PDA

View Full Version : Alert: Epa To Allow Pesticide Testing On Orphans & Mentally Handicapped Children


wired
11-17-2005, 08:13 AM
Okay, I just can't help myself... this makes me so absolutely angry and disgusted and... and... that I'm spreading the word about this everywhere I can. The more people that know about it and protest it, the better. So please, PLEASE share this with as many people you know as possible. Children everywhere will thank you.


ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. Earlier this year, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children, but the EPA's newly proposed rule actually creates gaping loopholes for the chemical industry. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

1) Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.

2) Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.

3) Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.

You can learn more and take action here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm

HLShivers
11-17-2005, 08:19 AM
Oh my God...They have got to be kidding. Who the hell comes up with this kind of stuff and for that matter, what kind of evil asshole would actually think this is okay? Testing on animals is bad enough but testing on children, living breathing humans, just because they don't have parents or can't function the way others do is just F'ed up! I like how they don't need consent for kids that have been neglected and/or abused...It's like they're saying, Oh well they've already been screwed lets make it a little worse. What a bunch of bastards. The people that came up with this are the ones shit should be tested on.

wired
11-17-2005, 08:52 AM
Glad to see I'm not the only one who had that reaction. I truly thought that it must be a hoax - this goes beyond deranged into the realm of the experiments conducted on Jewish children in concentration camps during the holocaust. It makes me shudder to think that anyone could ever condone this sort of thing... these people are no better than the Nazis were. And they essentially run our country. <shudder> And talk about devaluing these children - that a government agency even *consider* such an idea says volumes about the value they place on the lives of the mentally handicapped and neglected/abused in this country. Well, I guess they don't make up much of a voting block, so they figure they'll be safe...

theponderousman
11-17-2005, 09:00 AM
OK, I COULD be wrong here, but I reallyt hink that this is a hoax or some 'smear' type of information being let out by haters of the EPA to bring attention to their cause. Was this the only website that has this information posted?

If this is legitimate though, trust me, it won't go into law...NO politician would be willing to put their name on something like this....

Charles
11-17-2005, 09:00 AM
Wow im very shocked and Upset.. Thank for informing us Carrie. im definatly going to pass this around and share with others.

JimiThing40
11-17-2005, 09:42 AM
yeah okay....:screwy:

wired
11-17-2005, 10:35 AM
OK, I COULD be wrong here, but I reallyt hink that this is a hoax or some 'smear' type of information being let out by haters of the EPA to bring attention to their cause. Was this the only website that has this information posted?

If this is legitimate though, trust me, it won't go into law...NO politician would be willing to put their name on something like this....

Hi Christian,

I wish this *were* the case. The full proposal can be found here (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.htm) on the EPA's website.

This is the text as quoted by the Organic Consumer's Association:


OCA's focal concerns with this proposed rule specifically involve the following portions of text within the EPA document (Read the full EPA proposed rule here: PDF --- HTML):

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53865 26.408(c) "If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements..."

(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53864 26.401 (a)(2) "To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research..."

(OCA NOTE: This clause is stating that the Administrator of the EPA has the power to completely waive regulations on human testing, if the testing is done outside of the U.S. This will allow chemical companies to do human testing in other countries where these types of laws are less strict. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)

70 FR 53857 "EPA proposes an extraordinary procedure applicable if scientifically sound but ethically deficient human research is found to be crucial to EPA’s fulfilling its mission to protect public health. This procedure would also apply if a scientifically sound study covered by proposed 26.221 or 26.421--i.e., an intentional dosing study involving pregnant women or children as subjects..."


(OCA NOTE: This clause allows the EPA to accept or conduct "ethically deficient" studies of chemical tests on humans if the agency deems it necessary to fulfull its mission. Unfortunately, the EPA report sets up no criteria for making such an exception with any particular study. This ambiguity leaves a gaping loophole in the rule. Without specific and detailed criteria, it could be argued that any and every study of chemical testing on humans is "necessary." This loophole in the rule must be removed, based on this inadequacy of criteria and definition.)


I waded through the EPA's proposal on their website and the text *is* in there.

Further, apparently the appointed Administrator of the EPA (appointed by the President) has been a strong proponent of this kind of research in his career. I found this article (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1037) as well as this (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=10617&fcategory_desc=Bush%20Environmental%20Impact) to be particularly enlightening and I now can understand a bit better what is driving this proposal.

What I don't understand is why many of the proponents of this kind of thing are morally opposed to stem cell research but it seems to be morally correct to use "sub-human" children (what they, in effect, are classifying these children) in research.

MikeyCarson
11-18-2005, 08:17 PM
That's why the "right-wing" want's to reverse Roe V Wade (or put an end to most types of abortion).... so they can collect all the unwanted kids and use them for research.....It's all making sense now Scully http://www.techhelpers.net/e4u/aliens/3.gif

onesuiteworld
11-20-2005, 11:14 AM
i love the irony here. stem cells from a fetus not yet born NO!!!!!!! SANCTITY OF LIFE!!!! NO!!!!!!!

orphans??? mentally handicapped kids??? FUCK EM!!!

society scares me

thebestofwhatsaround77
11-24-2005, 09:30 AM
wow that's awful:thumbsdow
kinda reminds me in a way of the execution of 250,000 mentally and physically disabled children and adults by the nazis in the 30s and 40s
environmental protection agency my arse
protect the animals and endanger the kids?
>>mentally challenged people have lives filled with mockery, abuse, and pain, and we alleviate this by testing potentially dangerous products on them?
what a world

tiglet26
12-13-2005, 12:44 PM
um what about IDEA and the ADA? (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Americans with Disabilites Act) Aren't these suppose to PROTECT these individuals? How can this even be proposed?!?!!? It makes me sick!

