Email conversations with James Repace



*************
Dear Mr Repace,
Over the last couple of years I have been actively engaged in reviewing the science of passive smoking/ETS and your name repeatedly comes up as a reference to it has to be said any 'anti smoking/tobacco ' so called research. The more I delve the more I see how the lie, for that is what it is has come about. It has to be said that the Drug Companies worldwide have been even more dishonest than formerly the Tobacco Companies were, and following on from that anyone who 'prostitutes' their professional integrity is no better.
I have read some of the ludicrous claims you have made and how you dismiss anything that doesn't fit the agenda of Big Pharma, which is of course to sell smoking cessation products. This of itself is bordering on fraudulent given these products at best have a success rate of only 14%, or to put it another way, a failure rate of 86%.
The anti smoking lobby were of course given a real boost with the Surgeon Generals report. However even a cursory glance at the detail shows the press and media releases as complete fabrication, but as always the public will just believe the headline which is the Art of the confidence trickster, very few will look at the detail. How it has become apparent that Scientists with integrity are now starting to question the outright lies being told, even when they are part of the anti smoking movement. You will I am sure be aware of Dr Michael Siegel a man who has campaigned for many years in favour of bans. The link below dissects the claims of the Surgeon Generals report; READ
Is it not time you finally acknowledge the lies you tell about passive smoking/ets, because 'scientific omission's are still lies. You cannot ignore organisations such as the OHSA, the EPA and the WHO, who all show in their research, ETS is at best an irritant. I am not a scientist but I understand how read and dissect research, and have seen consistently that the so called research which is used to highlight 'the dangers' of passive smoking, only highlight how innocuous it really is, and with the invention and development of Plasmacluster Ion Technology which has now been around for 6 years and is approved by Asthma Societies from America, through Britain and Australia and has been tested in some of the worlds top Medical Research centres in Oxford,England, Germany and Japan, your claims about Tornado size winds are clearly even more ludicrous than they were when you first sited them.
In short Mr Repace it is time you stopped deceiving the Public and Governments with your 'misrepresentation of the science.' Just own up, and admit you are just in it for the money.
R.Feal-Martinez
Carpenters Arms Motel
*************
From: repace
To: r.feal-martinez
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Passive Smoking
Dear Mr. Martinez, you state "that you are not a scientist" but yet you feel you know how to read and dissect research?
*************
Dear Mr Repace,
I think your condescending response just sums up your contribution to real science. So because I am not a scientist, I do not have the brain capacity to understand science?. Interesting assessment, but hardly scientifically arrived at. By inference you are then saying that Governments containing mostly lay people are unable to understand science and thus anything you 'feed' them will be acceptable, because you know best.
As a none scientist Mr Repace I am more than happy to debate this subject with you on live television. With my limited intellect you should win the debate hands down. However I am sure you will consider it beneath you to engage with such an intellectual pigmy.
Let me just ask you what a 1.25 Relative Risk means in scientific terms, because that is the average risk of all the scientific studies on ETS, including the WHO's Boffetta study, but of course being a scientist you will know that, could that be the reason why you and others choose to refer to percentage risk, such as 25%. Afterall mere mortals like me would assume that meant 1 in 4 wouldn't we?
R.Feal-Martinez FBII
*************
From: repace
To: r.feal-martinez
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Passive Smoking
Dear Mr. Feal-Martinez, you claim that I am a liar, although you don't know me and apparently have not read any of my work. And you call me arrogant and condescending? Feel free to send in a letter to the editor of any journal I've published in, dissecting my "lies." Otherwise, go away.
*************
Dear Mr Repace,
Are you for real. So this article is scientific and proves your case. They've worked in the environment for 25 years, so one assumes out of choice. So they may die of lung cancer in 2 years, do they have lung cancer. I think you expose your failings Mr Repace you are clearly devoid of any scientific credible knowledge or you would not use news reports to support your hypothesis that ETS causes anything other than irritation. Oh and just as an aside did you look up Plasmacluster Ion Technology.
R.Feal-Martinez FBII
*************
From: repace
To: r.feal-martinez
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Passive Smoking
check it out: http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_306172819.html
*************
Dear Mr Repace,
You make yet another unsubstantiated comment. I have read your work, and it is laughable in the extreme. Your analysis is so blatantly unscientific I wonder how you manage to con so many people into believing what you say. Your claims are lies pure and simple. Feel free to sue me. I have and will copy my emails to third parties to give you your evidence.
R,Feal-Martinez
*************
From: repace
To: r.feal-martinez
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Passive Smoking
" so one assumes out of choice" ? They chose lung cancer? Really? IMBECILE!
*************
From: repace
To: r.feal-martinez
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Passive Smoking
I did look up plasma: no claims were made for ETS.
I'm tired of your bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. get lost asshole.
*************
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 08:06:24 -0000
Dear Mr Repace,
Clearly you cannot read the English language, the report doesn't say the person has lung cancer just that they could be dead in 2 years from it. If the person doesn't have it and continues to work there then they are making a choice. People like you have been banging on about Passive Smoking/ETS for 30 years. Therefore anyone working in such an environment is clearly making conscious choices.
People who don't want to kill themselves avoid gas ovens, those who do choose to put their heads in. Adult choices are just that we way up the consequences of our actions and choices. I wouldn't work as a construction worker in Iraq, many make that choice and die. Life is about risk as the individual sees it, it is not up to Government and self appointed guardians of 'choice' to decide for us Democracy, is about Freedom to Choose. You have no right to Lie in attempt to remove that Freedom.
You can insult me all you like Mr Repace, that is your choice. I choose to believe your a liar. As a imbecile, I clearly can't help myself, what is your excuse?.
*************
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 07:57:56 -0000
Dear Mr Repace,
I think I did myself a dis-service it is truly you who must be the intellectual pigmy to resort to such insults, not only that your inability to do little research and then conclude that Plasmacluster Ion Technology is not effective against cigarette smoke. In order to assist you I have included a number of links the last specifically mentions Tobacco Smoke.
Rest assured Mr Repace I will continue to call your so called science lies the whole time they are. I will continue to highlight the fraud of ETS and the lies and deceit of the Drug Companies and the anti smoking lobby.
Please be assured Mr Repace your name will be featured as often as I can in the media highlighting your distorting of science for financial gain, but please feel free to sue me. I take it that you do not relish humiliating me in live debate on TV. What a surprise.
R.Feal-Martinez FBII

Bill Hannegan wrote:
Bar smoke can easily be eliminated by currently available ventilation systems:
http://www.tornex.com Set and enforce air quality standards if you must, but forget these smoking bans.
Airborne avian flu is more of a health threat than secondhand smoke. Ventilate both.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
*************
Date: 3/5/06 9:51:48 AM Central Standard Time
From: repace@comcast.net (repace)
bullshit.

---

Dave Kuneman wrote:
Show me where nonsmokers are healthier than 40 years ago, or where nonsmokers in jurisdictions which have banned smoking are healthier, and then I will agree you have science that works, otherwise, don't bother to respond to this email.
*************
DATE: 3/6/2006 10:12:01 A.M. Central Standard Time
From: repace@comcast.net writes:
Fuck you, Dave.

Smoking Ventilation Systems DO Work

November 2, 2006

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I see this story -- this is an AP story -- "Study: New air systems don't clear smoke -- State-of-the-art ventilation systems used to clear cigarette smoke from bars and restaurants don't eliminate dangerous soot and carcinogens and can even push their levels higher in nonsmoking sections than in smoking areas, researchers concluded. Their findings from three restaurants in a little-studied field come just a week before voters in Arizona, Nevada and Ohio consider dueling smoking-related initiatives." The reason I'm bringing this up is because it is an electoral issue. "Ballots in each state include a tough ban on smoking in public places and a more lenient proposal -- with exemptions for bars and casinos -- backed by industry groups."

