Radiation Panel Makeup Protested

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

Wednesday September 1 4:22 PM ET 

Radiation Panel Makeup Protested

WASHINGTON (AP) - A prestigious panel of scientists trying to 
determine the cancer risks from low doses of radiation is embroiled 
in controversy even before its first meeting. Critics contend the 
group is dominated by members beholden to the nuclear industry.  

``A campaign is under way to further relax already weak radiation 
protection standards,'' more than 130 environmental, health and 
anti-nuclear activists wrote the National Academy of Sciences this 
week, protesting the composition of the review committee.  

They argued that the committee does not represent the broad 
spectrum of scientific opinion on the issue. Scientists whose 
studies have found elevated cancer levels from low-dose radiation 
exposure at some nuclear weapons facilities were excluded from 
the committee, they said.  

At the same time, the committee members include a significant 
number of scientists who have maintained that current 
assumptions about low-dose radiation overstate the health risks. 
Some of the members have asserted there is a dose threshold 
below which radiation is not harmful at all.  

The academy's National Research Council, which selected the 
scientists, recently added five additional members and forced 
another to withdraw. The 20-member committee will examine the 
issue ``from a scientific point of view without politics and without 
bias,'' Evan Douple, director of the council's radiation studies 
branch, said in an interview.  

Those on both sides of the dispute agree that much is at stake in 
the three-year study being undertaken by the special panel, which 
holds its first meeting Thursday.  

The threat of cancer from large amounts of radiation is clear. But 
does exposure to small doses above background radiation over 
many years put people at risk? Many scientists are not sure and 
hope the special review panel will provide some answers.  

Formally known as the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing 
Radiation, or BEIR, the panel has such prestige that its findings 
are likely to have tremendous impact on what radiation levels will 
be allowed by the government at abandoned nuclear power plants, 
in the cleanup of nuclear weapons production facilities and at 
nuclear waste disposal sites.  

``The importance is enormous,'' said Dr. Rudi Nussbaum, professor 
emeritus of physics and environmental sciences at Portland State 
University, adding that the BEIR findings will be key in ``shaping 
legislation and eventually protecting or not protecting people from 
radiation exposure.''  

Nussbaum was one of eight scientists who complained in a letter 
to the National Academy of Sciences that the panel ``is dominated 
by individuals whose work has been conducted within institutional 
settings heavily influenced by organizations with interests in the 
nuclear industry and does not include a significant number of 
persons who have demonstrated independence from this 
institutional setting.''  

``This is a very lopsided committee with predictable outcome,'' 
added Nussbaum in an interview.

Recently one scientist, Kenneth Mossman, a professor of health 
physics at Arizona State University who had become a prime 
target of the critics' attacks, was dropped from the panel.  

In an interview Wednesday, Mossman said the panel represents ``a 
spectrum'' of scientific opinion. He said his critics are trying to put 
scientists with ``extremist'' views on the panel. He said his own 
views had been distorted, particularly by anti-nuclear groups who 
characterized him as ``a vigorous advocate of relaxing radiation 
standards.''  

``My position is at these very low doses it's not appropriate to 
select any (cancer risk) model because there is such tremendous
scientific uncertainty,'' said Mossman.

The scientific debate over health risks from exposure to low-dose 
radiation has been brewing for years.

One problem is that the number of cancers from low-dose radiation 
has not been measured independently. Current standards for 
radiation levels are set by extrapolating from the increased cancers 
observed from exposure to high doses, principally among victims of 
the World War II atomic bomb blasts in Japan.  

Many scientists have adopted - and past BEIR committees have 
endorsed - an assumption that risks from low doses follow a 
``linear'' model that assumes each unit of radiation, no matter how 
small, can cause cancer.  

But other scientists, including many of the scientists on the BEIR 
review panel, contend the linear theory overstates the cancer risks 
and that as a result the radiation exposure levels may, in fact, be 
too stringent.  

``The BEIR committee has been loaded up with people from this 
side of the debate,'' complained Daniel Hirsch, executive director of 
Committee to Bridge the Gap, a California-based anti-nuclear 
watchdog group. He said it includes none of the reputable 
scientists who argue the risks may be even greater than now 
assumed.  

``Industry can save billions of dollars if they can get a packed panel 
and reduce the radiation standards,'' said Hirsch. ``But millions of 
people would be exposed to additional radiation.'' 

------------------------
Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

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