[ RadSafe ] Legal Complaint of Navy Sailors

[Perle, Sandy]

Hope that you are correct Barbara

Sandy Perle
Sent from my iPad

On Dec 30, 2012, at 2:41 PM, "Barbara Hamrick" <blhamrick at aol.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't be too quick to jump to conclusions.  I doubt that evidence would make it thru a Daubert hearing, which is before the judge only, and rules on whether the scientific theory put forth is credible.
> 
> Barbara L. Hamrick 
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
> Sender: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:22:35 
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Reply-To: "The International Radiation Protection \(Health Physics\) Mailing
>    List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Legal Complaint of Navy Sailors
> 
> Ted, you are unfortunately correct, and when they collect, more lawsuits will be filed.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sandy Perle
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Dec 30, 2012, at 1:43 PM, "Ted de Castro" <tdc at xrayted.com> wrote:
> 
>> He doesn't have to convince the HPS - just 12 people who couldn't figure a way out of jury duty and are used to making decisions based on sound bites and knee jerk emotional reactions!
>> 
>> As little as he knows - The jurors will know far less - and any potential juror who shows any hint of knowing anything more and/or not fitting the profile above - will be rejected.
>> 
>> In other words - looks like his case/arguments are right on track - he seems to know what he's doing.
>> 
>> Sad!
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/30/2012 2:16 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
>>> The lawyer could use a lot more education.  In addition to citing such
>>> eminent experts as Ernest Sternglass and Arnold Gundersen and using
>>> ENENews as if it were a peer reviewed scientific publication instead
>>> of an on-line anti-nuclear screed, he makes the following statement on
>>> page 8 of the complaint:
>>> 
>>> "39.  Radiation does not readily break down and biodegrade in the
>>> ground or water or apparatus exposed to it.  Research now shows that
>>> it will persist in the environment for decades, since it has a
>>> half-life in excess of 77 years, far longer than the life expectancy
>>> of humans exposed to it."
>>> 
>>> This makes it pretty clear that this hot shot lawyer does not have a
>>> clue what he is talking about.
>>> 
>>> Roger Helbig
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>> 
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> 
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> 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: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu