Your detailed and thorough post due by Wednesday@MIDNIGHT for full credit (A). Partial credit (C) can be earned by posting late, which is better than a ZERO.
Remember, weekly blogging is worth 1/3 of your entire semester grade.
Be sure to communicate with Dr. W as needed - rob.williams@madriver.com.
Read and blog MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS: INTRODUCTION, Chapters 1-3.
1) THESIS: IYOW, post a single sentence that captures the thesis for EACH CHAPTER of our reading.
2) EVIDENCE: Post and number THREE specific observations from EACH CHAPTER of our reading(s) that supports your thesis.
Use 2-3 sentences for each observation, and combine direct quotations from the text (AUTHOR's LAST NAME, 27), with IYOW analysis.
3) QUESTION: Include in your post a SINGLE SPECIFIC question you'd ask the class based on our readings.
Chapter 1: Risk assessments are the current method of environmental decisions, but this method is inherently missing necessary perspectives and data.
ReplyDelete1. “Finally, the EPA policy specialist says that the woman ought to wade across the river because, compared to global warming, ozone depletion, and loss of species diversity, the risks of her crossing are trivial” (1). This quote really shows the differences in perspectives and who values what when it comes to making a decision. Coming to a conclusion objectively and unanimously is impossible since everyone views a problem from a different angle.
2. “For the most part, risk assessments are used to justify business as usual and to marginalize calls for change” (13). The status quo has become this idea of using risk assessment to maintain one plan or idea and make it the highest level of harmful while still being considered legally okay. This has since harmed people and the environment.
3. Nobody is able to define for someone else what damage is “acceptable." This is a big concept with risk assessment, as measures are set that are deemed acceptable for businesses to stay within. Oftentimes, these measures turn out to be inaccurate and a lot of damage is done.
Chapter 2: Even though risk assessments are meant to avoid negative consequences, too many factors are latent or glanced over, and this is often because of data manipulation.
1. Risk assessments are supposed to be objective but are very influenced by money and politics. If a project bringing great revenue to the city is being questioned, the government may influence the assessor to be easy on that business to salvage that profit.
2. The assessor can never fully know the true hazards of the operation and many assumptions will have to be made. If assumptions are the only way to successfully assess any risks, there will inevitably be important factors and repercussions missed, which is why alternatives are so necessary.
3. “Corporations can and do plug in different estimated numbers so as to reach different conclusions, because they often have millions of dollars riding on the outcome of a risk assessment of one of their products or activities” (25). Not only does the government and money affect risk assessments, but corporations can tweak their numbers in order to manipulate the results. Transparency is crucial for risk assessments to even be close to accurate.
Chapter 3: Risk assessment is a common way to justify exploitative operations.
1. “Risk assessment is primarily used to defend unnecessary activities that harm the environment or human health” (39). Rather than finding the best alternative that would least impact everything and everyone involved, risk assessment just enables the continuance of a harmful practice as long as the “acceptable” terms are being followed.
2. Things we justify with risk assessments: contamination of the air, poisoning of wildlife (dioxin), contamination of groundwater, “acceptable” nuclear radiation, extinction of species, addition of toxic chemicals to our food, reduction of wildlife habitat, and denying the right of nations to establish high health-protection standards. Obviously, this list shows just how dire the circumstances of using risk assessment is.
3. “A risk-assessment approach to an issue can be so informal that the phrase “risk assessment” is never used” (52). A pseudo-risk assessment that isn’t called a risk assessment further exacerbates the issue with using this method to justify bad procedures.
Question: How do we convince corporations that alternatives are more effective than risk assessments?
Chapter 1
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessment is heavily defined by varying groups biases and values.
1. “The process of estimating damages that may be occurring, or that may occur if an activity is undertaken, is called risk assessment.” (4). The chapter starts out with a story about a woman crossing a river and the risk assessors are deciding whether or not she should cross. The woman refuses to cross the river because she did an alternatives assessment and realized she could cross on a bridge. There is a major difference between the two with assessment and estimating damages falls under the risk assessment.
2. Assessing risk is all about assessing damages. The second half of the chapter goes into how risk assessment is based on some differences between different groups set of values. “Nobody is able to define for someone else what damage is ‘acceptable’.” (7).
3. “Most private behavior has environmental consequences for the public, so it isn’t actually private.”(10). There are no private environmental behaviors. The environment affects everyone and everything so a company or person cannot claim that this is not a public issue.
Chapter 2
Thesis: Risk assessment and management are incredibly different, however, work together to form risk based decisions.
1. “Risk management consists of the social, economic, and political decisions that will be made about who will bear what amount of exposure to the pesticide.” (26). There is a significant difference between risk assessment and risk management. Risk assessment is the objective specific findings and risk management political and value based.
2. “What that means is that risk assessments are generally not separate from risk management.” (27). When there is a risk assessment both the risk management and assessment are taking place. Usually companies hire risk management people to give a biased politically biased opinion. While citizens usually hire risk assessors in order to understand their risks from a scientific perspective.
3. Risk based decisions when regarding human health and well being are often highly politically and financially based decisions. In order for these groups to be protected there needs to be a push on both sides of the political spectrum. “The health of communities, wildlife, and ecosystems, however, also will be affected by risk-based decisions regarding human activities.” (37).
Chapter 3
Thesis: Risk assessment is used as a tool to defend and put into practice decisions that have the potential to harm human health and the environment.
