# My Parents Forced Me to Undergo Pesticide Testing and All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shir



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:

That kids are so vulnerable to pesticide exposure is precisely why the EPA chose them to study, and back in October 2004, they were given $2.1 million to do just that. Who were the granters of this large sum? The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry front group with such big wigs as Monsanto, Exxon and Dow.

The two-year study-called the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS)-would monitor infants in low-income families to determine how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed by babies to children up to age 3, as well as the health effects they would cause.

Surprisingly, the EPA chose to name the entirely serious study a flippant "CHEERS." Study participants would receive $970, a t-shirt, a bib for their baby, a calendar, a newsletter, a framed certificate of appreciation and a video camcorder.
Well, gee, if they're getting a t-shirt...

YUCK!
http://www.sixwise.com/index.asp?Pag...n=Custom&ID=95


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

If you go to the study's website, you will see that there are many sponsors, not all of them corporations. It is quite common for corporations and industry representatives to sponsor research which affects their industry. Much of the research done is paid in part, but not necessarily in full, by some sort of industry sponsor. It makes me feel all right about this practice that research is not paid in full by any one agency. I would not trust that at all, whether it was an environmental group, the government, a university or a corporation. When agencies and industry partner together, there is less likelihood of conflicts of interest.

That being said, I have researched this study a great deal because it is the type of work my hubby does and I have access to many sources, not just the media. If you researchi this study, you will find that is quite well written, it is very common for participants to get prizes and money for participation and, most importantly, they are studying children who are already getting exposed to pesticides. THey are NOT exposing them anymore.

There has been a hysterical reaction to this study but it is fueled, in my opinion, entirely by ignorance. There is no reason to get upset about this study. Do the research. Read about it. Read about how this kind of research is done.

If you don't like the fact that the chemical industry is involved, well that is how science is done in this and most other countries. However, as I stated above, there are many other co-sponsors, thereby limiting conflicts of interest, and any good scientist will know that there is always an agenda or conflicts of interest in any research. That is why you never base an opinion on just one study. It has to be replicable.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

I went to the link you sited. Here is quote: Opponents are concerned that low-income families will up their pesticides use just to be involved in the study.

That is just silly. They will have safeguards to prevent this.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Check it out for yourself:
http://www.epa.gov/cheers/


----------



## SummerLover (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathipaul*
I went to the link you sited. Here is quote: Opponents are concerned that low-income families will up their pesticides use just to be involved in the study.

That is just silly. They will have safeguards to prevent this.

Can you write a little more about these safeguards?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I believe the original link addresses what you spoke of.

Quote:

While the study does not require participants to change the level of pesticides in their home, nor does it expose them to any additional chemicals, it does require that they demonstrate a use of these toxic products in their home. Opponents are concerned that low-income families will up their pesticides use just to be involved in the study.

They also noted that since the study is partially industry-funded, it represents a conflict of interest. Most effects of pesticides are seen in the long-term, so it is unlikely that adverse effects will be seen during the short-term study. The result would be that the chemical industry could then claim an EPA study found their pesticides safe and push for looser regulations for their use.

Said EPA Pesticide Scientist Troy Pierce, "This does sound like it goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of [pesticides] related to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that [pesticide management] should always be used to protect children.
Sooooo... the concerns here are
1. That poor families will up the use of toxic chemicals in their homes so they can participate in the study- you say there are safeguards, but you have not addressed them

2. That the chemical industry is funding this EPA study in any way

3. That we are studying something we already know- pesticides are not good for children.

My fourth concern would be that parents are exploiting their children (aged 0-3 years, see http://www.epa.gov/cheers/images/new...ase_092204.pdf
and forcing them to take part in an unneccesary study in the following ways: (from the web site you listed)

Quote:

# Videotape (the video camcorder will be provided) some of your child's activities and keep an activity diary about your child.

