BEIR VII : THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY'S DREAM COME TRUE?

Since 1969 federal agencies have requested assessments of the health effects of low-dose ionizing radiation by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS has formed a total of seven panels, including the recent Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII panel. Since their inception, these panels have been fraught with charges of scientific bias and incomplete or misrepresentative use of available data. One panel report, that of BEIR III in 1980, even was scandalously pulled after the release of the final version, and rewritten by a minority group of the original panel.
BEIR VII, was requested by the Environmental Protection Agency, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy and (Defense Nuclear Agency??????) [YES/NO?] The BEIR VII assessment should cost a little less than one million dollars and take three years, concluding late in 2001. Like past BEIR panels, BEIR VII also suffers under the contention that the panel is stacked to benefit the nuclear industry.
In recent years, agencies like NRC and DOE argue that the money it takes to clean up very low doses of radiation is apparent and large, but the benefit of this clean-up to public health is not equally apparent. This implies that agencies like DOE (not to mention the commercial nuclear industry) would save a lot of money if radiation exposure were found to carry less risk than currently expected.
Consequently, the scientists chosen for BEIR VII almost exclusively interpret their data to the benefit of industry and government by stating that ionizing radiation exposure to humans is less dangerous than previously thought (see sidebar: BEIR VII Who's Who). This does not imply that these scientists are for sale or lack credibility; rather, industry and government seek out and fund scientists who are more likely to draw conclusions which save them money. By choosing scientists from only one side of the scientific debate, the NAS staff has put the committee in an awkward, and ultimately untenable scientific position, by asking panel members to defend scientific theories and interpretations with which they might not agree.
There are seventeen members on BEIR VII. All fairly accessible evidence indicates that no one chosen for this panel supports the strict Linear-No-Threshold (LNT) model. This model states that your risk of disease after exposure to ionizing radiation is constant across all dose ranges, increasing with higher doses and decreasing with lower doses in proportion (see graphs.) The LNT also says there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation (no threshold).
Additionally, no one on the panel seems to support a Supralinear Model. This model states that as your dose of radiation rises, your risk of getting a disease from your exposure decreases per unit dose. You still have more total damage from high doses, but the damage per unit of radiation is less at higher doses.
Unfortunately, all BEIR VII members specializing in radiation appear to support a dose-rate effectiveness factor (DREF). This means they think low doses are less effective at causing disease per unit dose than high doses. So according to the DREF, if you get a high dose of radiation all at once, this is more likely to harm you than the same total dose of radiation given to you in lower doses over time. The majority of valid human evidence supports either a LNT or Supralinear curve shape, depending on the disease. DREF is not supported by a wide swath of human evidence. Instead, to derive this number, scientists often ignore valid human data in favor of evidence from animal or cell studies. These models are generally, but not always, used to indicate cancer risk.
Using DREF, the nuclear industry could release a damaging amount of radiation over a longer period of time in lower doses, rather than all at once, and claim that it isn't harming anyone. This is one "scientific" justification they would use for putting radioactive waste in consumer products so they don't have to be responsible for their own nuclear trash.
Even better for the industry would be the acceptance of a threshold dose below which radiation purportedly causes no damage. Acceptance of a threshold by a well-respected scientific committee would result in the industry exposing people to even more of their radioactive contamination without any monitoring or restriction at all. Again, there is very little valid human evidence for a threshold dose-the energy level at which radiation rips through cells is much too high compared to the energy levels of our natural life/cellular processes and body repair systems are not flawless.
NIRS, Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) and many other groups have used the scientific studies and comments of BEIR VII panel members to illustrate our contention that the panel is one-sided. We are not criticizing the integrity of the chosen scientists, nor their right to hold a professional opinion. We are simply asking that more scientists be added to the panel to correct the flawed composition. NAS staff has not corrected this lack of balance although they have had ample opportunity. Since BEIR VII already has started research/writing for its final report, we can only conclude that the scientists participating on the panel have consented to its lopsided composition.
While our assessment has left scientists on BEIR VII claiming that we have misjudged them, only one panel member has supplied us with a complete professional and research history (cirricula vitae). Until the remaining 16 members provide us the information to make a more thorough assessment, we stand by our contention that the panel is scientifically unbalanced and cannot uphold the tenets of as rigorous and complete scientific investigation.
And, with the panel as presently constituted-and as NIRS warned the NAS months ago-it will be impossible for anyone outside the nuclear industry, including policymakers and the general public, to take their conclusions seriously.
For more information, answers to questions, or copies of the letters discussing the panel's lopsided constitution, please contact Cindy Folkers at NIRS (cindyf@nirs.org). More information is also available on NIRS' website, www.nirs.org
---Cindy Folkers

These graphs represent what scientists call a Dose/Response curve, and illustrate the theories discussed in this article. That is, how likely are you to get a disease, say cancer, from the exposure you received to a pollutant, in this case, ionizing radiation. Thanks to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research for the graphs.