[ RadSafe ] BEIR VII

[goldinem at songs.sce.com]

It's both amusing and sad to see all you folks besmirching the credibility
of some of the top radiobiologists and epidemiologists in the world because
you simply don't agree with their conclusions.  Sounds an awful lot like
the anti-nuclear movement.

Moreover, you're reading way more doom and gloom into the report than is
probably there.  I say "probably" because I haven't read the report and
haven't even finished the entire summary.  But before decrying the
"HP-conspiracy" and claiming the result was rigged simply by panel
composition, first evaluate what the report says:
*  Epidemiology shows a small increase in risk associated with low levels
of ionizing radiation.
*  Molecular studies support the concept that radiation effects are not
necessarily the same as metabolic processes and therefore, support the idea
that a risk may be present at low levels.
*  Cellular studies show that effects may not be limited to the directly
irradiated cell and damage may persist in successive generations.

None of these conclusions are new and the risk factors haven't changed.
And we don't have to evacuate Colorado.

Most of us in the radiation safety community should be happy that the risk
levels fall in line with the existing regulatory framework and therefore
support the continued use of nuclear technologies.  If you hoped for a few
rem a year threshold, then you've been living on a different planet and
ignoring most of the real radiation science of the past few decades.  There
are tons more studies that support the concept of low level radiation
effects on molecules, cells, and organisms than there are the support
stimulation of the immune system or whatever else is hypothesized for
hormesis.  I've attempted lab experiments on hormesis myself (plants) and I
can tell you that anything so dependent on statistics is fraught with
difficulty.

I attended one of the first meetings of the BEIR VII panel when it was
formed a number of years ago.  The anti-nuclear activists were in force
railing about the composition of the panel and their support from the
"nuclear industry."  The industry according to them is anyone who receives
financial support from government as well as utilities, universities....
So it is quite amusing to hear folks today asking - just how did they form
that panel of conspirators?

Signed, a present and former conspirator (radiobiology researcher, health
physicist, educator).  Hope for a future conspiracy too.

Eric M. Goldin, Ph.D., CHP
<goldinem at songs.sce.com>