"Background" exposure is defined as, "the incremental increase in risk above the baseline in all never-smokers from exposure to non-spousal sources of ETS, pp. 6-10, 6-12. "Spousal" exposure is defined as "the additional incremental risk [above background] in never-smokers exposed to spousal smoking," p 6-12.

It explicitly assumes that "the excess risk of lung cancer from ETS exposure is proportional to ETS exposure," p. 6-12, right down to zero, as extrapolated from the exposed/unexposed ratio of screening cotinine levels. In other words, the `traditional' exposed versus unexposed spouse odds ratio has become the spouse versus background odds ratio; THE "BASELINE" FROM WHICH THE "BACKGROUND" ETS DEATHS ARE CALCULATED IS A HYPOTHETICAL "ZERO ETS" LEVEL.

So, the unexposed spouses are not taken as the traditional 1.0 `no risk' reference; they are also considered to have a risk according to typical cotinine levels. These "background" deaths are not derived from the epidemio- logic data regarding social or occupational exposure, but in this way.

This is doubly scientifically disreputable. It is known that cancers are not produced in animals in proportion to dose, from high levels to low, no matter how small the dose. At low levels, genetic damage is repaired much more efficiently. It is also known that cotinine levels are disproportionately too high to accurately reflect exposure to particles. The EPA's purpose behind this pseudo-science is to inflate the supposed number of deaths. They want to justify harassment and persecution of smokers by making ETS appear to be a public health danger.

In addition, they arbitrarily lowered the standard of statistical significance used in the exposed/unexposed risk ratio, from the scientifically accepted 95% level down to a more lenient 90%.

They have also violated a cardinal rule of epidemiology that exposures of greater magnitude must be adequately controlled for before any conclusions may be drawn about the exposure in question. Since the alleged ETS risk is very small and a multitude of other factors, including diet, lung disease, and even pet birds, have been found to be greater, and no study has even considered them all, they have no right to conclude that ETS is the culprit.

Notice that 1060 of the supposed 3060 ETS deaths are actually ex-smokers. The anti-smokers have gotten away with inflating their figures with ex-smokers ever since the days of C Everett Koop, despite the fact that the average lung cancer case among ex-smokers of over 7 years, not just 5, is someone who smoked nearly 1 1/2 packs for nearly 30 years. Yet the EPA attributes propor- tionately as many ETS deaths among ex-smokers as among never-smokers, 1060/ 23.7 million and 2000/45.36 million respectively, and they expect us to believe that these ex-smokers were felled by a whiff of secondhand smoke!

Notice above all that there are only 550 supposed deaths among never- smoking spouses of smokers, which a deceived public thinks the fuss is all about. See what patsies the media are, to hide these facts and tell us that "secondhand smoke kills 3000 non-smokers a year!"

Courtesy of Carol Thompson 08/23/93
Smokers' Rights Action Group Smokers' Rights Action Group P.O. Box 259575 Madison, WI 53725-9575 Phone: 608-249-4568