I have posted two blogs about how the precautionary principle was used in fights with Telstra about mobile phone towers. Thinking it over, I may have underestimated the political nous of the Bardon residents.
In the Cheltenham case, the residents objected to a phone tower being built at a bowls club. Their method was to pressure the local council into action. The council reacted by blocking the development, which opened the door to Telstra taking the development to a court of law. In the court, Telstra was able to argue the facts of the case, present expert opinion and use the legal process to its advantage. I have distilled some of the fine Judge’s comments from the case report here
I accept the evidence of Dr Black and Mr Bangay (the expert witnesses) and find that RF EME emitted from the proposed base station will not cause any adverse biological or health effect to the general public.
In this case, the residents’ perceptions of an adverse effect on the health and safety of residents and on the environment by exposure to RF EME emitted from the proposed base station are without justification in objective, observable, likely consequences. The claimed effects are unsubstantiated and without reasonable evidentiary foundation.
The concerns expressed by the residents as to RF EME emitted from the proposed base station do not relate to intangible matters. Rather, the concerns relate to matters which are capable of measurement and testing against established standards to see whether the concerns are justified or not. Testing against the relevant Australian Standard RPS3 proves that concerns are not justified.
In these circumstances, little, if any, weight can be given to the residents’ perceptions. This has been the consistent conclusion of other courts and tribunals which have determined other cases involving unsubstantiated community perceptions of adverse effects on amenity from exposure to RF EME from a proposed development:
Community concerns are best corrected by proper application of the authoritative adopted standards, including the Australian Standard RPS3, and the provision of proper information, not by responding to unsubstantiated and unreasonable fears
Responsiveness to public fear should be complemented by a commitment to deliberation in the form of reflection and reason giving. If the public is fearful about a trivial risk, a deliberative democracy should not respond by reducing that risk. Rather, it should use its institutions to dispel public fear that is, by hypothesis, without foundation. In this way, deliberative democracies avoid the tendency of popularist systems to fall prey to public fear when it is baseless.
The full notes are available here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWLEC/2006/133.html
Given the case decision was made in March 2006, it would set a pretty nasty precedent for the Bardon protesters. I am sure they knew if they tried to take this to the Council or the law courts, they would have been kicked out. So what did they do? They took it to the court of public opinion and media spin.
Their various claims about RF energy, the health and safety of the delicate Rainsworth children and the precautionary principle have already been assessed in court and found wanting. But obviously there are plenty of people out there who do not trust or believe the science presented to them by Telstra and other RF experts, and who would be ignorant about the extensive case law concerning phone towers. Admittedly Telstra, being a phone company, does not have the most trustworthy reputation as a good corporate citizen (ever argued a phone bill with them?)
So the protesters were able to pass themselves off as the little people battling the corporate giant. The media were compliant in this, and it made good copy with plenty of protest images, sound bites and small kids. No one asked the protesters why they did not take Telstra to court, or why their site was so different to many others throughout Australia. Telstra would also have to assess the corporate bloody nose the protesters were giving them, and its impact on their retail image. In the end, Telstra blinked first.
So there you have it. Don’t argue the real science; it may have inconvenient truths. Loudly proclaim your opinion, massaged of course. Play politics. Stay on message. Keep out of fights you can’t win. If you have to fight, pick on someone slow and ugly.
Result politics 1, science 0
_____________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT - This email and any attachments may be confidential and privileged.
If received in error, please contact Thiess and delete all copies. You may not
rely on advice and documents received by email unless confirmed by a signed Thiess
letter. This restriction on reliance will not apply to the extent that the above email
communication is between parties to a contract and is authorised under that contract.
Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. Thiess'
liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments.
No comments:
Post a Comment