View Full Version here: : Would you do this to your kids!!!
17-11-2007, 07:46 AM
But hey you get some money and a camcorder, a bib and t-shirt for you kid
nice stuff eh' and I'm sure they'll find lots of desperates who will take up
the offer :eyepop::eyepop::eyepop::eyepop::ey epop:
.... remember our kids are our future, and need our protection period!!!
especially from these types of evil companies, supported by that administration.
17-11-2007, 08:50 AM
Get a grip.
It is very hard to comment on either media reports or stuff you find on web sites, especially web sites like this one that seems to be pushing an agenda.
Many households in the north regularily spray for spiders and cockroaches. I have no doubt it would be the same in the US southern states like Florida. It would be of interest to know if the use of these does actually affect childrens development, or not. I suspect not. Human evolution has equiped us with a number of mechanisms for dealing with toxicity. Hunter/gatherers are regularily exposed to plant alkoloids and such. The generally clean healthy lifestyles that we live in the first world does not represent a problem for most people.
Some minor "ethical" failings like "Lack of Treatment" and "Lack of Education" appears almost hysterical. Treatment is available through the medical system and education on use is available on the packet.
People use this stuff, and whilst it is generally considered safe, it would be nice to know (from not just one but several studies) if it has any minor effects.
As an aside, since the introduction of asian geckos I have not sprayed my house for 3 years now. They do a great job of cleaning up. Unfortunately the population of geckos seems not to have recovered to the extent that I would like from the winter, and I am getting a few spiders this summer.
17-11-2007, 09:03 AM
Sorry, but I have to agree with Rob on this one. A book I highly recommend is "Our Stolen Future" http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/aboutOSF.htm, which details scientific research on the effects some chemicals have on the human immune system, especially in children whose immune systems are still developing...
That is just a bit too weird for me. :screwy:.
I cant understand why they would not tell the familys if their children were registering high levels of chemicals.
love the cartoon Will...... sometimes all that nature offers isn't in your best interests!
17-11-2007, 09:34 AM
Firstly no I wont get a grip, and secondly Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility or PEER seems like a pretty good agenda to me. Do you know
who PEER is or are you just have a crack at a group without knowing who
they are and what they do? or did you just read the first few lines and
formed an opinion of PEER.
Thirdly, go ahead and sign your kids up mate!
I think this sort of thing is simply disgraceful. Do you think the children have
a say in this. What if you found out later in life that your parents took money
and not very much money to have chemicals tested on you when you were
a child. Honestly this goes way past spraying for spiders and cockroaches,
especially when you know or can find out what it is your spraying.
regards,CS... look after your kids
17-11-2007, 09:43 AM
I love the cartoon too, but you can bet your bottom dollar whatever was
killing them, wasn't some company spraying them with chemicals ; )
Nobody is testing chemicals on kids. This website states that the study is just gathering information on toddlers - in homes where pesticides are sprayed. How many people in Australia have there house sprayed for insects, or use fly-spray - nobody is monitoring their babies development or urine pesticide residues.... :shrug:
Most of the chemicals you are allowed to have sprayed now barely even kill the insects, let alone us! :lol:
I can't see any problem with this study. I'm sure that there will be people up in arms about it, there always is.
Correct - infectious diseases killed them. Companies that started dosing them with chemicals (vaccines and antibiotics) is half the reason they started living longer. :whistle:
That is an ethical dilemma - but nobody is checking kids' pesticide levels, so you wouldn't know anyway. I personally don't see a big issue with this, so long as people enter the study informed of this.
17-11-2007, 10:03 AM
They may not be spraying yet, but as they state "The Bush Administration
will soon announce a repeal of the Clinton-era rules against testing pesticides
on humans." it wont be far away.
This is the other big problem, leaving the participants un-aware of any out
comes. I can only guess that if so and so fly spray was causing a problem
it would be bad for business. The point is that in future and in light of
what Bush is intending on doing, paves the way for such abuse to occur.
17-11-2007, 11:09 AM
I don't know what that means, and I doubt whether you do either. Most new chemical additives and pesticides are tested on animals, and if they are found not to be toxic, are then tested on humans to detect any adverse reactions. This is the usual protocol before general release for sale. I suspect the rules around this are extensive, and probably subject to revision in the light of experience.
There will always be a balance between minimising the cost of testing and allowing potentially harmful products onto the market, or making the testing so rigourous that it is uneconomic to develop new products.
This is NOT an easy equation for policy makers. The desperate scramble for non-yet-fully-tested new drugs by terminal patients is an example. The patients are desperate and demanding, and the industry and researchers are reluctant for early release of potentially harmful, lethal and possibly useless medication.
Similarily the availability of pecticides/herbicides/insecticides etc is a balance between efficacy and potential harm. I can't see the problem with determining the level of harm amongst kids exposed to (presumably already available on the market) insecticide products.
Hey, I use Mortein too.
A final note. Both Australia and the USA are free democratic societies. You don't have to be "sprayed" by the govermmint. You can choose not to use these products.
