WERE YOU MISLED? THIS WEEK, READ ANOTHER SIDE OF THE STORY ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE sccomlhand smokc about the "dangers Vact sinee thc EPA isued 1993, Tpon report & validity: serjous qucslions have been raised about the Hct nrcanint thors nuc#Wons there wcrc douhts about thc rcport; why wcren Ihcy widely publicized? ahat concluded tht Of1US. &udlien by  EPA, "ot 8(ntindicnlly aiugle unr uue ignificant overIl nmocialion octiyecn ncconuhand amoke ano cnccr uaie Whnt did thc EFA (ind the very ink , anulc atudicat scientific magarine call the EFA: report Why did lancy statiatical lootwork"? auticle Wwi0r Wh% accondhand smoke did the EFA auddenly diaregard Ascr4 nicnt gencrally aunlyaia? accenledaandnnd? nintrutcn published Tlc Antcricart Jourrlal of PaHlic Hraltb, found Letge Aauu link betwrcn accondhand amoko and ovcrall statistically signil 1une licent cancr Why did tke EI'A not inelute tkia etudy? possible the EPA decided tha secondhand emoke wa s harmlul ycars belorc Hacir ettantet Eenedonc7 qqueslions (our [JI L bring" This *cek Phili Mortis row Ihe answers Uaro Eerccnlica Forbes McdiaCritic by Jacoh Sullum. Faktive Renurtin [asre Smoke Irom arlicic Magi"g Llitor ol Rrr"t Magazine This One ufalic mtost cotp rehensive aiclcs ~uu EPAs risk assessinent ol secondhand smnokc 1ouul tnc We belic that both *mokers and non-smokers should conside Uhcer lacls conclusions about thc issue und Urw (hcir 0*na sccondhand sinokE FHILICEANI CONTROVERSK FACTS Must MATTKR. IN ANY Ueuauel
WERE YOU MISLED? THIS WEEK, READ ANOTHER SIDE OF THE STORY ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE Vact sinee thc EPA isued Tpon about the "dangers sccomlhand smokc 1993, serjous qucslions have been raised about the report & validity: Hct nrcanint thors nuc#Wons there wcrc douhts about thc rcport; why wcren Ihcy widely publicized? Of1US. &udlien unr by  EPA, "ot aiugle concluded tht ahat 8(ntindicnlly ignificant overIl nmocialion octiyecn ncconuhand amoke ano uue cnccr Whnt did thc EFA (ind ink , uaie the very anulc atudicat Wwi0r scientific magarine call the EFA: report lancy statiatical lootwork"? Why did auticle Wh% Ascr4 nicnt accondhand smoke did the EFA auddenly diaregard gencrally accenledaandnnd? nintrutcn aunlyaia? Letge Aauu published Tlc Antcricart Jourrlal of PaHlic Hraltb, found ovcrall statistically signil licent link betwrcn accondhand amoko and 1une cancr Why did tke EI'A not inelute tkia etudy? possible the EPA decided tha secondhand emoke wa s harmlul ycars belorc Hacir ettantet Eenedonc7 This *cek Phili Mortis bring" row Ihe answers Uaro qqueslions (our [JI Eerccnlica Faktive Renurtin [asre Smoke Irom arlicic Forbes McdiaCritic by Jacoh Sullum. Magi"g Llitor ol Rrr"t Magazine This One ufalic mtost cotp rehensive aiclcs ~uu 1ouul tnc EPAs risk assessinent ol secondhand smnokc We belic that both *mokers and non-smokers should conside Uhcer lacls und Urw (hcir 0*na conclusions about thc issue sccondhand sinokE L FHILICEANI IN ANY CONTROVERSK FACTS Must MATTKR. Ueuauel