Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Human Test Subjects
    #4945392 -

EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm

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. On August 2, 2005, 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, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:

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.
Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
Send a letter to EPA here!

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.)

zeeeee new vorld oarder iz rrrright on ttttrack!!!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: cateyes]
    #4945453 -

Perhaps there is a reason other than compassion that some people are against abortion, unwanted babies make convenient test subjects.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Solutarch]
    #4945522 -

what.the.fuck

This can't be real.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4945532 -

yes, it is. theres been shit going on about stuff like this for a while. i think the new head that got appointed was down with human testing, basically on poor people.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945535 -

This is beyond sick. How the fuck does this kind of shit get passed?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945545 -

That's fucking outrageous...what can be done?

We need to take action.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: cateyes]
    #4945556 -

UNBELIEVABLE.

but not surprising from a leftest organization like the EPA.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4945557 -

the dude appointed by Bush and his predecessor who is now high in health and human services were down, and everyone knew it. It gets passed because shit is the way it is ight now.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945568 -

what do you mean by "were down"? this law hasn't been passed yet has it?


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4945577 -

EPA is now on the Left, and marginalized and demonized automatically bc you say "left"? That is so fucking ignorant. I can guess what kind of media has gotten into your head. Who appoints the head of the EPA? Bush? Yes. Confirmed by Republicans despite known issues about human testing, known to Bush? Yes.

That shit was ignorant as all hell, unless it was a satire. Which would be funny as it is apparently believable that media-nurtured US ignorants and what not would actually think in this way.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945580 -

down as in down with the idea and worked on the shit prior.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945583 -

kilgore_trout said:
EPA is now on the Left, and marginalized and demonized automatically bc you say "left"? That is so fucking ignorant. I can guess what kind of media has gotten into your head. Who appoints the head of the EPA? Bush? Yes. Confirmed by Republicans despite known issues about human testing, known to Bush? Yes.


Well said. :thumbup:


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945592 -

kilgore_trout said:
down as in down with the idea and worked on the shit prior.


Fuck.

So we have Bush and his cronies to blame for this...

Sorry if I'm stating what I should know or be obvious...but I'm British and not too familiar with the way the US system works.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4945610 -

Granted, it's fucked up the way the article presents the case. But it seems there is a little more going on here.

I think they are referring mainly to "third party" research reports. Which would include reports not supported by the EPA (e.g. studies done in foreign countries).

Also, the article cites several passages (e.g. 70 FR 53865 26.408(a)). Yet when I search the PDF document I cannot find them. Anyone know where this is from?


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945617 -

the EPA supports environmental activists who label puddles wetlands.

just my opinion. you don't have to get all Emotional, and start calling people names because there opinions are different then yours...


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: badchad]
    #4945622 -

EPA - About This.

You can get the official document there in PDF.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4945630 -

daimyo said:
EPA - About This.

You can get the official document there in PDF.


Yes, I have that article.

What I meant was that in the article posted (criticizing the practices of the EPA) several "points" are quoted: The ones beginning with: 70 FR 53865 23.408 (at the bottom of the first page). I searched the pdf with those keywords and nothing came up. I wanted to see more of the contextin which they were written. Am I doing something wrong?


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: cateyes]
    #4945638 -

Sigh.

I suggest those of you bursting blood vessels in outrage take the time to actually read the article -- specifically:

Quote:
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.


You might also want to read this part as well --

Quote:
On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children.


Finally, note the very first words of the article --

Quote:
Public comments are now being accepted....


To summarize, Congress passed legislation banning chemical testing on pregnant women and on children. The EPA feels this is overly restrictive and proposes exceptions to the legislation. The EPA then invites the public to make their views on their proposal known.

No need to panic, just send your views on the proposal to the EPA. If enough people express their opposition, Congress will not enact the EPA's proposed changes.

Why is everyone freaking out over this? Isn't this the way things are supposed to work in a democratic environment?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4945647 -

so its not bushes fault??


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4945654 -

Oh, it's Bush's fault, even so. EVERYTHING is Bush's fault.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4945656 -

Because the fact of the matter is something like this should not even have to be CONSIDERED or PROPOSED. It's sickening.

If there isn't enough opposition, which let's face there needs to be enough AWARENESS about the issue before anyone can openly oppose such vile practises then there's a chance of it being passed. And it worries me. A hell of a lot.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4945665 -

I find it funny that you say that, considering you're the one who first made a blatant and unfounded partisan comment in this thread.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Tao]
    #4945677 -

Bush and republican congress are of some responsibility here yes, not total but important.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945683 -

Seems like a lose-lose situation to me.

If the EPA or FDA lets an unsafe chemical get approved and/or sponsored the typical answer is: "Screw them, they only want the money and big pharma/chemical is in bed with the gov't".

If they want to do more testing, the ethics are questioned.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: badchad]
    #4945685 -

badchad said:
Am I doing something wrong?


Yes. The 70 FR 53865 23.408 will not be found because it is not in the text. 70 is the volume in the Federal Registrar. 53865 is the page number in the volume. So that is the 70 FR 53865 part. You have to concern yourself with the rest. But you mistakenly cited it as 23.408 and it is 26.408

Search the PDF for 26.408 and you will find what you are looking for.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Tao]
    #4945689 -

hahahah i see...

its OK to blame bush for this.

but god forbid i call the EPA a leftest organization.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: badchad]
    #4945696 -

its not lose-lose

sure they shouldnt approve shit that is unsafe to help big corps, but this testing issue is about using ethical testing. ie, no bullshit approvals, use moral testing.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: badchad]
    #4945697 -

badchad said:
Granted, it's fucked up the way the article presents the case.  But it seems there is a little more going on here.

