[ RadSafe ] Re: Fw: Low-Dose Radiation "quibbles"

[BLHamrick at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/2005 8:27:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
tedrock at starpower.net writes:

We of  course did not ask the court to make a scientific judgement, but to do
what  courts had done with respect to tobacco smoke, chemicals in water and
other  cases: merely to find that a reasonable process of arriving at a
scientific  judgement had not been properly carried out.  The court concluded
in  effect that courts shouldn't be trying to tell executive agencies how to
do  their job.  In other words, we shouldn't have even raised the  question.

Not very encouraging.



I didn't know this.  I'd love to review the original filings in the  case.  
I'd also like to review the court's ruling in this case.  Was  it appealed?  A 
case of this significance will only be decided properly  about 50% of the time 
at the trial court level, in my opinion - i.e., it's a  total toss up at that 
level.
 
Barbara