offdutyfireman
Active member
Hey Russ. Missed you in TN this year.
EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution
- Thread starter Robert Hinderliter
- Start date
Hey Russ. Missed you in TN this year.
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
Here's another real interesting article..........
[h=1]Is Your Organization Susceptible to Fraud?[/h] by Jim Marasco , CPA, CFE, CIA
Fraud Matters, Winter 2007
What industries are most victimized by fraud?
The typical organization loses 5 percent of its annual revenues to occupational fraud, according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2006 Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse.
Some industries are more susceptible than others. Do you know how your organization fares?
Fraud affects individual industries in different ways. For example, the retail industry may experience a greater number of individual fraud occurrences, but the average loss may lag behind other industries.
The common denominator is that everyone is susceptible to fraud. How well your organization protects itself will prevent you from becoming another statistic.
The most susceptible industries
The banking and financial services industry is usually referenced as one of the most victimized industries. Frauds affecting this sector range from simple cash larcenies to sophisticated check tampering and kiting schemes. In the past few years, identity theft and credit card fraud have become increasingly popular as the Internet continues to develop and banking becomes more automated.
Because of its sheer size and number of employees, the government is extremely susceptible to fraud. As such, government agencies have fallen victim to nearly every type of fraud that exists. This includes billing fraud, the purchase of substandard/low-quality products, asset misappropriation and payroll/expense reimbursement fraud.
The manufacturing sector also carries a higher risk for fraud. The nature of this industry makes it susceptible to noncash frauds such as asset misappropriation, where employees steal goods and materials or intellectual property, such as trade secrets or technology.
Billing frauds are popular because of the various products used in assembly. Additionally, expense reimbursement fraud is also common because of the sales forces employed by these manufacturing companies.
If you operate within the retail sector of the economy, you’re familiar with fraud and its prevention measures. Inventory theft and cash larcenies are most prevalent. As mentioned previously, the number of occurrences easily eclipse other industries, but the average dollar amount is typically lower.
It would be remiss not to mention the healthcare industry as being vulnerable to fraud. The most common types include insurance fraud perpetrated by providers or billing scams employed by outside agencies. As our population ages, more dollars will be spent in this sector, making it an even more popular target.
Safeguards to mitigate your exposure
Each industry adopts internal controls that offer it the best protection against fraud and abuse. These safeguards may overlap industries or be totally unique to the sector itself.
The financial services industry has tightened its controls over the past few years by incorporating security numbers and photos on credit cards and enabling checking account verification at the registers for retailers to protect against taking bad checks.
The government uses thousands of internal auditors along with retaining outsourced assistance to audit its various departments and implement controls.
As manufacturers have become more automated, so have their internal controls. Types of controls include inventory management programs, installation of surveillance equipment in plants and loading docks, GPS tracking on delivery trucks and corporate charge card monitoring for business expenses.
Retailers use surveillance, inventory security tags, perpetual inventory systems and sophisticated point-of-sale systems to track purchases and returns to thwart perpetrators.
Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid have updated their claims auditing systems to spot suspected instances of fraud. Fraud hotlines and whistle-blowers have been highly successful in the healthcare industry. Some of the largest fraud settlements have resulted from whistle-blower actions.
Securing your company
Even with these controls, fraudulent activity still manages to permeate these safeguards. The best way to protect your organization is to have an internal control review performed on your operation.
Your current practices will be compared against peers in your industry. The goal is twofold – to protect and safeguard your company from being victimized and to improve your processes to obtain greater efficiencies and become more effective at each level of the organization.
If you suspect a fraud has occurred, don’t hesitate to call our firm. Specific protocol should be followed.
Our experts can help counsel you through this process. We can help you determine if a forensic review of your records is necessary and maximize your recovery if a fraud did occur.
In these types of situations, time is of the essence. Your chances of recovering what is lost are maximized by reacting quickly to the situation.
James I. Marasco, CPA/CFF, CFE, CIA
Jim is a partner at EFP Rotenberg. He brings more than 18 years of public accounting and auditing experience. He is a full-time management consultant and travels extensively throughout the country while leading StoneBridge Business Partners (an EFP Rotenberg affiliate company). Read more about Jim . Article republished with the permission of CPAmerica.
[h=1]Is Your Organization Susceptible to Fraud?[/h] by Jim Marasco , CPA, CFE, CIA
Fraud Matters, Winter 2007
What industries are most victimized by fraud?
The typical organization loses 5 percent of its annual revenues to occupational fraud, according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2006 Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse.
Some industries are more susceptible than others. Do you know how your organization fares?
Fraud affects individual industries in different ways. For example, the retail industry may experience a greater number of individual fraud occurrences, but the average loss may lag behind other industries.
The common denominator is that everyone is susceptible to fraud. How well your organization protects itself will prevent you from becoming another statistic.
The most susceptible industries
The banking and financial services industry is usually referenced as one of the most victimized industries. Frauds affecting this sector range from simple cash larcenies to sophisticated check tampering and kiting schemes. In the past few years, identity theft and credit card fraud have become increasingly popular as the Internet continues to develop and banking becomes more automated.
Because of its sheer size and number of employees, the government is extremely susceptible to fraud. As such, government agencies have fallen victim to nearly every type of fraud that exists. This includes billing fraud, the purchase of substandard/low-quality products, asset misappropriation and payroll/expense reimbursement fraud.
The manufacturing sector also carries a higher risk for fraud. The nature of this industry makes it susceptible to noncash frauds such as asset misappropriation, where employees steal goods and materials or intellectual property, such as trade secrets or technology.
Billing frauds are popular because of the various products used in assembly. Additionally, expense reimbursement fraud is also common because of the sales forces employed by these manufacturing companies.
If you operate within the retail sector of the economy, you’re familiar with fraud and its prevention measures. Inventory theft and cash larcenies are most prevalent. As mentioned previously, the number of occurrences easily eclipse other industries, but the average dollar amount is typically lower.
It would be remiss not to mention the healthcare industry as being vulnerable to fraud. The most common types include insurance fraud perpetrated by providers or billing scams employed by outside agencies. As our population ages, more dollars will be spent in this sector, making it an even more popular target.
Safeguards to mitigate your exposure
Each industry adopts internal controls that offer it the best protection against fraud and abuse. These safeguards may overlap industries or be totally unique to the sector itself.
The financial services industry has tightened its controls over the past few years by incorporating security numbers and photos on credit cards and enabling checking account verification at the registers for retailers to protect against taking bad checks.
The government uses thousands of internal auditors along with retaining outsourced assistance to audit its various departments and implement controls.
As manufacturers have become more automated, so have their internal controls. Types of controls include inventory management programs, installation of surveillance equipment in plants and loading docks, GPS tracking on delivery trucks and corporate charge card monitoring for business expenses.
Retailers use surveillance, inventory security tags, perpetual inventory systems and sophisticated point-of-sale systems to track purchases and returns to thwart perpetrators.
Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid have updated their claims auditing systems to spot suspected instances of fraud. Fraud hotlines and whistle-blowers have been highly successful in the healthcare industry. Some of the largest fraud settlements have resulted from whistle-blower actions.
Securing your company
Even with these controls, fraudulent activity still manages to permeate these safeguards. The best way to protect your organization is to have an internal control review performed on your operation.
Your current practices will be compared against peers in your industry. The goal is twofold – to protect and safeguard your company from being victimized and to improve your processes to obtain greater efficiencies and become more effective at each level of the organization.
If you suspect a fraud has occurred, don’t hesitate to call our firm. Specific protocol should be followed.
Our experts can help counsel you through this process. We can help you determine if a forensic review of your records is necessary and maximize your recovery if a fraud did occur.
In these types of situations, time is of the essence. Your chances of recovering what is lost are maximized by reacting quickly to the situation.
James I. Marasco, CPA/CFF, CFE, CIA
Jim is a partner at EFP Rotenberg. He brings more than 18 years of public accounting and auditing experience. He is a full-time management consultant and travels extensively throughout the country while leading StoneBridge Business Partners (an EFP Rotenberg affiliate company). Read more about Jim . Article republished with the permission of CPAmerica.
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
Here's another real interesting article..........
[h=1]Is Your Organization Susceptible to Fraud?[/h] by Jim Marasco , CPA, CFE, CIA
Fraud Matters, Winter 2007
What industries are most victimized by fraud?
The typical organization loses 5 percent of its annual revenues to occupational fraud, according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2006 Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse.
Some industries are more susceptible than others. Do you know how your organization fares?
Fraud affects individual industries in different ways. For example, the retail industry may experience a greater number of individual fraud occurrences, but the average loss may lag behind other industries.
The common denominator is that everyone is susceptible to fraud. How well your organization protects itself will prevent you from becoming another statistic.
The most susceptible industries
The banking and financial services industry is usually referenced as one of the most victimized industries. Frauds affecting this sector range from simple cash larcenies to sophisticated check tampering and kiting schemes. In the past few years, identity theft and credit card fraud have become increasingly popular as the Internet continues to develop and banking becomes more automated.
Because of its sheer size and number of employees, the government is extremely susceptible to fraud. As such, government agencies have fallen victim to nearly every type of fraud that exists. This includes billing fraud, the purchase of substandard/low-quality products, asset misappropriation and payroll/expense reimbursement fraud.
The manufacturing sector also carries a higher risk for fraud. The nature of this industry makes it susceptible to noncash frauds such as asset misappropriation, where employees steal goods and materials or intellectual property, such as trade secrets or technology.
Billing frauds are popular because of the various products used in assembly. Additionally, expense reimbursement fraud is also common because of the sales forces employed by these manufacturing companies.
If you operate within the retail sector of the economy, you’re familiar with fraud and its prevention measures. Inventory theft and cash larcenies are most prevalent. As mentioned previously, the number of occurrences easily eclipse other industries, but the average dollar amount is typically lower.
It would be remiss not to mention the healthcare industry as being vulnerable to fraud. The most common types include insurance fraud perpetrated by providers or billing scams employed by outside agencies. As our population ages, more dollars will be spent in this sector, making it an even more popular target.
Safeguards to mitigate your exposure
Each industry adopts internal controls that offer it the best protection against fraud and abuse. These safeguards may overlap industries or be totally unique to the sector itself.
The financial services industry has tightened its controls over the past few years by incorporating security numbers and photos on credit cards and enabling checking account verification at the registers for retailers to protect against taking bad checks.
The government uses thousands of internal auditors along with retaining outsourced assistance to audit its various departments and implement controls.
As manufacturers have become more automated, so have their internal controls. Types of controls include inventory management programs, installation of surveillance equipment in plants and loading docks, GPS tracking on delivery trucks and corporate charge card monitoring for business expenses.
Retailers use surveillance, inventory security tags, perpetual inventory systems and sophisticated point-of-sale systems to track purchases and returns to thwart perpetrators.
Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid have updated their claims auditing systems to spot suspected instances of fraud. Fraud hotlines and whistle-blowers have been highly successful in the healthcare industry. Some of the largest fraud settlements have resulted from whistle-blower actions.
Securing your company
Even with these controls, fraudulent activity still manages to permeate these safeguards. The best way to protect your organization is to have an internal control review performed on your operation.
Your current practices will be compared against peers in your industry. The goal is twofold – to protect and safeguard your company from being victimized and to improve your processes to obtain greater efficiencies and become more effective at each level of the organization.
If you suspect a fraud has occurred, don’t hesitate to call our firm. Specific protocol should be followed.
Our experts can help counsel you through this process. We can help you determine if a forensic review of your records is necessary and maximize your recovery if a fraud did occur.
In these types of situations, time is of the essence. Your chances of recovering what is lost are maximized by reacting quickly to the situation.
James I. Marasco, CPA/CFF, CFE, CIA
Jim is a partner at EFP Rotenberg. He brings more than 18 years of public accounting and auditing experience. He is a full-time management consultant and travels extensively throughout the country while leading StoneBridge Business Partners (an EFP Rotenberg affiliate company). Read more about Jim . Article republished with the permission of CPAmerica.
[h=1]Is Your Organization Susceptible to Fraud?[/h] by Jim Marasco , CPA, CFE, CIA
Fraud Matters, Winter 2007
What industries are most victimized by fraud?
The typical organization loses 5 percent of its annual revenues to occupational fraud, according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2006 Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse.
Some industries are more susceptible than others. Do you know how your organization fares?
Fraud affects individual industries in different ways. For example, the retail industry may experience a greater number of individual fraud occurrences, but the average loss may lag behind other industries.
The common denominator is that everyone is susceptible to fraud. How well your organization protects itself will prevent you from becoming another statistic.
The most susceptible industries
The banking and financial services industry is usually referenced as one of the most victimized industries. Frauds affecting this sector range from simple cash larcenies to sophisticated check tampering and kiting schemes. In the past few years, identity theft and credit card fraud have become increasingly popular as the Internet continues to develop and banking becomes more automated.
Because of its sheer size and number of employees, the government is extremely susceptible to fraud. As such, government agencies have fallen victim to nearly every type of fraud that exists. This includes billing fraud, the purchase of substandard/low-quality products, asset misappropriation and payroll/expense reimbursement fraud.
The manufacturing sector also carries a higher risk for fraud. The nature of this industry makes it susceptible to noncash frauds such as asset misappropriation, where employees steal goods and materials or intellectual property, such as trade secrets or technology.
Billing frauds are popular because of the various products used in assembly. Additionally, expense reimbursement fraud is also common because of the sales forces employed by these manufacturing companies.
