There are two conceivable legitimate purposes for risk comparisons. Readers who
consult the risk communication literature will find that serving either purpose requires
both formal analysis to ensure that defensible comparisons are being made and dedicated
empirical research to ensure that the result is understood as intended. Readers of that
literature will also find that poorly done risk comparisons can confuse, mislead, and
antagonize recipients. Unless done in a scientifically sound way, risk comparisons are
unlikely to be useful and relevant and hence should be avoided.