I think they are referring mainly to "third party" research reports.  Which would include reports not supported by the EPA (e.g. studies done in foreign countries).

Also, the article cites several passages (e.g. 70 FR 53865 26.408(a)).  Yet when I search the PDF document I cannot find them.  Anyone know where this is from?


i'll provide this link to make it simple for everyone...

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.htm

70 FR 53865 26.408(a) is:    page 53865 section 26.408(a)

it's there within the over a 30 page document... i hope this helps you...

:peace:
cateyes

Edited by cateyes (11/17/05 09:17 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945707 -

no one said bush was "to blame" we said he has a degree in responsibility here due to factual realities. Its still crazy to call the EPA leftist and dismiss them as such.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945719 -

Bush has no responsibility here. He is not the head of the EPA, and would not be on the IRB that would determine what would happen IF this testing were ever to take place at all.

Before anyone debates this further, take the time to read the PDF or the HTML version. It'll take a little while, but if you feel so strongly about it, come to the table informed.
If this is to be a referendum on ethics, it is better suited for the Philosophy forum.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945728 -

It is "leftist" in the way that leftist classically means "more gov't" and "right" classically means "less government".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Redstorm]
    #4945733 -

bush's responsibilty is in his appointing of the head of the EPA that is for this and worked with the shit before being appointed. Bush knew and the Republican controlled congress knew. He didnt write the shit, but he put the dude there. Like i said, not total but important.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945738 -

i pointed out that he appointed the head of the EPA knowing about this shit. that was one of my first posts in this thread.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945743 -

I'm not trying to argue his point, just trying to explain it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4945744 -

daimyo said:

If this is to be a referendum on ethics, it is better suited for the Philosophy forum.




i never considered the philosophy forum to be honest... good point... my feelings were because it requires a response from the public one way or the other it fell under law and activism.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: cateyes]
    #4945755 -

redstorm, that wasnt directed at you. it was about bush and the epa, not about "leftism" though i can see how you could construe ot to be since bush appointing the dude makes it "rightist" in a sense.


ps-isnt it funny that anarchism and communism are supposed to be no government?


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945758 -

i think discussion of ethics has bearing in both forums. This is about ethics in politics, activism, and law. both forums maybe could discuss, and youd get somewhat different discussions maybe, but both valuable and appropriate.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945763 -

kilgore_trout said:
ps-isnt it funny that anarchism and communism are supposed to be no government?


Yeah, the problem is, since "pure communism" has never been attained, it is usually typified as the socialism that precedes it, therefore sticking it on the "left".

Anarchism, on the other hand, seems like it would not even be on the political spectrum.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945764 -

Quote:
i pointed out that he appointed the head of the EPA knowing about this shit.


An interesting assertion. Care to back it up?

Start by naming the man.

Then give us the date he was appointed, paying particular attention to the date of Congress's bill permanently banning testing on children and pregnant women.

Then show that Bush had questioned him about his stance on testing chemicals on children.

I don't know what you do for a living, kilgore, but practically the whole of my working life has been spent in a management capacity of one sort or another. Despite my best efforts, there have been times when people I assigned to certain tasks made decisions I would not have made and even made some decisions of which I vehemently disapproved. That's what happens when you can't do everything yourself.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you have never had anyone reporting to you in your working life.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Redstorm]
    #4945768 -

Redstorm said:
It is "leftist" in the way that leftist classically means "more gov't" and "right" classically means "less government".


Then, since by that definition Bush is on the far-left (I'd say one of the leading leftist politicians currently in practice), is he complicit regardless?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4945776 -

Yep.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945780 -

kilgore_trout said:
isnt it funny that anarchism and communism are supposed to be no government?


Communism = no government

that is funny


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4945798 -

rogue-pixie writes:

Quote:
Because the fact of the matter is something like this should not even have to be CONSIDERED or PROPOSED. It's sickening.


Really? How then are new insecticides and chemicals supposed to be certified by the EPA as safe for household use? All the test subjects for a new pesticide "Bugstomper" show no problems whatsoever, so after the usual dozens of studies and decades of testing the EPA allows "Bugstomper" on the market. Within a few years, an alarming number of children in households where "Bugstomper" is used sicken and die, even though the adults of those same households are unaffected.

Do the parents of those children get to sue the EPA for approving "Bugstomper"? Why no, they don't, for the EPA has a bulletrproof defense -- the EPA was prohibited by law from doing the tests which would have shown the harmful effects on children and would have led the EPA to withhold certification.

Quote:
If there isn't enough opposition, which let's face there needs to be enough AWARENESS about the issue before anyone can openly oppose such vile practises then there's a chance of it being passed.


I imagine that is why the EPA is inviting comments from the public on this issue and why organizations such as organicconsumers are spreading the word and concerned citizens such as cateyes are posting the information on various boards aimed at activism.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4945806 -

I think that something like this should appeal to the misanthropes in the animal rights movement. Personally, I'd prefer to see bunnies tested.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4945818 -

yes real communism equals no gov, ever read MARX!?

the soviet union was totalitarian, very uncommunist. thats what the whole trotsky thing was about, right?

