C. Stephen Redhead
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  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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Stephen Redhead was a physiologist who worked for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). He worked to a degree under Jane G Gravelle a Senior Economist who worked on tax problems as an Economics Policy analyst. Individually and jointly they produced a number of reports on the tobacco industry and the problem of second-hand smoke, most of which took a favorable line from the viewpoint of the cigarette companies.
Documents & Timeline
1993 Apr 20 Stephen Redhead has produced for the Congressional Research Service. Mortality and Economic Costs Attributable to Smoking and Alcohol Abuse'", Report 93-426 SPR. 
1995 Jun 13 Peggy Carter at RJ Reynolds is writing to the top misinformation team in the company, Tom Griscom, Chuck Blixt and Dan Donahue about her observations at a recent Manhattan Institute seminar on "Junk Science and the Law".
- Walter Olson and Peter Huber at the Manhattan Institute were both in the pay of Philip Morris and promoting their junk-science propaganda.
She comments on some in attendance:
- Michael Fumento: Mike authored the Investor's Business Daily piece on the EPA's ETS risk assessment that we've been sending out for some time. He told me that piece generated more reaction than anything he's ever done. He's clearly keeping his distance from the industry to preserve his neutral position. Matt Swetonic advises on the QT that work is in progress to nationally syndicate Mike as a science columnist.
- Steve Milloy: Milloy included in his remarks a recap of the problems with the EPA's ETS risk assessment, and told me privately that we're really getting "screwed" on this issue. He asked me if I knew CRS was working on an evaluation of the EPA's assessment; seems he and Steve Redhead (the CRS official who contacted us) are good friends. He characterized Redhead as an "anti." Dr. Redhead told Milloy last week that their report was going to require "significant rewrite."
In response to my question about why, he indicated Redhead felt the only issue was in homes with high exposures over long periods of time. He clearly did not want to be more precise, and apparently felt that was clue enough. Perhaps Chris Coggins can tea-leaf read if - that means CRS was convinced to reevaluate their position on high exposures.
- C. Stephen Redhead was a physiologist who worked for the Congressional Research Center who became embroiled in controversy over the Gravelle CRS report which attacked the EPA's anti-tobacco stance (she was actually an Economics Policy analyst). 
1995 Sep 13 The CRS Workshop Draft of ETS and Lung Cancer Risk was authored by C Stephen Redhead and Richard E Rowberg, both analysts at the CRS. This is specifically an analysis of the EPA's ETS Risk Assessment in 1993, and written in defence of the earlier Gravelle report.
- Previous CRS analyses of the EPA's position concluded that the statistical data relied upon by the EPA do not support the claim that ETS is a Group A carcinogen.
- The report was heavily criticized for a number of shortcomings. One criticism, pertinent to the current CBS Workshop Draft, was that the EPA did not include in its anaiyses the data from two publicly available spousal smoking studies. The results of those studies did not indicate an increased risk of lung cancer from ETS exposure. Those studies were conducted by Brownsen, et al (1992) and Stockwell (1992).
It was argued that had the EPA included the data from the Brownson and Stockwell, studies, it would have been unable to reach its conclusion on ETS
- [They also added the Fontham's 1991 report]
In general, this draft report supported the EPA's conclusions, while pointing out some nit-picking objections. That the:
- Classificiation of ETS as a Group A carcinogen did not prove that it was the cause of the 700 to 1780 attributed lung cancer deaths each year from ETS.
[The Classification was based on analysis of direct smoking].
- Their objection to this classificiation appears to be mainly based on the fact that ... "we do not yet know which ETS constitutents are responsible for lung cancer and other health effects contributed/attributed (mistake in typing) to ETS exposure."
- They also criticised the use of questionnaires (because of memory and reporting failures) and the possibility of "misclassification" of non-smokers as smokers and vice-versa.
- They found that the Brownsen, Stockwell and Fontham (studies) [mis-spelled as "Fountain"] studies all supported the lung-cancer links, but at a low level of significance.
- They therefore objected to the characterisation of ETS as a "serious risk".
However, while accepting that the trend in all three studies was to find more lung-cancer with greater exposure to ETS [ie "dose-related"], they suggest this might be due to dietary confounders.[On no apparent scientific grounds.]
- They also objected to the OSHA assumption that studies showing effects of ETS on non-smoking wives in the home, can also be extended to apply to co-workers in the workplace.[They claimed that home levels exposures to ETS were 4 to 6 times higher than workplace exposures]
In preparing this paper, the CRS also relied on a study on home and workplace comparative measurements of ETS conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratories which had been funded by the tobacco industry.
- [Oak Ridge had two scientists who worked extensively for the Tobacco Institute and the companies.] 
1995 Nov 14 The second CRS paper lists joint authors Redhead as an Analyst in Life Sciences and Roberg as a Senior Specialist in Science and Technology, Science Policy Research Division, CRS