.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Rachel's Precaution Reporter #180

"Foresight and Precaution, in the News and in the World"

Wednesday, February 4, 2009..........Printer-friendly version
www.rachel.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

Featured stories in this issue...

Obama and EPA Get a Strong Advocate for Regulating Greenhouse Gases
  "I argue that we should stop thinking of responses to climate
  change in terms of the precautionary principle, which counsels action
  even in the absence of scientific consensus about a threat. We should
  speak instead in terms of a "post-cautionary" principle for a
  postcautionary world, in which some very bad effects of climate change
  are unavoidable and others are avoidable only if we take dramatic
  steps, and soon." -- Lisa Heinzerling
DOH Urged to Prevent Women's Exposure to Hormone Disruptors
  "We therefore urge Secretary Duque to initiate policy solutions,
  applying the precautionary principle, that will adequately safeguard
  our girls and women from early-life exposures to these harmful
  chemicals that can cause later-life health issues and even multi-
  generational harm,"
A Balanced and Healthful Ecology
  "Environmental laws and regulations must abide by the precautionary
  principle. This principle simply holds that uncertainty in the science
  should not be an obstacle or excuse to postpone mitigating action. It
  is a conservative principle which in the case of scientific
  uncertainty places the burden of proof on the polluter, not on the
  affected, i.e. the polluter has the responsibility to prove that what
  is being spewed into the environment is not harmful.
Tailpipe Turnaround
  "The real challenge for local governments is not in adapting their
  vehicles, but adapting policy to reflect progressive approaches like
  San Francisco's 'Precautionary Principle,' adopted in 2003. The policy
  puts the burden of proof on advocates of new technology to show it is
  safe."
Stringent Policies on the Use of Chemicals on Food Urged
  Participants adopted a "Citizens' Statement for the Protection of
  Consumers against Toxic Chemicals" outlining the basic principles that
  should guide the formulation of a holistic chemicals regulatory regime
  that will promote human and ecological health and safety. Foremost
  among these is the precautionary principle....
Earth Survives; Civilization Collapses?
  "Unless we forthrightly begin practicing in our public policies the
  precautionary principle, then we react too late to the changes. It
  WILL be interesting."
Interview with Carolyn Raffensperger
  The Living Hero Podcast proudly presents an interview with
  environmental lawyer and public health advocate, Carolyn
  Raffensperger. An environmental lawyer, she specializes in the
  fundamental changes in law and policy necessary for the protection and
  restoration of public health and the environment.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Great Lakes Law, Feb. 3, 2009
[Printer-friendly version]

OBAMA AND EPA GET A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR REGULATING GREENHOUSE GASES

By Noah Hall

The Obama administration and EPA get a strong advocate for regulating
greenhouse gas pollution

It now appears official that Georgetown Law Professor Lisa
Heinzerling will be joining the EPA as a special advisor to EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson on climate change issues. I've known Lisa
H. for several years (we are co-authoring the casebook Environmental
Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society) and there is no better
person for the job. Lisa is one of the most effective, intelligent,
passionate, and knowledgeable environmental and regulatory law
scholars in the country. She is also a wonderful person and a pleasure
to work with and learn from.

Substantively, Lisa will be a strong and persuasive advocate for
addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse gas emissions. She
was the lead author of the brief in Massachusetts v. EPA that
persuaded the Supreme Court that the EPA has the authority to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act. She was
justifiably critical of the Bush EPA's failure to use existing legal
tools, even when obligated to do so. Her short essay, "A Climate
Agenda for the New President" published last fall in the Michigan Law
Review's online First Impressions, outlines four immediate regulatory
steps the new administration (which now includes her) should take to
address climate change:

1. The EPA administrator should formally find that greenhouse gases
endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air
Act.

2. With the endangerment finding in hand, the EPA should regulate new
stationary sources (pollutant sources, like factories or power plants,
that are fixed in place) under the Clean Air Act.

3. The EPA should reverse course and grant California permission -- a
"waiver," in Clean Air Act parlance -- to regulate greenhouse gases
from motor vehicles. [President Obama has already directed the EPA to
do this.]

4. The United States Forest Service should do whatever it needs to do
to revive the Clinton-era rule protecting almost sixty million acres
of roadless areas in our national forests and then ensure that the
rule remains in force.... [which] will help to address climate change,
not through traditional pollution control, but through the
preservation of carbon sinks that can absorb some of the carbon we
discharge into the atmosphere.

In another recent essay, "Climate Change, Human Health, and the Post-
Cautionary Principle" published in the Georgetown Law Journal, Lisa
gives a clear statement on her legal and moral views regarding climate
change:

I suggest two different but related ways of reframing the public
discourse on climate change. First, I propose that we move further in
the direction of characterizing climate change as a public health
threat and not only as an environmental threat. Second, I argue that
we should stop thinking of responses to climate change in terms of the
precautionary principle, which counsels action even in the absence of
scientific consensus about a threat. We should speak instead in terms
of a "post-cautionary" principle for a postcautionary world, in which
some very bad effects of climate change are unavoidable and others are
avoidable only if we take dramatic steps, and soon. These points are
related insofar as they together create a moral imperative both to
adapt to the changes we cannot prevent and to mitigate those we can.
Without these efforts, people will fall ill and many will die, and we
know now that this will occur. No fancy moral theory is required to
condemn, and to make every attempt to avert, this large-scale knowing
killing.

Philosophically, morally, and legally, she is clearly a much needed
change from the previous administration. Congratulations Lisa, glad to
have you on the job.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: EcoWaste Coalition, Feb. 4, 2009
[Printer-friendly version]

DOH URGED TO PREVENT WOMEN'S EXPOSURE TO HORMONE DISRUPTORS

Quezon City (Philippines) -- An environmental alliance working on
chemical safety policy reforms today called on Health Secretary Duque
to initiate measures that will prevent women's exposure to hormone-
mimicking chemicals.

The EcoWaste Coalition aired this request for action as it releases
the report "Girl, Disrupted: Hormone Disruptors and Women's
Reproductive Health" published by the US-based Collaborative on
Health and the Environment (CHE).

"Girl, Disrupted," based on cutting-edge research and reviewed by top
scientists in the field, sheds light on what hormone disruptors are
and how these chemicals harm women's reproductive systems,
particularly at critical stages of development.

The new report says that manmade, hormone-like chemicals in the
environment harm women's reproductive systems, particularly when
exposure occurs during prenatal and early life development, stressing
that more focused research is needed to fully understand how.

"I continue to be surprised by the number of doctors that come up to
me at conferences and comment on what they are seeing in their
patients that they have never seen before," said Dr. Tracey Woodruff,
Director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment
(PRHE) at the University of California, San Francisco, reviewer of the
report.

"Girls entering puberty at extremely young ages, young women suffering
from the inability to get pregnant and conditions normally associated
with older ages such as very painful fibroids, endometriosis and
breast cancer," she said.

In a letter faxed to the Department of Health, the EcoWaste Coalition
expressed concern over the effects of industrial chemicals as cited in
the report that have been linked to serious health problems for women
such as early puberty, infertility, endometriosis, uterine fibroids,
breast cancer and others.

"These industrial chemicals known as endocrine or hormone disruptors
can disturb hormonal balances that are critical for the good health
and development at all phases of a woman's life," Elsie Brandes-De
Veyra of the EcoWaste Coalition's Steering Committee said.

"We therefore urge Secretary Duque to initiate policy solutions,
applying the precautionary principle, that will adequately safeguard
our girls and women from early- life exposures to these harmful
chemicals that can cause later-life health issues and even multi-
generational harm," De Veyra added.

Hormone disruptors, the "Girl, Disrupted" explains, can get into the
human bodies when we breathe, eat, drink and have skin contact with
these harmful chemicals that can be found in household products as
well as in cigarette smoke, industrial pollutants and some pesticides.

Some of these hormone disruptors include bisphenol A, which is
commonly used in baby feeding bottles, sports bottles and in the
linings of infant formula and canned foods, and phthalates, which are
used in children's products, cosmetics, medical devices and as
plasticizer in polyvinyl chloride.

Other known hormone disruptors include chemicals in first and
secondhand cigarette smoke, the dioxin byproducts from industrial and
burning processes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in transformer
oils and polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs) used as flame retardant in
electrical appliances, textiles, plastic foams and other products.

Studies show that the health impacts of these chemicals to hormonal
functions depend on the potency and dose of the chemical, the timing
of the exposure and the individual's overall health, which can be
shaped, among other factors, by the person's genetic makeup, diet,
physical habits, sexually transmitted diseases and access to
healthcare.

In calling for action versus hormone disruptors, the EcoWaste
Coalition asked Secretary Duque to support local research on endocrine
disrupting chemicals and their effects on women's health, and for him
to support policies that will identify and phase out harmful chemicals
in products and to require the use of safer substitutes.

