Slashdot Mirror


Volkswagen Admits To Testing Diesel Fumes On Monkeys (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: In what seems like a John Henry versus the steam shovel-style competition to dig diesel's grave, Volkswagen has admitted to funding (and subsequently cheating on) animal testing to prove the relative safety of diesel exhaust fumes, according to findings by the New York Times. The tests, which were undertaken at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque in 2014, involved as many as 10 monkeys and had them sitting in airtight containers as they breathed exhaust fumes from a diesel-powered Volkswagen Beetle while they watched cartoons for entertainment. The tests went on for 4 hours. "We apologize for the misconduct and the lack of judgment of individuals," said a Volkswagen representative in a statement. "We're convinced the scientific methods chosen then were wrong. It would have been better to do without such a study in the first place." The Volkswagen Beetle used in the test was equipped with the same compromised emissions software that could detect when the car was being tested in a lab environment so it was running as cleanly as it could, which I guess proves that Volkswagen will waste no opportunity to be hoisted by its own oil-burning petard.

151 comments

  1. OK...and... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

    1. Re: OK...and... by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did. It wasn't until they were done with LA that they moved on to monkeys.

    2. Re:OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The have undertaken a large scale test of diesel fumes on humans. Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx. Major cities around the world have been subject to these tests and are showing a predictable rise in deaths.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurting monkeys for no reason - nothing of any scientific value was learned from the tests.

    4. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They did. I don't know why that's not the news here.

    5. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      naw just have them use the c-levels as monkey replacements to give a show of faith in their product in future testing

    6. Re:OK...and... by sheramil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why do you need to test it at all? Obviously inhaling exhaust fumes is bad.

      Not necessarily. If the car is burning hydrogen, inhaling the exhaust is just going to make you damp.

      I guess if you inhaled enough of it, you might drown.

      Is no-one else entertained by the idea of tiny volkswagens with monkeys behind the wheel? How cute!

    7. Re:OK...and... by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      I have no issue with animal testing.

      But the question here is what scientific value was gained from the experiments.

      Now, if you've already tested on lower forms, like rats, and established that there is no harm, I'm personally fine with testing on primates to be doubly sure (though I'm not sure if that's the official standard). But I find it hard to believe that breathing emissions for 4 hours qualifies as no harm.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      They actually wanted to use Humans riding exercise bikes for this, until there genral council objected. Its documented in the show Dirty Money.

    9. Re:OK...and... by Powercntrl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans...

      The problem is this gives the PETA crowd more ammunition for their "animal testing = BAD!" agenda. There is little scientific knowledge to be gained by slightly poisoning a few monkeys, and it sounds disturbingly close to what Germany was doing to Jews during the Holocaust.

      Thing is, there are legitimate reasons to test things on animals. You want to be pretty damn sure your experimental drug isn't going to kill anyone when you start human trials. But good luck trying to convince a bunch of emotion-driven PETA morons why it's necessary, when they start chanting about saving monkeys from the gas chamber.

      Seaworld is going through exactly the same crap. They actually do a lot of good educating the public about marine life conservation, and they even rescue injured/stranded animals in the wild. But ask any "drain the tanks" activist and all they see is "Blackfish".

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    10. Re:OK...and... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had just read the BBC story and was a bit surprised by that glaring omission here.

      Mod parent up as Informative.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Before modding this down, google the history of volkswagen. It was founded in 1937 by the DAF (a Nazi group) and Hitler.

    12. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if there's a tube feeding the exhaust inside the tiny VW, then it's super cute.

    13. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. 100% yes. There are so many despicable humans to pick from, leave the animals alone.

    14. Re:OK...and... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Disturbingly close my ass. Jews are people and monkeys aren't. That, and only that, is why gassing Jews, Gypsies, and gays was Wrong with a capital W.

      Gassing people because you want to and testing on monkeys because you need to don't live on the same planet.

    15. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, and Ford was a nazi sympathizer. But there's not necessarily a correlation (of even any resemblance) between the actions of a company seven or eight decades later.

    16. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But did they have to make them tiny ambulances?

    17. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is good compared to what Volswagen did in WW2 - what does everyone expect from a company basically founded by Hitler?"

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

    18. Re:OK...and... by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny

      The problem was that they trained the monkeys to recognize when they were being tested and, under those specific circumstances, pretend that they like it.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    19. Re:OK...and... by chispito · · Score: 1

      The have undertaken a large scale test of diesel fumes on humans. Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx. Major cities around the world have been subject to these tests and are showing a predictable rise in deaths.

