It’s strange that those who live or die by commercial investment decisions can not see these great pay-offs. In Australia, the pay-offs come entirely through government subsidies and regulations favouring the subsidised activities. That is, there are no real pay-offs, only transfers from viable to non-viable activities, which have the contradictory effect of reducing our overall capacity to deal with the future. Stick to science, Jim D, leave the economics.
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
Steve, there is evidence in Australia that the negative health impacts of reduced bicycle riding (from those who object to compulsorily wearing helmets) exceed the gains from the regulation. (I’m a helmet-wearing cyclist, seems a sensible choice to me, no compulsion needed.)
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by mosomoso
One lurking disaster of the Australian carbon tax was the sometimes quadrupling of the cost of refrigerant gas. Many businesses ended up wasting food when they could not afford to re-gas, and the talk of Australia as food-basket and boucherie to Asia failed to take into account the soaring processing costs.
Well, I suppose if coal is burnt uselessly (maybe even in BoA plants) because it’s more efficient to waste coal power than to ramp it up and down to support “renewables”…then no pottiness, no daffiness, no green loopiness should surprise any more. Especially not after Woodchips-to-Drax and Flannery’s Geothermia.
Can we please get the adults back into the kitchen? They’re the ones who don’t need to ask if they’re applying a principle with a faddish name…even as they apply whatever good judgement is implied by the jargon expression.
Adults. Now.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Joshua
Faustino –
Just to check, based on your rating of Paul’s comment – Do you agree that “maybe 20,000,000 people died because DDT was banned?”
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
More famously sung by Burl Ives, sold many copies.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Joshua
Interesting that the study only talks about #’s of deaths. Are there studies that report on #’s of head injuries?
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by MDAdams
I remember reading an assertion by the late Dr. Petr Beckmann, in his newsletter Access to Energy — before the war on coal and petroleum, his focus was against those who were stifling the nuclear power industry — and I will paraphrase: ‘Don’t think they will stop with the death of nuclear power, they are against all forms of centralized power. Next will be coal.’
How prophetic – written in the late 70’s, and throughout the 80’s. The real battle (or motives), as has been mentioned many times, is to control population and to suppress energy-intensive development. Whether to minimize proliferation of privilege (e.g., Progress and Privilege, William Tucker), or to keep the untermenschen at bay, there is evil afoot and has been for decades. I fear I’ll not live long enough to see this evil defeated, regardless of the abundant evidence that it’s based on flawed, Malthusian reasoning.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by thomaswfuller2
Wagathon, if you plan to build an oil refinery near my home, do I have a right to complain, object, litigate or protest? The things do blow up every now and again…
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
Hal, you conclude: “Our TRCS research team experience with the Shuttle Challenger and Columbia accident investigation boards, as well as numerous independent and non-advocacy review boards regularly conducted on NASA manned and unmanned programs, leads us to believe that a similar independent review activity for the SCC calculation methodology is required. Following the template for successful independent review familiar to us, we recommend that in addition to climate science experts, numerous review board members selected from a broad array of technical fields that utilize the same basic technical disciplines, but are not directly involved in climate science research, are needed to achieve an adequate independent and objective review. Review board members should be vetted for identification and resolution of any possible conflicts of interest.” I’ve been advocating something similar for many years as necessary before engaging in expensive programs of dubious merit. No joy, though, your group has more clout, good luck.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by ordvic
Yeah, whatever happened to that leftist mantra and bumper sticker: ‘Question Authority’. I think the current generations are more compliant and acquiescent, I wonder why? A generational temperament.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
As implied, those who can see the “unforeseen” consequences can foresee the capacity for financial gain through actions which have a dis-benefit for society at large. This creates a powerful and focussed lobby for unwarranted changes.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
Of course, “good intentions” without wisdom will often be harmful. The two need to go together.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
“Proposition It is wrong to sell pesticides that (in the long run) disastrously harm one infant in five thousand.” Is it still wrong if those pesticides save the lives of hundreds who would otherwise die from malnutrition? Far too simplistic, Fan.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
Yes, I agree. If they are benevolent, they are seriously ignorant and misguided, and should read this thread.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by GaryM
Faustino,
Yes, I saw where some other commenter mentioned that too. But my point stands. He was as wrong in 2004 as he would be if he said it today. The idiocracy has been driving climate policy in the US since at least 1988. The use of the precautionary principle as a rationale for progressive energy policy is not, unfortunately, only a European phenomenon.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Joshua
Fascinating.
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Joshua
So much for the interplay between public and private interests. So much for risk assessment in the face of uncertainty.
People who disagree with y’all about these complex matters (no doubt largely due to political ideology) are malevolent at best, with the rare exception of those who are ignorant and misguided.
Your confidence in your superiority and valor and good intentions is quite striking.
↧
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Stephen Rasey
WSJ Aug 12, 2014
Book Review: ‘Innovation Breakdown’ by Joseph V. Gulfo
MelaFind’s breakthrough optical technology promised earlier, more accurate detection of melanoma. Then the FDA got involved.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/book-review-innovation-breakdown-by-joseph-v-gulfo-1407799461
About MelaFind, a non-invasive multi-spectral artificial intelligent system for diagnosing melanomas
Chronology essence:
Dr. Gulfo joins Melafind in 2004 to shepherd FDA approval.
FDA puts Melafind on “expedited review”
2007 Clinical trial protocol approved.
2009 Clinical trial results positive, met all goals.
Jan 2010: J.Shuren appointed as FDA Dir. of Center for Devices and Radiological Health who wants to revamp approval process.
Mar 2010: Melafind gets “Not Approvable letter”
Nov 2010: Days before Melafind hearing before independent review board, FDA issues public “could cause harm because of the potential for misdiagnosis.”
May 2011: Dr. Gulfo went public with a Citizen’s Petition to the FDA commissioner, directly requesting a review of MelaFind’s case.
July 2011, a congressional hearing was held.
FDA advisory committee votes 8-7 to approve.
Sept 2011, FDA approves MelaFind.
In the concluding paragraph:
Compare MelaFind’s experience in the U.S. with its reception in Europe: MelaFind was submitted for marketing approval in Europe in May 2011 [when MelaFind appealed FDA]. It was approved just five months later. [that would be 1 month after FDA approval] One key reason for Europe’s efficient approval process is that European governments don’t review medical devices directly. Instead they certify independent “notified bodies” that specialize and compete to review new products. The European system works more quickly than the U.S. system, and there is no evidence that it results in reduced patient safety.
“compete to review new products” — Yes, that does give one pause. Auditors compete to review and certify I&E statements and balance sheets. Yet Enron still goes thud. (On the plus side, so did Arthur Anderson). Investment bankers bundle mortgages into derivative investments — they get eaten by black swans. Journal editors compete to publish peer-reviewed papers — no failings in THAT department, are there?
But if competition gives one pause, what about monopoly power? What about the regulators who guard their turf and feather their nest? From 2007, when the device was found safe enough for testing, to Sept. 2011, when it was finally approved, how many people died or were permanently harmed by needless expense, because the regulators said “No.”?
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by Faustino
A British guy who ate only carrots was bright orange when he died an early death. Should we ban carrots?
↧
Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by thomaswfuller2
Is it fascinating to note that many fears originate in ignorance? I thought that was a common-place.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
