A WHO'S WHO ON BEIR VII

NIRS, the Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) and other groups have used scientific studies of BEIR VII panel members to support the con-tention that the panel is one-sided in favor of the nuclear industry. We have made every possible attempt to conduct a thorough assessment of the panel.
However, the panel members clearly prefer to work in the dark: 16 of BEIR VII's 17 members have refused to even provide their Cur-ricula Vitae.
From their public written work, we have learned that Drs. Al-brecht Kellerer and Daniel Krewski believe they see research evidence supporting a threshold dose. Drs. Elisabeth Cardis and Ethel Gilbert use controversial methods of epidemiology that often dilute findings of ra-diation-induced diseases. They have also performed studies for the In-ternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the World Health Organization that has an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. (see "A Match Made in Hell" sidebar).To our knowledge, no scientists critical of their methodology have been added to the panel.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has reviewed a re-cent Hanford study and reprimanded Dr. Scott Davis for his controver-sial conclusions regarding iodine-131 and public exposures. NAS con-cluded that the study method could have underestimated iodine expo-sure by as much as 30%. Dr. Patricia Buffler has testified against EMF radiation victims in court.
Drs. Gilbert and Krewski have both mentioned hormesis as a possible valid effect of radiation. Drs. K. Sankaranarayanan and Tomas Lindahl believe cells can gain increased resistance to radiation through exposure to it and that subsequent doses of radiation would therefore be less harmful-this is called adaptive response.
Drs. Eula Bingham and Leonard Stefanski have virtually no experience in radiation issues. Dr. Katherine Rowan has done risk communication work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Other members of the panel include Drs. Robert Ullrich, Roger Cox, William Dewey, James Cleaver, Richard Monson and Herbert Abrams who have either stated or not denied that they believe in less damage at low doses of radiation exposure (see main BEIR VII article for explanation of DREF). Belief in the DREF concept appears true of all BEIR VII panel members.
Many reputable scientists who were excluded from this panel do not see evidence for DREF. Some see evidence that radiation is more damaging than allowed by either the DREF or the Linear No-Threshold concept. There is no guarantee the BEIR committee will thoroughly consider this evidence in the drafting of the final BEIR VII report NAS did not include any researchers with this professional viewpoint.