EPA-funded Harvard researcher, NRDC admit Obama EPA broke law with human experiments

Green zeal to condemn the Trump EPA backfires and condemns the Obama EPA.

If PM2.5 is so dangerous, why did Harvard’s George Thurston and NRDC stay quiet while EPA pumped diesel exhaust into its human guinea pigs?

EPA-funded air quality researcher George Thurston was kind enough to make these comments this week about the Trump EPA repeal of the Obama EPA’s Clean Powder Plan:

This sentiment, that there is no safe exposure to PM2.5, was then parroted by the comrades at the Natural Resource Defense Council:

As JunkScience.com has pointed out before and as more fully discussed in “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA“, if there truly is no safe exposure to PM2.5, then EPA conducted many illegal experiments on humans exposing them to very large amounts of PM2.5. Also, EPA physicians committed many felonies by failing to disclose the risk of death to these hapless human guinea pigs (while conducting illegal experiments!).

As Thurston and NRDC believe there is no safe exposure to PM2.5, they must also believe that the Obama EPA and its physicians violated the law. There is no other option.

5 thoughts on “EPA-funded Harvard researcher, NRDC admit Obama EPA broke law with human experiments”

  1. “To argue that such nil effect threshold exists would be as specious as saying that passengers in an automobile are at absolutely no risk of being hurt in a car accident if they are travelling below a certain speed”

    Er, isn’t that obviously true? How about a car “accident” at 1km per hour? What risk is that above zero?

  2. Paul Hinds – According to my reading of the literature, they declared it toxic, THEN experimented to try and substantiate the claim, which is what made the experiments illegal. It would be akin to trying to find the minimum “safe” level of arsenic, knowing that current theory says too much will kill you.

  3. This is the classic “double speak” where the speaker is saying that there is no compelling evidence of a negative rather than presenting evidence of a positive at debated limits. Logically you can’t prove a negative and this whole stance is bases on the zero tolerance model adopted from radiological models. Biologically such models are nonsensical as specific DNA repair mechanism have been demonstrated and would be expected in species evolved to the Earth’s background radiation. The same would apply to particulates and the cleaning mechanisms of the respiratory system. Caution as to where no definable effect is may be good but to experiment to define this then declare it toxic is not good science.

  4. So where is the DOJ on this? Or on the EPA dumping of toxic waste into the Las Animas River, or the IRS sabotage of conservative groups before the election, or the Benghazi coverup, or the Fast & Furious weapons given to drug cartels in Mexico, or the VA letting veterans die from lack of treatment and covering it up, or the Sec of State classified documents in a private server coverup, or the criminal Pakistani family controlling the computers of 29 Dem congressmen and the head of the DNC for the past eight years, or the wiretapping of a political opponent prior to the election, or any of the many other atrocities committed by those in Obama’s administration?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.