Parents Definitely Have a Case,

¶ … parents definitely have a case, since Toxico violated state and federal environmental laws when it buried its batch of radioisotopes in the lot ten years ago. Nonetheless, the problem is that there is contradictory evidence regarding whether or not the cancers may be traced to the radioactive emission from the lot. Whilst the experts hired by Toxico claim there to be incomplete and contradictory empirical evidence showing association between radiation dosage and cancers, a credentialed biophysicist hired by the families believe that this is not the case.

According to federal and state law, both parties have to rest their claim on undisputed reliable scientific evidence. To elaborate, as stated by the United States v. Kilgus, 571 F. 2d 508, 510 (CA9 1978) and by Frye v United States (293 F. 1013), the evidence itself has to be empirically based and unanimously accepted by authoritative peer-reviewed scientific journals. Even if deduced from sources by an expert or theorized by an expert, unless stated associations between cancer and radiation emission is clear-cut with definite empirical link connecting the two and this definite link attested to by reliable peer-reviewed scientific sources, the evidence is inadmissible in court. This is known as Rule 702.

Secondly, according to Rule 104(a), the expert must be considered as such by the contemporary scientific standards in order to determine whether her assessment is valid, and the stated scientific support must be relevant to the case at hand. The court has to also consider the reliability of the scientific evidence presented and weigh it against other possibly contradictory studies in order to assess the strength of the argument. The more widespread the acceptance of, for instance, association between nuclear emission and cancer the more likely will the court be to accept the families' evidence.

In this instance, however, we have a diversity of opinions with one biophysicist citing empirical studies that indicate both high statistical incidence of this rare cancer in the neighborhood and animal studies which suggest that the measured radiation level in the abandoned lot is capable of causing cancerous growth s in children. Toxcio's experts, on the other hand, believe that evidence is incomplete and that further, costly studies need to be implemented to show the connection.

It seems to me that (a) if the biophysicist is indeed as credentialed and qualified as said and (b) if her studies are as empirical as stated from peer-reviewed scientific journals, bearing reliable evidence, than the families do, indeed have a case. This is because even thoguh further research may need to be conducted (as per Toxico's scientists) to assess strength of the research, the evidence that exists at the moment seems to show an almost undisputed association between the children's cancer and the toxic emission.

Secondly, the biophysicist also reinforces her case with other empirical evidence -- and empirical evidence is that which is required by the courts - of the significant statistical incidence of this rare cancer in the neighborhood. In both cases, her testimony lies on popularly accepted, empirical, and reliable scientific evidence and measures. These are the matrices requested by both state and federal court systems.