'Der Spiegel' news item

[muckerheide@highway1.com (James Muckerheide)]

Group,

Good news!

Attached is the text of an item translated from the German magazine 'Der
Spiegel' (Monday, April 21, p. 235). 'Der Spiegel' has tended to be in
the 'anti' column.

With the Ted Rockwell article in "The Scientist" and the Washington Post
with the way it was picked up across the country, the story in
'Philadelphia' on radon, and many similar media recognitions of what the
Philadelphia article notes is "a lot of government hooey' :-) (although
we should have taken such statements in "Science" more seriously over
the last 5 years or so) there is new promise that the re-examination of
the massive data that contradict the LNT will surface through the few
"best studies" that are manipulated to show the LNT. Congress is paying
attention. (Question from senior Congressional staff: "What is the best
way for Congress to require action and response that will bring the
issue (and the hundreds of scientists and thousands of studies) to bear
on the thin veneer that is now the LNT? and public costs for no
benefits?" HPS can take Marvin Goldman's Feb 95 HPS President's question
to heart in taking us to the questioning and rebirth of radiation
sciences and nuclear technologies. Perhaps even to recreating the
science of radiobiology, moribund since the '70s because it asked
embarrasing questions.)

Regards, Jim

===========================

"Radiation damages - overestimated risk? 

American physicians wonder about the result of studies, according to
which radiation of low intensity, as occurring distantly from nuclear
explosions or around nuclear reactors, causes apparently less damage
than previously assumed. Among tens of thousands of American shipyard
workers involved in the seventies in building and maintaining nuclear
ships, there have been less cancers than in non-irradiated groups, as
researchers from the John Hopkins University found. Also, there was no
unusual increase of diseases or casuaIties among the U.S. soldiers
exposed to small amounts of radioactive fallout in nuclear tests. The so
far generally accepted medical rule, supported by numerous studies,
according to which even smallest radiation doses represent a health
risk, is also questioned by a study of scientists of the University of
Pittsburgh: In those areas of the U.S. with the highest level of the
naturally radioactive gas radon, the lung cancer risk is particularly
low. Two (?) commissions have been asked to investigate whether these
results require a correction in the current legal radiation protection
requirements in the U.S."
====================

In addition to the data, the book by ICRP and UNSCEAR Member Prof Gunnar
Walinder: "Has Radiation Protection Become a Health Hazard?" with his
observation from personal experience that: "I do not hesitate to say
that this is the greatest scientific scandal of the century." indict not
just the data, but science itself in the misrepresentation of the data.
(Yes. He considered Lysenko.)

The data story is beginning to get out. With the Data Document and
Position Statement in hand to get to the science and public policy
community, there will be an increasing credibility factor that will
bring even more attention and feed political credibility. 

We must be prepared to answer questions from the political establishment
about what actions are needed to re-examine the data on radiation health
effects, and revise radiation protections standards. Some must be
prepared to answer for roles in the effort to misrepresent the data vs
the case that Myron Pollycove makes, that for 35 years he had confidence
in the scientific validity of the conclusions produced by our scientific
committees. In 2 years of careful inquiry and investigation, the case of
what Prof Walinder says "is not fraudulent manipulation", has convinced
him, as others, as he presented at the American Physical Society last
week, that not only is the premise or even the possibility of the LNT
wrong from the biological processes involved, but has been shown to be
based on suppressing evidence and research projects and researchers, and
misrepresenting and manipulating data (like the IARC study, the tip of
the iceberg bearing down). 

The leadership of the scientific committees have misled the policy
makers. I expect numbers of the science community, like the HPS
Presidents, especially now incoming President Otto Raabe who is
reporting on the radium evidence throughout the country, and members of
the scientific committees whose many challenges to the results presented
by the leadership have gone unheeded, to speak up, loudly. Of course,
the agencies have directly and indirectly rewarded and produced the
committee members and their funding and tenure and appointments.

Times are changing! HP has an great opportunity to be identified as the
most important profession (changing its technician role) in the new
radiation applications era by justifying cuts in the horrendous
overheads and operating costs of nuclear technology organizations. More
HP can be justified to more rigorously establish new standards and
procedures, and to manage operations, within allowable limits.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com