[ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs

Dan W McCarn hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Mon Jun 23 00:11:32 CDT 2008

Dear Group:

On one of the juries that I gave testimony before, there was not a single
person with a High School education and most were unemployed.  The truth is
that an "expert" witness, standing before such a group, is at an extreme
disadvantage since the scientific arguments, though clear and sound, are not
understandable by such an ill-equipped jury.  

The opposition always attempts to impeach the credibility of the witness by
suggesting that they are stating their "bought" opinions because of the
money that they are being given. 

"How much are you billing for every hour of testimony?"
"My billing rate is $150 / hour for legal testimony, sir."

"How much did you bill last month in preparation for this trial?"
"I billed about $14,000 last month in support of this trial."

"How much have you billed to date since this litigation began?"
"I have billed $137,000 for instrument installation, data collection,
topographic surveys, field work, interpretation and preparation of
affidavits for this litigation over the last 16 months, sir"

That Q&As are frequently enough to dismiss any word of credibility by such a
jury, never mind that you have to simplify any testimony so that a 8th
grader can understand it.

I would much rather give testimony to an administrative hearing, where I can
expect to be able to use the full vocabulary of a scientific argument, and
provide that testimony in the form of an affidavit. 

Dan ii

Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA 
Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell:  +43-676-725-6622
HotGreenChile at gmail.com   mccarn at unileoben.ac.at   UConcentrate at gmail.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Tena Graben-Galyon [mailto:ilovemycat2 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 9:59 PM
To: Steven Dapra; Dan W McCarn; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs


Have you ever sat on a jury?  I have served in more than one state and have
found that, in my experience, neither side wanted educated jurors.  I
watched on most of the occasions where, during the juror interview part, as
soon as the attorney found out the prospective juror was educated, the
prospective juror was struck off.  Both sides always seem to want the little
70ish year old housewife who may or may not have finished high school and
probably has no idea how much her husband makes, but would base her decision
on emotions and not the facts of the case.  At least that is what I have
always observed.  I can remember on quite a few occasions thinking to
myself, "those are not a jury of my peers."  Not that I was  stuck up or
anything, but lets face it, that 70ish year old woman who has never held a
job in her life outside the home and never received a higher education has
never walked in my shoes.  How can she be a peer; however, that is the type
of person lawyers like for a juror.  They are more easily influenced and
persuaded.  They tend to let their emotions drive their decisions and not
the facts of the case. IMHO

Tena A. Graben-Galyon, CQA
Graben Galyon Consultants

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On Behalf
Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 10:32 PM
To: Dan W McCarn; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs

June 22

         This doesn't say much for the intellectual rigor of jurors, does

Steven Dapra

At 07:17 PM 6/22/08 -0500, Dan W McCarn wrote:
>Dear Group:
>Having been involved in civil environmental litigations as an expert
>witness, sometimes it doesn't matter to a jury if a person was exposed to a
>contaminant exceeding a drinking-water quality threshold or not.  If those
>contaminants at issue can even be detected, or a case made that they might
>have been present at one time is enough to move a jury to return a verdict
>in favor of the plaintiff. This, of course, also extends into the more
>emotive issues related to radiation or radionuclide exposure.
>Dan ii
>Dan W. McCarn, Geologist; 3118 Pebble Lake Drive; Sugar Land, TX 77479; USA
>Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria-cell:  +43-676-725-6622
>HotGreenChile at gmail.com   mccarn at unileoben.ac.at   UConcentrate at gmail.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Of Perle, Sandy
>Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 4:18 PM
>To: Steven Dapra; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Cancer suit filed against Los Alamos Labs
> >>According to an article in the Las Cruces (NM) Sun-News, Ryman's
>daughter "said her father's doctors were mystified about the cause of
>cancer until they talked to her about his past.
>"I told the doctor he grew up in Los Alamos, and he looked at me, put
>his pen and said, 'Your dad has radiation exposure,' [the daughter]
>The link is <http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_9152106>.  (How's that for a
>diagnosis?  The doctor never so much as saw the patient.)<<
>Not an unusual occurrence. This happens more often than you think.
>Worker works with radiation and becomes ill. Member of the public
>becomes ill and it's the radiation that causes the illness. This trend
>towards litigation is partly what I have written about in the ALARA
>dialogue. Employers are at risk where radiation is a part of the work.
>People do get ill, and, where there is an illness, radiation is often
>suggested at the root cause, right or wrong. If employers or businesses
>don't do what is considered prudent, they are portrayed as ruthless and
>not concerned about the public's or their worker's welfare. Juries can
>be swayed. I observe where employees believe that they have been treated
>fairly at work, generally don't sue. If they believe that management has
>not treated them fairly, they will often sue.
>Sander C. Perle
>Mirion Technologies
>Dosimetry Services Division
>2652 McGaw Avenue
>Irvine, CA 92614
>+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
>+1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax)
>Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1513 - Release Date: 6/22/2008
7:52 AM

More information about the RadSafe mailing list