ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n172

Internet Message Format | 1999-08-30 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #172
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest      Monday, August 30 1999      Volume 01 : Number 172




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 14:53:11 -0400
From: peter weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Project Abolition events

This looks great, Karina. But isn't LCNP also one of the initiators? If
I'm not mistaken, John Burroughs is on your board. Which means that he,
as Executive Director of LCNP and I, as President of both LCNP and
IALANA, would also be available as speakers. But of course we don't hold
elective office, although I did once get elected as a delegate to the
Democratic Convention.
                    Love, Peter

Karina Wood wrote:
>=20
> Dear US Abolitionists:
>=20
> As you may be aware, Project Abolition -- a new initiative from the
> Fourth Freedom Forum, Disarmament Clearinghouse, Global Resource Action
> Center for the Environment, The Nation Institute, Peace Action,
> PeaceLinks, Physicians for Social Responsibility, State of the World
> Forum, and Women's Action for New Directions -- is coordinating a
> nationwide series of community forums & a national media campaign on
> nuclear weapons abolition around the 10th anniversary of the fall of th=
e
> Berlin Wall, November 9, 1999.
>=20
> I want to update you all on our plans for November, so please read the
> memo below, or open the attached file, and let us know if you are
> interested in working with us on any of these events:
>=20
> Highlighting the Tenth Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall:
> Why Do We Still Have a Cold War Nuclear Policy?
>=20
> Nationwide Speaking Events & A National Media Campaign
>=20
> The Project Abolition groups are developing a plan for taking advantage
> of the forthcoming 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall to
> highlight the need for nuclear weapons abolition. We are planning a
> series of nationwide community forums to take place against the backdro=
p
> of a national media campaign, which will be launched on the anniversary
> date, November 9.
>=20
> Our message will be that the United States has wasted the historic
> opportunity afforded by the end of the Cold War to make serious progres=
s
> on dismantling the vast nuclear arsenals here and in Russia. Ten years
> ago, the Berlin Wall fell, but today tens of thousands of nuclear
> weapons remain and we are developing new ones. We will posit the
> question: Why does the United States still cling to a Cold War nuclear
> policy?
>=20
> Elements of the Campaign:
>=20
> Community Forums:
> We plan to organize community forums in states which meet the following
> 3 criteria: where there are Senators and/or presidential candidates we
> particularly wish to educate on the urgent need for nuclear weapons
> abolition; where we can generate extensive media coverage; and where we
> have a core of enthusiastic and experienced organizers.
>=20
> We are currently considering major cities in the following states:
> Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
> Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, and Vermont.
> **Please contact us if you live in one of these states and would like t=
o
> help host a community forum during the week of November 9.**
>=20
> Definite dates so far:
> ** Nov 9: Des Moines, Iowa: community forum: Sen. Alan Cranston & Betty
> Bumpers confirmed speakers.
> ** Nov 9: Washington, DC: press event (see "Wall of Denial" section
> below). No speakers confirmed yet.
> ** Nov. 9: San Francisco: press event. Former OR Rep. Elizabeth Furse
> confirmed speaker. Invited Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Barbara Lee, Athlete=
s
> United for Peace. Looking for celebrities.
> ** Nov. 10: New Hampshire (researching venue): community forum: Sen.
> Alan Cranston & Admiral Turner confirmed speakers.
> ** Nov. 10: Portland, OR: community forum: Former OR Rep. Elizabeth
> Furse confirmed speaker.
> ** Nov. 12 or 13: Little Rock, AR: (tentative; in planning stages)
> community forum at a downtown art gallery, hosted by Arkansas WAND &
> Arkansas Women's Project & area PeaceLinks members. Invited Betty
> Bumpers.
>         These events are in various stages of planning, and more are be=
ing
> developed: we'll post frequent updates.
>=20
> Editorial Board Meetings:
>         In order to maximize the opportunity of having a major speaker =
in town
> for a community forum event, we encourage local groups to set up
> meetings with the editorial boards of their leading local newspapers.
>=20
> "Wall of Denial":
> We will construct a "Wall of Denial" somewhere in the area of the U.S.
> Capitol or the Ellipse in Washington, DC, from lightweight materials,
> perhaps using thousands of "bricks" representing the thousands of
> nuclear weapons remaining in US and Russian arsenals. On the wall,
> slogans will decry "The Cold War Lives," and "We Need Our Nukes" and
> other such messages of "denial" of the Cold War's demise. Above the
> Wall, a large banner will be erected, saying, "Mr. President, Tear Down
> the Wall! Abolish Nuclear Weapons!"
> This visual publicity stunt will be modeled after the Berlin Wall and
> will serve as a backdrop for speakers at a press event on November 9, t=
o
> which members of Congress, celebrities and prominent individuals will b=
e
> invited. Musicians will also be invited to attend and perform.
>=20
> The wall will remain at the site for up to a week or more, permits
> allowing, during which time the public will be encouraged to come and
> sign a petition demanding nuclear abolition.
>=20
> Signature ads:
> Depending on the funds we can raise, the Project Abolition groups will
> place a large signature ad in a national newspaper (New York Times or
> Washington Post) on November 9. We encourage local groups all over the
> country to place signature ads in your local newspapers on November 9,
> especially in cities where community forums will take place. (Contact u=
s
> if you need information on how to produce a signature ad.)
>=20
> Radio Talk Shows:
> The Mainstream Media Project has agreed to promote our speakers to be
> interviewed on national and local radio talk shows during November.
>=20
> Op-Eds & Letters to the Editor:
> We will commission op-eds by prominent individuals and work to get them
> published in major newspapers on November 9. We will produce model
> letters to the editor, and we encourage local activists to get letters
> published in their local newspapers on November 9. These pieces will
> draw attention to the anniversary, state our "wasted opportunity"
> message, and call for urgent disarmament measures.
>=20
> Editorial Advisories:
> We will commission a media education organization to produce an
> editorial advisory promoting our message and encouraging major
> newspapers nationwide to publish editorials on November 9.
>=20
> Congressional Action:
> We will ask members of the Senate to make speeches on the Senate floor
> on November 9, expressing the "wasted opportunity" message, and calling
> for urgent disarmament measures (if they have not adjourned by this
> date; the House will most likely have adjourned end of Oct).
>=20
> Confirmed Participating Speakers to date:
> =B7 Betty Bumpers, President, PeaceLinks
> =B7 Senator Alan Cranston (D-CA), ret.
> =B7 Representative Elizabeth Furse (D-1st OR), ret.
> =B7 Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-10th OH)
> =B7 Jonathan Schell, journalist, author of The Gift of Time and The Fat=
e
> of the Earth
> =B7 Stephen Schwartz, publisher, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
> author, Atomic Audit
> =B7 Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.), former director, CIA
> =B7 Cora Weiss, President, Hague Appeal for Peace Foundation
> =B7 Randall Forsberg, Global Action to Prevent War
> And the national directors of the Project Abolition groups
>=20
> If you want to help host a community forum, or need further campaign
> details, please contact:
> --
> Karina H. Wood
> Field Coordinator, Project Abolition
> and U.S. Outreach Coordinator, Hague Appeal for Peace
> 85 John St.
> Providence, RI 02906
> Ph: 401-276-0377
> Fax: [phone]
> Email: [e-mail]
>=20
> For information on Project Abolition: www.fourthfreedom.org
> For information on the Hague Appeal: www.haguepeace.org
>=20
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.=
com"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:32:44 -0400
From: Hisham Zerriffi <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Letter:  research agenda for BEIR VII

Friends,

The seventh National Academic of Sciences Committee on the Biological
Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) will begin meeting on Sept 2.  The
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research is circulating the following
letter for signature to persuade the committee to consider some crucial
issues that have been ignored in past rounds.  The work of this committee
will be very influential worldwide in setting radiation protection
standards.  Please consider signing on and circulating this to others who
may want to sign on.

If you wish to sign on, please let me know if you are doing so as an
individual or on behalf of your organization.  You can sign on by simply
replying to me by e-mail.

I apologize for double or triple postings, since we are trying to get as
many signatures to this as possible in a short time.

The deadline for sign-ons is Sept. 1, noon, Eastern Daylight Time for
inclusion in the letter. This is so that we can write a press-release, do
the photocopying, etc.  The list of people signing on after that time will
be given to the Committee separately on Sept 2 or after that depending on
when we receive any particular sign on.

Thanks so much for taking the time to look at this.

Sincerely,

Hisham Zerriffi
Project Scientist

******************************************************

IEER letterhead


September 2, 1999

Richard R. Monson M.D., Proposed Chair
c/o Rick Jostes, Staff Officer
Committee on the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2)
National Academy of Sciences
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418

Dear Dr. Monson,

We are writing in connection with your committee's work on assessing the
effects of low-level radiation in the form of the Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII review.=20

We are pleased that the BEIR VII Committee has set out to "consider a large
amount of published data =85 concerning the risks to humans of exposure to=
 low
levels of ionizing radiation" (BEIR VII Project Scope). We expect that, as
part of this work, the Committee will examine conflicting evidence and
interpretations in the process of identifying biological effects and risk
factors.  We look forward to following closely the Committee's deliberations
throughout this important process and to participating in them.

The work of past BEIR Committees has been influential in setting the tone
and terms of the scientific debate on the issue and in the radiation
standard-setting process.  Therefore, we believe it is crucial that the full
range of information and issues regarding the health effects of ionizing
radiation be considered.  The BEIR V report considered only risks of cancer,
some aspects of genetic damage (though it did not estimate risks of
"diseases of complex genetic origin, which are thought to comprise the
largest category of genetically-related diseases," p. 4) and mental
retardation arising from in-utero exposure.

It is important that the BEIR VII process address the full range of risks
that have not been conclusively evaluated so far.  This should include risks
that have come to light since the BEIR V report (such as the combined
effects of radiation and hormonally-active agents, also called endocrine
disrupters) as well as issues that could have been addressed in BEIR V, but
were not.  We have compiled a list of some of the most crucial issues that
we believe you should address.  These issues are as follows:

=B7 Effects of radionuclides that cross the placenta: This should include
consideration of the effects on the developing fetus itself (e.g.
miscarriages, malformations, and developmental effects other than mental
retardation) and the effects on relevant organs at critical periods of fetal
development.  This study of health effects on the developing fetus should
specifically include effects on development of specific organs, and the
indirect effects of harm to organs such as the thyroid.  We are especially
concerned about radionuclides such as iodine-131, carbon-14, and tritium
that could become part of the fetus in ways that could profoundly affect its
well being.  For instance, tritium, being a form of hydrogen, combines with
oxygen to form water.  Tritiated water behaves chemically like ordinary
water. If ingested, a fraction of it becomes incorporated into the cells of
the body, including genetic material.  Such radioactive water also crosses
the placenta.  The potential for the resultant in-utero exposure to cause
miscarriages, birth defects, and other health problems needs to be examined.
The BEIR VII committee's evaluation of the risks of low-level radiation
should include all such radionuclides and effects.  If there are gaps in
present knowledge, these should be identified clearly and their implications
should be spelled out.

=B7 Effects of radiation on female fetuses: Considering that ova are formed
once per lifetime during females' fetal development, the Committee should
evaluate the effects of radiation on the reproductive system of female
fetuses and the possible effect of such radiation on the children of females
irradiated in this way.

