Emotionally charged language/assertions. Bias clouds judgment. Vera Sharav

may be 100 percent right, but I wish the language was more considered and

the facts laid out more completely/objectively. Just saying every case needs

to be examined carefully before definitive conclusions can be drawn one way

or another. Let¹s see the evidence.

Also mixed metaphors (so to speak) re: EPA mandated pesticide exposure

studies v. Maryland lead paint study.

>From memory (correct me if faulty): It may be useful to note that the

paint study took place in a poor African American neighborhood with old,

flaking leaded paint in every house so children were being exposed to

unknown amounts of lead every day. The housing authority wanted to improve

the situation. The overall goal was to achieve the best possible balance of

reduced risk from leaded paint exposure vs. maximum improved housing, since

there was only so much money to repaint. Leaded paint is cheaper, so more

houses could be repainted if paint with light or moderate lead content could

be used compared to no-lead paint. That way, at least theoretically, more

housing could be repainted with a safer product than the old paint, thus

lowering the overall risk of lead poisoning in the community. Without the

research, they would not know how far their dollar would go, and how much

housing could be repainted.

In hindsight, everyone would agree the study should never have been

conceived in the first place. The right thing would have been to spring more

cash for no-lead paint, period. But the money was tight. Difficult choices.

Some will suffer. Sound familiar? How many surgeries were cancelled last

week? Cardiac revascularizations that didn¹t happen? Sick people waiting

days in ER corridors until a bed comes free....

>Good News!!>We are gratified to inform you that the EPA has suspended a pesticide

>experiment in which would have exposed 60 babies to the hazards of

>pesticides­rather than educating the public about the hazards pesticides

>pose for children.

>

>The purpose of the cynically named experiment, CHEERS, was to study how

>children absorb poisonous chemicals.

>The EPA alloted $7 million of taxpayer money and accepted an additional $2

>million from the American Chemical Council.

>

>A similarly unethical experiment which was co-sponsored by the EPA exposed

>young children to lead poison­without any effort to prevent harm. In a

>landmak decision, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that exposing

>children to any risk above minimal risk in non-therapeutic experiments was

>unethical and violated fundamental moral principles. The Court

>ademonished the research community for approving such research to be

>conducted on helpless children. Check the AHRP website for a link to the

>court decision and to AHRP’s amicus curiae brief in support of the Court.

>

>See also, See AHRP Infomail, Nov. 3 at: <http://www.ahrp.org/>;www.ahrp.org

>(we are in the process of upgrading /updating our website, so if you don’t

>find it, try again)

>

>We applaud Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post for her coverage

>bringing public attention to the experiment.