Chex Mix Recipe With Sesame Seeds

Risk Disclosure: An Analysis of a pharmaceutical case

risk disclosure is usually done through two communication channels. On one side is the formal education through which one can not only release but to educate against risks such as that involves the presence of a tsunami and on the other hand, the media, which ultimately are the most publicly convened . This second channel can be converted, as u turn at risk. Luhmann expresses about:

"Faced with the inability to decide on a perfectly rational (optimal) and against the impossibility of predicting what will have been a decision, all communication becomes at risk: of not having served something that later turns out to be important or have decided in a way that later prove to be wrong or somehow reprehensible. But the lack of communication also protects us from this risk, since it can be converted, as default, in a decision. "

(Luhmann, 1998, pg. 242)

The disclosure must be so objective, responsible and effective (best), enabling the successful prevention and risk management.

course the case that management is closely related to the disclosure, dissemination, and perception of risk, if only because it can produce an expansion of the real risks the same way communication of potential risks

(Alvarez Alvarez, 2005)

Extension, attenuation, distortion, stigma, fear mongering, panic may be present in the pharmaceutical case analysis of this corner.

In 2004 an email circulated from a source from Argentina, which had led CIRCULAR DO! URGENT - RISK OF DEATH, with the following contents:

The Ministry of Health through the National Agency Health Surveillance suspended by Resolution 96 manufacturing , distribution, handling, marketing and storage of medicines with the active ingredient called FENILPROPALAMINA. The move came after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S., found that the substance caused adverse effects on users FATAL Americans (cerebral hemorrhage). In Brazil, the suspension is preventive once that there are no reported cases. THE FENILPROPALAMINA drug is present in 21 ...

Then there is a list of 21 drugs, including some flu there for public sale in shops and Colombian supermarkets [1] . Why this disclosure is in Argentina and not in Colombia? What happens to the mass of the population without access to this means of communication? Were my first questions when reading this post.

E was massively circulated Internet. I know that not everything on the net is to be believed, so I consulted the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) cited by the mail, it announced:

Scientists at Yale University School of Medicine recently issued a report
Entitled "Phenylpropanolamine & Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke: Final Report of the Hemorrhagic Stroke Project." This study reports PPA That Increase the Risk Taking of hemorrhagic stroke (bleeding Into Into the brain or tissue surrounding the brain) in Women. Men May Also Be at Risk. Although the Risk of hemorrhagic stroke is very low, FDA Recommends That Consumers Not Any use PPA products That Contain

Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 157)

In 2007 the FDA page presents the following warning:

Not satisfied with this, I managed to find the scientific study of Yale University. In a document dated 25 May 2000 pages (the problem was detected four years earlier), we present the results of a study performed on a sample of nearly 800 patients. Without more details of this investigation, I find the following conclusion:

In conclusion, the results of the Hemorrhagic Stroke Project (HSP) Suggest That phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Increase the Risk for hemorrhagic stroke. For Both Individuals considering use of PPA and for policy makers, the HSP Provides important data for a contemporary Assessment of Risks associated with the use of PPA.

why the Argentine government takes such a decision and not Colombian? Argentina amplifier station gave more prominence to the event, it would be a plausible answer.

In October 2007, a notice is generated globally from the U.S. lab Wyeth. In Colombia, well reported,

Wyeth The U.S. lab just recall the Dimetapp cold medicine pediatric drops as a preventive measure. In Colombia are sold between 20 thousand and 30 thousand bottles of Dimetapp pediatric drops that are for consumption by children aged 0 to 2 years old. "We have adopted such measures and responsible for suspending the sale of pediatric drops Dimetapp in Colombia," said Wyeth's medical director in the Andean region, Andres Zapata [...] claims that the pediatric drops Dimetapp is not harmful to health children and 20 years sold in Colombia. What happens according to lab spokesman, is that abuse can cause side effects in infants such as drowsiness.

http://www.caracol.com.co/ (October 10, 2007)

According to information, risk generators are the irresponsible parents who do not know how to use the-counter medication or prescription.

The Dimetapp is one of 21 drugs reported by the Argentine post. Until the previous news fenilpropalamina the problem was now presented as case reports of withdrawal of pseudoephedrine Dimetapp.

Two days later (12 October) the deputy director of drugs Invima announced that "a week" there will be the evaluation of cold medicines that counter in the country.

A little help for the deputy. The same Invima published a list of over 1200 Wyeth products in Colombia. Over 300 of these have fenilpropalamina or pseudoephedrine, 60 of them with pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (Dimettap, dristancito, hot Dristan, Sinutab, Robitussin, ...) and 125 with pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (do not know what the difference with the previous but including DolEx is the flu, the noxpirín and acetaminophen). As I have removed phenylpropanolamine the following table:

PRODUCT	REGISTER	FORM FARMECUTICA	COMPONENT
Dimetapp JUNIOR	INVIMA M-013 658	SYRUP	HCL PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE
pediatric drops Dimetapp	INVIMA 2001M-0000388	ORAL SOLUTION	HCL USP PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE
CONTAC C-	INVIMA M-010 139	CAPSULE HARD	CLORHIDRATO DE phenylpropanolamine
DESCONGEL L TABLETAS	INVIM M-13518	TABLET	phenylpropanolamine CLORHIDRATO
DESENFRIOLITO DD TABLETAS	M-005 052	TAB	PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE

Another little help,

The National Institute Food and Drug Monitoring - INVIMA informs the general population taking into account the results of the program demonstrates the quality of 2006, has applied to the sections of the country's health and pharmaceutical market withdrawal of the drugs listed attached, because not meet the quality standards established within the health record.

Bogotá, August 25, 2007

Of 827 samples tested in 2006, 34 did not meet the quality parameters, 11 of them with the active component pseudoephedrine hydrochloride trade name "Dristan Ultra" Wyeth Lab

The laboratory notes now used more cough and cold medicines children under 2 years

What can we do with this information? "Stigmatize the lab? "To generate panic in the population? Or simply go to one of the early world of uncertainty ... caution.

In a matter of precaution we have much advantage as European countries. During my visit to Spain in the first quarter of 2007 bought a shot, transcribed verbatim side effects posted "conspicuously" in the box: "The most common side effect is sedation and drowsiness, gastrointestinal upset, constipation, confusion, euphoria, visual disturbances, dry mouth and difficulty urinating. Have also been reported rashes, hives and severe allergic reactions and blood disorders. " Therefore recommend consulting your doctor or pharmacist the right shot, in contrast to Colombia, which allows the free sale at any corner store.

'm not a doctor or pharmacist, you may be exaggerating the information received, but in my house will not buy and consume influenza as set forth in this section ... just as a precaution.

Bibliography

Alvarez Alvarez, JF (2005). A great evils small remedies: risk management. In JL Luján, & J. Echeverría (Edits.) Governing risk: science and values \u200b\u200bin risk society (pp. 310-325). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.

Luhmann, N. (1998). Sociology of Risk. Mexico: Triana Editores.

---

[1] The 21 Argentina suspended medications include: Benadryl, day and night, Contac, Naldecon Bristol; Acolde; Rinarin Expectorant; DeltaP; Desfenil; HCl fenilpropalamina; Naldex; Nasaliv; Decongex Plus; Sanagripe, Descon, Descon AP; Descon Expectorant; Dimetapp ; Dimetapp Expectorant; Plus CERACOL; Ornatrol; Rhinex AP; Contilen and Decidex.

How To Get Rid Of Prostate Infection

What we know about hurricanes

One of the most common problems in the dissemination of risk is the proliferation of texts or documents that are not supported by reliable sources. It is common to find, for the same concept, information out of context. Two statements from some of these texts allow justify my statement:

Phrase 1. " [...] applicable to the projection of structures and antisímicos buildings [...] " taken from a UNESCO document. There are no buildings antisímicas, I hope ... God forbid.

Phrase 2. " [...] the worst earthquake in U.S. history, which had a magnitude 7.6 on the Richter scale [...] " taken from the www.tiempo.com dated August 15, 2007. The Richter scale is a magnitude scale refers to the energy released in an earthquake, the intensity scale Mercalli is measured and subjectively, the level of damage.

