Inhaltsangabe
Consider these scenarios: example 1 - a regulator insists that every trace of toxic substance be removed from a swamp, even though extracting that last bit would be enormously costly and yield only minor benefits; example 2 - nearly 10,000,000 American workers are exposed daily to various solvents, all of which have some neurotoxic effects, but these substances receive little attention from the federal regulators compared with anything that may cause cancer; example 3 - rules on disposal of sewage sludge, which may save one life every five years, encourage waste incineration, which is likely to cause two deaths each year. Stephen Breyer explores three difficulties currently plaguing efforts to cope with health risks, which he styles "tunnel vision, or the last 10 per cent" (example 1 above), "random agenda selection" (example 2), and "inconsistency" (example 3). He shows how well-meaning, experienced regulators can nonetheless bring about counter-productive results. Regulatory bodies, after all, are politically responsive institutions; their agendas will usually be affected by the public's demands. Yet the more it appears that outside pressures control agency results, the less conf
Críticas
An eloquent meditation on how to regulate perilous activities in a world that cannot afford to reduce risk to zero. -- Peter Passell "New York Times" Breyer's discussion of the inconsistencies in our current approach to environmental regulation is a tour de force, confidently integrating science and policy in terms easily accessible to the intelligent layman... Breyer's analysis surely can illuminate. -- Stephen F. Williams "Michigan Law Review" One of the more trenchant proposals yet for what might constitute the next leg on the endless journey toward legislative reform...A clear and thoughtful meditation on how to build a better government, by taking the nature of the press, politics and scientific knowledge into account. -- David Warsh "Boston Sunday Globe" Breyer takes the reader by the hand through what he calls a 'vicious circle' of skewed public perception, congressional reaction, and scientific uncertainty to show why the U.S. has been unable to balance the cost of regulating substances with the benefit of protecting the public...Breyer's book gives the public an understandable introduction to the complexity of regulating health risks. -- Mary Beth Regan "Business Week" Reads like one of those intellectually exciting lectures for which some professors become so well known that their courses are fittingly oversubscribed every year. The style is clear and the analysis is dotted with the kind of provocative questions at the heart of this debate: how much regulation is enough, how much is too much, and the ultimate question, what is the dollar value of a life? -- Neil A. Lewis "New York Times Book Review" [Breyer's] discussion of the inconsistencies in our current approach to environmental regulation is a tour de force, confidently integrating science and policy in terms easily accessible to the intelligent layman... Breyer's analysis surely can illuminate. -- Stephen F. Williams "Michigan Law Review"
„Über diesen Titel“ kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.
