"Bridging Radiation Policy and Science":
The Airlie Conference

RSH Input and Handouts

Conference Materials (and Annotations)

RSH Conclusions and Comments Following the Conference

Airlie House, Warrenton, VA
Dec. 1-5, 1999

This was a by-invitation-only "retreat" of about 70 world radiation protection extablishment leaders, without inviting the science or policy critics of the LNT.

This is the follow-up to the similar previous international "Wingspread Conference" in Jul-Aug 1997 of 50 leaders that failed to implement progress to establish credible science or public policy despite substantive agreements to do so. This was demonstrated by such scientifically biased events and "assessments as: the 1997 IAEA Seville Conference; Reports such as BEIR VI, NCRP SC1-6, etc.; and increasingly extreme regulatory initiatives such as the EPA/NRC non-scienc "debate" between 15 and 25 mrem/yr for cleanup standards, the U.S. EPA radium and radon in water and Yucca Mt. standards proposals; the commitment to implement the extreme ICRP-60; and the ICRP proposal for "controllable dose."

The 'mission' of the BRPS Conference was to reject all progress made or even implied at the "Wingspread Conference."

RSH Statement of Principles Required for BRPS, December 2, 1999
To "Bridge Radiation Policy & Science": a) Apply funds to credible biology-medicine science. b) Use LDR to treat cancer, research to optimize. c) Require agency rulemakings to consider data, subject to court reviews. d) Require Office of Research Integrity investigations for "scientific misconduct."  

BRPS Does Not Include Participants from "The Other Side," December 2, 1999
BRPS, like Wingspread, is in response to substantial challenges by numerous credible international scientists and policy analysts. 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. No "consensus" can be developed when one side of the debate is precluded from participation.
     Papers provided to document the absense of experts and data that refute the LNT was ignored by the biased BRPS Conference:  Zbigniew Jaworowski, "Radiation Risk and Ethics, Phyics Today, Sep. 1999; Harald Rossi, Rad Protection Dosimetry;  and Linda Gerber et al., Quarterly Review of Biology, Sep. 1999.
     Also provided:  RSH document on "The NRC Failure to Assure Adequate NCRP Review;" and the ANS Position Statement/Revision.

RSH Statement on 'Scientific Misconduct,' December 2, 1999, (and to the U.S. GAO Assessment).  
A report on Dr. Otto Raabe's Summary of the falsification of radium dial painter health effects data by Drs. Charles Mays and Ray Lloyd to support the LNT in BEIR IV.
Figures: BEIR IV Dose Responses, p.198 by Chuck Mays and Ray Lloyd, Robley Evans, and Bob Rowland (National Academies Press)

Conference Materials (and Annotations)
Speech by Sen. Pete Domenici, December 2, 1999
(Annotated by BRPS Conference Participant Jim Muckerheide following the Conference, January 4, 2000)

RSH Conclusions and Comments Following the Conference
RSH Letter to Senator Domenici, January 4, 2000. On the subject of the failure of the BRPS Conference to address a bridge between radiation health effects science and radiation protection policy; and to actively suppress all contradictory data and critics, and all policies that would require radiation protection standards to be assessed/justified by costs.

BRPS Final Report  [PDF file 140KB]