# Allow your child to wear a small watch size activity sensor during the study period. (Approximately 1 week every 3 - 6 months)

# Help to collect some samples of food and urine. Our research staff will show you how to do this and provide you with needed supplies.
You seem to be missing the point of this forum, once again. It is not a debate forum. It is an activism forum. You don't have to take action, and I am sure you would be more than welcome to post your own threads about areas which you feel do and do not require taking action.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SummerLover*
Can you write a little more about these safeguards?

No. I don't work for the EPA. I am only generalizing. My husband is a scientist and does similar research (not with humans) and has worked many times with the EPA. It is standard practice for safeguards to be written into any research done with humans. If you want specifics, go to the CHEERS website and write them a letter.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
You seem to be missing the point of this forum, once again. It is not a debate forum. It is an activism forum. You don't have to take action, and I am sure you would be more than welcome to post your own threads about areas which you feel do and do not require taking action.

All right, I will stop debating. I will just say that this action is unnecessary and based on ignorance of how and why scientific research takes place. If anyone wants to take this action, so be it. But hopefully, people will not just take this action because something is posted on Mothering. We all need to think for ourselves and do research for ourselves and get to completely understand an issue before we take a stand. I urge anyone interested in this issue to do some research about it. Find a scientist and ask questions about how science is done. Write to the EPA and ask them. I was initially shocked by the CHEERS study and had all the same concerns until I did some research and found out a lot of information that helped me realize it is ok.

I am not the only one who thinks it is important to "break the chain" of ignorance and find answers to these questions yourself before you jump on the activism bandwagon: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/epacheers.html


----------



## SummerLover (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathipaul*
No. I don't work for the EPA. I am only generalizing. My husband is a scientist and does similar research (not with humans) and has worked many times with the EPA. It is standard practice for safeguards to be written into any research done with humans. If you want specifics, go to the CHEERS website and write them a letter.

That's a great idea! From your post I took it that you had specific information about this study. Sorry if I misunderstood.


----------



## Stayinhom (Dec 29, 2004)

Anyone who is interested in this should go to www.organicconsumers.org/epa-alert.htm
This has some great info, a petition and also a Big Question and Answer Forum


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Thank you for posting this- it was very helpful.
I found this to be very telling

Quote:

Question: The EPA Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) website states that participants don't even have to have exposure to chemicals, yet your alert states that participants will be exposed to chemicals. What's up with that?

Answer: As part of the study's structure, there will be a "control group" for the sake of data comparison. That is, a small percentage of participants of any study of this type are not exposed to the chemicals being tested, in order to have a comparison of results between those with exposure and those without. According to the study proposal, if an applicant to the study "is likely to have high pesticide use, the participant will be enrolled into the study. In addition, a limited number of individuals will be recruited who are known to have very low pesticide usage to serve as the study comparison population (less than 10% of the total number of participants recruited)." (p.15 of study proposal)
And I thought this was an excellent point as well

Quote:

According to University of Wisconsin's Professor Alto Charo, "Where is the line between enticement and a godfather offer that impoverished families would find hard to refuse? That is really troubling. We make these decisions over and over in public policy. This is one of those moments."
I think this proves that concerns here are not ignorant or silly; after all, we have nothing to gain here by advocating for children!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathipaul*
I am not the only one who thinks it is important to "break the chain" of ignorance and find answers to these questions yourself before you jump on the activism bandwagon: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/epacheers.html

According to this web site

Quote:

In late September, 2004, media outlets began reporting that, while the study didn't require increased pesticide use, that participating families might be tempted to do so to ensure that they qualify for the study's funding. The Organic Consumers Association, behind the present petition, is just one organization leading an opposition to the study. In response to public concern, the FDA agreed to seek another external review of the study on November 11, 2004. The results of that review are expected to be forwarded to the EPA Director in Spring 2005. The study, if approved, would commence after a full review. From an internal EPA memo:

Quote:

"The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS) is designed to fill critical data gaps in our understanding of children's exposure to pesticides and chemicals that can be found in typical household environments. The EPA seeks information to improve both risk assessment and risk management practices that will ultimately enable us to be more protective of children's health. "Recent news articles have mischaracterized the study and EPA is actively working to assure all interested parties that the study is designed to meet rigorous ethical and scientific standards. "Toward this end, EPA is taking the extraordinary step-because protecting the health and well being of children is of paramount importance-of sending the study design for another external, independent review by an expert panel, made up of members of the Science Advisory Board, the Science Advisory Panel and the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, prior to implementation."

