Rachel's Precaution Reporter #120
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
From: Indymedia (Germany) .................................[This story printer-friendly]
December 9, 2007
120% MORE CHILD LEUKAEMIA NEAR GERMAN NUKES
[Rachel's introduction: "Given these massive findings at every German nuclear power station location, a radiation-linked cause is highly likely in every case. Anyone who now still talks of coincidence is making himself ridiculous," writes Dr. Angelika Claussen. "The precautionary principle enshrined in European environment law now demands that the German nuclear power stations be switched off immediately."]
By Diet Simon
A German study has found children under five are at 60% greater risk of getting cancer and 120% greater risk of getting leukaemia if they live within five kilometres of a nuclear power station. The case- control study covers the 16 locations of German nuclear power stations over a period of 24 years.
It was initiated by the German section of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and carried out by the Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), which reports to the German environment ministry.
The study shows that the closer children live to a nuke, the more they are at risk of contracting leukaemia.
Researchers from the University of Mainz found that 37 children living within a radius of five kilometres from reactors developed leukaemia, whereas only 17 new cases were to be anticipated on the basis of the statistical average for the study period from 1980 to 2003.
Consequently, the analysis concludes that 20 additional leukaemia cases are related to the fact that the children live so close to the nuclear power plants.
"Our study confirms that in Germany a relationship is observable between the proximity of the home to the nearest nuclear power plant at the time of diagnosis and the risk of contracting cancer (respectively leukaemia) before the child's fifth birthday," the researchers write.
One member of the expert commission that oversaw the study even considers the conclusions to be understated. According to him, the data indicate an increased risk of cancer for children in a radius of 50 kilometres.
It needed lobbying since 2001 by the local IPPNW section and more than 10,000 protest letters from the public authorities and ministries to get the BfS to commission the study.
The campaign was triggered by a study initiated by the IPPNW and carried by Dr. Alfred Korblein (Environment Institute Munich), which found significantly higher child cancer incidence near Bavarian nuclear power stations.
The BfS commissioned its study of the Mainzer Kinderkrebsregister (Mainz Child Cancer Register) in 2003.
"Now that the connection between increased cancer and leukaemia rates and proximity of the residence to the nuclear power station has been established, the causes of this must be further clarified immediately," IPPNW says in a media release.
"The population affected at nuclear power station locations must be examined by suitable screening methods fast and comprehensively."
"Given these massive findings at every German nuclear power station location, a radiation-linked cause is highly likely in every case. Anyone who now still talks of coincidence is making himself ridiculous," writes Dr. med. Angelika Claussen, chair of the German IPPNW.
"The precautionary principle enshrined in European environment law now demands that the German nuclear power stations be switched off immediately."
"The IPPNW demands that the environment ministry now greatly reduce the obviously too lax upper limits for radioactive emissions from nuclear power stations. From now on the burden of proof of cause of illness should no longer have to be borne by parents, but conversely by the operators of the nuclear installations."
The BfS media release about its study in German: http://www.bf s.de/en/bfs/presse/aktuell_press/Studie_Kernkraftwerke.html More IPPNW background and chronology in German at www.ippnw-ulm.de More on the topic: www.alfred-koerblein.de www.bfs.de
Contact: Reinhold Thiel, #49 0176-511 64 195 or #49 7346-8407, Dr. med. Angelika Claussen, IPPNW Chair #49 521-15 22 13, Henrik Paulitz, IPPNW expert on nuclear energy issues #49 621-3972-668.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Truth About Trade & Technology ..................[This story printer-friendly]
December 4, 2007
ETHICS IS REAL ISSUE BEHIND MILK-LABELING CONTROVERSY
[Rachel's introduction: Much of modern science is now dedicated to the work of undoing the problems caused by previous advances. By all means, it makes perfect sense to employ the "precautionary principle" when research on any aspect of food production is not conclusive -- in doing so, the countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 members of the European Union have already banned the use of rBST/rBHG [Monsanto's growth-enhancing hormone injected into many cows in the U.S.] in the production of milk.]
On its face, the recent decision by the state Department of Agriculture to crack down on what it considers to be false or misleading claims on dairy product labels might seem to be in everyone's best interest.
Consumers are protected from misinformation; farmers are protected from dairy co-ops wishing to dictate how they should farm; and, of course, the Monsanto Corp. is protected from taking a huge loss on one of its most controversial products.
As is often the case in situations such as this, however, what's really being protected is the status quo in an industry that is sorely in need of progressive change and an infusion of visionary thinking. The essential question to ask is, "What's really in everyone's best interest over the long term?"
In our opinion, it is not an example of visionary insight to assert that anyone involved in the dairy industry will benefit in the long run by withholding information from members of the public, making it more difficult for them to discern how their food is being produced. Effective food labeling will work to reveal, not conceal, the essential facts of interest to consumers.
