[cseb national] FW: IMMEDIATE Action Required! Tell ICRP to protect humans & other living thingsfrom radiation!

For action if you wish to respond personally. I have replied as my father
died of colon cancer at age 38, 15 years after radiation exposure from
secret above-ground atomic bomb testing over the arctic. He was a
meteorologist working up there in the mid-1960s. Natalie Helferty

-----Original Message-----
From: Willi Nolan [mailto:willi@xxxxxx] 
Sent: March 14, 2007 10:41 AM
Subject: IMMEDIATE Action Required! Tell ICRP to protect humans & other
living thingsfrom radiation!
Importance: High


Relatives,

Time is critical on this one, please act today and help the independent
scientists at Nuclear Information and Resource Service <www.nirs.org>.

They ask us to sign their letter to stop new moves by the "Nuclear Mafia" to
allow more and higher radiation exposures to people, animals and the
environment. 

The letter is to demand 'radiation standards that follow the precautionary
principle' and stop 
"ignoring the impact of radiation on stillbirths, women, children,and future
generations ..."

To sign on with the scientists, cut and paste the ** letter ** below; it
gives details of problems with the ICRP recommendations. Send it with your
name, organization and address to 
<cindyf@xxxxxxxx>.

Thank you for taking time to act quickly.  

Willi



**** CUT AND PASTE THIS ICRP SIGN ON LETTER AND SEND IT TO: **** NIRS c/o
Cindy Folkes <cindyf@xxxxxxxx>


To: The Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Thank you for forwarding my letter and for the opportunity to support the
nuclear scientists.  

Respectfully,
<Name >
<State/Province, Country>

.......

Dr. Lars Eric Holm: 

The undersigned organizations and individuals are writing to denounce the
ICRP's intended adoption of Draft Recommendations for ionizing radiation
exposure and the lack of a formal comment period. We ask that people's
comments be reviewed by the ICRP members and added to the record before the
final decision meeting of ICRP beginning on March 19, 2007. Additionally,
the Recommendations document is incomplete. It lacks an abstract, an
editorial and the summary of the report. Since these are the portions that
many of the public and press will read, it should go without saying they
need to be included for comment before this document is approved and
finalized. 

NIRS has written ICRP in the past during formal comment periods as have many
other concerned groups and individuals. NIRS has commented on Annexes A & B
which underlie the Recommendations as well as the recommendations
themselves, urging ICRP adopt a precautionary approach when recommending
radiation exposure standards. We and many others have expressed a serious
concern that ICRP is making recommendations which ignore scientific data in
favor of more exposure, essentially ensuring that national radiation
regulators will adopt unprotective radiation standards. 

ICRP has tried to justify its positions without actually addressing the
concerns expressed repeatedly by the public. We reiterate the need for ICRP
to take a precautionary approach in their standards. The need for such
action is obvious and has been shared with ICRP in the past. Late lessons
from Early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 written by the
European Environment Agency (EEA) states: 

            ...the risk rate for radiation-induced cancer was perceived (by
ICRP)
                  as four to five times higher in 1990 as compared to 1977.
                  This resulted in changes in dose limits but was a belated
response to
                  mounting incontrovertible evidence, a situation which has
been
                  a recurring theme in the history of radiation
protection... 

To our dismay and the public's detriment, ICRP is about to repeat this
history. 

For many diseases and many populations, ICRP concludes that we don't know
enough about low-doses to predict what damage may occur. Where ICRP thinks
science is unclear, they should have precaution inform their
recommendations. Instead, they are choosing to allow greater exposures and
less protection. While ICRP believes that the linear-no-threshold model
(LNT*) is "the best practical approach to managing radiation exposure" for
lower doses, their recommendations do not reflect this. The recommendations
also do not reflect the conclusions of scientific research and other
recommending bodies: there is no safe dose of radiation for cancer
induction. 

ICRP must prevent exemption and release of radioactivity. Remove all
references to exemption from these recommendations. Despite its own stated
uncertainties and a nod to the validity of Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT)*,
ICRP is still willing to allow release of radioactivity, leading to
deregulation of radioactive waste and its use in consumer products. ICRP
justifies this by claiming "regulatory action is unwarranted..." when
control measures are excessive compared to risk or when certain exposures
"are unamenable to control with regulatory instruments". ICRP leaves
interpretation of these definitions to regulatory bodies, which have
historically supported release of radiation and exposure of the public in
order to save industry money. The implementation of this recommendation
would clearly lead to untraceable and irreversible releases of radioactivity
into the environment, work and living spaces without the knowledge or
consent of those exposed. This secret exposure is unpalatable to members of
democratic societies and leaves members of non-democratic societies
extremely vulnerable to avaricious companies and governments. The world's
regulatory bodies should not be allowed to wash their hands of human made
radioactive trash at the expense of public, worker and environmental health.