Anarchism is political, as it pretty much meets with real communism in the end. Both are radical democracies with somewhat diff views and means.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: cateyes]
    #4945899 -

i would strongly agree that this practice was borrowed directly from the nazis.. godwin is dead wrong in this case...

the legal precedent prolly goes back to the 1950s..when entire towns were deliberately exposed to nuclear fallout in order to test its effects on human flesh...the SCOTUS (i dont have a link to the actual case..i think it was in the 1980s) later ruled that the govt was entirely within its rights to do so too...

but as egregious as the nuclear tests and their subsequent legalization were..they at least did not discriminate on the grounds of social status and/or genetic conditions...the current proposal definitely does..and thats what gives it a distinctive nazi ring...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4945903 -

Stephen Johnson, March 4 2005, i believe you are citing a ban initiated by Barbara Boxer who was in direct opposition to Johnson and his policy, this happened in july of the same year but obviously is of only marginal effectiveness otherwise this would not even be proposed. So it is actually somewhat immaterial. His work concerning these issues was well known and included in any records concerning him and his long tenure for the EPA. He worked on this shit under Leavitt, and was of top personnel.

it was known and reasonable to expect he continue regardless of weak "bans" that apparently have little effect.

so if you want to go by dates, bush appoints him with all this shit well on record before one could say it is illegal anyways so it doesnt matter, as if his espousal of illegal proceadures does not matter. Then in response to him, probably his most major critic and opponent initiates a ban that has not proven effective.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4945944 -

daimyo said:
Bush has no responsibility here. He is not the head of the EPA, and would not be on the IRB that would determine what would happen IF this testing were ever to take place at all.


Bush is the president, it is his responsibility, he has the power to do something about it.

If he lets this happen, then he is to blame.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4945949 -

perhaps neither of you read that he appointed the guy? but yes, i guess his not saying anything in a position of authority and influence matters too.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Solutarch]
    #4945952 -

Solutarch said:
I think that something like this should appeal to the misanthropes in the animal rights movement.  Personally, I'd prefer to see bunnies tested.


People who believe in animal rights are not misanthropes. :rolleyes:

In fact, they are more likely to be more philanthropic.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4945956 -

Not only that, but he is head of the Executive, which means he controls all executive bureaucracies. One executive order, and this isn't an issue.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4945972 -

Phred said:
rogue-pixie writes:

Quote:
Because the fact of the matter is something like this should not even have to be CONSIDERED or PROPOSED. It's sickening.


Really? How then are new insecticides and chemicals supposed to be certified by the EPA as safe for household use? All the test subjects for a new pesticide "Bugstomper" show no problems whatsoever, so after the usual dozens of studies and decades of testing the EPA allows "Bugstomper" on the market. Within a few years, an alarming number of children in households where "Bugstomper" is used sicken and die, even though the adults of those same households are unaffected.

Do the parents of those children get to sue the EPA for approving "Bugstomper"? Why no, they don't, for the EPA has a bulletrproof defense -- the EPA was prohibited by law from doing the tests which would have shown the harmful effects on children and would have led the EPA to withhold certification.

Quote:
If there isn't enough opposition, which let's face there needs to be enough AWARENESS about the issue before anyone can openly oppose such vile practises then there's a chance of it being passed.


I imagine that is why the EPA is inviting comments from the public on this issue and why organizations such as organicconsumers are spreading the word and concerned citizens such as cateyes are posting the information on various boards aimed at activism.




Phred


Huh.......what? Are you actually defending this obscene proposition? :rolleyes:


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4945999 -

For the hysteria mongers here who don't realize that this increases already existing protections and who can't grok the value of human testing as a final step in approving safe use criteria I offer this from one of the links at the OCA site:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.htm

"SUMMARY: EPA proposes and invites public comment on a rulemaking to ban
intentional dosing human testing for pesticides when the subjects are
pregnant women or children, to formalize and further strengthen
existing protections for subjects in human research conducted or
supported by EPA, and to extend new protections to adult subjects in
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides conducted by others who intend to submit the research to EPA. This proposal, the first of
several possible Agency actions, focuses on third-party intentional
dosing human studies for pesticides, but invites public comment on
alternative approaches with broader scope."..............

And:

"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule, the first of several
possible Agency actions, would significantly strengthen the ethical
framework for conducting and reviewing human studies, especially
intentional dosing human studies for pesticides.
With respect to human research conducted by EPA (``first-party
research''), or by others with EPA's support (``second-party
research''), this proposed rule would: (1) Categorically prohibit any
intentional dosing studies involving pregnant women or children as
subjects; and (2) adopt the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) regulations that provide additional protections to pregnant women and children as subjects of other than intentional dosing studies.
With respect to human research conducted by third parties--i.e., by others without any support from EPA or other federal government
agencies--the proposed rule would: (1) Categorically prohibit any
third-party intentional dosing studies for pesticides involving
pregnant women or children as subjects; (2) extend the provisions of
the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research
(the ``Common Rule'') to all other third-party intentional dosing human studies intended for submission to EPA under the pesticide laws; (3) require, before testing is initiated, submission to EPA of protocols and related information for proposed research covered by this extension of the Common Rule; and (4) require information about the ethical conduct of covered human studies when the results of the research are submitted to EPA."

As to why there is a need for testing of this kind at all see this:

"A. How EPA Assesses Risks to People

The Agency's understanding of potential risks to people is usually
based on tests performed with laboratory animals. For example, EPA
typically requires pesticide companies to perform over 20 different
kinds of animal studies to identify or measure toxic effects before a
pesticide can be registered for use. These studies differ in the kinds
of animals used, the duration of exposure, the age of test animals, and the pathway of exposure--through food, air, or the skin. When they are considered together, they provide a good general understanding of a pesticide's potential effects. Comparable animal data are usually
available when EPA makes regulatory decisions about other kinds of
environmental substances as well.
Animal studies, however, are not the only source of relevant
information for characterizing potential risks. Sometimes EPA can
better understand the potential risks of a substance by looking at how
people respond when they have been directly exposed to it. For example, EPA uses information from accident and incident reports, in which people may have been exposed to a substance after a spill or some other unintentional release. EPA also uses data from epidemiological studies comparing health outcomes of two otherwise similar groups of people who differ in their level of exposure to a particular substance (e.g.,those who work with a chemical vs. those who do not).
In addition to incident and epidemiology data, human exposure
studies have also improved EPA's risk assessments. EPA often bases its
estimates of potential human exposure to environmental substances on
monitoring studies measuring concentrations of a substance in air,
water, food, or on surfaces. This kind of information about
environmental concentrations can then be used to predict the amount of
a substance people will breathe, eat, drink, or absorb through their
skin. Sometimes, however, the relationship between environmental
concentrations of a substance and potential human exposure is unclear,
and can be understood only through research involving human subjects.
For example, the actual exposure of a farmer applying a pesticide will
depend on such factors as the type of spray equipment used, the amount
and kind of pesticide used, the type of protective clothing worn (e.g., gloves, respirator, long pants), and how many hours are worked each day. To determine more accurately the exposures farmers and other
applicators actually receive, EPA requires pesticide companies to
measure the amount of pesticide deposited on an applicator's body and
clothing during a spray session. The results of studies like this
provide critical data about exposures that can be used to define
protective standards for pesticide handlers and applicators. Without
these and similar studies characterizing the exposures received by
individuals in the normal course of their work and daily life, the
Agency would not understand adequately either what types of application equipment and protective clothing were necessary for a pesticide to be used safely, or how soon harvesters or others could safely enter pesticide-treated areas.
Another type of human study that can contribute to EPA's risk
assessments involves intentional exposure of subjects to low doses of a substance to measure how the substance is absorbed, distributed,
metabolized, and excreted in humans. Humans respond to some substances
in different ways from animals, and studies of this kind can provide
essential support for safety monitoring programs, such as those which
analyze and measure the known metabolites of a substance in the blood
or urine of workers or others to determine if they've been exposed to
the substance.
Although EPA has not and will not use its authorities to require or encourage it, third parties have occasionally conducted and submitted to EPA reports of research involving intentional dosing of human subjects to identify or measure toxic effects. These studies typically involve intentional exposure to an environmental substance in a controlled laboratory or clinical setting.
Decades of experience in reviewing both animal and human studies of all kinds has demonstrated that animal data alone can sometimes provide an incomplete or even a misleading picture of the safety or risks of a substance. Sometimes human data show that people are more sensitive than animals, and support regulatory measures more protective than would be indicated by animal data. This has been the case, for example, for arsenic, certain air pollutants, and certain pesticide active ingredients such as methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) and hexavalent chromium. More often, though, information from human studies confirms insights based on animal testing. Even in these cases, however, the availability of scientifically sound human data can strengthen the basis for EPA's regulatory actions."

To reiterate, the Bush demonizers seem to be thinking that all was peace and love and no chemical testing in the Pax Clintonia. This is clearly untrue. I'm sure the OCA would like for there to be no pesticides at all. This would, however, lead to much greater hunger and poverty


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946072 -

rogue_pixie said:
People who believe in animal rights are not misanthropes.


Some are and they are some of the most vocal and militant, this is easily discerned by reading their own words as well as taking note of their actions. I did not say that all people who believe in animal rights are misanthropes. I said, "the misanthropes in the animal rights movement." If I were to say, "the fundamentalist Christians in the Republican party" I would not be referring to the entire Republican party as there are obviously members of the party who are not fundamentalist Christians.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946083 -

rogue_pixie said:
Bush is the president, it is his responsibility, he has the power to do something about it.

If he lets this happen, then he is to blame.


The reason there is a head of the EPA is because the President has MANY other more pressing issues to contend with. If you want to put the workload of all these departments on his lap, then I don't know what to tell you.

Sure, if he has a moral objection to it, then he could step in and do something. But I think he hires these people so they can do it. And congress can step in, as they have here, and put an end to things that are "morally repugnant".

Why think that Bush is some kind of multi-tasking superhuman? He can't do everything.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946094 -

Quote:
Huh.......what? Are you actually defending this obscene proposition?


Sigh.

Why don't you read what I wrote a few more times until it sinks in.

