Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options

Oak Ridge Reservation

Oak Ridge Reservation: Exposure Evaluation Work Group

Historical Document

This Web site is provided by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ONLY as an historical reference for the public health community. It is no longer being maintained and the data it contains may no longer be current and/or accurate.

PExposure Evaluation Work Group

July 18, 2005 - Meeting Minutes


ORRHES Members attending:
David Johnson (Acting Chair), Kowetha Davidson, and James Lewis

Public Members attending:
Susan Gawarecki, Lynne Roberson (phone), and John Merkle

ATSDR Staff attending:
Marilyn Horton (phone) and Trent LeCoultre

The Oak Ridger Staff attending:
Ellen Rogers

Clark University Staff
Robert Goble and Abel Russ

DOE Staff attending:
Tim Joseph

TA Consulting, Inc. contractor:
Amanda Bird

ERG Contractor attending:
Michelle Arbogast (phone) and Liz Bertelsen (phone)


David Johnson, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was for Dr. Robert Goble and Mr. Abel Russ of Clark University to provide an overview of their work involving reviews of epidemiological literature, compiled into a book titled "Overview of Epidemiological Studies of Radiation-Induced Health Effects."


Dr. Goble said his instructions were to explain the work they have been conducting with a grant from the Citizen's Monitoring and Technical Assistance (CMTA) Fund. Then, the work group could determine if a presentation was desired. He explained that they have been reviewing epidemiological literature on radiation-caused health effects, particularly cancer. He said they have worked with many community groups in the past, and expressed his belief that the vast amount of technical literature has been somewhat difficult to obtain for anyone, particularly for individuals who are not trained epidemiologists. Therefore, he said, they were trying to create a document review that would be accessible to informed and concerned citizens. Dr. Goble stated that they have worked on this for the past few years and have communicated with some groups during the process to get their feedback on the review. The purpose of the grant has been to try and improve this material and make it more widely available. Currently, they have a draft review of the literature.

Dr. Goble explained that when Octavia Taylor of Clark University presented their application to the CMTA Fund, she had spoken with Susan Kaplan and Janet Michel who indicated that Oak Ridge would be a natural setting of people interested in this material. He was not sure what the EEWG had planned for this meeting, but said he could describe the materials and background of the project. Then, the work group could determine whether the group would be interested in hearing this type of presentation.

John Merkle suggested that Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ present their message and an overview of their materials. Their message, according to Dr. Goble, was that they have created a review to make this literature accessible to an interested and informed public. He expressed that their intent was to convey a flavor of this epidemiological literature. He indicated that there are many studies available, measuring different things on a varying number of people. He expressed his belief that the overall picture shows that you do see health effects from radiation and indications of dose-response, adding that these indications peter out as you get to lower doses and lower statistical confidence. In his opinion, he said, they tried to present an accessible balanced survey that is also comprehensive.

According to Dr. Goble, he was informed that Oak Ridge had a community advisory panel sponsored by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that consisted of stakeholders who might be interested in hearing this material, even though it is not specific to Oak Ridge. He expressed his belief that Dr. Bill Taylor had suggested speaking with the EEWG to determine if there was an interest in having a presentation at one of the community meetings.

Kowetha Davidson asked whether the document was a critical review written in the narrative form. Dr. Goble explained that they had created a small book, which they planned to disseminate and make available as a reference document for interested parties. The document was not yet published, but they intended to show it to interested community members and hoped to publish it in the future.

Mr. Russ indicated that the draft document had 13 chapters and some appendices, and expressed his opinion that the document was comprehensive. It was organized according to different exposure scenarios. According to Mr. Russ, their intention was to craft site-specific presentations, and therefore, they were interested in identifying what this audience would want to hear ahead of time. For example, he said, they might not discuss radiation exposure in the flight industry for this community, but instead talk about radiation workers who have been exposed to low levels of radiation over a long period of time.

Dr. Davidson asked whether this was written for a lay or technical audience. Dr. Goble answered that the intent was to make a useful document for community groups, but that this was difficult because of the nature of the technical material. In his opinion, he said, they have made a good attempt at writing the information for the lay audience.

Mr. Johnson asked how the lay audience has responded to the document. Dr. Goble indicated that part of their motivation was based on their work with community groups. Mr. Russ said that the document had been sent out for review and comment to a couple of people. Dr. Goble added that a number of pieces of the document had been shared with some community groups that they have worked with. He said they have received what he considered positive feedback, as well as constructive suggestions. Mr. Russ explained that, prior to beginning this process over 3 years ago, their office had a less comprehensive version of this document. He stated that they have given these types of presentations throughout the years, but without having this type of solid background document. He expressed his belief that they also received positive feedback on those presentations.

John Merkle indicated that Clark University had sent the entire document to the EEWG. It was attached to an e-mail labeled "A-Bomb Survivors." Dr. Goble asked if this was only one chapter. Mr. Merkle said that all 13 chapters, totaling 129 pages, were included; though, no references were attached. In response to Dr. Goble asking if he had read the document, Mr. Merkle responded that he read parts of the document, particularly those regarding epidemiology in areas surrounding Hanford and Oak Ridge. He said that during discussions concerning off-site areas around the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), the document references a paper by Joseph Mangano. He explained that this paper had already been thoroughly reviewed by this work group and the ORRHES. After this review, he said, they learned that there was a rebuttal paper published 1 year later. He recommended that Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ read this paper carefully before giving Dr. Mangano's paper any credence. The paper, titled "Comments on ‘Cancer Mortality Near Oak Ridge, Tennessee,'" was written by Charles McRae Sharpe and published in the International Journal of Health Services (Volume 25, Number 2) in 1995.

According to Mr. Merkle, Dr. Sharpe points out that Dr. Mangano's choice of numbers renders them unrepresentative of all of the available data for Oak Ridge, thereby disproving Dr. Mangano's conclusions. In his opinion, he said, if they wanted to mention Dr. Mangano's paper, then they needed to review Dr. Sharpe's paper also. Mr. Russ said he would look at it. Dr. Goble indicated that they attempted to be comprehensive, but that they may have missed things because of the vastness of this field. Dr. Goble asked if they had the references; Mr. Merkle indicated that a separate list of references had not been included, but would be helpful.

Dr. Goble expressed surprise that the EEWG was provided with the entire document. Mr. Merkle expressed his belief that this was an error in transmission, noting that the file name did not correspond with the actual document attached. Mr. Russ indicated that the intent had been to provide two of the 13 chapters. Dr. Goble added that they do have a substantial reference list.

Mr. Merkle stated that he could provide comments regarding the review of epidemiological studies in the Hanford area, primarily associated with how references were shuffled chronologically. In his opinion, he said, chronology provides the backbone of logical evolution on this type of subject because each reference takes prior published material into account. He expressed his belief that many things are lost when you shuffle the chronological order. In addition, he said, there were missing references that he found in another publication.

Dr. Goble answered that they wanted to know of any missing references. Regarding chronology, however, he said that this was challenging because they were trying to sort information by mode of exposure and exposure to particular organs. As a result of presenting information in this manner, the chronology becomes jumbled. He expressed his belief that you lose and gain something with each different organizational approach.

Mr. Merkle provided a reference regarding the sequence of studies on Hanford: "National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Proceedings Number 12, Proceedings of an Annual Meeting of the NCRP;" published in 1979 on page 112 by G.B. Hutchinson, B. MacMahon, S. Jablon, and C.E. Land. According to Mr. Merkle, the text suggests that this paper disputed some of the findings of a study conducted 2 years earlier by T.E. Mancuso, A. Stewart, and G. Kneale. He suggested that Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ look at this paper too. In addition, Mr. Merkle said, there was an earlier mention of a study by "another researcher" that occurred between 1964 and 1967; although, no citation was provided in the document and apparently this began the Mancuso investigation. Mr. Merkle also questioned whether a reference cited as "Kneale et al. 1981" should be dated 1991.

Mr. Russ was not sure, but said he would check to see if this was a typographical error. Dr. Goble expressed his belief that it would be remarkable if they had no typographical mistakes. In general, Mr. Russ said, there is a lot of refutation and challenges within these studies, particularly with regard to Hanford. Oftentimes, he stated, they did not follow up on the letters that went back and forth regarding the studies. Instead, they focused on the studies where the actual data were presented. He expressed his opinion that although rebuttals and responses are interesting, they are not always as informative as they might appear by the titles. They looked at these rebuttals for a lot of the cases, but did not include them. Mr. Merkle replied that he used to conduct this type of work for a living and was aware that you could not tell the significance of a document without reading it. Mr. Russ clarified that they tended to read all of the follow up letters, but made a decision that they were not worth including in this document for the sake of keeping the document clear and non-cluttered.