      Citation please.

      I see a well-publicized paper making long-term projections, but I can't find anything with observed higher death rates.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    20. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since you don't seem to be able to use the Google, I'll get you started,.
      https://phys.org/news/2015-09-...
      https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollut...
      http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    21. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Known actual slashdot Nazi fails to see what the gas chamber problem is, go figure. Someone needs to subject this faggot rightwing slime to exhaust for a few days. Primates are high-order sentient and you are clearly not

    22. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For your claims to work you must tie pollution AND deaths to VW. If you cannot tie all three together all you've done is prove pollution may kill, and VWs may pollute. To be able to place blame like you want you must be able to say VW's pollution killed.

      When you have a study that says that, come back and talk. Until then all you have is something that is worth studying, but has not been studies yet.

    23. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler and the Nazi party used gas chambers on what they considered sub-human primates. VW circa 2014 at least does the same. That's quite a correlation.

      Actually the Nazis developed the gas chambers because pumping truck exhaust into a packed room was deemed too inefficient.

    24. Re:OK...and... by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    25. Re:OK...and... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not necessarily. If the car is burning hydrogen, inhaling the exhaust is just going to make you damp.

      NOx is produced by the combination of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) with atmospheric oxygen (O2) at high temperatures. So yes, in fact, an engine which burns hydrogen will produce NOx. NOx production is not an inherent property of the fuel, just the combustion temperature. This is why diesel engines have a greater problem with NOx emissions than gasoline engines - they burn more efficiently, but that higher efficiency means higher temperatures, which means more NOx produced.

      Hydrogen fuel cells do not produce NOx because they combine the hydrogen fuel with atmospheric oxygen electrochemically, instead of via combustion.

    26. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monkeys are the new Jews.

      And a leopards never change its spots .

    27. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


        Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      No, it would have been better to not test it at all. There was essentially no scientific value here, as evidenced by the fact that the there was no paper that came out of the study.

      That shouldn't be surprising. There's not really much to gain from studying the effects of diesel fumes. We know what they're made of, we know inhaling them directly is going to be dangerous and deadly. Whatever concentration they put them at killed several of the monkeys. So obviously they exposed them to high levels.

      It was simply a stupid study that produce nothing. It sounds more like a marketing ploy than a scientific experiment.

    28. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering which cartoons the monkey's got to watch for entertainment.

    29. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention those Autobahns built by Hitler to create employment - and later shift military material.

    30. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Surprised ascii-art n-word troll didn't latch this.

    31. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      moronic nazi faggot bluetit here to shill for his nazi faggot shit, news at 11.

    32. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score: 5, Insightful? What in these few words is even remotely insightful? When RWNutjob next suggests they expose the monkeys to flames to see if they're combustible is his score going to go to 11? Better than lighting humans on fire in some third-world shithole after all...

    33. Re: OK...and... by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      As was I. One wonders if there's a scientific standard, if it's the researchers' favorite, or if it's just whatever's on Cartoon Network.

    34. Re:OK...and... by Cederic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx.

      Don't be fucking stupid. No, VW did not design their cars to emit NOx.

      Failing to mitigate a side effect does not mean you've designed it in.

    35. Re:OK...and... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, VW did not design their cars to emit NOx.

      Of course they did: they put combustion engines in them!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    36. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      No that's racist. Instead they tested on humans in New Mexico. Interesting that the CNET article left out this minor detail.

    37. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No, VW did not design their cars to emit NOx.

      Of course they did. High NOx emissions are a well know effect of pushing a diesel engine to combust more efficiently which is precisely what VW have been pushing for many years.

    38. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Oh thank God. The humans were only subjected to NOx to see if it causes cancer and not tailpipe emissions. Here I was worried they may be breathing in something dangerous.

    39. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Fortunately they skipped all of that ethical nonesense and proceeded directly to human testing

    40. Re:OK...and... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      I fail to see what the problem is. Would it have been better to test it on humans in some third-world shithole?

      No, it would have been better to not test it on living beings at all. We already know which components of various vehicle exhausts are damaging to us, and we have a fairly good idea of how damaging they are. And we already know that we need to stop burning fossil fuels anyway if we want our species to have a future on this rock. But hey, let's gas some innocent monkeys anyway, so we can arrive at a half-assed determination of just how badly we're fucking over our fellow humans in the name of profit. If you truly "fail to see what the problem is" in that, then I pity you.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    41. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tested on humans in New Mexico.
      job done then!

