Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
amungar  
#1 Posted : 09 August 2019 17:32:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Hello colleagues:

I have doubts about the standard formula that assesses risk, which is even established in several laws as the only legal formula. My analysis is as follows and I await your opinion.

It is surprising that no current risk theory deduces the direct causes of risk. The universal standard formula risk = probability of accident × severity of its consequences does not define the direct causes of risk, but statistically assesses the risk in a high set of homogeneous jobs through its proven harmful effects. In other words, this formula values ​​the risk a posteriori, precisely when it has ceased to exist because it has become an accident. This formula could only be interpreted as a priori assessment of the risk in a given job if it is written as follows: risk = possibility of accident × amount of damage estimated in the specific case. It is necessary to eliminate the concept of accident probability in a given job because mathematics tells us that its value is constant ½, since there is only one favorable case (true accident) and two possible cases (true accident and false accident). It could be objected that this constant value of probability is not correct, because experience tells us that the presence of danger increases the probability of an accident. It is true, but then it is necessary to replace in the formula the concept of probability with the concept of danger. But this substitution causes an inconsistency because the concepts of danger and risk are similar. In addition, it is a seriously incomplete formula because it ignores the pathology, which we know is the second possible harmful effect of the risk. This analysis will baffle all the people convinced that this formula is correct, especially since it is the way in which the law obliges everyone to assess the risk (opinion of the top experts).

boblewis  
#2 Posted : 09 August 2019 21:11:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Some provocative ideas hear but you have not yet linked in the concept that each job has a range of risks which all need to be included and then set aside as the control measures are deemed sufficient to have reduced that particular risk to am acceptable level.risk assessment is an art as much as a science.  Only mechanical components can really achieve the mathematical certainty you seem to seek.  Good starting effort.

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 09 August 2019 21:23:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

mathematical certainty relies upon physics which relies upon "fudge factors" a.k.a. constants those numerical factors whose absence prevent an equation from working

amungar  
#4 Posted : 10 August 2019 08:05:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Thanks boblewis and Rondtuit for giving me your opinion. You're right in everything you say, but that's not the debate. The debate is the standard formula for assessing risk, which I think is inadequate because: a) it does not define the direct causes of risk in a specific case, with respect to a certain harmful agent (the evaluation must be repeated for each present harmful agent); b) does not assess the risk in a given job, but rather assesses the "statistical hope of damage" (product of the probability of the accident event by the amount of damage resulting) in a job chosen at random in a high set of similar jobs (with respect to a certain harmful agent, excluding others); c) does not assess the risk of pathology (with respect to a certain harmful agent, excluding others); d) Finally, this formula has no credibility because it has not been deduced from a current theory of risk generally accepted by the international community, but has been invented by some person, without any scientific basis. It is not, therefore, a scientific formula but a mere more or less ingenious recipe. 

What is your opinion?. Thanks in advance for your response. A greeting

RayRapp  
#5 Posted : 10 August 2019 11:16:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Always interested in new ideas, notwithstanding theory and practice are not good bedfellows. Looking at the risk equation it infers a singularity, whereas in reality an event occurs multiple times and therefore frequency is part of the risk equation. Whether there is a better definition of risk I could not say, but the multi-causal factors of adverse events including human failure dictates there is an element of unpredictability. Even if adverse adverts were predictable, the outcome would still be unpredictable due to a number of variables e.g. good or bad fortune. 

peter gotch  
#6 Posted : 10 August 2019 11:41:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Amungar

There are numerous "recommended" approaches, but in practice, the assessor should usually be well advised not to assume that the outcome (which we are trying to avoid) is the "worst case" which is often at least one death.

Statistics (e.g. collated in Great Britain by the Health and Safety Executive) indicate that for every person they know has e.g. fallen 5 metres, very few will die. Some will get broken bones, others other injuries.

....and the HSE only gets to hear about a fraction of the incidents involving people fall such distance, either because the incident does not result in a reportable event, or because reportable events such as "Specified Injury" or "over 7 day" accidents are massively under-reported.

Selecting the "worst case" when doing assessments using the method of calculation you have quoted will often result in scarce resources being diverted from where they are best applied.

But, as Ray has pointed out there are many other methods of doing risk assessment, some qualitative, some quantitative and some semi-quantitative. Sometimes past experience can help to inform these assessments, but ever more often we are dealing with new or changed circumstances where past history provides less assistance. So we then have to make judgements e.g. based on comparable scenarios or sometimes by applying e.g. the "precautionary approach" (which in itself may also draw on "comparable" scenarios - e.g. considering asbestos when assessing the risks from man-made mineral fibres of similar physical properties).

