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.

Lower Back Sides Pain

BETWEEN THE SWORD OF DAMOCLES AND PANDORA'S BOX Global Risks

ENTRE LA ESPADA DE LA CAJA DE DÁMOCLES Y PANDORA

As risk analysis management get increasingly caught up in political debates, a new way of looking at and defining the risks of modern technologies becomes necessary

Ortwin Renn & Andreas Klinke

analysis and risk management in the context of modern technology must be made from other perspectives of risk itself. Discussions on the notion of risk have not found a consensus that will address, from a common framework, new risks of technological origin. In an attempt to reach this consensus, in Germany, the Scientific Advisory Board on Global Environmental Change at (German Scientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change, WBGU ) has proposed an interesting classification of risks. In this corner, we will go to the six risk groups the WBGU , which were published by Renn & Klinke in 2004. [1]

Sword of Damocles Risk . According to legend, Damocles was a courtier of Dionysius I, tyrant of Syracuse, who envied his life seemingly fortunate and comfortable. The king, with the aim of castigating, decided that Damocles replace him during a feast, but it decided that on his head bears a sharp sword suspended by a horsehair. In this way, Damocles could understand what instability of prosperity and the luxurious lifestyle of the monarch. The phrase Damocles sword is used for a long time, to express the presence of imminent danger or threat.

In the "sword of Damocles", there are the risks with a high potential for damage, but their occurrence is low probability. The reactor core meltdown of a nuclear plant accident in a large chemical complex and the crack and collapse of a dam, are some risk that "hanging by a thread," like the sword of Damocles.

Risk Cyclops. Here are grouped the risks posed by uncertainty in their effects or the likelihood of occurrence, ie, like the Cyclops, you can only "observe" or determine one side of the equation of risk. This category includes natural hazards: earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods and "Children" are natural events with a high degree of uncertainty about the place and time of occurrence, but whose effects are well known.

Risk

Pythias. As the Greek sorceress, which issued on behalf of Apollo oracle at Delphi, whose prophecies were uncertain or questionable, the risks of this group are also uncertain, but unlike the Cyclops, the uncertainty is on both sides of the equation risk. Some risks are associated with the possibility of sudden climate change or risks of technological origin as some applications of genetic engineering in agriculture and food production, the effects or causes are still uncertain.

Risk Pandora's Box. In Greek mythology, Pandora (virtuous) was the first woman, made by Zeus as part of a punishment to Prometheus for revealing to humanity the secret of fire. Until then, mankind lived a life entirely harmonious in the world. Epimetheus, brother of Prometheus, Pandora asked who never opened the box that Hermes had given him, but one day, Pandora's curiosity was finally with her and opened the box, releasing all human misery (old age, sickness, fatigue, folly, vice, passion, plague, sorrow, poverty, crime, etc.). Pandora closed the box just before Hope also out, along with all that was left inside, and the world experienced a period of desolation until he opened Pandora's box to release also Hope. The man who has had to live with these tragedies, persistent, uncontrollable, has generated as much or more disastrous effects product of technological developments. One of them is known uncontrolled use, in turn, of chlorofluorocarbons, which cause thinning of the ozone layer. Other risks located in this group are those associated with drug side effects, such as influence on the reproductive functions of endocrine disruptors. [2]

Risk Cassandra. This Trojan priestess repeatedly announced the fall of Troy but nobody paid attention. This group includes all those risks whose effects are highly advertised disastrous, but because of delayed effects, just pay attention. The effects of climate change and the loss of our biodiversity are examples of such risks. The WBGU gives additional qualifying unacceptable risk.

Risk Medusa. The Medusa was a Gorgon sisters who turned men to stone with her gaze according to Greek mythology. Some new technological developments bear similarities to the gaze of Medusa, one of them is non-ionizing radiation, that exposure to it has a number of risks, primarily for viewing, to be taken into account. The risks of this group are of interest when there is a wide gap between public perception of risk of lay and expert risk analysis, as in the case of electromagnetic fields, to which many of us, voluntarily or involuntarily exposed.

The ultimate goal of this risk classification is to allow the formulation of effective strategies for risk management, and provide measures for politicians in different political levels. Finally, Renn and Klinke, grouped into three categories above risks Risk management: preventive based discourse and science.

Management	risk class	damage Extension	probability of occurrence	action strategies
Science Based	Damocles Cyclops	High High	Baja Uncertain	reduce potential disaster Determine probability increase resilience Prevent surprises emergency management
Preventive	Pythia Pandora	Uncertain Uncertain	Uncertain Uncertain	Implementing the precautionary principle develop substitutes Advance knowledge reduce and contain emergency management
Discursive	Cassandra	Medusa High Under	High Baja	Raising Building confidence Implement public participation Communicating risk Manage contingencies

Damocles and Cyclops require strategies based management Science, Pythia and Pandora demand the application of the precautionary principle and risk class Cassandra and Medusa require discursive strategies to build awareness, confidence and credibility.

