Re: Involuntary vs Voluntary Risks

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

          Al,  You may also want to post your request on the Risk Analysis 
          Listserver, riskanal@listserv.pnl.gov.  Request go to: 
          listserv@listserv.pnl.gov 
          
          Bill Field
          
          
          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, 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