EPA study on smoking faulty; Alex Miller, stay in California
In response to comments by Alex Miller of Calabasas, Calif., first let me refer you to the federal court decision on the Environmental Protection Agency study “concluding” that second-hand smoke causes harm.
It can be found at http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm
“In conducting the assessment, EPA deemed it biologically plausible that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was a carcinogen. EPA’s theory was premised on the similarities between mainstream smoke (MSS), second-hand smoke (SS) and ETS. In other chapters, the agency used mainstream smoke and ETS dissimilarities to justify methodology.
“Recognizing problems, EPA attempted to confirm the theory with epidemiological studies. After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies S
“It is clear that Congress intended EPA to disseminate findings from the information researched and gathered. In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency’s public conclusion; and aggressively utilized the act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion.”
Also know is that this EPA study is the basis for the World Health Organization’s position on second-hand smoke as well as for many other organizations. I encourage all of you to read the findings of the court.
Make an intelligent decision and let the proprietor of the establishment decide the smoking policy.
Mr. Miller, this is not California, nor do we want it to be. Please stay where you are.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.
Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User