We have previously identified significant imbalance and conflicts-of-interest in the original membership of the original BEIR VII. We provide here some additional detail about the people newly named.
We wish to stress again that we are not questioning the technical competence of any of the people named to the committee, nor their right to hold the positions they hold or to take the contracts they may have taken. The issue is solely whether the BEIR VII panel is balanced, and whether any of the appointees has a conflict-of-interest. The failure is with the National Research Council (NRC) staff that selected a panel membership conflicted and out of balance so that the Federal Advisory Committee Act is violated.
.
Dr. Dade Moeller
Introduction
Dr. Kenneth Mossman was removed from the BEIR VII panel and replaced with Dr. Dade Moeller. Dr. Mossman is a past President of the Health Physics Society, an industry organization that has pushed for relaxing radiation standards. Dr. Moeller is also a past HPS President and still active in the organization, currently serving as Associate Editor of the HPS Newsletter.
Dr. Mossman is a vigorous proponent of relaxing radiation standards, arguing that society (industry and agencies) spends too much money on cleaning up contamination. Dr. Moeller has repeatedly taken the same position. He has also publicly praised Dr. Mossman’s views, and indicated considerable sympathy for the arguments against the linear no threshold model and for hormesis that have been advanced by Dr. Mossman.
Dr. Mossman had apparent conflicts-of-interest. Dr. Moeller heads a
consulting company that does extensive work for the U.S. Department of
Energy, which could be markedly affected by the outcome of the BEIR VII
study. In short, if conflicts-of-interest and/or balance considerations
resulted in Dr. Mossman’s disqualification from the panel, his replacement
with Dr. Moeller does nothing to cure those problems.
Discussion
Dade Moeller, Ph.D., is President, Dade Moeller & Associates. With offices in Richland, Washington, the site of the DOE Hanford nuclear facility, Moeller & Associates works for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on a variety of nuclear projects. A few examples: Dade Moeller & Associates is a prime DOE contractor for preparation of the Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement, responsible, in part, for its health and safety assessment. Dr. Moeller’s firm is also a prime DOE contractor for the EIS on cleanup of the contaminated West Valley nuclear site. Moeller & Associates is also part of DOE’s Regulatory Unit at Richland regulating the privatization contractors for the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS).
Moeller’s doctorate is in nuclear engineering from North Carolina State University. Dr. Moeller is neither a radiation epidemiologist nor a radiation biologist. He worked as an engineer at the AEC (now DOE) nuclear weapons laboratories at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.
For more than twenty years, in addition to academic appointments, he was a top official for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. From 1973 - 1988 he served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, and from 1988 - 1994 he served as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In that capacity he played important roles in the formation of USNRC positions and policies regarding radiation protection standards.
Dr. Moeller is past-president of the Health Physics Society (HPS). He remains active with HPS to this day, serving currently as Associate Editor of the Health Physics Society’s Newsletter and writing numerous editorials for it. He is the recipient of awards from both USNRC and HPS for his service to both organizations.
Dr. Moeller has repeatedly stated his view that society is wasting its money by cleaning up nuclear facilities, that other non-nuclear risks are far greater.
For example, in 1996 testimony before the USNRC’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, representing Dade Moeller & Associates, Dr. Moeller made a very controversial proposal that, as a cost-saving measure, operators of contaminated nuclear sites be permitted to not clean up their facilities but instead reduce people’s medical exposures to X-rays or lower radon in their homes, or even, buy bicycle helmets for local kids or put soft grass or sand between the swings and slides in children’s playgrounds. He stated, "In terms of a single nuclear facility, and, you know, whether
it's a DOE facility or a decommissioned nuclear power plant, think of what this might could [sic] save in terms of the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant."
Taking this controversial idea even further, Dr. Moeller came to DOE with a proposal to take money out of DOE’s Environmental Management cleanup program (designed to clean up contaminated nuclear sites) and put it instead into Spokane for inner city lead paint cleanup.
In discussing the risks of radioactivity leaking from Yucca Mountain and the potential for radiation exposures to the public, Dr. Moeller has said he doesn’t worry about radiation because of the likelihood of a cure for cancer in the future: "[I]n the ICRP discussion of the critical group, they say in terms of a repository and looking toward the future that you need to consider such things as improvements in medical treatment, like a cure for cancer. But when I heard this morning the reviews of the probabilities of this and that [radiation releases from Yucca Mountain], I saw no probability in the equation that cancer -- a cure for cancer will be brought about. And, therefore, I don't even worry about radiation."
Dr. Moeller has repeatedly discounted those who are concerned about health risks from radiation, saying, for example, "In reality, radiation has proved to be relatively weak in terms of both its carcinogenicity and its mutagenicity."
