3.1. Mad Cow Disease and Perceived Risks

But here is the question; which one told me; which one you feel is more risky, going by air or going by road, which one actually more risky? Yes, you were right, I know, most of the people think that going by air is risky than by road. But actually, data is very opposite; aviation is one of the safest medium of transport; mode of transport so, by air is much safer from the point of accident rate or casualty rates than by road.

Many people believe that flying is more dangerous than driving, but statistics show otherwise. Aviation is statistically one of the safest modes of transport, with fewer accidents and casualties compared to road travel. This highlights a common misconception about risk perception versus reality.

Think of it like this: many people fear roller coasters because they are thrilling and fast, but statistically, you are more likely to be injured in a car accident on the way to the amusement park than on the roller coaster itself.

But people have actually very different perceptions, people want to avoid by air than by road also, when you are talking about estimating data, do we have enough data; if there is some accident, some earthquake happened in Ghana in Western Africa, can we get this data; road accident data, can we get it? No, can we really depend on the statistics that we are coming from many developing countries; basically, no, it is not well documented.

Perceptions are often influenced by the availability and reliability of data. In many developing countries, traffic accident data is poorly documented, making it difficult to accurately assess risks. In contrast, developed countries have more reliable statistics, leading to better risk estimations.

Imagine trying to understand the safety of a park based on a very few reports of accidents, compared to a well-maintained database of incidents. The lack of reliable data can skew perceptions and understanding of real dangers.

So, what is that he is going and coming from school and home by tricycle, not only that he has the experience that he used to go through highways. So, tricycle on highway and that is very enjoyable, very safe. Do you believe in 1920’s, the roads were more safer than today, tricycle on road was much safer than today? If it is so, let us that look at data, we told that okay, a road is risky, if there are more casualty.

The anecdote about children riding tricycles in the 1920s suggests that many people perceive past societies as having lower risks than at present. However, examining historical data reveals that child road accidents were actually higher in the past, indicating improved safety over time.

Consider how people romanticize the 'good old days' without fully recognizing that modern safety regulations and technology have made today’s roads much safer than they were decades ago—just like how you might think of playgrounds as safer today than they were in the past.

How I can convince him, Mad Cow disease in 2003, you know, somebody said that scientists focus on danger that consumers on the whole cow. When because of mad cow disease, when the Japan government ban importing US beef in Japan, the US agricultural undersecretary wrote this quote “in fact, the probably getting out of your automobile and walking into the store to buy beef has higher probability than you will hit by an automobile than, then the probability of any harm coming to you from eating beef”.

In the context of Mad Cow Disease in 2003, there was significant public fear regarding the safety of beef consumption. However, data showed that the likelihood of being harmed by consuming beef was significantly lower than the risks involved in the very act of driving to the store. This highlights how public perception can amplify fear despite lower actual risks.

It's like being scared of flying and choosing to take a bus because of that fear, yet the statistics show that your chances of being in a serious accident while driving to the bus station are much higher than while on the flight.

So, Peter Sandman, on the other hand is saying that risk that actually upset people are completely different than the risks that kill people. The risk that upset people are completely different from than the risk that kill people.

Peter Sandman emphasizes that the risks that cause public worry are often different from those that result in actual fatalities. People may be more anxious about perceived risks—like a disease outbreak—than the more statistically relevant risks that are less visible or dramatic.

Think about how people react to news about shark attacks versus car accidents. While shark attacks get a lot of media attention and fear, statistically, far more people die in car accidents each year, yet this does not generate the same level of fear.

So can we know the risks we face, is it possible? Well, some dangers are known, some are unknown basically.

This segment explores the fundamental question of risk awareness. While some risks, like certain diseases or accidents, are well understood, others remain less known or unpredictable. This uncertainty complicates how we manage and perceive risks in everyday life.

Take for instance the risk of developing a health condition. We can take preventive measures for known conditions, like knowing to exercise for heart health; however, unexpected events—like a natural disaster—represent risks that we cannot anticipate or prepare for.

--