As Ray also says, sometimes translating theory into practice poses issues! 

amungar  
#7 Posted : 10 August 2019 17:03:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Pity. I strictly expected opinions on some considerations about alleged defects of the generally accepted formula for assessing occupational risk in general (for all cases without exception). But all the answers I have received are opinions about the difficulties that exist in assessing occupational risk, which has some peculiarities such as the uncertainty of the accident event. We all know this and my query has not raised these difficulties, but exclusively the variables that are used in that formula that traditionally values ​​occupational risk. Variables that do not contemplate "direct causes of risk" (which is what we are interested in knowing) but "direct effects of risk" (which we all know). Greetings.
amungar  
#8 Posted : 11 August 2019 07:53:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

I repeat the previous text because everything appears on the same line, being uncomfortable to read.

Pity. I strictly expected opinions on some considerations about alleged defects of the generally accepted formula for assessing occupational risk in general (for all cases without exception). But all the answers I have received are opinions about the difficulties that exist in assessing occupational risk, which has some peculiarities such as the uncertainty of the accident event. We all know this and my query has not raised these difficulties, but exclusively the variables that are used in that formula that traditionally values ​​occupational risk. Variables that do not contemplate "direct causes of risk" (which is what we are interested in knowing) but "direct effects of risk" (which we all know). Greetings

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 11 August 2019 11:03:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Amungar

Now you are getting puzzling as I am not sure what you are proposing. Perhaps we don't understand the point you are trying to make.

It is widely postulated that there are direct causes and indirect (or "underlying" and ultimately "root") causes of circumstances that pose risk to whatever the target (worker who may be at risk of injury or ill health), public, the environment, the bank balance or whatever.

We know that if you use a circular saw to cut timber that you are likely to sustain injury if your finger comes into contact with the rotating blade. So the rotating blade is a direct cause of potential injury. Do you agree?

We can enclose the blade in a guard and feed "squared stock" timber through a letter box that keeps your finger away from the blade.

But if you decide to cut a tree trunk, the box would have to be very large and the letter box possibly of such dimensions that your whole body, or at least your arm, might be able to go through the letter box and your finger might come into contact with the rotating blade.

Or, you might decide that you cannot keep adequate control of the tree trunk and do away with the box and try to find some other way of preventing your finger touching the blade. That's a cause for not having the box and a cause of the risk that your finger might contact the thing that is dangerous. Agreed?

You might decide that cutting this tree trunk in the UK is too dangerous and outsource the operation to a developing nation with less stringent legislation (or legislation that is less likely to be enforced either in the criminal courts or in civil litigation, or where any penalty will be financially lower). Doesn't remove the risk, just changes the target from a worker in the UK to someone elsewhere. So outsourcing is a cause. Agreed?

Going back to a smaller piece of wood, you might want to shape it, so you might need your hand closer to the blade than the box would enable, so you select an adjustable top guard, a riving knife and a push stick with rules as to how these are to be adjusted and used. But there might be a range of reasons why these rules are not implemented in full. That could mean that worker behaviour is a cause. Agreed?

But the worker's behaviour might be influenced by the environment in which they work. So culture or management actions might be a cause. Agreed?

So all these causes could be considered in whatever risk assessment methodology you use. 

What are you proposing as an alternative?

Edited by user 11 August 2019 11:05:29(UTC)  | Reason: Used wrong word in one sentence!

thanks 3 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
forestgate2016 on 11/08/2019(UTC), CptBeaky on 12/08/2019(UTC), jdc1975@hotmail.co.uk on 15/08/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#10 Posted : 11 August 2019 11:28:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I think the point is ...can you answer my assignment question please...  :)

thanks 3 users thanked stevedm for this useful post.
webstar on 12/08/2019(UTC), CptBeaky on 12/08/2019(UTC), stuie on 17/08/2019(UTC)
forestgate2016  
#11 Posted : 11 August 2019 12:22:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
forestgate2016

So the issue you have is with the risk rating and risk assessment matrix? If that's the case you'd have to be more specific. The RAM is not carved on stone but is rather flexible hence the different sizes of the matrix...4X4, 5X5 etc. From the line of questioning you'd want to know why 'nearmisses (50% chance of an incident occuring ) are not captured on the matrix...well you can theoretically use percentages if you so desire to capture.

Edited by user 11 August 2019 13:40:46(UTC)  | Reason: Mobile phone

amungar  
#12 Posted : 11 August 2019 21:46:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Thank you Peter Gotch for your kindness in answering my concerns so extensively.