I am interpreting this as the EPA acknowledging there may be problems with the study, and so they are taking the step of having another third-party audit of the study before it is implementing.

Of course, people should not blindly sign an online petition just because it is on Mothering. I don't believe anyone, myself included, suggested they should.

BUT neither should anyone daring to question a government and industry funded study just blindly take the word of "scientists" that it is perfectly safe. Maybe I am wrong, but I would rather err on the side of children.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*

BUT neither should anyone daring to question a government and industry funded study just blindly take the word of "scientists" that it is perfectly safe. Maybe I am wrong, but I would rather err on the side of children.

That is absolutely correct. That is why I urge anyone interested to to some research for themselves, including either writing to the EPA or finding a scientist who does this kind of research (I live with one, so that part was easy) so you can get a clear idea of how corporations and industry play a part in today's scientific research, how research is interpreted, reviewed, published, and used, how subjects are found and reimbursed for their time, and what an individual study's objectives are.

I started my research process by being sent the organic consumers website link. I read all their questions and answers, went to the EPA site and read their questions and answers, and then talked to my husband, who has worked extensively with the EPA doing this kind of research (on water plants, animals, and bugs) and has a lot of experience interpreting this kind of research and knows how participants are found, reimbursed and studied. It is a valid concern that children and families in this study group will increase their pesticide usage just to get the money and feebies. However, I trust my hubby when he says that the EPA does this kind of research all the time and they have safequards in place. He says safeguards vary from study to study so I am not sure exactly what they would do.

I guess it is a matter of understanding the role industry plays in influencing science in our society. They do have a strong role. Anyone who voted for Bush has helped increase this role. This study, however, is not fully funded by the Chemical Council. They have a partnership in it. Here is a list of all the partners. You can go to the epa cheers website, referenced above, and find links to these groups websites.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - site with the latest information about disease control and prevention from the US Department of Health and Human Services. The CDC is responsible for the analysis of urine, blood, and breastmilk samples collected during the study.

*Duval County Health Department (DCHD), Jacksonville, FL - site with Duval County information. The Duval County Health Department will liaison to the community. They will also provide support to Battelle, Aerostar, the clinics, and the potential participants during recruitment and after enrollment into the study.

*The American Chemistry Council - represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. The U.S. EPA and ACC signed a Cooperative Research And Development Agreement (CRADA). ACC will provide approximately two million dollars to the U.S. EPA to collect data that will improve our understanding of very young children's exposures to phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and perfluorinated chemicals in their homes. Results from this study will be used to evaluate the potential for children's exposure to these chemicals, determine the impacts of age and activity patterns on exposure, and reduce the uncertainty in exposure and risk assessments for children.

*Battelle Memorial Institute - a global science and technology enterprise that develops and commercializes technology and manages laboratories for customers. Battelle, as the prime contractor for the study, has the primary responsibility to implement the field work in the most beneficial and cost effective manner with sensitivities to both the field technicians and the participants.

*Aerostar Environmental Services, Inc. - a consulting firm providing environmental, engineering, remediation, industrial hygiene, exposure assessment, and GIS services. Subcontractor to Battelle. Primary responsibilities are to conduct the recruiting and sample collection from enrolled participants.

As I look at this list, I trust that there is a good balance between industry, private consulting firms, the government, and health organizations that the best interests of the children are being taken care of. Once again, I say that this activism interest is unwarranted.


