|
December 2, 1999
BRPS Does Not Include Participants
from "The Other Side"
BRPS, like Wingspread, is in response to substantial challenges by numerous credible
international scientists and policy analysts. A few examples are:
in the U.S.: Drs. Victor Bond, Paul Selby, Philip Hanawalt, Harald Rossi, Myron
Pollycove, Bernard Cohen, T.D. Luckey, Kenneth Bogen, Bruce Ames, Joan Smith-Sonneborn,
James Trosko, John 'Jake' Spalding, Robert Thomas, Robert Rowland, Alan Brodsky, Takeo
Makinodan, S. Jill James, Miral Disdaroglu;
from Canada: Philippe DuPort, Ron Mitchel;
from Japan: Drs. Sohei Kondo, Kiyohiko Sakamoto, Sadao Hattori Shuji Kojima, Takeo
Ohnishi, Keiichiro Ishii;
from Europe: Ludwig Feinendegen, Pierre Pellerin, Roland Masse, Zbigniew
Jaworowski, Gunnar Walinder;
from China: Shu-Zheng Liu, Luxin Wei;
from India: P. Kesavan;
from Russia: Alexander Kuzin, Z. Tokarskaya;
from Brazil, Yannik Nouailhetas;
and many, many others.
These respected independent individuals generally have no conflicts of interest
(in fact their actions largely preclude them from the rewards of participating in the
radiation protection policy and programs enterprise that generates $100s Billions).
They document the fact that the fundamental scientific theory and data contradict the
LNT; that radiation protection limits on radiation and radioactivity extend to very small
fractions of variations in natural background, and that these policies can provide no
public health benefit.
In addition, these policies preclude cost-effective nuclear and radiation technologies
and health benefits, constraining technologies that are essential to the growing world
population (increasing by the US population every three years). The world is left at the
risk of severe conflicts over oil and gas that, with coal, are drowning the world in
airborne and solid pollutants and carbon emissions. Instead, we could be producing only
small volumes of hazardous materials that are securely retained in solid form pending an
economically insignificant cost for long-term sequestration—an accomplishment that no
other hazardous material technology can achieve.
Nuclear wastes produced over an entire plant lifetime pose less risk to populations,
for the indefinite future, than one day of normal operation of an equivalent coal-fired
plant.
However, the individuals whose efforts are largely responsible for initiating the
"debate" on the linear dose-response premise are not invited to this Conference.
How do we reach a "consensus" when only one side is present?
Independent
Individuals Knowledgeable in Radiation Science and Public Policy
Committed to Change
Radiation Science policy in the Public Interest |
| The
same situation prevailed at Wingspread. However, then the premise was that radiation
protection leaders understood the need for constructive changes. The meeting was
called in response to both the increasingly persuasive epidemiological evidence and the
more explicit confirmation of data that contradict the LNT, with the cellular and
molecular data confirming positive responses in immune functions, physiology, and
enzymatic mechanisms of DNA damage prevention and repair (leading, even, to successful
treatment of cancers by stimulation of the immune system through low-dose irradiation of
the whole body).
In addition, extreme "cleanup" standards were recognized as providing
no public health benefit (while real health needs are going unmet--a morally indefensible
position).
Under those circumstances, it was "appropriate" that the
institutional radiation protection policy leaders conduct a "private retreat" to
consider common perspectives and constructive responses. A few nominal
"representatives" of "the other side" stimulated discussions and
demonstrated positive initiatives toward corrective actions. Such corrective actions could
be taken before the weight of the evidence destroys not only the LNT principle, but also
its practitioners and their institutions which could be found responsible for such
egregious misallocation of the public wealth and disregard for the public trust, and
damage to the integrity and credibility of science itself.
However, the Wingspread exercise was futile.
The Wingspread agreements that there are no health effects below 100 mSv (with large
dose-rate effects) and that regulators are being excessive in setting "cleanup"
standards were not implemented. The agreement has had no effect on subsequent
international radiation protection assessment and policy initiatives that continue to
misrepresent data and affirm that "any radiation is harmful." This was
demonstrated by the BEIR VI report, the NCRP SC1-6 draft report, and proposed rules such
as committing to ICRP 60, US EPA standards for radium and radon in water, and Yucca Mt.
standards, and the ludicrous "talmudic" debate between US EPA and US NRC over 15
vs. 25 mrem per year "cleanup" dose standards.
The Wingspread recommendation to form a panel representing research experts to identify
data needs and research requirements was not undertaken; nor was the recommendation for a
panel to revise "cleanup" standards to correct the massive waste of resources
currently being committed. Actions such as the DOE response to Paducah and other
international unjustified radiation protection initiatives continue without comment or
intervention by the responsible agencies and radiation health effects analysis
communities.
Dozens of persons identified by Radiation, Science & Health, as appropriate
participants for the BRPS and/or Wingspread Conferences were not invited, nor were others
who have spoken out in defense of the voluminous scientific evidence that contradicts and
refutes the linear dose-response model.
However, political activist groups that are also committed to the premise of the LNT
have been added to the agenda, following the common "radiation protection
policy" practice for generating public "concern" to garner support for ever
more extreme and costly projects.
It must be clear that continuing to ignore the scientific evidence on low-dose
radiation and the scientists and policy-makers producing the data that contradict linear
dose-response, cannot go on much longer. The actions from this Conference will establish
whether the basis for the continuing "debate" will be constructive or
destructive in reconciling radiation protection policy with the scientific evidence on the
actual health effects and therapeutic applications of low-dose ionizing radiation. |
