How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 EPA Using Kids In Pesticide Testing
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

EPA Using Kids In Pesticide Testing

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


0 posted 11-19-2004 04:35 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), led by Bush appointees, plans to launch a new study in which participating low income families will have their children exposed to toxic pesticides over the course of two years.

For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation.

In October, the EPA received $2 million to do the study from the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry front group that includes members such as Dow, Exxon, and Monsanto.

The EPA's Linda Sheldon says the study is vital, because so little is known about how small children's bodies absorb harmful chemicals. As of press time, none of the EPA's employees are offering to have their own children take part in this research project.

The Organic Consumers Association is calling on the nation's citizens to demand the EPA forgo this project before its scheduled launch in early 2005.

Participants for this study were selected from six health clinics and three health clinics in Jacksonville, Florida, in which 51% of births are from non-white mothers and 62% of them have only received an elementary or secondary education.

This just absolutely sickens me. Children are living things, not guinea pigs or leverage for corporate interest.

If you are as angry as I am over this, you can sign this petition provided by the Organic Consumers Association to stop this inhumane practice.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


1 posted 11-19-2004 05:46 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/vccep/
http://www.peta.org/feat/epa/ch.html

According to their timeline, this program was started before Bush started his first term, and I couldn't help but notice much of your post taken word-for-word from organiccomsumers.  The 2-year evaluation makes sense though, since they are looking for participants under age 3.  Prior to age 3 is the period of the most intensive bodily growth a person will have over the course of their entire lives.

quote:
For the most part, chemicals were selected for the VCCEP pilot if there were monitoring data indicating that exposure to humans had occurred and if the chemicals are present in the environment. The biomonitoring data sets used for VCCEP pilot chemical selection included samples from human blood, breast milk, and exhaled breath. Presence in the environment was established by monitoring data indicating presence in indoor air or presence in drinking water as an unregulated contaminant.
Source: EPA

Sounds to me like the EPA will try to select those families in which those chemicals were found to monitor the effect on the children.  Random child testing would be unethical, definately.  But what about monitoring children who have already been exposed by their environment or family?
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


2 posted 11-19-2004 06:23 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Any sort of child testing is (or should be, at least) unethical, even to those who have previously been exposed to contaminants.

A human life is far more valuable than a thousand dollars or a camcorder will ever be. A thousand dollars could never clean out a learning disorder, birth defect or malignant cancer.

There are far more important things we should be doing in researching our environment around us then putting our children at risk. Taking the climatologists seriously, for instance, who have been predicting these accelerating patterns of climate change and worsening of extreme weather and their reports being blacklisted and harrassed by the government.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 11-19-2004 06:59 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ah, Noah, I wish you could put your political biases aside. Your causes are extremely worthy and I agree with them and admire you for speaking up for them...but when you throw in little political shots you are cheapining your cause. With respect to the environment, you said that first things first Bush had to do something - which you don't see happening. It'a a fact that over 80% of extinction is happening in other countries and on islands, I don't see where Bush is a "first things first", although what we do will indeed play a vital role. In this thread you begin with a dig about "Bush appointees" when Alicat clearly showed in his links that it had been formulated and begun long before Bush even took office. It's not necessary to go out of your way to target Bush just because you have been against him. Your causes are just and should be addressed.....let them stand on their own merit and forego the political pot shots, whaddayathink?

Of course you CAN go after Bush anytime you want but it DOES take away from the importance of your message, you know?

Isn't anyone else tired of the political posturing???
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


4 posted 11-19-2004 11:38 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Let's see, they are going into an area of the country that uses a lot of pesticides.

They are going to monitor children to see what if any harmful effects there are to children who are exposed to pesticides in their normal day to day lives.

The parents are told not to change their normal habits. If pesticides are not used, do not use them.  If you do use them, use them exactly as you have before.

I think I have it, Balladeer got with Bush to conspire to increase the wealth of exterminators at the expense of the lives of young chilren and then hide it behind the devious statement that they are attempting to help children live healthier lives.
http://environment.harvard.edu/academics/dissertations/dissertation.php?id=43&pw=780
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2003/6015/6015.html

They have had similar studies before.  Also, the proposal was reviewed by two universities and two other independent agencies, but then you never know the vast right wing conspiracy may already taken over the universities.

Also, I suspect Dan Rather has the memo the President wrote to the career EPA officials indicating, let's go poison some children to help out my chemical company buddies.

