All of us with open eyes and ears know only too well that chemicals are one hell of a problem.

We know that the industry is a massive one that invests vast sums in spin and in political donations. There is a very close relationship with other industries including oil, gas, agriculture, biotech . . .

Almost everywhere they have governments, and bureaucrats in their pockets. Yes, the very same ones we vote for!

We must all face the fact that we are dealing with a very clever industry-devised system best described as “Prove Harm”. This is the dark side of a coin which has Precautionary Principles on the obverse.

I here quote short extracts from a recent four part series posted on Rachels’ Environment & Health News .

“I described the present system for regulating industrial innovation as the “prove harm” system — anything goes until the public can prove to a scientific certainty that harm is occurring.”

And how do we prove such complex issues with ‘scientific certainty’ in the face of bought science and government?

“It must be obvious that the ‘prove harm’ regulatory system, first of all, requires large-scale harm to occur before anyone exercises restraint, and it places the burden of proof on the public to prove harm to a scientific certainty before government restrictions can be considered.”

“The pursuit of certainty through science became a way of protecting the rights to use risky technologies and of securing or expanding trade.

[1] And even after harm is widely documented, reform takes years, or decades. Meanwhile dangerous and unnecessary innovation continues and the fabric of life is shredded, ecosystem by ecosystem, species by species, death by death.[2]”

For those who would like to read this excellent annotated series, you can go to:
from the home page, follow link to rachel’s, then click on ‘show all issues’. The numbers (near the top) are 798 to 801.

This is the clearest, most eloquent elaboration of the consequences of the ‘prove harm’ technique employed to render citizens impotent (with rage and frustration).

Understand this and you will be better able to see through muddied waters!

There are other series on the Precautionary Principal there too.

This is a far better use of your time than ‘debating’ our friend Kevin …

By Paul de Burgh-Day is a “reformed and recycled conservative who came to Tasmania where he quickly shed a lifetime of illusions. He came to Lorinna at end of 1999 to withdraw from the mainland rat race with wife and teen children. Immediately confronted by forces of darkness bent on the destruction of
the peaceful isolation that attracted us here. The process of building, going organic, living sustainably has been mixed in with a running battle with the system in Tasmania. As an aging latter day activist, my key interests have been (in no
particular order): Keeping Tasmania GE Free; Dealing with Chemical Issues; Confronting the power and corruption of the Forest Industry triumvirate; Cyberactivism with an emphasis on the global picture including 9/11, the American Empire, Australia as a vassal state et al”.

The expert article, some comments:
Tasmania’s shame: The Devil Disease

Most of the comments:
Chemical fears. The Devil Disease