Anthony Arundel

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This stub is a work-in-progress by the ScienceCorruption.com journalists's group. We are indexing the millions of documents stored at the San Francisco Uni's Legacy Tobacco Archive [1] With some entries you'll need to go to this site and type into the Search panel a (multi-digit) Bates number. You can search on names for other documents also.     Send any corrections or additions to editor@sciencecorruption.com

Tobaccospin.jpg

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.

Anthony Arundel was a member of the group of science-for-sale operators who clustered around Professor Theodor D. Sterling in Vancouver, British Columbia. The group consisted of:

They also had close commercial relations with:

Arundel worked for tobacco on projects around North America. He had worked and studied in Australia for several years before being employed by Sterling's TDS Ltd. pseudo-research organisation in Vancouver, Canada. He was therefore put in charge of operations mounted by the company on behalf of the British tobacco companies in Australia.

Documents & Timeline

1986 Jun 19Tobacco Institute Report of the ETS Advisory Group meeting. It lists a number of subjects discussed. One of these was presented by Don Hoel of Shook Hardy & Bacon who advised them about a study by Sterling on Repace

Dr Sterling has submitted the paper by Arundel, Irwin, Sterling and Weinkam entitled "New and Non-smoker Lung Cancer Risk from Exposure to Particulate Tobacco Smoke" to the American Journal of Epidemiology.

[Note the title is slightly different to the published study (see below); the submission is to a different publication (it must initially have been rejected), and the fourth researcher (Weinkam) had been removed from the final study.]

This paper is a critique of assumptions and calculations made by Repace and Lowrey in their paper entitled "A Quantitative Estimate of Non-Smokers Lung Cancer Risk from Passive Smoking" published in Environment International 1985. The latter paper used a linear extrapolation model and estimated the lung cancer deaths in non-smokers to be 5000 per year in the US.

Considerable concern was expressed that Arundel et al. paper appears to endorse the linear extrapolation model. Don Hoel assured the committee that Sterling does not endorse the linear extrapolation model but feels the paper would be rejected by the reviewers if it doesn't imply acceptance of the model in his initial submission.

It is Dr. Sterling's intent to insert qualifying statements in the text after the paper has been accepted for publication.

Sterling and co-workers apparently have a second paper in preparation which would follow this paper and more specifically attempt to point out the inapplicability of the linear response model as well as the phenomenological model.

Considerable discussion followed concerning Sterling and co-worker papers as well as the problem of getting critical comments of the Repace and Lowrey papers into the publisned literature. It is known that several critical comments of Repace and Lowrey papers submitted to Environmental International have not been made public simply because the journal is not published on a routine basis.

Alternate approaches to get the information into the literature was suggested by members of the committee including submission of the critical comments sent to Environment International to other journals which have quoted the Repace/Lowrey papers.

Several members of the committee expressed concern that the papers by Sterling and co-workers had been submitted without prior review by the committee. Dr. Spears also asked if Sterling intended to notify the National Academy of Sciences that he does not agree with the linear extrapolation model. Don Hoel indicated that "he has no plans." [2]

[Note: Sterling intended to fool the publishers by inserting modifying data after acceptance. And there is no room for argument here about who was expecting to control the research report -- Sterling needed to have it cleared by the tobacco industry's ETS committee before publication]

1986 June 23 [Date wrong in document] Tobacco Institute Report (by SH&B lawyer Don Hoel) Sterling on Repace

[[[James L Repace]] was an anti-smoking scientist who worked for the EPA and was a thorn in the side of the tobacco industry. They were constantly trying to discredit him and his associate Alfred H Lowrey, but they were meticulously scientific in their criticisms.]

Dr Sterling has submitted the paper by Arundel, Irwin, Sterling and Weinkam entitled "New and Non-smoker Lung Cancer Risk from Exposure to Particulate Tobacco Smoke" to the American Journal of Epidemiology.

This paper is a critique of assumptions and calculations made by Repace and Lowrey in their paper entitled "A Quantitative Estimate of Non-Smokers Lung Cancer Risk from Passive Smoking" published in Environment International 1985 The latter paper used a linear extrapolation model and estimated the lung cancer deaths in non-smokers to be 5000 per year in the US..

Considerable concern was expressed that Arundel et al. paper appears to endorse the linear extrapolation model. Don Hoel assured the committee that Sterling does not endorse the linear extrapolation model but feels the paper would be rejected by the reviewers if it doesn't imply acceptance of the model in his initial submission. It is Dr. Sterling's intent to insert qualifying statements in the text after the paper has been accepted for publication.

Sterling and co-workers apparently have a second paper in preparation which would follow this paper and more specifically attempt to point out the inapplicability of the linear response model as well as the phenomenological model.