1. “Risk assessment is primarily used to defend unnecessary activities that harm the environment or human health.” (39). Humans are doing horrible things to our planet and inherently our own health. When a company or policy is probably going to negatively impact our species or planet there needs to be a risk assessment which will defend the actions that will take place by showing that the effects will not be that bad.
2. Risk assessment of actions that may damage, kill or harm humans or the planet have a risk assessment that essentially explains how this is decisions is bad but it's only a little bit bad in the grand scheme of things. An example of this is, “This amount of this toxic chemical is unsafe.” (39). There is a lot of irony in these risk assessments because they decisions is bad for the planet and us but these assessments do not illustrate that but defend the decision.
3. Risk assessments are also being used at the international level in order to create standards for the world. “Harmonization would assure a manufacturer in one country that it could export, sell, or import toxic products to or from anywhere without having to face particularly strongest standards in certain countries.” This was multilateral trade agreement that through risk management allowed wealthier countries to flourish while controlling other countries.
Question: Do risk assessments protect the environment and human health more so than justify harmful decisions?
Chapter 1
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessment and its effectiveness are based on public participation and the social and technical options in a given scenario.
1. “While people differ on the value they place on providing health and habitat for non-human beings...this book is based on the assumption that...human beings need to share the Earth with as broad a diversity of living beings as possible” (7). This quote expresses that even though many people believe it is important to keep diversity in life to keep Earth a place that can sustain us. Unfortunately, there are people who based on their risk assessments do not agree.
2. “Sometimes we are hardly aware that the damage we are causing is unnecessary” (12). When we are uninformed of the processes in which the world we live in is created we only see one side of the story and are unable to evaluate our alternatives, keeping us behaving in a detrimental manner.
3. “For the most part, risk assessments are used to claim that change is unnecessary” (14). When risk assessments conclude that we are doomed, or that the damage has already been done, it becomes a reason to not change harmful behaviors and deny the idea that there are alternatives.
Chapter 2
Thesis: Risk assessment is supposed to be based on hard scientific facts, but is just guesses that are determined by the society in which the assessment is being made.
1. “The bottom line in most (if not all) risk assessments is that if someone wants to continue some activity or to get a permit or approval for some activity, and if the outcome of the risk assessment will get in the way of that activity, there will be pressure to use optimistic numbers in the risk assessment” (27). The usage of optimistic numbers in risk assessment shows that there does not tend to be a real separation between risk assessment and risk management. Meaning they don’t care about doing better for the planet and want the assessment to prove that what they are doing is okay, by using optimistic numbers.
2. “Since the condition of a resource differs in different years (e.g., drought years versus years of high rainfall), overexploitation gets hidden” (30). When risk assessments are being made about how much room we have to exploit a resource it is very easy for someone to get permission to overexploit a resource because when comparing an ever changing resource you can’t make definite conclusions.
3. “It’s not that every scientist looks to his or her pocketbook and or/ employer before drawing up a risk assessment” (36). But those who do will often provide optimistic numbers of risk assessments as to not hurt the profits of the industry that is being assessed.
Chapter 3
Thesis: Risk assessment is commonly used to justify the harmful effects humans have on the environment.
1. “These studies show that some people will die as a result of breathing air that contains the amounts of PM10 that our government permits when homeowners burn wood or industries burn wastes” (41). The risk assessment that deemed the acceptable amount of air contamination to be produced is totally ignorant of just how harmful these contaminants truly are. This assessment is to show that people aren’t dying explicitly due to this amount of contamination so it must not be that bad for the environment.
2. “It simply made recommendations for figuring out how much pesticide we should allow on children’s food” (51). The researchers at this committee didn't once offer alternatives to the use of pesticides. They instead studied how much it is to have children ingest.
3. “Using the risk-assessment method, the Forrest Service claimed that by reducing road density it was improving the elk habitat” (54). This risk assessment was used to justify a clearly harmful act of habitat destruction. Claiming that less traffic density means fewer elk get hit, disregards the fact that more roads potentially mean more hunters and less natural land for the elk.
Question: Why would someone enter the world of science and risk assessment if they are not going to make environmentally conscientious decisions?
Chapter 1
ReplyDeleteThesis: Theri is a fundamental difference between risk assessment and alternative assessment and it is very important that we understand this.
“Still, the woman refuses to wade across. “Why?” the risk assessors ask again, frustrated by this woman who clearly doesn't understand the nature of risk. The woman points upstream, and says “Because there is a bridge”” (3). I liked this story quite a lot as I feel it did a great job of pointing out a flaw with risk assessment. It only looks at one small question and not the entire picture making it quite easy to miss a solution that is just better.
“It is not acceptable to harm non-humans when there are reasonable alternatives” (7). I agree completely with what this quote is saying as it is why I am a vegetarian. II know that is not what he is talking about but it is the same idea. We need to find the best solution that does the most good not just for people but all life.
“It is difficult to change many of our habits and behaviors”(13). This is the true issue with creating large scale progress, humanity on the whole does not want to change and grow and would rather keep living the life they have been. We need a large scale systemic change if we are to see true progress.
Chapter 3
Thesis: Risk assessment is often used as a way of making things that are harmful to the environment more easily accepted by the population.
“In this case, this activity will have insignificant impacts”(39). The primary issue with risk assessment is that it says that minimal harm is a good thing rather than trying to find an option that does no harm. It is like the idea of letting one person die to save five, while yes it does less harm it also does not look for an option to save all six.
