We all know how insane black people are to believe conspiracy stories like the one that AIDS was invented by white people to kill blacks. That’s one of the issues good patriotic whites have with the Rev. Wright. He acted like every crazy, angry black man who ever crossed their paths, and which they are still telling stories about, whether it happened to them personally or not.
Of course, patriotic white Americans do tend to forget a few minor problems with this narrative. Minor things like slavery, the Klu Klux Klan, lynching and the infamous Tuskegee experiments when poor black men with syphilis were left untreated for decades just to see what course the disease might take, even though there were treatments available to them. They weren’t even told they had syphilis, merely that they were being treated for “bad blood.” In fact, they were unknowing and unwilling participants in a study to see how bad their symptoms would get before they died from the disease the good doctors conducting the study refused to inform them they suffered from.
Those days are long gone, fortunately. These days the federal government researchers would never deliberately lie to black people in order to get them to participate in an unethical scientific study. Not in the 21st century! Or would they? (Tip of me hat to the field negro and Francis Holland)
BALTIMORE – Scientists using federal grants spread fertilizer made from human and industrial wastes on yards in poor, black neighborhoods to test whether it might protect children from lead poisoning in the soil. Families were assured the sludge was safe and were never told about any harmful ingredients.
(cont.)
More details:
Nine low-income families in Baltimore row houses agreed to let researchers till the sewage sludge into their yards and plant new grass. In exchange, they were given food coupons as well as the free lawns as part of a study published in 2005 and funded by the Housing and Urban Development Department. […]
. . . There is no evidence there was ever any medical follow-up.
Comparable research was conducted by the Agriculture Department and Environmental Protection Agency in a similarly poor, black neighborhood in East St. Louis, Ill. […]
The idea that sludge — the leftover semisolid wastes filtered from water pollution at 16,500 treatment plants — can be turned into something harmless, even if swallowed, has been a tenet of federal policy for three decades.
In a 1978 memo, the EPA said sludge “contains nutrients and organic matter which have considerable benefit for land and crops” despite the presence of “low levels of toxic substances.”
But in the late 1990s the government began underwriting studies such as those in Baltimore and East St. Louis using poor neighborhoods as laboratories to make a case that sludge may also directly benefit human health.
Meanwhile, there has been a paucity of research into the possible harmful effects of heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, other chemicals and disease-causing microorganisms often found in sludge.
A series of reports by the EPA’s inspector general and the National Academy of Sciences between 1996 and 2002 faulted the adequacy of the science behind the EPA’s 1993 regulations on sludge.
The chairman of the 2002 academy panel, Thomas Burke, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says epidemiological studies have never been done to show whether spreading sludge on land is safe.
“There are potential pathogens and chemicals that are not in the realm of safe,” Burke told the AP. “What’s needed are more studies on what’s going on with the pathogens in sludge — are we actually removing them? The commitment to connecting the dots hasn’t been there.”
Of course, that isn’t what the poor black families who participated in these studies were told. They were told that this was a harmless, store bought fertilizer compound that would reduce the risk of lead poisoning to their children, and also that they would get a free lawn out of it. What a deal, eh? The fact that no one knows if this is true or not didn’t stop these researchers from misinforming these study participants. Why give them all the facts? It might cause them not to participate in perfectly reasonable research and we can’t have that, can we? What they don’t know can’t hurt them, right?
Another study investigating whether sludge might inhibit the “bioavailability” of lead — the rate it enters the bloodstream and circulates to organs and tissues — was conducted on a vacant lot in East St. Louis next to an elementary school, all of whose 300 students were black and almost entirely from low-income families.
In a newsletter, the EPA-funded Community Environmental Resource Program assured local residents it was all safe.
“Though the lot will be closed off to the public, if people — particularly children — get some of the lead contaminated dirt in their mouths, the lead will just pass through their bodies and not be absorbed,” the newsletter said. “Without this iron-phosphorus mix, lead poisoning would occur.”
Soil chemist Murray McBride, director of the Cornell Waste Management Institute, said he doesn’t doubt that sludge can bind lead in soil.
But when eaten, “it’s not at all clear that the sludge binding the lead will be preserved in the acidity of the stomach,” he said. “Actually thinking about a child ingesting this, there’s a very good chance that it’s not safe.”
[…]“If you’re not telling them what kinds of chemicals could be in there, how could they even make an informed decision. If you’re telling them it’s absolutely safe, then it’s not ethical,” McBride said. “In many relatively wealthy people’s neighborhoods, I would think that people would research this a little and see a problem and raise a red flag.” […]
Baltimore environmental activist Glenn Ross says choosing poor neighborhoods destined for demolition makes it hard to track a study’s participants. “If you wanted to do something very questionable, you would do it in a neighborhood that’s not going to be there in a few years,” he said.
So who the hell was conducting this study, and why did the federal government finance his work? Well, believe it or not, it was a guy who’d done this kind of thing before:
HUD documents show the study’s lead author, Mark Farfel, has pursued several other studies of lead contamination including the risks of exposure from urban housing demolitions and the vacant lots left behind.
Some of Farfel’s previous research has been controversial.
In 2001, Maryland’s highest court chastised him, Kennedy Krieger and Johns Hopkins over a study bankrolled by EPA in which researchers testing low-cost ways to control lead hazards exposed more than 75 poor children to lead-based paint in partially renovated houses.
Families of two children alleged to have suffered elevated blood-lead levels and brain damage sued the institute and later settled for an undisclosed amount.
The Maryland Court of Appeals likened the study to Nazi medical research on concentration camp prisoners, the U.S. government’s 40-year Tuskegee study that denied treatment for syphilis to black men in order to study the illness and Japan’s use of “plague bombs” in World War II to infect and study entire villages.
By the way, Dr, Farfel is now the director of the “World Trade Center Health Registry surveying tens of thousands of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.” He didn’t want to talk to the reporters about this story for some reason. But if he had I’m sure he’d have a good explanation for why it was necessary for his black study participants to be kept in the (pardon the pun) dark about the true nature of his experiments. I’m sure he’s no mad evil Nazi scientist like the Maryland Court of Appeals made him out to be. What does a bunch of appellate judges knoiw about scientific research anyway?
Yes, those crazy black folks. Where do they get all these insane ideas that whites want to harm them? That all white people are out to get them? Sure beats the heck out of me.
