A VIEW FROM THE CHEAP SEATS
By Rich Trzupek
Risky Business
The big problem with people talking about health risks, or any kind of risks for that matter, is that nobody knows what the word �Risk� actually means. It�s a moving target, defined on a case-by-case basis for the convenience of the cause, in much the same way that political candidates define the term �good government.� �Risk� and �good government� mean whatever is most advantageous to the person using the words, which is to say that they mean nothing at all.
As a scientist, your humble correspondent cringes whenever the �R-word� is used. People, and especially journalists in the mainstream media, toss it around without a bit of consideration, like guys doing shots at 2 a.m. at a bachelor party. Quantity, not quality, is all that matters.
But, for us nerdy scientists, a word as charged with meaning as �risk� ought to mean something. There ought to be some definable point beyond which some things are a risk and up to which other things are merely an annoyance.
Is driving a �risk� for example? About 40,000 drivers will die in auto accidents each year in the U.S. Assuming that there are about 200 million drivers, that�s about a one in twenty thousand chance of the average motorist buying the farm every year.
So is driving a car a health risk,that needs our attention? Few people seem to define it that way. Driving is a freedom we all enjoy, and whatever the chances of dying behind the wheel, you�ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks that we should eliminate driving�or even radically modify traffic laws�in order to appreciably lower those odds.
That makes sense. What makes no sense is this: if one in twenty thousand is not a �risk,� why is one in one hundred thousand, or one in a million, or even more, a �risk� that we should wring our hands over?
People in favor of gun control say that gun owners present a risk to society. What does that mean? If you are not a drug dealer, or a gang member, or both, your risk of getting shot is so far below your risk of dying in an auto accident that it�s hardly worth considering. And, as a nice trade off, places where law-abiding gun-owners are welcomed have been shown to have much lower crime rates. Junkies looking for cash aren�t nearly as likely to break into a home if they know that the homeowner can sport 45 caliber defense.
Here at the mighty Examiner, we�ve seen citizens protest approval of gas stations and cell towers, because these things involve a health risk. OK, maybe they do. But that health risk is clearly far less than one in a million. Call us crazy, but those kinds of odds�odds that are less than your chances of getting hit by lightning- hardly rise to the level of �risk.� Those arguments sound a lot more like paranoia.
And, while we�re at it, let�s address second-hand smoke as well. The people who argue for smoking bans are very careful to avoid the numbers. Instead, they do a dance. The compounds in second-hand smoke, they tell us, have been shown to cause cancer, cause problems with people who have breathing problems and to affect young children.
OK. But at what level? And how much is too much? Can we get some actual numbers here?
All of the arguments that people make about second-hand smoke can be applied to the backyard barbeque, or to a fireplace. Barbeques and fireplaces produce toxic compounds. Those compounds infiltrate other people�s air, without their choosing.
Yet no one, to this reporter�s knowledge, is calling for a ban on backyard barbeques or fireplaces. Nor is anyone trying to end the sale of smoked salmon, smoked hams or hot dogs�all of which contain the same set of chemicals. If someone did call for such a ban, the public�s reaction would be obvious: this ain�t worth worrying about.
We can�t have it both ways. Either the magnitude of �risk� matters, or it doesn�t. How can we say that one in a million is a matter of grave concern in one case, but that we shouldn�t worry about the numbers in another? Pick a side people.
If no amount of risk is acceptable, then we ought to say that and get busy hiding in our homes, eating unprocessed tofu�because everything else is just too scary. If the actual level of risk actually matters, then let�s start making dispassionate decisions on that basis, instead of pretending that civilization as we know it is at stake every time a decision comes up.
