On the allegations that small risks are treated out of proportion to their importance

Many authors argue that we suffer from a lack of ability to treat small risks; we either ignore them completely or give them too much emphasis. An example often referred to is terrorism risk, the reference being the number of fatalities observed due to terror compared to for example deaths in traffic accidents. The thesis is that the risk is over-estimated. However, these assertions, that the risks are over-estimated and we give them too much emphasis - they are treated out of proportion to their importance - cannot be justified in any scientifically meaningful way when there are large uncertainties about the consequences of the activity considered. Over-estimation is a value judgment, as is the phrase “far too much emphasis”. In the paper the author argues that the statements represent some serious misconceptions about risk. The purpose of the present paper is to point to these misconceptions and provide some guidance on how they can be rectified.