Should the precautionary principle be expanded into the injury and preventative medical fields?
I B Pless from the Montreal Children's Hospital (check www.injuryprevention.com ) calls for expanding the precautionary principle into preventative medicine.
Generally, the medical field relies on epidemiology, where actual events are the basis for further study. Typically, diseases or injuries arise, and then the causes are determined and preventative measures are put in place to prevent further disease and injury. Pless comments that maybe we should be using the precautionary principle as a good public health initiative by focusing on primary prevention and a recognition that unforeseen circumstances and unwanted consequences are not unusual with human activities.
07 November 2010
05 November 2010
Now even a trip to the beach involves precautionary principle dilemna
Here in Australia, we are just starting up our summer. Give that almost all of our population lives on the coastal fringe, this inevitability means trip to the beach. Our cancer council pushes us to slip slop slap (slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen and slap on a hat) to protect from the sun.
Well now modern sunscreens use nanoparticles of titanium or zinc oxide as an active part of the protection, and there may be some uncertainty as to the safety of these particles. Does this sound familiar? New technology, benefits in one particular area, but uncertainties about future health issues, need for more research? Sounds like time to call up precautionary –principle-man to the rescue
Well this is where it gets messy. The Friends of the Earth (FoE) organisation has taken up cudgels against nanotechnology. FoE, which claims to be the largest federation of environmental organisations in the world, can be reasonably classified on the dark green side of the environmental debate. They see serious questions about health, environmental, social and political impacts associated with nanotechnology.
FoE are calling for the application of the precautionary principle to nanotechnology. They quote various governmental bodies and the avoidance of anything like a precautionary approach in the handling of nanotechnology. FoE give three reasons why the PP is out:
1. Money. The gold rush mentality associated with nanotechnology means delaying applications while further investigations and tests are carried out means those countries will fall behind in the competitive stakes to commercialise nanotechnology.
2. Ideology: All the conservative governments in the developed world are pushing back on social and environmental issues.
3. Fear: Nanotechnology pundits have seen the mess GM foods have made over social acceptance. So why start a fight when you don’t need to? Let’s get nanotechnology out there before anyone has a chance to protest and stir it up.
The possible health effects from nanoparticles follow from their extremely small size and ability to enter the bloodstream and develop cancer causing (linked?) free radicals.
Here is the FoE link, and it includes a link to nice safe sunscreens, so your day in the sun will only be spoilt by the possible sun cancer you develop from the sun’s burning UV radiation.
02 November 2010
Precautions with Sharks this Summer
It’s warming up in Australia as we move into summer. That means bouncers and beaches. (bouncers being the cricketing term for a ball that bounces up near a batsman’s head).
Already our media are in a burley induced feeding frenzy on shark attacks. A girl was saved just recently by a hero who tugged a shark’s tail while it was attacking the girl. It’s a pity he didn’t tug the Current Affairs reporter’s tail and save the girl from an interminable interview.
Of course the media are not there for a rational discussion about the risk of shark attack. You are more likely to be bitten by a New Yorker than by a shark. On average, one person has died from shark attack in Australia per year, a remarkably steady number considering our population increase of 5 million in less than 20 years. You are 80 times more likely to die in a drowning accident, 11 times more likely to die by being struck by lightning, and 3 times more likely to die from bee stings.
So I would like to apply the precautionary principle to swimming at the beach. In the face of uncertain events (shark attack), precautions should be taken to prevent the occurrence of the events:
1. Always swim with someone tastier than you. A bit of fish guts in their budgie smugglers will divert attention away from you.
2. Never swim with dogs. Scientists may claim the dog paddle actually attracts sharks, but in reality, would you prefer a mouthful of fur or a delicate human rump?
3. Swim at Cronulla. The Cronulla Sharks haven’t attacked anything for 6 seasons.
4. Don’t ask a white pointer for directions.
Stats gleaned from: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-monstrous-shark-and-other-myths-of-the-sea/?referrer=email&source=Punch_nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
Maybe the fat people will have to go back to riding a bike
The New York Times reports The Food and Drug Administration rejected another new diet pill on Thursday, a decision that sharply diminished the already scarce number of options available to overweight Americans amid the nation's obesity epidemic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/health/policy/29drug.html?emc=na
The rejected drug, called Qnexa, is the third weight loss drug to suffer a significant setback this month because of concerns about safety, as federal regulators seem to have heightened their scrutiny of diet pills that could pose risks to the heart or other organs. Last week, the F.D.A. declined to approve another new drug, lorcaserin, and earlier in the month it forced the withdrawal of Meridia from the market after 13 years, citing the risk of heart attacks and strokes for certain patients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)