Let them eat sludge, instead. (1 Viewer)

[blackadder]

On one hand you listed weapons testing intended specifically to harm/hamper the enemy..

On the other hand you have a poorly researched experiment whose core purpose is to make soil safer for those most exposed to the danger, namely poor.

Not, even, close

But in the late 1990s the government began underwriting studies such as those in Baltimore and East St. Louis using poor neighborhoods as laboratories to make a case that sludge may also directly benefit human health.

Meanwhile, there has been a paucity of research into the possible harmful effects of heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, other chemicals and disease-causing microorganisms often found in sludge.

A series of reports by the EPA's inspector general and the National Academy of Sciences between 1996 and 2002 faulted the adequacy of the science behind the EPA's 1993 regulations on sludge.

The chairman of the 2002 academy panel, Thomas Burke, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says epidemiological studies have never been done to show whether spreading sludge on land is safe.

"There are potential pathogens and chemicals that are not in the realm of safe," Burke told the AP. "What's needed are more studies on what's going on with the pathogens in sludge — are we actually removing them? The commitment to connecting the dots hasn't been there."

That's not what the subjects of the Baltimore and East St. Louis research were told.

Rufus Chaney, an Agriculture Department research agronomist who co-wrote the Baltimore study, said the researchers provided the families with brochures about lead hazards, tested the soil in their yards and gave assurances that the Orgro fertilizer was
store-bought and perfectly safe.

"They were told that their lawn, as it stood, before it was treated, was a lead danger to their children," said Chaney. "So that even if they ate some of the soil, there would not be as much of a risk as there was before. And that's what the science shows."

Chaney said the Baltimore neighborhoods were chosen because they were within an economically depressed area qualifying for tax incentives. He acknowledged the families were not told there have been some safety disputes and health complaints over sludge.

"They were told that it was composted biosolids that are available for sale commercially in the state of Maryland. I don't think there's any other further disclosure required," Chaney said. "There was danger before. There wasn't danger because of the biosolids compost. Composting, of course, kills pathogens."

This was a study that was ultimately also going to benefit a private fertilizer manufacturer. If results warranted, it would have been publicized that Orgo fertilizer spread on soil could protect children, regardless of the possible negatives from toxic substances in the sludge base.

Do I need to speculate on a lobby connection here?

At any rate, the bottom line is these people were used as guinea pigs without being fully advised of the risks in hopes that someone could tell them that if they spend some of their meager income on Orgo fertilizer they can protect their children.

You are welcome to use the stuff liberally. I encourage it.

But the basic parallel is there. People subjected to risk without consenting to said risk.

Atomic Testing (video) Dandelion Salad

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq4-1.htm

In your world of splitting hairs perhaps you can defend this. I can't.

 

[dtc]

On one hand you listed weapons testing intended specifically to harm/hamper the enemy..

On the other hand you have a poorly researched experiment whose core purpose is to make soil safer for those most exposed to the danger, namely poor.

Not, even, close

Well, that's all right and everything except the fact that they were experimenting on people. Of course, they were poor kids so who cares? They're cheaper than lab rats anyway.

 

[LSSpam]

In your world of splitting hairs perhaps you can defend this. I can't.

No one's defending it. I just think the comment lacked perspective. They aren't the same thing. They don't have to be the same thing to both be wrong.

 

[LSSpam]

Well, that's all right and everything except the fact that they were experimenting on people. Of course, they were poor kids so who cares? They're cheaper than lab rats anyway.

I do not approve of full disclosure in a case like that.