ICRP must protect the most vulnerable by rejecting gender and age averaging.
By using an average of damage among these groups, ICRP is building
discrimination against women, children and the elderly into its
recommendations. ICRP feels that there are at present insufficient data for
prenatal health so they choose to ignore this damage altogether (see
stillbirths below). These populations are shown to be more susceptible to
radiation damage in several scientific studies including the recent
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report of the National
Academy of Sciences. All government recommendations which follow ICRP will
also be guilty of this discrimination. 

ICRP must recognize that future generations must be protected from genetic
impacts and heritable diseases resulting from radiation exposure. ICRP
should strive for a goal of zero release until we know the genetic result of
long-term, chronic exposures. Instead, ICRP has lowered its estimated
mutation risk from radiation, using exclusively mouse studies and some very
questionable "expert judgment". Also, in a depraved indifference to human
life, ICRP discounts all radiation damage from the second generation onward,
stating "...the inclusion of risk up to two generations in the calculations
can be justified on the basis that people are generally interested in the
well-being of their children and grandchildren" as if people don't care
about their great grandchildren. This is despite, using ICRP's own model, a
clear increasing curve of heritable disease up to the second generation with
chronic exposure to low dose radiation (Table 6.3 in Recommendations). What
happens after this? ICRP is silent. 

Even more reprehensible, ICRP claims that assessing damage to only the
second generation, ignoring all future generations, is reasonable because
many mutations will not be carried over or "recoverable" to the second
generation. This is because these mutations will be so detrimental to new
life, the organisms affected will not survive. In essence, ICRP is saying we
should consider ourselves protected because radiation-induced stillbirths
and childhood death will keep our gene pool pure. They are asking us to
accept a man-made increase in still birth and childhood death as a
reasonable alternative to a man-made increase in future mutation. This
contrived and unnecessary choice is nothing short of premeditated murder. If
regulators weren't allowing exposures in the first place we wouldn't have to
worry about adding to our heritable disease burden. 

In the instance of heritable disease, the precautionary principle would
provide more protection by preventing the damage in the first place.
Instead, ICRP negligently ignores the data and predictions they do have in
favor of less protection. As a result, the gene pool could grow increasingly
weak from chemical and radiological insults. At some point, epidemiological
data may have to be reevaluated since population genetics could weaken
enough to be even more susceptible to damage from all radiation sources. 

ICRP must account for non-cancer diseases found among the A-bomb and
Chernobyl survivors such as heart disease, stroke, digestive disorders,
respiratory disease and nerve injuries. While ICRP recognizes radiation
causes most of these diseases, they argue that there may be a threshold and
therefore, no action is warranted on their part to prevent exposure. 

ICRP must replace its basic principles for radiation exposure
(justification, optimization, limitation of dose) with the precautionary
approach. Using these three current principles has allowed ICRP to condone
limits that would permit 1 in 3 people to get cancer from 30 years of
radiation exposure in certain cases. ICRP must replace their "bands" of
radiation exposures, which allow higher levels of exposure, with prevention
of exposure. 

ICRP must do its best to account for synergistic effects between radiation
and other chemicals and toxic substances released into the biosystem. This
will be difficult. Presently there are few studies on synergistic effects of
radiation and other toxins such as organochlorides, heavy metals and even
common substances. True to form, ICRP does not account for any of these
potential effects. This issue would be particularly fertile ground for using
precaution. There are some studies on increased damage from synergistic
effects of radiation and common substances such as caffeine, chlorine and
bacteria. Much more research is needed. 

ICRP needs to adequately account for risks and damage from internally
incorporated radionuclides like strontium-90, tritium or cesium-137 from
nuclear reactors and other "civilian" and weapons activities. Currently ICRP
relies on the Atomic Bomb survivor data which was mostly high-dose external
exposure. ICRP should learn from the recent poisoning of the former Russian
intelligence officer, Litvenenko. The amount of polonium 210 which killed
him was deemed nearly harmless by the IAEA radionuclide danger category
charts. IAEA says it is considering reworking these tables (see FT.com at
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a49f6e2e-8a4e-11db-ae27-0000779e2340,_1_email=y.html
for December 13, 2006). [USNRC adopts the IAEA categories wholly and would
thus underestimate the risks as well.] 

ICRP must account for "new" science in cell biology. Unexpected biological
effects such as bystander effect and genomic instability are not accounted
for in the recommendations. ICRP claims that any cell effects are already
accounted for in epidemiological studies used for protection standards. But
since ICRP and other recommending bodies routinely and selectively ignore
evidence in many epidemiological studies that show current standards aren't
protective enough, the cell biology impacts continue to be ignored in the
ICRP risk estimates recommended. 

ICRP needs to be consistent in its use of and recommendations for collective
dose. When used correctly, the tool of collective dose can help assess
radiation damage to populations. When used incorrectly, as it has often been
by regulators, it can be used to hide the individual consequences of
radiation exposures. Collective dose is defined as "the sum of the
individual doses received in a given period of time by a specified
population from exposure to a specified source of radiation" (10 CFR
20.1003, USNRC Regulations). The problem is that industry and government
often make their own assumptions about who is exposed, how many are exposed,
for how long and to what kind of radiation. For instance, during the Three
Mile Island (TMI) accident in the United States, evacuation was recommended
only for pregnant women and children within 5 miles of the reactor, but NRC
spread the radiation doses among the population within a 50 mile radius to
calculate their health damage assessment. In this case, collective dose was
misused to dilute or smooth over higher individual doses by distributing
their doses among others who actually received less. The result was a false
claim by NRC and industry that few people would be harmed. Because the
parameters for collective dose are so malleable, they can be used by
industry to derive preconceived conclusions and justify almost anything. 

On the other hand, collective dose is a useful tool for a best estimate of
the true cost of radiation practice by allowing medical researchers to
predict how many cancers are produced from medical CT scans and other
radiological procedures. ICRP argues that collective dose is good for
comparing radiological technologies and protection procedures but NOT for
risk projections related to epidemiological studies because these studies
often investigate the health effects of lower doses. ICRP argues that we
don't know what is happening at these lower doses among large populations,
yet ICRP recognizes the merit of the LNT model (see above) when it suites
them. The LNT model allows exactly this kind of prediction at low doses. In
fact, collective dose is based on LNT. Predicting damage to large
populations from lower doses of radiation using collective dose and LNT is
in keeping with the precautionary principle since ICRP's alternative is
lesser or no protection. 

ICRP is recognizing that organisms other than humans are also at risk and we
commend them for this in principle. However, ICRP is not being protective
enough and has ignored public entreaties to place technically qualified
public members on this panel to ensure balance. On the one hand, ICRP feels
that radiation protections for the general public will ensure that the biota
is fully protected in most cases. However, ICRP admits that a "clearer
framework is required in order to assess..." the consequences of exposure
and dose to non-human species. To address this, ICRP suggests using a small
set of reference animals and reference plants as they have used reference or
"standard" man for humans. The public demands ICRP adopt a precautionary
approach that is geared to prevent exposures and contamination. ICRP should
protect the most vulnerable species, organisms and life stages. The use of
standard man for roughly a half century has historically left more than 50%
of the human population at risk; and this is within only one species?humans.
Trying to undertake cross species protections using this blunt instrument
even with a few reference species, will leave most biota unprotected. 

ICRP must adopt the precautionary principle into its recommendations.
Understanding and predicting damage from radiation is a tangle, but using
the precautionary principle will allow for protection in the scenarios and
at the doses where ICRP claims a lack of scientific clarity. It is negligent
for ICRP simply to refuse to address these "black hole" areas when
instituting precaution could account for this damage and save lives. But
ICRP is also unwilling to protect in areas where science is clearer.
Ignoring the impact of radiation on stillbirths, women, children, and future
generations shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what people
value. This disconnect from humanity makes ICRP, at best, inept at radiation
protection. ICRP must shed its obvious callous indifference to life and
health in order to protect against radiation exposure. We urge the ICRP to
officially adopt the precautionary principle in all its recommendations by
instituting our above suggestions.

**** END OF LETTER TO SEND TO: >
NIRS c/o Cindy Folkes <cindyf@xxxxxxxx>
-30-




-----Original Message-----
From: Russell 'Ace' Hoffman [mailto:rhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: March 13, 2007 00:35
To: Recipient list suppressed:
Subject: IMMEDIATE Action Required! Tell ICRP to protect humans and other
living things! (resend)


Monday, March 12th, 2007

Dear Readers,

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) needs everyone to read,
and sign, a letter to the inappropriately-named International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) by March 14th, 2007.  That's this Wednesday!

