Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
than they do of an older, more familiar one. Examples
include a greater fear of genetically modified food
than of food produced by traditional plant-breeding
techniques, and a greater fear of nuclear power plants
than of more familiar coal-fired power plants.
Third is
whether we voluntarily take the risk.
For ex-
ample, we might perceive that the risk from driving,
which is largely voluntary, is less than that from a nu-
clear power plant, which is mostly imposed on us
whether we like it or not.
Fourth is
whether a risk is catastrophic,
not chronic.
We usually have a much greater fear of a well-publi-
cized death toll from a single catastrophic accident than
from the same or an even larger death toll spread out
over a longer time. Examples include a severe nuclear
power plant accident, an industrial explosion, or an ac-
cidental plane crash, as opposed to coal-burning power
plants, automobiles, or smoking.
Critical thinking: what
three things do you fear that are not very risky?
There is also concern over the
unfair distribution of
risks
from the use of a technology or chemical. Citizens
are outraged when government officials decide to put
a hazardous waste landfill or incinerator in or near
their neighborhood. Even when the decision is based
on careful risk analysis, it is usually seen as politics,
not science. Residents will not be satisfied by estimates
that the lifetime risks of cancer death from the facility
are not greater than, say, 1 in 100,000. Instead, they
point out that living near the facility means that they
will have a much higher risk of dying from cancer than
would people living farther away.
something, the most important question to ask is, “Do
I have any control over this?”
You have control over major ways to reduce risks
from heart attack, stroke, and many forms of cancer
because you can decide whether you smoke, what you
eat, how much exercise you get, how much alcohol
you consume, how often you expose yourself to the
sun's ultraviolet rays, and whether you practice safe
sex. Concentrate on evaluating these important
choices, and you will have a much greater chance of
living a longer, healthier, happier, and less fearful life.
The burden of proof imposed on individuals, companies, and
institutions should be to show that pollution prevention
options have been thoroughly examined, evaluated, and used
before lesser options are chosen.
J
OEL
H
IRSCHORN
CRITICAL THINKING
1.
Explain why you agree or disagree with the proposals
for reducing the death toll and other harmful effects of
smoking listed on p. 327. Do you believe that there
should be a ban on smoking indoors in all public places?
Explain.
2.
Should we have zero pollution levels for all toxic and
hazardous chemicals? Explain. What are the alternatives?
3.
Do you believe that health and safety standards in the
workplace should be strengthened and enforced more
vigorously, even if this causes a loss of jobs when compa-
nies transfer operations to countries with weaker stan-
dards? Explain.
4.
Evaluate the following statements:
a.
We should not get worked up about exposure to
toxic chemicals because almost any chemical can
cause some harm at a large enough dosage.
b.
We should not worry so much about exposure to
toxic chemicals because through genetic adaptation
we can develop immunity to such chemicals.
c.
We should not worry so much about exposure to
toxic chemicals because we can use genetic engi-
neering to reduce or eliminate such problems.
Becoming Better at Risk Analysis
To become better at risk analysis, you can carefully
evaluate or tune out the barrage of bad news covered
in the media, compare risks, and concentrate on
reducing risks over which you have some control.
You can do three things to become better at estimating
risks.
First,
carefully evaluate news reports. Recognize
that the media often give an exaggerated view of risks
to capture our interest and sell newspapers or gain TV
viewers.
Second,
compare risks. Do you risk getting cancer
by eating a charcoal-broiled steak once or twice a
week? Yes, because in theory anything can harm you.
The question is whether this danger is great enough
for you to worry about. In evaluating a risk, the ques-
tion is not “Is it safe?” but rather “How risky is it com-
pared to other risks?”
Third,
concentrate on the most serious risks to
your life and health that you have some control over
and stop worrying about smaller risks and those over
which you have no control. When you worry about
5.
How can changes in the age structure of a human pop-
ulation increase the spread of infectious diseases? How
can the spread of infectious diseases affect the age struc-
ture of human populations?
6.
Should laboratory-bred animals be used in laboratory
experiments in toxicology? Explain. What are the alterna-
tives?
7.
What are the five major risks you face from
(a)
your
lifestyle,
(b)
where you live, and
(c)
what you do for a
living? Which of these risks are voluntary and which are
involuntary? List the five most important things you can
do to reduce these risks. Which of these things do you
actually plan to do?
