EPA Conducting Tests on Human Subjects

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

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.

Lol... This must be one of those squirrel things where I point out that the launch post is a hyped up scare tactic then you come along and nit pick that which is not important to the initial point made. And, for a minute there, I fell for it.

Thanks for clearing up that whole squirrel thing for me .

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by barbara

Lol... This must be one of those squirrel things where I point out that the launch post is a hyped up scare tactic then you come along and nit pick that which is not important to the initial point made. And, for a minute there, I fell for it.

Thanks for clearing up that whole squirrel thing for me .

or it's one of those squirrel things where you claim to have debunked the launch post, but never did, and then back away when it's pointed out. And that you're perfectly willing to twist your ideology regarding "fair compensation" to fit the subject at hand.

I'm wondering when someone is going to question what a compensated volunteer is. Seems to me you are either compensated, or you're a volunteer, but not both. Leave it to the government to come up with a term like this.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

or it's one of those squirrel things where you claim to have debunked the launch post, but never did, and then back away when it's pointed out. And that you're perfectly willing to twist your ideology regarding "fair compensation" to fit the subject at hand.



I'm wondering when someone is going to question what a compensated volunteer is. Seems to me you are either compensated, or you're a volunteer, but not both. Leave it to the government to come up with a term like this.

Nice try, but the launch post has been revealed for what it was, inflammatory hype, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.

As for compensation, when two parties agree on the compensation, then it is legit. Doesn't matter what agreements others have for compensation if the two parties in question are both agreeable to the deal they made. That isn't twisting anything to fit any agenda.... That is just the way things are done.

Bottom line.... The launch post was BS. Get over it already.

[BlueStreak]

Fight back, Barb! You go, girl!

Dave

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by barbara

Nice try, but the launch post has been revealed for what it was, inflammatory hype, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.

As for compensation, when two parties agree on the compensation, then it is legit. Doesn't matter what agreements others have for compensation if the two parties in question are both agreeable to the deal they made. That isn't twisting anything to fit any agenda.... That is just the way things are done.

Bottom line.... The launch post was BS. Get over it already.

So Wal-Mart pay is legit, McDonald's pay is legit. No agenda, just the way things are done.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

So Wal-Mart pay is legit, McDonald's pay is legit. No agenda, just the way things are done.

Legit maybe, but unethical for sure. (As if anyone give a damn about ethics anymore.......)

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Legit maybe, but unethical for sure. (As if anyone give a damn about ethics anymore.......)

Thank you Dave.
So, through that lens, is it unethical for our government to pay citizens to compromise their health, regardless whether those subjects did so of free will?
And is it also unethical to label them as volunteers for PR purposes?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

Thank you Dave.
So, through that lens, is it unethical for our government to pay citizens to compromise their health, regardless whether those subjects did so of free will?
And is it also unethical to label them as volunteers for PR purposes?

Studies funded by NIH and/or Big Pharma do so routinely.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by bobabode

How about all the pollutants that we are subjected to daily by your masters of the universe? Oh, that's right-it's just business .


You want a hmmmm?

Chromium 6 levels in my town are getting attention lately.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-n...#axzz2xqMPOP5q

It's ok

breath deeply.

[4-2-7]

Sorry Barbara you got smoked