Do health systems need the precautionary principle

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.

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.

http://nano.foe.org.au/node/186

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.

The precautionary principle is out there, making sure obese people have a smaller chance of heart disease from diet pills, but then again increasing the chance of heart disease through obesity.

It seems doctors in the USA prefer the old ways of losing weight , so rather than popping a pill, get on your bike.

Murray-Darling Basin bogs down on hidden precautionary principle

The Sydney Morning Herald reported today (27 October 2010) on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan getting tied up in legal wrangling.  And guess what has caused the wrangling?  Yes, our little friend the precautionary principle.  But just like a NSW Labour right numbers man, you have to look for the invisible hand.

Link here: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/basin-plan-gets-bogged-down-in-legal-wrangling-20101026-172eq.html

Federal Water Minister, Tony Burke, wants to reassure angry farmers he can give social and economic factors equal weighting with environmental imperatives when formulating a new water plan for the Murray-Darling Basin.

However constitutional lawyer and University of NSW law professor George Williams said the advice, released by the minister yesterday, actually confirms that the water plan has to ''faithfully implement'' the international environmental conventions upon which the 2007 Water Act is based.

''It says they have to give primacy to the environment and then they can give consideration to social and environmental effects,'' Professor Williams said.

Advertisement: Story continues below

''If the plan does anything else, if it is incompatible with the environmental conventions, then it will be unconstitutional, because it is the conventions that the Howard government relied upon to get constitutional power for the Water Act.''

The The Water Act is based on the convention on biological diversity.  It is an international legally binding treaty that entered into force on 29 December 1993.  Here's the wiki link: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Biological_Diversity

The precautionary Principle is mentioned in the Preamble to the Convention on Biological Diversity. link: http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles.shtml?a=cbd-00 , but not by name (cunning little principle)

It seems Mr Burke intends to use a weak version of the principle, and Professor Williams the strong version (see my previous post about the differences).  The weak version allows other factors outside of the purely environmental, while Mr Williams Wants the environment to be the overriding concern.

The pity is that the time and cost spent in legal wrangling and spin doctoring could pay for some serious scientific horsepower to really investigate the Murray-Darling basin problems.

Deep Green Precautionary Principle

Greens bid to ban pesticide in Tasmania

Tim Morris is the Greens water spokesman in Tasmania.  He has released a press statement (see above) about the use of the pesticide Atrazine.  Again we see the precautionary principle being used in its deep green strong hue.

He quotes a recent study titled Atrazine reduces reproduction in Fathead Minow undertaken by the United States Geological Survey.


The study's principle author’s Donald E Tillett concludes: 

"the reproductive effects observed in this study warrant further investigation and evaluation of the potential risks posed by atrazine, particularly in wild populations of fish from streams in agricultural areas with high use of this herbicide".

Morris claims there have been over 139 reported contamination detections of atrazine in Tasmania including the contamination of ground water supplies however under the current self regulatory system none of the atrazine contamination events are illegal.

Morris called on The Tasmanian parliament to enact the precautionary principle and ban triazines in Tasmania in the interests of protection both human and environmental health.

This is a classic strong PP application:  Uncertainty, action to be taken, exclusive of any other information about the benefits of triazine herbicides in agriculture and a call for a ban.

How do you take your Precautionary Principle: Weak or Strong?

The precautionary principle comes in two main flavours; weak and strong.

The Weak PP is the least restrictive and allows preventive measures to be taken in the face of uncertainty, but does not require them.  The requirement to justify the need for action generally falls on those advocating action.

The Strong PP requires precautionary measures.  It is a strong form of "polluter pays", with the responsible party liable for the environmental harm. The burden of proof shifts to those proposing the activity that it will not cause significant harm.  The public will not accept any risk, no matter what economic or social benefits may arise.

Weak:

• Pragmatic
• Take action especially if the costs are moderate
• Costs and benefits assessed
• Inclusive
• Proof on protester
• Politically correct

Strong

• Fundamentalist
• Take action no matter what the costs
• Exclusive
• Proof on developer
• Outright bans

The Queensland gas development mentioned in my earlier post is a graphic demonstration of the weak PP in action.  The costs and benefits of the gas development (jobs, gas sales, investment v water pollution, toxic chemicals) were weighed, and the government agreed to the proposal.

