[ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis
sjd at swcp.com
Sat Dec 29 11:09:18 CST 2007
Once again I endorse Syd's comments. I have never had to go
through an administrative law proceeding however I have read and heard a
few horror stories about them. Even allowing for embellishment and
hyperbole its seems likely that there is more than a mere kernel of truth
in the horror stories.
Once a matter has been ajudicated in a lower court it's virtually
impossible to introduce new facts or evidence. I will be bold enough to
say that administrative law "courts" are primarily interested in upholding
the decision of the agency. As I said earlier, this is largely about
power, hanging onto it no matter what, and forcing someone else to do the
bidding of the regulator.
At 02:02 AM 12/29/07 -0500, Syd H. Levine wrote:
>The problem is that old "deference to the agency" one. It is very
>difficult to get the courts to do anything about an unjust agency ruling
>unless there was a gross procedural error.
>It is very similar to criminal appeals where mere innocence is not an
>appealable issue. If the lower courts got the facts (or science) wrong,
>you will have a very difficult time getting the higher court to even look
>at the issue.
>The fundamental problem with administrative law courts is that they are
>not really courts at all. Until you have suffered through one of these
>ordeals, you cannot imagine the Kafkaesque nature of it all!
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com>
>To: "Bob Cherry" <bobcherry at satx.rr.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 11:58 PM
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis
>> (Comments interspersed in the text.)
>>At 08:29 PM 12/28/07 -0600, Bob Cherry wrote:
>>> >>How many layers of administrative law rulings must one slog
>>> through >>before
>>>getting into the Federal courts?
>>>One can appeal an NRC administrative law decision to the NRC Commissioners.
>>>The next level of appeal is the Federal courts. That is one layer of appeal
>>>"slogging." I presume it is similar for other Federal agencies.
>> Fair enough with respect to NRC appeals. What's it like at the
>> other agencies? EPA? OSHA? And etc.
>>> >>How expensive and time consuming is this?
>>>Not cheap and not quick.
>>>I grew up in Detroit three miles downwind of Henry Ford's Rouge Plant and
>>>not far from U.S. Steel blast furnaces and a Marathon Oil refinery. While
>>>the EPA has shortcomings, as do we all, the air is cleaner in my old
>>>neighborhood now than when it was when I was a boy. Part of this is due to
>>>the reduced steel production in the area, but EPA has the most to do with
>>>it. The Detroit River, the Rouge River, and Lake Erie are in much better
>>>shape than they were in 1970, primarily due to EPA's regulations.
>>>Anybody here from Pittsburgh or Cleveland with similar stories?
>> I'm glad the air is cleaner. I would merely reiterate that
>> state governments should have been seeing to this, not the Federal
>> government. Perhaps the air would be even cleaner, and perhaps it would
>> have got that way sooner. There is no way of knowing. An intangible
>> cost of this is the loss of local control of and jurisdiction over a
>> local problem, and a precedent has been set for more and greater Federal
>>>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
>>>Of Steven Dapra
>>>Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 6:06 PM
>>>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>>>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis
>>> Speaking only for myself, I do not like administrative law. Yes I
>>>know, a certain amount is necessary, however we have vastly too much of it.
>>>If one takes the limited government position, as I do, the EPA should not
>>>exist. Furthermore, even if I accepted its existence, this agency has far
>>>too much power. No government agency or department should have so much
>>> Our system is cumbersome, and it is cumbersome because it is so
>>>large. Whether or not it works well depends on one's definition of "well."
>>>To use an extreme example, Joseph Stalin's ideas about working well are a
>>>goodly distance from my ideas --- and the ideas of (I am
>>>certain) all RADSAFErs. To bring it up to date, the Bush/Cheney definition
>>>of what works well for guarding the nation's security . . . okay, point
>>> As far as appealing administraative law rulings into the Federal
>>>courts is concerned, I am incredulous that Bob Cherry would say such a
>>>thing. How many layers of administrative law rulings must one slog through
>>>before getting into the Federal courts? How expensive and time consuming is
>>>this? Remember that in addition to fighting the battle with the regulatory
>>>agencies the appellant must also continue to run his business. This can
>>>become very time-consuming. Besides, by the time the appellant gets into
>>>the Federal courts, since he has already lost his administrative appeals he
>>>arrives in Federal court with an automatic prejudice against his position.
>>>Plus, he is fighting the limitless wealth and power of the Federal
>>>government. Sure, companies fight these battles and sometimes they even
>>>win. Even if the accused wins he is forced to bear an enormous financial
>>>and emotional burden. I would endorse what Syd says about "deference."
>>> Syd also said, "Pity is not what EPA deserves, I fear." What the
>>>EPA deserves is its abolition. What it engenders is at best apprehension,
>>>and probably (more often) fear.
More information about the RadSafe