This is a problem and, in my opinion, a minor problem. The major problems in risk disclosure occur when mixed with other factors that have little to do with the phenomena that cause or risk. The spate of hurricanes in 2005 was a great opportunity to justify the dominant theory climate change what happened in 2006? In theory, the increase in temperature will not decrease greenhouse gases and reduce our emission of such gases. Yes climate change is to blame for the spate of hurricanes in 2005 what happened in 2006?

Focusing on the validity or otherwise of the theory is something that should be left to scientists. As we focus is on knowledge of the threats that surround us and in conditions of vulnerability that we promote ourselves. That climate change has generated hurricanes like Katrina, only serves to distract attention from the disaster itself what has been the debate over the Bush administration's inaction before and after the disaster? How has been reported that Bush was informed that New Orleans levees were broken on the day Hurricane Katrina made landfall, according to the complaint of Michael Brown, former director of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)? Much was said of the government's inability to address the disaster, but little on the meager budget of FEMA, which was diverted to meet Bush's personal war with Iraq.

The above statements might be thought to contradict my proposal not to change the course of our attention on the risk per se. Most do not. The conditions of vulnerability are associated with safety. Safety from natural hazards such as hurricanes is only the resistance to destruction. A very fashionable term, the study of risk, which sharpens the resistance is the "resilience", defined as the ability of a system to resist changes produced by the environment. New Orleans had it, their conditions were irresponsibly increased vulnerability. The levees were not repaired in time, FEMA did not respond, the poor (most vulnerable) are left to their fate.

this corner, in the context of the introductory paragraph, will address what we know about hurricanes.

What is a hurricane?

The FEMA publication "Are you ready " ( www. Fema .gov / areyouready / ) defined as a type of tropical cyclone, which is accompanied by thunderstorms with winds greater than or equal to 119 Km / h (74MPH or 64 knots .) For lower speeds are simple tropical storms (between 61 and 188 km / h) or tropical depressions (less than 61 Km / h).

Overall a hurricane is a c iClone or "Tropical Storm" Atlantic, as it is in other parts of the world and in the Philippines Baguio be told, in Japan should be named Typhoon and Wyly Wyly in Australia. Each are the same phenomenon ... a tropical storm.

Where are the names that are given to hurricanes?

Since 1953, the Atlantic tropical storms are given a name from lists originated by the National Hurricane Center USA, which currently maintains and updates an international committee of the World Meteorological Organization. Currently, we use six lists with 21 names each in rotation, with alternate names of men and women. The 2001 lists are used in this year. When a storm is disastrous, the name is struck from the list. Ie, Katrina, Andrews, Mitch, etc. have disappeared from the charts, but survive in the history of disasters.

These names are replaced by others. For some reason, the lists do not see the name of George.

If a season recorded a higher number to 21 cyclones, used the letters of the Greek alphabet ( Alpha, Beta , etc.) To denote the other hurricanes.

For 2007 this is the list: Andrea, Barry, Chantal, Dean, Erin, Felix, Gabrielle, Humberto, Ingrid, Jerry, Karen, Lorenzo, Melissa, Noel, Olga, Pablo, Rebekah, Sebastien, Tanya, Van and Wendy. At the time of publication, and Hurricane Felix had passed.

What is a hurricane of Category 5 ?

The answer is simple. Hurricane is a father and my lord. Disastrous.

U.S. scientists Herbert Saffir and Robert Simpson developed a scale the most accepted form, to "categorize" hurricanes used to estimate the amount of damage they can produce and which depends on the speed of the winds that form the hurricane. This scale is summarized as follows:

Saffir-Simpson scale measuring hurricane intensity
Category	Sustained winds (Km / h)	Damage	Marejada (m)
1	119-153	Minimum 1.21-1.52
2	154-177	Moderate: All mobile homes, small boats, Flood	1.53-2.44
3	178-209	Extensive: Small buildings, low-lying roads	2.45-3.66
4	210-249	Extreme: Roofs destroyed, trees down, roads washed away, homes flooded beach	3.67-5.49
5	More than 249	Disastrous: Most buildings destroyed	Greater than 5.49 meters

The most dangerous part of a hurricane is storm surge. This column of sea water can reach heights exceeding 6 meters. Moreover, heavy rains accompanying the hurricane caused severe flooding.