“A certain amount of hazardous substance can be deemed “safe” by regulators at one time but later to be understood as harmful or even lethal”(46). Humans don’t know everything and can make mistakes so acting as if what we know is the be all and end all is dangerous. I am not sure there is a solution to this however as we can only act on what we know.
“A risk-assessment approach to an issue can be so informal that the phrase “risk assessment “ is never even used”(52). This stuck out for me as I feel we should be taking things like the safety of ourselves and the world at large.
Question: Given all the problems with risk assessment why do people think it works as well as they do?
THESIS: Risk assessment is the mainstream way for making decisions, but often fails to consider ethics, alternatives, and externalities.
ReplyDelete1. “The process of estimating damages that may be occurring, or that may occur if an activity is undertaken, is called risk assessment” (O’Brien 4). O’Brien gives this definition of risk assessment to start the conversation. Without a baseline understanding of what risk assessment is, there can be no discussion on how the process could improve. It is also important to consider this a jumping-off point for change, and think of this definition only as the current, and maybe not permanent, definition.
2. Throughout the chapter, O’Brien analyses the current state of risk assessment, and where it goes wrong on a basic level. One point that is emphasized is the lack of consideration of ethics and individual impact. On this she writes: “Most private behaviour has environmental consequences for the public, so it isn’t actually private” (O’Brien 10). This is to say that there are often externalities that come with environmental decision making, and that people are always impacted, frequently in a negative way.
3. O’Brien discusses how risk assessment as it is today is too rigid and fails to consider alternatives and opportunities for change. “Risk Assessment is an extremely flexible and powerful tool for dispelling calls for change” (O’Brien 15). This speaks to the lack of flexibility within risk assessment, which O’Brien says is actually quite present. With some flexibility and consideration for externalities and human impact, risk assessment could be changed to serve more people than it does currently.
THESIS: Even though risk assessment is supposed to be based on facts and figures, a lot of guess work goes into coming up with the numbers, leaving a lot of space for dishonesty or “generous guessing”.
ReplyDelete1. O’Brien begins by making it clear that risk assessment is not all based on hard facts as it may seem, and that a lot of the numbers that go into risk assessment are based on estimations. “…the risk assessor will have to make numerous “guesses” or assumptions to estimate how much some hypothetical organism will be exposed to the pesticide in the real world” (O’Brien 23). This quote gives an example of a risk assessment situation that would require the assessor to make some guesses on what numbers would be plugged in. It is impossible for the assessor to know all of the facts, which leaves space for guesses to be made in the favor of profits, which is often not in the favour of the environment.
2. “Corporations can and do plug in different estimated numbers so as to reach different conclusions, because they often have millions of dollars riding the outcome of a risk assessment of one of their products or activities” (O’Brien 25). This quote speaks to the frequency of estimating in favor of the business performing the risk assessment. Obviously with so much profit riding on the assessment, it is tempting to do anything possible to make it work in your favor. The problem is how easy it is to do this with risk assessment, and the negative consequences that has for humans and the environment.
3. “Often, financial profits and/or political power will be affected by risk-based decisions regarding human activities. Pressure therefore exists to prepare optimistic risk assessments that defend those activities” (O’Brien 37). This quote was one of O’brien’s closing lines. Here, she seeks to emphasize the fact that companies can and do make “generous guesses” in order to further their profits. As mentioned above, this is usually very unfavorable to the planet.
THESIS: Risk assessment is often used to justify harmful environmental activities, resulting in species loss, pollution, negative health effects, and more.
ReplyDelete1. “… the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the amount of dioxin the EPA is permitting facilities to dump into the Columbia River is killing some unknown number of bald eagles. The EPA, on the other hand, is claiming that the amount of dioxin they are allowing to be present in the Columbia is not dangerous for bald eagles” (O’Brien 43). This quote shows how easy it is for facts to be denied with a risk assessment. It is very simple for organizations or companies to reject negative facts that don’t benefit them by just saying “that isn’t what our risk assessment said”. This creates so many negative environmental impact, and leaves room for so many more to come.
2. O’Brien emphasizes the fact that companies can also change what they say is safe and what is not without actually having facts to back it up. “A certain amount of a hazardous substance can be deemed “safe” by regulators at one time but later be understood to be harmful or even lethal” (O’Brien 46). This is a dangerous factor, because it allows rules and regulations to be bent to favor profits, which is something that has been brought up in all three chapters, and something that has been continuously discussed as a very negative opportunity for environmental degradation.
3. O’Brien also discusses how informal risk assessments can be, and how tis can make them difficult to identify. “A risk assessment approach to an issue can be so informal that the phrase “risk assessment” is never even used. Such a risk assessment may have no complicated tables, numbers, or formulas, and thus may not “look” like a risk assessment” (O’Brien 52). When a risk assessment is difficult to identify, it is difficult to critique it, and find the numbers and figures that it was based off of. This makes it even easier for companies to edit numbers in their favor, and gives an excuse to lack transparency even more than usual.
QUESTION: How could risk assessments be changed to include the issues they fail to consider and focus more on accurate, or at least unbiased numbers, when so many companies and organizations benefit from the way they are conducted now?
Chapter 1
ReplyDeleteThesis: This book is about alternatives assessment, which means instead of analyzing risks, considering other options that will cause the least amount of damage to humans and the natural environment.
“The alternatives-assessment approach is based on the concept that foisting any risk or damage on an unconsenting, unwilling, non-speaking living being or ecosystem must not be labeled acceptable if there are reasonable alternatives to causing that damage, or that much damage” (O’Brien, 10). If something is powerless against receiving damage, what gives organizations the right to cause that damage. Usually the most damaging things are the easiest, most efficient option. To me, this is lazy and ignorant. Alternatives assessment seeks out options that involve the least harm or are not harmful at all, regardless of complexities.
Usually risk management occurs to justify the way things are, which does not allow for change to occur. “When a corporation sets out to sell products that are made using harmful practices, it tries to convince customers that it has to make the products the way it does, and that the customer really needs and wants those products” (O’Brien, 13). Because large companies are the ones that do the most damage to the environment, alternatives assessment should be geared towards them in order to promote policy change.
“Changes do not come easily when powerful entities benefit from the status quo” (O’Brien 14). This is why risk assessment is often used as opposed to alternatives assessment. The only way to change this is through political action. If the people are convinced of better alternatives, they have the power to make a change by enacting laws for corporations to follow. Changing the status quo is possible, but it takes hard work.
Chapter 2
Thesis: Risk assessment is usually conducted by means of analyzing two effects: hazard and exposure.
“...the risk of any activity or substance can be assessed” (O’Brien 23). Any action or activity performed causes a reaction or outcome. Risk assessment aims at using data to show the amount of damage that will be done. The people who compose risk assessments are responsible for making numerous guesses on the effects of the action in question.
“The bottom line in most (if not all) risk assessments is that if someone wants to continue some activity or to get a permit or approval for some activity, and if the outcomes of the risk assessment will get in the way of that activity, there will be pressure to use optimistic numbers in the risk assessment” (O’Brien 27). This is where risk assessment becomes problematic. The reason companies and organizations are able to get away with the amount of harm they do to the planet and organisms is because it has been justified with data provided by risk assessments.
“The health of communities, wildlife, and ecosystems, however, also will be affected by risk-based decisions regarding human activities”(O’Brien 37). The main thing usually considered in risk assessment is how much damage is permissible or allowed, instead of focusing on how to prevent damage in the first place. This was discussed earlier with the idea of alternatives assessment. When it comes to decisions around human activities we as humans have the power to make changes that will alleviate the strain we are already placing on the environment by existing.
Chapter 3
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessment is used to justify harm to humans or the environment with superficial excuses and fabricated proof.
“”Safety” will be predicted for a hazardous substance or activity via risk assessment even if it is not “safe” at any amount or level” (O’Brien 40). This means that often times there are risk assessments that state a certain amount of something is okay in small amounts even though any exposure to that substance at all can be damaging or harmful. An example that was used was air contamination from incineration and microparticles in the lungs. The EPA set a standard for an amount that was said to cause insignificant harm. When other studies looked into the issue they found that death rates increased in areas in which any microparticles were present.
“The conclusions of a risk assessment depend on what information is plugged into the risk assessment's calculations” (O’Brien 41). What this means is that some calculations can be safe for some species, but not for others. The example that was given had to do with levels of a chemical called dioxin in fish and how they survive with certain amounts stored in their fat. However, the population of bald eagles and other animals have suffered due to the fact that they eat contaminated fish and the dioxin which is stored in their fat elevates as it moves up trophic levels. This causes problems with reproduction which in turn prevents population growth.
“A risk assessment can be changed, without any new information, so that what might have originally been seen as unsafe will later be declared safe” (O’Brien 43). This meaning that a lot of numbers and data are assumed instead of actually calculated. Also the numbers don’t tell the full story. For example in a test on lab rats exposed to dacthal, lung infections were found in all of them so they were given antibiotics. This in turn could affect what happened to the rats who were exposed to the dacthal.
QUESTION
In most cases of risk assessment, does the data come after the damage has been done?
Ch. 1: Though risk assessment is commonly used today, we should instead focus on not only risk assessment, but also alternative assessment because more often than not the most reasonable and favorable option for all parties involved has nothing to do with the set scenario in which risk is being assessed.
ReplyDelete1. The first example used to demonstrate this concept is a girl being given the risk assessment of crossing a freezing river. When she refuses to cross the river and the risk assessors ask why she answers simply that there is a bridge right up stream. In this example the woman, “is evaluating her alternatives” (O'Brien, 3), instead of just her risks.
2. Another example used within this chapter to illustrate the importance of alternative assessment is the example of an incinerator emitting harmful smoke in close proximity to an elementary school. Instead of focusing on the risk assessment of how many toxins are being blown onto the elementary school, the focus should be on alternative assessments like, “working with industries to help them develop and use alternative technologies that don’t depend on using toxic chemicals” (O’Brien, 6).
3. An additional point I liked was the fact that it is necessary to discuss both the benefits and drawbacks of all alternative decisions publicly so that all viable options, and not-options, can be considered transparently. This is especially important in knowing that, “risk assessors generally downplay the need to even consider alternatives” (O’Brien, 14).
Ch. 2: Risk assessment is just, “one step in the decision-making process” (O’Brien, 16) and so the conclusion drawn has an affect on later decisions.
1. Risk Management follows risk assessment in the decision-making process. Unlike risk assessment, risk management, “consists of the social, economic, and political decisions that will be made about who” (O’Brien, 27), will bear the amount of risk that occurs.
2. Though the chapter uses an example where two risk assessments are presented more often than not a private contractor is in charge of one single risk assessment report. This is important because one person is in charge of assessing all possible outcomes.
3. Being that risk assessment is just one step in the decision-making process it is imperative that the risk assessment be correct. If a risk assessment is, “debunked, the risk assessor must change their argument” (O’Brien, 33).