You'll be right that I haven't explained myself well. For that reason I received answers that I did not expect from my question. Perhaps the reason is because my question is formulated in an abstract way, because it does not ask for an answer to solve a practical problem, but to solve a theoretical problem. And the people who go to these forums generally do so to ask for help to solve a practical problem in the exercise of their profession. For this reason the answers tend to give concrete examples, when what I request is an imaginary dialogue with a person interested in occupational hazards. The comments of my imaginary interlocutor are the kind of answers I expect. I think that will explain me better.

amungar: John, I have doubts about the effectiveness of the traditional formula for assessing occupational hazards in a given job: "risk = probability of (certain) accident x severity of its consequences". The reason is because the mathematical concept "probability" is applicable to a set of homogeneous events, where we want to know what the frequency of a given event is. Consequently, this formula is inapplicable to a given job because the frequency of the “accident” event is the constant ½, the result of the ratio between the favorable case “accident” and the two possible cases “true accident and false accident”. What do you think?

John: amungar, I think that for a given job the probability of accident should not be interpreted in a mathematical sense, but rather subjective, because the purpose is to estimate the ease of accident occurrence by applying intuition.

amungar: I understand you very well John, but then this formula should use the expression "accident facility" or, better yet, the expression "possibility of accident". But experience tells us that the magnitude of the possibility of an accident depends on the danger. In this case, if we substitute the imprecise concept “possibility of an accident” with the more precise concept “danger”, an inconsistency appears, because risk and danger are similar concepts, which now is not the case to go into detail to distinguish them. What do you think?

John: amungar, you have put me in a hurry because what you say is reasonable. I realize that the concept “danger” that, with very good criteria you have introduced, implicitly indicates that it would be necessary to replace the concepts “accident probability”, “possibility of accident” and “danger” by the concept of “insecurity in the work” because, at the end of the case, the presence of insecurity is the cause that facilitates the accident. Naturally, I do not mean any insecurity, but rather a certain insecurity that facilitates the occurrence of a certain accident.

amungar: John, I see that you have perfectly understood my doubt about that famous formula and, even, you have gone further because you have been able to understand the root of the problem. I agree with you that it would be convenient to replace the concept “probability of (certain) accident” with the concept “insecurity that facilitates the occurrence of a certain accident”. Congratulations!

What is your opinion of this imaginary conversation? 

NOTE: I apologize if there is any inconsistency in the text because it is an English translation using the Google translator.

forestgate2016  
#13 Posted : 12 August 2019 05:28:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
forestgate2016

Amungar at this point I'd advise you look up ISO 12100 (2010). It throws more light on the 'standard risk assessment matrix'' which is itself based on ISO/IEC Guide51 2005. ISO 12100 holds that the probability of occurrence of harm is itself made up of a number of parameters such as the frequency and duration of exposure, the probability of occurrence of a hazardous event as well as the possibility of avoiding or limiting the harm that results. Go through the standard come tell us if it helps.
biker1  
#14 Posted : 12 August 2019 08:31:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

Thanks boblewis and Rondtuit for giving me your opinion. You're right in everything you say, but that's not the debate. The debate is the standard formula for assessing risk, which I think is inadequate because: a) it does not define the direct causes of risk in a specific case, with respect to a certain harmful agent (the evaluation must be repeated for each present harmful agent); b) does not assess the risk in a given job, but rather assesses the "statistical hope of damage" (product of the probability of the accident event by the amount of damage resulting) in a job chosen at random in a high set of similar jobs (with respect to a certain harmful agent, excluding others); c) does not assess the risk of pathology (with respect to a certain harmful agent, excluding others); d) Finally, this formula has no credibility because it has not been deduced from a current theory of risk generally accepted by the international community, but has been invented by some person, without any scientific basis. It is not, therefore, a scientific formula but a mere more or less ingenious recipe. 

What is your opinion?. Thanks in advance for your response. A greeting

Are you an astrophysicist, by any chance?

If you have not defined the cause of the risk, you have neglected the earlier step in the assessment process, put simply as 'who can be harmed, and how'. You need to consider the job, then the hazards and their causes, before tackling the calculation of severity and likelihood. The assessment needs to be tied in to a particular job, otherwise there could be no point in doing it. The 'risk of pathology' I'm not sure I understand. Contrary to what you say, I think you will find that the standard methodology is accepted internationally; an international standard is indeed quoted later in this thread.

MrBrightside  
#15 Posted : 12 August 2019 08:45:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MrBrightside

Always enjoy a good debate about risk assessments (Safety for life). Technically in the UK there is no legal way to calculate risk for general risk assessments, in fact you could just use Low, Medium or High or nothing at all. You could just lists the hazards, who would be at risk and what we are doing about it.

I do think that people get more hung up on the working out the risk rating more than the controls. I have never seen a prosecution for someone getting the risk ratings wrong or even having these mentioned by the HSE when looking over risk assessments (personal experience on that one).

thanks 1 user thanked MrBrightside for this useful post.
webstar on 12/08/2019(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#16 Posted : 12 August 2019 08:53:54(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

I am going to be the person that says it.

Amungar the reason that you are not getting the responses that you expect is that you have phrased your question in such a long winded, complicated way that many of us are struggling to even understand what the questions is.

If what you are suggesting cannot be conveyed in simple language then how can you expect the general H&S advisor (or whatever their title is this week) to implement what you are suggesting? The risk matrix may not be without flaws, but it is a simple and very useful tool in helping people understand the concept of risk. It also is a very useful way of getting the lay person to look at hazards. Reducing a number is as straightforward as it gets when you want someone to understand a task is now "safer".

We can all agree that the risk matrix is not, in any way, a scientific formula. It is completely subjective what numbers go in. This is why most professionals don't even use the matrix anymore in doing their risk assessments. However to scrap it for something that you couldn't teach someone lacking in an understanding of higher level maths helps nobody. In fact it would just make H&S look even more elitist than it already does.

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
webstar on 12/08/2019(UTC), JL on 13/08/2019(UTC)
andybz  
#17 Posted : 12 August 2019 09:00:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
andybz

amungar

I think you have misinterpreted the purpose of risk assessment. There has never been a formula because it is not a mathematical method. The probability x consequence is a useful way of highlighting two of the main issues to consider when deciding how to deal with a situation. It cannot be mathematical because the consequence element is a collection of many different types of outcome with no meaningful continuum. For example, the number of fatalities may be seen as a numerical outcome (1) but we would not give a numerical value for a non-fatal outcome (i.e. losing a limb is not equivalent to 0.75 fatalities).

Also, I do not understand your view on probability. I understand that you could say there are two outcomes, accident and non-accident, but that does not mean the probablity of each is 0.5. If I have a 6 sided dice with unique numbers I have 6 possible outcomes and each has equal probability. But if one side is the number 1 and the other sides are the number 6 the probability of the outcomes if completely different but makes perfect sense.

OK, there are many issues with risk assessment but until someone comes up with something better it will remain a very useful tool at our disposal.

thanks 2 users thanked andybz for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 12/08/2019(UTC), webstar on 12/08/2019(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#18 Posted : 12 August 2019 09:28:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Let’s get back to the real world. There is (at least in the UK) no legal requirement to use the formal Risk = severity x likelihood. The HSE do not expect anybody to use this formula and at times HSE inspectors are quite hostile to it, is as people spend too much time looking at the risk assessment process rather than focusing on the important task of reducing the risk SFARP by the application of controls. Furthermore I think calling this a formula is a bit (ok very) ingenuous.  The numbers are not measurable values. For most people, most of the time, the severity and the likelihood are just picked out of the ether. Once you have numbers, it creates of false of security.

thanks 3 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 12/08/2019(UTC), webstar on 12/08/2019(UTC), JL on 13/08/2019(UTC)
hilary  
#19 Posted : 12 August 2019 10:39:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

I concur with my fellow H&S bods, you cannot measure risk in mathematic terms.  Quite apart from the absurdity of trying to do so, there will always be the "X" factor, that unknown quantity that varies from person to person depending on their soft skills such as attitude, perceptions, needs, motivation.  That's why the question of "who might be harmed and how" is in there.  Not just because those people are in the area or doing the task but because those people who are in the area may be very stupid, foolhardy, overenthusiastic, gung-ho or whatever.

Therefore, the answer to the original question is "no, no one can help you because the formula and methodology are fatally flawed."

thanks 3 users thanked hilary for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 12/08/2019(UTC), webstar on 12/08/2019(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 13/08/2019(UTC)
amungar  
#20 Posted : 12 August 2019 10:45:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Hello to all the people who have been kind enough to give me their opinion on this thorny issue. I have followed the advice of "forestgate2016" and I have been overwhelmed by the amount of information available about the occupational risk assessment in ISO 12100 and in all the methods that are applied in the USA and in European countries. Of all that I have read (without deepening because it would take a long time to answer you), what has most caught my attention in the ISO 12100 norm considering that the “danger is a cause of risk”, because there are numerous schemes that put the danger first (exactly it says "detect sources of danger") to the risk estimate and then the risk assessment process. I have always believed that there is danger when, in the presence of risk, the probability of an accident is high, which prevents us from considering that the danger is a cause of risk. Another thing that has drawn my attention to the ISO 12100 standard is that it assesses the likelihood of an accident based on the frequency and duration of exposure (I suppose to the risk), completely ignoring insecurity in the workplace (as I mentioned in my previous analysis). The risk assessment in this standard does not contemplate at all the insecurity in the performance of a certain task. This baffles me, because if there is no insecurity the risk is zero. And experience tells us that the greater the insecurity, greater is the possibility of an accident. In other words, the probability of an accident depends on the previous existence of the possibility of an accident

I believe that we all realize that occupational risk is not yet a science but an art, where the best espert is the one who knows more and better safety measures to solve a specific problem. This reminds me of the way the ancient Egyptians worked to build. To project a right triangle they used a rope with equal spaces separated by three, four and five knots (the occupational risk considered as a recipe book to build safety measures). On the other hand, the ancient Greeks do not use recipes but science, specifically Pythagoras' theorem, with which they could build any right triangle (occupational risk considered as science, developing a theory endorsed by I'm afraid we will all have to wait for this new theory. In the same way that there is only one correct explanation for what has happened to a worker who has suffered an accident, regardless of whether or not one day we get to know it, we hope that there is also a single true version for the basic explanation of the operation of a labor system We live in the same universe, then we expect a single causal explanation of the facts. Paraphrasing what the subatomic particle physicist Witten said ironically (“If only one of the current five theories [of quantum physics] can correctly describe our universe and we affirm that the five are true, who then lives in the other four universes? ”): if only one of the current theories should explain the causality of the risk, but we affirm that all are true, which workers live in other worlds?” We will not know the answer to this question until all theories are discarded except one, which we accept is the only true one. As I believe, the reason we don't know the true answer is because existing theories correctly explain only some facts; they fail to predict other facts, or they cannot explain them. I don't have much more to say about this matter. Greetings to all.

I apologize for the Google translator

A Kurdziel  
#21 Posted : 12 August 2019 11:01:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

As I have said the numbers are to a large extent made up. The best you manage is a scoring system where you assign numbers to various outcomes. This is not the same as measuring something. For example you might give a severity score X to an accident that causes someone death but wait shouldn’t you also include other factors such as whose death we are looking at. Most people would regard the death of a member of the public as being a more severe consequence that the death of an employee. Bu then you have to take into account the actual situation around that death. If an employee is killed in their own home that would be a very severe consequence by contrast how relatively (as that is all you can do) would you score something where the member of public is killed while trespassing on the premises. Would you score an able bodied adult differently to a child who followed a group of older kids on to the site? You’re now moving into the realm of unknowables and to be honest not really worth worrying about (what Hilary called the X factor). This is as relevant to the real world as asking how many angels can balance on the end of a pin and if WAH regs applied in those circumstances     

fairlieg  
#22 Posted : 12 August 2019 13:56:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: hilary Go to Quoted Post

...you cannot measure risk in mathematic terms.......there will always be the "X" factor, that unknown quantity that varies from person to person depending on their soft skills such as attitude, perceptions, needs, motivation. 

You can measure risk in mathematical terms it's called actuarial science.  it essentially an fancy way of drawing up betting odd’s so essentially in the H&S world we are betting on how badly we think someone will get hurt…….. how ethical is that!

And the X factor….. fair enough but that focuses on the worker.  What about the context that the worker works in and all those things that shape the way the worker makes sense of their environment and influences the decisions they make (management, organizational culture, perception of priorities, goal conflicts etc, etc)

On the term “Probability”.  An event is either going to happen or it won’t in my opinion that’s relatively binary (0 or 1) there should be no level of probability there is nothing that will convince me otherwise.

chris.packham  
#23 Posted : 12 August 2019 14:18:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Until now the discussion has focussed on physical accidents. If you think this is complicated wait until you try risk assessment for health issues, such as contact with chemicals. With an accident the effect is generally fairly immediate. If you fall off a roof it is not long before the consequences become apparent. There is only one cause, the fall. If it happened in the workplace then it was almost certainly occupational. If it happened when painting the house it was non-occupational.

Now consider the case of an irritant contact dermatitis. This will be the result of an accumulation of damage at an asymptomatic level from exposure over time (days, months, years) of the skin to repeated exposures of varying duration/frequency/extent to a multitude of different irritant chemicals (including water) both at work and away from work. We have no way of recording or measuring each exposure to each chemical. So how do you decide when conducting the risk assessment where irritants are present in the workplace what the probability of a contact dermatitis might be? Alternatively, when one occurs how do you decide what role occupational and non-occupational exposures each played. So is the dermatitis occupational, or to what extent is it occupational?

