Junk Science Week

[Skilly]

Jun 19, 2008 10:50:06 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Think about it. Twenty years ago did you see anti-bacterial hand sanitizer everywhere? Is it because the stuff is new? No - it's just alcohol in a gel like substance. Is our lifespan that much increased for using it? Or is it because we're suddenly afraid of everything? Over medicate, over legislate, be afraid of everything, the world is coming to a gruesome gory end just around the corner.

I blame this on the pharmacy companies ... *conspiracy alert*

They put out the antibacerial soap ... people think, hey I never thought about the harmful effects of bacertia in a public washroom. and they use it, just because it is there and gets them thinking about what goes on in public washrooms. Then the people get sick, ... huh? but I was using anti-bacterial soap? Ahh yes, your body never built up any resistence to common ordinary bacteri .... and so now you are sick. Where do you go? To a doctor. What does the doctor do (who is 9 times out of 10 in cahoots with the pharmaceutical companies - ever see the adds in a doctor's office?)? He gives you anti-biotics. And the doctor's of today give them out like candy .... we build up a resistence to them and the pharmaceutical industries comes out with stronger more expensive ones ....

My little girl has been on so many anti-biotics (she is 4), that I finally told our doctor ... &^%$ off and find another way. Strange how there always is another way.....hmmm?

[franko]

Apropos to previous discussion: Forget the ‘precautionary principle.’

last paragraphs:

The precautionary principle, then, is less a modern Luddism than a fear of the unknown risk, and an irrational preference for the known risk, even if the latter is very likely greater than the former. It is the denial of what has made us the most modern and, yes, safest and healthiest society on the face of the Earth. It is fear and it is unreason. It is downright dangerous.

When do we get to apply the precautionary principle to the precautionary principle?

I'm not saying "don't worry be happy" . . . just that if you look hard and far enough you'll discover danger in everything you do. Use common sense and forget the fear mongering.

“The Hidden Chemicals in Cans,” said the headline [in the Globe and Mail] over a two-page spread that purported to report “for the first time” that canned goods in Canada — from beer to soup — contained “high levels” of Bisphenol A, the “estrogen-mimicking chemical.”

Never mind that the measured levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) were actually phenomenally low — the only thing high was the size of the headline used by the Globe to record the numbers. The 8.61 parts per billion of BPA in a can of chicken soup were made to look proportionately equivalent of two giant chunks of chicken in each can.

The article (and matching CTV coverage) was so preposterous Health Canada the next day was forced to respond: “Canned foods are safe and can continue to be part of a balanced diet,” it said in a news release. As for the Globe’s “high levels” claim, it said “the average Canadian would need to consume several hundred cans of food per day to reach the tolerable levels established by Health Canada.”

That’s a lot of soup. As the Globe’s overseer of environmental truth and accuracy, Mr. Mittelstaedt the next day reported (although only in the paper’s Toronto edition) that Health Canada said the BPA levels he had reported as high, and by implication dangerous, were “within the safe range.” Conveniently, the story did not mention the fact that to get out of the safe range, soup and beer consumers would have to consume hundreds of cans a day don't try this at home. the rest

[CrocRob]

Jun 20, 2008 8:21:47 GMT -5 franko said:

Apropos to previous discussion: Forget the ‘precautionary principle.’

last paragraphs:

The precautionary principle, then, is less a modern Luddism than a fear of the unknown risk, and an irrational preference for the known risk, even if the latter is very likely greater than the former. It is the denial of what has made us the most modern and, yes, safest and healthiest society on the face of the Earth. It is fear and it is unreason. It is downright dangerous.

When do we get to apply the precautionary principle to the precautionary principle?

I'm not saying "don't worry be happy" . . . just that if you look hard and far enough you'll discover danger in everything you do. Use common sense and forget the fear mongering.

“The Hidden Chemicals in Cans,” said the headline [in the Globe and Mail] over a two-page spread that purported to report “for the first time” that canned goods in Canada — from beer to soup — contained “high levels” of Bisphenol A, the “estrogen-mimicking chemical.”

Never mind that the measured levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) were actually phenomenally low — the only thing high was the size of the headline used by the Globe to record the numbers. The 8.61 parts per billion of BPA in a can of chicken soup were made to look proportionately equivalent of two giant chunks of chicken in each can.

The article (and matching CTV coverage) was so preposterous Health Canada the next day was forced to respond: “Canned foods are safe and can continue to be part of a balanced diet,” it said in a news release. As for the Globe’s “high levels” claim, it said “the average Canadian would need to consume several hundred cans of food per day to reach the tolerable levels established by Health Canada.”

That’s a lot of soup. As the Globe’s overseer of environmental truth and accuracy, Mr. Mittelstaedt the next day reported (although only in the paper’s Toronto edition) that Health Canada said the BPA levels he had reported as high, and by implication dangerous, were “within the safe range.” Conveniently, the story did not mention the fact that to get out of the safe range, soup and beer consumers would have to consume hundreds of cans a day don't try this at home. the rest

So that's why I have man-boobies! It's all the cans of beer! I'm switching to bottles, and calling my litigator!!

[ropoflu]

... “Precautionary principle,” according to which we should err on the side of caution when we are not absolutely certain that an action will have good results.

I find the PP definition in Krauss editorial to be somewhat on the short side, so I would suggest that those interested in the principle to go and read the associated wiki

[franko]

Hmmm . . . "Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information . . . shall not prevent the Party of import, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects, from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question."

Therefore, we can make decisions on policy we think best even if we don't know because we think best and our decisions . . . talk about a circular argument!

Not saying that caution should not be used -- in fact, I think it best to move slowly with any new technology or thought.

Just don't like the whole "we know best" philosophy -- from social policy wanks or from corporate moguls.

Of course, if we were truly risk-averse we'd still be living in caves . . . or at the very least, crowding out Europe [after the boundaries of the middle east had been pushed out]. And Gainey wouldn't have signed Kovalev.

[The New Guy]

Jun 20, 2008 9:12:39 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

... “Precautionary principle,” according to which we should err on the side of caution when we are not absolutely certain that an action will have good results.

I find the PP definition in Krauss editorial to be somewhat on the short side, so I would suggest that those interested in the principle to go and read the associated wiki

Good wiki article. Unfortunately it also points out the critical flaw with PP. It's vague to the point of uselessness. It says be careful. It doesn't say how careful. It doesn't say 'x' is a level of acceptable risk. It just says if it's too risky, don't do it. In other words, it's a junk philosophy invented to justify our often irrational fear of the unknown. Just as franko's article said. It doesn't even set reasonable guidelines. It just says 'be careful'

I think most everyone is careful. The question has never been 'should we be careful'. The question is 'how careful do we have to be'.

To step back from the general to the specific, how long do we test chemicals before we declare them safe? A year? Ten years? A generation (you mentioned concerns for the concentration in breast milk etc.)? Two? Ten? It's very easy to be careful, however what you propose borders on paranoia. Let's halt the advance of science simply because we can't be sure how it will effect our children's children. Very well then. Let us eliminate all chemicals invented in the past forty years (approximately two generations). This takes us back to the jolly old days of 1968. Mumps, Rubella and Hep B are all widespread (the Mumps vaccine just hit the market last year and we're hearing good things about it). Synthetic insulin (as in the stuff that doesn't come from pigs and what not) has just been moved to the market, having been discovered in 1966. Of course, this is just the basic stuff and diabetics (like me) are still in the dark ages with regards to insulin - there's one type of insulin, and it's not very long lasting.

Enjoying your plasma television? No you're not. Studies have just been completed on plasma televisions (2004), and a monochrome (orange, green and yellow) version is finally available (it's been finally been confirmed that its safe to be exposed to their radiation). Colour versions are still two generations off. Maybe your children's children will enjoy high-def television (LCD displays will be held for testing until 2012, but word is that they're crap too).

