were exposed to much higher levels and for longer periods, did not show any effect; yet this information was not reported by the researchers as is proper standard in scientific process.
What planet did you say you were on? The "information" was absolutely reported... and it was considered so important that it was reported immediately without even waiting for the final report on the entire study! I linked you directly to the published case report.

What the hell are you talking about?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2012, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
End justifies the means? Is that your argument?
No. The argument is that the means justifies the means, and you have stumbled badly trying (for some inexplicable reason) to make a very well designed, safe and ethical study look like the EPA was stabbing people in the face with poisoned letter openers.

What actually is your agenda? What is it about the EPA that you actually object to?

Because certainly, you cannot expect us to believe you are merely trying to defend your right to drink from downstream from where other people are peeing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2012, 04:32 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,051,710 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You must have missed the part of science class concerning experimental design... in particular the part having to do with controls. You cannot measure the actual exposure to particulates days, weeks or years after the fact. Without that data, any epidemiological study is little more than a collection of anecdotes.
We can throw away all the Radon information then, the "safe" limits were derived from studies done on underground miners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2012, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
We can throw away all the Radon information then, the "safe" limits were derived from studies done on underground miners.
If you imagine that 1) those are the only studies that were used to understand the risks of radon exposure, and that 2) it would even be possible to understand them from those studies alone, well... then at least your ignorance has an excuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2012, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,788,539 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
The USA needs a disease that will kill overbearing goverment. that would be a blessing in the USA.
That would be the truth and the Constitution -- politicians avoid these like the plague.

1931 Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
1932 The Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins. 200 black men diagnosed with syphilis are never told of their illness, are denied treatment, and instead are used as human guinea pigs in order to follow the progression and symptoms of the disease. They all subsequently die from syphilis, their families never told that they could have been treated.
1935 The Pellagra Incident. After millions of individuals die from Pellagra over a span of two decades, the U.S. Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease. The director of the agency admits it had known for at least 20 years that Pellagra is caused by a niacin deficiency but failed to act since most of the deaths occured within poverty-striken black populations.
1940 Four hundred prisoners in Chicago are infected with Malaria in order to study the effects of new and experimental drugs to combat the disease. Nazi doctors later on trial at Nuremberg cite this American study to defend their own actions during the Holocaust.
1942 Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on approximately 4,000 servicemen. The experiments continue until 1945 and made use of Seventh Day Adventists who chose to become human guinea pigs rather than serve on active duty.
1943 In response to Japan's full-scale germ warfare program, the U.S. begins research on biological weapons at Fort Detrick, MD.
1944 U.S. Navy uses human subjects to test gas masks and clothing. Individuals were locked in a gas chamber and exposed to mustard gas and lewisite.
1945 Project Paperclip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.
1945 "Program F" is implemented by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This is the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoride, which was the key chemical component in atomic bomb production. One of the most toxic chemicals known to man, fluoride, it is found, causes marked adverse effects to the central nervous system but much of the information is squelched in the name of national security because of fear that lawsuits would undermine full-scale production of atomic bombs.
1946 Patients in VA hospitals are used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. In order to allay suspicions, the order is given to change the word "experiments" to "investigations" or "observations" whenever reporting a medical study performed in one of the nation's veteran's hospitals.
1947 Colonel E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Comission issues a secret document (Document 07075001, January 8, 1947) stating that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects.
1947 The CIA begins its study of LSD as a potential weapon for use by American intelligence. Human subjects (both civilian and military) are used with and without their knowledge.
1950 Department of Defense begins plans to detonate nuclear weapons in desert areas and monitor downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates.
1950 In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Franciso. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
1951 Department of Defense begins open air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.
1953 U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.
1953 Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
1953 CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven-year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the subprojects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.
1955 The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases a bacteria withdrawn from the Army's biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Fl.
1955 Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research, studying its potential use as a chemical incapacitating agent. More than 1,000 Americans participate in the tests, which continue until 1958.
1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.
1958 LSD is tested on 95 volunteers at the Army's Chemical Warfare Laboratories for its effect on intelligence.
1960 The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes field testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the european population is code named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT.
1965 CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs.
1965 Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along.
1966 CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological effects of certain drugs on humans and animals.
1966 U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.
1967 CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and chemical weapons.
1968 CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.
1969 Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.
1970 Funding for the synthetic biological agent is obtained under H.R. 15090. The project, under the supervision of the CIA, is carried out by the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the army's top secret biological weapons facility. Speculation is raised that molecular biology techniques are used to produce AIDS-like retroviruses.
1970 United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.
1975 The virus section of Fort Detrick's Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses. It is also here that retrovirologists isolate a virus to which no immunity exists. It is later named HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus).
1977 Senate hearings on Health and Scientific Research confirm that 239 populated areas had been contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969. Some of the areas included San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Key West, Panama City, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.
1978 Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.
1981 First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine.
1985 According to the journal Science (227:173-177), HTLV and VISNA, a fatal sheep virus, are very similar, indicating a close taxonomic and evolutionary relationship.
1986 According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (83:4007-4011), HIV and VISNA are highly similar and share all structural elements, except for a small segment which is nearly identical to HTLV. This leads to speculation that HTLV and VISNA may have been linked to produce a new retrovirus to which no natural immunity exists.
1986 A report to Congress reveals that the U.S. Government's current generation of biological agents includes: modified viruses, naturally occurring toxins, and agents that are altered through genetic engineering to change immunological character and prevent treatment by all existing vaccines.
1987 Department of Defense admits that, despite a treaty banning research and development of biological agents, it continues to operate research facilities at 127 facilities and universities around the nation.
1990 More than 1500 six-month old black and hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given an "experimental" measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States. CDC later admits that parents were never informed that the vaccine being injected to their children was experimental.
1994 With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made.
1994
Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psychochemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War.

