RE: "Scientific Evidence"

["Wes Van Pelt" <vanpeltw@idt.net>]

All,

I have used the Probability of Causation (PC) document and methodology many
times when dealing with lawyers whose client has a cancer and has received a
radiation dose. If one can estimate the radiation dose, one then looks up
the probability that the cancer was due to the radiation versus something
else.  In my experience, the PC often comes out to a few percent. This gives
the lawyer a good sense of his/her case.

Wes

Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD., CIH, CHP
Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.
Consulting in Health Physics and Environmental Radioactivity.
mailto://vanpeltw@idt.net

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [mailto:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]On
Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 7:19 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: "Scientific Evidence"

Sandy, Ted, Fritz, et al,
    As I recall, about 15 years ago there was a flurry of interest and
activity on establishing a formal  probability of causation (PC) methodology
including congressional inquiries. I was somewhat involved in it as a
consultant to EPRI. A relatively complicated procedure involving type of
cancer, time of onset, time(s) of exposure, BEIR estimates, and many other
factors evolved. Papers on the subject were published, and, as I recall the
"nuclear industry" was accused by the anti's of using this approach to avoid
their responsibility for
the "cancer epidemic" they created. I don't know what, if anything, became
of the PC concept. Perhaps, the lawyers were incapable of dealing with
probabilistic concepts which don't fit in well in a world of "guilty or not
guilty".  Maybe, someone can tell us whether PC is still alive, and if not,
why not.


-----Original Message-----
From: OFFTOWY@aol.com <OFFTOWY@aol.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: "Scientific Evidence"


>One possible answer is to acknowledge that many (maybe all) occupations
(maybe activities) carry some risk.  Assuming that the individual was
informed of the known hazards and those hazards were contolled within
accepted standards, then no reparation for health effects, whether or not
proven to be linked to the hazard, should be provided.
>
>Political viability = 0
>
>Lew LaGarde
>offtowy@aol.com
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html