Should there be concerns, yes.  It is bad to want to study ways to improve the health of our children?  I don't think so. The study has been put on hold while it is reviewed by even more independent groups.  Good for the review.  Maybe the study shouldn't be done.  Maybe we shouldn't try and find out how children are effected by pesticides.  Maybe someone can come up with a better way to do the testing.  I seriously suspect if Gore had been elected the issue would not be the same.  I fail to see how making it a presidential political issue helps the children.

Just so it is clear, the fear is that people would not follow the detailed directions of the study and purposely expose their children to more pesticides than they normally would use and are going to be exposed to already whether the test is done or not.

It was in no way ever proposed or planned to expose children to anything they are not already exposed to and will be by their parents in their normal day to day lives.

To get President Bush into the controversy, you really have to press to get there on that one.

Should testing of children be closely scrutinized? Without a doubt, but to forego research on children means consequences that I am not to keen on.  I think we should do everything morally we can to protect the health and well being of our children.

I feel fairly comfortable in saying innumerable studies have been done using children and any number of children's lives have been saved as a result.

Bottom line, I would not have responded, but let's think about the children and not our view of presidential politics.  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


5 posted 11-20-2004 01:33 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Hmmm, political posturing:

Mistletoe angel:

quote:
led by Bush appointees


And then from all those who say politics isn't the issue here:

Alicat:

quote:
this program was started before Bush started his first term, and I couldn't help but notice much of your post taken word-for-word from organiccomsumers.


quote:
but when you throw in little political shots you are cheapining your cause. With respect to the environment, you said that first things first Bush had to do something - which you don't see happening. It'a a fact that over 80% of extinction is happening in other countries and on islands, I don't see where Bush is a "first things first", although what we do will indeed play a vital role. In this thread you begin with a dig about "Bush appointees" when Alicat clearly showed in his links that it had been formulated and begun long before Bush even took office. It's not necessary to go out of your way to target Bush just because you have been against him. Your causes are just and should be addressed.....let them stand on their own merit and forego the political pot shots, whaddayathink?

Of course you CAN go after Bush anytime you want but it DOES take away from the importance of your message, you know?

Isn't anyone else tired of the political posturing???


Tim:

quote:
I think I have it, Balladeer got with Bush to conspire to increase the wealth of exterminators at the expense of the lives of young chilren and then hide it behind the devious statement that they are attempting to help children live healthier lives.


quote:
Also, I suspect Dan Rather has the memo the President wrote to the career EPA officials indicating, let's go poison some children to help out my chemical company buddies.


quote:
I seriously suspect if Gore had been elected the issue would not be the same.  I fail to see how making it a presidential political issue helps the children.


quote:
To get President Bush into the controversy, you really have to press to get there on that one.


quote:
Bottom line, I would not have responded, but let's think about the children and not our view of presidential politics.


To be honest, Ali, Mike, and Tim have all said interesting things. It's just hard to find in all of this anti-political political posturing.
  
Skyfyre
Senior Member
since 08-15-99
Posts 1966
Sitting in Michael's Lap


6 posted 11-20-2004 04:47 PM       View Profile for Skyfyre   Email Skyfyre   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Skyfyre

Your initial post is pretty misleading, Noah.  It makes no mention at all of these pesticides being previously present in the childrens' environment.  In fact, your post suggests that the exposure would be deliberate and controlled, as though the children were rats in a lab..?  This isn't an LD-50** being performed on children, after all ...

There are toxins in our environment - some synthetic, some natural - and I do see the need to study the effects of incidental exposure on ALL humans.  One might say it's more important to study the effects on children, in fact, because their bodies are both changing and developing rapidly and generally much less equipped to process and eliminate such toxins than adults.

Do I think the money might be better spent finding ways to avoid exposure or find less toxic or nontoxic pesticides?  You bet - but I speak from experience when I say you're talking a LOT more money to take that road.

** "Lethal-Dose 50":  A controversial toxicity test that involves force-feeding a chemical to a group of animals until 50 percent of the animals died.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


7 posted 11-20-2004 07:38 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Question: Why shouldn't we, as taxpayers, be thankful that the American Chemistry Council is putting so much money into this study?

Answer: This study enjoys $2 million of funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), who, according to the EPA CHEER's website, will oversee much of the study. The ACC, previously known as the Chemical Manufactureres Association (CMA), is made up of chemical corporations, such as Exxon, Dow and Monsanto. . . .

We aren't criticizing these companies for NOT doing studies, we criticize them for ignoring and/or burying the mountains of already existing research that clearly indicate many of their products are dangerous. . . .

The ACC would not put $2 million into a study that it does not believe it could put a positive spin on. The ACC has never funded or released a study in which the final results revealed negative health implications associated with its member companys' products. . . .

