Re[4]: EPA report and court ruling

[Ruth Weiner <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Good point.  I was using "science" in a sort of generic sense, but, say, a court
that handled only issues dealing with air and water pollution, on that handled 
nuclear and radiation-related issues,one that dealt with medical issues, etc., 
or at least judges who had an appropriate academic background who could serve to
adjudicate such cases.  I clearly haven't thought this through.

Clearly only my own opnion.

Ruth Weiner
rfweine@sandia.gov
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Re[2]: EPA report and court ruling
Author:  neildm@id.doe.gov at hubsmtp
Date:    7/22/98 9:55 AM


I like the idea, but note that the scope of "science" as an entity is 
somewhat broader than that of water issues.
(Greatest understatement since the death of Mercutio!)
     
However, any incremental increase is better than none.
     
Dave Neil
neildm@id.doe.gov
     
> -----Original Message-----
> From:     Ruth Weiner [SMTP:rfweine@sandia.gov] 
> Sent:     Wednesday, July 22, 1998 8:28 AM
> To:     Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:     Re[2]: EPA report and court ruling 
>
>
>
> 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