Revised BEIR VII Panel Reviewing Low Dose Radiation and Health
August 30, 1999
Director Board on Radiation Effects Research
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 342
Washington, DC 20418
Dear Dr. Douple,
Several weeks ago, more than 70 organizations and numerous individuals wrote to you expressing concern about apparent violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in the formation and composition of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII, Phase 2 (BEIR VII) which is to review the health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation. In particular, dramatic failures in complying with the balance, conflict-of-interest, and openness provisions of FACA were noted. Letters expressing similar concerns were sent by, among others, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressman Henry Waxman, and Dr. Edward Radford, Chairman of the Academy’s BEIR III committee.
A campaign is underway by the nuclear industry and many within the nuclear agencies such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) to further relax already weak radiation protection standards. BEIR VII is a critical component of that effort. If BEIR VII can be packed with proponents of reduced risk estimates for "low dose" ionizing radiation, resulting in recommendations for further weakening of worker and public protections, the nuclear industry and the associated agencies can save billions of dollars in operation and cleanup costs for contaminated sites. At the same time, leaving more contamination behind will result in untold increases in cancers, genetic effects, and other radiation-induced health impacts.
A great deal is thus at stake in whether NAS staff strictly follow FACA in setting up a balanced BEIR VII committee free of conflicts-of-interest, or instead permit a significant biasing of its composition favorable to powerful institutions with large economic and other interests in the outcome of the study.
By law, no agency may rely upon the recommendations of an NAS study that is formed in violation of the requirements of FACA. In particular, agencies are precluded from utilizing the fruits of an NAS committee (1) where there is not genuine balance in the panel composition, (2) where any member has a conflict-of-interest, unless that person’s participation is demonstrated to be so significant as to outweigh the conflict and the conflict is promptly and
publicly disclosed, or (3) where the committee violates requirements regarding openness and opportunity for meaningful public comment on nominees for membership on the committee prior to their being named to the committee.
Our review of the initial composition of the BEIR VII panel led us to conclude that the NAS had violated all three requirements of FACA, and in a dramatic fashion. In short, the committee is dominated by people on one side of the very scientific debate that it is to examine, the side favorable to nuclear industry and agency interests, with not even a single respected scientist from the other side of the issue in question represented. Additionally, people with conflicts-of-interest (e.g., ties to institutions with major economic interests in the outcome of the study) have nonetheless been appointed.
These concerns remain unresolved and may have been worsened by the changes made in the composition of the BEIR VII panel. The removal of one member and addition of five, none of whom balance the one-sided perspective of the remaining 15, does not improve the credibility of the committee.
Furthermore, the requirement for an opportunity for meaningful public comment on panel nominees has been made an empty shell. NAS has refused to release panelists’ curricula vitae and conflict-of-interest "disclosure" forms. NAS has scheduled a meeting of the committee with only a day or two elapsing from the close of the comment period--making clear it will not take seriously any comments that may arise about the committee composition. Although the panel is charged with reviewing the Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation risk, to the best of our knowledge, the NAS has not appointed a single supporter of the strict LNT model to the panel. NAS staff filled the panel with people who have staked out positions, often very vigorously, advocating that the LNT model overstates risks, while simultaneously excluding all scientists who believe current risk estimates understate the risks.
Numerous panelists have serious conflicts of interest, i.e.close ties to the nuclear industry and associated agencies with a vested economic and political interest in lowering radiation risk estimates. The panel is also heavily weighted with people who have served as defense (nuclear industry) witnesses in radiation cases, rather than those who have testified on behalf of radiation victims. In short, the panel was packed with proponents of lowering current radiation risk estimates and saving the nuclear industry large amounts of money by the relaxed radiation and cleanup standards that flow therefrom.
Changes to BEIR Committee Fail to Improve Imbalance, Conflicts-of-Interest or Openness Violations
We were initially heartened by the decision of the NAS, shortly after receiving comments expressing concern about these matters, to suspend the panel and consider reconstituting it in light of the imbalance and conflicts of interest. However, as we noted at the time, mere cosmetic changes to the panel composition would do nothing to resolve these fundamental violations of FACA.
