A lawsuit filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia seeks injunctive relief from human experimentation being conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency. The experiments involve gassing human subjects with PM2.5.
The New York Health Department defines PM2.5 as follows: “Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is an air pollutant that is a concern for people’s health when levels in air are high.”
In one of these experiments, individuals were given a breathing apparatus through which they inhaled diesel fuel piped in from a truck parked outside.
The lawsuit cites the EPA’s own determination on the dangers posed by PM2.5:“ In the Agency’s most recent scientific assessment of PM2.5., the EPA concluded that PM2.5can kill people shortly after exposure.” The suit goes on to state that “EPA’s 2004 and 2009 scientific assessment expressly found that there is no safe level of PM2.5.”
The lawsuit, filed by American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center, states that these experiments have been conducted at the University of North Carolina and have been ongoing since 2004. The suit names both the EPA and its Administrator Lisa Jackson as plaintiffs.
In its answer to the suit, the EPA admits that PM2.5 may pose a health risk but states that the overall public benefit outweighs the risk to individual subjects. In addition, the EPA’s response to the request for the restraining order states:
While small risks to individuals may evidence themselves as much larger overall public health risks when large populations are exposed to ambient levels of PM2.5 , this does not change the fact that the risk for individuals that do not exhibit these health conditions will be small.
The suit alleges that the subjects were not informed of the dangers of inhaling PM2.5 , a contention which the EPA denies.
The EPA’s response to the suit also states that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.
In a recent interview, the counsel for plaintiffs, Dr. David Schnare announced “The EPA has lost its way.” Schnare, who worked for three decades for the EPA, first as a scientist and policy analyst and later as an attorney, denounced the experiments “illegal,” and stated: “They imposed risks without telling people.”
Read other articles by Janet Phelan Here
Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist whose articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The San Bernardino County Sentinel, The Santa Monica Daily Press, The Long Beach Press Telegram, Oui Magazine and other regional and national publications. Janet specializes in issues pertaining to legal corruption and addresses the heated subject of adult conservatorship, revealing shocking information about the relationships between courts and shady financial consultants. She also covers issues relating to international bioweapons treaties. Her poetry has been published in Gambit, Libera, Applezaba Review, Nausea One and other magazines. Her first book, The Hitler Poems, was published in 2005. She currently resides abroad. You may browse through her articles (and poetry) at janetphelan.com