If you operate within the retail sector of the economy, you’re familiar with fraud and its prevention measures. Inventory theft and cash larcenies are most prevalent. As mentioned previously, the number of occurrences easily eclipse other industries, but the average dollar amount is typically lower.
It would be remiss not to mention the healthcare industry as being vulnerable to fraud. The most common types include insurance fraud perpetrated by providers or billing scams employed by outside agencies. As our population ages, more dollars will be spent in this sector, making it an even more popular target.
Safeguards to mitigate your exposure
Each industry adopts internal controls that offer it the best protection against fraud and abuse. These safeguards may overlap industries or be totally unique to the sector itself.
The financial services industry has tightened its controls over the past few years by incorporating security numbers and photos on credit cards and enabling checking account verification at the registers for retailers to protect against taking bad checks.
The government uses thousands of internal auditors along with retaining outsourced assistance to audit its various departments and implement controls.
As manufacturers have become more automated, so have their internal controls. Types of controls include inventory management programs, installation of surveillance equipment in plants and loading docks, GPS tracking on delivery trucks and corporate charge card monitoring for business expenses.
Retailers use surveillance, inventory security tags, perpetual inventory systems and sophisticated point-of-sale systems to track purchases and returns to thwart perpetrators.
Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid have updated their claims auditing systems to spot suspected instances of fraud. Fraud hotlines and whistle-blowers have been highly successful in the healthcare industry. Some of the largest fraud settlements have resulted from whistle-blower actions.
Securing your company
Even with these controls, fraudulent activity still manages to permeate these safeguards. The best way to protect your organization is to have an internal control review performed on your operation.
Your current practices will be compared against peers in your industry. The goal is twofold – to protect and safeguard your company from being victimized and to improve your processes to obtain greater efficiencies and become more effective at each level of the organization.
If you suspect a fraud has occurred, don’t hesitate to call our firm. Specific protocol should be followed.
Our experts can help counsel you through this process. We can help you determine if a forensic review of your records is necessary and maximize your recovery if a fraud did occur.
In these types of situations, time is of the essence. Your chances of recovering what is lost are maximized by reacting quickly to the situation.
James I. Marasco, CPA/CFF, CFE, CIA
Jim is a partner at EFP Rotenberg. He brings more than 18 years of public accounting and auditing experience. He is a full-time management consultant and travels extensively throughout the country while leading StoneBridge Business Partners (an EFP Rotenberg affiliate company). Read more about Jim . Article republished with the permission of CPAmerica.
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
As a Pressure Washing Industry, we have a protection from Fraud & Corruption.
[h=1]Welcome![/h] [h=1]Our Mission (more)[/h] Welcome to the Institute for Fraud Prevention (IFP). Our mission is to globally reduce fraud and corruption.
The Institute for Fraud Prevention (IFP) is an an industry/university cooperative research effort dedicated to multi-disciplinary research, education and prevention of fraud and corruption. The IFP’s primary mission is to improve the ability of business and government to combat these crimes and to educate the general public on effective methods of recognizing and deterring them.
[h=1]Upcoming Events[/h] [h=2]IFP Fall 2012 Meeting - Register Online[/h] The IFP’s Fall 2012 Meeting will be held November 15-16 at BNP Paribas, 787 7th Avenue Equitable Tower New York, NY 10019. For hotel accommodations contact Stacy Lally at (304) 293-8281 - act quickly to take advantage of a group discount. For more information, please email inquiries@theifp.org.
Research proposals and related funding requests will be considered for presentation and future anti-fraud research priorities will be discussed at this meeting. Please check back to see new projects underway and updated information on future activities.
[h=1]Leadership:[/h]
[h=1]IFP Call for Research Proposals:[/h] [h=2]General Proposal Guidelines:[/h]
[h=1]Welcome![/h] [h=1]Our Mission (more)[/h] Welcome to the Institute for Fraud Prevention (IFP). Our mission is to globally reduce fraud and corruption.
The Institute for Fraud Prevention (IFP) is an an industry/university cooperative research effort dedicated to multi-disciplinary research, education and prevention of fraud and corruption. The IFP’s primary mission is to improve the ability of business and government to combat these crimes and to educate the general public on effective methods of recognizing and deterring them.
[h=1]Upcoming Events[/h] [h=2]IFP Fall 2012 Meeting - Register Online[/h] The IFP’s Fall 2012 Meeting will be held November 15-16 at BNP Paribas, 787 7th Avenue Equitable Tower New York, NY 10019. For hotel accommodations contact Stacy Lally at (304) 293-8281 - act quickly to take advantage of a group discount. For more information, please email inquiries@theifp.org.
Research proposals and related funding requests will be considered for presentation and future anti-fraud research priorities will be discussed at this meeting. Please check back to see new projects underway and updated information on future activities.
[h=1]Leadership:[/h]
- President — Robert Coghlan, BNP Paribas
- Executive Director — LaRue Williams, PMP, MPA
- Director of Research — Richard Riley, CFE, Ph.D., CPA/CFF
- Secretary — John Warren, CFE, J.D.
[h=1]IFP Call for Research Proposals:[/h] [h=2]General Proposal Guidelines:[/h]
- The Project Proposal Form must be received by October 15, 2012.
- Questions should be directed to the IFP Vice President of Research and Operations Dick Riley, rriley@theifp.org.
- It is expected that any grant recipients will make substantial progress on their project by our Spring 2013 meeting.
- Generally, grant recipients are expected to present a progress report at each semi-annual IFP meeting until the project is completed and the results of their study upon completion.
- The Project Proposal Form is limited to one page. The proposal must include a budget with sufficient supporting calculations and reflect the total amount requested. The initial funding limit per project is currently $10,000.
- Generally, those projects soliciting monetary support are not requesting access to IFP databases.
- IFP membership will determine which proposals will be funded and makes no commitment to fund any projects.
- SEC litigation release database including 326 individual financial statement frauds from 1985 to 2009. Each observation is a public company and the dataset includes extensive financial statement data. Click here for a more detailed description of the database.
- Data observations behind the ACFE's 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010 Reports to the Nation(s). The database will be received in Microsoft Access format. The variable descriptions are closely tied to the ACFE respondent survey questions. Click here for a more detailed description of the data descriptions.
- The Project Proposal Form must be completed and is limited to one page.
- The Project Proposal Form much be accompanied by a Research Proposal Overview (RPO) that is limited to no more than 5 pages in length (11-point font). The RPO must address five items (one page for each item): (1)the research question, (2)a brief research literature review for the topic under consideration, (3)the research methodology, (4) an outline explaining how the database will be utilized (and what data will be collected and added to the database), (5) why the research question is important to practicing professionals and aligns with the goals of the IFP and its members.
- Generally, those projects soliciting monetary support are not requesting access to IFP databases. Likewise, those research proposals requesting access to IFP databases will not be funded monetarily.
- Each research proposal will undergo a "desk review." Some of those proposals will be selected for further consideration by the IFP Membership. Researchers, whose research proposal is selected for additional consideration, must attend an IFP meeting and present their research proposal to the IFP Membership and meeting attendees.
- It is expected that any grant recipients will make substantial progress on their project by the next semi-annual IFP meeting and present a progress report at each semi-annual IFP meeting until the project is completed and the results of their study upon completion.
- If a researcher in any way adds to an IFP database, at the 1 year anniversary from the inception of the research effort, that researcher / research team agrees to provide the IFP with any additional observations and/or data items as well as the supporting documentation (properly organized and documented) so that the IFP can verify the accuracy of the additional data. It is also then understood that after the 1 year anniversary from the inception of the project, that the additional data shall, at the IFP's discretion, be included in the IFP database and IFP may provide the expanded dataset to other researchers / research teams.
- Researchers awarded access to the IFP database are limited in using that database solely for the project included in the research proposal. Researchers agree to limit their research of the database to the proposed idea. Additional examinations, extensions or any investigation not specifically included in the research proposal must be included in a subsequent IFP proposal.
- Researchers awarded access to the IFP databases agree that they will not share the IFP databases with anyone not explicitly included on the research proposal.
- Researchers awarded access to the IFP database containing data from ACFE Reports to the Nation will be required to execute a nondisclosure agreement prior to receipt of data.
- Research reports will be included on the IFP website.
- Researchers whose findings are published or publicly presented will acknowledge IFP support.
- The IFP will determine which proposals will be supported and will formally notify the researcher. The IFP makes no commitment to support any projects.
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
Interesting article. The EPA got bad information from a key "Data Source" that was deemed....“dramatically overstated"...and... “not credible,” See I don't blame the EPA here, I blame where and who they got their Information from.
Very Interesting Indeed!
EPA misrepresenting emissions from fracking
<tbody>
</tbody>Mike Mikus
Because discussion continues in the Pennsylvania region over shale gas production, your readers should be aware of a new study, released by URS Corp. and the Levon Group, showing that methane emissions from wells completed via the hydraulic fracturing process are actually 50 percent less than figures used by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The study’s findings are based on an analysis of data from more than 91,000 U.S. natural gas wells operated across diverse geographic areas by more than 20 companies. The data set represents nearly 20 percent of U.S. wells — which is actually 10 times as many wells as one of the key data sources for EPA’s most recent emissions estimate.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first study to raise doubts about EPA’s methods for estimating the amount of methane emissions from natural gas operations.
In addition to IHS-CERA findings that the EPA’s estimates for methane emissions were “dramatically overstated” and “not credible,” the agency has also been sitting on an open Request for Correction filed Dec. 19 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce under the Information Quality Act.
Given this news, it’s clear the EPA needs a better system for its data and emissions inventory. However, more importantly, these substantially lower emissions also demonstrate how committed the oil and gas industry is to reducing environmental impacts — even without duplicative new regulations that will only add unnecessary red tape to the process.
In fact, the URS Corp. and Levon Group study found companies “are not waiting for regulatory mandates or incentives to upgrade equipment, or to alter practices like venting and flaring in favor of capturing methane where practical.” And with operators focused on seizing opportunities to reduce the potential environmental impacts, voluntary progress is continually being made toward greener operations.
As we continue achieving significant gains in manufacturing and jobs throughout the region, let’s focus on moving forward together using sound data and fact-based decisions. With so much riding on the safe, responsible production of our nation’s abundant resources, there isn’t room for gross error by our regulators.
Mike Mikus, director, Consumer Energy Alliance Mid-Atlantic
Very Interesting Indeed!
EPA misrepresenting emissions from fracking
<tbody>
</tbody>
Because discussion continues in the Pennsylvania region over shale gas production, your readers should be aware of a new study, released by URS Corp. and the Levon Group, showing that methane emissions from wells completed via the hydraulic fracturing process are actually 50 percent less than figures used by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The study’s findings are based on an analysis of data from more than 91,000 U.S. natural gas wells operated across diverse geographic areas by more than 20 companies. The data set represents nearly 20 percent of U.S. wells — which is actually 10 times as many wells as one of the key data sources for EPA’s most recent emissions estimate.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first study to raise doubts about EPA’s methods for estimating the amount of methane emissions from natural gas operations.
In addition to IHS-CERA findings that the EPA’s estimates for methane emissions were “dramatically overstated” and “not credible,” the agency has also been sitting on an open Request for Correction filed Dec. 19 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce under the Information Quality Act.
Given this news, it’s clear the EPA needs a better system for its data and emissions inventory. However, more importantly, these substantially lower emissions also demonstrate how committed the oil and gas industry is to reducing environmental impacts — even without duplicative new regulations that will only add unnecessary red tape to the process.
In fact, the URS Corp. and Levon Group study found companies “are not waiting for regulatory mandates or incentives to upgrade equipment, or to alter practices like venting and flaring in favor of capturing methane where practical.” And with operators focused on seizing opportunities to reduce the potential environmental impacts, voluntary progress is continually being made toward greener operations.
As we continue achieving significant gains in manufacturing and jobs throughout the region, let’s focus on moving forward together using sound data and fact-based decisions. With so much riding on the safe, responsible production of our nation’s abundant resources, there isn’t room for gross error by our regulators.
Mike Mikus, director, Consumer Energy Alliance Mid-Atlantic
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
Another Very Interesting Article.......................
<tbody>
</tbody>
| In The News |
| Tuesday, 18 October 2011 15:54 |
| Jason Plautz, E&E reporter, Published: Friday, October 14, 2011 Independent truckers are accusing EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy of misrepresenting the group's involvement in the rulemaking process on fuel economy standards for heavy trucks. In a letter to McCarthy, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) says she misled legislators when she testified during a House hearing last Wednesday that the group had met with EPA "extensively" throughout the rulemaking process. In fact, OOIDA continues, representatives only met once for an introductory meeting and any further attempts to offer input to the rulemaking process were unsuccessful. "During the hearing, you stated that OOIDA met with your representatives 'extensively' and that our comments 'led to significant changes in the final' rule. Needless to say, we here at OOIDA were surprised to hear this characterization of events, especially from a witness testifying under oath before Congress," states the letter, signed by OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer. "It is hard to understand why EPA and [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] chose not to tap into the collective knowledge of truckers on how to improve fuel efficiency," the letter continues. The issue arose during a Wednesday House Oversight Committee hearing on the administration's fuel economy standards rulemaking process, during which Republicans charged that EPA and NHTSA had not listened to all stakeholders when setting standards for heavy trucks and light duty vehicles. During the hearing, OOIDA member Scott Grenerth (Green-earth), an independent Midwest truck driver, said he was opposed to the "one-size-fits-all regulation" for heavy trucks and that the opinions of small independent truckers were ignored. McCarthy objected to the complaint, offering up an email from OOIDA praising EPA for considering small businesses. "I don't know who this representative was or how extensive they were involved in the process but clearly they aren't working for OOIDA," she said, "because the staff of OOIDA met with us, appreciated it and had an influence in the decision" (E&E Daily, Oct. 13). "Ms. McCarthy, it is one thing for you to misrepresent the role of OOIDA as an organization in your testimony, but it is quite another for you to call into question the sincerity and truthfulness of one of our members, particularly one who has devoted his life to protecting the planet," the letter states. "The handful of e-mails, one meeting and two phone calls does not constitute 'extensive' engagement." Spencer added that the email in question only refers to a November 2010 meeting that served as a meet and greet. Spencer told E&E Daily that both sides had "mentioned some cursory things and got cursory feedback" during the meeting but that the group had not shared specifics about their desires for the standards. EPA declined to comment on the letter before publication time. OOIDA said that the standards -- which will require a 20% emissions cut from the industry by 2020 -- will hurt the ability of small truckers to buy the vehicles they need. Spencer took issue with the "focused" rulemaking that he said only considered a small share “long haul freight) of the "diverse" transportation industry. The group also charges that larger trucking firms, and especially the American Trucking Associations (ATA), were actively involved in the process and that OOIDA only gets one mention in the final rule issued by the administration. Click here to read the OOIDA letter. |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
WOW!!!! Just came across this article, Hard To Believe.................
<figure class="media">
A suit filed in federal court charges the Environmental Protection Agency with conducting illegal and potentially lethal experiments on hundreds of financially needy people who were paid $12/hour without even informing them of risks. Based upon thousands of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, procedures undertaken since 2004 and continuing through the Obama administration exposed subjects at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine to very high levels of toxic air pollutants. Many of these subjects were already health-impaired, suffering from asthma, metabolic syndrome, and aging (up to 75 years old).
One of the pollutants was a fine particulate substance known as PM2.5, a major component of diesel exhaust which EPA had determined to be unsafe for inhalation at any level, particularly for health-impaired and elderly populations. The administration’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council chairman, Jon Samet, stated that in a 2011 commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) reiterated EPA’s position on this in a February 2012 letter to EPA air chief, Gina McCarthy.
EPA has strictly regulated PM2.5 under its Clean Air Act since 1997. Those air quality standards costing multi-billions of dollars are being dramatically tightened. Two of the biggest new ones under its recently D.C. District Circuit Appeals Court-rejected Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard, are heavily premised upon condemnation of PM2.5 as a killer. As EPA Administrator Jackson testified in Congress in September 2011, “…particulate [PM2.5] matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” She added, “If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.”
So if this is the case, why did EPA fail to warn their test subjects that the substances they would be exposed to in high doses were so dangerous? While the administration has repeatedly told Congress and the public that PM2.5 can kill within hours of exposure, they only told them, for example, that “You may experience some minor degree of airway irritation, cough or shortness of breath or wheezing. These symptoms typically disappear two to four hours after exposure, but may last longer for particularly sensitive people.”
One such “sensitive person” is an obese woman with a history of heart disease. She had to be rushed to a hospital for an overnight stay after suffering a cardiac arrhythmia during an experiment. And although EPA attributed her heart problem to PM2.5 in a published report, no one ever bothered to warn subsequent subjects of cardiac arrhythmia risk.
The American Tradition Institute (ATI) which filed the law suit against EPA and its administrator asserts that such practices are not only illegal, but run afoul of virtually every rule of ethical standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments to protect human study subjects from rogue scientific research. The egregious Tuskegee experiments were influential in prompting Congress to pass the National Research Act of 1974 creating a commission to develop principles for protection of human subjects in scientific experimentation.
ATI believes that EPA has both civil and criminal liability. The litigation was filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Landon Huffman, an ATI member who participated in the EPA’s human experimentation after receiving a consent form that did not explain that he would be exposed to something that the agency claims to be lethal. He was also never informed that such human experimentation was only supposed to be conducted in a manner that would potentially and directly benefit the study subjects.
To the contrary, Mr. Landon maintains that he was led to believe the experiment would help people with asthma, a condition he suffers…not told that the pollution that was forced into his lungs could actually cause an asthma attack. Nor was he ever given anything by EPA that would possibly relieve his asthma.
Since learning that EPA considers that the gases he was exposed to are lethal, Landon reports being distraught and consumed with emotional distress. This includes a fear of dying and future inability to support his wife and family. He is also distressed that other participants may suffer in the same way.
ATI member and plaintiff Steven Milloy recalls horrific family memories of his uncle, a prisoner at the WWII German Mauthausen concentration camp where grisly pseudoscientific medical experiments were conducted. There, upon threat of death, he was forced to identify fellow prisoners who were too ill to work, knowing they would subsequently be executed. Milloy is a well-known author and publisher of JunkScience.com.
Another ATI plaintiff, David Schnare, formerly served for 33 years as an EPA scientist, policy analyst and enforcement lawyer. He left the agency after realizing that it had abandoned even-handed science-based approaches of earlier times. David is named in honor of family member David Steiner, a prisoner at the Buchenwald concentration camp who died on May 3, 1945, just 21 days after liberation. Some 729 inmates were subjects of barbaric medical experiments. Of those victims, 154 died.
Guided by painful lessons of such tragedies, it is difficult to imagine any possible justification for the EPA’s experiment program on plausible ethical or legal grounds. Section42 of U.S. Code 3515b addressing prohibition on funding certain experiments involving human participants states that: “…[no]funds appropriated by this Act ….shall be used to pay for any research program, project, or course which is of an experimental nature, or any other activity involving human participants, which is determined by the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction to present a danger to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of a participant or subject of such program, project, or course, without the written, informed consent of each participant or subject.”
Since three of the EPA researchers connected with its human experiments are North Carolina-licensed physicians, that state’s medical board is now investigating their participation. The University of North Carolina which provided the EPA with a required institutional review board (IRB) for approving the experiments is also conducting an inquiry. And while the Obama-appointed Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has refused multiple requests to get involved in the issue, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is now calling for investigatory hearings on the matter.
In a letter to committee chair Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Inhofe wrote: “It is extremely disturbing that EPA may have conducted illegal human experiments, exposing people with conditions such as asthma and metabolic syndrome to concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust.” He then charged that: “EPA has repeatedly said that these substances can cause cancer and lead to death, so if these allegations of human experiments are true, it just validates the problem that the Obama-EPA’s mission is not about public health.”
So there it is. Either such devastating charges are warranted, or the agency’s assessments of toxic dangers presented by diesel PM2.5 emissions are greatly exaggerated and unsupportable. In the second event, EPA is at least guilty of gross scientific incompetence, public misrepresentation of facts, and costly abuse of regulatory authority. Either way, they must be required to clear the air and clean up their act.
[h=6]Categories[/h]
<figure class="media">
- <figure class="media-image">
</figure>
- 41
EmailShare
A suit filed in federal court charges the Environmental Protection Agency with conducting illegal and potentially lethal experiments on hundreds of financially needy people who were paid $12/hour without even informing them of risks. Based upon thousands of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, procedures undertaken since 2004 and continuing through the Obama administration exposed subjects at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine to very high levels of toxic air pollutants. Many of these subjects were already health-impaired, suffering from asthma, metabolic syndrome, and aging (up to 75 years old).
One of the pollutants was a fine particulate substance known as PM2.5, a major component of diesel exhaust which EPA had determined to be unsafe for inhalation at any level, particularly for health-impaired and elderly populations. The administration’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council chairman, Jon Samet, stated that in a 2011 commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) reiterated EPA’s position on this in a February 2012 letter to EPA air chief, Gina McCarthy.
EPA has strictly regulated PM2.5 under its Clean Air Act since 1997. Those air quality standards costing multi-billions of dollars are being dramatically tightened. Two of the biggest new ones under its recently D.C. District Circuit Appeals Court-rejected Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard, are heavily premised upon condemnation of PM2.5 as a killer. As EPA Administrator Jackson testified in Congress in September 2011, “…particulate [PM2.5] matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” She added, “If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.”
So if this is the case, why did EPA fail to warn their test subjects that the substances they would be exposed to in high doses were so dangerous? While the administration has repeatedly told Congress and the public that PM2.5 can kill within hours of exposure, they only told them, for example, that “You may experience some minor degree of airway irritation, cough or shortness of breath or wheezing. These symptoms typically disappear two to four hours after exposure, but may last longer for particularly sensitive people.”
One such “sensitive person” is an obese woman with a history of heart disease. She had to be rushed to a hospital for an overnight stay after suffering a cardiac arrhythmia during an experiment. And although EPA attributed her heart problem to PM2.5 in a published report, no one ever bothered to warn subsequent subjects of cardiac arrhythmia risk.
The American Tradition Institute (ATI) which filed the law suit against EPA and its administrator asserts that such practices are not only illegal, but run afoul of virtually every rule of ethical standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments to protect human study subjects from rogue scientific research. The egregious Tuskegee experiments were influential in prompting Congress to pass the National Research Act of 1974 creating a commission to develop principles for protection of human subjects in scientific experimentation.
ATI believes that EPA has both civil and criminal liability. The litigation was filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Landon Huffman, an ATI member who participated in the EPA’s human experimentation after receiving a consent form that did not explain that he would be exposed to something that the agency claims to be lethal. He was also never informed that such human experimentation was only supposed to be conducted in a manner that would potentially and directly benefit the study subjects.
To the contrary, Mr. Landon maintains that he was led to believe the experiment would help people with asthma, a condition he suffers…not told that the pollution that was forced into his lungs could actually cause an asthma attack. Nor was he ever given anything by EPA that would possibly relieve his asthma.
Since learning that EPA considers that the gases he was exposed to are lethal, Landon reports being distraught and consumed with emotional distress. This includes a fear of dying and future inability to support his wife and family. He is also distressed that other participants may suffer in the same way.
ATI member and plaintiff Steven Milloy recalls horrific family memories of his uncle, a prisoner at the WWII German Mauthausen concentration camp where grisly pseudoscientific medical experiments were conducted. There, upon threat of death, he was forced to identify fellow prisoners who were too ill to work, knowing they would subsequently be executed. Milloy is a well-known author and publisher of JunkScience.com.
Another ATI plaintiff, David Schnare, formerly served for 33 years as an EPA scientist, policy analyst and enforcement lawyer. He left the agency after realizing that it had abandoned even-handed science-based approaches of earlier times. David is named in honor of family member David Steiner, a prisoner at the Buchenwald concentration camp who died on May 3, 1945, just 21 days after liberation. Some 729 inmates were subjects of barbaric medical experiments. Of those victims, 154 died.
Guided by painful lessons of such tragedies, it is difficult to imagine any possible justification for the EPA’s experiment program on plausible ethical or legal grounds. Section42 of U.S. Code 3515b addressing prohibition on funding certain experiments involving human participants states that: “…[no]funds appropriated by this Act ….shall be used to pay for any research program, project, or course which is of an experimental nature, or any other activity involving human participants, which is determined by the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction to present a danger to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of a participant or subject of such program, project, or course, without the written, informed consent of each participant or subject.”
Since three of the EPA researchers connected with its human experiments are North Carolina-licensed physicians, that state’s medical board is now investigating their participation. The University of North Carolina which provided the EPA with a required institutional review board (IRB) for approving the experiments is also conducting an inquiry. And while the Obama-appointed Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has refused multiple requests to get involved in the issue, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is now calling for investigatory hearings on the matter.
In a letter to committee chair Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Inhofe wrote: “It is extremely disturbing that EPA may have conducted illegal human experiments, exposing people with conditions such as asthma and metabolic syndrome to concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust.” He then charged that: “EPA has repeatedly said that these substances can cause cancer and lead to death, so if these allegations of human experiments are true, it just validates the problem that the Obama-EPA’s mission is not about public health.”
So there it is. Either such devastating charges are warranted, or the agency’s assessments of toxic dangers presented by diesel PM2.5 emissions are greatly exaggerated and unsupportable. In the second event, EPA is at least guilty of gross scientific incompetence, public misrepresentation of facts, and costly abuse of regulatory authority. Either way, they must be required to clear the air and clean up their act.
[h=6]Categories[/h]
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
WOW!!!! Just came across this article, Hard To Believe.................
<figure class="media">
A suit filed in federal court charges the Environmental Protection Agency with conducting illegal and potentially lethal experiments on hundreds of financially needy people who were paid $12/hour without even informing them of risks. Based upon thousands of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, procedures undertaken since 2004 and continuing through the Obama administration exposed subjects at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine to very high levels of toxic air pollutants. Many of these subjects were already health-impaired, suffering from asthma, metabolic syndrome, and aging (up to 75 years old).
One of the pollutants was a fine particulate substance known as PM2.5, a major component of diesel exhaust which EPA had determined to be unsafe for inhalation at any level, particularly for health-impaired and elderly populations. The administration’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council chairman, Jon Samet, stated that in a 2011 commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) reiterated EPA’s position on this in a February 2012 letter to EPA air chief, Gina McCarthy.
EPA has strictly regulated PM2.5 under its Clean Air Act since 1997. Those air quality standards costing multi-billions of dollars are being dramatically tightened. Two of the biggest new ones under its recently D.C. District Circuit Appeals Court-rejected Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard, are heavily premised upon condemnation of PM2.5 as a killer. As EPA Administrator Jackson testified in Congress in September 2011, “…particulate [PM2.5] matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” She added, “If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.”
So if this is the case, why did EPA fail to warn their test subjects that the substances they would be exposed to in high doses were so dangerous? While the administration has repeatedly told Congress and the public that PM2.5 can kill within hours of exposure, they only told them, for example, that “You may experience some minor degree of airway irritation, cough or shortness of breath or wheezing. These symptoms typically disappear two to four hours after exposure, but may last longer for particularly sensitive people.”
One such “sensitive person” is an obese woman with a history of heart disease. She had to be rushed to a hospital for an overnight stay after suffering a cardiac arrhythmia during an experiment. And although EPA attributed her heart problem to PM2.5 in a published report, no one ever bothered to warn subsequent subjects of cardiac arrhythmia risk.
The American Tradition Institute (ATI) which filed the law suit against EPA and its administrator asserts that such practices are not only illegal, but run afoul of virtually every rule of ethical standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments to protect human study subjects from rogue scientific research. The egregious Tuskegee experiments were influential in prompting Congress to pass the National Research Act of 1974 creating a commission to develop principles for protection of human subjects in scientific experimentation.
ATI believes that EPA has both civil and criminal liability. The litigation was filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Landon Huffman, an ATI member who participated in the EPA’s human experimentation after receiving a consent form that did not explain that he would be exposed to something that the agency claims to be lethal. He was also never informed that such human experimentation was only supposed to be conducted in a manner that would potentially and directly benefit the study subjects.
To the contrary, Mr. Landon maintains that he was led to believe the experiment would help people with asthma, a condition he suffers…not told that the pollution that was forced into his lungs could actually cause an asthma attack. Nor was he ever given anything by EPA that would possibly relieve his asthma.
Since learning that EPA considers that the gases he was exposed to are lethal, Landon reports being distraught and consumed with emotional distress. This includes a fear of dying and future inability to support his wife and family. He is also distressed that other participants may suffer in the same way.
ATI member and plaintiff Steven Milloy recalls horrific family memories of his uncle, a prisoner at the WWII German Mauthausen concentration camp where grisly pseudoscientific medical experiments were conducted. There, upon threat of death, he was forced to identify fellow prisoners who were too ill to work, knowing they would subsequently be executed. Milloy is a well-known author and publisher of JunkScience.com.
Another ATI plaintiff, David Schnare, formerly served for 33 years as an EPA scientist, policy analyst and enforcement lawyer. He left the agency after realizing that it had abandoned even-handed science-based approaches of earlier times. David is named in honor of family member David Steiner, a prisoner at the Buchenwald concentration camp who died on May 3, 1945, just 21 days after liberation. Some 729 inmates were subjects of barbaric medical experiments. Of those victims, 154 died.
Guided by painful lessons of such tragedies, it is difficult to imagine any possible justification for the EPA’s experiment program on plausible ethical or legal grounds. Section42 of U.S. Code 3515b addressing prohibition on funding certain experiments involving human participants states that: “…[no]funds appropriated by this Act ….shall be used to pay for any research program, project, or course which is of an experimental nature, or any other activity involving human participants, which is determined by the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction to present a danger to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of a participant or subject of such program, project, or course, without the written, informed consent of each participant or subject.”
Since three of the EPA researchers connected with its human experiments are North Carolina-licensed physicians, that state’s medical board is now investigating their participation. The University of North Carolina which provided the EPA with a required institutional review board (IRB) for approving the experiments is also conducting an inquiry. And while the Obama-appointed Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has refused multiple requests to get involved in the issue, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is now calling for investigatory hearings on the matter.
In a letter to committee chair Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Inhofe wrote: “It is extremely disturbing that EPA may have conducted illegal human experiments, exposing people with conditions such as asthma and metabolic syndrome to concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust.” He then charged that: “EPA has repeatedly said that these substances can cause cancer and lead to death, so if these allegations of human experiments are true, it just validates the problem that the Obama-EPA’s mission is not about public health.”
So there it is. Either such devastating charges are warranted, or the agency’s assessments of toxic dangers presented by diesel PM2.5 emissions are greatly exaggerated and unsupportable. In the second event, EPA is at least guilty of gross scientific incompetence, public misrepresentation of facts, and costly abuse of regulatory authority. Either way, they must be required to clear the air and clean up their act.
[h=6]Categories[/h]
<figure class="media">
- <figure class="media-image"> </figure>
- 41
EmailShare
A suit filed in federal court charges the Environmental Protection Agency with conducting illegal and potentially lethal experiments on hundreds of financially needy people who were paid $12/hour without even informing them of risks. Based upon thousands of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, procedures undertaken since 2004 and continuing through the Obama administration exposed subjects at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine to very high levels of toxic air pollutants. Many of these subjects were already health-impaired, suffering from asthma, metabolic syndrome, and aging (up to 75 years old).
One of the pollutants was a fine particulate substance known as PM2.5, a major component of diesel exhaust which EPA had determined to be unsafe for inhalation at any level, particularly for health-impaired and elderly populations. The administration’s own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council chairman, Jon Samet, stated that in a 2011 commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) reiterated EPA’s position on this in a February 2012 letter to EPA air chief, Gina McCarthy.
EPA has strictly regulated PM2.5 under its Clean Air Act since 1997. Those air quality standards costing multi-billions of dollars are being dramatically tightened. Two of the biggest new ones under its recently D.C. District Circuit Appeals Court-rejected Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard, are heavily premised upon condemnation of PM2.5 as a killer. As EPA Administrator Jackson testified in Congress in September 2011, “…particulate [PM2.5] matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” She added, “If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.”
So if this is the case, why did EPA fail to warn their test subjects that the substances they would be exposed to in high doses were so dangerous? While the administration has repeatedly told Congress and the public that PM2.5 can kill within hours of exposure, they only told them, for example, that “You may experience some minor degree of airway irritation, cough or shortness of breath or wheezing. These symptoms typically disappear two to four hours after exposure, but may last longer for particularly sensitive people.”
One such “sensitive person” is an obese woman with a history of heart disease. She had to be rushed to a hospital for an overnight stay after suffering a cardiac arrhythmia during an experiment. And although EPA attributed her heart problem to PM2.5 in a published report, no one ever bothered to warn subsequent subjects of cardiac arrhythmia risk.
The American Tradition Institute (ATI) which filed the law suit against EPA and its administrator asserts that such practices are not only illegal, but run afoul of virtually every rule of ethical standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments to protect human study subjects from rogue scientific research. The egregious Tuskegee experiments were influential in prompting Congress to pass the National Research Act of 1974 creating a commission to develop principles for protection of human subjects in scientific experimentation.
