Another values issue is the extent of evidence needed to justify action to protect public health. Should public health officials demand, as they often do, that the data indicates a 95% probability that the problem is related to the environmental concern? For example, if evidence shows that there is an 80% chance that exposure to some chemical in the environment may cause a serious adverse health effect, should the health officials refuse to inform the public of the risk or take action to prevent exposure until further studies -- which may take months, or even years -- raises the certainty of the causal relationship to 95%?
If there is a public health concern, regardless of the percentage, the public should be informed and precautions should be taken against this hazard because they have a risk of contracting some form of health disorder. 80% is still a very high percentage and many people would unknowingly be exposing themselves to harmful chemical toxins or radiation. When public health is a concern, there shouldn’t be a question as to whether precautions to protect the public should be taken, it should be a given.
I agree with you. No matter the risk, people should know that their home is a toxic waste dump. These are innocent lives that are being put at risk, and we need to do whatever we can to help them, and we shouldn't have to go to the extent of locking EPA representatives in offices just to get attention.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. People have the right to know if where they are living has even the slightest health risk. They should be aware of any hazards in order for them to protect themselves and their children.
ReplyDelete