Pete V. Domenici

United States Senator

Bridging Radiation Policy and Science Conference

December 2, 1999

I appreciate the invitation from the organizers of this Conference to participate with you today. I regret that my schedule didn’t allow me to be here in person.

You are dealing with a subject of great personal interest to me. I’ve been speaking out on the issue of low level radiation health effects for some time now. I’m concerned that our poor understanding of these effects may be leading us to use radiation protection standards that incorrectly represent risks.

As you all know, radiation standards are now determined with the Linear-No-Threshold model. That model is based only on linear extrapolations from a small set of very high dose and dose rate exposures, like those from atomic bomb victims. For a whole host of reasons, the American taxpayers deserve to know if that model is accurate.

The applications and implications of the LNT model, and the uncertainties inherent in it, are just far too large for it to continue to be applied without more complete understanding.

The current model forces us to regulate radiation to levels approaching 1 percent of natural background despite the fact that natural background can vary by far more than 50 percent within the United States.

We now use standards that severely restrict exposure to low dose radiation, even to the point that we expect all work to be done such that the absolute minimum possible dose is delivered with virtually no reference to the costs involved. We spend over $5 billion each year to clean contaminated DOE sites to levels below 5 percent of background.

If these standards overestimate risks, they force us to divert funds from other, potentially more worthy, national goals.

Alternatively, if the standards underestimate risks, we need to invest still more in cleanup activities.

Many companies’ profits from these cleanup contracts are enhanced by the use of the LNT model, which unfortunately tends to build a constituency with a vested interest in maintaining the LNT model.

The LNT model is also used to infer that minuscule doses, decades below natural background levels, applied to large populations through mechanisms like transportation of radioactive materials accumulate to lead to some number of fatalities. Such inferences then lead to headlines trumpeting the terrible risks to which the public is being exposed.

Rarely, if ever, are these risks placed in perspective against other risk sources.

And the gigantic uncertainties in the LNT model and significant evidence contradicting the LNT model are almost never discussed.

Thus many of the anti-nuclear groups have a vested interest in using the LNT model.

The role of many anti-nuclear groups has especially puzzled me. On the one hand, many of these groups express great concern over emission of pollutants from fossil fuel plants, both from the perspective of fouling the air and from concerns over global warming. But the simple fact that must be obvious to them is that nuclear energy is the only source of completely clean energy that is available today to seriously impact these pollution issues.

Maybe the renewable energy sources that these groups favor will make the impact that they hope in decades to come, but the economics are not correct now. If these groups would direct some of their effort into finding good solutions for nuclear waste, addressing potential proliferation issues with nuclear technologies, and seriously reassessing and updating the LNT model, I would find it far easier to believe the sincerity of their stated goals. In short, if they would balance their concerns about the risks of nuclear with serious discussion of its benefits, and then direct some effort to address the risks, the nation might be able to make real progress in this area.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency only reinforces these fears by publishing documents that claim to calculate, to several significant figures, the radionuclide risk coefficients for specific organs from specific isotopes. Given the uncertainties in the validity of the fundamental model, I don’t understand how the EPA can claim to have enough detailed understanding of the effects of low doses of radiation to publish such a document.

A great many scientists seriously question whether the LNT model is appropriate. Many suggest that data would support a model wherein benefits are derived from moderate doses of radiation, perhaps by stimulating cellular repair mechanisms within the body. Many suggest that the constant exposure to natural backgrounds has required the body to develop a suite of repair mechanisms.

Some scientists have asked that I play roles as extensive as convening Congressional hearings to explore the basis of the LNT model or that I legislate radiation protection standards. I’ve not called for such hearings, despite my interest in this problem. A Senate hearing is not an appropriate place for the evaluation of complex scientific questions. Senators are not the ones with the special knowledge to make these judgments. Many of you in this audience should be the ones involved in these decisions.

Instead, I’ve encouraged creation of a new research program within the Department of Energy devoted to serious study of molecular and cellular responses to low dose radiation. This program was funded at $12 Million last year and is now funded at $18 Million.

Unfortunately, these funds are not being used on critical issues to follow and clarify current scientific knowledge. This is indeterminate work, without ‘answers,’ as for the last 50 years.

I am very hopeful that this program, over a period of a few years, can couple new experimental capabilities with information from ongoing programs, like the human genome project, to provide us with real understanding on which to base intelligent standards for radiation protection. Whether the answer is that the LNT model overestimates or underestimates risks, the information is vitally needed so that cleanup and regulatory activities can be appropriately adjusted.

I understand that the Department has constructed a program plan for this study that offers the opportunity to develop a scientific, not philosophical, basis for credible radiation protection standards.

We believe this optimism is unwarranted without ‘balanced’ research directed at the science that challenged the LNT by the underlying biology in the last decade. Scientific review of DOE projects, and research by independent agencies, with unbiased scientists is necessary.

In addition to the DOE research program, I’ve also asked for a special investigation by the General Accounting Office. I’ve asked them to assess the cost impact of the LNT hypothesis, on projects as diverse as high level waste disposal, low level waste disposal, power plant decommissioning and decontamination, and environmental cleanup projects. The GAO study is to be completed by June of 2000. I’ve asked the GAO to assess whether a consensus among agencies is being reached on these standards – and as far as I know we are just as far from a consensus as we were when GAO did their last report in 1994. The fact that two agencies have different standards should be of great concern to taxpayers, it forces companies to plan for multiple targets without confidence in either - that only leads to waste.

Just recently, several Senators have taken action in S.1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1999, to rectify this situation. Our concerns with the EPA were sufficiently strong that this legislation mandates that the NRC, not the EPA, be empowered to set the regulations for Yucca Mountain and any early receipt facility for spent fuel near the Mountain. While some of our colleagues argued with this position, most of us feel that the EPA is too driven by political agendas to be relied upon for standards in an area where there is substantial room for political pressure to influence standards. The NRC not only has the technical expertise, it also is a bipartisan body, free of direct political influence, that can best protect taxpayers’ interests in this vital area. This bill is pending floor action now, having been reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a healthy 14-6 margin.

I also asked the GAO to review the experimental bases for setting radiation protection standards and to document the variances in background radiation among locations in the United States and around the world. I asked them to assess whether cancer rates measured at these various locations show a dependence on radiation levels. And of greatest importance, I asked them to assess the costs of compliance with the standards based on the LNT model. Perhaps from these GAO analyses, Congress can make a more informed decision about the guidance that we provide to standard-setting agencies.

Until recently, I had high hopes for the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, or BEIR VII, study under the auspices of the National Research Council. Maybe this study will deliver credible outputs, but it sure is off to a terrible start. I was very disappointed that national experts in this field were first named to the proposed committee, only to be summarily dismissed later when anti-nuclear groups protested. These people are experts with world class reputations, even if some have expressed views that may not favor the LNT model.

We objected to the original biased NRC/BRER BEIR VII Committee. It was/is biased to support the LNT, even though a few ‘tempered’ comments by a few members had questioned the LNT. However, there is no knowledgeable science/policy member who has contributed to the data and analyses that refute the LNT to engage this "debate." Just as they were excluded from BRPS, this maintains the established effort to suppress the data. When BEIR VII "votes," as with BEIR VI, NCRP SC1-6, etc. LNT-committed staff, agencies, and members will be aggressive, and a knowledgeable scientist, if any, will be readily ignored, with no reason/interest to fight (and with some conflicts of interest in fighting).

Unlike the "EMF debate," only one side of this debate is funded. No participants have a mission to bring responsible science to the table.

Such attacks by the anti-nuclear groups again call into question their own interests in seeking the scientifically correct answer. This episode clouds the entire undertaking in my view.

We do not find the problem to be the anti-nuclear groups. The problem is that the government agencies, and their funded researchers and contractors, have great self-interest in maintaining the LNT. As at BRPS, they use the "antis" (along with their contractors/licensees) to aid in maintaining public "concern" and advocacy for the LNT, and for their associated funding and authority.

I understand that one effect of the waffling on the BEIR VII panel is that the entire Health Physics Society isn’t even represented, which seems totally inappropriate.

The HPS has retreated from its previous position of seeking the scientific basis for rad protection. Researchers now have new DOE funds; and agencies and contractor funding supports HPs almost entirely as nuclear technologies are cut by Congress and their ‘uneconomic’ conditions, directly caused by applying the LNT.

The Council needs to seriously question the impact that their actions have had on the reputations of these outstanding research scientists, and to question whether their resulting committee can now have credibility independent of who is on it.

Furthermore, even after succeeding in their quest to dump experts from the panel, the anti-nuclear groups are still expressing concerns about the make-up of the BEIR VII panel. This is even harder to understand when many of the people on the panel have served on groups that previously endorsed the LNT model.

I’ve indicated some actions that I’m not comfortable recommending for the Congress. Let me close with a few thoughts on what actions might be appropriate for Congress, along with the general comment that Congress should focus on broad policy directives, not specific numbers in standards. Just as possibilities, we might mandate that no standards be more stringent than the variation in natural levels within the United States for any substance or phenomena, unless specific health studies support the need for a departure.

We see that this could be substantially supported technically/scientifically, to show there are no effects in natural variations in which substantial populations exist, or from medical patients and others at higher doses.

Note that if the LNT were true, radiologists could be mass-murderers.

Or we might mandate that standard-setting bodies take the economic impact of their actions into account, in order to inject some degree of economic reality into the standard-setting process.

This seems more ‘problematic.’ It is more of a ‘political’ decision, and more subject to abuse by the government agencies and their financial interest supporters. Who represents the public?

There are certainly other possible and prudent Congressional actions to be considered.

Some preliminary considerations are:

First: Allocate research and review funds through biology, health, and medical agencies not committed to rad protection, but committed to patients and health, not just to costly medical treatments and "advanced genetic research" (without NCI interest in rad protection funding, and constraining immune stimulation of health and treating cancer challenging costly treatments). Involve insurance "payers" and patients groups that are first committed to health efficacy. Support use of low-dose radiation (LDR) treatments to cure and prevent cancer, and other diseases, where efficacious, including high natural sources and radon therapies.

Second: Conduct reviews of research terminated and results suppressed by rad protection agencies; with full investigations of alleged "scientific misconduct."

Third: Request a science report (by CRS?), in addition to the GAO audit, on the scientific data that contradict the LNT; how that data is considered by the NCRP/BRER/ICRP/UNSCEAR/government agencies group (and its interlocking membership/funding); and agency failures to consider the data in rulemakings.

Fourth: Initiate an open international scientific consensus assessment of radiation health effects biology that is not controlled by rad protection interests, as called for by Dr. KunMo Chung at BRPS. However, as we have argued, we can not initiate an "EMF scientific review process" without fixing the absence of funding (by industry and/or government) of the science and scientists that refute the LNT.

These may be suggested as a result of this Conference.

I encourage your deliberations here on this subject, and I will be very interested in hearing about the outcomes of your discussions.

Unfortunately, such limited deliberations were not reflected in the conclusions.

We see the BRPS as yet another ICRP/IAEA/UNSCEAR/NCRP/BRER/government agency repudiation of another call/opportunity to take responsibility to justify the LNT and extreme radiation protection standards. This rightfully requires the initiation of enhanced oversight and investigation actions beyond the GAO review.

We anticipate the need to plan for actions to follow the June GAO report.