It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
US begins building treaty-breaching germ war defence centre 31 Jul 2006 Construction work has begun near Washington on a vast germ warfare laboratory intended to help protect the US against an attack with biological weapon, but critics say the laboratory's work will violate international law and its extreme secrecy will exacerbate a biological arms race. The centre will have to produce and stockpile the world's most lethal bacteria and viruses, which is forbidden by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
U.S. biodefense lab raises concerns 30 Jul 2006 The Bush regime is building a massive biodefense laboratory in Maryland that will simulate [stimulate?] calamitous bioterrorism attacks, it was reported Sunday. But much of what the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center in Fort Detrick, Md., does may never be publicly known because the White House intends to operate the facility largely in secret, the Washington Post reported. In an unusual arrangement, the building itself will be classified as "highly restricted space," the newspaper said. Not even nuclear labs operate with such secrecy.
The Secretive Fight Against (For) Bioterror --The government is building a highly classified facility to research biological weapons, but its closed-door approach has raised concerns. 30 Jul 2006 On the grounds of a military base an hour's drive from the capital, the Bush regime is building a massive biodefense laboratory unlike any seen since biological weapons were banned 34 years ago.
marg6043
Grave breaches would include torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, biological experiments, murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse and taking hostages.
www.cnn.com...
Originally posted by soficrow
Hmmm.
Interesting argument ben, but I don't think it washes.
True, people buy and use products that contaminate the environment, but unlike the manufacturers, people do NOT know the chemistry or consequences of using such products.
Data about the chemistry and impacts of using most products is in the private domain, protected as Intellectual Property by international law.
Ordinary people do not have the ability to buy, otherwise collect, or to process the information needed to make informed choices about most products.
By comparison and in effect, you might as well say that young children have the ability to make informed sexual choices. Or that tobacco companies were not withholding vital information about health risks from consumers.
Originally posted by ben91069
... information is freely available, but just not readily available.
Originally posted by soficrow
IMO - you are just pushing the new mantra of "Personal responsibility." And you have gone from "Personal responsibility in health" to "Personal responsibility for pollution."
It doesn't wash. People are not personally responsible for their decisions when they don't have access to all the relevant information. And they don't.
ben
...if manufacturers are personally responsible for our health by their products, then it stands to reason that they should be personally responsible for the contributing pollution from the same.
The key is, that you have to prove the impact of any given pollutant,
...all that information is hidden from our eyes.
Originally posted by NJE777
EPA??? hmm this issue is regulated and orgs/industries can be liable if they operate outside scope.
Originally posted by soficrow
EPA??? Regulation???
Surely you jest.
Originally posted by NJE777
Originally posted by soficrow
EPA??? Regulation???
Surely you jest.
ok you are obviously critical of the regulation. I understand your point now.