PERCEIVED RISK AND THE SITING OF A CONTROVERSIAL ...

culture, those judged to be “normal” are more acceptable than those that are judged to be
unusual. Those that are not acceptable are “blameworthy.” Blameworthy risks may
produce damages which can be mitigated and litigated in the legal arena. According to
Douglas and Wildavsky (1982), damages can also be assessed and recovered if the risks
and associated losses can be judged as unjust.
They compare the perceived risk associated with nuclear power plants to the risk
of dying from chicken pox. Although the risk of dying from a nuclear accident is much
lower than the risk of dying from chicken pox, one is judged to be normal, and therefore
more acceptable than the other, which is considered to be the result of technological
failure and therefore, not a normal death. A death resulting from a nuclear accident is
one in which blame and liability can be assigned. Unlike a death from a communicable
virus, society has taken the position that someone is responsible for technological
failures. There are others who reject technology because they believe the risks associated
with the technology are not identified correctly, the true risks are minimized, the benefits
of the technology are exaggerated, or the magnitude of the risks to individuals exceed
the potential communal benefits that may be acquired through the technology.
Trust is also associated with technology and risk perception. Commonly, society
assigns liability for harm resulting from technological failure in which there was a
breach of trust. Did the person harmed give their consent? Were the risks imposed on an
unknowing party by another person or agency that was considered trustworthy? Teuber
(1990) emphasized that “modern” social morality requires that people should not have
risks imposed on them without their consent. Obtaining the consent of people who are
15