Analysis of the EPA Documents (Part 5)

In 2007, the EPA began testing for the effects of diesel exhaust on “healthy, older adults” and whether dietary supplemanttion with omega-3 fatty acids would reduce any adverse effects of the diesel exhaust exposure [Click the images to enlarge]. In these experiments, “older adults” meant study subjects of up to 75 years of age — … Continue reading Analysis of the EPA Documents (Part 5)

Analysis of the EPA Documents (Part 1)

The documents we have date from 2004. Unless otherwise noted, the disclosures (or lack of them) presented here survive through to experimentation undertaken as recently as 2011. There are three basic type of experiments of concern here: EPA exposing adults with metabolic syndrome, including the elderly, to PM2.5 (study “XCON” document analysis starts below); EPA … Continue reading Analysis of the EPA Documents (Part 1)

The Shocking Revelations of the EPA Documents

The EPA human testing documents reveal a number of shocking acts committed by the EPA and the University of North Carolina. Human experimentation with lethal PM2.5. The EPA tested PM2.5 on humans even though the EPA has concluded that PM2.5 can be lethal within hours of any inhalation. Human experimentation with cancer-causing PM2.5. The EPA … Continue reading The Shocking Revelations of the EPA Documents

Milloy Makes Additional FOIA Requests of EPA

Second and third FOIA requests were sent to the EPA on April 20, 2012. The second request asked for: For the human experiments listed in the response to FOIA Request No. HQ-FOI-02235-11, I am requesting copies of the (1) the protocols and consent forms that were approved by the University of North Carolina (UNC) School … Continue reading Milloy Makes Additional FOIA Requests of EPA

EPA denies Milloy charge of conducting unethical human experiments; Facts show otherwise

Wayne Cascio, director of EPA’s Environmental Public Health Division, responds to Steve Milloy’s Washington Times commentary accusing EPA of conducting unethical human experiments or, in the alternative, exaggerating the dangers of airborne fine particulate matter.