Re: More LNT

[muckerheide@mediaone.net]

Chris Davey wrote:

> I'm sure others will reply more eloquently than I, but still - here
> goes:

Very well put, Chris. I would add only that NCRP hides its inability to
support the LNT in competent technical forums by its pretence that it is "in
the middle". You need to realize how bad it is. Meinhold wrote a letter to us
that refused to engage in the debate on the science between the LNT supporters
and critics by saying they would only chair a meeting, stating that they
recommend that Prof emeritus Bernie Cohen, PhD Physics, U.Pitt, author of
hundreds of rigorously credible science articles and highly acclaimed books,
and Prof emeritus Myron Pollycove, MD, UCSF and 30 years head of nuclear
medicine at SF General Hospital (and another - Ludwig Feinendegen? MD, 30
years in highly credible science), debate John Gofman, who is widely known to
have abandoned science for the self-serving political stage in 1976-77, as his
premises were destroyed in 3 major scientific conferences), and Helen
Caldicott!?, pediatrician??, who is among the worst of known blatantly
dishonest political activists who has never produced a technically competent
statement (and another - Rudi Nussbaum?) who collectively know essentially
nothing about the biology issues. We considered this an outrageous act. 

We have stated clearly that we are addressing the substantive scientific data
and analysis that contradicts the LNT, and that data that is claimed to
support the LNT. We are not now primarily engaged in the public rhetoric of
the debate. 

This is the time for the integrity of science and scientists, and
knowledgeable human beings, to coordinate and organize the voluminous data
that has been in the disaggregated hands of many individuals in their own
areas of specialty, and even jealosy. We need to overcome the explicit lack of
data and the explicit disinformation being promulgated to justify the LNT (not
as a "conservative rad protection policy", but represented as reflecting the
scientific basis for actual dose-response). This was produced again at the
recent Seville IAEA, actually ICRP, Conference; and in Roger Clarke's
statements on Monday this week that included numerous explicit, known,
factually erroneous statements on the existing scientific data, starting with
the justification of the DS86 Hiroshima dosimetry that was destroyed yet again
from the neutron data (Ni-63?) by Kelleher at the Seville Conference 2 weeks
ago, the Canadian fluoroscopy data, the IARC "study" widely shown by several
authors to misrepresent its own data, etc, etc, to misrepresent support for
the LNT as reflecting actual dose-response. These statements explicitly
abandoned the consensus statements at the important August Wingspread
Conference. 

We are planning to produce an extended treatment of that evidence early next
year. I appreciate a few private notes from some on the list. I continue to
invite anyone who has questions about the data and analysis to join the effort
to conduct an open scientific review (as questioned and called for by the ACNW
and NRC of the NCRP Committee 1-6 effort, which we still have some hope for. I
also invite those who can support this effort, with data, editorial, and
communications support, etc, to join us. Even with some of the leading
scientists on the planet supporting the effort, there is no funding for the
efforts to assess the evidence. We therefore also need financial and staff
support to function on a shoestring. 

It's late and I apologise if this is not coherent. I'll be traveling til late
Sunday if anyone wants to get me.

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.
jmuckerheide@delphi.com 

> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, NCRP wrote:
> 
> > Radsafers:
> (snip)
> > This is the predominant reason that I abstain from "debates" and
> similar
> > symposia that claim to be fair when they place the position of
> NCRP/ICRP at
> > one end of the spectrum and the rest at the other end.  The fact, of
> course,
> > is that the NCRP/ICRP position is in the middle between the
> > threshold/hormesis proponents and those scientists who think the
> NCRP/ICRP
> > greatly underestimates the risk of radiation exposure.  This was
> brought
> > most clearly to my attention when both the French Academy of Science
> and
> > Greenpeace Organization were castigating the ICRP over their draft
> of
> > publication 60 in the late 1980's.  There are scientists on each
> side of the
> > NCRP/ICRP position who can select some data to establish their
> position.
> > The centrist approach is to look at all of the data and attempt to
> reflect
> > the most reasonable value for risk estimation.
> 
> I think a lot of radsafers would agree that to put, for example, 'the
> French Academy of Science' and 'Greenpeace Organization' on the scales
> at
> opposite ends and say that the result is balanced (i.e. that each
> should
> be given equal weight) is either showing poor judgement, or is basing
> the
> weighting on public perception instead of reality.
> (Snip)
> > (there follows a paragraph on public perception, then:)
> 
> > These views are prevalent everywhere.  The end result is that the
> actual
> > shape of the low dose  effect curve may be relatively unimportant
> for
> > regulations at low doses.  It is the same public perception which
> interferes
> > with scientifically based decision making.
> 
> Are you saying that the decisions made by NCRP are not entirely
> scientifically based, but have been 'interfered with by public
> perception'?
> (snip)
> It certainly seems so from the example given below:
> > Just as an example - EPA and the states have been fully aware that
> the basis
> > for their tritium drinking water concentration of 20,000 pCi per
> liter
> > should, in fact, be over 80,000 pCi per liter. based on a
> > committed effective dose of 4 mrem but they are loath to acknowledge
> any
> > such change in their regulation.
> (snip)
> > (there then follows a paragraph about the 15 mrem and 25 mrem limits
> of
> EPA and NRC respectively)
> 
> > It seems clear that the only way to get definite answers to the risk
> of low
> > dose rate exposure is through molecular biology.  This, of course,
> assumes
> > we have the scientific tools to extrapolate this information to
> human cancer
> > induction.  For now isn't the assumption of linearity at low dose
> and dose
> > rates the only reasonable approach to public health policy?
> 
> Again, I think a very large number of radsafers would disagree:  they
> would say, as do I, that we can't afford this 'assumption of linearity
> at
> low dose and dose rates', that it is not at all reasonable, because it
> is
> using up valuable funds that could be far more effectively used in
> many
> other ways, and it is making many uses of radiation uneconomic, thus
> preventing or delaying life-saving applications, such as cancer
> therapy
> and nuclear power.
> 
> > Perhaps a change can be made in public perception.  The action of
> > regulators, politicians and journalists have played a large role in
> > endorsing and encouraging the public concern over very low dose.
> Let's work
> > on this as part of the problem.
> 
> I think that regulations, etc, have helped mold public perception in
> the
> past, and could do so again.  The responsibily of experts is not to
> follow
> public perception, but to lead it.  If you are saying that NCRP is
> 'tied'
> by public perception, I think we are in serious trouble.
> 
> > James A. pahn
> > Senior Staff Scientist,NCRP
> > email:ncrp@ncrp.com
> > Fax:907-8768
> > Phone:301-657-2652
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chris Davey
> 
>         RSO  Cross Cancer Institute  11560 University Avenue
>         Edmonton   Alberta   Canada  T6G 1Z2
>         (403)432-8616   fax 432-8615    email
> cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca
>         pager number 005, just call (403) 432-8771 and ask for that
> pager