And the effect of skin exposure is not always just a rash. Why else do we have H310 – fatal in contact with skin?

thanks 2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
stevedm on 12/08/2019(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 13/08/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#24 Posted : 12 August 2019 14:34:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Sorry guys I have been lurking in the shadows on this post but can’t contain myself any longer…the OP is clearly confused between what some people may be just semantics of the English langue and as they say it loses something in translation….

I would request that the OP look at research or further study on the difference between qualitative and quantitative processes….what is described here and what has obviously caused some confusion is qualitative…risk as we all know the combination of the severity and the likelihood that that harm would be realised, written in shorthand as likelihood x severity…it doesn’t imply that you have figures and multiply them it is just another method of expressing the theory…driving a car more often will increase to likelihood that you will be involved in an accident as an example…but it is subjective…quantitative methods (That Chris has alluded to) involved in the main peer reviewed scientific research or industry validated materials such as OREDA or HSE FRED and have mathematical formulas (TNO Yellow, Green, Red and Purple Books) which are also well practiced, along with those in industrial hygiene…so the English language can make like more difficult for all of us (English is not my first language – Scots Gaelic is) so I can understand the initial confusion…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218582/

Sorry guys I have been lurking in the shadows on this post but can’t contain myself any longer…the OP is clearly confused between what some people may be just semantics of the English langue and as they say it loses something in translation….

I would request that the OP look at research or further study on the difference between qualitative and quantitative processes….what is described here and what has obviously caused some confusion is qualitative…risk as we all know the combination of the severity and the likelihood that that harm would be realised, written in shorthand as likelihood x severity…it doesn’t imply that you have figures and multiply them it is just another method of expressing the theory…driving a car more often will increase to likelihood that you will be involved in an accident as an example…but it is subjective…quantitative methods (That Chris has alluded to) involved in the main peer reviewed scientific research or industry validated materials such as OREDA or HSE FRED and have mathematical formulas (TNO Yellow, Green, Red and Purple Books) which are also well practiced, along with those in industrial hygiene…so the English language can make like more difficult for all of us (English is not my first language – Scots Gaelic is) so I can understand the initial confusion…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218582/

thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
hilary on 23/08/2019(UTC)
O'Donnell54548  
#25 Posted : 12 August 2019 19:49:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Amunger - have you run out of fluff to pull out of your navel and now need something else to busy yourself with....?????? Your attempts at demonstrating your superior intelligence has failed. Your theoretical concepts of variable quantities of non- descript principles aligned against historical misconceptions of quantum physics multiplied by astral configurations of random numerical constraints results in a contraction of the dimensional perimeter of risk.
thanks 7 users thanked O'Donnell54548 for this useful post.
webstar on 13/08/2019(UTC), CptBeaky on 13/08/2019(UTC), RayRapp on 13/08/2019(UTC), JL on 13/08/2019(UTC), biker1 on 13/08/2019(UTC), mihai_qa on 14/08/2019(UTC), stuie on 17/08/2019(UTC)
amungar  
#26 Posted : 14 August 2019 05:39:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post
Amunger - have you run out of fluff to pull out of your navel and now need something else to busy yourself with....?????? Your attempts at demonstrating your superior intelligence has failed.

Although there is a saying that says "foolish words, deaf ears", this time I will make an exception. You are right about one thing: if all that has occurred to you to answer my doubts about the traditional formula that values ​​risk is to make fun of me, then it is true that my intelligence is superior… ..to yours (and of all who have declared that they approve your answer). Your foolish words have not hurt me. What hurt me is that no one else has censored your foolish words, looking the other way. As history has always told us that "the wise are not always right", I do not think that questioning what the wise say about occupational hazards has bothered you, those who have supported you and those who have kept silent by putting themselves in profile. I suspect that what has bothered you is to have said that you still don't have a “risk science” but a “recipe book” (manual of safety measures) to solve your problems in the exercise of your profession. But the proof is evident: when the security measure you need is not written in the recipe book, then you do not go to science to enlighten you, but you go to forums like this so that someone more cunning or wiser tells you what is the best recipe to solve that particular problem. This is because your knowledge is not yet worthy of deserving the qualification of science, but of art, where the best artist is the one who knows more and better security measures. I note that, once again, the saying is fulfilled that says: the truth offends. The book prologue says "Thus spoke Zarathustra" (paraphrasing the German philosopher Federico Nietzsche): When Zarathustra had said these words he contemplated the town again. He said to his heart: they make fun of me because they don't understand me. It is clear that I am not mouth to these ears. Will we have to break their ears so they learn to hear with reason? I see they have something they are proud of. That which fills them with pride they call "Manual of Security Measures", is what they believe distinguishes them from the ignorant.

