The above question is under Risk Management study
121299
Because the Executives in Charge feel that Risk Management is costly and non productive.  Many large Organizations, will cut out functions that they consider non-productive like Quality Control, Internal Audit etc.  The truth is that Executives do not know how to Manage those functions, so they would rather not have them.
484522
Sorry.  Your question is not clear.
201635
If the side affect was listed, you take it at your own risk\n\nIf it caused cancer, and be proven to be linked.\nthen I would say yes
119424
owning stock would be my guess
76698
Reported to abuse: You've previously asked this question.
70599
I have wondered that as well.. i would be quite careful.
638039
according to the statistics, BRAZIL should be given the responsibility of the bet risks .........to take chances you may also consider CZECH!!!!!!
479164
In a fore gone era, people could work at one company and retire with a comfortable retirement fund. Are the retirement plans of today as assured as those in the past? I will compare the old with the new and talk about how Cash Balance Plans improve retirement security for todays workers.
184140
Could be risky.  You had better ask your doctor to be sure.
103660
In what field of study?  More information is necessary in order to answer this question.
54727
There's no "better" or "worse"; just varying levels of risk.  Put what you can afford to lose in higher risk accounts, because...it IS higher risk, and it's possible (although not likely) that you could lose all of it.
394515
"It will never happen to me", \n\nMoney is required for basic needs and may not be available to purchase insurance.\n\nDon't understand the second part of your Q. High value doesn't equal low value.
54172
Its just business and such things happen in open markets. If two companies become one it should not be seen as a threat to human resources. What do you think of current issue of Mittal Steel and Arcelor.
406291
Your answer may lie in the link below.
89556
What you're working with here is trying to decide an acceptable risk. The complicating factor is that this scenario involves the government deciding what will be an unacceptable risk for all of the governed...\n\nFor instance, driving a car is associated with a certain risk of injury and death.  Driving it intoxicated greatly increases that risk.  As a society, we have declared that driving intoxicated (in many states, that includes more than just booze, by the way) has been declared an unacceptable risk; driving, however, has not been declared as generating an unacceptable risk.\n\nAs an aside, if you use reconstituted, dehydrated lemonade, it is highly probable that there is rat excement in it anyhow--and you're just not aware of it.  Pre-prepared foods, canned foods, etc. have all sorts of detritus in them that, if you knew about it and thought about it as you ate it, would absolutely ruin the pleasure of eating it.  If, however, you don't know about it, you don't care: it's only if you are aware that it matters.\n\nBy the way, hydrogen oxide is a harmful substance in large enough amounts...  It can kill; I've actually seen sufficiently large ingestions of it cause seizures, and in other cases cause mental changes; and it is also safe in smaller amounts.  Wiley's assumption is demonstrably wrong with hydrogen oxide--better known, by the way, as water...\n\nYou have to realize that the natural environment produces toxins and carcinogens.  The peel of the humble radish, for instance (which I have been known to consume in quite immoderate amounts) has been shown to contain three carcinogens.  (You can sell RADISHES, but if you peel the radish and try to sell the PEELS, you're in deep dutch. It's modified, and covered under the Delaney Amendment.)  I've lost count of the number of polycyclic carcinogens that have been identified in the surface of grilled foods.  The list is obnoxiously long.  The trouble is that the research often assumes that the dose-response function is roughly linear, that there is no thresh-hold effect.  Given the remarkable ability of the human body to chemically modify things that are ingested, there is reason to question the validity of the no-threshhold assumption, based on serious science.\n\nThe rat urine thing, by the way, is cute--but it is an appeal to emotion, not reason.  Public policy should be based on reason and science, as much as possible, not on clever appeals to emotion, at least in my opinion.
6706
Depending on which industry you are in, legal and regulatory risks can have a major impact on your success or failure.  For example, with identity theft cases increasing, states are enacting new laws that force businesses to dislose information security breaches that affect customers' personal information, or else face stiff penalties.  With more companies becoming "information-based", I think this is a risk that most businesses need to understand.
385640
I think the answer would be 1), though it is a stupid question. The right way to frame the question would be around a confidence interval.