After review of the changes to the proposed BEIR VII committee, we are profoundly disappointed. The conflicts of interest are unaltered, and the imbalance is in no way rectified:
In our previous letter, we expressed skepticism that any additions to the panel would represent the positions in the scientific community that counter those of the bulk of the committee. We stated:
On the plus side, two people (Drs. Bingham and Abrams) have been added who have sympathy for workers and the public, as opposed to primary sympathy for industry and agencies so thoroughly represented by many of the rest of the panel. However, neither has done much, if any, work in the area of the effects of low dose radiation. Neither has, to the best of our knowledge, taken the position that current radiation risk estimates are too low and should be increased, in contrast to the numerous panel members who have long pushed for relaxing radiation risk estimates. They are centrists or agnostics on the issue to be examined by this committee, and therefore cannot balance off the many vigorous proponents of relaxing risk estimates already appointed.
On the other hand, the three other people who have been added appear to worsen the imbalance on the panel. One (Dr. Moeller) is a vigorous proponent of the position that risks from radiation from nuclear activities are overstated. Another (Dr. Lindahl) is an advocate of the controversial arguments about radiation damage being repaired and cells "adapting" to carcinogens, adding to the several other members already on the committee with this perspective. The third is a statistician (Dr. Stefanski) with no apparent experience in radiation issues but who has worked in the area of "non-linear models," raising suspicions as to whether he was put on the committee to add to the critics of the Linear-Non-Threshold model for radiation effects.
The main concern remains the heavy imbalance in positions on the central issue being examined, the risks of low dose radiation. Drs. Hoel, Howe, Gilbert, Kellerer, Monson, and Sankaranarayanan, among a number of others on the panel, have previously taken positions that current risk estimates overstate radiation hazards. Again, no scientist whose position is that risks are in fact understated has been permitted on the panel to balance them.
The Academy recognizes that there is significant scientific debate on the very question of low dose health impacts; that is what the committee has been set up to review. The complete exclusion of one side of that debate from committee membership violates fundamental principles of science, and conclusions so-reached will have no credibility.
NAS staff have created a panel with imbalance in membership positions on the central question. They have also created imbalance in the choice of arenas of inquiry to review. The addition of panel members who have not been active proponents of relaxing radiation risk estimates still contributes to the imbalance in the committee by virtue of the area of expertise they have been chosen by NAS to represent. Three or more members of the panel work in the area of cellular DNA repair, an area pointed to by proponents of relaxed radiation standards. However, no members of the panel work in the areas pointed to by proponents of strengthened radiation standards, such as the apparent increased sensitivity to radiation in older adults.
Continued Violation of FACA Conflict-of-Interest Requirements
Dr. Mossman, a former president of the industry advocacy organization Health Physics Society (HPS) and a vigorous advocate of relaxing radiation standards in order to save industry money, has been removed. He has, however, been replaced by Dr. Moeller, also a vigorous advocate of relaxing radiation regulations in order to save industry money, (and, ironically, also a former president of the same Health Physics Society, although longer ago.) Formerly, he was at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. Currently, Dr. Moeller’s consulting firm works heavily for DOE, on matters such as Yucca Mountain. He, until recently, held long-term senior positions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While associated with the USNRC, he was instrumental in the formation of agency positions that would be affected by the BEIR panel’s review, such as the USNRC’s revised standards for protection against radiation, controversial policies for BRC (Below Regulatory Concern--waste deregulation), and the push for relaxed radiation standards for Yucca Mountain. He has publicly trivialized radiation exposures from nuclear activities, comparing them to risks from eating Brazil nuts. (This was in an editorial for the American Council on Science and Health, an industry-funded organization with which he is associated, that generally opposes environmental restrictions on industry.) In short, Dr. Moeller is as conflicted and as much a proponent of efforts to relax radiation standards as was Dr. Mossman, whom he replaced. Indeed Dr. Moeller has publicly associated himself with the views of Dr. Mossman, by name. We do not see this change as progress.