----------



## musingmama (Oct 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathipaul*
Once again, I say that this activism interest is unwarranted.

thats your opinion, which I respect. I disagree, and I would appreciate the same respect for my opinion. You have said previously that ignorance is what is causing people to question this study, which I find arrogant and condescending. So, if you are so confident with this study, would you sign up your children?
Its great that you have trust in government agencies and corporations, but I do not share that trust.
The main reason I think this study is alarming is because the effects of pesticides, and chemicals mentioned are longterm, more than a few years, so as someone stated previously, this study may be used by industries as validation and proof that regulations should be loosened, and these products would be used more and more, becoming part of more and more products we are all around everyday.... and then it would be another decade or so until the effects and problems fully manifest, but at that point, the problems could be blamed on some other factor, leading to confusion and misdiagnosis. We know pesticides and certain chemicals are harmful to children, why not respect that? Its not like we NEED these pesticides and chemicals!!


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kathipaul*
Once again, I say that this activism interest is unwarranted.

I, too, disagree.

There HAVE been offensive, racist, and evil studies done in the name of science in our country and others.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *musingmama*
The main reason I think this study is alarming is because the effects of pesticides, and chemicals mentioned are longterm, more than a few years, so as someone stated previously, this study may be used by industries as validation and proof that regulations should be loosened, and these products would be used more and more, becoming part of more and more products we are all around everyday.... and then it would be another decade or so until the effects and problems fully manifest, but at that point, the problems could be blamed on some other factor, leading to confusion and misdiagnosis. We know pesticides and certain chemicals are harmful to children, why not respect that? Its not like we NEED these pesticides and chemicals!!


I totally agree with you but unfortunately that is not how regulation comes to be changed. Plus, please keep in mind that this study is a joint study with private, government (local, state, and national), and industry. As I stated, my hubby is involved in this kind of research on nonhuman subjects for the EPA, local and state government, and industry. Unfortunately, if industry is not involved, they can question any study and get any legislation that condemns their products quashed. If they are involved, they can sway the results and bury the study. There is a lot of info about pesticides out their already but there can always be more. I agree that pesticides should be banned and people should use alternative and be taught why they are better.

I guess my point is that making industry and government the bad guys who do only evil and are up to no good does not really change anything. I still say do some research for yourselves and find out who is involved in this study, who they are, what they are going to do, and why. I did that and I am satisfied with the answers I got. That is all I am saying. Don't just advocate a boycott that you don't know a lot about.

For example, the organic consumer website that was sent to me which originally started me thinking about this issue has a board made up of people who are mainly not scientistis. The only group I recognized is greenpeace and I believe they have become too blinded by their activism in recent years to see the forest for the trees. The others on the board are from groups that are grassroots and very small. They may be knowledgeable but where are the scientists on their board? They are making comments about a scientific process that they really don't know much about. It is very easy to say that the chemical industry is bad and anything they are involved in is evil, especially if it involves children. However, sometimes it is not the case.

Another example, there is a town in Idaho where silver mining has been done for years and their is heavy metals in the water, effectively poisoning the people who live there and drink well water and grow food near the rivers. The mining industry partnered with the state, the epa, and the local tribes to study the issue. My hubby was involved in the testing of the river creatures for heavy metals but the humans were studies also. The mines were found negligent and are now cleaning up the area with the epa. In this case, the industry partners did the right thing by closing and cleaning up. This involved exactly the same kind of studies that you all are acting against and the results were used to shut the industry down. However, there were some co-called environmental activists who tried to shut the research down before it was completed. They said that it was common knowledge that heavy metals did humans and other animals damage and the area should just be cleaned up on that merit. The mines did not buy that and so the study went forward and they were found at fault. The environmentalists may have been right but the industry people needed to see it for themselves and the government helped it all happen.

I am not trying to be disrespectful, just saying that people should do research on an issue before they jump on a bandwagon.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hotmamacita*
I, too, disagree.

There HAVE been offensive, racist, and evil studies done in the name of science in our country and others.

Oh please, what is that supposed to mean? Do you really think I am saying that all science should be done just because it is science?

For the upteenth time, to everyone who thinks this is a bad study, have you read the CHEERS website, have you researched all the parties involved, have you familiarized yourself with the protocols for scientific research done on human subjects, have you talked to someone who has done this kind of research? Until you do, you don't know enough about it to be fully informed. If you are boycotting this study and have not done this kind of research, you are not fully informed. If someone thinks this is disrespectful, I fully apologize.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Just because someone has come to a different conclusion than you have does not make them ignorant, silly, hysterical or ill-informed, all words you have used. How can someone not be offended when you use such inflamatory language, Kathy?