1995 U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research.
1995 Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections.
1996 Department of Defense admits that Desert Storm soldiers were exposed to chemical agents.
1997 Eighty-eight members of Congress sign a letter demanding an investigation into bioweapons use & Gulf War Syndrome.


Why would anyone think that secret ops are carried out on our citizens. I mean c'mon now
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2012, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,767 posts, read 5,015,185 times
Reputation: 2063
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Never-mind. I found the study here.

Environmental Health Perspectives: Case Report: Supraventricular Arrhythmia after Exposure to Concentrated Ambient Air Pollution Particles



If you think this short term exposure was unethical, what do you think about industries that expose us to high levels of pollutants long term?
Yep...the tobacco industry and oil companies have lied for years and claimed that their products don't harm either humans or the environment. I wonder what the eyeless shrimp being found in the Gulf would say about that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2012, 10:39 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,051,710 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
If you imagine that 1) those are the only studies that were used to understand the risks of radon exposure, and that 2) it would even be possible to understand them from those studies alone, well... then at least your ignorance has an excuse.
From the EPA:

Quote:
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/ass...2-r-03-003.pdf
Background. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updates its
assessment of health risks from indoor radon, which the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) has determined to be the second leading cause of lung cancer after cigarette
smoking. This risk assessment is based primarily on results from a recent study of
radon health effects (BEIR VI) by the NAS, with some technical adjustments and
extensions. In BEIR VI, the NAS projected 15,400 or 21,800 excess lung cancer
deaths in the U.S. each year, using two preferred risk models developed from data from
11 cohorts of miners.
Quote:
Although there is a growing body of data from epidemiological (case-control)
studies showing a correlation between lung cancer and radon exposures in homes,
these results do not conclusively demonstrate an excess risk in homes with elevated
radon and are inadequate as a basis for quantitative risk estimation. Thus, estimates of
risk for indoor exposures must still be extrapolated using models derived from the miner
data.
There are a number of important differences between mine and indoor exposures
that must be considered in making this extrapolation.

Last edited by thecoalman; 06-06-2012 at 10:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top