Risks - the long term more difficult to see

Every now and then, you hear someone say something you have been wrestling with so well it just crystallises.  Well, David Spiegelhalter was interviewed by Robyn Williams on ABC Radio National (see link below)  about risks.  David is the Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge, so would know a lot about risk, but importantly can explain it.

I could try and summarise the whole interview, but it is better (and easier for me) to let his words say it:


"So saying, I think you could say that there has been in this country (and I'm sure in many other places) far too much of a concentration on trying to say, well, something bad has happened, we've got to stop it ever happening again. And this of course is nonsense. Things will always happen, bad things will happen, but there comes a point when actually it's not worth doing any more because the harms of trying to reduce that risk might easily outweigh the benefits. And the natural area of this of course is in terms of child safety. There comes a point where we must say that we can't protect our children from everything bad that might happen to them, and sadly this means that on occasions, very rarely, a bad thing will happen to a child.

On the other side of that of course is that if you do try to protect them too much, what other harms are you doing to them in terms of reducing their feeling of adventure, the possibility of learning from failures, of essentially being able to pick themselves up and start again when things go wrong? We can't protect people and actually it's not doing them any good to try to protect them too much."

He has said in two paragraphs basically what I had been bumbling over in my fat kids should ride bikes without helmets post.

We can and should take precautions, but the blind application of the precautionary principle to risky situations can and will have repercussions


http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/3044567.htm

Precautionary Pesticide Politics

Another interesting post from one of my favourite blog sites, Freakonomics at the New York Times:


http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com

This entry discusses the politics of pesticides.  The issue of pesticides is a happy hunting ground for the precautionary principle.  Think DDT, 2-4-5T, Tordon and any number of other chemicals used in agriculture, and how the precautionary was not applied, which lead to environmental damage, or where the PP was applied and the chemical was withdrawn from use.

The blog discusses the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) in California which received a grant to "correct misconceptions that some produce items contain excessive amounts of pesticide residues".  Two organisations, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) protested the AFF getting any money, saying the grant supported conventional agribusiness.

The AFF were trying to put the science forward in pesticide use that exposure to residuals is not the same as exposure to toxins.  Yes, there are traces of pesticide, but not in any significant amount, and certainly not enough to cause health problems.  The opposition EWG regularly publishes a dirty dozen of produce that is contaminated, with the aim of lowering pesticide consumption by avoiding comsumption (You can lower it by 4/5 by avoiding the dirty dozen!)

Here we see our happy little principle at work.  It makes sense that if you take the precaution of not eating contaminated foods, you should be healthier.  But typically, the PP skews the overall result.  The AFF contends that by publicising the dirty dozen, the EWG frightens people off eating fruit and vegetables, and so damages health much more directly by a poor diet.  So, do you want to take a very slight risk that you may develop "cancer" and "brain and nervous system toxicity" from the pesticides; or do you want to run the very real risk of a poor diet on your overall health?

The partner in crime with the EWG, the Organic Consumers Association, have an obvious interest in arguing with the AFF.  Organic produce is nominally twice as expensive as normal produce, but has doubtful claims to better nutrition.  Organic produce also is chock full of pesticides - but of the natural kind.  Are these natural pesticides any better or worse than the man made ones?  Are they any more toxic to us?

So we have uncertainties, political agendas, bad science and spin doctoring all fermenting away in the minds of people wondering whether blueberries and spinach are good for you.  Take a tip - the spinach is never any good.



Web reference
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/pesticide-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+FreakonomicsBlog+(Freakonomics+Blog)

Queensland Coal Seal Gas Project gets go-ahead. Precautionary Principle figures in decision

THE federal government has given the go-ahead to Queensland's $30 billion coal seam gas industry, but with tight conditions imposed on the two major projects.  Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke issued a statement today in which he said that there would be 300 conditions placed on project proponents.  South Australia-based Santos, which is in partnership with Malaysia-based Petronas, and British Gas, which took over local company Queensland Gas, are both proposing refineries at Gladstone in central Queensland with an investment of about $15 billion each.  “I have decided that these projects can go ahead without unacceptable impacts on matters protected under national environmental law,” Mr Burke said.  “We must protect the Great Artesian Basin, our threatened species, our waterways and the Great Barrier Reef,” Mr Burke said.  “Today's announcement involves more than 300 conditions which provide these environmental protections and allow the jobs and investment in Queensland to go ahead.”