O'Donnell54548  
#27 Posted : 14 August 2019 06:34:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

amunger - with every posting you prove my initial assessment of you to be true.  

thanks 3 users thanked O'Donnell54548 for this useful post.
webstar on 14/08/2019(UTC), mihai_qa on 14/08/2019(UTC), hilary on 14/08/2019(UTC)
hilary  
#28 Posted : 14 August 2019 06:49:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

Amunger

A word to the wise ...... give up while you're behind.

However clever you think you are, you are merely spouting incomprehensible gibberish to the rest of us mere mortals.   We all understand each other but we are not going to understand most of what you say because you use incredibly long words and put them together in a jumbled mess.  To misquote Morecambe and Wise - "you are using all the right words but not necessarily in the right order."

Edited by user 14 August 2019 06:49:54(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 3 users thanked hilary for this useful post.
RayRapp on 14/08/2019(UTC), O'Donnell54548 on 14/08/2019(UTC), webstar on 15/08/2019(UTC)
mihai_qa  
#29 Posted : 14 August 2019 07:03:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

I think the use of google translate made an otherwise entertaining conversation turn quite naughty. I particularly liked the Nietzsche quote as I too, in my teens was keen to absorb information. This has pluses and minuses as it quickly creates literary snobs that value a particular writing in favor of another because someone else said it's great and representative. I might go on further to say it's almost a rite of passage and a great part of developing and maturing, but then again, it might just be the automated interpreter that creates the image of "fluff to pull out of your navel" :)

Argumentative debates become a lot easier when the medium of delivery is equally mastered by all participants, in this case the English language (I sometimes steer clear from it as this is my 3rd language).

Have fun,

thanks 1 user thanked mihai_qa for this useful post.
RayRapp on 14/08/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#30 Posted : 14 August 2019 07:25:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

amungar - you have failed to grasp the key points and need to go back to first principles.  You are focusing on a formula rather than looking at the process...

If I can be bullish for a moment - 'routine' safety (high frequency low risk) in the main uses qualitative methods to determine risk.  This is based on experience so highly subjective.  

'process' safety and Occupational Hygiene (as an example) (low frequency high risk) in the main uses qualitative methods to determine risk.  This is based on tried and tested formulas, peer reviewed scientific research and industry validated information....

If I can also quote Winston Churchill - 'Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen'...

I am happy to continue the debate with you on PM if you wish...

Dave5705  
#31 Posted : 14 August 2019 10:58:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

42

thanks 2 users thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
hilary on 15/08/2019(UTC), nic168 on 21/08/2019(UTC)
O'Donnell54548  
#32 Posted : 14 August 2019 11:19:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Ah! Dave the answer to life, earth, the univerese and everything :0 

CptBeaky  
#33 Posted : 14 August 2019 11:50:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

I was just under the impression that Deepak Chopra was moving into the H&S industry

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 14/08/2019(UTC), Dave5705 on 14/08/2019(UTC)
O'Donnell54548  
#34 Posted : 14 August 2019 11:57:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Or Sheldon Cooper?

thanks 1 user thanked O'Donnell54548 for this useful post.
nic168 on 21/08/2019(UTC)
mihai_qa  
#35 Posted : 14 August 2019 12:23:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post

I was just under the impression that Deepak Chopra was moving into the H&S industry

I still remember when he was interviewed by Dawkins, how he claimed his assertions are valid as he too had "taken biology classes in school".

thanks 1 user thanked mihai_qa for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 14/08/2019(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#36 Posted : 14 August 2019 12:58:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

In the same way that there is only one correct explanation for what has happened to a worker who has suffered an accident, regardless of whether or not one day we get to know it, we hope that there is also a single true version for the basic explanation of the operation of a labor system

I decided to brave reading what you are trying to get at. I think this sentence sums up why I would argue that you are wrong. You seem to think that there is an, as yet unknown, scientific formula that we could use to determine objectively what that actual risk is. If we only had this formula then we could all stop the guess work and health and safety would be a black and white- do this get, that - procedure.

However you statement above is completely wrong. It is the equivilant of asking a person what the most important part of a car is. Is it the battery, without which the car would start? Or the engine, without which it would run? Or even the wheels, without which it wouldn't move? They is no one objectively correct answer because it all depends on subjective views.

