Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
EPA Tested Deadly Pollutants on Humans
To help justify more stringent air regulations, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has conducted numerous dangerous experiments on humans. The Daily Caller has more:
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 IG report criticizes the EPA for not warning test subjects of “long-term cancer risks” and recommends procedures for future human studies.
Three of the studies exposed people to high levels of particulate matter [PM] and two of the studies exposed people to high levels of diesel exhaust and ozone. Diesel exhaust contains 40 toxic air contaminants, including 19 that are known carcinogens and PM. The EPA has publicly warned of the dangers of PM, but seemed to downplay them in their scientific studies on humans.
…The IG’s report points to a 2003 EPA document that says short-term exposure to PM can result in heart attacks and arrhythmias for people with heart disease — and long-term exposure can result in reduced lung function and even death. A 2006 review by the EPA presents even further links between short-term PM exposure and “mortality and morbidity.”
The EPA has been trying to set stricter standards on particulate matter, repeatedly warning of this pollutant’s danger. If this danger is so grave, why have they shown such a lax attitude in testing on the elderly and infirm? Is the EPA pursuing science with an “end justifies the means” philosophy?
Published in General
The EPA is leftist, and as any good leftist knows, you cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
The Ends justify anything they can get away with.
“The agency” is an abstraction. It was people who designed and conducted these experiments. What are their names?
When I saw the headline I wondered why, if they were concerned about other people’s lives, they’d perform an unethical study.
Then I read further: they did the tests to justify a power grab, not improve health & safety.
End justifies the means? It always does. Now make with the omelet.
Maybe an unusual question, but here goes: Can lawmakers in the U.S. bring a complaint against the individuals responsible to the ICC in the Hague for crimes against humanity? Last time I looked into in any depth, experimenting on people without their consent was illegal under international law.
I think it’s past time to chloroform a majority these federal agencies and relegate whatever they pretend to do back to the states, where they can best determine their use or non-use. These past few years have demonstrated they have lost their initiative.
It would be enlightening to know what the participants were told about the purpose of the study. It must have been a humdinger to persuade people with medical conditions to participate.
Because testing on animals would have been cruel.
Not to worry, those subjected to the experiments can all now have health insurance thanks to Obamacare.
First exposure to deadly pollutants, then Obamacare. The Obama administration must really be out to get old people.
The EPA has lost sight of their mission. The Great Lakes are visibly cleaner today than they were in the 60’s. How much did the EPA have to do with that?
Socialism is immoral because all moral standards are sacrificial once an objective is determined. The problem with government that is too large is that its right hands don’t know what its left hands are doing. They have multiplied their objectives without number, and fail to recognize constitutional or moral limits to their authority. That is why speech can be constricted if and when it undermines the power of the governmental bureaucracies that are all claiming to be doing everything for our own good.
When government becomes this big, the only people being served are the people working for the government and their friends who maintain them to keep the favorable treatment coming.
Oh, and by the way, no need for death panels when the government you support is helping push you in that direction. Don’t expect single payer insurance to ever be generous with benefits. In the end, policies will be set to manage cost, not preserve life. Another reason why socialized programs are immoral.
The EPA and its brother federal agencies are part of the Executive Branch. If we are able to elect a Republican president in 2016, we need to demand that he/she reign in all federal agencies. They should be subjected to stringent cost/benefit analysis, and they should also be slated for an automatic minimum 10% per year reduction in size. For the EPA perhaps that figure should be increased. To the extent that federal regulatory agencies have a legitimate reason to exist, the president should insist that his appointees as agency heads conduct a top-to-bottom review of their agency and determine the absolute core mission; then all extraneous, expanded functions should be eliminated (along with the personnel tasked with carrying out those functions). A bureaucracy resembles a living organism that seeks constantly to grow. It has to be a prime mission of the Executive to prevent such growth (except, possibly, with respect to the task of carrying out the identified prime mission). And when in doubt whether the proposed expansion is in support of the identified prime mission, err on the side of restricting the expansion.