=B7 Effects of organically-bound radionuclides: Radionuclides such as=
 tritium
or carbon-14 can become part of the DNA.  Upon radioactive decay, they
transmute into other elements.  (Tritium becomes helium-3 and carbon-14
becomes nitrogen-14.)  Such transmutation events could adversely affect the
DNA.
The potential health effects of such transmutations need to be
evaluated. =20

=B7 Synergistic effects: Exposure to radiation is sometimes coupled with
exposure to other hazardous substances.  The Committee should consider
health effects caused by combined exposure to radioactive and
non-radioactive substances.  Special attention should be given to substances
such as hormonally active agents that affect the hormonal system and the
possibility that such disruption might increase the risk of cancer and other
diseases arising from radiation exposure.  Conversely, radiation exposure
might damage the endocrine system, thereby increasing vulnerability to other
disease-producing agents in the environment.  The possibility of variability
of such risks depending on age of exposure (and whether exposure takes place
in-utero) should also be considered.

Data integrity and quality: Worker dose records of the Department of Energy
and its predecessor agencies in the United States, the Atomic Energy
Commission, are deeply flawed.  The environmental contamination records are
similarly deeply flawed.  We know these things about the United States
because much of the raw data record has become public through lawsuits,
Freedom of Information Act requests, etc.  Use of studies that accept
official US worker or offsite dose estimates without evaluation of the raw
data is highly questionable to say the least.  Since the raw data in other
countries are still largely secret, there is even less reason to accept them
at face value.  For instance, there is evidence that the health data in the
former Soviet Union are questionable. The Committee should review these and
related fundamental questions of data integrity and address whether any of
this record is suitable at all for assessing the risks of low-level
radiation, and if so how it should be used.  The Committee should also
address what criteria of data quality it will apply to the information
contained in the studies it reviews.  In this context, we do not believe
that it will be enough to simply accept peer-reviewed studies as correct if
they have not evaluated the soundness of the underlying official dose and
health data.  Finally the impact of misclassification of radiation exposures
and health outcomes and health-related selection factors, should be
considered in interpreting all epidemiological studies, including studies of
A-bomb survivors.

=B7 Effects on various populations: The concept of "standard man" or=
 "average"
is often used to set radiation protection standards.  Given the potential
large variability of actual health effects of radiation in various
populations, the Committee should assess the errors in risk estimates
produced by the use of this concept.  For instance, the age-dependence of
the dose response relationship for various health effects should be
explicitly spelled out, not only for children, but also for older age
groups.  Another example is the potential variation in sensitivity to
low-level radiation among individuals who are otherwise of similar
demographic make-up.

In many of these areas, it may be that there is simply not enough knowledge
to come to reliable scientific conclusions.  In such cases, the Committee
should clearly and frankly say so and recommend a research agenda.  If
possible, this should be accompanied by qualitative discussions of the
mechanisms of potential health effects.  It is of crucial importance to us
that all areas where risk cannot be reliably calculated are clearly
identified.  If the types of risk can be qualitatively ascertained, the
risks should be spelled out.  If even the qualitative risks cannot be
assessed, that conclusion would also be very material.

We have not discussed cancer-related issues above because we are presuming
that the Committee will address the full range of relevant literature in
regard to carcinogenic effects.  It would be helpful if the committee
published and updated frequently a list of the publications that it is
reviewing, so that we may be able to follow the review and add to that list,
should we feel that to be necessary or desirable.

We look forward to providing scientific input throughout the BEIR VII
process and expect that the Committee will fully address the issues we have
raised as seriously as it might were those same issues raised by a member of
the Committee.=20

We appreciate the opportunity for public comment and ask that it be expanded
as needed to fully accommodate the issues and evidence that we want to put
forth.  We look forward to your response. Do let us know if you have any
questions or need more information.  Please address your questions or
responses to Lisa Ledwidge or Arjun Makhijani.  Thank you very much.

Sincerely,



Lisa Ledwidge            Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.
[e-mail]            [e-mail]


Other signatories:
David Close, Professor, Dept. of Physics, East Tennessee State University
Steve Wing, Associate Professor, Dept. of Epidemiology, School of Public
Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Cc:      Members of Committee         ACERER

  =20
*****************************************************************
Hisham Zerriffi                               =20
Project Scientist   =20
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD  20912   =20
Phone: [phone]       Fax:   [phone] =20
E-mail: [e-mail]    Web:    http://www.ieer.org=20
*****************************************************************

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:25:38 -0400
From: Bob Tiller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (abolition-usa) Letter:  research agenda for BEIR VII

Hisham,

Thank you for the good work of IEER in laying out some important agenda t=
opics
for the BEIR VII committee.

However, I do not feel comfortable signing onto this letter, so PSR will =
not be
one of the signatories.  The reason is that we are not "pleased" that the=
 BEIR
VII committee is setting out to make its study.  In fact, we are very
displeased.  We believe the committee is terribly imbalanced and we want =
it
reconstituted before any work begins. We are not going to sign onto a sug=
gested
scientific agenda for a committee whose selection process has been so fla=
wed and
that is so radically out of balance.  The whole committee process is not
credible, and we do not want to create any appearance of credibility by s=
igning
a letter that identifies issues for the committee to work on.

PSR insists that the BEIR VII committee be reconstituted before any work =
goes
forward -- period.  PSR has signed a letter to NAS/NRC that calls for tha=
t
reconstituting.  Signing your letter would undercut the power and thrust =
of that
letter.  If NAS/NRC begins the process anew and actually creates a panel =
with
balance, then PSR would like to sign onto a letter like the one you have
written.

Shalom,
Bob Tiller




Hisham Zerriffi wrote:

> Friends,
>
> The seventh National Academic of Sciences Committee on the Biological
> Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII) will begin meeting on Sept 2. =
 The
> Institute for Energy and Environmental Research is circulating the foll=
owing
> letter for signature to persuade the committee to consider some crucial
> issues that have been ignored in past rounds.  The work of this committ=
ee
> will be very influential worldwide in setting radiation protection
> standards.  Please consider signing on and circulating this to others w=
ho
> may want to sign on.
>
> If you wish to sign on, please let me know if you are doing so as an
> individual or on behalf of your organization.  You can sign on by simpl=
y
> replying to me by e-mail.
>
> I apologize for double or triple postings, since we are trying to get a=
s
> many signatures to this as possible in a short time.
>
> The deadline for sign-ons is Sept. 1, noon, Eastern Daylight Time for
> inclusion in the letter. This is so that we can write a press-release, =
do
> the photocopying, etc.  The list of people signing on after that time w=
ill
> be given to the Committee separately on Sept 2 or after that depending =
on
> when we receive any particular sign on.
>
> Thanks so much for taking the time to look at this.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Hisham Zerriffi
> Project Scientist
>
> ******************************************************
>
> IEER letterhead
>
> September 2, 1999
>
> Richard R. Monson M.D., Proposed Chair
> c/o Rick Jostes, Staff Officer
> Committee on the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
> Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2)
> National Academy of Sciences
> 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20418
>
> Dear Dr. Monson,
>
> We are writing in connection with your committee's work on assessing th=
e
> effects of low-level radiation in the form of the Biological Effects of
> Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII review.
>
> We are pleased that the BEIR VII Committee has set out to "consider a l=
arge
> amount of published data =85 concerning the risks to humans of exposure=
 to low
> levels of ionizing radiation" (BEIR VII Project Scope). We expect that,=
 as
> part of this work, the Committee will examine conflicting evidence and
> interpretations in the process of identifying biological effects and ri=
sk
> factors.  We look forward to following closely the Committee's delibera=
tions
> throughout this important process and to participating in them.
>
> The work of past BEIR Committees has been influential in setting the to=
ne
> and terms of the scientific debate on the issue and in the radiation
> standard-setting process.  Therefore, we believe it is crucial that the=
 full
> range of information and issues regarding the health effects of ionizin=
g
> radiation be considered.  The BEIR V report considered only risks of ca=
ncer,
> some aspects of genetic damage (though it did not estimate risks of
> "diseases of complex genetic origin, which are thought to comprise the
> largest category of genetically-related diseases," p. 4) and mental
> retardation arising from in-utero exposure.
>
> It is important that the BEIR VII process address the full range of ris=
ks
> that have not been conclusively evaluated so far.  This should include =
risks
> that have come to light since the BEIR V report (such as the combined
> effects of radiation and hormonally-active agents, also called endocrin=
e
> disrupters) as well as issues that could have been addressed in BEIR V,=
 but
> were not.  We have compiled a list of some of the most crucial issues t=
hat
> we believe you should address.  These issues are as follows:
>
> =B7 Effects of radionuclides that cross the placenta: This should inclu=
de
> consideration of the effects on the developing fetus itself (e.g.
> miscarriages, malformations, and developmental effects other than menta=
l
> retardation) and the effects on relevant organs at critical periods of =
fetal
> development.  This study of health effects on the developing fetus shou=
ld
> specifically include effects on development of specific organs, and the
> indirect effects of harm to organs such as the thyroid.  We are especia=
lly
> concerned about radionuclides such as iodine-131, carbon-14, and tritiu=
m
> that could become part of the fetus in ways that could profoundly affec=
t its
> well being.  For instance, tritium, being a form of hydrogen, combines =
with
> oxygen to form water.  Tritiated water behaves chemically like ordinary
> water. If ingested, a fraction of it becomes incorporated into the cell=
s of
> the body, including genetic material.  Such radioactive water also cros=
ses
> the placenta.  The potential for the resultant in-utero exposure to cau=
se
> miscarriages, birth defects, and other health problems needs to be exam=
ined.
> The BEIR VII committee's evaluation of the risks of low-level radiation
> should include all such radionuclides and effects.  If there are gaps i=
n
> present knowledge, these should be identified clearly and their implica=
tions
> should be spelled out.
>
> =B7 Effects of radiation on female fetuses: Considering that ova are fo=
rmed
> once per lifetime during females' fetal development, the Committee shou=
ld
> evaluate the effects of radiation on the reproductive system of female
> fetuses and the possible effect of such radiation on the children of fe=
males
> irradiated in this way.
>
> =B7 Effects of organically-bound radionuclides: Radionuclides such as t=
ritium
> or carbon-14 can become part of the DNA.  Upon radioactive decay, they
> transmute into other elements.  (Tritium becomes helium-3 and carbon-14
> becomes nitrogen-14.)  Such transmutation events could adversely affect=
 the
> DNA.
> The potential health effects of such transmutations need to be
> evaluated.
>
> =B7 Synergistic effects: Exposure to radiation is sometimes coupled wit=
h
> exposure to other hazardous substances.  The Committee should consider
> health effects caused by combined exposure to radioactive and
> non-radioactive substances.  Special attention should be given to subst=
ances
> such as hormonally active agents that affect the hormonal system and th=
e
> possibility that such disruption might increase the risk of cancer and =
other
> diseases arising from radiation exposure.  Conversely, radiation exposu=
re
> might damage the endocrine system, thereby increasing vulnerability to =
other
> disease-producing agents in the environment.  The possibility of variab=
ility
> of such risks depending on age of exposure (and whether exposure takes =
place
> in-utero) should also be considered.
>
> Data integrity and quality: Worker dose records of the Department of En=
ergy
> and its predecessor agencies in the United States, the Atomic Energy
> Commission, are deeply flawed.  The environmental contamination records=
 are
> similarly deeply flawed.  We know these things about the United States
> because much of the raw data record has become public through lawsuits,
> Freedom of Information Act requests, etc.  Use of studies that accept
> official US worker or offsite dose estimates without evaluation of the =
raw
> data is highly questionable to say the least.  Since the raw data in ot=
her
> countries are still largely secret, there is even less reason to accept=
 them
> at face value.  For instance, there is evidence that the health data in=
 the
> former Soviet Union are questionable. The Committee should review these=
 and