Transistors were just approved for use in 1987. Computer technology is consequently greatly delayed. So you're not actually reading this. You're seeing it printed in a newspaper somewhere (or watching in on your monochrome plasma television).

Cell phone? Gone. Hybrid cars? Way, way gone. Pacemakers? In their infancy (and their batteries run out real quick because Lithium Ion batteries are still restricted). Ibuprofen (Advil) has just started to be used for arthritis. The pill has been available for about eight years - which means there were no hippies, just a lot of boomer's who got pregnant at an early age (as an aside, last summer was the summer of love for the hippies in this alternate time line).

All because we couldn't be 'reasonably' sure that all these things wouldn't harm anyone. Because you had to be 'reasonably' sure.

Of course, you can fire back and say I'm not being reasonable. That'd be appropriate. I'm taking what you said to its most illogical end. The point, however, is two-fold. First, that your much vaunted PP is too vague to be useful because idiots like me can easily twist it beyond recognition. Second, that what is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to someone else. You think that because there is a very small chance you might get sick from a pesticide, it should be banned. I think that the risk is so infinitesimal that I'm going to take that chance. The difference is, your reasoning gives you license to trample over me, because my reasoning 'may' (in your mind, not in mine) hurt you.

What's worth, your fears are mostly unfounded. There's a basis sure - but it's fed by the media, and your own natural instinct to fear. There's very little evidence to support your claim, but you take that as further justification - you say because I (or the company) hasn't proven to you beyond your doubts (which are often illogical and thus less likely to be shaken) I shouldn't be allowed to use what I want.

And that's where you make your misstep, I think. You demand that everyone else agree with your degree of caution. Because it affects you. That's not fair, because in the end we'll all just wind up living in huts because that's what the most paranoid amongst us wants.

[ropoflu]

Jun 20, 2008 11:34:45 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Jun 20, 2008 9:12:39 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

... “Precautionary principle,” according to which we should err on the side of caution when we are not absolutely certain that an action will have good results.

I find the PP definition in Krauss editorial to be somewhat on the short side, so I would suggest that those interested in the principle to go and read the associated wiki

Good wiki article. Unfortunately it also points out the critical flaw with PP. It's vague to the point of uselessness. It says be careful. It doesn't say how careful. It doesn't say 'x' is a level of acceptable risk. It just says if it's too risky, don't do it. In other words, it's a junk philosophy invented to justify our often irrational fear of the unknown. Just as franko's article said. It doesn't even set reasonable guidelines. It just says 'be careful'

I think most everyone is careful. The question has never been 'should we be careful'. The question is 'how careful do we have to be'.

To step back from the general to the specific, how long do we test chemicals before we declare them safe? A year? Ten years? A generation (you mentioned concerns for the concentration in breast milk etc.)? Two? Ten? It's very easy to be careful, however what you propose borders on paranoia. Let's halt the advance of science simply because we can't be sure how it will effect our children's children. Very well then. Let us eliminate all chemicals invented in the past forty years (approximately two generations). This takes us back to the jolly old days of 1968. Mumps, Rubella and Hep B are all widespread (the Mumps vaccine just hit the market last year and we're hearing good things about it). Synthetic insulin (as in the stuff that doesn't come from pigs and what not) has just been moved to the market, having been discovered in 1966. Of course, this is just the basic stuff and diabetics (like me) are still in the dark ages with regards to insulin - there's one type of insulin, and it's not very long lasting.

Enjoying your plasma television? No you're not. Studies have just been completed on plasma televisions (2004), and a monochrome (orange, green and yellow) version is finally available (it's been finally been confirmed that its safe to be exposed to their radiation). Colour versions are still two generations off. Maybe your children's children will enjoy high-def television (LCD displays will be held for testing until 2012, but word is that they're crap too).

Transistors were just approved for use in 1987. Computer technology is consequently greatly delayed. So you're not actually reading this. You're seeing it printed in a newspaper somewhere (or watching in on your monochrome plasma television).

Cell phone? Gone. Hybrid cars? Way, way gone. Pacemakers? In their infancy (and their batteries run out real quick because Lithium Ion batteries are still restricted). Ibuprofen (Advil) has just started to be used for arthritis. The pill has been available for about eight years - which means there were no hippies, just a lot of boomer's who got pregnant at an early age (as an aside, last summer was the summer of love for the hippies in this alternate time line).

All because we couldn't be 'reasonably' sure that all these things wouldn't harm anyone. Because you had to be 'reasonably' sure.

Of course, you can fire back and say I'm not being reasonable. That'd be appropriate. I'm taking what you said to its most illogical end. The point, however, is two-fold. First, that your much vaunted PP is too vague to be useful because idiots like me can easily twist it beyond recognition. Second, that what is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to someone else. You think that because there is a very small chance you might get sick from a pesticide, it should be banned. I think that the risk is so infinitesimal that I'm going to take that chance. The difference is, your reasoning gives you license to trample over me, because my reasoning 'may' (in your mind, not in mine) hurt you.

What's worth, your fears are mostly unfounded. There's a basis sure - but it's fed by the media, and your own natural instinct to fear. There's very little evidence to support your claim, but you take that as further justification - you say because I (or the company) hasn't proven to you beyond your doubts (which are often illogical and thus less likely to be shaken) I shouldn't be allowed to use what I want.

And that's where you make your misstep, I think. You demand that everyone else agree with your degree of caution. Because it affects you. That's not fair, because in the end we'll all just wind up living in huts because that's what the most paranoid amongst us wants.

So, If I get your point, I should conclude that I am fearful, paranoid, irrational, anti-progress being. Or maybe you weren't really talking about me (if that's the case I admit that the constant use of you, yours, etc, is a bit confusing).

All because I pointed out a article that I felt was more neutral about the precautionary principle. An idea, I thought was worth discussing, mainly because it is discussed just about everywhere in the world (IE, maybe not an extremist position that we should dismiss hastily for the sake of more constructive debates).

EDIT: On second thought I realize that you are probably referring to the post where I said I wanted the precautionary principle integrated into our politics regarding chemicals and contaminants. I'm not sure if that's enough to justify the subtle appeal to ridicule I sensed in your post though.

No worries I can take it, you commit no crime and I ain't no victim. I could have gone through your post and answer it lengthily, but I don't perceived your stance as an invitation to discuss. I might be wrong, and if so, I hope you don't take offense.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Jun 18, 2008 8:49:00 GMT -5 franko said:

Today's article will have HA drooling. Sort of.

Overheated claims

Scientists advocating for action

are overselling the predictive capabilities of climate models

The famous physicist Niels Bohr is attributed with saying that “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Anyone who pays attention to weather forecasts or economic predictions knows how true this is. But given that the future can’t be predicted with perfect accuracy, seeing predictions fail is actually an important part of their usefulness. Whether one is faced with evacuating from a possible hurricane landfall or investing in a mutual fund, decision-making is improved when uncertainties are readily understood.

On the highly politicized issue of climate change, however, understanding uncertainties is made difficult when scientists advocating for action oversell the predictive capabilities of climate models, such as those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
. . .

There are good reasons for why predictions of climate models are not useful on short time periods of less than a few decades. Urs Neu, a climate scientist from Switzerland, says that climate models are not designed to tell us anything about the evolution of the climate system in the short term; rather, they “are designed to simulate the long-term behaviour as accurately as possible. Long-term behaviour means the trend over at least 20-30 years.” Similarly, two climate modelers, Claudia Tebaldi and Reto Knutti, observed in a research paper that “it is important to note that climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes. Our confidence in climate models must therefore come from other sources.”

