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.
"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?"
"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?"
You ever see those figures like 1K premature deaths, 20K asthma cases etc.? It's these types of tests they use to arrive at those figures. No one has on theier death certificate "Died from particulate matter".
They do a study like this to get some hard data for example they might throw 10 people off a 20 foot cliff. The results of this are 5 of the 10 people that were thrown off the cliff die. Using those figures they use what is called a linear dose assessment which assumes any fall is equally as dangerous when spread out across a population regardless of the height. For every 200 feet a population is to fall five will die.
If 20 people fall off a 10 foot cliff 5 still die. If 200 people fall off a 1 foot cliff 5 still die. If thousands fall an inch 5 still die........
Were the test subjects volunteers? If so, how is this ethically different from those who volunteer for drug trials?
There is a law that disallows human subjects from being used in testing with hazardous elements regardless if they approve or not.
The really issue is the corner they have painted themselves into by doing this test.
1) They know that air pollutants are not toxic (even though they claim so) and so they have violated no laws in their testing.
2) The air pollutants are toxic and they have violated a very big law concerning testing.
So which is it? They are full of crap or they are unlawful and unethical?
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.