But it's important to understand that the entire labeling controversy is only a sideshow to the real issues involved here, which have more to do with ethics and the industry-perceived need for the use of performance-enhancing drugs in livestock production.
The use of artificial growth hormones (rBST or rBGH) is certainly not the only example of such drugs being used on farms today. In fact, the majority of antibiotics sold in America are used in livestock production as growth-promoting agents, not as treatment for disease in humans or animals as many uninformed, potentially confused consumers might assume.
What's so wrong if an individual farmer or group of them working together wishes to advertise, even on a label, the choice made not to use such drugs at all, or at least not unless clinically indicated? While we are so busy debating when and how it is proper to put an absence claim on food labels, when do we get to consider the value of being completely forthcoming with consumers and letting them make informed choices?
It is our belief that the agricultural community in Pennsylvania -- and in America -- might be missing the visionary opportunity of a lifetime to make complete disclosure its primary operating principle. Why are we even debating the proper labeling of performance-enhancing drugs used in food production, when the world would beat a path to our door if we banned them altogether?
The history of science and technology is full of examples where particular accomplishments have helped to improve life on earth as we know it.
But much of modern science is now dedicated to the work of undoing the problems caused by previous advances. By all means, it makes perfect sense to employ the "precautionary principle" when research on any aspect of food production is not conclusive -- in doing so, the countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 members of the European Union have already banned the use of rBST/rBHG in the production of milk.
Why would we in this country stake the future of our farms on anything less than production of the highest quality food products possible? We have an opportunity to recognize not only the responsibility, but the power we have in the agricultural community to make more careful choices for the future, and to fully involve our paying customers as partners in that process, as well.
The food labeling decisions being made on our behalf, whether as farmers or consumers, are poorly conceived and shortsighted and will serve only to continue the seemingly unending cycle of dim hopes and dashed dreams that have characterized family farms in America for the last half century.
In contrast to this bleak picture, consumers worldwide are waking up to the promise of more informed choices and an agriculture that works with nature instead of against it. Let's give them what they want and deserve, and ensure the future viability of our farms in the process.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Province (Vancouver, B.C., Canada) .............[This story printer-friendly]
December 11, 2007
LEGAL APPEALS EXHAUSTED, SO ONLY AVENUE LEFT LEADS TO VICTORIA
[Rachel's introduction: People of the Tsawwassen first nation in Canada opposed a proposal to place huge electric powerlines above their homes. They based their appeal on the precautionary principle because several studies have linked childhood leukemia to living near powerlines. Last week Canada's Supreme Court rejected that precautionary appeal.]
By Brian Lewis, The Province
For a group of frustrated residents fighting to protect their Tsawwassen neighbourhood, this is likely the final call to the B.C. government for a display of common sense.
The battle by the Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Lines -- to stop the B.C. Transmission Corp. from building two 230-kilovolt transmission lines supported by 40-metre steel towers on a four- kilometre right-of-way over their 150 homes, schools and parks -- is drawing to a close.
A decision late last week by the Supreme Court of Canada to deny the residents leave to appeal an earlier B.C. Court of Appeal decision, which favoured the BCTC, was a serious blow to the residents, who have now spent almost $400,000 -- raised by nickels and dimes from personal pockets, donations, garage sales, etc. -- on fighting the provincial Crown corporation in court.
The Supreme Court gave no reason for its decision, which the resident group had based on the "precautionary principle."
This is a guideline, used in many countries, which says that when there's no absolute scientific proof, one way or the other, that something may be harmful to human health, one should either avoid the risk or take adequate safeguards.
The residents wanted the senior court to order the B.C. Utilities Commission to use that principle in applying a decision to the BCTC application to upgrade its existing lower-voltage lines through Tsawwassen. The primary concern is that the high-voltage power lines, which in many cases will run right over residential backyards, will expose homeowners and their families to electromagnetic fields over the long term.
For years there have been concerns that electromagnetic fields may cause serious health problems, including increased incidents of leukemia, especially among children. However, even though absolute proof has not been established one way or the other on the impacts of human exposure, countries such as the U.K. now exercise cautionary limits when placing high-voltage power lines in populated areas.
But that isn't happening in B.C.
To date, Victoria has stood solidly behind the B.C. Utilities Commission's 2006 decision to allow the BCTC to build the overhead line through Tsawwassen, even though the commission did not consider all other options and based its call only on lower costs. Since then, research by the resident group has found that horizontal direct drilling, which is a common technique in the oilpatch, can be used to lay power lines underground, encased in protective pipelines.
Even Delta South Liberal MLA Val Roddick and the Delta municipal council back this technology as an obvious solution for Tsawwassen.
And while the horizontal drilling industry itself says the extra costs are likely less than $10 million, the BCTC counters it'll be an extra $40 million to make the switch, but I'm told this is a figure that's purely political, not practical.