There is nothing I can read in that article that indicates that kids are being used as guinea pigs - either with or without their parents consent. That would be unethical. Probably illegal, as it is a from of child abuse.
17-11-2007, 11:48 AM
Proposed Revised Rules for Testing Pesticides on Humans Spark Immediate Criticism
Immediate controversy erupted in August when several newspapers obtained a draft of EPA’s new human testing and experimentation rules. The draft rules promise stricter controls on human studies, the creation of an independent study review board mandated by Congress, and protections that the Agency says will prevent children and pregnant woman from being exposed to dangerous pesticides in human studies.
A number of EPA toxicologists, attorneys, and health experts disputed the Agency’s contentions, saying that the draft rules, though better than a previously leaked proposal that was scuttled in July, still fall short of protecting subjects, especially vulnerable populations, with one EPA toxicologist calling the rules “a magician’s trick” in attempt to fool Congress and the American public into believing that the rules will actually be protective of human subjects’ health and safety.
Advocates also raised concerns about the rules, saying that they give the pesticide industry too much power in deciding the scope and design of human pesticide studies. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said that the rules would also fail to protect pregnant women and children. The rules would ban toxicity tests on children and pregnant women, but they do not contain an explicit ban on these groups’ participation in other types of studies that would expose them to pesticides, according to NRDC.
The concerns surrounding human testing of pesticides increased dramatically in early 2005 when the EPA’s Children’s Health and Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) came to light. The study would have enrolled 60 low-income families in Florida who agreed to continue exposing their children to indoor applications of pesticides in exchange for $970, children’s clothing, and a camcorder. CHEERS was partially bankrolled by the American Chemistry Council, an association of chemical and pesticide manufacturers. EPA was forced to cancel the study because of an outcry among the public and Members of Congress over ethical concerns. In July, Congress reinforced its objections to studies like CHEERS, passing a clear ban on human pesticide exposure studies involving children and pregnant women.
The draft rules were released for public comment on September 7. The public comment period will be open for 90 days. To view the draft rules and instructions on how to comment on the rules, see www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm).
knock yourself out
17-11-2007, 11:57 AM
btw, I have been member of PEER for a little over 2 yrs. And although like
everybody else they have an agenda to push. I dont usually push it
myself. Except for one other time, when some idiot Bush signed off on a
writ that stopped Grand Canyon rangers explaining the geological history
of the place, because some neo-conservatives believe it happen when God
flooded the Earth and Noah launched his ark. Probably the same people
pushing human testing.
17-11-2007, 12:05 PM
They usually do this kind of testing in Mexico. Testing on American citizens is mostly kept secret, until the documents come out 30 years later.
We very rarely spray anything inside our house. I leave the webs of non-dangerous spiders on the ceiling to mop up any mosquitoes that get into the house, and I get exercise with the fly swatter.
17-11-2007, 03:29 PM
Where do you apply for the cam corder?
Rob it is great to see your keep an eye on these folk but you must recognise rightly or wrongly politics is about the power to lobby...the major problem is the mobilization of the religious right..they have their views and the power to make their views recognised... ID is a classic example...still if I can get a cam corder I will be happy to take their money and nod and smile.
Try and keep your sense of humour mate you will have more power to win.
Good to see you put your money where your mouth is.
17-11-2007, 03:38 PM
I met a lady who lost her husband after they sprayed for mossies in their tent... she reckoned it was the spray...I reckon it was malaria...I hate harming anything and do not... a spider killed my best mate but I dont hate them... humans are just to eager to kill... and so often it is believers who have a rule before them..thou shall not kill... I think that could extend to all creatures who do not try to kill you at the very least.
17-11-2007, 05:45 PM
Np's Alex, but I find little humour in adults placing children in situations out
of their control. I have a good understanding what lobby groups are and
what they do, I just spent the last 7 months fighting the ideals of one such
group in the FC.Probably where I left my sense of humour, still I won!!! :thumbsup:
Anyways, is it starting to dry out over your way? I've put the canoe
away for now :lol:
17-11-2007, 06:34 PM
Work on the Ark continues.
I know how you feel ...I have been know to get passionate about things...but I am trying to giver it away and reach a higher level ..you know stand back and look in wonder...and I do.
I see so much that needs corrected on this planet and know I understand but a minor portion of what horrors remain...
It is good to feel the indignation that a wrong generates and to stand against it..that is the only thing the human race has on its side..and on the other side it has itself with which it has to contend.
The realisation about the obvious impact the church presumably had on Newton when he was thinking about gravity such that he assigned the force to God is the first thing that has shook me about it all... but I still take a happy view that one day particularly with the net more wrongs will be corrected..things are all over the place priority wise but many things get done and such as your bringing this story to us... I can see and unfortunately I can see that the idea was probably well intended ... by someone... and I can think of many motivations that play in a human input... Have you tried writing them a nice letter and asking them to stop?
Well it has stopped raining but the grass has not stopped growing ... I need a horse or something I sure could feed one...
