The PG & E Hinkley case was settled in 1996 for $333 million—the largest settlement in United States history. Was the jury influenced entirely by junk science? The half-dozen or so wiki articles on the subject bring up several salient points which strongly suggest that it was. First of all, hexavalent chromium is not known to be carcinogenic when ingested; it has only been demonstrated to be a carcinogen when inhaled. Secondly, it’s repeatedly stated that cancer rates in Hinkley during the time frame in question were statistically unremarkable. Lastly, chromium(VI) contamination is a widespread environmental issue; it was not and is not limited to Hinkley, CA.
Now, we all know that junk science when combined with human stupidity is a powerful force—look how many people take Jenny McCarthy seriously. But it really boggles my mind that some cheesey lawyer and his jiggly white-trash magician’s assistant could really persuade a jury to award a freakin’ third of a billion dollars using arguments derived from BS science. Did they really do just that, or was there direct evidence that the Cr(VI) in the Hinkley groundwater was responsible for the plaintiffs’ carcinomas?