Considerable discussion followed concerning Sterling and co-worker papers as well as the problem-of getting critical coaments of the Repace and Lowrey papers into the publisned literature. It is known that several critical comments of Repace and Lowrey papers submitted to Environmental International have not been made public simply because the journal is not published on a routine basis. Alternate approaches to get the information into the literature was suggested by members of the committee including submission of the critical comments sent to Environment International to other journals which have quoted the Repace/Lowrey papers.

Several members of the committee expressed concern that the papers by Sterling and co-workers had been submitted without prior review by the committee. Dr. Spears also asked if Sterling intended to notify the National Academy of Sciences that he does not agree with the linear extrapolation model. Don Hoel indicated that "he has no plans." [3]


1987 Sep 3 Theodor Sterling has written to "Andrew" (Nelmes of Gallaher in UK) and "Ray" (Thornton of BAT in UK). They have obviously asked him to do some pseudo-research in the UK along the lines of the pseudo-research he does in the USA.

He presents the arguments that can be used to counter claims that ETS is harmful to the health of non-smokers, and suggests

To facilitate such research, it may be reasonable to establish a research center in the UK (or elsewhere) capable of doing work similar to that done by TDS Ltd in Vancouver.
To examine that feasibility, a systematic investigation is needed which would indentify:

  • the types of studies that are possible
  • where these studies might best be done and by whome
  • effective methods (meetings) to disseminate results.
  • What measures of success can reasonably be expected from implementing these activities.
  • [need to] identify sources of additional support (public and private collaborators)

He nominates projects worth doing:

  1. To what extent is there a pattern of smoking related to occupation and social status? (Smoking is more prevalent among individuals exposed to hazards in their workplace or through their lifestyles.
  2. Sick Buildings and smoking (A large number os so-called "sick buildings' have been investigated and cigarette smoking is seldom listed as one of the causes)
  3. Is there sufficient data available from building evaluations that can be combined in an information database? (TDS Ltd has one of two such databases in North America)
  4. What are the needs for centers concentrating on building studies?
  5. Modeling the health effects of ETS (There are a number of approaches to use various sources of data to extrapolate possible risks from ETS to nonsmokers. Rigorous use of such data results in a relatively small risk.
  6. What guiding principles underlie existing or planned workplace smoking restrictions? (Based on a TDS Ltd, study for a Canadian federal agency)
  7. Effective public discussion of building air quality problems. (Choosing the type of organisation that would co-sponsor such discussion - needs to be investigated and identified).

He offers to have TDS Ltd. personnel visit the UK, EEC countries and Australia to plan the above. They will also identify a sick building for study, and organise a conference about building problems. He offers himself, Elia Sterling, Chris Collett, Anthony Arundel and Dr Alan Hedge from Cornell University.

They will employ in the Europe and Australia:

  • Prof John S Clifton, Head of Dept of Medical Physics at University College Hospital, London
  • Dr Timo Partanen, Head of Inst. of Occupational Health, Helsinki Finland (an old collaborator of Sterlings)
  • The Hulbert Group, architects in Australia
  • Milton Meckler, a ventilation engineer with experience in Australia

Sterling wants $397,000 for these three inter-related projects

[4] [5]

1988 June 27 Report on the Indoor and Ambient Air Quality Conference, made to Philip Morris.

The Conference, organized by Professor Roger Perry of Imperial College, London, was attended by approximately 200 individuals. Eighty papers were presented, and nearly half of those presentations dealt with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). (most, but not all, by tobacco scientists)

Papers given at the Conference have been published and distributed under the title Indoor and Ambient Air Quality ( Selper Ltd., London, 1988.) In addition, fourteen selected papers appear in the June 1988 issue of Environmental Technology Letters [Note: A journal owned and edited by Prof. Roger Perry]. Copies of the proceedings and journal were made available through Professor Perry. A copy of the Conference program was attached to this memorandum.

On Monday, June 13, an article (attached), appeared in the (London) Times which reported that the WHO: had "withdrawn" from the Conference due to tobacco "industry involvement".

The report commented:

  • Theodor Sterling ; "ETS Concentrations Under Different Conditions of Ventilation and Smoking Regulation ."

Anthony Arundel of Sterling's group presented data which refute the Surgeon General's claim that separation of smokers and nonsmokers will not effectively minimize exposure to ETS. Concentrations of nicotine, particulates, CO and CO2 were measured in designated smoking areas and in adjacent nonsmoking areas. Sterling and co-workers found that designated smoking areas do in fact reduce ETS levels in nonsmoking areas, even if the designated smoking area is not separately ventilated.[6]

1990 Dec 14 Philip Morris ETS Billing Categories + Expert Witness Database (See Pages 6 and 28)

  • Name: Arundel, A
Affil: Faculty of Applied Sciences, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser Univ, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Issue: International; ETS
Status: 3
Litigation: Generic/suggested International ETS Expert.
PContact: Don Hoel, Shook Hardy & Bacon
SContact: W. Davis, Shook Hardy & Bacon

Recommend: 890815 -- AccNo: 05176 [7]
Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Arundel&oldid=699325"