> To be serious, is the precautionary principle 
> not just risk assessment by another name?

The Precautionary Principle (as currently implemented in many EU member
states) seems to demand that all possible risk be eliminated before a new
technology is adopted.  

In contrast, Risk Assessment inherently admits that there is a non-zero, but
still acceptable level of risk associated with all actions, and attempts to
gauge the relative risk, and compare it to current levels of risk currently
assumed.

So, while my new Volvo V70 wagon might seem unacceptably risky given the
complexity of 11 onboard computers, computer-controlled anti-lock braking,
and so on, it seems a much safer car than the 1972 MG Midget, and 1982 Volvo
240 wagon I used to drive.

But the Precautionary Principle would force me to keep driving the 1982
Volvo 240 until every last line of software in all 11 computers in the Volvo
V70 was subjected to a tedious code review.  It would ignore that without a
maintenance schedule bordering on obsession, a 30-year-old car is likely to
be very unsafe in very basic ways, such as in worn suspension and major
steering components.

A Risk Assessment would likely judge all the front, side, and in-seat
airbags in the V70 to be "safer" than the 240's approach of selling a
passenger car built on the chassis of a Stridsvagn 103 tank, and would note
that a 30-year old car is "inherently less safe than a new car". 

Neither analysis would allow me to drive the MG, even with a rollbar and
5-point harnesses, partly due to the tiny 1500-lb curb weight, and partly
due to the Lucas electrical system, showing that both schemes protect one
from the overtly dangerous choices.  :)

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html