Aside from Dr. Mossman, none of the people with conflicts-of-interest have been removed. For example, Dr. Hoel, a strong critic of the Linear -No-Threshold model, remains on the panel. As a trial witness for General Public Utilities, which operated the Three Mile Island reactor that suffered a meltdown in 1979, Dr. Hoel attacked studies by Dr. Steven Wing and colleagues suggesting greater health effects resulting from the accident than previously presumed. As a consultant to the Rocketdyne Corporation, operator of the DOE Santa Susana nuclear testing facility, site of a 1959 partial core meltdown, he attacked the study by a team from the UCLA School of Public Health (Drs. Morgenstern, Ritz, and Froines) demonstrating significantly excess cancer deaths among radiation-exposed workers at the DOE/Rocketdyne site. Yet Dr. Wing and the Morgenstern team are excluded from the panel, while Dr. Hoel who appears to have conflicts-of -interest on the issue, is included. He will be involved, despite those conflicts, in judging (or even preventing consideration of) the very studies he has previously attacked on behalf of nuclear industry clients. (Presumably, Dr. Hoel received remuneration from the nuclear companies involved for his services on their behalf, although the refusal to release conflict-of-interest forms precludes the public from confirming the nature of this and other associations.)
The NAS’s most perplexing response, or lack of response, to a conflict we identified, may have to do with Chris Whipple. NAS identified Dr. Whipple, when first named to the panel, as Vice President of ICF Kaiser, a major nuclear contractor. We pointed out the conflict-of-interest this posed, as well as the conflict from his previous employment at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). In response, NAS has apparently conceded that an association with ICF Kaiser would be a conflict, but asserts Dr. Whipple has no connection with ICF Kaiser, working instead for ICF Consulting, a supposedly unrelated entity. This was puzzling. However, upon checking, it was confirmed that NAS had itself identified Whipple as an official of ICF Kaiser when it originally announced his appointment to the committee, and that he, for years, has so identified himself. In checking ICF Consulting on the internet, one is in fact taken to ICF Kaiser’s web page. From there one is transferred to a temporary website for ICF Consulting, which contains a note saying that as of June 30, ICF Kaiser Consulting, after thirty years of association with ICF Kaiser, was now to be known as ICF Consulting, separately owned. Can the Academy possibly think that a man who has spent his adult life working for the nuclear industry--first with EPRI and then ICF Kaiser--is suddenly free of conflicts of interest? Surely those conflicts don’t disappear simply because in the last few weeks, after his appointment to BEIR VII, his firm’s name and ownership have changed slightly.
Furthermore, the conflict continues. Faced with an internal financial crisis, ICF Kaiser was recently forced to break up into three parts, one of which is ICF Consulting. ICF Consulting retained work it was doing for DOE and continues to have active support contracts with DOE. To take a position on the BEIR VII radiation risk issues contrary to that taken by his company’s clients could be economically hazardous to Dr. Whipple’s firm. The charade by the Academy that a minor name change in recent weeks somehow eliminates what the NAS appears to concede had been a conflict flies in the face of FACA’s requirements to take seriously potential conflicts-of-interest.
Continued Violation of FACA’s Requirements Regarding Openness and Meaningful Public Comment
We also remain concerned about the continued disregard by the Academy of the requirements in FACA for openness and meaningful opportunity for public comment on nominees being considered for such advisory committees. The Academy’s continued refusal to make public either the curricula vitae and conflict-of-interest "disclosure" forms for panel members makes it extremely difficult for the public to fully assess and comment on the qualifications and conflicts of panel nominees.
The decision to announce the reconstituted committee membership in August and require comments to be received by the end of the month, given people’s summer vacation schedules, further creates the appearance of attempting to preclude effective public comment. It simply isn’t possible to fully research the new panel members in the time available, particularly with people away on holiday. We regret that our immediate request for extension was denied, just a few days before the deadline. (Because of these factors, many who had signed the previous letter have been unavailable to review the new appointments and this letter during this period.)