The simple fact of the matter is that without human testing no new chemical products would ever be approved by the EPA. Ever. Fortunately, at the moment human testing is allowed, but if the pool of human subjects excludes children and pregnant women, it necessarily follows that no new products will ever be approved for use in locations where pregnant women and/or children might come into contact with said products.

I understand that some Luddites would be delighted if no new chemical products would ever be approved -- that we as a species make do with what we have now. The thing is, not all humans are of the Luddite persuasion. They would like the benefits of new products but would also like the benefit of knowing in advance that some of these new products should not be used near children and pregnant women.

If you find the stance of the non-Luddites to be "obscene", I can't stop you from feeling that way. It takes all kinds to make a world.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4946097 -

bush appoints the head of the EPA, did you not get that?


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Solutarch]
    #4946104 -

Solutarch said:
If I were to say, "the fundamentalist Christians in the Republican party" I would not be referring to the entire Republican party as there are obviously members of the party who are not fundamentalist Christians.




thats not obvious to a lot of members of this forum....


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4946127 -

kilgore_trout said:
yes real communism equals no gov, ever read MARX!?




"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. "

Ronald W. Reagan


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4946132 -

kilgore_trout said:
bush appoints the head of the EPA, did you not get that?


daimyo said:
he hires these people


Do you not read posts? Are you here just to troll?

You are trying to pass the blame from the people it squarely rests with(EPA, the ones doing the testing, congress that sets the laws) to further your agenda of Bush bashing. It's pathetic.
For the record(again) I don't care for Bush. If he were to die tomorrow it wouldn't bother me in the least. Same with 99% of the politicians currently in office.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4946166 -

lonestar2004 said:
kilgore_trout said:
yes real communism equals no gov, ever read MARX!?




"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. "

Ronald W. Reagan






that proves what? that you and reagan dont know what you are talking about? Marx is pretty fucking explicit. Communism ends in statelessness. I hardly consider reagan an authority on Marxism. And how would someone understanding Marx be anti-communist, nless that quote is supposed to mean that if you understood it you would disagree with them. either way it has nothing to do with what i said.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4946185 -

zappaisgod said:
For the hysteria mongers here who don't realize that this increases already existing protections and who can't grok the value of human testing as a final step in approving safe use criteria I offer this from one of the links at the OCA site:




Protections for Subjects in Human Research is misleading.

in its current form it doesn't offer protection to everyone... that's the problem. through the use of legal language (loopholes) it allows testing on mentally handicapped and orphaned children while offering new protection to pregnant women and "normal" (for lack of a better word) children. many groups seek to ammend it before it becomes law.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4946201 -

Quote:
Stephen Johnson, March 4 2005, i believe you are citing a ban initiated by Barbara Boxer who was in direct opposition to Johnson and his policy, this happened in july of the same year but obviously is of only marginal effectiveness otherwise this would not even be proposed.


I don't know who introduced the bill, I just know that according to the article cateyes passed, Congress permanently banned in August of this year chemical testing on children and pregnant women. From now on, we'll just have to guess whether new chemical products safe to use around adults are safe to use around children as well.

As for "marginal effectiveness" I haven't the foggiest idea to what you are referring. If Congress passed a law banning testing on kids and preggos, anyone performing tests on kids and preggos can be prosecuted. How much more effective can you get?

Quote:
His work concerning these issues...


What issues?

Quote:
... was well known and included in any records concerning him and his long tenure for the EPA.


Then you should have no difficulty providing us a few sources backing up your claim. Please do.

Quote:
it was known and reasonable to expect he continue ....


Continue what?

Quote:
....regardless of weak "bans" that apparently have little effect.


"Little effect"? I presume you can point us to some testing on kids and preggtos that has occurred since the law was passed? If not, then what are you going on about? It is against the law for such testing to take place in the US. What more do you want?

Quote:
so if you want to go by dates, bush appoints him with all this shit well on record...


On record where? Care to provide a link or two?

Quote:
...before one could say it is illegal anyways so it doesnt matter, as if his espousal of illegal proceadures does not matter.


I hate to point out the obvious, but if testing on kids and preggos was not illegal prior to Congress's new law of August of this year, then advocating such testing in March (for example) of this year is not "espousal of illegal procedures".

Quote:
Then in response to him, probably his most major critic and opponent initiates a ban that has not proven effective.


Hasn't proven effective? You no doubt have a list of people indicted for testing chemicals on kids and preggos? If not, please drop this "ineffective" mantra.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4946221 -

kilgore_trout said:
Communism ends in statelessness.


really??? has it ever ended in statelessness???

maybe Cuba and N.Korea are heading for the great utopia....


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4946248 -

they are not real communists, as redstorm pointed out. look maybe at trotsky or Marx's actual writings? Even Lenin said the USSR had failed to be true communists.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Solutarch]
    #4946384 -

Solutarch said:
rogue_pixie said:
People who believe in animal rights are not misanthropes.


Some are and they are some of the most vocal and militant, this is easily discerned by reading their own words as well as taking note of their actions. I did not say that all people who believe in animal rights are misanthropes. I said, "the misanthropes in the animal rights movement." If I were to say, "the fundamentalist Christians in the Republican party" I would not be referring to the entire Republican party as there are obviously members of the party who are not fundamentalist Christians.


Alright, fair enough.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4946391 -

daimyo said:
rogue_pixie said:
Bush is the president, it is his responsibility, he has the power to do something about it.

