Heresy in the ETS debate?

The American Lung association breaks rank and sings a different tune.

For evaluation and analysis, anyone like to comment?

The spin-doctors will have to work overtime to clean up the latest mess.

Is there any wonder the EPA is ignoring them?

The American Lung association has provided substantial new evidence, which would suggest previous research concluding ETS to be a deadly carcinogen and a major health risk was largely flawed. When taken into consideration the low and inconclusive results of many major epidemiology papers, the new information should prove those associations to be overstated or unfounded. Recent submissions should prove consistently the existence of ETS is likely inconsequential other than an irritant in indoor air, as common sense would dictate.

Recent submissions stating another highly significant co-founder is likely three times as high as previously believed. This allows in a re-examination of previous research, if indeed the research were believed to be credible, allowances would have to have been made for a constant exposure in ambient air. A significant co-founder in previous research, which should indicate constant exposure as opposed to incidental exposure when in contact with ETS, could not possibly be inconsequentially in the results of the calculations. Inhalation exposures to outdoor air as a major component of indoor air cannot be simply dismissed if no analysis was done to differentiate the two. A description of the health effects largely identical to those described consistently in the effects of ETS leave cause for major concern.

As we know from previous research, the value of ventilation is inconsequential in respect to indoor air RSP or the PPAH produced known to be .08% of the former. In short the common belief would be designated smoking rooms, do not offer protection from a hazard ETS is believed to have a safe level of 16.3 picograms per cubic meter of air. Supporting statements, no safe level exists. Are we all doomed or is there cause for hope in reassessing the known facts? These facts as confirmed in research widely accepted in court and Government submissions globally, as shown by one of the more popular lobbyists here. et al Repace 1999 Brook v. Burswood Casino. In a submission August 7 2005 Critical Evaluation of Lincoln Scott’s Burswood Casino Air Quality.

If as the American Lung Association contends Outdoor air is three times as consequential in health risk. The expectation would have to be other risks were largely overstated. With the overwhelming agreement as demonstrated by a ratio of 8 to 1 As explained on the ALA website a ratio of those speaking in favor of lowering the limits of particulate matter substantially. Perhaps the global panic largely created by similar proposals promoting smoking bans can be seen as simply crying wolf, in the absence of other explanations to the contrary. Additionally the 8 to 1 ratio as described could be observed as a proof, in quality as opposed to quantity as a more reliable guide. HIA Health Interventions as abdicated by the Industry financed Lobby group also known, as The World health Organization, may be highly effective in control of decision-making processes. The HIA process is impressive on the surface until you realize what they failed to disclose. The increased embarrassment potential when a theory is found to be wrong or in conflict with another, damage to credibility of ethical standards is greatly increased. Theoretic calculations presented as fact have limits, as there are only so many deaths to go around. Public knowledge created in advocacy is much more wide spread because of HIA and a huge danger is present to credibility of process and all those involved Stakeholders. As in gold rush mentality in get rich quick schemes, they rarely pan out.

The many potential components and many products described by the EPA and others in epidemiology research simplistically as cigarette smoke or tobacco smoke. An ethical malaise exists in the fraudulent representation in the research of the smoke defined as a single dimensional disease vector. This would explain the vast diversity of outcomes as a result of these studies and in perspective how much value they truly represent. In an overall inspection of the outcomes, the larger studies have consistently shown inconclusive results in ETS research.

The WHO study although the conclusions were largely ignored, the findings should have shown; when taken into perspective a margin of error the study was marginal or in respect to curative indications in children’s studies, to be a pretty good indication of the limitations of this research method. Elimination of physical science from the evaluation was deceptive. Research based in environmental controls and ingredients regulations based in product safety are well known to be much more suitable for the task at hand. Widespread victim bashing was financially beneficial to all parties or stakeholders involved, including the product manufacturers, however a strategy based in deceit is destined to fail.

Further in evaluating the credibility of the presentation included it needs to be understood; deaths formerly attributed to other sources are now possibly associated to and more likely to be caused by PM_2.5 the former associations would understandably decrease significantly. In some cases, the RR factor of these disease categories would require re-evaluation in deciding significance if any, in human population outcomes and reduced ETS advocacy relevance.

Information from the ALA website the latest research indicates the following;

Daily exposures to Particulate matter result in premature death three times greater than previously reported.

Some of the highlights of the more than 50 new studies summarized include: • A long-term study showing risk of premature death attributable to PM is three times greater than previously reported; • Studies linking daily exposures in PM with increased hospital admissions for strokes, congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD and other respiratory problems; • A toxicology study showing links between exposure to PM2.5 at levels near or below the current standards and development of atherosclerotic plaques; • Many studies elucidating the biological mechanisms and pathways for cardiovascular effects; • Studies linking prenatal exposure to air pollution with increased risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, infant mortality, and cancer; • Research showing that coarse particles exacerbate respiratory disease; • Three meta-analyses linking ozone air pollution with premature mortality and a multi-city study showing that effects are not due to temperature; • Intervention studies showing that reductions in air pollution yield measurable improvement in children’s respiratory health and reduction in premature deaths; and • Policy analyses showing the need for strong annual and daily fine particle standards to protect susceptible populations and provide equivalent levels of protection to different regions of the country. Links to the full articles or abstracts are provided. A copy of the bibliography is attached.

Attached files

2005 Research Highlights: Air Pollution and Health			( 1-32-2005 2005 Health studies final.pdf 357.56 KB )
Highlights of 2005 Health Studies on PM and Ozone
	ALA Testimony at Chicago Public Hearing	( ALA testimony Chicago Public Hearing PM NAAQS 3082006.doc 55.00 KB )
	Testimony of Janice Nolen 3-8-06
	Testimony of George Thurston	( EPA_GDT_testimony061.doc 106.00 KB )
	4-6-05 testimony at Philadelphia public hearing

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE D. THURSTON, Sc. D.

TO THE

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PM_2.5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Holiday Inn Historic District

400 Arch St.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

RE: THE NEED TO MORE STRINGENTLY CONTROL PM_2.5 AIR POLLUTION THAN PROPOSED BY THE EPA ON JANUARY 17, 2006

MARCH 8, 2006

. "In fact, the increased risk of lung cancer from air pollution in polluted U.S. cities was found in this study to be comparable to the lung cancer risk to a non-smoker from living with a smoker."