Re: Dr Bertell - Comments on the History of Permissable Dose Standards

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

I hope that some RADSAFER with a more intimate and extensive knowledge of the development of radiation standards than I have will post comments on Rosalie Bertell's article.  Moreover, I would like to see literature citations for some of her contentions.  


BEIR V cites the 1986 recalculation of dose estimates (pp. 190 et seq) because the neutron dose was estimated to be much smaller than had previously been thought and the gamma dose, considerably larger (not that the T65 estimates -- the previous estimates -- were "denounced as wrong" as Bertell claims) In fact the bone marrow T65 and DS86 gamma doses appear to be nearly the same (the graph on page 192 shows the DS86 gamma dose to be about 10% larger).  The T65 dosimetry is described, moreover, as "tentative."  Auxier is cited, and if SCIENCE found his work flawed, I would certainly like to see that citation.


The 1984 EPA BID for the rule on radioactive substances (page 8-11) gives a brief history of the changes in fatal cancer risk estimates, and there were certainly revisions between 1972 and 1984.  


The charges Bertell makes are serious, and require some evidence and explanation.  Without some corroborating evidence, I find it hard to believe that there has been a "giant conspiracy" to delude everyone for 50 years, and that only Rosalie Bertell knows the truth. 




Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com