Risk is like a trampoline: Part 1

Peter M. Sandman defines risk as follows:

Risk = Hazard + Outrage.

And from a sociological point of view, that is, the need to move something forward with approval, the understanding of risk is predicated on perception.  But perception has nothing to do with quantifying real risk.  In other words, it is either dangerous or it is not.  What you think does not impact that risk one iota.

Perception can therefore be manipulated but the actual risk is either there or not there.  Perception also plays into how the degree of risk is also determined.  What one person sees as risky, another sees as mundane.  Again, the risk that is actually present has nothing to do with this perception.

So how do we look at risk, that is,how do determine the possibility that something harmful might happen?

One way to look at risk is to define it based on the anticipated outcome and the likelihood of that outcome taking place.  This is complicated, and again gets back to perception but also includes a healthy heaping of statistics.

So we're stuck with perception in the determination of risk.  So maybe the key is to try and look at it risk a bit more objectively while understanding our own bias towards that event.

I have spent my working life managing hazardous waste.  Hazardous waste is regulated more severely than almost any other hazardous material out there.  Hazardous waste is assumed to present an elevated risk to human health and the environment.  In fact, the regulations are such that it is regulated as more hazardous than when it is made, transported, stored, and utilized.

My perception of hazardous waste is based on my understanding of the material.  I look at it differently than most, especially John Q. Citizen.  With my newly minted MSPH, I now look at it entirely different than I used to.  Same hazardous waste, different perspective of its hazard.

Is there a risk?  Maybe...maybe not.  Depends on what your tolerance is for the possible outcome it presents.

Look at how Congress defined  "hazardous waste" in RCRA §1004(5):

(a) Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or

(b) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.

How does one tell another person what significantly means?  What about substantial or potential?  What is a serious illness?

These words are not unique to hazardous waste, they are used all the time in defining why the need for a particular course of action (i.e. law/regulation).  What these words lead to is a perpetual state of  misunderstanding and misidentifying situations that require either our concern or tolerance.

This why I am an advocate for teaching risk analysis from elementary school all the way through college.  Not just the statistics part - the probability an outcome may occur - but the ability to look at it from all angles and make a reasonable determination of what the level of concern one should have based on sound science, logic, research, and analysis.

Everything, and I mean everything presents a risk.  Sometimes not doing something presents a greater risk than had you done it.  Sometimes the risk is acute, sometimes chronic.  Sometimes it impacts some but not others equally exposed.  Its complicated.

So where to start?  First lets look at three basics involving our understanding of risk that are always in play:

1. There is real risk
2. There is regulations based on a perceived risk
3. There is hype

Number 1 is where all the time and effort needs to be spent.  Number 2 demands nothing more than an attitude to do it like they say.  Number 3 should be ignored.  Unfortunately, telling fact from fiction is difficult, especially when agenda driven "turthisms" are plopped out there like cow pies.

So onward down the trail towards understanding how to evaluate real risk.  First though, lets make it easy on ourselves by accepting two premises.  These will help move you from apprehension towards acceptance even if your spider-senses are tingling. We can reduce any hazard, thereby reducing the risk through:

1. Sound Management
2. Engineering Controls

And now, without further blabbering...I mean introduction, why risk is like a trampoline, well actually the evaluation of risk using a trampoline as an example is where I'm heading.

Risk = Hazard x Probability of the hazard happening.

The higher the hazard (bad thing) and the higher the chance of that bad thing happening, the greater the risk.

So your kids:

Want a trampoline


You're response is:

1. No! Never!
2. No, unless these conditions are met first.
3. Yes, but under these conditions.
4. Yes.

Same trampoline, different response. Why?  Because the response is based on the perception of the negative and/or positive outcomes associated with what could happen if the trampoline is brought into the backyard.

.
Next post: Risk is like a trampoline: Part 2

.