You tell me.

reply to post by Uncinus


How old is that law?

I cannot find the best source, but I recall see a scanned image of this letter.

July 7, 1999
Donald Cobb
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Division Director for Threat Reduction
Gary Salzman, Ph.D. Principle Investigator Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dave Keller, M.D. Director of Infectious Disease New Mexico State Health Department
Re: Los Alamos National Laboratory postponed release of aerosolized Bacillus globigii spores

To All Addressed:
My name is Candace Brown and I want to voice my objection to the planned release of aerosolized Bacillus globigii spores at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The release is intended to study the effectiveness of the bio-warfare detectors. However, if the Bacillus globigii spores are aerosolized and released in the atmosphere it will then become an unauthorized human experimentation upon the citizens of New Mexico. These citizens have not consented to partake in a Department of Energy, Department of Defense, and Los Alamos National Laboratory experiment.

Link to a not so good souce

It's out there somewhere, but it's naive to think our government is benevolent.

reply to post by Uncinus

Nonsense. The law clearly states that ALL testing must be be in the interest of national security. It also states that ALL testing requires informed consent.

You're delusional. It does not say that at all.

reply to post by IpsissimusMagus


Thankyou IpsissimusMagus. Trump is always good for breaking things down to $$$'s and cents and that always makes it really really clear why who is for what.

I have to really agree completely with this sentiment of yours:

Blah, blah, blah .... informed consent ...... blah, blah, blah.

because the first thing that comes to mind is Monsanto and the second is fluoride and perhaps these projects were somehow grandfathered in although, in the case of Monsanto, they're still developing new things.

Those would be biological and chemical agents and the noisiness of HAARP effects, I don't think, could be classed as that. It took so long and so many horrible experiments on unsuspecting people and the unrewarded work of many dedicated individuals to bring about the law on these, such as it is, and to raise awareness that it was even happening. Effects of electro-magnetics and ionospheric heating are basically in an infancy of complete denial wrapped up in a classified package of national security.

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Nonsense. The law clearly states that ALL testing must be be in the interest of national security. It also states that ALL testing requires informed consent.

You're delusional. It does not say that at all.

It said it a few months ago when it was discussed on here - doesn't look like it has changed since.

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Nonsense. The law clearly states that ALL testing must be be in the interest of national security. It also states that ALL testing requires informed consent.

You're delusional. It does not say that at all.

The first is from the source you yourself quoted:

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus

uscode.house.gov...

-STATUTE-

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
any other Act may be used for the transportation of any lethal
chemical or any biological warfare agent to or from any military
installation in the United States, or the open air testing of any
such agent within the United States, or the disposal of any such
agent within the United States until the following procedures have
been implemented:
(1) the Secretary of Defense (hereafter referred to in this
chapter as the "Secretary") has determined that the
transportation or testing proposed to be made is necessary in the
interests of national security;

The second is from 50 USC Sec. 1520a

(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

Seems pretty clear.
1) Transport or testing must be in the interests of national security
2) Informed consent required from test subjects

reply to post by Uncinus

Seems pretty clear.
1) Transport or testing must be in the interests of national security
2) Informed consent required from test subjects

I still will assert that there are exemptions to the informed consent laws. But that isn't even the point here. Because you are assuming that these materials have not been tested already.

Once the known risk factors of these chemicals have been tested and there health and safety risks have been evaluated and the guidelines are set for allowable amounts.

Consent is no longer required. They are not using them to test safety on human subjects. The safety standards have already been studied and they operate within those guidelines.

Your argument about informed consent is invalid. Because that is not the issue here. These experiments have been deemed safe to operate with no serious human health concerns. However that does not mean they are actually safe.

It also do not mean that the affect they have on the environment is not a concern for the public. You would love to distract from the real conversation here. We are past the point of informed consent already. A committee has already allowed these experiments to bypass public laws and deemed it classified.

Not only that but a person will have to prove that they were the victim of an experiment. If they are unable to prove that, then how and who are they supposed hold someone accountable?

reply to post by Uncinus


You've given some really good links and one in particular was easy to dwell on because in the video I presented it goes by very quickly. This is the part I'm interested in:

Sec. 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents

(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

So how exactly is that going to work with informed consent? Say with the latest Trespass Bill or the occupy movement or with a whistle blower or with a terrorist tree hugger? Because this is listed in the quote I gave as one of the reasons it would be ok to experiment with chemical or biological agents on human beings.

Also, I don't believe that the HAARP experiments are chemical or biological so is that why they didn't get informed consent? Because the ionosphere (where the experiments are being conducted) is supposed to be like a bubble, around the entire planet...so I think everyone could potentially be affected by these experiments.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Of the items that you listed as caused by HAARP - I'm going to have to say that HAARP is experimenting with the ionosphere so any claims would have to be at least loosely tied to that. These might include earthquakes and sky noises and localized heating (from your list.) The pet peeves portion of your list might be tied to ELF waves but remember that there seems to be a bell curve on who is affected and who is not so you may just be in among the 25 to 75% that are affected. If the condition persists. If not, you may just be having a bad day.

reply to post by luxordelphi

The pet peeves portion of your list might be tied to ELF waves but remember that there seems to be a bell curve on who is affected and who is not so you may just be in among the 25 to 75% that are affected. If the condition persists. If not, you may just be having a bad day.

He's probably just confused and paranoid.

