Old 14th November 2004, 00:01   #1
MStar
Major Dude
 
MStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 1,491
Send a message via ICQ to MStar Send a message via AIM to MStar Send a message via Yahoo to MStar
A use for poor kids

http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm

Quote:
11/12/2004: 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. The study entitled CHEERS (Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study) will look at how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by children ranging from babies to 3 years old.

For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation.
Well they've got to be useful for something!

MStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 00:05   #2
White Raven
Little Winged One
 
White Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada, now UK
Posts: 4,165
My lord... I'd ask for a lot more than $970 to endanger my kid's life like that...
They obviously give them a free video camera to film the rest of the child's short, short life...

just as feathery as ever | portfolio | a poignant quote
White Raven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 00:06   #3
OutlawJim
Confused
(Major Dude)
 
OutlawJim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 1,017
Send a message via ICQ to OutlawJim Send a message via AIM to OutlawJim Send a message via Yahoo to OutlawJim
man alive. thats awful...


Nobby:I have ADD.... Germ:No shit, Nobby? Nobody would have ever guessed.
OutlawJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 00:13   #4
ryan
not fucked, not quite.
(Forum King)
 
ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tn
Posts: 8,798
Send a message via AIM to ryan
This is totally and utterly wrong.

What kind of president can allow this kind of behaviour? How can you put a price on the life of children?

What kind of parents would allow their children to be treated like this?

Fuck this country man, just fuck it.
ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 00:26   #5
nybergh
Dialup Junkie
(Major Dude)
 
nybergh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
For taking part in these studies, each family will receive $970, a free video camera, a T-shirt, and a framed certificate of appreciation.
from http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm#pesticide

WTF? I poisoned my kid and all I got was this lousy T-shirt?

I feel sick.

----

I don't know how serious the source of this information is and I really avoid using the following label on people as my main interests are history and society, but according to this very piece of information, the only thing I can do is to call the bush admin

A bunch of fucking nazis.
nybergh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 00:30   #6
Bilbo Baggins
Wind Chime of the Apocalypse
 
Bilbo Baggins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: The Forest
Posts: 17,229
Yet you are all happy to let children wander the inner city smogs without protection. LOL.
Bilbo Baggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 00:39   #7
nybergh
Dialup Junkie
(Major Dude)
 
nybergh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,219
Yes, that's nothing new.

But to reward poor parents for allowing their kids to be poisoned is to take one step further, don't you think?
nybergh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 00:44   #8
Bilbo Baggins
Wind Chime of the Apocalypse
 
Bilbo Baggins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: The Forest
Posts: 17,229
Not really. its of greater benefit to a wider proportion of the population, both currently and in the future.
Bilbo Baggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 01:02   #9
nybergh
Dialup Junkie
(Major Dude)
 
nybergh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 1,219

We have a complicated philosophical problem here, but I think that Bilbo's statement is extreme utilitarism and thus extremely cynical.
nybergh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 01:18   #10
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
Yet you are all happy to let children wander the inner city smogs without protection. LOL.
No I'm not.
Quote:
Originally posted by nybergh

We have a complicated philosophical problem here, but I think that Bilbo's statement is extreme utilitarism and thus extremely cynical.
I'd rather say he's showing us the true face of conservativism.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 01:19   #11
MStar
Major Dude
 
MStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hardcore Heaven
Posts: 1,491
Send a message via ICQ to MStar Send a message via AIM to MStar Send a message via Yahoo to MStar
And you have an issue with utilitarism? I think Bilbo's answer is right on the nose.

MStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 01:28   #12
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
In case you're serious: Then why don't they take a representantive sample, including rich kids?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 01:32   #13
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm
According to the website, it would just monitor kids in their existing environment, not apply pesticides to the children.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 01:33   #14
Psythik
Got his CT back
and didn't pay $10
(Forum King)
 
Psythik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,581
Quote:
Originally posted by MStar
And you have an issue with utilitarism? I think Bilbo's answer is right on the nose.
Ditto.


