Re: EPA Region 6 and the City of Fort Worth are at it again with the Wet Method.

[Guest guest]

" Dana " wrote:

This is like the study EPA wanted to do a few years agon in

Florida. That study was where EPA would pay indigent families to

spray their abodes with various concentrations of pesticides in the

bedrooms of the babies lest than one year old and they would do an

epi study. Who the hell does EPA have in charge there that comes up

with these ideas?

>

I heard the EPA study organizers speak about the unexpected public

reaction to their methods on a National Public Radio show.

They firmly insisted that they were only asking people to use

pesticides as they normally would, to make no changes based on

whether or not the participants had any belief that the investigators

had a desired outcome. The investigators said that even if the

families in the study did not use any pesticides at all, they would

be asked to continue NOT using them and their input is still

important and valid and would be included in the study.

My understanding is that an independent board of review found no

ethical problems with this test and that it has been approved to be

rescheduled, but the next time, to be performed quietly and without

public comment to avoid having this experiment portrayed as an

intentional application of toxins.

MW

[Guest guest]

My understanding is that an independent board of review found no

> ethical problems with this test and that it has been approved to be

> rescheduled, but the next time, to be performed quietly and without

> public comment to avoid having this experiment portrayed as an

> intentional application of toxins.

> MW

>

That is the problem, EPA CANNOT perform this " quietly " or " without

Public Comment " in any way shape or form. That is EXACTLY the point I

was trying to make, this is a TERRIBLE precedent for public health

concerns. IT is against Federal Administrative laws governing the

conduct of governmental agencies. The CAIR study was intentional

spraying of pesticides in these houses of the indigent, and then giving

them a " stipend " monthly. No your info is wrong on this program.

CAIR was withdrawn in TOTAL, and was NOT about ambient or everyday

applications.

[Guest guest]

" Dana " wrote:

> That is the problem, EPA CANNOT perform this " quietly " or " without

> Public Comment " in any way shape or form. That is EXACTLY the

point I was trying to make, this is a TERRIBLE precedent for public

health

> concerns. IT is against Federal Administrative laws governing the

> conduct of governmental agencies. The CAIR study was intentional

> spraying of pesticides in these houses of the indigent, and then

giving them a " stipend " monthly. No your info is wrong on this

program. CAIR was withdrawn in TOTAL, and was NOT about ambient or

everyday applications.

>

What is one to think? If a person claiming to be the project

coordinator appeared on NPR saying that the study IS only to assess

the impact of average usage (or non usage) of pesticides, and that

they have been given the go-ahead to conduct the test?

This person said that being withdrawn was only a temporary response

to the public confusion, and that it was being rewritten as a

clarification of their benign intentions to test ambient levels in

normal homes with customary usage.

-