10 1 min 8 yrs

But without government, who will force children to breathe carcinogenic diesel pollutants?

The U.S. government intentionally subjected children and adults to bizarre medical experiments that required them to inhale diesel pollutants known to contain cancer-causing chemicals. The experiments involved collecting diesel fumes from idling diesel trucks, then piping those fumes into enclosed chambers where U.S. test subjects were required to breathe them for hours at a time.

Their tax dollars at work, for at least a decade. This only came to light because a dogged whistleblower forced the release of what the EPA was trying to cover up. More than that, it seems that government employees, academic institutions and medical school authorities have tried to bury the story also.

I wonder who the children were and are. Wards of court? The offspring of welfare recipients? I doubt they were the children of EPA or other government officials.


Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. The motivation behind these “tests” is to give the EPA data it can use to shut down ALL fossil fuel burning and crating industries.

    The EPA has been a dangerous illegal operation that make things up since it’s conception. All it does is destroy lives in the name of protecting them.

    Inside the US the are second in power and fear only to the IRS.

  2. On a slightly similar topic for discussion, – I read today that the NHS is to allow alcoholics to be entered onto the list of recipients of liver donations.
    “Heavy drinkers could receive liver transplants on NHS”


    ‘Move comes as demand for transplants far outweighs number of donations’
    Yet another questionable decision, guaranteed to further tax an already overloaded NHS system. I can only assume that it is intended to boost donations, – but how encouraging can it be when the recipients are likely to be of the ‘self-inflicted’ variety?

  3. Pete

    You’ve never had any problem with private entities forcing people to breath the air pollutants that they belch into the air.

    Why is it ” Dr Mengele ” when a government does it, but silence when some private individual or business does the same thing?

  4. Ah, he’s thought of a retort in defence of the EPA at last.

    Phantom –

    Show me who else has duped adults and children into sitting in chambers, with masks on, hooked up to idling diesel truck exhausts and yes, I’d describe them likewise.

    Have you any words of criticism for it?

  5. I think those who did anything like that should be sent to prison.

    What do you think should be done to a person or company that pollutes the air unnecessarily?

    ( I await the legalistic answer )

  6. Well it’s a legalistic question. It depends on what you mean by ‘pollute unnecessarily’.

    What I think should be done is that property rights should be asserted by those who feel aggrieved. This is the civilised, sensible way.

  7. What’s evasive about it? Pollution is a property rights matter, whether it’s a bonfire or governments polluting vast swathes of the planet. That’s all there is to it.

  8. It is a human health and an ecosystem health issue.

    Someone who pollutes the air over a 10 million person metro area has harmed or potentially harmed every one of them.

    You leave no recourse in your fantasy world since you oppose all remedies via government regulation ( banning burning of coal in say NYC or London, mandating use of scrubbers in smokestacks, etc )

    You even don’t allow the use of the ( hugely expensive and really slow ) legal system as a remedy, since you presumably don’t believe in a government run court system that all parties must respect.

Comments are closed.