EPA’s illegal human experiments could break Nuremberg Code

By Steve Milloy
January 1, 2013, Washington Times

The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says no law empowers any judge to stop it from conducting illegal scientific experiments on seniors, children and the sick.

That astounding assertion will be tested Friday, when a federal district court in Alexandria decides whether it has jurisdiction to hear claims made by the American Tradition Institute that EPA researchers are exposing unwary and genetically susceptible senior citizens to air pollutants the agency says can cause a variety of serious cardiac and respiratory problems, including sudden death.

Although the lawsuit only addresses ongoing, purportedly illegal experimentation being carried out at an EPA laboratory on the Chapel Hill campus of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, EPA researchers and grantees have carried out dozens of similarly shocking experiments over the past 10 years at UNC and other schools, including Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, University of Rochester, University of Southern California and University of Washington.

During that time at those university laboratories, EPA-employed or -funded researchers have intentionally exposed a variety of people to concentrated levels of different air pollutants, including particulate matter (soot and dust), diesel exhaust, ozone and chlorine gas — the latter substance more recognized as a World War I-era chemical weapon than as an outdoor air pollutant.

Over the same period that the experiments in question have been conducted, the EPA has become more and more alarmist in communications to Congress and the public about danger the air pollutants pose to individuals even at commonplace, non-concentrated levels. The EPA has determined, for example, that any exposure to fine particulate matter can cause death within hours or days of inhalation. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, moreover, has testified in Congress that particulate matter causes about 1 of every 4 deaths in America.

Not only is diesel exhaust largely made up of “deadly” particulate matter, but its components include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which the EPA considers to be cancer-causing. The agency generally says that any exposure to a carcinogen increases the risk of cancer. Diesel exhaust also includes lead. The EPA has determined that lead can be readily absorbed from inhalation into the blood and that there is no safe level of lead in blood.

The EPA has exposed its human guinea pigs to ozone levels as high as 400 parts per billion (ppb), more than five times higher than the EPA’s current standard and six times higher than the standard expected to be adopted in 2013. In a March 2012 letter to Mrs. Jackson from the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council, a council member unwittingly commented that “[experimental] exposure of rats to 300 or 400 ppb may be very relevant to humans, but impossible to study in humans for ethical reasons.” Little did the council member know that EPA researchers routinely — but illegally — do the “impossible.”

Aside from the EPA-determined dangers associated with the air pollutants used in the experiments, there are the human study subjects. While some have been healthy young adults, others have been elderly, asthmatic or both. Many have been diagnosed with “metabolic syndrome.” Some had suffered heart attacks and, while they were in rehabilitation, were enrolled as human guinea pigs. EPA-funded researchers apparently have even exposed children to dangerous diesel exhaust and ultrafine particles.

The American Tradition Institute contends in its lawsuit that the EPA has broken virtually every rule established to protect human subjects used in scientific experiments, including the Nuremberg Code, ethics principles for human experimentation adopted following the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II, and similar U.S. regulations known as “The Common Rule.”

Rather than defending itself against the serious allegations made by the institute, the EPA instead has said it is essentially above the law and the federal court has no business hearing those serious charges.

The EPA claims the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case under the Clean Air Act (CAA): “Nothing in the CAA provides a meaningful standard to evaluate what air pollution EPA chooses to study or how. To the contrary, the CAA gives EPA broad discretion in the subject matter of its research program. Congress broadly mandated that EPA study the health effects of air pollution.”

Of course, Congress most likely thought the EPA would conduct such research in a lawful manner.

The EPA also says because “no judicially manageable standards are available for judging how and when [EPA] should exercise its discretion in deciding what research to undertake, EPA’s decision to study the health effects of [particulate matter] using controlled human exposure studies was a decision committed to the EPA’s discretion and immune from review under the [Administrative Procedures Act],” the general law governing the conduct of federal agencies.

The EPA’s view, then, is that because Congress has not enacted a law that expressly forbids the agency from violating the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations governing human testing or that expressly guides judges in evaluating the conduct of agency researchers who experiment on their fellow human beings, the agency has unfettered discretion to do as it pleases with the young, old, sick and anyone else who falls into its clutches.

Will it really take a special act of Congress to compel the EPA to adhere to common standards of humanity? Stay tuned.

Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is the author of “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery, 2009).

About these ads

24 responses to “EPA’s illegal human experiments could break Nuremberg Code

  1. The expression ‘hoist with their own petard’ springs to mind.

    Either the EPA must admit that the testing was illegal by their own ‘standards’ (and face the consequences) or they must admit that the levels of PM they say is dangerous is not dangerous at all.

    As for the nonsense about being answerable only to their own consciences….this level of megalomania would be laughable if it wasn’t so appalling. No person or agency is above the law…these people must be brought to heel!

    Have a great 2013. Cheers. NicG.

    • Westchester Bill

      Exactly! Well put NicG, and Happy New year to you t5oo.

    • Dr Mengele I presume? And I am assuming this but, the Obama administration IS above the law.

      • Come off it Stephen, the Obama administration is NOT above the law. Or did I miss the sarc tag on your comment? Certain presidents in the past also thought they were above the law but it turned out they weren’t and were impeached for their illegal activities. Of course there were some that ‘got away with it’ but that didn’t make them above the law.
        Cheers.
        NicG.

  2. Bill in Tennessee

    I’m sure that Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all thought they were above the law too….that’s how they justified the mass murders they committed, all for “the greater good” doncha know? EPA must think, like all 60s radicals do, that the ends justify the means, because it’s all for “the greater good”….whatever that is at the moment.

  3. They are accused of conducting crimes against humanity, which upon conviction carries the death penalty. Their claim of being above the law, is to state that they consider us as being their property to do with as they wish.

    And Obama would do well to reflect that as Head of State, his head is on the block, too.

  4. Come on you Americans, show some guts against this environmental propaganda agency. Why do you allow it to exist?

  5. Reblogged this on Edonurwayup's Blog and commented:
    Do away with the EPA fascists.

  6. The problem is that to many journalists are social liberals and will not undermine the “official” social liberals use of political environmental and climatic dogma, scare, to “change” the World or make it “better”?
    If they reported on this it would look very bad on their social liberal CV.

    The important question is more:
    Will international socialism and one world government “change” or make the World “better” when it’s based on these ethics?

  7. Same animal, same outcome regardless the ideology. No ‘system’ works since we are basically megalomaniac primates. When push comes to shove the apebrain decides, not that vague abstract concept we call consciousness.

    • I’m trying to figure out if this a subtle reference to Obama’s genetic code inherited from his father. At any rate, I would expect the expression “apebrain” coming from a Greek, but this is the first I’ve heard a Greek admitting he had one too. I’m impressed… at least a little.

  8. But in a democracy we have to let all views to the table before we make a political decision, otherwise it will increase the chance that the decision will be wrong or totally wrong.
    Every time we try to be good to religion or ideology we quickly end up being bad to people?

    Bjørn Lomborg have an old book called “The price of doing good”(Godhetens pris, in Danish). And I have a strong feeling that the Western Worlds socialist and social liberals have cornered them self in that corner in an effort among many to promote international socialism?

  9. To me democracy is just another ideology. Doesn’t work neither. Look at Egypt, first free vote they get and they vote their freedom away.

    Same thing.

  10. Probably because a great deal of Egypt is technically living in the Middle Ages?
    They lack the enlightment many places in Egypt?

  11. Proving that the system is only as good as its participants. QED

    • But for the educated Western World to leave democracy and the enlightment just to embrace international enviro socialism, that like religion is top decided and driven, would be one of the greatest mistakes Man has made so far in history?

      • It’s on the same level as the Egyptians. The (debatable)educated Western World has democratically chosen to selfdestruct. Look at Europe, with mz Hedegaard which (genderless) will easily just put AR5 into European legislation whilst 3/4 of Europe switches to coal fired energy.

  12. The EPA says “because congress does not expressly forbid, then we are allowed.” But isn’t that directly the opposite of the spirit of the constitution? At it’s core, the constitution says “If the government is not expressly allowed, then it is forbidden.” Well, more accurately “…then that power is reserved for the states and the people.” These people in a good slap in the face.

  13. ConspiracyTheorist

    The even greater danger is that when the courts support the EPA and its approach to social justice, they will have provided the EPA with an uncontestable right to fine or sue individuals into a form of slavery. For instance, if one agrees that one molecule of chlorine in an acre of soil is deadly then the landowner would be held responsible for removing that molecule at any cost or face interminable daily fines. Since digging upper an entire acre of ground and cleansing of all chlorine would be impossible what recourse would a lanowner have other than agree to a fine in settlement or go out business. This could provide a ready and repeatable source of income to the EPA to finance green energy or more human experiments.

  14. I’m picking, but chlorine is highly reactive. in an acre of ground it becomes another compound, most likely salt…

  15. This is called genocide!!! How do you like to be sprayed on by chemtrails?The real genocide on the total population of the planet. And how do you like the fluoride in your water? We are all their testing subjects!

  16. The government tested some of us in the late 40′s through early 50′s with irradiated school milk. So they’ll continue with other things as well in all generations!!!

  17. Westchester Bill

    There are 6.023 x 10 to the 23rd molecules in a mole. Instruments can count radioactive events one by one. So it takes precious little material to trace biological pathways. Dumping a tanker car of poison into a lake and peeing in a lake are both polluting events by law, but not by common sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s