The German proposal, offers another look at the analysis and risk management. The truth is that the thread of the sword of Damocles, as the ozone layer thins more and Pandora's box appears that not all human misfortunes have come to see the world. And we still do not agree. We have not reached consensus on our risks, unflinching look at the progress of deforestation, of pollution, the extinction of thousands of species, and not we agree. No matter which model of management, no matter the notion of risk, what should matter now is that we all identify our present and future miseries and our role in these misfortunes, the only way we will agree, there will be consensus.

---

[1] Renn, O. and Klinke, A. "Systemic Risks: a new challenge for risk management", EMBO reports VOL 5, Special Issue, 2004

[2] An example of the consequences of exposure of developing animals, including humans, to endocrine disruptors is the case with the potent drug diethylstilbestrol (DES ), a synthetic estrogen. Physicians prescribed DES to nearly five million pregnant women in the period between 1940 and 1970, to block spontaneous abortion was prescribed in the mistaken belief that would prevent abortion and promote fetal growth. Its use is stopped after a high incidence of a rare vaginal cancer in young women exposed to DES.

Handmade Silver Bracelets

GLOBAL RISKS

During the broadcast of classical super Boca - River (October 8, 2006), one of the commentators sports promotion was a disarmament campaign in Argentina with the phrase "A gun in your home is a problem in your home." On October 9, the world awoke to the terrible news: North Korea conducted its first nuclear test successful (do not understand what's successful.) According to experts (not North Koreans), the estimated size the bomb detonated, between 550 tons and 15 kilotons (the Hiroshima was 12.5 kilotons or so). Came to my mind the phrase Argentina "A gun in your house (our home, our planet) is a problem in your home."

Twenty years ago the German sociologist Ulrich Beck began the discussion on "global risks" with the publication of his book Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity . In the text highlighted the emergence of invisible risks [1] , risks unnatural, uncontrollable risks, which have their origin in the creation, distribution and use of new technologies.

This new weapon (pump) in my house, really it is a problem, a big problem. As Beck says, we became unmanageable and is not a problem in a particular country is a problem of all is a global risk.

Beck in 2002 highlighted three areas of conflict in the "world risk society": environmental conflict, global financial crisis and the terrorist threat [2] . In this corner we will highlight one of the environmental conflict: global warming. I know for certain is to talk about that much talked about, but perhaps "we hear?

But not enough to deafen our ears to the voices warning of the overall risk. Its effects and other senses are perceiving. Feel more heat, we noticed the temperature rising, we see glaciers disappear, we feel the death blow of the hurricane, the "child" is behaving strangely. We are sitting on a time bomb, as well as deaf we become blind to certain events: the number of hurricanes of Category 4 and 5 has doubled in the last thirty years (just take a look to 2005), malaria has spread to regions of higher altitude, heat waves are more frequent and more intense, more frequent infectious diseases (before we had a cold a year, we're not cold once a year), droughts and reduced production of ozone with impacts this entails.

The November 21 will launch the documentary An Inconvenient Truth . Global warming . E ste complete documentary highlights the very delicate moment in which our planet and shows facts, figures and information often not available when we try to see the entire context of global warming. The poster is published with this article for the documentary, and the following photos are an example of what is documented. For more information www.climatecrisis.net.

WHAT IS GLOBAL WARMING?

What is global warming? Answers a question that brings inconvenience to the main producers of carbon dioxide, inconvenient truths as reported in the documentary Paramount. The carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases [3] warm the earth's surface by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere, a phenomenon necessary for our survival, but the rapid increase in the emission of these gases is increasing the temperature with the effects outlined above. Most scientists say global warming is real, the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences

Only we can solve the problem we have at home, it is our obligation moral disarm the bomb. Small changes in our daily routine are great changes that help stop the clock on the bomb: drive less, recycle your trash, plant a tree, turn off your electronics when not in use, and reduce unnecessary emissions of gases listed. The time to solve the problem NOW.

Yesterday was Katrina, now no matter the name. Yesterday was "trinity" (1945 U.S.), RDS-1 (Russia 1949), Hurricane (1952 in England), Gerboise Bleue (1960 in France), " 596" (1964 in China), Smiling Buhdda (1974 India), Chagai-I (1998 in Pakistan), today no matter the name (North Korea). Because in the end is, a global risk. Agree in our moral responsibility towards our house, is a global risk and its solution must be global. But there's the problem, given the global risk is what makes it uncontrollable. Only when North Koreans, South Koreans, Israelis, Palestinians, Catholics, Muslims, powerful economic groups (oil) producers "dirty" technologies, among other groups "guilty" of having "a gun at home" join the campaign of disarmament, we can begin an effective solution to the problems generated by this irrational struggle with our house.

---

[1] In fact, Beck speaks of "unseen dangers." Beck According to some critics, there is confusion between what Beck means what it means danger and risk. The English translation and publication risk society ( Risk Society: Towards a new modernity ) Was held in 1992.

[2] In 1999, Beck published the book World Risk Society. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Beck published article Terrorist Threat, World Risk Society revisited .

[3] (N20, CH4, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) gases are known as "greenhouse gases" because they trap solar radiation, longwave causing a gradual warming effect around the Earth. Although there natural presence of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, its concentration has increased dramatically over the last hundred years due primarily to high carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation based on fossil fuels generation that has been the driving force of rapid industrialization in developed countries.