Re: Radiation Panel Makeup Protested

[antatnsu@pacbell.net]

I have been communicating with the NAS about the composition of the BEIR VII
committee.  My point of view is expressed in an email I just sent to them as
follows:

"Thank you for your response to my August 20th email.  In that response you
used a
term that disturbs me a lot: "well-balanced."  As I said in my email, I do not
believe that the NAS BEIR VII Committee should be well-balanced.  Rather, it
should
be made up of people who have no particular ax to grind, no position on the
LNTH, no
preconceived notions about the shape of the the dose-response curve, or any
other
point of view about things nuclear or things having to do with radiation safety
or
radiation safety standards.  In this I agree (much as I hate to say it) with
the
communications NAS has received from anti nuclear groups, particularly the
Nuclear
Information and Resource Service (NIRS) where they complain about inbalance.
In my
opinion, it will not be possible to select individuals for the committee that
will
please everyone, if balance is what is desired.  If, however,  "fresh new
people"
are what is truly desired, then the NAS has a chance of success in the
committee
selection.

I trust you can bring this distinction (between "balance" and "fresh new
people") to
the attention of the appropriate people in NAS so they can make the clear
decision
which philosophy is to be used in committee member selection.

The latter philosophy will, in my opinion, work.  The former won't."

Since this matter will have so much impact on radiation health (note: I go
further than the HPS' radiation protection and suggest radiation health is a
better term for what we are up to), I would like to hear RADSAFER's opinions
about my idea.  And, if not either "balance" or "fresh new faces," what should
be criterion be for selection (Bernie's?)?

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net

Franta, Jaroslav wrote:

> Comment: in the past, when such panels have included quacks like Rosalie
> Bertell, to appease the antinuclear activists' complaints, the only
> "tremendous impact" was that these people gained notoriety with the media,
> simply because they can claim that they took part.... that's how we end up
> having "two sides" in this "scientific controversy."
> One reasonable standard that could be applied to discriminate between
> "experts" and "quacks" would be a minimum number (say 10?) of authored
> reports published in peer-reviewed journals concerned with the relevant
> topic. That would have easily excluded people like Bertell in the past. I
> recall that Prof. Bernard Cohen suggested this type of criterion some years
> ago, as well as another one involving a poll of professional HPs, etc.


begin:          vcard
fn:             Al Tschaeche
n:              Tschaeche;Al
org:            Nuclear Standards Unlimited
email;internet: antatnsu@postoffice.pacbell.net
title:          CEO
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version:        2.1
end:            vcard