Lastly, having a comment period that expires on August 30 or 31, with the BEIR committee set to meet on September 2, gives the Academy all of one or two days to review the comments. This sends a very clear signal that the NAS views the comment period required by statute as a nuisance requirement not to be taken seriously, rather than a legal obligation to be vigorously followed. Whatever information is received by the 30th or 31st, the Academy is intent on going forward with the committee on the 2nd, again making a mockery of the requirement for effective opportunity for public comment before the appointment of committee members.
These actions violate the statutory requirement that review of the information
provided must be completed prior to people being made committee members.
The fiction that committee members are merely provisional members is an
attempt to evade the clear intent of the law. The committee meets on September
2, to conduct committee business. Committee business cannot be conducted
by "provisional" members. How do you undo influences by members later removed
from the panel for conflicts-of-interest or balance reasons? Jurors do
not sit on juries prior to voir dire being completed and their being
formally approved as jurors. The Academy recognized this by cancelling
the first public sessions of the panel in Philadelphia in June 1999 (although
permitting the committee to meet in secret), saying it needed first to
resolve balance and conflict-of-interest issues raised by public commenters.
Now NAS has gone ahead and re-scheduled the same business meetings of the
committee, prior to completion of review of public comments on its proposed
composition. There appears to be a continuing attitude of being above the
law, of not having to live up to the commitments made to Congress and incorporated
into statute when the special NAS provisions of FACA were adopted last
year.
Conclusion
In conclusion, despite the changes, very serious imbalance and conflicts-of-interest in the initially named BEIR VII panel, and failures to comply with openness and public comment requirements, the problems with the committee remain essentially unaltered. We urge, once again, that the NAS start over and form a BEIR VII committee that is balanced and free of conflicts-of-interest, one that is formed in compliance with law. The current committee is lopsided with people from one side of the scientific debate that is to be examined, with the other side of that debate entirely excluded. Such an imbalanced process can have no credibility.
In so saying, we must make clear again that we are not criticizing the scientific competence or integrity of any of the individuals appointed to the committee, but rather the imbalance in the panel as a whole. The fault rests with the NAS staff who permitted their own biases on the issue to affect the selection of the panelists, not with the panelists themselves who, presumably, had nothing to do with the selection.
The NAS should not permit members with conflicts or the skewing of panels so as to be favorable to the economic interests of powerful institutions with an economic stake in the outcome of a study. Permitting such a bias puts at risk the health of the public, workers and the environment.
As currently constituted, the BEIR VII panel, process and future recommendations are not credible. We continue to urge that BEIR VII be reconstituted, this time in compliance with FACA.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hirsch, Executive Director
Committee to Bridge the Gap
Los Angeles, CA
Diane D’Arrigo
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Washington, DC
Robert W. Tiller
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Washington, DC
Wenonah Hauter
Public Citizen
Washington, DC
Jonathan Parfrey
Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles
Maureen Eldredge
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
Tom Cochran
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC
Brent Blackwelder
Friends of the Earth
Washington, DC
Richard Miller, Policy Analyst
Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE)
Washington, DC
Wendy Oser
Nuclear Guardianship Project
Berkeley,CA
Vina Colley
PRESS (Portsmouth/Piketon Residents For Environmental safety and Security)
McDermott, Ohio
Dini Schut
Don’t Waste Michigan
Sue Bailey
Nashville Peace Action
Tom Marshall
Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center
Boulder, CO
Bob Darby/ Tom Ferguson
Atlanta Food Not Bombs
Atlanta, GA
Bill Smirnow
Nuclear Free New York
Blaine Metcalf/Sheila Baker
War Resistors League
San Luis Obispo,Ca
Ronnie Cummins, Director
Campaign for Food Safety/Organic Consumers Association
Little Marais, Minnesota
Marylia Kelley
Tri-Valley CAREs
Livermore, CA
Chris Williams, Ex. Dir.
