Rachel's Precaution Reporter #86
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
From: Canyon News (Beverly Hills, Calif.) .................[This story printer-friendly]
April 15, 2007
FINALLY -- A VOICE OF REASON IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CANCER
[Rachel's introduction: Breast Cancer Action supports the precautionary principle, which would caution against waiting for absolute proof of harm before discontinuing the use of hormones in food production.]
By Jill Chapin
Hooray for Breast Cancer Action! They recently did what no other cancer organization has done to date. It was so simple, really, but apparently it was just too controversial for such revered organizations as the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Breast Cancer Coalition, and countless other groups who you would think would be espousing certain precautions to protect the public's health.
So what did they do? Well, they actually went out on a limb and gave us a recommendation regarding cancer prevention that was based on common sense instead of political correctness.
Paraphrasing from Katrina Kahl's column in the BCA Source, she cited a study in the November 2006 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. It found a trend between increased red meat consumption and increased risk of hormone-fueled breast cancers. You may have read of this correlation in the papers recently. But news items referring to this pointed the finger at all red meat being the culprit rather than just the hormone-injected meat.
It seems mighty odd that no news sources mentioned those hormones, especially since the researchers themselves noted the potential correlation between eating hormone-injected meat with hormone-fueled breast cancers.
As Ms. Kahl notes, this very possible correlation prompted the European Union to ban the use of hormones to raise livestock as far back as 1988. Do you question why the United States has failed to ban hormones in our food supply? Do you think it might be because the added hormones, which have no nutritional benefit for consumers nevertheless reap huge financial benefits for producers? A discerning person might conclude that our government is more concerned about the fiscal health of our meat and dairy suppliers than they are about the health of us poor suckers at the supermarket.
Since our country enforces no ban on this highly suspect cause of cancers, wouldn't you at least think that those whose business it is to eradicate this insidious disease would at least step forward and advise unwary consumers to avoid hormone-laden meat and dairy products? I have contacted several organizations, and in a Stepford Wives drone, their representatives spew out their boiler plate response that studies are ongoing but are still inconclusive.
I've said this before but it bears repeating -- this excuse is mocked by Europeans who call our delaying strategy "paralysis by analysis." But it's not really funny, because people are dying while our government refuses to do the right thing by taking preventative action now. There is nothing wrong with studies, but they should be done in conjunction with precautionary measures, not before.
Which is exactly why I am cheering for Breast Cancer Action. As the article said, BCA supports the precautionary principle, which would caution against waiting for absolute proof of harm before discontinuing the use of hormones in food production. And they actually have a plan that all of us can immediately implement, starting with our next meal. Their simple advice is to choose hormone- free meat and dairy products. Look for meat with a "USDA-certified organic" or "hormone free" labels. For dairy products, look for organic, or "rBST-free or "rBGH-free" labels.
We have no idea how many cancers we could be preventing in our households by following their recommendation. But if you are skeptical about this low-tech idea for reducing the numbers of new cancers, consider this: With one simple pronouncement several years ago advising women to stop taking the hormone replacement Prem Pro, new breast cancers posted a significant decline in the following years. What if we should also see a further decline if we stop ingesting hormones in our food supply?
Maybe then we could better understand not only the limitations of science to come up with a cure, but the possibility of enlightened consumers to come up with something even better.
A prevention.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Oilweek .............................................[This story printer-friendly]
April 13, 2007
COURT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA REFUSES TO REQUIRE PRECAUTION
B.C. Appeal Court rejects bid to block new power lines through Tsawwassen (Power-Lines-Appeal)
[Rachel's introduction: In British Columbia, a court has ruled that it cannot require B.C. power authorities to take a precautionary approach to siting high-voltage power lines.]
VANCOUVER -- A group of residents from the Vancouver suburb of Tsawwassen has lost another attempt to stop installation of new power lines on an existing right-of-way.
The B.C. Court of Appeal has rejected the residents' bid for the court to review the B.C. Utilities Commission's decision to approve the higher-voltage lines by B.C. Transmission Corp. and B.C. Hydro.
The group is concerned the new power lines will increase the electro- magnetic fields along the right-of-way, which it believes pose a health risk to neighbouring residents.
But in a unanimous decision issued Friday, the three-judge Appeal Court panel declined to revisit the commission's decision.
The power line opponents initially submitted 21 issues for the court to consider.
But in granting leave to appeal, the court ultimately limited its review to the legal question of whether B.C. Transmission had the right to put new lines the existing right-of-way.
But in its ruling, the court said the residents' case was an attempt to rehash the utilities' commission ruling.
