I think the argument is that so much of safety and risk is about whether a risk is acceptable or not. If you work in a foundry you may run a very real risk of b

I think the argument is that so much of safety and risk is about whether a risk is acceptable or not. If you work in a foundry you may run a very real risk of being burned by hot metal. But the question is whether a pedestrian simply walking past the foundry should bear the same risk should there be an incident. What makes a risk "acceptable," in other words? And it strikes me that much of that depends on the individual experiencing the hazard, the nature of the hazard itself, as well as the risk of an incident involving the hazard.