as a preliminary matter there are motions pending before the court that both parties with a panel like for us to trust ok then write to the merits with the panel for me to start with any particular issue ability our argument is that based on monsanto level of knowledge that had developed over the years starting in one nine hundred thirty s with studies p c b's coming out of whack or  so the foreseeability evidence in the district court was looked at through the prism of was it foreseeable that p c b is volatilize out of cock at levels capable of causing human between two human beings could you answer that question error is as a matter of law making and requiring that proof of property widespread environmental contamination for example one document refers to one million pounds per year of p c b being used in highway paint alone and the document goes on to say we can assume that all of that p c b winds up in the environment so there was a growing knowledge of recognition through the through the one nine hundred sixty before these products were taken off the and the record as a starter frank dorman who's an analytical chemist he said that technology was available and i will make a distinction between the lexington case part of what they were looking for was to certify a class based on air exposure so th were they were couch to more as a personal injury case than was part of this but i do want i do feel the need to draw the president attention to westport injury because these impossible for months had to communicate any warnings and said that monsanto could not use mass media approach that does not follow the standards set out in hofmann which adopted restatement ten which says in certain circumstances based on the magnitude of the risk that public media dissemination program at and that the manufacturer does not have to warrant it direct customer as long as it can communicate a without dr mattson speculation as to what monsanto was thinking when they were writing these documents and and that those documents came in or part of the record before were part of a very strange positions there was no ventilation it was overheated degrees farenheit and so forth and they went in and they tried to measure p c b said here the problem is and this is basically emissions from their chemical experts the problem you would not have all this nation at any rate that could possibly cause injury so basically in the absence of platers expert testimony that even today even today there is no scientific evidence that p isn't that the property damage now i don't think that there was any evidence presented before the district court that would allow the district court to have found that monsanto could have predicted that seven years h health issues so basic rule of goes response if we're not seeing health effects at levels up here why would we expect levels down there for the few minute molecules that might come out of the solid matrix  performed at kettering institute where we were trying to determine threshold levels for occupational exposure in the air and what those documents say is we have those test results now they've been accepted by the american conference of governmental industrial hi janice why pursue those tests for in terms of testing concentrations to see at what point laboratory animals get sick so that was the context middle school there's no there's no factual record that would have permitted this record who decided that a that as required under hofmann that westport middle school was identifiable the only evidence of