sunsettommy
05-04-2008, 08:42 AM
Depleted Cranium
Precautionary Principle: Possibly the biggest sham of our time. (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=541)
<SMALL>April 26th, 2008 </SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL>EXCERPT:</SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL>About Precautionary Principle:
Precautionary principle sounds logical: When you aren’t sure if something might cause harm, be careful and don’t do anything that could be dangerous, especially to anything really important like human lives, the environment and so on. It also seems like it would not be a new or revolutionary concept. However, Precautionary Principle is really a lot more extreme and a lot less common sense than one might think.
The term actually dates back to 1998, when The Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_Principle) was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network (http://www.sehn.org/) was issued the statement: ”
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
And with this one statement, “Precautionary Principle” became the next big thing and was totally the “in” concept for everyone in the enviro-political movement to go to workshops on and state talking about - just to show how up to date they are.
http://depletedcranium.com/beesuit.jpg
The concept was pushed as if it were somehow amazing and should be the guiding principle behind EVERYTHING. The EU formally adopted Precautionary Principle in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_Principle) as the fundamental basis of environmental policy, without really ever defining what it was or how it should be applied. Not surprisingly, San Fransisco in the US (http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14134&sid=5) has adopted the policy as well.
But there’s a problem. precautionary principle assumes that something should be considered harmful or potentially harmful until proven otherwise. Depending on your definition of “proof,” you may run into some problems here. If one goes by the principle that nothing in science is ever proven true beyond any doubt, then you automatically have a paradox where it is impossible to ever do anything on the grounds that it might possibly maybe be harmful.
MORE HERE (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=541)
</SMALL>
Precautionary Principle: Possibly the biggest sham of our time. (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=541)
<SMALL>April 26th, 2008 </SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL>EXCERPT:</SMALL>
<SMALL></SMALL>
<SMALL>About Precautionary Principle:
Precautionary principle sounds logical: When you aren’t sure if something might cause harm, be careful and don’t do anything that could be dangerous, especially to anything really important like human lives, the environment and so on. It also seems like it would not be a new or revolutionary concept. However, Precautionary Principle is really a lot more extreme and a lot less common sense than one might think.
The term actually dates back to 1998, when The Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_Principle) was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network (http://www.sehn.org/) was issued the statement: ”
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”
And with this one statement, “Precautionary Principle” became the next big thing and was totally the “in” concept for everyone in the enviro-political movement to go to workshops on and state talking about - just to show how up to date they are.
http://depletedcranium.com/beesuit.jpg
The concept was pushed as if it were somehow amazing and should be the guiding principle behind EVERYTHING. The EU formally adopted Precautionary Principle in 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_Principle) as the fundamental basis of environmental policy, without really ever defining what it was or how it should be applied. Not surprisingly, San Fransisco in the US (http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14134&sid=5) has adopted the policy as well.
But there’s a problem. precautionary principle assumes that something should be considered harmful or potentially harmful until proven otherwise. Depending on your definition of “proof,” you may run into some problems here. If one goes by the principle that nothing in science is ever proven true beyond any doubt, then you automatically have a paradox where it is impossible to ever do anything on the grounds that it might possibly maybe be harmful.
MORE HERE (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=541)
</SMALL>