> related fundamental questions of data integrity and address whether any=
 of
> this record is suitable at all for assessing the risks of low-level
> radiation, and if so how it should be used.  The Committee should also
> address what criteria of data quality it will apply to the information
> contained in the studies it reviews.  In this context, we do not believ=
e
> that it will be enough to simply accept peer-reviewed studies as correc=
t if
> they have not evaluated the soundness of the underlying official dose a=
nd
> health data.  Finally the impact of misclassification of radiation expo=
sures
> and health outcomes and health-related selection factors, should be
> considered in interpreting all epidemiological studies, including studi=
es of
> A-bomb survivors.
>
> =B7 Effects on various populations: The concept of "standard man" or "a=
verage"
> is often used to set radiation protection standards.  Given the potenti=
al
> large variability of actual health effects of radiation in various
> populations, the Committee should assess the errors in risk estimates
> produced by the use of this concept.  For instance, the age-dependence =
of
> the dose response relationship for various health effects should be
> explicitly spelled out, not only for children, but also for older age
> groups.  Another example is the potential variation in sensitivity to
> low-level radiation among individuals who are otherwise of similar
> demographic make-up.
>
> In many of these areas, it may be that there is simply not enough knowl=
edge
> to come to reliable scientific conclusions.  In such cases, the Committ=
ee
> should clearly and frankly say so and recommend a research agenda.  If
> possible, this should be accompanied by qualitative discussions of the
> mechanisms of potential health effects.  It is of crucial importance to=
 us
> that all areas where risk cannot be reliably calculated are clearly
> identified.  If the types of risk can be qualitatively ascertained, the
> risks should be spelled out.  If even the qualitative risks cannot be
> assessed, that conclusion would also be very material.
>
> We have not discussed cancer-related issues above because we are presum=
ing
> that the Committee will address the full range of relevant literature i=
n
> regard to carcinogenic effects.  It would be helpful if the committee
> published and updated frequently a list of the publications that it is
> reviewing, so that we may be able to follow the review and add to that =
list,
> should we feel that to be necessary or desirable.
>
> We look forward to providing scientific input throughout the BEIR VII
> process and expect that the Committee will fully address the issues we =
have
> raised as seriously as it might were those same issues raised by a memb=
er of
> the Committee.
>
> We appreciate the opportunity for public comment and ask that it be exp=
anded
> as needed to fully accommodate the issues and evidence that we want to =
put
> forth.  We look forward to your response. Do let us know if you have an=
y
> questions or need more information.  Please address your questions or
> responses to Lisa Ledwidge or Arjun Makhijani.  Thank you very much.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Lisa Ledwidge                   Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.
> [e-mail]                   [e-mail]
>
> Other signatories:
> David Close, Professor, Dept. of Physics, East Tennessee State Universi=
ty
> Steve Wing, Associate Professor, Dept. of Epidemiology, School of Publi=
c
> Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
>
> Cc:     Members of Committee            ACERER
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> Hisham Zerriffi
> Project Scientist
> Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
> 6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 204, Takoma Park, MD  20912
> Phone: [phone]       Fax:   [phone]
> E-mail: [e-mail]    Web:    http://www.ieer.org
> *****************************************************************
>
> -
>  To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.=
com"
>  with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
>  For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
>  "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:00:02 -0700
From: Jonathan Parfrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Re: BEIR VII

Dear Bob:

A good response to IEER on the BEIR committee.

You go, Bob!


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 Jonathan Parfrey
 Executive Director
 Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles
 1316 Third Street Promenade - Suite B1
 Santa Monica, CA 90401-1325
 310 458 2694 voice - 310 458 7925 fascimile
 [e-mail]  http://www.labridge.com/psr/


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:37:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Star Wars Test on Sept 29

=20
   =20
Space Intercept Test Set for Late September

By Frank Sietzen, Jr.
Washington Bureau Chief

Aug 30 1999 06:30:13 ET =20
WASHINGTON =96 September 29 has been set for the first-ever test of a proto=
type=20
National Missile Defense system. The Integrated Flight Test 3 of the Nation=
al=20
Missile Defense (NMD) system will track, attack, and attempt to destroy a=
=20
mock warhead attempting to enter the atmosphere in a simulated attack upon=
=20
the U.S.

The test, the first of its kind, will use a Boeing-made launch vehicle=20
carrying a Raytheon-made killer interceptor in space high above the Kwajale=
in=20
Missile Range in the Pacific Ocean, according to a senior NMD official. The=
=20
warhead mock-up will be launched from the Air Force=92s Vandenberg Air Base=
 in=20
California and head westward across the Pacific. The interceptor killer wil=
l=20
be launched from a Kwajalein island launching silo.

A previous series of two intercepts conduced in the Army=92s Theater High=
=20
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system was a simulation of an attack by=20
intermediate range missiles in a battlefield theater, or limited area setti=
ng.

The NMD system under design would protect all of the continental United=20
States, Alaska, and Hawaii against a limited nuclear attack "by a rogue=20
nation" located anywhere in the northern hemisphere, the official told=20
space.com this week.

The IFT-3 test has limited objectives, officials said. It will use the rada=
r=20
systems at the Kwajalein test site to feed steering and tracking data to th=
e=20
booster while ascending towards the warhead. A missile launched in defense=
=20
against an actual attack would use the booster=92s own guidance and trackin=
g=20
system.

The data will be gathered from radars at the test site, ships nearby,=20
patrolling aircraft and from the orbiting Global Positioning System (GPS)=
=20
satellites. Then, it will be fed into the Battle Management Center, which=
=20
will send steering commands to the interceptor kill vehicle in space as it=
=20
hunts the warhead.

The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) forbids the transmission of thi=
s=20
tracking data directly from the site radars to any interceptors. "At this=
=20
point, we=92re trying to find the =91bomb=92," the official said.

Flight test four, in 2000, will actually use the rocket=92s onboard radar=
=20
system to detect and track the reentry vehicle. The intercepts will occur a=
t=20
least 120 km out in space above the Pacific.

In an actual NMD event, once an attacking missile lifts above the horizon,=
=20
the U.S. Defense Support Program detects the launch and alerts U.S. forces.=
=20
(Later in the next decade, Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites=
=20
will do the job.)

Early warning radars will track the missile as it flies and separates the=
=20
reentry vehicle from the burned-out stages of its booster. These radars=20
"paint" the field of rocket and reentry vehicle parts as they speed out in=
=20
space, classifying the field of objects.

"This is an attempt to see what some of this material is, what is the=20
rocket=92s fairing, what are springs and other debris in that cloud", the=
=20
official said. In an actual missile attack against the U.S., the incoming=
=20
bomb might also carry with it countermeasures aimed at fooling the tracking=
=20
radars, hiding the precise location of the bomb-carrying warhead as it head=
s=20
towards the U.S.

A new series of X-band radars, among the most powerful ever built, are bein=
g=20
designed to take the next step during the attack scenario. Where the tracki=
ng=20
radars have eliminated decoys and debris, the X-Band systems would then "lo=
ok=20
into the cluster of remaining materials from the rocket and say =91that=92s=
 the=20
bomb=92," the official explained.

As the interceptor kill vehicle is launched and ascends towards the target,=
=20
the kill vehicle separates from the last stage of its launcher and then=20
"opens its eyes," meaning its sensors then sweep the narrow field before it=
=20
where the bomb is approaching. That distance, while classified, is "hundred=
s=20
of miles," officials said.

With sensors tracking the bomb warhead, thrusters on the kill interceptor,=
=20
guided by onboard systems and ground radars makes the final maneuvers to th=
e=20
target. The incoming bomb is destroyed upon collision with the interceptor,=
=20
which carries no explosive. Officials call this final phase of the tracking=
=20
and intercept "the endgame."=20

Following a limited number of such space intercept tests, the NMD=20
organization will decide next summer whether to recommend to the White Hous=
e=20
that a national missile system can be deployed.

Such a system, if approved by the President, would be deployed by the year=
=20
2005. It would also require changes in the SALT and other treaties, which=
=20
currently ban a national missile defense system by the U.S., although Russi=
a=20
has a limited missile defense system still in place around Moscow. That=20
system was deployed before the fall of the former Soviet Union.
=20




- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #172
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.