In his opinion, Mr. Merkle said, they did a good job of explaining the different basic types of epidemiological studies. He indicated that they could also tabulate the types of studies as they progress through this chronology, but it may vary. He cautioned them to be mindful of what was known for the study and what the question was. Mr. Russ said that they have also put important information from these studies into tables similar to how the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) arranged information in its report. In his opinion, he said, cross-study comparisons are easier for the reader to understand.

Mr. Merkle stated that he was not sure how to compute the standard deviation for Dr. Mangano's ratios of changes in rate between 94 counties and the state of Tennessee and the United States as a whole. Mr. Russ was not sure either, and expressed his belief that Dr. Mangano conducted an interesting and unique analysis. In the document, they describe the Mangano paper as something that does not contribute much in terms of causation. However, he said, they included this because it had some interesting findings and was a unique study, even though the statistics used were not time tested. He recalled including text that explained that Dr. Mangano's methods were not standard.

Dr. Davidson said that the ORRHES reviewed the Mangano study several years ago with an ATSDR epidemiologist as an exercise to go through the process of examining epidemiological studies. According to Dr. Davidson, they determined that this study could not be used to draw any conclusions regarding cause and effect with regards to radiation. Mr. Russ noted that this was definitely true, adding that this was an ecological study where no case-specific information was used. Therefore, he said, this type of study is not as statistically robust as a case-control or cohort study.

Susan Gawarecki explained that she has been working on environmental issues in Oak Ridge for quite some time and has a good working knowledge of some of the radiation issues. She said that she was deeply distressed that the Mangano study was even included in this document because, in her opinion, it had been thoroughly discredited. She expressed her belief that it was a lousy piece of science and that Dr. Mangano had been out to prove that there are health effects from radiation. She said that he cites Cumberland County, which is not even adjacent to the ORR. She added that areas similar to Cumberland County, that are poor and rural, tend to have higher rates of cancer. Dr. Gawarecki questioned whether Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ had gone through these documents and evaluated the authors' biases, because in her opinion, many papers have been written by people who are anti-nuclear crusaders who cannot be trusted to be scientifically valid. According to Dr. Gawarecki, this was a major concern in this community. She expressed her belief that their very scientifically knowledgeable community would only accept good hard science—not biased studies.

Mr. Russ disagreed with Dr. Gawarecki. In his opinion, he said, the Mangano study had not been thoroughly discredited, though attempts have been made to do so. He expressed his belief that this was a unique study that was not as robust as other epidemiological investigations. He said that this author may have had bias, but indicated that many authors have biases that can go in either direction. According to Dr. Gawarecki, Dr. Mangano discounted all of the data that disagreed with his hypothesis. She expressed her belief that higher levels of cancer have not been found in the surrounding counties where all of the workers and residents live—in the downstream and downwind counties. In her opinion, she said, Dr. Mangano stretched for a county that was geographically distant. She expressed her belief that looking at a map alone would discredit the Mangano study.

Dr. Goble stated that this was directly related to the problem they face and the philosophy that they have taken to create this review. He said that they chose to be inclusive with the studies that they incorporated. According to Dr. Goble, because there was no way to conduct a comprehensive critical review of thousands of studies, they have tried to qualitatively observe what a study would be expected to say or not to say. He added that they did not delve into issues of bias because these can fall on either side. For instance, he said, many sensible people worry about pro-nuclear bias in certain studies, whereas others have concerns about anti-nuclear bias. There are also studies that people perceive as having pro- and anti-nuclear biases.

Dr. Goble indicated that their viewpoint was that it would be helpful to have a reference that describes the studies and shows what could reasonably be interpreted from them. Instead of considering researchers' potential motives, Dr. Goble explained, they tried to provide an overall picture that looks at how reasonable the studies are in comparison to what has been found in other literature. In his opinion, he said, screening studies for bias would promote further misunderstanding and arguing about motives. He said that they tried to be inclusive and realistic about what studies can and cannot show, and attempted to not have the literature over claim—either in terms of showing many health effects or no health effects for a given exposure. According to Dr. Goble, their goal was not to make a case for anything, but to make a reference document that can be useful for many different people with many varying perspectives on these issues.

In her opinion, Dr. Gawarecki said, this would not add any benefit for them because this is the same list of references that they have been dealing with in Oak Ridge anyway. What they need, she said, is some clear conclusions. She read the following statement from the first paragraph of the document's introduction, "Some feel that the best way to estimate risk for low-level exposures is to extrapolate from higher doses, although there is some clear evidence of low-dose risk." She expressed her belief that they could not say that there is any clear evidence of low-dose risk unless they were looking at some of these overtly biased reports where the researchers pick and choose their data.