ATI believes that EPA has both civil and criminal liability. The litigation was filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Landon Huffman, an ATI member who participated in the EPA’s human experimentation after receiving a consent form that did not explain that he would be exposed to something that the agency claims to be lethal. He was also never informed that such human experimentation was only supposed to be conducted in a manner that would potentially and directly benefit the study subjects.
To the contrary, Mr. Landon maintains that he was led to believe the experiment would help people with asthma, a condition he suffers…not told that the pollution that was forced into his lungs could actually cause an asthma attack. Nor was he ever given anything by EPA that would possibly relieve his asthma.
Since learning that EPA considers that the gases he was exposed to are lethal, Landon reports being distraught and consumed with emotional distress. This includes a fear of dying and future inability to support his wife and family. He is also distressed that other participants may suffer in the same way.
ATI member and plaintiff Steven Milloy recalls horrific family memories of his uncle, a prisoner at the WWII German Mauthausen concentration camp where grisly pseudoscientific medical experiments were conducted. There, upon threat of death, he was forced to identify fellow prisoners who were too ill to work, knowing they would subsequently be executed. Milloy is a well-known author and publisher of JunkScience.com.
Another ATI plaintiff, David Schnare, formerly served for 33 years as an EPA scientist, policy analyst and enforcement lawyer. He left the agency after realizing that it had abandoned even-handed science-based approaches of earlier times. David is named in honor of family member David Steiner, a prisoner at the Buchenwald concentration camp who died on May 3, 1945, just 21 days after liberation. Some 729 inmates were subjects of barbaric medical experiments. Of those victims, 154 died.
Guided by painful lessons of such tragedies, it is difficult to imagine any possible justification for the EPA’s experiment program on plausible ethical or legal grounds. Section42 of U.S. Code 3515b addressing prohibition on funding certain experiments involving human participants states that: “…[no]funds appropriated by this Act ….shall be used to pay for any research program, project, or course which is of an experimental nature, or any other activity involving human participants, which is determined by the Secretary or a court of competent jurisdiction to present a danger to the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of a participant or subject of such program, project, or course, without the written, informed consent of each participant or subject.”
Since three of the EPA researchers connected with its human experiments are North Carolina-licensed physicians, that state’s medical board is now investigating their participation. The University of North Carolina which provided the EPA with a required institutional review board (IRB) for approving the experiments is also conducting an inquiry. And while the Obama-appointed Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has refused multiple requests to get involved in the issue, Senator Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is now calling for investigatory hearings on the matter.
In a letter to committee chair Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Inhofe wrote: “It is extremely disturbing that EPA may have conducted illegal human experiments, exposing people with conditions such as asthma and metabolic syndrome to concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter and diesel exhaust.” He then charged that: “EPA has repeatedly said that these substances can cause cancer and lead to death, so if these allegations of human experiments are true, it just validates the problem that the Obama-EPA’s mission is not about public health.”
So there it is. Either such devastating charges are warranted, or the agency’s assessments of toxic dangers presented by diesel PM2.5 emissions are greatly exaggerated and unsupportable. In the second event, EPA is at least guilty of gross scientific incompetence, public misrepresentation of facts, and costly abuse of regulatory authority. Either way, they must be required to clear the air and clean up their act.
[h=6]Categories[/h]
offdutyfireman
Active member
.
.....
.....
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
Barry, I couldn't agree more. You are absolutely right.
The UAMCC could turn with the wrong BOD. Fortunately, an org has to live by the same financial rules we all do and without members money and numbers it will eventually die.
You said:
Why does it have to be a "UAMCC BMP" or "PWNA BMP"? Why cant we as an industry organize a project or initiative in an "open source" environment? Open to all. Would it really be any different than rubber stamping or adopting Roberts BMP's? Perhaps there are people in PWNA that don't like the BMP's they promote. Why should dues and a logo preclude him from sharing? Why make BMP's a wedge issue at all?
I think that is what we are doing Barry. The decision was made to allow all contractors join the UAMCC discussion board and be considered members of the UAMCC without paying dues so that we could actually get together and get something done without driving a wedge in the industry. My plea for donating members to the UAMCC is because we simply need some funds to get some of the things done that need to be done. Simultaneously the funds for Robert's one man show need to be siphoned off so that IF he wants to continue his quest, against the wishes of most contractors, then he will have to do that out of his own pocket or the pockets of those backing him.
I'm not a big "ORG" guy. I despise unions. There was a time in our history when they accomplished a worthwhile goal, but that time is long past. Even though I'm not so big on organizing, but I'm also practical and realize that we need a concerted effort to change the false perceptions about our industry.
Let the Org's adopt the collaborated work/BMP's and then attach their name to them. If We do this and PWNA chooses to back the BMP's of a vendor over that of a contractor collaborative....let them do so at their own peril.
That is what we thought we were doing when Robert presented his BMP's. We thought our input was going to be heard and acted on, and we believed him (them-the PWNA) when they (through their Executive director, Mike Hilborn) said they would not be shopping the BMP's to municipalities. Yet before the ink was dry on the final draft Robert had already sent an email to the BOD letting them know which municipalities he planned on shopping them FIRST!! There is a lot of mistrust and it is well deserved. On the other hand there are a lot of good contractors in the PWNA who disagree with what has happened. All I was asking was for them to pull their support till there is change. That is exactly what I did when I found out what was going on.
I hope we can all work together on this and we can all stand united in the end.
All great points you made Barry.
offdutyfireman
Active member
Charlie, most of my posts are to technical for the people here to understand. I dare say that only about 25% of those that read this are capable of understanding it.
Guy Blackmon
Roundtable Host 2009
I'm sorry William could you explain that in simpler terms, I'm incapable of understanding what you are talking about.
mistersqueegee
New member
I'm gonna need big obnoxious pictures please, William.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
Only understandable by the top 25% of the bottom 25% of the industry? Lol
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Ohio pressure wash
New member
Not only that, but they can pivot on an issue in short order. It hasn't been that long ago that I was considered persona non grata by UAMCC members for negative posts about Robert.
I haven't changed....the popularity of my opinions and feelings ebb and flow with the changes to the Orgs.
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
Some of us are working really hard so that the pivoting doesn't happen.
Clean County PW
Active member
How about You Guy answer this one question which should make some of your above questions easier to figure out yourself.
You belong to the UAMCC which is a National org. You tell anyone that's listens that your org represents the contractors.
So how does that make sense then when you only have 11 paid members??
Tony Shelton
BS Detector, Esquire
Russ Spence
Commercial Pressure Wash Expert
Ok, honest question ...... is that a fact? I dont know? I am asking, not calling you out John, I just wonder if that is factual??? I have no idea!