RE: Re[4]: EPA report and court ruling

["Neil, David M" <neildm@id.doe.gov>]

The trick will be getting a broad enough base of knowledgeable judges to
cover the issues possible, without creating a myriad of separate court
systems.

Perhaps the answer is in a group of judges trained in basic scientific
methods and knowledge, who are impaneled for a case with temporary
arbitrators of the expert witness ilk.  The chief judge of the panel has
the knowledge of the legalities, and enough basics to meet the
arbitrators halfway, and the arbitrators have the specialized knowledge
to know when the litigants are blowing smoke.

But this is veering off-topic, and I want to maintain my current cordial
relations with Melissa, so I'll not run any further with this one at
this time.  }:-)

Dave Neil
neildm@id.doe.gov

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ruth Weiner [SMTP:rfweine@sandia.gov]
> Sent:	Wednesday, July 22, 1998 10:16 AM
> To:	radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu; neildm@id.doe.gov
> Subject:	Re[4]: EPA report and court ruling
> 
> 
>      
> 
> 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