Mr. Russ expressed his opinion that Dr. Gawarecki's statement was not true, particularly considering the latest 15-country worker study that was released this month. Dr. Gawarecki replied that that study has shown, if you look at statistical significance, it is only statistically significant for the low doses if you include the higher dose population—not if you exclude the higher dose population. In her opinion, she said, this study depends on a linear no threshold model to arrive at these conclusions, but essentially uses the model to prove the model itself. She expressed concern that there is still a lot of professional question about this study.

Mr. Merkle stated that there has been a lot of commentary going back and forth about the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII study—part of which, he said, is associated with a comment from a German researcher who went back to the references used in the 15-country study. According to Mr. Merkle, the researcher found that the original data plotted like a blob, but the people interpreting the data ran a straight line through the blob. Mr. Merkle said that the researcher offered to send the figures. He stated that if they ran a straight line through a blob, then this means that there is either no correlation or some very important variables have not yet been considered.

Dr. Goble stated that it is appropriate to ask questions about what researchers are doing and what is low dose. He said that epidemiology is very limited in how low a dose you can have to produce convincing results, and as you push on the dose, studies become more powerful. He explained that there is a realm where findings will be somewhat ambiguous and different, and researchers will interpret data differently. He explained that their view is that when there are reasonable indications of effects, even if these findings are disputed, it is of public interest to see the information. He said that this document was for general public accessibility; they were not going to provide their attempt at definitive dose-response estimate because it would be presumptuous and many committees (international and national) continue to wrestle with this. Instead, they were trying to show what epidemiological research shows in relation to this.

Dr. Goble said that because the new BEIR VII report has been released and they have been involved in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) low-dose radiation studies (doing modeling of low-dose radiation effects), the document could provide a small discussion about this epidemiological review in the context of these current efforts. According to Dr. Goble, they were attempting to inform the public; they were not trying to create a means by which everyone will suddenly agree that there is a threshold or no threshold or to resolve these questions. They were interested in showing, however, where there are measurements and ambiguities. He said that if the point of the subcommittee was to settle issues instead of obtaining information, then he and Mr. Russ probably had a limited contribution to make. He explained that they did not have an agreed upon perspective themselves. However, he surmised that the general feeling from their risk work was that when information is not definitive, a linear dose response is a good default for planning and hazard management. Although, he said, this was a risk assessment perspective as opposed to their efforts with the epidemiological review.

James Lewis asked what they were trying to do. He stated that he initially heard that Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ were going to present at a subcommittee meeting, but then were told to present to the EEWG so the work group could look at the information and evaluate whether or not they should come to an ORRHES meeting. Mr. Lewis indicated that the document was either sent out or leaked. Mr. Merkle said it was sent. Mr. Lewis said that they were starting to critique the document, but asked whether the objective was to see if they wanted a presentation or to provide comments on the document. In his opinion, he said, a presentation would be helpful if they could glean something beneficial from it.

When looking at the Mangano study, Mr. Lewis explained, they did not accept the document from a layperson's limited knowledge, but instead gained something by going through the process of reviewing the study. He stated that there were always at least two sides in this town. He said that people on the technical side say that they do not need to hear anything else in these areas, while the other side says that they have heard this information and finds it interesting. In his opinion, he said, these issues tend to fester and linger when there is no open discussion or debate on them. Mr. Lewis expressed an interest in seeing the presentations that Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ have done in various cities, universities, and other places, and how they have been accepted. He asked if there were people they could contact to get an idea of what they have done before.

Mr. Lewis said he was unsure that they should not come just because they have found some indications of problems with the included studies. In his opinion, he said, they would benefit from open debate in any area. He expressed concern about what the press sees and with information being taken out of context; he said he was tired of it. He indicated the importance of having talks about all of these articles and studies that have been released, but expressed his belief that there was no effort by ATSDR to bring these issues back to the table. According to Mr. Lewis, there were open wounds and they needed to figure out what these were. He suggested that they identify these issues, list them, address them, and make a decision.

Dr. Davidson expressed concern that everyone draws conclusions, including the lay audience. Therefore, she cautioned, they needed to critically evaluate data and conduct a weight of evidence—an audience should not be shortchanged because it is comprised of the lay public. She said that the data should be as robust for the lay audience as for the technical side because conclusions still have to be supported by data. She expressed her feeling that a critical review of the data has not really been performed, and although the information may be interesting, supporting information that has been critically reviewed was necessary for drawing conclusions. She stated that both sides of the issue had to be presented. Further, Dr. Davidson noted, conclusions being presented to the lay audience have to be supported just as well as if presenting to the technical audience, but different wording should be used.

