We see the stories in the newspaper nearly every day: a drug hailed as a breakthrough treatment turns out to cause harmful side effects; controls implemented to reduce air pollution are shown to generate hazardous solid waste; bans on dangerous chemicals result in the introduction of even more risky substitutes. Could our efforts to protect our health and the environment actually be making things worse? This suspicion has long troubled both advocates and critics of risk-reduction efforts, but the problem has never received focused scrutiny. In Risk vs. Risk, John D. Graham, Jonathan Baert Wiener, and their colleagues at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis marshal an impressive set of case studies which demonstrate that all too often our nation's campaign to reduce risks to our health and the environment is at war with itself, steadily creating new risks. At the heart of this volume is a set of nine case studies illustrating the complexities of risk tradeoffs, ranging from personal medical choices to control of toxic substances to prevention of global crises. In each case, authors with specific expertise in the field dissect the multidimensional risk consequences of choices facing decision makers. Some of these cases reveal utter folly in risk-reduction efforts; others show decision makers recognizing and dealing with risk tradeoffs.