[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
latest NIRS letter on BEIR VII committee
PLEASE review the following letter to the National Academy of Sciences
Sign ON by Monday Aug 30 Noon Eastern Time at nirsnet@nirs.org or
dianed@nirs.org
Provide your
NAME
ORGANIZATION
ADDRESS
PHONE/FAX
EMAIL Address
Apologies for the length- some cuts (to remove redundancy or confusion)
may be made in the final version.
Apologies for the fast turn-over. It took time to compile and review
information on the 5 new members. And our extension request on comment
period was denied last night.
The letter criticizes the REVISED BEIR VII Panel appointed by the
National Academy of Sciences to review low-dose radiation health
effects.
_________________________________________________
THE SIGN ON LETTER:
Comments on the National Academy of Sciences Revised BEIR VII Panel
Reviewing Low Dose Radiation and Health
August 30, 1999
Dr. Rick Jostes, Study Director, BEIR VII
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 342
Washington, DC 20418
Dear Dr. Jostes,
Several weeks ago, more than 70 organizations and numerous
individuals
wrote to you expressing concern about apparent violations of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in the formation and composition of the
Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII, Phase 2
(BEIR VII) which is to review the health effects of low-dose ionizing
radiation. In particular, dramatic failures in complying with the
balance, conflict-of-interest, and openness provisions of FACA were
noted. Letters expressing similar concerns were sent by, among others,
the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Congressman Henry Waxman, and Dr. Edward Radford, Chairman of the
Academy's BEIR III committee.
A campaign is underway by the nuclear industry and nuclear
agencies
such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (USNRC) to further relax already weak radiation
protection standards. BEIR VII is a critical component of that effort.
If BEIR VII can be packed with proponents of reduced risk estimates for
"low dose" ionizing radiation, resulting in recommendations for further
weakening of worker and public protections, the nuclear industry and the
associated agencies can save billions of dollars in operation and
cleanup costs for contaminated sites. At the same time, leaving more
contamination behind will result in untold increases in cancers, genetic
effects, and other radiation-induced health impacts.
A great deal is thus at stake in whether NAS staff strictly
follow FACA
in setting up a balanced BEIR VII committee free of
conflicts-of-interest, or instead permit a significant biasing of its
composition favorable to powerful institutions with large economic and
other interests in the outcome of the study.
By law, no agency may rely upon the recommendations of an NAS
study
that is formed in violation of the requirements of FACA. In particular,
agencies are precluded from utilizing the fruits of an NAS committee (1)
where there is not genuine balance in the panel composition, (2) where
any member has a conflict-of-interest, unless that person's
participation is demonstrated to be so significant as to outweigh the
conflict and the conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed, or (3)
where the committee violates requirements regarding openness and
opportunity for meaningful public comment on nominees for membership on
the committee prior to their being named to the committee.
Our review of the initial composition of the BEIR VII panel led
us to
conclude that the NAS had violated all three requirements of FACA, and
in a dramatic fashion. In short, the committee is dominated by people
on one side of the very scientific debate that it is to examine, the
side favorable to nuclear industry and agency interests, with not even a
single respected scientist from the other side of the issue in question
represented. Additionally, people with conflicts-of-interest (e.g.,
ties to institutions with major economic interests in the outcome of the
study) have nonetheless been appointed.
These concerns remain unresolved and may have been worsened by
the
changes made in the composition of the BEIR VII panel. The removal of
one member and addition of five, none of whom balance the one-sided
perspective of the remaining 15, does not improve the credibility of the
committee.
Furthermore, the requirement for an opportunity for meaningful
public
comment on panel nominees has been made an empty shell. NAS has refused
to release panelists' curricula vitae or conflict-of-interest
"disclosure" forms. NAS has scheduled a meeting of the committee with
only one day lapsing from the close of the comment period--making clear
it will not take seriously any comments that may arise about the
committee composition. Although the panel is charged with reviewing the
Linear=No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation risk, to the best of our
knowledge, the NAS has not appointed a single supporter of the strict
LNT model to the panel. NAS staff filled the panel with people who
have staked out positions, often very vigorously, that the LNT model
overstates risks, simultaneously excluding all scientists who believe
current risk estimates understate the risks.
Numerous panelists have serious conflicts of interest, i.e.,
close ties
to the nuclear industry and associated agencies with a vested economic
and political interest in lowering radiation risk estimates. The panel
is also heavily weighted with people who have served as defense (nuclear
industry) witnesses in radiation cases, rather than those who have
testified on behalf of radiation victims. In short, the panel was
packed with proponents of lowering current radiation risk estimates and
saving the nuclear industry large amounts of money by the relaxed
radiation and cleanup standards that flow therefrom.
Changes to BEIR Committee Fail to Improve Imbalance,
Conflicts-of-Interest or Openness Violations
We were initially heartened by the decision of the NAS, shortly
after
receiving comments expressing concern about these matters, to suspend
the panel and consider reconstituting it in light of the imbalance and
conflicts of interest. However, as we noted at the time, mere cosmetic
changes to the panel composition would do nothing to resolve these
fundamental violations of FACA.
After review of the changes to the proposed BEIR VII committee,
we are
profoundly disappointed. The conflicts of interest are unaltered, and
the imbalance is in no way rectified:
7 No one who represents the views of that portion of the scientific
community that thinks current risk estimates are too low has been
permitted on, let alone a comparable number to balance the numerous
panel members who have been vocal advocates of the opposite viewpoint.
None of the radiation epidemiologists who have performed studies showing
risks greater than currently assumed in official estimates has been
added. Not one of the distinguished scientists recommended by the
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability last year has been appointed to the
panel.
7 Of the panel members identified with conflicts of interest, only one
has been removed, and he has been replaced with someone of equal or
greater conflicts and virtually identical viewpoint.
7 None of the other panelists with conflicts has been removed.
7 The people who have been added to the panel do not remedy its
imbalance, and in a couple of instances, worsen it.
Continued Violation of FACA Balance Requirements
In our previous letter, we expressed skepticism that any
additions to
the panel would represent the positions in the scientific community that
counter those of the bulk of the committee. We stated:
"Even were those [additions] to be the strongest representatives of the
viewpoint that current risk estimates are too low, the panel would
remain dramatically skewed. This would be even more true were the
additions to be people that were neutral on the key issues, or in the
center of the debate. Given the dramatic bias in the current committee
composition towards advocates of relaxing rather than strengthening risk
estimates, cosmetic changes would be grossly insufficient to remedy the
problem. The Academy should start over again and establish a balanced
committee, free of conflict-of-interest, and compliant with law."
It would appear that our original fears were well founded.
On the plus side (the only positive development), two people
(Drs.
Bingham and Abrams) have been added who have sympathy for workers and
the public, as opposed to primary sympathy for industry and agencies so
thoroughly represented by many of the rest of the panel. However,
neither has done much, if any, work in the area of the effects of low
dose radiation. Neither has, to the best of our knowledge, taken the
position that current radiation risk estimates are too low and should be
increased, in contrast to the numerous panel members who have long
pushed for relaxing radiation risk estimates. They are centrists or
agnostics on the issue to be examined by this committee, and therefore
cannot balance off the many vigorous proponents of relaxing risk
estimates already appointed.
On the other hand, the three other people who have been added
appear
to worsen the imbalance on the panel. One (Dr. Moeller) is a vigorous
proponent of the position that risks from radiation from nuclear
activities are overstated. Another (Dr. Lindahl) is an advocate of the
controversial arguments about radiation damage being repaired and cells
"adapting" to carcinogens, adding to the several other members already
on the committee with this perspective. The third is a statistician (Dr.
Stefanski) with no apparent experience in radiation issues but who has
worked in the area of "non-linear models," raising questions as to
whether he was put on the committee to add to the critics of the
Linear-Non-Threshold model for radiation effects.
The main concern remains the heavy imbalance in positions on the
central issue being examined, the risks of low dose radiation. Drs.
Hoel, Howe, Gilbert, Kellerer, Monson, and Sankaranarayanan, among a
number of others on the panel, have previously taken positions that
current risk estimates overstate radiation hazards. Again, no scientist
whose position is that risks are in fact understated has been permitted
on the panel to balance them.
The Academy recognizes that there is significant scientific
debate on
the very question of low dose health impacts; that is what the committee
has been set up to review. The complete exclusion of one side of that
debate from committee membership violates fundamental principles of
science, and conclusions so-reached will have no credibility.
