EPA tested deadly pollutants on humans

Report: EPA tested deadly pollutants on humans to push Obama admin’s agenda

Read more: dailycaller.com...
EPA Human Study Subjects

www.scribd.com...

The Environmental Protection Agency has been conducting dangerous experiments on humans over the past few years in order to justify more onerous clean air regulations.

The agency conducted tests on people with health issues and the elderly, exposing them to high levels of potentially lethal pollutants, without disclosing the risks of cancer and death, according to a newly released government report.

These experiments exposed people, including those with asthma and heart problems, to dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants, including diesel fumes, reads a EPA inspector general report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The EPA also exposed people with health issues to levels of pollutants up to 50 times greater than the agency says is safe for humans.

The EPA conducted five experiments in 2010 and 2011 to look at the health effects of particulate matter, or PM, and diesel exhaust on humans. The IG’s report found that the EPA did get consent forms from 81 people in five studies. But the IG also found that “exposure 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,” the IG’s report noted. “An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures” but “human subjects were not informed of this risk in the consent form.”

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Now this isn't the first time our government has been guilty of things like this.

In fact I think the American people are one big pharmaceutical experiment as well, you are a bunch of lab rats

Hey, at least they actually knew it was a test. They have tested stuff on unsuspecting populations for years! At least this one was an actual study.

I still don't see the significance of this particular test though. They can look at existing data for people who work around this particulate matter and get far more information. Diesel mechanics, farmers, etc. Why pick 81 people and intentionally expose them, when millions have already been exposed for decades, and their health records reflect the affects.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


One thing for sure! We certainly won't see a Congressional Hearing (Dog and Pony Show) over this one!!

Nope! Not at all! They will try like hell to keep this one under wraps!

Not to mention, this information came out a while ago, and if I recall correctly, anyone whom mentioned it were called nut jobs! Wonder what they will say now since the IG is the one confirming this act of terrorism against their own citizens?

3shadesofblack
Hey, at least they actually knew it was a test. They have tested stuff on unsuspecting populations for years! At least this one was an actual study.

I still don't see the significance of this particular test though. They can look at existing data for people who work around this particulate matter and get far more information. Diesel mechanics, farmers, etc. Why pick 81 people and intentionally expose them, when millions have already been exposed for decades, and their health records reflect the affects.

This big finding was they lied to the test subjects and were not truthful as to the danger they were being exposed to.

The EPA has already deemed these particulates to be cancerous, YET they still did these tests.....

reply to post by 3shadesofblack

They have tested stuff on unsuspecting populations for years! At least this one was an actual study.

My guess is they still do

It's probably necessary to test people's response to these chemicals because occasionally we are exposed to some of this chemistry in the real world. I have been around diesel smoke in excess of what is considered safe many times in my life. People working on diesel engines or pumping propane or heating oil are in this smoke a lot. Actually doing testing on this is necessary to get information on health effects associated with exposure. The people should have been advised of the problems that could occur and should have signed off. I would have volunteered for a test like this when I was younger.

Like you said Stormdancer, we are used as guinea pigs by pharma companies all the time. The changes in testing over the last ten years to speed up the release of medicines allows little testing but requires more monitoring of side effects by physicians. The trouble with this is that doctors are trained to only look at known side effects, listed on the drug handout, and they ignore side effects that they aren't told are possibly related. In other words the whole system needs to be changed, the doctors aren't reporting possible side effects properly. They do not comprehend the relationship of something unrelated to the known side effects happening. If you look at the pamphlet from a newer drug from a couple years ago and the one pamphlet you have now, you will see the increases in listed side effects. They are constantly upgrading the side effects as they become aware of them. Most people do not realize these have changed.

reply to post by 3shadesofblack

They have tested stuff on unsuspecting populations for years!

True. Decades ago here in St. Louis people were subject to a black substance showering down on them. In the years following, many unusual concentrations of disease--cancer, lung problems, etc occurred.

reply to post by rickymouse


Hi ricky

Human medical experimentation in the United States: The shocking true history of modern medicine and psychiatry (1965-2005)

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Ah yes, Obama's infallible EPA.

I will give them this, they are living by the "ends justifies the means" doctrine to the letter.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by 3shadesofblack

 

They have tested stuff on unsuspecting populations for years!

True. Decades ago here in St. Louis people were subject to a black substance showering down on them. In the years following, many unusual concentrations of disease--cancer, lung problems, etc occurred.

I wonder what that was?

Do you have any idea?

The EPA hasn't changed much since Clinton. I think it's always been run by people that don't really care about the Environment or the people that live in it. This isn't an Obama thing, this is an EPA thing.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by 3shadesofblack

 

They have tested stuff on unsuspecting populations for years!

True. Decades ago here in St. Louis people were subject to a black substance showering down on them. In the years following, many unusual concentrations of disease--cancer, lung problems, etc occurred.

I remember one day before I was involved with the internet, the sky was full of those none existent chem-trails and everything was covered with this fine green dust, I mean inside the window seals too.

I remember not feeling so good on days when they were everywhere, then suddenly there were less trails in the sky it was after the wars overseas started, I didn't see the trails as often anymore.

The greens are the new REDS.

Stormdancer777

Chamberf=6
reply to post by 3shadesofblack

 

They have tested stuff on unsuspecting populations for years!

True. Decades ago here in St. Louis people were subject to a black substance showering down on them. In the years following, many unusual concentrations of disease--cancer, lung problems, etc occurred.

I wonder what that was?

Do you have any idea?

I don't think anyone ever found out.

It was decades ago, though, and I don't think people petitioned the Govt. for answers as much as nowadays. But I wasn't alive at the time, so maybe people DID seek definite answers but just didn't get any.

The people in St. Louis now are sure getting the run-around over handling a nuclear waste dump from the 50's that now has an underground fire smoldering right next to it.
No letter agency even admits to dumping (who else would have ?) and also say they won't do anything about it.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

then suddenly there were less trails in the sky it was after the wars overseas started, I didn't see the trails as often anymore.

Which wars/time frame? Unfortunately we've been involved in several wars overseas.

EDIT: Oops just realized I inadvertently asked your age.

I don't think Obama started the EPA and I am sure that just like any govt agency, the top dogs care more about their salary/budget than the actual environment.

That being said, I would much rather get rid of the nonsensical TSA than listen to the kook Bachman and get rid of the EPA.

tinner07
I don't think Obama started the EPA and I am sure that just like any govt agency, the top dogs care more about their salary/budget than the actual environment.

That being said, I would much rather get rid of the nonsensical TSA than listen to the kook Bachman and get rid of the EPA.

Question.

What does partisanship have to do with this?

A government agency got caught doing something wrong! It is as simple as that!

reply to post by Stormdancer777

The EPA obtained informed consent from the 81 human study subjects before exposing them to pollutants. While the consent forms met the requirements of 40 CFR Part 26, we found that exposure 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.

www.scribd.com...
From that same link in your OP.

I realize they signed "consent forms", but what in the world could have been their incentive for the 81 people that did it.
I guess the obvious=money. But risking death for it?

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

The EPA obtained informed consent from the 81 human study subjects before exposing them to pollutants. While the consent forms met the requirements of 40 CFR Part 26, we found that exposure 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.

www.scribd.com...
From that same link in your OP.

I realize they signed "consent forms", but what in the world could have been their incentive for the 81 people that did it.
I guess the obvious=money. But risking death for it?

From what I have been hearing, (yes, hearing!) the only question or statement on the consent form relating at all to the experiment said something or another to this, "You may experience irritation to your airways for 2 to 4 hours after the test. Do you have an issue with this?".....

Now keep in mind the odds were, "These human beings actually TRUSTED their government!".

But your right, maybe they needed the money or whatnot. Aren't the poor the best to prey upon? Look at how Big Pharm and Bill Gates and those of their ilk are always experimenting in Africa.......

greencmp
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Ah yes, Obama's infallible EPA.

I will give them this, they are living by the "ends justifies the means" doctrine to the letter.

Obama didn't make the EPA. Nixon did in 1970 after the Santa Barbara Oil Spill (1969). Concerns about humans and the environment were around for decades prior to that but the Santa Barbara spill was such a significant and visible event that it basically became that launching point for forming things like the EPA and also creating Earth Day. Earth Day also happens to be held on the same day as Nixon's visit to the spill. Just a few fun facts.