Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Lead, a highly toxic element, can cause severe nerve damage, especially in children. The EPA says lead emissions have dropped more than 90 percent since it was first listed as an air pollutant in 1976, mainly by removing lead from gasoline. Other sources of exposure to it include food and soil, solid waste, coal, oil, iron and steel production, lead smelters and tobacco smoke.
Jump to full article »
Readers of the Review-Journal commentary page may have noticed an essay by George Mason University economist Walter Williams on Friday. Williams noted it's now common to claim scientific validity for political edicts which remove the property right of a restaurant or tavern owner to decide whether to allow smoking on his premises, based on the assertion that "everyone knows" secondhand smoke kills people.
In fact, Williams recalls for us how our politically financed and motivated "scientists" reached that conclusion.
In their 1993 study, the EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke. "But there was a problem," Williams recalls. "They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths."
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said at the time, "Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one's theory suggests should be present."
What's the real science?
In 1998, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer released the largest ever and best formulated study on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), Williams reports. "The research project ran for 10 years and in seven European countries. The study, not widely publicized, concluded that no statistically significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers." . . .
"The public policy debate on smoking has been settled through bogus science," Williams concluded, Friday. "My question is, how willing are we to allow bogus science to be used in the pursuit of other public policy agendas, such as restrictions on economic growth, in the name of fighting global warming?"
The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court's first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming.
Lobbyist group Smoke-free Oldham scored a victory March 20 in its fight to pass a comprehensive smoking ban in Oldham County.
After a Smoke-Free Oldham volunteer contacted the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA officials removed a Web page from its Internet site that provided guidelines for a smoke-free room.
The EPA guidelines for maintaining a smoker's lounge are cited in a proposed amendment to the comprehensive smoking-ban ordinance that is currently before Oldham County Fiscal Court.
The guidelines come from a 1993 EPA document called, "Secondhand Smoke: What You Can Do as Parents, Decisionmakers and Building Occupants."
John Sutton, a Crestwood resident who contacted the EPA, said the agency's speedy removal of guidelines from the Web site shows that fiscal court should not pass the amendment.
"I would like the fiscal court to know they are looking at dated information," Sutton said at a press conference last Friday. . . . '
But Liz Burrows, project director for Smoke-Free Oldham, said she hopes the EPA's decision prompts magistrates to rethink the amendment.
"I just can't imagine that they would base an amendment on guidelines that the EPA no longer supports," she said.
Bob Axelrad, senior policy advisor for the indoor environments division of the EPA, wrote in an e-mail to Sutton that the agency must update the information, and that the information was never intended for use in legislation.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a �?~Risk Assessment�?(TM) of environmental tobacco smoke and declared in 1993 that ETS was a cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.
This finding was heavily criticised by the US Congressional Research Services. It was also challenged by Philip Morris and others in the US tobacco industry in a Federal court in North Carolina.
In 1998, the court rejected the EPA risk assessment and the judge declared the EPA�?(TM)s finding invalid. . . .
Although this Federal court’s judgement was later overturned on appeal on technical grounds, the judge’s analysis of the EPA’s approach remains an important commentary.
This 1995 narrative written by "Todd" (who is presumably Todd Haymore, a staffer for then-Congressman L.F. Payne, D-VA) chronicles a series of back room meetings between the White House and representatives from tobacco-growing states to broker a deal to stop the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate nicotine a drug. The memo, a chronology of events apparently written to refresh Payne's memory, indicates that then-White House chief of Staff Leon Panetta engaged in secret negotiations with representatives of tobacco-growing states to "remove [FDA Commissioner] Kessler from the radar." Panetta dangled a proposal in front of tobacco companies, telling the representatives that "voluntary action" by tobacco companies on the youth access issue "may be the best way to stop Kessler from attempting to regulate tobacco products" :
"AFTER IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE FDA/KESSLER SITUATION WAS THE GREATEST PROBLEM FACING TOBACCO STATE MEMBERS, IT WAS DECIDED THAT VOLUNTARY ACTION BY THE TOBACCO COMPANIES ON YOUTH ACCESS ISSUES MAYBE THE BEST WAY TO STOP KESSLER FROM ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE TOBACCO PRODUCTS.PANETTA SAID THAT IF THE INDUSTRY CAME FORTH WITH A VOLUNTARY PROPOSAL AIMED AT REDUCING YOUTH ACCESS, THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD REMOVE KESSLER/FDA FROM THE RADAR."
The memo also indicates White House attempts to keep the negotiations secret:
"Panetta stressed the need to keep this meeting and the comments within as quiet as possible. He said that if the meeting or discussions reached the press, the 'negotiations' would be off and the White House would deny knowing about them."
Congressman Thomas Bliley (R-VA) met with tobacco industry leaders and told them about the White House's youth access proposal. The industry put together a proposal and submitted it to Panetta. As a subsequent meeting, Panetta warned Congressmembers L.F. Payne (D-VA), Bliley (R-VA) and Charlie Rose (D-NC) "to keep this proposal and this meeting very quiet because media leaks would cancel any further discussions."
Ultimately, White House Counsel Abner Mikva reviewed the industry's proposal and made a counter proposal that the industry found unacceptable. There is no way to know the affect these negotiations may have had on tobacco companies ramping up of youth smoking prevention programs in the mid-1990s.
-"Second- hand smoke debate 'over.'" That's the message from the surgeon general's office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others' cigarettes can kill you. Actually, "debate over" simply means: "If you have your doubts, shut up!"
But you definitely should have doubts over the new surgeon general's report, a massive, 727-page doorstop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, it's probably designed that way, so that nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary--or maybe even the press release.
Fraudulent science does not serve the public interest – or end the debate over secondhand smoke
“Secondhand smoke debate ‘over.” That’s the message from the Surgeon General’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others’ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, “debate over” simply means: “If you have your doubts, shut up!”
But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon General’s report, a massive 727-page door stop. . . .
First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: “Passive Smoking Kills Thousands” and editorials demanding: “Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It’s a Killer.”
But the EPA’s report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agency’s refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. . . .
hat was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.
We got that in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003. Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook presented results of a 39-year study of 35,561 Californians, which dwarfed in size everything that came before. It found no “causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality” – adding however that “a small effect” can’t be ruled out.
A program by Massachusetts General Hospital to reduce children's exposure to second-hand smoke was recognized nationally by EPA.
The Mass. General program, called "Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure" (CEASE), was acknowledged by EPA at the second Children's Environmental Health Excellence Awards ceremony held last week in Washington, D.C. CEASE was one of twenty-nine individuals and organizations that received Recognition Awards for their demonstrated commitment to protecting children from environmental health risks.
"EPA is glad to recognize the individuals and organizations working to protect the environmental health of our children," said Robert W. Varney, regional administrator of EPA's New England office. "All growing children need clean air. Second-hand smoke can be especially harmful to children who suffer from asthma and other respiratory ailments."
CEASE works with child healthcare clinicians to address parental smoking through implementing strategies that link parents who want to quit smoking with state or national smoking cessation services.
IN HIS RECENT letter ("Smoking bans based on junk science," April 13), Dennis Augello states that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1993 landmark report on the dangers of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke was "legally vacated in 1998 by federal judge William Osteen."
Mr. Augello fails to mention that in December 2002, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the most conservative circuit court in the country) overturned Judge Osteen's opinion, thus rendering it null and void. The tobacco companies chose not to appeal the ruling.
Mr. Augello also claims that "there is not one valid scientific study that provides sufficient evidence linking secondhand smoke to illness or disease."
Wrong again. Important reports that demonstrate how dangerous secondhand smoke truly is include the following: . . .
Freedom of choice does not include the "freedom" to harm others, whether in bars, restaurants or other places open to the public. Based on sound science, smoke-free laws benefit the public.
I am becoming more and more concerned about our loss of freedom and liberty in Massachusetts. The latest is the activist Supreme Judicial Court ruling that private clubs cannot decide to allow smoking in their own buildings (the key word here being private).
Why did the SJC think the Legislature included a provision for private clubs in its 2004 workplace smoking ban? . . .
