Re: Precautionary Principle

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

I was referring to the e-mail from Stewart Farber. 

You obviously do not recognize sarcasm.



--- Ivor Surveyor <isurveyor@vianet.net.au> wrote:

> 

> So, are you saying the Precautionary Principle is a

> joke.  Very bold of you.

> 

>  >>>>>>>

> I do not consider the so-called "Precautionary

> Principle" as a joke.  It is 

> far too seductive for that.  In its simplicity, it

> appears to make sense. 

> Of course we can not take "risks", who in his right

> mind would take a 

> risk.  Let us avoid any "risk" no matter what the

> cost.   Radiation is 

> clearly a terrible risk.    No medical x-ray or

> nuclear medicine study for 

> instance, better to consult a witch doctor, and then

>  to perish naturally 

> from an otherwise diagnosable and  treatable

> illness.

> 

> The precautionary principle makes the following

> behaviour settings for the 

> Neyman-Pearson rules:.

>     * Decide the direction of difference,  for

> instance more cancer in an 

> irradiated group and allow this difference to be as

> small as believable.

>     * Let there be as many false positive (type 1

> error) results as 

> possible.  All technology is bad and all cancer

> scares are great for 

> turning people away from any technology in general.

>     * Minimize the chance of a type2 error, there

> must be no false negative 

> results.

>     * Do not care about sample size or variation

> within groups as long as 

> we obtain the required result.

>     * Cost and/or  expenses associated with a

> decision should be 

> ignored.  The important point is that no private

> company should be allowed 

> to make a profit at  the expense of the public good

> - as we have determined 

> it.

>     * If a worker is displaced by the precautionary

> principle, no 

> problem.  There are always a plethora of other

> available jobs in "green 

> industries."

> As an (off topic) example, imagine a trial for rape.

>  The victim may want a 

> conviction, so would not be too upset with a false

> positive DNA 

> result.  The perpetrator on the other hand would

> probably settle for a 

> false negative. What of justice or truth?  That

> depends on the degree of 

> match set by the court between the sample and

> accused's DNA

> 

> In summary, the precautionary principle is little

> more then a series of 

> arbitrary criteria applied capriciously to imply

> that a particular 

> political decision has a reasoned basis. In reality

> the principle  is 

> pseudo-science.

> Ivor Surveyor  [isurveyor@vianet.net.au] 





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Thomas Jefferson



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

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

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. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/