maybe i'm oversimplifying but it seems that on the one hand if one element of mercury is in an otherwise clearly nuclear  control and bring under exclusive federal jurisdiction and on the aether hand your concern is if there's only a tiny piece of nuclear material to use a batch of materials and a whole bunch of nine nuclear  well i think should be the result if we decide if we disagree with the new year i think the way i see the starship case fighting the baby i guess literally it's separating the two components i know if i'm just saying the effect of that is to create a rule that the nuclear reactor design to protect the nuclear industry that you get an end run if there's any item that you claim causes damage even if it's one percent of the ninety nine percent mix i don't as to the mercury as i don't think that show that you go over radiation of a certain amount that's literally the way you would you know there was the federal regulations and there are references in these in these various cases  goes forward and none of the policy implications of chrysler anderson are implicated that's that's correct you didn't bring the claim that way did you have we brought the claim entirely under state law to make clear it wasn't brought under price anderson at all  was it was later removed the question is did you isolate on mercury in your state  claim the complaint says there was both radiate radio act right so as soon as you allege radiation you're by your own analysis you are within the scope of christ and there's only with respect to the radiation  position i went home and said we want well let me let me he said in the deposition that there was additional evidence for the record i said that is clear and that he gave a declaration afterward with  the classical way but it is what treating doctors do i mean that is i would submit kind of a basic part of what treating doctors do if you come in with symptoms and you do something you get better that that's both  the federal handbook of scientific method where they talk about a standard method and alice in treating people they talk about you remove the person from the offending substance and see if the home and say i one can come up with other information and i want to know on what i think that's contrary to the law and unless he's got a good reason and i wonder why he came up with other information later and on a different expert chemical substances that everything gets swept under the price anderson act if there is some element of radiation in it even if it's only one percent of the mix and  out all of the things that would normally be available if if if there wasn't just that one limited one percent radio radiology component why should congress be over you know stuffing on to normal of the chemicals and toxins which were not radiological or not radioactive that would be one thing here however he has done exactly the opposite and he has pleaded by lumping all of these together and  for storing and retrieving approximately fifty three million gallons i mean hazardous waste clearly on that allegation brings it under the he's out in that respect in terms of state law but he is in under the price anderson act which expressly incorporates all state law standards and remedies unless they are prohibited by the arising out of or resulting from radioactive explosive or other hazardous properties source special nuclear or byproduct hat if if he drown of the cost of something that had nothing to do with any radioactive or radiological property of the material then it would not be in that hypothetical case the radioactive toxic explosive now you're into the causation a speck your answer is now seen if this is not caused by what you said of the beginning that it was a nuclear incident so do we define you first of all have to define whether it's a nuclear incident and is it a nuclear incident if you fall into a vast of nuclear or radioactive material or is it not a question is yes so it is a nuclear incident in which the drowning was caused by suffocation had nothing to do with the radioactive aspect of it it just had to be this judge  your defense would be if they if they think this the motion to strike is granted or they report really they replayed and they follow the new york case and they say we have i was splashed by materials partly nuclear radioactive partly not our claim is for the mercury only and then you would be arguing presumably against their ability to prove trial that it was the mercury who was causing that was wants to have all of his rights under state law to get emotional distress he gets the damages i understand but what you're trying to say is you can block him at this stage under our decision and burden with that he doesn't get emotional distress and it doesn't get medical monitoring what he wants is the state law claim to say that if i get hit with thirty three and i can prove emotional distress f mercury or the fear of mercury poisoning that's going to play out in the future i don't know whether it succeeds on the merits but that's his theory and i am not foreclosed by the price anderson act from getting emotional distress and medical monitoring should separate out things that aren't a threat to the nuclear industry well under under the all amended price anderson under the of forty two you see one on one so clearly the congress had decided that it wanted to be sure that the activities at these sites all of which involve the handling