I was correcting a question on another SE site and found the following sentence, which immediately stroke me as odd:
There's no risk to use falda in singular, even if there are more than one person involved.
My correction was as follows1:
There's no risk in using falda in singular, even if there is more than one person involved.
But then I started thinking it over and wasn't so sure about my correction anymore, so I looked up several alternatives and found the following patterns:
With Birch in command, there's no risk of compromise, mercy or compassion. [Collins]
There's no risk of Ebola spreading in Europe. [The Local]
Australia: Heath Minister says there is “no risk in vaccinating children” [Before It's News]
RFU says there is 'no risk' in giving head coach Stuart Lancaster a new six-year contract through to 2020. [The Telegraph]
For example, the French Penal Code sets out a duty to rescue where there is no risk to an individual, in Section 63. [Wikipedia]
Europe's regulators have confirmed that there is no risk to consumers from BPA-based food contact materials. [Bisphenol A]
So this is what I gather:
- No risk of X: there's no risk X will happen
- No risk in X: X doesn't entail any risk
- No risk to X: there's no risk X will be damaged
Am I correct? Are there any other prepositions I can use after "there's no risk", or any situations where the expressions above mean something different?
1: FWIW, what the OP meant was that it is safe to use falda (skirt) in singular even when the speaker is talking about more than one person wearing a skirt because context generally disambiguates.