"The risks that kill people and the risks that upset people are completely different" - Peter M. Sandman.
Excellent, thank you for posting. The follow -up video was important also.
The two bullets I got were:
1) People tend to think of something as dangerous because they are outraged about it. To a much lesser extent, people are outraged because something is dangerous.
2) Outraged people will resist data, they don't want to learn.
In the hypothetical example, when the factory presents convincing data that their output is not carcinogenic, and the people actually are convinced, their outrage increases. The data didn't address their outrage, it only addressed one outlet for the outrage, so it will just get redirected elsewhere.
I took a quick look at one other video, he did give a method to deal with one aspect of the outrage.
Also, if you ever try to run your life in accordance with the true risks rather than what people are afraid of, you may be branded as a crank or a freak.
Personal example. .... I decided that I was saying goodbye to 2 lane roads forever, if at all possible.
Ha
Yep, I experience this in two distinct ways. Like you, I see cars/roads as dangerous and I actively try to minimize my exposure. No long commutes for me when I was working, etc. I don't take it to extremes, but I do what I can. I'm conscience of it (one life threatening accident re-enforced this for me).
But as Peter Sandman points out - I have good data that shows expressways to be ~ 4x safer than the alternate routes (no cross intersections, less chance of head-on collision), but the data does not change DW's perception. She is just 'outraged' at the thought of zipping along expressways with big semi-rigs, and she wants to take that 'safe' country road.
The other is on the opposite side. I will do small, simple things to reduce small probability risks. Since it is a small effort, it isn't 'overkill', it's just something I do. Example: If we are going to be gone a few days, I shut off the water heater. Takes no time, and I figure there is some small chance that it could burn down the house when we are gone. Pilot keeps things warm, so you have hot water in a short time after you get home. But if I mention it, people look all quizzical and say "I never do that!". Fine, don't do it then, but don't look at me like I'm crazy because I do.
There's dozens of little things like that - I do them so automatically now I can hardly think of them - Like setting things down or on their side so they can't fall and break, rather than setting something on the edge of a counter where it might fall, like I see so many people do. It's like I'm mentally computing the risk of that thing falling. With some gadget that gets plugged in and out, I consciously think about which socket is most likely to wear or break or be the most expensive to fix, and I'll unplug the other side. Like that.
To the point of this thread, I think the outrage toward Nuclear power is understandable. This technology isn't understandable by the vast majority of us (unless we go get educated), and it
is scary since the dangers are mostly 'invisible' and likely even delayed. It's tough to be comfortable with something we can't understand. But like what I think
clifp was getting at, I guess the way I look at is that all the data is saying the other stuff is worse. So I direct my outrage there.
-ERD50