Precautionary principles and reasonable ground for concern

The basic definition of a precautionary principle is to consider actions to avoid possible harm even if it’s uncertain it will occur. Throughout human history, keeping the spirit of precaution alive and well has been a good way to ensure public health. It takes a lot of time for science to provide new research results and it’s not uncommon experience those results identify previous scientific certainties as uncertainties and awareness of what we don’t know expands even more.

In the past, the assumption that new research and new knowledge can only reduce and not increase uncertainties has cost humanity greatly. History of tobacco and GMO awareness are perfect examples of what happens when awaiting for new evidence is practiced without taking precautionary measures in the meantime.

Preventing risks from known hazards is a far easier task than the implementation of precautionary measures. This is mainly because precautionary principles include decision making – does the existing range of evidence justify introduction of precautionary measures now, or further time and evidence is needed to know more clearly when they should be introduced and what will those measures consist of? This status quo is known as “paralysis by analysis” and it can greatly prolong dangerous exposure to harmful agents.

In the Precautionary Principles Dictionary, there are three levels of precautionary measures: primary, secondary and tertiary. These levels depend on the legitimacy and transparency of scientific evidence and the plausibility of serious threats to health or the environment, especially is those threats are irreversible and have greater chance to cost the society more than the precautionary measures.

Growing awareness of potential EMF radiation hazards; it’s complexity, on a world scale, possible irreversible impacts and an overload of data accompanied by insufficiency of knowledge, has brought EMF radiation into position of status quo, when it comes to the introduction of precautionary measures at governmental level. Luckily, with new evidence that is published every day, the situation is improving.  We hear phrases such as “no scientific evidence” is now being changed to “prove for a causal link” more and more often. New studies are being published, with clear information on connection between EMF radiation and health problems and this information is more transparent than years before.

The World Health Organization recommends precautionary measures where there is possibility of serious or irreversible damage to health or environment, and where scientific evaluation has identified a threat but based on available data has not proved inconclusively the existence of that threat or it’s level. According to this recommendation, EMF radiation is a clear case of sufficient evidence to introduce precautionary measures on global scale.

On a more personal level, a choice of staying informed and up to date about EMF radiation is an individual and personal one. There are EMF radiation protection measures and EMF protection products we can easily put into practice and use in our daily lives to decrease significantly EMF radiation exposure and risk of developing EMF caused health problems.

“Where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, the institutions may take protective measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent” (Christoforou, 2002)

Source: http://personalbioprotector.com/blog/2013/01/25/precautionary-principles-and-reasonable-ground-for-concern/