It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A better future for our children might depend on Science Based Policy

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:28 AM
Farms, schools, homes, natural habitats, they are all being more and more inundated by the chemicals that we use in manufacturing, or to create the products that we buy every day. It is no doubt obvious that the unused waste products we have created are filling up the unseen or unvisited places. As "consumers" we have undoubtedly and unwittingly adopted the philosophy of out of sight out of mind. Now plain evidence is showing that the out of sight effects of our unwise approach is creeping into our very bodies and starting to have effects not only on our children, but on theirs, as well as future generations as far forward as the eye can see. It is our responsibility to try and clean up our current mess, and try and live a little cleaner from now on.

I realize that some of the articles that I provide are somewhat long winded, but the idea behind science based policy is in my opinion a crucial one for going forward and creating a sustainable lifestyle. It defines an approach that addresses past environmental mistakes as well as showing us the way to move forward. There is a critical need today for a more healthy approach both to ourselves as well as our environment. It is my hope to plant the seed of this idea in as many places that I can. I hope that you form your own opinion about it and decide to promote it yourself whenever possible.

I'll let this gentleman explain science based policy a bit from his prospective in an introduction of the idea on This website

The relationship between science and policy is an important topic in evidence-based public health policy and practice (1). It seems logical to assume that as scientific research generates more quality findings, policymakers will make better decisions. However, numerous underlying obstacles exist (2).

A systematic framework can be used to describe the key components that link science to policy. The framework, which consists of three areas that are subdivided into 12 essentials (basic elements), reveals issues and solutions related to science-based decision making. In this article, policy is defined broadly to include not only legislation but also "prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs" and "a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions" (3). Therefore, the term policymakers may encompass public health practitioners, public health researchers, and even the general public, because members of the general public make health decisions for themselves and their families.

Science-based policy involves producing high-quality scientific evidence, building bridges between the producers and users of scientific evidence, and incorporating scientific evidence into health policy and practice (4). Accordingly, the three primary areas in science-based policy are knowledge generation, knowledge exchange, and knowledge uptake (Table 1). Within these three areas, the 12 essentials are categorized as follows: knowledge generation — 1) credible design, 2) accurate data, 3) sound analysis, and 4) comprehensive synthesis; knowledge exchange — 5) relevant content, 6) appropriate translation, 7) timely dissemination, and 8) modulated release; and knowledge uptake — 9) accessible information, 10) readable message, 11) motivated user, and 12) rewarding outcome (Table 1).

I have heard the term "Science Based Policy" a few times over that last couple of years and although it is a somewhat unheard of idea, it rings true to me. I see some promise in the approach. There needs to be some light shed on the efforts being made into spreading the idea.

One letter I found shows some of the struggles going on in efforts to use this approach.

CHaMP letter to the EPA shown Here

Under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR), which provides EPA with chemical use
and exposure data, only manufacturers are required to report. EPA gets no information from downstream processors, distributors or users of the chemical even though they are typically in the best position to know and report accurate information on chemical use.

The IUR data provided often fails to provide any information on a chemical’s use in consumer products. One of the greatest potential sources of children’s exposure to toxic chemicals is through the use of consumer products in the home.

This means that chemicals that are highly hazardous but to which EPA asserts people are only moderately exposed, or chemicals that are moderately hazardous but to which people are highly exposed, are downgraded in priority. This failure to err on the side of caution, especially given the very limited data available to EPA, is likely to result in decisions that do not adequately protect public health.

A 2004 study in Minneapolis of children’s exposures to volatile organic compounds, including dichlorobenzenes, found that exposures to VOCs in the home had the largest influence on children’s personal exposure to most compounds, and that the home and personal exposures were well above health benchmarks for several compounds, especially for p-dichlorobenzene.

I'm not going to go into some of the damaging effects of chemicals in the household. There is numerous amounts of research as well as theories having to do with the rise of autism, diabetes, the decline of human sperm count etc., not to mention environmental effect.

The struggle behind this idea has been going on for decades. It is a hindrance to the capitalist society in many ways. Limiting the behavior of our manufacturing facilitates as well as resource harvesting practices has a negative result on our economy.

A quote I found in an article about Energy Secretary Chu a nobel prize winning scientist

“GDP growth in the United States has limped along at the anemic annual rate of 0.6 percent while China’s economy has soared at the annual rate of 9.12 percent, more than 15 times our own,” says Daniel Kish, senior VP with the Institute for Energy Research. “Clearly, the policies and priorities of Steven Chu’s energy department have benefitted our global competitors and intensified the economic pain felt by millions of unemployed Americans.”

My question to you would be, is it worth it? What kind of future do we want for our children? If it takes ten years of high unemployment while we gather our heads together and learn to treat our environment with the respect and love that it deserves, would it be worth it?

This little girl wants to know...

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:08 PM
Buddy unless this recession picks up in the next year or so then us Humans have pretty much peaked.

It wont be a better future for our children, it will be a far worse future IMHO!

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by andy06shake

Maybe I am mistaken, but I guess I would think that if we want to build a better world, then we are going to have to design our own "recession" that makes the last few pale in comparison. One that takes into account the scientific evidence of environmental impact due to our capitalistic approach to lifestyle.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by Quauhtli

Good luck with that view mate, not that i dont agree in principle, but people are allways going to want more!

Modern day society is screwed as soon as we start telling our citizens to expect less. No progress means society will stagment and eventually fall apart. Atleast with any capitalist based society this is the outcome when prolonged recession occurs.

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 01:32 PM

The PHC (and the CDC) have done a marvelous job of giving the public a summation of the best way to wisely and rationally approach consumer-driven and industry-based environmental impacts on society. However, by offering (what I believe) to be an effective strategy in coping with this reality, the CDC is vaguely hinting to a larger reality at play. This "reality" to me has been the continuous failure of mankind to link their economic and political limitations with the limitations of the global environment, and far more importantly, physical reality itself. Until societies leaders (of all types of institution, government, private, and in-between), as well as the global public, concede that there is a definite physical (spatial and temporal) limit to the growth of the collective global economy, as imposed by the limited amount and usage of renewable and nonrenewable resources "that fuels" our incredibly energy-intensive economy, there can be no serious discussion concerning the necessary appropriate actions to deal with future economic "growth" and/or "deflation". This is just the reality. The health of the environment is the base-line indicator the health of human economic activity, period. In effect, this means that nearly all active and potential economic activity (from macroeconomic to the micro) must be considered within relation to and, more importantly, within the realistic bounds our environments capability to support such activity. Essentially, economic actions are, and always will be reciprocal to environmental actions. As the environment has limits, so does our economy.

It is the job of global policy makers and administrators to relay this reality to the public and design far-sighted, rational and intelligent economic systems, as well as shape realistic expectations of what is economically possible within the realms of the aforementioned environmental and physical limits.While this will be challenging (and perhaps, due to the idealistic tendencies of human nature, impossible), it will--in the end--be the key to a more pro-longed and healthier collective existence for humanity. Of course, other variables, such as technological innovations and environmental changes indirectly related to human economic activity, will need to be considered, integrated and measured against what we currently know and future projections. However, future technological innovations must be sanctioned and used withing our economy with consideration to its overall long-term benefit and impact to the economy and the environment. Also, future steps to provide intelligent technical responses to environmental changes must consider the previously mentioned realities and seek to create long-term remedies that do not create further environmental harm or disregard the realities of physics. These responses must not only be intelligent, far-sighted and respectful of our own limitations, but must be enacted globally and consistently over long-periods of time despite current political and economic desires by leaders or the general public.

This is what I believe to be the essential long-term problem of mankind and I hope PFC, with the backing of the CDC, is successful in its mission. Mainly because its findings and conclusion apply across a very broad spectrum of human interest and concerns. Interesting and excellent post.
edit on 4-3-2013 by ForwardDrift because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 04:30 AM
"Science" has created more problems than it has solved. In fact, more and more, the problems science solves are problems created by science in the first place. A better future for our children might include an acknowledgement that this science thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

That future might also include an apology for embracing a philosophy that is destroying the planet and alienating humanity from its relationship with it.
edit on 3/5/13 by NthOther because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 04:40 AM

Originally posted by andy06shake
Buddy unless this recession picks up in the next year or so then us Humans have pretty much peaked.

It wont be a better future for our children, it will be a far worse future IMHO!

Maybe western civilisation has peaked but I wouldn't agree with 'humans'. In my opinion, 'the east' will have a resurgence and you are beginning to see that now.

The 'West' has become bloated, lazy and greedy, which will lead to its downfall.
edit on 5-3-2013 by deessell because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 04:47 AM
reply to post by deessell

Thats if Pakistan and India dont manage to nuke one another! If ever there was a candidate for nuclear war those two are up there.

Also if the west goes it all goes, pretty much stands to reason, we are all linked financially my friend!

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by andy06shake

Andy, I am talking about the decline of western civilization. The big companies are already well integrated into Asia, and it's possible that many would move headquarters to Asia if need be.

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:00 AM
reply to post by deessell

Well lets hope they take us with them(No chance!).

All i can say is God help the East because here comes the next crusade.

Corporate holy wars does have a certain ring to it. Never mind fight for your country, it will be fight for you credit card!
edit on 5-3-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in