Re: Airlie Conference

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Hi Al,

I don't understand. The terrible report on the site says it is the
"Final Report." It doesn't even report on the conference, much less
address the issues. 

Read the report. It only reports on the statements by the invited
speakers (and weakly for those who do not agree with the organizers).
There is no output from the breakout sessions, or the discussions
following the sessions. (It doesn't show that Abel Gonzalez controlled
the floor, with the "facilitators" kissing his ring for days - he
spoke going on half of all the words in the discussions, starting with
"We can not consider radiobiology." - Of course, if it did report on
the discussions, it would look like the IAEA Seville report - you
can't find the discussions/statements/agreements reported by our
attendees, or even Nucleonics Week, in this Gonzalez-controlled
document. And this followed the 'boycott' of the scientists after
Gonzalez converted Seville from a science meeting to an ICRP meeting.) 

The report also implies that the "conclusions and recommendations"
were agreed to by the participants. (They said "most" originally when
we objected at the time, but that seems to disappear more every time
they report it.) 

But of course, to have "most of the participants agree" is easy when:

1. You only invite those who agree with you (we formally stated at the
conference that the scientists who had initiated the LNT debate, "The
Other Side," was not invited, starting with Zbigniew Jaworowski,
Harald Rossi, and dozens of others).

2. You ignore even the invited-speaker radiobiologists who state that
health effects are of concern only at 100 mSv/yr (Tubiana) or 5-200
mSv/yr (Matsubara) (along with a bunch of "policy-makers" to be conned
by this dishonest exercise committed to reject science - except to
keep the cash flowing for hopeless, misdirected studies, to keep the
con artists on the payroll - see e.g., Lubin).

The group came committed to simply rescind even the trivial "progress"
(in principle, but not action) made in the Wingspread statement. 

But they included Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace!? (who, like
Gofman, etc., are used by the ICRP team to simply reinforce and
conform to the ICRP/NCRP/BRER/nat'l radprotectionist cabal that demand
to maintain the LNT). 

They were saluting Roger Clarke's initiative to make requirements even
more severe (BRC at 3 or 30 mr/yr, which may be guaranteed to fail
politically just like BRC! then they'll  'blame' the politicians and
the public for 'demanding' more severe standards - like having person
hold a gun to your head and say your wallet or your life, and
defending himself by saying that you 'demanded' to give him your
wallet! :-)

Clarke's "controllable dose" would assure rad protection funding no
matter how low the dose is, as long as the source is "controllable!" 

And they are committed to the IAEA/ICRP/UNSCEAR scheme to embed even
more authority in the hands of the IAEA/UN through the "Basic Safety
Standards" designed to con more politicians who know less than nothing
about science before the scientists upset the rad protectionists gravy boat.)


Let me know if you want some comments on the report; our
papers/statements for the conference; our statements following the
conference, including our annotation of Domenici's speech to show how
the ICRP team basically told him (and others who spoke on the need to
assess and justify the LNT): "Go to hell. We won't (can't) apply
health protection benefits to our standards. Rad policies work for
_US_ and our contractors/licensees. The lack of public health benefit
at doses down to trivial fractions of the variation in natural
radiation can not prevent us from extracting $100s billions from the
gullible public."

One head of a national rad protection program hissed at me following
one of my negative comments during our discussion of the "conclusions
and recommendations": "We know your agenda; to kill the golden goose."

I had hoped to get this material on the web site by now. It should get
done in the next couple of weeks.

Regards, Jim
============

Al Tschaeche wrote:
> 
> Thanks Nick.  The information from the web site you gave me says that the
> final report will not be available until April 1, 2000. It is not on the web
> site yet.  I will look for it after that date.  Maybe there's some
> significance to the issue date? :-)  Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net
> 
> "Tsurikov, Nick" wrote:
> 
> > Dear Al,
> > It is at http://www1.misinc.net/burkinc/ <http://www1.misinc.net/burkinc/>
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html