From the inbox comes a verbal thrashing which has caused me to:
- edit the original post
- become more circumspect
- stand behind my previous conclusions
Dear Professor Whitehead,
I was just searching on the web and came across your use of Greenpeace's statement on your website Environmental Economics.
You quoted a Greenpeace web page:
The nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have always maintained that the probability of an accident was low. Even if we were to take the nuclear industry or the NRC at its word, the risk of a meltdown would still be great because the consequences of such an event are potentially so devastating.
And then you wrote:
"Doh! Wrong guys: The risk of a meltdown is independent of the devastating consequences."
Sorry Professor but you're mistaken; you're mixing up probability with risk. The probability of a meltdown is independent of the consequences but not the risk. The academic literature on risk uses the following formula:
Risk = Probability X Consequence.
If you'd read the report rather than merely clipping the web page you'd have found a well cited discussion of the topic. I don't expect you'll change your site. But I would hope that in the future you'll be more circumspect and refrain from merely using the information we provide as a rhetorical straw man.
Sincerely,
Jim Riccio
Nuclear Policy Analyst
Greenpeace
For the record, I misuse the term risk all the time. It used to be embarrassing but no longer. I've developed a high tolerance for that sort of embarrassment. In the original post I use "expected loss" where I should have used the term risk. My bad. It would be cooler to call it risk but I never think of it that way. I always revert to the everyday usage of the term. I think the argument of the post stands even after the offending remark (quoted above) is removed.
Please note that a blog is a conversation. As such, mistakes are made. Cutesy comments are sometimes mis-stated, etc. I'm happy to run that risk (= probability of error X damage to my reputation) in exchange for the pure joy of uninhibited writing of short, saucy comments on pieces in the regular media and websites (and sometimes an abstract of a journal article or an executive summary of a technical report). I'm happy to admit my mistakes and retract whenever the need arises.
