and twenty five milligrams a year is safe for contaminated land those judgments are reserved to the federal regulator if the dose is less than these limits judgement must be entered for the defendant because defendant did not violate the pill a standard of penetrated person and and then damage biological damage to their tissues anything above this those limits this amount of damage to a person is and is not acceptable when i think you're mixing exposure with damage you could have members of the public you have now i'm actually going to ask you to focus on the things they say actual damage suffered by these in that it was not not by members of the public not it hasn't been observed in the sense that it in the way that one would look at a person who has a very to the skin but it is it is known to a degree of scientific certainty that when someone receives radiation that it penetrates the body that it does damage the tissue and then the question is whether it manifests itself in some kind of observable diagnosable injury well our our position is that that's what he enemy either repair or if it doesn't work it may lead to cancer those are all maybes and i understood the issue in this case to be whether or not d in this case from the illegal those that our guys got that itself is is is cognizable as damages under the act and using montana law to define vitaliy injury which i think is required under forty two u s c two and four it shapes it very very is as as i see it didn't did not require that there be a president medically diagnosable injury no i didn't say that damages then they go on to talk about objective political evidence involving five people who are hospitalized and die but those same regulations also make clear that if you have a nuclear incident which is not an extraordinary nuclear  currence it can still be compensable you can still have compensation and you can get damages for that and and under montana law the cellular damages that that our guys got because of this deal legal those  that's that's that's that's argument there so if you weren't into a montana court and you or you had with bill no objective illness  get what kind of damages to montana law and it is a subjective because it's undisputed that there's been doses received which means that the radiation has penetrated the body and caused it now they have a condition where they have damages that they have but they would be able to get emotional distress and in this case too they would also be able to get medical monitoring damages and hear that there is that the undisputed illegal do damage their cells that's an injury that could lead to cancer and that's what they're worried about it could and it could lead to cancer but our claim for finally injuries based on the damage to their cells that they receive and it may or may not be repaired the difference with deal with a substance radiation that is known to be capable of causing harm indeed there is no threshold harmful decision level for radiation because it can cause harm at any level so they would accept it if it doesn't come under bodily injury and you're reading it into it because you're saying it's bodily injury as long as you've been exposed to them i agree that it is bird doesn't fly out from i'm dealing with the facts of th and over the limit for members of the public you have damage to the d n a in the cells and that which is unacceptable and that's why they have a dose limit which was brought down by a factor of five to increase protection for the public back in court some places in the statutory language where burg i didn't cite all the statutory support because it wasn't really focused on this but for example there is a case bradford versus to know all the law that exists when it passes an act would it define the type of damages which this court has power over in a public liability action if you use the phrase buying the injuries sickness disease or death congress did not use the phrase exposure increased risk medical monitoring peer emotional distress or subset interchanges so if congress didn't mention it there is something that burke didn't didn't really cite but there is a  in the policy the congressional findings for president or certain forty two u s c section two thousand and twelve i congressional findings are that quote the united states may make funds available for a portion of the damages suffered by the public the surgeon general accept that hypothesis for secondhand smoke in the surgeon general's report on second hand smoke it says there's no threshold injury can occur from any amount of secondhand smoke we are all  exposed to radiation all sorts of chemicals we were all begin jetted we would all be consuming the federal court's time trying to claim that this particular exposure creates some increased risk calculated and therefore we're entitled to some we don't know because nobody can look into the cells to find out you have apparently written the book with the article which suggests that at the level of radiation there was you can see here  changes changes under our undergone forty thousand times a day in every cell due to normal metabolism it's part of the chemical changes our expert explained radiation could hit an atom and knock an electron all of that's called winter marker is just wrong that there was no sort of cellular change rock by the degree or he's radiation yes he is wrong he can't prove that he can't show it he repeating the lady or no threshold hypothesis that's that's what he's saying this is a mechanism in the linear no threshold hypothesis which is not a known fact it's a hypothesis of risk why risk make stand down a lot of cancer then they have then they have a public liability action duty breach duty proxima causation of damage finally they have a damage and they have a medical  limitations would be dated discovery it would be three years after the diagnosis of the bodily injury and then an expert telling them that's related to this radiation exposure these cases are just premature that's really the problem it's not really data discovery it's three years after damage that's right that's right see the damage and here are it's important to understand or to realize that this is a congressional intent a federal cause of action substantial to be five or more people having deaths or hospitalization and that damage the word damage they defined to be quote objective clinical evidence of physical injury on court so you see it all links together that congress was saying yes if people really are injured by radiation not just exposed not just some hypothetical risk not just an emotional distress but a real clinical injury then they versus philadelphia electric decided in our breeze i believe the husband received radiation exposure at work and the lady underwent an abortion she was pregnant because she was afraid that someone might affect her  that is diagnosed as ninety percent probable to create ovarian cancer within which the under your theory she's on her own until she's  no more than about five