"Life creates
situations conducive to life…we must strive to do that" -Paul Hawken
I've discussed this
before, but I think it's worth addressing again; what ever happened to the
precautionary principle? Why doesn't it apply to building science?
Imagine a world
where it is harder to create a building or product that hurts the Earth than
one that heals it- I believe that was the original intention of Building codes,
Material Safety Data Sheets, and EPA regulation. But instead, it has provided
opportunity for companies to say their products are safe because no one can
prove they are dangerous!
Modern humans spend
about 90% of their time in buildings- but still we construct them and finish
them off with products that aren't healthy to breathe, touch, or make.
An
article was
published early last week about the long term negative health effects of 9/11
victims
, rescuers, and so on. This year, dozens have died from cancers that can't be
'conclusively linked' to the plumes of 9/11 wreckage- but what are the odds,
really? The twin towers were not so old that we can excuse these effects as ignorance.
This is reflected even in incidents like the
Gold King mine spill, where people suffer decades later from toxic extraction practices and inadequate closure or remediation. Why is an acceptable for of mine closure to plug up a mountain full of radioactive sludge? No one could have predicted a little earth rumble or clerical error resulting in that stuff being set loose?
The approach to production and manufacturing is changing- a recent
article in Building green advises, “If
you can lick it, you want to know what’s in it.” But with 80% of our infrastructure built- and loopholes upon grandfathered exceptions to the rule, will change now be enough?
Comments
Post a Comment