Oral Comments to CAL-EPA on Section 7.2 of External Review Draft - Excerpt: ETS and Lung Cancer

Presented March 25, 1996, Berkeley, California
by William J. Butler, Ph.D.
Principal, Biostatistics & Epidemiology

My name is William Butler. I hold a Ph.D. in Biostatistics and have been teaching and doing research in biostatistics and epidemiology for more than 20 years. I am here today as a scientist resident in California who had conducted original epidemiologic data analysis on ETS and health at the request of the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. The views I express are my own and not necessarily those of RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company.

I'm here today to show you that CAL-EPA has been seriously mislead by the analyses and conclusions presented in the two largest U.S. epidemiologic studies of ETS and lung cancer.

The Brownson and Fontham studies show no association between ETS and lung cancer, when analyzed properly according to standard epidemiologic practice. The results from these two studies are plainly inconsistent with the conclusions of the U.S. EPA's 1992 risk assessment and CAL-EPA's preliminary report.

The inconsistency between the stated conclusions in Brownson and Fontham and the patterns of association present in their data demonstrates that CAL-EPA cannot rely on the published reports of individual studies or on summaries and reviews by others such as the U.S. EPA.

First, I'll show you why the Brownson study is a negative study.

1

Re-Analysis of the Raw Data of the Brownson Study
Lifetime Never Smokers, All Respondents and Self-Respondents
Spousal Smoking