Ch. 3: More often than not risk assessment is used to, “defend unnecessary activities that harm the environment or human health”.
1. Within every instance of a company polluting or degrading our environment, a risk assessor gave them the ok. It is beyond necessary to consider the “benefits and drawbacks of a decent range of options” (O’Brien, 38).
2. Another reason risk assessment should not be the only assessment done is the fact that risk assessment conclusions have everything to do with the specific information, “plugged into the risk assessors calculations” (O’Brien, 41).
3. Finally, risk assessments prove to change depending on the interests of whoever is paying. Almost unbelievably, risk assessments can be change, “without any new information, so that what might have originally been seen as unsafe will later be declared as safe” (O’Brien, 43).
Week #2: Intro, Ch. 1-3
ReplyDeleteIntro: This book is about adopting better practices, breaking bad habits, and ending the use of risk assessment.
1. “This book is based on the understanding that it is not acceptable for people to tell you that the harms to which they will subject you and the world are safe or insignificant” (O’Brien, xvii). This can be thought of in terms of companies making decisions that affect the greater good without their consent--an example of this would be a company dumping toxic waste into a nearby waterbody that the community uses as a port, for fishing, and leisure activities because of the convenience.
2. “Risk assessment is one of the major methods by which parts (corporations such as Monsanto or Hyundai, “private landowners,” industrial nations) can act on their wants at the expense of wholes (e.g., whole communities and countries,or the seventh generation from now) without appearing to be doing so” (O’Brien, xviii). Risk assessment is a destructive and sneaky way of assessing situations. For instance, how a corporation’s actions may impact a community, how much toxic waste will be created, etc are decided under risk assessment. The decisions made by the company are in favor of these projects going through/destructive behaviors continuing because they consider their profits to outweigh the “risks”.
3. “Underlying this book, however, is a less explicitly stated personal belief, namely that we humans will never dredge up enough will to alter our habitual, destructive ways of behaving toward each other and the world unless we simultaneously employ information and emotion and a sense of relationship to others--other species, other cultures, and other generations” (O’Brien ,xvii). Humans are extremely habitual beings (as most beings are). We are very slow to change outlooks, actions, and beliefs. In terms of changing our entire society in order to preserve life on Earth, that will be extremely challenging (if not probably impossible).
Ch. 1: Chapter One introduces a set of 10 principles that the book and alternative decision making options rely on.
1. The 3rd principle is based on the idea that no one can assess what level of “damage” is acceptable. US law regulations are based on “acceptable” levels of drinking water contamination, “acceptable limits of change” on public lands, “acceptable” numbers of cancers that will be caused by some activity like producing or using some toxic, “acceptable daily intakes” of toxic pesticides, and so on” (O’Brien, 10).
2. “Most private behavior has environmental consequences for the public so it isn’t actually private” (O’Brien, 10). If a private landowner kills all of the raptors that roam their land, then the repercussions of that will be felt on a grander scale. That is one example of how “private” is not really a thing in the eyes of ecosystems. Similar examples are air pollution occurring in one country which drifts over to another country.
3. “Changes do not come easily when powerful entities benefit from the status quo. Change is accomplished through political action, and political action is the responsibility of citizens in democracy if they are truly to govern themselves” (O’Brien, 14-15). Political change can be seen through stricter or new regulations or laws, but can also be seen through boycotts, economic pressure, etc.
Ch. 2: Chapter 2 looks into how risk assessments are made and the different types of risk assessment.
ReplyDelete1. “In theory, risk assessment is an objective, science-based process. In reality, risk assessment involves choices among numerous “guesses” and estimates. Politics, money, and power effect those choices” (O’Brien, 16). In dealing with environmental risk assessment, one can never truly assess the full damages of environmental destruction.
2. Issues with risk assessors in regards to pesticides: Risk assessors cannot know the full extent of the hazards of that pesticide. They don’t know how the pesticide interacts with every other chemical in the world. Risk assessors make a lot of guesses and assumptions in terms of how much an organism will be exposed to that pesticide (how much the individual eats foods that contain that pesticide). And the risk assessor does not know how sensitive each individual is to that specific pesticide.
3. The fishing industry is a good example of failed risk assessment. “For example, a fishing risk-assessment formula that concentrates only on sardines or only on one stress (such as commercial fishing) on sardines is not realistic enough to predict how many sardines can be sustainably exploited (fished). This is because other things may be happening in the ocean. For instance, other fish species may depend on sardines for their own food, so depleting sardines may cause starvation of their predators. Sardine populations may already be weakened by pollution or temperature changes, or their own food base may have been depleted so the resiliency of their response to being fished may be diminished” (O’Brien, 30).
Ch. 3: Risk assessment is useful in defending unnecessary activities that damage the environment or human health.
1. “A certain amount of a hazardous substance can be deemed “safe” by regulators at one time but later be understood to be harmful or even lethal” (O’Brien, 46). In 1925, it was said that nuclear workers could face up to 156 rem per year and be safe. However, this regulation was changed in 1990 and is now at only 5 rem of exposure per year. Though according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the safe recommended amount is only 1-2 rem per year.
2. Risk assessments are also made for the extinction of species. Researchers attempted to make a risk assessment of cutting down the western half of Washington, Oregon, and northern California’s old growth forests and the impacts the spotted owl would face. The biggest issue researchers came across was a lack of knowledge about the spotted owl and thus were unable to complete an accurate assessment.
