Re: "Scientific Evidence"

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

"the exposure in reasonable medical probability was a 'substantial factor'
in contributing to the risk of cancer."

Al,
    Many thanks for the insightful information. I ran across the
"substantial factor" concept  last year in a case where I consulted on
"probability of causation". My calculations (which were not disputed)
indicated  that there was less than 0.001 probability  that the cancer was
caused by the decedents radiation exposure. That case was lost  since it was
determined that this exposure constituted a "substantial factor" in inducing
the cancer.
Has anyone else come across this problem?  In the legal system,  is any
radiation exposure greater than zero considered to be a sunstantial factor
for inducing cancer?  If so, as you suggeated, why shouldn't all cancer
cases be compensated?                   jjcohen@prodigy.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 29, 2000 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: "Scientific Evidence"


>Jerry Cohen wrote:  I wonder just what would constitute "scientific
evidence".
>
>In a court of law we will never know.  The lawyers keep changing the rules.
For
>example, in the North County Times of July 29, 2000 there is an article
titled
>"Court orders new trial in San Onofre case."  In the original trial a
federal
>jury in San Diego decided in March 1998 that radioactive contamination did
not
>cause Ellen Kennedy's cancer.  On July 20, 2000 9th US Circuit Court of
Appeals
>overturned that verdict because, it said, US District Court Judge Napoleon
Jones
>erred when he declined to read to jurors an instruction that the Kennedy
>family's attorneys had requested.  Judge Hawkins of the 9th US Circuit
Court of
>Appeals said that the jury should have been instructed that the Kennedys
did not
>have to prove that radiation actually contributed to Ellen Kennedy's
cancer, but
>that "the exposure in reasonable medical probability was a 'substantial
factor'
>in contributing to the risk of cancer."   Hawkins wrote, "To rule in favor
of
>the Kennedys, the jury needed to find only a more than theoretical or
negligible
>chance that the radiation contributed to her cancer."
>
>With court decisions like this, one can only give up hope that any reason
will
>prevail.  I guess, in the US, every person who gets cancer should be paid a
>fixed amount by the Federal Government and let it go at that.  We'd save a
bunch
>in lawyer fees, maybe enough to pay for the cancer payments.  However, at a
25%
>cancer incidence and 280 million people, that's 70 million with cancer,
and, if
>each payment were $100000, that's $7,000,000,000,000.  That's less than
half of
>one year's US Gross Domestic Product.  On second thought, it's not such a
good
>idea.  Even the lawyers don't make that much.  Yet.  Al Tschaeche
>antatnsu@pacbell.net
>
>************************************************************************
>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