[ RadSafe ] RE: "Science" reporting on the BEIR VII report release

[Muckerheide, James]

Well said Mike.  

However, he should add to "politics and publicity" the more direct motivation
- big payoffs in cash and career!

Regards, Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Fox [mailto:foxm011 at hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Wed 6/29/2005 9:20 PM
To: Muckerheide, James; rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU; mbrexchange at list.ans.org
Subject: Re: "Science" reporting on the BEIR VII report release
 
All:
With respect to this NAS fiasco, Michael Crichton said in a recent speech:
"But I did not expect science merely to extend lifespan, feed the hungry, 
cure disease, and shrink the world with jets and cell phones. I also 
expected science to banish the evils of human thought---prejudice and 
superstition, irrational beliefs and false fears. I expected science to be, 
in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And 
here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as 
a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more 
ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our 
world in recent years are invented by scientists. The world has not 
benefited from permitting these demons to escape free. "
Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Muckerheide, James" <jimm at WPI.EDU>
To: <rad-sci-l at WPI.EDU>; <mbrexchange at list.ans.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:44 PM
Subject: "Science" reporting on the BEIR VII report release


> Friends,
>
> This is a brief news item in "Science" on the BEIR VII report release.
>
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> ==========================
>
> Too Hot to Handle
>
> A National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report released today finds that the
> risks of low-dose radiation rise with the dose, and there is no safe level 
> of
> radiation. That conclusion has grown stronger over the past 15 years, says
> the NAS committee, dismissing the hypothesis that tiny amounts of 
> radiation
> are harmless or beneficial.
>
> [PHOTO: Worker in full body cover - CAPTION: Risky. Even those who don't 
> work
> at nuclear power plants may be exposed to harmful levels of radiation in
> their daily lives.
> CREDIT: Brand X pictures/Getty Images
>
> The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation--VII (BEIR-VII) panel 
> examined
> the risks of exposure to both natural and man-made radiation at or below 
> 0.1
> Sieverts (Sv), which is roughly 40 times the amount the average person is
> exposed to each year. For typical Americans, 82% of radiation exposure 
> stems
> from natural sources such as radon gas seeping from the earth; the rest 
> comes
> mostly from medical procedures like x-rays.
>
> In its last report on the topic, in 1990, a BEIR panel calculated risks by
> plotting cancer deaths and doses for survivors of the two atomic bombs
> dropped on Japan in World War II. Risks appeared to increase with the 
> dose.
> Based on evidence that even a single particle of radiation can damage a
> cell's DNA, the panel then extrapolated this relationship to very low 
> doses
> to produce what is known as the linear no-threshold model (LNT). Some
> scientists have challenged the LNT model, however, noting that other cell 
> and
> animal studies suggest that a little radiation is harmless and could even
> stimulate DNA repair enzymes and other processes that protect against 
> later
> insults, an idea known as "hormesis."
>
> But the BEIR-VII report finds that the LNT model still holds. The latest
> cancer data on the bomb survivors, as well as fresh studies on nuclear
> workers and people exposed to medical radiation, all support the LNT
> relationship: Even a single 0.1 Sv dose would cause cancer in 1 of 100
> people. Such risks should be taken into account, the report cautions, when
> people consider full-body computed tomography (CT) scans to find signs of
> disease, a recent fad at shopping malls that delivers a radiation dose of
> 0.012 Sv.
>
> As for the hormesis theory, the panel found it is "not supported" by the
> data, although the panel says the hypothesis should be studied further. 
> And
> the panel's chair, Harvard epidemiologist Richard Monson, acknowledges 
> that
> the long-running debate over the LNT model won't end with this report. 
> "Some
> minds will be changed; others will not," he says.
>
> --JOCELYN KAISER
>
>
>