So Milloy the master says–grasshopper, the Common Rule as adopted by the EPA and the Government, doesn’t really prohibit the Human Experiment Program when toxic or lethal exposures are conducted.
Rule 1000.17, an expansion of the Common Rule, may be helpful but the Common Rule is not well written to fulfill the advisories of all the Human Experiment Ethics guideline documents to prohibit harmful or lethal experiments.
So Grasshopper (that’s me) goes back to the Common Rule, and damn if the Master isn’t right–the Common rule, used by the EPA to provide guidance on human experiments, doesn’t discuss lethal or harmful experiments on humans.
Why?? Grasshopper doesn’t know. The Nuremberg, Helsinki, and Belmont advisories on ethics in Human Experiments are clear–no experiments that would harm or kill subjects. Period. Common Rule is silent or virtually silent except for some thrown in language on ethical experiments that some would say mean the general guidance to prohibit harmful or lethal exposures.
So the plot thickens–did they write the ambiguous language into the Common Rule to allow lethal effect experiments?? Really.
Or just to deal with this situation where the supposed lethal effects of small particles could be ignored.
Grasshopper has a theory–EPA is run by a bunch of fanatics, who want to prove air pollution is worth regulating.
They are willing to play fast and loose with the truth about the toxicity of air pollutants, until they have in place their regulatory regime until the end of time.
Consider the down side if they claim without rebuttal that they are saving hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives from death caused by small particles.
However, to return to the beginning, what if small particles are not toxic or carcinogenic or lethal?
What if there are no dead bodies to count from air pollution?
Of course the wording is ambiguous. How else can you learn what kills people if you don’t kill a few. After all, it’s for the greater good, right?