The fact is, there has never been a scientific study that proved that secondhand smoke causes cancer. That’s right, not a one.
The EPA put out a flawed study in 1993 which was thrown out by a federal court in 1998 because it manipulated data and ignored scientific standards. The only other study was by the World Health Organization, also in 1998, which stated that there was no statistically significant association between secondhand smoke and cancer. . . .
I guess you don’t need factual evidence to win a case in Massachusetts. All you need to be is politically correct in these kangaroo courts.
I'D LIKE TO expand on the letters from New Yorkers Audrey Silk ("Smoking: Bloomberg lied, bars died") and Brenda Perks ("Beware the smoking ban").
The lies and misinformation spread by activist supporters of a smoking ban do not end there. . . .
The study most often used to support this oppressive law is the 1993 Environmental Protection Agency analysis. Without getting into too much detail, this "study" has been thoroughly debunked by science. It was legally vacated in 1998 by federal judge William Osteen, who declared it void after commenting on the shoddy way it was conducted. . . .
I encourage anyone interested in the truth to do some research before you let the politicians take away our freedoms. Once you see exactly what they did, and how they did it, you may never trust the EPA again.
I am curious why this newspaper, as well as nearly all the other major media, have not publicized the results of the most exhaustive research project ever completed on secondhand smoke.
A study of 118,000 Californians' health history over 40 years was conducted by highly respected scientists and published in the British Medical Journal. It found: "There is no evidence of a 'causal relationship' between 'exposure' to tobacco smoke in the air around you and death."
Columnist Jay Ambrose recently wrote: "On the other side is a once-ballyhooed 1993 'meta-analysis' - a study of a number of studies - by the (Environmental Protection Agency). It didn't bother to protect the truth. Careful commentators and even a court of law concurred the study violated widely accepted statistical methods to arrive at conclusions the EPA had decided beforehand were in the public's best interests." . . .
at least they should be truthful in their reasoning and not use incomplete, preconceived data. ...
The EPA's data show no significant link between passive smoke and lung cancer. This is true only if you accept the tobacco industry's claim that an epidemiological study should demonstrate an increased risk of 100 percent to be significant. Even after lowering the standard from p=0.05 to p=0.1 (i.e., from a one in twenty to a one in ten chance of a spurious correlation), they were still able to get a relative risk of only 1.19. This number is significant according to epidemiologists Jonathan M. Samet and Thomas A. Burke of Johns Hopkins university. According to John Brignell, "risk ratios of greater than 3 are normally considered significant. One might even stretch a point and go down to 2, but never lower" (Sorry Wrong Number, p. 129). John is pushing for a standard even the tobacco industry might marvel at. The standard of a risk ratio of 2 or higher was pushed for the tobacco industry by Jim Tozzi, the force behind the data quality act, an act aimed at promoting the republican plan for the deregulation of America. If the tobacco industry had its way, it would be impossible to ban just about any environmental toxin, not just secondhand smoke. (see Chris Mooney's The Republican War On Science). . . .
It may not be statistically significant but it does not support the claim that the WHO study contradicts its own conclusions, nor does it support the claim that the study indicates no association between passive smoke and risk of lung cancer. [The results could be "consistent with risks considerably higher than generally accepted - the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval is a relative risk of 1.44 - whereas the generally accepted range is 1.1 to 1.3."* To see to what lengths the tobacco lobby and their frontmen will go to in their effort at discrediting studies, see this article from Lancet.]
Radon is easy to forget or ignore. We don't notice it with through smell, touch, taste, sight or hearing. Yet this naturally occurring gas, colorless and odorless -- and radioactive -- is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and may threaten one of every 15 homes in our country.
The good news is that awareness and action are powerful weapons for homeowners to find out if their home has radon. Testing your home for radon is very easy. If the air in your house does have radon, it's not difficult to take steps to protect your family's health. . . .
The No. 1 cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, as many as 21,000 people in the United States die each year as a consequence of exposure to radon. In New England alone, it is estimated that nearly 1,000 preventable deaths occur each year due to this silent killer. . . .
Robert W. Varney is the regional administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's New England regional office.