Federal Court Rejects EPA Secondhand Smoke Study

[Guest guest]

Sat, 2 Apr 2005 14:46:50 +0000

 

" Sepp Hasslberger " <sepp

 

Federal Court Rejects EPA Secondhand Smoke Study

 

apart from exposing second-hand smoke as a fake,

this looks like an extremely interesting

precedent on risk assessment and judicial

review...

 

Kind regards

Sepp

 

 

 

<http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artid=13833>http://www.heartland.org/Artic\

le.cfm?artid=13833

 

Federal Court Rejects EPA Secondhand Smoke Study

 

Decision has far-reaching implications

Written By: Environment & Climate News staff

Published In: Environment News

Publication September 1, 1998

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

 

 

 

In one of the most embarrassing setbacks for EPA

in recent memory, a federal judge has thrown out

the agencyís landmark 1993 risk assessment

linking secondhand smoke to cancer.

 

The ruling, handed down July 17, invalidated EPA

research linking exposure to secondhand smoke,

also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS),

to 3,000 cancer deaths each year. The agencyís

ETS risk assessment was subsequently challenged

by tobacco industry officials who feared--quite

rightly, as it turned out--that the agencyís

findings would be used to justify smoking bans in

public places. Tobacco companies argued that EPA

cherry-picked data and ignored standard

scientific and statistical practices to reach its

conclusions, an opinion shared by a large number

of independent scientists.

 

The new court ruling could have a profound effect

on the risk assessments and other scientific

reviews periodically released by the federal

government. If allowed to stand, the decision

will establish a precedent that risk assessments

are subject to judicial review in instances where

they have a regulatory impact. That prospect is

nothing short of a nightmare for federal agencies

unaccustomed to seeing their scientific

pronouncements challenged in court.

 

In his blistering 92-page decision, Judge William

Osteen of the Middle District of North Carolina

essentially vindicated those who had accused EPA

of manipulating data in order to reach a

preconceived conclusion. Osteen ruled that EPA

had violated provisions of the 1986 Radon Gas and

Indoor Air Quality Act, under which the agency

determined that exposure to ETS is hazardous.

 

ìEPA publicly committed to a conclusion before

research had begun; excluded industry by

violating the Actís procedural requirements;

adjusted established procedure and established

scientific norms to validate the Agencyís public

conclusion; and aggressively utilized the Actís

authority to disseminate findings to establish a

de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict

Plaintiffís products and to influence public

opinion,î Osteen wrote.

 

Among other things, the Act requires that a

broad-based, stakeholder advisory panel--one that

includes the participation of affected

industries--be convened to review the findings of

EPA research alleging a substance is dangerous to

human health. Judge Osteen noted, however, that

the tobacco industry had been excluded from the

secondhand smoke panel.

 

 

ìFindings Based on Selective Informationî

 

 

Osteen added that EPAís findings were based on

insufficiently rigorous statistical tests and

were therefore invalid. EPA, he noted,

ìdisregarded information and made findings based

on selective information . . . ; deviated from

its risk assessment guidelines; failed to

disclose important [opposition] findings and

reasoning; and left significant questions without

answers.î

 

Osteenís ruling isnít expected to have much

impact on smoking bans already in place. (Some

California communities might be an exception,

where bans on smoking in bars are immensely

unpopular with patrons and owners.) But the

ruling is certain to discourage lawsuits aimed at

recovering damages for people claiming to have

been harmed by exposure to ETS. Plaintiffs will

no longer be able to cite EPAís now-discredited

risk assessment to buttress their claims.

 

 

No Choice but to Appeal

 

Although legal observers agree Osteenís ruling is

likely to be upheld by a higher court, EPA has

little choice but to appeal. Risk assessments are

the foundation of the agencyís regulatory action.

To have one of its high-profile risk assessments

invalidated by a federal judge for violating

standard scientific and statistical practices is

nothing short of an humiliation for EPA. It

raises serious questions about the science

underlying other EPA regulatory decisions,

including last yearís controversial decision to

tighten standards for particulate matter and

ground-level ozone. That action is also being

challenged in court, with a ruling expected in

the next twelve months.

--

 

 

The individual is supreme and finds its way through intuition.

 

Sepp Hasslberger

 

 

My page on physics, new energy, economy: http://www.hasslberger.com/

 

Critical perspective on Health: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/

 

Antiprohibition and cannabis: http://www.unsaccodicanapa.com/

 

Communication Agents: http://www.communicationagents.com/

 

Freedom of choice - La Leva di Archimede: http://www.laleva.cc/

La Leva's news: http://www.laleva.org/

 

Robin Good - http://www.masternewmedia.org/

 

Trash Your Television! - http://www.tvturnoff.org/

 

Not satisfied with news from the tube and other controlled media?

Search the net! There are thousands of information sources

out there. Start with

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.truthout.org/

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/

http://www.Rense.com/

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

http://www.padrak.com/alt/911DD.html

http://www.rexresearch.com/