 

The Queensland government has ruled out a moratorium on the industry, which environmentalists say poses a threat to marine life on the Great Barrier Reef and underground water, and could seriously degrade land.  Mr Burke said one of the more critical conditions surrounded how to deal with the issue of water within coal seams. “There has been a concern as to whether or not there would be an issue of backfill from the Great Artesian Basin. “The report from Geoscience Australia made clear that they recommended a precautionary approach on this because for individual projects they viewed it as very limited in terms of danger,” he said.

Here is the link to the Australian newspaper web site: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/major-queensland-coal-seam-gas-projects-receive-conditional-approval/story-e6frg9df-1225942370463

Earlier, an ABC report said:

 

Friends of the Earth spokesman Drew Hutton says the environmental cost is too great and Mr Burke should say no.  Hutton hopes the Federal Government knocks back two liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects in Queensland in the same way it rejected the Traveston Crossing dam proposal.  Mr Hutton says the Government has assessed the projects under the same environmental legislation that rejected the dam plan.  "The Traveston decision was one example where the Federal Government did act responsibly," he said.  "It did take on board all of the considerations and it made a decision that really got the State Government - which was acting irresponsibly - out of hot water.  "I hope they do the same again."

Farm lobby group AgForce wants a moratorium on coal seam gas exploration.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/10/22/3045208.htm

 

The farmers’ lobby group Agforce and Friends of the Earth are curious bedfellows in both opposing the gas projects.  Normally they are in the opposing corners of the environmental boxing ring, with Agforce wearing the deep blue of conservative farmers, and Friends of the Earth a deep green persuasion.  Queensland Council of Unions secretary Ron Monaghan said the projects had the support of unions if health and community issues were addressed.  "They have to hasten slowly if there's issues of health for the community. It's legitimate for society to look at it (health issues) but it's also legitimate to support more than 10,000 jobs and the development of new industry in Queensland."

_____________________________________________________________________

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.

 

Fighting Mobile Phone Towers: How to win.

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.

 

Telstra won in Cheltenham, but Rainworth is holding out

In my earlier post I discussed the case of Telstra v Hornsby Shire Council, where a council blocked a Telstra mobile phone tower, only to be overturned in the NSW Land Court.  Well Telstra has a fight on its hands in Bardon in Brisbane over a plan to upgrade an existing mobile phone tower near the Rainworth State School in the suburb of Bardon.  The fight started when Telstra notified locals in September 2009 about the plans, as they are required to do by law.


Bardon is a leafy well off middle class conservative suburb to the west of Brisbane CBD.  A tower has been in the area for some fifteen years and was to be moved.  The proposed tower is some 170 m from the Rainworth State School, and is in a residential area, but the existing tower was closer to the school.



The difference here is that Bardon has run an extremely well organised and vocal protest against the tower and Telstra.  Check out the web site in the link.  They have also been effective in getting heard above the other noise in the various media including TV news, radio and the Courier Mail and local throw over your fence free paper.  The fight is very much in the public arena.  Claims of the protest group using children for the TV cameras were raised by Telstra.


http://www.notowersnearschools.com/index.html


Telstra have done all the usual EMF measurements in the area, and again the main contributor is broadcast radio and TV, not mobile phones (Broadcast signals at the school were 18 times higher than the close by mobile signal).  To further complicate things, there already is a tower, but Telstra lost the lease and has to relocate.  Their current solution is to use multiple stations mounted throughout the suburb rather than a single tower, but the single tower is the preferred solution.

But is there anything different in the science associated with the proposal?  Not really.  The protest group would be more honest in claiming NIMBY rights, and effects on the resale value of their tree lined streets than trotting out the usual scare propaganda about RF fields and catastrophic health effects on their poor suffering schoolchildren.  The local member, the now dispossessed Michael Johnson, made a speech in parliament outlining his ignorance of the RF issues.  

I wonder just how many of the little dears and their teachers and teachers aides at the school actually have mobile phones?  The science shows that the field from a phone in use is at least 50 to 100 times stronger than the tower signal.  Does the Rainworth school have a Faraday cage where all students and visitors are required to leave their mobiles so as not to irradiate their fellow schoolmates?   One wonders what the carnage would be if the canteen used a microwave oven to heat the lunchtime pies.

