Graham

I doubt whether your chappie will have that much influence, if that 
article is accurately reported. IMHO, the journalist has not even 
understood what the precautionary principle even means.

Let's look at the definition (incidentally not the original one but 
seriously modified) he uses:
'When an activity raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to 
human health or the environment, precautionary measures that prevent the 
possibility of harm shall be taken even if the causal link between the 
activity and the possible harm has not been proven or the causal link is 
weak and the harm is unlikely to occur.'

Note the phrase 'threats of serious or irreversible harm'. What does 
this mean? The SOED defines threat as:
'A declaration of an intention to take some hostile action; esp. a 
declaration of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other 
punishment in retribution for something done or not done'
Obviously, this is a great deal stronger than 'something may happen'; it 
means that 'something WILL happen, unless... It does not use the word 
'doubt' but 'threat'.

He then goes on to state that Marie Curie would not have died if the PP 
had been applied. This is utter and complete nonsense. She had no idea 
that there was, indeed, a threat or even a doubt (nor had Roentgen who 
suffered a similar fate and was the one who was the forerunner of X-ray 
therapy, not Curie as implied in the article). Google states: "Her death 
near Sallanches, Savoy, in 1934 was from aplastic anemia, almost 
certainly due to exposure to radiation, as the damaging effects of 
ionising radiation were not yet known, and much of her work had been 
carried out in a shed with no safety measures. She had carried test 
tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket and stored them in 
her desk drawer, remarking on the pretty blue-green light the substances 
gave off in the dark." Note aplastic anaemia, not leukaemia, as your 
guru states, and that, even in 1934 "the damaging effects of ionising 
radiation were not yet known".

It may make exceedingly good popular journalism by Brendan O'Neill, 
obviously with a good dose of the Blarney Stone, but if I were Sir 
Colin, and that had been published about me, I would be very seriously 
worried. If the journalist had quoted me verbatim, I would try to save 
my reputation. If, as is probably the case, the journalist had taken 
extreme liberties with what I said, I would take him to court for 
misrepresentation and defamation.

Whatever, the article is so ludicrous, it can carry little weight and 
does not present Sir Colin in a good light as a scientist. I suggest it 
is, in reality, a journalist's attempt at disinformation engendered by a 
private agenda.

The PP was never applied to RoHS, as many think. I know, for a fact, 
that no risk assessment for either the environment or health was ever 
conducted. Without assessing the risks, how can one determine the 
presence of a 'threat of serious or irreversible harm'? They licked 
their thumb, stuck it in the air, determined there was a summer zephyr 
and said that there was a hurricane on its way. The moving force was 
purely political, not scientific, with a good dose of vested interests 
thrown in.

I have been personally involved with a case of PP. I don't have time to 
give a blow-by-blow account, as it lasted over 12 years. Briefly, I 
suggested that the PP should be internationally applied to a substance 
that was known to cause environmental damage, but to a partially unknown 
extent, and whose toxicology was considered very risky, with 
considerable supporting evidence but no definitive proof. The deciding 
international body did not wish to ban it under the PP but made 
recommendations to use it as little and as well as possible, instead. 
The grounds were that the extent of the environmental damage could not 
be accurately gauged. I cite this because it shows the PP is not applied 
lightly without a very good reason - and the body in question was the 
same that first published the PP for environmental reasons!

Best regards,

Brian



Graham Naisbitt wrote:
> Fellow Techies
> 
> Having just caught up with a few days of missed postings, I see that 
> there continues to be some well founded concerns regarding the 
> machinations in Brussels.
> 
> Well, I had the privilege of playing golf recently with a man who 
> carries a good deal of influence - and Brussels are very concerned about 
> the strength of the "green brigade" and the legislation they have pushed 
> through. I thought you might like to read this:
> 
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA592.htm
> 
> He gave me some encouragement that maybe, just maybe, common sense might 
> be making a comeback.
> 
> Kindest regards
> Graham Naisbitt
> Managing Director
> 
> 
> Gen3 Systems Limited now Incorporating
> Process Support Products
> ENGINEERING RELIABILITY IN ELECTRONICS
> 
> Unit B2, Armstrong Mall
> Southwood Business Park
> Farnborough Hampshire
> GU14 0NR - UK
> 
> www.gen3systems.com
> 
> Phone: +44 (0)12 5252 1500
> Mobile: +44 (0) 79 6858 2121
> 
> Registered Number: 4639449 (England & Wales). Registered Office as above.
> DISCLAIMER : This message is intended only for the use of the individual 
> or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information which is 
> privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt from disclosure under 
> applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or the person 
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you 
> are strictly prohibited from disclosing, distributing, copying, or in 
> any way using this message. If you have received this communication in 
> error, please notify the sender and destroy and delete any copies you 
> may have received. Any views or opinions presented in this email are 
> solely those of the author and might not represent those of Gen3 Systems 
> Limited. Although Gen3 Systems Limited has taken reasonable precautions 
> to ensure no viruses present in this email, Gen3 Systems Limited can not 
> accept the responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of 
> this email or attachments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
> To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to 
> [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
> To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to 
> [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
> Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site 
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional 
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 
> ext.2815
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------