GoodGoodThing
12-13-2005, 12:55 PM
OK, I COULD be wrong here, but I reallyt hink that this is a hoax or some 'smear' type of information being let out by haters of the EPA to bring attention to their cause. Was this the only website that has this information posted?

If this is legitimate though, trust me, it won't go into law...NO politician would be willing to put their name on something like this....

Yeah, im going with this opinion

onesuiteworld
12-13-2005, 03:17 PM
If this is legitimate though, trust me, it won't go into law...NO politician would be willing to put their name on something like this....

really???? i believe dick cheney is lobbying for allowing torture...

theponderousman
12-13-2005, 03:49 PM
really???? i believe dick cheney is lobbying for allowing torture...

Um...hearing a comedian say this or reading someone's thoughts (blog) doesn't count as the official lobbying process does it?? :)

In fact, I could be mistaken (seeing how the administration and just about everyone else has nearly stopped talking about this), but didn't the White House (Cheney included), say that they don't believe in the use of torture? I doubt...HIGHLY doubt that anyone (well, politicians wanting a career still) in their right minds would ever come out and lobby for the use of torture :biggrin:

I'll read the article or the research if you have any available...I'm open minded that way :)

Christian

onesuiteworld
12-13-2005, 04:19 PM
Um...hearing a comedian say this or reading someone's thoughts (blog) doesn't count as the official lobbying process does it?? :)

no, but the link in this (http://www.weeklydavespeak.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5356&highlight=torture) post, and the article therein, he did actually lobby for the use of torture

onesuiteworld
12-13-2005, 04:22 PM
In fact, I could be mistaken (seeing how the administration and just about everyone else has nearly stopped talking about this), but didn't the White House (Cheney included), say that they don't believe in the use of torture?

i believe you are mistaken. i believe he brought it to the senate, or someone, where a vote overwhelmingly struck him down

I doubt...HIGHLY doubt that anyone (well, politicians wanting a career still) in their right minds would ever come out and lobby for the use of torture :biggrin:


cheney has a blank check. he relizes that after this presidency, his career in politics is over. his poll numbers are in the low 30's. nobody would EVER vote for him for president, or elected official. so he can do whatever he wants.

although i would love to see a cheney/rice ticket. can you say electoral landslide?

theponderousman
12-13-2005, 04:35 PM
no, but the link in this (http://www.weeklydavespeak.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5356&highlight=torture) post, and the article therein, he did actually lobby for the use of torture

You are correct and I stand corrected on that, thanks :) I totally forgot about that thread (I do remember how horrible of a week that was for me), so thank you for the reminder!

onesuiteworld
12-13-2005, 04:38 PM
its all good man

theponderousman
12-13-2005, 04:40 PM
cheney has a blank check. he relizes that after this presidency, his career in politics is over. his poll numbers are in the low 30's. nobody would EVER vote for him for president, or elected official. so he can do whatever he wants.

Now THIS I do agree with you on Matt...just like any president in their second term, or congressman/state official on their last term, they do the things that they never would have been able to do in a re-electable term. Presidents use their 'power' to forgive people that normally wouldn't be forgiven. We saw Clinton use it A LOT, and I have NO doubt that Bush will use it a lot when his term is over (thank god it'll be over soon) :biggrin:


although i would love to see a cheney/rice ticket. can you say electoral landslide?

Although Cheney on any ticket would hurt the party, Rice on the ticket (hopefully as President) would rock! You put her and someone that's not TOO controversial (yeah right...the far right wing wouldn't allow that to happen), and it'll be another Republican victory.

Hmmm, let's start a new thread, I don't want to hijack this one too long :)

onesuiteworld
12-13-2005, 04:50 PM
i think that this country, in its current state, i doubt that a woman would get elected. dont get me wrong, i would love too see hilary in office, but in its conservative state, i doubt it would happen.

but i have to give it up to rice, she has done some good. but not sidestepping the whole torture thing in europe. to deny something so obvious is tough to watch

Dave L
12-13-2005, 05:10 PM
While a similar occurence was debunked on snopes (http://www.snopes.com/toxins/cheers.asp), This formalized call to action is due to interpreting what could happen if the legislation is not secured properly. Unfortunately there are twisted people in this world who do first then win in court when their actions are questioned due to these loop holes.
For instance someone could break into your house, slip on the glass from the broken window and take you to court and win. It's happened, along with many other ridiculous occurences. <sigh>

Beware the educated mind

"If someone tells you they got it all figured out...IMMEDIATELY...question them" -DM

onesuiteworld
12-13-2005, 05:39 PM
For instance someone could break into your house, slip on the glass from the broken window and take you to court and win. It's happened, along with many other ridiculous occurences. <sigh>



isnt that what the secretary in the movie 'liar liar' said?