RE: "Scientific misconduct"/ IOM Report

["Dunn, Wes" <WDunn@intiso.com>]

As the author of a rather scathing review of the NAS/IOM report, I must take
slight exception with Carol's comments:

The IOM report was extremely flawed in that it was mainly a history and
commentary with very little supporting data or analysis.  Basically, the
recommendations were not supported by the information in the report.  In
fact, it's recommendations were so obviously biased against the NRC as to
make it impossible for the NRC to accept the report.  Who knows, that may
well have been the intent of the IOM (since it allows Carol and other's such
wonderful ammunition).  Regardless of intent (and this has been refuted by
several of the authors), the document LOOKS like it was a pre-planned
assassination job, not a considered review.

Note that I substantially agree with large portions of the IOM's (and
Carol's) recommendations.  As such, I was extremely disappointed in the IOM
because they had a chance to "get things fixed" and instead pushed through a
non-credible document. Also note that several recommendations require major
changes that CAN NOT happen in 5 years (but maybe could in 10 - if properly
handled) - one can't ignore legislative reality no matter how much one
dreams of Utopia.

NOTE:  I think Carol believes in a paired solution that often gets
separated: (1) Only allow extremely qualified physicians (e.g., Board
Certified in Nuc Med) to direct the use of radioactive material in humans;
and (2) get out of their way.  Also note that most statutes of radiation
protection require agency's to protect workers, the public and the
environment.  This is the fundamental contention that must be worked out.

Wes

Wesley M. Dunn, CHP
International Isotopes, Inc.
Wdunn@intiso.com <mailto:Wdunn@intiso.com> 			
Corporate Website:  http://www.intiso.com <http://www.intiso.com> 


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	carol marcus [SMTP:csmarcus@ucla.edu]
	Sent:	Monday, December 20, 1999 10:22 AM
	To:	Multiple recipients of list
	Subject:	Re: "Scientific misconduct" in gov't data


	Dear Jim:


	The National Academy of Sciences-Institute of Medicine undertook an
exhaustive
	study of NRC's dysfunctional "Medical" Program and recommended that
NRC's
	statutory authority be removed for byproduct medicine and biomedical
	research.  That's how bad the NAS-IOM thought the Program was, and
it was
	right.  The Report, "Radiation in Medicine: A Need For Regulatory
Reform"
	was published in 1996.  NRC lied about what it said to every
Governor in the
	United States, and when accused of lying, refused to even speak to a
member
	of the NAS-IOM committee who volunteered to explain to the
Commissioners
	what the Report actually said.  And what happened? 

	Ciao, Carol

	<csmarcus@ucla.edu>

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