Re: Radiation litigation and Judges Opinions -Reply

[RON LAVERA <lavera.r@nypa.gov>]

I too have a great deal of sympathy for this widow and her
family.  I also don't blame her for wishing to settle with the, in
her belief, institution responsible for the untimely demise of
her loved one.

I don't have sufficient information to determine if SONG did
under report the amount of radioactive material present.  I
would think that in order for the ( alleged ) under reporting to
be significant from a radiobiology perspective that it would
need to be GROSSLY under reported.  I would also think that
an autopsy would be able to determine the total body dose
associated with any TRU related dose and those types of
test should be done for any serious claim of TRU related
dose, in my opinion.  Non TRU dose should have been
relatively easy to identify within an order of magnitude, I
would think..

Be that as it may, one of the most disturbing factors from
this discussion, is the remark of the "impartial" judge
indicating that the death of this individual was in fact due to
radiation.  Does this indicate some bias in the judicial
process ?  I would think that bias, in either direction,
should be grounds for the disqualification of the judge as he
is unable to make an impartial decision.

"In fact, the deliberate use by Southern
> >      California Edison of monitoring devices which
> >      under-recorded the true amount of radiation and 
> >      the deaths of employees caused by radiation rise

> >      not only to a valid civil suit for damages but
> >      also to a possible criminal prosecution for
> >      homicide,"

Clearly, this opinion is mine and mine alone.

Ron LaVera
LAVERA.R@NYPA.GOV

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html