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

I guess if someone told me my opinion was ignorant and ill informed and provided me with links to see for myself, I would follow the links and do the research. If I still disagreed, I would then come back and say so, in an informed manner. If I was reacting to something in a very emotional manner and not in a way that is based on ideas that I fully understand, then I would recognize that I was reacting hysterically (my hubby actually tells me this sometimes and it makes me stop, calm down, and think about what I am saying.) If I was reacting to an argument in a manner that was not based on all the information out there, then that would be foolish or silly. I am not perfect. I react these ways also. But, when informed so, I try to listen to reason, not get offended, and think about what the better informed person is saying to me. Getting offended only means that a person is taking what I write personally and thinking about it. Maybe they will do some research on this issue now and learn for themselves what this CHEERS study is about. Maybe they will find out something I did not know and can write back with more info.

Offending someone is not the worst thing in the world. We cannot all write in affirmation of each other. How would we learn? How would be grow as individuals if we all just agreed with each other and used nice words? When someone offends me, I sometimes take it personally and get hurt but then I think about what they were saying and try to learn from the experience.

Besides, I don't recall ever saying that any one person was silly, hysterical, ill informed or ignorant. I think the reaction to this issue has been, at various times, all of these things, and by that I refer to the reaction nation-wide, not specifically the writers in this forum.

Once again, I ask, why not do some research on the issue for yourself? Why focus on my semantics?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

I am focusing on your semantics because I find them offensive and condescending.

I have done the research, and have come to a different conclusion.

Furthermore, this is not a debate board.

Quote:

Discussions of policies and of the semantics of issues should be placed in News & Current Events or other appropriate forum.
If you would like to start a thread on how safe this study is, or educating us on the protocols of scientific experiments with human subjects, please follow forum guidelines and take it to the appropriate forum. I ask you this respectfully.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Let me remind EVERYONE - that the Activism board is NOT a debate board. Period. End of story.

If you feel a cause is not worthy...then ignore the post. If you feel the counter cause is more worthy, begin your own thread. DO NOT post in a thread to tell someone that the cause/call to action is incorrect/wrong/ignorant/stupid/misinformed.

Thank you.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Here are some more links to research the issue- these are from independent, non-profit resources who have nothing to gain from this study happening or from it being cancelled. Unlike the EPA, a government agency which has already accepted in excess of 2 million dollars for this study alone. Unlike the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for them chemical industry. I think that part of evaluating sources should be asking, what does this group have to lose or gain?

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=433

Quote:

While 10 percent of the participants are the control group with no or low pesticide exposure in their homes, the remaining 90 percent are eligible to enter and remain in the study only if they who spray routinely.

Quote:

Families are recruited from public clinics and hospitals

Quote:

The study makes no provision for intervening if infants or toddlers show signs of developmental problems or register alarmingly high exposure levels in their urine samples.

Quote:

In its Desk Statement, EPA claims that the "study protocols have been reviewed and approved by four Independent Institutional Review Boards for the protection of Human Subjects" but does not make copies of those reviews available.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pestici...eers.duval.htm

Quote:

The EPA received $2.1 million to fund the CHEERS study from the American Chemistry Council, which includes Dow, Exxon, Monsanto, and other corporations. The study violates ethics standards by exposing the children to health risks, exploiting the financial vulnerability of their families, and permitting industries who have a vested interest in the outcome to fund the study. CHEERS has been put on hold after a public outcry, but has not been canceled.
http://www.checnet.org/healthehouse/...sp?Main_ID=928

Quote:

EPA plans to accept $2.1 million from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to fund this ethically questionable study. Instead of allowing the pesticide industry to direct its research priorities, the agency should be doing all it can to prevent children's exposure to toxic pesticides. EPA should be informing parents of the risks of home pesticide use and promoting alternatives. Instead it has chosen collaboration with the industry that produces these chemicals to see how much exposure is "acceptable."
http://www.calisafe.org/cheers.htm

Quote:

Furthermore, EPA's study is inherently unethical because children cannot legally give their consent to participate in such experimentation. CHEERS directly violates the Nuremberg Code Directives for Human Experimentation arising from world condemnation of the Nazis' experimentation on human subjects without their consent. Using children without their consent violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Moreover, this study suggests that participating parents are fully informed and competent to rely on the judgment of the individuals conducting the study or applying the pesticides on their own behalf as well as for their babies. Furthermore, the use of government funds to underwrite such tests may create a liability to the government (and the American people) for any future problems attributable to the study.

Quote:

A New York Supreme Court Justice Edward Greenfield ruled in T.D. v The NYS Office of Mental Health (1995), "Parents may be free to make martyrs of themselves, but it does not follow that they may make martyrs of their children."
http://www.generationgreen.org/actio...ews-cheers.htm

In an email obtained by the Washington Post, Troy Pierce, an EPA life scientist in Atlanta, said the study "goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of [pesticides] related to children

http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/11/09/epa_stalls_infan

Quote:

Agency scientists note that -

· Exposure of infants to potentially harmful chemicals without some countervailing medical benefit can never meet the ethical standards that EPA claims to meet;
· The reviews cited by EPA include that of Battelle, which is the primary contractor for the study and would hardly be independent. These reviews also have not been posted by EPA so that the scope of the reviews is unknown; and
· In earlier press releases, EPA claimed review and participation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) but in its latest statements, CDC is no longer referenced.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

before reading the other threads:

I believe the study was done on pesticides are being absorbed which the participants would have been exposed to anyway, am I correct?

In this case I welcome these studies because I believe they are neccessary to create safer products which,maybe, don't have any chemicals that are being absorped or something similar.

Since I take it that the participants have to put some time into tracking what chemicals they use on an every day basis I only find it fair that they are being compensated for this.

As a result, why is there any action needed?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

If you read all the other posts and links, you would see why.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
If you read all the other posts and links, you would see why.

I did now and still hold this opinion.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Wow, you're a really quick reader- you read all those posts and links 4 minutes?


----------



## Raven67 (Apr 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
I did now and still hold this opinion.


Me too....This thing is no big deal. No children are being exposed to pesticides deliberately or in addition to their ordinary exposure. So much hysteria and hoo haa. I'd let my own family participate in this. Ok, to keep within the rules of the forum (I think), I need to advocate some action: Please don't take action against this study, it is likely to provide useful information.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Wow, you're a really quick reader- you read all those posts and links 4 minutes?

I read even faster than i type which is pretty fast.I of course did not have an in depth reading with notes taken.


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
I am focusing on your semantics because I find them offensive and condescending.

I have done the research, and have come to a different conclusion.

Furthermore, this is not a debate board.

If you would like to start a thread on how safe this study is, or educating us on the protocols of scientific experiments with human subjects, please follow forum guidelines and take it to the appropriate forum. I ask you this respectfully.

Why is it that you get to debate and argue and no one else does?


----------



## kathipaul (Sep 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
Here are some more links to research the issue- these are from independent, non-profit resources who have nothing to gain from this study happening or from it being cancelled. Unlike the EPA, a government agency which has already accepted in excess of 2 million dollars for this study alone. Unlike the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for them chemical industry. I think that part of evaluating sources should be asking, what does this group have to lose or gain?


I am moving this debate over the news. I look forward to continuing it there. In the mean time, Annettemarie, please consider Adina's written comment that this is not a forum for debate. That means you, too.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Trust me, I have absolutely no desire to debate you or anyone else on this topic. I wrote the original post, and I added more links to back up my original assertion. You have done your own research and come to a different conclusion, which is fine.


----------



## musingmama (Oct 31, 2004)

thanks for all the info and links, annette. after researching, reading, _and_ some time to think about it all, those of us who wish to take action will and those who do not share that opinion will not. Everyones opinion is equally valid .


----------