NAS staff have created a panel with imbalance in membership
positions
on the central question. They have also created imbalance in the choice
of arenas of inquiry to review. The addition of panel members who have
not been active proponents of relaxing radiation risk estimates still
contributes to the imbalance in the committee by virtue of the area of
expertise they have been chosen by NAS to represent. Three or more
members of the panel work in the area of cellular DNA repair, an area
pointed to by proponents of relaxed radiation standards. However, no
members of the panel work in the areas pointed to by proponents of
strengthened radiation standards, such as the apparent increased
sensitivity to radiation in older adults.
Continued Violation of FACA Conflict-of-Interest Requirements
Dr. Mossman, a former president of the industry advocacy
organization
Health Physics Society (HPS) and a vigorous advocate of relaxing
radiation standards in order to save industry money, has been removed.
He has, however, been replaced by Dr. Moeller, also a vigorous advocate
of relaxing radiation regulations in order to save industry money, (and,
ironically, also a former president of the same Health Physics Society,
although longer ago.) Formerly, he was at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.
Currently, Dr. Moeller's consulting firm works heavily for DOE, on
matters such as Yucca Mountain. He, until recently, held long-term
senior positions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While
associated with the USNRC, he was instrumental in the formation of
agency positions that would be affected by the BEIR panel's review, such
as the USNRC's revised standards for protection against radiation,
controversial policies for BRC (Below Regulatory Concern--waste
deregulation), and the push for relaxed radiation standards for Yucca
Mountain. He has publicly trivialized radiation exposures from nuclear
activities, comparing them to risks from eating Brazil nuts. (This was
in an editorial for the American Council on Science and Health, an
industry-funded organization with which he is associated, that generally
opposes environmental restrictions on industry.) In short, Dr. Moeller
is as conflicted and as much a proponent of efforts to relax radiation
standards as was Dr. Mossman, whom he replaced. Indeed Dr. Moeller has
publicly associated himself with the views of Dr. Mossman, by name. We
do not see this change as progress.
Aside from Dr. Mossman, none of the people with
conflicts-of-interest
have been removed. For example, Dr. Hoel, a strong critic of the Linear
-No-Threshold model, remains on the panel. As a trial witness for
General Public Utilities, which operated the Three Mile Island reactor
that suffered a meltdown in 1979, Dr. Hoel attacked studies by Dr.
Steven Wing and colleagues suggesting greater health effects resulting
from the accident than previously presumed. As a consultant to the
Rocketdyne Corporation, operator of the DOE Santa Susana nuclear testing
facility, site of a 1959 partial core meltdown, he attacked the study by
a team from the UCLA School of Public Health (Drs. Morgenstern, Ritz,
and Froines) demonstrating significantly excess cancer deaths among
radiation-exposed workers at the DOE/Rocketdyne site. Yet Dr. Wing and
the Morgenstern team are excluded from the panel, while Dr. Hoel who
appears to have conflicts-of -interest on the issue, is included. He
will be involved, despite those conflicts, in judging (or even
preventing consideration of) the very studies he has previously attacked
on behalf of nuclear industry clients. (Presumably, Dr. Hoel received
remuneration from the nuclear companies involved for his services on
their behalf, although the refusal to release conflict-of-interest forms
precludes the public from confirming the nature of this and other
associations.)
The NAS's most perplexing response, or lack of response,
to a conflict
we identified, may have to do with Chris Whipple. NAS identified Dr.
Whipple, when first named to the panel, as Vice President of ICF Kaiser,
a major nuclear contractor. We pointed out the conflict-of-interest
this posed, as well as the conflict from his previous employment at the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). In response, NAS has
apparently conceded that an association with ICF Kaiser would be a
conflict, but asserts Dr. Whipple has no connection with ICF Kaiser,
working instead for ICF Consulting, a supposedly unrelated entity. This
was puzzling. However, upon checking, it was confirmed that NAS had
itself identified Whipple as an official of ICF Kaiser when it
originally announced his appointment to the committee, and that he, for
years, has so identified himself. In checking ICF Consulting on the
internet, one is in fact taken to ICF Kaiser's web page. From there one
is transferred to a temporary website for ICF Consulting, which contains
a note saying that as of June 30, ICF Kaiser Consulting, after thirty
years of association with ICF Kaiser, was now to be known as ICF
Consulting, separately owned. Can the Academy possibly think that a man
who has spent his adult life working for the nuclear industry--first
with EPRI and then ICF Kaiser--is suddenly free of conflicts of
interest? Surely those conflicts don't disappear simply because in the
last few weeks, after his appointment to BEIR VII, his firm's name and
ownership have changed slightly.
Furthermore, the conflict continues. Faced with an internal
financial
crisis, ICF Kaiser was recently forced to break up into three parts, one
of which is ICF Consulting. ICF Consulting retained work it was doing
for DOE and continues to have active support contracts with DOE. To take
a position on the BEIR VII radiation risk issues contrary to that taken
by his company's clients could be economically hazardous to Dr.
Whipple's firm. The charade by the Academy that a minor name change in
recent weeks somehow eliminates what the NAS appears to concede had been
a conflict flies in the face of FACA's requirements to take seriously
potential conflicts-of-interest.
Continued Violation of FACA's Requirements Regarding Openness and
Meaningful Public Comment
We also remain concerned about the continued disregard by the
Academy
of the requirements in FACA for openness and meaningful opportunity for
public comment on nominees being considered for such advisory
committees. The Academy's continued refusal to make public either the
curricula vitae or conflict-of-interest "disclosure" forms for panel
members makes it extremely difficult for the public to fully assess and
comment on the qualifications and conflicts of panel nominees.
The decision to announce the reconstituted committee membership
in
August and require comments to be received by the end of the month,
given people's summer vacation schedules, further creates the appearance
of attempting to preclude effective public comment. It simply isn't
possible to fully research the new panel members in the time available,
particularly with people away on holiday. We regret that our immediate
request for extension was denied, just a few days before the
deadline.(Because of these factors, many who had signed the previous
letter have been unavailable to review the new appointments and this
letter during this period.)
Lastly, having a comment period that expires on August 31, with
the
BEIR committee set to meet on September 2, gives the Academy all of one
day to review the comments. This sends a very clear signal that the NAS
views the comment period required by statute as a nuisance requirement
not to be taken seriously, rather than a legal obligation to be
vigorously followed. Whatever information is received by the 31st, the
Academy is intent on going forward with the committee on the 2nd, again
making a mockery of the requirement for effective opportunity for public
comment before the appointment of committee members.
These actions violate the statutory requirement that review of
the
information provided must be completed prior to people being made
committee members. The fiction that committee members are merely
provisional members is an attempt to evade the clear intent of the law.
The committee meets on September 2, to conduct committee business.
Committee business cannot be conducted by "provisional" members. How do
you undo influences by members later removed from the panel for
conflicts-of-interest or balance reasons? Jurors do not sit on juries
prior to voir dire being completed and their being formally approved as
jurors. The Academy recognized this by cancelling the first public
sessions of the panel in Philadelphia (although permitting the committee
to meet in secret), saying it needed first to resolve balance and
conflict-of-interest issues raised by public commenters. Now NAS has
gone ahead and re-scheduled the same business meetings of the committee,
prior to completion of review of public comments on its proposed
composition. There appears to be a continuing attitude of being above
the law, of not having to live up to the commitments made to Congress
and incorporated into statute when the special NAS provisions of FACA
were adopted last year.
Conclusion
In conclusion, despite very serious imbalance and
conflicts-of-interest
in the initially named BEIR VII panel, and failures to comply with
openness and public comment requirements, the problems with the
committee remain essentially unaltered. We urge, once again, that the
NAS start over and form a BEIR VII committee that is balanced and free
of conflicts-of-interest, one that is formed in compliance with law.
The current committee is lopsided with people from one side of the
scientific debate that is to be examined, with the other side of that
debate entirely excluded. Such an imbalanced process can have no
credibility.
In so saying, we must make clear again that we are not
criticizing the
scientific competence or integrity of any of the individuals appointed
to the committee, but rather the imbalance in the panel as a whole. The
fault rests with the NAS staff who permitted their own biases on the
issue to affect the selection of the panelists, not with the panelists
themselves who, presumably, had nothing to do with the selection.
The NAS should not permit members with conflicts or the skewing
of
panels so as to be favorable to the economic interests of powerful
institutions with an economic stake in the outcome of a study.
Permitting such a bias puts at risk the health of the public, workers
and the environment.
As currently constituted, the BEIR VII panel, process and future
recommendations are not credible. We continue to urge that BEIR VII be
reconstituted, this time in compliance with FACA.
Sincerely,
Diane D'Arrigo
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Washington, DC
Dan Hirsch
Committee to Bridge the Gap
California
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html