Re: The Precautionary Principle

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@HOTMAIL.COM>]

>Any thoughts on this principle?

I have seen it applied to the EMF issue in Sweden. Sometimes the actions 

caused are trivial (like moving a table two meters/seven feet), sometimes 

the actions lead to unnecessary hysteria and VERY high costs (we have a case 

in Sweden where one powerline company now is threatened by av 50000 USD (500 

000 SEK) fine if they don't move a certain private house). Moving 

powerlines: Add two more zeroes for the cost! The precautionary principle is 

often misunderstood: Suppose that an exposure level of some unit is 1000 

(read microtesla) and you don't see an effect (like cancer). Next step: Take 

action to reduce 0.3 of that unit to 0.2. What happens? Non-science oriented 

people will believe that 0.2 is safer and that 0.3 is (often much) riskier. 

Then everyone talks about 0.2 as the "limit" and it becomes almost an 

established "fact" as safe vs. unsafe.



As TV a entertainment perception amplification show the focus is on 140 

nanotesla (sounds like a bacilla - invisible - can jump onto you - and do 

terrible things to your children) as high and may be even 25 may be risky. 

Make pico out of it and it can be sold to most of our political parties.



According to my opinion, the precautionary principle, if applied (I am very 

sceptical) must be very as "clearly" explained as possible in terms of 

fear/perception terms. Unfortunately it often seems like those who have a 

high brain stem/brain cortex work ("emotional divided by logic" - sorry 

about the lack of units...) ratio are those who are the least likely to 

understand reasoning of the kind "we are doing this to you because we 

understand that you are worried and we want to be nice to you". This is 

_not_clear_ to many - moving a powerline will be a "proof" that it is/was 

dangerous.



To put all this differently: If none of the Hill's nine criteria for 

cause-effect are met - I would trash the application of the precautionary 

principle ASAP. It is very different if there is a reasonable "risk" based 

on mechanisms that are more than hypothetical and therefore can be 

understood to some degree and perhaps even studied.



My personal reflections only (definitely time to sleep in Stockholm),



Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com



_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.