My favourite precautionary principle was again trotted out.  The protesters claim  "This code recommends that the Australian telecommunications industry use the precautionary approach. So far this has not been done."

One wonders if the scientific approach is taught at the Rainworth State School.  Might be time for a few parents to sit in class if they do teach the course.


Here is the Telstra FAQ link.
http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/download/document/bardon-faqs.pdf

The Precautionary Principle and Australian Case Law Telstra phone towers

The case of Telstra v Hornsby Shire Council is an excellent case of the legal application of the precautionary principle in the law.  The link to the case notes is below.  It is actually an interesting read as it thoroughly discusses the application of many environmental principles in the case.  Judge Preston has done a good job.

The case involved an appeal to the NSW Land and Environment Court.  Telstra planned to install a mobile phone antenna at the Cheltenham Recreation Club and negotiated an agreement with the club to lease space.  The Hornsby Shire Council and concerned Cheltenham residents objected to the proposal and the Council refused the development application.  Telstra appealed to the Court to overturn the decision.

The court appointed an expert in radio frequency electromagnetic energy, Dr Black, and Telstra had two other expert engineers to support their case.  The council and residents did not contest the experts and did not offer their own.

One of the claims by the residents was concern about RF energy, and that - guess what - the PP should be applied.  The claim was that there was a large degree of uncertainty concerning the health risks of RF energy and so installations should be limited.  Another claim is that the technology is too new for the effects to be known until much later.  Another resident must have googled RFI and claimed twp applications of the PP.  The first was that adverse health effects of RF energy were inconclusive, and a considerable body of knowledge suggested a precautionary approach be taken.  The second was that the communications industry requires mobile carriers to demonstrate they have taken a precautionary approach.

In reply, the Telstra experts gave an interesting run down on mobile phone technology (ok I'm an engineer so it was interesting to me). They also covered RF energy.  Interesting the main source of RF energy is not your mobile phone, but FM radio ( those classic hits stations have more than their playlists to damage your brain!) with 0.005%, AM radio with 0.00135% and then TV 0.0003%.

The Telstra experts were about to show that the RFI emissions were well below applicable standards and "so would not cause any adverse biological or health effect to the General Public".

The judge was not about to take on the appropriateness of "such an authoritative and scientifically credible standard as Australian Standard RPS3".  In fact RPS3 requires mobile carriers to take precautionary measures to minimise unnecessary or incidental RF exposure provided this can be done at reasonable expense, which Telstra claimed it would do.

Judge Preston then goes in some depth about the legal application of ESD and the PP, but with remarkable clarity.  He discusses the thresholds to the application of the PP: serious or irreversible damage and scientific uncertainty to the damage.  He then discusses the shift of the burden of proof once these thresholds are met; the burden is now on the proponent to prove the threat is insignificant.

The judge then applies the precautionary principle to the case, and found no threat of serious or irreversible damage could be satisfied.  There was no basis for the PP to apply here.  He found that the precautionary approach already taken in the standard RPS3 and the design would prevent any threat.

There were other issues with the visual amenity, hertiage and the safety of RF energy, but the judge was not moved by the residents' claims and ruled for Telstra.

The case is well worth reading as an example of the legal application of the PP.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lecjudgments/2006nswlec.nsf/c45212a2bef99be4ca256736001f37bd/fdf89ace6e00928bca25713800832056?OpenDocument

Brisbane's new bike hire and how helmet laws won't help it

Brisbane has a bright new shiny bicycle hire system in place throughout the city and inner suburbs.  For a reasonable cost, you can hire a bike and ride it point to point through the CBD and inner suburbs.  The bikes look like they are based on the adage "there's no such thing as a speed bump in a hire car".  The bikes look as stodgy and unbreakable as Russian tanks, and move with the speed of cold treacle.  High speed manoeuvres are but a dream on these oxen of the bicycle world.


However, you must wear helmets or wear a $100 fine.  Somehow, cyclists in those traffic mad cities of Paris and Rome are able to go bare headed, but Brisbane must be a disaster area for cyclists.  Associate Professor Chris Rissel from University of Sydney's School of Public Health has called to scrap bike helmets.  He says forcing people to wear bike helmets is hurting our health because fewer people want to ride. (sound familiar?)  Dr Rissel says policy makers should consider the health and environmental benefits of more people cycling, and work to remove the many barriers to riding a bike.


It also counts against the bike hire scheme, as you will have to find a helmet before you ride.  Share a helmet anyone?  


The original precaution of wearing a helmet is now causing problems where it is probably not needed.
  

More on the Peltzman Effect. Gridiron helmets and how they contribute to head injury

My earlier post discussed the Peltzman effect, where people react to increased safety by taking greater risks.  The NY Times Freakonomics blog on 5 February 2010 had an interesting article about what happens to a head inside a gridiron helmet after a nasty hit.

Modern gridiron helmets have led to a significant decline in fatal head injuries in the actual sport.  But helmets built to prevent death may actually be worse for concussion prevention.  Modern helmets have allowed tacklers to use them as offensive weapons with little regard to safety.  Concussion is now a major issue with both the NFL, college and high school games.  The long term effects of concussion include dementia and mental disorders and NFL players are at higher risk than the general population to these diseases.  Comparatively to rugby and Australian rules, dementia rates for gridiron players (and soccer players probably from headers) are much higher.

Here again is the precautionary principle skewing the precaution.  Its also a case of the PP not being applied.  Unfortunately for gridiron players, the NFL and NCAA have not reacted to a real risk (concussion) by implementing preventative measures (new rules, better helmets).

Peltzman Effect: Negative effect of taking precautions

“The Peltzman Effect is the hypothesized tendency of people to react to a safety regulation by increasing other risky behavior, offsetting some or all of the benefit of the regulation”. Named after Dr. Sam Peltzman, a renowned professor of economics from the University of Chicago Business School, it is a theory he has been espousing since 1975. Dr. Peltzman’s early research dealt with regulatory laws and traffic safety. He and some fellow economists have expanded this theory into other areas of safety. The main premise is that safety regulations may have unintended consequences that counteract the purpose of the rule.

The Peltzman Effect is typified by drivers who take greater risks when driving unsafely.  Their cars have more safety features like ABS and air bags, or they are forced to wear seat belts and so they offset the safety advantages by bad driving.

Can we see this reflected in bicycle helmet rules, ostensibly brought in as a precaution against head injury.  Personally, a bike helmet never affected the way I rode a bike.

Could the PP as applied to GM crops reflect the Peltzman Effect?  The original thinking was to ban GM crops to prevent a biological catastrophe if the GM crops interfered with natural organisms.  But by banning the GM crops, are we taking extra environmental risks by pushing industrial agriculture further with tougher pesticides, more land and greater water needs that may be worse than the risks of GM crops?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect and http://www.asse.org/academicsjournal/archive/vol4no3/docs/fall07-feature02.pdf

The Precautionary Principle switches sides to the Military Industrial Complex

Benjamin H Friedman claims US defense policymakers have adopted the precautionary principle in his paper "The Terrible 'Ifs'".

The USA spends huge amounts on defence against uncertain threats unlikely to affect Americans.  War can be considered a type of risk or uncertainty. The PP applies in two ways:

1. American national security policy is precautionary (as are most countries) and so suffers from the application of the PP as in any other area.
2. PP reasoning advanced to defend security hides political motives as in many other policy areas.

Security interests are interwoven with politics, and so are more uncertain than say environmental risks with their basis in physical sciences.  However, the dangers in security can be catastrophic and sudden, and do require preventative actions which is why countries spend significantly on defence budgets.  But can the costs be ignored?

American governments have depicted a world of uncertainty, danger and terrorist threats that require expensive preventative measures.  Unexplained and ambiguous threats makes it harder to deal in risks and probabilities, and makes comparisons over costs more difficult.

But statistically, the world is a better place.  The cold war is over, rogue states are reined in.  Communism has moved towards capitalism.  Being safer, should we spend less on defence?

Psychologically, catastrophes like 911 figure in people's minds more than simple tragedies like road deaths, so spending to prevent the big ticket catastrophes is expected.  In environmental and other areas of PP interest, both sides of the argument are able to debate.  However in security, the government holds all the cards; they hold the information that is not open to outside view, and they also know the politics is in preaching danger.  On the other side, there is no other side as former defence secretary Les Alpin said.

While Friedman writes about the USA, the lesson applies to Australia.  Who can forget the Howard government's use of the terrorist and refugee menace to ramp up security concerns.    Even through there are two party political systems in both Australia and the USA,  politics for both parties are driven by the electorate to inflate threats, be it law and order or national security.

The security "industry" made up of security agencies, think tanks, military forces, arms suppliers and lobbyists are all driven by the financial rewards of ramping up insecurities and uncertainties in the population.  There is nothing to be made by proclaiming a lessening of danger.  The ability of applying cost benefit analysis and risk assessment to the expenditures is clouded in claims of lessening our security.

A crude comparison can be made between the military industrial complex and the deep green environmental movement in their application of the PP.  Both apply their version of the strong PP. Neither can be questioned over the appropriateness of large expenditures on uncertain possibly catastrophic events.  Action must be taken to prevent improbable risks.

Who would have thought two diametrically opposed groups would cohabit under the PP roof?


http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n4/v30n4-1.pdf

GM Crops - The Ideological Battleground for the Precautionary Principle

In the blue corner, Monsanto and the WTO.  In the red corner, the EU.  The battle for GM crops has always been about the precautionary principle.  


A government-appointed committee of scientists, farmers, politicians and non-governmental organizations had examined MON 810, a maize developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto and issued a report in early January 2008.

"The committee cannot say anything but that there are serious doubts on the use of MON 810," the head of the committee, senator Jean-Francois Legrand, told a joint news conference with French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Tuesday that if the experts expressed "serious doubts" over GMO use, he would use a safeguard clause which allows European Union members to refrain from applying EU laws on the basis they may put the population at risk. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL09337620080109

Later in January 2008, French president Nicolas Sarkozy took a stand against biotech giant Monsanto and banned the GM maize which has previously been grown by French farmers. 

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/gm/france-bans-monsantos-gm-maize-20080115

Earlier in 2007, Sarkozy had promised to review GM crops as part of his Green France Plan http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7062577.stm

The action in banning the GM crops leaves him open to a trade war with the USA.  The WTO does not operate on uncertainty; it operates on risk.  Hence, banning an agricultural product because of a perceived uncertainty is in breach of trade protocols.

See my earlier post on Monsanto's view on the PP and GM crops.

Monsanto's View on the Precautionary Principle and GM Crops

In an interesting reversal on the precautionary principle, Indur Goklany argues that rather than the PP being used to prevent the introduction of GM crops, it should be used to promote the introduction of such crops. 

He claims that the assessment of risk is subjective, and different individuals and governments will have differing views of acceptable risks.  He points out that in assessing the risks of GM crops, you must also assess the risks of "something else".  Something else will be conventional agriculture in the foreseeable future.  Goklany states that while there are new risks associated with GM agriculture, there are existing risks with conventional agriculture.

He argues for a framework that will compare and rank the various positive and negative consequences of GM versus conventional agriculture, based on their characteristics, including the degree of certainty.  If we are to use the PP, then it should be used to select the one that reduces the overall risks the most.

He concludes that "the PP would require the use of GM crops, provided due caution is exercised.  This result contradicts conventional environmental wisdom."  The advantages in GM crops is being able to increase quantity and quality of food supplies faster than conventional crops. 

Goklany also argues that the greatest threat to biodiversity is not GM crops, but agriculture.  Agriculture will need additional land and water to be converted over to agriculture, which would be lessened if GM crops were used.

Although the link below is from a Monsanto website, the original book, "The Precautionary Principle - A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk and Assessment" is published by the Cato Institute.  The Cato Institute goes under the banner:

The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank — dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.  It is understandable that the PP would attract the ire of small government supporters.

http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=6028

Lunatic Fringe at it again. Transcendors here to save us

Shiny Objects over the Big Apple brought New York to a standstill around the 13th of October.  While the chatter was all about UFOs, the objects were thought to be balloons.

But a retired air force officer Stanley A. Fulham predicted a fleet of UFOs would visit us, being the first in a series of visits to alerts us to the impending catastrophe of levels of CO2 in our atmosphere.  The UFOs knew they would cause panic on Earth if they contacted us because of their experience on other planets (and possibly watching ET or Close Encounters of a 3rd Kind).  Fulham has been in contact with the Transcendor, who have revealed "crucial information about urgent global challenges facing mankind".

Well with the Transcendors here to help, who needs the Precautionary Principle?  Maybe I can leave the blog here, as all will soon be revealed, and studying at uni will be pointless.  Or maybe not.  I'll continue my blogging as a precaution against an uncertainty (Transcendors may not solve it all) that may have catastrophic results (I fail this subject).

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertainment/weird/ufo-panic-that-stopped-the-big-apple/story-e6frep26-1225939090802?referrer=email&source=CM_email_nl&emcmp=CM&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

A More straight forward definition of the Precautionary Principle

This definition comes form the ABC science web site glossary :

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/consconf/glossary.htm

This is probably the neatest most concise description I have found.

Precautionary Principle - The key principle of ecologically sustainable development. It basically states that in situations where there is lack of scientific certainty and possibility of serious or irreversible damage to the environment (both of which apply to gene technology), we should recognise this uncertainty; assess the possible impacts and our options; and put in place now whatever measures we can to avoid possible damage. We should not wait for clear scientific proof of harm.

Precautionary Principle: Environmental version of "have you stopped beating your wife"

We have all heard of the old entrapment question "have you stopped beating your wife ?"  Any answer makes you wife beater.  Do some in the environment movement use the PP in the same way?  If you are asked if you have followed precautionary principles in your new medicine/development/mobile phone tower/mine/factory/pesticide, how do you answer?  If you have followed the PP, then your idea must be stopped because it could cause some harm at some time.  Alternatively, you ignore the PP, then you are a narrow minded idiot hell bent on global destruction.

Ken Cussen discusses the precautionary principle on an ABC Radio National Counterpoint program.  (Podcast below). Ken Cussen is concerned that rational argument is too often shut down when the words precautionary principle or sustainability are used. He argues that at heart it's just cost-benefit analysis that ignores the benefits.

HE describes in the podcast how hard it is to maintain progress when someone throws the PP up as an argument against you.  He highlights the issue using the example of penicillin, and how in today's climate, the lifesaving benefits of penicillin would be offset against the allergic reaction suffered by some people.  Yes, penicillin does cause harm in some people, but it will and has saved many many more lives.  Clearly, the PP is not the appropriate device to assess the benefits of penicillin.

Podcast: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2774914.htm

Paper:http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=286786728439111;res=IELHSS

Another take on the Precautionary Principle and Pandemics

Refer: http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/quaderni/454.pdf

This article was written by two Italian academics in 2005, ostensibly about the failure of the precautionary principle with respect to the possible pandemic of avian flu.

Admittedly, I can sound knowledgeable writing about their paper in 2010, when the dread of a flu jumping from chooks to humans has passed, but in 2004 this must have been scary indeed.

The thrust of their article is that the world governments should have taken the precaution of investing heavily in the production of Tamiflu vaccine so that when or if the pandemic came, there would be sufficient doses to protect the general population.

When they wrote their paper, there was indeed much uncertainty about how the avian flu would unfold, and the possibility of a catastrophe, both in medical terms (loss of life) and economic terms (collapse of international travel, tourism, destruction of birds).  This is classic precautionary principle: uncertainty of a future event, and the threat of a serious damage, so cost effective measures need to be taken without delay.

Their measures included taking the commercial risk for avian flu vaccines from pharmaceutical companies and passing it on to governments, so the big pharmas would take steps to produce adequate vaccines in the face of a possible pandemic.  Interestingly, the authors seem to think big pharma will play ball with costs, won't abuse their position and won't go for super profits underwritten by the world's taxpayers.

The performance of big pharma with the supply of AIDS medicines in Africa would indicate the shareholders have a bigger say than the sufferers.

There is lots of heavy maths in the article, don't say you weren't warned!

Pandemics and the Precautionary Principle

The Australian of Monday 16 August 2010 had a full page spread about the pandemic that never was: Swine Flu.

After the Avian Flu left us completely underwhelmed as a right royal pandemic, attacking only a few in the western world, we needed another real flu.  Cue the swine flu.  In Australia 191 people died of swine flu, which, with apologies to the 191 who did die, is no pandemic.  A normal flu season sees about 2000 - 3000 deaths.  The doom merchants forecast a 1% mortality rate based on the avian flu; we ended up with 0.01%, not flash forecasting.

The health experts talked the swine flu up, scared the population and instead of increasing sales of Bundaberg rum (served in black tea with honey and lemon juice), we had people running off to hospital and their GPs.  Good if you had shares in CSL or Roche, but not so good for the Diago (overseas owners of Bundy Rum).  The government overreacted buying $100M (enough for 21 million people) of vaccine from CSL, which eventually cost us taxpayers $140M.  Unfortunately, like old yoghurt, the 9.5 million vaccines left go off and so will be over the use by date by the end of the year.  Maybe we can get Coles and Woolies to discount the vaccines along with fresh pasta and orange juice...


One would have to think $140M could have done some serious good in preventative medicine in Australia, possibly funded some decent research into flu pandemics.


There is also a bit of a smell about the WHO and the declaration of pandemic.  People on the committee were on Roche's payroll.  Roche is also the maker of Tamiflu flu vaccine.  2+2=?  The WHO is the organisation that declares when a global sniffle becomes a pandemic.  By declaring a pandemic, the WHO triggers governments to rush out and buy vaccines.  If the WHO drops the bar as to what is a pandemic, drug companies are unlikely to complain.


This a typical case of the precautionary principle run amok.  The response in the face of uncertainty was to rush out and buy up vaccines, in a typical strong precautionary principle reaction.  The blinkered view was not to take a holistic view of cost and medically effective flu preventatives, but to buy up vaccines.  Maybe a more effective use of the $140M would be to buy back Bundy from its overseas owners and give all Australians a small toddy to help them get a good night's sleep.

Frogs survive a bit longer on the Sunshine Coast

The Courier Mail reported on Wednesday 13/10/2010 about how the Wallum rocket frog and it's mate the Wallum froglet got to survive a bit longer around the Sunshine Coast.  The Queensland Dept of Environmental Resource Management has conditionally approved a 8000 dwelling community, so long as public transport corridors do not cut through Birtinya Wetlands.  Here we have the precautionary principle at work protecting the habitiat of the Wallum frog family.  The frogs are listed as vulnerable by the DERM

The frogs live in acid paperbark swamps in SE Qld and NE NSW.  Anyone who knows Australia will know this covers the Sunshine coast and the Gold Coast, not exactly hotbeds of environmental concern.

Wallum froglet info

BPA and the chattering classes

BPA is in trouble with the masses.  Here is a link to a parenting forum, where the fear of BPA and its impacts on children are obvious.
Parenting Forum Link

Here's a rant from Marko about FSANZ:
Marko of South Brisbane Posted at 11:23 PM September 08, 2010

Food Standards Australia New Zealand are just lackies for big business. Food standards are designed for the lowest common denominator. Its about how cheap and nasty can we make our foods on an industrial basis whilst maximising the profits of the multinationals. This organisation is a disgrace and a diservice to the people of Australia and New Zealand. Time for a senate inquiry and for up-regulation of our food standards to world class levels.

This was in response to FSANZ  saying BPA is not a risk to Australians. (see previous blog and link to Courier Mail article).

Bisphenol - sacrifced to the precautionary principle

The days of Bisphenol A (BPA) look to be definitely numbered.Courier Mail Web Article

Food Standards ANZ says BPA is not a risk to Australians, but the industry is bailing out.  Heinz and Coles have already moved away from BPA, while Edgell and John West are looking for alternatives.  Australian retailers have already moved to phase out baby bottles.


Now even Tupperware is backing away: "Tupperware has also conducted studies through independent testing laboratories to confirm the safety of our materials and has found the migration levels of BPA in our polycarbonate products to be well within acceptable levels specified by the governmental regulatory agencies." Polycarbonate is not used in Tupperware children’s toys or food products.


Effective March 2010, Tupperware ceased using polycarbonate for the small number of products which are currently in the product line in the U.S. and Canada.  Pity about the rest of the world!


Here's my lunchtime tupperware container.  It's a beauty.  Years of lumping it all over the place haven't troubled it.  I microwave it to death with leftover spaghetti or casseroles.  Despite the risk of BPA leaching, my greatest danger is probably food poisoning.