ABSTRACT
As I write,1 a shipment of toxic waste hailing from Canada is being returned to its port of or igin. The Port Authorities of Liverpool have refused to handle it, although the Minister of the Environment declares that we have facilities for disposing of it safely. The argument is about danger, and morality. If it be dangerous, why should English ministers be happy to make this country the dumping ground of other nations’ toxic wastes? If it were really safe, why would the other nations want to ship it to us? Is taking in other people’s waste a fitting way for us to be earning our living among the nations? Other shipments are said to be on their way and other ports in England are rejecting them in advance. This political dilemma is typical of many. A lay person might well think that if the experts meet quietly and come up with a technical answer, either that it is safe, or that it is not safe, the disagreement would be speedily settled. Either the waste can be disposed of safely, or not. But, no; the problem involves low probabilities and high levels of uncertainty. The experts may be able to agree on the technical questions, but not on the issue of desirable margins of safety. On this issue of acceptability nothing decisive can be said by experts. Here lies the first major knot of muddles. The experts on risk do not want to talk politics lest they become defiled with political dirt, one way or the other. They see their professional interest in keeping clear of politics. You will find that the dominant psychological theory of r isk perception gives little clue about how to analyse political aspects of risk. Indeed, reading the texts on r isk it is often hard to believe that any political issues are involved. But while the risk experts keep their
hands clean, the public does not refrain from politicizing the subject.