Got a run a couple of nights ago... getting 9 minute runs training the mount over and over and use the timer ,9 minutes, as the exposure guide...its running that I reckon it will go 9 minutes unguided so I am very happy there..but the auto guide it taking me a bit to get up.
Baffled the 150sn plus a baffled dew tube and peltier on the camera..but still more to go never ends.
Real sick of the cloud..even with none the other night too much moisture
17-11-2007, 08:31 PM
Thanks for the variety...discussions like this help us sharpen our rhetorical skills!
Hmmmm..what would be your reaction to a family with children that regularly used the commercially available pesticides and sprayed inside their house to control the insects, but chose to NOT participate in the study? Would you have them arrested, or criticize them, for continuing to use the agents in the absence of compelling evidence that they are dangerous? And, if so, why would you wait for some government agency to propose this study before you raised the alarm?
Or, are you saying that it's okay for the families to continue to use the agents in question as long as no one tries to learn anything in the process?
If you thought the agents in question were dangerous and should be pulled from the market (again in the absence of proof positive), then isn't this is a separate issue from the EPAs study question? Issue one: the safety of chemicals in use now. Issue two: the wisdom and ethics and possible conflicts of interest from the EPA conducting prospective observational studies of families that use pesticides.
Sounds like the real problem here is the "marketing" of the study, doesn't it? Too vulnerable to distortion so as to look malevolent, perhaps. Too juicy a target for the political opposition to pass up?
And, isn't the cash and other products in return for SHARING information? It's not really a reward for using pesticides, since they were doing that for free before. Continued study participation - in the US - is not compulsory. People can withdraw at any time, for any reason, without consequence.
The baseline activity here - the control - is the use of aforementioned pesticides, which preceded the study, right (unless I read it wrong in my haste..it is hard to get a quick but accurate sense from the structure of this agenda-driving prose). The goal of the study is to prospectively assess the outcomes in families using the chemicals which have been, and continue to be, in heavy use in the U.S.
The traditional method used to assess the impact of such practices (chemical use, tobacco use, asbestos exposure, etc) is the retrospective study...that is, the investigators seek out families, ask about their past use of such agents, try to quantify that, and then assess that history of use in relation to other outcomes, such as the health of kids, etc. Problem is, such retrospective studies are notoriously flawed due to uncontrolled biases and various "cause and effect blind spots." Correlation is not causation, as we say. The only way to followup on real risks is to perform a prospective study, actively controlling the variables as you go to minimize the impact of these biases, to see if there really IS a cause-effect issue.
It's interesting. Astronomy is one of the pure true sciences, with little tangible day-to-day benefit to human events. Most astronomy buffs fancy themselves advocates of science. But your tone here seems as ideologically based (albeit looking in the other direction) as that of the Bush admin's policy makers. We get this alot on both sides in the U.S. It's bad (or good) just because the Republicans advocate it. It's bad (or good) just because the Democrats advocate it. As Hilary Clinton said, we should make decisions based on evidence, not ideology.
Granted, cash payouts and gifts are cheesy and smack of "pay-offs". We call those "material inducements" and in medical research there are strong rules (in the US, at least) in not offering incentives that make the relationship more coercion than encouragement. And this wouldn't be the first time someone was over-the-top stupid and unethical with inducement offers. What the heck is the cam-corder tossed in there for, what did some flunky get a deal on a box of the at WalMart?
What does pique my curiousity is why the chemical/pesticide industry is funding this. Usually they don't want to study something that is already marketable, because they have nothing to gain and much to lose. Unless (gasp) they are genuinely concerned that it might not be safe. And, frankly, I'm with you in that I doubt that is the case. A person has a conscience, but corporations (and governments) almost always have agendas; and policies are driven by the lowest (conscience) denominator....
By the way, more children die (a bit later, admitted) each year from consequences of poor health habits - conditioned in them by ignorant parents giving them Twinkies and letting them play video games, rather than healthy food and exercise. If teh FDA wanted to study these families and track the association of food habits and later health outcomes, would you decry the study? When heart attacks and diabetes are veritable epidemics in the US, diseases whose trajectories begin with lifestyle selection as children? The word "chemical" and "pesticide" are more emotive, they summon images of WWI trenches and Agent Orange victims....a great tool for the spin-doctor. But this is not scientific or really germaine to the discussion of the scientific value of the study.
Quod erat demonstratum! :lol: :poke:(but please, bring it on, let's expose the flaws to this counter-point while we wait for new moon!)
17-11-2007, 09:14 PM
I will only debate if I get my cam corder.
Follow the money thats always a good way to find motivations.. I bet it was some guy in marketing who wanted to impress his boss and was his first original idea ...
I looked quickly and wondered if there could be any merit, is it a valid experiment leaving morality out of it.. my theory is it is a way to get cameras into the home and they have instaled radio switches so they can transmit activity without the user of the camera knowing it was on... thats it maybe.
There is a broader issue of the safety of chemicals that will create emotion around this and one would think who ever came up with the idea maybe did not consider that aspect.
mmm what a great subject we can speculate upon until the clouds go away maybe.
I must say I like standing back and wondering more... how novel and different.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.