RE: IRPA 10 / BRPS

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Dear Ken,

> 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."

Dictionary definition be damned. I accepted the BRPS statement,
written while Gail DePlanque was facilitating on Sunday, that
"consensus" was out, and "most of the participants agreed" was
accepted.  This seems just another ICRP/NCRP/IAEA standard "change it
after the meeting" exercise.  (Of course, since the "other side" was
not represented, and as Dr. Chung and others noted, China, India, etc.
were not represented, no "consensus" on the premise of the conference
was possible in the first place.)

It is unlikely that Ray Johnson was the only participant to have a
queasy feeling about the meeting and the premise of a "consensus,"
especially considering also the very many who were no longer there
Sunday AM to object!
 
> I won't argue the science issues as addressed in the BRPS conference-it is
> just beating a dead horse.

Remember: "This is not a science conference!" when objections were
raised (and I eventually had to relocate to the front of the room to
be called on at all, but later)!  But the report "conclusions" are
well-known to have NO agreement except by the LNT-committed (as
policy, not science)!  (Just as pulled at Wingspread, you can be
certain that I never agreed that we have adverse effects at 100 mSv! 
100 to 150 mSv are the low end of low dose rate x-ray doses that
stimulate the immune system, preventing/reducing cancers, including
metastases - chronic exposures have substantially less "adverse"
effect but are preventive of later cancers.)

We provided Jaworowski and Rossi, plus Gerber (the Sept. '99 Quarterly
Review of Biology) papers, and others, plus our formal BRPS position
statement.  The report uses erroneous assertions by Gonzalez and
others given carte blanche to dominate/preempt the meeting, with
discussion terminated, to claim such non-science as "agreement"!  

> 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.

Just as at the conference, the self-satisfied "railroading" of the
meeting by the organizers and ICRP/IAEA and a few "national reps"
(what seem now obviously "selected" since IRPA showed that many, also
not invited to BRPS, strongly question the LNT plus other rad
protection policies) indicated no hope to change the biased report,
even if it had come at a time I could waste to comment.  My primary
comment was in my Jan 4 letter and enclosures to Domenici, copy w/
enclosures to Manning Muntzing (who walked out in disgust Sunday
morning!) who seemed to be the organizer who was open to address the substance:

>>>>>>
[RSH letterhead]
						January 4, 2000
Senator Pete V. Domenici
328 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20501-3101

Dear Senator Domenici,

Thank you for seeking responsibility in radiation protection,
especially your GAO request. However, it seems that the GAO effort is
being discounted by the Federal agencies.

For 5 years we, representing the knowledgeable scientists, have
documented:  1) The peer-reviewed biology refutes the LNT.  2) Natural
radiation varies more than 10 times, with no adverse effects, while
‘limits’ are small fractions of these doses.  3) Low-dose radiation
(LDR) stimulates the immune system (and more) preventing/treating
cancer etc., while rad protection interests constrain its application,
at even greater societal cost in cancer deaths. 

Thank you also for your strong BRPS speech. [Two minor points: 1)  On
natural variation – at BRPS even ICRP/IAEA said it varies by 100
times; and  2)  On BEIR VII scientist integrity – see our BRER letters
– all credible critical scientists are excluded.] But your speech was
rejected by this intransigent BRPS group.

BRPS effectively replied to you, to Senator Johnston, Dr. KunMo Chung,
and others: ‘Hell no! We won't [can't?] consider radiobiology; nor
will we justify our extreme standards.  These work for us, for our
contractors/licensees, despite extreme public cost for no public
benefits.’  Now, ‘controllable dose’ revisits "Below Regulatory
Concern" at even more severe standards, for more massive costs, for
any ‘controllable’ sources, to further unlink 'limits' from any
science or health benefits.

BRPS again shows that rad protection interests suppress the data. 
Therefore they must be bypassed, e.g., by the "international,
independent, open scientific consensus" repeatedly recommended.  But
note again: In the "EMF model" of assessing the scientific data, the
affected industry provided credible science.  But for radiation health
effects, the "nuclear industry" does not support credible science (and
has substantial conflicts of interest).  Therefore, your initiative
needs to:  1) Involve biology and medicine science, which is not
rad-protection controlled.  2) Invite private support, not NEI, nor
ANS or HPS.  3) Investigate "LNT science" for "scientific misconduct"
that misrepresents/falsifies scientific results to support the LNT.