Dr George Carlo before WTR

This is collaborative effort.

The Cellphone Radiation Problem

The Scientific Advisory Group


Sites have disappeared since this was written.

1993: Back in 1993 a Florida man took action against cell phone companies after his wife died of brain cancer. Overnight the CTIA hastily threw together a group called the Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) which was to operate under Dr Carlo's direction.

They intended to solve their PR problem by spending (at that time) $1 million on a hastily designed research program. Of course, to companies earning billions of dollars each year, this was actually little more than PR tokenism, and it was seen that way by the US Congress. They reacted strongly, and told the CTIA to go away and come back with a more comprehensive plan of research.

How the industry found and selected Dr Carlo to lead this highly specialised bio-electro-magnetic research program is a story in itself, especially since he had absolutely no biomedical research experience at that time, and certainly no experience in the EMF research field. At that time he was working through Ketchum Public Relations (more science lobbyists), which is one of the most notorious science-distorters in the business

He is listed in the Philip Morris documents as a "Full-time consultant" to the tobacco industry in its attempts to block regulation of ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke).

You can read all about the activities of APCO and the tobacco industry at http://www.pmdocs.com, by searching on the terms "APCO", "TASSC" and "Whitecoats."

You can also track some of their activities at this:

  • TASSC site
  • APCO site
  • Whitecoats site

  • Who Selected Dr Carlo?

    It is impossible to know exactly who selected Dr Carlo, but it is easy to see why.

    For years Carlo had been a consultant on the suppression of fears about dioxins for Dow Chemicals and the Chlorine Institute, and more recently he had become an expert in protecting the tobacco industry against threats to ban public smoking. His main expertise was in attacking the basis of science and trying to confuse the scientific evidence of harm.

    The threat posed by public opposition to external tobacco smoke (ETS) for Phillip Morris and the tobacco industry in general led to his initial employment through Newman Partners Limted, and then through APCO & Associates, the PR/lobbying company which handled the corruption of legitimate science for the tobacco industry from about 1990 on. APCO was intially owned by Arnold & Porters, Philip Morris's main boardroom lawyers, and its name was derived from A&P Co.

    This was the company which created the fictitious TASSC (The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition) and put junkman Steve Milloy in charge. Milloy now pretends that his junkscience pages are run by another group, but in 2000 the domain name was still registered by TASSC (but the 'C' in TASSC had become "Center"). There is more on TASSC and Milloy in this site at the Junkscience Index pages.

    George Carlo was a key member of TASSC, and his long-time associate Ian Munro was also involved. Carlo was nominally contracted through his company Health & Environmental Sciences (HES) by APCO in America, and when they decided to extend the TASSC operations to Europe, he was handed over to work with Burson-Marsteller (both for Phillip Morris).

    His express job was to organise and assist in the identification of scientists who might be persuaded financially to give evidence on behalf of the tobacco industry while claiming to be independent scientists. This was known by the PM codename "Whitecoats".

    The corruption of science and the enlistment of tame scientists was a very well-funded operation by the tobacco companies for many years.

    Burson-Marsteller, the world's largest PR company, later assumed the same role for the cellphone interests as it had done for tobacco -- and naturally it used its own favourite lackeys. So Carlo was an obvious choice, even though, at the time he was working through Ketchum PR.

    In fact, most of these Washington-based PR companies were collaborators, who later merged into an organisation known as WPP (headed for five years by Hamish Maxwell, who was ex-President and CEO of Philip Morris)

    SAG's PR efforts fail.

    The role of SAG emerged six months later at a press conference where Dr Carlo announced to the media that his group now had full scientific confirmation that cellular phones could not possibly have any adverse health effects, and were therefore perfectly safe.

    However some US government organisations, such as the EPA and FDA found this slightly unconvincing. In fact, they dumped on SAG and the CTIA from a great height, and the words "ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT" echoed around the globe.

    As a result, a rather more cynical US Senate then forced the CTIA to invest $25 million over five years in a substantial program of research, which was supposed to be conducted by independent scientists. This was supposedly achieved by the CTIA establishing an escrow account for the funds (independently controlled) and create an "arms-length" organisation to run the research-funding program.

    Out of this theoretical independence, grew the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) group in a couple of stages. In later life it became a limited liability company, and was run out of the offices of Carlo in Washington.

    As you will see, their choice of experts --and especially, Carlo, the director of this research program -- was impeccable. Rarely has a program like this had the benefits of such a multi-skilled individual as Dr George Carlo.

    Here is a very modest biography of the man from his own The Carlo Institute site.

    Carlo's c/v

    Dr. George L. Carlo

    Dr. George Carlo is Chairman of The Carlo Institute. He is a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology, and is a specialist in assessing and managing risks to public health. His work has included studies addressing risks from the environment and consumer products, as well as the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Carlo serves on the faculty of The George Washington University School of Medicine.

    While at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, he chaired the research committee of the Department of Family and Community Medicine and designed the acute and chronic clinical work performed by that department. Dr. Carlo has served in diverse scientific advisory capacities, including membership on the US. Congress Office of Technology Assessment Agent Orange Advisory Panel, the chairmanship of Wireless Technology Research, LLC, and director of the Breast Implant Public Health Project, LLC.

    He regularly participates in government expert panels and workshops. Dr. Carlo has published numerous research articles, commentaries, chapters in books, and health policy papers addressing issues in the health sciences. He has testified before Congress and government regulatory bodies. Dr. Carlo often speaks at seminars and conferences and is frequently consulted for television, radio, and newspaper interviews pertaining to public health issues. He earned Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees from the State University of New York at Buffalo and completed legal training at The George Washington University National Law Center. Dr. Carlo has been listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare, and Who's Who in the World.

    1711 N Street, NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20036-2811
    Telephone: 202/833-9500, Facsimile: 202/833-2801, Electronic mail: tci@hesgroup.com
    A non-profit, academic center for scientific understanding and application.

    The truth.

    Dr George Carlo.
    [A Timeline]

    1940s: His family had migrated to the USA from Calabria in Sicily, and George was born in New York.

    Early 1970s:

    He earned Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees from the State University of New York at Buffalo (Carlo biog)

    1976 - 1977: Epidemiologist on the staff of the University of Arkansas's Medical Sciences department.

    "While at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (sic), he chaired the research committee of the Department of Family and Community Medicine and designed the acute and chronic clinical work performed by that department."(Carlo biog)

    Carlo began on the right side of the fence, but quickly found that public health initiatives don't pay.

    1972: Dr Carlo's "scientific involvement with dioxins" begins. He reveals in a letter to the Wall Street Journal (March 27 1992) that his focus at this time was on risk management rather than basic research.

    He also said that he designed protocols which were used by the Arkansas Department of Health about this time, to monitor dioxin-exposed Vietnamese refugees.

    Arkansas Power and Light had their Nuclear One power plant in Pope County. In 1974, when it opened, the county had a still-birth rate of 20.3 per 1000, the following year it rose to 25.4, then to 27.5, and then in 1977 it hit a figure of 26.8 per thousand. "The combined rate in control counties farther from the site had, by contrast, dropped sharply."

    1978: George Carlo, then still with the University of Arkansas, co-wrote (with epidemiologist Carol Hogue) a report for the Arkansas Department of Health. They warned that "a pattern of risk" seemed to be developing in the neighbourhood of the power plant. "The situation should be monitored closely," they said, because "we may be detecting a weak signal."

    Arkansas Power and Light quickly denied any likelihood that Nuclear One "would have any effect on the health of newborns. We have worked closely with the hospital there," said AP&L vice-president, Charles Kelly, "and every indication we've had in monitoring the health effects is that there is none."

    George's paper was not kindly received by local authorities. The study, said Director Robert Young of the Arkansas Health Department, was "inconclusive" and offered no evidence that Nuclear One was to blame for the escalating stillbirth rate. (Arkansas Gazette, October 31, 1979)

    His early involvement is mainly with dioxins, although he takes a passing interest in nuclear power plant spills when the opportunity arises.

    Carlo as Consultant

    1978: About this time he sets up as an Independent consultant, establishing the organisation called Health and Environmental Services (HES) and looks for work in the tobacco industry.

    He is a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology, and is a specialist in assessing and managing risks to public health. (Carlo biog)

    Love Canal proves the value of dealing with companies having pollution problems.

    1979: Love Canal: This is a toxic land-fill incident which made world headlines. A developer had built a new suburb on reclaimed land, and a number of families with young children had shifted into the suburb and been living there for some time. Then it was discovered that the land-fill was loaded with the poison dioxin.

    The suburb had to be evacuated and the homes torn down. According to his own report, Carlo was consulted by the New York State Department of Health over this incident. Presumably, by then, he was seen as a dioxin expert -- but it is not clear which side was employing him at this time.

    1980: Love Canal clean up. A Superfund of $1.6 billion is established for site clean-ups around the United States after Love Canal. However, trying to load some of these costs back on the industries which caused the problems meant that the fund was strongly opposed by industry.

    The correct name of the fund is CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) and Carlo claims to have been consulted on the design of the Superfund proposal by a congressional committee.

    Three Mile Island

    March 1979: Three Mile Island incident. A leak at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant created the most serious incident in American history, and probably the best-known in the world before the Ukrainian Chernobyl disaster.

    October 1979: The American Department of Health issued a study which had been conducted on the Three Mile Island incident and Carlo claims to have been involved as a consultant.

    His work has included studies addressing risks from the environment and consumer products, as well as the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.(Carlo biog)

    Carlo's pollution experience begins to pay off.
    See this explanation of the dioxin spin doctoring.

    1981: The Agent Orange herbicide used in Vietnam was also a dioxin problem and this year Carlo begins serving on the US Congress - Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) panel on Agent Orange. He continues on this panel for at least ten years.

    [Carlo]...served in diverse scientific advisory capacities, including membership on the US. Congress Office of Technology Assessment Agent Orange Advisory Panel. (Carlo biog)

    In these years he met two other scientists who would later figure strongly in his life: Dr Michael LeVois, another epidemiologist working at this time for the Veterans, and Dr Michael Gough who was the dioxin represenative for the government in the OTA. LeVois became a partner in HES, while Gough moved on to Resources for the Future and later the Cato institute and provided him with back-up when needed.

    Cell phone research context:

    1982: Dr William Morton of the University of Oregon finds a significant link between low-levels of radio (MF) radiation from television towers and higher rates in Portland residents of lymphatic leukemia, cancers of the uterus, and breast cancer.

    1987: Dr Richard Stevens, writing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, suggests that increased rates of breast cancer might possibly be associated with EMF

    1986: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorisation Act (SARA) increases the Superfund to $8.5 billion, and compels private cleanups. Carlo says he was consulted by a congressional committee here also.

    Reaganite zealots, Michael Gough (with the government Office of Technical Assessment (OTA), then with a conservative think-tank called "Resources for the Future") and con-man Steve Milloy (working through NEPI, MBE and later the EOP Group) were also involved in spin-doctoring the Superfund problems on behalf of the large corporations and the government.

    At this time the US Federal Government had a vested interest in covering up the Agent Orange scandal, and since this was associated with dioxins, they also 'aided and abetted' the cover-up on dioxin pollution.

    1986-90: Carlo's Health & Environmental Services Group, Ltd. had offices at 1513 Sixteenth Street, NW, Washington DC.

    He is working at this time for the Chlorine Institute (which runs the dioxin issue for paper manufacturers, and some of the chemical companies) as a consultant and trouble-shooter. Meanwhile he is trying to break into the big-time shonky-research business with the tobacco companies.

    LeVois and Carlo provide Philip Morris with a research proposal to prove scientists who oppose tobacco are 'biased'.

    You can find this letter at the Philip Morris document archives (It is document No 2023547147. The protocols for the research are also at 2023549442, and some other meeting memos can be found at 2023549425)

    Environmental Tobacco Smoke is the smoke you breath during 'passive smoking'. At one stage they tried to promote the term 'slip-stream' smoke, and for a while they used OPS = "Other People's Smoke" to try to confuse the issue. ETS is now universally used.

    Indoor Air Quality. This refers to the quality of the air in homes, offices and workplaces, which may consist of smoke, chemical vapours, bacteria, etc. For many years the tobacco industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to companies specialising in IAQ measurment and diagnosis, in order to have them discount the smoke component, and play up the need for greater ventilation.


    Sick Building Syndrome. This is a PR-invented name, devised specifically to promote the idea that workers health was more compromised by bad, and poorly maintained air-conditioning than through smoke.

    Tobacco Research

    1989 Aug:In a letter signed by Maurice LeVois to Dr Tom Borelli who headed the Science and Technology division of Philip Morris (both the real science and the pseudo-research), Carlo offers to run a research project aimed to show that it is the personal anti-smoking biases among epidemiologists which causes them to 'mislead' politicians and the public about the dangers of ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke). Philip Morris are keen to get such research.

    Carlo and his staff at HES do this study by sending out a questionairre which asks isolated, and quite irresponsibly-loaded questions.

    In this letter Carlo doesn't only offer to conduct the research, he is also offering to pre-plan the response. In effect, while supposedly acting as a disinterested scientist, he is actually performing the functions of a PR lobbyist and deliberately planning to manipulate a scientific outcome.

    Part II of his plan is to "developing persuasive messages". On Page 2 (top), he specifies that this is a strategic question for PM, not a scientific question -- but he will do it anyway, for money.

    An internal list prepared by Newman Partners for the head of scientific propaganda at Philip Morris lists also George Carlo and Maurice LeVois as full-time consultants on the problem of passive smoking, and he is listed as the top consultant to be sent to London for a conference which has, as its aim, the disruption of claims that the regulators make when imposing the 'precautionary principle'.

    Some of the 'scientific principles' which were designed by the participants (some genuine, but gullible) at this tobacco-loaded conference, (known originally as "GEP" - good epidemiological practice) became known as the "London Principles", and you can find them at the Federal Focus web-site still. Government imposition of such principles would have prevented the EPA, FDA, OSHA and any other environmental/health regulator for ever regulating until 100 percent proof of dangers was accepted by everyone in the industry and every scientist .... an impossible task.

    In 1989, Carlo received two Philip Morris payments ($70,000 + $60,000) for his paper proving that epidemiology is wrong and that anti-tobacco scientists are biased, and produce distorted results.

    Both Kelly Sund and Rebecca Steffens, got their name on the paper -- Kelly Sund in the draft, and Rebecca Steffens in the final -- so perhaps there was some parting of the ways in the interim. Kelly Sund had been a faithful employee, although lacking any biomedical qualifications. She had her name listed in this year also as co-author on a dioxin-spill study on the Melbourne (Australia) water supply.

    Maurice LeVois also managed to take $25,000 from Philip Morris for some similar work at the same time, and later began to work more with another shonk called Layard. Philip Morris may not have known that LeVois and Carlo were linked in the first place; or it could be that the Carlo HES operation split, or changed nature at this time.

    You'll also find reference in the tobacco documents to Dr Ian Munro, who later worked with him in firefighting dioxin concerns, and then in the cellphone industry (as Deputy Director of the WTR project), and today is a partner with him preparing environmental impact statements in Canada. Munro runs an organisation called CanTox, which is the Canadian equivalent (or maybe an "arm") of Carlo's HES group.

    George Carlo
    Still the 'dioxin specialist'
    arrives in Australia to conduct an 'independent audit' following a dioxin spill in the Melbourne water catchment area.

    See the research abstract. .

    1990: Carlo conducts a community health risk assessment project in Melbourne, Australia following a dioxin-related scare which suggested there might be health risks for the Melbourne metropolitan area's water supply. There is no record that he revealed that he was working for the Chlorine Institute as a consultant. He was claimed by Nufarm, the company which spilled the dioxin, to be an independent American expert.

    Nufarm Limited, is an agricultural chemicals manufacture which has the rights to produce the herbicide Roundup in Australia, and following the Agent Orange problems, this herbicide had come under threat from Greenpeace because of comparatively high dioxin content, generally due to sloppy manufacture. Carlo's water-quality/dioxin paper, when published, showed that his associates in this research were Kelly Sund (who appears to have no biomedical degree) who worked for him at HES and later for the WTR, and also his contract lawyer, James Baller.

    These three "independent" experts found no cause for alarm, and told the Australian media that health effects are unlikely to result from general population exposures to PCDDs and PCDFs. This was reported in the Australian media as having cleared the Melbourne Water Supply of any suspicion of contamination.

    At this time Nufarm was a subsidiary of Fernz Pty Ltd. a New Zealand company which owns Pharma Pacific and Pharma Pacific Management Pty Ltd. A Dr George Carlo is listed as Technical Director for these companies. (Later the Fernz companies merge under the Nufarm name.)

    As technical director, Dr Carlo is still being offered around the world today as a keynote conference speaker by the Pharma Group (they pay the airfare). He is touted as an expert on 'Risk Assessment'. They don't say he also works for a organochloride pesticide/herbicide manufacturing subsidiary, even though Nufarm owns the Australian licence for Roundup (Monsanto), the most widely used herbicide in the world.

    Juggling dioxins and tobacco smoke. .

    Late 1991: Carlo is now working for both Philip Morris and for the Chlorine Institute. His job appears to be to play down the fears of the public about dioxin spills, and ridicule fears surrounding them.

    The Chlorine Institute was, without doubt, one of the most disreputable lobby organisations that has ever existed -- not counting the tobacco industry of course.

    Dioxins are not quite as deadly as some activists have made out, but they are still up with the worst. The Chlorine Institute, however, had numerous paid lobbyists and paid scientists who were on-call to counter public fears of dioxin contamination. Carlo was one of their best.

    The organisation also lobbied long and hard to have the limits on dioxin contamination levels relaxed in order to reduce the costs of manufacture. During this period the lobbyists, including Carlo, constantly appeared on radio and in the newspapers, claiming that dioxin wasn't really a harmful by-product at all. Those who opposed having traces of it in their water supply, were painted as "extremists".


    Sep 23 1991: On this day Carlo was involved in a National Public Radio (NPR) documentary which resulted in the publication of an article entitled: An NPR Report on Dioxin: How "Neutral" Experts Can Slant a Story, by Charlotte Ryan for FAIR.

    Jan 1992: The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organisation had conducted a four-month study of National Public Radio and found that their coverage of toxic environmental issues had been declining since 1990 (Tyndall Report, 1/92).

    The article written in 1992 explained how this was being achieved with dioxin contamination by sympathetic government officials:

    National Public Radio

    A Study of National Public Radio

    "On Sept. 23, 1991, Morning Edition host Bob Edwards announced that scientists were gathering in North Carolina to discuss recent studies suggesting that "the dangers of dioxin may be overrated." NPR science reporter Richard Harris led off with interviews with two government scientists, Michael Gough of Congress's Office of Technology Assessment and Linda Birnbaum from the Environmental Protection Agency. Both suggested that new studies might lower estimates of dioxin's danger; Gough was quoted saying that the risk of cancer from dioxin "may be zero."

    Harris also cited an unnamed federal official who had ordered the dioxin-related evacuation of Times Beach, Mo., who now says the evacuation was unnecessary.

    These remarks were countered by those of public interest activists: Ellen Silbergeld, a toxicologist identified as working for the Environmental Defence Fund, and Paul Connett, an "anti-incinerator activist." [Incinerators also produce dioxins.]

    The last source quoted was George Carlo, identified by NPR as "a consultant for government and industry." Carlo claimed that activists were politicising scientific research by charging bias when new research results ran counter to their activist agenda.

    What's Wrong With This Coverage?

    At first blush, NPR's report has the aura of fair play. Two apparently neutral sources, government scientists, set the stage, explaining the significance of the issue. Counter opinions by activists were then cited, with a final wrap-up from an independent consultant.

    Beneath the apparent "balance," however, the story was tilted toward corporate interests. The segment's lead, "Recent studies suggest the dangers of dioxin may be overrated," is straight from the chemical and paper industries' public relations campaign.

    NPR framed the government scientists it cited as neutral experts, pinning their story to the claim by the Office of Technology Assessment's Michael Gough that new scientific data calls into question the toxicity of dioxin. Reconsideration of dioxin standards by the EPA, however, was based principally on industry-funded studies, one of which was written by Gough himself while on sabbatical from his government job.

    And according to an investigation by Jeff Bailey in the Wall Street Journal (2/20/92), the EPA's Birnbaum was influenced by a Chlorine Institute conference to urge EPA to consider the possibility that there is a "safe dose" of dioxin. (Birnbaum, according to the Journal report, has since altered her opinion.)

    The unnamed federal official who regretted the evacuation of Times Beach was Dr. Vernon Houk, whose work with the US. Public Health Service has been criticised by Congress, the National Academy of Science and others. In the fall of 1992, In These Times (9/25/92) reported that Houk "admitted copying virtually verbatim from paper industry documents in proposing relaxed standards for dioxin."

    The NPR report portrayed these scientists as objective experts, while activists were presented as the only partisan players. However, though Michael Gough now works for government, his research was previously funded by the paper industry.

    George Carlo, whom NPR described only as a consultant, was identified by the Wall Street Journal as a $150/hour employee of the chemical industry's Chlorine Institute. By contrast, NPR did not mention that "anti-incinerator activist" Connett is also a scientist, with a Ph.D. in chemistry.

    Nor did the report acknowledge recent studies stressing dioxin's toxicity published in leading medical journals like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association.

    While appearing to reflect diversity of opinion, NPR's report on dioxin fell prey to what the Journal's Bailey described as a "well-financed public relations campaign by the paper and chlorine industries." Buying into mainstream journalistic assumptions about scientific objectivity and government neutrality, NPR did not help its listeners understand how federal government regulation and environmental research have been politicised."

    (from EXTRA! April/May '93)

    Wall Street Journal .

    Feb 1992 The Wall Street Journal published an article which reveals that Dr Carlo had been responsible for publishing misleading proceedings of the Banbury Center conference (co-sponsored by the EPA) on the biological basis for risk assessment of dioxins and what constitutes a safe-dose.

    This was a conference set up to resolve differences which had been generated by chemical industry scientists denying problems. Carlo had been only an observer for the Chlorine Institute at the conference, (the other didn't recognise his 'dioxin expertise'!) but he had been the first to rush out and issue a press release purporting to be a report of the conference. This release claimed that the scientists had resolved their differences and now agreed that dioxins were not really a danger.

    The independent toxicologists in the conference were furious and issued statements saying that they had agreed no such thing. They had agreed only that some of the dangers had been overstated.

    May 1992 Carlo and Ian Munro joined forces to convene a task-force which published a report, claiming to be a definitive statment on the dangers of dioxin in home-use herbicides.

    They conclude that there aren't many. Who would have guessed?

    Other Carlo research associates are:

  • Professor Keith Solomon
  • Professor Robert Squire
  • Professor Anthony Miller
  • Dr Philip Cole

    They appear to be available to conduct research projects with Carlo when required. There is nothing to suggest a propensity for scientific distoriation other than their close association with Carlo.

    Be aware that there are at least three Dr Philip Coles working in these areas; this one also works extensively for Dow Corning. .

  • This panel also included Dr Philip Cole, another of the ilk who worked for tobacco companies and also for Dow Chemical.

    Professor Keith Solomon of University of Guelf, is probably the same K.Solomon who has worked for and with George in the HES days on a number of occasions -- and also the K. Solomon who featured in an 16 March 1997 article in the Toronto Star supporting the tobacco companies. He is quoted as saying that gun-shot wounds were more of a problem than second-hand smoke.

    Also on the panel was Professor Robert Squire of John Hopkins University, who is probably the RA Squire who also worked for HES. Squires has worked with Carlo on a number of dubious projects.

    Then, to round out the panel, we have Professor Anthony Miller of the University of Toronto, which is very probably the AB Miller who also worked with George at HES on tobacco problems.

    Of course, Carlo wasn't the only scientist working with the Chlorine Institute in trying to play down dioxin problems -- and many of the regulators had their fingers in the pies also.


    Sep 25 1992:The Times reported (above) that Dr. Vernon Houk from the US Public Health Service, had since been criticised by Congress, the National Academy of Science, and others. He was the "unnamed federal official" who had ordered the dioxin-related evacuation of Times Beach, Mo., and who later maintained the company-line that the evacuation was unnecessary.

    [Houk] admitted copying virtually verbatim from Dow Chemical documents in proposing relaxed standards for dioxin.

    Shortly before this a number of top EPA officials had also been forced to resign (seven in all). One of these officials, John Hernandez, had also been taking his written regulatory material straight from Dow Chemicals.

    E-mail Stewart Fist
    70 Middle Harbour Rd,
    Lindfield 2070 NSW, Australia
    Ph:+61 2 9416 7458
    Fx:+61 2 9416 4582<