Phase I of the nation's first class action silicone breast implant trial is over. The plaintiffs won, which only means that the trial can now proceed into Phase II.

In the second phase, the eight class representatives must demonstrate and prove each element of their claim. This would include the notion that they relied on information from Dow Chemical in deciding to get breast implants, and that the injuries claimed are a direct result of the device.

Phase II, of course, will be difficult for the plaintiffs, since the overwhelming weight of the medical evidence--including more than 20 studies by such institutions as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the Mayo Clinic--demonstrates that there is no association between silicone breast implants and disease.

What is interesting is how this matter got as far as it did. After a fairly extensive search of the media, I was unable to come up with any sort of "smoking gun", presented in the trial, that would indicate that Dow withheld evidence of harmful effects.

In fact, the risk of complications, which included contracture, inflammation, rupture and migration, have been known for years, and have been published in medical journals. What exactly did Dow conceal? Where was the "failure to warn"?

But then, what does it really matter? Look at cigarettes. Everyone knows that they are harmful, and, indeed, warning labels have been on all packages for decades. People smoke anyway.

Do the plaintiffs' lawyers really want us to believe that some sort of warning would have prevented these women from getting the implants? Simple logic and right reason would dictate that there is at least something unnatural about putting bags of fluid inside your body. Besides, the implants don't even look natural.

In much the same way that you can spot a nose job a mile away, you can usually do the same with a boob job. So, let's be kind and merely suggest that the decision to get the implants was not exactly based on a careful review of the facts. What difference would warnings have made?

Of course, there's this sticky problem: Since the implants don't cause a disease, what was the warning supposed to be about?

As usual, the plaintiffs are basing their case strictly on emotional appeal--the facts be damned. After the Simpson verdict, what more can we expect?

For those who applaud the possible re-distribution of Dow's wealth, think about the next time a visitor might slip and fall at your home. Be wary for whom the bell tolls. It may soon be for you.