Re: I'm get tired of it too, but...

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Lew,

We see this as happening. But only when the issue is engaged. As long as
Bernie Cohen and other scientists are kept in the mode of being "cranks" and
"crackpots" by the BEIR/NCRP/ICRP/EPA/NRC/DOE etc. etc., the media are not yet
willing to take it on. Some are quite convinced, and we've also worked with
documentary makers. Once the data hits the fan as a policy matter (and
Domenici and others are getting closer to putting it there, hanging NCRP on
its own petard, plus legal challenges), the media (some) will then run with it
with more than the 'passing curiosity' public interest it now gathers. 

Per Mission Impossible: "The Mission, should you choose to accept it, is to
just get the issue on the table." (Seek "adjudication!") Support rulemakings;
challenge existing rules; "question authority!" (_relive the '60s_ -  even
those of us who didn't live in the 'mainstream counterculture' then either :-)

If we allow the science to remain a "fringe issue" by the "establishment"
suppressing the data (e.g., BEIR VI), the LNT will continue to destroy the
ability of nuclear technology to meet real needs in the growing world
population (by the total US population every 3 years, with growing per capita
expectations) of the early 21st Century - the world your grandchildren will
inherit (wars over oil? environmental catastrophe?) to the benefit of the
anti-nukes; the oil, gas, coal, and "renewables" subsidies; and the
self-serving rad-protectionists/corps/gov't agencies (all morally equivalent
to war-mongers/profiteers).

[Consider Japan's "rethinking;" and current oil prices/blackmail - by 2010? 
But we can build 1500 MWe plants <3 1/2 years, at substantially lower cost
than present. LDR curing some cancers, infections, and enhancing immune
response to many (esp. mid-life - read 'boomers') maladies. How much radiation
technology to go around then? HPs can manage occupational dose for
optimization, not destructive compliance with mindless regs.]

Thanks.

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

Lew Helgeson wrote:
> 
> Maybe Sixty Minutes might want to look at these data a do an expose' on
> BEIR, EPA, etc. That would be a real switch from their normal broadcasts
> about the nuclear industries, but it might be worth a test of their
> interest in digging out the "dirt."
> 
> Lew Helgeson
> 
> At 04:51 PM 3/27/2000 -0600, you wrote:
> >Hi Bill,
> >
> >OK. Name one. Note that BRER (Board of Rad Effects Research) the permanent
> >body forms the BEIR Committees, IS the NAS. Now what? So we move the
> >'independent adjudicator' to be the body responsible for determining
> >'scientific misconduct,' subject to court review.
> >
> >Note: the regulators keep the 'closed society' reports away from
> >'adjudication' by claiming that they can't be questioned in rulemakings; and
> >we can't question the 'review committees.'
> >
> >So, we need a Federal court 'adjudicator.' :-)
> >
> >But your "Royal Society" doesn't consider the data any more than NAS. They'll
> >both fight limits based on John Gofman's nonsense, but their not 'objective.'
> >The members are anointed, just like NAS.
> >
> >William Prestwich wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Jim,
> >>         Clearly this isn't really resolvable.
> >
> >Of course it is. It just needs attention. As you say, an adjudicator. But
> >don't say "it isn't true" unless you objectively test the facts.
> >
> >>I do clearly remember a
> >> speaker we endured who insisted there was a government conspiracy to cover
> >> up the dangers from low levels of radiation. Whenever he was challenged by
> >> data in a publication he replied by saying that was "government science".
> >
> >But was the data any good? What did your review conclude?
> >
> >Look at Lubin: gov't science. Howe. Matanoski. You can go on and on with real,
> >clear, cases. Right here on radsafe, Otto Raabe described how Mays and Lloyd
> >'cooked' the radium dial painter data to show a linear response, in BEIR III.
> >Gov't science. He said they didn't intentionally misrepresent the data, just a
> >matter of interpretation. I said, we just need to make the case and get it to
> >an adjudicator! :-)
> >
> >Saying you 'endured' implies you didn't test the data. That's the Cohen case.
> >If it wasn't for the lone commitment of Bernie Cohen, to produce $millions for
> >a private study that 'gov't science' wouldn't do (e.g., terminated as
> >Frigerio's background radiation vs. cancer study); and then to continue
> >despite the unsupported attacks by the many 'gov't science' minions, is a
> >unique and unusual undertaking. Without that, all we would have is 'gov't
> >science' - by EPA - even the DOE radon program was killed in 1993-4, like the
> >dial painter program etc. - and the affected parties are well-trained re
> >questioning the funding agencies again - like RERF's response after DOE killed
> >the radium dial painter (Argonne CHR) program in '83. Like DOE suppressed the
> >Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study, both as research and data (the cancer cases as
> >statistically significant below the non-nuclear group, but that endpoint
> >wasn't included even in the 'summary' issued by press release; the high-dose
> >nuclear worker study; the Canadian TB fluoroscopy study; and many others.
> >
> >How many people have produced solid data that contradicts the 'gov't science,'
> >but have not continued, as Bernie has, to press for competent analysis and
> >fight 'gov't science' to achieve a scientifically valid result. (It is true,
> >of course, that we do not see people, Bernie or others, actually testing
> >Lubin's data/analysis. Of course many people just dismiss Wing's results as
> >bogus science, but don't really challenge it explicitly. Who funds those
> >assessments? (Or what scientist will risk his funding on that? I assume you
> >saw our report of a scientist that studied Bernie's data, esp his work with
> >Harvard epidemiologist Colditz, and Lubin et al criticisms, and said she
> >agreed with Cohen et al., but had been warned off publishing by her credible
> >peers who said 'who don't want to get caught in that political,
> >career-damaging, swamp.')
> >
> >Bernie has persevered. Consider that this is even after the full weight of the
> >NAS, as the EPA-funded, BRER-formed, BEIR VI Committee, personally trashed
> >Bernie, with his work dismissed in a couple of paragraphs in an Appendix, and
> >outright in the body (as though there were an analysis backing it up). This
> >included a figure that substantially misrepresented the data! As Mossman
> >showed! Thrown off BEIR VII, and now he has to work on recovering his career.
> >(And where does an objection to BEIR VI go after-the-fact? Nowhere. Just like
> >BEIR V. They simply ignore/suppress the data - Bernie's data AND the many
> >other confirmatory studies - and it's unchallenged. Gov't science.)
> >
> >As a footnote: I'm always intrigued by the dichotomy of the 'political'
> >response: "You can't do/say that..." about a program/organization/project; and
> >then some small thing "breaks" and suddenly the same people are ripping the
> >org apart for... all the terrible things we know about bureaucracies and
> >criminal enterprises: 'the police,' the Japanese economy in the '80s, NASA
> >science & technology (every decade :-), etc. etc. Consider the Berlin wall...
> >:-)
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Regards, Jim
> >muckerheide@mediaone.net
> >========================
> >
> >>         We did have an incident here in which a government body attempted
> >> to impose a ridiculously low regulatory limit. There was a full and frank
> >> discussion, even if I remember correctly involving the Royal Society as an
> >> independant body. The consequences were that the suggested limit was
> >> withdrawn.
> >>         It would seem to me that the Academy of Sciences would be a
> >> similar objective body to which you could take your case. The charges you
> >> are making are extremely serious to anyone who truly believes in
> >> science. Your references notwithstanding, I think that an independent
> >> adjudicator is called for.
> >> Sincerely,
> >> Bill Prestwich
> >> McMaster University
> >> Hamilton, Ontario
> >> prestwic@mcmaster.ca
> >>
> >> ************************************************************************
> >> 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
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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