Risk

All of the ongoing discussions in American political discourse incorporate the concept of risk which is widely used and difficult to precisely define. The stock market has risks, war has risks, smoking has risks, walking to work has risks. The concept arises from our understanding that all actions have consequences and it is complicated by the reality that the consequence of any individual action is entirely dependent upon variables in the surrounding environment. In other words, it is impossible to know exactly what any individual action will produce, but over time, patterns of consequences begin to emerge.

I came upon this Book Review of “What Risk?” and think the general principles are worth keeping in mind, especially in the discussions where questionable science is being aggressively promoted in support of political agenda’s. Risk needs to be understood as products of actual measurements and not emotional fears. This is especially important in the debates over carbon dioxide regulation and smoking prohibition.

"Some general principles emerge. (i) Since all organisms have repair mechanisms against environmental damage, there are thresholds for all damaging agents. Therefore, extrapolation from high dose rates to very low levels does not make sense. (ii) Doses and dose rates should not be confused. (iii) There are very large species differences in response to damaging agents. (iv) Unrecognized variables lurk everywhere. (v) The costs of enforcing demonstrably false standards are huge."

"Nilsson's article on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) concludes that the dangers are about one order of magnitude less than those currently used for regulatory purposes. The errors arise from misclassification of smoking status, inappropriate controls, confounding factors having to do with lifestyle, and, possibly, heredity. Looked at another way, a child's intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage."