Re: California legislation

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 12/23/2002 4:35:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, sjd@swcp.com writes:


> Is the CA Dept. of Health making arrangements for its HPs to testify?




Not to my knowledge, and I seriously doubt it, based on last year's experience.


> Has the Dept. bought into LNT?




That is unclear.  There are several Branches within the Department that utilize the expertise of HPs.  Communication on these issues amongst the Branches seems rather poor to me.  I cannot find a Department product that specifically accepts LNT as fact, but the Radiologic Health Branch does utilize it to the extent that, as with the NRC, it is the regulatory basis for setting dose limits.


<<  Are the HPs being discouraged from testifying

> or told not to?>>




My gut feeling is yes.  I cannot point to a written mandate on the issue.  I think this question needs to be pointedly asked by someone outside the Department.  


<<  Is the one who did testify still on staff? >>


Yes.  I believe, he had received specific permission to testify.  In fact, I believe the Department may have invited him to testify.  This was very early on in the last legislative session.  I watched the testimony, and thought he represented the Department adequately, given the hostility of the hearing.  The Committee appeared to have already made up its mind on the issue.


 <<There are 

> plenty of examples of executive department employees in government
>
> generally who have been suppressed or told to keep their mouths shut on
>
> certain topics.>>





Yes, and I believe this specific issue should be looked into in this case.


>   No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy.  I'm merely asking some questions.  I
>
> may be wrong, and I hope I am and that the lack of Dept. HPs testifying is
>
> only an oversight or a scheduling problem.  Whatever the case, I'm certain
>
> one and all would agree that it bears looking into.




I wouldn't be too quick to reject a "conspiracy" theory out of hand.  I'm just saying....


>   The lay legislators are probably being inundated with anti-nuke press
>
> releases, telephone calls, and so forth.



Yes, they have been, and the Department has not publicly responded.  Since last January, when the initial round of legislation was introduced, there was a plethora of articles in various California newspapers spreading all kinds of disinformation, and the Department never responded, as far as I could tell.  At least they never got anything published.  Frankly, I find it hard to swallow that the Department would receive a full-frontal attack in the papers (as some articles provided), but that the papers would not print a rebuttal, or at least a letter to the editor from the Department head on the subject.  I'm sorry, I just don't buy that.  I certainly provided many a potential response to the gross (and, I do mean gross) disinformation in the press (and I wasn't the only one), but never saw even a meager attempt to present it to the press.  It is my personal belief rebuttals traveled up the chain to the point at which political aspirations outweig!

hed public health concerns.  I am speculating.  I think it might behoove the people of California to ask questions designed to discover the truth of this matter.


Barbara