If he lets this happen, then he is to blame.


The reason there is a head of the EPA is because the President has MANY other more pressing issues to contend with. If you want to put the workload of all these departments on his lap, then I don't know what to tell you.

Sure, if he has a moral objection to it, then he could step in and do something. But I think he hires these people so they can do it. And congress can step in, as they have here, and put an end to things that are "morally repugnant".

Why think that Bush is some kind of multi-tasking superhuman? He can't do everything.


More pressing issues?! Like what? I reckon this is very fucking pressing .


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4946406 -

Quote:
Phred said:If you find the stance of the non-Luddites to be "obscene", I can't stop you from feeling that way. It takes all kinds to make a world.


I'm not a luddite, but seriously, why do we need all of these new products? What kind of products are you speaking of?

I value the protection and safety of innocent children over the fucking latest shampoo or bubble bath product.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946517 -

It seems to me that they were mostly talking about pesticides in the EPA thing. New pesticides are needed all the time because the bugs develop resistance to the old ones. As to cosmetics, well I don't care about them much and your natural beauty clearly makes them superfluous for you but there seems to be a tremendous number of women who try to get a leg up on other women through their use. They should at least be able to have safe ones.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946521 -

Quote:
I'm not a luddite, but seriously, why do we need all of these new products? What kind of products are you speaking of?


I dunno. Could be an absolutely foolproof insecticide that wipes out cockroaches and flies which spread disease. Or it could be a wood treatment that keeps doorframes from rotting forever. How should I know? It's a new product after all.

Quote:
I value the protection and safety of innocent children over the fucking latest shampoo or bubble bath product.


So you're satisfied with the arsenal chemical products we have now? No need for new ones -- everything useful we will ever invent has already been invented, in terms of chemical based stuff? We can stop inventing more now?

That's one way of looking at things, I guess.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4946536 -

Phred said:
Quote:
I'm not a luddite, but seriously, why do we need all of these new products? What kind of products are you speaking of?


I dunno. Could be an absolutely foolproof insecticide that wipes out cockroaches and flies which spread disease. Or it could be a wood treatment that keeps doorframes from rotting forever. How should I know? It's a new product after all.

Quote:
I value the protection and safety of innocent children over the fucking latest shampoo or bubble bath product.


So you're satisfied with the arsenal chemical products we have now? No need for new ones -- everything useful we will ever invent has already been invented, in terms of chemical based stuff? We can stop inventing more now?

That's one way of looking at things, I guess.





Phred


How can you even begin to rationalise it to yourself? Think about what you are saying, you are valuing products, products that do not even exist yet over innocent human suffering , and vulnerable children at that. It's fucking incredulous.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4946546 -

I really hope that you are jesting.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946559 -

rogue_pixie writes:

Quote:
How can you even begin to rationalise it to yourself? Think about what you are saying, you are valuing products, products that do not even exist yet over innocent human suffering , and vulnerable children at that. It's fucking incredulous.


So your position is we should stop inventing chemical products. I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Explain to me how exactly this approach differs from that of the Luddites.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946561 -

Look at all the products that make our lives easier and more productive: insecticides, cleaners, preservatives, plastics, oils etc. The list is nearly endless.

All of these products needed to be tested to make sure they were safe for human use. Do you suggest we stop all progress/advancement because you disagree with the testing methods? You're probably using hundreds of compounds right now, which were tested at some point.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4946587 -

Phred said:
rogue_pixie writes:

Quote:
How can you even begin to rationalise it to yourself? Think about what you are saying, you are valuing products, products that do not even exist yet over innocent human suffering , and vulnerable children at that. It's fucking incredulous.


So your position is we should stop inventing chemical products. I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Explain to me how exactly this approach differs from that of the Luddites.


We should stop inventing chemical products if it is causing the suffering of innocent children ABSOLUTELY. It shouldn't even be questionable. Until we find a safer way, whatever way that may be definitely without a doubt please fucking stop. We do not NEED these things, they are not ESSENTIAL to anything no matter how much the media might try to brainwash you into thinking otherwise, we have managed to survive all these thousands of years and will continue to, well we probably have more chance of continuing to survive if we stop exploiting the Earth and making all of these needless fucking products. Arghh sorry if I sound mad but god damn it, there is just no rational excuse for this.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946632 -

Nevermind that millions of children will starve to death because the insecticide their nation needs can not go through R&D. Fuck em, as long as a few bums are saved.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4946710 -

Pixie, my sweet, did you actually read the EPA document or just the hysterical nitwits?  From the Doc:

"Sec.  26.408  Requirements for permission by parents or guardians and
for assent by children.

    (a) In addition to the determinations required under other
applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB 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. In determining whether children are capable of assenting, the
IRB shall take into account the ages, maturity, and psychological state
of the children involved. This judgment may be made for all children to
be involved in research under a particular protocol, or for each child,
as the IRB deems appropriate. If the IRB determines that the capability
of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot
reasonably be consulted or that the intervention or procedure involved
in the research holds out a prospect of direct benefit that is
important to the health or well-being of the children and is available
only in the context of the research, 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 under circumstances in which consent
may be waived in accord with Sec.  26.116(d).
    (b) In addition to the determinations required under other
applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB shall determine, in
accordance with and to the extent that consent is required by Sec. 
26.116, that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the permission
of each child's parents or guardian. Where parental permission is to be
obtained, the IRB may find that the permission of one parent is
sufficient for research to be conducted under Sec. 26.404 or Sec. 26.405.
    (c) In addition to the provisions for waiver contained in Sec. 
26.116, 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 in subpart A of this part and paragraph (b) of this
section, provided an appropriate mechanism for protecting the children
who will participate as subjects in the research is substituted, and
provided further that the waiver is not inconsistent with Federal,
State or local law. The choice of an appropriate mechanism would depend
upon the nature and purpose of the activities described in the
protocol, the risk and anticipated benefit to the research subjects,
and their age, maturity, status, and condition.
    (d) Permission by parents or guardians shall be documented in
accordance with and to the extent required by Sec.  26.117.
    (e) When the IRB determines that assent is required, it shall also
determine whether and how assent must be documented.

Sec. Sec.  26.409-26.419  [Reserved]

Sec.  26.420  Prohibition of research involving intentional dosing of
children.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, under no
circumstances shall EPA or a person when covered by Sec.  26.101(j)
conduct or support research involving intentional dosing of any child.

Sec.  26.421  Prohibition of EPA reliance on research involving
intentional dosing of children.

    In its regulatory decision-making under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) or section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a), EPA shall
not rely on any research involving intentional dosing of any child,
except when such research is deemed scientifically sound and crucial to
the protection of public health, under the procedure defined in Sec. 
26.603."

I included a lot of the document but I think that the part in bold should allay your fears and point out that sometimes these advocacy groups might actually misrepresent reality to coerce you into a false sense of outrage.  :shocked:  This document and rule change actually tightens restrictions on human testing, contrary to what the idiots asserted.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4946715 -

daimyo said:
Nevermind that millions of children will starve to death because the insecticide their nation needs can not go through R&D. Fuck em, as long as a few bums are saved.


Orphaned and disabled children are bums??? Are you deliberately trying to wind me up?

What's wrong with using the pesticides that we have now? Aren't most pesticides cancerous anyway? What did humans do before pesticides, they certainly didn't starve, there are probably more starving people on Earth now than there ever has been in the past.

I'll tell you why millions of innocent people are starving to death right now.

Because of consumerism and materialism. Because we rape the land of third world countries and we steal their resources for these fucking stupid products that we don't need, and then they advertise them everywhere and make people believe that these things will somehow make them feel better and enrich our lives. It's bullshit. We don't need them.

I can't believe it , the kind of people that our society is breeding today.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946745 -

Did you even read the fucking document?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4946770 -

Yes I did.

Call me stupid, but it didn't really make a lot of sense to me.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946819 -

rogue_pixie said:
Orphaned and disabled children are bums???


They certainly aren't working to make their way.

rogue_pixie said:
Are you deliberately trying to wind me up?


Yes.

rogue_pixie said:
What's wrong with using the pesticides that we have now? Aren't most pesticides cancerous anyway?


We would never know in your vision of how things should work.

rogue_pixie said:
there are probably more starving people on Earth now than there ever has been in the past.


There are more people on Earth now than ever before.

rogue_pixie said:
I'll tell you why millions of innocent people are starving to death right now.


:popcorn:

rogue_pixie said:
Because of consumerism and materialism.


How is people buying stuff starving others?

rogue_pixie said:
Because we rape the land of third world countries and we steal their resources


Example?

rogue_pixie said:
for these fucking stupid products that we don't need, and then they advertise them everywhere and make people believe that these things will somehow make them feel better and enrich our lives. It's bullshit. We don't need them.


:thumbup:

rogue_pixie said:
I can't believe it , the kind of people that our society is breeding today.


Fucked up isn't it?


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4947861 -

I had a friend who used to smoke a lot of pot and drink a lot of beer. After doing that for a couple years he became so paranoid that he would always rant about how the whole system was going to come crashing down. He wanted to buy a machine gun so he would be ready for Armaggedon. He would rant constantly about chemicals in the environment. Love Canal was a favorite. He also mentioned something about riboflavin and niacin (both are vitamins) being in his cereal and possible benzene residue in his cocaine. When I tried to point out the fact that he would rant about chemicals while ingesting a lot of chemicals that got him high he couldn't relate to that. After he quit getting high he remembered what I said about ranting about chemicals while ingesting them at the same time, and finally realized how ridiculous his rants were.


--------------------
Bush bashers beware http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4947873 -

rogue_pixie said:
Because the fact of the matter is something like this should not even have to be CONSIDERED or PROPOSED. It's sickening.

If there isn't enough opposition, which let's face there needs to be enough AWARENESS about the issue before anyone can openly oppose such vile practises then there's a chance of it being passed. And it worries me. A hell of a lot.


That's exactly why we need to erradicate Islam and communism including waging aggressive war against them.


--------------------
Bush bashers beware http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Los_Pepes]
    #4947897 -

Los_Pepes said:
rogue_pixie said:
Because the fact of the matter is something like this should not even have to be CONSIDERED or PROPOSED. It's sickening.

If there isn't enough opposition, which let's face there needs to be enough AWARENESS about the issue before anyone can openly oppose such vile practises then there's a chance of it being passed. And it worries me. A hell of a lot.


