June 22, 1999

Dr. Rick Jostes

Study Director

BEIR VII

National Research Council

Suite 342

2101 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20418

Dear Dr. Jostes:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the composition of the Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2), established to review current risk estimates for exposure to ionizing radiation. This committee’s work is extraordinarily important, as it is the subject of a substantial campaign by the nuclear industry and nuclear agencies to use BEIR VII as a vehicle to support the relaxation of radiation protection standards for the public. Such a campaign can, if successful, save the nuclear industry and associated agencies billions of dollars, but also can result in untold numbers of additional radiation-related cancers and genetic effects from the increased radiation exposures that would result. The integrity and credibility of the process is thus essential.

We must say, with regret, that the composition of the panel creates the clear impression that it is dominated by people who have prejudged the issue, who have taken public positions that current official radiation risk estimates are too high. Not a single scientist who has done work concluding that "low-dose" radiation appears more dangerous than currently presumed in official risk estimates has been permitted on the panel. There is no balance whatsoever in the panel, making it appear that the panel has been captured by the industry and agencies who stand to benefit financially from a skewed review. There can be no credibility to such a one-sided process, and the public will not, and should not, have any confidence in the claims that may result, if the National Research Council does not take immediate steps to cure this seriously biased process.

Representatives of public interest groups concerned with radioactive contamination at and releases from Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear sites met with you and other Research Council personnel some time ago to express concerns that the panel would be stacked. They were assured explicitly by Dr. Colglazier that the panel would be rigidly balanced. That promise has obviously not been kept. For example, on 24 November 1998, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) wrote to you suggesting the names of eleven distinguished scientists to serve on the BEIR VII panel. Not one of them, or anyone with similar perspectives, has been appointed. To our knowledge, not one was even contacted.

However, appointment to the panel has been arranged for numerous individuals associated with the nuclear industry and associated agencies and for advocates of easing radiation standards. People allied with the institutions that can save substantial amounts of money if radiation restrictions are relaxed (thus permitting larger amounts of radioactivity to be released into the environment) are well represented on the panel; no one -- let alone a comparable number -- whose perspective is that there is a need to strengthen radiation standards, and thereby better protect those who could be thereby exposed, appears to have been permitted on the panel.

The primary debate that the BEIR VII Committee is to review is that involving the so-called "Linear No-Threshold" (LNT) presumption. Put simply, the LNT principle says that the cancer and genetic risk from ionizing radiation goes down linearly as the dose goes down. Cancer induction from radiation, for example, is a matter of probability, and the probability of harm is proportional to the amount of radiation received, with no threshold below which all risk ceases.

Knowledge of ionizing radiation effects on human beings comes largely from studies of groups of people exposed to relatively high doses of radiation, such as the victims of the A-bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the doses of interest go down, the size of the population examined must go up markedly if epidemiological studies are to have sufficient statistical power to "see" effects. Since there are no data sets of populations large enough and with good enough exposure data to measure epidemiologically effects below some radiation levels, for radiation protection purposes one must extrapolate from the dose regions for which there are data. This linear, no threshold extrapolation is and has been widely accepted by the mainstream of the scientific community for decades.

The LNT premise has, however, come under attack by some on the margin of this scientific mainstream who have pushed for lowering estimates of radiation risks. Some argue that low doses are considerably less harmful than currently assumed by the LNT model; some argue there is a threshold below which radiation is not harmful at all; and some even argue that low doses are beneficial (the "hormesis" proponents). The BEIR VII committee has been loaded up with people from this side of the debate. Scientists who support the current risk estimates are largely excluded from the panel. To our knowledge, not a single scientist who believes that the risks are actually linear is on the panel (all believe that for most cancers, risks are less than that predicted by linear interpolation from higher doses.) Furthermore, and most importantly, scientists whose work indicates that current official risk estimates may understate actual risks from low doses of radiation by a substantial factor have been excluded completely from the committee.

A number of distinguished scientists have performed a series of recent studies indicating that low dose radiation may be approximately an order of magnitude more dangerous than current official figures would suggest. Not one of them has been asked to serve on the panel; yet the panel is filled with people who have attacked these studies that are less favorable to industry/agency economic interests. The full range of scientific opinion has not been included on the BEIR panel; it is heavily skewed towards those with a view out of step with even the mainstream of the scientific community; their views, however, parallel closely the interests of the entities that stand to benefit if radiation standards can be relaxed.

About a decade ago, then-DOE Secretary Watkins attempted to remove control of epidemiological studies of DOE nuclear sites from DOE because of conflict-of-interest and a troubled history involving efforts to suppress studies that showed harm from DOE activities. Additionally, there is a similarly troubled history involving National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council nuclear studies and excessive influence over those studies by DOE, its predecessor AEC, and others allied with the nuclear enterprise. The controversy now hovering over the BEIR VII panel must be seen in the context of this history, descibed in more detail in an attachment hereto.

After a series of court decisions ruling that NAS had violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), NAS went to Congress requesting that it be exempted from the normal provisions of that law. In exchange for that exemption, the Academy committed to a number of measures to assure public transparency of its advisory committee process, prohibition on individuals serving with conflicts of interest, and balance in composition. These binding commitments were embodied as legal requirements in the revised FACA.

It is our view that unless it promptly takes dramatic steps to cure the problems, the NAS is in violation of these provisions of FACA with regard to the establishment of BEIR VII. For example, Section 15 of FACA, as amended, requires that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) "provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on [study committee] appointments before they are made." (An exception is provided for some unique circumstance, e.g., an emergency time schedule for a particular study where the Academy finds that prior comment is not practicable in that particular case; given the three year time frame for BEIR VII Phase 2, obviously those circumstances do not apply here.) However, with regard to this critical BEIR VII committee, the NAS failed to permit public comment on the prospective appointments prior to their being made, and the NAS failed to make any finding that such prior comment was not practicable. Post hoc comment is being permitted; however Evan Douple, staff of the NAS Board on Radiation Effects Research, has said that no changes to the BEIR VII committee will be made, either in terms of removing people with major conflicts or adding additional people to provide balance, no matter what information is provided in the public comments. (1 June 1999 telephone conversation between NAS’s Douple and Cindy Folker and Diane D’Arrigo of NIRS.) This obviously makes the public comment opportunity an exercise in futility.

FACA additionally requires that the Academy ensure that "no individual appointed to serve on the committee has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed, unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable." However, NAS has refused to release the conflict of interest forms for the BEIR VII members and otherwise declined to "promptly and publicly disclose" conflicts of interest involving BEIR VII members. Besides flouting the requirements of FACA, this obviously further makes the public comment period an empty shell, as the potential conflicts have been kept secret so the public cannot review or comment upon them. From what we do know of the panel, several members (e.g., Mossman and Whipple) appear to have conflicts of interest, as discussed further below.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly to the matter at hand, FACA requires that the Academy ensure that "the committee membership is fairly balanced." As will be seen in the detailed analysis of the panel composition attached hereto, in this regard the Academy has failed completely. The BEIR VII committee membership is completely unbalanced, composed almost entirely of one wing of the radiation debate -- those who believe current radiation risk estimates are too high. The full range of scientific opinion on this critical issue is purposely and radically excluded from participation in BEIR VII. To put it bluntly, the panel has been packed with allies of the nuclear industry’s campaign to relax radiation standards.

The nuclear industry is waging an intensive campaign to get radiation risk estimates lowered and radiation protection requirements concomitantly relaxed. Advocacy groups for the nuclear industry have expressly said the industry could save billions of dollars in cleanup and other expenses if this campaign succeeds, and they directly indicate that they are pinning their prime efforts on getting an NAS report that helps them in this regard. On the other side of the equation, of course, are the uncountable lives that would be lost were the industry’s efforts to take over BEIR VII to succeed and it result in relaxation of radiation standards, thus increasing exposures and resulting cancers.

The primary nuclear industry advocacy group involved in this campaign is the Health Physics Society (HPS). In a position paper issued by HPS, of which former HPS President Ken Mossman is the lead author, Mossman and his associates urge the elimination of any consideration of doses less than 5 rem in a year or 10 rem lifetime, arguing in essence against any detriment below those quite high levels. (By rough comparison, 5 rem is the dose one would get from several hundred chest X-rays).

Mossman, who has been perhaps the most energetic nuclear advocate urging relaxation of radiation exposure limits to the public and workers, has expressly editorialized that such a measure could save the industry billions of dollars. He has written in a newspaper editorial that low doses are harmless and that the upcoming NAS (BEIR) report is crucial in the efforts to save huge sums of money for nuclear entities by rationalizing relaxed radiation protection measures. Astonishngly, NAS has appointed Mossman himself to BEIR VII, as well as numerous allies of the Health Physics Society campaign, yet no one from the side of the debate suggesting current standards are too lax.

Adding to the public impression that the BEIR VII panel has become a creature of the HPS campaign to relax standards is the scheduling of the first meeting of BEIR VII in conjunction with HPS’s annual meeting. (When the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability complained to NAS staff about the inappropriateness of the closeness of the BEIR VII process to the key industry group lobbying to roll back radiation protections, NAS staff belatedly suggested perhaps some time later holding a meeting at a time when a group like ANA might be meeting. This after-thought does not nothing to mitigate the clear appearance that industry groups like HPS have an undue influence over the BEIR process.)

DOE, likewise, is moving away from cleaning up its highly contaminated nuclear complex and is pushing hard for relaxed cleanup standards so as to permit it to leave in place more of the contamination, saving vast amounts of money. It has been pushing EPA hard to stop objecting to radiation standards that are already orders of magnitude less protective than for any other carcinogen. DOE, NRC, and DOD nuclear entities, have been pushing EPA through ISCORS to "harmonize" its radiation regulations with theirs so that far more relaxed standards would be universally required, permitting considerably higher public exposures. BEIR VII is a key part of that effort as well.

A great deal is thus at stake with BEIR VII. On the one hand, the nuclear industry and nuclear agencies could save billions of dollars if they can assure that the BEIR VII committee is dominated by people whose positions have been that radiation is less dangerous than current official estimates and if they can keep off the panel all scientists who have performed studies indicating radiation is considerably more dangerous than current official risk figures. On the other hand, significant numbers of people will suffer radiation-induced cancers, and other illnesses, if the nuclear industry and agencies succeed in packing the panel so as to recommend that the public be permitted to be exposed to higher levels of radiation than currently considered acceptable.

The integrity of the Academy and of science in general is also at stake. We recognize that science is rarely entirely free of politics, given the imbalance in available funding sources. But were the Academy to essentially hand over its radiation effects estimation work to those who are favorable to institutions with huge financial stake in a particular outcome to the review, and exclude all whose scientific work leads to conclusions that are not in the financial interests of these large industrial and agency interests, the reputation of the Academy and the integrity of American science in this field will be further tarnished. Most importantly, the Academy will have permitted itself to be used by a large polluting enterprise to further adversely impact the health of the public. Balance is essential, and balance is entirely lacking.

A few examples: A Vice President of a major nuclear industry firm and DOE contractor, ICF Kaiser, has been named to the panel. (ICF Kaiser, among other activities, operates the highly contaminated Rocky Flats facility for DOE.) For many years before becoming an executive at ICF Kaiser, Chris Whipple was employed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), established by the utility industry. At least two other members of the panel appear to have financial associations with EPRI as well. Yet not a single person associated with the other side of the debate, the public interest community and those who work on behalf of those communities affected by DOE and nuclear utility operations, has been named to the panel.

At least four members of BEIR VII (Hoel, Howe, Buffler, and Monson) have testified on behalf of industry defendants in radiation cases. To our knowledge, not one member of the panel has testified on behalf of radiation victim plaintiffs.

Numerous advocates of the position that fractionization of doses substantially reduces the effectiveness of "low dose" radiation (low-linear-energy transfer) below that predicted by LNT have been named to the panel (e.g., Howe, Monson). At least one (Sankaranarayanan) is an advocate of the controversial position that low doses produce an "adaptive response" that protects one from or reduces subsequent radiation harm. Hoel and Mossman have advocated the existence of a threshold below which radiation is harmless. Kellerer has argued that current risk estimates are "unreasonably over-conservative" and should be dramatically reduced. Ullrich has been a critic of the linear model, arguing that true risks are considerably lower than predicted thereby. Davis has been criticized for asserting in essence that massive radioiodine releases from Hanford have caused no harm when the available data do not permit nearly so conclusive a statement. Cardis, Howe, and Gilbert are co-authors of a controversial study widely cited by industry advocates as support for the claim that there is little risk from occupational radiation exposure.

