For example, there is sufficient evidence that the build up of greenhouse gases may be causing the world to heat up. The only sensible way to do things is to proceed with caution as previously described. This sounds sensible, but we must remember that little or no human progress would ever have been made if this advice had always been followed. sun-bathing.ĭemands are often made in the environmental area that we must not proceed in certain directions until we are certain that it is safe to do so. Sometimes our analysis will indicate that the risk so far outweighs the benefit that we should avoid the activity altogether, e.g. The only way to live therefore is to decide what activities are worth pursuing, try to understand and measure the risk involved, devise ways to avoid/minimise the risk, and then proceed with caution. Every living moment is accompanied by risk. And so it goes on through the day, everyday. About 500 people are killed on the roads every year and thousands are injured. Then to the deadliest danger of all - driving to work. Next you must avoid electrocuting yourself as you cook breakfast. There is a real danger you will trip and fall down the stairs. Things get really hairy when you arise from bed. Your muscles will waste from disuse and a plane may drop from the sky and kill you.
SUNRISE TOMORROW FULL
Life is full of risk even if you stay in bed. But unfortunately the scene I painted, where the activist seems largely motivated by an evangelical faith, is not uncommon. Many other cases fall somewhere in between. In some cases the expert is no more than a `hired-gun' recruited to put an acceptable face on self-interest, and in some cases the activists are experts who take every effort to base conclusions on objective data. However, my aim is not to canonise experts and to damn environmental activists. Of course, I deliberately set up the preceding scene to make a particular point. The activist's case that the product is dangerous has only a 4 per cent chance of being correct. This leaves a doubt of 4 per cent, mainly because product safety has not been tested under an infinite number of conditions. Let us say that as a result the expert can have a confidence level of 96 per cent that the product is safe. Let us assume that the expert is unbiased, has carried out extensive tests and has reviewed all the literature on the subject. Let me return to the expert and the activist. It is computable, and from a scientific viewpoint sunrise cannot be guaranteed. However, the probability that the sun will fail to rise is not zero. The probability that the sun will rise tomorrow is enormously large and from a common-sense point of view the matter is certain. The sun has risen every dawn since the formation of the earth, and we know why from the laws of celestial mechanics. For example, an astronomer cannot guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow. Scientific knowledge must remainĪble in the light of new evidence.
![sunrise tomorrow sunrise tomorrow](https://live.staticflickr.com/4683/39379597422_dbf631a306.jpg)
But it is also the nature of science that there is no certainty, only degrees of probability. Science can make pronouncements in its own sphere probably with greater confidence than any other discipline can make in its own sphere. The activist guarantees risk, the expert cannot guarantee safety. In a public debate the expert has now lost the argument because the public wants a guarantee. However, as a scientist, I cannot give an absolute guarantee that there is no risk." Then the environmentalist asks the expert: "Can you guarantee that there is no risk attached to this product?" The expert replies: "There is no evidence that this product poses a risk and there is much evidence that it is safe. The environmentalist is not convinced, citing other evidence to show the product is doubtful. The expert is convinced that the product is safe and quotes the tests that have been performed to prove this point. An environmental activist and a technical expert are debating the safety of a commercial product. These demands can also force the concentration of all available safety resources into areas targeted by environmental groups in an attempt to eliminate small residual risks, at the expense of ignoring larger risks in non-targeted areas.
![sunrise tomorrow sunrise tomorrow](https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6236/6308688894_b567d5ab75_o.jpg)
A zero level of risk is impossible to achieve in any sphere and such demands are therefore unreasonable.
![sunrise tomorrow sunrise tomorrow](https://helloraya.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Sunset-Seminyak-Bali.jpg)
Demands for zero levels of risk are frequently made by environmental groups.