In a perfect world, we would welcome their investment into studying the safety of their chemical products, and they do a good job of making it appear to consumers that that is their concern. In reality, these chemical products were thrust into the everyday lives of people all around the world by these same chemical companies, prior to the assemblance of adequate health studies. Since then, hundreds of studies have shown these chemicals to exhibit high levels of toxicity. Yet these corporations refuse to pull dangerous products off of the market until there's a legal mandate.



From the FAQ at OCA
http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm#faq

I've edited it a bit to make it a little more readable, I hope. But it's all there on the link.

In essence, the idea isn't a bad one, but the process is in fact a front for chemical companies', under the auspices of a government agency, propoganda.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


8 posted 11-20-2004 10:46 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

and if a environmental agency would assist in providing funding it would be a front for the environmentalists?

Must paranoia enter into everything?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


9 posted 11-20-2004 11:45 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Sure, why not?

Would you want to participate, you and your family? Or would you move and/or stop using the household chemicals if offered this 'grant'.

It's like the old saying by Anatole France (or is it Victor Hugo, I forget).

"The rich and poor are equal under the law. It is against the law for the rich to sleep under the bridge at night as much as it is for the poor".
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


10 posted 11-21-2004 12:24 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

If I thought it would help someone I suspect I would Brad, how about you?

Didn't the quote of France speak of the majestic equality of the law?

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


11 posted 11-21-2004 12:52 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

LOL! Wow, some people here sure took my "led by Bush appointees" dead seriously. I really was aiming at the issue in general itself, not another mere leash at the Administration!

I only chose to add that in there to show the direction the EPA has been drifting in recent years. The staff is disintegrating, their power is being reduced, and environmental crime referrals have plummeted.

If I may put Bush in the picture here for a second, during the first term, he wanted to cut $25 million in funding to the EPA and 270 of their enforcement jobs. Congress blocked the proposals, but the staff has been reduced by 210 positions.

In comparison to 2000, the EPA conducted 13% fewer inspections in 2002. And with Bush's 2004 budget coming into effect, the number is expected to increase to 24%.

New civil pollution cases are down 25% since the start of the Bush Administration, and new criminal referrals down by about 40%.

In the decades the EPA has served, it clearly shows the more inspections the EPA make, the more likely it is they can catch violators and hold the companies and corporatons accountable, and the higher the pollution and violation penalties, the greater the cost of pollution is, and the more likely companies will be discoiplined in meeting emissions.

Instead we now have a watered-down EPA which seems to kowtow more than ever before to corporate interests. Exxon. Monsanto. Procter & Gamble. And there I found it reasonable to make that remark, to reveal the vulnerability of the EPA, not so much find angle after angle to bash Bush (of course I do blame Bush for much environmental problems, but that's a whole different story in the thread ice started).

Anyway, say what you'd like, but I certainly never would allow my future son or daughter to be exposed to these hazardous chemicals. Then again, of course I am an environmental softy, so I say the same for all those monkeys too.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


12 posted 11-21-2004 09:49 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
If I thought it would help someone I suspect I would Brad, how about you?


At the expense of you children?

Do you have children?

This used to be cute. This is now wrong.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


13 posted 11-21-2004 11:52 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Cute?  interesting analysis.

The thread started out with the insinuation a Bush led EPA was going to apply pesticides to children to determine the effect on children.

What the study proposes is to study the effects of pesticides that are already being and will continue to used to determine the effect on children already being subjected to pesticides.  

We then take a slight curve in the road and indicate that since chemical companies provide a portion of the funding for the study, it logically follows that the study will be biased.  Let the environmentalists do the study, it is fine with me.

We have apparently now jumped back to the idea we are going to inject children with pesticides, or increase theiir exposure to determine the effect on children and that I would allow the same to be done with my children.

I use pesticides in my home.  I live near a heavily wooded area and if I did not, the consequences might not be acceptable to my spouse.

An exterminating company sprays my office on a routine contractual basis with pesticides.

Would I care if anyone wants to test me or my family to determine if what I am doing is harming them?  That may be wrong Brad, but so be it.  It wouldn't bother me, in fact I wouldn't mind knowing if my spraying for bugs, mice, etc. is having a harmful effect on myself or my family.  I fail to see the cuteness in that position, but so be it.

The fear is whether people would not follow the controls of the test.  I, perhaps improperly, interpret the fear to be that low income people care less about their children and therefore will skew the test by increasing their children's exposure to insecticides to gain favor with the chemical companies.

That is why the controls are put into place, but I suspect low income people care just as much about their children as those with higher incomes.

