Environmental risks: scientific concepts and social perception.

P Vineis
{"title":"Environmental risks: scientific concepts and social perception.","authors":"P Vineis","doi":"10.1007/BF00998542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using the example of air pollution, I criticize a restricted utilitarian view of environmental risks. It is likely that damage to health due to environmental pollution in Western countries is relatively modest in quantitative terms (especially when considering cancer and comparing such damage to the effects of some life-style exposures). However, a strictly quantitative approach, which ranks priorities according to the burden of disease attributable to single causes, is questionable because it does not consider such aspects as inequalities in the distribution of risks. Secondly, the ability of epidemiological research to identify some health effects is limited. Third, the environment has symbolic and aesthetic components that overcome a strict evaluation of damage based on the impairment of human health. It is not acceptable that priorities be set just balancing the burden of disease caused by pollution in the environment against economic constraints. As an example of a computation that inherently includes economic analysis, I refer to the proposal of an estimator of mortality in coal mining, i.e., a rate which puts deaths in the numerator and tons of coal extracted in the denominator. According to this estimator, mortality due to accidents decreased from 1.15 to 0.42 in the period 1950-1970 in the United States, for each million tons of coal extracted. However, considering the steep decline in the workforce in the same period, the traditional mortality rate (deaths over persons-time) actually increased. The proposal of a measure of mortality based on the amount of coal extracted is just one example of the attempts to influence decisions by including an economic element (productivity) in risk assessment. This paper has three purposes: One, to describe empirical research concerning the health effects of environmental pollutants; two, to discuss the scientific principles and methods used in the identification of environmental hazards; and three, to critically discuss some of the ethical principles which are applied in medicine and in the assessment and management of risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":77444,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical medicine","volume":"16 2","pages":"153-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF00998542","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00998542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Using the example of air pollution, I criticize a restricted utilitarian view of environmental risks. It is likely that damage to health due to environmental pollution in Western countries is relatively modest in quantitative terms (especially when considering cancer and comparing such damage to the effects of some life-style exposures). However, a strictly quantitative approach, which ranks priorities according to the burden of disease attributable to single causes, is questionable because it does not consider such aspects as inequalities in the distribution of risks. Secondly, the ability of epidemiological research to identify some health effects is limited. Third, the environment has symbolic and aesthetic components that overcome a strict evaluation of damage based on the impairment of human health. It is not acceptable that priorities be set just balancing the burden of disease caused by pollution in the environment against economic constraints. As an example of a computation that inherently includes economic analysis, I refer to the proposal of an estimator of mortality in coal mining, i.e., a rate which puts deaths in the numerator and tons of coal extracted in the denominator. According to this estimator, mortality due to accidents decreased from 1.15 to 0.42 in the period 1950-1970 in the United States, for each million tons of coal extracted. However, considering the steep decline in the workforce in the same period, the traditional mortality rate (deaths over persons-time) actually increased. The proposal of a measure of mortality based on the amount of coal extracted is just one example of the attempts to influence decisions by including an economic element (productivity) in risk assessment. This paper has three purposes: One, to describe empirical research concerning the health effects of environmental pollutants; two, to discuss the scientific principles and methods used in the identification of environmental hazards; and three, to critically discuss some of the ethical principles which are applied in medicine and in the assessment and management of risk.

环境风险:科学概念与社会认知。
以空气污染为例,我批评了对环境风险的有限功利主义观点。从数量上看,西方国家环境污染对健康的损害可能相对较小(特别是考虑到癌症,并将这种损害与某些生活方式暴露的影响进行比较时)。然而,根据单一原因造成的疾病负担对优先事项进行排序的严格定量方法是值得怀疑的,因为它没有考虑到风险分配不平等等方面。其次,流行病学研究确定某些健康影响的能力有限。第三,环境具有象征和美学成分,克服了基于对人类健康损害的严格损害评估。仅仅在环境污染造成的疾病负担和经济限制之间取得平衡来确定优先事项是不能接受的。作为一个固有地包括经济分析的计算的例子,我提到了一个估算煤矿开采死亡率的建议,即把死亡人数放在分子上,把采煤吨数放在分母上的比率。根据这一估计,1950-1970年期间,美国每开采百万吨煤,因事故造成的死亡率从1.15下降到0.42。然而,考虑到同期劳动力的急剧下降,传统死亡率(按人时间计算的死亡人数)实际上有所上升。根据采煤量来衡量死亡率的提议,只是试图通过在风险评估中纳入经济因素(生产率)来影响决策的一个例子。本文有三个目的:一是描述环境污染物对健康影响的实证研究;二、探讨环境危害识别的科学原理和方法;第三,批判性地讨论一些应用于医学以及风险评估和管理的伦理原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信