|
Since U.
S. District Judge William Osteen's July, 1998 ruling against the
EPA, the myth of secondhand smoke hazards has joined the ranks of
other urban legends. Judge Osteen's analysis showed that this
agency had reached its conclusion prior to any research, then
adjusted standard scientific practices to validate its faulty
conclusions.
Specifically, the court found there was no substance to EPA's Carol
Browner's claim that second hand smoke caused 3,000 deaths annually
in the U. S. Judge Osteen's decision coincided with European
Community and World Health Organization studies that questioned the
secondhand theory.
The following
is an excerpt from The Washington Times "Pseudoscience
Going Up in Smoke"
by Michael Fumento (Mr. Fumento is a science advisor to the Atlantic
Legal Foundation.)
It was the farce that
launched a thousand bans. In 1993, the EPA released a study ranking
passive smoking at the top of its carcinogen pecking order. It did
so based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 American
studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring:
"Passive Smoking Kills Thousands," and editorials
demanding: "Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It's a
Killer."
Ultimately, the EPA study tells us a lot less about passive smoking
than it does about the basic dishonesty of the agency in charge of
protecting our environmental health.
For the full
text article click here: Pseudoscience
The following
is an excerpt from Alliance For America "EPA's
Bad Science on Tobacco Brings Court Reversal"
U.S. District Judge
William L. Osteen ruled, early this month, that Carol Browner's EPA
decision that second-hand tobacco smoke may cause cancer in humans
who don't smoke, was based on bad science that should be thrown out.
In a remarkable 60-page analysis of the science on which EPA's
finding had been predicated, the Court found there was no substance
to Browner's claim that second-hand smoke caused 3,000 cancer cases
annually in the U.S. Judge Osteen's decision coincides with European
Community and World Health Organization studies now questioning the
second-hand theory.
The decision was particularly damaging to Browner's standing because
Osteen was the same jurist who a year ago determined that the Food
and Drug Administration could legally regulate the use of nicotine
products.
Though it is unlikely that this trend will be, or should be,
reversed, the judge's criticism of EPA's bad science follows closely
the findings in other fields of environmental regulation by EPA in a
study by the National Wilderness Institute which recently reported
on 19 EPA scientists who are risking their careers to sue Browner
for substituting her political agenda for good science in reaching
decisions in several critical areas.
For the full
text article click here: Bad
Science
|
|