3. “International standards for pesticide residues acceptable on foods, for instance, are developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a subsidiary body of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Codex Alimentarius is strongly influenced by private chemical-industry and food-industry groups” (O’Brien, 56). This causes the analysis to lose any real integrity it possessed. Additionally, regulations vary throughout countries and can be influenced by numerous outsiders and factors which can ultimately leave great impacts on environments and peoples.
Chapter 2: Risk assessments are made out to be government guidelines that are strictly tested and can protect us from corporate waste, when in reality these assessments can be incredibly deceiving.
ReplyDelete“Corporations can and do plug in different estimated numbers so as to reach different conclusions, because they often have millions of dollars riding on the outcome of a risk assessment of one of their products or activities.”(pg. 25, O’Brien) Risk assessment always appear to be transparent, but are often skewed by corporations in the interests of profit. This can cause significant damages to human and non-human life, all while being deemed perfectly safe and legal.
“What this means is that some of the risk assessments of worker exposure to particular chemicals simply “overlooked” some of the data, with the result that the industries using these chemicals would not have to reduce or eliminate the release of these chemicals in their workplace.”(pg. 29, O’Brien) This is an example how approved levels of toxicity were not accurately set. Using these shortcuts can cost millions of dollars, and innocent people their lives.
“Although no financial outcomes presumably rode on the results, the teams varied in their assessment of the hazards by factors as great as 25,000.”(pg. 37, O’Brien) Even without financial incentives risk assessors are unable to agree in their evaluations. Assumptions are made in risk assessments and these lead to a variety of potential outcomes.
Chapter 3: This chapter got more specific about companies that manipulate risk assessment results in order to continue business.
“A certain amount of a hazardous substance can be deemed “safe” by regulators at one time but later be understood to be harmful or even lethal.”(pg. 46, O’Brien) Assessments designed to be the desired outcome of the risk manager often lead to these miscalculations. These mistakes can have adverse effects on surrounding ecosystems and communities.
“This example shows that decision makers will use scientifically indefensible and economically and politically influenced risk assessments to justify desired activities even when that may mean extinction of numerous species.”(pg.49, O’Brien) Those in charge of the species loss risk assessment admitted to not being qualified to make those assumptions. This just one example of the puppeteering taking place in corporate risk assessment.
“Harmonization would assure a manufacturer in one country that it could export, sell, or import toxic products to or from anywhere without having to face particularly stringent standards in certain countries.”(pg. 55, O’Brien) This opened the gates for corporations to increase profits by importing their toxic products. Further distancing themselves from the responsibility of their products repercussions.
Question: How could you ensure that a risk assessment is credible or accurate?
chapter 1 - “goal: replace risk assessment with alternatives assessment”
ReplyDeleteThesis: Although complete change is difficult and uncomfortable, it is urgently necessary and ultimately our only option for the planet’s health and our own survival.
“...human beings need to share the Earth with as broad a diversity of living beings as possible” (O’Brien, 7). What people often fail to realize is that the earth will keep keeping on, even flourishing and thriving once humans are extinct. During our time here, it would benefit all parties involved if those of us with a heavier impact could take a step back and make room for others trying to coexist peacefully together on the planet. Not only that, but things would likely be going a lot more smoothly if we embraced the broad biodiversity of our world rather than constantly fighting against it, in all ways imaginable.
“What is acceptable to any person is a matter of personal judgement, but the word is used by risk assessment’s promoters as if it were something concrete that could be measured by others, or as if it were something about which everyone must surely agree” (O’Brien, 10). Often in situations of environmental and social injustices, there is a group or individual being told by another group or individual what is acceptable for them, and what they are expected to deal with. Whether that fits into the lifestyle those affected were planning for or living before doesn’t really matter at that point and they are expected to adapt and overcome without complaint. The idea of creating a community of collaborative change in which those impacted have not only a voice but an actual seat at the table making decisions about their own future is promising and possible if more people can work to make better environmental and social decisions in their daily lives.
“Sometimes we are hardly aware that the damage we are causing is unnecessary” (O’Brien, 12). A really important idea to think about and remember is intent versus impact. No matter if what you were trying to do was malicious or not, if someone got hurt emotionally or physically, you need to be open to and ready to deal with the consequences and the steps necessary to fix what was affected. Even if humans are unaware of the damage we cause, once we find out we need to be working to change our lifestyles and behaviors in order to stop the damage from happening more.
QUESTION: how can situations of discomfort be catalysts for change & why are they so important?
chapter 2 - “how does risk assessment actually work?”
ReplyDeletethesis: In practice, risk assessments often end up being corrupted, unrealistic, and favorable for those who are powerful.
“In theory, risk assessment is an objective, science-based process. In reality, risk assessment involves choices among numerous “guesses” and estimates. Politics, money, and power affect those choices” (O’Brien, 17). In any situation where there is a possibility for businesses, politicians, and corporations to corrupt environmental protection measures for their own interests, they’ll take the opportunity. Although we would hope this wouldn’t be the case, it is proven time and time again that the default is to go for what makes the most profit in the now, rather than what's best for people and the planet in the long-term (and short-term).
“The risk assessor is generally hired by private industry or by the government to do a risk assessment of a value-laden and sometimes highly controversial situation” (O’Brien, 27). Without an outside, objective party involved in the risk assessment, who cannot be influenced or swayed at all, it cannot be truly accurate or lacking corruption. Usually, this means the worst case scenario is what is decided on for social and environmental groups and issues.
