US Law Allows Testing BioChem Agents On Civilians

reply to post by muons200


So what chemicals, if any, were released in those exercises you listed?

Well in test in the cold war many elements were used, and some we may never know about.

methylacetoacetate, or MA, a chemical that irritates the eyes and throat
zinc cadmium sulphide
serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.
anthrax experiments on Gruinard on the Scottish coast
sea trials off the us and uk coasts with sarin,vx,soman,tabun
radioactive dust via artillery shells, bombs and airplane spraying Dugway in the 1940s and 1950s
ect.

Some later tests running into the 80s and 90s used agents that would simulate more deadly agents.

Bacillus globigii A bacterium related to anthrax,

Now here is a bit of info that with what is happening in europe, some people here might make connections. But i do not...

Some tests of the coast of England in the cold war. An agent that was used in many tests. Called. E. coli bacteria

A lot of the later tests used information from the earlier tests and many were just table top tests and some were just computer models.

Sometimes a version of the common cold has been used in tests with added genetic markers.


The exercises i stated in a post above, that were run in England were just computer models and mainly to see if the system worked. Some small exercises were used, from activating regional control centres, testing containment and treatment protocols, tests to check that the communications systems, radios, secure telephone,internet, and video conferences functioned as needed.
Also staff training from goverment to councils to health care personnel ect.

I added the above exercises, as stated in the above post, that were conducted in the UK in the last few years because they use information. That was gathered from tests in the cold war and up to date information from the WHO about disease interactions in the real world.

reply to post by muons200


You seem to have completely missed the line I was pointing out, it is here: "A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report"

reply to post by muons200


Might want to do a little research on the 'dangerous' bacteria you are posting about. Here is that 'anthrax' related one you mentioned.

Ok if i was mistaken about you reply i apologise.

"A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report"

It also states that many records were lost or misplaced, and many people and groups have put forward evidence that they say proves people were harmed.

One of the main substances used in US and UK was cadmium. Now it is stated as being safe and no one was harmed.

But then there is this...While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon


Also there is evidence over the years pointing to the posability of medical problem clusters in the UK. In areas were testing took place.

The goverment also claimed that soldiers in the nuclear tests were safe and did not come to harm.

Sorry its been a long day and i got one part wrong. Been doing several things at once.

Bacillus anthracis, causes Anthrax. Not as i put Bacillus globigii A bacterium related to anthrax.

Thankyou for pointing this out.

reply to post by muons200

Cadmium is not only a carcinogen in some compounds, it is also highly toxic in some compounds. But there's cadmium (the metal) and there's cadmium chloride (warfare agent) and there's zinc cadmium sulfide (the marker used in the tests). They are not the same thing. Even if they were, the increased risk of cancer to those exposed is so low as to not matter. They are more likely to get killed in a traffic accident.

Information on how zinc cadmium sulfide affects human health is sparse, but data from animal tests indicate that the compound, when taken orally, has no short-term toxic effects; nor was it found to be a skin or eye irritant. Because limited laboratory research on the toxicity of zinc cadmium sulfide has been performed on animals, and no data exist on humans, the committee based its conclusions about the ability of the compound to cause cancer on what it called a "worst-case" assumption: that the compound is every bit as toxic as its most toxic component -- cadmium. High doses of cadmium over long periods of time could cause bone and kidney problems and lung cancer, but the Army's tests involved small doses of a less toxic compound over short periods of time, the report says. The committee estimated that the excess maximum lifetime cancer risk for the most heavily exposed residents of St. Louis is 1.5 in 1 million; in Minneapolis it is one in 2.5 million; one in 1 million in Winnipeg; seven in 100 million in Fort Wayne; and one in 100 million in Corpus Christi.

www8.nationalacademies.org...

The assessment on the effects of the Porton Down tests:

Results: About 4600 kg ZnCdS were dispersed from aircraft and ships, at times when the prevailing winds would allow large areas of the country to be covered. Cadmium released from 44 long range trials for which data are available, and extrapolated to a total of 76 trials to allow for trials with incomplete information, is about 1.2% of the estimated total release of Cd into the atmosphere over the same period. “Worst case” estimates are 10 μg Cd inhaled over 8 years, equivalent to Cd inhaled in an urban environment in 12–100 days, or from smoking 100 cigarettes.

oem.bmj.com...

I recently found this subject still "Front and Centre" on Global Skywatch's forum - they still run the line that since the law has been published and is available to be read, and you haven't objected, therefore you have given informed consent.

So I went out to see if I could find a definition of informed consent in any US statute or Federal code of practice.

It didn't take very long to find CFR 45.116

the page title is:

Title 45 CFR Part

Code of Federal Regulations

TITLE 45 PUBLIC WELFARE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

PART 46
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

And in part, informed consent reads:

(a) Basic elements of informed consent. Except as provided in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, in seeking informed consent the following information shall be provided to each subject:

(1) A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research and the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and identification of any procedures which are experimental;

(2) A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject;

(3) A description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be expected from the research;

....plus more....

This is, of course, completely different to the story that Global Skywatch are pushing with their article.

I find it very funny to see some people saying there is nothing to see here, the government assures us the levels were not harmful.