The alternatives would appear to be:  ban pesticides.  (an interesting argument with substantial factual support can be made that millions of children in underdeveloped countries suffer disease and death due to environmentalist concerns over pesticides): or do nothing and let the present level of use of pesticides continue without concern for the effects.

I would not have objected had my parents forty years ago allowed me to be tested as to the effect of second hand smoke.  At least something good would have came out of my breathing in a childhood of cigarette smoke.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 11-21-2004 06:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ah, Noah. ..you complain that you are not taken seriously and then that you are. Your actions are fairly obvious, I;m afraid. I believe you made a post concerning how now, after the election, we should be working together for the good of the country - or something like that - but every post you have made since then has injected something derragotory about Bush, which is superfluous to the topic. In this one you use the "led by Bush appointees" as if to plant in the reader's mind that Bush is in some way responsible. Why do you find that necessary to so - especially when it means nothing of the kind, as proven by Alicat's links showing dates long before Bush was elected. If you are sincerely interested in everyone working together then why inject the insults that first are innacurate and second serve no purpose? The justifications you used in your last post have nothing to do with the original reason you created this thread or you would have mentioned them at the beginning.

You are the new generation of voters and political minded activists. If you can't accept the defeat of an election without snipping at every opportunity then the new generation is destined to be no better than the old one. I support your causes, Noah....let's concentrate on them.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


15 posted 11-22-2004 09:29 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Oh please, I'm sure if Kerry had won, you'd be pulling out the heavy artillery of words and doing likewise, lambasting him on and off how you don't understand how voters could insure this "despicable man" got into office, saying how he's disgracing our troops like brigades of Ghenghis Khan, etc.

Anyway, if you truly read that message to progressives thread, I specifically made it clear in there to "unite but not conform" and also encouraged progressives to continue to protest the war like we have, make the president take responsibility and hold him accountable, and, basically, go upon the philosophy "Do unto others as they do unto you!" to Bush in the second term. He has said he will lead a "bi-partisan effort" and "reach out to Kerry voters", and that's exactly how he'll be judged by me and progressives this second term. If he doesn't wisen up on his bad environmental policies and seeking to ban gay marriage and overturn Roe vs. Wade, for instance, he deserves our outcry because it would be clear he's running unilaterally. In other words, if he doesn't practice what he preaches, neither should we and we have every right to protest Bush because he betrayed any trust we might resurrect in him.

Bush himself signed this mutual contract on the day of his first press conference by saying, ""We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it."

I also said in my statement I believe in forgiveness and second chances, and should Bush turn a new leaf this second term and actually look at other viewpoints besides his own on important issues which both parties have locked horns in, I believe he should be given signs of approval from us. I said we need the opportunity to give America a fresh start before jumping to ultimate conclusions. I don't consider my sentiments here cheap shots because I don't believe this issue has been handled democratically yet. The people should have their say in if they support pesticide testing on children or not, and then make their ruling. But it seems the EPA are intending to continue doing this without public input and felt it was legit to protest.

By uniting I didn't call for a ceasefire among all liberals questioning the Bush Administration, or like the Bill O'Reilly approach to "shut up". As everyone has unquestionably noticed, conservatives and liberals can't treat each other like neighbors anymore, or look each other in the eyes, and there is growing resentment in every community. I was calling simply that we all need to get along and respect one another's differences. I was calling for alliance among communities, not to the administration.

By the way, I didn't get involved into politics until the war in Iraq began March 2003, so I do admit I hadn't immediately read of the past incidents of the research and had I been politically active before the Bush Administration, I would be condemning this too under the Clinton Administration or whatever. Bear with me now, as I am still relatively new to the political process!

I am as willing as you are to concentrate on these causes, and I certainly pray Bush can take these desperate pleas to unite this polarized nation as more than just a grain of salt this second term, learn from his mistakes, and keeping his promise. And I'll know if he's reaching out beyond his own scope or not, because I understand the progressive set of values and hold them true to myself. If he tries and embraces them, then he truly is working. If he ignores them, it'll prove he's still absorbed in his own interests.

Kind of feel like a judge here! LOL! But we can't just rely on a "We report, you decide" mentality. We've got to do the reporting ourselves and let them assist in the decision-making. For democracy is "of the people, by the people, for the people"

I absolutely agree with Larry when he said, "You can't win them all!" This time around, Bush appears to have won fair and square (assuming the Diebold machines didn't tamper anything) and I'll accept that. With that said, America desperately needs a bi-lateral decision-making process, for if we don't and we head closer to oligarchy, one side will always win and the other will always lose. And as the people, we MUST win together!

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> EPA Using Kids In Pesticide Testing Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors