MARC Record from marc_columbia

LEADER: 03241mam a2200373 a 4500
001 1827134
005 20220609004118.0
008 960126s1996 ilua b 001 0 eng
010 $a 96003305
020 $a0226505251 (cloth : alk. paper)
020 $a0226505278 (pbk. : alk. paper)
035 $a(OCoLC)ocm34192448
035 $9ALQ8577CU
035 $a1827134
040 $aDLC$cDLC$dC#P$dOrLoB-B
043 $an-us---
050 00 $aGE145$b.M37 1996
082 00 $a363.7$220
100 1 $aMargolis, Howard.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n81107157
245 10 $aDealing with risk :$bwhy the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues /$cHoward Margolis.
260 $aChicago :$bUniversity of Chicago Press,$c1996.
300 $aix, 227 pages :$billustrations ;$c23 cm
336 $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337 $aunmediated$bn$2rdamedia
504 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. [217]-220) and index.
520 $aFor decades, both policymakers and analysts have been frustrated by sharp and stubborn conflicts between expert and lay perceptions on issues of environmental risk. For example, most experts - even those opposed to nuclear power on other grounds - would see precautions like those now in place as adequate to protect against risks from nuclear waste. But the public finds that very hard to believe.
520 8 $aSimilar sharp conflicts of expert/lay intuition are evident on a wide range of risk issues, from the safety of bendictin as a treatment for morning sickness to the safety of irradiation of food to destroy microorganisms. In Dealing with Risk, Howard Margolis explores the expert/lay rift surrounding such contentious issues and provides a provocative new account.
520 8 $a. The usual explanation of expert/lay conflicts is that experts are focused only on a narrow notion of risk - such as potential fatalities - but lay intuition is concerned about a wide range of further concerns, such as fairness and voluntariness of exposure. Margolis argues that this "rival rationalities" view in a fundamental way misses the point of these controversies, since the additional dimensions of lay concern often are more plausibly interpreted as reflections of lay concern than as causes.
520 8 $aMargolis argues that risk assessment typically involves weighing a broad range of often complicated trade-offs between costs and benefits. As laypersons, however, we are by definition forced to make judgments on complex matters beyond the scope of our normal experience. Especially in cases involving potential danger, we frequently discount nuance and respond more viscerally.
520 8 $aCognitively we fall back on default responses, all-purpose intuitions such as "better safe than sorry" or "nothing ventured, nothing gained." Such intuitions don't admit of careful balancing of pros and cons, and lay opinion consequently becomes polarized and at odds with the expert view.
650 0 $aEnvironmental risk assessment$xPublic opinion.
650 0 $aEnvironmental policy$zUnited States.$0http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2008103047
650 0 $aRefuse and refuse disposal$xGovernment policy$zUnited States.
852 00 $boff,bus$hGE145$i.M37 1996