Re: Dissenting Statement on the Wingspread Conference Report

[Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

Jim,
While I saw this just prior to departing BNL for Minneapolis and the HPS
Annual the week before last, I have to admit that I did not assimilate it.
I did attend the all-day two sessions on Wingspread.  Beyond an indication
of a controversy about there being effects at over 10 cSv or no effects
below it,
I do not recall any mention of the issues raised in this measage.
Andy

At 07:13 AM 7/10/98 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>
>