EPA Study on Smoking

* Considering how much is at stake, I must respond to Robert Scheer’s recent attempt to discredit the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that environmental tobacco smoke, or secondhand smoke, is responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year (Column Left, May 29).

Scheer’s attack was based largely on a report by two economists who questioned the “statistical significance” of the studies reviewed by the EPA. Yet both economists admit they “do not have technical expertise in the physiological and biological transmission mechanisms of disease causing agents.”

In other words, they’re not medical or public health experts and simply do not understand that in research involving relatively small sample sizes, it’s the direction of the association between exposure and the disease that is the crucial factor.

The fact is, 24 of the 30 studies examined by the EPA found a positive association between ETS exposure and lung cancer, thus supporting the finding that secondhand smoke elevates the risk of lung cancer among ETS-exposed nonsmokers.

Although Scheer considers 3,000 lung cancer deaths “a very thin reed” upon which to base policy changes, public health officials strongly disagree. The evidence is in and is more than sufficient to implement interventions to combat tobacco-related diseases.

S. KIMBERLY BELSHE

Director, Department of Health Services

Sacramento

* Your editorial against smoking (June 8) makes the sensible point that an addiction cannot be eliminated by fiat. You note that the prohibition of liquor was a devastating failure. Shouldn’t the same logic apply to our futile efforts--since 1914--to prohibit other mood-altering substances?

The biggest single incentive our society could give toward curbing violent crime would be to adopt a sensible program for the controlled distribution of drugs. As noted by your distinguished correspondent Robert Scheer, “The killing in the inner cities is primarily caused by fights over enormous profits from the illegal drug trade.”

MARSHALL PHILLIPS

Long Beach

* Your editorial on tobacco pointed out that prohibition of alcohol had been “devastating” and that prohibition of tobacco would be equally disastrous. This is obvious and it brings up an obvious question. If prohibition of alcohol or tobacco would be devastation, why is it such a great idea for any other dangerous drug?

CLIFFORD A. SCHAFFER

Canyon Country