Modern society increasingly depends on government regulation to manage risks. Until recently, evaluation of risks of technology was primarily considered a technical problem. However, public controversy has politicized the issue of risk, raising questions about the role of experts. This paper briefly explores the nature of technical risks of aircraft, nuclear energy and medicines. It is contended that in the case of aircraft intensive regulation has led to a measurable improvement of its safety record. The constant call for more regulation in the areas of medicines and nuclear energy on the other hand seems more the result of public controversy, since the actual effect of regulatory measures on safety is too difficult to show. This stresses the important role of the media, a theme, which is elaborated by reviewing a number of cases. The general conclusion is concerned with the notion that public pressure is the only rationale which makes regulators step in. Regulatory decision-making about risk, then, is more anecdotal than systematic, because public controversy is unpredictable. As a consequence regulators can no longer seek to minimize harm, but must now move towards the aim of minimizing perceived harm. Finally, in the light of this assumption, some thought is given to costs and benefits of medicines and nuclear energy. It is appropriate to make a strong case for medicines in this context, for, as opposed to nuclear energy, alternatives are usually not available.