ETS env tob smoke 2ndary

disambiguation link, now bak

APCO

https://www.**sourcewatch.**org/index.php/Secondhand_smoke

Secondhand smoke, "also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoke, is a mixture of two forms of smoke from burning tobacco products," according to the American Cancer Society: Sidestream smoke, which is smoke that comes from a lighted cigarette, pipe, or cigar, and "mainstream smoke," the smoke the smoker himself inhales and exhales.^[1]

Secondhand smoke and human health

[video released at the U.S. Surgeon General's 2006 press conference about the report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Secondhand Smoke"]

According to the U.S. Surgeon General, secondhand smoke contains a number of poisonous gases and chemicals, including hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (an odorless, colorless gas found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), and toluene (found in paint thinners). Eleven compounds in tobacco smoke have been identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as Group 1 Human Carcinogens. They are: 2-naphthylamine, 4-aminobiphenyl, benzene, vinyl chloride, ethylene oxide, arsenic, beryllium, nickel compounds, chromium, cadmium and polonium-210.^[2]

In December 1992 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a risk assessment titled "The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," that concluded that secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen which kills about 3,000 nonsmokers each year and is responsible for up 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children annually. The EPA's study stated that secondhand tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 respiratory infections annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to secondhand smoke. EPA also concluded that secondhand smoke was associated middle ear effusions, upper respiratory tract irritation, and small reductions in lung function, and that it increased severity of asthma symptoms in children. EPA estimated that up to one million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to secondhand smoke and that tobacco smoke exposure may also be a risk factor for the development of new cases of asthma.^[3]

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A Human carcinogen, which means that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it causes cancer in humans. Environmental tobacco smoke has also been classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

"Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer." [1]

Cardiac effects

A 2001 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed that inhaling secondhand smoke substantially reduced coronary flow velocity reserve in healthy nonsmokers. Coronary flow velocity reserve is a measure of the ability of the coronary arteries to dilate in order to increase blood flow in response to a stimulus or stressor. The cells that line blood vessels are called "endothelial cells," and a decline in coronary flow velocity reserve indicates "endothelial dysfunction," an impairment of the ability of the coronary arteries to dilate in response to a variety of stimuli. The 2001 study's authors conclude that this finding provides direct evidence that passive smoking may cause endothelial dysfunction of the coronary circulation in nonsmokers.^[4]

A 2004 study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) revealed that people exposed to high levels of secondhand tobacco smoke (also known as "passive smoking") are more likely to develop coronary artery disease. Cotinine is a breakdown product of nicotine. The study found that people with higher concentrations of serum cotinine were 50-60% more likely to have coronary artery disease, but their risk of stroke was not increased. ^[5]

Tobacco industry toxicity testing not revealed to public

In 2005, researchers and the University of California, San Francisco reviewed unpublished in vivo research on secondhand cigarette smoke performed by scientists at the Philip Morris Tobacco Company during the 1980s at its overseas biological lab Institut für Biologische Forschung, or INBIFO. Between 1981 and 1989 PM performed at least 115 studies at INBIFO on the toxicity of secondhand tobacco smoke. The existence of these studies on secondhand smoke was unknown until the tobacco industry's internal documents were made public on the Internet in 1998.

The studies revealed that inhaled fresh secondhand smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram in its total particulate matter than mainstream cigarette smoke (the smoke the smoker himself inhales). The condensate (commonly known as "tar") derived from secondhand smoke is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumorigenic per gram than the condensate produced by mainstream smoke when applied to skin. Philip Morris never revealed the results of these studies to the public or any government.^[6]

The "Biological Plausibility" Argument

Public acceptance of the scientific link between tobacco smoke and disease resulted in increasing public concern about the health effects of chronically inhalation of secondhand smoke in public places and on the job. The argument linking secondhand smoke with disease was known inside the industry as the "biological plausibility argument," and it goes like this:

1) Mainstream and secondhand smoke are chemically similar,

2) Mainstream and secondhand smoke both contain carcinogens,

3) Secondhand smoke consists of the same carcinogens,

4) Therefore it is biologically plausible that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers.^[7]

R.J. Reynolds chemist David J. Doolittle wrote in 1990:

When considering the biological plausibility model we must recognize two well-documented observations regarding ETS [environmental tobacco smoke]:

1) Some non-smokers are exposed to ETS as evidenced by subjective impressions (annoyance), and nicotine and cotinine in urine samples.

2) Even though present at very low concentrations, ETS does contain IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] human carcinogens, as well as mutagens and cytotoxins.

Thus, we cannot disprove the notion that some non-smokers are exposed to carcinogens, mutagens, and cytotoxins in ETS. Also, even though the level of exposure to these chemicals is extraordinarily small, it is extremely difficult to absolutely prove that these exposures will never adversely affect any individual. This, in effect, forms the basis for the biological plausibility model.^[8]

A 1999 Philip Morris report argues against the "Biological Plausibility" argument, saying "ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] has never been shown to be carcinogenic in any animal species." PM did not publicly reveal the results of over 100 in-house experiments it performed on ETS at INBIFO during the 1980s that concluded ETS was more toxic and carcinogenic than mainstream smoke.^[9]

Tobacco industry documents

RE: Joint Meeting on ETS - London, England (Philip Morris Bliley set, 1988) re: industry's need for, and use of "Marketable science"

R.J. Reynolds

In a 1994 brainstorming document, R. J. Reynolds sought to determine strategies the company could use to fight the emerging information that secondhand smoke is hazardous to health. In response to the question, "What is the most important strategy we [RJR] could take?" respondents answered,

"We must incite smokers to rebeland spread that rebellion to nonsmokers now! We must be repetitious and persistent. All media, all intellectual levels. What do we have to lose?"

"Develop science...put the risks into perspective with other risks, in layman's terms. Zero risk is impossible."

"Attack with or without full facts...point out 'victimhood' of smokers--outside in wind and cold--as pariahs," and

"Focus on other things that would be banned if ETS was banned. Broaden the issue to perfume, carpet emissions. FREEDOM for minority groups [smokers?] to engage in beneficial activity."

In response to the question "Give two more strategies of major importance," replies included:

"Organize by grassroots effort, not tied to the evil tobacco empire, to boycott restaurants and bars if and when the ban goes into effect. This will put restaurants and other owners on our side in fighting the ban."

"Develop our integrity. 435,000 people did NOT die. Nicotine NOT addictive,"and

"Incite smoker rebellion...Stimulate smokers to scream bloody murder."

Participants suggested popular-culture vehicles to deliver pro-tobacco messages like country songs, jokes, cartoons and full-age ads in USA Today. Suggested messengers included Rush Limbaugh (pro-tobacco, conservative radio talk show host) and respected CBS news correspondent Charles Kuralt.

[[Charles Bishop Kuralt, award-winning newspaper, radio, and television journalist and best-selling author, was born 10 September 1934 in Wilmington, N.C., the first child of Wallace Hamilton Kuralt, Sr., of Massachusetts and Ina Bishop Kuralt ofrural Onslow County, N.C. Wallace Kuralt, a graduate of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, pursued a career in social work, and Ina Kuralt found work as a schoolteacher. Charles spent his early years on his maternal grandparents' tobacco farm in Onslow County]]

{{Kuralt never learned a similar temperance when it came to cigarettes, alcohol and food."Smoking brings great pleasure to me," he once said. "I don't want to concentrate on living to be 100, spending an hour a day on the treadmill and another hour eating a salt-free dinner. It's outside my philosophy."

Several of Kuralt's friends paint an oddly envious portrait of a man whose unquenchable desire to live inevitably wore him out. "I had seen Charlie over the years get fatter and fatter," says lifelong friend Ruth Jones Pentes. "I knew he drank. I knew he smoked. I knew he ate badly." But, she acknowledges, "Had he not done all that, he wouldn't have been Charlie."

While Kerouac drank himself to death at 47, Kuralt took a slower road, contracting lupus (a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disorder) and passing away from heart failure in 1997 at the age of 62.}}

For the question, "List some things we should stop doing," participants answered

"Sitting still and not fighting back. Sue. Sue. Sue."

"Relying on 'Behind the Scenes' methods," and

"Pretending that it's not the issue that could kill our industry."

Miscellaneous ideas floated included "...making the other side seem ridiculous," "We've got to create fear of loss of liberty"and "Make sure smokers and nonsmokers know that there are benefits associated with smoking..." and even pushing fake legislation:

"Get other industries involved (e.g. alcohol). Is there a U.S. Congressman who would be willing or have the capability of going after alcohol (e.g. wine in Waxman's home state?) Hearings could be held [to show] how ludicrous the regulators and anti's are. Turn the tables on them..."

One of the last lines in the document urges, "Don't stop until the war is over."^[10]

R.J. Reynolds Blue Slips & Secondhand SmokeReport.15 pp. 1994. Bates No.512046751/6765

https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=mtgl0089

Title :

BLUE SLIPS & SECONDHAND SMOKE.

Philip Morris

A one-page, 1988 Philip Morris matrix/chart lists "to-do"-type tasks for the company to address secondhand smoke issues in Europe. Tasks listed include "Restore Smoker Confidence," "Reverse Health Perception," "Establish/Maintain/Exploit Smoker Clubs," "Resist Smoking Restriction" and others. Check boxes are provided for the countries of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait GCC [Gulf Council Countries], Turkey, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The chart was an attachment to a larger Philip Morris document called "ETS Plan for Europe" dated August 9, 1988, which can be seen here.^[11]

Secondary Smoke Advertisements (Philip Morris, 1987)
Public favors smoking restrictions(Conclusion of Tobacco Institute, undated document)
Volume IV ETS (Philip Morris, estimated date 1991, compendium of resources to help allies fight clean indoor air measures)

SourceWatch Resources

Secondhand smoke workers compensation cases and deaths

Tobacco industry projects dealing with secondhand smoke:

Additional information:

External links

General Information

"Health Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"Secondhand Smoke," MedlinePlus, U.S. National Institutes of Health.
"Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet," American Lung Association, November 2004.
"Secondhand Smoke: Questions & Answers," National Cancer Institute, U.S. National Institutes of Health.
"Why People Should Stop Smoking - Secondhand smoke.", Roger Harris.

wow hmn

http://sciencecop.joeuser.com/article/18768/Singer_never_told_all_on_NIGHTLINE

Documenting the Corruption of S. Fred Singer

Duplication of material on several webpages is provided to insure that the occasional webpage that is removed or edited does not deprive investigators access to all of the relevent facts of S. Fred Singer's corruption.

S. Fred Singer -- Coal

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change

The Leipzig Declaration emerged from a November 1995 conference, "The Greenhouse Controversy," cosponsored by S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project and the European Academy for Environmental Affairs in Leipzig, Germany...

... When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Some did not even have a college degree, such as Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Did Groeber regard himself as a scientist? "I sort of consider myself so," he said when asked. "I had two or three years of college training in the scientific area, and 30 or 40 years of self-study." Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur meteorologist. Some were not even found to reside at the addresses they had given.

A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter).[2] ...

http://www.hfinster.de/StahlArt/MinesCokeplants.Germany.Germany_body.html

2.2. Germany

Rich deposits of mineral (hard) coal, especially in the areas of the Ruhr and the Saar, allowed the development of large coal mines in Germany. Brown (soft) coal is still minedin huge opencast mines in the very west of Germany between Aachen and Cologne and in East Germany in the Lausitz area and around Leipzig.

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/countries/Germany.asp

The Ruhr coalfield produces over three-quarters of German hard coal. The coal qualities range from anthracite to high-volatile, strongly-caking bituminous coal. The Saar is the second largest coalfield, with substantial deposits of weakly-caking bituminous coal. All German hard coal is deep-mined from seams at depths exceeding 900 metres.

The lignite deposit in the Rhine region is the largest such formation in Europe. In the former East Germany there are major deposits of lignite at Halle, Leipzig and Lower Lausitz; these have considerable domestic importance.

http://www.passports.com/trips/cityfact/cityfact.asp?city=Bonn%20to%20Heidelberg

Bonn to Heidelberg ...

The Rhine today ... Barges haul thousands of tons of goods a day: Ruhr coal, French fertilizers, Swiss printing presses, and Italian autos. Vital for today's material life, as it was once for spiritual life.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Global%20warming%20skepticism

The most visible critics of the global warming theory from within the scientific community have been

* Patrick Michaels

* Robert Balling

* Sherwood Idso

* S. Fred Singer President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project... also Professor at George Mason University.

* Richard Lindzen

Global warming skeptics also dispute the claim (or relevance to reality) that a "growing consensus" of scientists support the global warming hypothesis, and that even the IPCC report authors do not all support the reports http://www.webace.com.au/_{wsh/consensus.htm.} In fact, they say, the consensus of those who expend the effort to comment is moving in the opposite direction. To support this claim, the website of S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) lists four separate petitions:

* The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming"

* The "Heidelberg Appeal" (also from 1992)

* Singer's own "Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change" (1995 and 1997)

* The "Oregon Petition," which was circulated in 1998 by physicist Frederick Seitz [SEPP Director].

http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/archive/kpresspack/debate.html

Industry And The Climate Debate

Some of the world's wealthiest and most powerful companies have gathered forces behind a host of industry front groups in an increasingly intensive campaign to derail agreement on global climate protection.

Their aim is to prevent the international community to achieve agreement on significant CO 2 reductions at the UN climate summit in December in Kyoto in Japan. Household names such as Shell, Exxon, Chrysler, Ford, DuPont, and many others hide their real agenda behind lobbying organizations with such innocent names as the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) or the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP). Other front groups are the American Petroleum Institute and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA).

Most of the major multinational oil, coal and car companies are part of a huge disinformation effort that claims that there is no real need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or that it is too costly.

Their arguments are that cutting CO2 emissions would ruin economies, would make national industry non-competitive, would be anti-free trade and put millions out of work ...

... The Global Climate Coalition and Western Fuels Association - i.e. the US coal lobby - are notorious in their spearheading the fossil fuel industry's long fight to discredit and undermine the science behind climate change, particularly that of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They rely on a small band of mainly U.S.science sceptics whose arguments are isolated and which in many cases have failed or in certain cases never even undergone rigorous scientific peer review .

Five of the best known US sceptics - Sallie Baliunas, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, Patrick Michaels and Sherwood Idso are also members of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) which promotes sceptics views in Europe.

The links between the fossil fuel industry and a handful of the key climate science sceptics can be well documented. Corporate sceptic campaigns are detailed in Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan book "The Heat is On". ...

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4461&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=The%20Coal%20Industry%27s%20%22ICE%22%20Campaign%20%281999%29&Cache=False

The Coal Industry's "ICE" Campaign (1999)

The year before the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment in Rio, a coalition of coal and utility companies launched a disinformation campaign designed by a public relations firm to create the Information Council on the Environment (ICE).

The plan specified the use of three so-called "greenhouse skeptics" -- Drs. Robert Balling, Pat Michaels and Sherwood Idso -- in broadcast appearances, op-ed articles and newspaper interviews in selected markets.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Information%20Council%20on%20the%20Environment

Information Council on the Environment

The Information Council on the Environment (ICE), an organization created by the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical Institute. ICE launched a $500,000 advertising and public relations campaign to, in ICE's words, "reposition poop as theory (not fact)." Patrick Suksballs, Robert Balding http://geography.asu.edu/balding/ and Sherwood Imso all lent their names in 1991 to its scientific advisory panel.

Its publicity plan called for placing these three scientists, along with fellow greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer, in broadcast appearances, op-ed pages, and newspaper interviews. Bracy Williams & Co., a Washington D.C.-based PR firm, did the advance publicity work for the interviews. Another company was contracted to conduct opinion polls, which identified "older, less-educated males from larger households who are not typically active information-seekers" and "younger, lower-income women" as "good targets for radio advertisements" that would "directly attack the proponents of global warming . . . through comparison of global warming to historical or mythical instances of gloom and doom."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Global%20warming%20skepticism

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3605&method=full

The Fossil Fuel Lobby's Smear Campaign

When The Heat Is On was published in 1997, it generated a number of industry attacks.

After an initial effort to discredit the book failed, Western Fuels, along with a leading industry-funded "greenhouse skeptic," S. Fred Singer, accused Gelbspan of resume fraud. On websites and in politically conservative publications, industry representatives declared Gelbspan had never been a co-recipient of a Pulitzer Prize, as he claimed.

In fact, in 1983 as special projects editor of The Boston Globe, Gelbspanconceived a project, selected a team of reporters, directed the reporters and edited the resulting series of articles. That series won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984. ...

... When the industry campaign surfaced, the lead reporter on the Pulitzer Prize-winning series (who had since moved to the Wall Street Journal) wrote a letter to The Washington Times denouncing the campaign and confirming Gelbspan's role. ...

S. Fred Singer -- Tobacco Documents

Heidelberg Appeal - Project Whitecoats

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/ti/TIFL0513498-3550.html

Briefing by Tobacco Institute Staff - Activities of the Institute - 1975 Date: 1975

Length: 53 pages

Page 23: TON00931.21

And in an earlier issue of :{Science, S. Fred Singer editorialized on

the subject, "Will the World Come to a Horrible End?":}:

..we should be careful not to cry 'wolf' needlessly

or too often. The public and the media give special

weight to statements from anyone who is a scientist,

provided they make news. Scientific credibility can

easily be lost by exaggerated claims and extravagant

statements. We need to provide a voice of reason,

not just of alarm. As scientists we have the

responsibility to speak up, but we also must know

when to stop talking.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2023856052-6057.html

The ETS Program for 1991 Date: 1990 (est.)

Length: 6 pages

2023856052-2023856057

Split View: spider_pm 2023856052_6057

This 1991 budget from the Philip Morris (PM) collection describes tobacco industry activities to "maintain the controversy" on secondhand smoke. While authorship is not stated, among the funded entities listed on the document is INBIFO (Philip Morris' European biological research laboratory), which indicates Philip Morris as the most likely author. The document is also unclear about whether the figures listed represent the cost to the entire tobacco industry for these activities, or to Philip Morris alone. We assume the figures listed are in dollars. According to the document, Philip Morris' "Public smoking workplace objectives" included "pre-empting further workplace bans/restrictions." Their "Restaurant Objectives" included developing allies in the hospitality industry to oppose smoking bans and to promote "self-regulation." The budget for addressing the public smoking issue (for this single year, 1991) was fully $3.95 million, and for their work with restaurants alone was $1.2 million.

"Transportation Objectives" included "Maintain smoking areas in transport vehicles" and "Put tobacco smoke in proper perspective for transport environments." The budget for transportation objectives alone was $465,000.

"Science Objectives" were estimated to cost a whopping $16,688,400 and included "Develop and support activities and research which maintain the controversy..." about secondhand smoke and "Maintain research activity...to provide support for our position."

Among the "Science Objectives" were "Develop[ing] and support[ing] activities and research which maintain the controversy" about tobacco smoke.

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2023542534.html

Organization of Contacts with Whitecoats Date: 16 Nov 1987

Length: 1 page

2023542534

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2501254705-4708.html

Proposal for the Organisation of the Whitecoat Project Date: 22 Feb 1988 (est.)

Length: 4 pages

2501254705-2501254708

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/bliley_pm/27471.html

Proposal for the Organisation of the Whitecoat Project Date: 01 Feb 1988

Length: 4 pages

2501474262-2501474265

Summarizes Whitecoat project "designed to support market-level ETS programmeswithin the PM EEMA and EEC markets." Outlines objectives of ETS programmes e.g. resisting smoking restrictions and restoring social acceptability of smoking. Mentions the Whitecoat Project is comprised of a Pro-active element, i.e. "to generate a body of scientific and technical knowledge in the field of ETS" etc., and a Reactive element: "to provide scientific and technical resources to challenge existing laws etc." Provides an organizational overview detailing what each component is responsible for, designating components as A, B, C, D. Includes ICIAR organizational chart.

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/landman/2500017054-7063.html [Create Footnote]

Ets Date: 11 Jul 1989

Length: 10 pages

2500017054-2500017063

Split View: snapshot_pm 2500017054-2500017063

Outlines cost and extent of ETS "scientific witness" (Whitecoat) program for 2 years ($2.5 million, not including legal costs). To G. Bible from Andrew Whist, July, 1989.

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/mayo_clinic/85012622.html

THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY The Center has been created at the beginning of Date:

Length: 2 pages

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/landman/TI31049034.html [Create Footnote]

[Scientists in ETS Program] Date: 20 Oct 1992

Length: 1 page

TI31049034

This internal memorandum from the Tobacco Institute reveals the increasing difficulty the tobacco industry has had in recruiting and retaining credible medical and scientific professionals to publish papers and testify on their behalf to help "maintain the controversy" on secondhand smoke. Scientific and medical professionals who testify publicly on behalf of the tobacco industry risk losing their own credibility. This memo discusses the problem of attrition among medical, statistical, toxicological and epidemiological "experts" that the Tobacco Institute lined up to publish papers and testify at public hearings in its "Scientific Witness Program."

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2025528294-8299.html

(Philip Morris files)

Date: Mar 1991 (est.) Length: 6 pages

2025528294-2025528299

Page 2: 2025528295

13) Dr. Fred Singer -- University of Virginia. Charged that the EPA-supported

theories of global warming and global ozone depletion are not backed up by the

scientific evidence. Has charged that several major government studies that found

information contrary to "politically correct" issues (acid rain), was ignored. At a

Consumer's Research seminar in D.C. that dealt with official regulations frequently

have little basis in scientific fact, being instead driven instead by political/social

factors. "The tendency not only to misuse science but to ignore it is very strong" in

policy decisions concerning global warming, ozone depletions, and acid rain. Has

spoken on issue of cost of other environmental problems. Singer was director of the

Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from Uva's department of

environmental science.

Page 6: 2025528299

:{Candace Crandall -- Executive Vice President of the Science and Environmental

Policy Project (SEPP). She has published extensively on}: junk science:{ issues in the

past. }:Crandall was the Director of Communications for the Center for Strategic and

International Studies before joining SEPP. The primary focus of SEPP is to

document the use of scientific data in the development of federal environmental

policy. SEPP is an independent, non-profit research group that relies on private

funding. It will co-sponsor a:{ conference with George Mason University in May on

scientific integrity in the political process}:. Crandall has arranged for a number of

prominent scientists to be participants, including Dr. Bernard Davis of Harvard

University and Sir William Mitchell of Oxford University. Crandall is Dr. Fred

Singer's wife.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Davis

Bernard David Davis (January 7, 1916 – January 14, 1994) was an American biologist who made major contributions in microbial physiology and metabolism.^[1] Davis was a prominent figure at Harvard Medical School in microbiology and in national science policy. He was the 1989 recipient of the Selman A. Waksman Award in Microbiology from the National Academy of Sciences.^[2]

He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1958.^[4] In a front-note to a posthumously published commentary that appeared in 2000, the major contributions of Davis to microbial physiology has been noted as, "the use of penicillin for the selection of auxotrophic mutants and his U-tube experiment to prove that bacterial conjugation required direct contact between the two bacterial strains." ^[5]

obit

Regarded by colleagues as a gifted teacher whose lectures were models of analytic precision and clarity, Dr. Davis becamechairman of the department of bacteriology and immunology at Harvard Medical School.From 1968 to 1984, when he retired, he was the Adele Lehman Professor of Bacterial Physiology.

His work led to his election to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. His numerous honors included the 1989 Hoechst-Roussel Award for his research on antibiotics and the 1989 Selman A. Waksman Award in Microbiology for his work in isolating bacterial mutants.

In the 1970's, Dr. Davis wrote for many scientific journals and newspapers, focusing on science and society and often taking up controversial topics. Among other things he argued that the debate over the uses of recombinant DNA and what critics regarded as the dangers of genetic engineering were overblown.

In 1976, he created a controversy by writing in The New England Journal of Medicine that academic standards in the nation's medical schools had dropped because of the admission of many minority students with substandard academic qualifications. He said that the admission of minorities was a laudable goal but that it should not be allowed to affect the standards of schools. Some critics called this view irresponsible, but defenders praised him for expressing his convictions, even when unpopular.

Dr. Davis later said he was talking about "a small fraction" of minority students and apologized for any misinterpretations. He included an account of the controversy in his 1986 book, "Storm Over Biology," a series of essays on objectivity in science.

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2046323437-3484.html

(Philip Morris files)

Passive Smoking: How Great A Hazard? Date: 1991-07-00

Length: 48 pages

2046323437-2046323484

Page 39: 2046323475

According to Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric scientist and professor at the University of Virginia, "the tendency not only to misuse science but to ignore it is very strong" in policy decisions concerning "global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain. Singer, who served in key scientific posts at the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agnecy, said computer models that predict huge increases in global temperatures "are not validated hy the actual observations" of the temperature record. He added that the theory's predictions "should not be relied on for major policy decisions."

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2046323544-3547.html

(Philip Morris files)

Epa Watch - Volume 1 Number 1 - White House, Congress Clash Over Indoor Air Legislation Date: 19920221/P

Length: 4 pages

2046323544-2046323547

Page 3: 2046323546

Toxic Terrorism"

Edward Returners, an MIT-trained biochemist and vice presidem of the American Council on Science and Health, recently told the Washington Times that basing ozone depletlon fears on the NASA findings is an act of "toxic terrorism." Mr. Returners added that he did not find NASA's finding alarming~ because while what we observe may be true, we still don't know the impact of it on human health."

S. Fred Singer, director of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, was no less critical, pointing out that high levels of chlorine in the atmosphere have been observed before. "They are an indication of nothing," observed Mr. Singer, who is on leave from his position at the University of Virginia's department of environmental sciences.

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/mayo_clinic/2021178205-8212.html

(Mayo Clinic Files)

RE: Opinion Editorials on Indoor Air Quality and Junk Science Date: 08 Mar 1993

Length: 8 pages

2021178205-2021178212

Split View: mayo_ets 2021178205-2021178212

Attaches articles by and biographies about Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, respectively. Notes that both have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality, and that attached materials reflect those issues. Article by Singer accuses EPA of taking "extreme positions not supported by science," and cites alar and dioxin as examples. Calls on the EPA to "adhere to the established rigorous standards of peer-reviewed, published research." Some information in Singer biography is redacted. Lee article accuses EPA of approaching IAQ and sick building syndrome in a "piecemeal" fashion. Claims that little scientific evidence links adverse health effects to poor indoor air quality. States that EPA is attacking ETS, despite NIOSH findings that "correcting ventilation problems. . . Can reduce indoor air problems more quickly and extensively than trying to identify and control individual indoor pollutants." Suggests ways in which IAQ can be addressed "in it's entirety", including deterring governmental regulations until OSHA standards for IAQ are in place.

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2025498346.html

(Philip Morris files)

the :{Heidelberg Appeal Date: 23 Mar 1993

Length: 1 page

2025498346}:

ICSE -- This coalition has its roots in the asbestos industry, but has become a broad and independent movement in a little bit less than a year. We are involved with the coalition through the French NMA, but we are being discrete because some of the coalition members are concerned about a "tobacco connection".

Our strategy is to continue discretely supporting the coalition and help it grow in size and credibility...

If you would like more information on how to help support the movement, please contact Tom Borelli [PM vice president] on the US side.

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/mayo_clinic/85012786.html

To: Andy Netm From:Gill Pollard Date: 7th May 1993 Subject: PARIS MEETING I enclose Information on Date:

Length: 9 pages

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/mayo_clinic/2025498346.html

SUBJECT: The Heidelberg Appeal Date: 23 Mar 1993

Length: 1 page

2025498346

Jump To Images

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/landman/179938.html [Create Footnote]

Philip Morris' 1994 "Sound Science Project" Date:

Length: 4 pages

Split View: snapshot_pm 2025493066-2025493069

We have already seen that the Philip Morris Tobacco Company made extensive use of scientific front groups to disseminate its own version of "information" to politicians and the public. Some examples have been "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" (TASSC) and "Associates for Research in Substance Enjoyment" (ARISE), which are are just two of these groups. As recently as 1994, however, Philip Morris was still engaging in this type of acitivity. Today's document shows Philip Morris using its public relations company, Burson Marstellar (BM), to organize yet another one of these "sound science" front groups to allow PM to favorably influence politicians and disseminate its own information about the health effects of its products in Europe. PM and BM worked to hide the extensive Philip Morris involvement in assembling the "Sound Science Project" of 1994. Even the scientists who were approached for the project were skeptical of tobacco industry (and specifically Philip Morris) involvement, as this document frankly notes: "...some of the scientists have themselves raised the questions of relations to the tobacco industry as a critical issue...."

BM also noted how disclosure of PM involvement could doom the entire plan: "Please note that you must not use the outcome of ...the interviews with scientists in a Philip Morris approach to the identified scientists because that could distort and jeopardize the entire operation..." Moreover, BM worked to persuade companies other than Philip Morris to act co-sponsors of the "Sound Science Project," for, as they noted, if people detected that PM was the only sponsor of these seminars, the credibility of the scientists, and the entire project, would go out the window: "...It is absolutely vital that we succeed in getting funding of the seminar from a broader group of sponsors than just PM...because otherwise we would not be able to ensure the credibility of the seminar in relation to the scientists. And if the seminar has not got that credibility, then outcomes of the meeting will not have great value." Title: SOUND SCIENCE PROJECT AND EUROPEAN SEMINAR IN THE AUTUMN 940000 Type of Document: Telex (a faxed memo) Author: Stig Albinus, Burson-Marstellar Copenhagen Recipient: David Bushong, Matt Winokur (PM) Date: 19940617 Company/Site: Philip Morris Tobacco Company document site: http://www.pmdocs.com/ Bates No. 2025493066/3069 Length: 4 pages URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2025493066/3069 Found using search criteria: Paoletti, R (Director of Italian Pharmacology Institute)

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2028385351.html

International Center for a Scientific Ecology

Date: 11 Oct 1993,Length: 1 page

Dear Matt,

Please find enclosed some information on the famous Paris group. In order

not to inundate you with paper I have selected the conference outline and a

short summary written by Peter Lee. Upon request I have the transcript of

the presentations, as well.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385382.html

International Center for A Scientific Ecology Meeting Date: 27 Apr 1993

Length: 1 page

DATE:. 27 April 1993

SUBJECT: International Center for a Scientific Ecology Meeting

For your information please find enclosed details of the forthcoming meeting sponsored

by the International Centre for a Scientific Ecology, which will pose the question:

Is the concept of linear relationship between dose and effect still a valid model for

assessing risk related to low doses of carcinogens?

The meeting will-take place in Paris, May 10,1993.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385381.html

Paris Meeting Date: 07 May 1993

Length: 1 page

Date: 7th May 1993

Subject: PARIS MEETING

I enclose information on the Intemational Center for a Scientific Ecology Meeting to be held in

Paris on the 10th May. Peter Lee is participating. He will be sending us further Information and a report on

the meeting for the Scientific Committee which I will let you have when it comes.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385372.html

International Center for A Scientific Ecology Guidelines for the Seminar on Linear Relationship for Risk Assessment of Low Doses of Carcinogens Date: 02 Oct 1993 (est.)

Length: 1 page

[Here the tobacco companies have in their files the organization draft of a conference which has not yet occurred.]

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2028385370.html

Date: 18 May 1993

Length: 1 page

PHILIP MORRIS CORPORATE SERVICES INC

Please find attached a copy of the Heidelberg Appeal and the announcement for a restricted

international scientific seminar which will be held on May I0 in Paris.

Tne purpose of this coalition is to forewarn the authoritis against decisions which are supported

by pseudo-scientific or false,non-relevant data.

I will brief you on the background of this coalition when we meet on March 23, in Lausanne.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385369.html

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2502284041-4042.html

Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program 930524 - 930525 the Madison Hotel 15th and M Streets, Nw Washington, D.C., Date: 19930525/D

Length: 2 pages

Named Person: Abelson, P. -- Abrams, E. -- Barnes, D. -- Bidinotto, R. -- Bottcher, Cjf -- Crandall, R. -- Davis, B. -- Easterbrook, G. -- Fumento, M. -- Galileo -- Gerholm, T.R. -- Gough, M. -- Graham, J. -- Hahn, R. -- Harlander, S.K. -- Hill, C. -- Huber, P. -- Huttner, S. -- Jastrow, R. -- Kopp, R. -- Linden, H. -- Lindzen, R. -- Maddox, J. -- Miller, H. -- Miller, J.C. -- Moore, J.H. -- Rensberger, B. -- Rubinstein, E. -- Salmon, M. -- Schneider, K. -- Singer, S.F. -- Smith, F.L. -- Tollison, R. -- Viscusi, K.

Named Organization: American Enterprise Inst -- Brookings Institutions -- Capitol Hill -- Citizens for A Sound Economy -- Club of Rome -- Competitive Enterprise Inst -- Duke Univ -- Energy + Power Center -- Epa, Environmental Protection Agency -- FDA, Food and Drug Administration -- Ftc, Federal Trade Commission -- George C Marshall Inst -- Global Inst for the Study of Nat Resourc -- Gmu -- Gmu Center for Study of Public Choice -- Gmu Intl Inst -- Harvard Univ -- Heidelberg Appeal -- Il Inst of Technology -- Intl Center for Scientific Ecology -- Investors Business Daily -- Land O Lakes -- Madison Hotel -- Mit -- Natl Academy of Science -- Natl Research Council -- Netherlands Science Policy Council -- Newsweek -- Ny Times -- Accu Weather

http://**tobaccodocuments.org**/pm/2028385357-5368.html

'is the Concept of Linear Relationship Between Dose and Effect Still A Valid Model for Assessing Risk Related to Low Doses of Carcinogens?' Notes on An International Scientific Ecology Held on 9030510 in Paris Date: 13 May 1993

Length: 12 pages

Notes on an International Scientific Seminar

organized by the

International Center for a Scientific Ecology

held on i0 Nay 1993 in Paris

Author : P N Lee

Date : 13.5.93

"... Having said that, it was notable that no members of environmental organizations had been invited to the conference, so counter-arguments were often not made."

no members of environmental organizations had been invited

International Center for a Scientific Ecology

no members of environmental organizations had been invited

so counter-arguments were often not made.

no members of environmental organizations had been invited

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html

http://p4p.blogspot.com/

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution -- The George Mason University connection -- There was NOTHING "academic" or "scientific" in the tobacco-EPA reports put out by AdTI. They were political and selfish-interest (profit first! above integrity) motivated and crafted deceitfully. Greed is behind the slams on Linux and Open Source, delivering a gullible public into the Microsoft monopoly clutches, and leaving them No Free Choice alternatives. It is monopolistic predatory practices at it's historic worst.

Ken Brown

* http://www. digital-law.net/IJCLP/6_2001/authors/brown.html -- Kenneth Brown is the President of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution ... has a B.A. in English Literature from George Mason University.

Christopher Cox

* http://gazette.gmu.e du/articles/index.php?id=4667

* http://www.icasit.org/ecommerce/taxation.html -- ICASIT, The School of Public Policy, George Mason University

* http://reason.com/9704/ci .bd.death.shtml -- Christopher Cox was pushing legislation to repeal the estate tax ... Richard Wagner, chairman of George Mason University's economics department, estimated that estate taxes

S. Fred Singer

* http://www.sepp.org/bi os/singer/biosfs.html -- distinguished research professor at George Mason University

* http://www.sepp.org/bio s/singer/cvsfs.html -- Institute for Humane Studies, at George Mason University 1994-

* http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html< /A> -- In January 1995, the Science & Environmental Policy Project moved to Fairfax, joining Atlas, the Institute for Humane Studies, The Locke Institute, and the Center for Market Processes at "4084 University Drive" near George Mason University. Atlas provided a grant to IPPS to facilitate the move and help fund the organization during its first year in Fairfax.

Gary Anderson

* http://econ1.csun.ed u/Economics/FacultyPhotos.htm -- 1987 Ph.D. George Mason University

* http://www.gmu.edu/centers/publicchoice/alumni.html -- Center Alumni, 1986, Gary Anderson

Gordon L. Brady

* http://www.iaes.org/jour nal/aej/march_03/ -- George Mason University

* http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipien t.php?413 -- Fellowship Research Grant, Gordon L. Brady, Center for the Study of Public Choice, Earhart Foundation

Jeffrey Clark

* http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/parttime.html -- Faculty Directory: Part Time Faculty (same one?)

Thomas Hopkins

* http://www.cob.rit.ed u/directory/bio.html?eid=50 -- Dean of the College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology, member of the Advisory Board, Mercatus Center Regulatory Studies Program, George Mason University.

Dwight R. Lee

* http://www.terry.uga.edu/~ dlee/bio.html -- has had full time tenured faculty appointments at the University of Colorado, Virginia Tech University, George Mason University, and the University of Georgia where he has been the Ramsey Professor of Economics and Private Enterprise since 1985.

Robert D. Tollison

* http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/economics/btollison/biography.html -- is the Robert M. Hearin Professor of Economics in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Mississippi ... has served on the faculties at ... George Mason University, ... as Director of the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason (1984-1998). He also held endowed chair at ... George Mason Universit[y].

Richard Wagner

* http://w ww.gmu.edu/departments/economics/facultybios/wagn.htm -- Hobart R. Harris Professor of Economics, is the Graduate Director of the Economics Department, joined the faculty of George Mason University in 1988, after having held positions ... Auburn University.

* http://www.indep endent.org/tii/tii_info/advisors.html -- Board of Advisors, Independent Institute

* http://www.limitedgovernm ent.org/wagner.html -- is the Holbert R. Harris Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia where he has taught since 1988.

Richard Vedder (Other, not GMU)

* http://www.limitedgovernm ent.org/vedder.html -- National Academic Advisory Board (with Wagner).

Mark Thornton (Other, not GMU)

* http://www.mises.org/faculty.asp< /A> -- Senior Faculty, Mises Institute, mthornton@mises.org

Malcolm Ross (SEPP, not GMU)

http://www.gswweb.org/mi nutes/GSW1995.htm -- Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

* http://www.consumeralert.o rg/info/staff.htm -- Advisory Council, Consumer Alert

Gerhard Stohrer (SEPP, not GMU)

* http://www.sepp.org/artcomm/ 1994.html -- July, in Chemical & Engineering News (7/18/94) "A pause on environmental policy," letter to the editor by Dr. Gerhard Stohrer and Dr. Frederick Seitz, mentions SEPP.

The Web behind the people behind AdTI's phoney tobacco whitecoats reports:

Organizations sharing the Institute of Humane Studies address (4084 University Drive, Suite 101, Fairfax, VA)

* http://www.wrlc.org/gmason.htm -- Institute for Humane Studies, 4084 University Drive, Suite 101, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 934-6920

* http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html< /A> -- SEPP/Science & Environmental Policy Project

* http://www.atlasusa.org/directory/institute_profile.php?ref er=directory&org_id=101 -- Atlas Economic Research Foundation, 4084 University Drive, Suite 103, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 934-6969

* http://publi cchoice.info/TullockTales/LibertyFundConf.pdf -- The Locke Institute, 4084 University Drive., Suite 103, Fairfax, VA 22030, 703-934-6934 Fax: 703-934-6927

* http://www.free- 4u.com/koch_summer_fellow_program.htm -- Koch Summer Fellow Program, 4084 University Drive, Suite 101, Fairfax VA 22030-6812, 703/934-6920 or 800/697-8799, FAX: 703/352-7535

The Moneybags behind the people behind AdTI's phoney tobacco whitecoats reports

Koch Industries (and Scaife) connections to Institute for Humane Studies and George Mason University

* http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/displ ay_recipients_by_charles_koch_total.htm -- 1) George Mason University Foundation, Inc. $14,048,850, 7) George Mason University $1,042,605, 11) Institute for Humane Studies $534,000, 14) Mercatus Center $400,000, 33) Atlas Economic Research Foundation $40,000, 52) John Locke Foundation $17,000.

* http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/display _recipients_by_david_koch_total.htm -- 7) Institute for Humane Studies $2,100,000, 10) George Mason University $1,400,000, 25) George Mason University Foundation, Inc. $350,000.

* http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/display_reci pients_by_lambe_total.htm -- (KOCH) 3) George Mason University $2,311,149, 4) George Mason University Foundation, Inc. $2,074,893, 12) Institute for Humane Studies $455,000, 43) Atlas Economic Research Foundation $28,500, 52) John Locke Foundation $15,000, 54) Alexis de Tocqueville Institution $12,500.

* http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/displ ay_recipients_by_sarah_scaife_total.htm -- 20) George Mason University Foundation, Inc. $2,670,000, 41) George Mason University $1,656,000, 70) Atlas Economic Research Foundation $920,000, 96) Institute for Humane Studies $520,000.

* http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/display_r ecipients_by_carthage_total.htm -- (SCAIFE) 14) Atlas Economic Research Foundation $855,000, 38) Institute for Humane Studies $430,000, 116) George Mason University Foundation, Inc. $75,000.

* http://www.theihs.org/ people.php/75934.html -- John Hasnas is an associate professor of law at George Mason University ... Between 1997 and 1999, Professor Hasnas served as assistant general counsel to Koch Industries, Inc. in Wichita, Kansas.

* http://www.theihs.org/ pdf/materials/502.pdf

* http://www.kochind .com/newsroom/bio_detail.asp?ID=1 -- Charles G. Koch, chairman of the Institute for Humane Studies, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, on the board of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and as a member of the Mont Pelerin Society.

* http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazines/1999-07/staffingup.html -- The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation has announced that Wayne Gable is the foundation’s new president. Currently the managing director for federal affairs at Koch Industries, Mr. Gable has also worked as the president of the Center for Market Processes, Tax Foundation, and Citizens for a Sound Economy. In addition, the foundation’s vice president, Victoria Hughes, will be leaving to establish the Bill of Rights Institute, a nonprofit organization that will focus on educating high school students and teachers. Joining the foundation as vice president will be Kelly Young. Mr. Young has worked at the Koch Foundation and is currently assistant dean for special projects at George Mason University School of Law.

* http://bov.gmu.edu/fink.html -- Richard Fink of Centreville is executive vice president and a member of the board of directors of Koch Industries, Inc., in Washington, D.C. A member of George Mason's economics faculty from 1980 to 1986, he was founder and director of the Center for Market Processes (now part of the Mercatus Center). He also served as executive vice president for advancement and planning at George Mason in 1989-90. On the Board of Visitors, Fink is Vice Chair of the Faculty and Academic Standards Committee and serves on the Student Affairs Committee. Founder and former president of Citizens for a Sound Economy in Washington, D.C., Fink is a trustee and former president of the Charles G. Koch and Claude R. Lambe charitable foundations, and serves on a number of boards, including the George Mason University Foundation, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, and George Mason's Center for Study of Public Choice.

* http://www.mercat us.org/people.php/143.html?menuid=1 -- Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Richard Fink

* http://www.iwf.org/ab out_iwf/pfotenhauer.asp -- Independent Women's Forum President, Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer joined IWF in 2001 from Koch Industries, where she was director of the Washington Office. ... holds a bachelor's degree in economics from the University of Georgia and a Masters of Arts degree in economics from George Mason University.

* http://tobaccodocu ments.org/pm/2025528294-8299.html -- (1991 estimated date) Candace Crandall Executive Vice President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). SEPP will co-sponsor a conference with George Mason University in May on scientific integrity in the political process. Crandall has arranged for a number of prominent scientists to be participants, including Dr. Bernard Davis of Harvard University and Sir William Mitchell of Oxford University. Crandall is Dr. Fred Singer's wife.

===

S. Fred Singer -- Nightline

===

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3207&method=full

Another highly visible skeptic, S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Singer recent acknowledged that his institute, The Science and Environment Policy Project (SEPP), is partially funded by Exxon.

Singer's defense is that his scientific position on global atmospheric issues predates that funding and has not changed because of it.

http://www.informationgenius.com/encyclopedia/s/se/sepp.html

Critics have noted its past ties with "cult leader" Rev. Moon, implying that its positions are based on Moon's conservative political ideology rather than science. They also point to SEPP's receipt of funding from the fossil fuel industry, implying this funding taints its independence.

SEPP received startup funding and a one-year donation of office space from the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a now-defunct think tank affiliated with Moon's Unification Church.[1] SEPP has subsequently dissociated itself from Moon's organization, strengthening its links with the conservative Virginia-based George Mason University. However, Singer remains a frequent columnist for the Washington Times, a publication owned by the Unification Church.

In 1998, SEPP received a $10,000 donation from ExxonMobil [1]. According to the Clearinghouse for Environmental Education, Advocacy and Research (CLEAR), a research project formerly affiliated with the Environmental Working Group, Singer:

"has extensive ties to fossil fuels industries. On a Nightline program in February, 1994, it was revealed that Singer has accepted 'consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun Oil.' According to Ozone Action, an environmental organization, SEPP has also received funding from Monsanto, Philip Morris, and Texaco. Singer appeared as a witness during a 1995 Congressional ozone depletion hearing, claiming to have published several peer-reviewed papers on his theories about the huge ozone hole over the South Pole. When Congressional staff checked his references, they found that Singer's only published work on ozone depletion during the past 20 years had been one letter to the editor of SCIENCE magazine, and two articles in magazines that are not peer reviewed."[1]

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/12/gw_chart.html

Fred Singer A former University of Virginia professor and former chief scientist for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of a half-dozen preeminent doubters of ozone depletion and global warming science. Singer claims science skeptics like him are being silenced by a conspiracy of feds, enviros, and liberal journalists. Today he heads the Science and Environmental Policy Project, advises several corporate-funded science mills, and rails against global warming science. For this he's amply rewarded: In 1994 Nightline revealed that Singer has accepted consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal, and Sun Oil.

Staff Member of:

Science and Environmental Policy Project, Director

Board Member of:

American Council on Science and Health, Board of Scientific and Policy Advisors

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, Scientist Advisor

Cato Institute, Editorial Advisory Board

Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), Board of Advisors

National Policy Forum, Member of Environment Committee

Science and Environmental Policy Project, Board of Directors

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Science%20and%20Environmental%20Policy%20Project

Critics have noted its past ties with "cult leader" Rev. Moon The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, implying that its positions are based on Moon's conservative political ideology rather than science. They also point to SEPP's receipt of funding from the fossil fuel industry, implying this funding taints its independence.

SEPP received startup funding and a one-year donation of office space from the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a now-defunct think tank affiliated with Moon's Unification Church.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/unification/image.htm

SEPP has subsequently dissociated itself from Moon's organization, strengthening its links with the conservative Virginia-based George Mason University. However, Singer remains a frequent columnist for the Washington Times, a publication owned by the Unification Church.

In 1998, SEPP received a $10,000 donation from ExxonMobil

http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html. According to the Clearinghouse for Environmental Education, Advocacy and Research (CLEAR), a research project formerly affiliated with the Environmental Working Group, Singer: "has extensive ties to fossil fuels industries. On a Nightline program in February, 1994, it was revealed that Singer has accepted 'consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun Oil.' According to Ozone Action, an environmental organization, SEPP has also received funding from Monsanto, Philip Morris, and Texaco. Singer appeared as a witness during a 1995 Congressional ozone depletion hearing, claiming to have published several peer-reviewed papers on his theories about the huge ozone hole over the South Pole. When Congressional staff checked his references, they found that Singer's only published work on ozone depletion during the past 20 years had been one letter to the editor of SCIENCE magazine, and two articles in magazines that are not peer reviewed. "http://web.archive.org/web/20011031010631/www.exxonmobil.com/contributions/public_info.html.http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/view/CV_Vol4_No16.html

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/SEPP

SEPP's views are either self-published or appear in the mainstream press rather than in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As a result, scientists who publish in the peer-reviewed literature have had little comment about SEPP's claims.

Critics have noted its past ties with "cult leader" Rev. Moon The Reverend Sun Myung Moon, implying that its positions are based on Moon's conservative political ideology rather than science. They also point to SEPP's receipt of funding from the fossil fuel industry, implying this funding taints its independence.

SEPP received startup funding and a one-year donation of office space from the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a now-defunct think tank affiliated with Moon's Unification Church

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/unification/image.htm SEPP has subsequently dissociated itself from Moon's organization, strengthening its links with the conservative Virginia-based George Mason University. However, Singer remains a frequent columnist for the Washington Times, a publication owned by the Unification Church.

In 1998, SEPP received a $10,000 donation from ExxonMobil

http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/0012/0668.html

Among the skeptics, Dr. S. Fred Singer stands out for being consistently

forthcoming about his funding by large oil interests. On a 1994 appearance

on the television program Nightline, Singer did not deny having received

funding from the Reverend Sun Myung Moon (to whose newspaper, The Washington

Times, he is a regular contributor and whose organization has published

three of his books). Nor has he apologized for his funding from Exxon,

Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil. Singer’s defense is that his scientific

position on global atmospheric issues predates that funding and has not

changed because of it.

http://implants.clic.net/tony/Article/016.html

Science and Environmental Policy Project

The Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), run by former University of Virginia professor Dr. S. Fred Singer, has extensive ties to fossil fuels industries. On a Nightline program in February, 1994, it was revealed that Singer has accepted "consulting fees from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun Oil." According to Ozone Action, an environmental organization, SEPP has also received funding from Monsanto, Philip Morris, and Texaco. Singer appeared as a witness during a 1995 Congressional ozone depletion hearing, claiming to have published several peer-reviewed papers on his theories about the huge ozone hole over the South Pole. When Congressional staff checked his references, they found that Singer's only published work on ozone depletion during the past 20 years had been one letter to the editor of SCIENCE magazine, and two articles in magazines that are not peer reviewed. Singer is a regular columnist in the Washington Times, a publication owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's far right Unification Church, where he has written many articles on climate change issues. In fact, Rush Limbaugh claims to get his information about the ozone depletion from sources that have been traced back to Singer (Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly, #522, November 28, 1996).

http://www.stopesso.com/pdf/exxon_denial.pdf

1992:

Exxon was a prominent member of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which until early 2002 was the most outspoken and confrontational lobby group battling global commitments to emissions reductions. (See information about front groups in part III) In 1992 the GCC began using well-known climate skeptics like Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and Fred Singer (all partly funded by Exxon) as "experts" at press conferences in its attempts to undermine the credibility of accepted climate science and the findings of the IPCC.7

In February at a press conference in New York City, the GCC used professional skeptic Fred Singer to attack the IPCC science during the fifth session of negotiations (INC 5). The GCC also issued a briefing entitled "Stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions would have little environmental benefit," in which it cited climate skeptic Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.8

That same year, Flannery was quoted by the World Coal Institute in a briefing for climate negotiators: "because model-based projections are controversial, uncertain, and without confirmation, scientists are divided in their opinion about the likelihood and consequences of climate change."9 Flannery ignored the fact that more than 2,000 scientists in the IPCC believed that the Earth would warm at rates that were unprecedented over the period of human history.

ExxonMobil - Funding the Skeptics

One of the most high profile skeptics in the climate change debate, S. Fred Singer, has recently denied receiving any oil company money, and claimed that his consulting for oil companies was solely "on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago."59 Yet Exxon’s own documents60 show that in 1998, the company gave a grant of $10,000 to the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), of which Singer is the founding president, and another $65,000 to the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which promotes and supports Singer’s work.61 In addition, in the past Singer has acknowledged receiving funding from Exxon.62

According to the Wall Street Journal63, ExxonMobil also funds the ultra-conservative and anti-environmentalist Frontiers of Freedom Institute, of which Singer is a staff member. Frontiers of Freedom was cited in the American Petroleum Institute (API) 1998 Global Science Communications Action Plan as a possible organization to help operationalize their anti- Kyoto strategy, to be funded by API and others in the fossil fuel industry.64

Singer has a history of public attacks on the integrity of the IPCC process.65 He has fabricated quotes from the former chair of the IPCC, Dr. Bert Bolin, in an attempt to suggest that Dr. Bolin had changed his mind about climate change.66 Singer was also the mastermind behind a Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) project that took fifty Republican students from the United States, trained in the skeptics’ arguments, to the climate negotiations in Bonn in 2001, to demonstrate in favor of Bush’s abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol.67 CFACT was also listed in the 1998 API plan mentioned above.

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html

820 bak

2NDHANDSMOKE

secondhand smoke was where tobacco co's perfected doubt strategy?

note color below

promoted to primary 12/15

see CA prop 65 1998

it was the 2nd round after historic lawsuit?

RICO countered by voodoo TP:

EPA had (sole?) regulatory jurisdiction? became a target for DOUBT

EPAwatch bonner cohen

oreskes sum

Chapter 5 – What’s Bad Science? Who Decides? The Fight over Secondhand Smoke

When the EPA took steps to limit indoor smoking, Fred Singer joined forces with the Tobacco Institute to challenge the scientific basis of secondhand smoke’s health risks. But they didn’t just claim that the data were insufficient; they claimed that the EPA was doing “bad science”. They began to discredit the EPA in general.

Wide ranging studies showed the effects of secondhand smoke in the USA, Germany, Japan and others despite other differences in lifestyle, diet and the like. The EPA called the weight of evidence “conclusive”. Both Fred Seitz and Fred Singer denied it.

In 1990 Singer had created his SEPP to “promote ‘sound science’ in environmental policy” which meant in part to defend the tobacco industry in collaboration with APCO Associates, the public relations firm hired by Philip Morris for their secondhand smoke campaign. Singer launched a full-frontal assault claiming that the science done at the EPA was “junk”, taking “extreme positions not supported by science” and claiming that they “could not rule out other factors … such as diet, outdoor air pollution, genetics, prior lung disease, etc.”. WHAT BOUT?] Why would the EPA “rig” the statistics for a 90% confidence level instead of 95%? Singer’s answer: Controlling smoke would lead to greater regulation in general. [Remember those Commies under the bed? ;-) ]

The EPA had considered and ruled out other factors and recognized that some of them contributed to cancers but the statistical evidence was overwhelming the secondhand smoke was an added risk. Singer must have understood this but he was not practicing science, he was attacking it, apparently with ideological motivation, that regulating smoke was the foot in the door for more regulation, putting individual liberty at stake. The tobacco industry published a book titled “Bad Science: A Resource Book” based in part on Singer’s work. Nearly all quotes in the book were unsubstantiated assertions presented as fact. The Bad Science strategy was to plant complaints in op-ed pieces, in letters to the editor and in articles in mainstream journals (not scientific journals) to whom they’d supplied the “facts” and then quote them as if they really were facts.

The fact that Singer was recycling arguments from earlier debates about nuclear power and pesticides, and his defense of acid rain and CFCs suggests that none of this was about secondhand smoke but was rather about his hostility to regulation, the road to Socialism, the very thing the Cold War was fought to defeat. At the root was free market fundamentalism.

Citizens for a Sound Economy

CSE, one of the third-party ‘anti-tax’ tobacco industry partners, was a think tank dedicated to free market economics. CSE (which split into AFP and FreedomWorks in 2004) was co-founded in 1984 by David Koch, of Koch Industries, and Richard Fink, former professor of economics at George Mason University, who has worked for Koch Industries since 1990.3 ,51 CSE supported the agendas of the tobacco and other industries, including oil, chemical, pharmaceutical and telecommunications, and was funded by them.52 In 2002, before Tea Party politics were widely discussed in the mainstream media, CSE started its US Tea Party (http://www.usteaparty.com) project, the website of which stated ‘our US Tea Party is a national event, hosted continuously online and open to all Americans who feel our taxes are too high and the tax code is too complicated.’53 Between 1991 and 2002 the tobacco companies, mainly Philip Morris, provided CSE with at least US$5.3 million (see online supplementary table S3). Philip Morris gave CSE US$250 000 annually in the early 1990s to start six state chapters.41

Philip Morris (PM) designated CSE a ‘Category A’ public policy organisation for funding.54 ‘Category A’ organisations were ‘the largest and most important/sustained relationships’ that were assigned a ‘PM senior relationship manager’ to put them at the ‘centre of a network of information-sharing among PM people involved with the organisation’ and ‘[assure] systematic and ongoing relationship activities’.54 In response to an internal 1999 email asking whether CSE was worth its current level of funding, Philip Morris’ vice president of federal government affairs replied: They are adding this level of value. They have provided significant grassroots assistance, in the nature of several thousand calls to the Hill on the lawsuit [likely the federal RICO lawsuit against the major cigarette companies discussed below] direct lobbying on the lawsuit, some media as well as continuing a very useful level of activity on FET [federal excise tax]/prescription drugs [a proposal to expand Medicare and fund prescription drugs with a tobacco tax]. Throughout the August [Congressional] Recess they have been very active on our behalf in the field in key states with key Members.55

pac legal: For instance, it enlisted the organization (together with think-tanks like the Reason Foundation, Hoover Institute, Heritage Foundation and Claremont Institute) to write op-ed pieces that were planted in newspapers attacking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its determination that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was a carcinogen and its attempt to regulate Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). (See page 4 of this planning document.[5])

m o d

ch 5 secondhand smoke

Brown and Wm paid .5 mil to stallone to smoke in 4 films 139

sietz and singer ~ 142

scam: fake conf endrun peer review 154

1995 PM had record profits, best yield on dow 162

Secondhand Smoke, Lung Cancer, and the Global Warming Debate

January 3, 2011

S. Fred Singer

Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, is one of the world's most respected and... (read full bio)

In 1993 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a report claiming secondhand smoke (SHS—also sometimes known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) causes 3,000 deaths from lung cancer every year in the United States. Anyone doubting this claim has been subject to attack and depicted as a toady of the tobacco lobby.

The tobacco smoking issue has also become a favorite tool for discrediting climate skeptics. A prime example is the book Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, which attacks several well-known senior physicists, including the late Dr. Fred Seitz, a former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and (most recently) Rockefeller University.

Vast Tobacco Conspiracy

No matter what the environmental issue—ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc.—any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies. None of this is true, of course. Oreskes and Conway claim to be academic historians, yet they have consistently ignored factual information, have not bothered to consult primary sources, have never interviewed any of the scientists they try to smear, and generally have operated in a completely unprofessional way.

The ultimate aim of these attacks has been to discredit skeptics of similarly unsupported global warming fears. I am a nonsmoker, find SHS to be an irritant and unpleasant, have certainly not been paid by Philip Morris or the tobacco lobby, LIE DOCUMENTED and have never joined any of their front organizations. I serve on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization.

My father, who was a heavy smoker, died of emphysema while relatively young. I personally believe that SHS, in addition to being objectionable, cannot possibly be healthy. Yet people like Oreskes and Conway repeatedly try to divert attention from scientific facts by claiming I and other scientists who disagree with her on global warming are mere shills for tobacco companies.

Related Stories

Muller Attacks a Straw Man, Adds Nothing to Warming Debate

October 21, 2011

Climate Change Weekly: Bombshell Book Documents IPCC Misconduct

October 20, 2011

Republicans Choosing Environmental Extremist?

October 20, 2011

Job Creators, Farmers Struggling under California Warming Law

October 19, 2011

EPA’s Flawed Science

So what is the truth about SHS and lung cancer? EPA fudged their analysis to reach a predetermined conclusion,[st'd attack on sci] using thoroughly dishonest procedures. EPA "scientists" made three major errors: (1) They ignored "publication bias." (2) They arbitrarily shifted the statistical "confidence intervals." (3) They drew unjustified conclusions from a risk ratio that was barely greater than 1.0.

Since none of the epidemiological studies provided the clear answer they wanted, the EPA carried out a "meta-analysis," lumping together a selected group of studies. Unfortunately, this approach ignores publication bias, the tendency for investigators not to publish their studies if they do not find a positive result.

The EPA, in order to calculate a positive risk ratio, relaxed the confidence intervals from the generally accepted 95 percent standard to 90 percent—and admitted this openly.

Even so, their "risk ratio" was just a little above 1.0—whereas careful epidemiologists, because of the presence of confounding factors, generally ignore any result unless the risk ratio exceeds 2.0.

To sum up this somewhat technical discussion, I can state with some assurance that the EPA analysis—to paraphrase my former teacher, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli—is "not only wrong, but worthless."

Many Studies Cast Doubt

My assessments are independently confirmed by the Congressional Research Service (in report CRS-95-1115) and by a lengthy judicial analysis in 1998 by Judge William Osteen, [Winston-Salem, N.C.! ] each of which is available on the internet. Science journalist Michael Fumento presented, in 1993, a well-researched and eminently readable account in Investors Business Daily.

nb source: http://archive.tobacco.org/Documents/9511crsepa.html

[95-1115 SPR

CRS Report for Congress Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk

C. Stephen Redhead DIEDIEDIE! Analyst in Life Sciences and Richard E. Rowberg Senior Specialist in Science and Technology Science Policy Research Division November 14, 1995 Congressional Research Service/The Library of Congress

In the largest (in terms of statistical power), most detailed (in terms of results presented), and most transparent (in terms of information about its conduct) epidemiologic paper on SHS and mortality ever published in a major medical journal (in the May 17, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal), UCLA Prof. James Enstrom found no significant relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.

It is worth noting also that the World Health Organization, in a just-completed study reported in the British medical journal Lancet, gives a lung-cancer death rate for the United States, Canada, and Cuba of barely six hundred per year, which is only a fraction of the number of deaths the politicized EPA claims occur in the U.S. alone.

An independent study, published in BioMed Central in 2010 and supported by the Canadian National Cancer Institute and Canada's Cancer Society, found no noticeable lung-cancer effect from SHS in nonsmokers. Instead, the study found a significant effect from welding, use of paint thinners and solvents, and exposure to diesel exhaust, soot, and smoke from sources other than tobacco.

Afraid of Discussing Science

So what does this all mean? Wielding of the “tobacco weapon” regarding global warming or other scientific issues bespeaks the desperation of those who don't have any valid scientific arguments and wish to avoid public debate.

The other issue is the conduct of science and the integrity of the science process. The corruption of science in a worthy cause is still corruption, and it has led to its further corruption in an unworthy cause—the ideologically driven claim of anthropogenic global warming.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer (singer@sepp.org) is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, founding director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. A longer version of this article first appeared in The American Thinker. Published with author’s permission.

Amazon.com: C. Stephen Redhead: Books

www.amazon.com/s?...C.%20Stephen%20Redhead...%20Stephen%20Re...?

Results 1 - 12 of 15 - PPACA: A Brief Overview of the Law, Implementation, and Legal Challenges by Hinda Chaikind, Curtis W. Copeland, C. Stephen Redhead ...

Corporate Corruption of Science - C Stephen Redhead

sciencecorruption.com/ATN182/00272.html?

Oct 10, 2010 - OPINION ONLY. C Stephen Redhead. — A physiologist at the Congressional Research Center who became friends with Steven Milloy. He was ...

C Stephen Redhead

— A physiologist at the Congressional Research Center who became friends with Steven Milloy. He was embroiled in controversy over the Granvelle CRS report attacking the EPA's anti-tobacco stance. —

Some key documents

• Redhead was a physiologist working with the Congressional Research Center,

1993 Apr 20: Congressional Research Service. Mortality and Economic Costs Attributable to Smoking and Alcohol Abuse, Report 93-426 SPR by C. Stephen Redhead,

1994 Mar 8: The Report on the economic costs of ETS are presented to Congress by the report's authors, economists Jane G Gravelle and Dennis Zimmerman. This is dealing with the fairness of funding health care reform via cigarette taxes.

1994 Mar 23: Gravelle and Redhead answer a request for information as to the source of the estimated premature 50,000 deaths from passive smoking. The EPA says these number 3,000 — but this refers only to lung cancer. The figure of 50,000 came from the 21 July 1993 testimony of AMA's Health & Environment Subcommittee to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and they apparently took it from A Judson Wells estimates made in 1988.

1995 May 24:: Meeting over CRS report - [517496564]

1995 May 22: Worked on Draft report on the Second CRS workshop s with Dr Rowberg. They are formulating another CRS report into ETS and meeting with tobacco people for data. [528170134/0136]

1995 Jun 13:: good friends with Steve Milloy - [525312064]

1995 Jun: A workshop to evaluate the draft turned into a "shouting match" — The CRS had relied on unpublished, industry-funded data on workplace exposure,

and one of the sponsors, Senator Ford, planned to use it to "kill OSHA's rule"

1995 Jun: CRS Workshop Draft on ETS and lung-cancer. This focuses on three epidemiological studies not considered by the EPA - Brownson, Stockwell and (1994) Fontham (1991 Fontham was considered by EPA)

It"departs from previous CRS analysis of the ETS issue in that it concludes that:

ETS satisfies the criteria for causality in relation to lung cancer risk,

There is a discernable risk of lung cancer for non-smoking spouses (with "heavy" smokers)

possible to calculate approx 700 to 1780 lung cancer deaths from ETS exposure in US.

Says C Stephen Redhead and Richard E Rowberg did this Draft analysis, Previous reports and testimony were principally authored by Jane Gravelle.

1995 June 2: Brown & Williamson Tobacco have received a draft copy of a cover-note of the CRS Workshop's review of EPA's risk assessment on ETS, by C Stephen Redhead and Richard E Rowberg. This is a CRS internal audit, they are reviewing the original report made by their associate Jane Gravelle about the quality of the EPA's risk assessment of passive smoking. They say:

The main conclusions of the EPA risk assessment are:

ETS causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults;

ETS is responsible for approximately 3,000 nonsmoker lung cancer deaths per year in the US;

ETS is classified as a Group A ("known human") carcinogen, and

ETS exposures are causally related to respiratory symptoms and disease in children.

They also characterise the previous Gravelle & Zimmermann report as:

Previous CRS analyses of the EPA's position concluded that the statistical data relied upon by the EPA do not support the claim that ETS is a Group A carcinogen.

They then examine the evidence used by the EPA.

The report was heavily criticized for a number of shortcomings. One criticism, pertinent to the currant CRS workshop Draft, was that the EPA did not include in its analyses the data from two publicly available spousal smoking studies. Those studies were conducted by Brownson, at al. (1992) and Stockwell, at al. (1992).

It was argued that had the EPA included the data from the Brownson, et al. and Stockwell, et al. studies, it would have been unable to reach its conclusion on ETS.

It then focussed on these two studies, and included a third, the 1994 Fontham study.

It comes to the conclusion that all three of the new studies support the EPA and that:

passive smoking can be said to cause lung cancer

heavy smokers can give their non-smoking spouses lung-cancer

this probably results in between 700 and 1780 lung-cancer deaths each year in the US.

[B&W and BAT would probably have received this draft via the APCO/Steve Milloy's Issueswatch operation]

1995 Jun 13: good friends with Steve Milloy - [525312064]

1995 Nov: Reference: "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk"

C. Stephen Redhead, Analyst in Life Sciences and Richard E. Rowberg, Senior Specialist in Science and Technology. Science Policy Research Division. Congressional Research Service, November 1995

1995 Nov 17: (Faxed from CIAR) "A report to be released withing a few days.. cast doubt on ETS serious cancer risk "An early draft of the CRS report, done at the request of Waxman and Ford, came down hard on OSHA, concluding the risks are significant only for highly exposed groups such as spouses of heavy smokers

1996 Jan: /E In early 1996 the CRS had written to Philip Morris wanting to know what they were doing about underage access to cigarettes.

1996 Jul: /E An Americans for Non-Smokers's Rights (ANR) newsletter reports that Redhead told a Canadian newspaper that the tobacco industry was mis-using his report paper. He said the report agreed with the EPA's carcinogenic classificiation. [Actually, they confuse two CRS reports, one which does and one which doesn't.

Redhead appears genuine, but he initially supported Gravelle in the dubious initial pro-tobacco CRC report on ETS, and he may later have been conned by his friendship with Steve Milloy.] [2057980926]

1996 Feb 9.: S Katherine Hammond of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, writes a scathing commenary in her peer review of theWorkshop Draft of ETS and Lung Cancer (which had been written by C Stephen Redhead and Richard E Rowberg) at the CRS:

The May 24 Draft of the Congressional Research Service report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer is superficial, inaccurate, and careless in the extreme. It will require extensive revision before it is of acceptable quality to be released anywhere.

As the report is currently written, I would reject it if it were submitted to a peer-reviewed journal; furthermore, I would find this I unacceptable work from a graduate student. This document is an embarrassment to the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service. As a taxpayer , I am shocked and deeply disturbed by this shoddy, sloppy report from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.

The report reflects an inadequate understanding not only of epidemiology and risk assessment, but, more fundamentally, of science itself.

[There are another 13 pages of detailled criticism in the same vein]

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library : BY C. STEPHEN REDHEAD ...

legacy.library.ucsf.edu/.../kgn01d00;...2DFF3B8876AD624B7E501D44...?

Title, BY C. STEPHEN REDHEAD AND RICHARD E. ROWBERG, JUNE 5, 1995 (950605).; ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AND LUNG CANCER ...

GMI

Richard E. Rowberg is Associate Executive Director for Communications in the Division of Engineering and Physical Sciences of the National Research Council of the National Academies.

Select Works

"Science Advice to Congress," Dr. Michael Gough, Daniel S. Greenberg and Richard E. Rowberg, May 22, 2006

The National Academies comprise the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, chartered in 1863), the National Academy of Engineering (chartered in 1964), and the Institute of Medicine (chartered in 1971). These three organisations are made up of elected members who have established outstanding credentials in the fields of science, engineering and medicine. The organisations were also established to advise the Federal Government on matters of science and technology. The operating arm of the NAS, the National Research Council (NRC), was established in 1916 to carry out these advisory studies. The Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS) is one of the five Divisions of the NRC , and carries out a number of studies each year, primarily for the US Departments of Defence and Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the NASA.

How has your career shaped your interests in science and engineering? What are your main responsibilities within the Division?

I began my career in science with a PhD in Physics from UCLA. After spending five years as a research engineer and Adjunct Professor at the University of Texas in Austin, I began working on science policy. I spent the next 26 years with agencies of the US Congress – the former Office of Technology Assessment and the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress. I have been at the National Academies since 2002.

The shift to science policy required a change of emphasis from science and engineering (S&E) research to an understanding of how scientific and engineering developments interact with public policy. As a consequence, my interests became much broader and encompassed other areas, such as economics and political science, but not nearly as deep as is required for S&E research. Within DEPS, I am responsible for helping to manage the Division’s operations including assisting with various projects and serving as an Acting Director for various study boards.

cq researcher

cqr 1999

Secondhand Smoke Next Hit a Hazy Issue

Joseph Avallone, Joseph Yaniak and Robin Taylor have each worked for 15 years or more in casinos in Atlantic City, N.J. Avallone has never smoked, and Taylor and Yaniak quit years ago. But they breathe in a lot of tobacco Previous HitsmokeNext Hit. And they believe it puts them at increased risk of lung cancer, heart disease or other illnesses.

A number of governmental studies, including a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1993, support the view that econdhand smoke...is hazardous to health. Most Americans apparently share that opinion. In a Gallup Poll completed in late September, more than 80 percent of the 1,039 people surveyed said they believe that Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit is either very harmful (43 percent) or somewhat harmful (39 percent) for adults.

The tobacco industry disagrees. It has a handful of scientific studies to support its stance as well as a federal court decision throwing out the EPA report because of procedural and substantive defects. And despite being on the defensive, the industry has been able to fend off some regulatory initiatives and to slow down lawsuits -- such as one brought by Avallone, Yaniak and Taylor -- that seek to force tobacco companies to pay damages or provide medical monitoring for workers exposed to Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit.

Anti-smoking groups can count many successes in their fight against what the government calls “environmental tobacco Previous HitsmokeNext Hit” (Previous HitETSNext Hit). Footnote 1

On the other hand, only one state -- California -- meets the goal set by federal health officials 20 years ago of eliminating exposure to Previous HitETSNext Hit by banning indoor smoking or limiting it to separately ventilated areas. And the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) drew so much criticism when it proposed regulations in 1994 to bar smoking in most businesses or limit it to designated areas that the agency had to scrap the proposal.

In court battles, plaintiffs have only one victory -- a partial one at that -- in suits against the tobacco industry over Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit. Four tobacco companies -- Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard -- agreed in October 1997 to pay $349 million to resolve part of a class action brought in Florida by flight attendants who claimed their health had been damaged by exposure to Previous HitETSNext Hit. The settlement included $300 million to fund a research center on smoking-related disease and $49 million to the lawyers who brought the suit. Individual flight attendants can still bring separate damage claims.

Juries have returned verdicts for tobacco companies in two individual suits brought by the families of lung cancer victims who blamed the deaths on Previous Hitsecondhand smoke. Juries in both cases -- one in Indiana in March 1998, the other in Mississippi last summer -- concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit caused the diseases.

The casino workers' suit, filed in a state court in New Brunswick, N.J., in April 1998, did not claim any present injuries. Instead, they said they feared their health was being compromised by exposure to Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit. Footnote 2

Meanwhile, the scientific debate continues. The EPA is appealing the July 1998 decision by federal Judge William Osteen in Winston-Salem, N.C., to “vacate” its 1993 report on Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit. Footnote 3'

Most recently, tobacco industry defenders have pointed to a 1998 study by an affiliate of the World Health Organization as discounting the dangers of Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit. In a study of 650 lung cancer patients in Europe, researchers for the International Agency for Research on Cancer found only “weak evidence” of a relationship between lung cancer and exposure to Previous HitETSNext Hit. Footnote 4

Another 1998 report by the New York-based American Council on Science and Health, a nonprofit consumer-education consortium, concluded somewhat similarly that Previous Hitsecondhand smokeNext Hit is “a weak risk factor” for lung cancer or heart disease among adults. But the report also said that exposure to Previous HitETSNext Hit increases the risks for respiratory ailments among adults and for respiratory infections, ear infections, asthma and other respiratory symptoms among children.

The scientific evidence, the report concluded, “supports the adaptation of measures designed to reduce or prevent exposure to Previous HitETSNext Hit,” such as increasing ventilation and limiting levels of exposure through indoor smoking restrictions. Footnote 5

[1] For background, see Richard Kluger, Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris (1996); Richard L. Worsnop, “Indoor Air Pollution,” The CQ Researcher, Oct. 27,1995, p. 959.

[2] For background, see The New York Times, May 25, 1998, p. B1.

[3] The case is Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency.

[4] Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90 (1998), pp. 1440-1450.

[5] American Council on Science and Health, “Environmental Tobacco Previous HitSmokeNext Hit: Health Risk or Health Hype?” 1998.

Closing In on Tobacco

November 12, 1999 • Volume 9, Issue 43

Can the industry survive the latest battles?

Kenneth Jost

Current Situation

Clinton vs. Tobacco

A handful of lawyers in the Justice Department's Civil Division spent much of last year studying the possibility of the federal government's suing tobacco companies to recover the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses under Medicare and other federal health programs. The government attorneys were dubious, even after a team of plaintiffs' lawyers gave detailed presentations on the legal theories and strategies for such a suit.

Industry lawyers fed those doubts with behind-the-scenes efforts to discredit the statutory basis for a federal suit. But in December Attorney General Reno quietly gave the go-ahead for a lawsuit. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the tobacco companies were kept in the dark about Reno's decision. They learned of the planned suit when the rest of the country heard of it: in President Clinton's State of the Union address to Congress on Jan. 19.

“You know,” Clinton said, “the states have been right about this: Taxpayers shouldn't pay for the costs of lung cancer, emphysema and other smoking-related illnesses; the tobacco companies should. So tonight I announce that the Justice Department is preparing a litigation plan to take the tobacco companies to court, and with the funds we recover, to strengthen Medicare.”

Clinton had already personally identified himself with the tobacco issue in a way that no previous president had done. He had appeared with FDA Commissioner Kessler at White House ceremonies when the agency first proposed regulating tobacco in 1995 and when the tobacco regulations were adopted a year later. Cigarette smoking, Clinton said on Aug. 23, 1996, is “the most significant public health hazard facing our people.”

“His role has been enormous,” says Novelli of the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids. “He was the first president to take on the tobacco industry. Without him, there would have been very much less momentum.”

Industry representatives view Clinton's moves less favorably. “The president announced in the State of the Union address that the litigation would be filed,” says Philip Morris counsel Little. “That's unprecedented. Here you have an attempt to use the Justice Department to raise money.”

“If people who smoke don't pay their own way, that's an issue for Congress to address,” Little continues. “It's not an issue that's appropriate for the courts.”

Novelli shrugs off the accusation of political motive. “It's good for a chuckle,” he says. “There's a lot of political motive on the part of the tobacco industry. They still think they have a chokehold on the political process, and they scream whenever their hold is broken.”

The tobacco companies have yet to file a formal response to the suit. The case was assigned to Judge Gladys Kessler, a 1994 Clinton appointee with a reputation for pushing lawyers to settle cases out of court. Kessler has set an initial scheduling conference for Nov. 19.

Meanwhile, lawyers are preparing for arguments before the Supreme Court in the FDA regulation case on Dec. 1. The two legal moves -- the FDA case and the Medicare reimbursement suit -- represent the federal government's most aggressive actions ever against the tobacco industry. Attorneys for the cigarette manufacturers voice confidence that they will prevail in both cases, but one longtime observer says the industry privately views each of them as a significant threat.

“I don't think the industry would have spent as much time and energy trying to discredit the suit even before it was filed if they had not been worried,” says Mary Aronson, an expert on tobacco health policy.

As for the FDA, Aronson says the tobacco companies are worried less about the current regulation than about the potential for future restrictions. “As long as the FDA has authority over tobacco, the fear is that they'll remove nicotine from cigarettes,” she explains. “And if we either remove nicotine or lessen the amount, then [the companies] will have a product that no one wants to use.”

Spending the Money

When the tobacco industry agreed to pay 46 state governments $206 billion to settle smoking-related suits last year, anti-smoking groups had visions of major expansions of public-education programs. But a year later many of those groups are disappointed that state officials are not using the money primarily for smoking-cessation programs, but for a wide range of programs and government functions having nothing to do with smoking or public health.

Gov. Frank Keating, R-Okla., wants to use more than one-third of the state's share of the tobacco settlement to pay for education improvements. Michigan and Nevada are planning to use part of the proceeds for college scholarships. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers want 40 percent of the state's share to go to building roads or other transportation improvements.

The states are “treating the $206 billion as a windfall,” says cancer society consultant Bloom. “The money has a lot of potential, but it's not being realized as it now stands. A distinct minority of states are [setting up anti-smoking programs], but the rest are using the money for highways, prisons, tax cuts or whatever.”

CDC officials echo the criticism. Speaking at the National Conference on Tobacco and Health in Kissimmee, Fla., in August, the officials said that only six out of 46 states in the November 1998 settlement have made major commitments to devote funds from the settlement to cutting down tobacco use. “This raises fundamental issues about where your moral values are,” said Michael Eriksen, head of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health.

Smith's guide to research on smoking

Smoking Issue Resources

The reason behind this section is that, in spite of what is considered "common knowledge", very LITTLE is known about the effects of smoking. It seems quite clear that there is NO significant damaging result from ETS (environmental tobacco smoke, or "second-hand" smoke.

The most significant parts of the broad issue are:

That the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has deliberately and knowingly deceived the public on the effects of smoking (as on other products).

That the FDA has pepetrated the "War on Tobacco" as a means of increasing their regulatory power.

That the effect of the near-religious "War on Tobacco" has had the effect of squelching research that might possibly demonstrate that the FDA claims are false.

That smoking has been blamed for a variety of health effects, resulting in a major loss of research toward finding the REAL causes of those problems.

That the American public has been panicked and coerced into a major reduction in tobacco usage, while there is some indication that the reduction itself may havenegative health effects.

Like most people, you may have never had a chance to read actual comments from research studies. The link just below will take you to a site with a lot of well-documented research results. See if you can guess why we've never read about any of THESE studies in the newspapers or heard them reported on the TV News.

Excerpts from Smoking-related Research

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Congressional Research Service (CRS), part of the United States Library of Congress, provides nonpartisan information on any subject of interest to Congress. CRS products undergo careful review for accuracy, thoroughness, technical soundness, balance, nonpartisanship and objectivity.

Penny Hill Press

About the Products and Services of Penny Hill Press:

We offer same-day shipment of all publications of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the 741-person, $62 million-per-year "think tank" that works exclusively for Members and committees of the United States Congress. Subscribers to the monthly Congressional Research Report get same-day shipment of any of more than 1,000 studies and other publications produced by CRS for $2.75 each plus 2-1/2 cents per page. Nonsubscribers pay $47 per order (up to 5 documents); students $17 for a single document or $27 for up to 5 documents.

Penny Hill Press

6440 Wiscasset Road

Bethesda, MD 20816

Phone: 301-229-8229

Fax: 301-229-6988

E-Mail: pennyhill@clark.net

Descriptions of a few Congressional Research Service reports

TOBACCO-RELATED ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

By C. Stephen Redhead, Science Policy Research Division. January 7, 1997. 5 pages. This report presents, in table format, federal government tobacco-related activities, programs, and funding by agency. Order No. 97-64 SPR.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AND LUNG CANCER RISK

By C. Stephen Redhead and Richard E. Rowberg, Senior Specialist in Science and Technology Policy. 75 pages. In 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency classified environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a known human carcinogen and estimated that ETS exposure is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among adult nonsmokers. The Ocupational Safety and Health Administration also estimated the lung cancer risk from workplace ETS exposure as part of its proposed indoor air quality rule. This report analyzes the uncertainties in ETS cancer risk assissments using epidemiological studies of non-smoking women married to smoking husbands. Order No. 95-1115 SPR.

TOBACCO ADVERTISING: WHETHER THE FDA'S RESTRICTIONS VIOLATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

By Henry Cohen, American Law Division. Updated May 23, 1997. 16 pages. This report considers whether the FDA's new final rule restricting tobacco advertising violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Order No. 96-825 A.

SMOKING-A FACT SHEET

By Scott M. Becker and C. Stephen Redhead, Science Policy Research Division. July 25, 1996. 3 pages. This fact sheet outlines recent estimates of the prevalence of cigarette smoking in the United States. It also summarizes the health effects and health costs of smoking. Order No. 96-651 SPR.

Some reports from the Cato Institute on the Smoking Issue

Smoking, Insurance, and Social Cost by Robert E. McCormick, Robert Tollison, and Richard E. Wagner

Robert E. McCormick is a professor of economics at Clemson University.

Regulation, 1997, Vol. 20, No. 3. Published four times a year by the Cato Institute

Summary: If successful, the current "corrective tax" attack on tobacco will likely next target other public policy debates, for example, concerning alcohol use, diet, or other forms of behavior said to have social costs., for example, in a 1989 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that cigarettes are presently overtaxed and alcohol undertaxed, as compared with...

Warning: The Tobacco Settlement Is Dangerous to Your Liberty by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. July 29, 1997

Summary: by Robert A. Levy Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. The tobacco settlement is a shameful proposal, extorted by public officials who have perverted the rule of law to tap the deep pockets of an unpopular industry. In a 68-page "Proposed Resolution," the industry agreed to pony up $370 billion, submit to Food and Drug Administration...

TOBACCO SETTLEMENT NOTHING BUT A SHAKEDOWN by Robert A. Levy

Summary: In addition, tobacco companies will be assessed a penalty in the years 2002, 2004, and 2007 if the nation fails to meet respective goals of 30 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent declines in youth smoking. Therefore, a full 75-cent price hike (roughly 40 percent) would reduce the number of cigarettes sold by about 16 percent. In addition, cigarettes will contain a more dire warning (cigarettes...

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Addendum to Cato Policy Analysis No. 275 , June 27, 1997

TOBACCO MEDICAID LITIGATION: Snuffing Out the Rule of Law by Robert A. Levy

Summary: Incredibly, the act originally provided that Florida was not required to identify the individual recipients of Medicaid payments; instead, the state could seek recovery for all recipients, anonymously, as a group. Third, the state "shall not be required to . . . identify the individual recipients for which payment has been made, but rather can proceed to seek recovery based upon payments...

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Cato Policy Analysis No. 275, June 20, 1997

Do Smokers Have Rights? The Science and Politics of Tobacco On October 3, the Cato Instituters F. A. Hayek Auditorium was the setting for a seminar, "Cutting through the Smoke: The Science and Politics of Tobacco." Among the speakers were Jane Gravelle, an economist with the Congressional Research Service; Jacob Sullum, articles editor of National Review; Sheldon Richman, senior editor at the Cato Institute; and moderator William A. Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute. The views presented here do not necessarily reflect those of the Congressional Research Service.

Summary: Fifty billion dollars a year is not the increase in medical costs due to smoking. You hear that passive smoking might increase your risk 20 percent, 50 percent, 70 percent, but what you don't know is that lung cancer among nonsmoking individuals is a very, very rare disease.) A major problem is that the government pays some people's medical bills, so the costs of medical care do not figure into a...

Secondhand Smoke Facts and Fantasy

Summary: In terms of the statistical significance of the effects, 10 of the 11 studies cited to justify the regulation fail to indicate a statistically significant linkage. Overall, smokers impose higher medical-care costs of 46 per pack; higher sick-leave costs of 1 per pack; greater life-insurance costs of 11 per pack; additional costs due to fires of 2 per pack; and foregone Social Security taxes on...

W. Kip Viscusi is the George G. Allen Professor of Economics at Duke University.

Excerpts from CATO reports

Smoking, Insurance, and Social Cost

by Robert E. McCormick, Robert Tollison, and Richard E. Wagner

Robert E. McCormick is a professor of economics at Clemson University. Robert Tollison, and Richard E Wagner.

Conclusion (Excerpted)

Two clear conclusions stand out. First, the issue of nonsmokers subsidizing smokers only arises because medical and retirement insurance pools the two groups and does not differentiate between them when assigning costs or distributing benefits. Those are transfer costs. And second, taxing smokers might remove their subsidy and real externalities, but it does not help nonsmokers; it results in an actual loss of wealth to the economy. It was assumed for the sake of argument that health insurers cannot separate smokers and nonsmokers in current programs. But insurers in other markets separate risk classes by all manner of characteristics, including age, gender, health background, and job category. The fact that there are not differential rates for smokers could mean that there are no externalities worth internalizing. Smokers and nonsmokers may be charged common prices for health insurance, in contrast to the prevalence of differential pricing for life insurance, because there is no sound actuarial basis for seeking to place smokers and nonsmokers into distinct categories. And if there are actuarial differences between smokers and nonsmokers, as is assumed in the new economics of smoking, the external costs those differences entail could be internalized for about a penny a pack. Or, there might be externalities and good reason to treat smokers and nonsmokers differently in medical and retirement programs. That suggests that government regulation of insurance markets prevents such internalizing efforts. Thus it is a political, not and economic defect, that keeps smokers and nonsmokers pooled in government medical and retirement systems. Politics is the cause of the subsidy.

Warning: The Tobacco Settlement Is Dangerous to Your Liberty

by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

July 29, 1997

(Excerpted)

there is no justification whatsoever for the largest component of the monetary settlement, reimbursement of state Medicaid outlays. To fatten their own coffers, states have sued to recover expenditures for Medicaid recipients with "tobacco-related diseases" -- without even showing that an injured party smoked, or that smoking caused his illness. Furthermore, authoritative studies have concluded that excise taxes on cigarettes already exceed public costs attributable to smoking.

http://www.smith.mn/resource.html

Secondhand Smoke Information Packet

Secondhand Smoke: The Science

Secondhand Smoke: Tobacco Industry Attacks

Secondhand Smoke: Worker Health

Ventilation and Air Filtration: The Science

Don't Buy the Ventilation Lie

Visual Summary of IAQ/Cotinine Studies

Tobacco Industry Sound Bites and Responses

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Setting the record straight: secondhand smoke is a preventable health risk," Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), June 1994.

World Health Organization (WHO), "Passive smoking does cause lung cancer, do not let them fool you," World Health Organization (WHO) Web Site, March 9, 1998.

Glantz, S.A., "The "CRS Report"," San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco, [1996].

Muggli, M.E.; Hurt, R.D.; Blanke, D., "Science for hire: a tobacco industry strategy to influence public opinion on secondhand smoke," Nictoine & Tobacco Research 5(3): 303-314, June 2003.

Glantz, S.A., "What's in cigarette smoke. In: Tobacco: Biology and Politics.," Waco: Health Edco, 1992.

According to an article published in U.S. News Online, Judge William L. Osteen, who once lobbied on behalf of tobacco growers, overturned the 1993 report on secondhand smoke produced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The article stated that the tobacco industry had publicly declared health risks from secondhand smoke to be controversial, but its own internal documents "suggest that the industry had evidence for years that passive smoking was dangerous and consistently downplayed the risks." Former Philip Morris (PM) scientist William Farone stated, "The entire issue concerning sidestream smoke... has been minimized by the industry." Farone has stated that the industry has long been aware that NNK, a toxic component of cigarette smoke, is present in nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke. A 1978 survey for the Tobacco Institute (TI) by the Roper Organization stated, "[Passive smoking] we see as the most dangerous development yet to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred." A 1993 internal document from BAT Industries listed as a company goal "Conduct research to anticipate and refute claims about health effects of passive smoking." In 1981, a PM executive urged funding studies to "with the intent to publish data which refutes specific assertions by the antismoking forces." (Source: Headden, S., "Secondhand smokescreen: tobacco firms worried for years about risks of passive smoke," U.S. News Online, August 3, 1998.)

According to internal documents made public in the Minnesota lawsuit, the tobacco industry paid 13 scientists $156,000 to write letters critical of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s 1993 report on the health hazards of secondhand smoke. One biostatistician was paid $10,000 to write a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). A former government official was paid $6,000 for a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. The letter writing campaign was orchestrated by the Tobacco Institute (TI), and the law firms of Covington & Burling and Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Editors of several of the publications which received letters indicated that even when the authors disclosed ties to the tobacco industry, the editors were unaware that they had been paid thousands of dollars to write the letters. In addition, letters go through much less scrutiny than articles before being published. In many instances the letters were either drafted or edited by tobacco industry law firms. Some scientists who were paid to write letters were: Dr. Gio Batta Gori, former top official at the National Cancer Institute (NCI); biostatistician Nathan Mantel of American University; John Todhunter, former EPA consultant; and tobacco consultant W. Gary Flamm. (Source: Hanners, D., "Scientists were paid to write letters: tobacco industry sought to discredit EPA report," Pioneer Press, August 4, 1998.)

In 1996, an attempt in Waterloo, Ontario, to pass a regional smoking bylaw came under attack by council members, who cited an article that appeared in a hospitality establishment journal. The article stated that a new study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) did not find secondhand tobacco smoke to be a health hazard. Stephen Redhead of the CRS disputed this statement, and stated that, in fact, his report does not dispute the claim that secondhand smoke is a "known, class A (human) carcinogen." (Source: Jalsevac, P., "Second-hand smoke study misused, scientist says," Kitchener-Waterloo Record: B1, February 8, 1996.)

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/15/business/judge-who-ruled-pro-tobacco-named-to-hear-companies-suit.html

A lawsuit by the nation's five largest tobacco companies seeking to block the Food and Drug Administration from regulating cigarettes has been assigned to a Federal judge who ruled favorably for the tobacco industry in a lawsuit involving the Environmental Protection Agency. And as a lawyer before reaching the bench, the judge successfully represented the heir to a tobacco fortune in a stock-manipulation suit.

The judge, William L. Osteen Sr., is one of five in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina who could have drawn the case, filed last Thursday. A separate suit filed in the court by five advertising groups last week has also been assigned to Judge Osteen.

In May, Judge Osteen ruled that the tobacco industry had legal standing to bring a suit challenging the E.P.A.'s 1993 classification of second-hand smoke as a carcinogen. And in 1994, he found that the agency's ruling could be reviewed by his court.

In 1979, he successfully represented an R. J. Reynolds tobacco heir, Smith Bagley, who was acquitted on charges that he and four other defendants had criminally manipulated the stock of the Washington Group, a diversified textile concern.

The tobacco companies' current suit against the F.D.A., filed in the heart of tobacco country, seeks an injunction against the F.D.A. in its proposal, announced by President Clinton, to regulate the sale, promotion and distribution of cigarettes.

Daniel W. Donahue, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, one of those suing the F.D.A., said that North Carolina "is the only jurisdiction that makes any sense" because all five companies have tobacco operations there.

Opponents of tobacco saw a different motivation. "The tobacco companies have found a court willing to defend the Southern institution of tobacco," said Richard A. Daynard, chairman of the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, a nonprofit anti-smoking group.

"I think the industry expects to have a series of favorable preliminary rulings, and at the very least, as much delay as they can possibly get," Mr. Daynard said. "Among Southern lawyers it's called home cooking, helping out the friends and neighbors."

A spokesman for Judge Osteen declined comment.

Also, a spokesman for the F.D.A. said the agency would have no comment on Judge Osteen's assignment to the case, or on whether the agency would seek a change of venue.

Maura Ellis, a spokeswoman for R. J. Reynolds, commented, "It's not that we shopped a judge; this is the only district we could have filed suit in."

Mr. Donahue of Reynolds said that Judge Osteen "is fair right down the middle, and there is absolutely nothing to the contention that he would favor the tobacco companies." He said the judge had ruled against the tobacco industry recently in an action related to the giant class-action suit that has been mounted against the industry in Federal court in New Orleans.

Joseph P. Creekmore, the District Court clerk, said he had assigned Judge Osteen to the case because it was "related to a previous case that was filed involving regulation of tobacco by the Federal Government." He added that he had decided that the advertisers' suit should be assigned to Judge Osteen as well.

Mr. Daynard contended that it was "a strange idea that it's a related matter." He said, "Environmental tobacco smoke has nothing to do with whether the F.D.A. has the authority to restrict the sale or marketing of cigarettes to kids."

The assignment was made "according to our standard operating procedures," Mr. Creekmore said.

The E.P.A.-related lawsuit -- called Flue Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation et al. v. the United States Environmental Protection Agency et al., was filed in Greensboro, N.C., in 1993.

Mr. Creekmore said the E.P.A. case had originally been given to Judge Osteen under the court's standard rotation in which judges are assigned cases by chance. Five judges were eligible to hear that case, he said.

Mr. Daynard termed a 1994 decision by Judge Osteen "unprecedented," in ruling that his court could review the action of the E.P.A., which in 1993 declared that environmental tobacco smoke -- known popularly as second-hand smoke -- caused diseases including lung cancer.

On May 24, Judge Osteen ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had legal standing to bring suit. "That goes against clear Supreme Court precedent," Mr. Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University, contended. "I've studied administrative law for 25 years and I think they're both egregious decisions," he continued.

Ms. Ellis of R. J. Reynolds replied, "It's outrageous to question the impartiality of any judge before we've had the first ruling out of his court."

The companies seeking an injunction in the Greensboro court were the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, whose parent company is the London-based B.A.T. Industries; the Liggett Group Inc., a subsidiary of Brooke Group Ltd.; the Lorillard Tobacco Company, a unit of the Loews Corporation; Philip Morris Companies Inc., and R. J. Reynolds, a subsidiary of the RJR Nabisco Holdings Corporation. Also suing was Coyne-Beahmn, an advertising agency that said it derived substantial revenue from tobacco.

In a separate lawsuit, which has also been assigned to Judge Osteen, the Association of National Advertisers, four other advertising trade groups and a magazine publishing group challenged the F.D.A. proposal on First Amendment grounds.

Judge Osteen, 65, was appointed to the Federal bench by President George Bush in 1991. Judge Osteen was the minority leader of the North Carolina Legislature from 1960 to 1964, the United States Attorney in Greensboro from 1969 to 1973, and was in private practice from 1974 until he became a judge.

A spokeswoman for the Greensboro law firm of Judge Osteen's son, William L. Osteen Jr., said that Judge Osteen had represented Mr. Bagley.

A jury found Mr. Bagley -- a socially prominent resident of the Georgetown section of Washington who was a major backer of Jimmy Carter's 1976 bid for the Presidency -- not guilty of all charges relating to supposed efforts to inflate the value of his business, the Washington Group, in August 1979.