1.2. Catastrophic Potentials in Risk Judgement

But when we are saying that, that much of casualty happened people are more likely to believe the information, ready to accept that this is risky. Importance of message is also very important, okay. Who is sending these informations to them and how important it is?

This chunk discusses how the extent of casualties can affect people's perception of risk. When a significant number of casualties are reported, individuals are more inclined to accept that a situation is risky. Additionally, it highlights the role of the source of information, emphasizing that the credibility and authority of the sender are crucial factors in how the message is received and interpreted by the public.

Consider a news report about a plane crash that resulted in many fatalities. People reading this news are likely to perceive air travel as more dangerous than before. Conversely, if the information comes from a trusted source, like a government agency or a well-known news organization, they might view it as more credible and thus take the information more seriously.

When we are saying high probability, low consequence of disasters like you can say the drought compared to low probability high consequences like the 2011 Japan earthquake and Tsunami. Which one you think people considered more risky, accept as risk? So, drought which is high probability, this means happening almost every year or very frequently. I have at have low consequences, people consider that as low risk but when this is low probability, may be happening in 100 years but high consequences people consider that as more risky.

This chunk contrasts two types of disasters: those that occur frequently but have lower consequences (like drought), and those that happen rarely but have severe consequences (like the Japan earthquake and tsunami). People typically view low-probability, high-consequence events as riskier than high-probability, low-consequence events because the potential for severe outcomes makes them feel more threatened, even if they occur infrequently.

Imagine a person living in an area prone to drought. They know this occurs yearly but have learned to cope with the impacts. Now, compare this to someone living in a region with a dormant volcano. It might not erupt for centuries, but if it does, the consequences could be catastrophic. Most would consider living near the volcano a greater risk despite its infrequent eruptions.

Also, the context, the risk situation, the perception of dread having personal control, that I can control the risk over the magnitude and probability, so how it will happen or what extended to happen, I have some control or not.

This chunk introduces several variables that can affect how individuals perceive risk, including context, dread, and personal control. People tend to feel less at risk if they believe they have some control over a situation. The more personal control they feel they have, the less anxious or fearful they may be about potential risks.

Think about driving a car. When a driver operates the vehicle, they often feel in control of their safety, which makes them less fearful compared to riding in a taxi where they must trust the driver. This feeling of control can significantly alter one's perception of risk.

Familiarity, if I have experienced that one or if I am experiencing that and disasters and equitable sharing that who is benefit and who is a risk. So this kind of questions like you were running a nuclear power plant but that may cause you were running from that but that may cause someone’s, increase someone’s risk.

This chunk emphasizes the role of familiarity in risk perception. When people have firsthand experience with certain risks, such as natural disasters, their perceptions can differ. Additionally, if they perceive that someone else benefits from a risk (like profit from a power plant), this can heighten their perception of the danger involved, especially if they feel there is inequity in who suffers the consequences.

Consider a community living near a chemical plant. If a resident works at the plant, they might feel comfortable with its operations due to familiarity. However, neighbors who do not work there may be more concerned about potential accidents, especially if they believe the plant owners are prioritizing profits over safety. This can create a divide in how the risk is perceived within the community.

Now, the transmitter of risk information, that how the sender is that the transmitter is collecting the informations from the senders and the perceived seriousness of the risk.

This chunk discusses the role of media and other institutions in transmitting risk information. The way that risk is reported and presented can greatly impact public perception. Various sources—like mass media, public institutions, and opinion groups—interpret and disseminate information that influences how seriously people take certain risks.

For instance, during a health crisis like a pandemic, the way different news outlets report on the situation can lead to varying levels of public concern. If one news network sensationalizes statistics and conveys heavy tones of urgency, people might panic, while another presenting factual, calm information may promote a more measured response.

So, factors that determine transmitter attractiveness to pass report risk informations or risk news is, if it is technologically induced hazard then compared to natural hazards they will report more possibility to blame someone that it is this risk, people are at risk because of someone then they are more interested...

This chunk identifies several factors that influence how media outlets choose to report on various disasters and risks. For example, technological disasters often attract more attention because they can be attributed to human error or negligence, making it easier for the media to point fingers. Additionally, the cultural context of a disaster can affect media interest, with coverage varying based on distance and familiarity with the affected area.

Consider the media response to two disasters: a local flooding event versus a distant oil spill. The oil spill may garner more coverage because it can be framed as a corporate failure where there is much to blame, whereas a local flooding might not attract the same level of attention if it’s perceived as expected due to weather patterns.

--