Quote:
Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
Yet you are all happy to let children wander the inner city smogs without protection. LOL.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

This is a sig of some nature.
Psythik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 02:27   #15
morgado
Major Dude
 
morgado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: away from my baby
Posts: 1,097
Send a message via ICQ to morgado
Quote:
Originally posted by mikm
http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm
According to the website, it would just monitor kids in their existing environment, not apply pesticides to the children.
If so, I don't really see a problem, but in case of the first post is true, WTF they're thinking about ?! Why don't they put their own children to make it ?!

I know, I know, the answer is obvious, BUT, .... well .. feck it !

I Love You Ana Luiza
MSN
morgado is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 02:41   #16
GarbagePoe
Senior Member
 
GarbagePoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: |||| ||||||||||||||| |||||||||| |||||||||
Posts: 459
Send a message via AIM to GarbagePoe
Fucked up...

i close my eyes to stay blind
GarbagePoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 03:14   #17
Myxomatosis
aka bRiAnFuRY
Fuck it dude...
let's go bowling.
(Major dud)
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,162
Send a message via AIM to Myxomatosis
Heil the reigning Commander in Cheif!

Alex Jones: Do you want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left? What a bunch of garbage; liberal democrat, conservative, republican. It's all there to control you! Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control, the CEO job of Slavery, Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies. I'm sick of it, and I'm not going to take a bite out of it, do you got me?
Myxomatosis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 05:23   #18
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
why the fuck not? If we can kill our kids before they're even born, why not after? what's the difference? at least these kids got a few nice years in :P

</cynical>
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 05:25   #19
PrintScrn
Senior Member
 
PrintScrn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally posted by mikm
http://www.epa.gov/cheers/basic.htm
According to the website, it would just monitor kids in their existing environment, not apply pesticides to the children.
Shush! No reading! It's more fun to jump to conclusions!
PrintScrn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 10:50   #20
mark
Forum King
 
mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Norn Ir'nd, leek...
Posts: 6,287
i was going to call bullshit, but seeing the epa.gov artice i see no problem with it.
mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 11:32   #21
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Originally posted by PrintScrn
Shush! No reading! It's more fun to jump to conclusions!
How abour reading the first link as well?
Quote:
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 (see full list of members on sidebar of this page). Critics of the research claim the study's funders guarantee the results will be biased in favor of the chemical industry, at the expense of the health of the impoverished children serving as test subjects.

Important Note on Participants of Study: The study layout does not require that participants increase their chemical use, but does mandate that chosen applicants will need to demonstrate that they do regularly use toxic chemicals in and around the home. The concern here is that low income applicants may increase their toxic chemical use for the sake of applying and being eligible for the funding.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 12:30   #22
SSJ4 Gogitta
Followed by Gnomes
(Forum King)
 
SSJ4 Gogitta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus
Posts: 7,161
Send a message via AIM to SSJ4 Gogitta
I got a perfect solution to hobo's....

Hobo fuel. Run out of coal or natural gas to fuel our power plants?.... Burn hobos

SSJ4 Gogitta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 18:13   #23
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
hobos = homeboys?
= chavs?

That would be good.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2004, 21:04   #24
SSJ4 Gogitta
Followed by Gnomes
(Forum King)
 
SSJ4 Gogitta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus
Posts: 7,161
Send a message via AIM to SSJ4 Gogitta
Hobo = one that is homeless and usually penniless and that leads a largely vagrant life often by choice and that occasionally works at odd jobs.

see also: Bum

SSJ4 Gogitta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2004, 09:36   #25
mysterious_w
Forum King
 
mysterious_w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Good ol' Britain
Posts: 2,750
That's what you get for voting Bush back in.




mysterious_w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2004, 11:11   #26
Cognition
Some Random Guy
(Major Dude)
 
Cognition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NZ
Posts: 1,244
Quote:
Important Note on Participants of Study: The study layout does not require that participants increase their chemical use, but does mandate that chosen applicants will need to demonstrate that they do regularly use toxic chemicals in and around the home. The concern here is that low income applicants may increase their toxic chemical use for the sake of applying and being eligible for the funding.
It wouldn't exactly be discouraging them from using dangerous chemicals though. "As long as you're already using toxic chemicals regularly, keep doing so! We can use you in our tests!"
Cognition is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2004, 12:23   #27
Vie
Forum King
 
Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 7,999
I hate to go all Kosh here but: "And so it begins..."

Seriously folks, if you in the US, its time to leave before the borders start being closed "For the good of the people.".

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.
Vie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2004, 12:50   #28
missyob
Angel of Winamp
 
missyob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The Winamp House
Posts: 4,578
What the hell is wrong with these parents?

I figure that they are targeting the poor because people that have some money are not as desperate for the small cash payment as the poor.

I just dont get it. I love my children so much. I could never put them in harms way for a few bucks and a t-shirt. Hell, I would not put them in harms way for a billion dollars.

These people need to get some serious mental health help. Or better yet, if they choose to participate in the study they should have to get fixed so they can never have any more children.

A child is a privilidge not an experiment.

~ Missy
missyob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2004, 17:10   #29
psyfive
Forum King
 
psyfive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,527
Quote:
Important Note on Participants of Study: The study layout does not require that participants increase their chemical use, but does mandate that chosen applicants will need to demonstrate that they do regularly use toxic chemicals in and around the home. The concern here is that low income applicants may increase their toxic chemical use for the sake of applying and being eligible for the funding.
You can't blame Bush because some parents are dumbasses. There were "toxic chemicals" all over my house when I was growing up (bleach, amonnia, ajax, and a bunch of other cleaning supplies) as I look around my room I can see other possible toxic/highly flamable chemicals (spray paint, chewing gum remover, a can of coke)

If I was able to keep a plant alive for more than three days I would probably have some fertilizer somewhere around too.
psyfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2004, 19:22   #30
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
I can't believe everyone is falling for this spin!

Please read the real story
Quote:
Why are you looking for participants?
We need participants for a very important study called the Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) in Duval County, FL (Jacksonville, Florida area).

This two-year children’s exposure study will start in the Summer of 2004 and be conducted in Duval County (Jacksonville, Florida area).

The purpose of the study is to learn about levels of pesticides and common household chemicals in homes of young children.

Your participation will contribute to the knowledge of Children’s exposures, which will benefit young children in the future.

Why is this study being done in Duval County, FL?
Duval county, Florida was chosen for several reasons:

Geographic region with year round indoor pesticide use
Previous studies have shown higher pesticide concentrations in this geographic area
Data from a previous study, summer 2001, was available to assist in planning this study
Duval County Health Department (DCHD)
A committed partner in continuing children's pesticide exposure research to develop risk management programs
DCHD's strong connections with the community
Is my family eligible to participate in the study?
Participant selection will begin in the fall of 2004. Only 60 participants will be selected. To be selected, you must:

Live in Duval County, Florida

Be a parent of a child under the age of 13 months

Maintain your normal pesticide or non-pesticide use patterns for your household. We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.

What will I be asked to do?
Participants are not required to use pesticides or to change any of their regular household routines or how they normally use bug sprays (pesticides).

Allow two of our researchers to visit you at your home every 3 to 6 months for two years. If pesticides are used, notify researchers to arrange a time at your convenience to conduct study activities before and after the use of pesticides. The visit will take approximately 2 hours per day or per visit.

Videotape (the video camcorder will be provided) some of your child’s activities and keep an activity diary about your child.

Allow your child to wear a small watch size activity sensor during the study period. (Approximately 1 week every 3 - 6 months)

Help to collect some samples of food and urine. Our research staff will show you how to do this and provide you with needed supplies.

Keep track of your home pesticide and cleaning products use.

Is there any risk to me and my family?

No. You and your child will not experience any risks from participating in this study.
We will not ask any parent to apply pesticides in their home to be a part of this study.
You are not required to change any of your regular household routines.
Researchers at EPA are very sensitive to issues associated with children participating in this study. The study protocol has been reviewed and approved by four independent institutional review boards for the protection of human participants.
They are not asking anyone to spray their kids! They are not asking anyone to start using or increase their use of pesticides. They simply want to find out is there is a danger to kids in the way pesticides are currently being used.

Is the "Organic Consumers" site sponsored by John Kerry?
LMAO

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 13:30   #31
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
why bring kerry into it?
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 14:17   #32
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Because he obviously loves him, he just isn't ready to admit it yet.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 14:33   #33
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
why bring kerry into it?
Well, Bush gets blamed for everything... I though turnabout was fair play!

Quote:
Originally posted by gaekwad2
Because he obviously loves him, he just isn't ready to admit it yet.
Yeah, I love him so much I'd give him a nice smack on the cheek!

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 14:56   #34
Germ
rules all things
 
Germ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,149
You're talking about "falling for spin" when you voted for Bush? hahaha you're quite the joker.
Germ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 16:54   #35
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Yep that's me! hahahahahahahahaha

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 18:28   #36
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,855
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Only the GOP could think of a new way to abuse poor people.

And no telling me it's just spin, more fun to bitch about it!

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 19:30   #37
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
GAAAH!

I mean, first of all, for any scientific accuracy, they will need families with a baseline level of pesticide use (none, for example). If people hear of this study, start using pesticides, and then try to apply, it will make them no more likely to be accepted, as they don't know what groups aren't yet filled.

Let me make this clear:
THIS STUDY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYONE TO APPLY PESTICIDES IN THEIR HOME. IT STUDIES PEOPLE IN THEIR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT FOR DETERMINING EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES. SOME OF THE CANDIDATE FAMILIES WILL BE CHOSEN FOR THEIR USE OF PESTICIDES, AND SOME WILL BE CHOSEN FOR THEIR LACK OF PESTICIDE USE.

FURTHERMORE, THE DATA ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THESE CHEMICALS IS LIMITED - A STUDY SUCH AS THIS ONE IS THE ONLY METHOD (SHORT OF APPLYING THE CHEMICALS INTENTIONALLY) OF DETERMINING TOXICITY, AND IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUY A CAN OF RAID IN THE FUTURE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A STUDY LIKE THIS TO ENSURE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN.

PLEASE, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!


From the EPA website:
Quote:
Participants are not required to use pesticides

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 19:54   #38
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Quote:
Question: The EPA Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) website states that participants don't even have to have exposure to chemicals, yet your alert states that participants will be exposed to chemicals. What's up with that?

Answer: As part of the study's structure, there will be a "control group" for the sake of data comparison. That is, a small percentage of participants of any study of this type are not exposed to the chemicals being tested, in order to have a comparison of results between those with exposure and those without. Of the 60 participants originally selected for this study, only 6 were in that "minimal exposure" control group. In other words, 90% or higher of the chosen participants would involve children who are exposed to higher levels of the studied chemicals.

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, who have a long history of being indicted for environmental crimes against minorities and low income families.

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. We also criticize them for being responsible for some of the most vile environmental crimes this planet has ever seen. Exxon still hasn't paid a dime to clean up the Valdez oil spill. Dow continues to claim that Agent Orange is safe and had no negative impacts on U.S. soldiers or the Vietnamese. Monsanto is in the news every other week for being found guilty for yet another environmental crime against the world's poor, including recently being fined for secretly hiding knowledge of toxic levels of their PCBs in poor areas for over 40 years.

The ACC has consistently demonstrated that it is more concerned with boosting it's member's sales via biased studies than protecting public safety. 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 that sense, for the ACC, the goal of this study is to use the EPA as a conduit for highlighting how safe these products are for children in an indoor home environment.

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.

Question: Could you explain more why you are protesting CHEERS. I am in full support of eliminating chemicals in our environment and I went on the EPA website to learn more about this study. The purpose of the study appears to be to test the effects of commonly used pesticides in the homes of young children. Since I believe that these pesticides are harmful and I choose not to use them in my own home, I suspect that the EPA might actually be able to measure the harmful effects of pesticides through this study. Couldn't this study actually help the cause you are fighting for? Also, what chemicals will they be studying?

Answer: First see above question regarding the chemical companies funding this study. Second, there is an abundance of studies that have already taken place that have clearly and consistently shown the toxicity of these products. The American Chemistry Council refutes any study that shows any of its 175 chemical industry members' products in a poor light, and uses membership fees to fund its own biased studies. Even within ACC's own studies there is a long history of manipulating or even attempting to hide incriminating data on chemicals.

* For example, in this study, perflourinated chemicals, such as Scotchgard and Teflon will be studied. 3M, it's producer and a major funding member of the study, has already accumulated over 20 years of data from studies consistently showing that Scotchgard causes liver damage and severe birth defects, yet the 3M corporation has not pulled the product from the market. The EPA is also fully aware of this chemical's toxicity. A May 16, 2000 internal EPA memo stated that it is "of significant concern on the basis of evidence of widespread human exposure and indications of toxicity. ... These chemicals "combine persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree." [see full memo]
* Another chemical focus in this study is dibutyl phthalates. Procter and Gamble and Unilever, major funding members of this study, hold a broad range of patents for uses of this carcinogenic and hormone disrupting chemical. There is no need to expose children to ANY level of this toxic chemical for the sake of "research". The EPA already recognizes phthalates as being highly toxic. In fact, phthalates are regulated as a toxic substance under environmental law. If a factory were to accidently spill even just 10 pounds of phthalates, the incident must be reported to authorities under the Superfund law. Yet under lobbying pressure from ACC, phthalates can legally be used in a variety of household products, particularly body care products. ACC and EPA are already fully aware of the toxicity. Any further study would only be done for the sake of manipulating results to give a positive spin, as phthalates have recently been receiving a lot of negative press.
* Brominated flame retardants, also known as PBDEs, which are closely related to PCBs, will also be a focal chemical of the study. Since the 1970s, PBDEs have been shown to interfere with brain development, cause thyroid dysfunction and birth defects, yet it is commonly found in homes, in computers, and clinging to dust and settling on the floors where children play. There are more than 30 years of studies revealing the high toxicity of PBDEs.
* Pesticides will also be tested, such as atrazine and glyphosate. The Organic Consumers Association's website contains hundreds of articles regarding studies that have shown these chemicals to be hormone disrupting and carcinogenic. Monsanto, the producer of glyphosate as Roundup pesticide, has disregarded any study showing negative results.

In short, all of these chemicals have been shown, in study after study, over the course of three decades, to be highly toxic, yet the American Chemistry Council continues to deny this toxicity and puts hundreds of millions of dollars into overseeing biased studies, manipulating study results to their advantage, using those results to lobby congress for more relaxed environmental laws, and marketing their proven toxic chemicals to trusting consumers as "safe".

Question: According to the CHEERS site, chemical exposure to participants will not be increased from what they already had exposure to in their homes, prior to the study. So what's wrong with studying what they already would have been doing anyway?

Answer: The study layout mandates that chosen applicants will need to demonstrate that they do regularly use toxic chemicals in and around the home in order to be eligible for the study and the payout. The concern here is that the study serves as an incentive for low income applicants (which consists of 100% of the applicants) to increase their chemical use in the home in order to be more likley to be chosen for the study (and the payout). According to University of Wisconsin's Professor Alto Charo-
University of Wisconsin"Where is the line between enticement and a godfather offer that impoverished families would find hard to refuse? That is really troubling. We make these decisions over and over in public policy. This is one of those moments."Since participation in these types of studies is most often marketed to low income individuals or families, researchers regularly find that applicants will change lifestyle behaviors in order to be eligible for the study (in this case, it's $970 and a free video camera). As an example, researchers in studies of tobacco have found applicants who claimed to be regular smokers when entering the study, but in actuality only began smoking upon discovering advertisments for the paid study.

Question: Your alert claims that low income families are being targeted, but the EPA CHEERS website says that the people in this particular area are being studied because they use pesticides year round. Please explain.

Answer: Low income families have clearly been targeted in this study, whether the EPA admits to it or not. Participants for the study were chosen from 6 health clinics and three hospitals in Jacksonville, FL. The vast majority of the patients in these facilities are in low income brackets. These medical facilities report that 51% of their births are to non-white mothers and 62% of mothers have only received an elementary or secondary education. There are many medical facilities in Jacksonville that service a higher income clientele, and none of them were included in this study. In addition, the poorer neighborhoods of Jacksonville FL are not the only areas in the U.S. iwth year round pesticide exposure. Any area of the country that has a climate suitable for year round managed domesticated vegetation also has year round pesticide use. In short, the targeting of this demographic of the population, based on the argument of exposure, is not valid.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 20:36   #39
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Maybe someone will listen to you xzxzzx... Maybe they will listen if you scream...

Maybe not.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2004, 20:45   #40
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Maybe we just do't think screaming automatically makes you right.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump