Risk Analysis Teaching and Learning Website
Should We Risk It? Update
![]() |
Since the paperback edition of Should We Risk It? came out, we have found a limited number of fairly trivial errata, which are listed below. In addition, through use we have discovered some better ways to teach the information. Eventually these should find their way into a second edition of Should We Risk It. But not until Hassenzahl has completed his current effort: a companion book for teaching risk analysis issues. (See the philosophy and syllabus pages for more information). | ![]() |
Teaching from Should We Risk It?
When I began teaching from Should We Risk It, I strayed from the format...and now I am back to going through the book in a fairly linear fashion. I take a more structured approach to teaching uncertainty (see the lectures page for my current approach). More importantly, I have realized that chapters 1, 9 and 10 don't even begin to suffice to help technically oriented students understand the social side of risk decision making. So I now have two graduate classes: one on methods, for which SWRI is the main text, and one on decision-making, for which I assign Ragnar Lofstedt's edited volume The Earthscan Reader in Risk and Modern Society and Krimsy and Golding's Social Theories of Risk. I am currently working on a separate book that will fill this purpose (probably in addition to one or both of the above).
I make my lecture notes available as Adobe Acrobat files. This is because, as lecture notes, they are informal, contain information irrelevant to anyone outside my class, omit information that my brain fills in, and make no attempt at complete references. However, I post them in the hopes that they might serve as useful guidelines.
We have found a limited number of errata in the paperback, and include as well some tips for teaching from the book.
| Chapter | page | Type | Note |
| One | None | ||
| Two | 32 | Erratum | Table 2-1 data are based on mice, not rats |
| 59 | Note | Some students suggest that equation 10 would be clearer if we were to use t(n) and t(n+1) rather than t(0) and t(1) | |
| Three | 86 | Typo | Half way down the page: 8.2, not 8.1 |
| 95 | Typo | calculated s is 0.926, not 0.96 | |
| 112 | Note | Calculation for R-squared is only valid if certain conditions are met. More useful to use a correlation coefficient, which can be tested with a student's T test. See handout. | |
| Four | None | ||
| Five | Note | See repatriate page for teaching toxicology for cancer endpoints | |
| Six | 207 to 211 | Note | We implicitly make the somewhat problematic assumption that there is one person per household. An excellent supplemental problem would be to make some assumptions about number of people per household, and propose some possible correlations by household (i.e. what if there were 3 people per household, and in all cases there were either 0 or 2 cholera deaths per household). This could also probably make an interesting Monte Carlo question |
| Seven | None | ||
| Eight | None | ||
| Nine | None | ||
| Ten | None |
The Hardback edition is now out of print. It contained numerous errata, most of which were eradicated in the paperback and Japanese language editions. If you have a hardback edition, please download the list.
|
Contact me
(David M. Hassenzahl, Ph.D.)
|
|
david.hassenzahl@ccmail.nevada.edu Department of Environmental
Studies University of Nevada, Las
Vegas |
|
Modified March
15, 2002 dmh
|