Re: Demise of UNSCEAR?

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

Right. 1994 App B caused NCRP, ICRP and Fed agencies to kill UNSCEAR by

assigning it to the IAEA. Like when DOE tried to kill RERF by assigning it

from NAS to Howe at Columbia (bought just for that). In both cases there was

a defense by those who understood the trashing of integrity. But surviving

isn't enough. With RERF, DOE created a "Blue Ribbon Committee" given to

Roger Clark to get RERF "under control." RERF was "redirected" got new

"staff" (RERF was already terrified by DOE killing the CHR, which was also a

"lifetime" program, but it "got the wrong answers.")



With UNSCEAR, it "survived" being killed by being assigned to IAEA, but U.S.

And UK and allied interests have worked to reduce its funding. We can work

to "save it," but we can expect it to be compromised if it "survives" by

satisfying U.S., UK, etc., to get new funds through the UN.



Just saw Gentner in Oxford. He's blatantly misrepresenting facts. See the

"Save UNSCEAR" item at:

http://cnts.wpi.edu/docs



But following Oxford, I suspect that "survival" at any price may not be

warranted.



Anyway, Roger Clarke, knowing that rad protection can't stand up to a

science inquiry, threatened by RSH and Domenici's $20 M/yr for "rad health

effects research" (which is no threat, DOE is just continuing its previous

misdirected science funding, buying researchers) he totally separated rad

protection from health effects for the 2005 ICRP revisions!? (Draft should

be on the ICRP site in Dec. If anybody cares - not - target your national

participation in IRPA-11, May 2004, Madrid.)



Regards, Jim





on 10/2/02 7:29 PM, Jerry Cohen at jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET wrote:



> YES! Mainly in their discussions of low-dose effects, and particularly in

> their acknowledgement of the hormesis concept, as opposed to ICRP's

> essentially ignoring and generally stonewalling the subject. Granted UNSCEAR

> does not embrace hormesis, but at least it is treated with some credence,

> and not summarily dismissed. I suppose the UN establishment cannot tolerate

> any exception to the common belief that all radiation is harmful. Clearly

> the idea is politically incorrect.

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

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

> To: 'RadSafe' <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:06 PM

> Subject: RE: Demise of UNSCEAR?

> 

> 

>> Have you seen any contradictions between the UNSCEAR reports and the ICRP,

>> NCRP, etc?

>> 

>> -- John

>> John Jacobus, MS

>> Certified Health Physicist

>> 3050 Traymore Lane

>> Bowie, MD  20715-2024

>> 

>> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@prodigy.net]

>> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:55 PM

>> To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS); 'RadSafe'

>> Subject: Re: Demise of UNSCEAR?

>> 

>> 

>>> UNSCEAR assembles experts who comb through and analyze the literature on

>>> such topics as the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, non-cancer

>>> mortality from ionizing radiation, and the risks associated with

>>> radiation-based medical procedures. Their work forms the core of the

> tomes

>>> the committee puts out every few years. The International Atomic Energy

>>> Agency, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and

> other

>>> international and national bodies use data from UNSCEAR in setting

> safety

>>> standards and making policies, says the committee's chair, Joyce

>> Lipsztein,

>>> a radiation protection scientist at Brazil's National Atomic Energy

>>> Commission. "UNSCEAR is not biased. It's just scientific, not political.

>>> That's why it's so valuable."

>> 

>> It may also explain why UNSCEAR is dying while ICRP, NCRP, etc. survive.

>> ************************************************************************

>> 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/

> 

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> 



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

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/