Independent American Party of Nevada Platform

2 Responses to Independent American Party of Nevada Platform

1. Christine Webb says:

   October 12, 2010 at 9:11 am

   The child support system in NV must be changed!! Please add this to your considerations when it comes to the DA’s office election! Currently, when a parent who is responsible for paying child support has his/her case sent to the DA’s office – they have the child support removed directly from their payroll which is not an issue – but what is an issue is that if there is a due by date on their child support order – it is not removed when the DA’s office takes the case on and removed the support from payroll! Since most Americans do not get paid weekly – a parent responsible for child support is ALWAYS behind in it!! THIS CREATED DEADBEAT PARENTS IN NV!!!! How unfair is it that a good parent that pays his support has to be penalized this way! And not only are they always late with their child support – but they get penalized TWICE by the DA’s office in penalty’s! Even when they take half or all of our tax returns which should more than catch you up – since they do not apply it right away – a majority of it goes directly to the penalty’s that are racked up!! HELP GOOD AMERICAN PARENTS!! Stop them from being treated like a deadbeat parent who never pays support! Treat them better than criminals and stop the threats of jail time when the DA’s office itself is responsible for creating these issues!! Thank you for the consideration

   Reply
2. Marcus Horton says:

   October 25, 2010 at 5:43 pm

   This is what I emailed to the FBI about House members violating federal criminal law and also is included is a complaint against the ex-FDA Head for criminal acts. Dear Sir,

   My name is Marcus Horton and I had to study the U.S. Constitution various times. For example I took political science (American Political Institutions) at Hartnell College. Hartnell College is located in Salinas, California. Another example is that I took a history course on the U.S. Constitution (Development of the American Constitution) at San Jose State University. San Jose State University is located in San Jose, California. According to the U.S. Supreme Court it is a criminal act to either try to cause or to cause a person or persons to be deprived of their U.S. Constitutional rights. In fact one cannot do it in the color of law according to federal law. Well to protect the profits of the U.S.food industry various federal government officials have done just that. What you are going to like about this is that one has a very thick public paper trail to follow. The people involved in the various acts I am going to ask you to look into cannot deny their acts due to public records. First of all I am going to ask for a criminal investigation into these House of Representatives people. I got their names from a voting record the location of which I was directed to by a David Doyle who is an intern in the Salinas office of House Representative Sam Farr. Mr. Doyle told me to go to govtrack.us web site for the names of the people who voted for the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2006. Later on I will be going into detail how that act would have deprived millions of U.S. citizens who did not committed criminal acts of their ability to exercise their federal rights as defined by the U.S. Constitution and I will be also showing that this is not a federal versus state issue since the state created danger doctrine of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has to be followed by states or one gets a violation of federal constitutional law. Since the actions of these people involved numerous people we have a conspiracy here. For the state of Alabama the people are Jo Bonner, Terry Everett, Michael Rogers, Robert Cramer, Spencer Bachus, Artur Davis. For the state of Alaska the person is Donald Young. For the state of Arizona the people are Rick Renzi, Trent Franks, John Shadegg, John Hayworth and James Kolbe. For the state of Arkansas the people are Robert Berry, John Boozman and Mike Ross. For the state of California the people are Walter Herger, John Doolittle, Richard Pombo, Dennis Cardoza, George Radanovich, Devin Nunes, Elton Gallegly, Howard McKeon, David Dreier, Juanita Millender -McDonald, Edward Royce, Jerry Lewis, Gary Miller, Ken Calvert, John Campbell, Darrell Issa and Duncan Hunter. For the state of Colorado the people are Marilyn Musgrave, Joel Hefley, Thomas Tancredo and Bod Beauprez. For the state of Connecticut the people are Robert Simmons and Nancy Johnson. For the state of Delaware the person is Michael Castle. For the state of Florida the people as Jeff Miller, Allen Boyd, Virginia Brown-Waite, Clifford Stearns, John Mica, Ric Keller, Michael Bilirakis, Adam Putnam, Katherine Harris, Connie Mack, David Weldon, Kendrick Meek, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, E. Shaw, Tom Feeney and Mario Diaz-Balart. For the state of Georgia the people are Jack Kingston, Sanford Bishop, James Marshall, Tom Price, John Linder, Lynn Westmoreland, Nathan Deal, John Barrow and David Scott. For the state of Idaho the people are C. L. Otter and Michael Simpson. For the state of Illinois the people are Bobby Rush, Daniel Lipinski, Rahm Emanuel, Henry Hyde, Danny Davis, Melissa Bean, Mark Kirk, Gerald Weller, Jerry Costello, Judy Biggert, Timothy Johnson, Donald Manzullo, Ray LaHood and John Shimkus. For the state of Indiana the people are Chris Chocola, Mark Souder, Stephen Buyer, Mike Pence, John Hostettler and Michael Sodrel. For the state of Iowa the people are James Nassle, James Leach, Leonard Boswell, Thomas Lathem and Steve King. For the state of Kansas the people are Jerry Moran, Jim Ryun, Dennis Moore and Todd Tiahrt. For the state of Kentucky the people are Edward Whitfield, Ron Lewis, Anne Northup, Geoff Davis, Harold Rogers and Ben Chandler. For the state of Louisiana the people are Bobby Jindal, William Jefferson, Charles Melancon, James McCrery, Rodney Alexander, Richard Baker and Charles Boustany. For the state of Maine the person is Michael Michaud. For the state of Maryland the people are Wayne Gilchrest, C. A. Ruppersberger, Albert Wynn and Roscoe Bartlett. For the state of Massachusetts the person is William Delahunt. For the state of Michigan the people are Peter Hoekstra, Vernon Ehlers, David Camp, Frederick Upton, John Schwarz, Michael Rogers, Joseph Knollenberg, Candice Miller and Thaddeus McCotter. For the state of Minnesota the people are Gilbert Gutknecht, John Kline, James Ramstad, Mark Kennedy and Collin Peterson. For the state of Mississippi the people are Roger Wicker, Bennie Thompson, Charles Pickering and Gene Taylor. For the state of Missouri the people are William Clay, W. Akin, Ike Skelton, Emanuel Cleaver, Samuel Graves, Roy Blunt, Jo Ann Emerson and Kenny Hulshof. For the state of Montana the person is Dennis Rehberg. For the state of Nebraska the people are Jeffrey Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Thomas Osborne. For the state Nevada the people are James Gibbons and Jon Porter. For the state of New Hampshire the people are Jeb Bradley and Charles Bass. For the state of New Jersey the people are Frank LoBiondo, H. Saxton, Michael Ferguson and Rodney Frelinghuysen. For the state of New Mexico the people are Heather Wilson and Steven Pearce. For the state of New York the people are Steve Israel, Peter King, Gregory Meeks, Joseph Crowley, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velazquez, Vito Fossella, John McHugh, Sherwood Boehlert, James Walsh, Thomas Reynolds, Brian Higgins and John Kuhl. For North Carolina the people are George Butterfield, Bob Etheridge, David Price, Virginia Foxx, Howard Coble, Mike McIntyre, Robin Hayes, Sue Myrick, Patrick McHenry, Charles Taylor, Melvin Watt and R. Miller. For the state of Ohio the people are Steven Chabot, Jean Schmidt, Michael Turner, Michael Oxley, Paul Gillmor, Ted Strickland, David Hobson, John Boehner, Stephanie Jones, Patrick Tiberi, Steven LaTourette, Deborah Pryce, Ralph Regula, Timothy Ryan and Robert Ney. For the state of Oklahoma the people are John Sullivan, Dan Boren, Frank Lucas, Tom Cole and Ernest Istook. For the state of Oregon the people are Greg Walden and Darlene Hooley. For the state of Pennsylvania the people are Philip English, Melissa Hart, John Peterson, Jim Gerlach, W. Weldon, William Shuster, Donald Sherwood, Paul Kanjorski, John Murtha, Michael Doyle, Charles Dent, Joseph Pitts, Tim Holden, Tim Murphy and Todd Platts. For the state of South Carolina the people are Henry Brown, Addison Wilson, James Barrett, Bob Inglis and John Spratt. For the state of South Dakota the person is Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. For Tennessee the people are William Jenkins, John Duncan, Zach Wamp, Lincoln Davis, Barton Gordon, Marsha Blackburn and John Tanner. For the state of Texas the people are Louis Gohmert, Ted Poe, Samuel Johnson, Ralph Hall, Jeb Hensarling, Joe Barton, John Culberson, Kevin Brady, Al Green, Michael McCaul, K. Conaway, Kay Granger, William Thornberry, Ruben Hinojosa, Silvestre Reyes, Thomas Edwards, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Randy Neugebauer, Lamar Smith, Thomas DeLay, Henry Bonilla, Kenny Marchant, Michael Burgess, Solomon Ortiz, Henry Cuellar, Eddie Johnson, John Carter and Peter Sessions. For the state of Utah the people are Rob Bishop, Jim Matheson and Christopher Cannon. For the state of Virginia the people are Jo Ann Davis, Thelma Drake, J. Forbes, Virgil Goode, Robert Goodlatte, Eric Cantor, James Moran, Frederick Boucher and Thomas Davis. For the state of Washington the people are Rick Larsen, Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Dave Reichert. For the state of West Virginia the person is Shelley Capito. For the state of Wisconsin the people are Paul Ryan, F. Sensenbrenner, Thomas Petri and Mark Green.

   The next criminal investigations I will be asking for involve a California court case. The court case is The People of the State of California v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al. (Case No.:CGC-04-432394). In the lower court ruling you can find a violation of federal criminal law. Details of which are latter on in this writing. Not only do I want a criminal investigation into the state of California’s actions for violation of federal law but also criminal investigations into the actions of former Commissioner of U.S. Food and Drug Administration Dr. Crawford and the tuna companies’ lawyers. I have written how the actions of these people violated the state created danger doctrine and thus violated criminal law.

   Lastly federal officials of the EPA lied in Congressional reports ordered by Congress. I am using the reports to show that. The officials of the EPA cannot get out of this because I am using one section of a certain report against another section of that report and the literature the report mentioned. Congress wanted truth and got instead lies.

   I am just exercising my Constitutional rights that the FBI can not even interfere with. According to federal regulations passed as a result of federal government agents violating people’s rights the FBI can not even watch me once they see that I am just exercising my Constitutional rights. I am going to let the world know what kind of federal government the United States has.

   My mailing address is P. O. Box 84 Salinas, Ca. 93902. I have various ways to show that I wrote this writing. I put my own personal information into this writing and once you read some of the stuff I done which I have documentation of it or who I mentioned as being my professors it will be quite obvious that no one else could have wrote this. Also I mentioned to lots of people as I was writing this as to what I was up to and I had people pull things for me for this writing.

   Thank you for reading this top part and have fun reading how government workers violated the Constitution and criminal law.

   GOVERNMENT WILLFULLY LIED IN COURT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF BREAST CANCER. DOCUMENTATION INCLUDED SHOWING MERCURY CAUSES BREAST CANCER.

   The U. S. Food and Drug Administration along with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency conspired to violate the state created danger doctrine of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Federal Constitution. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states that the government cannot deprive any person of their life without due process of law. The due process clause is interpreted by the courts as being so broad that it covers any action done by the government that increases the risk of any person to have impairment or lose of one’s life. As you can see the protection of one’s health is covered under the Constitution. By giving out false health information both the FDA and EPA are depriving people who follow the information these governmental agencies give out of their health and life and thus violate the Constitution. This can best be seen how these agencies dealt with the issue of methyl mercury in the fish and human health problems such as cancer, miscarriages and birth defects. The best case in which to see this conspiracy has to do with a Californian court case dealing with methyl mercury in tuna (The People of the State of California v. Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, et al., (Case No.:CGC-04-432394)). Since this was a very well publicized case there are outside sources to back up everything I state about the case. In fact under the federal law called the Freedom of Information Act one should be able to get all the court documents I mention here by writing to the Californian court system if one cannot get them from the online Californian court system. The court records are public records which every person of the world is entitled to see and especially for U. S. citizens since they have a constitutional right to criticize the actions of their state and federal governments and in order to criticize them citizens must have free access to the governmental documents so they can look over them and analyze the actions of their governments. To deny U S citizens free access to these public records which have been in the news is a federal criminal offense due to the fact that one is entitled to them under the U S Constitution. It is a federal criminal offense to interfer with the exercising of another person’s Constitutional rights. In fact governmental officials have been arrested and prosecuted under this law already. Also if for some reason one has trouble finding news articles about the case online one can get the material at various public libraries from microfilms of the two San Francisco newspapers. Also other major newspapers had articles on this case since numerous environmental and health groups and people concerned with the environment and health issues were wanting to know about this case. It was also on the major syndicated news wire services. Also various environmental publications had articles on this case. I should also mention that this case is a consolidation of two court cases. Public Media Center of San Francisco filed the original case in 2001 and when the Attorney General of the state of California decided to get involved the state took over the lead in this litigation and the name of the case was changed due to the request of the Attorney General to reflect this status.
   Now one is probably thinking how I will show that the state created danger doctrine was violated. I plan to use both the Superior Court and Appellate Court rulings, the letter from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Lester M. Crawford, which was mentioned in both court rulings and elsewhere, federal grants, the 1997 EPA Congressional report on mercury, the EPA’s 2001 Water Quality Criterion For The Protection Of Human Health: Methylmercury, the National Research Council’s report titled Toxicological Effects Of Methylmercury , the National Toxicology Program’s Technical Report number 408 titled Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of Mercuric Chloride In F344 Rats And B6C3F1 Mice (CAS No. 7487-94-7) which was done under the direction of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences according to what I read and work done at federal science research faculties. The reason that I am using federal grants, work done at federal science research faculties, the EPA’s reports on mercury, the National Research Council’s report and the National Toxicology Program’s Technical Report number 408 is to show that not only did Dr. Crawford lied to the American people but to also show that the federal government knows that it takes only one exposure to mercury to cause some human health problems such as birth defects and some forms of human cancers because mercury not only goes after the human germ cells and binds to the DNA but it also causes mutations at very low levels of mercury. For example one of the types of mutations that are involved in human skin cancer as declared by our federal government is caused by one atom of mercury bound to the DNA and the federal government knows it. One of the reasons I am using work supported by the federal government is that by doing it this way I am creating a double edge sword. If the federal government denies what I state then it is stating that the work funded by the federal government is not only invalid but also the federal government wasted large amounts of money to pay for invalid research. Another reason is that if the federal government denies the research mentioned in this writing then the scientific community will know that the federal government will try to discredit any federally funded research results or research it wants to discredit and thus the search for scientific truth is in danger in the U S because I am going to contract tens of thousands of scientists and people with a background in biology and give them a copy of this writing in order to cause the US government to change its food policies. Some of these people probably follow or followed at one time the recommendations of the federal government concerning food and got varies health problems because of it thus they also have the right under federal law to get money from the federal government because their rights under the US Constitution were violated. Also other people followed the recommendations by the government and got health problems and they should get money because the federal government violated their federal rights. Also some of scientists will know or knew some of the writters of the articles I will be citing so they will be able to see from first hand knowledge as to what the federal government is doing. Some of these people might have read science abstracts in various fields of science such as biochemistry, biology, cellular biology, chemistry, genetics, medicine and molecular biology that mentioned these articles or seen scientific citation of these articles in science articles or science citation indexes. Since the state of California did not go after Dr. Crawford for perjury or violating the state created danger doctrine because of the letter he wrote to defend the grocery industry it was used by Tri-Union Seafoods again in the Deborah Fellner case. That case is also mentioned in the California Appellate Court ruling when dealing with Dr. Crawford’s letter since that case had a different ruling on the letter and that ruling also did not mention the state created danger doctrine which I will show you that this letter is in violation of.
   Since I mentioned the EPA’s Mercury Study Report To Congress I would like to mention a few things about it. Congress ordered the study report. The report fulfills the requirements of section 112 (n) (1) (B) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. I am going to use various volumes of the December 1997 edition of the report. Volume 5: Health Effects Of Mercury And Mercury Compounds in its draft form was given another volume number. I have a copy of it. This report was ordered by Congress to applease the environmentalists thus when the EPA lied in this report to Congress it also lied to the citizens of the United States and that included the environmentalists who pushed for a honest report. In the science section I will show you how the EPA lied to Congress by using the report and the science papers the report referred to.
   Congress in the House Appropriations Report for the EPA’s 1999 fiscal funding directed the EPA to have the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy Of Sciences (NAS) review what the EPA decided as a safe mercury exposure dose level and make recommmendations as to what a safe dose level of mercury should be. Well the NRC came up with a committee that decided that they were going to evaluate data that was not considered in the EPA’s 1997 mercury report to Congress and look for data gaps. On page 14 of the Toxicological Effects Of Methylmercury the NRC stated it was going to “1. Evaluate the body of evidence that led to the EPA-derived MeHg RfD. Human epidemiological and animal toxicity data should be the basis of the evaluation. The evaluation should determine the appropriateness of the critical study, end point of toxicity, and uncertainty factors used by EPA in deriving the RfD for MeHg. Sensitive populations should be considered. 2. Evaluate any new data (e.g., mechanistic data) that were not considered in EPA’s 1997 Hg report that are relevant to EPA’s MeHg RfD for protecting human health.” In order to identify data gaps this committee should have read over what the EPA had written. In fact on page 63 the report listed volume 5 of the EPA’s mercury report to Congress as a reference. One has to look over the mechanistic data in order to evaluate the human epidermiological and animal toxicity data and to check for design faults in the experimental designs of the human epidermiological and animal toxicity studies. When reading this writting it will become obvious, especially when dealing with leukemia, liver and skin cancers, the binding of mercury items such as methyl mercury to the DNA and how mercury items such as methyl mercury cause mutations, that the committee of the NRC did not do its job as stated. On page 154 of the Toxicological Effects Of Methylmercury the NRC committee wrote “Evidence that human exposure to Hg causes genetic damage is inconclusive.” and that statement was completely false at the time. All one had to do was look at the mercury mechanistic routes that were known at the time to disprove that statement. The human epidermiological studies that were dismissed by both the EPA and the NRC committee should have been viewed next to the mercury mechanistic routes before being dismissed. I am going to be using a journal published by the NAS to show that mercury binds to the DNA and goes after cancer genes. I am going to be using the Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences (PNAS) so there is no reason why the NRC committee did not know of the journal articles I am going to be citing if they did what they were requested to do by Congress. All they had to do was a literature search in their own journal. I am asking for a criminal investigation into this whole matter because Congress uses the information provided by the NRC committee to pass federal laws that have to do with health and safety issues involving methyl mercury. The investigation should be into how the NRC committe came up with the Toxicological Effects Of Methylmercury report. What was the input of the EPA? Why didn’t they put in the chapter on the chemistry of methylmercury that mercury items bind to the DNA and how and where it binds to the DNA? We knew before the NRC was to look over the EPA data where on the thymine that mercury items bind to. The PNAS has various articles on that fact.
   I think I should mention a few things concerning the NAS. The NAS was created by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863. The function of this origanization is to investigate, examine, experiment and report upon any subject of science that the federal government wants information on. Over the years Congress and the White House have issued legislation and executive orders that stated that role is the role that the NAS has to perform for the federal government. In order to coordinate with the federal government the NAS has an Office of Congressional and Government Affairs. The NAS also gives an annual report to Congress on its activities.
   Now since the NRC mercury committee did not do its job the NAS now has a major problem once my writing gets around. The NAS cannot deny the research I am mentioning in this letter, especially the research found in its publications, without causing more damage to its reputation. The NAS has stated that one of its missions is to increase the public education and understanding of science and technology in the areas concerning human health. Also it has the problem that by denying the research it could be look upon as trying to deprive people of their federal constitutional rights which is a federal crime. That would really turn into a news story since this organization has a Committee On Human Rights which has been around since 1976. The most basic human right is the right of survival and that is the issue which this writing addresses. Giving out false information on health issues interferes with the most basic human right. Without life one does not have the ability to have any other rights.
   The NRC committee failed in the mission of the NRC when coming up with its methyl mercury report. According to the NRC’s web site the mission of the NRC is to improve governmental decision making policies concerning science and human health. Well the NRC had in its own publication information as to how methyl mercury could cause tumor growth. When the NRC made it recommendations, which are located on page 231 of its methyl mercury report, the NRC stated that the ability of methyl mercury to promote tumor growth should be considered in the establishment of safe exposure guidelines without stating how methyl mercury promotes tumor growth on that page or elsewhere in the report. The NRC committee had at their finger tips the information they needed to explain how mercury items cause the promotion of tumor growth by way of either articles from the PNAS or the EPA’s 1997 mercury report to Congress. The EPA’s 1997 mercury report to Congress had the information as to how mercury items caused tumor growth in it. All one needed to know was how tumors were either formed or promoted in order to see that the EPA had the information in their hands when writing the 1997 mercury report to Congress. I am going to show you that both the NAS and the EPA had that information in their own publications. Both of them should have explained to Congress that mercury items cause tumor formation because they mutation tumor forming genes and cause reactive oxygen species levels in the cell to go up. The federal government also has a National Toxicology Program (NTP). Since I am using one of the NTP reports I am going to mention a few things about the NTP. The subcommittee members of the NTP have the major responsibilitie to review the NTP studies. Their job is to ascetain that all relevant literature data has been adequately cited and interpreted, to determine if the design and conditions of the NTP studies were appropriate and to asses the evaluation of the evidence of carcinogenic activity. People have critized the NTP before for not doing its job when it comes to cancer causing agents. For example in 2005 D. Gaylor wrote Are tumor incidence rates from chronic bioassays telling us what we need to know about carcinogens? which can be found in the issue 41 (2) of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology: RTP on pages 128-33. He stated that the government’s screening for cancer fails to detect the weaker carcinogens at the maximum tolerated dose. Well my critism is that they design tests that would give out the data that masks the fact that an item causes cancer or mutations and thus the subcommittee’s members are not doing their jobs. Mercury binds to thymine and causes thymine dimers. The thymine dimers only occur when mercury is at very, very low levels. The federal government has known this fact since at least 1970 so why didn’t the subcommittee members take that into acount when designing the study I am going to be mentioning? It had been in the science litature decades before the science study I am mentioning of the NTP that one of the reasons for human skin cancer is mutations caused by thymine dimers. To show that undergraduate students in biology for generations have been taught that thymine dimer mutations are one of the causes for skin cancer I refer to pages 661 – 665 of the second edition of Molecular Genetics An Introductory Narrative by G. Stent and R. Calender published in 1978 where you have a section on UV mutagenesis.
   The EPA’s 2001 publication titled Water Quality Criterion For The Protection Of Human Health: Methylmercury (EPA-823-R-001) stated that the publication was to provide guidance to states and tribes who were authorized to establish water quality standards pursuant to section 304 (a) of the Clean Water Act. The publication also stated that it used the EPA’s 1997 Congressal report on mercury as its primary information source. The publication also stated it also included published information that was published after the Congressional report. Thus the states and tribes which followed the quidance of this document can now sue the federal government under Constitutional law because the EPA willfully and intentionally gave out false information concerning health issues in the document. It is very easy to show. On page x the publication stated that methylmercury causes chromosomal effects but does not induce point mutations. On page 3-48 the publication stated that methylmercury causes DNA strand breakage. DNA strand breakage causes point and other mutations. You can not have your cake and eat it to. It is either one or the other. Either it causes DNA strand breakage which means one gets point mutations or it doesn’t cause DNA strand breakage. Well later on in this writing I will be showing you that the EPA knows the number range of mercury atoms bound to the DNA which will cause strand breakage on a certain cell line thus the EPA knows the reason why point mutations can happen and therefore any statement by the EPA stating that mercury items such as methyl mercury do not cause point mutations is an outright lie. If you think that a break in the DNA doesn’t cause a point mutation I want you to think of breaking a piece of spaghetti or a pencil. You break the piece of spaghetti or pencil in half. If you try to put the spaghettit or pencil back together you are missing a very small amount at the break points. That is what is happening when you have DNA strand breakage. The amount of DNA you are missing at the DNA break points varies. You have enzymes that are meant to try to fix the breakage. Sometimes these enzymes don’t find the breakage points. Other times they don’t fix them right because of various reasons such as incorporating wrong DNA nucleotides into the DNA strand, putting the strands back together but shorter or longer than the strands originally were and other things like that. Breakage can happen at another DNA strand break point and that is how you can the end up with the wrong lenght of DNA during the repairing process and thus you have a mutation due to that fact. The EPA outright lied in that publication to the American public, state governments and tribes.
   Now gets even more interesting because the federal government could possibly be sued by governments from other countries because it is willfully and intentionally giving out false health that is used in publications that other countries use to make environmental safety decisions. Publications of the World Health Organization (WHO) on mercury cite various reports by the EPA and these publications by the WHO are not the views of the WHO. Some of the WHO publications mention the reports I am using as a reference. Also U S federal officals are involved in the writing of the publications of the WHO. If you look at the people involved in the writing of the vaious WHO publications having to do with mercury you would see names of people who give their employment addresses as either working for the EPA, FDA or other U S federal governmental agencies. I am going to use a few examples from publications by the WHO to show you how this works. The EPA’s 1997 report to Congress on mercury in volume 5 on page 3-97 stated “As reviewed in WHO (1990) methylmercury is not a potent point mutagen but is capable of causing chromosome damage in a variety of systems.” On page 8-38 one can see the reference is to Methylmercury volume 101. Now from the statements found in the EPA’s report you could think that it was the WHO that stated that methyl mercury is not a potent point mutagen. First of all at the beginning of Methylmercury volume 101 it stated “This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization.” The WHO did not review whether or not mercury causes mutation it was an independent group of people who did the review. In the beginning of the report the WHO made clear that all it was doing was disseminating evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health made by others. In fact the report had a written statement in it that stated that. The first two drafts of the report were writen by a Dr. T. Clarkson of the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. You had input into this report by a Dr. Bolger who work at the FDA. The publication has his name and place of work on it. The review did not mention anything about sister chromatid exchanges, chromosomal breaks and stuff like that which would show that point mutations are happening instead it just mentioned chromosomal damage without stating what sort of damage it is. One can pick out what science papers to put in a review and what to say about them. Here is what was written under section 8.3 Mutagenicity and Related End-Points “Methylmercury is capable of causing chromosome damage in cell cultures (Morimoto et al., 1982; Curle et al., 1983), in the golden hamster (Watanabe et al., 1982; Gilbert et al., l983), and in ovulating Syrian hamsters (Mailhes, 1983). It can induce histone protein perturbations (Gruenwedel & Diaham, 1982) and influence factors regulating the nucleolus-organizing activity (Verschaeve et al., 1983). The mutagenic response of V79 Chinese hamster cells to methylnitrosourea is enhanced by methylmercury (Onfelt & Jenssen, 1982). Methylmercury has been reported to interfere with gene expression in in vitro cultures of glioma cells at low concentrations (0.05-0.1 µmol/litre) (Ramanujam & Prasad, 1979). The induction of non-disjunction and sex-linked recessive lethal mutations was found in Drosophila melanogaster treated with methylmercury. Tolerance to methylmercury was correlated with the uptake of mercury and not with the rate of excretion (Magnusson & Ramel, 1986).” Now it gets really interesting because both the EPA and the publication I just quoted from mentioned K. Morimoto, S. Iijima and A. Koizumi’s Selenite prevents the induction of sister-chromatid exchanges by methyl mercury and mercuric chloride in human whole-blood cultures. If you look in the refernces for Methylmercury volume 101 you will see that the citation for Morimoto et al., 1982 is that paper. If you go to volume 5 of the EPA’s mercury report to Congress you will see the same report cited on page 3-97 and it listed the paper on page 8-24. Notice the name of the report mentions methyl mercury causes sister-chromatid exchanges. One of the reasons why methyl mercury causes point mutations is because of breakage of the single strands of the DNA. Single strand DNA breakage is one of the causes of sister-chromatid exchanges. Next Methylmercury volume 101 mentions histone protein perturbations. Histone protein perturbations can cause point mutations in the DNA.
   In 2003 the WHO disseminated Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 50 titled Elemental Mercury And Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects. The first draft was written by Dr. Risher who not only worked for the Agency For Toxic Substances And Disease Registry (ATSDR) which is a US federal government agency but also helped developed the ATSDR toxicological mercury profile acording to document 50. If you go look at Appendix 1 Source Document you will notice that ATSDR (1999):Toxicological profile for mercury (update) was listed. This ATSDR report stated that it used the EPA’S 1997 mercury report to Congress as its primary source document. So we have here not only the EPA giving out false information to another U S governmental agency but also that U S government agency giving out the false EPA information to the world. The people who reviewed document 50 were listed in appendix 2 (CICAD). All one has to do is look at the number of people working for the U S federal government to realize that something is going on. The documented stated in the peer review section you had two people, R. Benson and E. Ohanian, from the EPA as peer reviewers. In the area that stated CICAD Final Review Board it listed three people from the EPA, Dr. Bruce, Dr. Choudhury and Dr. Gibb, one person from the National Institute For Occupational Safety And Health, Mr. Ahlers, and Dr. Chhabra from the National Institute Of Environmental Sciences. Now I am using the document that I downloaded from the WHO web site in Adobe Reader format so my page number might be different than what is up on the web according to the web site. It might be even different than the printed version. At least you have a ball park number of what page to go to. On page 30 of document 50 it stated that mercuric chloride binds to the DNA. On page 31 the document stated “Inorganic mercury compounds react with DNA (and other macromolecules) and are clastogenic in vitro, and in some studies even in in vivo. Because of the unknown mechanisms of these reactions, possibly related to the chemical reactivity of mercury, reliable extrapolation of this information to the human situation is not possible.” The U S federal government has known how mercury binds to the DNA and how mercury interacts with the DNA decades before that statement was made. You don’t need to know the mechanism of how mercury interacts with the DNA in order to do extrapolation to the human situation. During the early period of immunology immunologists did not know the immunological mechanisms involved in the immune system when extrapolating immunological information to develope vacines against various diseases. In fact people were cured and protected by these vacines. Also people developed cures against poisons without knowing the mechanism behind the poison. That statement about having to know the mechanism is just there to mislead people especially since the US federal government and other governments of the world have known for decades how mercury binds to the DNA. I am going to be citing numerious studies showing that fact. I should state that document 50 stated “The World Health Organization does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use.” After reading this writing you will know that the publication is far from being correct. The ISBN number for document 50 is 92 4 1533050 2.
