Rank: Super forum user 
|
I know we are not supposed to cut & paste, but hope the moderators will indulge me just this once:
“The original ambition of Lord Robens was to have a proportionate, risk-based system of regulation. The Act, together with the concept of risk assessment introduced by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, has placed the control of risk at the core of the regulatory framework.
However, the approach to regulation has sometimes been made on the basis of intrinsic hazard (i.e. the potential to cause harm without any regard to its likelihood), and the adoption of the precautionary principle, rather than on the real possibility of harm.
Risk versus hazard
This review is founded on my belief that regulation should be risk-based rather than hazard-based and this has been my guiding principle.”
If only “interested parties” would embrace this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
walker wrote:
However, the approach to regulation has sometimes been made on the basis of intrinsic hazard (i.e. the potential to cause harm without any regard to its likelihood), and the adoption of the precautionary principle, rather than on the real possibility of harm.
Of course, that isn't quite right either! It is the approach to COMPLIANCE that is the issue, not the approach of the Regulations themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Quite right Ron.
I've had an ongoing 5 year "battle" with an External Auditor of a well known certifying organisation about his idea of adequate risk assessment.
I'm going to have the above Lofstedt words etched on a damn great wooden bat and beat him around the head with it. (I can dream can't I?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
And later in the report he makes this observation:
"Part of the problem could be due to the fact that there is confusion between the terms risk and hazard. In a detailed study by Peter Wiedemann and his colleagues for the German Federal Risk Assessment Bureau, more than 80 per cent of German respondents confused the term."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I believe that some Risk Management Models use a rating system of Impact x Likelihood + Impact to specifically to weight against likelihood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
At the risk of repeating myself, I find the RA process is not very accurate because it based on probability and very often the consequences are subjective and therefore difficult to ascertain. Yet, we are led to believe RAs are the Philosopher's Stone - "must do an RA for that"; wish I had a pound for every time that has been said or written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wish # I # had a quid for every RA that is made, and then not read or ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
redken wrote:And later in the report he makes this observation:
"Part of the problem could be due to the fact that there is confusion between the terms risk and hazard. In a detailed study by Peter Wiedemann and his colleagues for the German Federal Risk Assessment Bureau, more than 80 per cent of German respondents confused the term." I've just put both these words into a free translator. Apparently the german word for "hazard" is "gefahr", and the german word for "risk"is, err........."gefahr" I wonder what words the Germans really use?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
walker wrote:
I know we are not supposed to cut & paste, but hope the moderators will indulge me just this once:
“The original ambition of Lord Robens was to have a proportionate, risk-based system of regulation. The Act, together with the concept of risk assessment introduced by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, has placed the control of risk at the core of the regulatory framework.
However, the approach to regulation has sometimes been made on the basis of intrinsic hazard (i.e. the potential to cause harm without any regard to its likelihood), and the adoption of the precautionary principle, rather than on the real possibility of harm.
Risk versus hazard
This review is founded on my belief that regulation should be risk-based rather than hazard-based and this has been my guiding principle.”
If only “interested parties” would embrace this.
Ponder this. The relationship between hazard and risk must be treated very cautiously. If all other factors are equal -especially the exposures and the people subject to them then the risk is proportional to the hazard. However, all the factors are very rarely equal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.