Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment

Rating:
Summary: Some good points are raised but then lost in emotionalism
Review: I began reading this book with great expectation given the bold title and the accolades that are printed on its back cover. However, I was soon disappointed. While she raises some important points about the limitations of risk assessment, her argument is occluded by a rash sentimentalism about environmental concerns that is removed from the real economic choices that risk-takers may CHOOSE to make. There are indeed many problems with sole reliance on risk assessment and the author raises some good methodological points. However, her alternative to risk assessment is a somewhat ad hoc and feel-good process which she calls "alternative assessment." I think it is somewhat disingenuous for Ms. O'Brien to suggest that risk assessors do not consider alternatives -- risk assessment is a further step by which each alternative is subsequently analyzed with analytic rigor to make sure all factors of hazard and exposure are accounted for. Perhaps we should heed Ms. O'Brien's advice and further institutionalize the consideration of alternatives. However, that alone cannot substitute the subsequent assessment and comparison between the alternatives. Ms. O'Brien, in my opinion, is presenting a sort of pseudo-methodology, that is predicated on a belief that the right to a clean environment should be placed before all other criteria. I agree with her completely that de facto, all communities have a right to a clean environment and pollution should never be inflicted upon them. However, individuals and communities, inevitably make choices about their lifestyles and may CHOOSE to tolerate a certain measure of environmental harm for other benefits. In this case they should have measurable indicators by which those choices are made -- hence the need for risk assessment. My fear is that in her aversion for risk assessment Ms. O'Brien has thrown away the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant?
Review: This book raises a number of good points about Risk assessment and it's potential flaws. As many of us know, there are many. The book is short and interesting and definitely worth the read. I agree with the second reviewer who said that the methodology that she presents is a little unclear - a pseudo-method. There IS much value, though, in insisting that a wider range of options are considered in decision-making at every level of society.

The book is a little repetitive - obviously stemming from the author's desire to have each chapter tell part of her story and be a stand alone piece.

It seemed to me that the author could have used many more supporting examples throughout the book, instead of hitting the same ones over and over. Without prior knowledge of the issue, the book seems to show you a few examples and say 'trust me the rest are like these few'

The ending is definitly a little touchy feely, go out and change the world esque. But it is also just a few short chapters that you blast through.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant?
Review: This book raises a number of good points about Risk assessment and it's potential flaws. As many of us know, there are many. The book is short and interesting and definitely worth the read. I agree with the second reviewer who said that the methodology that she presents is a little unclear - a pseudo-method. There IS much value, though, in insisting that a wider range of options are considered in decision-making at every level of society.

The book is a little repetitive - obviously stemming from the author's desire to have each chapter tell part of her story and be a stand alone piece.

It seemed to me that the author could have used many more supporting examples throughout the book, instead of hitting the same ones over and over. Without prior knowledge of the issue, the book seems to show you a few examples and say 'trust me the rest are like these few'

The ending is definitly a little touchy feely, go out and change the world esque. But it is also just a few short chapters that you blast through.

Rating:
Summary: The Dangerous 'Game' of Risk Assessment
Review: This brilliant little book should be made compulsory reading for all politicians, environmental health officers, and officials from environmental agencies. It completely debunks the idiocies of the 'game' of 'risk assessment' in a comprehensible, readable and intelligent way and comes up with a realistic, sane alternative.

If you've ever been involved in a campaign against against a polluting industry, as I have, you'll recognise the following tactics used by them: Downplay estimates of hazard: Discount harmful effects experienced and reported by local communities as 'anecdotal'. Downplay estimates of exposure: Use complicated mathematical models or formulas that can only be analysed in a complicated computer program, that community groups cannot easily gain access to or understand. Downplay risks: Compare the risks to other 'voluntary' activities like smoking. Do not discuss whether the risks are necessary or whether they could be avoided entirely through reasonable alternative behaviours.

It is on this common sense latter point that the book really concentrates. Mary O'Brien gives the example of a woman standing besides an icy river that she needs to cross. Four 'experts' are advising her. The toxicologist tells her the water is probably free of chemicals; the cardiologist says she is at little risk as her heart is sound; the hydrologist states that the currents are probably safe; and the EPA specialist tells her she will probably survive the crossing as it is a low risk compared to many other environmental problems. They are amazed when she continues to refuse to wade the river. Until, of course, she points to the bridge a few yards away which they all had conveniently ignored or failed to notice!

