Suchergebnisse

During the summer of 1999, the West Nile Virus, a mosquito-borne virus, made its first appearance in North America. Public health officials throughout New England were forced to quickly respond to a novel threat, in many cases resorting to pesticide spraying that carried real but uncertain risks. This article explores the tensions faced by public health officials when making decisions regarding uncertain risks, particularly when there might be trade-offs between those risks. It examines the role of the precautionary principle -- a guide to decision making under uncertainty -- in trying to mediate these trade offs. It is concluded that by exploring & implementing a wide range of preventive options, including a broad range of perspectives in decision-making processes, using a multidisciplinary scientific lens & systems perspective to examine risks, & developing methods to monitor public health interventions for signals of problems, such trade-offs can be minimized or avoided in a truly precautionary manner. 15 References. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications, Inc.]

The precautionary principle calls on decisionmakers to take preventive action in light of evidence indicating that there is a potential for harm to public health and the environment, even though the nature and magnitude of harm are not fully understood scientifically. Critics of the precautionary principle frequently argue that unbridled application of the principle leads to unintended damage to health and ecosystems (risk tradeoffs) and that precautious decision making leaves us vulnerable to "false‐positive" risks that divert resources away from "real risks." The 1991 cholera epidemic in Peru is often cited as an example of these pitfalls of the precautionary principle. It has been mistakenly argued that application of the precautionary principle caused decisionmakers to stop chlorinating the water supply due to the risks of disinfection byproducts (DBPs), resulting in the epidemic. Through analyses of investigations conducted in the cities of Iquitos and Trujillo, Peru, literature review, and interviews with leading Peruvian infectious disease researchers, we determined that the epidemic was caused by a much more complex set of circumstances, including poor sanitation conditions, poor separation of water and waste streams, and inadequate water treatment and distribution systems. The evidence indicates that no decision was made to stop chlorinating on the basis of DBP concerns and that concerns raised about DBPs masked more important factors limiting expansion of chlorination. In fact, outside of Peru's capital Lima, chlorination of drinking water supplies at the time of the epidemic was limited at best. We conclude that the Peruvian cholera epidemic was not caused by a failure of precaution but rather by an inadequate public health infrastructure unable to control a known risk: that of microbial contamination of water supplies.

An alumni panel on Public Interest Science featuring Chris Brick, Joel Tickner, and Alex Scanton, alumni of the University of Montana Environmental Studies Program. Panelist Bios: Chris Brick recently retired from 16 years as science director for the Clark Fork Coalition, a river conservation group dedicated to protecting and restoring the Clark Fork watershed. She holds a B.A. in geology, an M.S. in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana, and a Ph.D. in geosciences focusing on the chemistry and hydrology of the Clark Fork River. At various times in her life she's been a mining geologist, a groundwater consultant, a post-doctoral fellow in science education, and an adjunct professor at the University of Montana. She's also volunteered on a number of boards for conservation groups, most recently, Climate Smart Missoula. In 2013, Chris was honored with the Arnold Bolle Conservation Professional award. She was instrumental in the restoration plans for the confluence of the Blackfoot and Clark Fork rivers when Milltown Dam was removed, as well as work on water quality and ecological health throughout the Clark Fork drainage. Joel Tickner is a Professor of Public Health at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell where he directs the Chemicals Policy and Science Initiative of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. He also directs the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council, a network of more than 90 companies and other organizations dedicated to accelerating the adoption of green chemistry across supply chains and sectors. Joel is a leading expert on chemicals regulation, regulatory science, and application of alternatives assessment in science and policy. He has served as an advisor and researcher for several government agencies, international agencies, non-profit environmental groups, companies, and trade unions both in the U.S. and abroad. Joel served on the EPA's National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee, as well as National Academy of Sciences panels around alternatives assessment and safer chemistry. He also directs the undergraduate environmental health program at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He holds a BA in Spanish with a concentration in Environmental Science, an MS in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana, and a Ph D in Work Environment, Cleaner Production and Pollution from UMass Lowell. Alexandra Scranton is the Director of Science and Research at Women's Voices for the Earth. Alex authors WVE's scientific reports on toxic chemicals found in products and their impact on our health. She works to establish and maintain the scientific credibility of the organization's programs. Prior to working at WVE, she worked in the epidemiology and statistics unit at the American Lung Association headquarters in New York. She currently sits on the Research Advisory Committee for the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative and on the Institutional Biosafety Committee for Rocky Mountain Laboratories (a National Institutes of Health facility). She has an MS in Environmental Studies from the University of Montana and a B.A. from Amherst College. Alex lives and works from Woodland Park, CO, with her husband and two beautiful daughters. Use the following links to view the panelists' theses: Chris Brick's UM thesis Chris Brick's UM dissertation Joel Tickner's UM thesis Alex Scranton's UM thesis

Chemical alternatives assessment is a method rapidly developing for use by businesses, governments, and nongovernment organizations seeking to substitute chemicals of concern in production processes and products. Chemical alternatives assessment is defined as a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability. The process is intended to provide guidance for assuring that chemicals of concern are replaced with safer alternatives that are not likely to be later regretted. Conceptually, the assessment methods are developed from a set of three foundational pillars and five common principles. Based on a number of emerging alternatives assessment initiatives, in this commentary, we outline a chemical alternatives assessment blueprint structured around three broad steps: Scope, Assessment, and Selection and Implementation. Specific tasks and tools are identified for each of these three steps. While it is recognized that on‐going practice will further refine and develop the method and tools, it is important that the structure of the assessment process remain flexible, adaptive, and focused on the substitution of chemicals of concern with safer alternatives.