The public feels that the government is acting sinisterly, as information about zinc cadmium sulfide spraying experiments is still not forthcoming.
Unanswered questions linger over the US government’s sinister spraying experiments conducted in St Louis during the 1950s and 1960s. Following a 1997 investigation by mostly unnamed members of a National Research Council Committee, that reported that the chemical tests did not harm anyone, many other experts begged to differ.
One known member of the committee, its chairwoman, Dr. Rogene F. Henderson, worked for the ethically controversial company Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI). LRRI is notoriously known for its lying, twisting of data, ill-treatment of employees and cruelty to animals. Its trustworthiness as an authority on chemicals used in the government spraying is unlikely. Additionally, the committee admitted that they did not have access to substantial amounts of evidence. In other words, crucial evidence that could have led to more accurate conclusions.
Similar sinister experiments took place globally
Additionally, the UK performed similar spraying experiments of zinc cadmium sulfide on the unsuspecting British public during the same years. Alternatively, experts in the UK have drawn different conclusions, which contradict the US 1997 findings. Whistleblower Mike Kenner exposed the UK experiments and pressured for further independent studies after an inconclusive 1998 review. His exposé led to a BBC investigation called Clouds of Secrecy.
Another dissatisfied expert is sociologist Lisa Martino-Taylor, of St. Louis Community College. Recently, she released a book about the alleged radioactive spraying done by the US Army and government. This book also reveals other sinister experiments done on more vulnerable members of the population. Her book, “Behind the Fog: How the US Cold War Radiological Weapons Program Exposed Innocent Americans” follows in the wake of her 2011 dissertation on the subject, which caused uproar and lawsuits. Martino-Taylor promises that her new book contains more information and sources, which raise many more questions.
Martino-Taylor’s revelations have raised concerns with a few US congressmen, who have brought up their concerns to the Associated Press. Congressmen Brad Sherman of California, William Lacy Clay of Missouri, and Jim Cooper of Tennessee expressed their outrage at the secret US army’s spraying activities. Together, they are seeking a reopening of the case and more in-depth investigation.
Many people who lived in the affected areas have come forward to describe what they allege to be the aftereffects of the spraying experiments over their communities
62-year-old Doris Spates described the effects she believed her family endured at the hands of the heartless US Army. She and her family lived in a low-income high-rise upon which the Army sprayed zinc cadmium sulfide from their roof. Horrifically, not only has she suffered cervical cancer, as well as skin and respiratory problems, she also had lost four of her eleven brothers and sisters to cancer when they were young.
Nevertheless, Martino-Taylor admits that the evidence is not conclusive. Additionally, she states it is not possible for her to connect the cancers and deaths in the area to the spraying, given the information available. However, the question remains, why should the people trust that the government did nothing wrong? The US government has a history of ruthlessly experimenting on vulnerable populations.
Government habit of ruthlessness to innocent people
A prime example is the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. For two generations, the US army refused to treat vulnerable black men, and their children, whom they had purposefully infected with syphilis. Additionally, also in the 1950s, the US navy sprayed unsuspecting San Francisco citizens with vast quantities of bacteria.
The experiment, termed Operation Sea-Spray, caused at least one death, and countless other pneumonia-like severe illnesses. Horrendously, when the dead man’s family took the government to court, the court ruled in favor of the state. Consequently, the government persisted in brazenly inflicting citizens with the potentially deadly illness until 1969!
Why is the government so keen to hide the truth?
If the government feel that people should have nothing to fear, why not provide transparency? Ultimately, it is the government breeding the conspiracy theorists, and fertilizing the lack of trust. People want answers. Until they get clarity, they will jump to conclusions. And these conclusions will be based on things that they know happened historically.
Is it any surprise, then, that people lack trust in government? Does the government give people a reason to trust them? With such a brazen catalog of historically doing experiments on populations – especially minorities – why would the zinc cadmium sulfide experiments be any less sinister? The fact that the government wishes to cover the results up certainly makes them look incredibly guilty.
Also, if time produced evidence that zinc cadmium sulfide was not harmful to the population, ultimately, the government was still ethically wrong to do any experimentation on the public. The Nuremberg trials had created the Nuremberg Code in 1947, yet frighteningly, the US government was reluctant to adopt its recommendations. Why the reluctance? Why did the Government believe it had the right to perform sinister experiments without gaining the consent of those they were experimenting on?
Playing devil’s advocate
For argument’s sake, there could be a few reasons why the government might choose to run such experiments. Firstly, they merely may have acted naively. The spraying took place during the 1950s when the government had not instigated regulations to protect innocent people. There could have been a sense of disconnection from any perception that they were doing something potentially dangerous.
Similarly, many governments feel they are like the man holding the lever in the classic trolley problem ethical dilemma? That is, they thought that it was permissible to risk the lives of the few to save the many. However, this leads to the next possible line of reasoning – that the government acted sinisterly. Why did they choose vulnerable and impoverished populations? This discrimination inevitably breeds distrust and suspicion. It was not like the government performed all of these tests in wealthy areas, or on politicians.
If what they asked the army to spray was not dangerous, why did they choose to spray only the poor and vulnerable?
As previously mentioned, Martino-Taylor does admit that there are a lot of gaps and missing links in the sources she uses. Many of her claims are allegations, and the victims can really only share their anecdotal evidence. But is it her fault that she cannot provide the whole picture? She readily admits that her purpose is to demand transparency. Additionally, she knows that, historically, revealing the truth about how innocent people have been hurt and damaged by authorities they believe they should trust, takes an extreme amount of pushing and campaigning.
For example, in the case of the Radium girls, despite their lawsuits being arduous, the overwhelming evidence of women dying of horrendous cancers and tumors still had people in doubt. Even on their deathbeds, many of the Radium girl campaigners, such as Catherine Donohue, still brought evidence against the company that had poisoned them. Despite overwhelming evidence, authorities still did their best to deny they were the catalyst of these women’s tragic deaths.
Waking up the public
Martino-Taylor is allowing her dissertation to be freely accessed online. She also claims that her sources are online, free to view, too. For all intents and purposes, it really appears as though she is just trying to wake up the sleeping public, to induce them to ask more questions about what they allow their governments to subject them to.