When Thomas Mancuso, Alice Stewart, and George Kneale found an excess of cancers at DOE’s Hanford facility associated with radiation exposure, DOE canceled the Mancuso contract and handed the work over to Ethel Gilbert, who proceeded to produce a series of reports more favorable to DOE. Ethel Gilbert is on the panel; Alice Stewart is not.

Yet while those who view the linear no-threshold model as overstating radiation hazardous are numerous on the panel, they are not balanced by scientists whose work suggests it may understate risks. No Alice Stewart is found on the panel; no Steve Wing; no John Gofman. Of the long list of scientists whose work leads to conclusions not in the financial interests of agencies and industry desiring to save money by relaxing radiation standards, not one is found on the panel.

In making these comments, we are not questioning the integrity or competence of the scientists named to the panel nor their right to hold the viewpoints they do. What we are questioning is how the National Academy of Sciences can possibly establish a panel to examine a controversy over low dose ionizing radiation and essentially load the panel with people from only one side of the debate.

We wish to make absolutely clear that this radical imbalance cannot be cured with a cosmetic change of adding a couple of additional people. A see-saw with more than a dozen people on one side cannot be made level with the placement of one or two people on the other side.

The National Academy of Sciences should aim to serve the advancement of science in the public interest. In this case, in violation of fundamental principles of science as well as statutory obligations, the committee formed by NAS on a critical issue is crippled by imbalance. The panel is composed almost exclusively of people whose longstanding views on this critical public health debate are favorable to agency and private interests in relaxing radiation standards. There will be no credibility to the conclusions of the panel as currently constituted. The public health may eventually suffer accordingly from relaxed radiation protections should agencies rely on its recommendations. We call on NAS to start over and form a panel truly independent, balanced, free of impermissible conflicts, and in compliance with law.

Sincerely,

Dan Hirsch

Executive Director

Committee to Bridge the Gap

Los Angeles, CA

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Washington, DC

David Adelman

Natural Resources Defense Council

Washington, DC

Scott Denman

Executive Director

Safe Energy Communication Council

Washington, DC

Robert W. Tiller

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Washington, D.C.

Dr. Edwin Lyman

Scientific Director

Nuclear Control Institute

Washington, DC

Damon Mogland

Greenpeace

Washington, DC

Anna Aurilio

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Washington, DC

Wenonah Hauter

Executive Director

Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy Project

Washington, DC

Barbara Wiedner

Founder/Director

Grandmothers for Peace International

Elk Grove, CA

Barbara K. Hickernell

Alliance to Close Indian Point

12 Terrich Court/P.O. Box 669

Ossining, NY

Mary Lampert

Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy

29 Temple Place

Boston MA

Debby Katz

Citizens Awareness Network

Shelburne Falls, MA

Jim Warren

Executive Director

NC WARN

Durham, NC

Joan King

20/20 Vision-Georgia

304 Manor Drive

Sautee, GA 30571

Jonathan Mark

Action Site to Stop Cassini Earth Flyby

P.O. Box 1999

Wendell Depot, MA 01380

Dave Rapaport

Executive Director

Vermont Public Interest Research Group

64 Main Street

Montpelier, VT 05602

Mark Donham

Kristi Hanson

The Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE)