I'm also told the option for switching to horizontal direct-drilling in Tsawwassen now sits on B.C. Energy Minister Richard Neufeld's desk.
Mr. Minister, you have an excellent opportunity to prove that the "green" policies in your government represent a better environment and not merely a drive to save dollars, no matter what the consequences to taxpayers.
Copyright The Vancouver Province 2007
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Rachel's Precaution Reporter #120 ..................[This story printer-friendly]
December 12, 2007
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT REQUIRES PRECAUTION
[Rachel's introduction: The Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 endorses the precautionary principle directly.]
By Peter Montague
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999 endorses the precautionary principle directly. In the preamble it says,
"Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation;"
The Act begins with this declaration:
"Declaration
"It is hereby declared that the protection of the environment is essential to the well-being of Canadians and that the primary purpose of this Act is to contribute to sustainable development through pollution prevention."
It goes on to spell out the duties of the government of Canada, as follows:
"Duties of the Government of Canada
"2. (1) In the administration of this Act, the Government of Canada shall, having regard to the Constitution and laws of Canada and subject to subsection (1.1),
"(a) exercise its powers in a manner that protects the environment and human health, applies the precautionary principle that, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation, and promotes and reinforces enforceable pollution prevention approaches;
(a.1) take preventive and remedial measures to protect, enhance and restore the environment;
(b) take the necessity of protecting the environment into account in making social and economic decisions;
(c) implement an ecosystem approach that considers the unique and fundamental characteristics of ecosystems;
(d) endeavour to act in cooperation with governments to protect the environment;
(e) encourage the participation of the people of Canada in the making of decisions that affect the environment;
(f) facilitate the protection of the environment by the people of Canada;
(g) establish nationally consistent standards of environmental quality;
(h) provide information to the people of Canada on the state of the Canadian environment;
(i) apply knowledge, including traditional aboriginal knowledge, science and technology, to identify and resolve environmental problems;
(j) protect the environment, including its biological diversity, and human health, from the risk of any adverse effects of the use and release of toxic substances, pollutants and wastes;
(j.1) protect the environment, including its biological diversity, and human health, by ensuring the safe and effective use of biotechnology;
(k) endeavour to act expeditiously and diligently to assess whether existing substances or those new to Canada are toxic or capable of becoming toxic and assess the risk that such substances pose to the environment and human life and health;
(l) endeavour to act with regard to the intent of intergovernmental agreements and arrangements entered into for the purpose of achieving the highest level of environmental quality throughout Canada;
[snip]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Washington Post .....................................[This story printer-friendly]
December 5, 2007
THE POLITICS OF CHICKEN LITTLEISM
[Rachel's introduction: The whole of contemporary American defense policy is precautionary. We plan for the worst; believing that on weapons proliferation, terrorism and military rivals, we are better safe than sorry. Following President Bush's preemption doctrine, the mere possibility of danger justifies preventive war and annual defense spending of over $600 billion -- more than at any point in the Cold War even if you account for inflation.]
By Benjamin Friedman, The Cato Institute
Right-wing politicians criticize the environmental movement for its reliance on the precautionary principle -- the belief that any possible environmental risk to health and safety should be met with decisive preventive action, no matter how small the risk or how costly the response. But for the past several years, hawkish right-wingers have been operating under their own version of the precautionary principle -- in this case, that any threat to national security should be met with preventive action, regardless of cost or the remoteness of the risk.
This was the logic behind our preventive war in Iraq -- there was a possibility that the Hussein regime was working on weapons of mass destruction, that their efforts would yield success, and that Hussein would then either use the weapons himself or give them to terrorist groups. Indeed, the whole of contemporary American defense policy is precautionary. We plan for the worst; believing that on weapons proliferation, terrorism and military rivals, we are better safe than sorry.
It is prudent to prepare for dangers. But it is also prudent to consider the costs of excessive prudence. This holds true for both the environment and national security.
University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein notes that the precautionary principle fails to acknowledge that decisions about one risk cannot be made in a vacuum. Because resources are always limited, efforts to reduce one risk take resources away from activities meant to combat other risks, whether through government programs or private investment. And because of unintended consequences, actions that address one danger often create new ones.
Consider asbestos. When people first learned that asbestos could cause respiratory diseases including lung cancer if inhaled or ingested, the precautionary principle justified a rush to remove the material from buildings. It later became clear that the removal process creates greater risk of exposure and the cost of removal is enormous. Because undisturbed asbestos in building materials poses no health risk (and greatly reduces fire risk), society is better off leaving asbestos be.
The illogic of the precautionary principle does not mean that states should not regulate dangers. But decisions about risk should be evaluated by cost-benefit analysis. That means considering the cost that preventive action would avert, the likelihood that preventive action will work, and the action's cost. (Fairness dictates that we should also consider the distribution of costs and benefits -- do the costs unfairly fall on one group and the benefits on another.) Uncertainty clouds this math. But rational decision making attempts to weigh all relevant risks rather than focusing myopically on one.
Since the Soviet Union's collapse left the United States with no military peer, the defense establishment has justified itself with precautionary reasoning. Strategy documents like the Quadrennial Defense Review claim that the Soviet threat has been replaced by terrorists, civil wars, rogue states and a hostile China. Following President Bush's preemption doctrine, the documents argue that the mere possibility of danger justifies preventive war and annual defense spending of over $600 billion -- more than at any point in the Cold War even if you account for inflation. The strategy documents avoid weighing the risks that their policies confront against the risks that they create.
Specific policies share this fault. Only precautionary reasoning justifies spending heavily to protect every U.S. town from terrorism. Terrorists could strike New Hampshire. But the possibility is so remote and the utility of the spending is so unclear that the Granite State's counter-terrorism funds would be better spent elsewhere.
Another example is national policy on prospective employees for U.S. intelligence agencies. Security agents go to extremes to make sure a job applicant does not serve a foreign power -- slowing clearances to a crawl. As a result, intelligence agencies cannot hire the people they most need -- people who often hail from, or have relatives living in, foreign hot spots.
In these areas, hawks claim that doves are reckless. Cutting homeland security funding to New Hampshire leaves Hanover less prepared. A CIA applicant might be spy. But hawks accept more risk from the dangers their policies create. The difference between hawks and doves turns on how they rate competing risks, not a penchant for risk or safety.
Why do we conjure up so many possible monsters to destroy, and then overspend to confront them? One answer is that our defense policies are made by politicians and organizations that benefit from precautionary policies. In American politics today, there are no powerful doves. In elections, Democrats usually track right on security issues to shift the political battleground to domestic issues. Both parties see rewards in preaching danger.
But if politicians do not check these policies, who will? Homeland security and military organizations exist to protect against particular threats. They do not weigh the total risk associated with their activities. Alaska's Office of Homeland Security will not argue that safety would be better served by reallocating their budget to the purchase of snowplows. The Air Force will not tell you that no rival justifies the F-22. Experts in think tanks and academia hoping for political appointments and grants often follow politicians and defense organizations' lead. The media, dependant on the government for stories and driven by the bottom line to alarmism, conveys worst-case fears.
On the other side, as Congressman Les Aspin once wrote, there is no other side. No one alarms us about alarmism. Everyone likes lower taxes, but not enough to organize against defense spending. Only a scattering of libertarians and anti-war liberals confront a bipartisan precautionary principle juggernaut.
Enlightenment won't solve the problem; powerful interests that are hurt by precautionary defense policies will. In most cases, interests have to be dragged into competition. That requires institutional mechanisms -- like the Office of Management and Budget -- that pit risk reducers' budgets against each others, that consider the safety value, for instance, of a dollar spent on health care against a dollar spent on defending Taiwan.
No formula tells us how to maximize safety. But skepticism -- toward both what we are told to fear and the defenses we are sold to confront it -- is a good start.
==============
The author is a doctoral candidate in political science and member of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His article "The Terrible 'Ifs'" will appear in the winter issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.
Copyright Copyright 2007 The Washington Post Company
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: ABC News (Sydney, Australia) .......................[This story printer-friendly]
December 12, 2007
COMPULSORY CHILD WEIGH-IN NOT ENOUGH: EXPERT
[Rachel's introduction: The guiding principle of public health has always been primary prevention. Now public health practitioners are beginning to see that the precautionary principle is another form of primary prevention.]
A prominent health economist says the Federal Government's plan to check the weight of every four-year-old in an effort to curb childhood obesity is a small step in the right direction.
But Dr Paul Gross, the director of the Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment, says not continuing the weight checks through until the age of 10 is a big mistake.
Dr Gross says childhood obesity needs to be treated as seriously as other health problems.
"When we normally have public health problems like tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS or other things that begin to intrude on us in ways that are very serious, we take public health measures of being precautionary and we start to warn people and educate early," he said.
"We use public health measures which take the precautionary principle, go on the front foot -- let's not fool around with this."
Sports program
Australian Sports Commission head Mark Peters says getting children active after school is the key to reducing childhood obesity.
Mr Peters has told a child obesity conference in Sydney that the Commission's national after-school program has grown since it was introduced two years ago to reach more than 3,000 schools.
Mr Peters says the program is helping to fight childhood obesity and he hopes it can be expanded to reach more children in future.
We certainly have over 40 per cent of the sites that are in rural and regional Australia and we have 44 special schools involved in the program as well," he said.
"We're looking to spread the program, which started as a pilot, to make sure we're capturing all the different populations in Australia." Copyright 2007 ABC Privacy Policy
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
Table of Contents edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::