The residents had argued utilities regulators should have used the "precautionary principle" in rejecting the power line upgrade.
But the Appeal Court noted the commission studied the health issue and found no conclusive scientific evidence electro-magnetic fields were dangerous.
The court is not in a position to substitute its judgment on how those factors should be weighed, the ruling said.
Copyright 2007 JuneWarren Publishing Ltd.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Marin County Board of Supervisors ..................[This story printer-friendly]
April 17, 2007
MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ADOPTS A ZERO WASTE RESOLUTION
[Rachel's introduction: At its regular meeting April 17, 2007, The Marin County, California Board of Supervisors adopted a zero waste resolution. The meeting was recorded for web cast and is available for viewing.]
MARIN COUNTY ZERO WASTE RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-_____
RESOLUTION OF THE MARIN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING THE GOAL OF ZERO WASTE BY 2025
WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required all California jurisdictions to achieve a landfill diversion rate of 50% by the year 2000, and to reduce, reuse, recycle; and to compost all discarded materials to the maximum extent feasible before any landfilling or other destructive disposal method is used; and
WHEREAS, the County of Marin has established itself as a state leader in waste diversion and sustainability practices by exceeding the requirements of AB 939 to achieve a 77% diversion rate in 2004 and is constantly looking for innovative ways to decrease waste; and
WHEREAS, in 2001 the California Integrated Waste Management Board set a goal of Zero Waste in its strategic plan for the state; and cities, councils, counties, and states worldwide have adopted a goal of achieving zero waste, including the counties of San Francisco, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, and Del Norte in California; the cities of Palo Alto, Oakland and Berkeley in California, Seattle in Washington, Toronto in Canada, and Canberra in Australia; and the state of New South Wales in Australia; and 45% of New Zealand's local government councils; and
WHEREAS, strategies to reach zero waste can help to promote the over- arching goal of each generation leaving less of an ecological footprint on the earth; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006 the Marin County Board of Supervisors signed the United Nations World Environment Day Urban Environmental Accords, pledging that the County of Marin would implement 21 action steps toward sustainability in the areas of energy, waste reduction, urban design, transportation, environmental health, and water including: Establish a policy to achieve zero waste; and
WHEREAS, the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority passed a Zero Waste resolution on November 9TH 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Marin joins the Marin County Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority ("JPA") representing the eleven cities and towns of Marin and the County of Marin, and hereby adopts the goal of 80% landfill diversion by 2012 and a Zero Waste Goal by 2025.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Marin, through the JPA, will support the review of the Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan and the development of a Strategic Plan that will provide guidance in the planning and decision-making process to achieve the County's Zero Waste Goal.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Marin will partner with regional and international communities to actively pursue strategies that will go beyond reuse and recycling to eliminate waste upstream.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin held on this 17th day of April, 2007, by the following vote:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Healthy Building News ..............................[This story printer-friendly]
April 12, 2007
GREEN BUILDING & THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
LEEDing With Precaution Dr. Ted Schettler[1] On Green Building & The Precautionary Principle
[Rachel's introduction: An interview with Ted Schettler on green building and the precautionary principle.]
By Bill Walsh, National Coordinator, Healthy Building Network
Dr. Ted Schettler is the author of Generations at Risk, MIT Press
"USGBC [U.S. Green Building Council] will be guided by the precautionary principle in utilizing technical and scientific data to protect, preserve and restore the health of the global environment, ecosystems and species." -- US Green Building Council Guiding Principle # 4
"When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." -- Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle 1998
BW: The US Green Building Council recently adopted the Precautionary Principle as one of six guiding principles for the organization. It is the first business association in the United States to make this commitment, and the only group that sets "green" standards that had done so. Why is this important?
TS: It is important because it distinguishes the group and defines the green building movement as a serious effort to recreate a massive and fundamental sector of the global economy to be healthy and sustainable. The UN's 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development stated that the precautionary approach needed to be widely applied if we were to avoid serious irreversible damage to the earth's living systems. The USGBC's approach is fair, wise, necessary, and ultimately cost effective because prevention usually costs less than remediation with more equitable distribution of costs and benefits.
BW: How do you think the precautionary principle meshes with the green building movement?
TS: It seems to me that in critical respects the rationale for the green building movement parallels the rationale for the precautionary principle movement in science. Both movements present a head-on challenge to old assumptions upon which the status quo rests, for example, that humans are largely separate from the environment and that we largely understand and can control and shape natural systems to our ultimate benefit. Both are clear that ethics and values should be present and transparent in the role of science-based decisions and professional practice. Both weigh a responsibility to future generations in the balance of the judgments they make today. And both are challenged by defenders of the old order who trivialize these concerns as "unscientific" and "emotional."
