RE: IRPA 10

[Ken Mossman <Ken.Mossman@asu.edu>]

Jim:

The conclusions and recommendations of the conference (as provided in the
final report) represent a consensus. Consensus is defined (Webster's
Dictionary)as "an opinion held by all or most" or "general agreement." 

I won't argue the science issues as addressed in the BRPS conference-it is
just beating a dead horse. 

What I cannot understand, Jim, is why you did not express your views when I
asked for comments during the drafting of the final report. As senior author
of the report, I sent the draft report to every attendee including yourself.
I received comments from many individuals but nothing from you. If you have
serious concerns about the conduct of the conference, and the conclusions
and recommendations that would have been the appropriate time to express
them. By doing so, you would have been on the record.   

To complain and argue after the final report had been issued when you had
the opportunity to comment and didn't is highly inappropriate,  negatively
impacts your credibility, and serves no useful purpose. 

Sincerely,

Ken

Kenneth L. Mossman
Professor of Health Physics
Director, Office of Radiation Safety
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-3501
Phone: 480.965.0584/6190
Fax: 480.965.6609
Cellular: 602.769.2371
E-mail: ken.mossman@asu.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Muckerheide [mailto:jmuckerheide@delphi.com]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 10:37 AM
To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Cc: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski; rad-sci-l@ans.ep.wisc.edu; Ray Johnson;
Manning Muntzing; Dr. Gail DePlanque; Dr. Kenneth Mossman; Dr. William
Mills
Subject: Re: IRPA 10


Jose,

On the BRPS session: 

The session presented a BRPS report that misrepresented the conference as
reaching a "consensus" (essentially that "whatever ICRP/IAEA say is ok"). 
Following this presentation and questions, I had about 3 minutes to briefly
comment that, as was stated at the conference itself:

1. We agreed to say that "a majority of the participants agreed" but this is
now erroneously reported as a "consensus."

2. The organizers excluded the critics that challenge the LNT rad policies,
therefore no "consensus" was even possible; a conference on this topic that
did not include persons such as Zbigniew Jaworowski, UNSCEAR, Harald Rossi,
ICRU/ICRP, etc., could not address consensus on the subject. (We presented
more than 30 such candidates for both the Wingspread and BRPS conferences,
with no result except that Klaus Becker was added to BRPS for other
"accidental" reasons;  our statement presented to the conference is
available.)  At Wingspread the premise was that the "international rad
protection leadership" was meeting in private to consider constructive
change,
but BRPS seems to have been organized to rescind even the minimal progress
made at Wingspread (i.e., 1. to reassess science, and 2. to take corrective
action on extreme, unjustified, cleanup costs).  Jaworowski's Sept '99
Physics
Today paper was provided, as well as Harald Rossi's last editorial showing
substantial hormetic response in the data.  [Can anyone believe that a
"consensus" was reached that reflects Jaworowski's conclusions?  Kondo's and
Walinder's books?  etc. etc.?  Our position statement and additional
materials
provided at the BRPS conference are also available. In addition, an
"annotated" copy of Domenici's speech is available.]  Magnusson noted that
there was only space for 80 people.  I see this as a contingent from the
hard-core rad protection establishment, with a contingent uninformed people
from the "policy establishment" invited to be "lobbied" by the rad
protectionists, and 5-10 miscellaneous, with 2 from Greenpeace and FOE (to
reinforce the LNT hand-in-hand with ICRP/IAEA et al), Maisseu from WONUC,
Becker and I, and a few others, leaving NOT A SINGLE PLACE for an
established,
recognized, institutional, independent, published, science and/or policy
critic!? Even though they would be "outvoted" by the few who voted, and a
"consensus" proclaimed anyway!

3. The report presents "science conclusions" that are not valid, rejecting
contrary views, but such comments were ignored and interrupted by the
organizers by stating that "this is not a science conference."  E.g.,
Maurice
Tubiana, an invited speaker, states that there are no low dose effects
within
the range of natural background radiation, agreed to be a factor of 100 (1
to
100 mSv), as seen from people living in such places, and medical exposures;
nor do effects exist below 100 mSv, at least for low dose rate exposures,
which is the concern for occupational and rad releases. (The report again
"concludes" that adverse effects are seen at 100 mSv rather than, correctly,
none are seen below 100 mSv.)  Nor the statement by Junko Matsubara (the
only
other biologist invited, but invited as a Nuclear Safety Commissioner), that
the "uncertainty is between 50 and 200 mSv".  The statement that no rad
protection limits below a dose such as 50 or 100 mSv was cut off ("this is
not
a science conference").

4. That the result of the Conference on "Bridging Radiation Policy and
Science" was to "bomb the bridge!"  That the opening calls by Senators
Domenici and Johnston, and Kunmo Chung from Korea, and others, to assess the
science and the health benefits of the massive costs being committed were
bluntly rejected, from Gonzalez' first and often repeated direction that
applying the science should not be done, that rad protection should simply
set
(extreme) dose limits, and that these policies "work for us" (the regulators
and the regulated).  Chung also made a strong case (repeatedly made) that an
independent international assessment of the science was necessary; and that
the emerging economies of China, India and other were not represented in
this
effort to form a "consensus" and that any such "consensus" effort must also
include them. [The conclusions that the costs must be justified by benefits,
stated by Fitzgerald and in a "breakout session" report, were simply trashed
by the organizers and report writers. And Chung and many others were gone
before the "consensus" discussions on Sunday! Comments not made at IRPA.]

5. The report presents the organizers' invited speakers but does not present
contrary discussions and "breakout session" results (limited as they were).

6. That, considering the recommendations for more "openness" and
"transparency," any future such conference must include the critics if a
true
effort to reach a "consensus" is to be undertaken.

Plus some other remarks.  (If invited, perhaps a more 'constructive'
presentation could have been made  :-)

Gonzalez, Clarke, Meinhold, etc. in the session were perhaps even more
surprised than I was when I received a strong ROUND OF APPLAUSE following
these rather intemperate remarks, in this "home of the rad protection
establishment."  

Don Higson then called again on the "establishment" to address the hormesis
data, as he did in the recent HPS Newsletter.  "If it's not valid, show it
is
not, don't continue to ignore/suppress it."  Will you continue to lose your
scientific integrity and policy legitimacy by defending extreme public costs
with no benefits, and even potential detriments, to public health in the
face
of growing demonstrations of contrary and misrepresented/falsified data?

Note: HPS President Ray Johnson also said privately that he didn't think the
report reflected the conference.  My remarks do NOT represent his views on
the
particulars.  Hopefully he will make some related comments at the Denver
meeting.

Also in the conference, Clarke's dysfunctional "controllable dose" proposal
was substantially criticized with statements such as "this is still based on
the LNT!"  Fortunately a number of posters (and one oral presentation by Ron
Mitchel and Doug Boreham from Chalk River that was forced on them - along
with
an excellent "Eye Opener" tutorial on the biology by Doug Boreham) on LDR
preventing/eliminating cancers and other diseases and debilities, with
relevant biological mechanism data, even though the actual clinical medical
results in the world were not presented.  I expect IRPA-11 will be
addressing
the need to develop responsible rad protection policies, and the associated
growth of rad technologies, with the rejection of the LNT!

Finally, do you think the BRPS presentation at the HPS meeting in Denver
will
be any different than the disinformation at IRPA?  Would "the other side" be
invited to speak?  Perhaps someone going to Denver will note my dissenting
comments above.

NOTE: Doug Boreham from Chalk River will also give his tutorial in Denver. 
Everyone seriously interested in this topic should avail themselves of this
great opportunity!  The premise of radiation carcinogenesis being a
stochastic
effect is biologically impossible.  LDR enhances biological mechanisms
(including such evidence for "susceptible" conditions).

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

"J. J. Rozental" wrote:
> 
> RADSAFERS,
> 
> A)
> IRPA 10 was finished about one week ago, without any RADSAFER comment
until
> now. Curiosity even the press (in english) did not gave many attention.
Can
> the coleagues that have been there make some comments on the four
following
> sessions:
> 
> PS-3 ) Challenges in Radiation Protection in the 21st Century: Uses,
> Measurement and Protection
> 
> S-4) Bridging Radiation Policy and Science
> 
> P-9) Standards and Interpretation
> 
> T-15-1) Communication with the Public: Radiation Risk in Context
> 
> B)
> To Radsafers from South America:
> I am copying in the hard disk all theirs presentation. If some of you wish
a
> complete set of these papers, please send me an e-mail
> 
> Jose Julio Rozental
> joseroze@netvision.net.il
> Israel
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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