The risk analysis debate

Abstract

Many of the issues raised in this book are relevant to the debate about the analysis of risks, such as those of nuclear power, radon, smoking, pesticides, hazardous waste, auto travel, and air travel. In this debate it has become common to contrast two kinds of “rationality,” one technical, the other intuitive (e.g., Gillette & Krier, 1990; MacLean, 1986). Technical rationality looks at “body counts.” It. implies that we spend too much money to reduce some risks, or too little to reduce other risks, or both. Bernard Cohen (1983), for example, estimated that the cost per life saved through increased immunizations in Indonesia was $120, while the cost per life saved through stricter regulation of nuclear power plants was over $8,000,000. By implication, we ought to spend more on immunization before we spend more on regulation of nuclear power. Technical rationalists have been accused of being utilitarians by their critics (Gillette and Krier, 1990).