Page 73 - Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilience

42 Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilence

• Effects on children. Risks from activities that appear to put children
specifically at risk (e.g., milk contaminated with radiation or toxic
chemicals, pregnant women exposed to radiation or toxic chemicals)
are judged to be greater than risks from activities that do not (e.g., work-
place accidents).
• Effects on future generations. Risks from activities that seem to pose a
threat to future generations (e.g., adverse genetic effects due to exposure
to toxic chemicals or radiation) are judged to be greater than risks from
activities that do not (e.g., skiing accidents).
• Victim identity. Risks from activities that produce identifiable victims
(e.g., a worker exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals or radiation, a
child who falls down a well, or a miner trapped in a mine) are judged to
be greater than risks from activities that produce statistical victims (e.g.,
statistical profiles of automobile accident victims).
• Dread. Risks from activities that evoke fear, terror, or anxiety (e.g.,
exposure to cancer-causing agents, AIDS, or exotic diseases) are judged
to be greater than risks from activities that do not arouse such feelings
or emotions (e.g., common colds or household accidents).
• Media attention. Risks from activities that receive considerable media
coverage (e.g., accidents and leaks at nuclear power plants) are judged
to be greater than risks from activities that receive little (e.g., on-the-job
accidents).
• Accident history. Risks from activities with a history of major accidents
or frequent minor accidents (e.g., leaks at waste disposal facilities) are
judged to be greater than risks from those with little or no such history
(e.g., recombinant DNA experimentation).
• Reversibility. Risks from activities considered to have potentially irre-
versible adverse effects (e.g., birth defects from exposure to a toxic sub-
stance) are judged to be greater than risks from activities considered to
have reversible adverse effects (e.g., sports injuries).
• Personal stake. Risks from activities viewed by people to place them (or
their families) personally and directly at risk (e.g., living near a waste dis-
posal site) are judged to be greater than risks from activities that appear to
pose no direct or personal threat (e.g., disposal of waste in remote areas).
• Ethical/moral nature. Risks from activities believed to be ethically
objectionable or morally wrong (e.g., foisting pollution on an economi-
cally distressed community) are judged to be greater than risks from
ethically neutral activities (e.g., side effects of medication).
• Human versus natural origin. Risks generated by human action, fail-
ure, or incompetence (e.g., industrial accidents caused by negligence,
inadequate safeguards, or operator error) are judged to be greater than
risks believed to be caused by nature or “acts of God” (e.g., exposure to
geological radon or cosmic rays).