Philippe Boucher's Rendez Vous: James Repace
Rendez-vous with James Repace
Health physicist, secondhand smoke consultant; Bowie, Maryland, USA
By Philippe Boucher
RENDEZ-VOUS 64
Wednesday, April 26 2000
PB : Thank you Jim for accepting our rendez-vous.
May I ask you to introduce yourself?
James Repace : I am a physicist (MSc) who worked in nuclear medicine for 1-1/2 years at 2 New York hospitals in the early 1960's, in solid state physics at RCA's Sarnoff Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, for 3 years in the mid-to-late 1960's, in nuclear physics applied to oceanography in the early 1970's, and in solid state electronics applied to making radiation-resistant electronic devices at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC in the mid-to-late 1970's.
In the aftermath of Earth Day 1970, I was asked by a chemist colleague to attend a Clean Air Act public hearing for him and take notes for a newsletter put out by the American Chemical Society. At the meeting, I listened to polluter after polluter defending the right to dump thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, and downplaying any possible health effects from exposure. At the time, I vividly recalled being in severe respiratory difficulty from what I later learned was the notorious "Thanksgiving Day Episode" of air pollution in New York City in 1964, and I became enraged. At the end of the hearing, the hearing examiner invited anyone not scheduled to speak to come to the podium if they wished to be heard, and spontaneously, I jumped to my feet, mounted the podium, and delivered the finest extemporaneous speech I have ever given in my life. The crowd of 500 in the audience gave me a standing ovation. At that moment, I was "radicalized," that is, I suddenly realized that working on environmental problems was something that I ought to be doing. It later turned out that much of the early work on outdoor air pollution dispersion was done by physicists concerned about radioactive emissions from the early nuclear power plants.
I got involved with the environmental movement, and began working with citizen's groups on clean air and clean water issues. I filed suit against the EPA over sewage sludge incineration in 1973, and got the agency to change its policy, and to regulate sewage sludge incinerators under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.) In 1974, the American Physical Society recognized my work (with Woody Anderson, another NRL physicist) and ran an article in their news magazine, "Physics Today," on how physicists could work with environmental groups to solve environmental problems. In 1976, I suddenly realized that indoor smoking created air pollution levels far in excess of any outdoor air pollution I had ever experiences. With Al Lowrey (an NRL theoretical chemist) I developed mathematical models for the prediction of ETS levels, and collected field data and performed experiments to validate the models. We published our first paper in the journal Science in 1980, and it electrified the world scientific community. We received hundreds of reprint requests from around the world, even letters from Nobel Prize winners.
In 1979, I went to work for the US Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, in the national Air Policy Office as a science policy analyst. I quickly made indoor air pollution an EPA policy issue, became an EPA media spokesman for indoor air, and was soon invited all over the country to speak on this emerging issue, and later testified before the US congress. In 1985, Al and I published the world's first risk assessement of passive smoking and lung cancer, estimating 5000 US nonsmokers' deaths per year. When the national news media learned of the study, it had a major impact: news of the study appeared on major TV news programs and in the major newspapers. On the strength of this publicity, I was able to convince EPA top management to fund a study at the National Research Council on ETS, which became co-funded by the Secretary of Health. As a result of this study, two reports appeared in 1986: The National Academy of Science's report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and the 1986 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking.
In 1986, EPA created an Indoor Air Staff, (which later became a Division), and I joined it. Based on these two reports, we were able to convince EPA top management to initiate a request a research office staff to produce the now-famous 1992 EPA risk assessment on passive smoking, to put the Agency as a whole on the record. I continued to publish scientific papers on passive smoking, and by 2000, the total has exceeded 50 publications, on exposure, dose, risk, and control of ETS. The list may be viewed on my website,
In 1998, I retired from the EPA, and hung out my shingle as a secondhand smoke consultant. Last year, I travelled to Australia, Greece, New Zealand, Portugal, and Spain on consultations, as well as all over the U.S. and Canada, lecturing on ETS, preparing analytical reports, testifying in public hearings, meeting with health officials, and appearing as an expert witness.
James Repace, MSc., Health Physicist
REPACE ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Secondhand Smoke Consultants
101 Felicia Lane
Bowie, MD 20720, U.S.A.
phone: 301-262-9131
fax: 301-352-8457
Email:
WEBSITE:
Q1 First question : As we have most recently seen in Israel, the tobacco industry is still very apt at creating controversy about the health risks caused by environmental tobacco smoke.
Can you explain to us their main PR tricks and the type of people they hire to do this job?
JR : The smoke industry has tried to create an artificial distinction between the smoke the smokers inhale, which is universally agreed to be toxic, and the smoke the nonsmokers inhale, which they claim is "just an annoyance." This is a totally false distinction. Tobacco smoke is tobacco smoke is tobacco smoke. It is all toxic waste, containing (at least) 5 regulated hazardous air pollutants, 60 known or suspected carcinogens, 47 compounds regulated as hazardous waste and banned from landfills, and at least 100 poisonous compounds. In reality, this is all you need to know to ban tobacco smoke from buildings.
