Martin good point, I do think ethics are involved here. Jenny, I remember that study too.
Going back to Mike's question. I'll stick my neck out and give my personal view/thinking/judgement.
I think HIA can/would do both.
My reasoning on this is as follows:
a) that in cases of heightened concern there tends to be some central scientific uncertainty about the health impacts;
b) that residents concerns tend to be wider than just a disbelief/disagreement about the evidence for impacts and impacts analysis (the technical issues) and relate to social (process) and cultural (symbolic) concerns about a plan/project;
c) HIA has the ability - though often difficult in practice - to bring stakeholders together to discuss and reach a scientific and social (values/morals/ethics) consensus on the above issues. By embedding community consultation into the assessment process, not as the whole process but as a key element of it, it can constructively reduce anxieties by working through the science with lay communities. HIA in that sense has similarities with lay epidemiology.
d) Lastly, one of the principles that I use in community consultation is to recognise that just as we 'experts' are not always right so communities are not always right. They do have valuable experiential knowledge that can aid the analysis of health impacts and should be tapped into but this knowledge needs to be sifted and filtered through a review process similar to scientific peer review and qualitative data triangulation.
________________________________
From: Health Impact Assessment for the United Kingdom and Ireland on behalf of Joffe, Michael
Sent: Thu 21/12/2006 01:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: high-voltage lines
If it's true that the main (or even possibly, the only) harmful effect of something is to cause public concern and anxiety, what is the legitimate role of HIA in this? To the extent that the adverse health effects are from a perception, is the role of HIA to try and reduce that perception, and thus also reduce the health impact? - in other words, to undermine the perception that is harming some people? Or is it just to accept the public perception and go along with calls for the agent to be controlled/reduced as if it were really toxic in a chemical or physical sense?
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl <http://www.blackspider.com/>
_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email is used as a convenient medium for rapid data transfer. Any contractual correspondence
sent or received by email will not be held to be such unless and until it is received in writing by a Fax or Letter.
Likewise file attachments must be treated as uncontrolled documents until issued as hard copy.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email please notify
the author by replying to this email and delete the email. If you are not the
intended recipient you must not use or disclose, print or rely on this email.
Any OS Data attached to this email is issued in accordance with Licence
No. 100017583 under condition that it is used to plot once and not retained
on the recipients computer system.
The Partnership accepts no liability for the contents of emails unconnected
with the affairs of the firm or its clients.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com
|