Subject: "Big Tobacco blows smoke -- again".... Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 102933 -0500 (CDT) From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org> To: emfguru@hotmail.com -------------------------------------------------- Hi everybody: I am forwarding an editorial from today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch.... It is another one of those "I wish I had written it...." pieces. In fact, you can tell how strongly I feel about it -- I typed the WHOLE thing for you, no "skips." For one thing, virtually the entire content -- word for word -- is likely to be appropriate to describe the reaction we can expect from the Electrical Industry following the (perhaps this month?) publication of the results of the NIEHS-sponsored scientific meeting which I attended recently in Minneapolis, and have previously reported to you..... One major difference to note. The scientists in Minneapolis found that EMF is a class 2B carcinogen. As you will see below, tobacco was determined to be a class 2A carcinogen. Within "our" group, we know why that difference occurred, and we know it is not likely to be very long before EMF joins tobacco in the 2A category..... As suggested below, politics should not govern these decisions but too often they do!!! Particularly in the earlier stages of the research when the scientists are fighting to achieve their independence from a powerful industry vested interest group.... Be sure you read all the way through to the last paragraph! You will see some familiar words there -- "the weight of the evidence." Have you ever heard those words before???..... Cheerio...... Roy Beavers (EMFguru) rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html ................................It is better to light a single candle ... than to curse the darkness............................................... DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO SHOULD BE ADDED TO THIS LIST???? ************************************************************************* Editorial in St Louis Post-Dispatch, July 24, 1998..... ......Big Tobacco blows smoke -- again Two weeks ago, U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen ruled that a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report was wrong about second hand smoke. The judge said that the report wrongly concluded that secondhand smoke put people at risk of getting lung cancer. Judge Osteen's ruling is a blatant example of politics trying to trump science -- to the detriment of public health. In 1993, the EPA issued its landmark report on the dangers of secondhand smoke. EPA scientists made a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. Based on that review, the agency classified secondhand smoke as a class A carcinogen capable of causing all kinds of health problems. The EPA noted that secondhand smoke was a particular risk to children, and could cause serious respiratory problems like asthma, as well as increased ear infections. The EPA also concluded that second hand smoke increased the risk of lung cancer in adults. And so, the tobacco companies sued the EPA in federal court in Greensboro, N.C. -- deep in the heart of tobacco country. The case wound up before Judge Osteen, a former lobbyist for tobacco farmers. Based on two technicalities, the judge dismissed the finding that secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer. The judge's first objection stemmed from a law requiring EPA advisory groups to include representatives of industries that may be affected by its reports. The second objection involved the statistical method the EPA used to come to its conclusions. Both objections are specious. The review panel rightly consisted of independent scientists rather than vested tobacco representatives interested only in pushing their economic agenda. And the statistical method of the EPA's final report was used at the urging of the scientific advisory group, not because the EPA was trying to come to a preconceived conclusion. The science is solid, according to Dr. Morton Lippman, a professor of environmental medicine at New York University who chaired the scientific advisory group. Now the tobacco companies are trying to tell us that Judge Osteen's ruling is proof that second hand smoke is little more than a nuisance. The truth, backed up by science, is that second hand smoke is a threat to public health. Numerous studies have found that people exposed to second hand smoke are at a greater risk of developing lung cancer. And since the EPA's 1993 review, dozens of additional scientific studies have further solidified the conclusion that second hand smoke is bad for us, increasing the risk of heart attack, stroke, kidney failure and lung cancer. More than half of the studies in the past 13 years have found health risks associated with second hand smoke, according to the _Journal of the American Medical Association_. And three-quarters of the studies that failed to find health risks were funded by (guess who?) the tobacco industry. The weight of the scientific evidence clearly indicates that second hand smoke can make us sick. And it is the weight of that scientific evidence -- not political considerations or a court ruling based on a technicality -- that should continue to guide decisions about smoking in public buildings and in our workplaces. Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html