| RSH Letter to Secretary Richardson, and the DOE Inspector General, to
inform them that he had been misled in his statement that AEC/DOE workers have been killed
by radiation. Such conclusions are contrary to
the scientific data, and are based on explicit fraudulent science.
Otherwise, he
is obliged to name, and hold accountable, the
persons who are deemed to be responsible for such a purported fraud over the previous 50
years.
February 1, 2000 |
|
February 1, 2000
Hon. William Richardson, Secretary
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Subject: Adverse Effects of Radiation on Workers
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are concerned that you may have been misled by the conclusions of a hasty survey led
by the White House Economic Council. We do not know who in DOE was involved in that
"study." We request a copy of the report and to know what role DOE and the
laboratories played in producing this report.
Your remarks, as quoted in the media, charge some of the world’s most
knowledgeable scientists, lawyers and officials—not just your own and your
predecessors’—of lying about the lack of health effects in AEC/DOE workers for
the past 50 years. If true, these persons must be named and held accountable. They will of
course claim to have spoken truly, with substantial scientific evidence to support
them—peer-reviewed and generally concurred with in the scientific community. We know
of no valid scientific evidence to support the charge against them. Indeed, the record
shows that some of these scientists overstate the evidence of harm, and obfuscate
the evidence of beneficial effects in nuclear workers and other radiation-exposed
populations, and even that DOE officials have acted to suppress such evidence.
The technical situation is this: A few career anti-nuclear activists have claimed that
radiation is more harmful than generally supposed. Their work has generally been reviewed
and discredited by scientists in the field. On the other side, there is an enormous body
of peer-reviewed scientific evidence showing that low-dose radiation is not only harmless,
but can be beneficial. Low-dose radiation enhances biological functions and has been
effective in treating cancer and other diseases. Such evidence is credible, replicable and
statistically significant. It is available at every level: molecular, cellular, and in
animals from bacteria to humans. It is completely consistent with biological theory. And
there are several large-scale studies of atomic workers showing that they are healthier
than their unirradiated counterparts. This includes the most definitive 10-year, $10
million Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study, completed in 1978, that DOE has acted to suppress.
In response to this situation, most cognizant scientists and officials do not refute
the evidence of the harmlessness of low-dose radiation; they simply choose to be
"conservative," saying "we still don’t know enough, we need more
research." Many knowledgeable scientists find that these scientists and officials
grossly overstate the hazard, to protect DOE funding and the regulatory agencies.
This makes your remarks highly ironic.
We know of no responsible scientists or officials who have claimed that current or past
regulations have been inadequate to protect workers. For example, Dr. Lauriston Taylor,
honorary President, NCRP; honorary Chairman, ICRU; member emeritus, ICRP, wrote in 1980: "Let us stop arguing about people who are being ’injured’ by
exposure to radiation at levels far below those where any effects can be found…Today,
we know about all we need to know to adequately protect ourselves from ionizing
radiation…No one has been identifiably injured by radiation while working within the
first numerical standards set by the NCRP and the ICRP in 1934 [which were much more
lenient than today’s standards]."
Independent
Individuals Knowledgeable in Radiation Science and Public Policy
Committed to Change
Radiation Science policy in the Public Interest |
| We refer only to your statements about radiation; we recognize the chemical
toxicity of beryllium and fluorides as another matter.
However, about uranium, plutonium, radium, and their oxides, there is a great deal of
data, with both lab animals and humans, going back more than fifty years, showing that
they are tolerated without ill effects up to surprisingly high levels. (See, e.g., the
enclosed paper by Dr. Hugh Henry, then at Oak Ridge, in the May 1961 issue of the Journal
of the American Medical Association.) This includes the many isotopes that are used in
medical applications that far exceed worker exposures without long-term adverse effects.
We also enclose for your information "Radiation Risk and Ethics" (Physics
Today, Sept 1999) by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, retired Head, Radiation Protection
Institute of Poland, member and former Chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Atomic Radiation; and a summary by Prof. Emeritus T.D. Luckey, of studies of
occupational exposure, that show that irradiated workers enjoy better health and longer
lifespans than their non-irradiated worker counterparts.
By copy of this letter to the DOE Inspector General, we request that an investigation
be undertaken immediately, to address the following matters:
The role and responsibility of persons accused of lying about adverse health effects on
DOE and AEC workers;
The role, official and unofficial, of DOE and its laboratories in preparing this study;
The allegations that DOE has acted to suppress data that contradict the LNT presumption
that all ionizing radiation is harmful; and
Identify any possible ‘scientific misconduct’ by individual scientists that
have performed work or advised the DOE on the scientific data on the adverse health
effects of ionizing radiation.
We ask you to direct and support the Inspector General or other appropriate independent
agents, to conduct such an investigation.
James Muckerheide, President
Theodore Rockwell, Vice-President
781-449-2214
301-652-9509
Copies to: DOE Inspector General
Senator Pete V. Domenici
U.S. GAO
Enclosures |
| |
|
|
