Re: Dissenting Statement on the Wingspread Conference Report

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Group, 

FYI. This is a response to a comment by Marty Apple, Exec Director of the CSSP
on the Dissenting Statement. This should be made available and considered in
the discussion of the Wingspread Conference at the HPS meeting.

Thank you.

Regards, Jim 
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

cssp@acs.org wrote:
> 
> At 06:39 AM 7/9/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Wingspread Participants,
> >
> >The following statement is provided for your review and comment, and
> >concurrence, including concurrence subject to specific changes.
> >
> >Initial review and concurrence is by Jim Muckerheide, Myron
> >Pollycove, Margaret Maxey, and John Graham.
> >
> >Please make this statement available to the session on Wingspread in
> >Minneapolis. A word processing format can be provided if preferable.
> >
> >Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> >Radiation, Science, and Health
> >==============================
> >
> >Dissenting Statement by Participants in the July-August 1997
> >Wingspread Conference on Radiation Science and Research Policy, and 
> >Radiation Protection Policy
> >
> >
> >    The Wingspread Conference was a constructive dialog on making
> >changes in radiation science policy and radiation protection policy.
> >It was a substantive "retreat" among the key international radiation
> >protection policy organization leaders and their supporting agencies,
> >with a few "outsiders", not including leading science researchers.
> >
> >It produced a consensus that:
> >
> >1. No data indicate that there are adverse health effects below 10
> >cSv (10,000 mrem); and
> >
> >2. Costly cleanup standards at levels that are very small relative to
> >variations in background radiation are not justified.
> >
> >There were two primary substantive recommendations:
> >
> >1. To establish a radiation science committee to initiate an open
> >assessment of radiation health effects science and to specify
> >appropriate new research to resolve knowledge of radiation health
> >effects dose-response.
> >
> >2. To establish a radiation protection policy committee to change
> >radiation protection policies to eliminate extreme, unfounded, and
> >costly "clean up" standards for decontamination.
> >
> >
> >    Contrary to these agreements, the final Conference report states
> >that there was concurrence that there are adverse radiation health
> >effects at doses between 10 and 20 cSv (10,000 to 20,000 mrem).
> >However, this statement is not true. The authors of the report were 
> >so informed by a number of participants in advance of report 
> >publication (originally drafted as a concurrence that there are 
> >adverse health effects at 10 cSv).

> >The statement is untrue because, both:
> >
> >1. There was no discussion of this conclusion. If such a discussion
> >had occurred, those of us familiar with the actual data, who had
> >concurred with the statement that "there are no adverse effects below 
> >10 cSv" (considered to be only 'a reasonable start' to reflect the 
> >actual scientific data) would have strenuously objected. Therefore it 
> >is not possible for such a concurrence to have been established.
> >
> >2. There is no significant data from substantial credible studies,
> >and therefore no possible confirming studies, of any adverse health
> >effects below 20-30 cSv. This is true even in the studies, admitted 
> >to be irrelevant, of the high-dose-rate survivors of the atomic 
> >bombings in Japan. However, to the contrary, there are substantial 
> >scientific data demonstrating beneficial biological responses and 
> >health effects below roughly 30 cSv; and there are no adverse effects 
> >in dozens of substantial studies to 100s of cSv in chronic and highly 
> >fractionated doses, eg radium dial painters to 1,000 cGy 
> >(3,000-20,000 cSv), in early radiologists, with a mean dose estimates 
> >to 500 cSv, and in medical patients and other sources of substantial 
> >human exposure.
> >
> >
> >    Further, the promise of Wingspread seems to have been lost.
> >
> >    ICRP and US agency participants that produce the current
> >excessive regulation and cleanup standards, and promulgate unfounded 
> >public fear, who concurred with these statements, continue to 
> >misrepresent to the public and the Congress the nature and known 
> >consequences of low level radiation on health. They continue to 
> >produce scientifically invalid results as bases for even more exessive 
> >and costly standards.
> >
> >    Public fear is fostered by claiming potential health risks at
> >radiation levels that are trivial compared to just the variation in
> >background radiation which have no adverse consequences in dose
> >differentials that exceed a factor of 10. They are even more
> >inconsequential relative to their own Wingspread statement that
> >there is no basis for assessing adverse health effects below 10 cSv
> >(10,000 mrem).
> >    Further, current data indicates that such risks are not
> >biologically plausible, with no adverse consequences at much higher 
> >doses, and substantial contrary data that demonstrate positive 
> >molecular and cellular responses, and physiological and health 
> >benefits. Such data includes positive immune system responses that 
> >have been shown to reduce cancer incidence and to successfully treat 
> >cancers at low-to-moderate doses. Such substantial data is ignored 
> >and suppressed in radiation science policy and radiation protection 
> >policy.
> >
> >================
> With all due respect, Jim and friends
>         We have both the tapes of the sessions and the
>         draft text overheads written at the time of the last sessions
>         and they show that your statement is incorrect.
>                         MARTY

Dear Marty,

With all due respect, a cryptic note on a slide presented in a meeting that
was interrupted due to schedule conflicts, with no formal concurrence
mechanism, does not establish "concurrence". (At the interrupted conclusion, I
approached Roger to urge that the last "agreement", to recommend only one
"committee", be ignored because the people who would be key to the 2
committees were different - and that the meeting was interrupted before it
could be fully addressed.)

Without votes on specific language, it is also disingenuous to say that there
was "consensus" when 15-20% of the participants supported my statement that
there had been no such consensus - that the statement in the Press Release
reflected the actual discussion and intent. While you may have gotten some to
"concur" in changing the language from stating that there are "effects at 10
rem" to "effects at 10 to 20 rem" (which was certainly not presented to all of
us as a revision for "concurrence"), that does not reflect "concurrence", but
does confirm the after-the-fact revision of the supposed "consensus" language. 

Simply, with no vote on specific language, there can be no "consensus" if any
participant says they did not and do not concur. It is at least unethical to
report such language as a consensus without qualification. In this case there
is more than one who do not concur. 

(This of course ignores the fact that the statement is not scientifically valid.)

Thank you.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
Radiation, Science, and Health