In this case, how do they even know that that was the reason she got the thyroid cancer? I ask this as it occurs naturally and people get it all the time. It is important to note that the autoimmune cases were ruled against. Hypothyroidism is very common in women and on average it is one per 160.

I guess if you are unfortunate enough to get thyroid cancer, or if you are hypothyroid, you should sue the government.

Thyroid disorders develop for a variety of reasons, but when you are exposed to toxic chemicals and radiation, including a chemical that concentrates itself in the thyroid gland, and then you develop thyroid cancer.... well, there's a pretty clear causal link there. Sure you could be exposed to the radiation and toxic chemicals for decades without your knowledge and somehow miraculously be strong enough to fend off disease; and then you could, theoretically, develop it by some other fluke. But what's the more likely story?

When the government released those toxins and that radiation "intentionally and accidentally" but didn't tell people living there and being exposed to it until decades later, that changes the situation too. People had no way to protect themselves because they didn't know they needed to.

I wish I knew more details about how the jury made its determination. But if you look at the few facts the article gives us one can imagine how the government could be culpable. Studies show that juries are increasingly skeptical of plaintiffs so I can guess that the jury considered the circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, government documents, etc., to make the determination.

Kia, the problem with these cases is just as you tried to state. The problem is that you cant really say that there is a causal link. People exposed to certain types of radiation are at higher risks of thyroid malignancy but there are people who develope it anyway. So, how do you tell who would have got it anyway? It comes down to statistics. Nevertheless, because you cant prove it, it is more of a matter of potential money grabbing by people and attornerys. Something to consider, what was more radioactive, the I-131 concentrations in this case or the granite in the courthouse. This whole article is an example of trial lawyers attempting to extort money and it even shows how in the autoimmune cases they were shut down. By the way, if we can sue for being exposed to radiation, then we should be able to bring suit against attorneys who force us into granite courthouses. If you checked granite has a relatively high level of background radiation, so does you comoputer monitor, you microwave, power lines and many watches.

That you can't find 100% causation does not invalidate an incredibly significant causal link. Otherwise, that would throw away all the environmental hazard cases in which harmful pollutants caused disease but in which disease could theoretically also be caused by stroke of chance/fate.

Example: Did my grandfather, who died of lung cancer after 30 years of smoking cigarettes, develop cancer by fluke? My 78 year old uncle has smoked cigarettes since age 14 and doesn't even have a cough, and my best friend's mom died of lung cancer at age 50 and never smoked one cigarette. The fact is, cigarettes cause cancer. People with super tough immune systems, good fortune, etc., may not fall victim. Others may get lung cancer from somewhere else. But still others will get cancer from smoking cigarettes.

Also, there's the issue of violation of bodily integrity. These people did not consent to being exposed to the increased risk of getting cancer. Critical public health information was kept from them, and they were unnecessarily exposed to harmful toxins and radiation as a result.

To call helping people who have been involuntarily exposed to harmful radiation simply because of where they live "extortion" is borderline delusional. Thinking especially about concentrated poverty, residential segregation, and how certain people don't have the resources to move around to protect themselves from this kind of thing, how would these people not deserve protection under the law? How can it ever be legally or MORALLY justifiable for the government to undervalue human life like this without being held accountable for the consequences, namely that people got sick?

Your granite courthouse analogy isn't logical. Lawyers can't "force" anyone to go anywhere, and had no role in any toxins that may exist in a granite courthouse, but the government INTENTIONALLY (according to its own documents) exposed people to radiation that they knew was harmful and waited forever to inform people of this harm. In your hypothetical, though, government lawyers could sue the government for forcing them to work in a place with high radiation if the government knows and if that radiation causes cancer.

Kia: I think you misunderstood me. In your statement "To call helping people who have been involuntarily exposed to harmful radiation simply because of where they live "extortion" is borderline delusional", my point is that it is the lawyers trying to extort money, not the people in the area. If attorneys want to do the right thing, we would be trying to help all the people who potentially have increased risk, not trying to make a proffit off of each. Doing things like health screenings, etc. I find it morally questionable to take an issue such as this where there is no true way to find causation except to address the whole population.

This is true with your statements about all the other environmental hazzard cases. What is known about enviromental hazzards is that we seen an increase in certain health conditions. Can we say that each individual case is causal, no. But we can say that the statistal increase is. You then help those in the cohort where the increase is occurring.

In this particular case, is there any statistical evidence that there is an increase in thyroid cancer in the involved population?