Arthur Dent said:

Ok, I will put my head on the block in defence of the Precautionary Principle. (Pauses to put on protective clothing including asbestos suit to protect from flame wars) ……..It has been dreadfully misused, without a doubt, mainly because scientists have been scared to take on the green NGOs, as a result we in Europe have ended up opening Pandoras (precautionary) Box.

You are right, of course. In its original form it was less strident than how it has manifested itself in regulation, nevertheless it is the regulations and the hyperbole of the Nannies and the Greens that we have to live with. In the end it is these interpretations that are causing problems.

UNCED’s version is just a officious restatement of commonsense ideas that have been around for long before even Vorsorgeprinzip; it’s their abuse that we are railing about here.

First point to mke is that the Precautionary principle actually dates much further back, to Germany in the 1960s, when it was the called the Vorsorgeprinzip, but lets not quibble about a few facts.

Second point the principle IS poorly defined and this has allowed unscrupulous green groups to metaphorically get away with murder by invoking a bastardised version of the principle at every opportunity. Their propaganda is so good that this article and most of the comments believe the green propaganda instead of looking at the underlying issue.

Third point: There are some key words and phrases in the most accepted form of the principle (Adopted at the UN Conference on the environment in Rio) This states that “Where there is a risk of significant and irreversible damage the lack of scientific certainty shall not be used to prevent cost effective action from being taken.”

So there needs to be an “identifiable risk that damage will occur ” NOT some vague concern with no basis in fact. The damage must be both “significant” and “irreversible” if it isn’t both then the principle does not apply. The action taken must be “cost effective” and it is a lack of “scientific certainty” that cannot be used to prevent action not the absence of any scientific data.

The principle was primarily established to justify action being taken in the face of those who would otherwise say – “But there is no absolute proof that this happens” For example there is no direct proof of what the causative agent in tobacco is that increases lung cancer risk in smokers, but it makes sense to restrict its sale to minors.

The principle was seen to be valuable in order to try to avoid some of the difficult environmental contamination problems that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of these were caused by the widespread use of substances whose proprerties were not fully recognised until they had been applied in such widespread uses that the whole planet was contaminated – PCBs, chlorinated insecticides, freons etc. By the time it was realised that perhaps more stringent controls on diffuse uses might have been appropriate it was too late to put the stopper back in the bottle, and in most cases these substances have very long half lives thus leading to a contamination problem that would continue for at least several generations.

Was it possible to manage these issues better? One way was to suggest that substances with the potential to be distributed across the global environment, and with very long half lives, should only be used cautiously until there was more certainty that they did not possess any unfortunate properties. Even in the absence of proof that they would cause problems, a higher degree of caution seemed to be sensible: and this led to the Precautionary Principle.

It has been dreadfully misused, without a doubt, mainly because scientists have been scared to take on the green NGOs, as a result we in Europe have ended up opening Pandoras (precautionary) Box.

Yeah I agree though. If the 787 does not have a prototype it’s because we’ve reached the point where engineering has enough confidence. And still it’s static tested on the ground!

The fact that they might fly one without a full battery of prototype testing only proves that they believe that it’s reached the point of being high enough confidence to do this after decades of engineering. Precautionary principle always assums you have no confidence at all.

        Yojimbo said:

True – but the idea of selling the very first plane to a paying customer was touted as one of the 787 innovations. As I said, things may have changed in the past year, but that was the deal during the time when I was working on the 787 program. And, of course, the advances made in computer sims, as well as the testing methods you mention, make aircraft performance less of a murky area than it once was – they don’t tend to come up with odd performance quirks (though Airbus found out they still sneak in on occasion – both in Paris and New York).

Yeah that might be the case with the 787, I don’t know. I assume regulations will be that it doesn’t take off on the very first flight with paid customers anyway. That thing seems far enough behind that they might need to make the first one go right to the airlines because they can’t afford to dedicate a whole airframe to testing

But anyways, that just goes to show something with aircraft and other stuff: We’ve tested enough prototypes to realize by now that unexpected stuff doesn’t usually crop up. It’s still static tested and held to high safety standards. AS our knowledge of materials and fabrication increases we have more confidence in the safety.

        Yojimbo said:

Good write-up. Just an observation about aircraft and flight testing: Unless they have significantly changed plans in the past year, there will not be a prototype for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, in spite of it using an unprecedented amount of composite material and some essentially new construction methods. All prototyping is to be done through computer simulation, and the first airplane to be built is supposed to be delivered to a customer.

That is not to say that they won’t do extra flight testing on the first one – they probably will – but they are really trying to move away from the idea of designated prototype for flight testing. (That being said, who knows what will happen now that the 787 is running behind schedule.) We may not see prototypes (at least for commercial jets) in the future, becuase computer sims will have gotten good and reliable enough to eliminate the need. This certainly is not in the “spirit” of the Precautionary Principle.

Yeah it is a little different than it was, but mind you that despite not having a dedicated prototype aircraft they will still test all the major components (especially the new ones) at full scale. They test the engines on a static stand and on a test aircraft and then they build full scale any components which are new in design and do the testing on the ground or in some cases in an aircraft.

This is actually seen as being safer and being a better evaluation because you can take them to the breaking point where you could not on a full scale plane, even with a test pilot. (Unless maybe you really did not like the test pilot.)

There are still flight tests required but not a full prototype evaluation in most cases. It depends on the country but it doesn’t carry paying passengers on the first few flights.

I don’t know if the first 787 will be an airline sale though. Most times they seem to build the first one as a kind of marketing plane which they send around to take some pictures and try to sell up airlines. They they might take a few passenger flights for different airlines and try to show how great it is.

That’s what the new Airbus did with the superjumbo. They flew the first all around to get pictures taken and all that.

That is not to say that they won’t do extra flight testing on the first one – they probably will – but they are really trying to move away from the idea of designated prototype for flight testing. (That being said, who knows what will happen now that the 787 is running behind schedule.) We may not see prototypes (at least for commercial jets) in the future, becuase computer sims will have gotten good and reliable enough to eliminate the need. This certainly is not in the “spirit” of the Precautionary Principle.

        Kim said:

I can’t believe “Precautionary Principle” would be the topic of a conference or organization. What a special interest sham!

It’s like having a conference on “using materials” or “not forgetting important things” or some other concept so general and meaningless it’s nothing but a front for a mentality that is completely useless.

It’s a front for an excuse to deny and oppose everything.

I can’t keep up with what’s been going on
I think my heart must just be slowing down
Among the human beings in their designer jeans
Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled cries of lawyers in love

It’s like having a conference on “using materials” or “not forgetting important things” or some other concept so general and meaningless it’s nothing but a front for a mentality that is completely useless.

It’s a front for an excuse to deny and oppose everything.