   Now people in Congress use publications from the EPA to not only pass laws but also to write about various topics that the EPA study for their constituents. An example of this is Mercury In Perspective: Fact And Fiction About The Debate Over Mercury by Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Jim Gibbons (R-NV). These people and their aides used what the EPA published as part of their guideline. Chapter VIII was about the EPA’s reference dose and was titled EPA’S Reference Dose. Chapter VII was about the health risks of mercury. I found some very real errors in this governmental publication concerning human health and other items. For legal reasons having to do with Constitutional law these politicians should have never included anything concerning human health in this publication. What they did was opened themselves and the federal government up for state created danger doctrine law suites. Politicians have to be very careful what they publicly and officially state concerning human health issues because they are governmental employees. Privately politicians employed by the government can state what they want in this area but when it comes to public and official statements they can cause the government to be sued.
   I should mention some things concerning federal research grants. In order to get grant money one must explain what one is studying in the grant proposal. The money is only given out if that idea is accepted. Thus one has a money trail. The agency that gave out the money has to explain where the money went and the results. The results are normally published in science journals so the agency normally states where the results have been published in governmental appropriation proceedings and reports. The agency also uses what was done with past grant money as a reason why it should get future grant money to give out. Since some of the federal grant work is done at federal research labs there can also be another governmental appropriation trail. At these federal research labs there is a person who has to explain what research is being done at the lab and what the people working at the lab publish to the agency that controls the lab. The reason behind this is that the agency that controls the lab has to explain why the government should spend the money to keep that lab open in governmental appropriation proceedings or reports. Thus when using federal grants to show that the government knew something I am showing that Congress has access to the information because of federal governmental appropriation bills. Also I should mention that normally the research articles mention whether or not the work was supported by grant money and where the grant or grants came from plus the grant or grants numbers normally on page 1 of the research paper or right before the literature citations. That is where I got the grant numbers used in this paper. At times I could not make how whether or not in the grant number had a zero or the letter O. If I am wrong about any grant number it will be because of this and you can look up the research papers to determine for yourself the correct grant number.
   The appellate ruling stated “Science is not an encyclopedic body of knowledge about the universe. Instead, it represents a process for proposing and refining theoretical explanations about the world that are subject to further testing and refinement.” Well that view is both true and false at the same time. This is the reason why the government can lie to the American people and get away with it to most people. One can confuse people who don’t have a background in science because of the dual nature of science. Science is an encyclopedic body of knowledge about the universe. It is an encyclopedic body of knowledge that is continually expanding. Scientists are gathering facts about the universe. Scientists do experiments to gather facts about the universe and with the results of the data from these experiments scientists come up with theories to explain the facts that are known at a given time. As more facts are known theories change to take into account the new facts. The facts themselves do not change. Theories to explain these facts change. That is why Dr. Lester Crawford can state “Second, the Proposition 65 warnings purport to convey factual information, namely that methylmercury is known to cause cancer and reproductive harm. However, it is done without any scientific basis as to the possible harm caused by the particular foods in question, or as to the amounts of such foods that would be required to cause this harm.” and get away with it. All the government has to do when shown that it is not true is state that science is always changing and most of the general public will be satisfied with the answer. Well I am going to show you by way of facts and not theories that the government knew over thirty years before that statement was made that mercury items could cause some kinds of human cancers and thus any statement by the federal government stating that science is always changing done in order to protect the federal government would be invalid. Also I will be showing you that the EPA knew that methyl mercury causes reproductive harm by way of its 1997 Congressional report on mercury.
   Now I am going to explain how both Dr. Lester Crawford’s letter and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act violate the state created danger doctrine of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment before going on to explain the science reasons as to how methyl mercury causes various health problems such as birth defects and cancer so that when reading how these health problems occur you will be able to judge for yourself whether or not the state created danger doctrine was violated by both the actions of Dr. Lester Crawford and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act . The reason I am mentioning the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act is that Dr. Crawford’s letter mentioned it and both Californian court rulings dealt with it. Dr. Crawford stated in his letter that because of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act the state of California could not put warning labels on food. Dr. Crawford’s view was taken into account by the lower court ruling. Judge Robert Dondero not only gave Dr. Crawford’s letter substantial deference but also ruled that what Dr. Crawford stated was correct. Judge Dondero stated that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempted the state of California from putting warning labels on cans of tuna. The appellate court ruling when dealing with the issue of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act decided to treat the issue as a res judicata issue since it only had to affirm one of the grounds of the lower court ruling in order to affirm the lower court ruling. Thus because the appellate court decided that the federal law issue was already decided by judicial authority we have a federal law enacted in the state of California which violates the U. S. Federal Constitution.
   Now let me show you how the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Crawford violated the state created danger doctrine. First of all Dr. Crawford used his authority as the head of a governmental agency to interfere with what the state of California wanted to do which was simply to warn people of the possible health problems such as cancer and birth defects they might get from eating fish and thus creating a situation for someone to get those foreseeable health problems. Not only did Dr. Crawford use his title when signing the letter but he also sent copies of the letter to the director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Joan Denton and to the director of CFSAN Robert Brackett. You also have to keep in mind that with this letter came the possibility of the federal government suing the state of California for violating federal law because all Dr. Crawford had to do was order the lawyers of the FDA to do so since he was the head of the FDA. Secondly Dr. Crawford should have been able to see the ultimate harm he could do to people by declaring something that causes cancer as an item that does not cause cancer or by stating that eating under a certain amount of seafood will not cause you harm when in fact eating any amount of seafood causes brain cells to die and opens up the possibility for men to cause birth defects since one of the routes the male human body loses mercury involves the release of sperm cells (mercury can be found in human sperm cells). The harm will be that some of the people who follow his advice will get health problems such brain problems and cancer and cause birth defects. Thirdly if a head of a governmental agency lies to the public about environmental health hazards it is considered by the courts as conduct that shocks the conscience and that is what Dr. Crawford did. Christine Whitman lied to the public about potential health dangers from environmental hazards when she was head of the EPA. She and the EPA were sued because of her statements. Christine Whitman asked that she be dismissed from the law suit and her wish was denied because her statements caused people to come into contact with hazardous materials without protected measures (Gail Benzman, Diane Lapson, Jim and Anamae Gilroy, JoAlison Polett, Robert Gulack, Janice Fried, John Calder, Jenna Orkin, Kelly Colangelo, George Dinos, Brian Edwards, and Sara Manzano-Diaz, on their behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated against Christine Todd Whitman, Marianne L. Horinko, Michael Leavitt, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency). The Christine Whitman ruling was done in New York City. Well Dr. Crawford’s degree shows that he had to study chemistry thus he should known that just from the name methyl mercury one should be able to tell that that item would be a potential human carcinogen. Fourthly all I have to show is that either the federal government or Dr. Crawford should have known that methyl mercury causes cancer or health problems at the level of methyl mercury which the federal government stated is safe. Well that is not hard to do since Dr. Crawford’s letter mentions the fact that the FDA had been studying the human health issues of methyl mercury for several years and that the EPA and the FDA had a series of talks on the health issues of methyl mercury. The EPA in 1997 listed methyl mercury as being a possible class C human carcinogen in a report to Congress. At the time of that writing the EPA should have classified it instead as a possible class B human carcinogen and I will show you in the science section of this paper why it should have been classified that way and also that the federal government knew that methyl mercury causes cancer. The classification system used in the report was set up in a way to allow some cancer causing items not to be classified under class A. When the EPA revised its cancer guidelines however it stated that mercury items such as methyl mercury from environmental exposures are not likely to cause human cancers which scienifically false and I will show you why in the science section. Before the cancer guidelines went into effect the EPA used them in the Water Quality Criterion For The Protection Of Human Health: Methylmercury report. On page x of that report the EPA stated that application of the proposed cancer guidelines to methylmercury caused them to believe that methylmercury is noncarcinogenic to humans under normal environmental exposure Instead of listing the various kinds of human cancers that have links to mercury the FDA and the EPA decided to claim mercury items such as methyl mercury are not likely to cause human cancers. What is really sad here was that federal government money was used to show how mercury caused human breast cancer a couple of years before the EPA revised cancer guidelines went into effect. The EPA should have stated that mercury items are one of the causes for human blood, brain, breast, skin and liver cancers and one of the possible causes for other cancers when it had the talks with the FDA.
   Now a couple of other things need to be shown in order for the state created danger doctrine to be violated. First of all one must be able to show that the food industry has a special relationship with the federal government. One has various ways to show that. Here are a few of the many ways in which one can show it. The FDA due to the administration of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act has the authority to regulate food labeling according to federal law and decide whether or not the food is safe to eat. Both California court rulings mentioned this fact. Due to the action of the state of California members of Congress wanted to create new laws to protect the food industry. For example in the House of Representatives Michael Rogers sponsored The National Uniformity In Food Act (H. R. 4167). This act would have preempted states from putting warning labels on food items. I should state that it made an exemption for mercury. It was approved by the House of Representatives but got stalled in the Senate which is a very common ending of legislation. One can also follow a money trail into the grocery industry. The federal government has the state of California administer its SNAP. This program used to be called the Food Stamp Program by the federal government and it is still called the Food Stamp Progam by the state of California. Thus federal money was routed to the businesses being sued by the state of California by way of poor people buying food items. In fact some of the federal funds were used by people to buy the exact items that the state of California wanted to have warning labels on. Now this works a couple of different ways. First of all the state of California had a listing of John Does in this court case. Various news sources mentioned that the state of California was going to file a John Does list of grocery chains that sold or produced store brand, generic and major brand canned tuna. Thus these grocery chains got federal government funds from sales of their store, generic and major brand canned tuna. The major can tuna companies got the federal funds indirectly due to the fact that their products were sold to people on food stamps and also because they produced the store and generic brand canned tuna which people on food stamps bought. In fact the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis Sullivan, testified in the lower court case that consumption of canned tuna is vital to the health of the American poor. Thus one can see that the federal government wanted the poor to buy canned tuna and thus finance some of the same companies involved in the Californian law suit. One other way that the grocery chains on the John Doe list got federal money was by the WIC program. This is another federally funded program that is administer by the state of California. Women, infants and young children of low income families got food items by use of the WIC program at various grocery stores. Some of these major chain grocery stores where the people on WIC got their food items were on the John Doe list thus federal funds were being routed into the very companies that the state of California was after. Dr. Crawford should have known that federal funds from both these programs would be going to companies involved in the Californian law suit because he worked for a number of years for the USDA. The USDA was not only in charge of SNAP but also the Food And Nutrition Service at the time of his letter. WIC is maintained by the Food And Nutrition Service.
   Now since I mentioned The National Uniformity In Food Act (H. R. 4167) I think I should state that Michael Rogers got the House of Representatives to pass a bill which violated the US Federal Constitution thus the majority of the House of Representatives at that time did not believe that the U S Federal Constitution should be followed according to their voting records. Millions of U S citizens informed their elected local and state leaders that they wanted certain laws created to protect their health and safety. The elected local and state leaders listen to these millions of Americans and created laws to protect the health and safety of their constituents. Now Michael Rogers wanted a bill passed stating that millions of Americans could not do that. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U S Constitution would have been violated by Congress if the bill would have become law. Michael Rogers wanted to deny people their federal Constitutional rights to the protection of their health and safety by their local and state governments. This is not an area where federal law can supersede local and state laws. People have a federal Constitutional right to have these kinds of laws. When the federal government tries to stop any law that local or state governments want to pass or enforce concerning health or safety issues it is in violation of the state created danger doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution. Local and state governments can be sued for violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution if the constituents laid the groundwork right when asking for these laws if these governments did not pass the laws they wanted. It is a Fourteenth Amendment of the U S Constitution issue. Federal Constitutional law supersedes all other law whether it be federal, state or local. Now federal criminal law states that if people conspire to deprive another person or people of their federal rights as stated in the federal Constitution in color of law it is a crime. What is interesting here is that people did this as an official act of Congress. This is a very thorny issue here. Members of Congress are protected from certain laws when preforming their jobs. At the same time they are not protected from other laws when preforming their jobs. I am asking for federal criminal prosecution of the members of the House of Representatives who voted for The National Uniformity In Food Act and had studied the U S federal Constitution to either get a regular or law degree at a college or university. The reason I am mentioning studying the U S federal Constitution is so that the federal government can show that the person knew or should have known that he or she would be violating the U S Constitution rights of people by his or her vote since that person studied the U S Constitution. A court case will decide whether or not this federal law applies to members of Congress when creating and voting on this particular law. This issue can only be fully decided by having a court case going up to the U S Supreme Court. Also the special interest groups and busineeses that supported the bill should be investigated also under criminal law and be prosecuted. The special interest groups are not immune at all under the laws of the United States. If legal action is not taking on this issue then members of Congress in the future can think that they can get away with violating Constitutional rights of the American people since it has been done before.
   The National Uniformity In Food Act stated in section 403 B stated “no state or political subdivision of a state may, directly or indirectly, establish or continue in effect under any authority any notification requirement for a food that provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food, or any component or package of the food, unless such a notification requirement has been prescribed under the authority of this Act and the State or political subdivision notification requirement is identical to the notification requirement prescribed under the authority of this Act.” As you can see the federal government wanted complete control over labeling of food items. Before going into more detail as to how this act violated the both the Constitution and criminal law I have to show you that what the federal government does when dealing with the issue of food labeling and health and safety issues since the act would have required states and local governmental bodies to submit their labeling requirements to the federal government. I will be showing you that already the federal government in its food labeling procedure violates the state created danger doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. I will come back to this issue after dealing with the science aspects of this writing and then I can fully deal the exceptions to the act and the rest of the act in such a way you will understand because you would have already read what you needed to know in the science areas.
   Since I am writing about connections between the government and the food companies I think I should mention how the letter by Dr. Crawford came about. According to the news stories such as Jane Kay’s May 13, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle story titled State loses effort on warnings about tuna which appeared on page B-1 the attorneys for the tuna companies had asked that the FDA write the letter and supplied the preemption arguments. Also according to this news story one of the attorneys for the defendants, a Mr. Forrest Hainline, defended the industry’s right to convey its wishes to the FDA. What is interesting here is that the attorneys for the tuna companies knew about the state created danger doctrine of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not only do lawyers have to take constitutional law but they also have to take the Californian state licensing examination. Questions dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment are fair game on the state examination since all lawyers are expected to know federal constitutional law. Thus not only can the tuna companies be sued for conspiracy to violate the federal constitution but also the individual lawyers who provided the legal arguments for Dr. Crawford to use in his letter. You might still be able to find this story on the San Francisco Chronicle’s web site. I got my copy of the story from this web site.
   Now I think I should mention some facts about Dr. Lester Crawford and his wife. According to court documents Dr. Crawford and his wife owned Wal-Mart stock from January 2003 through January 2005. According to Dr. Crawford’s letter the EPA and the FDA came up with the mercury in seafood advisory during the years of 2003 and 2004. Dr. Crawford was the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA from February 25, 2002 until March 26, 2004 when he became Acting Commissioner of the FDA. Then on July 18, 2005 the U S Senate confirmed him him. Thus when the FDA came up with the mercury in seafood advisory Dr. Crawford had a conflict of interest because at the same time Wal-Mart was one of the largest retailers of canned tuna in the nation. Thus Dr. Crawford had a vested financial interest in making sure that the mercury in the seafood advisory did not hurt the food industry. Also according to court documents Dr. Crawford and his wife owned Kimberly-Clark stock from January 2003 through August 18, 2005. Major grocery chains not only sold canned tuna but they also sold Kimberly-Clark items. If store sells go down for one item stores could see a drop in sells for other items due to a drop in impulse sells. People come into stores to buy one item and end up buying other things as well. Now if one gets a drop in volume of people coming in planning just to buy canned tuna one would also get a drop in the number of impulse sells of Kimberly-Clark products. If Kimberly-Clark got a drop in sells of its products its stock would go down. Thus Dr. Crawford had a vested financial interest in seeing no drop in sells at the major grocery chains. To prove that Dr. Crawford had a vested financial interest in Kimberly-Clark when he wrote the letter to protect the canned tuna companies I refer you to the dates of when Dr. Crawford wrote the letter (August 12, 2005) and when Dr. Crawford and his wife sold their shares of Kimberly-Clark stock (August 18, 2005). You can see that Dr. Crawford still owned Kimberly-Clark stock when he wrote the letter. Dr. Crawford pleaded guilty to having a conflict of interests by him and his wife owning Wal-Mart and Kimberly-Clark stocks in October 2006 and in February 2007 Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson sentenced Dr. Crawford to 3 years supervised probation and a fine of around $90,000.
   The last thing needed to show in federal court circuits is that you have a definable group. It so happens that the federal government was sued before because of cancer causing food thus based upon previous actions of the federal government one can state that one has a legally definable group here. The definable group is fish eaters who are women who are not nursing and not likely to become pregnant and men. These are the people who Dr. Crawford stated in his letter are not the target audience for mercury in the food advisories. You might be thinking how this can be a definable group under the law. Well in the 1950’s and 1960’s the U S government was doing atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and the U S milk supply was contaminated by the nuclear fallout from these tests. In fact the U S government was monitoring the radiation fallout. The Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) in 1960 established the Pasteurized Milk Network to monitor the radiation fallout in the U S milk supply. In fact we have a congressional report done by the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control which was released in 2002 which stated how the radiation from atmospheric nuclear testing got into the U S milk supply. The name of the report if you want to read it was Estimated Exposures And Thyroid Doses Received By The American People From Iodine-131 In Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Tests. Before that report was released people were suing the federal government because they got cancer from drinking milk that was contaminated with nuclear fallout from the nuclear weapons testing. In order to stop these lawsuits and other kind of lawsuits involving the nuclear testing program Senator Orrin Hatch got the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 through Congress which compensated individuals who satisfied certain criteria. Senator Hatch had to amendment the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 to stop lawsuits from people not covered in the original bill in the year 2000. Thus we have a precedent to follow.
   The above paragraphs concerning Dr. Crawford and the state created danger doctrine were written with all the re

   Reply