That's exactly why we need to erradicate Islam and communism including waging aggressive war against them.




what the fuck are you talking about? i like to assume youre just doing really good satire of VERY ignorant people.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Los_Pepes]
    #4947902 -

Love Canal actually was a fucking disgrace and a crime. I was in Buffalo at the time and what Hooker Chem. did there was very, very bad.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4947924 -

Does anyone here experiment with psychoactive chemicals?


--------------------
Bush bashers beware http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4947931 -

Quote:
We should stop inventing chemical products if it is causing the suffering of innocent children ABSOLUTELY. It shouldn't even be questionable. Until we find a safer way, whatever way that may be definitely without a doubt please fucking stop. We do not NEED these things, they are not ESSENTIAL to anything no matter how much the media might try to brainwash you into thinking otherwise, we have managed to survive all these thousands of years and will continue to, well we probably have more chance of continuing to survive if we stop exploiting the Earth and making all of these needless fucking products. Arghh sorry if I sound mad but god damn it, there is just no rational excuse for this.


I see.

What is your position on continuing to use chemical products invented before August of this year, or products invented in countries other than the US -- products which have been certified by various regulatory agencies to be safe for use around children and pregnant women? Are we to stop using those out of solidarity for the harmless children exploited in the testing of these products?





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Los_Pepes]
    #4947937 -

no, we dont experiment, we're way past that. taking mushrooms is different from drinking mercury, anyways, so dont even try it.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4947956 -

Phred said:
Quote:
Huh.......what? Are you actually defending this obscene proposition?


Sigh.

Why don't you read what I wrote a few more times until it sinks in.

The simple fact of the matter is that without human testing no new chemical products would ever be approved by the EPA. Ever. Fortunately, at the moment human testing is allowed, but if the pool of human subjects excludes children and pregnant women, it necessarily follows that no new products will ever be approved for use in locations where pregnant women and/or children might come into contact with said products.

I understand that some Luddites would be delighted if no new chemical products would ever be approved -- that we as a species make do with what we have now. The thing is, not all humans are of the Luddite persuasion. They would like the benefits of new products but would also like the benefit of knowing in advance that some of these new products should not be used near children and pregnant women.

If you find the stance of the non-Luddites to be "obscene", I can't stop you from feeling that way. It takes all kinds to make a world.





Phred


With the earth's population constantly increasing at a dangerous rate we can't afford NOT to keep up with the insects and other pests that develop immunities to pesticides in use, or else we will all starve.


--------------------
Bush bashers beware http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Los_Pepes]
    #4947975 -

chemical pesticides are only good for corporations that produce them. Far and away the best you can use are organic, usually made for one's self specific to your situation. Its not hard and i have never been unable to stop pests this way, without chems, and you dont have the same resistance problems as long as you keep vegetation diversified.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4947978 -

thats just what i know from working in plant and soil sciences at one of the world's top and most respected universities for the field.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4948006 -

Most pesticides are organic chemicals.


--------------------
Bush bashers beware http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4948018 -

Got a cost/benefit analysis to go with that? You could convince me. I just I have to see that it's practical. Planting marigolds around my tomato patch doesn't much translate to large scale farming.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4948059 -

rogue_pixie said:
We should stop inventing chemical products if it is causing the suffering of innocent children ABSOLUTELY. It shouldn't even be questionable. Until we find a safer way, whatever way that may be definitely without a doubt please fucking stop. We do not NEED these things, they are not ESSENTIAL to anything no matter how much the media might try to brainwash you into thinking otherwise, we have managed to survive all these thousands of years and will continue to, well we probably have more chance of continuing to survive if we stop exploiting the Earth and making all of these needless fucking products. Arghh sorry if I sound mad but god damn it, there is just no rational excuse for this.


We, as a species, created the need to create all of these new products, simply by being so successful at surviving. By breeding beyond our natural population limits, we create new needs that we must address. If you want to live without new chemical products, you have to accept the idea that some people are not going to make it. Some most certainly will suffer anyways, because of the lack of new chemical products. Over crowding results in pestilence that we must deter in order to combat disease. We do this by using pesticides.


--------------------
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH ANY GIVEN DRUG ISN'T THE DEFINITIVE MEASURE OF THE DRUGS EFFECTS.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* U.S. tested chemical weapons on own citizens phreakyzen 1,513 9 04/29/03 04:36 PM
by Azmodeus
* House Bans Coloning of Human Cells
( 1 2 all )		 PotSmokinHippie 4,270 21 08/04/01 09:36 AM
by Phred
* Bush Drug Czar: Test for Drugs in Schools PsiloKitten 750 6 10/10/03 11:38 AM
by Learyfan
* War on Iraq IQ test
( 1 2 3 all )		 LearyfanS 4,354 41 03/15/03 05:19 PM
by rhizo
* "torture-lite" and human rights after 9/11 Edame 883 4 06/28/03 08:08 AM
by Cornholio
* Human Rights... the Bush Way
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 kykeon 10,410 122 05/06/03 12:12 AM
by kykeon
* A historical perspective on the US and chemical weapons
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 3,297 28 04/07/03 06:02 PM
by Ellis Dee
* U.S-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical A wingnutx 687 1 04/25/03 05:31 PM
by wingnutx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,971 topic views. 4 members, 120 guests and 69 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.068 seconds spending 0.012 seconds on 16 queries.