When a person has an accident there is not a single, correct, explanation. It depends on many interlocking parts that creates the sum. This is why root cause analysis should never have a single solution.

Look at it like the titanic. People died becasue it hit an iceberg, right? Wrong! they died because of the lack of life boats. Or because the rudder was too small, meaning the iceberg couldn't be avoided. Or because the ship was in water that was known for iceberg hazards. Or because the ship was going too fast. Or because the look out warning wasn't swift enough. Or many other reasons. Any of which would have stopped the mass death. There is not one correct reason for the accident, in the same way the is not one solution.

This is why we have the risk assessments. So we can spot the myriad of issues. Don't get caught up on a holy grail that doesn't exist.

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
webstar on 15/08/2019(UTC)
Dave5705  
#37 Posted : 14 August 2019 16:59:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

Amungar,

I apologise for my attempt at humour earlier. It is from a small but significant piece of British humourist literature I am fond of, which features the search for an answer that is unreachable. I meant no offence.

You are obviously an extremely intelligent person with a flair for creative thinking and mathematics, and I fear you have stumbled across our 'formula' for risk and tried to apply your knowledge of maths and found it wanting, which is quite right, it is. Our formula is not really a mathematical one in the true sense, as the inputs are often arbitrary and 'made up' or 'guessed at', sometimes not. It is only a way of putting a value on a risk to better show the level of risk against another. A method of explaining something or deciding something to assist the person in making the assessment. It is not one I am fond of, but it has its place in decision making. You will not, however, be able to prove it. It is not resolvable in that sense. 

I am not a mathematician, I can barely spell the word, but I think on this occasion it is your search for a question in the equation where there is none which has caused the confusion. I think you may find better quests elsewhere, but thank you for your attempt to contribute to our forum. If you do ever solve the riddle please make sure you come back and tell us. It will make you a rich man!

Also, there is no need to keep apologising for the translator! I do not know from which language you are being translated but it is doing a fine job. I wish the instructions for my new technology made as much sense.

Kind regards, Dave

Dave5705  
#38 Posted : 14 August 2019 17:10:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post

Ah! Dave the answer to life, earth, the univerese and everything :0 

Indeed! A true comedy genius and fellow humanist.

amungar  
#39 Posted : 14 August 2019 19:04:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Dave5705 You are the first one to whom I answer because you deserve it. You have not mocked me, but quite the opposite. Your pats on my back giving me encouragement for my reflections on occupational hazards have been like a balm for my soul, which was needed after so much mockery. I don't really mind teasing when I say things that have never been said before, because this attitude is very human when someone says something that is heresy (even stupid) to the "wise" of the time. For example, this happened historically with Newton and Einstein (the wise men mocked Einstein so much that the Nobel Prize proponents did not want to reward him for his theory of relativity, although he was eventually rewarded for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon that the wise Millikan - the one who measured the electrical charge of the electron - spent 10 years trying to refute Einstein for his explanation of this phenomenon, until he finally proved it right.) Max Planck, imagined that energy does not exist in quantities of any size, but multiples of a very small amount (which was later called energy quantum) and physicists of the time made fun of him for this stupid idea that began quantum physics . Plank wrote the following: "the new ideas in physics will be imposed only when the current generations of wise men, with false ideas solidly anchored in their brains, die and the new generations are adopting the new ones because their brains are clear of prejudices." The examples are innumerable. I have not tried to discredit existing ideas generally admitted, but only to question them, requesting your opinions before my concerns, which I believe I have justified satisfactorily. Obviously the explanations have not been as satisfactory as I thought, which is why many people have criticized me. I hope and desire criticism, except the mocking that, no doubt, come from ignorant people who think they are wise. These people ignore what the ancient Greek sage Socrates said, whose philosophical doctrine divided Greek philosophy into two stages, before and after him. He said the famous phrase (that the uneducated of this forum ignore): I only know that I don't know anything. I agree with him and that's why I want to know more, which is very little. Best regards Dave5705

amungar  
#40 Posted : 14 August 2019 19:25:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

CptBeaky

You are one of the people who has supported the teasing of O'Donnell54548 and for this reason I will answer you only by saying something very simple (without derision or making fun of you): do not take me for ignorant by stating that I believe that there are only a few causes that explain the accidents. What you do not know and I know (and I have not said so far in this forum) is that there is a finite set of generic active and passive causes, perfectly determined, that are necessary and sufficient (that is, unique) to occur any labor damage (accident or pathology), if we exclude the particular causes that only exist in each specific case, which I call casuistic or “causal noise”, because no scientific theory can contemplate all the particular cases of any phenomenon.

Users browsing this topic
3 Pages123>
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.