O'Brien also emphasises the public right to know; after all, it is those living in a community who will suffer the impact of pollution. If we could actually name those individuals who will die from the effects of pollution, we could accuse agencies and businesses of premeditated murder. But why is it any different when they talk of a 0.1% increase in the likely number of premature deaths resulting from a process? Even though we can't name the people who will die, death is still death. And the polluting process still killed them.

O'Brien calls for all government agencies and businesses to put their options in understandable language, and to consider ways of creating the least possible environmental damage. She argues that all citizens should be given easy access to relevant information, especially on health effects, and that we should have access to legal and financial resources to enforce environmental laws.

For those campaigning on these issues, take a really close look at Chapter 16, 'Getting Started'. Here O'Brien gives step-by-step advice on how 'Alternatives Assessment' could be carried out, forcing regulators and industries to evaluate the real impact of their actions and forcing them to find the environmentally best options, not a statistical justification for the harm they are already doing.

For campaigners, don't get swallowed up in the 'Risk Assessment' game. At the end, however much scientific expertise and statistical skill you acquire, you will probably be defeated. And in the process, you are helping to justify a fundamentally flawed approach. Instead, ask the basic questions, and try to get the local politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to take on board the real issues of 'should we be doing this at all' and 'what could we do instead'.

Certainly the most helpful, and practical book of this kind that I have read in ten years of environmental campaigning.

Adrian Fox Chair of Environmental Working Group, West Wiltshire District Council, United Kingdom

Rating:
Summary: The Dangerous 'Game' of Risk Assessment
Review: This brilliant little book should be made compulsory reading for all politicians, environmental health officers, and officials from environmental agencies. It completely debunks the idiocies of the 'game' of 'risk assessment' in a comprehensible, readable and intelligent way and comes up with a realistic, sane alternative.

If you've ever been involved in a campaign against against a polluting industry, as I have, you'll recognise the following tactics used by them: Downplay estimates of hazard: Discount harmful effects experienced and reported by local communities as 'anecdotal'. Downplay estimates of exposure: Use complicated mathematical models or formulas that can only be analysed in a complicated computer program, that community groups cannot easily gain access to or understand. Downplay risks: Compare the risks to other 'voluntary' activities like smoking. Do not discuss whether the risks are necessary or whether they could be avoided entirely through reasonable alternative behaviours.

It is on this common sense latter point that the book really concentrates. Mary O'Brien gives the example of a woman standing besides an icy river that she needs to cross. Four 'experts' are advising her. The toxicologist tells her the water is probably free of chemicals; the cardiologist says she is at little risk as her heart is sound; the hydrologist states that the currents are probably safe; and the EPA specialist tells her she will probably survive the crossing as it is a low risk compared to many other environmental problems. They are amazed when she continues to refuse to wade the river. Until, of course, she points to the bridge a few yards away which they all had conveniently ignored or failed to notice!

O'Brien also emphasises the public right to know; after all, it is those living in a community who will suffer the impact of pollution. If we could actually name those individuals who will die from the effects of pollution, we could accuse agencies and businesses of premeditated murder. But why is it any different when they talk of a 0.1% increase in the likely number of premature deaths resulting from a process? Even though we can't name the people who will die, death is still death. And the polluting process still killed them.

O'Brien calls for all government agencies and businesses to put their options in understandable language, and to consider ways of creating the least possible environmental damage. She argues that all citizens should be given easy access to relevant information, especially on health effects, and that we should have access to legal and financial resources to enforce environmental laws.

For those campaigning on these issues, take a really close look at Chapter 16, 'Getting Started'. Here O'Brien gives step-by-step advice on how 'Alternatives Assessment' could be carried out, forcing regulators and industries to evaluate the real impact of their actions and forcing them to find the environmentally best options, not a statistical justification for the harm they are already doing.

For campaigners, don't get swallowed up in the 'Risk Assessment' game. At the end, however much scientific expertise and statistical skill you acquire, you will probably be defeated. And in the process, you are helping to justify a fundamentally flawed approach. Instead, ask the basic questions, and try to get the local politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to take on board the real issues of 'should we be doing this at all' and 'what could we do instead'.

Certainly the most helpful, and practical book of this kind that I have read in ten years of environmental campaigning.

Adrian Fox Chair of Environmental Working Group, West Wiltshire District Council, United Kingdom