Our laws and our leaders assume the best we can do is to measure poisons and try to reduce them to “acceptable” levels. The question is, “ How much risk is acceptable ? ” Numerical limits are set to allow precisely that amount of harm (which again and again turn out to be wrong). But Risk Analysis , the voodoo art used by state regulators to determine how much poison exposure is "safe", is based on a house of cards -- assumptions and guesses about untested health effects. The burden of proof is on victims to show harm. There are no grounds for action until dead bodies start piling up (examples: tobacco, lead in gasoline, DDT).
BETTER ALTERNATIVE: PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
There's an alternative approach to environmental decision-making that is gaining increasing acceptance in international law, in Europe and other industrialized countries, and in cities and school districts in the United States. It's called the Precautionary Principle.
The Precautionary Principle is a guiding principle for government officials, companies and citizens to use in making decisions about potentially hazardous activities. It asks a different question: “ How little damage is possible ? ” It says, “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” Read more here….
Why Risk Assessment Doesn't Protect Us [pdf]
Alternatives to Risking Our Health [pdf]
Precautionary Principle Fact Sheet [pdf]
Precautionary Principle Q&A [pdf]
PP Ordinance for Georgia Local Governments [pdf]
Good Reading [pdf]
Book: Mary O'Brien, Making Better Environmental Decisions [offsite]
Links:
- Georgia: Eco-Action [offsite]
- Science and Environmental Health Network [offsite]
If your computer cannot read pdf's, get adobe acrobat reader here.
