Re: Studies on the health affects to Rad workers

[muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

 From: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>



> Tom,

> I would also suggest NCRP Report 136, "Evaluation of the Linear-Nonthreshold

> Dose-Response Model for Ionizing Radiation."  It provides an extensive list

> of studies that have been conducted, and well as good information on many of

> the factors and problems involved with the various studies.  Whether or not

> you believe in the LNT it is important to be look at all aspects of the

> discussion.  Right, Jim?

> 

> -- John 



C'mon John, even you can't believe this.  NCRP didn't even address the data

they were directed to by the NRC Chairman. When we asked NRC to check NCRP's

response to its own request (based on the record of data that initiated

their letter), we got "We can't question their results. They're an

independent organization."  NRC also said "material false statement" rules

don't apply to NCRP the way it would to a contractor or licensee. The

Advisory Committee said they were under "extreme pressure" from the highest

levels to NOT assess or question the report vs. their 1996 review and letter

stating that NCRP needed to be directed to consider ALL the data (Greta

Dicus, then acting chair - getting ICRP appointment in the process; NCRP

waited til Shirley Jackson was gone, waiting years to issue a report that

was supposed to be done in '98 with 3-year funding from NRC).  NCRP didn't

address the 200+ studies they were given by us; and didn't respond to formal

comments from their "official" cooperating organizations that they claim are

the "peer-review process" and concurrence of the scientific community that

otherwise doesn't exist.



See comments to NCRP at:

http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Correspondence/NCRP136/index.htm



In the document, they explicitly misrepresent a few studies, and ignore

most. They primarily use high-dose studies and irrelevant responses by cells

in culture to claim the LNT can't be eliminated.



Oh, maybe you could identify the rad vs. non-rad worker studies you rely on

in the report to support the LNT.



Note that even the Committee asserts (as we document in our sources that you

and Bill object to) (p.6) ³it is important to note that the rates of cancer

in most populations exposed to low-level radiation have not been found to be

detectably increased, and that  in most cases the rates have appeared to be

decreased.²



The Committee concedes (p.8) that the data they use ³come primarily from

observations at moderate-to-high levels of exposure.²



The Committee also states ³in vitro studies have yielded the most reliable

dose-response data.² This is true for pounding on cells in a Petri dish, but

it has no direct relevance to radiation health effects in whole organisms.  



Regards, Jim



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/