Tobacco Documents Online

LETTERS. TO THE EDITOR The Smoking `Scare of the Michael Siegel's claims about the workera He did not mention, for ex- alleged effects of enviranmental tobac-. ample, that of the 14 studies that co smoke (ETS) on restaurant workers considered exposure in the workplace, qualify for the "Scare of the Week" 12 reported 'no statistically significant award ("Restaurant Employees' Risky increased risk of lung nncer. The Business," Health, Aug. 3), Before food ' most recent stud•y on ETS, the Brown- service workers allow themselves to be sori study-funded in part by the Na- frightened, they should be aware of the tional Cancer Institute-found no sta- foUowing: tistically significant relationship . Dr. Siegel did not do any original between ambient smoke and lung can-. research on ETS and restaurant work-. cer. Dr. Siegel neglects to mention this ers. He simply reviewed other people's finding in his review. . work, bringing to that ~review a prede- . The authors of many of the studies in termined' viewpoint. . . . Dr. Siegel's review come to exactly : None of the studies Dr. Siegel re- opposite caMrclusians from their data viewed actually examined restaurant than Dr. Siegel did in his review. In workers' exposure to E1'S. Rather, he one case, Dr. Siegel cites a study as selected some studies that considered supporting his case, when • in fact the. the more general issue of workplace study reported that worker exposure .smoking and siuveys that estimate to ETS is 'hp to three orders of lung cancer incidence. in restaurant magnitude lower' than the level the workers and then played a statistical U.S. Occupational Safety and Health shell game. Adfirinistration considers permissiabie . Dr. Sjegel ignored data that do not for an eight-hour workday. support his predetermined conclusion  None of the surveys in Dr. Siegel's that ETS is harmful to restaurant review assessed whether any inaea~se dsed Week' risk found among restaurant workers might be associated with factors such as particulate matter and gases from aooking; pollution finm street traffiG volatile organic com{wnnds from carr pets, drapes and futtiwre: cleaning fluids; pest-Control substances; general lifestyle of the individual or other, simi- lar, confounding factorx Why has Dr. Siegel been so selective and biased in hi§ review? He presented an agenda a year ago irt a public-policy paper he wrote during his residency at University of California-Berkeley, in which he called for a"kgislated 100 percent smoke-free restaurant policy." In the present 'case, Dr. Siegel be- gan with that agenda, went shopping for studies that supported it, found nothing of substance in the data and had to force the conclusion by manipu- lating what was available. THOMAS J. BORELLI arft-w