“Often, financial profits and/or political power will be affected by risk-based decisions regarding human activities. Pressure therefore exists to prepare optimistic risk assessments that defend those activities” (O’Brien, 37). Rather than being swayed by money and political power, it would be really cool if risk assessors and those involved could focus on the health and future of our planet, animals, and people. It’s really hard for me to separate the state and fate of our Earth and environment with the possibility to literally exist and function in a life as I know it, and it seems that it’s very easy for those who are money-hungry enough to influence something as important as risk and alternatives assessments in their favor to do that.
QUESTION: how can risk and alternatives assessments be changed to be more inclusive and less corrupt?
chapter 3 - “what are we defending with risk assessment?”
ReplyDelete10x10 presentation link:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18kmTVPxbrUprfMbGkXahtuyW0EF4L1i3EU9l0YDDLw0/edit?usp=sharing
Excellent reflections for week #2, ENP team!
ReplyDeleteAll posts below this line = C/Late.
Dr. Rob
Dr. Rob
Introduction: O’Brien takes the reader through her thinking process about risk assessment and how human beings have caused damage because of how we act through policies.
ReplyDelete1. The introduction was a great way to bring the reader into the values of the book overall. “We humans will never dredge up enough will to alter our habitual, destructive ways of behaving towards each other and the world unless we simultaneously employ information and emotion and a sense of relationship to others – other species, other cultures, and other generations” (O’Brien, xvii). This quote means a lot to me because I agree with every word. I believe that if we all involve ourselves in other perspectives from other beings emotionally, we will be able to create a more balanced, and healthy world. Empathy is necessary for anyone to live a sustainable life.
2. “Risk assessment is a premier process by which illegitimate exercise of power is justified” (O’Brien, xvii). This caught my eye while I was reading because it expresses the importance of risk assessment when thinking about it globally. I really like the way she worded this because it’s talking about trying out new ideas instead of sticking with old policy.
3. She went into detail about how emotion is key to change, no matter what the issue. “Using information while divorced from emotion and using information while insulated from connection to a wide net of others are how destruction of the Earth is being accomplished” (O’Brien, xvii). O’Brien expresses how humans have truly destroyed the Earth simply by being too selfish and too focused on the increase of funds.
Chapter 1: This chapter is discussing the replacements of risk assessment with alternative assessment. O’Brien then shares her bold ten fundamental principles to explain the exact reasons why alternative assessment is needed.
1. “Most of the activities assessed in risk assessments produce some commercial benefit, or supposedly “solve” some problem, such as what to do with toxic wastes” (O’Brien, 5). This is important to think about because when people often think about what to do with problems caused by our own doing, we freeze up and try the fastest route to an often-temporary solution. Policy needs to focus on the most beneficial option, instead of the most convenient (hence alternative assessment).
2. “Alternatives to these activities, substances, or projects are rarely considered or pursued in a meaningful way” (O’Brien, 7). This is so true!! People are so focused on money and success that they forget the ethics behind living… I believe that with more empathy, people would be able to create alternatives significantly faster and be stronger.
3. My purpose for living on this Earth is this very sentence, “For their own well-being and that of all living things, human beings need share the Earth with as broad a diversity of living beings as possible” (O’Brien, 7). We need to be kinder, gentler, and empathetic towards every single thing on Earth, alive or not.
Chapter 2: This chapter discusses risk assessment and how people use it to make decisions.
ReplyDelete1. “In reality, there are many estimations and selected numbers in most risk assessments, and the means available to significantly change an official risk assessment using alternative numbers are considerably unequal” (O’Brien, 25). This explains why it is important to recognize that assessments are not accurate.
2. “Most risk assessments are prepared when permission is sought by a business, an agency, or a corporation to initiate or continue a hazardous activity or to use a poison” (O’Brien, 27).
3. “The bottom line in most (if not all) risk assessments is that if someone wants to continue some activity or to get a permit or approval for some activity, and if the outcome of the risk assessment will get in the way of that activity, there will be pressure to use optimistic numbers in the risk assessment” (O’Brien, 27).
Chapter 3: This chapter discusses how risk assessment can be used in negative or convenient ways that affect people and ecosystems to a dangerous extent.
1. “Risk assessment is primarily used to defend unnecessary activities that harm the environment or human health” (O’Brien, 39). Risk assessment is being used in a way that is expected, in my opinion. Corporations and big businesses always try for the loopholes or the most convenient way out. What I mean is that selfish people do selfish things, and that can affect everything.
2. “It would be hard to find a person who thinks that humans are doing a great job of taking care of the world” (O’Brien, 39). I think this is a great sentence to start this chapter with because it’s straight to the point and blunt. People need to hear blunt statements like this, or they won’t take these issues seriously.
3. “This example (decrease in spotted owls) shows that decision makers will use scientifically indefensible and economically and politically influenced risk assessments to justify desired activities even when that may mean extinction of numerous species” (O’Brien, 49). The spotted owl decrease is a great example of selfishness. The president of the US killed owls. I think about that about just process it with disgust in this country. We need to have alternative assessment to avoid these detrimental events.
QUESTION: What is the main cause of risk assessment instead of alternative assessment? Could our country/world ever switch to alternative assessment?
Chapter One
ReplyDeleteRisk assessment is used to evaluate environmental decision making, however assessing risks is not necessarily the best way to avoid all possible risks.