BW: What is your response to those charges?
TS: Values and ethics are and have always been integral to good science. Proponents of the Precautionary Principle are explicit and transparent about the values we bring to the science and its application -- the importance of preventing harm, respect for the integrity of ecological systems that support life, and responsibility to this and future generations are among them. Critics of the Precautionary Principle often fail to state the values they seek to further with their method -- they foster the myth that science is value-free. In truth, science always includes value judgments, such as determining an appropriate threshold for declaring something to be proven when absolute certainty is unattainable. "Lack of proof" is often used as an excuse to postpone protective measures, without making it clear that "proof" is a concept with political and social as well as scientific dimensions. Scientists must also decide whether to favor false positive or false negative conclusions when analyzing data. "Safety" is not provable because you can't prove something will not happen, so any determination of "safety" is a value judgment, not an objective truth. Primary prevention is a basic principle of public health, and preventive measures often entail acting before cause and effect relationships are fully understood.
BW: The USGBC embraced the precautionary principle amidst a sustained challenge by the chemicals, plastics and timber industries advocating for much less rigorous green building standards. Those industries account for an influential percentage of the building materials economy, and they are leading opponents of the Precautionary Principle globally. What do you make of this?
TS: I think one thing that resonates with green building professionals is the complexity of models. People who try to understand how a complex system like a building functions are more comfortable than some others are with the notion of everything being interconnected, and the unlikelihood that there is a single definitive cause and effect answer to complex questions. Like most people, green building professionals are surprised to learn that the safety of most chemicals we use routinely has not been evaluated, even if they are legal to use. So the argument against precaution -- that we postpone making changes until we have proven the cause and effect link between a chemical exposure and an adverse impact -- rightfully appears overly simplistic, counterintuitive and even counterproductive.
BW: From toxic chemicals to climate change, the most heated debates in society are not so much about what to do to address a problem, but whether there really is a problem. We spend years debating conflicting scientific data, or bemoaning inadequate scientific data. How does the Precautionary Principle address the question of uncertainty?
TS: It is important to acknowledge various kinds of uncertainty. One kind of uncertainty is statistical. This has to do with not knowing the exact value of a single variable like, for example, off-gassing from a building material. But we can measure it and ultimately reduce the uncertainty considerably. Another kind of uncertainty is model uncertainty. This arises from inadequate understanding of the relationships among variables in a system. How, for example, will that off-gassing affect building occupants over time? This is far more complex and difficult to study. As models become more complex, uncertainty evolves into indeterminacy. This leads to fundamental uncertainty. Here we deal not only with indeterminacy but often fail to know what we don't know. We may not even know what questions to ask. Precaution takes a respectful approach to complex systems, acknowledges the limits of science, and is wary of arrogance. A precautionary approach looks for early warning signs and opportunities for prevention. Whatever we know, do we know enough to act? Do we have other ways of doing things that respond to early warnings and avoid foreseeable problems? Precautionary decision-making can actually increase options and add resilience to the system. As I learn more about green building, it seems to me that these notions fit comfortably within the evolving discipline of the green building professional.
BW: I have to end my questions here, but I would encourage interested readers to visit the FAQ section of the Science and Environmental Health Network, your comprehensive website,www.sehn.org.
Footnotes:
[1] Ted Schettler has a medical degree from Case Western Reserve University and a Masters degree in Public Health from Harvard University. He is Science Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network. (www.sehn.org). Dr. Schettler co-authored Generations at Risk (MIT Press, 1999), which examines the reproductive health effects of exposure to a variety of environmental toxicants, and In Harm's Way -- Toxic Threats to Child Development, which examines the impacts of environmental contaminants on children's neurological development. He has served on the advisory committees of the US EPA and National Academy of Sciences.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: European Commission .................................[This story printer-friendly]
April 18, 2007
EU-FUNDED FISHERIES PROJECT MAKING WAVES INTERNATIONALLY
[Rachel's introduction: A new approach to studying the social impact of fisheries (and the loss of fisheries) has begun to embed precaution into cost-benefit analysis.]
The internationally respected social science journal Social Science Information recently focused on coastal communities and marine ecosystems issues, drawing heavily on the research coming from the FP6 project ECOST.
ECOST, or 'Ecosystems, Societies, Consilience, Precautionary principle: Development of an assessment method of the societal cost for best fishing practices and efficient public policies,' aims to develop a completely new approach to assess the societal cost of fishing activities and fishing policies.
ECOST, a project funded through the International Cooperation Programme under FP6, takes a broad, multidisciplinary approach to fishing, fisheries policy, and the wider societal impacts both have on communities that derive a livelihood from costal waters. Members of the project describe their approach as having a triple theme encompassing 'marine environment -- fishing activities -- civil society' and combining life science and social sciences. The findings of the first phase of ECOST's research, which covers the experience of fishing communities from Asia and Africa to the Caribbean, was published in the recent SSI edition.
Ensuring productive fishing for generations to come is one of the main goals of the ECOST project.
Copyright ECOST ========================================================
Sidebar: The ECOST Project
ECOST, or 'Ecosystems, Societies, Consilience, Precautionary principle: Development of an assessment method of the societal cost for best fishing practices and efficient public policies', aims to develop a completely new approach to assess the societal cost of fishing activities and fishing policies. A more realistic assessment of costs and benefits should enable better decision-making. Members of the consortium, through their research, hope to be able to equip economic and political decisions-makers and society at large with the appropriate tools and methods needed to accurately assess the effects of fishing activities on ecosystems and repercussions it can have on society as a whole, as well as to analyse alternatives.
Their work spans three continents representing the unique fishing conditions found on each -- the coastal upwelling found in West Africa, the delta ecosystems of Southeast Asia and coral reefs found in the Caribbean. Researchers have identified several fisheries within each 'eco-region' to collect the most comprehensive data set possible. Additionally, they have selected a protected area in each region to serve as a reference point for comparative analysis.
ECOST researchers expect the ultimate outcomes of their research to benefit both the public and private spheres of society. By exploring policy options that support sustainable and ethical management strategies they expect to help reconciling the need to earn a decent living with maintaining productive fishing ecosystems for generations to come. Their ambition is to help reduce the vulnerability of coastal fishing communities.
At international or global level, they expect their work to provide invaluable input into national and international governance and regulation of ocean and costal resources. Once effective, sustainable policy can be agreed upon, resulting in increased resource availability, poverty alleviation and external debt reduction for at- risk communities.
The consortium interacts closely with another EU-funded International Cooperation project, the Specific Support Action PASARELAS, to enhance the interface between scientific research and social dialogue processes. ECOST will host a policy conference in Amsterdam in July, and expects to finalise their research by the end of 2009.
========================================================
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Norwich (England) Evening News ......................[This story printer-friendly]
April 17, 2007
REPORT LINKS PHONE MASTS TO CANCER
[Rachel's introduction: In England, as in the U.S., the precautionary principle is one of the main arguments being used by opponents of cell phone towers, or "masts," especially those being proposed for locations near schools and other places where children spend time.]
By David Bale
Campaigners fighting phone mast [cell phone tower] applications today called for all new proposals to be put on hold after a scientific study found they caused cancer.
Telecoms company T-Mobile employed German scientist Dr Peter Neitzke to research potential health risks caused by the equipment but then ignored his findings, preferring to use reports from different experts who said masts pose no significant threat.
Dr Neitzke said once T-Mobile realised the likely outcome of his study it commissioned further research from other scientists which would contradict his work.
T-Mobile, which has about 17 million UK customers, was today condemned by campaigners and its actions were branded an attempt by the industry to keep discussion of potential health risks off the agenda.
Andy Street, who has been campaigning against applications for mobile phone masts near schools and homes in Norwich, said: "These findings should have been published immediately rather than being brushed under the carpet.
"We always thought masts were a risk to health and that the companies knew more about the dangers than they were letting on. For a phone company to ignore its own findings is irresponsible. I want the city council to ban phone mast applications until this report has been fully published and is available to planners."
His comments were backed by Norwich North MP Ian Gibson, who said: "The council putting a stop on allowing any more mast applications sounds like a very sensible, precautionary measure.
"I think it's better to err on the side of caution."
The Evening News is fighting the installation of mobile phone masts near homes and schools until they are proven safe through our Put Masts on Hold campaign.
In January 2005, Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board, published a report calling for a precautionary approach to masts near homes and schools. An Evening News investigation that month revealed one in five primary schools in Norwich was within the threshold experts claim could put children at risk.
We also told how a cluster of cancer victims had been living in the shadow of a mobile phone mast in St William's Way, Thorpe St Andrew. At least six people there developed tumours.
Campaigner and city councillor Bert Bremner, who is fighting the eighth application for a mast in the University ward area in four years, said: "It's like tobacco companies hiding the dangers of tobacco. Everything comes out eventually."
Graham Barker, from Lloyd Road, Taverham, has campaigned against masts for several years. He said: "The whole point of the Evening News campaign was to put masts on hold until we knew the dangers. Now there is credible evidence there are risks."
Norwich City Council has called on the government to issue new guidelines to planning officers. Council leader Steve Morphew said: "At present planners are not allowed to take account of health concerns, so until the law changes there's not much else we can do."
David Bradford, chairman of the council's planning committee, added: "We would be interested in seeing this report, which should be made widely available."
The report was carried out by the Ecolog Institute, which has been researching mobile phone technology since 1992 and was paid by T- Mobile.
Dr Neitzke was working on the study, which was drawn up in 2000 and updated three years later. It was unknown in the UK until it was passed on by European campaigners to the Human Ecological Social Economic Project (HESE) last week. The report stated: "Electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range play a role in the development of cancer. This is particularly notable for tumours of the central nervous system."
A Department of Health spokesman said: "There is no hard evidence that the health of the public is being affected by the use of mobile phone technologies. Our advice remains the same. We continue to advise a precautionary approach to mobile phone use by under-16s."
A T-Mobile spokesman said: "It was the aim of T-Mobile to engage four different institutes with the same questions to guarantee an independent and objective discussion."
Mike Dolan, executive director of the Mobile Operators' Association, said: "The review confirmed that while some scientists had differing views, overall, 'the scientific studies examined in the risk dialogue do not support suspicions that mobile telephony has harmful effects on health'."
Copyright 2007 Archant Regional
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Hawke's Bay Today (Hastings, New Zealand) ..........[This story printer-friendly]
April 14, 2007
EDITORIAL: IF CLIMATE'S CHANGING SO MUST WE
[Rachel's introduction: "Doubt (formalised in the precautionary principle) should move us in a sensible direction. There is no question that making our 'carbon footprint' smaller will have the happy consequence of being kind to the environment, even if it cannot be established conclusively it will change the weather."]
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which featured in a report in Wednesday's Hawke's Bay Today, not surprisingly contains much more bad news than good for New Zealand. It will be boomtime for apples in the Bay, but tough times for kiwifruit. There will be retreating glaciers in the south but hordes of Aussies will be here to play in snow they can no longer find at home.
There will be an increase in farm production in the short term, but offset by more droughts and forest fires, along with pestilence and rising tides that threaten coastal communities. Even dengue fever is possibile as temperatures soar to tropical levels. It's enough of an apocalyptic vision to satisfy any "end is nigh" miserabilist.
The latest predictions of doom have been challenged by sceptics, spearheaded by Augie Auer. Last week he was involved in a war of the weathermen when he castigated Jim Salinger (lead author of the New Zealand and Australian chapter in the IPCC report) for attributing the recent Northland floods to climate change. Dr Auer says the report lacks rigour and that nothing in it advances the scientific understanding of climate change.
The conflict about what's happening and who, or what, is to blame will continue.
The original IPCC report says it is "very likely" global warming of the past few decades is the result of human activity. But the report also says it is only "likely" current global temperatures are the highest in the past 1300 years. It then becomes a question of faith when laypeople (who, by removing the question marks manage to shut down discussion) can assert such facts when a collaboration by more than 2000 scientists can only come up with "likely" or "very likely".
Nevertheless, doubt (formalised in the precautionary principle) should move us in a sensible direction. There is no question that making our "carbon footprint" smaller will have the happy consequence of being kind to the environment, even if it cannot be established conclusively it will change the weather.
In a variant of "Pascal's wager" in arguing the logic of believing in the hereafter (also known as the umbrella principle -- that it is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it) there is good sense in preparing for the effects of climate change.
The debate is no longer just about the environment. As one commentator has said, the issue is now about economics, culture, and ideology and about policy solutions.
The issue, then -- given that agreement about climate change is more political than scientific -- is whether governments should dictate solutions or whether they should be left to the markets.
A recent poll showed most New Zealanders were aware of the potential harm of global warning but were sick of the doom-laden predictions. They want to hear the answers. And those answers have to go way beyond using low-energy lightbulbs and avoiding use of the dishwasher -- or just sitting at home worrying in the dark and cold.
For those solutions we need to embrace the possibilities in the powers of human invention. Rather than expend effort and money fruitlessly pushing back the sun, we need to strike out and find ways to make the most of what nature (with, perhaps, our help) deals us.
Back to top
Contact Us Legal Info Privacy Policy Terms of Use CP Copyright APN News & Media Ltd 2006.
Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited under the laws of Australia and by international treaty.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::