Public Citizen on BIER committee

["Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>]

The following Action Alert was sent out by Public Citizen today.  I thought
many of you find their take on the committee membership interesting.

Mike Baker ... mcbaker@lanl.gov


>
>==============================================================
>Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project
>==============================================================
>The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), under contract from the
>Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
>Regulatory Commission is charged with the assessment of radiation safety
>standards as they are currently written and whether they require change.
>
>In response to this contract the NAS is forming the seventh Committee on the
>Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). BEIR is made up of
>scientists in the field of radiation studies.
>
>The proposed make-up of this Committee is open to public comment.  June 22,
>1999 is the deadline for members of the public to make their views known in
>regards to the composition of this Committee.
>
>The decisions taken by this Committee have the potential to effect the life
>of every citizen of the United States.
>
>The decisions of this committee will address the following issues:
>- radioactive waste disposal sites
>- the use of recycled radioactive materials in consumer products
>- nuclear reactor emissions
>- public health and safety as effected by radiation safety standards
>
>BEIR has historically been top heavy with scientists who side with the
>nuclear industry in their claims that "low dose" radiation is not harmful,
>or much less harmful than currently presumed.
>
>As it is now proposed the current BEIR Committee is not balanced in its
>membership.  It does not include any of the credible scientists who have
>produced studies showing low dose radiation to be of greater harm even than
>current official estimates.
>
>The Committee membership is stacked in favor of the nuclear industry.  The
>industry will push the Committee for:
>- relaxed radiation standards
>- higher allowances on radioactive materials that can be left in place at
>contaminated sites
>- higher release levels of radioactive waste into our air and water
>
>If this Committee is left unchecked, the nuclear industry will save billions
>of dollars at the expense of your health and safety.
>
>Write, Call and Email the National Academy of Sciences Board.  Demand that
>BEIR be BALANCED or DISSOLVED.
>
>Without balance and equitable representation of all sides of the scientific
>debate NAS could very easily ignore the rights of the American people to a
>safe environment, free from exposure to radiation.
>
>The NAS needs to hear from you.  NOW.  BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
>
>Write to:
>
>National Academy of Sciences
>2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
>Washington, DC 20418
>Att. Rick Jostes, Staff Officer
>Re: BRER-K-98-02-A
>Telephone:(202)334-2000
>Email: wwwfdbk@nas.edu
>(be sure to quote the project number in your correspondence:BRER-K-98-02-A)
>
>The proposed make-up of the Committee Membership and brief bios may be found
>on the web site of the National Academy of Sciences: www.nas.edu
>Directions:
>1. At the bottom of the web page click on "Current Projects"
>2. Click on "By Subject"
>3. Click on "Search"
>4. In the search panel type "BEIR VII - phase 2" and click on "search"
>5. Click on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation
>(BEIR VII-phase 2)
>6. Click on Committee Membership
>7. Scroll down and click on "Feedback"
>
>TALKING POINTS FOR LETTERS AND EMAILS
>(from the Nuclear Information Resource Service)
>
>Evidence of Committee Member Bias
>1. The panel does not include scientists that represent the full range of
>conclusions and scientific methodology concerning radiation and human
>health that exists in the current research literature.
>
>It contains no representatives, scientists or otherwise, from affected
>reactor and weapons complex communities and therefore lacks credibility both
>from a scientific as well as a public health standpoint.
>
>2.a  Several members defend radiation exposure by comparing it to other
>voluntary and involuntary risks (driving, eating bananas or peanut
>butter, smoking, crossing the street, flying in an airplane, etc.).
>Some (including Mossman, Howe, Sankaranaryanan)  have concluded that
>radiation is a low priority and that other things will kill you first.
>
>b.  A "risk communication" specialist has been included despite the fact
>that such a panel should provide facts, not a prepared interpretation of
>selective information. We question why the risk communication category
>is included on the panel at this early stage in the NAS proceedings.
>
>3. At least four members of the panel (Mossman, Cardis, Gilbert, Kellerer)
>claim that we lack sufficient data on protracted low doses of ionizing
>>radiation despite the existence of such analyses.
>
>They rely on data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to assess for low dose
>exposure in humans. BEIR VII is assessing continuous or routine low
>doses, but data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not adequate predictors of
>the full range of health effects for various types of exposure.
>
>Many of these researchers recognize this shortcoming of the A-bomb study by
>claiming it a high-dose study; but they still use it selectively to make
>unfounded assumptions regarding low doses of radiation. For instance, any
>health effects not found in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but found in low dose
>studies are often discounted as non-radiation induced.
>
>Conversely, any health effects found in the A-bomb data which are not found
>in the low-dose study population are used as proof that any other disease
>prevalence is not due to ionizing radiation exposure.
>
>4. Mossman and Evan Douple (the NAS staff member who helped form the
>committee) both contend that radiation is a relatively weak carcinogen.
>Mossman is lead author on a position paper by a nuclear industry advocacy
>group pushing for eliminating consideration of harm for any doses less than
>5 rem.  Yet he is on the panel which is to evaluate his own extreme claims;
>and no one on the other side of the debate is allowed on the panel.
>
>5. Scientists often argue that epidemiological studies will not show any
>increases from radiation exposure because the doses would be low or disease
>is obscured by background disease. When these studies do show increased
>disease,  (as in studies by Cardis, Gilbert) they often try to mitigate the
>results in the most cursory way or just simply don't bother to address the
>issue. Sometimes the health effect is hidden by combining populations and
>disease incidence, such as those from bomb factory sites(Cardis, Gilbert).
>This methodology is highly questionable and widely criticized.
>
>6. At least four, have tacit or blatant industry connections either by
>having testified against radiation victims or by working for or contracting
>out to the nuclear industry (Whipple, Buffler on EMF radiation, Hoel,
>Monson).
>
>7. Davis conducted a Hanford thyroid disease study, the results of which
>were extremely controversial. This study is often cited by those attempting
>to relax radiation standards. No scientists of studies showing different
>results are on the panel.
>
>8. Mossman admits that 10% of the population may be radiosensitive, but
>there is no need to reduce radiation standards to accommodate them. He
>also states that allowing larger radiation exposures would be
>economically beneficial to the industry.
>
>CONCLUSION
>In short, most of the committee members have minimized the impact of
>low-dose radiation on human health, even when their research indicated
>otherwise.
>
>We object to the ABSENCE of any balancing scientists. The committee
>membership fails to represent a major section of scientific work on low
>dose radiation and human health and will, therefore, fail to represent
>and protect the public adequately.
>
>The public has been routinely excluded from the procedure at NAS. We are
>being denied documents integral to the committee selection process.
>Demand that the NAS release the conflict of interest forms completed by
>each committee member. Call for balancing the panel with scientists
>whose work differs from the prevalent perspective on this industry and
>government- heavy panel.
>
>Questions? Contact: Cindy Folkers (cindyf@nirs.org) Nuclear Information and
>Resource Service
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html