Tobacco Documents Online

Foreword: The question of public smoking ugi~fte Smo*ke- and the Nonsmoker 1Als eooklst'foawos on a subdoet that Ras O.eo.o inernasinqly fsoillar to sny - •publle sookiW and the oa.p.iqn to lisit or prohibit s.okinq In publio olaees. The crucial question is .Mtlwsr tMt ssoosure of' non..oksrs to tosaeao s.eke In not..1, evorydsy situations actually creates a health hazard. tN don't think this has 6oon sNown. Ine..e, srnyy soirntists .Ae 0.llisr" s.oklnq is Aar.ful to~s.okars have puWlialy stated tlwm i's not sufficient o.ridbiao to erneluds public s.okirq is har.ful to nsnssokass. Ky, tMxN is so swah 60048" bMsinq 01aood on the sueQoet'' A sLqlwanswr is dlffLoult, but it swrs reasonable to suggest that the failure of the earpaign ai.rd at .akLhq s.okors stop s.oklnq has resultad In a aa.pwwtory effort to srks s.okinqi'aoeUlly. U1moopta0lt.0 i The ea.oaiqn fer outriqAt bans or restrictions on ssokLnp In public Olaws is nyto.oetAy for its lack of'oorsussiMe soisntifio findings. /Ib.er.r, it is eroodinq,diserimLnation and 1'1'11 .i11. 5.okers and' nona.okors, fllonds and n.Lqnbors, are being s.t apainst oad+ other. Soeial friction Mas arisse In o.ey instaness. Yiolonoo and sLL'1'itoney have Ooonikindlsd In sosr cases. Ai+d -• s4st serisusly-- psrsoqsl ftvodoos aru being attsckoS and eroded In a do.oeratib soaiAty. ]*tro Is ns nwd to dsmsnd r+strietiw loqislation - to infringe on frssds• ef choice. Comwe sonso, courtesy and tolsrsneo for the Orofironcss of others arr all that is no.dod to u+aelo ssorers and nowsoolcors wah to .ndoy their pref.rsno.s and to respect those of' others. S eioty is 111-s.r"di.dsn it's ...bors are suba+.ot.d to any kind of ea.osign bas.d on fear or .lsintor.ation. No,yoal Can be Jwstlfii.d sy, Lhe usr of suoh Ocp.ali.nts or contrivances to attain it. EMotionai rlrotorio i's not a substituto for scientific fact. lhe is3soeo ]nstituto Aprili 11MA n

G3prette $II1oke' and the Nonsmoker The Issue isnot new T6e evid+e,nce. Is incoOclusive Among, the more recent charges against smoking is the claim tha exposure to other people's cigarette smoke -- sometimes callea~ "passive" or "involuntary" smoking -- can cause disease in nonsmokers. Efforts to make saaking socially unacceptable -- some try to convince the nonsmaker environmental tobacco smoke i's "harmful" -- rely heavily on certa3n, research reports that purport to lir other people's saMoke with cancer, lung problems and other diseases. Such cliaLms have not, however, withstood scientific scrutiny. Concern among nonsmokers about the possible effects of breathir. other peoplie's tobacco smoke began to emerge following ai 1971' speech by the then Surgeon General, Jesse Steinfeld..Ca,lling : a ban on s:+I in public pl!aces, Steinfeld said that "evidenc, is aacsa,xnlating that the nonsmoker may have untoward effects f: the pollution his smoking neighbor forces upon him."I A year laEer, the 5urgeonI Cenezal's annual report to Congress c seoking andlhealth devoted a chapter to studies claiming to shc exposure to tobacco srac-ke in the air "aay"'have adverse effect: on nonsmokers.2 These pages set off a chain reaction as researchers began weasuring, smoke and smoke components in public places and in laboratory settings and estiuaating amounts to which nonsmokers are eXposed. A body of research a+acumulated during the 197,0s. But, by 1979, the "evidence" was still' so conjectural no objective scientist could have drawn, any har1 aonclusions about sidestreaai smoke and disease. After reviewing, the decade's research in, more than 40, pages, tr 1979 Surgeon C,eneral's report said healthy nonsxookers exposed t cigarette smoke have little or no physiologic response to the smoke, and what reaction may occur is probably psy,chologilcal.3 The 1982 Surgeon General'a report, on cigarette smoking and cancer, noted that the available evidencs is not sufficient to conclude that other people's smoke causes disease in nonsmokers. Itw 1983' two scientific workshop, aieetings on environeeental tobac.: smoke also recognized'that'the scientific evidence was inconclus,ive. Many of the participants at both have published strong anti'-smoking views. The first workshop, which drew medical researchers fromi nine countries to the University of Geneva, heard new data and ~ reviewed existing studies. The Swedish researcher who organizp~ ~ the workshop sumaied up: ~ CA' M1 Gn' ~ ~ W.

Comgoaeats. are . dlluted In air An overall evaluation based!u!pon available seientific data leads to the conclusion that an increased risk [,in lung cancer] for nonsmokers from environmental' tobacco smoke exposure has not been established.s C, Because the workshop, was supported'by a grant from The Tobacc Institute, that report might have met with some skepticism. Appearing almost si~multaneou,sl'y in late 1'9&3, however, was th ~I final report from a workshop sponsored in May by the United' States Pub1i'c Health Servi'ce, specifically the Division of' Lu ~ Diseases of the National Heart, 4ung and'Blood Institute, ino, 8bthesda, Maryl!and'. Participants were 21' investigators from , ~ fields of epidemiology, statistics and adult and pediakric , pulmonary medicine. I I Tfie3~r conclusion: A review oT'the data from the studies Khichihave been 0+ carried out or are in progress which address the ~ effect of passive smoking on the respiratory system suggests that the effect varies from negligible to I quite small. From this review, It was not possible too determine whether there is a specific group which is at i'ncreased risk or what the mechanism of'the effect (if any) may be.6 Some investigators claim reported levels of'various tobacco 3,1 components in the atmosphere -- carbon monoxide, particulate:, i, nicotine -- are hazardous to nonsmokers" health. Otnst' becaus researchers can measure such substances, however, does not me they have any significance to human health,. Cioncantrations of constituents of 'cigarette smoke are:immedia. .~ -dfluted-by: tfie ~surroundingrair.: Andmeas<rranents'of".atinos.pMe_7 : I cigarette smoke taken under-rea~,listic'conditions, indicate thZ; the contribution of tobacco smoke to the air we breathe is fl inimal. One widely stuMied' component of tobacco smoke has been carbon ~ monoxide (CO) . It is well'recognized that the main sources c.. in the environnient are imotor vehicl~es and industrial processe_ - -- not environmental tobacco smoke~. Indoor levels of CO are affected by outside levels and by cooking,and heating, among other factors. Still, environrnental tobacco smoke is frequently blamed for ~ contributing significant aarounts of carbon monoxide to the environment. It is important to re~nber, however, that stuc j~ conducted under realistic conditions indicate that atmospheri from tobacco s=ke!rarely exceeds 10 parts per million (ppm)5 is closer to 5 ppm~in.public places with.normai ventilation,9 IT Both figures are well belb:w the limit of'50 ppm recommended t+• !oph heal!thiagencies for workers exposed'r over an eight-hour perioc. *;~b . hM+~ S~-3

Study design judgtd to be faulty Researchers measured wr~nga eompooent Like CIO, airborne particulate matter arises from many sources besides tobacco smoke. It can include everything from dust,, paper and textile lint to animal dander, pollen and fuellresic A 1980 study invoiving measurement of particulates in public buildings iniwashington, D.C., is cited frequently to sup~portt claim that cigarette smoke may be harmful to nonsmokers. 0 The authors, 3ames Repace and Alfred Lowrey, reported that in buildi'ngs where smoking was permitted levels of'respd~rab,l'e particulat&matter were far greater than in places where smok! was not permitted. Serious qwestions about the study's scientific methodo,logy wer• raised when Repace presented additional'data to a 1982 meeting the:American Society of Heating,, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers.ll Questioned from the floor by a consulting engineer, Repace admitted he had, not measured the quantity of outdoor air introduced by ventilating systems»1p ~ Mother critic noted Repace and, Lowrey did not'.easure particulate levels before swoking began, failed to present dat on actual ventilation rates and, most ieportantly, did not determine the specific contribution of tobacco smoke to particiulate leveis.13 Other research does not lend support to claims of adverse healz . effects associated with cigarette ~ smoke components in the environment. Danish scientists exposed'nonsuokingisubjects to atmospheric tobacco smoke. They also measured the levels of smoke eoMponents in.the test roomL Their conclusion: Ho data exi'st to support the contention that ambient tobacco smoke has "a:lasting adyerse health effect,in otherwise healthy . .indiwiduals:"1.4 Use of measurements of CO and!particuliates to estieate environmental smoke lenrels can be questioned,, because both i are produced by many sources. Most researchers consider nicotine a uchimore appropriate-and reliable Lndicator, since it iss produced exclusively by burning tobacco,. Studies using nicotine~as a smoke index help to, confirm that th contribution of tobacco smoke to the atmosphere: mi'nimal. Drs. pill'iaM Hinda and Melvin First, researchers from the Harva School of Public Healthy found only very small' amounts of nicotine in, the atmosphere of crowded'bars, bus and airline terminals, restaurants and student loiunges.15 Researchers in Europe who, used di?f'erent methods to measure the . presence of tobaccoismoke in the atmosphere reported slightly higher nicoti'ne concentrations than Hinds and First.16 But the like Hinds and First, concluded fro+m their measurements that smoking,daes not represent a risk to nonsmokers.

CO test results could not be -- - reproduced Some opponents of tobacco smoke have claimed carboni monoxide causes or contributes to the development of heart disease In ~ nonsmokers. Those who make such claims frequently cite research ~ conducted In the late 1960s by a group of Danish scientists,. I The researchers, studying the effects of CO exposure on rabbits fed a high cholesterol diet, reported carbon monoxide in tobacco smoke ptiayedl a major role ini hardening of the coronary arteries.17 ifiowever, when studies by other researc18rs reported , negligible effects of CO exposure in other animals, the Danish ~ scientists, tried, and failed, to reproduce their earlier test C,' results. They reported in 1978119 and'.again in 198020 and!198'121 I1, that CO did not produce significant changes In the coronary arteries. Studies of humans exposed to high amounts of carbon monoxide in I their work environments also generally fail to support the claiT-) that CO oauses heart disease. workers such as bridge and tunnel workersg and blast furnace workers, known to be exposed to high levels of CO on a, regular basis, have not been, found to have higher rates of cardiovascular disease than the general pwblic 2z: Other researchers al'so have: concluded'.that CO does not contribuRr,,i to the origin oR'heart disease In the nonsmoker. For example, ill a 1981 issue of' the American Heart Journal, a scientist known for ~ his oppositiion to smoking said that exposure to the tobacco smoke~ of'others did not have any liong-termcardiovasaular consequence--. for the nonsmoker.23 Two highly publicized 1981 studies have been! cited frequently to { support the claim that environaenta,l ci'garette! smoke increases I. the risk of lung cancer Ln nonsmokers. A.3apanese study~ by Dr. Takeshi Hlrayaqa?4'. andI orne-by a Credc •team. headed by.mr: .pYaiitrios Tr3chopoi ' both suggested that _nonsioking° wives of '` smokers have a higher risk of'lung canaer than nonsmoking women } married to nonsmokers. 8oth studies have received extensive criticism In the scientific literature since their publ!ication,, In addition, findings from ~ rem nt American Cancer Society study26 contradict the results os °. the 3apani and Greek research. Thus, these claims of increased cancer risk are highly suspect and not proven. Shortly after the Hirayama study appeared' in, the British Medical 3ournal, Westions were raised'by other scientists in the n+edical terature about the design of the study and the validity of O Hirayama's conclusions. A number of highly critical letters In the journal pointed'out inadequacies and~ inconsistencies in the data. U1 M . ~ ~ .~ ~

i 0 Another study- another contradiction ' Researchers study InaR function The study wasf'aulted for not recording the cell types of the 'lung cancers found27 and not accounting for either the.level of exposure to cigarette smoke in the surroundi'ng air or to indoor air pol'lution from household heating andlcooking equipment ?8 Problems with the population sample selection$9 and statistical analyses30 also!were noted.. The authors of'the Creek study themselves conceded'the limitations of'their research. Trichopoanlos and colleagues admitted the number of'cases studied was small and noted they presented their data "principally to suggest that further investigation of'this issue should be pressed~"25' The authors offered!li'ttle informatLon about the population from, which thei'r sample was selected. Nor did they i'ndicate they had considered such faetors as diet, family history or occupational exposure in reachd~ng their conclusions. After reviewing problews such as these ini both the Nirayama and the Trichopoulos studies, a scientist from the German Heart Center in Munich concluded that "passive smoking may mean an annoyance for healthy adults, but in all probability it is not connected with damage to health.«31 The American Cancer Society study that reache& conclusions much different froe, those of the 3apanese and!Careek studies casts further doubt on, the research. Author Lawrence Garfinkel, the society's: vice president for epbdemiology and statistics, reported finding noi signi'ficant increase: in lung cancer deathh rates among nonsmoking woeen married to smokers when comparedl with those of nonsmokers with nonsmoking husbands. The population he studied', so.e 160,000 American wives, was larger than the 3apanese and Greek studies coabined.Zd Cartinkel discussed his f'indiings i an interview, coamenting,, "Passive.s.roking way be a political matter but i't is not a main iasue ini terusof healtfl policy."32 In 1980J authors U.es R. White, a pnysiaai education;instructor at the University of California at San Diego, and Herman F. Froeb, a physician, claimed that chronic eacposure to tobacco smoke in the work environwent significantly affected lung function in nonswokers.33 White and Froeb had attempted tol measure swall-airNays function in smokers and nonsmokers enrolled in a physical fitness profile course. They concluded that nonsmokers who: were exposed to tobacco smoke at work for 20 years or more had~ reduced function of their small airways compared to nonswokers who said they were not exposed to tobacco seroke.

