"Is it safe?" We silently ask this question as we go about life within the envelope of possible harm that surrounds chemical processing plants, gas pipelines, tanker rail cars, fertilizer storage facilities, etc. We understand that nothing is perfectly safe. So, a more appropriate question is, "Is it safe enough?"
The judgment "safe enough" depends very much on who does the judging. Shareholders in an 50 year old power plant generating green electricity will see safety through a different lens than people living near an aging nuclear reactor. Ultimately, government provides a legal interpretation of what is and is not "safe enough" by codifying acceptable risk in the form of regulations. In particular, regulations that require businesses operating hazardous technologies to deploy well-engineered protective systems to protect people from industrial accidents. The level of protection provided by these systems always exceed what private enterprise would otherwise chose to pay for ... else, there would be no need to regulate them. In other words, government regulations force private enterprises to incur profit-reducing expenses in order to protect the interests of parties having no substantial claim to enterprise profits.
Regulations are a consequence of legislative action.
So, in the real world, "safe enough" is determined through the political process. We elect the legislators who create and authorize regulatory agencies; we elect the executives (president, governors, mayors) that manage regulatory agencies; the politicians we elect decide become the judges responsible for adjudicating legal disputes concerning safety and harm. It is admittedly unsettling that politicians hold responsibility for the efficacy of critical protections, but there can be no doubt that the struggle to control the balance between investor profits and public safety plays out in political campaigns. With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, it is small wonder that hazardous enterprises invest big bucks on "deregulation politics" and even bigger bucks on marketing a "safe enough to deregulate" narrative to potential voters.
In politics, "votes" are the coin of the realm.
Convincing individual voters (not just campaign contributors) that their best interests will be served is job-one for any politician. It is well-understood that successful politicians are master-managers of asymmetric information. Asymmetric information is an exceptionally valuable resource to enterprises seeking to reduce the cost of regulatory compliance. Convincing voters that they are "safe enough" is much easier when the public does not have access to information that might reveal otherwise. It is important to appreciate that information asymmetry is a natural consequence of business activity. Individual voters rarely possess the technical skills needed to fully understand technologies ... either hazardous production or the protections overlaying them. Regulatory agencies typically have in-house technology experts and thus rarely exposed to information asymmetry. While regulators serve as proxy for the public when it comes to understanding potentially harmful technologies, they are not responsible for educating the public. This leaves open the opportunity for business to shape the safety narrative available to the public by investing in marketing campaigns, think tank analyses, professional association lobbyists, and political campaigns ... all of which press the advantage of asymmetric information.
Should you really care about deregulation of safety-critical enterprises? There is a good change that you live, work, or travel within the envelope of possible harm of some hazardous technology. This makes you are an involuntary stakeholder in the business operating that hazard. That is, some one else is deciding how much risk to take in search of profits (that you don't share in), but you will have to pay if their risky decisions cause an industrial accident. Without adequate safety systems overlaying hazardous technologies, involuntary stakeholders are forced to seek post-accident court remedies to compensate for harm caused by an industrial accident. But in the courts, businesses are protected by favorable tort and bankruptcy laws. Everyone understands that court remedies never recover the real total losses of the plaintiffs.
Industrial accidents are always a consequence of inadequate prior protections. Only sound regulatory oversight can provide involuntary stakeholders with prior protection from harm. So, when politicians support deregulation of businesses operating hazardous technologies, you should be concerned about how much uncompensated risk is being passed to you for benefit enterprise profit claimants. You should remember that prior protections favor involuntary stakeholders, while court remedies favor business shareholders. But, most importantly you must appreciate that neither businesses nor the politicians they support have any incentive to level the information playing field.
Responsibility for overcoming information asymmetry is left to the voter.
Unfortunately, individual voters and voter organizations have difficulty accessing technology and safety experts who might work with them to level the information playing field. Nonetheless, there are resources available to help voters understand the public risk by imposed by hazardous technologies. Understanding the risks imposed by neighboring hazardous technologies should not be shrouded by impenetrable jargon and analytics.