Potassium Iodide Monday, May 31, 1999

CURRENT STATUS

Over the years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has consistently made

promises that would assure KI availability for all Americans.

After Three Mile Island, for example, the NRC pledged to support a national stockpiling plan, and following the demonstrated evidence of KI's value at Chernobyl, the NRC agreed to require states to consider it in emergency response planning. Finally, in 1998, in a highly encouraging development, the NRC announced it would fund the purchase of KI for any state wishing to stockpile the drug. But the Agency's actions suggest these promises will never be kept. While not disputing the value and health benefits of the product, individuals from the various Federal and State agencies that crafted the existing KI policy remain resolute in opposing stockpiling, fearing that this would have a negative effect on the public's perception of nuclear power. "The continuing debate over . KI has served no useful purpose other than to unduly undermine the effectiveness of nearly two decades of sound radiological emergency planning and preparedness", claims the Director of Nuclear Safety in one large state. Another senior official, arguing that stockpiling is unnecessary because states are already permitted to offer KI, claims that changes to existing policy are not required, since "the current 'Federal Policy on [KI] Distribution.' provides sufficient guidance to state and local governments [on how and when to distribute KI]" > while neglecting to mention that this policy is obviously worthless if there is no KI to distribute.

The reality is that significant stockpiles of the product do not exist today, and are unlikely to exist in the near future. Despite claims of support by individual staff members and its Commissioners, the NRC seems curiously unable to overcome the objections to stockpiling by the nuclear industry-- which would have us believe emergencies are impossible. Instead, officially rejected statistics have been used to support seriously flawed conclusions, and promises to assure KI protection for all Americans have repeatedly been broken.

In 1998, in an attempt to justify its general position on KI, the NRC issued a document in draft form entitled "Assessment of the Use of Potassium Iodide as a Public Protective Action During Severe Reactor Accidents", (NUREG-1633). It was an extremely important document-not for its conclusions (which virtually all experts rejected), but for its demonstration of the lengths the NRC was willing to go to discredit KI, even if this meant distorting the issue beyond recognition. For example.

1. In an astonishing omission, the report fails to mention that KI has been found "safe and effective" by the US FDA. Instead, through an out-of-context quotation, the author of NUREG-1633 implies that the FDA is worried about the safety of KI, and it fails to quote the FDA's published position that there are "not sufficient grounds to conclude, or even to suggest, a significant and quantifiable proportion of serious reactions [side effects to KI].

2. To make its point that KI is unnecessary, worthless, or both, NUREG-1633 quotes, but then ignores, the conclusion by the World Health Organization, that:

Evidence of a marked excess of thyroid cancer in young children [from Chernobyl] has now been established..Therefore this indicates that stable iodine prophylaxis [KI] would be beneficial, especially for young children, after nuclear accidents,

3 The report mentions that "other countries and major international organizations.endorse the use of KI" (and have national stockpiles) but it offers the interesting suggestion that this may be due to "cultural and legal differences."

4. In a clumsy attempt to confuse the issue, NUREG-1633 announces it will evaluate the use of KI only in the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) surrounding a reactor. People outside the zone will not be given protection. Yet the government acknowledges that: the increase in cancer caused by Chernobyl

.was detected in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Notably, this increase, seen in areas more than 150 miles (300 km) from the site, continues to this day and primarily affects children who were 0-14 years old at the time of the accident..the vast majority of the thyroid cancers were diagnosed among those living more than 50 km (31 miles) from the site.

5. The author of the report makes a point of noting that KI only protects the thyroid from cancer. While true, nothing is made of the fact that Chernobyl showed that thyroid injury represents the greatest threat in an accident, though NUREG-1633 admits that:

As of 1996, except for thyroid cancer, there has been no confirmed increase in the rates of other cancers including leukemia.attributed [to Chernobyl}. In addition, there is no evidence of any excess hereditary diseases in children born after the accident.

As a result of criticism of the biased nature of NUREG-1633, the NRC took the unusual step of withdrawing this report, and announced it would form a KI Task Force to study KI to arrive at recommendations for policy makers. But in an action that suggests that no change in the Agency's position can be expected, the author of NUREG-1633 was appointed Chairman of the Task Force.

And, (as reported in the New York Times, of April 20, 1999), following the latest meeting of the Task Force, the NRC announced that it is withdrawing its 1998 promise to fund the purchase of KI. Therefore, in the event of an accident, Americans can expect that government provided KI will be unavailable, and most people will face radiation unprotected.

Or, one can purchase IOSAT from Anbex.

-- Rickjohn (rickjohn1@yahoo.com), June 07, 1999

Answers

Thank you Rickjohn for once again proving the value of "we're from the government and we're here to help you"! egads.....

Related threads http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000v59 and http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000puv

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 07, 1999.

Thanks Rickjohn for some really telling information.

When govt. says something is not necessary, I start thinking maybe I need to get it.

-- Rick (rick7@postmark.net), June 07, 1999.