>> but the evidence isn't strong.
I always feel compelled to point out that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Or chemicals should be presumed unsafe until proven safe, rather than the other way around.
back
1 comments
The problem with precautionary principle arguments (like your latter point) is that the precautionary principle is not self-consistent. You'd need to know the effect of implementing the precautionary principle before using it, which is probably impossible to calculate.
The precautionary principle is the initial condition though! (Ideally speaking, of course.)
The idea is to assume new chemicals may be dangerous. Then undertake careful testing programs to determine if they really are dangerous. I think that this is what the grandparent comment was suggesting.
There is good precedent for the use of this principle, take for instance drug trials. Furthermore, I think it would be beneficial to assume all new technologies may have detrimental effects, and weigh those effects carefully.
The precautionary principle could only be the initial condition if it had been followed since the beginning of time; you want it to be our initial presumption, a presumption whose sole virtue is its convenience for PP advocates.
I'm not following you, sorry.
Is "let's wait and see" a precautionary move?
Are you saying the cost of inaction must be quantified before it's a legitimate choice?
In which case, in our world of imperfect understanding, does that lead to bias towards action?