Revision 1
March 19, 1998

by Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.,
Edited by J. Muckerheide

1.0 Data sources

1.1 BEIR V Data Sources

References

"Table 4-1 provides a summary of the various data sets that the committee used in developing its risk estimates."

Table 4-1

[Editor's note: Compare these few, generally poor, and unconfirmed, data sources used in BEIR V, to the extensive, highly-significant data presented in this Data Document and in the general literature.  Note that the foundations for these sources have generally limited scientific significance, poor quality dosimetry and analysis, and generally lack confirmatory results from substantial studies on health effects at moderate doses.   Several of these studies also explicitly misrepresent their own dose-response data.]

[Also note: The conduct of scientific reviews is funded to support the committed policy that any amount of radiation is hazardous. Such a policy supports regulatory policies and costly government programs, and supports funding of research on radiation health effects, that presume that any radiation is hazardous. Some analyses are mathematically biased to only produce such results. Such biased analyses often report adverse health effects by assuming a linear dose-response from high doses even though their own data, and studies that could otherwise confirm their results, at low to moderate doses, explicitly contradict the reported results.

The government policies and research that are funded and committed to support extreme regulatory policies and radiation protection programs, at high public cost, ignore, and even suppress, the science of biology, medicine, and health, and research on the role of radiation in biological health.  Research programs are designed to:  Ignore contrary data;  Fail to acknowledge and support research on the millions of people who receive moderate to high radiation from natural sources (from, e.g., medical applications and the use of health spas and other beneficial therapies, in use since the Middle Ages, and the subject of scientific investigation since early in the 20th Century; And from occupational exposures from high natural background radiation sources. These studies fail to support the conclusion that radiation is hazardous at low doses. Research policies also ignore evidence that organisms are debilitated when exposed to radiation below natural levels, and are stimulated when exposed to levels that are many multiples of background radiation doses.]

[And further: This effort will continue to compile and present the data to the responsible science and public policy communities. We seek only to establish that substantial data and bias exist in the committed effort to support costly radiation protection policies, and that the valid data must be independently reviewed, and that independent research be initiated.

Hundreds of studies that contradict the linear dose-response hypothesis include the current knowledge from hormesis research, from cancer research, and from cellular and molecular biology, that cancer from low-dose radiation is not biologically plausible, while no substantial data support the linear hypothesis. 

The resultant high costs to the public are being expended for no public benefit, but only for the benefit of radiation protection interests and related program contractors at costs that exceed many $100s Billions in the US alone.

In addition, even greater public costs are expended in the loss of public benefits of radiation technologies, including successful treament of cancer, and adverse consequences from alternative energy sources and other radiation technologies.]