I think his issues are probably related to too many bath salts.

reply to post by olaru12


Thankyou for your contribution and forgive me for not thoroughly going through your links - that kind of thing is hard to take and hard to read about.

Experimental programs like MK Ultra are still being carried out on American citizens with out their knowledge or consent. As well as medical experimentation on children ex...Ted Gunderson etc.

On the mind control experiments - I agree completely that they are ongoing and I fear that we haven't even breached the tip of the iceberg on them. It is also disconcerting that when experimenting within the U.S. becomes too legally restrictive, the experiments are just taken to foreign countries with fewer restrictions, kind of like rendition. Within the U.S., I believe, that the children are not signing the consent forms. And are not informed. There are institutions in some cases that act as guardians and sign. There was a thread about that some months ago but I don't remember the name of it.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Dear Drunkenparrot: your statements -

Perhaps if you invested a portion of the time you have spent pursuing nonsensical conspiracy theories on educating yourself in real science you could better understand what is being said by the academics?

are mystifying. We are both on a conspiracy theory website, are we not? But never mind...let's not quibble about where we are - if you find any of those academics you're on about: why...bring 'em on down! (to a greater or lesser degree, of course)

reply to post by IpsissimusMagus


Its there to be read, issi, there's no need to use the usual chemmie tactic of trying to say a quote means something it doesn't. Read it again, in simple terms it goes thus

A - no experiments on the public

B - except sometimes there might be

C - but if you do you had better ask first

Whatever you might think it means, that what it says

reply to post by waynos


Waynoid, whatever you think it might say it does not protect the public from being experimented on.

This law only applies to the "Secretary of Defense". Show me where it says this law applies to all other agencies and branches of the US Government.

There are so many loop holes it's ridiculous. Why you would even try to bring it up again. Just shows your ignorance.

But by all means, go ahead and prove to me how this law protects the public. Your kindergarden interpretations amuse me.

It's pretty simple for someone other than the Secretary of Defense to make a contract regarding scientific experiments.

reply to post by waynos


You're awesome waynos, unrelenting in your quest for sanity, it is heartbreaking to me to witness the lack of trust the poor wretched souls have for the authorities--experiments on American citizens without their consent?? That is absolute hogwash! You brave knights of reason must stay strong and Deny, Obfuscate and Derail attempts by these hippie malcontents to spread their paranoid fantasies and scare the folks!! Good, solid folks who just want to go to work and be left alone to live their lives in peace.

Even if experiments on the public are being done, how can you conclude that it is not in the best interest of the United States of America and her citizens? Why do you chemmies always assume the worst of our leaders?? Please just listen to the debunking brigade and cast off your doubts, be happy, enjoy the fireworks tonight and thank God you are living in the greatest country in the world.

You must at least admire the dedication with which waynos and aloysius and my other bffs try to inject sanity into this forum. They are fighting the good fight and you all aren't even grateful, just spouting your smartassy rejoinders as if anybody listens to you chemmies to begin with! All the hours they spend at the keyboard trying to enlighten you rabble rousers...if only I could stand behind each and every one of you my debunker friends & give you shiatsu masssage while you defend the honor of the military industrial complex. It would be my honor and I would not be offended if you asked for a reach around or anything that would release the tension built up dealing with this herd of cats on ATS!!

reply to post by Pilot

It would be my honor and I would not be offended if you asked for a reach around or anything that would release the tension built up dealing with this herd of cats on ATS!!

A Group of Cats is Called a 'Clowder'

Please explain what a reach around is.

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by waynos

 

Waynoid, whatever you think it might say it does not protect the public from being experimented on.

This law only applies to the "Secretary of Defense". Show me where it says this law applies to all other agencies and branches of the US Government.

Informed consent is already required of ALL human test subject after the 1974 National Research Act.

www.hhs.gov...

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Pilot

 

It would be my honor and I would not be offended if you asked for a reach around or anything that would release the tension built up dealing with this herd of cats on ATS!!

A Group of Cats is Called a 'Clowder'

how interesting! thanks!

reply to post by Uncinus


When did the public give it's informed consent for the ATREX experiments?

www.nasa.gov...

When did the public give consent for these Industries to release chemicals?

www.worldometers.info...

Facts

Each and every second 310 Kg of toxic chemicals are released into our air, land, and water by industrial facilities around the world.

This amounts to approximately 10 million tons (over 21 billion pounds) of toxic chemicals released into our environment by industries each year.

Of these, over 2 million tons (over 4.5 billion pounds) per year are recognized carcinogens. This amounts to about 65 Kg each second.

Originally posted by IpsissimusMagus
reply to post by Uncinus

 

When did the public give it's informed consent for the ATREX experiments?

www.nasa.gov...

When did the public give consent for these Industries to release chemicals?

Obviously those are not experiments on people.

Sure, you could go down the semantic road of "everything is an experiment", but that's just semantics. Upper atmosphere fireworks are no more an experiment on you than the 4th of July (or 5th of November) fireworks.

reply to post by IpsissimusMagus


I kept it 'kindergarten' as you put it, because you already misinterpreted the actual text twice. You were saying that section c overruled section b, that is simply a lack of comprehension so your ad hom on me is entirely misplaced.

Now, you show me where I ever said that the existence of such a law is a cast iron guarantee. I was speaking, in this nstsnce, only about your specific misinterpretation of the written word, nothing else. If you can't debate the actual points mentioned, please don't just make up your own, it's rather tiresome having to keep going back and pointing out "you said this" to chemmies who can't stay on topic.