Re: We are killing nuclear workers!

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Bernie, Group,

The Apr 2000 DOE Press Release is at:
http://www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases00/aprpr/pr00103.htm

The "panel" on health effects was DOE, led by anti-nuke Michaels. DOE lab and
contractors people said they were threatened if they spoke against this
travesty. (Can others describe their experience? in confidence.)

The NEC report is a pdf file on the DOE web site at:
http://www.eh.doe.gov/benefits/nec/nec.html
See Report on radiation, plus App 3 & 5.  A laundry list of the Steve Wings of
the rad world, including even Gofman, Stewart, Kneale, Cardis, Gilbert, etc.
etc. to show "cancer increases" and hide decreases. E.g., see Table p.9. A
cancer at one site, not reporting reductions at many other sites (or note that
with many endpoints at p=0.05 results outside the error range are expected. 

Note also Michaels ref as a footnote:
"Geiger HJ, Rush D, Michaels D. Dead Reckoning: A Critical Review of the
Department
of Energy’s Epidemiologic Research. Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Washington, DC.
1992."
(Dave Rush is another real piece of work!)

At the time that this report was going to be reviewed/updated.  I suspect that
after talking with us they scurried back in their hole.  They do these things
when they can just "involve" the "usual suspects" and get no serious comment,
or none that can't just be ignored, to pretend that these are "public"
processes.  But not when someone will actually, as one such author said when
questioned about misrepresentations to and by NCRP: "but you actually read the
data!?"  As in "that's not fair!"

A Jul '99 DOE release said: 
"Radiation-Induced Cancers: We estimate that over the next 30 years, there
will be between 250 and 700 radiation-induced cancers among DOE contractor
employees, of which about 60% will result in death." (Also on the web you can
back up from above - Jul 15 '99)

Richardson's Jan 28 statement said radiation. That's why we commented here and
elsewhere, and wrote and distributed our Feb 1 letter. (We didn't try much
with our Apr letter to the IG.  HPs and Nukes don't care; mostly seem to think
it will just help line their pockets.)

Paul Seligman at DOE is the primary "author;" Vince Holahan at NRC is named. 
But it's really a DOE Michaels "Physicians for Social Responsibility" report -
sweeping up all the junk science for purely political and financial gain,
adding enough swill to the trough to get a big political reaction/support.

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

Bernard L Cohen wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Jim Muckerheide wrote:
> 
> > The DOE "report" used Wing and other "junk science" as studies that had been
> > suppressed by AEC/DOE!?  Nothing about enrichment plants.  Is the April
> > version still the "final report?"
> 
>         What is this DOE Report? I thought the compensation was about Oak
> Ridge workers exposed to Beryllium and enrichment plant workers exposed to
> plutonium.
>         If this is about junk science, we should fight vigorously.
> 
> ************************************************************************
> 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