If climate models are designed to make predictions about trends in the global climate system over several decades, then there is nothing that can be said about a model’s accuracy on time scales of less than a decade, much less one fire season, or a few heat waves, or any other transient phenomena. Consequently, any claim that recently observed weather events are “consistent with” predictions is actually quite misleading.

On a longer term, more can be said about predictive accuracy of climate model predictions. The first IPCC projections of future climate were issued in 1990, and with more than 17 years of observations since that prediction we can confidently state that the IPCC’s 1990 “best guess” overstated the global temperature increase as well as sea level rise for the subsequent two decades. But such retrospective evaluations are typically dismissed because those predictions were made using outdated models based on earlier understandings. The IPCC issues predictions for 20- to 30-year periods into the future, and updates them every 6-7 years, so in practice its current predictive capabilities can never be evaluated against real world data. As Tebaldi and Knutti observe, “climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes.”
. . .

in the debate on what to do about climate change, what are we to make of the overstated claims of predictive accuracy offered by many scientists?

Not surprisingly, the reason for overstated claims lies in the bitter and contested politics of climate change. Myanna Lahsen, an anthropologist who has studied climate modelers, finds that many of these scientists are acutely aware of the fact that any expressed “caveats, qualifications and other acknowledgements of model limitations can become fodder for the anti-environmental movement.” She documents how, more than a decade ago, a prominent climate scientist warned a group of his colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, home of one of the main U.S. climate modeling efforts that informs the IPCC, to “Choose carefully your adjectives to describe the models. Confidence or lack of confidence in the models is the deciding factor in whether or not there will be policy response on behalf of climate change.”
. . .

The reality is that the future state of the climate is uncertain, and as such it represents a type of risk management problem. In 2002 Steve Schneider, a climate scientist at Stanford University and long-time advocate for action on climate change, explained “uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes.” Combatants in the climate debate congregate around the extremes, emphasize either mild or catastrophic outcomes as is convenient and overstate the certainty of such outcomes. the whole thing

Al Gore is a magnet for idiocy like Joe Blfstix in L'il Abner.
Al Gore talks about global warming and we get the coldest winter in years.
Drought and we get rains and floods and rains in middle America.
Hurricanes have up and down cycles.
The only thing that is certain is change.
Sunspots change in 11 year cycles.
Warm wet dinosaur eras give way to glacial ice cap encrouchment.
It is absurd to think man can control tha planet. Volcanos erupt and tsunamis devistate. Rogue waves, forest fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, mudslides, plagues, locusts. Egypt suffered natural disasters long before George Bush was born.

[The New Guy]

Jun 20, 2008 12:17:29 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

So, If I get your point, I should conclude that I am fearful, paranoid, irrational, anti-progress being. Or maybe you weren't really talking about me (if that's the case I admit that the constant use of you, yours, etc, is a bit confusing).

Yes, yes (although I perhaps went a bit over the top in my rhetoric there, I will admit - paranoia is probably an unjustified term), yes, and yes but not because you're anti-progress (simply because your views make you that way). I should but in a disclaimer that when I post I tend to be very polemic. I don't mean to be offensive, I just have strong views when I have any views at all.

I have also said that being fearful and irrational is human nature. I'm fearful and irrational. We all are. It's an evolutionary thing. Denying it is just silly. As is making major decisions based upon it. Which is what you're suggesting we do. Which is what I take issue with.

Jun 20, 2008 12:17:29 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

All because I pointed out a article that I felt was more neutral about the precautionary principle. An idea, I thought was worth discussing, mainly because it is discussed just about everywhere in the world (IE, maybe not an extremist position that we should dismiss hastily for the sake of more constructive debates).

EDIT: On second thought I realize that you are probably referring to the post where I said I wanted the precautionary principle integrated into our politics regarding chemicals and contaminants. I'm not sure if that's enough to justify the subtle appeal to ridicule I sensed in your post though.

Actually is was Reductio ad Absurdum - I took your statement, and then took it to its most foolish and absurd end. I even said I was stretching it to fit my means. At least give me some credit here.

(Yes, I was referencing other posts - I apologize if I confused you).

Is it worth discussing? Sure. But the trick is - it already is being considered. Care and caution is ingrained to the human psyche. As a philosophy it's worthless - because on it's own it does/means absolutely nothing. All it does is give license to us to be afraid.

Jun 20, 2008 12:17:29 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

No worries I can take it, you commit no crime and I ain't no victim. I could have gone through your post and answer it lengthily, but I don't perceived your stance as an invitation to discuss. I might be wrong, and if so, I hope you don't take offense.

That's okay - it's your call. I am however, open to debate. If you have something redeeming about endless caution then I'll listen. But you gotta have something to give me other than thinly veiled criticism rhetoric that goes nowhere.

[ropoflu]

Jun 20, 2008 14:44:17 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Jun 20, 2008 12:17:29 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

So, If I get your point, I should conclude that I am fearful, paranoid, irrational, anti-progress being. Or maybe you weren't really talking about me (if that's the case I admit that the constant use of you, yours, etc, is a bit confusing).

Yes, yes (although I perhaps went a bit over the top in my rhetoric there, I will admit - paranoia is probably an unjustified term), yes, and yes but not because you're anti-progress (simply because your views make you that way). I should but in a disclaimer that when I post I tend to be very polemic. I don't mean to be offensive, I just have strong views when I have any views at all.

I have also said that being fearful and irrational is human nature. I'm fearful and irrational. We all are. It's an evolutionary thing. Denying it is just silly. As is making major decisions based upon it. Which is what you're suggesting we do. Which is what I take issue with.



Actually is was Reductio ad Absurdum - I took your statement, and then took it to its most foolish and absurd end. I even said I was stretching it to fit my means. At least give me some credit here.

(Yes, I was referencing other posts - I apologize if I confused you).

Is it worth discussing? Sure. But the trick is - it already is being considered. Care and caution is ingrained to the human psyche. As a philosophy it's worthless - because on it's own it does/means absolutely nothing. All it does is give license to us to be afraid.

Jun 20, 2008 12:17:29 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

No worries I can take it, you commit no crime and I ain't no victim. I could have gone through your post and answer it lengthily, but I don't perceived your stance as an invitation to discuss. I might be wrong, and if so, I hope you don't take offense.

That's okay - it's your call. I am however, open to debate. If you have something redeeming about endless caution then I'll listen. But you gotta have something to give me other than thinly veiled criticism rhetoric that goes nowhere.

Ok, I'll give it a try, but I won't be able to make it as entertaining as you do.

First, let me restate something about myself and my views. I hate fear mongering just as you do. I generally avoid mass media and editorialists for that very reason (I prefer scientific articles, grey litterature, or more in depth analysis).

I believe the precautionary principle is a interesting new approach to development and to the management of our ressources and our environment. I find it promising but not because it calms down and appease my fearful nature. It's mostly because I doubt the present ability of our governing structures (the state, the market, the public) to learn from previous mistakes, to prevent them before they occur, and to plan for the long term. That doubt or distrust is not completely irrational. It's based on my own pragmatic evaluation of recent history and my knowledge of these structures. I try to be reasonable and rational doing so, yet just like everyone, my rationality is limited.

Also, when appreciating the concept you got to remember what is: a principle, not a concrete and fixed guideline. A bit like sustainability or economic growth.

Three important points regarding the use and goal of the PP:

• Serious and irreversible damage (short or long-term)
  
• Proportionality of measures
  
• Shifting burden of proof
  

I got to go now (playing hockey tonight, yay!), but I'd like to point out a exemple of how the precautionary principle can be implemented into more tangibles management practices.

