Health risks are not taking rational so the answer is no.
True rationality about these health risks would imply changed behavior, in which no one would smoke or use cocaine, and everyone would wear seat belts and control fat and calorie intakes.
Each stress-managed day would include adequate exercise.
We would never waste time or money achieving a glamorous tan.
We'd be careful not to let our hand slip during a cocktail party discussion of artificial sweeteners and unconsciously grab a handful of fat-laden peanuts that could contain carcinogenic aflatoxins.
(Ironically , the sweeteners that were the subject of discussion are statically less dangerous than drugs, fat, aflatoxin, or suntanning.)
Many people choose not to stop smoking, not to exercise, and not to reduce blood lipid levels even though the health risk of coronary heart disease is then six times higher than when none of these risk factors is present(82 per 1,000 compared to an average risk of 13 per 1,000).
Our choices are frequently made with full awareness of the health risks.
However, we choose to ignore the health risks, either because the personal benefit outweighs the health risk or because the cost of changing habits is too great.
In addition to our inherent inrtia in changing our habits, we also have the problem of being unable to comprehend real differences in risk when the risk probabilities are smaller than 1 in 100. Furthermore, studies indicate that we overestimate some health risks, such as homicides or shark bite, and underestimate others, especially diseases such as diabetes.
To make matters worse, we are falsely overconfident about what we actually know with regard to risks.
In one study , even those who were certain that they had only a one-in-1,000 chance of being wrong in their risk estimate were actually wrong as much as 20% of the time .
Health risks acceptbility
If a risk is immediate , direct , or involves an element of fear or major catastrophe, it creates much greater outrage and is much less acceptable than if the risk is delayed, indirect, or commonplace.
Thus, the results of a major plane crash or catastrophic nuclear power plant accident are perceived as more serious than automobile accidents, even though the number of traffic injuries and fatalities in the same time span may be substantially greater.
People who study risk have placed risk behavior in a framework showing when risks are considered acceptable and when they are not .
A risk that is voluntary is much more acceptable than one that is involuntary. Obviously, the voluntary risks of drinking water, breathing air, and eating food should be far less than the voluntary risks of hang-gliding or piloting small aircraft.
The voluntary nature of risk is sometimes debatable . using a car to get to work may be the only viable alternative; thus, we might argue that the risk was necessitated and not totally voluntary.
Whether voluntary or involuntary on U.S roads.
Risks are also less acceptable if people feel that they are foisted upon them rather than personally chosen . For instance , a person will not fear the risk of coronary heart disease from the inactivity, smoking, or high-fat diet that was chosen willingly, but will greatly fear possible cancer from traces of pesticide or a food additive that there was no choice but to ingest. This fear occurs despite the fact that the risks from pesticides and additives are both smaller and less well documented than the risks associated with inactivity, smoking, or high-fat diets.
A risk that is a necessity-for which no less-risky or other alternative exists-is more acceptable than one associated with luxuriousness less risky alternatives.
For instance, pesticides may be more readily accepted when the survival of a group is dependent on an adequate harvest.
The possible long-term health risks of certain pesticides in this instance pale beside concerns about starvation.
A risk that is catastrophic is less acceptable than one that has a less severe outcome. For instance, a plane crash with 200 people on board is headline news, while the 2000 auto fatalities that occur daily in the United States are rarely even thought of unless one is personally affected.
Natural risks are more acceptable than those that are created. The risks from smoke and dust that emanate from a volcano are far more tolerable than the risks of smoke and dust from industrial burning although the net result may be the same. Since chemicals and technology are perceived as created by humans , the risks they create are less acceptable.
Both are mistrusted and not understood by the general public therefore feared.
Risks are less acceptable if they are the result of corporate activity rather than the result of a person's own careless or improper use of a carefully and clearly labeled substance.
Risks that have delayed consequences are less acceptable than those with immediate effects.
The delay period often creates a nagging anxiety about whether the consequences will appear at some time in the future.
In like manner, risks that have clear outcomes are easier to deal with than those for which the outcomes are unclear.
For instance, the risk of eating food from bulging cans is great, and the outcome is clear,
so this food is discarded.
However, the fact that the cancer risk from the ingestion of large ammounts of saccarin-containing foods
is extremely small and unquantifiable makes it unclear what risk,
if any , is associated with the daily ingestion of a single serving of
saccarin-containing diet beverage.
Risks that are old are more acceptable than new risks.
For instance the risk of botulism has been with us for years, and most of us don't think about it unless it has been in a recent news story.
Even the mention of botulism doesn't create the same kind of fear that the mention of botulism doesn't create the same kind of fear that the mention of nitrate does.
Despite the fact that botulinum toxin is very lethal,
more deadly than cobra venom, the possible role of nitrate in causing cancer creates greater consumer fear.
This scenario is especially interesting as botulism is much more likely to occur in canned or
vaccum -packed meats that do not contain nitrate than in those that do.
Risks are less acceptable if they result in a disease that creates
an extraordinary amount of fear and for which the cure is often not successful.
In the United States, cancer and AIDS are probably feared as much as leprosy was in biblical times.
Thus, reports that something in the food supply may increase the risk of cancer create great fear.
Controversy over the presence or potential presence of cancer-causing agents in the food supply has increased dramatically over the past decade.
Health risks that are vital are more acceptable than those that are non-vital.
Thus, drug therapy may be chosen even though the therapy itself creates another vital health risk, whereas the chance of decreased quality in food due to increased shelf life is less acceptable because it is viewed in the United States to be a non-vital risk.
In some case , it is rational not to be rational about health risks.
With respect to foods, it is probably not healthy to live in an age of food where we are unduly frightened to eat and the consumption of any single food item brings on extraordinary guilt.
Nor is it healthy to live in a state of psychological distress due to media-generated
fear about food.
In some cases, extreme fear, especially about food carcinogens, can limit food selection so dramatically that the diet becomes nutritionally unbalanced.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق
شكرا على مشاركتك اللطيفة