“Now, what does this look like in the real world? BPA is a great example.”
Read more in Scientific American.
A better definition: risk is the expected value of a negative consequence. Ropeik’s article omits any quantitative measure of the consequence and concentrates only on probability of occurrence. A more useful formulation defines risk as the product of the probability of occurrence and the quantitative estimate of the negative consequence.
I agree that often the subjective estimate of risk puts too heavy an emphasis on the emotional response to a hazard. But, there are also many situations in which emotional responses actually contribute to losses; e.g., widespread emotional responses to the events of 9-11 contributed to secondary economic losses ; or the chilling effect that emotional response to the idea of increased use of nuclear power has on our further development and deployment of this technology.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 3,938 other followers