Are the methods and results clearly presented in the main text of the Technical Report?
Are the findings presented in the report supported by the data and analyses provided?
Do the Options for Future Work presented in Chapter 6 represent an appropriate range of options for public-health activities that could be pursued as a result of this study?”
To that end, the National Research Council formed a committee, the Committee to Review the CDC-NCI Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences from Nuclear Weapons Tests, consisting of members of its Committee on An Assessment of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Radiation Studies from DOE Contractor Sites and other experts. The committee constituted to review the CDC-NCI draft report has expertise in health physics and dose assessment (pertaining to both external radiation and internal emitters), radiation chemistry, radiobiology, nuclear medicine, ethics, risk communication, epidemiology, biostatistics, modeling, and risk assessment. The review began in April 2002, and the goal was to produce a consensus report by January 30, 2003. The present report contains the results of the review of the CDC-NCI draft report.
At the initial meeting of the new National Research Council committee in Washington, DC, on April 26–27, 2002, representatives of CDC (James Smith and Charles Miller) and of NCI (André Bouville, Steve Simon, and Ethel Gilbert) were present. They enlarged on the draft and the methods used in arriving at the conclusions set forth in it, and they responded to questions raised by the committee. Lynn Anspaugh and Harold Beck, consultants for the feasibility study, were also present to address committee questions related to dose reconstruction. The review committee met again in Washington on July 15–16 in closed sessions to begin the drafting of its findings and recommendations. Two further meetings were held: in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 12–13, 2002, and in Washington on November 14–15, 2002. The first of those two meetings involved further fact-finding and was open to the public; the second was closed and involved preparation of the final report. Information obtained from the public and outside experts was used in the committee’s deliberations and is woven into the report.