“The more basic, unstated goal of risk assessment, however, is to provide permission for undertaking some amount or form of the activity whose risks are being assessed. It would be more helpful to the children of East Liverpool if, instead of simply writing permits for acceptable exposure of the children to lead, mercury, and particulates from the WTI incinerator, we encouraged reduction of toxic-waste production by those industries that haul their waste to the WTI incinerator”(6, O’Brien).
The question is not if we can avoid damage as a whole, but more so how we can go about our routine tasks while attempting to limit damages. “The major question is whether we and our social institutions will approach the world recklessly causing or permitting as much damage as we can get away with; or carefully, causing or permitting as little damage as possible. If we are going to try to cause as little damage as possible, we (and our social institutions) have to systematically examine options for least damage”(12, O,Brien).
Even when we understand the potential risks that we are posing to communities and the environment, we struggle to break out of these routines despite our knowledge of the risks. “It is hard for an individual, a company, or a government agency to change habits. Habits include thinking in certain ways, following certain bureaucratic processes, or even listening only to certain people. We tend to be creatures of habit”(13, O’Brien).
Chapter Two
Thesis: The current systems in place make the switch to alternative assessment more difficult.
Those responsible for mitigating risks are the ones who directly impose those risks on society. “Wealthy resource exploiters or the prospects of getting wealthy from over-exploitation of a resource generate political and social power that is used to promote unlimited exploitation of the resource. A fishing corporation, for instance, will hire fisheries scientists who the corporation knows are likely to estimate that there are more than enough of the fish available in the ocean”(Obrien).
Similarly to the issue on climate change, the science has not been agreed upon by the general public before corporations benefiting from ignoring this threat could skew the public and politicize the issue.“Each new resource problem involves learning about a new system, and the scientists generally don’t yet have studies showing that comparative effects of exploitation of that resource” (30,OBrien)
Financial and political power skew the system, making it more exploitable. “Pressure therefore exists to prepare optimistic risk assessments that defend those activities. The health of communities, wildlife, and ecosystems, however, also will be affected by risk-based decisions regarding human activities. Which “side” has a greater opportunity to influence the risk assessments? (37,O’Brien)
Chapter Three
ReplyDeleteThesis: We can measure the impracticality of acting through risk assessment.
The method of risk assessment is clearly not working considering our current downfalls. “Species are becoming extinct at the rate of approximetley 50 per day, atmospheric ozone is being depleted nuclear wastes accumulate, some of our rivers stink and others are dried up, urban air is murky, northern lakes are clear but devoid of life because of acid rain, pesticides are in the food we buy and the whales that roam the seas, tropical rain forests in the United States(39, Obrien)”.
Currently allowed pollutants and contaminants have dramatically impacted our societal and environmental health. “Essentially every organism on Earth is contaminated with numerous human-produced toxic chemicals. We watch dumbly as the human population increases geometrically and the number of molecules of toxic substances it takes to cause havoc turns out to be smaller and smaller”39, Obrien).
The government allows activities that will kill a certain percentage of people. Risk assessment does not protect all living organisms, in fact it designates a certain percentage that it is allowed to harm.“These studies show that some people will die as a result of breathing air that contains the amount of PM, that our government permits.(41)”
Why does it have to be so difficult for society to transition to the better available options?
CHAPTER 1
ReplyDeleteThesis: Risk assessment has a very different approach to analyzing and dealing with crossroads- alternatives assessment.
- “The process of estimating damages that may be occurring, or that may occur if an activity is undertaken, is called risk assessment.” The key here is that the process estimates damages, it is not an accurate prediction of all results of an activity.
-“What is acceptable to any person is a matter of personal judgement, but the word is used by risk assessment’s promoters as if it were something concrete that could be measured by others, or as if it were something about which everyone must surely agree” (10). Risk assessment uses flawed rhetoric.
-“Sometimes we are hardly aware that the damage we are causing is unnecessary” (12). The society which we have constructed is greatly separated from most (if any) understanding of factors of production that are not obvious or directly affecting their everyday lives.
CHAPTER 2
Thesis: Risk assessment is conducted by means of analyzing likelihood of hazard and possible risks of exposure.
-“Corporations can and do plug in different estimated numbers so as to reach different conclusions, because they often have millions of dollars riding on the outcome of a risk assessment of one of their products or activities” (25). Corporations can monitor their own risk assessments as long as they submit a statement on their findings to the EPA. There should be more stringent regulations on monitoring methods.
-“The bottom line in most (if not all) risk assessments is that if someone wants to continue some activity or to get a permit or approval for some activity, and if the outcomes of the risk assessment will get in the way of that activity, there will be pressure to use optimistic numbers in the risk assessment” (27).
- “It’s not that every scientist looks to his or her pocketbook and or/ employer before drawing up a risk assessment” (36). The scientists participating in the risk assessments are not always the issue, the issue are those who edit and submit those reports (ie EIS).
CHAPTER 3
Thesis: Risk assessments are a way for private companies to “defend unnecessary activities that harm the environment or human health
-“Risk assessment is primarily used to defend unnecessary activities that harm the environment or human health.” (39). Risk assessments are a way to manipulate possible customers to trust their product/services.
-“A risk assessment can be changed, without any new information, so that what might have originally been seen as unsafe will later be declared safe” (43). Thorough tests can be completed and show significantly harmful risks, but these results can be censored.
-“A risk-assessment approach to an issue can be so informal that the phrase “risk assessment” is never used” (52). The fact that there are very weak structural requirements for anayzing risks of a proposed activity is morally concerning.
When corporations are in charge of their own risk assessments, who is monitoring their testing processes?