Re: Involuntary vs Voluntary Risks

[Field@amrf-po.pmeh.uiowa.edu]

          Al,

          You describe a paper, which I do not recall, that had a
          premise that the acceptability of risk should have nothing
          to do with whether a risk is voluntary or not.

          From a relative risk perspective, this appears to be a
          logical premise.  Unfortunately, as you know our perceptions
          of the risk (regardless of their scientific accuracy)
          dictate whether they are acceptable or not.

          From an evolutionary viewpoint, men and women have been able
          to cope with hazards and put risk in perspective by trial
          and error learning.  Today we deal with risk described in
          terms of 1/100,000 chance of getting cancer.

          Paul Slovic stated it well in a 1987 article in the journal,
          Science (Volume 236, pages 280-285, 17 April).

          In recent decades, the profound development of chemical and
          nuclear technologies has been accompanied by the potential
          to cause catastrophic and long lasting damage to the earth
          and the life forms that inhabit it.  The mechanisms
          underlying these complex technologies are unfamiliar and
          incomprehensible to most citizens.  Their most harmful
          consequences are rare and often delayed, hence difficult to
          assess by statistical analysis and not well suited to
          management by trial and error learning.


          Starr (Science, 165, page 1232, Social Benefit Versus
          Technological Risk, 1969)  found that the public will
          accept risks from voluntary hazards (skiing for example)
          that are 1000 as great as it would from involuntary hazards
          (such as food preservatives) that provide the same level of
          benefits.


           These factor that affect risk perception are  very
          interlinked.  For example, controllable and voluntary
          factors are difficult to differentiate when it comes to
          assessing which is affecting the risk perception.  Then we
          have a great number of other factors that affect how a risk
          is perceived.  For example, the following factors tend to
          reduce risk perception: controllable, voluntary, not a
          dread hazard, naturally occurring, consequence not fatal,
          equitable, affects only individuals, easily reduced,
          not observable, effect delayed, etc.

          Some scientist (Field, et al. Risk Analysis, Vol 13(4),
          Pages 441-447, 1993) make the case that exposure to high
          radon concentrations is not perceived as a risk by
          members of the public because it exhibits many of the above
          factors.  For example, radon poses a voluntary and
          controllable hazard.  It is colorless and odorless thus
          there are no sensory reminders.  The are no short term
          symptoms, the effect of exposure is delayed.  We can not
          positively identify individuals who have died from exposure
          to radon, so risk perception remains low.  And so on....


          It is extremely difficult to determine which factors
          affect risk perception without a detailed factor analyses.



         Best Regards,  Bill Field


          --------------------------------
          R. William Field, Ph.D.
          Department of Preventive Medicine
          N222 Oakdale Hall
          University of Iowa
          Iowa City, Iowa   52242

          319-335-4413 (voice)
          319-335-4747 (FAX)
          bill-field@uiowa.edu