Re: Involuntary vs Voluntary Risks

["MIKE RUSSELL" <russelmj@songs.sce.com>]

     Al, you may be referring to a Special Report in the October 1994 issue
     of the HPS Newletter.  The article summarized the Power Reactor
     Section's meeting in Phoenix where the keynote speaker was Dr. Peter
     Sandman, communications consultant and creator of the "Hazards +
     Outrage = Risk" formula for risk communication.

     Hazard is defined as the probabilistic measure of potential harm,
     outrage is the normal reaction of people to various hazards which is
     dependent upon factors such as voluntary vs. coerced, natural vs.
     unnatural, familiar vs. exotic, chronic vs. catastrophic, and so one.

     It's a fact that the public is afraid of all the wrong risks.  There is
     only a 0.2 correlation between whether something is going to kill
     people and whether its going to upset them.

     But Dr. Sandman's message for the radiation protection community is to
     stop blaming the media for promoting radiation hysteria and treating
     the public like a bunch of uneducated boobs.  Instead, accept that
     outrage is legitimate and learn how to deal with it!

     Dr. Sandman's book "Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for
     Effective Risk Communication" and videos are available through the
     American Industrial Hygiene Association, PO Box 27632, Richmond, VA
     23261-7632; phone (703) 849-8888, fax (703) 207-3561.

     Mike Russell
     Chairman, Risk Communication Subcommittee
     Health Physics Society - Power Reactor Section
     russelmj@songs.sce.com


It has been said that humans are more likely to accept risks over which they
exercise voluntary control than riske over which they do not exercise
voluntary control.  he latter are sometimes called involuntary risks.  I
seem to remember an article in the HPS Journal or the HPS Newsletter quite a
number of years ago that set forth cogent arguments against distinguishing
between those two types of risks.  The author's thesis was that
acceptability of risk should have nothing to do with whether a risk is
voluntary or involuntary.  Does anyone out there remember such an article,
and, if so, would you be willing to give me the reference?  
Alternatively, does anyone know of a reference to documents that provide
arguments against the idea that voluntary risks are more acceptable than
involuntary risks?
Thanks in advance.  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov