Application of the Supreme Court's Daubert criteria in radiation litigation.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in litigation. This standard is known as the Daubert criteria, named after the pertinent case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Daubert criteria require the courts to determine whether an expert's testimony reflects scientific knowledge, whether his/her findings are derived by the scientific method, and whether the work product is based on good science. The Daubert criteria are especially important in radiation litigation because issues involving radiation doses and effects are often complex and thus a jury will typically rely heavily on the analysis and opinions of experts. According to the Daubert criteria, scientific opinions must be based on a methodology that has a valid, testable hypothesis; has been subject to peer review; and is generally accepted in the scientific community. Additionally, the expert must be qualified to present opinions based on the methodology. Although the application of the Daubert criteria in radiation litigation is highly dependent on the specific court and judge presiding over the case, there have been recent high-profile cases in which application of the criteria has resulted in the dismissal of analysis and opinions offered by scientific experts. Reasons for the dismissals have included basic scientific errors such as failure of the expert to consider all possible explanations for an observed phenomenon, the selective use of data by the expert, and the failure to acknowledge and resolve inconsistencies between the expert's results and those of other investigators. This paper reviews the Daubert criteria as they apply to radiation litigation and provides examples of the application of the criteria from recent judgments involving the Three Mile Island and Hanford Downwinders cases.

Evaluation of uncertainties in estimates of fetal doses from 59Fe kinetic studies at Vanderbilt University.

In a 1997 paper, Stabin et al. published estimates of the fetal radiation doses for women who received oral administrations of 59Fe at Vanderbilt University in the 1940's. These authors concluded that there was "considerable uncertainty... in the amount of radioactive material administered to these subjects." In an effort to quantify this uncertainty, the underlying factors in the input data used in the Stabin et al. dose estimates have been examined in detail. Such factors include (a) an absence of detailed information on, and discrepancies in, the amounts of 59Fe reported to have been administered; (b) the probability that the radioactive iron included 55Fe as well as 59Fe; (c) uncertainties as to the period of time that elapsed between the administration of the radioiron and the taking of the maternal blood samples, and the accompanying impacts of radioactive decay; (d) possible losses of 59Fe in the procedures used in preparing the blood samples; and (e) questions as to the reported efficiency of the counting equipment. Our principal conclusion is that, due to the significant uncertainties and the lack of key information, it is not possible to estimate the doses accurately. An ancillary conclusion, however, is that the doses were probably significantly higher than previously estimated. This latter possibility should be carefully considered by any investigators who subsequently seek to use these estimates to quantify the relationship between the doses to the fetus and the resulting health effects.

Determining optimal protective actions for nuclear incidents.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is revising its Protective Action Guides (PAGs), which specify recommended dose levels at which actions should be taken to protect the public during an accident at a nuclear facility. The appropriateness of these PAGs depends on the health risks that could be avoided by the protective actions relative to both the costs and adverse health impacts of taking the actions. According to the optimization principle of radiation protection, the cost of measures designed to protect people from ionizing radiation should be commensurate with the risks avoided. This article evaluates the recommended protective actions with respect to the optimization principle. The evaluation is based on both recent radiation risk estimates and a derivation of the monetary value of a reduction in risk. It is estimated that evacuation of a population sector should be carried out only if the evacuation will reduce the collective dose equivalent to the population by 1 person-Sv or more for every U.S. +34,000 to +250,000 in net evacuation costs. Therefore, the decision to evacuate should be based on the dose that would be avoided by the evacuation and predetermined site-specific evacuation costs, rather than simply projected dose to the population. Findings further suggest that separate PAGs for the thyroid and skin are unnecessary for protecting against stochastic effects because use of the effective dose equivalent concept eliminates the need for these guides. Separate PAGs for specific organs need only ensure that significant nonstochastic effects are prevented.

Three example applications of optimization techniques to Department of Energy contractor radiation protection programs.

Six numerical examples of optimization of radiation protection are provided in the appendices of International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication No. 37 (1983). In each case, the calculations were based on well-defined parameters and assumptions. In this paper, we examined three different numerical examples that were based on empirical data and less-certain assumptions. In the first example, the optimum sampling frequency for a typical 3H bioassay program was found to be once every 2 mo. However, this result depended on assumed values for several variables that were difficult to evaluate. The second example showed that the optimum frequency for recalibrating a group of "cutie pie" (CP) ionization chamber survey instruments was once every 85 d. This result depended largely on the assumption that an improperly operating CP instrument could lead to a serious overexposure. In the third example, one continuous air monitor (CAM) was determined to be the optimum number in a workplace at a Department of Energy (DOE) Pu facility. The optimum location of the CAM was determined from past glove-box release studies. These examples demonstrated that cost-benefit analysis of individual elements of radiation protection programs can be useful even if limited data are available.