?
•
au
• larg .8. tudy, publi hed in Tb« American Journal 0/ Public Healtb, found no overall tati tically
ignificant link b tw n ondhand mok and lung cancer. Why did he not includ thi tudy?
" f.
TODAY, REAl) ANOT ER DE 0 T E
STORY ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE.'
Ever since the PA issued it r port about th "dangers" of secondhand �moke in 1993,
serious questions have been rai ed about the report' validity.
Her are om of tho questions:·
• If there were doubt about the report, why weren't they widel� publicized?
• Of 11 U.S. tudie u ed by the EPA, .not a ingle one conclude that there i a tati ti' Ily
ignificant overall ociation between econdhand moke and lung cancer.
What did the EPA do ,to find a link, u ing the very arne tudie ?
• Why did an article in a major ientific magazine call th EPA' report "fancy tati tical footwork"1
• Why, in it
e ment of condhand moke, did the PA uddenly di regard generally
accepted tandard of tati tical analy i ?
• it po ible the EP d id d that ondhand mok
e m nt w don?
harmful year
for th ir
To y, on th n xt two page , Philip M rri bring y
from Forbe« MeiJiaCritic ntitl d P
In n rti 1
ullurn,
v r writt n
m nt
mok rand non- m
and dr w th ir own on lu i n about th i u
f. t
I
1- ,
.. IIIUI' MORRI"'I U "'I.A,
R
,
•
1 4 Phil! Morn tnc