I ••Evi+dence ... remains sparse" Smoken' children are studied Those who~cite White-Froeb, however, fail to take into account what one of'the government's highest health~offici!als wrote in an editoriali in the same Journal issue. "The evidence that passive sawkingi in a general atmosphere has health, eff+ects,"' wrote Dr. Claude Lenfant of the Matiional Heart, Lung~ and 61ood' Institute, "remains sparse, incomplete and soewetimes unconvincing."34 others criticized the Mhite-Froeb study for usingilung function testing equipment that fails to meet the technical recommen- dations of the Aarerican,Thoracic Society3S'and for using carbon monoxide as aniindex of smoke exposure, as CO isinot unique to tobacco smoke.36 Strong criticism of the White-Froeb work surfaced during a joint annual .eeting of the thoracic society and the American Lung Assoeiation, in 1982. In a session on "seoond}tland smoke," Michael Lebowitz, a Uh.ivers,ity of Arizona epidemiologist who was co-author of the passive smoking chapter in the 1982 Surgeon Ceneral''s report, termed the studly improperly designed from an epide.iologic point of view.37 White a4Froeb, Lebowitz claimed, had unaccountably eliminated 3,OQ0 subjects from thei!r, study population and then declared their results to be significant. The epidewiologist, who has been conducting his own Tucson Study of Obstructive Lung Disease since 1972, concluded the result of'the Mhite-Froeb study cannot be used to demonstrate an effect of environwental seoke onilung function. And in a statement filed in early 1984 with the Los Angeles Coun!cy-public Health Cosuission, Lebowitz took further issue with the white-Froeb work. He wrote: Even with a biased population, poor study design, and incorrect statistical'evaluation, there were no elear-cut, consistent, medically meaningful (or believable) di'fferences between passive, smokers and nonswokers,38 Some studies have reported that respiratory problems in children are related to parental smoking at home. Although they do not pertain directly to the topic of smoking in ublic places, they are frequently cited to heighten health concerns about environwental'tobacxo swoke.. Such studies usually fail to consider other factors that might be related to children's illnesses -- school environnrents, parental economic status, heatingisystems, the use of gas stoves and the illnesses of other family mentiers.39 A five-year study on respiratory ailments in a28'Dutch children found saiokingland nonsmoking parents have about the same proportions of children with respiratory probleias. The researchers concludedr. "The number of cigarettes smoked by the parents has no influence on respiratory symptoms in their childten."40 S 7 C;

A similar, conclusion was reached'by aI critic of smoking who compl eted one I of the largest, studieseve'r done on i the sub fect. It innrolved' 376 ' families, with $16 children, in three towns.4 ii The conclusion: "Exposure to low levels of seoke Produced by cigarette smokers does not result iin chronic respiratory symptoms or loss of' lung function among children nor among adu,Uts." More recently, data from a continuing study of respiratory disease among more than 1,b'00 Tucson area families indicated that parental smoking had'no significant effect on children's lung function. Researchers also reported no significant relationship between the smoking habits of either parent and.spousal pulmonary function642 W1y 't6e overreaction? Scien+ae is "atiwed" Given that atmospheric tobacco smoke has not been provedito cause disease in nonsmokers, what can account for the overreaction of some nonsmokers to tobacco smoke? Some researchers have suggested that such reactions may have an eoational or psychological basis. The 1979 Surgeon General's report suggested that what response ray occur in healthy nonsmokers exposed to tobacco smoke "may be due to, psychological factors."3 Md the late Dr.iNi'chael Nalberstaw, a physician and medical collaanbst, once suggested that the sy+rptas of' nonsmokers "say oo.e frowi anger rather than the smoke itself."43 A cultural anthropologist who has studied smoking customs in different societies agrees. The emotional reaqtion of soaie nonsmokers may simply reflect frustrations with life in gieneral'l, says Sherwin Feinhandler. As the Harvard Medical School lecturer told a Congressional hearing in 1978, "To some people, the smmker has become a ready target for general frtirstrations, anxiety and di'scontent. "" Nhatever the reasony the overreaction to the considerab3e publicity given studies that purport to show, eenvironmental tobacco smoke is a risk to nonsmokers has resulted in insuffYcient attention to scientists who caution that emotion and fear must not be allowed to obscure scientific facts as they currently exist. Oihe such scientist is the fori.er head of the gmverneent's smoking and health research prograw. Public saoking, Dr. Cio Gbri warns, is so laden with moralistic overtones "it'is not a,Uways easy to separate fact from ewotion."' Too often, he wrote recently, thosee who would advance the nonsmoking point oR'view use "supportive statements frowithe most popular and swccessfallr persuasive ~ force today, namely science." O N UC (ni on, P;~P ~ CD S-8

( The combination of science and "a vigorous advocacy" has reswl'ted,, he said,, ini legisl'ative action -- "but at the cost of leaving science abused in too many instances." pr. Giori,, whol described him.self as prone to "strongj statemants""f that nobody should sawke, nevertheless predicted that people will continue to, do so and that studies will' continue to explore the effects of'aRbient smoke oni nonsmokers,,even though "the likeli'hood'of finding future correlations of passive sarokingg exposure and significant public healith problems is negligible." Md he warns: Without a sense of'proportion andlperspective, researchers risk diverting prodigious amounts,of' goodwill, work, and sci'enti'fic credibility toward i'ssues whose soiution is likely to be unproductive, compared to, other issues that are momentarily out of the public eye but of vastly greater health sS,gnificanoe 45 Referen+cess for Cigarette Smoke and the Nonsmoker t~ stetMioia: 3.L., .dor.rs to 010 Matsenal Inwrao.noy eeuneil ee ,lr*inS .rud IM.IItA„ fWLLiqten. D.C., 7rrury, ilt, 1971 l 2: U.S. IWlib Nu1tA Swrsoe, LM /MattA ceRft of ~ » A ~ of LM~t ~,~Catia+ /l~rn!`~N Mia1tA, f+ToatLaft ~ i~a rere, $-7Sts, 1f72, pp. in'7•SS. 3. u13. tiblie /M.11tS S+svle., 'lhulpter 11. IeveliuntAry leskiwS: s.*s and Mea1Mt € MOPOM .r slw .en ~ G~.r.t_ro.oartw.ec ef'$~aT~, ee .~iTie ~ubliaa pr 7lui00if, f97l. pp. 1-41. t1oft .. u.S1 N*1le Nn1tA feraee, •i'h.pt.r •. IurolsoWe7, yAl~irp w' LYng tanae,• iAe NwQ tA ew w.oa' e~ ~t of ~anee~r. A ~R ec eTtr~~u^ .a~~en.r r ea- anT'Fian STv~oe.~T"-eafiwi M..(Rn), 82-3017f, 1fU. IIR. 237-2%. S. Ry1rnMe, Rl, 'fM ltaAvf lhrqaeti!wa,•~'S "vl_r~e~_a~_wtal TeM+ooe lmoloet R rt free o b en Eff.eta a~i -- x aia. ..e2 OTIF."rYT.nd.r ex ,I /w. , vo1. A5, ifM, Cbnera, 1SppI i. U.S. Pubiltr N.altN Serviee, Report er' ee R it ffoots_ of urol ~.mr. • wia do. o lel Studlea, ~erprnt ef'MMLth oes, SreMOeee ;fS', i2 pp. 7. Ste.rrt. R. `TM Effireta N liew Concentratlens of Carbon MsradNe in Nan,•' Envlra.ental Tobaooo S.o1c. Stto~rtr on tM Mwu..ah.rz R !t~ , ee. ~~.~Ir1Y~0oT -- rrrnt R,1/o ens, 4), pp. SiaZ. S-9

e. . Sridqe, 0, and M.,Corn, "Contributlon,to~tne Aasessf.ent of Esqosura of Monsookorr to Air Pollution fror Cigarette and Ci'qPr S.oua in Oeaqied'SPaees," E'nvieon R_ S{2)r 192-209, 1972. c 9. Aisd.eaon, C1 and T. 0alha.n, 'IiiPssristerna vid p.ssiti eokninql('Tho'Ri'sts to M.alKA of PassiNa Slwkinq),w Lak.rtidnti 70s 2b33-2a3i, 1973. Translation. 10. Rapav, 3. and A. Lo.r.y, "ZiWoor Air Pollution, Tobaoee. l.o1n, and Pueliie M.altA,• Salonc! 200s Ks-M72, 1900. 11. Rpaeo, ]. and A. Lo.eey, •Tobaoee Sao1a, Vontillation, and Indoor Ait Quality," PDesontation before Sy.postun on V.nt'itatioa and Indoor Air 9uality, sod-anwrt aating of ASMRAf, Meuston, 3rwry' 2S+ 19A2. 12. SOiM1Veqe1, L., oanreess .n 3. RaPaeo and A. Lowr.y presentation, 'Taiaooa Smolca, V.ntilatiws, and Lndoor Alr puality,•'Syaooaiue an MMti'latiion and Indeor Air Quality, sNa-anw.1 ssatiu+q of A5iI11AE, /lwwton, 7anwary23, 1+192.. 13. Storlisg, T., oernts on 3. Rpree and A6 Lo.r.y proaantation, •Tobaoos Sas1e.,, Vantilatien, aM Indoor Air Qualityu' 3lmpsiiur oM Vrntilatios and Indoor A'Lr Ouality, srsi.anwsl sMttns at ASWAE, Msrat.n, 3warrtr 25, 1962. 1!. /M'qor, C., at atl., '[apeour. of hasi.ro l.ok.rs to ToOaooe Sio1n Canstiturats,' , nt Arch Oea Envlren M.alRr a2= 21-29, 1976. 15. Mltnds, s. and M. Rlrst, 'Ceno.ntrstions of Rlostino and' Tosaoar Sstilta in fu6lio Pfaoos: llEnelww ) M.d 292d'tY)a M"Sa., 1975: 1S: Sidt.+ R., ot al., •Ps114tiin AtaoapMeiqur Par 1a Ru.n dA TMao (A1ts.o/weio Peilution by Slrldn4): 'AMei Plar!L 36 (S-1D)s M3-4S2.1fiS. Traeslatias. 17. As", P., .t al~, 'E@*anoieS IM1uNOt of Grbsn lbnasid.: on the D.+v.lepwnt N At1+.rartasis is, dr.lost.relLF.d Rsbbits," 3 AtMr In ?Me: 3+3•M, 1967. tarwttuP,1 3., ot a1., 'Aee.l.ratiws o[ 3P.nt.nasua Intirl•Eliisstfarl C1~ps tw RaMtt Aeeu by a Ptrotaqsd /bNrata CarMn MenrciN I EAOrwni Ata PatAOl NierasLel . o+r 7S(3)s 333•3i2, 11lLf. Kyaldsan, K., at al.. 'Effoets .! CaeMn Manoadde on MyoeardivAt Ulltrasteualurol CAMq.s ih Ralelts'After MaMWata, da*Rts Earrwserr," Zn ft 3As 33f-JW, 1l7a. 1S. Ae.ttaMti A. K., .t al., "IM EfY.et .f C.rMe iNs.aw en t*s Osnaldwext of AdeMeeoolnwts !n the 1uiN , Carn.ru Plys@m," Aqwerroll.r, 231 333-33A, 1f7S. TA.w.er, ]., .t al., 'Taaiwle,lal Ewalustian N Cari.n, 1liratw 1h Narns aM OLtMr /Mralian iraih.," 3 Qoa. wd 131 2A3-2SS, 1971. 1!. MfpRs C., at al. (isMSlulln ,Astry),, 'Effast of CarOon MwrsiN Epeourr on Asrta i aN'. Cbeawey Intirrt M.Ephaloyy. ie the Rrllt,' Athoreaeirr 30s 333-3t2, 1l7S. 20. Mqed, C: and P. Astrw, 'Espawirs of Rsbbtts to CarOan Mawaido and Other Gas POaso Constitwnts of Tosaxo laskr (Inflwno. on Coeanary, and Aortiie Intlrr,l MsrPAeloqy),• IUwaM aM >tsoMn 122 (SUN. 11)h 1i-2A. 1lW.