Comments on: CPSIA and the “precautionary principle”

By: BG

BG — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:56:09 +0000

http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html

Absolutely frightening stuff. If Waxman believes this stuff he will NEVER budge on CPSIA. Look for this paper, Wolves and Precaution: The Precautionary Principle and Children’s Environmental Health

The argument runs, if you don’t ban lead, etc. the children all end up in jail.

By: BG

BG — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 20:20:06 +0000

Samizdata links to the IEM March 2005 article that states “This precautionary principle has become a central demand of radical environmental groups since the Rio Summit in 1992.”

By: April E. Coggins

April E. Coggins — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:21:06 +0000

Here is a recall of children's shoes due to lead levels in the soles. It seems to me that if a child is eating the soles of her shoes, there is something seriously wrong with the child, not with the shoes.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:04:30 +0000

The precautionary principle requires you to prove something is safe, i.e. does no harm. You can’t prove a negative. This so called principle requires the imp0ssible.

By: rxc

rxc — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:53:06 +0000

The precautionary principle is a way to keep the mass of people huddling in their caves, while the priests and shamans argue about the dangers lurking outside. Of course, the people must support the priests in the highest manner possible, because it is they who have to come up with all of the scary stories that they use to frighten the people.

It is a strategy being used to great effect to try to control us. And we accept it, because it is done “for the children and the most vulnerable”, who, in the end, include everyone.