Howard Lovy
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2003 10:41 am Post subject: Sent to the Precautionary Principle>s Office |
 |
|
Sent to the Precautionary Principle>s Office
Jared Blumenfeld , director of San Francisco>s Department of the
Environment, gives an effective defense of the Precautionary Principle
in Monday>s San Francisco Chronicle. He urges that 'environmental
decision-making be based on rigorous science' But the alarm bells go off
for nanotech advocates when he writes: 'Unfortunately, in today>s
regulatory system, lack of proof of harm is usually misinterpreted as
proof of safety.' I>m not sure if that>s a 'misinterpretation,' or
simply the human urge to progress despite an element of risk. If we
didn>t have the instinct for taking risks, I>d be chiseling this message
on a cave wall. The full commentary is on Howard Lovy>s NanoBot:
http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_08_03_nanobot_archive.html#106012172769537072 |
|
Jerrard
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: Sent to the Precautionary Principle>s Office |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:41:23 GMT, Howard Lovy <hlovy@earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]Sent to the Precautionary Principle>s Office
Jared Blumenfeld , director of San Francisco>s Department of the
Environment, gives an effective defense of the Precautionary Principle
in Monday>s San Francisco Chronicle. He urges that 'environmental
decision-making be based on rigorous science' But the alarm bells go off
for nanotech advocates when he writes: 'Unfortunately, in today>s
regulatory system, lack of proof of harm is usually misinterpreted as
proof of safety.' I>m not sure if that>s a 'misinterpretation,' or
simply the human urge to progress despite an element of risk. If we
didn>t have the instinct for taking risks, I>d be chiseling this message
on a cave wall. The full commentary is on Howard Lovy>s NanoBot:
http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_08_03_nanobot_archive.html#106012172769537072
[/quote]
You say:
[quote]'Green chemists' are not a bunch of oxymorons
then you contradict yourself with a claim that the Precautionary[/quote]
Principle can be defended. Maybe in a Green Ideocracy - but not in a
rational society.
[quote]lack of proof of harm is usually misinterpreted as proof of safety
[/quote]
No. Lack of proof of harm is interpreted as exactly that. It is never
possible to prove safety according to the Precautionary Principle
because there will always be some possible, as yet unencountered,
scenario that might just possibly produce harm. So, according to the
Precautionary Principle humans must never again do anything to change
the environment. |
|
