EPA Inspector General Asked to Investigate Illegal Human Experimentation

JunkScience.com today asked the EPA Inspector General to investigate the EPA’s illegal human experimentation.

Steve Milloy laid out the case in a 14-page letter sent to the EPA IG on May 14.

Click for the letter.

11 thoughts on “EPA Inspector General Asked to Investigate Illegal Human Experimentation”

  1. You are running with this. Things will get very interesting should the Inspector General actually take the case.

  2. There are several international agencies and NGOs that would *LOVE* to find evidence of illegal human experimentation in a US Federal agency.

  3. I am an Industrial Hygienst (PhD) and I have done a lot of particulate (dust) monitoring in mines in Arizona. I have never seen anything even close to 750 micorgrams per m3. That is absolutely crazy. It would be interesting to what the PM was. Organic dust such as paper dust or dust containing silicone are particularly dangerous. Carbon dust can be fatal and is a known carcinogen…..ask any coal miner. See if you can find out the composition of the dust. it may be worse than you think.

  4. That was one of my criticisms of the original paper (I believe my comment was “wouldn’t pass muster at an elementary school science fair”). There was no explanation of what the PM2.5 actually is. If it’s pollen, then it’s nothing. However, you have a point that there could be chemical problems from the dust itself.

  5. Ben You are right I have no idea of what PM 2.5 is…..never heard of it. Lethal Dose LD 50 means that mickey and half of his friends will have the maximum effect of a chemical when administered….. Is it a paricle size of 2.5 micrograms??? don’t know. What the heck I can’t spell either.

  6. Don, you wouldn’t come across it in IH. PM 2.5 is exactly what is says on the tin, particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. This is compared to good old PM and PM10 (<10 microns). Ludicrously fine stuff.

    Of course, depending on what the matter is, being asbestos, soot, or organic matter, you have completely different chemical side effects.

  7. You’re arguing about the wrong thing. It’s irrelevant what the substance was; the EPA says that PM 2.5 per se kills, and Milloy’s got them in the perfect box. If it really kills, they’ve voilated the law; if it doesn’t kill, they’re lying fear-mongers. It’s a brilliant gotcha.

  8. I’m sticking with the attempted murder angle. The EPA needed dead bodies as an experimental outcome to prove its hypothesis, and that is what it was attempting. If I try to shoot someone (with extreme premeditation, I might add), but the bullet is defective, do I get to walk? No. Even *attempted shoplifting* is a crime.

    Maybe the EPA would like to say that the ‘sudden premature death’ effect needs more time after exposure to emerge. This means the test subjects have been robbed of a full life-span by EPA experimentation. What’s a lawsuit over that worth? A jury would love it.

Comments are closed.