    42. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody that never benefits from drugs (or other products) tested on animals, should be completely aghast.

    43. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, NOx has not been shown to be a carcinogen, while many other components of exhaust gases are. NOx can be an irritant to the lungs at higher concentrations, though.

    44. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Together with Pfizer Siemens, BMW , BASF they all experimented on people during WWII.
      Pfizer was notorious in experimenting on millions of people in concentration camps ...
      They are all respected and reputable companies today, they changed...

    45. Re:OK...and... by Cederic · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You missed the part where I suggested not being fucking stupid.

      High NOx emissions are a well know effect of pushing a diesel engine to combust more efficiently

      Oddly enough the design criteria is "efficient combustion" not "high NOx".

      Fucking amazing that. Who would've thought you'd be stupid enough to contradict yourself.

    46. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be fucking stupid. No, VW did not design their cars to emit NOx.

      Failing to mitigate a side effect does not mean you've designed it in.

      Sorry, but when you design the software to recognise it is being tested, and emit less ... you don't get to claim you were unaware of what it really did.

      They may not have expressly designed it to emit the NOx, but they knew damned well it was happening and lied their fucking asses off to pretend it wasn't.

      VW has pretty much eroded consumer trust, and you can't regain that easily.

      You arguing semantics is missing the fucking point ... VW were lying on their test scores so they could cheat and sell vehicles which weren't nearly as clean as their marketing claimed. Because they didn't give a fuck about the emissions, just selling cars.

      And now they will forever be a company which is more than willing to put profits over everything else.

      Fuck 'em.

    47. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insert off-putting joke about Germans gassing lesser species

    48. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      They designed the cars for high efficiency and they knew their design increased NOx so they designed the emissions control system to hide that fact from regulators. The high NOx was their design.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    49. Re: OK...and... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Invent a high efficiency diesel engine that has zero NOx emissions and VW will fucking licence it from you. They don't want the high NOx emissions, and didn't fucking design it in.

      How fucking dense are you all?

      High NOx emissions are not a design parameter. Minimising NOx emissions is a design parameter that takes lower priority than fuel efficiency. Since both can't be achieved the higher priority one took precedence.

      Give VW shit for the shit they've done but stop making new shit up because you're the cunt that looks stupid as a result.

    50. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire car industry has been caught cheating emissions, in many cases, for decades. They have lied about it and they have lobbied to prevent or remove legal consequences. So far only one car manufacturer has actually acknowledged having participated in emissions trickery, sacked those responsible, recalled all affected vehicles and agreed to absurdly high compensation punishments. The rest continues to lie about their cheats, hide behind dubious legal contrics and some have even been caught removing their cheats clandestinely. Yet the one company that acknowledged it and drew consequences (and ironically, has the lowest fleet average NOx emissions according to many independent studies), has become some sort of universal scapegoat in the media. Now again, it turns out a car-industry-funded research groups hired a company to do some ethically dubious research and Slashdot publishes this as though this was an activity conducted by Volkswagen.

      Because they didn't give a fuck about the emissions, just selling cars.

      That must be why Volkswagen Group vehicles have the lowest real-world emissions according to many independent studies and why they became the first car maker to integrate a particulate filter in petrol cars despite being under no obligation to do so. It's probably also why they voluntarily recalled many thousands of cars without defeat devices to further reduce real-world emissions. Because they don't care about emissions. Decades of efforts to make the production process as clean as possible probably also had nothing to do with caring about emissions.

      And now they will forever be a company which is more than willing to put profits over everything else.

      That's an ironic accusation against a company that has always been accused of putting employees and R&D before profit.

    51. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough the design criteria is "efficient combustion" not "high NOx".

      Yep because engineers target one thing and don't know how combustion works. People have known the relationship between thermal combustion and NOx since the 40s. By raising efficiency they were directly and knowingly raising NOx. By not putting a constraint on NOx they effectively were designing cars with this in mind.

      Fucking amazing that. Who would've thought you'd be stupid enough to contradict yourself.

      You're a special kind of idiot.

    52. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #Monkeylivesmatter

    53. Re: OK...and... by chispito · · Score: 1

      Since you don't seem to be able to use the Google, I'll get you started,. https://phys.org/news/2015-09-... https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollut... http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...

      Nice links--none of which show or even claim to show a correlation between Volkswagens specifically and the death rate.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    54. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      That was the best they could do. Their design emitted high NOx because that wasn't a priority. But they went ahead and built millions because of the money.
      London reaches legal air pollution limit just one month into the new year

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    55. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might say it was Very Wrong indeed.

    56. Re: OK...and... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I know this might be a stretch for you but: VW - NO2 - Death
      Some people can't process that middle step. My apologies if you can't.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    57. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did emit less NOx than many other diesel cars at the time though. Minimising NOx was probably a priority, but not the only one. Keep in mind that reducing NOx emissions tends to come at the cost of more emissions of other kinds, which are usually worse for public health. NOx is a byproduct of a relatively clean combustion.

      That said, it was of course very stupid to use explicit test recognition methods, especially given how easily other car manufacturers have got away with slightly more implicit strategies. It was even more stupid that their management publicly admitted everything when they found out and kept making every skeleton in the closet they found public for months in a row while the competition was hiding in the shade. It may have been the honest thing to do, but it was a terrible strategic mistake in these days of trial by media.

    58. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that VWs emit relatively little NOx compared to other cars according to every single independent study, right?

    59. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that there are entire libraries full of evidence that these fumes are dangerous, so they shouldn't have been conducting a test in the first place. Yes, it was animal cruelty. Do you see a problem yet?

    60. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was hard to believe what you meant, but now I get it. It's fucking common sense. Especially when you think about the usual course topics you're likely to encounter while schooling to design these kinds of engines.

    61. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews were not considered people by the Nazis. They also thought there was a 'need' to gas them.

      Today we know different. Just like we will be judged differently 50+ years from now.

    62. Re:OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VW hadn't yet admitted that they were using a "defeat device" to pass the emissions test.

      The test was devised by VW to show how "clean" their diesel emissions were.

      The test placed monkeys in a box to inhale fumes directly from the tailpipe of a VW for 4 hours. Other monkeys were in a box and inhaled fumes from a 2004 Ford F250, which was obviously far dirtier (and more harmful).

      VW was putting on a show to cover up their lies. The outcry is over the senseless harming of the monkeys.

    63. Re:OK...and... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To be fair...

      Let me stop you right there. "Fair" doesn't come into it. "Ethics" is the only thing that matters here and subjecting to a bunch of humans to: "Lets see what this does" doesn't pass muster. Also "irritant" is a strange way of describing something that can have lasting effects on lung function. And something that in studies have shown to have adverse impact on other living things such as massively stunting growth of plants.

    64. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an expression. It is used when someone makes wants to make sure a relevant fact is also considered.

      NO and NO2 can have adverse health effects. It all depends on the dose. This is why such research is done. I don't see any problems whatsoever with subjecting voluntary test subjects who get paid for their work to amounts of NOx comparable to or not a few times more thancan be found in the outdoor environment in order to study the effects. The monkey business was outright evil, though.

    65. Re: OK...and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The test wasn't devised by VW at all. It was devised and performed by an institute in the USA that had been commissioned by a research group funded by the car industry.

    66. Re:OK...and... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      'Considered' and 'objectively evaluated to be' are not the same. In 50 years' time, monkeys will still be monkeys, dogs will still be dogs, insects will still be insects, and people will still be people.

  2. Germans... by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Must REALLY hate monkeys.

    1. Re:Germans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it with Germans and gas chambers?

    2. Re:Germans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think the people at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque who designed and conducted this experiment were German? I see no indication.

    3. Re:Germans... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Way to fail basic logic. Since when is New Mexico located in Germany?

      More correct (but still idiotic and dishonest would be): "What is it with US corporations supporting gas chambers?"

  3. LRRI/ITRI by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    While LRRI is in Albuquerque, the tests themselves were likely conducted a few miles south, out on Kirtland/SNL (at the AF's "Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute"). Surreal place.

    1. Re:LRRI/ITRI by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      They are now one and the same. https://goo.gl/maps/Vc6vk9F7BWm

      I used to eat my lunch just outside the ITL (as it was formerly known), under the two water towers. It's at the very edge of Kirtland AFB. Pretty quiet, no one really goes out there... knew some folks who worked there who said it was a soul crushing place, as you might imagine. My sister once interviewed for a position that would've required her to take care of the dog and cat subjects.

