Scribd
Upload
20 views2 pages

Untitled Document

Uploaded by

Mahnoor Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views2 pages

Untitled Document

Uploaded by

Mahnoor Khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Science: Estimating Risks from Technologies Estimating risks from using certain

technologies is difficult because of the unpredictability of human behavior, chance, and


sabotage. Themorecomplexatechnologicalsystemandthemore
peopleneededtodesignandrunit,themoredifficultit is toestimate the risks. Theoverall
reliabilityor the probability(expressedasapercentage)thatapersonor
devicewillperformwithoutfailureorerroristheprod uctoftwofactors: Systemreliability(%)
Technology Human reliability reliability Withcarefuldesign,qualitycontrol,maintenance,
andmonitoring,ahighlycomplexsystemsuchasanu
clearpowerplantorspaceshuttlecanachieveahigh
degreeoftechnologicalreliability.Buthumanreliabil
ityusuallyismuchlowerthantechnologicalreliability
andalmostimpossibletopredict:Toerrishuman. Supposethetechnological reliabilityofanuclear
powerplantis95%(0.95)andhumanreliabilityis75%
(0.75).Thentheoverallsystemreliabilityis71%(0.95 0.75 71%). Even ifwecouldmake the
technology 100%reliable(1.0),theoverallsystemreliabilitywould stillbeonly75%(1.0 0.75 100
75%).Thecrucial dependenceofeventhemostcarefullydesignedsys
temsonunpredictablehumanreliabilityhelpsexplain allegedly almost “impossible” tragedies
such as the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident and the Challenger and Columbia
space shuttle accidents. Onewaytomakeasystemmorefoolprooforfail
safeistomovemoreofthepotentiallyfallibleelements fromthehumansidetothetechnical
side.However, 342 CHAPTER 14 Risk, Human Health, and Toxicology Poverty Hazard
Shortens average life span in the United States by Born male Smoking Overweight (35%)
Unmarried Overweight (15%) Spouse smoking Driving Air pollution Alcohol Drug abuse
AIDS Drowning Pesticides Fire Natural radiation Medical X rays Toxic waste Flying
Hurricanes, tornadoes Living lifetime near nuclear plant 7–10 years 7.5 years 6–10 years 6
years 5 years 2 years 1 year 7 months 5 months 5 months 4 months 3 months 1 month 1
month 1 month 8 days 5 days Oral contraceptives 5 days 4 days 1 day 1 day 10 hours 4
months 2 months Flu Air pollution Figure 14-13Global outlook:comparison of risks people
face, expressed in terms of shorter average life span. After poverty and gender, the greatest
risks people face come mostly from the lifestyle choices they make. These are merely
general ized relative estimates. Individual responses to these risks can differ because of
factors such as genetic variation, family med ical history, emotional makeup, stress, and
social ties and sup port. Critical thinking: which three of these items are most likely to
shorten your life span?(Data from Bernard L. Cohen) chanceeventssuchasa light
ningboltcanknockoutanauto matic control system, andno machineorcomputerprogram
cancompletelyreplacehuman judgment.Also,thepartsinany automated control systemare
manufactured,assembled,tested,cer tified,andmaintainedbyfalliblehumanbe ings.
Inaddition,computersoftwareprograms usedtomonitorandcontrolcomplexsystemscanbe
flawedbecauseofhumanerrororcanbedeliberately modifiedbycomputervirusestomalfunction.
Perceiving Risks Most individuals are poor at evaluating the relative risks they face, mostly
because of misleading information, denial, and irrational fears. Most of us are not good at
assessing the relative risks from the hazards that surround us. Also, many people deny or
shrug off the high-risk chances of death (or injury) from voluntary activities they enjoy, such
as motorcycling(1 death in 50 participants), smoking (1 in 250 by age 70 for a pack-a-day
smoker), hang gliding (1in 1,250), and driving(1 in 3,300 without a seatbelt and 1 in 6,070
with a seatbelt). Indeed, the most dan gerous thing most people in many countries do each
day is drive or ride in a car. Yet some of these same people may be terrified about the
possibility of being killed by a gun (1 in 28,000 in the United States), flu(1 in 130,000),
nuclear power plant accident(1 in 200,000), WestNile virus(1 in 1 million), lightning(1 in 3
million), commercial airplane crash(1 in 9 million), snakebite(1 in 36 million), or shark attack
(1in 281 million). What Factors Distort Our Perceptions of Risk? Several factors can give
people a distorted sense of risk. Fourfactorscancausepeopletoseeatechnologyora product
asbeingriskier thanexperts judge it tobe. Firstisthedegreeofcontrolwehave.Mostofushavea
greater fearof things thatwedonothavepersonal
controlover.Forexample,someindividualsfeelsafer drivingtheirowncarfor
longdistancesthroughbad traffic than traveling the samedistanceonaplane. But lookat
themath.Theriskofdyinginacaracci dentwhileusingyourseatbelt is1 in6,070whereas
theriskofdyinginacommercialairlinercrashis1in 9million. Second is fear of the unknown.Most
people have greater fear of a new, unknown product or technology 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 cizeddeathtollfromasinglecatastrophicaccidentthan from the same or an
even larger death toll spread out over a longer time. Examples include a severe nuclear
powerplantaccident, an industrial explosion, or an ac cidental
planecrash,asopposedtocoal-burningpower 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.

You might also like