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana
Indianapolis, IN
Michael Gregory
Arizona Toxics Information
Bisbee, Arizona
Greg Wingard
Waste Action Project
Seattle, WA
Richard Geary
Citizen's Action for Safe Energy
Oklahoma City, OK
Ray Shadis
Friends of the Coast- Opposing Nuclear Pollution
Edgecomb, Maine
Ellen Thomas
Proposition One Committee
Washington, DC
Philip M. Klasky, Co-director
Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition
San Francisco, California
Robert Lepley, Executive Director
Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives
Patricia Birnie, Chair
GE Stockholders Alliance
Tucson, AZ
Betty Schroeder, Chair
Arizona Safe Energy Coalition
Tucson, AZ
Pat Birnie, Chair, Environment Committee
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Philadelphia, PA
Pamela Ransom, Ph.D
Women's Environment & Development Organization
New York, N.Y.
Oscar Rosen, Ph.D. President
Atomic Veterans Radiation Research Institute, Inc.
Norm Buske
Nuclear-Weapons-Free America
Spokane, WA
Scot Kelsh
Clean Water Action
Energy Project Coordinator
Fargo, ND
John Marrin
CT CAN
Monroe, CT
Earth Care, Inc.
Des Moines, IA
Chris Trepal
Earth Day Coalition
Cleveland, OH
Gerald A. Drake, M.D.
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Chapel Hill Chapter
Mary Mitchell
Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free
Jackson, WY
Susan L. Hiatt, Director
Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.
Grand River, OH
Mary Lampert
Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy
Boston MA
Jane Nogaki, Board Secretary
New Jersey Environmental Federation
Atco NJ
Bill Smith
Fish Unlimited
Shelter Island NY
Susan Tansky
Valley CADRE (California Alliance in Defense of Residential Environments
Sherman Oaks CA
Jessica Hopper
HYPER PR
CHICAGO IL
Jennifer Olaranna Viereck
Healing Global Wounds
Tecopa CA
Scott Cullen, Counsel,
STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation)
Barbara K. Hickernell
Alliance to Close Indian Point
Ossining, NY
Terry Lodge
Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy
Toledo, Ohio
Harry Williams, President
CHE
Knoxville, TN
Elizabeth J. Shafer, Esq.
Board Member
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
Jim Warren
NC WARN
Durham, NC
Linda Price King
Environmental Health Network
Chesapeake, VA
Rob Campbell
Atomic Veterans Radiation Research Institute
Judi Friedman, Chairperson
PACE People's Action for Clean Energy
Canton, CT
Joyce and Steve Kuschwara
Oyster Creek Nuclear Watch
Toms River, NJ
Dietrich Fischer
Professor of Computer Science at Pace University
Princeton Junction, NJ
Steve Jambeck/Joan Flynn
EnviroVideo
Ft Tilden NY
Bruce A Drew
Prairie Island Coalition
Minneapolis MN
George Crocker
North American Water Office
Lake Elmo MN
Lizzy Poole
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
York, ME
Lizzy Poole
CROWS (Cawcawphonous Raucous Outrage of Worldwide Suffering)
Summerland Key, FL
Susan Clark, President
Americans for a Safe Future
California
John Blair, president
Valley Watch, Inc.
Evansville, IN
Jennifer Reimenschneider, President
Mobilization for Animals
Philadelphia, PA
Stephen M. Brittle, President
Don't Waste Arizona, Inc.
Phoenix, AZ
Phyllis Glazer
M.O.S.E.S. (Mothers Organized to Stop Environmental Sins)
Dallas, TX
Richard Ochs
Maryland Safe Energy Coalition
Baltimore, MD
Mark Donham
Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists (RACE)
Brookport, IL
Andy Mahler
Heartwood
Paoli, IN
Kristi Hanson
RACE/Heartwood
Brookport, IL
Ronald Lamb
Coalition For Health Concern
Kevil, Kentucky
Buffalo Bruce
Western Nebraska Resources Council
Chadron, NE
Barbara Wiedner, Director
Grandmothers for Peace International
Elk Grove, CA
Norm and Karen Cohen
Coalition for Peace and Justice
Linwood, NJ
Ken Bossong, Executive Director
SUN DAY Campaign
Suzanne Warson
STAR
Flushing, New York
Michael Welch, office coordinator
Redwood Alliance
Arcata, CA
Frank McLaughlin, coordinator
Environmental Response Network
Ocean View NJ
John Bates, co-chair
Stockton Peace Action
Stockton College
Pomona NJ
Richard Boren, Coordinator
Southwest Toxic Watch
Tucson, AZ
E.M.T. O'Nan
Protect All Children's Environment
Director
Marion, NC
Debby Katz
Citizens Awareness Network
Massachusetts
John LaForge
Nukewatch
Luck, WI
Suzanne C. Kneeland
Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free
Jackson, WY
Linda Keir
Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee
Gualala, CA
Marion Mayer, R.N., N.P.
