"The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. Effectively, this principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is evidence of potential harm in the absence of complete scientific proof. The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law."
(As seen on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle")
Recently, I was listening to the radio when I first heard about this principle. For example, the “Y2K bug.” The interviewee started rambling on and how many people would argue that we never had the issue to begin with. Of course the world was going to end at the stroke of midnight on January 01, 2000. However, nothing happened. We waited.... some purchased water, food, extra health supplies, flashlights... and nothing happened. Could it have been that we blew the entire thing out of proportion? Yes, that is quite possible and even probable in that scenario. However, the other option is that we put the efforts into the problem to fix the root cause prior to the needed evidence to suggest facts that an issue could occur.
I would hope that in the event of a discovery significant enough to attract merit of potential we would act.
No comments:
Post a Comment