The purpose of the letter is to demand that the full effects of radiation be
accounted for when establishing safe levels of exposure.  Where that is not
possible, then at least LNT (Linear, No
Threshold) should be fully accepted in all facets of ICRP recommendations,
instead of only selectively where it seems to help ICRP do what ICRP does
best:  ALLOW negligently-high doses of radioactive materials into our
environment and our bodies.

Please read the full letter at the URL given below, and sign on as soon as
possible.  The people at NIRS feel that this is very important, because ICRP
"recommendations" are adopted as "facts" throughout the Nuclear Mafia (uh,
that's my term, not NIRS') -- i.e., by regulators in various nations
(including the U.S.) and, with the regulators' permission, by industry.  In
a very real sense, the ICRP is "the root of all evil" (my term again, but
NIRS seems to agree!).

NIRS' letter is a powerful indictment of the ICRP, and highly recommended
reading.  Undoubtedly each sentence of their letter has been carefully
considered by some very capable scientists, albeit, not the ones the Nuclear
Mafia have paid off.

Please go here to sign on and to read the whole letter.  Two excerpts appear
below the URL.

URL for sign-on letter: http://www.nirs.org/alerts/02-21-2007/1

Excerpt:

"Even more reprehensible, ICRP claims that assessing damage to only the
second generation, ignoring all future generations, is reasonable because
many mutations will not be carried over or "recoverable" to the second
generation. This is because these mutations will be so detrimental to new
life, the organisms affected will not survive. In essence, ICRP is saying we
should consider ourselves protected because radiation-induced stillbirths
and childhood death will keep our gene pool pure. They are asking us to
accept a man-made increase in still birth and childhood death as a
reasonable alternative to a man-made increase in future mutation. This
contrived and unnecessary choice is nothing short of premeditated murder. If
regulators weren't allowing exposures in the first place we wouldn't have to
worry about adding to our heritable disease burden. "

But perhaps the most powerful excerpt is this one:

"Ignoring the impact of radiation on stillbirths, women, children, and
future generations shows a fundamental lack of understanding about what
people value. This disconnect from humanity makes ICRP, at best, inept at
radiation protection. "

At best, indeed.  The ICRP are a bunch of criminals, on the take by an
international crime syndicate known as the Nuclear Mafia.  They kill babies
(and fetuses) especially, and the rest of us only in droves.

Please forward this information as widely as possible, if you can do so on
or before Wednesday, March 14th, 2007!

Thank you!

Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Hoffman
PO Box 1936
Carlsbad, CA 92018
(760) 720-7261
rhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.animatedsoftware.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.nirs.org/alerts/02-21-2007/1

Demand radiation standards that follow the precautionary principle


A radiation exposure-setting body, the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP), is poised to release their report,
Recommendations, to allow more and higher radiation exposures to people,
animals and the environment. ICRP says it is accepting comments on their
document Draft ICRP Recommendations, but they are not issuing an official
comment period. Further, Recommendations is missing its abstract, editorial
and summary. Since these are the portions that many of the public and press
will read, it should go without saying they need to be included for comment
before this document is approved and finalized. 

Go to http://www.icrp.org/draft_progress.asp for further detail. 

Click
http://www.icrp.org/docs/ICRP_Draft_Recommendations_12_January_2007.pdf for
the document Draft ICRP Recommendations. 

Click http://www.icrp.org/remissvar/listcomments.asp to read past comments.
(choose "Recommendations" and/or "2005 ICRP Recommendations" on the optional
pull-down menu.) 

PLEASE TAKE ACTION: 

1)IMMEDIATELY: Send comments asking for an official comment period of 90
days. Tell ICRP the document must include the abstract, editorial and
summary for public comment. Tell ICRP that they must adopt the precautionary
approach in their standards. Many comments have expressed a serious concern
that ICRP is making recommendations which ignore scientific data in favor of
more exposure, essentially ensuring that national radiation regulators will
adopt unprotective radiation standards. ICRP has tried to justify its
positions without actually addressing the concerns expressed repeatedly by
the public. We reiterate the need for ICRP to take a precautionary approach
in their standards. Send comments by email to Scientific Secretary of ICRP,
Dr Jack Valentin ( scient.secretary@xxxxxxxx) 

2) MARCH 14, 2007: Sign the letter below which details the many problems
with the ICRP recommendations. Send your name, organization and address to
cindyf@xxxxxxxxx View the letter at www.nirs.org . 

For further information contact Cindy Folkers at cindyf@xxxxxxxx or call
301-270-6477.

Other related posts: