A federal lawsuit and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inspector general's investigation must get to the bottom of allegations about illegal, unethical, potentially lethal experiments on humans that beg comparisons with the World War II era's infamous Tuskegee syphilis studies and barbaric Nazi practices.
Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, which discovered this scandal, is a plaintiff in the American Tradition Institute lawsuit against the EPA. It alleges that, beginning in 2004 and continuing into the Obama administration, hundreds of needy people paid $12 an hour, many of them elderly and in poor health, were exposed to high concentrations of diesel exhaust or particulates that the EPA says cause premature death — without being told fully about the risks, making their “informed consent” impossible, writes Forbes.com contributor Larry Bell.
Doctors who ran the experiments at the University of North Carolina's School of Medicine are being investigated by the university and that state's medical board.
Now, questions by Sen. James Inhofe, top Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, have prompted a probe by the EPA's inspector general, too.
As Mr. Bell says, the EPA has either exaggerated these toxins' lethality or engaged in horrific scientific misconduct. Either way, it's another example of the Obama EPA and its extreme agenda out of control — this time, in manifestly reprehensible ways.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.