Talk:Hinkley, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Can someone fix the AAA link?

[edit] Alleged

The addition of "alleged" is an appropriate NPOV edit; PG&E denies the claims, and there's substantial evidence that the Hinkley lawsuit was a bogus rip-off.

Scientific studies, however, from contaminated spots in China, Scotland and the United States, have failed to find cancer-causing properties in waterborne chromium 6. A toxicologist at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Sharon Wilbur, says that chromium 6 in water doesn't harm humans. "It's very unlikely that people could die from drinking chromium 6 in the water, even over time," she said. Because the arbitration that eventually decided the case was closed to the public, it's unclear what sort of proof plaintiffs attorneys offered to support their claims.[1]

Salon is hardly a corporate mouthpiece. FRCP11 20:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just going on what you've cited here and in the article, the claim is one the one hand that there's a significantly high percentage of disabilities, and on the other that the substance wouldn't kill people — two statements that aren't in conflict. Moreover, you've given no reason to say that the uncleanness of the water is in doubt, only that it had certain medical effects.

I'm also unsure that we should be setting ourselves up in opposition to the findings of courts, whatever evidence is produced. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to edit the OJ Simpson article to say he didn't kill his wife? Are we going to rewrite the tomato article to say that it's not a fruit? Are we going to say that America is a Christian nation? That a court says something doesn't make it true, especially here where there are allegations of conflict of interest in the arbitration panel that favored the plaintiffs. There's substantial evidence that chromium-6 isn't carcinogenic in the levels at Hinkley, and this is an encyclopedia. There's no surprise that Hinkley has a higher disability rate: people who claim to have a disability get more money from the court case. It's a non sequitur to say that a polluting substance is carcinogenic, and that increased exposure increases lifespan. FRCP11 03:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

1. I haven't read it, but I'd be surprised if the O.J. Simpson article says that he killed his wife if the court found otherwise — because of the libel laws if for no other reason. I don't understand the relevance of the latter two examples.
2. I can only repeat that we're not in the business of challenging court cases, especially when (as you concede) we don't know what evidence was adduced.
3. There's no contradiction between a substance being a carcinogen and increased exposure to it increasing average lifespans; all that's needed is for it to have two effects — one beneficial and the other carcinogenic.
4. There is a contradiction between your sating that the pollution was only alleged and your later reference to "the pollutant".
5. What is the basis for the claim that workers at the plant had higher exposure than the townspeople? Safety standards inside the plant might have been high, so that the effects were greater outside.
6. I'll list this at RfC; we need outside opinions here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)