The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century and over 2 million other books are available for Amazon Kindle . Learn more
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings Paperback – 15 Apr 2002


See all 3 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"
Paperback
"Please retry"
£50.00 £12.95

Trade In Promotion



Product details

  • Paperback: 288 pages
  • Publisher: Earthscan Ltd (15 April 2002)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1853838934
  • ISBN-13: 978-1853838934
  • Product Dimensions: 1.9 x 14.6 x 23.5 cm
  • Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 1,868,371 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • See Complete Table of Contents

Product Description

Review

'One of the most useful, comprehensive and readable books on environmental issues that I have ever read.' Tom Davey, Environmental Science and Engineering Magazine 'Policy makers concerned with climate change or genetic modifications should read this collection of early warnings wilfully ignored.' New Scientist 'The real value of this book is that it is a refreshing shift away from rhetoric towards a far more informed and careful analysis of precautionary action and the precautionary principle.' Journal of Environmental Law 'Makes excellent and thought-provoking reading.' Journal of Risk Research 'This is a valuable book, full of sensible discussions, useful insights and helpful guidance for the future.' Cass R Sunstein. The Yearbook of European Environmental Law volume 6

About the Author

Poul Harremoes is professor of environmental science and engineering at the Technical University of Denmark. David Gee is project manager for emerging environmental issues and scientific liaison at the European Environment Agency (EEA), Denmark. Malcolm MacGarvin is an environmental consultant based in Scotland. Andy Stirling is senior lecturer at Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU), University of Sussex, UK. Jane Keys is a freelance environmental researcher based in the UK. Brian Wynne is professor of science studies at Lancaster University, UK. Sofia Guedes Vaz is an environmental engineer who has worked at the EEA on reporting, targets and emerging environmental issues.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index
Search inside this book:

Customer Reviews

2.5 out of 5 stars
5 star
0
4 star
1
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
1
See both customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful By Doctor Goats on 11 Jan 2003
Format: Paperback
The book takes a matter-of-fact approach to the subject, getting contributors to give detailed answers to four key questions on specific hazards that were subsequently addressed, starting with when was the first credible scientific warning of potential harm. It's not a light read, and an understanding of the scientific method, chemistry, and statistics will prove invaluable.
The book received a warm welcome in the scientific press, and the quality of the writing shows why. Where there is doubt in research, the book discusses it honestly. It also shows why problems frequently aren't addressed until after financial or health damage has been done, for example the compound (government) system failures that caused the BSE crisis in the UK. Of note is what has been omitted: the low-hanging fruit of (say) second-hand smoking, thalidomide, DDT, and lead in petrol would have made a separate book.
Another of the questions asked of the contributors concerns costs versus benefits -- for example, there is a discussion of whether the health (and, ultimately, financial) problems of asbestos were offset by the safety benefits, employment opportunities and so on. Combined with an unbiased and non-accusatory tone throughout the book, it makes an invaluable contribution to a field overrepresented by polemics.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
2 of 9 people found the following review helpful By Siard Hanekamp on 19 Jun 2002
Format: Paperback
The precautionary principle (PP in short) has become a scientific and political instrument attracting a host of organisations and individuals giving their viewpoints adding to the international discussion. Indeed, how to deal with environmental and human health risks is not a simple matter. Science and technology carry both real benefits and real risks. And a 'better be safe than sorry' strategy -as a translation what precaution is- seems the wisest thing to do.
The European Environment Agency (EEA) adds to this discussion by looking into the past. Always a good thing to think historically about risks and technology. The presentation of those historical examples of technology gone wrong leaves one wondering, however, whether or not the scientific representation is up to par.
Clearly it is not. However, not to the layman. One needs to be aware of all the scientific ins and outs to spot the possible biases. One example I myself am quite familiar with is the antibiotic case discussed by the EEA (chapter 9 in the downlodable version). Blatant omissions from the scientific discussion (leaving out essential scientific literature) spurs the authors of this chapter to a banal and trivial conclusion (p. 98 of the downloadable version):
'As the risks involved are of uncertain magnitude, the decisions on risk management are particularly difficult. The risk can obviously not be excluded with certainty, nor can it be de-termined as acceptable. In a climate of uncertainty it is preferable to show caution. In this situation decision-making needs to involve precaution, particularly when it is unacceptable, inhuman and unethical to wait for ultimate proof, when human fatalities could be involved.'
Of course this conclusion can be drawn for any case, not just this one.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 2 reviews
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
A thorough and useful book 2 Jan 2003
By Doctor Goats - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
The book takes a matter-of-fact approach to the subject, getting contributors to give detailed answers to four key questions on specific hazards that were subsequently addressed, starting with when was the first credible scientific warning of potential harm. It's not a light read, and an understanding of the scientific method, chemistry, and statistics will prove invaluable.
The book received a warm welcome in the scientific press, and the quality of the writing shows why. Where there is doubt in research, the book discusses it honestly. It also shows why problems frequently aren't addressed until after financial or health damage has been done, for example the compound (government) system failures that caused the BSE crisis in the UK. Of note is what has been omitted: the low-hanging fruit of (say) second-hand smoking, thalidomide, DDT, and lead in petrol would have made a separate book.
Another of the questions asked of the contributors concerns costs versus benefits -- for example, there is a discussion of whether the health (and, ultimately, financial) problems of asbestos were offset by the safety benefits, employment opportunities and so on. Combined with an unbiased and non-accusatory tone throughout the book, it makes an invaluable contribution to a field overrepresented by polemics.
12 of 20 people found the following review helpful
The empowerment of bureaucracy 30 May 2002
By Siard Hanekamp - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
The precautionary principle (PP in short) has become a scientific and political instrument attracting a host of organisations and individuals giving their viewpoints adding to the international discussion. Indeed, how to deal with environmental and human health risks is not a simple matter. Science and technology carry both real benefits and real risks. And a 'better be safe than sorry' strategy -as a translation what precaution is- seems the wisest thing to do.
The European Environment Agency (EEA) adds to this discussion by looking into the past. Always a good thing to think historically about risks and technology. The presentation of those historical examples of technology gone wrong leaves one wondering, however, whether or not the scientific representation is up to par.
Clearly it is not. However, not to the layman. One needs to be aware of all the scientific ins and outs to spot the possible biases. One example I myself am quite familiar with is the antibiotic case discussed by the EEA (chapter 9 in the downlodable version). Blatant omissions from the scientific discussion (leaving out essential scientific literature) spurs the authors of this chapter to a banal and trivial conclusion (p. 98 of the downloadable version):
'As the risks involved are of uncertain magnitude, the decisions on risk management are particularly difficult. The risk can obviously not be excluded with certainty, nor can it be de-termined as acceptable. In a climate of uncertainty it is preferable to show caution. In this situation decision-making needs to involve precaution, particularly when it is unacceptable, inhuman and unethical to wait for ultimate proof, when human fatalities could be involved.'
Of course this conclusion can be drawn for any case, not just this one. Moreover no amount of scientific research will ever result in certainty. The conclusion presented here in the EEA report is not in need of any scientific deliberation. It could do well without ten pages of scientific reviewing, whether or not biased in nature. Furthermore, the authors revert to the fallacy of an appeal to motives in place of support. They regard not invoking the PP as unacceptable, inhuman and unethical. Of course this is beside the point as it has very little to do with the scientific discourse at hand.
This brings me to the philosophical side of the issue. Any type of human action or inaction is fraught with uncertainty and therefore prone to the PP. So how to chose? The problem is that risks of one kind or another are on all sides of regulatory choices, and it is therefore impossible to avoid running afoul of the principle. The PP promotes irrational behaviour by the assumption that regulating target risks (the historical examples presented in the EEA study) is overall beneficial ánd that the costs of risk avoidance with only the specific target risks in view can be met on any scale -which is clearly not the case. Moreover, this asymmetry is enhanced by the fact that those who invoke the PP -the policymakers- do not need to adhere to it themselves despite the fact that any human intervention holds uncertainties for the future.
The EEA treats the PP as though it were an exogenous panacea for environmental and social ills. In other words: market risks warrants governmental regulation. But government regulation is not an exogenous solution to environmental risks; it is itself an endogenous and fallible human activity, and as such it can create risks. Risks that are as real as the risks of market (economic) activities: care can cure but care can also cripple.
The odd thing is that no discussion what so ever is presented by the EEA on the problems of the PP. Not a single reference to the ever growing scientific literature highly critical of the PP. Whichever side one choses, within the scientific discourse one has to deal with scientific criticism from both sides.
My conclusion therefore must be that the EEA did not so much present a scientific piece of work on this issue but made a political statement on how to deal with risk. It is part of the 'ecological critique' of the Western World which Anna Bramwell described so well in her 'Ecology in the twentieth century'. The PP fits well with a misanthropic view of progress combined with a relativistic perspective on science. Therefore the PP empowers bureaucracy as the scientific check and balances are side-tracked in its implementation. Indeed a recipe for increasing social and political struggles and stagnating economies.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know


Feedback