Zero-risk society

Much has been written about risk compensation—the dance of the risk thermostats. Man does not seek zero risk. Society places a premium on risk taking in many aspects of our lives, especially in business and in sport. The risk homeostasis theory posits that man operates at a level of personally acceptable risk, and that if interventions are applied to reduce risk in a given situation, individuals will change their behaviour to restore their personal risk to its comfortable level. For example, if seat belt wearing is seen to reduce the risk of injury, a driver will likely increase his... 

But such absolutely safe situations are not of much interest. While the use of some chemicals can be banned, it is not realistic to expect this approach to be applicable to all industrial chemicals, consumer products, or to the polluting by-products of industrial society. If the goal of absolute safety (zero risk) from these products is desired, then such wholesale banning would be necessary. We do not appear ready to turn back the calendar 200 years. 

What is now essential is to derive the knowledge to decide the safety of these substances and to answer the question — how safe is safe enough The costs entailed in producing a risk-free society would be so great that few benefits would remain and, the concept of zero risk means that one has a desire to live for ever. 

Overly zealous application of the precautionary principle could have a serious impact on the chemical industry and deprive society of the benefits of products without counterbalancing improvements in health and safety. The issue by the European Commission of a Communication on the use of the precautionary principle affirms that it is neither the politicization of science nor the acceptance of zero-risk. This Communication states that measures based on the precautionary principle should be ... 

If we take into consideration the fact that absolute, 100 percent safety does not exist, then we can state that zero-risk does not exist either. This philosophical approach toward life conditions the relationship between man and environment. The intensity of this relationship, as a part of safety culture, is directly dependent on having a society that is economically, ethically, and morally developed. 

Fig. 2. Regulatory Levels [1 ] and Detection Limits (Lj,). The upper portion of the figure traces a presumed relation between earthquake magnitude [abscissa] and cost to society [ordinate). The "Delaney amendment" viewpoint (not defined for earthquakes) might be interpreted as requiring zero societal risk and a corresponding Ij magnitude of zero, which of course is scientifically unattainable. Rather, an acceptable cost to society for undetected earthquakes, here imagined to be 0.1 M, is used to establish the requisite "regulatory" level. The lower part of the figure...

If the residual risk for a task or operation cannot be zero, for what risk level does one strive It is the norm that resources are always limited. There is never enough money to address every hazard identified. Such being the case, safety professionals have a responsibility to give counsel so that the greatest good to society, to employees, to employers, and to the product users is attained through applying available resources to obtain acceptable risk levels, practicably and economically. 

---