The EcoWaste Coalition specifically asked the Department of Health, as
the principal public health and safety agency, to lead the process of
listing non-environmentally acceptable products and packaging to be
targeted for phase out under Republic Act 9003 or the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act.

As for the consuming public, the EcoWaste Coalition encourages
consumers to insist on toxics-free goods as a fundamental right, and
to have access to chemical information, including a product's chemical
ingredients, health effects and eco-disposal, to facilitate informed
choices.

"Girl, Disrupted" is available for free download at CHE, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan global network of more than 3,000 individuals
and organizations focused on the science of environmental health:

============

EcoWaste Coalition
Unit 320, Eagle Court Condominium, Matalino St.
Quezon City, Philippines
+63 2 9290376
ecowastecoalition@yahoo.com

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Philippine Daily Inquirer (Manila, Philippines), Feb. 2, 2009
[Printer-friendly version]

A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY

By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.

A provision in the 1987 Constitution [of the Philippines], which once
some saw as unnecessary, has been gradually gaining attention. Section
16 of Article II says: "The State shall protect and advance the right
of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature." In tandem with it is Section 15, which
says: "The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them."

Section 16 is unusual among those found in Article II in that, whereas
almost all the other provisions in the Article are not self-executing
but need implementing legislation to make them effective, Section 16
has been recognized by the Supreme Court as self-executing like the
provisions in the Bill of Rights. As early as 1993 the Supreme Court
already recognized it, in conjunction with the right to health, as
anchoring the right of a group of minors to challenge logging
practices in the country. The minors, speaking for themselves and for
"generations yet unborn" under the concept of "inter-generational
justice," asked the Court to order a stop to the harmful effects
flowing from deforestation. The Court upheld their right to raise the
challenge as flowing from their "right to a balanced and healthful
ecology" and "the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
environment."

Not long after that the Court upheld the right of the Laguna Lake
Development Authority to be responsible for the ecological protection
of Laguna Lake against the claimed authority of the local governments
around the lake. The Supreme Court linked Section 16 with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference
Declaration of 1978.

Along a similar vein, in 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the validity of
an ordinance of the City of Manila requiring the oil companies to
close and transfer the Pandacan Terminals to another location within a
specified period.

The latest on this subject came out only last December. In
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Residents of Manila Bay,
the Supreme Court ordered various agencies of government to clean up
Manila Bay.

All these have come about because of the desire of the state as
enunciated in the Constitution to ensure for the people a healthy
environment. This constitutional policy, even if already self-
executing, has been injected with an element of urgency through
various laws.

The latest development on the subject is an ordinance promulgated by
the City of Davao ordering a stop to aerial spraying of fungicides in
the plantations of Davao. I wrote about this last week saying that
this is unfinished business. The ordinance was brought to court and
one of the issues was whether conclusive evidence existed to prove
that aerial spraying was the cause of ailments reported as affecting
some people in the area. The Court of Appeals found no conclusive
evidence and saw this as one of the reasons why the ordinance should
be invalidated. (Another reason was the alleged impossibility and
enormous cost of switching to a different method of speeding
fungicides.)

About the issue of lack of evidence, Fr. Jett Villarin, S.J.,
president of Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro and a scientist whose
area of expertise is environmental matters, made some interesting
observations in a letter he sent me. He says:

"Environmental laws and regulations must abide by the precautionary
principle. This principle simply holds that uncertainty in the science
should not be an obstacle or excuse to postpone mitigating action. It
is a conservative principle which in the case of scientific
uncertainty places the burden of proof on the polluter, not on the
affected, i.e. the polluter has the responsibility to prove that what
is being spewed into the environment is not harmful. [The Court of
Appeals had said that the planters had failed to do this.] Corollary,
it is not the responsibility of the affected to prove that the
effluent is poisonous. In view of scientific uncertainty, the
presumption is that the chemical is harmful.

"Aerial spraying is better deployed in advanced countries where there
is mechanized agriculture and land buffers are maintained. In the
Philippines and other developing countries, communities live close to
the plants and the land they till.

"The degree of harm depends on the lifetime, human exposure and
concentration levels of the chemical. These will depend on the state
of the atmosphere. Greater control of the dispersion of chemicals is
possible in stable atmospheres. Tropical atmospheres are frequently
unstable and less predictable. You only need to ask a fisherman who
knows how locally unpredictable amihan can be these days.

"If I were a banana plant manager, I would seriously weigh the
marginal cost of mitigating the impact of aerial spraying or the total
cost of adopting another technology alongside the externality costs of
possible medical, rehabilitation, and legal class action in the
future. If three months are not enough to change systems, I would
negotiate for a protracted withdrawal schedule. Time, like air, can
dilute costs.

"If I were a banana farmer, I would try to convince my amo that people
are better than planes. People can say thank you. Planes can only fly.

"As a priest, I hope that our judges and our agriculturists see that
heaven might be an aerial place and that God's bottom line might be
different from theirs."

Of course, the last two paragraphs are neither science nor law. But
they can be of greater significance than either science or law, or
bananas.

Copyright 2009 Philippine Daily Inquirer

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: San Francisco Bay Guardian, Feb. 4, 2009

TAILPIPE TURNAROUND

Bay Area leaders and communities are demanding even more to offset the
harm that comes from emissions

http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7987&catid=&volume_id=
398&issue_id=417&volume_num=43&issue_num=19

By Andrew W. Shaw

Word that automobile emissions standards may soon improve was good
news, but Bay Area leaders and communities are demanding even more to
offset the harm that comes from tailpipes.

President Barack Obama last month called for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to allow California and as many as 13 other states
to employ their own emissions restrictions. "Our goal," said Obama at
the White House, "is not to further burden an already struggling
industry. It is to help America's automakers prepare for the future."

A review of the request is now underway and manufacturers were
reassured they would have enough time to rework their 2011 lines. By
then, cars and trucks should have improved efficiency and better
mileage, outpacing three-year-old national standards that have been in
place since the EPA refused to grant a waiver from the federal Clean
Air Act.

Locally, the city's Transportation Authority is reworking the local
Climate Action Plan to emphasize emissions reductions. But the problem
is expected to get worse before it gets better.

Researchers at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District expect
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation to increase dramatically
from 42.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide this year to 65.4
million in 2029 under "business as usual conditions."

That may be why Mayor Gavin Newsom and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed
released a letter Jan. 23 opposing federal plans for an auto industry
bailout unless there are more strings attached to the money and more
progressive programs to develop low-emission vehicles regionally. The
two mayors called for an auto bailout that would "not divert funds
from innovative emerging transportation technologies."

Jan Lundberg, a former oil industry analyst turned activist and a
former member of the San Francisco Peak Oil Preparedness Task Force,
calls for even bolder steps: "The kinds of amelioration being talked
about and offered are woefully inadequate. We should just get rid of
car dependency. Most of the pollution involved -- into the air, from
the car -- is not from the tailpipe. It's from the mining and the
manufacturing associated with the car."

The real challenge for local governments is not in adapting their
vehicles, but adapting policy to reflect progressive approaches like
San Francisco's "Precautionary Principle," adopted in 2003. The policy
puts the burden of proof on advocates of new technology to show it is
safe. Debbie Raphael, the Green Building Program Manager with San
Francisco's Department of the Environment, has been pushing for a
change in how environmental codes are implemented. "Taxpayers have
every right to know the risks," she said. "The burden then falls on
industry to study possible negative consequences and to investigate
safer alternatives."

Writer and activist Bill McKibben addressed the issue last fall when
he spoke at Herbst Theatre, recognizing San Francisco as an
environmental leader among cities. "This is clearly a community that
is doing so many of the things right that need to be done. One
community at a time is a very noble way to proceed. But in the end,
it's only half the battle. We've got to get the political movement
going that allows us to do this everywhere, not just in the places
that already understand it."

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: CBCPNews Online (Manila, Philippines), Feb. 3, 2009
[Printer-friendly version]

STRINGENT POLICIES ON THE USE OF CHEMICALS ON FOOD URGED

Manila (Philippines) -- A waste and pollution watchdog pressed for
stronger curbs on harmful chemicals to ensure the safety of consumers
amid brewing concern over the presence of toxic substances in products
that can damage human health and the environment.

The EcoWaste Coalition called for stringent policy and regulation of
chemicals at the conclusion of their workshop on chemical safety held
recently at the University of the Philippines in Quezon City.

"By calling for tighter rules on chemicals, we want to halt the
unwanted intrusion of harmful chemicals into our bodies as we also
seek to protect our vital life support systems from being poisoned.
Chemical trespassing has to stop," Manny Calonzo of the EcoWaste
Coalition and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives said.

The workshop gathered 150 public health and environmental advocates
from Metro Manila and from other parts of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
Included among the participants were two priests from Imus and Tandag
dioceses and lay groups from Kalookan and Cabanatuan dioceses.

Participants adopted a "Citizens' Statement for the Protection of
Consumers against Toxic Chemicals" outlining the basic principles that
should guide the formulation of a holistic chemicals regulatory regime
that will promote human and ecological health and safety.

Foremost among these is the precautionary principle, which refers to
the application of preventive measures to minimize potential adverse
effects to people's health and the environment of an activity even if
cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically.

"We urge the government, particularly the health, environment and
trade agencies, to act with urgency to stop chemical pollution that is
already jeopardizing the health of our people, especially the pregnant
women, developing fetus, infants, children, elderly, and the
agricultural, industrial, healthcare and waste workers," Calonzo said.

The participants, mostly from grassroots communities, also expressed
their commitment to contribute to the United Nation's goal of
promoting chemical safety as detailed in the Strategic Approach to
International Chemicals Management (SAICM).

SAICM seeks "the sound management of chemicals throughout their life-
cycle so that, by 2020, chemicals are used and produced in ways that
lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human
health and the environment."

The "Citizens' Statement" stressed the need of consumers to have
access to vital chemical data, including information on their health
effects and disposal, to facilitate informed choices on what to
consume and what to reject.

Consumers, the Eco group said, should insist on their personal and
collective "right to know" and demand that only safe and toxics-free
products are sold in the market.

"By asserting our purchasing power and making the smart choice of not
buying goods whose production, sale, use and disposal may damage our
bodies and the ecosystems can hasten industry shifts to safer
substitutes, including non-chemical alternatives," Calonzo said.

Towards a toxics-free future, the participants agreed to pursue Zero
Waste that will cut not only the volume but also the toxicity of
discards and pressed for a ban on toxic substances such as lead,
mercury, phthalates and bisphenol A in toys, children's products,
medical devices and other consumer items.

They likewise expressed their support for ongoing campaigns to ban the
aerial spraying of pesticide, to enact picture-based health warnings
on cigarette packs, and to defend breastmilk, "the first Zero Waste
food," from industry attacks and chemical pollution.

Specific recommendations were also made to the Departments of Health,
Environment and Natural Resources, and Trade and Industry as well as
to the academe, church, industry and civil society.

Companies were particularly asked to embrace the principle of
sustainability, design for the environment, and be liable for the
whole cost of pollution and injury from the production, sale, use and
disposal of toxic chemicals in their products.

CBCP News :: Official news agency of the Catholic Bishops' Conference
of the Philippines

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Embodied Space, Jan. 6, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]

EARTH SURVIVES; CIVILIZATION COLLAPSES?

Re the view that humans are making the Earth less habitable for HUMANS
(and many other creatures).

By Lee Durham Stone

This is my jeremiad: The Earth itself will survive, of course, but in
an altered state. The question then becomes what will happen to
possibly billions of humans in coming decades, as the U.N. projects in
its middle projection that the Earth will have 9.1 billion humans by
2050, an increase of 2.5 billion over today. For example, with global
climate change, what will ensue -- what rapid human changes will need
to made -- if the agricultural zones of the central Plains in the U.S.
shift northward hundreds of miles toward and into Canada? How many
trillions of dollars would be needed to make that adjustment, an
adjustment to an area that is one of the principal breadbaskets of the
world?

Yes, the world is always in flux and climate is no exception.
Scientists believe we are in an interglacial period, but the
overwhelming consensus is that the current rapid changes are
anthropogenic (human-caused) in origin.

Not abusing the Earth? Mountaintop removal in the coalfields of
Appalachia where I worked as a strip-mine inspector; the mass of
plastic the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean; the great
majority of rivers in China that are terribly polluted -- I'd say
these are just a few examples of the human destruction of life-systems
of Earth.

Sure, global climate change might benefit the five countries bordering
the Arctic Ocean, as it is now projected that the Arctic Ocean will be
completely ice-free by 2070, and those countries could explore for
what might be 25% of the world's reserves of oil and gas. At the same
time, of course, the rise in the eustatic level (sea level) would also
cause some massive readjustments along coastlines of the planet, where
so many people (including me) now live.

One huge change looming just over the horizon is the approach of peak
oil, when the production of petroleum that has for so long been
increasing, reaches the point of decreasing production. Even though at
that tipping point there would still be a great deal of oil in the
pipeline, prices would begin a rapid spiral upwards. Sure, there would
be lots of oil, but priced beyond what our economy could easily use.
Again, massive changes would ensue, too fast to adjust to without
gargantuan disruption to life as we are used to living it.

Yes, Earth will survive, but what is the fate of life as we know it?
Jarred Diamond, a historical geographer at UCLA, writing in Collapse,
his study of the causes of collapse of past civilizations, outlined
several reasons for civilizational failure. They include civilizations
who saw the collapse coming, but were not able to make necessary
changes in time. I think this is where we are at this point: seeing,
but not believing enough, or partly paralyzed into inaction. We'll
see. Unless we forthrightly begin practicing in our public policies
the precautionary principle, then we react too late to the changes. It
WILL be interesting.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Living Hero, Feb. 1, 2009
[Printer-friendly version]

INTERVIEW WITH CAROLYN RAFFENSPERGER


Carolyn Raffensperger


Listen to this 45-minute interview at your convenience! Use this
link to download this episode (right click and save).

The Living Hero Podcast proudly presents an interview with
environmental lawyer and public health advocate, Carolyn
Raffensperger. Carolyn is executive director of the Science and
Environmental Health Network, where she has worked since 1994.

In 1982, Ms. Raffensperger left a career as an archaeologist in the
desert Southwest to join the environmental movement. She first worked
for the Sierra Club where she addressed an array of environmental
issues, including forest management, river protection, pesticide
pollutants, and the disposal of radioactive waste. As an environmental
lawyer she specializes in the fundamental changes in law and policy
necessary for the protection and restoration of public health and the
environment.

We talked about:

** faulty assumptions underlying environmental decision making

** the precautionary principle and what it is

** a new report on health, aging and the environment

** reversing the burden of proof on the safety of industrial chemicals

** law, corporate structure, and your inalienable right to a clean and
healthy environment

** Carolyn's legal work for the rights of future generations and the
commonwealth

** the biggest obstacles and the greatest opportunities for reform o
the essential nature of the arts and how they function in the process
of change

** genetically altered seeds, the sex of plants, and the farmer-
scientist breeding project

** turning the Titanic

** ecological medicine and the economics of aging

Carolyn is co-editor of Precautionary Tools for Reshaping
Environmental Policy published by M.I.T. Press (2006) and Protecting
Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary
Principle, published by Island Press (1999). Together, these volumes
provide the most comprehensive exploration to date of the history,
theory, and implementation of the precautionary principle.

Carolyn Raffensperger is responsible for coining the term "ecological
medicine" to encompass the broad notions that both health and healing
are entwined with the natural world. She has served on editorial
review boards for several environmental and sustainable agriculture
journals, and on USEPA and National Research Council committees. Her
bimonthly column for the Environmental Law Institute's journal
Environmental Forum appeared from 1999 until 2008.

Our guest has also been featured in Gourmet magazine, the Utne Reader,
Yes! Magazine, the Sun, Whole Earth, and Scientific American. Along
with leading workshops and lecturing frequently on the Precautionary
Principle, Carolyn is at the forefront of developing new models of
government, which will depend on precaution and ecological integrity,
and guardianship for future generations.

For more information, visit the websites of The Science and
Environmental Health Network and of Guardians of the Future.

Enjoy the show and please add your comments! These interviews are
presented in audio format only -- sorry no transcripts at this time!
You may download the mp3 file, which will play in iTunes, RealPlayer,
Windows Media Player and other media players. (The program is 45
minutes)

Listen at your convenience! Use this link to download this episode
(right click and save).

Instructions for Windows Right click on the link that says "Download
this episode (right click and save)". Click on "Save Target as". The
file will start downloading. A window will pop up and the name of the
file will be filled in, as well as the file format. Just choose to
save it to your desktop in the left bar.Then you will have an mp3 file
sitting on your desktop. Right click on that and choose Open with:
iTunes (or your chosen player). Or, alternatively, open iTunes and
just drag the mp3 into iTunes.

Instructions for Mac Control click or right click on the link that
says "Download this episode (right click and save)". Either "Open with
iTunes" to listen now or "Download link file as" and save to your
desktop. Open with iTunes later or just drag the file into iTunes and
play it whenever you like.

Return to Table of Contents

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  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.

  Editor:
  Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
  
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution
  Reporter send any Email to one of these addresses:

  Full HTML edition: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
  Table of Contents (TOC) edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net

  In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that
  you want to subscribe.

  To unsubscribe, send any email to rpr-unsubscribe@pplist.net
  or to rpr-toc-unsubscribe@pplist.net, as appropriate.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
rpr@rachel.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::