Does requiring an epidemiological study reporting a relative risk of more than 2.0 for the plaintiff to get into court seem fair to you? What if an epidemiological study showed nineteen cases observed and ten cases expected. This would mean that despite the chemical being responsible for nine of the nineteen cases, any individual case would more likely than not be due to background causes. Would it be fair to let the chemical manufacturer cause a 90 percent increase in a disease without being liable for compensation? On the other hand, if the epidemiological study showed twenty-one cases instead of the expected ten cases, a relative risk of 2.1, would it be fair to the manufacturer to be forced to compensate all twenty-one of these individuals, including the ten who would have had the disease irrespective of exposure?