    2. Re: LRRI/ITRI by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Was it called ITRI or ITL?

    3. Re: LRRI/ITRI by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      It was formerly known as as the ITL - Inhalation Toxicology Laboratory. https://www.lm.doe.gov/ITL/ITL_factsheet.pdf

      It developed a reputation as a horrible workplace (not just the usual killing-a-bunch-of-strays stuff), so I'm sure they decided they needed to rebrand themselves away from that.

  4. Hopefully the cars were in VW "smog test" mode by JoeyRox · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That way the monkeys got a much smaller does of carbon monoxide, as in much less than us human's got from the thousands of VW cars on the road.

    1. Re:Hopefully the cars were in VW "smog test" mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they would get a larger dose. The whole point of the test mode was to temporarily reduce NOx emissions, which comes at the cost of more carbon monoxide, particulates and volatile organic compounds.

  5. They did test it on humans by klingens · · Score: 5, Informative

    They did test it on 25 humans in university clinic of Aachen https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

    Also the usual /. headline is as usual: crap. EUGT did all this, which is a lobby organisation by BMW, Mercedes and VW. They all are responsible, not just VW alone.

    1. Re:They did test it on humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. VW only paid for it, probably without even knowing what studies would be performed exactly. VW either has the worst PR department in history or the press just really hate VW.

  6. In Other News by Jonathan+C.+Patschke · · Score: 1

    People are going to be really hacked off when they find out the rest of the industry has been testing their fumes on great apes worldwide!

    --
    Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
  7. Not soon enough. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_research_ban

  8. Who would condone this sort of testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what's with this penchant for exposing living things to gas?

    1. Re:Who would condone this sort of testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's with this penchant for exposing living things to gas?

      I exposed all my coworkers to a serious deluge of toxic gas after lunch just this afternoon. They grumbled a bit, but seemed no worse for the wear.

  9. Correct link by Powercntrl · · Score: 4, Informative

    VW condemned for testing diesel fumes on humans and monkeys

    That's what the preview button is there for...

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  10. Better to test baby seals by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    I guess they were out of baby seals.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. If this kind of test has to be done. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this kind of test has to be done, it would be nice if it could be done by some kind of international organization so that it has to only be done once, not for every car company. They companies could just use instruments to check say 400 parts per million, yes that's bad or no it's not.

  12. Parallels to the Nazi Gas Vans by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    optics could not be worse for a german automaker.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Parallels to the Nazi Gas Vans by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Chilling thing about that article was that, given both the Nazis and the Communists used gas vans to exterminate groups of people, at some point in the 1930s when it was clear either the Nazis or the Commies would win the use of gas vans in Germany was inevitable.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Parallels to the Nazi Gas Vans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost every German automaker was founded by Adolf's pals (like Ferdinand Porsche), and subsequently used Jewish slave labour during the war.

    3. Re:Parallels to the Nazi Gas Vans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ferdinand Porsche was indeed an NSDAP member. He founded Porsche and co-founded VW. Ford Germany was also founded by a Nazi sympathiser (Henry Ford). The other German car makers, at least those that still exist today, were founded long before the Nazi era. They did have Nazi-installed or approved management for awhile for obvious reasons, of course.

  13. An unanswered question by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing in TFS or TFA tells us who authorized the experiment, or how high up that person was. It also doesn't tell us what happened to whoever it was, or what upper management's reaction was when the fact of the experiment was discovered. Let's not start blaming everybody in the company before we find out just who's responsible for this.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:An unanswered question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Nothing in TFS or TFA tells us who authorized the experiment, or how high up that person was. It also doesn't tell us what happened to whoever it was, or what upper management's reaction was when the fact of the experiment was discovered. Let's not start blaming everybody in the company before we find out just who's responsible for this.

      So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement? The Volkswagen representative already admitted what they did. Or are you calling fake news because it was the NYT, and you don't believe this happened at all, ever. Sorry, muchacho, they cheated on the emission systems, and performed pointless experiments. You can wait until the legal system plays out completely, but I have enough to go on that Volkswagen isn't on top of the ethics list. And I'll use that admitted info to pass judgement.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:An unanswered question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement?

      Obviously the best time to judge VW is when you're going to exonerate, no, laud them for their conduct.

      Don't you know how it works?

    3. Re:An unanswered question by BillTheKatt · · Score: 1

      Netflix just released a series called Dirty Money that has an episode on the VW scandal. I just wanted to bury my face in my hands. It's obvious exactly what went on and that senior executives knew. It's a very interesting, but depressing documentary.

    4. Re:An unanswered question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly separates this VW executive from a nazi gas chamber operator besides monkeys not having the same rights as low-IQ republicans - despite twice the likeability?

    5. Re:An unanswered question by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement? The Volkswagen representative already admitted what they did.

      Yes, but who authorized the experiment? Was it somebody in middle management, somebody in upper management, the Board of Directors; we don't know. There's no question that this was wrong, that it never should have happened and that whoever's responsible deserves punishment, but TFA doesn't say who that was, and I, for one, want to see the right people prosecuted, not some underling who was set up as a fall guy. Now would be the best time to punish Volkswagen for allowing this to happen, but there also needs to be proper retribution to the person or persons who decided that this was an acceptable experiment in the first place.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:An unanswered question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no question that this was wrong, that it never should have happened

      Why? What's wrong with it?

    7. Re: An unanswered question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything. The Nazi gas chamber operator knew what he was doing, did it himself and did it on purpose. The VW executive just found out people he had funded did things with his money he didn't agree with.

    8. Re:An unanswered question by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It was an industry group, not one manufacturer specifically. VW just admitted to being part of the group.

    9. Re:An unanswered question by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So when do you think a good time would be to pass judgement?

      Obviously the best time to judge VW is when you're going to exonerate, no, laud them for their conduct.

      Don't you know how it works?

      I know a janitor will be fired over this.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re: An unanswered question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The director of public affairs has already been suspended. Apparently he knew about this in 2013.

      I don't expect any consequences at the institute that conceived and performed the experiments though. It's in the USA and they don't do corporate ethics there.

    11. Re: An unanswered question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those. The experiment wasn't commissioned by Volkswagen at all, but by a research group funded by multiple car makers. That being said, apparently at least one VW employee knew about the test and didn't try to stop it at the time. He has been suspended.

    12. Re: An unanswered question by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Thank you; asked and answered.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  14. Improvement over 1940 tests in Poland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good VW

    They did some progress since tests in 1940 in Poland

  15. Really germany? by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

    I mean, this is like an onion article.

  16. But why? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    My interest is not in the fact that they tested on monkeys but rather why were they testing on animals in the first place? They had their emissions targets, so if they are testing on animals I can only conclude that the test was to see if they could get away with cheating those emissions targets without bringing attention to themselves.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  17. Not the shocking part by vix86 · · Score: 1

    The most shocking part isn't that they tested it on monkeys, its that they originally wanted to run the test on humans. They did still go ahead and do a test where they exposed humans to Nitrogen Dioxide though. The optics of a German company wanting to do gas chamber tests on humans is hilariously bad and one of the top people involved even admitted to it on video.

    1. Re:Not the shocking part by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      sure, sure, if anyone else gasses people it's just war or terrorism, but if a kraut does it it's nazism

    2. Re: Not the shocking part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the company though, but a research group funded by the car industry.

  18. Test Monkeys by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    Yep we used test monkeys at a couple of places where I worked on games. Both cafeteria looked like the bar scene from Star Wars. Oh wait, Disney did buy Lucus, didn't they. Never mind.
    What, not *that* type of test monkeys, never, never mind.

  19. On the upside by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The monkeys wrote three new Avengers movies while they were in the chamber, and Michael Bay just hired them to write a new Transformers sequel.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:On the upside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The monkeys wrote three new Avengers movies while they were in the chamber, and Michael Bay just hired them to write a new Transformers sequel.

      Oh, good! At least they are trying to improve the scripts.

  20. This all sounds like a smoke screen by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Volkswagen has admitted to funding (and subsequently cheating on) animal testing to prove the relative safety of diesel exhaust fumes...

    emphasis added by me. We're all talking about the poor monkeys and I haven't seen one headline with "Volkswagen cheated on diesel safety tests". Seriously, Monkeys are cute and all, but shouldn't the bigger story be that they falsified research showing diesel fumes were safe?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: This all sounds like a smoke screen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was years ago, before anyone knew about the defeat devices. I doubt the people who designed the cheat knew that there would ever be such tests, or that the researchers knew that there was a defeat device in some of the cars they used.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. would we rather by Jarwulf · · Score: 0

    have the fumes skip testing on a close human model and just kill or harm millions of humans and monkeys out in the wild?

  23. Germans gasing primates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, anyone else seeing irony in this?

    1. Re: Germans gasing primates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Americans, not Germans. This was done in the USA by Americans. It wouldn't even have been legal in Germany.

  24. I fail to see any problem... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ....I have zee SIGNED AUTHORIZATION for zis testing.

    Vhat?

    Sure - see? Signed in ink. Dated 5/13/44.

    --
    -Styopa
  25. I'm no treehugger... by bsdaddict · · Score: 2

    ...but this is sorta sickening. In the market for a new (to me) car, atm. VW's out.

    1. Re: I'm no treehugger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's punish the scapegoat! That has always worked so well.

    2. Re:I'm no treehugger... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      BTW, BMW, Daimler, and VW funded the study. https://www.theguardian.com/bu...

  26. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get it; it sucks. But, until there is cheaper viable alternative then it's a necessary evil.

  27. Next test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should do the next test on Volkswagen CEOs. Without the cheat software.

    1. Re:Next test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the CEO?
      I'd rather take the whole board of directors, and perhaps a few more. Especially the one in charge of ethics, if there is one, which is doubtful.

  28. Why is this a bigger deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    than what American manufacturers do? Did you know American automanufacturers performed crash-tests with live animals for over 5 decades into the 90's? Why aren't we talking about this?

    1. Re:Why is this a bigger deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's OK when Americans do it. Well, except when you can blame someone who is not American, such as in this case.

    2. Re:Why is this a bigger deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, more than likely, American makers also used this company to perform studies. It is just they are domestic and not foreign so they get a pass. Just like with horribly noxious truck emissions.

  29. Old News is New News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sitting here wondering why the New York Times didn't state that they lifted the entire article from the Netflix documentary series "Dirty Money", which has an entire episode dedicated to "Dieselgate"...

  30. Re:So basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only two countries that still gassed people recently are North Korea and the United States of America.

  31. Volkswagen... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    das Tortur.

    Also, das Lügen.

    I know it's highly unlikely, but I hope their utter bankruptcy in the moral sense translates into financial bankruptcy because of their wilful cruelty, lying, and cheating. At times like this I wish I subscribed to some form of magic sky-daddyism so I could comfort myself with thoughts of those bastards rotting in hell for all eternity.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Volkswagen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that a lot of people who had nothing to do with any wrongdoing lose their jobs and people will have buy their cars instead from other companies which have done similar or in some cases much worse things? Great idea.

      You may also want to check up on the gender of a few words, by the way.

  32. Re:GAZEN WAGEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a Gazen Wage? A car made of Gaze?

  33. Animal testing by ai4px · · Score: 1

    Marketing Director: We've got to stop testing our products on animals. It is bad for PR.
    CEO: Other companies test their products on animals, why shouldn't we?
    Marketing Director: Because we make hammers.

  34. Preliminary results show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preliminary results show that diesel exhaust not quite as effective as Zyklon-B.

  35. It was a steam drill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a steam shovel, listen to the song. And JH won, but it did him in. Steam powered tools have been blamed for global warming ever since.

  36. Long tradition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germans have long tradition of sticking smoking exhaust pipe into closed container with living beings inside. I know, I know - Americans did this on American soil... Yankees simply know how to make a buck. Check IBM's and Ford's activity in pre-WWII Nazi Germany.

  37. Monkeys? This should upset a few people then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember my dad telling the story of some guy he knew who had a cat that had just given birth to unwanted kittens.

    The guy placed the kittens in a plastic bag, which he tied around the exhaust of his car with a few rubber bands, and poked a few holes in the bag so it wouldn't just inflate and pop off. He then let his car run for 20+ minutes.

    Then he was pissed because not a single one of them had died--they were soaken wet from the heat, but none of them was asphyxiated. Apparently this is something he did plenty of times back in the 60s and 70s (his "humane way" of putting them down, I guess). I first heard my dad tell that story in the mid-80s. 30 years later, cars are still a *lot* more efficient and burn fuel much more cleanly than even the mid-80s.

    I never asked my dad how the guy finally got rid of them, since apparently "cars nowadays are so clean they can't even asphyxiate some hours-old kittens breathing nothing but exhaust fumes".