The problem is the government did this without any consent or knowledge of the public. I personally would like the choice to decide if I want to be subjected to any chemicals, harmful or not, as I believe that is my right. The government does not have the right to test anything on me without my consent, I am not a slave.

Some of you obviously have no problem with this kind of behaviour from the government so I guess you also have no problems being a unwitting lab rat.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

The government does not have the right to test anything on me without my consent, I am not a slave.

You're right. And the law supports you in this.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I find it very funny to see some people saying there is nothing to see here, the government assures us the levels were not harmful.

The problem is the government did this without any consent or knowledge of the public. I personally would like the choice to decide if I want to be subjected to any chemicals, harmful or not, as I believe that is my right. The government does not have the right to test anything on me without my consent, I am not a slave.

And that is exactly what the law now says - you cannot be tested without your informed consent.

Personaly I am very happy that what was deemed "acceptable" in the 1950's & 60's is now no longer acceptable, and the laws have caught up with the times!

Some of you obviously have no problem with this kind of behaviour from the government so I guess you also have no problems being a unwitting lab rat.

That is insulting nonsense.

I also do not want to be tested with anything, whether it is considered harmless or not, without my consent.

But pointing out that it was considered harmless, and the substances used were not actually those which are poisonous, and the levels were low, is not the same as having "no problem" - it is a factual accounting as to why no actual harm was likely done.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the person agrees that uninformed testing is acceptable!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

The government does not have the right to test anything on me without my consent, I am not a slave.

You're right. And the law says so.

And how can I be sure some Homeland Security law can't trump this written consent thing? Isn't the gov passing a law stating the US homeland is a battlezone and the military can arrest and detain without warrents? It seems like there isn't any rights left that cannot be superceeded by all the new security laws since 911.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


I believe the "battlezone" law is being considered - whether it is "being passed" is another thing - there's a thread on it here - www.abovetopsecret.com... (US political madness) & a smaller one here - www.abovetopsecret.com... (Breaking alternative news)

And you will have to read the laws in context with each other - just like you always have had to. And hte courts are there to sort out any contradiction between them.

Ultimately what you seem worried about is that another law can superseed your protection - and that is true. And it always has been - ever since whoever it was back in Sumer or Akkad wrote down the first code.

To ensure it doesn't happen - or at least to keep informed - you should probably support your local ACLU or equivalent!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

That is insulting nonsense.

Why? Someone posts operation LAC and DEWII and right away the "levels were not considered harmful" is brought up. So freaking what!!! That is not the problem. The problem was the morality of testing on a unknowing public. How many newborns breathed in that garbage? Would you want your children breathing that crap?

I have no trust in the government to follow their own rules. They break them again and again and again and for some reason, you and others, would have us believe they would never do such a thing again becuase look, here it says they need consent.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

So the law should not have been passed, right?
Because it's pointless, right?

The point of the OP was that the law allows testing without consent. It does not.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

That is insulting nonsense.

Why?

I told you why in my post - because yuo are putting words into peoles mouths that they never said, and which are not actually connected to what they did say at all.

You are making gross assumptions about posters on here that are utterly unjustified.

Someone posts operation LAC and DEWII and right away the "levels were not considered harmful" is brought up. So freaking what!!! That is not the problem.

nonetheless it is still important information!

The problem was the morality of testing on a unknowing public.

and to skip from noting that the materials are harmless to saying that people who say as much are supporting this type oftesting is unjustified.

How many newborns breathed in that garbage? Would you want your children breathing that crap?

More insulting strawmen

I have no trust in the government to follow their own rules. They break them again and again and again and for some reason, you and others, would have us believe they would never do such a thing again becuase look, here it says they need consent.

More false accusations and illogical strawmen - the OP says the law makes the testing legal - well it doesn't - if it is broken then any testing that breaks it is ILLEGAL. If the Govt doesnt' follow it then that is ILLEGAL.

anyone breaking hte law should bde prosecuted - whether the Govt or anyone else.

People here - debunkers included - are well aware that Govt's sometimes break their own laws - but that is not a good reason to do away with the laws, or to say they mean things they do not!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

and to skip from noting that the materials are harmless to saying that people who say as much are supporting this type oftesting is unjustified.

Its all to easy to say 50 or 60 years later that the levels are not CONSIDERED harmful. They never said those chemicals were harmless.

Could the government state 100% that nobody suffered ill effects? No they could not.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Could the government state 100% that nobody suffered ill effects? No they could not.

A good reason to create a law to prevent such testing.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


anyone breaking hte law should bde prosecuted - whether the Govt or anyone else.

Indeed. Care to post a example of any politition being prosecuted and going to jail besides Scooter Libey. Seems like all the war criminals that are polititions are still walking around and living good lives.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Here's a start
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

and to skip from noting that the materials are harmless to saying that people who say as much are supporting this type oftesting is unjustified.

Its all to easy to say 50 or 60 years later that the levels are not CONSIDERED harmful.

It is what the studies say -

In most of the Army tests, people were exposed to such small amounts of the compound that they would have been likely to get higher doses of cadmium from environmental and industrial sources, the report said.

They never said those chemicals were harmless.

Dunno - but what is your point?

Could the government state 100% that nobody suffered ill effects? No they could not.

And again - what is your point...??? ;puz: