Re: settlement - ludicrous!

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

> I don't support irrational settlements, either, but in this case I would
> say that the attorneys were more in tune with costs and public opinion
> than with science.

Bob, 

I totally agree with you, that this settlement most likely resulted in 
less cost than going forward with a trial.On the other hand, one 
never knows for sure, but it is a crap shoot. To date, most lawsuits 
filed for wrongful death due to exposure to radiation, filed at even 
background levels, have for the majority, resulted in favor of the 
defendant (if I recall correctly information from ANI attorneys, and 
others). In any event, the suit was frivolous, and the fact that any 
$$ were expended is still a sad commentary on the "nuclear 
option" in general. Granted, the media focuses on this, but the 
general attitude of the public is, that radiation is dangerous. They 
do not accept that radiation isn't dangerous, but it must be 
respected. 

I for one don't expect this attitude to change in my lifetime. I do not 
believe the public will ever accept the fact that the LNT is flawed, 
and how could they, when we can't even agree amongst ourselves.

Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html