My column this month in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly takes on the challenging problem of communicating science from high school, even middle school in environmental matters.  One would think that it would be easy.  But some of these kinds of things are hard for courts, regulators, businesses, and the press:

  • scientific induction requires hypothesis testing — at least some possible results have to disprove what you are trying to prove;
  • mass and concentration are not the same thing;
  • scale matters — almost all data are averages, so it is important to know over what scale one is averaging; and
  • “not even one molecule” is a ridiculous standard because molecules are very, very small things and there are a very great deal of them.

These are merely examples.  It is by no means a complete list of the issues that seem to come up, but it is a start.

To read Communicating Basic Science in Environmental Cases, 37 Pa. L. Weekly 316 (Apr. 8, 2014), click here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Mandelbaum David Mandelbaum

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and…

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and Oil and Gas Law in rotation at the Temple University Beasley School of Law as well as an environmental litigation course at Suffolk (Boston) Law School.

Since United States v. Atlas Minerals, the first multi-generator Superfund contribution case to go to trial in 1993, Mr. Mandelbaum has been engaged in matters involving allocation of costs among responsible parties, especially under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  He has tried large cases and resolved others as lead counsel.  He has written, spoken, and taught extensively on the subject.  More recently he also has been engaged to assist lead counsel from this firm and others:

  • to develop cost allocation methodologies;
  • to craft expert testimony in support of a favored methodology (given a definition of “fairness,” why one methodology better tracks it than another);
  • to develop efficient case management approaches; and to assist private allocation as part of the neutral team.

Concentrations

  • Air, water and waste regulation
  • Superfund and contamination
  • Climate change
  • Oil and gas development
  • Water rights