Response to previous postings

[Rudi Nussbaum <d4rn@pdx.edu>]

Here is my response, to questions asked and opinions expressed by 
Steven Dapra, Lawrence Grimm and Otto Raabe, all dated August 4, 2000.

I earned a PhD in physics from the University of Amsterdam,the Netherlands 
(early 50s), specializing in beta and gamma ray spectroscopy for 
interpreting and testing the nuclear shell model. My academic research 
interests in this country (since late 50s) extended to include solid
state physics and more recently critical reviews of the literature on
health effects from chronic low-dose exposures, external and internal from
radioactive fallout, including analyses of health surveys of Hanford
Downwinders. My publications number more than 50, the majority in
refereed scientific journals. My interest in the subject of radiation health 
effects was aroused by questions asked by students in courses
that included energy generation and efficiency. They wanted to know about
the safety of nuclear power generation and of the storage of nuclear
waste. My knowledge was insufficient to give responsible answers.So, I 
studied the relevant radiation epidemiology literature.Soon, I was struck
by contradictions, the withholding of clearly "open questions" and the
selective inclusions or omissions of references for the obvious purpose of
claiming "firm" conclusions,mostly concerning the absence of
detriment.This has held for research reports, official summaries such as
by BEIR, ICRP and UNSCEAR and summaries written by "experts" for such
journals as JAMA, etc. I became suspicious of strong influences of
extra-scientific considerations in the design, choice of statistical
methodology and the presentation of conclusions. My findings were  
published (1). 
  My suspicions about the scientific reliability of most
of the radiation health studies (practically all sponsored by DOE or other
federal agencies with interests in the promotion of nuclear technology)
found confirmation in several extensively documented reports, a few of
which are listed below. (2-7).(This does not mean acceptance of all
conclusions by these authors.) Over the years, the most significant but
contentious alternative interpretations of observed data and findings by
recognized researchers, later maligned and written off as "unscientific",
such as Gofman, Tamplin, Mancuso, Morgan, Stewart and now Wing, have been
confirmed bit by bit by other epidemiological studies among
children, X-rayed in utero,among nuclear workers or among populations exposed 
to the Chernobyl fallout, at large distances from the explosion (7).RERF
scientists no longer deny that the A-bomb survivors were "a highly
selected population"(9), or that other serious diseases appear to be
associated with radiation (10). Stewart showed that these A-bomb survivors
are a special, non-homogeneous population, that is not representative of a
general population for evaluation of risk for radiation protection purposes. 
These findings from a new analysis of the A-bomb survivor data  have just
been published (11). 
My doubts, as well as those expressed by a group of independent scientists
(12) about published interpretations of DOE-sponsored nuclear worker
studies, were recently supported by 15 public health scientists from 12
federal agencies (13). DOE based its plan for injured worker compensation
on this NEC report. In summary, my reading of the credible findings 
contradicts claims for both hormesis by low-dose radiation and for the
existence of a zero-effect dose range (threshold)(14).

REFERENCES:
1. Nussbaum RH, Koehnlein W.  Inconsistencies and Open Questions Regarding
Low-Dose Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Environ Health
Perspect 102(8): 656-667 (1994).
2.Wasserman H, Solomon N. Killing Our Own. New York:Dell Publishing
Co. 1982. 
3. Caufield C. Multiple Exposures. Chicago:The University of Chicago
Press, 1990.
4. Gallagher C. American Ground Zero:The secret nuclear
war. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.
5. Morgan KZ,Peterson KM. The Angry  Genie: One Mans Walk Through the
Nuclear Age. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press, 1999.
6. Greene G. The Woman Who Knew Too Much: Alice Stewart and the secrets of
radiation. Ann Arbor. Michigan University Press, 1999.
7. Alvarez R. Energy in Decay: After decades of out-of control behavior,
the Energy Department's Nuclear Age balloon mortgage comes due. Bull
Atomic Scientists, May/June 2000.
8. Nussbaum RH. The linear no-threshold dose-effect relation: Is it
relevant to radiation protection regulation? Med Physics
25(3):291-299(1998).
9. Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL, Vaeth M, Mabuchi K. Studies of
mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, part I. Cancer: 1950-1990. 
Radiat Res 146:1-27(1996).
10. Shimizu Y, Pierce DA, Preston DL,Mabuchi K. Studies of the Mortality of
Atomic Bomb Survivors. Report 12, Part II. Noncancer Mortality: 1950-1990. 
Radiat Res 152:374-389(1999).
11. Stewart AM, Kneale GW. A-bomb survivors: factors that may lead to a
re-assessment of the radiation 	hazard.  Internat J Epid 29
(4):  (2000).
12. Geiger HJ, Rush D, Michaels D, Baker DB, Cobb J, Fischer E, Goldstein
A, Kahn HS, Kirsch JL, Landrigan, PJ, Mauss E, McLean DE. Dead
Reckoning:  A critical review of the department of energy's
epidemiological research. Washington DC: Physicians for Social
Responsibility 1992.
13. National Economic Council: The Link Between Exposure to Occupational
Hazards and Illnesses in the Department of Energy Contractor
Workforce. Washington, DC (2000). 
Web:http://tis.eh.doe.gov/benefits/nec/necreport1.pdf
14. Little MP, Muirhead CR. Curvature in the cancer mortality dose
response in Japanese atomic bomb survivors: absence of evidence of
threshold. Int J Radiat Biol 74:471-480(1998).

 --
Dr. Rudi Nussbaum
Please note my new email address
d4rn@odin.pdx.edu or d4rn@pdx.edu








************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html