The tobacco companies have also tried to cast doubt on the epidemiological evidence that second-hand smoke by focussing on the statistical significance of individual epidemiological studies: "if they are not, throw them out, you can't average them using meta-analysis." They also say "if the odds ratios of the studies are less than 2, throw them out." And that the "absence of negative studies of passive smoking and disease means that they are simply not getting published." The industry rejects a "weight of evidence" argument, in contradistinction to standard public or environmental health practice. They have tried to change the standards by which epidemiological studies are judged.
The industry has argued that in any case, "exposures are low", and have funded studies by the Oak Ridge Group in the U.S. and Covance Labs in the UK to "prove" the point.
The industry further argues that "ventilation can control tobacco smoke", but fails to define the risk at existing levels of exposure, or the risk at the levels of ventilation which they recommend.
Q2. . A little while ago there was an information about the airlines deciding to reduce the standards for air quality. Since then we have not heard much and you had complained about the absence of independent experts due to lack of funding. Can you tell us where we are now? Are the lower standards already in place? Is the process still mostly controlled by the airlines?
JR : Smoking is generally banned on most airlines at present. However, the design ventilation rates for aircraft has decreased from 30 airchanges per hour, with no recirculation on the old Boeing 707 aircraft, to 6 airchanges per hour with recirculation on the new 757's. Boeing has petitioned for still lower rates. Further, the airline industry at its own option often recirculates even more air than regulations allow, because there if no enforcement of ventilation rates. If it gets stuffy on the aircraft it's because the airline is cheating. If you complain to the flight attendants, they will ask the pilot to increase the airflow. I have to do this frequently, and it always works.
Q3. You used to work for the US Environment Protection Agency. Environmental Tobacco Smoke has not become a big issue for most of the environmental agencies and/or the environmental groups. In France so many of the leaders of the green movement are heavy smokers it is not a big surprise. How do you explain the relative lack of interest of the environmental regulatory agencies?
JR : ETS became a big issue at the EPA because when I raised it as an issue in 1983 when I was in the Air Policy Office, I had the support of the Agency's Air Program Chief, who was appointed by the President of the U.S., and had sufficient influence to allow the program to flourish. In general, however, the lower level managers who ran the air programs were only interested in what they were required to do by law, and the U.S. Clean Air Act covers only "ambient," i.e., outdoor air. The tobacco companies successfully kept the U.S. Congress from passing any legislation which would allow the EPA to regulate indoor air quality, just as they exempted tobacco products from regulation under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Toxic Substance Control Act, and as you know, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Pure Food and Drug Act also cannot be used. So every U.S. regulatory agency which could have taken an interest was precluded from doing so because of the lack of legal authority. In other words, the legislative branch of government did not do its job, and didn't do it because of big tobacco's corrupting influence on the political process. It was not an accident.
Q4. Can you give us a short update of what's happening in the courts as far as ETS and non-smoker's rights are concerned? We read about a new lawsuit launched by air flight attendants in Florida... are there other cases and are people winning (sometimes) or is the industry (most of the time)?
JR: Like the early asbestos cases, many of the early secondhand smoke liability cases are being lost. Like asbestos, as the lawyers learn how to try these cases, they will eventually be successful. The "new" flight attendant's suits are not new. The Class Action suit settlement was on behalf of all flight attendants, those who were well (but placed at future risk from past exposures) and those who were already sick. provided that individual plaintiffs would have to prove individual damages. Those persons who have already developed disease are now filing their cases.
Q5. How do you assess the situation of non-smokers now in the US? Are there wide discrepancies depending on the state where you live, the corporation you work for? Is it still a big problem for many people?
JR : The situation for nonsmokers in the U.S. depends critically on what state you live in and what kind of employer you have. In California, all persons are protected from secondhand smoke in all workplaces except those few which are solely family-owned and family-operated. In Maryland, the situation is the same except that restaurants with bars and stand-alone bars are exempt, although restaurants with bars must have non-smoking sections. In the tobacco states e.g., North Carolina, Virginia, etc, there is little or no regulation in any workplace. For white collar workers working for large firms in the U.S. (including some tobacco states) smoking is usually restricted. Currently, only about 25% of all U.S. office workers do not work in smoke-free workplaces. Outside of California few restaurant workers are protected from tobacco smoke. In general, there is a persistent national trend toward smoke-free workplaces, with the hospitality industry lagging far behind.
Q6. Do you have anything else you would like to add ?
JR : Tobacco smoke (ETS) is toxic waste. The best method for assessing the risks to nonsmokers from ETS is by body fluid cotinine analysis. I have published two papers which permit the analysis of body fluid cotinine to estimate nonsmokers risk of lung cancer and heart disease. These papers are:
43. "An enforceable indoor air quality standard for environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace." J.L. Repace and A.H. Lowrey, RISK ANALYSIS, 13:463-475 (1993), and
55. Repace JL, Jinot J, Bayard S, Emmons K, and Hammond SK. "Air nicotine and saliva cotinine as indicators of passive smoking exposure and risk." Risk Analysis 18: 71-83 (1998).
PB : Thank you Jim for taking the time to be with us today.
This document's URL is: http://www.tobacco.org/News/rendezvous/repace.html
***********************
Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
***********************
***********************
END OF DOCUMENT