Some hurricanes remembered for his "intensity" are: Gilbert (Sep-1988), 299 km / h. Hurricane in the Keys (Sep 1935). Mitch (Oct-1998), 287 km / h. Hugo (September - 1989), 260 km / h. Andrew (Nov-992), 250 km / h. And obviously, Katrina and Wilma.

How do hurricanes originate?

To be consistent with my initial statements, I will not give a scientific description of the origin of the hurricane. It suffices to know u No tropical cyclone needs a pre-existing p and rturbación atmospheric, warm tropical oceans (temperature of the water over 27 º C) , hum age relatively light winds aloft. What justifies the oceans warm, the absence of cyclones in other regions of the planet, as in the north and south. Also justified, although no empirical evidence, the relationship of climate change - hurricanes.

When we talk about disaster?

Any definition is subjective. Organizations such as the CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) http://www.cred.be/cred1/index.htm , or the CE-DAT (Database on the Human Impact of Complex Emergencies) http://www.cred.be/cedat/index.htm considered a disaster when it meets any of these criteria:

· 10 or more people reported dead.

· 100 or more people affected

· state of emergency declaration

· international aid application

When I say that is subjective is because it is how you could call these events:

• Bangladesh cyclone of 1970. 300.000 people dead
• Hurricane Fifi in Honduras in 1974. Between 8.000 and 10.000 dead
• Hurricane Mitch in Honduras in 1998. More than 10,000 dead

Katrina, according to information from EM-DAT (International Disaster Database), was 1.322 deaths (see table below), however the biggest disasters (not established in the above criteria) as a result of Katrina are economic and social. It is estimated that Katrina and Rita left losses of U.S. $ 131 billion.

How might call the results of the Pakistan earthquake? The 73.338 is not simply a figure greater than 10 "a mega-disaster? Looking to Colombia and in the context of these criteria, it justifies the qualifier that he once gave at a corner before ... "Colombia country from disaster"

What a difference a hurricane, tornado?

know their differences before we see they have in common, both are characterized by strong winds and the type of damage they cause. Some tornadoes are "sons" of a hurricane. The tornadoes generated by Hurricane Andrew led to great material damage. C hen landfall becomes one or more tornadoes. Ie, tropical storms are tornadoes on the ground, I Hence the first difference. But not all tornadoes are the result of tropical storms, tornadoes occur in Argentina (away from the tropics) and frequently in the United States. In a single year can be counted more than 800 tornadoes. This is another difference, one would need a very large list to name them. The hurricane is much larger and has a larger lifetime, the tornado is smaller but more powerful, its winds can exceed 500 km / h.

What Do Jell Braclets

Notes on the precautionary principle

Notes on the precautionary principle

By Juan Guillermo Rivera Berrio

Biodiversity and biological resources Face Serious Threats

Dickson, 2005

12.000 years ago populated the earth about five million people today comes every two weeks the same number of people. Currently eighth species of birds, a quarter of all mammals and one third of amphibians are in danger of extinction, about 60% of ecosystem services supporting life on Earth are being degraded or used "unsustainably" (Barney Dickson in Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle, 2005) . Try

conserve biodiversity and manage environmental resources is to deal with uncertainties and a high level of ignorance. The biological and ecological knowledge is limited: it is not known, for example, how many species exist today and how many have disappeared over the last 100 years.

The precautionary principle has several formulations in various contexts, however each they reflect the premise that certainty with regard to environmental damage should not be a sole criterion for action to prevent damage. That is, the precautionary principle contradicts the argument that, until there is sufficient evidence of activities "harmful" are not necessary actions seeking avoid environmental damage. Proponents of GMOs are a clear example of this ... no evidence of harm from implementation and use of genetically modified foods ...

The figures that start this text by themselves justify the precautionary principle. If we add the figures provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, an acronym in English), not only justified, it also validates it.

What then is the precautionary principle?

