ML20150A945

Requests Confirmation That Conclusions in J Rotblat Paper Re Risk Factors for irradiation-induced Leukemia Still Valid

ML20150A945
Person / Time
Site:	05000516, 05000517
Issue date:	10/03/1978
From:	Like I REILLY & LIKE
To:	Whittemore C HUNTON & WILLIAMS
References
NUDOCS 7810190235
Download: ML20150A945 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

V.Y'.SI d'Y.&

).Di) '< TM;.9 7WipI JK@-W yS'/>

REII.LY, LIKE AND SCHNEIDER ~

COUNSELLORS AT LAW -

zoo WEST MAW STREET -l/

BADYLON, N. Y. H7b2 cietE AoDREs.

E A 'o".*, , , t i y MoniwN.oooo RELM w!LDUR H. SCHNEIDER ,[ ' ' '

OEORGE HOPPMAN 2DWARD A. BROOKS, JR. ,pO WERNE R J. 2CM BRL*NN '

ENRICO J. CONSTANTINO PATRICIA A.DEMP5ET October 3, 1978 g

^

v e T Case Whittemore, Esq.

i'

]toh.g7 --

Hunton & Williams -

A f cy

&8 / [

8 6 P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 .% f .,:.

In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company A.!.

• Re:

and New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and

2) - Table S-3 (Radon)

Dear Mr. Whittemore:

At the July 27, 1978 deposition held in connection with the reopened hearing on radon releases and their associated health effects, Dr. Arthur Tamplin questioned your witness, Dr. Leonard Hamilton, as to his familiarity with a paper prepared by Professor Joseph Rotblat dealing with risk factors for irradiation-induced leukemia among early entrants to Hiroshima (Tr. 9242-45). Dr. Rotblat concluded in this paper that the BEIR Committee under-estimated the cancer induction by low does/ low dose rate irradiation by a factor of 10 (Tamplin Direct Testimony,

p. 10; Tr. 9242-43). Dr. Hamilton responded by indicating that the Rotblat paper had been withdrawn from publication and then proceeded to give his opinion as to why he believed this had been done (Tr. 9243-44). On the basis of Dr.

Hamilton's testimony, Applicant postulated the following finding in its September 26, 1978 brief on the radon issue: "Dr. Rotblat has apparently reconsidered the validity of the conclusions in his paper (Tamplin II at n. 28) because it was withdrawn from publication". Applicant's Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 22, para.

36(b).

7% lol'l O'd 3 f

stum trxe onsenstroca Case Whittemore, Esq.

October 3, 1978 Page 2 On September 27, 1978, I was advised by our consul-tant, Dr. Tamplin, that the Rotblat paper referred to in his testimony has indeed been published in revised form (ie.,

the paper took into account study populations other than just the early entrants to Hiroshima) in the Septe..Jr- '078 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. See, "The Risks for Radiation Workers", 34 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 41 (Sept. 1978) (Copy enclosed). Dr. Tamplin informs me that although the Bulletin article contains more data than appeared in the paper Professor Rotblat originally submitted to Nature, Rotblat's essential conclusions remain unchanged and support Dr. Tamplin's testimony thereon. Inasmuch as you have Rotblat's original paper, you should be in a position to independently confirm Dr. Tamplin's judgment.

In view of the foregoing, it appears that Applicant's finding that " ...Dr. Rotblat has apparently reconsidered the validity of the conclusions of his paper..." is in error. I therefore suggest that you take appropriate steps to notify the Hearing Board of the inaccuracy of said finding based, as it was, on the urverified testimony of Dr. Hamilton.

Sincepely, m sd frying Like / f pecial Counsel fof-the County of Suffolk IL/jg Enc.

CC: To all parties (w/o enclosure)