Chesser: EPA in a Bind Over Hazardous Experiments on Humans

“After experiments on humans were conducted that exposed them to airborne particulates considered to be lethal, a sound-science advocate has accused physician researchers working for the Environmental Protection Agency of misconduct and violations of the Hippocratic Oath,” writes Paul Chesser at NLPC.org.

Click for “EPA in a Bind Over Hazardous Experiments on Humans.”

6 thoughts on “Chesser: EPA in a Bind Over Hazardous Experiments on Humans”

  1. This is going to be interesting. I’m just glad to see that someone is finally in a position to go after this abuse of science and power. Hopefully it will work out in favor of the U.S., of course the best thing that could happen is a right wing super-majority in both houses of Congress next year that would defund EPA.

  2. It would be ignorant to state that any single scientific findings/data should stand as the pinnacle of truth. Science is a tool that can be used to better our understanding of numerous processes in the world around us. Monsanto, Big Oil/Tobacco/Pharmaceutical/Corporations, Fox News, Politicians & other selfish greed mongering w#o*3s use unreliable, undocumented/modified/falsified documentation, unethical/forged so called “scientific findings” as a means of disinformation to advance their individual/political/group agendas, leaving the masses to incur new fines & punishments. However, when numerous reliable leading scientists agree upon a finding, it is ignorant to threaten their lives and the lives of their families for disclosing their findings! I’m sick of Fox News’ propaganda & vile spewing of hate! They are extremists that attempt to discredit everyone that does not march to their extremist ideals. It is evident to see this when a so called “guest” is told to “shut up” and threatened only to have their audio feed cut simply for answering some idiotic Fox commentators question (the question never being intended to be answered).

    I think any scientific findings should be thoroughly reviewed before stating that it’s idiot bull. Use your brains people. Extremism is ignorance. Though you may disagree with this post of mine, it does not make me wrong. I simply have a different view – and that’s alright. It’s alright to have opposing views… but not when your views insight hate, violence and threats against others. What is wrong with this world? Why must their be only one right answer? Mathematics show us that multiple solutions can exist to a problem, so why is it impossible to consider the possibility that while your solution is not wrong, it might not be the only solution? On the issue of global warming, is it not possible that humans are in-part a cause of global warming?

    Is it fair to say that cautioning on the side of error (in the event that human activities are indeed hastening the warming process) makes someone an idiot? That point of view is childish and profoundly ignorant. I may not be right upon an issue, but that doesn’t automatically make me wrong. Consider what I have said before deciding to reply or to delete this post Mr. Milloy.

    Regards,

    Joseph A. Muniz

  3. Interesting rant Joe, one I may not be qualified to answer as either not Milloy, not Fox nor Big fill-in-the-blank associated but let me ask you about the warming portion.

    As has been posted and linked here many times the IPCC specifies climate sensitivity as change in surface temperature divided by change in forcing equals sensitivity: ΔTs/ΔF = λ

    As every schoolchild was once taught earth’s natural greenhouse effect equates to ~33°C and as Trenberth and other IPCC authors have determined that is due to downwelling longwave radiation of ~330Watts per meter squared (W/m2). Using this as our natural experiment and filling in the values the IPCC’s climate sensitivity (λ) = 33/330 = 0.1°C/W/m2.

    Does the stated fact that climate models use λ values of 0.5°C/W/m2 make them automatically wrong or merely dishonest?

    The question is not one of idle curiosity and nor does the answer “better to err on the side of caution” deliver a no-harm solution since affordable baseload power and development to lift billions out of poverty are being delayed by fears based on the output of models utilizing multiple iterations of falsely inflated values.

    Even were this not the case the bottom line is still that humans are better off developing and generating societal wealth at best possible speed in order to be able to protect all societal members from nature, red in tooth and claw, whether that means hardening infrastructure and providing shelter from extreme events, heating and cooling or whatever it takes.

    Whether there is any sound basis for the claim of anthropogenic global warming – and we most certainly have not managed to prove or disprove the sign of net feedbacks within the system or even whether increased greenhouse gases accrue greater downwelling longwave radiation (greenhouse effect) or simply displace some which exists from H2O anyway – or whether that is simple misanthropic hysteria the answer is the same, people are best protected by abundant, reliable, affordable energy and maximized development. Win, lose or draw carbon constraint is the wrong course for humanity.

  4. For a moment Joseph, I thought that you were talking about the left-captured ABC and Fairfax media in Australia … they don’t even allow ‘non-believers’ an avenue to express an opinion contrary to their dogma.

    For those of us sceptical in science, the total onslaught by government, academia, NGO’s and MSM on the contrary view is quite despicable. The conduct of scientists in support of these organisation for financial support is nothing short of fraudulent … there should be no reason for FOI submissions; the data in its completeness should be released for the scrutiny of science. In science, the “consensus” does not exist … hiding the data leads to suspicion of foul-play some of which is already known, Climategate, Hide the Decline, Gergis et al, etc., it’s a growing list of malfeasance in ‘science’.

    The conduct of the EPA as a tool of the Government is nothing short of covert terrorism against the American people.

  5. High school geometry acquaints young people with the rules of inference. Start with a premise and make step by step deductions to the conclusion. Sadly, roughly a third of any geometry class will wind up starting every proof with the conclusion. Mr. Muniz does that in his comment. Supposedly Climate Science is a settled matter and large profit seeking firms are trying to muddle the water to our detriment.

    What do we know? Much was made of Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph. That work has been completely debunked. In looking into the matter it was found that publication in peer reviewed journals was controlled by a clique of true believers.

    We know that CO2 has greenhouse properties,but somehow the greenhouse effect gets boosted by a factor of 3 in models of the atmosphere. Without the boost, the effect of CO2 would be minor. Recent temperature readings do not fit with predictions from models. That is what we know.

    The science about the effects of particulate matter is crazy. Just plain crazy.

    Back to the Mr. Muniz’s comment. I can not stand FOX and have not watched it in years. But last night I had to turn off Lawrence ODonnell when literally ever thing he (eloquently) said about the Rodney King incident was wrong. Usually O’Donnell is very thoughtful, but he goes Glen Beck crazy from time to time.

    I hope that Mr. Muniz will devote a bit of his time going through the steps in the claims for alarm about CO2. Dr. G Dedrick Robinson’s book “Global Warming” would be a good place to start.

  6. PM2.5 – I’ve dealt with airborne fine particles in the search for radioactivity, mostly at the sub-micron level. And have noted various max. permissible concentration (MPC) vs exposure rates, etc. Seems that 2 hours at the stated maximum is only about 2x the 24 hour limit. We know that there are differences between low level chronic and rapid insults. In general, as long as there are rest periods, we can handle a burst at above the MPCs.

Comments are closed.