Re[2]: EPA report and court ruling -Reply

[Joelle Key <jkey@mail.state.tn.us>]

I think that is an EXCELLENT idea.  I just figure that the lawyers and the
other people who have benefitted from the ignorance of the court system
won't like it.  A lot of decisions in courts are made from the point of view
of: We feel so sorry for this person's illness, fear or whatever and this
big company has deep pockets and they should provide money to the
sufferer.  

OK so that is my really cynical opinion.  I hope that isn't as true as it
seems to be.

Joelle Key
jkey@mail.state.tn.us

>>> Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov> 07/22/98 09:27am >>>

     
When I used to do occasional expert witness work, I found that the
judges were 
(a)  thoughtful but (b) depended on their (the judges') perceived
credibility of
the expert witnesses.  I think we should have in the U. S. a system of
"science 
courts" analogous to the water courts in the western states.  The judges
that 
preside over water courts have genuine and thorough expertise in water
rights, 
water quantity, water allocation, and related matters, and that's all they 
adjudicate on.  What do others think?

Clearly only my own opinion.

Ruth Weiner
rfweine@sandia.gov

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: EPA report and court ruling
Author:  Steven.Rima@DOEGJPO.COM at hubsmtp
Date:    7/22/98 7:35 AM


     Maybe since we HPs can't seem to prove or disprove the LNT we
could 
     get a federal judge to do it for us. They seem to think they know more 
     than scientists... While we're at it, maybe the judge can also 
     "decide" whether EMF causes cancer. Heck, why do science at all
when 
     judges can make these decisions for us. :-)
     
     Steven D. Rima, CHP
     Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene 
     MACTEC-ERS, LLC
     steven.rima@doegjpo.com
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: EPA report and court ruling
Author:  "Skierkowski; Paul" <skie2928@msmailhub.oulan.ou.edu> at
Internet 
Date:    7/21/98 1:57 PM
     
     
thought since it deals with EPA extrapolated data conclusions, the 
following might be of interest to RADSAFErs and epidemiologists.
     
EPA Smoking Report Defended
     
 WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency is standing by its
finding that  secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer despite a
federal 
judge's decision striking down  its 1993 report that made the link. 
Although lawyers were still reviewing the  ruling handed down by U.S. 
District Judge William Osteen in North Carolina, officials said  Sunday 
an appeal is certain. Osteen acted on a  lawsuit that the tobacco 
industry had filed.  He ruled the environmental agency based its  1993 
report on inadequate science and failed to  demonstrate a statistically 
significant relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.
The 
agency's controversial 1993 report on  environmental tobacco smoke 
concluded that  secondhand tobacco smoke was responsible for  more
than 
3,000 lung cancer deaths a year.
     
     
     
Paul Skierkowski
Univ. of Oklahoma