The most popular version is the first 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992):

To protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures of the costs to prevent environmental degradation.

said than done is a long way, but it IPCC scientists say. When you want to apply the principle, there is clearly enough to take precautionary measures. That's when the arguments of the proponents of activities "harmful" (again GM, for example) will be above the defenders of the Environment, which ultimately are regarded as weirdoes, belligerent, stones in the road development, and many more epithets. The same principle of precaution is made by its opponents in "the paralyzing principle", and they are right. Regular on certain risks and uncertainties brought about by the increase of others. Economist Robert Hahn and Cass Sunstein lawyer in an article published in The Wall Street Journal on November 1, 2004, said: " if regulators try to eliminate all risks can be carried forward largely, or even all the country's GDP ' . The precautionary principle set out initially by the Rio Declaration does not provide a practical guide to regulate and subsequent formulations have found strong criticisms made of the precautionary principle a matter of contemporary debate yet overcome. But the debate focuses on the principle per se (we saw that it is justified and validated), but in practice the principle in its regulations on regular ... uncertainty or ignorance is highly complex task.

Despite the controversy, the precautionary principle has spread rapidly and included in the environmental regulations of many countries and communities and European countries. It is now incorporated into a wide variety of fields in international law: climate change, biodiversity, wildlife trade, biosecurity, fisheries, food, transportation of radioactive waste, among others.

¿El TLC formula acciones de precaución?

Pero del dicho al hecho… A manera de ejemplo, el gobierno colombiano expide la Ley 740 de 2002 por medio de la cual se aprueba el “Protocolo de Cartagena (2000)” sobre Seguridad de la Biotecnología, acuerdo que rige la transferencia, manejo y uso de organismos vivos modificados por medio de la biotecnología moderna (transgénicos). En el artículo 8º de dicha Ley se expresa: “ El hecho de que no se tenga certeza científica lack of information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent to that Party to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects from taking a decision, as appropriate, regarding the import of that living modified organism intended for direct use as food or feed or for processing "principle ... Caution is not clear in the recently passed NAFTA by the Colombian Congress itself. In paragraph 18.10 biodiversity of this treaty reads: " The Parties also recognize the importance of public participation and consultation, as stated in domestic legislation on matters relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Parties may make publicly available information about programs and activities, including cooperation programs, which develop in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity . " Words like "recognize and" may "say nothing about the import of GMOs into the country.

The European Union made a law in which the invocation of the precautionary principle presupposes that we have identified the potentially dangerous effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process, and scientific evaluation can not determine the risk with sufficient certainty. The implementation of an action based on the precautionary principle, should begin with a scientific assessment of the risk, as complete as possible and, if feasible, identify the degree of scientific uncertainty. This legislation is an invitation to supporters and detractors the precautionary principle to consider more seriously the complex problem of risk. For example the case of GMOs, the law is strict on labeling of foodstuffs. The Royal English Decree 1334 of 1999 regulates the labeling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs and consumer items of information: If the product has been irradiated, this should be "irradiated" or "treated by irradiation" alcoholic indicating if the volume is higher at 1.2% and foods with soy or maize obtained with techniques of genetic modification (only one allowed in the European Union), include on the label the legend "Produced from genetically modified ...."

That is one of the key elements of the precautionary principle, the communication to us ignorant of the increasingly growing risks in the contemporary world. Hopefully someday we can label all the risks.

Caution Prevention versus

C hen I say that the precautionary principle is justified and that his biggest obstacle is focused on the lack of a clear methodology for implementation, thus I do not deny that there is confusion in the concept precaution. There is confusion and it stems from the blurred distinction between risk and uncertainty in contemporary literature [1] . For example, Ulrich Beck speaks of a society of risk and proposed risk and uncertainties concerning this assertion is most evident in the following passage:
"In ignorance of the risks are not detectable, grow and thrive on the risks and threats, ignorance which is compounded by the extreme poverty, unequal distribution of wealth and risk, less wealth and more risks. These risks are global to the extent that know no borders, they are universalized through the air, wind, water and chain food, but poverty prevents their perception "(Beck, 1986, p. 50-51).

-called invisible risks are not risks are uncertainties. All real risk is in fact a perceived phenomenon, so it is socially constructed. But I recognize that there are opposing views that merit further discussion (perhaps in another corner), for example Rose (1998) defends the risk and uncertainty: Risk is a situation or event WHERE Something of human value (human Including Themselves) has-been WHERE put at stake and the outcome is Uncertain (Rosa, 1998, p. 28). The truth is that this dichotomy between risk and uncertainty more enriched debate on the concept of risk.

Invoking the precautionary principle is to make decisions under uncertainty, taking preventive measures is to make decisions under risk. The risk, complex concept, is associated with other factors such as the threat or danger and vulnerability. In decisions under risk is known hazards may occur and what effects may occur, decisions in this area are based on the probabilities of both threats and effects or impacts. Decision making under risk is not based on certainty but on probability. By contrast, in decisions under uncertainty is not known what threat exists or what effect may arise or both ... behold the invisible risks misnamed Beck.

Brian Wynne (1992) developed an alternative approach to conceptualizing the uncertainty about a system (ecological, business, cultural, economic, etc.), Which can be a good reference for conceptualizing care. Wynne proposed seven categories of uncertainty, including the risk is the least "uncertain"

• Category 1. Risk: the behavior of the system is known and the effects can be quantified probabilistically. It justifies taking preventive measures.
• Category 2. Uncertainty: The important system parameters are known but not the distribution of probabilities (the probabilities are unknown), "we do not know." Be justified by the precautionary principle.
• Category 3. Ignorance: Ignorance about the system and the probabilities of occurrence of something, "we know we do not know." The effect of chlorofluorocarbons in the ozone layer is one example. There is no justification for taking or not taking any decision.
• Category 4. Uncertainty: The system conditions and causal chains are open (anything can happen), the results depend on how actors behave in a process system to be determined. Any decision will indeterminate results.
• Category 5. Complexity: Emergence open multiple processes, nonlinear and irreducible. Climate change is one of them, demand more detailed studies for decision making.
• Category 6. Inconsistency: Divergence in the observations and interpretations of the system. Agreement or consensus is required for decision-making.
• Category 7. Ambiguity confusing interpretations of the system and, therefore, key elements of the process. Can not make decisions.

According to these categories, only low-risk or uncertainty is justifiable decision, unless the category of "uncertainty" it is prudent precautionary principle. The truth is that under conditions of risk and a level of uncertainty is the result of chance, there is knowledge enough for prevention. You can make decisions in risky conditions conducive to prevention activities, such actions on the threat (when possible) and each of the elements that create vulnerability. What are the actions under uncertainty? Is the question formulated in the context of the principle precaution, no easy answer.

results are uncertain what the greenhouse effect, are uncertain economic and ecological effects of global warming are uncertain, the cultural effects of globalization processes are uncertain side effects of genetic engineering. Postmodern society grows and develops between risks and uncertainties, risks can be assessed and managed, uncertainty can only lead to insight into the phenomena that generate it, behold the importance of the precautionary principle.

"The Recognition of real natural systems as complex and dynamic entails moving to a science based on unpredictability, incomplete control, and Legitimate plural perspectives. "

[Funtowicz S. & J. Ravetz in RE Kasperson JX & Kasperson, 2001]

The uncertainty reflects a lack of information or knowledge about future product effects or consequences of our actions or our decisions. In contrast, the risk tells us that "could" happen, which does not say is when and how much will happen. Bibliography

Ahmed, AM, & Skogh, G. (2006). Choices at Various Levels of Uncertainty: An experimental test of the restate Diversification theorem. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 33, 183-196.

Beck, U. (1998). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Barcelona: Polity Press

Elster, J. (1990). Technological change: research on rationality and social transformation. Barcelona: Gedisa.

Funtowicz SO & Ravetz J. (2001). Global Risk, Uncertainty and ignorance, in JX Kasperson & Kasperson RE (eds.), Global Environmental Risk, The United Nations University Press

Linkov, I., & Burmistrov, D. (2005). Sources of Uncertainty in model predictions: Lessons Learned from the IAEA and Fruit Forest Working Group model intercomparisons. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 84, 297-314.

López Cerezo, JA, & Lujan, JL (2000). Risk science and policy. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Rosa, EA: 1998, 'Metatheoretical Foundations for Post-Normal Risk', Journal of Risk Research 1: 15-44

Wynne, B.: 1992, 'Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm ', Global Environmental Change 2: 11 -27



[1] In Elster (1990) is a description of uncertainty. When there is uncertainty according to Elster, the agent or combination of agents may not assign numerical probabilities to the occurrence of an event can not specify the complete set of possible states of the world, and not even able to account for the likelihood that they have to be in the future. Make decisions under uncertainty, is to make decisions out of ignorance. There is a vast literature on decisions under risk, ambiguity and uncertainty, which is present discussion in front of the distinction between risk and uncertainty, see, among others Ahmed & Skogh (2006) and scenario simulation models under uncertainty Linkov & Burmistov (2005).

Justerini & Brooks Scotch 20 Year

An inconvenient Truth: Truth or deception?

An inconvenient truth : Truth or deception?

By Juan Guillermo Rivera Berrio

In this corner presents theories on climate change, both reports official and unofficial. The reader can draw their own conclusions, one of which is that we get closer to the actual knowledge against this phenomenon that affects the current population and future generations.

In November last year launched the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, former presidential candidate of the United States, Al Gore. The 96-minute film has generated a polemic against the real causes of climate change.

"I am Al Gore ... used to be the next U.S. president ", this phrase and other comments in the development of the documentary gives the impression of a political tinge, a possible smear campaign and the current president, why not a shot the next election. The multimedia extravaganza shows in great detail, the dramatic speed with which glaciers and the poles have melted in recent years, the speed of global warming with its attendant side effects, including the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Image taken from the movie

The central thesis defending Al Gore is as follows: When the sun's energy reaches Earth , much bounces back into space. The problem now is that gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and over thirty other "greenhouse" (as methane) help to create a layer that trapped heat of the sun. The direct consequence is global warming. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, largely due to the consumption of fossil fuels has increased exponentially, from 280 ppm (parts per million) before the industrial revolution to about 380 ppm.

Al Gore's statements coincide remarkably with the report presented in Paris, three months after the premiere of the documentary, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, an acronym in English), report in which more than 2,500 scientists. The Ministry of Environment of Spain published on the internet an unofficial translation of the IPCC report. Some conclusions are reproduced below

Changes in the amount of greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere, changes in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system.

carbon dioxide gas is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse. The global atmospheric concentration has increased from 280 ppm (preindustrial) to 379 ppm in 2005, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the past 650,000 years ( 180 to 300 ppm) as ice cores show.

The primary source of increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere since pre-industrial era is the use of fossil fuels, together with land uses that pose a significant but smaller contribution.

knowledge of the influence of anthropogenic warming or cooling the climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to state with a very high level of confidence that the net effect half of human activities since 1750 has result in warming

The climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in average air temperatures and oceans, widespread melting Snow and Ice and rising global mean sea level.

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) are in the ranking of the twelve warmest years in the records of instrumented surface temperatures (since 1850).

New data show that losses in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise from 1993 to 2003

The observations show evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with the observed warming of surface temperature (SST) in the tropics.

paleoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the past 1,300 years.

Most of the increase since the middle of the twentieth century the average temperature is due, most likely , the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases at current rates, or an increase in these rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the century that would very likely be higher than those observed during the twentieth century.

is likely that episodes of extreme heat, heat waves and heavy precipitation events tend to be increasingly common.

climate processes, feedbacks, and time scales imply that anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries even if concentrations of greenhouse gases stabilized.

anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required to remove the gas from the atmosphere.

After reading the report and see the film, it seems that the IPCC as being directed to Gore, or that he had free access to the findings before public disclosure.

What then is the debate?

The rejection of the protocol Kyoto global warming by the United States, led by its President (the adversary of Al Gore), the results obtained by scientists and the undeniable evidence of climate change, is the ideal setting for "revenge" the losing candidate. It then states that the interests of the documentary is political.

But the debate is only against the intent of the documentary. Moreover, there are scientists who disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC, criticized the report supported by results "highly probable " , these scientists constantly called "skeptics" in the documentary, are hired, according to Al Gore, by oil companies or the state (Bush or oil companies, which is the same) to convert in theory what the facts show. However, despite the claims against the machine, supposedly mounted by the oil companies, there are other theories that are worth knowing, at least as a light in the tunnel apocalyptic hosted by Al Gore.

global warming could be caused by cosmic rays

This thesis is defended by scientists at the National Space Centre Denmark and is known as the cosmoclimatología . is said that our carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere have a minimal effect on terrestrial climate change compared to another factor, far more radical but natural: cosmic rays from exploding stars and reaching to the atmosphere of Earth with varying intensity depending on the Sun's magnetic field measurements satellite two decades have demonstrated a direct link between the intensity of the impact of cosmic rays and Earth's climate. Reinforce other recent research Danish discovery which aroused some controversy in the scientific community. One of the scientists of great renown is Henrik Svensmark, who published 'Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerge' in the journal Astronomy & Geophysics last month.

A poyando this thesis, Space Science Reviews just published another article in which fourteen researchers point to over 140 pages the implications of astronomy, the Sun and cosmic effects on Earth and Earth's climate.

Finally, the European Organization for Nuclear Research , based in Geneva, announced last October that the project known as CLOUD ( Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets ) has begun collecting data to determine the influence that cosmic rays could have on cloud formation and climate of Earth .

Iris Effect

Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), doubt that climate change is a problem, takes the view that he called the "rainbow effect." As the iris closes when faced with a bright light in a warmer world will produce more water vapor which in turn form more clouds, which are in charge of blocking the sunlight. Contrary to the argument Al Gore, who says the only thing that clouds would be trapping heat.

also warms Mars and the Martians do not have cars

Another thesis (defended by oil) that the warming is natural that we, as an example cited in the 40 to 70 and temperatures dipped into the world, but the C02 was getting worse. This shows that the increase in C02-to-benefit is minimal and has little to do with what is happening. Based on data collected by the missions of NASA the to Mars in 2005, where it was discovered that carbon dioxide in the form of "ice" near Mars's south pole had been reduced after three consecutive summers, a controversial theory considers that this warming, produced simultaneously in Earth and Mars suggests that recent climate change on our planet may not be caused by human action. The cause of global warming is unknown

The cause of global warming is unknown

Another group of scientists argue that are hasty claims of Al Gore and the IPCC. Claude Allegre, French geophysicist, former education minister, Professor at the Universities of Yale, Carbridge, Cornell and la Sorbona , expresa

"The increase in the CO ₂ content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO ₂ . Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better, correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO ₂ content".

In a recent interview with the daily La Nación of Argentina, holds

"It is propaganda for Al Gore, who wants to be president of the United States, but says things that are completely crazy. For example, sea level will rise six meters ... At this time, the sea rises two and a half inches per year. Means that increases 25 centimeters per century, not six feet. "

Professor David Deming of University of Oklahoma (Author of over thirty research articles and a text of hydrogeology), argues that global warming is evident but its cause remains uncertain, " In my opinion, It Would Be Foolish to ESTABLISH national energy policy on the basis Misinformation and irrational hysteria of . "(Testimony to U.S. Senate Environmental Committee in December 2006). It is branded as defending the interests of oil companies.

The great global warming swindle

The Ice is melting ... The Sea is Rising ... Hurricanes Are blowing ... And It's
All Your Fault ... Scared? Do not be ... It's Not True . With these words, and ast March 8, the channel 4 of British television, the documentary begins The Global Warming Swindle . Without all the trappings of Al Gore and with the participation of so-called skeptical scientists, presents a version that contrasts with the award-winning An Inconvenient Truth .

Some of the arguments are:

The land has a long history of climate change. The warming is a natural process.

The temperature dropped unexpectedly in the economic boom of the postwar period, when CO2 emissions grew dramatically.

Satellite data do not support the model of global warming by greenhouse gases.

anthropogenic production of CO2 is miniscule compared to that produced by nature (volcanoes, carbon dioxide produced by animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation).

New evidence shows that the variation in solar radiation is related to climate change.

Finally, they present as an additional argument, the phenomenon of cosmic rays.

This is the quick outline of the current debate. Some say that there are political and economic interests in the IPCC and environmentalists who advocate it, for its part, the other side defends itself by arguing that scientists who support the thesis, are first rate, with articles "peer reviewed".

What truly valuable this debate is its emphasis on the fact that we are all actors in the problem, so exposure through the mass media. What we can not ignore, regardless of the causes is that something is happening on our planet. We do not need a theory to feel the intense cold of last winter in Europe or in stifling heat our Aburrá Valley.

Whether or not global warming, CO2 emissions into our atmosphere must be controlled, so be breathing cleaner air as we scorched.