Tobacco Documents Online

• A6 MONDAY, JA.YG;4RY 11. 199J RICHMOND Tl3tES-DlSPATC'H EDITORIAL PAGE EPAs Smokescreen • Last year a blue-ribbon scientific panel warned EPA Administrator tV'illiam Reilly that much of the agency's science was "unsound" because the EPA lacked adequate safeguards to prevent its scientific fmdingrfrom being "adjusted to frt policy-" The EPA's report on passive tobacco smoke - bureaucratically known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - is a case of fudgiag science to fit a politically correct, pre-detennined policy result Since the Iinlc between smoking and lung cancer is well-known, many people naturaAy believe that ETS also must be linked to cancer. But the scientifk evidence does not support that view. Some may dislt7cethe sight and staell of tobacco smoke, but offensive does not necessarily equal hazardous. A recent study by the National Cancer Ltsttute-no tobacco industry lackey - reluctantly concluded there is "no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the warkplace." "no increased risk" from childhood exposure, and no itureased risk among most non-smoking spouses of smoken. Spouses exposed to more thaa 40 pack-yeIIS (f.., a pack per day for a year) of passive smoke showed a statistically iasignifinet 30 percent relative risic of lung pncer. That is less than the risk of miscarriage or cancer associated with drinking ordinary tap water. Epidemiologists generally do not worry about relative risks until they double or triple. In pursuit of greater regulatory authority over indoa air quality, the EPA skewed its assessment of E?S. F'uu, it induded nteer anti-smoiting activiets on its ETS pand. while excluding some scientists who had published research question- ing the risk of ETS. Then the agency started fudging. When it.ves discovered that ETS could not be classified as a arcinogen under loag-}tanding scientific accuracy guidelines, the guidelines .ere changed. Bothezsame data were averaged sway through a questionable statistiol averaging technique - employed by the EPA for the Brst time ora ETS. The National Cancer Institute study simply was ignored altogether. Even with all this fudging, the EPA caoaot explain why its claim that ETS causes as many as 3.gOf1 lungsancer deatbs per yea - which would be a large percentage of lung cancers among non-smokers - is not supported by reol aae histories. Such shoddy science raised eyebrows on Capitol Htll. When Congressman John Dinge3l. a Detroit Democrat known for his taltt-no-p:isoners investigations, challenged EPA officials, they essentially answered that the agency ruedn't be sctentifinlly nreful because the subject is tobaxo The implications of the EPA's ruling go far beyond tobaceo. If it can skew science on ETS and get away with it, then what happens when another substance is deemed Folitieal(q incorze_cf,?