When talking about risk one commonly associates it with volatility and even makes somehow the two equivalent. Whatever measure of volatility is used, it is not my subject here, what I want to say is that risk is not equivalent to volatility. In quality statistical control one says that a system is in the state of control when volatility is stable that means it doesn't present any risk. It is the uninstability part that constitutes the risk. But even that part can only be due to ignorance. For example I already mentioned the example of Uncertainty Heisenberg Principle that everybody learned at college level, and unhappily teachers make you believe that it is a fundamental uncertainty that really exists whereas it can just be an antropomorphic point of view that is to say it is subjective and a limitation of our actual knowledge - there is even a school called the bayasian school which asserts that in general for all probability. As for stock market, since I have a model the uncertainty part is due mainly to the officials that maintain an orthodox postulate that market is unpredictable because if not so they couldn't sell their supposed anti-risk products at their highest prices hee hee ! This is inflation provoked by the financial "industries" which is rather retarded compared to real industries and that inflation consumes the money of the real world economy. We aliment this beast in fear of a fictitious risk in detriment of real economy and some industrial firms have actually just blowed off with these supposed anti-risk produts or lost money because they tried to edge for example against the dollar rise thinking there was a risk whereas it was fictitious. These products are more dynamites than real assurance against risk . Moreover the whole real industries have been substituing real products margin with financial margin and that at term is very risky for the world economy.