RR # 1, Box 308

Brookport, IL 62910

Coalition for Health Concern

Ronald Lamb

10970 Ogden Landing Rd.

Kevil, KY 42053

Tom Campbell

Avocado Productions

The Guacamole Fund

Los Angeles, CA

Joe Mirabile

Director

EcoBridge

San Francisco, CA

E.M.T. O'Nan

Director

Protect All Children's Environment

2261 Buck Creek Road

Marion, NC 28752

Terry J. Lodge

Convenor, Coalition for a Safe Environment

316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520

Toledo, Ohio 43624-1627

Liane Casten

Chair

Chicago Media Watch,

Chicago, IL

Chuck Broscious

Environmental Defense Institute

Troy, ID

Greg Wingard,

Executive Director

Waste Action Project

PO Box 4051

Seattle, WA 98104-0051

Buffalo Bruce

Western Nebraska Resources Council

Chadron, Nebraska

Chris Williams

Executive Director

Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana

5420 N. College Ave, Suite 100

Indianapolis, IN 46220

Molly Johnson, office coordinator

Save Ward Valley

107 F Street

Needles, CA 92363

Peg Ryglisyn

Michael Albrizio

Connecticut Opposed to Waste

Broad Brook, CT

Cliff Honicker, Director

Jacqueline O. Kittrell, General Counsel

American Environmental Health Studies Project

318 Lynnwood Drive

Knoxville, TN 37918

Janet C. Gordon

Director, Citizens Call

P.O. Box 1722

Cedar City, UT 84721-1722

Bruce A Drew

Prairie Island Coalition

4425 Abbott Avenue South

Minneapolis MN 55410-1444

Kitty Tucker

President, Health & Energy Institute

PO Box 5357

Takoma Park, MD 20913

George Crocker, Executive Director

North American Water Office

P O Box 174

Lake Elmo MN 55042

Bill Smirnow

Nuclear Free New York

Tom Sevigny, Amy VasNunes

Co-chairs

Connecticut Green Party

Hartford, CT

Ann Harris

Director

We The People, Inc

305 Pickel Road

Ten Mile, TN 37880

Carol Jahnkow

Executive Director

Peace Resource Center of San Diego

5717 Lindo Paseo

San Diego, CA 92115

Ann Harris

Program Director

Alliance for Public Health & Safety

P.O. Box 40

Ten Mile, TN 37880

Harvey Wasserman

Citizens Protecting Ohio

735 Euclaire Ave

Bexley, OH 43209

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Ralph Hutchison

Coordinator

Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Roger Snyder

SHAD (Sound & Hudson against Atomic Development) Alliance

Huntington, NY

Scott D. Portzline

Three Mile Island Alert

Harrisburg, PA

Susan Clark

Americans for a Safe Future

Los Angles, CA

Carol Oberdorfer

President

Dickerson Community Association, Inc.,

22030 Big Woods Rd.

Dickerson, MD

Robin Mills - Director

Maryland Safe Energy Coalition

P.O. Box 33111

Baltimore, MD 21218

Thomas Seery, Program Director

Peace Action-Milwaukee

1001 E. Keefe Ave.

Milwaukee, WI

Roger Herried

Abalone Alliance

San Francisco, CA

Anne D. Burt, Secretary

Friends of the Coast - Opposing Nuclear Pollution

Post Office Box 98

Edgecomb, Maine 04556

Jay Coghlan

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety

Santa Fe, NM

Lucie Bava

President

Women For:

Los Angeles, CA

Vina Colley

Portsmouth/Piketon Resident for Environmental Safety and Security

3706 McDermott Pond Creek

McDermott, Ohio 45652

Wendly Oser

Nuclear Guardianship Project

Berkeley, CA, USA

Susan L. Hiatt, Director

Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.

Mentor, OH 44060

Joyce and Steve Kuschwara

Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch

Toms River, N.J.

Sandy Gavutis

C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.

44 Merrimac Street

Newburyport, MA 01950

Patricia Birnie, Chair

GE Stockholders Alliance

Tucson, AZ

Betty Schroeder, Co-Chair

Arizona Safe Energy Coalition

Tucson, AZ

Pat Birnie, Chair, Environment Committee

U.S.Section of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom;

(c/o) WILPF national office, Philadelphia, PA

Tom Ferguson, Bob Darby

Atlanta Food Not Bombs

Atlanta Ga

Marylia Kelley

Tri-Valley CAREs

(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)

2582 Old First Street

Livermore, CA USA 94550

Robert L. Campbell, Vice President

Director Division of Mortality Studies

Atomic Veterans Radiation Research Institute, Inc.

74 Vesper Street

Portland, Maine 04101

Steve Jambeck

Joan Flynn

EnviroVideo

Box 311

Ft. Tilden NY 11695

Chris Trepal

Earth Day Coalition

Cleveland, Ohio

LeRoy Moore, Ph.D., and Lisa Rittel, D.O.

Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center

Box 1156

Boulder, CO 80306.

Steve Haberman

Field Director

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League

P.O. Box 1136

Portsmouth, NH 03802

Daniel Swartz

The ZHABA Collective

PO Box 3243

1001 AA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The ZHABA Collective/ASEED-Europe/HUMUSZ

Chris Busby

European Committee on Radiation Risk

(Comite Europeen sur le Risque de l'Irradiation)

UK Office

c/o Green Audit

38 Queen Street

Aberystwyth

Wales UK SY23 1PU

Richard Bramhall

Low Level Radiation Campaign

Ammondale

Spa Road

Llandrindod Wells

Powys LD1 5EY

Wales UK

Lorraine Mann

Convener

Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping

Lydia Popova

Center for Nuclear Ecology and Energy Policy

Socio-Ecological Union

Moscow, Russia

Igor Polakovic

Sirius - Slovak union of the nature and landscape protectors

Godrova 3/b, 814 99

Bratislava, Slovakia

Juraj Krivosik

Vice Chairman

Society for Sustainable Living in the Slovak Republic

Bratislava, Slovakia

Dr Rachel Western,

Friends of the Earth

London, UK

Schelene Smith

ISAR, West NIS Branch

Kyiv, Ukraine

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Koehnlein

Institut fuer Strahlenbiologie

Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet

48149 Muenster

Ira Helfand, MD

Co-Founder and Past President,

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Quinton C. James, M.D.

Los Angeles, CA

Richard Grossman, L.Ac., O.M.D., Ph.D.

Santa Monica, CA

Ali Naini, M.D.

Woodland Hills, CA

Lawrence R. Freedman, M.D.

Former Chief of Medicine, Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan

University of California, Los Angeles

Richard Saxon, M.D.

Manzanita, OR

Carmer Hadley, M.D.

Pasadena, CA

Felix Aguilar, M.D., M.P.H.

Long Beach, CA

Harry L. Keyserling, M.D.

Associate Professor of Pediatrics

Emory University School of Medicine

Richard Martinez, M.D., M.P.H.

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

James H. Hara, M.D.

Los Angeles, CA

Hyla Cass, M.D.

University of California, Los Angeles

Arthur V. Milholland, M.D., Ph.D.

University of Maryland, Baltimore

Syed Samee, M.D.

Fullerton, CA

Drew E. Maris

University of California, Irvine

L. Stephen Coles, M.D., Ph.D., Co-Founder

Gerontology Research Group

Los Angeles, CA

Monica Vohmann, M.D.

Madison, WI

Sue Rabbitt Roff, Ph.D.

Centre for Medical Education

University of Dundee, United Kingdom

Julian Eligator, M.D.

Pittsburgh, PA

Alan H. Lockwood, M.D.

Professor of Neurology and Nuclear Medicine

State University of New York, University at Buffalo

John Goldenring, M.D., M.P.H.

San Diego, CA

Robert M. Gould, MD

San Jose, CA

Erica Frank, M.D., M.P.H.

Co-Editor-in-Chief, Preventive Medicine

Atlanta, GA

Lachlan Forrow, MD

Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Faculty Associate, Program in Ethics and the Professions, Harvard University

Jack L. Paradise, M.D.

University of Pittsburgh, PA

William E. Perkins

Los Angeles, CA

David Hilton, M.D.

Associate Professor

Emory University School of Medicine

Gina Solomon, M.D., M.P.H.

Assistant Clinical Professor, UC San Francisco

Scott Weissman, MD

Los Angeles, CA

Robert C. Wesley, M.D.

Clinical Professor of Medicine

University of Nevada, School of Medicine

Willard Osibin, M.D.

Templeton, CA

Dr. Helen Caldicott

Founding President, Physicians for Social Responsibilty,

East Hampton, NY

Dr. Joan Stanley-Bake

Professor, Atinan National College of the Arts

Taiwan

Dr. Steve Cohn

Associate Professor of Economics

Knox College,

Galesburg, Il.

Daniel Fine, M.D.

Pittsburgh, CA

Arthur D. Fisher, M.D.

Member, American College of Radiology

Certified in Radiology by the American Board of Radiology

Sol Londe, M.D., Northridge, CA

Kevin Hoover, University of California at Irvine , Medical Scientist Training Program

Earl Budin, M.D., Former Associate Clinical Professor of Radiology

University of California, Los Angeles

Joseph Burkes, M.D., Panorama City, CA

Dave Hall, M.D.

Dr. Seth Tuler

Rudi H. Nussbaum, PhD., Professor Emeritus of Physics and Environmental

Sciences, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97205