The Experts below are selected from a list of 3162 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Charles Weiss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Can there be science-based precaution?
Environmental Research Letters, 2006Co-Authors: Charles WeissAbstract:'Science-based precaution' is possible in logic if not in politics, and should be a normal part of risk management. It should balance the risks and benefits of innovation, or equivalently, specify the price one is willing to pay to avoid risk. The Precaution Principle states that the absence of scientific proof does not preclude Precautionary Action—or, in its stronger version, that it requires such Action. This principle is a useful counterweight to the insistence on rigorous scientific proof, but focuses on costs and risks to the exclusion of benefits. It expresses 'look before you leap', but not 'nothing ventured, nothing gained'. To facilitate adaptive management, we propose a complementary principle: 'Precautionary Action should not unreasonably interfere with innovation that promises major benefits, until its dangers and benefits are well understood'. In international trade law, we propose that scientific evidence presented in support of discriminatory measures that would otherwise violate the world trade regime—such as the de facto European Union moratorium on importing genetically modified crops—be required to suffice to support a 'reasonable belief' of danger to human health or the environment.
-
Scientific Uncertainty and Science-Based Precaution
International Environmental Agreements, 2003Co-Authors: Charles WeissAbstract:The debate between advocates of the "Precautionary Principle" and those of "science-based regulation" hinges in large part on the standard of proof to be applied to the scientific evidence that a given Action poses a danger of serious and irreversible environmental harm. We propose an intermediate approach, which we term "science-based precaution," intended to facilitate adaptive management of environmental issues – that is, learning through experience and experimentation.We propose that evidence justifying Precautionary Action must be sufficient to create a "reasonable belief" of serious and irreversible environmental danger. In other cases, in which the proponents of an Action bear the burden of proof that the Actions they propose will not cause environmental harm, we propose that they must make a "clear showing"to that effect. Both of these standards of proof are derived from a scale constructed from the standards of proof used in various branches of US law.The "reasonableness" standard of proof for the application of the Precautionary Principle is more cautious than the record of international efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer and to deal with climate change. It is analogous to the standard of proof imposed by US administrative law, and is also consistent with the position of the European Union and the holdings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the beef hormones case. We further propose a Reasonableness Principle: that scientific research and technological innovations promising major benefits not be unreasonably blocked before their full implications are understood.
R.g.v Boelens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
From policies to science: Strategies for marine environmental protection
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1992Co-Authors: R.g.v BoelensAbstract:Abstract Concern over the extent of marine pollution in many of the world's more populated coastal environments has stimulated an international debate on how to improve strategies for marine pollution prevention. Much of the debate centres on the concepts of Sustainable Development and Precautionary Action and the various ways to reflect these concepts in new strategies and measures for reducing emissions of substances and wastes. The degree to which scientific considerations should influence regulatory Actions in limiting the types and amounts of substances emitted to the environment is also a matter of intensive discussion. However, some scientists now believe that a common and comprehensive strategy for protection and management of the total environment is a logical prerequisite to significant reductions in marine and other forms of pollution on a global scale.
Toshimitsu Homma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Evaluation of the Precautionary Action zone using a probabilistic consequence analysis
Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2013Co-Authors: Masanori Kimura, Shogo Takahara, Toshimitsu HommaAbstract:To develop an effective emergency plan for a nuclear accident, the size of the Precautionary Action zone (PAZ) was evaluated using a Level 3 probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) code, the OSCAAR. For accident scenarios identified through a Level 2 PSA analysis for representative boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized water reactor (PWR) plants, the absorbed doses to red marrow were calculated as a function of the distance from the accidental site for possible weather sequences in a year, and then the evaluation was made for the distance which satisfies the dose criterion of 1 Gy for acute exposure, as established in the Basic Safety Standards (BSS) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Consequently, the present study indicated that the size of the PAZ should be approximately a 3-km radius under average weather conditions.
Juan F. Fernández-manjarrés - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reconstructing a deconstructed concept: Policy tools for implementing assisted migration for species and ecosystem management
Environmental Science and Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Roxane Sansilvestri, Nathalie Frascaria-lacoste, Juan F. Fernández-manjarrésAbstract:Assisted migration (AM) is increasingly proposed to limit the impacts of climate change on vulnerable plant and animal populations. However, interpretations of AM as a purely Precautionary Action along with multiple definitions have hampered the development of precise policy frameworks. Here, our main objective is to identify what type of policy tools are needed for implementing AM programs as part of broader environmental policies. First, we argue that policy frameworks for translocations of endangered species that are subject to climatic stress are fundamentally different from translocations to reinforce climatically exposed ecosystems because the former are risky and stranded in strict regulations while the latter are open to merges with general landscape management. AM implementation can be based on a series of phases where policies should provide appropriate grounds closely related to extant environmental principles. During a "Triggering phase", AM is clearly a prevention approach as considered by the Rio Declaration, if unambiguously based on evidence that population decline is mainly caused by climate change. During an "Operational phase", we suggest that policies should enforce experimentation and be explicit on transparent coordination approaches for collating all available knowledge and ensure multi-actor participation prior to any large scale AM program. In addition, Precautionary approaches are needed to minimize risks of translocation failures (maladaptation) that can be reduced through redundancy of multiple target sites. Lastly, monitoring and learning policies during an "Adaptive phase" would promote using flexible management rules to react and adjust to any early alerts, positive or negative, as hybridization with local individuals may represent an evolutionary chance. Our analysis of study cases indicates that except for two programs of productive forests in Canada, current AM programs are predominantly small-scale, experimental and applied to endangered species isolated from general environmental management. As the effects of climate change accumulate, policies could include AM as part of larger environmental programs like habitat restoration with common species seeking to provide stable ecosystems in the future.
Lory Santarelli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effects of potential neurotoxic pesticides on hearing loss: A review
Neurotoxicology, 2014Co-Authors: M.p. Gatto, M. Fioretti, G. Fabrizi, M. Gherardi, Elisabetta Strafella, Lory SantarelliAbstract:Several pesticides are supposed to be neurotoxic for humans, consequently, they may also affect the auditory system. This review analyzes human and experimental animal studies testing the hypothesis that exposure to pesticides is associated with hearing loss. The literature on this topic is still sparse and methodological limitations of some papers evaluated are identified. As a whole, available data indicate a possible ototoxic Action of pesticides, but alternative hypotheses could not be ruled out, also considering some confounders, such as the co-exposure to noise. Therefore, further studies are necessary in order to clarify the association between pesticides exposure and hearing loss. While awaiting more evidence, for Precautionary Action we recommend considering pesticides as possible ototoxic agents, in particular for vulnerable targets, such as pregnant women and children during early development.