Unfortunately much of our public policy today seems to be based on the belief that if we could only eliminate the last vestiges of hazardous materials and dangerous practices from our society then none of us would ever get sick or die. This must be regarded as nonsense until medical science finds a way to halt or reverse the natural aging process -- which might not be such a great idea.5
If I were exposed to radiation that virtually guaranteed that I would develop cancer within 200 years, but no sooner than 100 years, would I be wise to worry? What if it raised my chances of developing cancer within 20 years by 2%? My chances of developing cancer within 20 years are roughly 20% normally, now that we have eliminated most other mortal dangers except for heart disease. Most people would agree that I would be foolish to allow myself to be exposed to enough radiation to increase my chances of developing cancer within 10 years by 10% (unless we mean 10% of 10%, in which case it is a rather small increase - one must always ask for precise explanations of statistical statements!) and yet we all routinely choose to engage in activities that are as least as hazardous, such as downhill skiing or motorcycle riding. Why do we reserve such terror for one sort of hazard when we so stoically accept others of far greater risk? Which is the healthier attitude?