pesticides tested on humans..

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:48 am

Although private companies have tested pesticides on human subjects since the 1960s, the public debate about the ethics of such experiments began to simmer in 1998, when the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report titled The English Patients: Human Experiments and Pesticide Policy 1998. According to the report, the companies exposed volunteers to various insecticides to determine safety levels for exposure to these compounds. One of the experiments mentioned in the report involved the oral administration of dichlorvos to 53 subjects. Another experiment administered orange juice laced with aldicard to 47 subjects (EWG 1998). The media soon reported other pesticide experiments conducted elsewhere. In one experiment conducted by Novartis, managers for the company ingested diazinon. Experiments conducted by Novartis and Dow AgroSciences each used 60 paid volunteers (Gorovitz and Robertson 2000). In a study sponsored by Dow AgroSciences, dozens of college-age volunteers were paid $460 to swallow a pill containing chlorpyrifos, a roach poison (Shogren 2001).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1257640

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:50 am

my copy/paste went nuts...:-3

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:09 am

Never mind your copy/paste, what had you in mind when you made the post? Either someone's offered you a place in a testing program, or you think it's awful that they do that to people, or you're glad toxicity levels are checked before products are marketed - what is it?

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:59 am

spot;771357 wrote: Never mind your copy/paste, what had you in mind when you made the post? Either someone's offered you a place in a testing program, or you think it's awful that they do that to people, or you're glad toxicity levels are checked before products are marketed - what is it?

i think it is terrible that the pesticide companies use humans to test on...

Post by **spot** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:06 am

guppy;771495 wrote: i think it is terrible that the pesticide companies use humans to test on...

What?

You'd rather shops sold their organophosphates off the shelf to millions of gardeners and farmers without the product being safety-tested? I don't know how else you can check what the safe exposure levels are without bringing it into contact with humans. I'd rather they did that in a controlled environment then by ferrying ill people into hospitals after it's gone on sale.

firebird · Post by **firebird** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:48 am

I am with you on this one Spot. The people are volunteers and know that there may be risks in what they are doing. Albeit some of the effects may not be seen for years, they are still volunteers and are paid. I have been around herbicides and insecticides all of my life and so far the only effect I have had was that my kids were born naked.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:48 pm

rjwould;771598 wrote: Isn't this what prison inmates are for?

No - not unless your name's Mengele

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:04 am

People used to appreciate these products. Consider Pediculus humanus...Before World War II, head lice were fairly common in the United States, body and crab lice much less so, except among the "less respectable" segments of the population. After World War II and the emergence of DDT as a louse control agent, outbreaks of lice were much less common. Now lice again are intruding into the environment of the average American. Lice or their eggs are easily transmitted from person to person on shared hats, coats, scarves, combs, brushes, towels, bedding, upholstered seats in public places, and by personal contact. These practices are common among young school-age children. As a result, head lice infestations are most prevalent among children, whereas body and pubic (crab) lice are more frequently encountered among young adults and middle-aged persons. When someone becomes infested with lice, it is likely that the entire family will become infested.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:13 am

They do use animals as well, and there are no lawsuits. What lawsuits?

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:51 am

None of that is lawsuits!!

Those places wouldn't exist if they couldn't still use animals for testing.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:52 am

spot;772196 wrote: None of that is lawsuits!!

he was kidding!!

do you need a big, squishy hug??

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:53 am

sunny104;772199 wrote: do you need a big, squishy hug??I should be so lucky.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:57 am

spot;772200 wrote: I should be so lucky.

**squish**

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:08 am

sunny104;772202 wrote: **squish**

Someone, for pity's sake, analyse this form of humour for me because it keeps tripping me up. I know it's my mistake but I never see it coming.

It involves X saying "black is white", and me saying "well, no, black's black and white's white" and X then saying "yes, black's black and white's white" and somehow I didn't see the joke on the horizon when I fell for it. Is it that "black is white" is invariably funny? How do I distinguish it from an erroneous statement, because that's what I can't cotton onto so far.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:16 am

spot;772210 wrote: Someone, for pity's sake, analyse this form of humour for me because it keeps tripping me up. I know it's my mistake but I never see it coming.

It involves X saying "black is white", and me saying "well, no, black's black and white's white" and X then saying "yes, black's black and white's white" and somehow I didn't see the joke on the horizon when I fell for it. Is it that "black is white" is invariably funny? How do I distinguish it from an erroneous statement, because that's what I can't cotton onto so far.

I'm confused.

Maybe Jester can figure it out??

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:21 am

sunny104;772216 wrote: I'm confused.
It's your "he was kidding" that I'm getting to the bottom of!

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:36 am

Jester;772182 wrote: Oh gosh Spot, I'm sure PETA has done hundreds of not thousands of lawsuits against companies alleged 'cruelty to animals' in research. I was kidding mostly.

I live a few hours from a very large biotechnology company headquarters (in fact I do business with them) I have viewed documents from PETA, including threats regarding their use of animals in research mutliple times. Theres over two hundred groups out there that oppose animal research, soem even make the list of terror orginizations.

The buildings that they house the animals are secured, there is no access from the ground level of those buidlings and they have ajoining enclosed catwalks from third level access points to other secured buildings.

Its big business for me to consult on security to these areas. I make half of my income because of the whako animal rights groups.

spot;772223 wrote: It's your "he was kidding" that I'm getting to the bottom of!

there.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:41 am

but... sunny, he said that *after* I said no, black was black.

This joke structure involves X saying "black is white", and me saying "well, no, black's black and white's white" and X then saying "yes, black's black and white's white". I know he's kidding, I just need to know how to tell he's kidding before I fall into the trap and say "well, no, black's black and white's white". Once I've done that I'm left looking stupid and I'd quite like to avoid it in future.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:46 am

spot;772236 wrote: but... sunny, he said that *after* I said no, black was black.

This joke structure involves X saying "black is white", and me saying "well, no, black's black and white's white" and X then saying "yes, black's black and white's white". I know he's kidding, I just need to know how to tell he's kidding before I fall into the trap and say "well, no, black's black and white's white". Once I've done that I'm left looking stupid and I'd quite like to avoid it in future.

you don't look stupid at all! I think our light hearted North American humor/comments don't register with our friends from other countries a lot of the times. I've seen it happen with every non-North American poster here.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:48 am

sunny104;772242 wrote: you don't look stupid at all! I think our light hearted North American humor/comments don't register with our friends from other countries a lot of the times. I've seen it happen with every non-North American poster here.
You're kidding right?:wah:

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:55 am

sunny104;772242 wrote: you don't look stupid at all! I think our light hearted North American humor/comments don't register with our friends from other countries a lot of the times. I've seen it happen with every non-North American poster here.

So... "They can't use animals anymore, too many lawsuits" isn't true, and every North American reads it and knows it isn't true, and because they know it isn't true they know it's humorous. Black is white, ho ho.

I'm getting it slowly. Because I know it isn't true... ah. I have to assume here that Jester also knows when he says it that it isn't true too. And because I know Jester can't be so dementedly insane as to say something so ridiculous and mean it, it follows that it has to be ho ho a joke and I don't need to say black's black and white's white, I can say great joke Jester instead while thigh-slapping in appreciation.

There must be a name for this sort of humour, I've just never met it before.

YZGI;772243 wrote: You're kidding right?:wah:Don't confuse me, I only just got this far!

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:01 pm

spot;772248 wrote: So... "They can't use animals anymore, too many lawsuits" isn't true, and every North American reads it and knows it isn't true, and because they know it isn't true they know it's humorous. Black is white, ho ho.

I'm getting it slowly. Because I know it isn't true... ah. I have to assume here that Jester also knows when he says it that it isn't true too. And because I know Jester can't be so dementedly insane as to say something so ridiculous and mean it, it follows that it has to be ho ho a joke and I don't need to say black's black and white's white, I can say great joke Jester instead while thigh-slapping in appreciation.

There must be a name for this sort of humour, I've just never met it before.

I think you're sort of getting it...but it'd be more of a chuckle rather than a thigh-slapper.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:05 pm

sunny104;772251 wrote: I think you're sort of getting it...but it'd be more of a chuckle rather than a thigh-slapper.

Now, a thigh slapper is a whole different subject..

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:09 pm

YZGI;772254 wrote: Now, a thigh slapper is a whole different subject..

he started it!

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:51 am

Jester;772354 wrote: here, add this: :wah: to my original sarcastic statement, (I really mean phasishious but cabt spell that) :-3

:wah:

Does that help?:-3

spot doesn't see smileys! :-1

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:04 am

They used to spray Maliathon overhead in Tampa. When the paint on peoples cars started peeling their reply was....Its fine, nothing to worry about.