Dr. Moeller replaces Dr. Kenneth Mossman on the panel. However, Dr. Moeller has publicly associated himself with the views of Dr. Mossman. Referring to a presentation by Dr. Mossman on the Linear No-Threshold model, of which Dr. Mossman is an energetic critic, Dr. Moeller has said he found it to be "very neutral, objective, unbiased" and offered substantial additional praise for points made by Dr. Mossman.
In the same presentation, Dr. Moeller questioned the linear no-threshold hypothesis and spoken favorably about the hormesis concept (that radiation at low doses is good for you) and pointed to what he views as evidence of absolutely no negative health effect below 5 rem in a year, the key position in the Mossman et al. position paper for the Health Physics Society, an institution in which Dr. Moeller remains active.
Dr. Moeller also is science advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), an industry-funded organization that has for years fought against environmental restrictions on industry and tried to downplay public concerns that toxins from industry are harmful to health. In an extraordinary editorial for the ACSH newsletter, entitled "Radiation: Facts Versus Fears," Dr. Moeller trivialized concerns of the public and nuclear workers about exposures from nuclear activities. He downplayed risks to workers at nuclear facilities by asserting, "The dose from eating a quarter- to a half-pound of [Brazil nuts] is more than the daily dose limit for workers at facilities licensed to handle radioactive materials." In his editorial for ACSH, Dr. Moeller bemoaned the focus of media attention on exposures from nuclear industry. He argued that exposure from nuclear activities was a fraction of "natural background" exposure and that humans had been exposed to background radiation for millennia, that it is in this sea of background radiation that humankind has evolved, and that "learning about these natural sources of exposure is important because humanity has thrived in their presence."
In another commentary for ASCH, Dr. Moeller again trivialized people’s concern about radiation and said:
"[F]or those who seek a radiation risk-free society, certain steps can be taken. They include:
In 1998, Dr. Moeller represented Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company in a dispute with community groups such as the New England Coalition Against Nuclear Pollution over a controversy about whether radioactive wastes from the Maine Yankee reactor had been disposed of in a nearby municipal waste facility not designed for radioactive wastes. We have seen numerous instances of Dr. Moeller working as a consultant for the nuclear industry and associated agencies; we are aware of no instance in which he has worked on behalf of local groups concerned about radiation exposures.
In his official capacity for the USNRC, Dr. Moeller played important roles on key radiation matters. For example, he was involved in the efforts to get EPA to relax its radiation standards for Yucca Mountain in favor of the considerably more relaxed standards of USNRC. Dr. Moeller played an official role in the revision of USNRC’s overall standards for protection against radiation, 10 CFR 20. He was a strong supporter of, and involved in, USNRC’s controversial efforts to establish BRC (Below Regulatory Concern) policies to permit radioactive materials to be released into the human environment rather than being disposed of as radioactive waste.
Thus, Dr. Moeller’s service on BEIR VII produces significant conflicts.
Were he to take positions contrary to those interests of DOE, a primary
client for his consulting firm, he would place at risk future contracts.
Additionally, he is placed in the conflicted position of evaluating the
adequacy of arguably lax radiation policies he was instrumental in putting
in place at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, one of the sponsors
of the BEIR VII study.
Dr. Tomas Lindahl
There are several arguments put forward by proponents of relaxing radiation risk estimates, and thereby, radiation protection standards. Chief among them is the assertion that cells can repair damage done to their DNA ("cellular repair processes") and that there is an inducible response in cells that can help them adapt to subsequent radiation doses ("adaptive response" or "inducible response.") [There are argument on the other side, of course, indicating why such factors would not result in lowering risk estimates for radiation, but that is not the point of the current discussion.]
There are, on the other hand, numerous arguments as to why current radiation risk estimates are too low. These include such matters as increased sensitivity to radiation in older adults compared to younger adults; other heterogeneities in responses to radiation insults; and the healthy survivor effect, skewing the A-bomb survivor data, to name just a few.
Balance in a panel to look at low dose effects is measured not just in the level of balance of position on the issues to be examined, but the choice of issues themselves. By packing the BEIR VII panel with numerous advocates of relaxing radiation risk estimates and no one who has advocated strengthening them, the National Research Council staff have created an imbalanced panel in terms of past position. But by choosing other members based on research areas that are those pointed to primarily by advocates of relaxed standards, NRC staff have additionally imbalanced the panel in terms of which sides’ arguments will be addressed. The scientists chosen in these areas of specialty, who may not have been involved in the ideological wars on radiation the way the previously mentioned group has been, nonetheless help further imbalance the panel by the focus solely on the factors that can lower, rather than raise, risk factors.
The BEIR VII panel already had on it two members specializing in DNA repair issues, Drs. Cleaver and Dewey. Additionally, it has at least one additional member who is a strong advocate of claims of an "adaptive response," i.e., that low doses of carcinogens like radiation can "teach" the cell how to be more resistant to subsequent doses. NRC staff have now added one more person in this area, Dr. Tomas Lindahl, who specializes in DNA repair and is also an advocate of the premise of an adaptive response at the cellular level to exposures to carcinogens. While all are good scientists and could make a positive contribution to a truly balanced panel, the failure to include both a range of viewpoints on these issues and experts in the factors that could increase radiation risk estimates leads to a fundamental violation of balance requirements.
Dr. Lindahl
Dr. Lindahl is Director of the Clare Hall Laboratories at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. Dr. Lindahl has written extensively on DNA repair and adaptive response. His position is that "Inducible DNA repair pathways enable cells to display increased resistance to the deleterious effects of chemical mutagens and radiation."
Dr. Lindahl has every right to serve on a truly balanced panel and would
make valuable contributions were such a panel indeed fairly represented
by scientists of differing viewpoints and areas of specialty affecting
the central question -- whether low-dose radiation risk estimates should
be lowered or increased. But the NRC staff have once again picked someone
from one side of the debate (in this case, that cells adapt to radiation
and repair damage), and from the area of specialty pushed by proponents
of relaxing standards. People from opposing views (e.g., that genomic instability
increases risks over current estimates, that lower cell killing yields
at low doses increases the chances of a cell with inefficiently repaired
DNA surviving and reproducing into a malignant tumor) have been as best
we can determine excluded from the panel, as have been experts in other
areas that would indicate increased risks from low dose radiation (experts
in age effects, radiation epidemiologists whose studies have shown elevated
risks, etc.)
Dr. Stefanski
Dr. Stefanski is a statistician. To the best of our knowledge, he has essentially no background in radiation matters. His book, Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models (with R.J. Carroll and D. Ruppert) has one paragraph consisting of five sentences touching on radiation matters, a brief mention of Pierce et al.’s 1992 analysis of A-bomb survivor data.
The selection seems puzzling. Is Dr. Stefanski familiar, for example,
with the complex statistical techniques developed by George Kneale for
use in the Hanford epidemiological work, and elsewhere? It seems unlikely
he can come up to speed fast enough on debates that have divided the radiation
epidemiological community for decades, and it seems strange to require
that he do so rather than appoint one of the statistical experts who has
done radiation epidemiology for years. His appointment raises the question
as to whether it was made because of his theoretical interest in nonlinear
models as part of the efforts by the NRC staff to apparently direct the
panel toward a challenge of the Linear No-Threshold model in radiation
protection.
Dr. Herb Abrams
Dr. Herb Abrams is a distinguished critic of the risks of nuclear war. He has been courageous in his opposition to the nuclear arms race, and has graphically identified the medical effects of all-out nuclear exchanges (e.g., acute effects of extremely high doses). However, he would be the first to concede that his area of specialty has not been primarily the epidemiology of low-dose effects. To the best of our information, his position on the low-dose issue, to the extent he has taken a position, would be fairly centrist, i.e., generally supportive of current official risk estimates.
A panel composed of scientists like Herb Abrams -- neutral people not previously involved in any detailed way in the low dose debate -- would be one thing. However, given the very strong positions taken by ten or so members of the panel that radiation standards should be relaxed, and the lack of any scientists who believe the standards should be strengthened, the appointment of a neutral, moderate person whose primary academic interests have not been in the low dose debate cannot serve to remedy the imbalance.
His appointment can be seen as a fairly cynical act on the part of NRC
staff. Not a single scientist active in the low dose area recommended by
public interest groups has been permitted on the panel. Instead, Dr. Abrams
was appointed, a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War, but someone not active in the low dose debate. Perhaps
it was thought two birds could be killed with one stone -- appointing someone
with an affiliation with groups concerned about nuclear war, while continuing
to refuse to appoint any of the scientists who have spent their lives in
radiation epidemiology and whose work suggests current standards are too
weak. We wish Dr. Abrams well; he has been placed in what is likely to
be a very frustrating situation.
Dr. Eula Bingham
Dr. Bingham is a former Director of OSHA. She has been an outspoken
advocate on behalf of workers faced with occupational exposures to chemical
and related hazards. However, she has virtually no experience in the ionizing
radiation area. Again, her choice appears to be a cynical one by NRC staff
. They have been adamant in their refusal to appoint any of the scientists
who have spent their lives in the field of radiation epidemiology and whose
work indicates risks higher than officially assumed, despite the numerous
appointments of people on the other side of that issue. Instead, they appoint
someone for whom this is not her area of specialty. We wish her well too,
but NRC staff have placed her in a virtually untenable position on a committee
radically out of balance.