This information is actually redundant, and added to the list just to increase its size and impress the reader. In fact, the EPA Advisory Board contributed to the EPA decision to classify ETS as a Class A carcinogen. A US Federal Court has vacated that classification.

Since we are on the issue, let us see some comments from "A response to: Towards Healthier Communities in Nova Scotia", by John Luik:

"...The Science Advisory Board which reviewed the initial draft risk assessment on ETS, and found the case against ETS based on its association with lung cancer unconvincing, actually urged the EPA staff to attempt to "make the case" against ETS on the basis of the similarities between ETS and mainstream smoke."

"...But second, while those involved in the EPA process are at one level open about the process, at another level they are profoundly dissembling. For instance, the EPA fails to mention that the "Group A" status for ETS was arrived at using a process that violates its own Guidelines For Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Rather than acknowledging that this suggested that both the substance of its findings and the process were corrupt, the Science Advisory Board reviewing the ETS issue argued that this suggested a need not for concluding that ETS posed no threat to the health of non-smokers, but rather a need for changing the Guidelines For Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. Given that the right conclusion must be reached and the data do not support that conclusion, one must manipulate the data and revise the guidelines governing the process and the conclusion."

"...One member of the group working on the ETS issue at the EPA is an active member of U.S. anti-smoking organizations, while the Science Advisory Board that examined the EPA's ETS work included not only a leading anti-smoking activist, but several others strongly opposed to tobacco use. Finally, the EPA contracted some of the work on certain documents related to the ETS risk assessment to one of the founds of a leading anti- smoking group."

So much for scientific objectivity. To close, let us see the Text of EPA Office of Research and Development's review of the "EPA Report" on passive smoking, as well as the Text of EPA epidemiologist's review of "EPA Report" on passive smoking. These documents alone indicate the level of political and scientific corruption going on in the EPA when science HAD to be bent to follow a pre-established political decision pursuing the over-taxation and social marginalisation of smokers. Once again, the "dangers" of ETS have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics - something the BC WCB cannot pretend not to know.