Posted on 05/18/2013 7:12:11 PM PDT by blueyon
You’re all just Soilent Green
[[I am sure they could have just looked up this info from the Nazi records.]]
You monster! You want to deprive them o their ‘fun’ of watchign hte elderly slowly suffocate to death? They ‘had’ to see it first hand- paper reports just aren’t good enough!
There is a radio show that many people put down here that covered this a year ago. Your late to this news.
Milloy is a biostatistician and a lawyer.
EPA says that PM 2.5 kills 570,000 people per year. They say it can kill you within hours of exposure. They say there is no safe exposure.
This must be the most toxic substance known to man based on what they say.
All the new standards you are talking about are based on this. Even the mercury rules are based on cost benefits from the reduciton of PM 2.5 and not mercury.
Now if this is true...why are they exposing people to 3.5x what the EPA is lethal?
They were not told that the PM 2.5 could kill them...thus this was not voluntary. EPA violated the law in this regard. Also they are supposed to do experiments on animals first. They did not. They violated all the human testing rules.
Now here is the big trap that I think Milloy is pointing out.
If EPA states that no person was exposed to deadly levels of PM 2.5 then there is no justificaiton for the Mercury MACT, the new NAAQS standards, etc. If they say it IS deadly then they violated not only their own rules (EPA order 1000.17)but also the common rule and the rules handed down after the Nuremburg trials.
I know who Steven Milloy is. If you are aware of the concept of "degree of separation", I am separated from him by one degree. EPA says that PM 2.5 kills 570,000 people per year. They say it can kill you within hours of exposure. They say there is no safe exposure. This must be the most toxic substance known to man based on what they say.
References?
I certainly can't find any such claims at the EPA's website, nor have I ever heard or seen such claims in scientific presentations or the literature. So, if you're going to say stuff like that, you'd better have some good, scientifically solid references for it. Something that causes 270,000 deaths per year would be the third leading cause of death (after heart disease and cancer), yet particulates aren't even listed in the CDC's top ten.
They were not told that the PM 2.5 could kill them...thus this was not voluntary. EPA violated the law in this regard. Also they are supposed to do experiments on animals first. They did not. They violated all the human testing rules.
What are we talking about here, particulates formed of powdered ricin or anthrax or something? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure they're just testing particulates similar to those everyone is exposed to every day on a routine basis. By law, all proposed human studies must be reviewed by an IRB--independent review board--which evaluates the benefit/risk ratio of all studies. They will not approve any study where the risk outweighs the benefit. And this study was minimal risk; indeed, the patient's condition was so mild that had she been at home when it happened, she probably would not have known anything was amiss. Far worse adverse events happen in studies all the time.
Furthermore, what makes you think particulate inhalation studies are NOT done on animals? No one violated any human subject rules--not even government scientists are allowed to bypass the law. If anything, we're held to the law more stringently than scientists in the private sector.
Seriously, hyperbole and exaggeration gets no one anywhere. If you're so convinced that PMs are the worst thing that a human could be exposed to, and the EPA is correct in trying to get rid of all particulates--do you also support the EPA's attempt to have CO2 designated as a pollutant? Do you believe the hysteria surrounding CO2 is justified?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.