Re: The Metropolitan Police & ECHG, English Churches Housing Group 070209 The Riverside Group

Animal Experimentation: The Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution?
Absolutely!

Have you ever wondered why the air we breath, the food we eat, the
water we drink, and the ground we walk on are contaminated? The highly
suppressed answer is simple: Also known as vivisection, animal
experimentation is the hidden cause of environmental pollution and
public health problems. Animal research is an unscientific methodology
for chemical assessment. The non-conclusive, erroneous nature of
animal testing creates a smoke screen - an alibi which permits the
continued manufacture of all kinds of toxic and hazardous chemicals.
Vivisection conveys a false illusion of safety, but all it ensures is
a continued demand for ever “newer” and “improved” poisons which end
up polluting our planet.

HOW IS ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION GENERATED?

Each year, tens of millions of various types of chemical products are
manufactured for commercial, industrial, agricultural, military,
household, and personal use around the world. Although the exact
number is unknown, it is estimated that as many as 70 million
different types of toxic and hazardous products are used just by U.S.
industries each year.(1) Pesticides alone make up 40,000 different
formulations.(2) Prescription drugs add up to over 205,000 different
types.



It is these chemicals that contaminate our air, soil, streams, oceans,
and underground water supplies, as well as our food and bodies. They
do so while they are being manufactured, as they are used, and when
they are disposed of. They pollute the air when chemicals escape into
the atmosphere from factory stacks during the process of production,
use, and disposal. They pollute streams when industries release
contaminated waters into stormwater channels and when chemicals are
intentionally poured down street gutters, or are washed into them by
rain. Chemicals pollute the ocean waters when streams empty into them,
and when chemicals flushed down sewer pipes are released into the
ocean. They pollute the ground and underground water supplies when
chemicals are intentionally poured onto soil, such as with pesticide
application onto agricultural land, when they leak out of broken
pipelines and underground storage tanks, and when chemicals thrown out
with garbage leach out of the landfills.



THE ROLE OF VIVISECTION



In order to make these poisons acceptable to the public, the chemical,
pharmaceutical, and petroleum empires take refuge in vivisection. Look
around you, in your home and your workplace there are scores of
chemical products that have been proclaimed “safe” and/or “acceptable”
for our use.



Have you ever wondered where these safety assurances come from? These
“safety” assurances have all been fabricated in vivisectionist
laboratories.(3) Rats, mice, guinea pigs, hamsters, squirrels,
gerbils, rabbits, fish, toads, frogs, lizards, insects, dogs, cats,
monkeys, apes, wild birds, quails, pigeons, turkeys, ducks, chickens,
cows, goats, and horses are among the animals used.



Numerous types of toxicity tests (LD, LC, LDLo, TDLo, TCLo, MTD, etc.)
are performed under the banner of toxicity testing. Other research
includes skin and eye irritancy tests (the infamous Draize Test),
carcinogenicity (cancer) and mutagenicity (genetic mutation) studies,
teratogenicity (birth defects) and reproductive toxicity studies,
hepatotoxicity (liver damage) and nephrotoxicity (kidney damage)
studies, neurotoxicity studies, etc. From these studies, staggering
amounts of ambiguous, contradictory, and invalid data are compiled
which allows the “scientists” to draw their “scientific” conclusions.
For example, if they want to “prove” that a particular chemical is not
a carcinogen, all they have to do is present the evidence from those
animal tests that supports this view. On the other hand, if they wish
to prove that the same chemical is a carcinogen, they produce other
laboratory tests that show the product to be carcinogenic.



This is what Dr. Bruce Ames, Director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences Center at the University of California
at Berkeley has to report: “Of 392 chemicals in our database tested in
both rats and mice, 226 were carcinogens in at least one test, but 96
of these were positive in the mouse and negative in the rat or vice
versa.” Dr. Ames continues: “Conversely, important human carcinogens
may not be detected in standard tests in rodents; this was true for a
long time for both tobacco smoke and alcohol, the two largest
identified causes of neoplastic death in the United States.”(4)



A simple analysis of Dr. Ames’ findings proves that, for all practical
purposes, there is a 50:50 chance that a mouse carcinogen would be a
rat carcinogen as well - this amounts to the flip of a coin. This
means that there is absolutely no correlation between the rat and the
mouse. If there is no correlation between two such “closely” related
animals, there certainly can never be one between the rat and the dog,
or the dog and the cat, let alone any correlation between any of these
animals and the human animal.



It is not surprising that thousands of “known” animal carcinogens are
routinely used and/or found in our drinking water, food, and the
chemical products we use. Chloroform is one such carcinogen, a by-
product of useable water supply chlorination. Pesticides declared
carcinogenic following animal tests, and yet routinely sprayed on
crops, is another example.(5) Triethanolamine, an ingredient in many
laundry detergents and Perchloroethylene, the commonly used dry
cleaning agent, are amongst the countless “animal carcinogens” which
we consume.



An interesting distortion of the system surfaces when, occasionally, a
carcinogenic product is marketed with a “warning” label. An example of
this is the case of a most popular artificial sweetener, Sweet’N Low,
which bears the following label: “Use of This Product May Be Hazardous
To Your Health. This product Contains Saccharin Which Has Been
Determined To Cause Cancer In Laboratory Animals.” Of course, it
should be pointed out that saccharin is regulated in California as a
carcinogen. The supporting evidence for such a regulation: cancer in
bladders of male rats as a result of ingestion of saccharin at doses
equivalent to human consumption of 800 to 1,000 cans of diet soda per
day for an entire lifetime.(6) Incredibly, many similar “research
projects” are conducted all over the world with concentrations of test
chemicals which exceed those consumed by humans by a factor of more
than one million.(7)



Not only does overdosing contribute to the fallacy of vivisection, but
the issue of inter-species variation makes all types of vivisection
inherently erroneous. Since each species of animal is a different
biochemical entity, it follows that each species will react
differently to various substances, not only from another species of
animal, but also from the human animal. Even two “closely” related
animals such as the rat and the mouse react differently from each
other. Variations on the order of magnitude of many thousands are
commonplace between different species.(8)



The principle of inter-species variation is not the exception, but
rather the rule. The Egyptians knew about inter-species variation
thousands of years ago. In order to find out whether the Pharaoh’s
food was poisoned, they would first feed it, not to the rat, but to
the cook. In fact, almost every toxicological book, report, or article
published today inevitably addresses “scientists’” serious concerns
over the issue of inter-species variation. Yet, practitioners of
“modern” science and medicine have chosen to ignore, defy, and/or
conceal their own observations and findings, as well as the most basic
laws of nature which govern the endless biochemical differences
between different forms of life.



ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS



The fraud of animal research extends beyond the process of chemical
production and marketing and applies to the entire field of
“environmental protection.” Risk assessment studies, aimed at proving
or disproving the dangers associated with toxic emissions from an
incinerator into the air, discharge of wastewater from a sewage
treatment plant into the ocean, discharge of chemicals from an
industrial plant into a creek, or application of pesticides on crops,
are examples of environmental research where vivisection is routinely
used to justify varying and contradictory conclusions--depending on
the vested interests of those who foot the bill.



Other cases of environmental laws and policies which involve
vivisection, are the government established/enforced safe drinking
water standards, safe air quality limits, safe worker exposure levels
(TLV’s, PEL’s, TWA’s, and STEL’s), regulation of pesticides, and the
requirements of Material Safety Data Sheets for tens of millions of
industrial chemicals.



Unfortunately, far from safeguarding the public and the environment,
these “safety” measures make it very safe and very legal for polluters
to pollute - so long as they do so within the boundaries of the law.
The reason is as follows: In order for any regulation to protect the
public and the environment, it must be founded on sound scientific
grounds. The scientific community claims to accept this basic premise.
In fact, it is often in conflict with the regulatory community because
it claims that instead of establishing regulations based on scientific
knowledge, regulators establish them based on economic considerations
(i.e., cost to industry for compliance with the laws).



However, what the scientific community fails to admit is that what it
calls “science,” is nothing but fiction. And, since today’s
environmental laws are based on unscientific data obtained from
erroneous animal tests, the tragic result is that far from protecting
the public and the environment, such laws and regulations protect the
industry and allow the existence of carcinogens, teratogens, and
toxicants of all sorts in our food, air, water, home, and workplace.



Clearly, policies genuinely intended to protect the environment and
the public would have to be based on true science. Thus, eliminating
reliance on animal research and banning the production of tens of
millions of poisons, while responsibly controlling the use of those
absolutely “essential” ones to which humankind has managed to addict
itself. It is amazing how such research and policies are instigated
and supported by self-proclaimed “environmental” and “green”
institutions and, in general, by the “environmental movement.”



THE PROBLEM



The problem is that there is an intentionally created vicious cycle
that supports many interest groups. These groups, which are all
interrelated, consist of the following: the chemical empire, the
petroleum empire, the pharmaceutical empire, the food industry, the
tobacco industry, the research institutes, the “health” institutes,
the military, the government, and even the so-called environmental
movement. In other words, one group creates the problem, one group
claims to be assessing and studying the problem, and yet another one
pretends to be fighting and solving the problem.



Animal research is presented to the public as a scientific methodology
for the assessment of chemicals. Manufacturers claim that they
identify chemical hazards through animal testing. Government agencies
claim that they minimize hazards through enforcement of regulations
(established through animal tests). Health institutes claim that if we
don’t give them carte blanche to conduct animal research, we and our
children are destined to die miserable deaths. They claim that
civilization and progress go hand in hand with chemical growth. They
claim that without animal research, life on planet earth is destined
to cease. The fact is that animal research is responsible for the
devastation of life on our planet, as well as the disaster caused to
our health and the collapse of our economy.(9)



Unfortunately, most people as well as the majority of the
environmental organizations fail to make this vital connection. It
should not be difficult to realize then that the millions of synthetic
chemicals to which we are routinely exposed, cannot possibly be
harmless to our organism. Yet, the nature and extent of the damage is
evident only after the human “guinea pig” has been exposed to the
toxicant. It is because of this fact that,for example, an animal
carcinogen may not be a human carcinogen after all. Conversely,
chemicals found safe through animal tests routinely damage untold
numbers of human beings. Proof of this is the fact that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) withdraws as many as 12,000 prescription
drugs (found “safe” based on many years of animal testing prior to FDA
registration) from the marketplace every single year.



THE SOLUTION



The solution to our environmental and related health problems does not
require a return to the “dark ages” as some may fear. Once we realize
that a million animal tests are just as worthless (and, in fact,
hazardous) as one single animal test, and once we accept the fact that
animals cannot and will not warn us, let alone protect us, against the
inherent dangers of toxic chemicals, pollution, and disease, the
responsibility of protecting humankind will fall upon ourselves.



Instead of demanding more “research” and “study” from chemical
manufacturers, instead of pushing our government for more
“regulations” and “safety limits,” and instead of trying to reverse
the problem after the fact, let us begin with ourselves in our own
homes. Let us cut down on the source of pollution by eliminating the
many poisons which we use in our everyday lives. It is said that
today’s home contains more chemicals than a laboratory at the turn of
the century. So, let us begin by getting rid of all toxic products
that we have stored underneath our kitchen sink, in the medicine
cabinet, and in the garage. We can replace these products with simple,
natural, and effective solutions for our personal and household
cleaning needs.



Let us eat poison-free food out of poison-free containers. Let us wear
poison-free clothes. Let us drive poison-free cars. Let us watch
television programs which do not bombard us with countless commercials
peddling “new and improved” poisons, day and night. There will be a
time when recycling, living green, vegetarianism, and anti-
vivisectionism will not be a matter of choice, but a matter of
survival. There will come the time when progress and modernization
will not be equated with the existence of more chemicals and drugs. It
is not difficult to see that the only “progress” which the use and
misuse of chemicals has to offer is the progress toward the total
destruction of our health, economy, and planet.



Vivisection is the hidden cause of our environmental pollution and
public health problems. Let us destroy the myth and medieval ritual of
vivisection for the sake of pursuing real science, true progress and
civilization, and the assurance of a safe and poison-free environment
for ourselves and the generations to come.



REFERENCES



1. OSHA staff estimates that there are between 40 and 70 million
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) in use nationwide.



2. Registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).



3. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; etc., the U.S. EPA is authorized to
require the animal testing of “new” chemicals, old chemicals that are
proposed for new uses or for which there is a suspicion of adverse
health effects, and new mixtures of old or new chemicals. In other
words, any and all chemicals may be tested on animals.



4. Bruce N. Ames, Renae Magaw, Lois Swirsky Gold, “Ranking Possible
Carcinogenic Hazards,” Science 236 (1987), p. 275.



5. “Food Use Pesticides Which Have Been Evaluated For
Carcinogenicity,” U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticides & Toxic Substances,
Reto Engler, Ph.D., July 1992.



6. For example, see Edward J. Calabrese, “Animal extrapolation. A look
inside the toxicologist’s black box,” Environmental Science &
Technology 21, No. 7 (1987), p. 618.



7. For example, see Environmental Science & Technology, p. 618.



8. For example, see Human Health Risks From Chemical Exposure: The
Great Lakes Ecosystem, R. Warren Flint and John Vena, Lewis
Publications Inc., MI, 1991, p. 34, which states, “The toxic potencies
of 2,3,7,8 TCDDD [Dioxin] and related compounds exhibit profound
interspecies variability. For example, there is an approximately 5,000-
fold difference among laboratory mammals in the acute LD50.“



9. In 1994, the annual “health care” cost in the U.S. was 1.2 trillion
dollars.



This article is a condensed version of the original booklet entitled,
Animal Experimentation: The Hidden Cause of Environmental Pollution?
Absolutely! by Hoorik Davoudian, Vice President of The Nature of
Wellness


homenewarticlesmaterialsgalleryhelpvideoslinksdonatecontact us
.

Quantcast