> The precautionary principle is not an all or nothing concept.  One looks
> at the perceived problem, and then you make a judgment based on previous
> experience etc. as to how severe the perceived problem may be.   And
> then put in place appropriate controls and monitoring.  If the
> monitoring shows a problem, or indeed lack of one, the controls are
> changed.

That is quite true.

The real problem is that many people cannot weigh probabilities and 
consequently find any risk -- no matter how remote or hypothetical -- to 
be unacceptable.

It is hard for rational people to comprehend their thinking or 
understand how to assuage the fears.  In fact, it may not be possible.

Moreover, the public is diverse.

* Some people seek risk and climb ice falls in winter hang-glide and fly 
ultralights in spite of the relatively high probability of injury or 
death.

* Others are afraid to go outside their homes or fly in commercial jets 
(which are prove to be safer than the ride to the airport).

So, the precautionary principle is not the problem.  Application of the 
problem is the difficulty.  No amount of certainty is sufficient for 
some, while others embrace even fairly high apparent risks.  How can 
they all be satisfied with any solution?

It also seems that people with the poorest ability to comprehend and 
weigh risk or understand chemistry and biology are those most likely to 
parade in the streets (an activity which itself is a risky enterprise) 
and tend to get far greater attention to their emotional appeals than 
educated and rational discussions which the media and public find boring.

Go figure.

             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm