In my last post I outlined how experts and everyone else view risk differently. Risk experts like to talk about numbers that reflect mortality and morbidity, while non-experts view risk on a set of personal heuristics (outrage factors) to decide if a risk is acceptable or not. What is considered a risk is often based on our perceptions of several factors concerning a specific risk (every risk is individual although they can be grouped). Rather than experts and governments simply discounting civil discourse about risk as pampering to illogical fears, creating active discourse promotes a better society that deals with hazards and the outrages of modern living. In many cases we worry about things that are not really that dangerous once understood, but we also display gross lack of concern for things that are literally killing us slowly.
So why do we accept risks that are dangerous to us? One reason is that many are totally oblivious to some of the problems because the mass media speaking for corporations have bamboozled us into believing that many problems do not exist or are insignificant. Our educational systems and the mass media propagate the brilliance of our technology while poo-pooing the negative consequences. For example, information about the ‘Green Revolution’ since the 1950s highlights the amount of food grown by using industrial agricultural technology but fails to cover the increasing problems of pesticides pollution, soil depletion and decreased soil quality, destructive economic and ecological control of marginal agricultural lands, and the resulting erosion of human communities unable to support themselves using these technologies. Then add white-washing and green-washing techniques using ‘valid experts’ that are bought and paid for by corporation spin doctoring and you have a public ignorant or sadly misinformed about many of the problems, issues, and especially the risks involved with technology and lifestyle choices.
“Most people gain their information about what is dangerous from the news, though Internet-driven convergence has birthed the phenomenon of news-via-forwarded-emails. Science is rarely definitive, yet news media often express concern over the uncertainties in scientific data about risks. ‘Experts’ who disagree on interpretations of research are more newsworthy than their data, and fuel doubts and confusion in the non-scientific public. News accounts tend to give a simplified and erroneous view of the complexities of any risky situation” Jurin, Roush, & Danter (JRD).
I watched regular TV the other night and I was amazed at this advertisement about using Botox to get rid of unsightly wrinkles. What got me was the speed at which the speaker went through the side-effects, of which more than half were life incapacitating conditions and even death. I did a check of the hazard aspect of Botox injections and it is about 1 in 20. Ponder that for a minute. Some minor cosmetic work has a 1 in 20 chance of giving you major medical problems for what remains of your life, and could even kill you. I have to wonder if people choosing Botox injections get the full information about Botox’s lethality, or if it is simply that they believe the risk will not happen to them.
In the last post I covered aspects of risk numbers that are low yet generate high outrage, and vice-versa. What is some of the psychology behind personal risk evaluation? People tend to fear what they have heard about more when it is framed as a problem – typical of most News Reporting. For instance, news programs report risk that is newsworthy (gets peoples attention), so people believe that those kinds of risk are common. “When a risk becomes news, outrage is likely to heighten. News media often report and amplify a problem that is rife with conflict and sensational anecdotes, while ignoring more deadly problems, which happen slowly or lead to more chronic consequences. Popular culture through films and television programs uses industrial catastrophes for dramatic fictional portrayals. These entertainment products get linked in the public mind to real risk that occur frequently” JRD. Other aspects that affect risk are whether we have a choice – think about the rock-climbing story in the last post. ‘The right to say “No” makes saying “Maybe” a lot easier since it gives people a sense of some control over the risk. People who work in hazardous jobs tend to accept risk because they become familiar with it and can actually become blasé about it. People are more forgiving of ‘acts of God’ like weather, fires, and floods, yet are extremely unforgiving of human-produced problems that are imposed upon them.
A huge aspect of risk outrage is how trusting someone is of the information they have about a risk, and how trustworthy the source is of that information. Take Nuclear Energy for instance. Until the accident of Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear power was touted as a panacea of energy for the future and most people seemed fine with that assertion. The risk of catastrophic failure was low compared to the perceived benefits of ‘clean power.’ Well, that was the story the industry promoted for many years and not seeing or knowing about any problems, made it acceptable. Once the high outrage was induced through high profile disasters, the public started looking more closely at the information and potential cover-up of how dangerous the ‘incident of a meltdown’ could have been. Had the public been more aware of the Fermi reactor ‘meltdown incident’ in 1966 there might have been more awareness of the risks associated with nuclear power. The potential catastrophic nature of nuclear power, despite the low risk of occurrence, was highlighted further in 1986 with the Chernobyl disaster. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster from the earthquake and tsunami in 2011 emphasized to people worldwide that despite a low risk, catastrophic effects should that risk occur, need to be taken more seriously.
Yet, the crazy situation we have, is that of the acceptance of high risks that while not with as potentially acutely catastrophic as nuclear power, hold just as severe long-term effects on our health and safety. Things like Chernobyl are acute risk problems. That is when they occur it is all hell let loose kind of problems. However, many of our environmental and social issues are chronic risk problems. That is, they build slowly over time. Like the proverbial frog in a boiling pot of water, we don’t really notice the developing problems and ill effects of a specific set of risks until it is too late. Examples of this are pollution (from whatever source), uncritical acceptance of technology without regard for potentially negative short or long-term consequences, and unwavering acceptance of toxic chemicals in our air, water, food, and materials that we use in everyday living, which essentially means our consumer lifestyle choices.
I’m not meaning to be a doomsayer but the blasé acceptance of so many environmental problems just to maintain a short-term standard of living with no regard for the long-term quality just amazes me. And just as badly is the casual way so many in the developed world are willing to foist the worst effects on to people in the developing world who do not get any benefits of western living, e.g. shipping our toxic waste for them to handle – a prompt for some discussion on ecological justice. Since we are in a global lockdown because of Covid, you might want to ask yourself about the actual true risk of this virus, who is giving us the data about this risk, and especially how is this risk reported and managed by the mass media and politicians. Then look at alternative valid sources of risk information and how the mass media handle these alternate perspectives, i.e. is there a real discussion occurring?
I’m not trying to push any one viewpoint but merely to get you look at how risk communication is managed over a range of different risky situations by ‘authorities’ that give us information. Do we trust them and why, or not? (see earlier post Skepticism about being sovereign in your own thinking).
To Be Continued………………
0 Comments