Inner Solutions for Women
Pacific Palisades, CA
Kyle Rabin
Air & Energy Program Associate
Environmental Advocates.
Albany, NY
Kitty Tucker, President
Health and Energy Institute
Takoma Park, MD
Judy Treichel
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Judith H. Johnsrud, Ph.D., Director
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
State College, PA
L.J. Glicensteim, Ph.D., Corresponding Secretary
Central Pennsylvania Citizens for Survival
State College, PA
John Runkle
Conservation Council of NC
Raleigh, NC
Jay Coghlan
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety
Santa Fe, NM
Janet C. Gordon
Citizens Call
Jacqueline O. Kittrell
Clifford Honicker
American Environmental Health Studies Project
Knoxville, TN
Harry Rogers
Carolina Peace Resource Center
South Carolina
Grace Marie Potorti
RAMA
Rural Alliance for Military Accountability
Nevada
Glenn Alcalay (co-chair)
National Committee for Radiation Victims
New York, N.Y.
Frank C. Subjeck
Air, Water, Earth, Org.
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Stephen M. Brittle, President
Don't Waste Arizona, Inc.
Phoenix, AZ
Denise Lee
Anson County CACTUS
Wadesboro, NC
Mary B Davis
Uranium Enrichment Project
Georgetown KY
Diane A. Burton
Heartland Operation to Protect the Environment
Auburn, NE
Cyndy deBruler Exec. Dir.
Columbia River United
Hood River, OR
David Ellison
Green Party of Ohio
Cleveland, OH
Dave Rapaport
Executive Director
Vermont Public Interest Research Group
Montpelier, VT
David A. Kraft, Director
Nuclear Energy Information Service
Illinois
Dan Burnstein, President
Center for Atomic Radiation Studies, Inc. (CARS)
Brookline, MA
Cindy Luppi
Clean Water Action
Boston, MA
Ms. B.J. Medley
Earth Concerns of Oklahoma
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Bernard J. August
Committee Against Plutonium Economics
Newark, De
Bernard J.August
Nuclear Affairs
Green Delaware
Corinne Carey
Don't Waste Michigan
Ann Harris
We The People, Inc. of Tennessee
Ten Mile, TN
Alliance for Public Health & Safety
Ten Mile, TN
Anne Rabe
Citizens' Environmental Coalition
New York State
Peg Ryglisyn
Michael Albrizio
Connecticut Opposed to Waste
Broad Brook, CT
Mary T. Corcoran
The Corcoran Corps
Individuals
Frieda Berryhill
Wilmington, De.
Melanie Kaczmarek
Buffalo, New York
Fred Golan
Los Angeles, CA
Ernest J Sternglass, Ph. D
Professor Emeritus of Radiology
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Sherry Katherine Dunn
Bend, Oregon
Marjory M. Donn
Herbert M. Perr, M.D.
Member PSR
Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa
Tucson AZ
International
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Koehnlein
Institut fuer Strahlenbiologie
Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet
Muenster
Dr Patrick Green
Senior Energy, Nuclear and Climate Campaigner
Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)
United Kingdom
Solange Fernex
WILPF
Paris France
Prof. Dr. med Michel Fernex
PSR/IPPNW Switzerland (Board member)
Rodersdorf, Switzerland
Rosalie Bertell, Ph. D., GNSH
President, ACS (1998-2000)
President IICPH (1984+)
Toronto ON M5J 1B5 CANADA
David R. Morgan, National President
Veterans Against Nuclear Arms (VANA) Canada
Vancouver BC, Canada
Michael Murphy
ICUCEC (Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative)
Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Irene Kock
Nuclear Awareness Project
Uxbridge, Ontario, Canada