Now, the ventilation systems have been put in places in these states as tests, and the ventilation system is called thermal displacement. Most ventilation systems simply recycle the air in a room, put it through a worthless filter, and make you think that you're getting fresh air, or they flood the room with fresh air that's supposed to dilute the smoking air. Thermal displacement is entirely different. Thermal displacement floods the floor area of a room with cold air. The people in the room warm the air, the air rises, and takes the smoke and the air out of the room, out of the building. How do I know this? Because I have it. I have it in my library at home and I have it in my media room at home and I've got it in the game room at home. I got it in three rooms. And as you people know, I am a regular cigar smoker. I defy anyone, and I have been smoking in these rooms with this thermal displacement system, and it's built into the HVA system of the house. It's not a cheap thing.

These are not little devices you put around the room that make all this blasted noise. You don't even know this thing is on except for the fact the smoke's not there. It works like a dream. You can come into my library, there's a lot of fabric in there, the curtains and the furniture, you can come in and smell it, and you will not know a cigar has ever been smoked in that room. The same thing in the media room where everything is fabric for the acoustics of the room, smell any of the fabric, this is just BS. I know the guy who designed the system. I contacted him to have it installed in my place, and he's a brilliant engineer. I'm not going to mention his name because I don't want him being flooded with media requests from people trying to discredit the guy. But this is what the story says. "Unlike older ventilation systems that mainly dilute smoky air with fresh air, displacement systems use cooler air, ideally pumped in at floor level, to force hot, smoky air up to ceiling ducts.
'They've been heavily promoted by the tobacco industry' and the casino industry as a way to accommodate both smokers and nonsmokers, Repace said."

Now, look, it doesn't get smoke out of there instantly. I mean, it's not as though it's not there. But the idea that it doesn't work is bogus, and I wanted to get my two cents in on this simply because I don't like Nazis. I don't like the feminazis, I don't like the anti-smoking Nazis, I don't like the environmentalist wacko Nazis, and these people are all part of this group of people that are unassailable. They come across, they're talking in this case smoking and public health, "Well, you can't disagree with them. Why, you're challenging their integrity." These people have just as much a political agenda as anything else. They hide behind -- the agenda is either environmentalism or women's rights or health or what have you, and you're not supposed to be able to attack these people. You're not supposed to be able to criticize what they say. As I say, I'm not playing by that set of rules anymore. It's been going on for way too long. It's why we have Cindy Sheehan, a pathetic figure,
a truly pathetic figure. It's why Cindy Sheehan gets elevated to unassailable status. It's just a technique whose time has come. It needs to be dispatched.

I'm not making an argument for smoking or not, I'm telling you to question the motives of all these people who hide behind supposedly unassailable motives. "I just want people to be healthy." Yeah, you leave the bar, you leave the restaurant, you go outside and you smell all the automobile exhaust, and you get a good dose of bus exhaust and all that. I mean, how about all the jet exhaust that gets inside terminals from airplanes. I happen to love the jet fuel smell, but a lot of people don't. I like the smell of gasoline. But I mean there's all kinds of places where you are exposed to carcinogens. Hell, everything is a carcinogen these days except liberalism, of course, it's one of the biggest carcinogens, if you ask me, of the spirit and of the mind that we have going.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read

---

High-Tech Ventilation Fails to Control Secondhand Smoke

24-Oct-2006

Description: In a new study, Repace and Johnson found that these high-tech systems were no match for secondhand smoke and may, in fact, perform worse than standard “dilution” ventilation. The study looked at air quality before and after a smoking ban in a restaurant/bar in Toronto, Canada, and compared the level of smoking-related cancer-causing chemicals and toxic particles in the air of non-smoking and smoking sections of two dining/drinking establishments in Mesa, Arizona.

Newswise — What happened when James Repace, one of the world’s leading experts on secondhand smoke exposure, teamed up with Dr. Ken Johnson, a top authority on secondhand smoke epidemiology, to investigate claims that new high-tech “displacement” ventilation systems could protect non-smokers from toxic tobacco smoke in restaurants and bars? The hospitality industry promoted these expensive ventilation systems in desperation and convinced some city councils to allow smoking in dining establishments where it would normally have been banned.

In a new study, Repace and Johnson found that these high-tech systems were no match for secondhand smoke and may, in fact, perform worse than standard “dilution” ventilation. The study looked at air quality before and after a smoking ban in a restaurant/bar in Toronto, Canada, and compared the level of smoking-related cancer-causing chemicals and toxic particles in the air of non-smoking and smoking sections of two dining/drinking establishments in Mesa, Arizona.

“This study proves that dining in a restaurant or bar’s non-smoking section does not significantly reduce exposure to smoke-related pollutants, even in those few establishments that use these sophisticated, expensive ventilation systems,” says Repace, who is Adjunct Professor at Tufts University School of Medicine and a secondhand smoke consultant. “Smoking bans remain the only viable option that protects the health of non-smokers and hospitality workers.”

Since a hospitality industry-funded study was being heavily promoted to ventilation engineers as proving the efficacy of these systems, Repace and Johnson decided to publish their contrary results in a ventilation society journal devoted to discussion of practical solutions to indoor air quality problems. The study is the lead technical article in the Fall 2006 issue of IAQ Applications, a peer-screened journal of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (published online October 31).

Johnson, Research Scientist/Epidemiologist with the Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control, the Public Health Agency of Canada, is one of the world's leading experts in breast cancer from secondhand smoke. His work provided the foundation for a report by the State of California, which found that secondhand smoke nearly doubles breast cancer risk. Repace, whose groundbreaking research on secondhand smoke led to the Environmental Protection Agency’s policy interest in indoor air pollution, recently published a widely quoted study demonstrating that the level of cancer-causing particles in smoke-filled bars is much higher than it is on diesel truck-choked highways.

Displacement ventilation has been proposed as a way to allow non-smokers and smokers to co-exist, because it does not recirculate smoky bar air and theoretically removes pollutants from restaurant non-smoking sections. It has been promoted by hospitality industry associations and tobacco interests as part of a strategy designed to thwart the adoption of smoking bans. This study is one of the first to look at whether these systems provide sufficient protection.

“These exotic ventilation systems give restaurant and bar owners a false sense of security,” says Repace. “They feel they are protecting their employees and customers, even though deadly respirable toxins from tobacco smoke remain in the air.”

Repace and Johnson measured particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAHs), common carcinogenic byproducts of tobacco smoke, and respirable suspended particles (RSPs), disease-causing substances found in tobacco smoke in the three restaurant/bars’ smoking and non-smoking sections. In the Toronto establishment (Black Dog Pub), measurements were taken before and after its owner banned smoking; the Black Dog abandoned reliance on its expensive non-recirculating system after operating it for years and voluntarily went smoke-free.

RESULTS: Smoking Ban Decreased Pollutants by 60- 80% in Non-smoking Section

The researchers found that the Pub’s smoking ban decreased PPAH carcinogens by 96% in the smoking bar area and by 80% in the non-smoking dining room. Particulates (RSPs) decreased by 83% in the bar and by 60% in the dining room. Despite proper design, operation and ventilation rate, the Pub’s pre-ban smoking section showed RSP levels 25% higher – and PPAH levels 40% higher -- than in six pre-ban smoking bars in Delaware previously studied by Repace. The Delaware bars all used dilution ventilation, which recirculates polluted air, while displacement ventilation does not.

In both Mesa establishments (Macaroni Grill and TGI Friday’s), RSP levels were actually higher in the non-smoking restaurant than smoking bar sections, as were PPAH levels in the Macaroni Grill, a sign that the systems were poorly operated. While PPAH levels in the TGIF non-smoking section were 15% as high as in smoking areas during part of the study, the relatively low level was attributed to a propped-open outside door. During the one-hour period when this door was closed, PPAH levels rose to 24% of those in the smoking area.

“When we look at the findings from all three establishments, we see that even when these systems are operating properly they don’t do the job they are purported to do,” says Repace. “We also see that restaurant and bar owners do not appear to know how to properly operate or maintain these complex systems.”

The Mesa restaurants were selected for study because they were exempted from the city’s indoor air ordinance based on their managers’ claims that they could meet smoke-free standards by using displacement ventilation. The Black Dog Pub was chosen for study because earlier industry-sponsored research purported to demonstrate that the Pub’s ventilation system achieved non-smoking-area secondhand smoke concentrations that were equivalent to levels in venues with smoking bans. The earlier Black Dog study, however, was flawed because its control venues had measurable nicotine contamination – making the comparisons invalid -- and employee exposure to smoke in the smoking area was ignored.
Repace and Johnson’s findings come against a backdrop of renewed criticism of the tobacco.
Read

Can Displacement Ventilation Control Secondhand ETS?
By James L. Repace, Associate Member ASHRAE; and Kenneth C. Johnson
Various hospitality organizations and the tobacco industry have promoted displacement ventilation as a solution to controlling secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure by citing it in presentations to city councils and public meetings concerning smoking restrictions.1
This article examines these claims with research on displacement ventilation’s effectiveness at hospitality venues.
Read

November 5, 2006

First, I have read the attached Repace study, and you'll note Repace quotes ASHRE as saying that ventilation can protect nonsmokers in the nonsmoking section, but that it cannot protect nonsmokers in the smoking section. The important point here is that the nonsmokers in the smoking section are there by choice.

Most importantly... Repace readily admits the ventilation systems in the two Mesa establishments were not working properly, pre-ban. What kind of a scientist admittedly does studies on defective subjects?????

Notably absent were any data on pre-ban conditions with the ventilation shut off. Repace says eliminating the smoking does remove smoke, but we all know that. Suppose with smoking allowed, and ventilation shut off, ( kinda like in the old days) the PAHs, CO2, and particulates are hundreds of times more than with smoking allowed, and the ventilation systems working? This is plausible.

Such a study could have easily proved that the vast majority of smoking byproducts were eliminated just by having ventilation, and the RELATIVE improvement due to banning it is negligable compared to just having proper ventilation.

Methods to measure nicotine in air are widely available. Nicotine is tobacco smoke specific. If Repace want's to show the world how much tobacco smoke was removed, then he should use a tobacco smoke specific test, he did not.

Repace is famous for playing this kind of a "shell game" This is his style, this is how he hoodwinks people into passing bans. Data on how many secondhand smoke deaths were (improperly) estimated among workers, from exposures which occurred during the 1960s -1980s, when these modern ventilation systems were not yet widely used are implied by Repace to be representative of modern pre-ban conditions in Toronto and Mesa. He wants the reader of this study to assume his pre-ban data on PAHs, and particulate represent dangerous exposure levels, yet provides no comparison data even suggesting his pre-ban measurements represent dangerous exposure levels. He then says exposure was less post-ban. That's obvious, but does it really represent a health improvement??? he does not address that either.

Recently, I sent you my analysis MORE http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/casinoworkers.html from Pritsos, et. al, the University of Nevada, which, as you'll recall, showed the vast majority of nonsmoking casino workers had virtually nil tobacco smoke biomarkers in their plasma. For a worker with a serum continine level of 0.01 in that study, Repace is providing Black Dog measurement data finding a 60-65% drop in RSP post-ban, which could theoretically cause Pritsos's casino worker's serum continine level to drop from 0.01 to 0.004, if smoking were banned in casinos, but Pritsos's data show neither level produced any genetic damage.

David W. Kuneman
Director of Research
The Smoker's Club, Inc.

---

As ASHRAE considers this addendum as well as other addendums relating to environmental tobacco smoke it would be well to keep in mind that ASHRAE's air-quality expertise lies in the area of finding "acceptable" air quality in sensory terms. It is up to OSHA and health authorities to decide what is "acceptable" in terms of health.

It is up to OSHA and health authorities to decide whether ASHRAE standards for smoking rooms represent an adequate degree of safety for those in such rooms or for those in adjoining rooms. Some authorities would argue that there is "no safe level" for tobacco smoke since it has been determined to be a carcinogen. However the same claim could be made with regard to alcohol fumes and sunlight.

In all three cases (sun, alcohol fumes, and smoke) the meaning of the term "no safe level" is being stretched beyond the parameters of common English usage. The concept is not generally expressed with regard to exposure to sunlight or alcohol fumes because there is no powerful lobby pushing ASHRAE and other organizations to accept such a concept for those exposures. In the case of environmental tobacco smoke of course there is such a lobby and several prominent ASHRAE members have been active with arms of or allies with that lobby. That lobby has over the years repeated the concept again and again throughout the media and in political discourse that there is "no safe level" of smoke while ignoring these other exposures. It has become almost a matter of faith despite its weak underpinnings.

Antismoking groups want ASHRAE to endorse this concept so as to strengthen their basis for demanding smoking bans not just in ordinary workplaces, but in even the best ventilated bars and casinos and eventually in all condominiums and attached apartment dwellings as well. Particularly in the case of private dwellings they will need very convincing evidence and testimony to advance their case and that is exactly what they are seeking from ASHRAE on a step-by-step basis.

They tried similar pressure tactics against OSHA several years ago, even going so far as to bring suit against OSHA to force it to mandate workplace smoking standards. When OSHA responded to the main group behind the suit, ASH, that if forced to proceed that it would indeed set such standards and that those standards would not be anywhere near the zero-tolerance standards sought by the extremists, the suit was quickly dropped.

ASHRAE has a clear responsibility not to let itself and its standards be co-opted by radical pressure groups, even when such groups wear the imprimatur of established mainstream health organizations that have themselves been victimized by similar pressure campaigns in years past. The goal of reducing smoking behavior as advanced by the tool of smoking bans and exaggeration of the dangers of low levels of secondary smoke has overridden the commitment of many mainstream authorities to the impartial dissemination of accurate health information. ASHRAE should not join the tide.

If ASHRAE departs from its standard practices and singles out tobacco smoke as being the one element that cannot reach a "guarantee of safety" despite ventilation and air filtration, then ASHRAE is opening itself up to a flood of future lawsuits when individuals claim to contract conditions from other exposures for which ASHRAE has not issued such warnings. ASHRAE's credibility as a standards setting organization may not be the only thing being put at risk here.

Tobacco, ventilation, and hospitality interests have probably submitted many detailed scientific and engineering arguments in favor of alternatives to smoking bans. ASHRAE should not dismiss their arguments out of hand simply because they are "interested parties." Virtually all the information ASHRAE will hear from those in support of such bans will be provided by individuals who work either formally or informally with the antismoking lobby and many of those individual's have their entire livelihoods and careers at stake when they design their responses to you. They may pose as disinterested scientists, but in very, very, many cases they are fully as culpable of competing interests as those in the tobacco, ventilation, or hospitality industries.

If ASHRAE is interested I would be quite happy to send a few analyses of some of the higher profile studies that are being used to push the concept that "only total bans are acceptable." I believe those analyses might prove surprising to those at ASHRAE who have assumed that such information is accurate and unassailable because it comes from the guys wearing the white hats.

Sincerely,
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Mid-Atlantic Director of The Smokers Club, Inc, a completely uncompensated position with a completely nonprofit grassroots group.

---

AIR: America's Investigative Reports
JOURNALIST EXPOSES THOSE WHO MANIPULATE SCIENCE ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL INTERESTS ON AIR: AMERICA'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
Science Fiction Premieres Friday, November 10 On PBS
When scientific studies are released, most laypeople take the word of the "experts" for granted and assume that the supporting data is legitimate. But one science reporter discovered evidence that suggests there is an entire industry built around spinning science for the purpose of confusing the public while benefiting Big Business. In the 11th installment of Thirteen/WNET New York's innovative weekly series, AIR: AMERICA'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS, an investigative reporter takes on the practice of tailoring and manipulating research to fit the needs of industry groups. Narrated by award-winning broadcast journalist Sylvia Chase, Science Fiction premieres Friday, November 10 at 10 p.m. (ET) on PBS (check local listings).
Paul Thacker was not hired to do investigative reporting, but rather general news reporting for Environmental Science and Technology, a small industry trade publication. But then, he says, he came across junkscience.com, a Web site claiming to be dedicated to "All the junk that's fit to debunk." The site challenges scientific findings on hotbed issues such as global warming. Thacker looked into the background of "the Junkman" - site publisher Steven J. Milloy - and discovered ties to both the oil and tobacco industries. A further search, this time through the archives of tobacco-related lawsuits, revealed that Milloy was on the Philip Morris payroll as a science consultant at the same he was discrediting studies on the dangers of second-hand smoke in his role as a columnist for foxnews.com,
After publishing his findings on Milloy, Thacker investigated cases in which seemingly grassroots organizations promoted industry arguments on environmental issues. In an article called "Hidden Ties," he wrote about a group called Project Protect which appeared to be made up simply of concerned Oregon citizens. Project Protect advocated legislation promoting the cutting of trees to prevent forest fires - a position also promoted by the timber industry. As Thacker discovered through IRS documents, however, Project Protect was really a $2.9 million media campaign. "This 'grassroots' organization," he wrote, "has clear ties to timber corporations - an industry likely to benefit financially from legislative reforms."
Thacker's investigative reporting, he says, didn't please some of the people he worked for, and he soon found his career on the line. He says that a board member of the American Chemical Society (ACS), which publishes ES&T, objected to a story he wrote about the Weinberg Group, an international scientific and regulatory consulting firm specializing in, among other things, "product defense." Thacker's story examined a proposal made by the Weinberg Group to chemical giant DuPont - a detailed product-defense strategy regarding PFOA, a chemical DuPont uses in the production of Teflon. The letter arrived as DuPont was facing pressure from the EPA and a civil-action lawsuit by West Virginia residents who claimed to suffer serious health effects from exposure to PFOA. According to Thacker, the ACS board member suggested he was focused on "muckraking rather than reporting news," and was instructed to stop his investigative reporting.
He didn't. Several months later, he unearthed evidence that the White House tried to prevent scientists from speaking out about the link between climate change and the increasing strength of hurricanes. He says ES&T refused to allow him to follow the story, so he found a home for it at salon.com. Then, he says, he was fired from ES&T. In a written statement, an ACS representative told AIR, "...it is not the policy of the American Chemical Society to comment on conditions of individuals' employment or departure."
Funders for AIR: AMERICA'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS include Bernard and Irene Schwartz, Park Foundation, The Popplestone Foundation, The Jacob Burns Foundation, The Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation, Tracy and Eric Semler, and Scripps Howard Foundation.
AIR: AMERICA'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS is a production of Thirteen/WNET New York in association with the Center for Investigative Reporting. Stephen Segaller, director of news and public affairs programming at Thirteen, is executive-in-charge of AIR. Tom Casciato is executive producer; Scott Davis is senior producer.
Thirteen/WNET New York is one of the key program providers for public television, bringing such acclaimed series as Nature, Great Performances, American Masters, Charlie Rose, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, Wide Angle, Secrets of the Dead, NOW With David Brancaccio, and Cyberchase - as well as the work of Bill Moyers - to audiences nationwide. As the flagship public broadcaster in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut metro area, Thirteen reaches millions of viewers each week, airing the best of American public television along with its own local productions such as The Ethnic Heritage Specials, The Thirteen Walking Tours, New York Voices, and Reel New York. Thirteen extends the impact of its television productions through educational and community outreach projects - including the Celebration of Teaching and Learning - as well as Web sites and other digital media platforms. More information can be found at: www.thirteen.org.

---

Is secondhand smoke a health hazard? Three separate air quality test results prove the answer is NO
Read


More Ventilation Articles