January 4, 2000

Thank you for seeking responsibility in radiation protection, especially your GAO request. However, it seems that the GAO effort is discounted by the agencies.

For 5 years we, the knowledgeable scientists, have documented: 1) That the peer-reviewed biology refutes the LNT. 2) Natural sources vary more than 10 times low doses (with no adverse effects), while ‘limits’ are small fractions of low doses. 3) Low-dose radiation (LDR) stimulates the immune system (and more) to treat cancer etc., while rad protection interests constrain its use at even greater societal cost.

Thanks also for your strong BRPS speech. [Two minor points: 1) natural variation – at BRPS even ICRP/IAEA said it varies by 100 times; and 2) BEIR VII scientist integrity – see our BRER letters – all credible critical scientists are excluded.] But your speech was rejected by this intransigent BRPS group.

BRPS effectively replied to you, to Senator Johnston, Dr. KunMo Chung, and others: ‘Hell no! We won’t [can’t?] consider radiobiology; nor will we justify our extreme standards. These work for us, for our contractors/licensees, despite extreme public cost for no public benefits.’ Now, ‘controllable dose’ is BRC at even more severe standards, for more massive costs for ‘controllable’ sources, despite the lack of benefits.

BRPS again shows that rad protection interests suppress the data. Therefore they must be bypassed, e.g., by the "international, independent, open scientific consensus." But note again: In the "EMF model," industry provided credible science, but not the "nuclear industry" (with conflicts of interest). Therefore, you need to: 1) Involve biology-medicine science, that is not rad-protection controlled, to use existing science; 2) Invite private support, not NEI, nor ANS; and 3) Investigate LNT "science" for "scientific misconduct."

From our BRPS background/positions, as input from those excluded by BRPS, enclosed:

To "Bridge Rad 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, like IAEA/Seville, BRER, NCRP, etc., exclude "the other side," who challenge LNT "science."

"Scientific misconduct" (examples) falsify data to support, or at least not refute, the LNT.

US NRC became complicit with the inadequate NCRP SC 1-6 review to suppress the relevant data.

The revised ANS Position Statement to fix ANS leader deletions, complicit with NRC-DOE.

How do we include the knowledgeable scientists, e.g., Jaworowski, Rossi, Cohen, Kondo, etc. etc., who are excluded by, e.g., BRPS and IAEA/Seville, and reviews, NCRP, BEIR VI and VII, ICRP, etc.?

We again urge you to inquire of the agencies-labs on, e.g.: the $10M++ nuclear shipyard workers; the Argonne radium dial painters; the high-dose AEC-DOE workers, and K-40 deletion, at ORNL, etc. etc

Sincerely,

Jim Muckerheide, President

Cc: US GAO, Sen. Johnston, Bruce Alberts, Richard Meserve, Bill Richardson, Manning Muntzing

Enclosures: