January 17, 1996
In 1993, and to the glee of tobacco prohibitionists, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report concluding that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was a Group A human carcinogen taking the lives of three thousand nonsmokers each year. These findings fueled numerous federal, state, and local regulations banning tobacco smoking in public and private places.
Last November, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a nonpartisan, independent research arm of Congress, released its findings in a report “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk.” Evaluating the EPA study the CRS concluded that “the results are not definitive” and that “even at the greatest [exposure] level [this is the case of a nonsmoking wife married to a smoker], the measured risks are still subject to uncertainty.”
Contradicting EPA's statement of three thousand annual cancer deaths, the Congressional Research Service said that “it is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to environmental tobacco smoke.” In reference to EPA's manipulated statistical analysis, which would bring charges of academic dishonesty, earning dismissal, for any college student employing similar tactics, the Congressional Research Service said, “It is clear that misclassification and recall bias plague environmental tobacco smoke epidemiology studies.” The Congressional Research Service concludes, “The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.”
While the news media devoted hours of airtime to the fraudulent EPA study, it has been completely silent about the Congressional Research Service report about the study. Tobacco prohibitionists, their allies in Congress, and “useful idiots” among the public, as well as the news media, applaud the deceitful, dishonest use of science to achieve their objectives whether it's Alar, global warming, or the number of homeless people. However, as abundant evidence makes clear, tyrants never tire of tyrannizing.
Now comes the Human Ecology Action League. They are concerned about multiple chemical sensitivity. Its spokesman said, “Perfume is going to be the tobacco smoke of tomorrow.” According to a December 27, 1995, Wall Street Journal story by James Bovard, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, Chemical Injury Litigation Project coordinator Julia Kendall said, “No one should be wearing perfume to the theater. Why should we have brain damage because people are wearing toxic chemicals?” She gave her agenda, “Basically, we want to destroy the fragrance industry.” Among the targeted products of the multiple chemical sensitivity movement: scented deodorants, aftershaves, clothing softeners like Bounce, and hair sprays. If you think no one's listening to these crazies, think again. A California court recently awarded $70,000 to a woman after a coworker refused to stop wearing perfume.
Phillip Wiersch, an environmental toxicologist at George Washington University, has called multiple chemical sensitivities “a name in search of a disease.” However, it will be a disease, and regulations will follow, if multiple chemical sensitivity wackos can convince the EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or agencies charged with enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act to manufacture a fraudulent study. With such a study in hand, like the tobacco prohibitionists, they'll enlist tyrants with guns like the Food and Drug Administration's Dr. David Kessler and Representative Henry Waxman.
While it may seem far-fetched now, if the multiple chemical sensitivity people get their way we're going to have regulations banning any unnatural scent. If you think I'm an alarmist, think back to the early 60s when the tobacco prohibitionists only wanted separate airplane sections. Would anybody have believed back then we'd have today's smoking regulations?
I'm wondering how long civility can survive. I know what I'd do to one of these multiple chemical sensitivity wackos attempting to make me wash off my aftershave.