[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: Studies on the health affects to Rad workers
Jim,
Actually, they did address a number of the studies that you cited to the
NCRP. In fact, you are listed twice in the list of references. The issue
is not that they addressed the material you sent them as much as they did
not AGREE with your assessment of it. Sorry, Jim, but they didn't. I see
the NCRP report as a review of the scientific data that was assembled when
the report was written. Our understanding of the biology is changing all
the time. However, regulations do not. The NRC is certain free not to use
the NCRP reports. I assume you have proof that the Advisory Committee was
"under "extreme pressure" from the highest
levels to NOT assess or question the report . . ."
Maybe you should start your own organization and ask the NRC to funds to
provide recommendation to them. You certainly have a number of people who
agree with your conclusions. I certainly have no disagreements with many of
the biology studies, but do not feel qualified to comment on the
epidemiological studies. I can certainly find studies that differ from the
ones you cite. I also find it interesting that you object to the NCRP
saying that in vitro studies are useful for dose-response studies, yet like
to post information on the survivability of yeast cells to radiation.
By the way, when you put statements inside of quotation marks, are you
implying that they were actually said in the manner presented? If you are
paraphrasing you should not use quotation marks.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: muckerheide [mailto:muckerheide@attbi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:38 PM
To: Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Studies on the health affects to Rad workers
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/