EPA Conducting Tests on Human Subjects

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by barbara

I believe the link I provided above will answer all your questions, Whell. And, as a bonus, the link reveals facts that squash your inflammatory launch post.

Don't confuse him with the facts, Barb.

[BlueStreak]

OMG, Obama is gassing old people with diesel exhaust!!!!!!

Is that the reaction I'm supposed to have?

Dave

[barbara]

The thing is.... Using humans for experimentation is nothing new and there are always calculated risks.

I granted permission for experimental medicine on both my children and allowed an experimental procedure on one of them for the study of it. We were not compensated for any of this but I suppose if we had asked we might have been. I know that might make me sound like a terrible parent, but, I had my reasons.

[whell]

Originally Posted by barbara

I believe the link I provided above will answer all your questions, Whell. And, as a bonus, the link reveals facts that squash your inflammatory launch post.

Not really. The article builds a straw dog and does a nice job of knocking it down. But I do appreciate your earlier Paul Harvey reference.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by whell

Not really. The article builds a straw dog and does a nice job of knocking it down. But I do appreciate your earlier Paul Harvey reference.

Nice try, Whell.... But you struck out. My link told the facts and effectively revealed your launch post as the scare tactic it is.

Better luck next time.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by barbara

I believe the link I provided above will answer all your questions, Whell. And, as a bonus, the link reveals facts that squash your inflammatory launch post.

I read the link you provided, and compared it to Whell's questions. Here's how it did on answering those questions (you believed it answered them all)
I wonder who these human test subjects are?
COMPENSATED VOLUNTEERS

I wonder who would voluntarily subject themselves to " dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants", and why?
WHO was already answered, WHY was NOT ANSWERED

Are these test subjects paid?
YES, $1757.00

I wonder if they're paid commensurate to the risks they're exposing themselves to by our loving, caring EPA?
NOT ANSWERED

So you were half right, half his questions were answered. Also, the Daily Caller article quoted directly from the EPA Inspector General's report. I didn't see anything in your link that debunked the findings of the IG report.

[whell]

What he said.

[donquixote99]

I'll say one thing though. $1757 is enough to sway the judgement of a poor person, unduly in my view. Payment should be nominal. If human study protocols allow this level of payment, I think they should be revised.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

I read the link you provided, and compared it to Whell's questions. Here's how it did on answering those questions (you believed it answered them all)

I wonder who these human test subjects are?

COMPENSATED VOLUNTEERS



I wonder who would voluntarily subject themselves to " dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants", and why?

WHO was already answered, WHY was NOT ANSWERED



Are these test subjects paid?

YES, $1757.00



I wonder if they're paid commensurate to the risks they're exposing themselves to by our loving, caring EPA?

NOT ANSWERED



So you were half right, half his questions were answered. Also, the Daily Caller article quoted directly from the EPA Inspector General's report. I didn't see anything in your link that debunked the findings of the IG report.

All questions answered.

Why.... They did it for $$.

And, they were compensated according to the agreement made just like anyone who works for the EPA.

All questions answered.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by barbara

All questions answered.

Why.... They did it for $$.

And, they were compensated according to the agreement made just like anyone who works for the EPA.

All questions answered.

Answered by you, not by the link as you implied.
How do you know their motivation was money? Some may have done it to help with the research. One or two might have done it because the attendant was a hottie. You don't know. You are speculating.

Yes, they were compensated according to the agreement, but the question was whether that compensation was commensurate to the risks they're exposed to. NOT ANSWERED nor can it be answered, especially considering they were exposed to pollution levels beyond what was in the agreement.

If this was fair and just compensation, then so is the wage McDonald's pays. It's what's in the employment agreement.