From australia : www.connectedwater.gov.au/framework/adaptive_management.html

[Cranky]

Jun 20, 2008 15:43:28 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

I believe the precautionary principle is a interesting new approach to development and to the management of our ressources and our environment.

You would because you are in the enviromental field. It's not intended as a cut but rather as an observation.

And who would you put in charge of setting standards in this field? Your cohorts. You wouldn't want anybody like me, Franko or TNG setting policy because basically, it wouldn't suit your opinion.

Jun 20, 2008 15:43:28 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

[/li][li]Shifting burden of proof

[/quote]

You want to define this? Because I was about to drive a truck through it..... LOL!

[Cranky]

Jun 20, 2008 11:34:45 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Jun 20, 2008 9:12:39 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

... “Precautionary principle,” according to which we should err on the side of caution when we are not absolutely certain that an action will have good results.

I find the PP definition in Krauss editorial to be somewhat on the short side, so I would suggest that those interested in the principle to go and read the associated wiki

Good wiki article. Unfortunately it also points out the critical flaw with PP. It's vague to the point of uselessness. It says be careful. It doesn't say how careful. It doesn't say 'x' is a level of acceptable risk. It just says if it's too risky, don't do it. In other words, it's a junk philosophy invented to justify our often irrational fear of the unknown. Just as franko's article said. It doesn't even set reasonable guidelines. It just says 'be careful'

I think most everyone is careful. The question has never been 'should we be careful'. The question is 'how careful do we have to be'.

To step back from the general to the specific, how long do we test chemicals before we declare them safe? A year? Ten years? A generation (you mentioned concerns for the concentration in breast milk etc.)? Two? Ten? It's very easy to be careful, however what you propose borders on paranoia. Let's halt the advance of science simply because we can't be sure how it will effect our children's children. Very well then. Let us eliminate all chemicals invented in the past forty years (approximately two generations). This takes us back to the jolly old days of 1968. Mumps, Rubella and Hep B are all widespread (the Mumps vaccine just hit the market last year and we're hearing good things about it). Synthetic insulin (as in the stuff that doesn't come from pigs and what not) has just been moved to the market, having been discovered in 1966. Of course, this is just the basic stuff and diabetics (like me) are still in the dark ages with regards to insulin - there's one type of insulin, and it's not very long lasting.

Enjoying your plasma television? No you're not. Studies have just been completed on plasma televisions (2004), and a monochrome (orange, green and yellow) version is finally available (it's been finally been confirmed that its safe to be exposed to their radiation). Colour versions are still two generations off. Maybe your children's children will enjoy high-def television (LCD displays will be held for testing until 2012, but word is that they're crap too).

Transistors were just approved for use in 1987. Computer technology is consequently greatly delayed. So you're not actually reading this. You're seeing it printed in a newspaper somewhere (or watching in on your monochrome plasma television).

Cell phone? Gone. Hybrid cars? Way, way gone. Pacemakers? In their infancy (and their batteries run out real quick because Lithium Ion batteries are still restricted). Ibuprofen (Advil) has just started to be used for arthritis. The pill has been available for about eight years - which means there were no hippies, just a lot of boomer's who got pregnant at an early age (as an aside, last summer was the summer of love for the hippies in this alternate time line).

All because we couldn't be 'reasonably' sure that all these things wouldn't harm anyone. Because you had to be 'reasonably' sure.

Of course, you can fire back and say I'm not being reasonable. That'd be appropriate. I'm taking what you said to its most illogical end. The point, however, is two-fold. First, that your much vaunted PP is too vague to be useful because idiots like me can easily twist it beyond recognition. Second, that what is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to someone else. You think that because there is a very small chance you might get sick from a pesticide, it should be banned. I think that the risk is so infinitesimal that I'm going to take that chance. The difference is, your reasoning gives you license to trample over me, because my reasoning 'may' (in your mind, not in mine) hurt you.

What's worth, your fears are mostly unfounded. There's a basis sure - but it's fed by the media, and your own natural instinct to fear. There's very little evidence to support your claim, but you take that as further justification - you say because I (or the company) hasn't proven to you beyond your doubts (which are often illogical and thus less likely to be shaken) I shouldn't be allowed to use what I want.

And that's where you make your misstep, I think. You demand that everyone else agree with your degree of caution. Because it affects you. That's not fair, because in the end we'll all just wind up living in huts because that's what the most paranoid amongst us wants.

TNG, I'm going to sue you for stealing my brain. LOL!

We would still be swinging from the tres if PP was built into our genes. To me, PP is nothing more then taking the nanny state to the next level.

BTW, I hope you are not drinking coffee right now because it has a few hundred compounds in it's "chemical soup". *sigh*

[ropoflu]

Jun 20, 2008 18:19:36 GMT -5 Cranky said:

Jun 20, 2008 15:43:28 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

I believe the precautionary principle is a interesting new approach to development and to the management of our ressources and our environment.

You would because you are in the enviromental field. It's not intended as a cut but rather as an observation.

And who would you put in charge of setting standards in this field? Your cohorts. You wouldn't want anybody like me, Franko or TNG setting policy because basically, it wouldn't suit your opinion.

OK. That has to stop. I won't be your poster boy eco-freak. I never attacked a poster personnally. Why do I receive that treatment? What exactly are you trying to do here?
What are you bringing to the table?

Your assuming/judging a lot and I'm asking you to "moderate" yourself, if that is possible.

You don't know me.

Adaptive management. Integrated management. Community-based collaborative. These are my fields of study. If you read about it, you'll see it has nothing to do with your polarized view of the world or with me or "my cohort" deciding what others should do. QUITE THE CONTRARY.

Shake it HA. I'm not that tree-huuging bastard who hurted you somewhere in the seventies.If you have issues with eco-fascism or leftism or communism. Take it somewhere else. I'm not your man.

[PTH]

Ropoflu, just wanted to say, thanks for fighting the good fight, but this is an awfully tough crowd on this board.


You have more guts than I do.

[Cranky]

Jun 20, 2008 20:03:39 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

Jun 20, 2008 18:19:36 GMT -5 Cranky said:

You would because you are in the enviromental field. It's not intended as a cut but rather as an observation.

And who would you put in charge of setting standards in this field? Your cohorts. You wouldn't want anybody like me, Franko or TNG setting policy because basically, it wouldn't suit your opinion.

OK. That has to stop. I won't be your poster boy eco-freak. I never attacked a poster personnally. Why do I receive that treatment? What exactly are you trying to do here?
What are you bringing to the table?

Your assuming/judging a lot and I'm asking you to "moderate" yourself, if that is possible.

You don't know me.

Adaptive management. Integrated management. Community-based collaborative. These are my fields of study. If you read about it, you'll see it has nothing to do with your polarized view of the world or with me or "my cohort" deciding what others should do. QUITE THE CONTRARY.

Shake it HA. I'm not that tree-huuging bastard who hurted you somewhere in the seventies.If you have issues with eco-fascism or leftism or communism. Take it somewhere else. I'm not your man.

What are you going on about? Attacking you? Hardly. Disagreeing with you? Absolutely.

I am a businessman and you should expect that any decisions I would make would be in the direction of what I believe. Hard, cold, weighing costs benefits. I think that is clear enough form my previous posts, actually, all my posts. You are in the enviromental field, I EXPECT that you would make decisions along the field and idealism you have written about. Ergo, my comments. It was NOT a cut in the least.

Perhaps you perceived "cohorts" as some kind of cut, well, I don't see how. To me, the word cohorts is...a group that has similar views. Franko, TNG, and some others have a similar view to me, they are cohorts. Nothing aggressive or negative there.

You shouldn't presume that I have presumed something negative of you or your views. It's presumptious of you. As much as I don't presume that you presume that I am the guy who invented Love Canal, I don't presume that you are an eco freak. (Take THAT Rumsfield!)

When you say evil company owners that destroy the enviroment, I don't bother to look behind or the mirror as much as you shouldn't bother to look behind you or assume it has something to do with you when I rant about eco-freaks.






P.S. Eco freaks....people who would rather see dead people then dead worms. People who would drive our civilization back into the caves at ANY cost just to satisfy their "love of mother earth".

P.S.S. Knock it off with the "moderator" stuff. I am not going to gurgle political correct platitudes or muzzle my opinion because you perceive a counter argument to be offensive to you.

P.S.S.S. If you think it's personal with you and me, take it to pm.

[ropoflu]

Jun 20, 2008 21:18:46 GMT -5 Cranky said:

Jun 20, 2008 20:03:39 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

OK. That has to stop. I won't be your poster boy eco-freak. I never attacked a poster personnally. Why do I receive that treatment? What exactly are you trying to do here?
What are you bringing to the table?

Your assuming/judging a lot and I'm asking you to "moderate" yourself, if that is possible.

You don't know me.

Adaptive management. Integrated management. Community-based collaborative. These are my fields of study. If you read about it, you'll see it has nothing to do with your polarized view of the world or with me or "my cohort" deciding what others should do. QUITE THE CONTRARY.

Shake it HA. I'm not that tree-huuging bastard who hurted you somewhere in the seventies.If you have issues with eco-fascism or leftism or communism. Take it somewhere else. I'm not your man.

What are you going on about? Attacking you? Hardly. Disagreeing with you? Absolutely.

I am a businessman and you should expect that any decisions I would make would be in the direction of what I believe. Hard, cold, weighing costs benefits. I think that is clear enough form my previous posts, actually, all my posts. You are in the enviromental field, I EXPECT that you would make decisions along the field and idealism you have written about. Ergo, my comments. It was NOT a cut in the least.

Perhaps you perceived "cohorts" as some kind of cut, well, I don't see how. To me, the word cohorts is...a group that has similar views. Franko, TNG, and some others have a similar view to me, they are cohorts. Nothing aggressive or negative there.

You shouldn't presume that I have presumed something negative of you or your views. It's presumptious of you. As much as I don't presume that you presume that I am the guy who invented Love Canal, I don't presume that you are an eco freak. (Take THAT Rumsfield!)

When you say evil company owners that destroy the enviroment, I don't bother to look behind or the mirror as much as you shouldn't bother to look behind you or assume it has something to do with you when I rant about eco-freaks.

P.S. Eco freaks....people who would rather see dead people then dead worms. People who would drive our civilization back into the caves at ANY cost just to satisfy their "love of mother earth".

While the world as illustrated in the medias (or in your posts from the impresssion I get) seems to be a bipolar one, the one I experience daily has nothing to do with it.

It has nothing to do with keyboard idealism either. It's pretty concrete and tangible.

I've been working with a community that is trying to save his lake for 2 years now. Not with an exclusive group of eco-freaks, but with a whole community, with the citizens, the farmers, the businessmen, the city representatives, etc.

I didn't barge in trying to tell them what to do. I merely acted as an observer for a full year and later on as a facilitator. I did surveys, individual interviews and workshops. I reviewed several others community-based collaboratives around the world trying to highlights what were the potential pitifalls and critical success factors experienced by similar endeavour.

I think I helped bringing these people together to discuss the problem and the potential solutions. But these solutions emerged and will continue to emerge from them not from me.

This year they decided to form a watershed comittee (with all type of actors involved) to pursue that dialogue, orient and monitor the actions.

Understanding the farmers point of views helped the citizens realized that these would need financial help if certain solutions were to be implemented (due to the bigger land surface, some solutions were way more costly for the farm owners). The committee is pooling resources now trying to find and apply for the different programs available at the provincial and federal levels.

The city realized that they were missing the technical knowledge to implement less damaging construction practice. Guess who helped them? The biggest businessman in the place who owns the ski station and many lands. He invited the city construction staff to a special joint formations and training sessions (on new soil erosion prevention techniques amongst others).

The city also adopted new laws and politics (regarding fertilizers usages, septical intallations conformity, etc.), but not before listening to the public positions (via the surveys and inteviews I did) and not before sharing with them the goals of the new improved regulations. That informative campaign was the fruit of the collaborative effort between the lake protection association volunteers and the city staff.

For the first time ever, the city also added to its staff someone who understands lake ecosystems. And no, despite the new measures the city didn't raises the taxes.

When thing got more complicated, the association didn't go out in the newspapers pointing out fingers when someone wasn't collaborative enough. There were no alarmism or fear mongering at the local level.

Yes there were/are some conflicts. But they are part of the processes and are managed. More importantly there is constant learning (adaptive management) and constant dialogue (integrated management) in the community effort. There is no open war or feuding camps.

You might disqualified my experience as exceptional. I don't believe so. It's quite an ordinary community with a quite ordinary lake. No sect here or especially naive people, just the same diversity we see just about everywhere in the Quebec regions.

While through the tube and from a keyboard standpoint, the world seems to be imploding with fear-fueled divisions and ideologies, the one I touch and experience everyday with my research project is made of people coming together in a very pragmatic and practical manner.

[ropoflu]

Jun 20, 2008 21:18:46 GMT -5 Cranky said:

P.S.S. Knock it off with the "moderator" stuff. I am not going to gurgle political correct platitudes or muzzle my opinion because you perceive a counter argument to be offensive to you.

Your opinion is fine and welcomed.

Your opinion on me is not.

Your opinion on me is not a counter argument, offensive to me or not.

Jun 20, 2008 21:18:46 GMT -5 Cranky said:

P.S.S.S. If you think it's personal with you and me, take it to pm.

Humm.... I admit it is very tempting, but I'll decline your offer

[Cranky]

Jun 20, 2008 22:55:08 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

While the world as illustrated in the medias (or in your posts from the impresssion I get) seems to be a bipolar one, the one I experience daily has nothing to do with it.

It has nothing to do with keyboard idealism either. It's pretty concrete and tangible.

I've been working with a community that is trying to save his lake for 2 years now. Not with an exclusive group of eco-freaks, but with a whole community, with the citizens, the farmers, the businessmen, the city representatives, etc.

I didn't barge in trying to tell them what to do. I merely acted as an observer for a full year and later on as a facilitor. I did surveys, individual interviews and workshops. I reviewed several others community-based collaboratives around the world trying to highlights what were the potential pitifalls and critical success factors experienced by similar endeavour.

I think I helped bringing these people together to discuss the problem and the potential solutions. But these solutions emerged and will continue to emerge from them not from me.

This year they decided to form a watershed comittee (with all type of actors involved) to pursue that dialogue, orient and monitor the actions.

Understanding the farmers point of views helped the citizens realized that these would need financial help if certain solutions were to be implemented (due to the bigger land surface, some solutions were way more costly for the farm owners). The committee is pooling resources now trying to find and apply for the different programs available at the provincial and federal levels.

The city realized that they were missing the technical knowledge to implement less damaging construction practice. Guess who helped them? The biggest businessman in the place who owns the ski station and many lands. He invited the city construction staff to a special joint formations and training sessions (on new soil erosion prevention techniques amongst others).

The city also adopted new laws and politics (regarding fertilizers usages, septical intallations conformity, etc.), but not before listening to the public positions (via the surveys and inteviews I did) and not before sharing with them the goals of the new improved regulations. That informative campaign was the fruit of the collaborative effort between the lake protection association volunteers and the city staff.

For the first ever, the city also added to its staff someone who understands lake ecosystems. And no, despite the new measures the city didn't raises the taxes.

When thing got more complicated, the association didn't go out in the newspapers pointing out fingers when someone wasn't collaborative enough. There were no alarmism or fear mongering at the local level.

Yes there were/are some conflicts. But they are part of the processes and are managed. More importantly there is constant learning (adaptive management) and constant dialogue (integrated management) in the community effort. There is no open war or feuding camps.

You might disqualified my experience as exceptional. I don't believe so. It's quite an ordinary community with a quite ordinary lake. No sect here or especially naive people, just the same diversity we see just about everywhere in the Quebec regions.

While through the tube and from a keyboard standpoint, the world seems to be imploding with fear-fueled divisions and ideologies, the one I touch and experience everyday with my research project is made of people coming together in a very pragmatic and practical manner.

This is an interesting post. Not because of it's content but because of it's intent. (The content IS interesting but we can talk about it later).

Ropoflu, perhaps I am misreading you but I think you are getting sensitive and defensive about what you are doing. There is NOBODY here who is criticizing you for your work. Not a single post in this thread or ANY thread "picked" on what you are doing. Trust me, as much as I am an ogre, I would of picked up on that. What you are doing is fine and honourable...and has NOTHING to do with our discussion/debate/yodeling.

Let's take a big step back...going back to my post that offended you.

You said you believed in the precautionary principle. Fine. Who is going to enact/enable/moniter that policy? Politicians? Judges? You? Me? Would you trust me to do what is "safest" for society or the most efficient thing for society? Franko who thiinks like I do? TNG? You? Who want the path of least risk? (That was the "you and your cohorts").

I did bring up that "you are in the environment field" which was a ham fisted way of saying that your opinion/outlook is pro-environment. I can see where that set you off BUT in my mind, it would be the same as you saying to me that "you are in manufacturing field" which likely define a conservative, small goverment, low taxes outlook.

Because of the nature of the medium, what is meant and what is written can be easily mistaken and misunderstood. On the internet, without the physical presence of a normal discussion, one can not correct/adjust ones communications through body language.

[PTH]

Jun 21, 2008 0:10:10 GMT -5 Cranky said:

Jun 20, 2008 22:55:08 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

While the world as illustrated in the medias (or in your posts from the impresssion I get) seems to be a bipolar one, the one I experience daily has nothing to do with it.

I did bring up that "you are in the environment field" which was a ham fisted way of saying that your opinion/outlook is pro-environment. I can see where that set you off BUT in my mind, it would be the same as you saying to me that "you are in manufacturing field" which likely define a conservative, small goverment, low taxes outlook.

I think generalising that because someone works in the environmental field you can lump him with all the others (who, as a bonus, are being called eco-nazis around here and credited with a worldwide scheme to screw us all over...) can be very badly interpreted....

After spending hours ranting about how businessmen are evil, are destroying the world and exploiting their employees just to make a quick buck and then won't take responsibility for their actions, anyone saying that someone in business is just like everyone else in business (whether a carpenter, florist or a CEO of a large manufacturing firm) would get a very cool reception... understandably so.

[Cranky]

Jun 21, 2008 6:01:33 GMT -5 PTH said:

Jun 21, 2008 0:10:10 GMT -5 Cranky said:

I did bring up that "you are in the environment field" which was a ham fisted way of saying that your opinion/outlook is pro-environment. I can see where that set you off BUT in my mind, it would be the same as you saying to me that "you are in manufacturing field" which likely define a conservative, small goverment, low taxes outlook.

I think generalising that because someone works in the environmental field you can lump him with all the others (who, as a bonus, are being called eco-nazis around here and credited with a worldwide scheme to screw us all over...) can be very badly interpreted....

After spending hours ranting about how businessmen are evil, are destroying the world and exploiting their employees just to make a quick buck and then won't take responsibility for their actions, anyone saying that someone in business is just like everyone else in business (whether a carpenter, florist or a CEO of a large manufacturing firm) would get a very cool reception... understandably so.

Anyone can intrepid anything they want, anyway they want, 50 ways to Sunday and 12 ways on Monday. I explained my "trainwreck of thought" to Ropoflu and it really is an explanation owed to him, not you.

So, are we talking about global warming, cooling or PP? Or are you just coming in from the sidelines to take little pot shots?

Let's get back to the subject on hand....


.

[ropoflu]

Jun 21, 2008 0:10:10 GMT -5 Cranky said:

This is an interesting post. Not because of it's content but because of it's intent. (The content IS interesting but we can talk about it later).

Ropoflu, perhaps I am misreading you but I think you are getting sensitive and defensive about what you are doing. There is NOBODY here who is criticizing you for your work. Not a single post in this thread or ANY thread "picked" on what you are doing. Trust me, as much as I am an ogre, I would of picked up on that. What you are doing is fine and honourable...and has NOTHING to do with our discussion/debate/yodeling.

I didn't post my story to prove anyone that I'm not an eco-freak or because I'm getting sensitive and defensive. I post it to highlight how my daily experience has little to do with the antagonizing dynamic of pro-environment vs pro-business.

Not saying it doesn't exist, to the contrary, it seems alive and well at least in the media (fueled by the elected parties, advocacy and interests groups; and by the general allergy of mass media to put forwards nuanced, moderate, balanced, unspectaculars viewpoints and perspective) and having two clowns like Dion and Harper doesn't help either (you can make it four clowns and include Layton and Duceppe).

I tried to highlight that to me, Franko's poor creature squashed in the middle of the road is mostly a virtual by-product of the media or the parliament.

In my real life context middle-of-the-roaders are owning the road. They are the silent majority I meet and work with. They are the ones taking actions and implementing changes when needed. Sure the witch-hunting deniers or the preaching green missionaries are still present but they are a minority kicking and screaming from the roadside ditches. Not saying there have not been useful, but as my community moves toward actions through a constructive and collaborative approach, these resistances heroes or eco-revolutionaires are looking more and more like irrelevant fools.

I'm not saying that the debates are over or not necessary, to the contrary. However, from my perspective they don't need to preclude/exclude actions, they are included in it. Adaptive management is a good example how this is working (please take a look at the australian example I posted earlier one)

Jun 21, 2008 0:10:10 GMT -5 Cranky said:

Let's take a big step back...going back to my post that offended you.

You said you believed in the precautionary principle. Fine. Who is going to enact/enable/moniter that policy? Politicians? Judges? You? Me? Would you trust me to do what is "safest" for society or the most efficient thing for society? Franko who thiinks like I do? TNG? You? Who want the path of least risk? (That was the "you and your cohorts").

The precautionary principle is a principle not a policy. Again please take a look at the australian example. You'll see that the proportionality aspect of it render the "the Africa would be dying if it were just for you, eco-freak earthworm lover!" argument irrelevant.

Things are changing. The primary actor that had been responsible for governing the environment for most of the post WWII period - the state - is steadily becoming less important. The State command-and-control (typically based on laws and fines) has shown its limits. You asking who will be responsible? I'll answer that exclusive reliance on a single agemcy has been part of the problem in the first place. The complexity and ubiquity of the environmental challenges need another approach and there are indeed examples everywhere that we are indeed moving toward a more integrated multi-partner type of governance.



My fieldwork is an example of that multi-partner governance. More precisely it is often referred as Integrated water ressources management (IRWM). I won't bore you to death with these concepts here. But I wanted to show that there are other (in my my far more interesting) options between the statu quo or back to the caves scenarios.

Jun 21, 2008 0:10:10 GMT -5 Cranky said:

I did bring up that "you are in the environment field" which was a ham fisted way of saying that your opinion/outlook is pro-environment. I can see where that set you off BUT in my mind, it would be the same as you saying to me that "you are in manufacturing field" which likely define a conservative, small goverment, low taxes outlook.

As you can probably imagine if you read all of the above, being pro or against environment is pretty irrelevant to me. I hope I don't come across as standing on higher moral ground or being snob or whatever. My outlook peg just don't fit either of these holes.

Jun 21, 2008 0:10:10 GMT -5 Cranky said:

Because of the nature of the medium, what is meant and what is written can be easily mistaken and misunderstood. On the internet, without the physical presence of a normal discussion, one can not correct/adjust ones communications through body language.

I couldn't agree more.

[ropoflu]

Jun 21, 2008 9:31:01 GMT -5 Cranky said:

.... Or are you just coming in from the sidelines to take little pot shots?

Not trying to stir the pot even more or defend PTH (he is a big boy. But what you are expressing here is exactly how I felt when you came in after I answered TNG post.

Jun 21, 2008 9:31:01 GMT -5 Cranky said:

I explained my "trainwreck of thought" to Ropoflu and it really is an explanation owed to him, not you.

And I thank you for it. Backing your words and thoughts and further explaning your views is what make you a respected poster in my mind. It's all to your honour (thats a French expression, not sure how it translates in English).

[Cranky]

Jun 21, 2008 9:39:41 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

In my real life context middle-of-the-roaders are owning the road. They are the silent majority I meet and work with. They are the ones taking actions and implementing changes when needed. Sure the witch-hunting deniers or the preaching green missionaries are still present but they are a minority kicking and screaming from the roadside ditches. Not saying there have not been useful, but as my community moves toward actions through a constructive and collaborative approach, these resistances heroes or eco-revolutionaires are looking more and more like irrelevant fools.

I just fell in love with you in a manly, European, no more then a cheek kiss kind of way. Shhh.....keep it our secret.

I don't have time to repond to your entire post and I also want to leave the personal things behind. Sooooo.....a couple of questions.

WHO sets the policies? What magical formula will take into account block by block, town by town, region by region varience. From my experience with communities, NOBODY agrees on the same thing and EVERYTHING will be based on the "feelings du jour".

Second thing....what is "reasonable" when it comes to something like this......a million people die from a disease every year. The ONLY cure available has the possibility of killing 10,000 people every year. Now what? Do one err on the side of caution? What if a country that did not have those problems but the company that made that is in said country. Does that country have a right to keep the solution away from those millions because it may kill?

[ropoflu]

Jun 21, 2008 10:11:33 GMT -5 Cranky said:

I just fell in love with you in a manly, European, no more then a cheek kiss kind of way. Shhh.....keep it our secret.

I don't have time to repond to your entire post and I also want to leave the personal things behind. Sooooo.....a couple of questions.

WHO sets the policies? What magical formula will take into account block by block, town by town, region by region varience. From my experience with communities, NOBODY agrees on the same thing and EVERYTHING will be based on the "feelings du jour".

As I said, the state command-and-control approach proved to be a failure over the years. Laws and regulations are still useful but they are part a bigger more encompassing and integrated governance strategy (what you call the policy/policies).

There are different scale of environmental governance. The one that is relevant to lake management is mostly local. That ensures that the solutions are developed for and by the community and adapted to their realities. Yet that doesn't prevent occasional problems (for example one powerful local group or another can managed to impose his views to the detriment of the others) and the regional and provincial level can help by supervising these collaborative efforts and providing guidelines when needed (and even by participating, as with the agriculture sector which is mostly regulated at the higher levels here in Quebec).

Who sets the policies or that governance strategy?

It can take different forms depending on the issue, but in my case the masterplan is the work of the watershed committee where the all the different interests are represented.

Data from studies (biophysical,sociological, economic data) allow that the negociation between parties to focus on facts rather than values and opinions. In a very practical manner the committee establish a common vision with concrete short-term/long-term objectives.

If you refer the graphic I posted, that planning stage would be the results of a multi-partnership between the community, the state and the market.

Now if you go down the process to the very actions that are implemented. You see all the different type of alliances were used in my case.

The technical training of just everyone involved in construction in the region was the result of a public-private partnership initiated by the latter.

The information campaign is being co-managed by the city and citizen of the lake protection association who pooled their ressources.

An example of a public-social partnership (the market-community interface) could be the local grocery putting forwards his phosphate-free products, or the promoters developing residential lots in a way that is less damaging for the lake ecosystems. Ecotourism is also big in that region so that is another way the market/community interface is acting toward lake protection. An other example of that could be via a partnerships between the farmers and the community. In many place farmers are adopting less intensive agriculture and produced much more variety for citizens who pay in advance for a portion of the harvest (I am personally buying a share of the harvest from a farm producer south of Montreal for 600$ and I receive a basket of vegetables every week) the loss of short-term productivity for the farmers is compensated revenue-wise by the lack of intermediaries. I win because I have fresher vegetable and my money stayed in the country.

Jun 21, 2008 10:11:33 GMT -5 Cranky said:

Second thing....what is "reasonable" when it comes to something like this......a million people die from a disease every year. The ONLY cure available has the possibility of killing 10,000 people every year. Now what? Do one err on the side of caution? What if a country that did not have those problems but the company that made that is in said country. Does that country have a right to keep the solution away from those millions because it may kill?

No. Of course not. Precautionarity principle doesn't preclude the use of short term solutions even if they might cause other long term problems. It uses the same cost-benefits analysis as risk management approaches and it includes a condition of Proportionality of measure : it doesn't make sense to let thousands die now to save a few in the future. I'm no expert but I don't PP would have prevent the use of DDT in Africa when it saves lives, but meanwhile an adaptive management approach would dictate that we continue to research alternatives and more optimal solutions.

[franko]

Jun 21, 2008 0:10:10 GMT -5 Cranky said:

Franko who thiinks like I do?

Well if that isn't the scariest thing ever written on this board I don't know what is!

[/quote]

That poor creature is me. As much as I'd like to believe it, the motr is not a compfortable place, because we get it from both sides . . . and our voice is often unheard or squashed. So Al Gore is heard; so are the guys from "the other side", but moderates are just ignored -- called puppets by both sides.

[The New Guy]

Jun 20, 2008 15:43:28 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

Ok, I'll give it a try, but I won't be able to make it as entertaining as you do.

First, let me restate something about myself and my views. I hate fear mongering just as you do. I generally avoid mass media and editorialists for that very reason (I prefer scientific articles, grey litterature, or more in depth analysis).

You say tomato, I say... well, I guess it doesn't work as well when you're typing it out does it. You say you're looking for something with a little less bias, I say you're looking for something with a little more bias in your direction. I guess it's an opinion thing. That doesn't mean I can't criticize it though.

(Thanks for the compliment by the way, although I believe the words you were looking for are aggressive, passion-filled and a little over the top. If you really want to get me wound up though, we should talk philosophy.)

Jun 20, 2008 15:43:28 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

I believe the precautionary principle is a interesting new approach to development and to the management of our ressources and our environment. I find it promising but not because it calms down and appease my fearful nature. It's mostly because I doubt the present ability of our governing structures (the state, the market, the public) to learn from previous mistakes, to prevent them before they occur, and to plan for the long term. That doubt or distrust is not completely irrational. It's based on my own pragmatic evaluation of recent history and my knowledge of these structures. I try to be reasonable and rational doing so, yet just like everyone, my rationality is limited.

Interesting? That's a personal matter. I won't take jabs at you because you find it interesting. I'd shudder to hear what you think of some of my interests. New? I will take issue with that. Again, it drops back to what PP is. At its root it's just being careful. And I think we all do that. Since it fails to set any objective (or even subjective) targets for degrees of safety, there's nothing that it suggests beyond what is human nature.

As for the nature of the structure of society - that's another story.

Jun 20, 2008 15:43:28 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

Also, when appreciating the concept you got to remember what is: a principle, not a concrete and fixed guideline. A bit like sustainability or economic growth.

Three important points regarding the use and goal of the PP:

• Serious and irreversible damage (short or long-term)
  
• Proportionality of measures
  
• Shifting burden of proof
  

I got to go now (playing hockey tonight, yay!), but I'd like to point out a exemple of how the precautionary principle can be implemented into more tangibles management practices.

From australia : www.connectedwater.gov.au/framework/adaptive_management.html

Okay.

But elsewhere in this thread you have proposed to use it as a guideline. You have said, and I paraphrase because I'm too lazy to go back and quote it exactly, that you do not want to see chemicals brought onto the market into common usage until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have no hazardous effects (which is difficult to impossible). That's setting guidelines, not using it as a principle.

To further previous statements I've made, it is used as a principle. Because we are all cautious to begin with.

As well, comparing it with "sustainability" or "economic growth" is a touch misleading. Both of those 'principles' have clear, precise goals. Sustainability means that we want resources that we use to be able to replenish themselves as we use them. In other words, if we want to take 10% of what's out there, we should be able to replace it. Economic growth (if I take you meaning, since that term is a bit vague) means that we want our economy to experience a slow, steady, calculable rate of growth. PP suggests that we want to be safe. Huge, huge difference.

Your example from Australia is interesting, in that it might very well be a valid application of the precautionary principle. It does a great deal to support your case. But it doesn't serve the general concept well. Australia is currently in the middle of a very heavy drought. Being overly careful with a resource that has been depleted to crisis levels is not a terrible idea. It is in fact, a good one. In that case the fear is justified. What I'm saying that in most cases where people try to apply PP (as in the above examples with chemicals) the reactionary fear is unwarranted, uncalled for, and pointless. It is in fact detrimental, because it holds us back. It slows progress. In fact, as seen way back with DDT, it even results in a tragic loss of human life.

So sure. When things go south, be careful. When it's worrying about stuff that is threatened, worry. Beyond that, no - because it just plays to our fears. It makes us afraid, and then restricts us as a result. Which makes it not only a bad philosophy, but dangerous to boot.

[ropoflu]

Jun 21, 2008 16:24:32 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Okay.

But elsewhere in this thread you have proposed to use it as a guideline. You have said, and I paraphrase because I'm too lazy to go back and quote it exactly, that you do not want to see chemicals brought onto the market into common usage until it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have no hazardous effects (which is difficult to impossible). That's setting guidelines, not using it as a principle.

I'll give you that my initial statement was a bit bold and on the loose side and your critic is certainly warranted. My position on persistent chemicals remain the same though.

Jun 21, 2008 16:24:32 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

To further previous statements I've made, it is used as a principle. Because we are all cautious to begin with.

Your right. Most of are cautious by nature, from an individual standpoint. Collectively though, that's a whole different story (take for example the depletion of many of our resources). Too often our structures failed to take into account (ie.: measure, evaluate) the risk of irreversible consequences.

Society governing processes while value-laden remain practical and quite "mechanical" when compared to the conscience/moral of on individual. I don't think adding PP to our collective processes, is like giving way to our most powerful or irrational fear like it would be for an individual. It's more like adding an extra criteria or another buffer to our governing machine.

Jun 21, 2008 16:24:32 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

As well, comparing it with "sustainability" or "economic growth" is a touch misleading. Both of those 'principles' have clear, precise goals. Sustainability means that we want resources that we use to be able to replenish themselves as we use them. In other words, if we want to take 10% of what's out there, we should be able to replace it. Economic growth (if I take you meaning, since that term is a bit vague) means that we want our economy to experience a slow, steady, calculable rate of growth. PP suggests that we want to be safe. Huge, huge difference.

I compared PP to these other concepts, because they're all value-laden. But that doesn't prevent them to serve as founding principles to highly pragmatic management practices.

Jun 21, 2008 16:24:32 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

Your example from Australia is interesting, in that it might very well be a valid application of the precautionary principle. It does a great deal to support your case. But it doesn't serve the general concept well. Australia is currently in the middle of a very heavy drought. Being overly careful with a resource that has been depleted to crisis levels is not a terrible idea. It is in fact, a good one. In that case the fear is justified. What I'm saying that in most cases where people try to apply PP (as in the above examples with chemicals) the reactionary fear is unwarranted, uncalled for, and pointless. It is in fact detrimental, because it holds us back.

See above. Not fear. Caution. In a calculated manner.

Jun 21, 2008 16:24:32 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

It slows progress.

Progress to where?

[The New Guy]

Jun 21, 2008 17:39:34 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

I'll give you that my initial statement was a bit bold and on the loose side and your critic is certainly warranted. My position on persistent chemicals remain the same though.

And that's kind of what I've been questioning. You've already admitted it was a bit bold and loose. It was the origin of the discussion, and although I've let you broaden it to include many applications of PP, we still come to the nail of it.

Why?

Why are you so afraid of so-called "persistent chemicals". Because there's an off-chance that they may do harm to future generations. Sure - I understand wanting to preserve the planet for our children. But how do you want to hand it over to them? You don't want them dying from chemicals they've been exposed to, but you probably don't want them starving because some pest has destroyed our food stores, or shivering in the cold because oil is just to expensive, or sick from some disease that is easily curable, but requires a chemical that might have some unknown drawback.

Its a lesser of two evils. Malaria or DDT? Thankfully, in North America, we don't have to make that choice. But in Africa and Asia, where malaria is rampant, and where the western world has deigned to say that "we won't send aid to you if you continue to use this 'horrible' chemical" it's a different story.

All because you (and others) are too afraid of what it might do.

(Yes, I keep hammering away with DDT. It's because its the most powerful example I can think of at this time.)

Jun 21, 2008 17:39:34 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

Your right. Most of are cautious by nature, from an individual standpoint. Collectively though, that's a whole different story (take for example the depletion of many of our resources). Too often our structures failed to take into account (ie.: measure, evaluate) the risk of irreversible consequences.

Society governing processes while value-laden remain practical and quite "mechanical" when compared to the conscience/moral of on individual. I don't think adding PP to our collective processes, is like giving way to our most powerful or irrational fear like it would be for an individual. It's more like adding an extra criteria or another buffer to our governing machine.

And now we drift off into discussions on society.

That's not a rabbit hole either of us really wants to go down I think. Because you say historically we've been too lax, and I disagree. There are some cases where we've gone overboard, some cases where our influence, coupled by other, unforeseen and (somewhat) uncontrollable stressers have caused disasters. But just as many times these disasters have occured without our hand being involved in it at all.

In any case, I go no further down this path. It's a case for another thread.

Jun 21, 2008 17:39:34 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

I compared PP to these other concepts, because they're all value-laden. But that doesn't prevent them to serve as founding principles to highly pragmatic management practices.

Honestly, I wanted to call this paragraph a copious quantity of male bovine excrement (actually I'm far too polite to say that - I just would've ignored it), but on review it is not entirely without merit. You use lots of vague words to justify your comparison - value laden, pragmatic - but the fact of the matter is the relation between PP and the other two is dicey at best. You could say just about anything is 'value laden' and, depending on your view of pragmatism, anything could be pragmatic too.

The only similarity between the three is that they lay out things in general terms, rather than prescribing specific solutions. However, it's the absence of a set end goal that invalidates PP.

Jun 21, 2008 17:39:34 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

See above. Not fear. Caution. In a calculated manner.

Again. Its a you say - I say thing. But, in my opinion, caution in a 'calculated manner' means at least numbers or thresholds. Some goal. Some desired result. Something. How can anything be 'calculated' if we don't know where we're going?

Jun 21, 2008 17:39:34 GMT -5 @ropoflu said:

Progress to where?

A healthy, happy, prosperous future for our children.