5 ms·

> in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an

by sampo 9y ago

> in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. And after Fukushima, Germany decided to abandon nuclear power, although tsunamis are not really a thing in Germany. This has made Germany resort to burning more coal for energy and caused Germany's carbon dioxide emissions to increase. These are cases where sticking to the precautionary principle has caused way more harm than good.

vorotato 9y ago
Coal ash spills have caused big problems in my state, and the nuclear plant has caused none that I'm aware of. I'd imagine part of that is because people are more reckless with something that they view as safe, and vice versa but yeah dumb move for germany.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  Nuclear is also more heavily regulated, meaning that the nuclear plant is required to follow very specific rules when handling the dangerous material
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  North Carolina with the Duke Energy spills?
gioele 9y ago
> Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. I seriously would like to see that majority of scientists live patching binaries in a networked environment (say, microservices) with ossified protocols and see how well their _improved_ applications run. Hint: they will crash within seconds or create unexpected problems to the network much later. (That is the software analogue to GMO.)
- psychometry 9y ago
  I hate this recurring tendency of HN commenters to myopically reduce every issue to one involving technology before forming an opinion on that issue. Hint: the applicability of an analogy does not extend infinitely in all conceptual directions.
morsch 9y ago
Germany decided to gradually phase out nuclear energy in 2002 (after two years of deliberations and negotiations), 9 years before Fukushima. At the end of 2010, the center-right coalition extended the duration of the phase out; a few months after Fukushima, they essentially backtracked on that extension. This resulted in the oldest 8 plants being shut down, most of them built in the 70s. As of now, there are still 8 plants operating. In 2016, it provided about 13% of overall electrical energy. In the same year, regenerative sources generated around 29%. At its peak in 2004, nuclear power provided around 32%, and regenerative around 8%.
Alex3917 9y ago
> Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. What percentage of these scientists allow the general public to modify the DNA of their food however they want?
barrkel 9y ago
> GMO crops are safe My objections to GMO crops are more around an aversion to industrial scale farming, monocultures, corporate-controlled seed stocks, and ultimately authenticity in the food I eat - not the health effects of the food itself. So I'll vote to oppose GMO crops, and I think it's right for politicians to reflect that opinion. Little to do with science, much more to do with the kind of life I want to live and the world I want to live in.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > My objections to GMO crops are more around an aversion to industrial scale farming, monocultures, corporate-controlled seed stocks, and ultimately authenticity in the food I eat - not the health effects of the food itself. Those are also (except maybe “authenticity”, since it's not clear what that concretely means; but I suspect it still applies with any coherent operationalization) at least as much of an issue with modern non-GMO crop development, including modern corporate industrial-scale organic agriculture “GMO” is a distraction.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    It's revealing to notice how many replies don't understand authenticity. One way to put it: do you know the name of the farmer who grew or raised your food? Have you met them or their family personally? What's your judgement of their character?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > It's revealing to notice how many replies don't understand authenticity Only revealing of the fact that you are using a word that doesn't have a single well-established definition applicable to the context in which you've used it. Nor have you actually articulated a definition, only examples (none of which correspond to any usual sense of “authenticity”.) In any case, the examples you've given all seem to be applicable to industrial farming, to which GMOs are an orthogonal concern.
- euyyn 9y ago
tzs 9y ago
> an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. But what does it mean for GMO to be "safe"? From what I've been able to tell from what I've read on this, it just means that there is nothing inherently unsafe about GMO. That doesn't mean that GMO cannot be misused. Look at what the food manufacturers did with sugar. Used in small quantities, sugar is perfectly safe for use in food. But many food manufacturers have used it in large quantity in a large variety of foods. GMO gives those manufacturers a greater range of things they can do to food, letting them achieve things that the might not be able to achieve with non-GMO techniques, or letting them do things faster and cheaper than the could do with non-GMO techniques. Whether or not it is safe to let them do so is NOT a science question.

by sampo 9y ago

vorotato 9y ago

Coal ash spills have caused big problems in my state, and the nuclear plant has caused none that I'm aware of. I'd imagine part of that is because people are more reckless with something that they view as safe, and vice versa but yeah dumb move for germany.

mrguyorama 9y ago
Nuclear is also more heavily regulated, meaning that the nuclear plant is required to follow very specific rules when handling the dangerous material
Jtsummers 9y ago
North Carolina with the Duke Energy spills?

gioele 9y ago

> Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. I seriously would like to see that majority of scientists live patching binaries in a networked environment (say, microservices) with ossified protocols and see how well their _improved_ applications run. Hint: they will crash within seconds or create unexpected problems to the network much later. (That is the software analogue to GMO.)

psychometry 9y ago
I hate this recurring tendency of HN commenters to myopically reduce every issue to one involving technology before forming an opinion on that issue. Hint: the applicability of an analogy does not extend infinitely in all conceptual directions.

morsch 9y ago

Germany decided to gradually phase out nuclear energy in 2002 (after two years of deliberations and negotiations), 9 years before Fukushima. At the end of 2010, the center-right coalition extended the duration of the phase out; a few months after Fukushima, they essentially backtracked on that extension. This resulted in the oldest 8 plants being shut down, most of them built in the 70s. As of now, there are still 8 plants operating. In 2016, it provided about 13% of overall electrical energy. In the same year, regenerative sources generated around 29%. At its peak in 2004, nuclear power provided around 32%, and regenerative around 8%.

Alex3917 9y ago

> Unfortunately, European politicians apply precautionary principle also to cases where an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. What percentage of these scientists allow the general public to modify the DNA of their food however they want?

barrkel 9y ago

> GMO crops are safe My objections to GMO crops are more around an aversion to industrial scale farming, monocultures, corporate-controlled seed stocks, and ultimately authenticity in the food I eat - not the health effects of the food itself. So I'll vote to oppose GMO crops, and I think it's right for politicians to reflect that opinion. Little to do with science, much more to do with the kind of life I want to live and the world I want to live in.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> My objections to GMO crops are more around an aversion to industrial scale farming, monocultures, corporate-controlled seed stocks, and ultimately authenticity in the food I eat - not the health effects of the food itself. Those are also (except maybe “authenticity”, since it's not clear what that concretely means; but I suspect it still applies with any coherent operationalization) at least as much of an issue with modern non-GMO crop development, including modern corporate industrial-scale organic agriculture “GMO” is a distraction.
- barrkel 9y ago
  It's revealing to notice how many replies don't understand authenticity. One way to put it: do you know the name of the farmer who grew or raised your food? Have you met them or their family personally? What's your judgement of their character?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It's revealing to notice how many replies don't understand authenticity Only revealing of the fact that you are using a word that doesn't have a single well-established definition applicable to the context in which you've used it. Nor have you actually articulated a definition, only examples (none of which correspond to any usual sense of “authenticity”.) In any case, the examples you've given all seem to be applicable to industrial farming, to which GMOs are an orthogonal concern.
euyyn 9y ago

tzs 9y ago

> an overwhelming majority of scientist think that, for example, GMO crops are safe. But what does it mean for GMO to be "safe"? From what I've been able to tell from what I've read on this, it just means that there is nothing inherently unsafe about GMO. That doesn't mean that GMO cannot be misused. Look at what the food manufacturers did with sugar. Used in small quantities, sugar is perfectly safe for use in food. But many food manufacturers have used it in large quantity in a large variety of foods. GMO gives those manufacturers a greater range of things they can do to food, letting them achieve things that the might not be able to achieve with non-GMO techniques, or letting them do things faster and cheaper than the could do with non-GMO techniques. Whether or not it is safe to let them do so is NOT a science question.