Ryzyko palenia

Table 2-13. Everyday Activities with a Risk of Death

Activity	A nnual Level of Risk (\oluntary activity)	A nnual Level of Risk / (involuntary activity)
Smoking 10 cigarettes/day	1.25 x 10-3	_
Coal-mining-railroad work accidents	1.3 x 10*3	—
Motor vehicle accident	2 x 10-4	—
Drinking groundwater of Table 2*12		1.2 x 10-4
Manufacturing work accidents	8 x 10-3
Pedestrians hit by automobiles		4 x 10-3
Drinking two beers/day
(cirrhosis only)	4 x 10-3
Person in a room with a smoker	=r	«*■» ii o X
Living near the storage tanks of
a large benzene producer	=	6 x 10-6

Table 2-14. Faetors in Risk Acceptability

Factor    Effect

Voluntary vs. nonvoluntary Degree of control Extent of assignability Magnitude of the outcome

Awareness

Catastrophic potential

Needs met by source of risk Group involvement

Cost of alternatives

Trust and ability to monitor compliance

Chosen risks morę acceptable to individual unless miti-gated by necessity (coal mining)

Greater personal control enhances willingness to ac-cept risks (airplanes feared over autos)

Long latency period that hinders ability to identify ex-posure reduces concem about exposure People tolerate occasional obnoxious odors, but want wide margin between them and cancer. This factor differs from catastrophic potential because it is a personal assessment

Failure to understand naturę of risks involved or assessment methods used to evaluate risks black/white type of decisions that have larger fac-tors of safety

Another factor in contradictory perception of airplane vs. auto risks. Big disaster requires greater margin of safety

The rationale for continued pesticide use and people’s rationale for saccharin consumption The “risky shift” phenomenon. Group definition of acceptable level can result in considerably higher levei for represented parties The ińdividual-at-risk personal cost decreases required margin of safety

Lack of trust is key element in large factor of safety required in hazardous-waste handling