Will panicked reactions to the so-called “vaping lung illness” result in more premature deaths than the illness itself? Today at Slate, I explain how fear-driven responses to events like terrorism, nuclear disaster, and the current outbreak can lead to policies and behaviors that actually end up increasing risk:

In a paper from 2002, psychologists Paul Slovic and Elke Weber describe these sorts of reactions to frightening events as the “social amplification of risk.” They note that when an unexpected danger arises, “the adverse impacts … sometimes extend far beyond the direct damages to victims and property and may result in massive indirect impacts such as litigation against a company or loss of sales, increased regulation of an industry, and so on. … Thus, the event can be thought of as a stone dropped in a pond. The ripples spread outward, encompassing first the directly affected victims, then the responsible company or agency, and, in the extreme, reaching other companies, agencies, or industries.” Through this process of social amplification, relatively minor risks can result in disproportionate or mistargeted responses.

Read the rest here.

Also, while I was in DC last month I sat down with Trevor Burrus of the Free Thoughts podcast for a discussion of my new book, The Rediscovery of Tobacco. Listen here or read the transcript.