Tobacco Documents Online

, SENT BY:RJR NABISCO ; 5- 6-94 ; 15:00 ~ 2026267208y 919 741 7977;# 4 SM BY:'fM TOBACQO 11'VS'1'ITUIlf ; 5- o-04 ~ ta:na .._.. ., _. QUBS"TlONS FOR BPA ADMYNISTRATOR CAROL Y3ROWN13R ON EPA'S ETS RISK A3SES3MENT (1) lWby did EPA, }tt the midst of thasiRk aaaaasmelat process, relu fts normal itaadards and cltatjge the statistical eonidenca intehTal from 95 percent to 90 petcxnt tn jts . analysoe of U.SA studles? (2) Isn't it tcae that before EPA relaxed its staadards, not one of the 11 U.3, lung canea* studies reviewed by EPA rqorted an overatl:tati:tically:fgnificant inuease in riilt? (3) 1doMV oan EPA cl" that its risk assessment sWywts wcukpisce smo6d=tg reatrieti'ons when the riak erssesetnent is based solely on studies of nonsmokorn exposed to ETS at homo, itad does aot consider workplare BTffi exposure at all? (4) isn't It true that the aost ree.nt B'TS;tudy published, tho'Browrnon" studY, ono of the 1stSwt studina to dute and funded by the Natsuwl CUtncer inrdtuts, reported no over-ayi statintcxll,y dptiBunt inccease in rislt2 (5) Isa't it Wso true that had the Btawmenn stody (wideh was publisbed in the AM&rJc2 IOf PubHc Healfh In November 1992) been indudsd its tha EPA risk asusamcnt (rolwad In January 1993), the result tvca at the Iuwer 90 percent wnlidcaca iate»ral - would rlot have been statistically signiilcantr (6) When did the BPA first become aware of the Rrawnson study? (7) Did you at an,y timc eoaslder delaylny the riaDoase of klic M rh1t asteLvMent in urder to Include the Bzownson study In tbe meta-analyris o[ the U.S. studsea7. (8) Have you ever Uundertaken aMeta analysiI ef ft U.S. E'T3 epidemiologt't studies that include data fronn the Brownton atudyr? (9) Why did EPA release a report that Is not supported by the majority of studies on Ibng cancer that were reviewed?