Dr. Goble said that he agreed with Dr. Davidson's last statement in several ways. He expressed his belief that the challenge is greater for a lay audience, and identified two specific challenges: a) support any conclusions made by evidence and b) explain the process and conclusions in accessible language. He explained that they were trying to convey what is at stake, why some people argue one way or another, and what factors play a role in developing these conclusions. He said he agreed with Dr. Davidson that they had to be careful in these areas. Regarding Mr. Lewis's comments, Dr. Goble said, they have the sense that insufficient background material has been provided to many concerned communities. It is their intent to fill these gaps, which Dr. Goble said was a challenging problem and one of the reasons why they wanted feedback on the document. Dr. Goble indicated that it was not necessarily informative to spend a significant amount of time discussing these gaps and deficiencies, but they appreciated any feedback the EEWG could provide. He said that the question was whether the work group would find this as a convenient focal point for discussion. He explained that they needed to decide if this was a good forum for having a discussion on evidence of low dose radiation health effects and whether there was enough interest to make a presentation worthwhile.

Mr. Lewis said he used to have discussions with a man who talked about conspiracy theory. In his opinion, he said, sometimes the appearance of suppression of information or discussion creates a bigger problem than putting the information on the table and addressing it. According to Mr. Lewis, people attend meetings and bring up various references, but most of the time no one is able to respond or more information is needed to provide an answer. He expressed his belief that it would be helpful to have all of this information compiled, and have an open debate on these areas. He said that the responses should be documented, and the technical individuals who will argue these issues needed to be prepared to understand the issues and address them. In his opinion, he said, if they did not bring them here, then people might think that ORRHES is trying to keep people away who have different ideas. Mr. Lewis said he supported bringing the information to the table and having these issues addressed. He provided an example of how they reviewed the Mangano study, indicating that there had initially been a lot of reluctance in dealing with this, but then everyone learned a lot from the effort. He said that other people might have concerns about or an interest in some of these studies, which he said should be addressed and discussed.

Dr. Davidson said that they needed to look at this from the perspective of what EEWG wanted to recommend to ORRHES. In her opinion, she said, it was not a matter of suppression, but an issue of whether or not this will provide information to the subcommittee. She expressed her belief that this decision needed to be based on something other than the idea of suppression because they always had to make difficult decisions. She said that simply because a presentation is available does not necessarily mean it will be helpful. She recommended that the EEWG view this objectively and determine its goals and expectations. Mr. Johnson replied that they planned to evaluate this reasonably and objectively to ensure that there were no hidden agendas.

In his opinion, Mr. Lewis said, the appearance of suppression can sometimes be as harmful. He explained that their goals and objectives should not be limited to the knowledge among themselves, but also consider the public that has not been involved. If there was community interest related to this subject matter, Mr. Lewis said, then they needed to consider whether they should have a presentation. He recommended that copies of the document be sent in advance so people can be prepared for the discussion, including having an in-house review beforehand. Mr. Lewis also suggested speaking with other communities that have received these presentations. He expressed his belief that the public wanted this type of open debate and discussion, and it was up to the subcommittee to decide.

Mr. Johnson asked what they would bring to the table. Dr. Goble first noted that, although there can be perceptions of hidden agendas, they did not have one. He stated that they have a contract and a hypothesis. In his opinion, he said, their reference document would be useful and interesting to a broad range of people. He added that they have received some encouragement in trying to get interest and feedback from individuals in Oak Ridge.

According to Dr. Goble, they have reached the hypothesis that this document would be useful for communities. This is based almost exclusively on working with various community groups who have been unhappy to some extent with nuclear facilities in their neighborhoods. He indicated that they have primarily worked with anti-nuclear groups, indicating his belief that this was because these groups have had more limited access to technical information and advice. Part of the agenda, he said, was that community participation should be a component of environmental decision-making. According to Dr. Goble, within their own group, they have a diversity of opinions about the usefulness of nuclear power, the role of nuclear weapons, the seriousness of health effects, and other issues. He said that he has experience with people assuming he is for or against nuclear power. He stated that they had no technical agenda; instead, they had an agenda to try and facilitate active community participation and have also found that this is a helpful reference document.

Dr. Goble expressed an interest in circulating the document and determining whether people find it useful. They have had small pieces tested, but not the entire document. He said it would be helpful if the work group had a clean final copy well in advance of any presentation and before any decision-making regarding having a presentation. Dr. Goble said that they were interested in all types of feedback for improvements, including whether they stated conclusions fairly and places of the document that are not clearly written. He said that they could provide the EEWG with a reasonably complete document with references, and then possibly have a discussion to see how the document is helpful. Dr. Goble said that they could also provide additional materials if needed to help the EEWG make its decision.

Instead of rushing to make a decision, Mr. Johnson said he preferred that the missing information be sent to them for review and then they meet again to discuss it. Mr. Lewis said they needed to make sure they sent the most recent draft, and added that they could provide comments if desired. According to Mr. Lewis, Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ were not the first people on the other side of the controversy, but that this was what occurs because of differences of opinion. Mr. Lewis said that they would look at the document and see how it could be applied. He suggested that Mr. Merkle possibly collate all of the information from interested parties and send it to Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ. Mr. Johnson recommended that Dr. Gawarecki could also do this. Mr. Merkle expressed his belief that several people would probably want to read a revision of the document quite thoroughly. Mr. Lewis indicated that this review could also help Dr. Goble and Mr. Russ.

Dr. Goble said that as any writer, they would like to have their material read. Mr. Russ said that a draft document was completed, but the administrative publishing editor was currently sorting the document into a proper sequence. He added that he would also look at additional references. Dr. Goble suggested sending a revised draft, including all of the references and tables, in mid-August.

Mr. Lewis asked what types of meetings they have given before. He indicated that if they came to a subcommittee meeting, they would probably be given an allotted amount of time and there might not be a lot of public interest. He said, however, that they have also had meetings separate from the subcommittee meetings that draw more public attendees. Dr. Goble answered that they have presented this type of material to a variety of audiences, including the general public, ATSDR and other subcommittees, and activist groups. He said, however, that they have never done a presentation only on epidemiology. Because of the potential array of interest in this material in Oak Ridge, he said, some type of public meeting would be helpful and feasible. He indicated that they viewed ATSDR's community work groups as a way to facilitate this kind of meeting. He recommended that they discuss the best public forum for presenting this information after reviewing the draft document, whether it be at a work group meeting, a public meeting, or none at all.

In his opinion, Mr. Russ said, this was a useful call because they had not known what to expect with regards to information that they had already read. This would also help prepare them for a presentation, such as knowing that they would need to discuss the Mangano study, BEIR VII, and the literature associated with these studies. Dr. Goble added that their comments are also helpful in terms of what might be useful in a community reference.

Mr. Lewis said that chapter 12 seems of interest, and possibly chapter 10. He asked what they would focus on, adding that he was not sure whether there would be an interest in some of the other sections. He questioned whether they would narrow the scope and provide a brief synopsis of what they would discuss, along with the entire publication.

Mr. Russ said that the intention was to focus on a few of these topics, which was why they had planned to only send the table of contents and a few example chapters. Dr. Goble added that the revised copy would contain the table of contents and other parts of the document. In addition, he said, the EEWG could provide suggestions regarding what might work and be useful in a presentation. He and Mr. Russ could also provide some alternatives in a proposal, and said that they would welcome outside suggestions and counter proposals as well. To summarize, Dr. Goble said, they would send a revised draft in about a month, including the table of contents, references, and a presentation proposal (with alternatives), and then the EEWG could respond.

Mr. Johnson expressed his acceptance of this plan and asked if Dr. Goble would be in contact with Dr. Taylor to work out the logistics. Mr. Lewis asked when they could expect the information. Dr. Goble said that they would send the document out by August 15. Mr. Russ said that this sounded reasonable, but he would discuss and finalize it with Ms. Taylor. Dr. Goble said he and Mr. Russ would talk over possible topics for discussion. Mr. Russ stated that they also welcomed suggestions, adding that they would be willing to talk about any of this information provided people were interested in hearing about it. Dr. Goble supplied their e-mail addresses in case anyone wanted to contact them directly: and Mr. Russ expressed a particular interest in learning about missing references, adding that there were quite a few.

Additional Information

Lieutenant Trent LeCoultre mentioned that the ORRHES Web site usability testing was scheduled for August 1–3. Testing would take place on the afternoon of August 1, all day August 2, and the morning of August 3. Non-ORRHES members were needed.

Mr. Johnson adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.

Contact Us:
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    4770 Buford Hwy NE
    Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 USA
  • 800-CDC-INFO
    TTY: (888) 232-6348
    Email CDC-INFO
  • New Hours of Operation
    8am-8pm ET/Monday-Friday
    Closed Holidays The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #