10 September 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
THE BUSINESS OF LIVING IS INESCAPABLY HAZARDOUS, EVEN IN THE advanced industrial societies, for all that life within them has now become less nasty, brutish and short. In fact, the very process of technological innovation which has made possible the unprecedented affluence of these societies has also led to quite new dangers. In consequence, securing a reasonable balance between the advantages and disadvantages of innovation has now become an important government objective, and a vital one in the case of any technical development whose potentially dysfunctional effects would be catastrophic. It is with the political issues bearing upon the maintenance of this balance that this article is mainly concerned. Its scope is restricted for reasons of logic as well as of convenience to the specifically physical man-made hazards of industrial societies, and the unique psychological problems which these societies are often said to present are therefore not considered.
My thanks are due to the Science Council of Canada for furthering my interest in this subject, both while I was a member of the Council’s staff in 1974—75 and subsequently. More specifically, I should like to thank Dr David Bates, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of British Columbia and a member of the Council. A related article, ‘Technical Decisions and Public Accountability’, written with Dr Bates is to appear shortly in Canadian Public Administration.
2 A useful general source is Health Hazards of the Human Environment, Geneva, WHO, 1972.
3 See especially Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 194, 4 October 1974, ‘Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Standard for Exposure to Vinyl Chloride’, pp. 358; Vol. 40, No. 248, 24 December 1975, ‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Proposed Standard for Vinyl Chloride’, pp. 59532—46; HM Chief Inspector of Factories, Annual Report, 1974, Cmnd 6322, Edsall, John T., Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, Science, 16 05 1975, pp. 687 f, also Letters, 18 July, pp. 174 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 A useful bibliography is given in the Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 197. 9 October 1975, ‘Occupational Exposure to Asbestos’, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, pp. 47652—62.
5 A useful source is Lead in the Environment and its Significance to Man, DOE, Central Unit on Environmental Pollution, Pollution Paper No. 2.
6 Even national standards differ, quite apart from differences in their enforcement. See Winell, Margareta, ‘An International Comparison of Hygenic Standards for Chemicals in the Work Environment’, Ambio, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1975, pp. 34–6.Google Scholar
7 See, for example, the covering memorandum of the EPA Administrator, Train, Russel E., Federal Register, Vol. 41. No. 102, 25 05 1976 Google Scholar, ‘Health Risk and Economic Impact Assessments of Suspected Carcinogens’, pp. 21402—5.
8 An invaluable source here is ‘Protection Against Ionizing Radiation: A Survey of Existing Legislation’, International Digest of Health Legislation, Vol. 22, 1971. pp. 623—946.
9 An invaluable, if committed, source is Patterson, Walter C., Nuclear Power, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1976 Google Scholar.
10 See especially Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, Main Report, WASH 1400, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1975, the ‘Rasmussen Report’.
11 Nuclear Power and the Environment, 6th Report, Cmnd 6618.
12 See IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 15. No. 4, August 1973, p. 23 f.
13 This discussion of risk draws inter alia on the following sources: Chauncey Starr, ‘Social Benefit versus Technological Risk’, Science, 19 September 1969, Vol. 165, pp. 1232—8. Mishan, E. J., ‘Evaluation of Life and Limb: A Theoretical Approach’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 687—705 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Perspectives on Benefit‐Risk Decision Making, Committee on Public Engineering Policy of the National Academy of Engineering, Washington DC, National Academy of Sciences, 1972. Wilson, Richard, ‘The Costs of Safety’, New Scientist, 30 10 1975. pp. 274–5Google Scholar. Lowrance, William W., Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety, Los Altos, California, William Kaufman Inc., 1976 Google Scholar.
14 There is an enormous literature on the general case. Three of the best sources are Gilpin, Robert and Wright, Christopher, eds, Scientists and National Policy Making, New York, Columbia University Press, 1964 Google Scholar, the series of articles and letters in Volumes X and XI of Minerva (1972 and 1973), and Nelkin, Dorothy, ‘The Political Impact of Technical Expertise’, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5, No. 1. 01 1975, pp. 35—54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Of particular interest in this connection is Decision Making for Regulating Chemicals in the Environment, Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1975. See also Schubert, J., ‘A Program to Abolish Harmful Chemicals’, Ambio, Vol. 1. No. 3, 06 1972, pp. 79—89 Google Scholar.
16 ‘To Protect the Public Interest’, Muntzing, L. Manning, Director of Regulation, USAEC, Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 41, No. 9. 15 02 1975 Google Scholar. See also Train, Russel E., Administrator of the EPA, ‘The Need for Sound Standards for Environmental Improvement’, ASTM Standardisation News, 06 1974. pp. 9—12 Google Scholar.
17 Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, HC 259. Session 1975—6.
18 Charles Levinson, Secretary General of the General International Chemical and General Workers’ Federation, makes many of the main points in ‘The Malevolent Workplace’, Ambio, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1975, pp. 24—9.
19 Safety and Health at Work, Report of the Committee 1970–72, Chairman Lord Robens, Cmnd 5034.
20 There have so far been six reports. Command Numbers 4585, 4894, 5054. 5780, 6618.
21 HMSO for the Health and Safety Commission.
22 Proposals for a New Work Environment Legislation, Summary of the Final Report by the Commission on the Work Environment (SOU 1976: 1) Ministry of Labour, Stockholm, 1976.
23 See in particular the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Pollution Control, Progress and Problems, Cmnd 5780, December 1974, and The Alkali Inspectorate, London, Social Audit, 1974.
24 ‘Control of Toxic Substances: An Idea Whose Time has Nearly Come’, Science, 13 February 1976, pp. 541—4. ‘Need for Toxic Substances Law Defended’, Chemical and Engineering News, 19 May 1975, p. 6.
25 Lundquist, Lennart J., ‘Shaking the Institutions in Sweden’, Environment, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 27—35, 10 1974 Google Scholar, and ‘Sweden’s Environmental Policy’, Ambio, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 90—101, June 1972.
26 For this and the mercury hazard generally, see Mercury and the Environment, Paris, OECD, 1974.
27 In this connection see for example Elliot, David, The Control of Technology, London, Wykeham Publications, 1976 Google Scholar and Dickson, David, Alternative Technology and the Politics of Technical Change, London, Fontana, 1974 Google Scholar.
