What are some reasons why a person might accept/ignore a risk (you do not need to know which reasons are “ignore” versus which reasons are “accept” – just know some of them in general)?  

Reasons to accept: if no alternative is available, if risk provides some benefit to those exposed, if risk is not imposed on them directly. 

Resons to ignore: Risk is too distal, ideology & values, technical detail or association tooo complicated to understand

What are the goals of communicating risk to the public versus to policy makers?  

An informed public leads to informed decision making in personal behaviors

while informed policy makers leads to informed decision-making in policies

the health conseuences that occur if an indivdiual increases their dosage of something (e.g. increased smoking-->lung cancer)

A dose-response graph that is a diagnol line from bottom to top: change is consistent throughout range of exposure levels

A dose-response graph (aka exposure-response graph) outlines the correlation of exposure to a diases with response to the disease.

A J-shaped dose-response graph illustrates that at low risk som eposure is prevalent, but once risk reaches a certain threshold exposure greatly increases.

Risk decreases with some exposure and then increases dramatically with increasing exposure.

What are the criteria for establishing causation 

1. Strenth of association

3. Specificity, "one cause=one disease"

    - ruling out confounders and common response aribles

4. Temporal sequence (x must precede y)