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 Pages<123
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
mihai_qa  
#81 Posted : 18 August 2019 05:21:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

I'm all for shameless plugs, but this is a bit over the top.

Wishing you all the luck, I'm out of this thread as clearly it's not about a conversation but a loooong elevator pitch .

thanks 1 user thanked mihai_qa for this useful post.
webstar on 19/08/2019(UTC)
hilary  
#82 Posted : 18 August 2019 08:26:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

Going right back to the original thread, you state the following formula as being universally accepted:

 risk = probability of accident × severity of its consequences

and then you go on to discuss "danger" and what is "danger" and how can it be classified.  

Well, in the UK we don't use the term "danger" and we don't start our risk assessments with the word "risk".  We start our risk assessments with the term "hazard".

The definition of "hazard" is "something with the inherent potential to cause harm or injury".  This might well be the same definition as your "danger" - something that is inherently dangerous.

We then look at the likelihood of harm or injury arising from that hazard - and that likelihood is the "risk".  When we consider the "risk" we look at who is likely to come into contact with the hazard, how often this is likely to happen and how severe any accident or incident would be.  We then look at the control hazards that we have in place and see how these protect the employee or environment from being damaged by this hazard.  

Once we have completed our machinations, we then give this a risk rating.  This is probably not in numerical terms, it may be high, medium or low risk, it may be colour coded, it may just be a warning statement.  

We then look at whether we can implement any further control measures to reduce the "risk" to the lowest level possible.  However the control measures need to be equal to the danger arising from the hazard.  You would not put a full extraction booth in place for a nuisance dust for example, and conversely, you would not rely on a "good airflow" for a carcinogen.  Everything needs to be worked out according to the risk posed and the benefits obtained.  This is in line with the UK legal term "so far as is reasonably practicable".

Once you have put your additional control measures in place, you can go back and risk assess again, taking into account the additional controls and, in theory, this will have reduced the risk arising from the hazard.  However, you also have to ensure that your control measure to limit one risk does not pose a risk in itself to another process.  For example, if you have an LEV to take away some fume from one area cut into a pre-existing system, you need to ensure that you are not causing this fume to come back down in a different part of the factory because the ductwork is not balanced properly.

That is how you complete a risk assessment in the UK.  I am quite sure everyone responding to you does it in pretty much the same way - however it looks on paper.  Whatever risk rating they use, everyone looks at the:

  • hazard
  • likelihood
  • severity
  • frequency
  • control measures
  • people

otherwise your risk assessment cannot be considered "suitable and sufficient" which is another UK legal term.

So now we come on to the accident.  If you look at any accident or incident investigation method you will find that there are multiple potential root causes, take taproot or tree diagrams, they're not named like this becuase there are only a handful of potential root causes, they are named for multiple causes, trunks, branches, twigs spreading outward from the centre.  Accident investigation is a serious subject in it's own right and quite complex.  The investigation from a RIDDOR accident can take weeks or months depending on external factors.  You cannot just look at the direct cause and go "yep, that's it" because the next person will have the same accident.  You need to trace this back to it's root and deal with the issue at that level, that way the accident will not recur.

I am quite sure you have your theories, but I think you need to go right back to the beginning (the root) and look at your formula.  Is this actually what people are using?  The answer in the UK is "no".  If you have built 20 years study on the wrong initial question then that is a very sad state of affairs and I feel very sorry for you.

Dave5705  
#83 Posted : 18 August 2019 11:57:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

I'm out of here too now, there's only so much I can take.

thanks 1 user thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
webstar on 19/08/2019(UTC)
peter gotch  
#84 Posted : 18 August 2019 13:16:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Amungar

You wrote:

"For this reason, any theory of risk must "take the grain out of wheat and discard the straw", because if we do not we would be overwhelmed by a huge number of causes of a phenomenon. In mathematical terms we would have to consider thousands of causes of accidents and pathologies. Since this is crazy, it is necessary to consider only the "essential causes, or typical causes" that exist at all risk. All others must be discarded because they only exist in particular cases. To be able to do this, we must contemplate this matter from an abstract point of view, focusing on the commons that these causes have to discover what the primitive or basic causes really are, from which all the others derive."

Because most of us are assessing risk in the real world we have to consider thousands of causes and thousands of outcomes, together with the new risks that proposed solutions to one scenario might introduce.

At any given moment in time, we have to decide which potential risks are so negligible that we can discard the "straw". But circumstances change so what was straw in one year may become the source of more significant risk at a later date, or the reverse.

For example 2 years ago, I considered that the import of Chronic Wasting Disease into the U.K. from Scandinavia was a sufficient risk that we should take some precautions in some of our work to reduce the possibility that our staff might spread this disease with significant socio-economic consequences.

However, as  result of actions AND research taken by Norway and the EU, I can now reasonably conclude that the risks of what we do spreading CWD as a result of a Scandinavian source of danger (how you "define" danger or what this word "means" is frankly irrelevant) is negligible, so that we can stop certain precautions. This does NOT mean that we can also stop taking precautions to prevent our staff spreading the same disease as a result of a source in Northern America.

I can come to this conclusion with support from guidance from the relevant UK Ministry.

Now some of the precautions we would take would be the same whichever the geographical source, and some are precautions that we take to avoiding our staffing being responsible for the spread of other animal and plant diseases. 

At no point 2 years ago, nor more recently have I needed to apply some form of matrix type risk assessment.

Instead it's been about qualitatively assessing the risks based on evidence from numerous sources that includes the general presumption that were CWD to enter the UK, it would be almost impossible to eradicate it. That means that even applying the principles of "reasonable practicability" [that is explicitly included in much of our local legislation BUT which is implictly incorporated into EU law as then transposed into the law of many other EU Member States] demands a highly "precautionary approach". The probabilities of X, Y and Z become almost meaningless.

So we have to treat each scenario on its merits. We prescribe standards for e.g. the heights of barriers and rails to stop somebody falling from height, but these are based on an asssessment of MOST people at risk (predominantly based on an assessment of the UK population). As MOST people get taller then we have to re-evaluate national standards. 

So, I live in a house built in 1880, but converted into apartments in the 20th Century as have other houses in the same street. Each has a substantial drop from street footway level, so the street has cast iron railings. Where some of the conversions have included the addition of new stairs down to basement front doors, the railings are higher - people grew in average height, so the prescribed standard height to which the railings had to be constructed was increased.

Exactly the same applies to how we deal with e.g. protecting against flooding as we anticipate more severe consequences arising from climate change.

Edited by user 18 August 2019 13:18:42(UTC)  | Reason: Problem with how the fonts as typed translate when posted

CptBeaky  
#85 Posted : 19 August 2019 11:27:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post
If you or someone else asks me for more details I cannot give them to you because the explanation would generate even more details. The request for more and more details would never come to an end. Who wants to know more should buy my book, which I will edit next year. I intend to sell it also on Amazon. Its title will be: "Mathematical foundations of occupational risk engineering".

Wow this is the most ambitious advertising spam I have ever seen, which basically boils down to - "Want to know more, just buy my book!"

Unfortunately Amungar, it appears that we don't want to know more. We have sampled your writing style and theory and found it wanting. Good luck in your future endevours.

hilary  
#86 Posted : 19 August 2019 11:38:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post
If you or someone else asks me for more details I cannot give them to you because the explanation would generate even more details. The request for more and more details would never come to an end. Who wants to know more should buy my book, which I will edit next year. I intend to sell it also on Amazon. Its title will be: "Mathematical foundations of occupational risk engineering".

Wow, Dunning-Kruger at it's finest!!!

The Dunning Kruger Effect is a psychological phenomenon in which people of the lowest ability in a subject rate themselves as most competent, compared to others. Ironically, people who lack the most knowledge on a topic also lack the ability to recognize their own mistakes and errors, making them exceptionally confident and biased self-evaluators

I don't think this needs any further expansion......

thanks 2 users thanked hilary for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 19/08/2019(UTC), webstar on 19/08/2019(UTC)
O'Donnell54548  
#87 Posted : 19 August 2019 12:09:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

If you or someone else asks me for more details I cannot give them to you because the explanation would generate even more details. The request for more and more details would never come to an end. Who wants to know more should buy my book, which I will edit next year. I intend to sell it also on Amazon. Its title will be: "Mathematical foundations of occupational risk engineering".

And so another genius takes careful aim, and shoots themselves in the foot. Thank you amungar, being thought a fool by you has done wonders for my self-esteem. May I quote you on my CV? 

thanks 3 users thanked O'Donnell54548 for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 19/08/2019(UTC), webstar on 19/08/2019(UTC), hilary on 23/08/2019(UTC)
peter gotch  
#88 Posted : 19 August 2019 12:21:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Hilary - ouch!!

Marketing strategy might be less than optimal as well since (a) some of us try very hard not to buy from organisations that go out of their way to pay taxes in the country where the buyer is and (b) "occupational risk engineering" could be anything. Could be as simple as considering whether the design of a widget machine will actually work when manufactured, and then will people buy it.

...and even if the prospective buyer thinks about spending money, do I want to buy this book or read an article in an American paper on Lyme and other tick-borne diseases that I read this morning (for free)? Which would probably be better for my CPD? 

Grumps  
#89 Posted : 19 August 2019 15:45:43(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Grumps

I can remember early in my career in H & S before formal risk asseesments were introduced about the possible consequences of a falling object.

There could have ben no damge to either personel or property. This includes to falling object

The falling object could have been damaged and the property it hit

There could have been injury to people.

Damage may have been caused to the position from which the object fell. This could result in delay to the completion of the project and legal action.

An example is a scaffold coupling falling onto a pedestian walkway at ground level.

amungar  
#90 Posted : 19 August 2019 19:38:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Hilary

Hi. In general, I agree with everything you say, but there are some concepts that I don't share and baffle me. For example:

1. You say: In the UK we don't use the term "danger" and we don't start our risk assessments with the word "risk". We begin our risk assessments with the term "hazard." I have seen that the Spanish translation of both English words is the same term "danger" (derived from Latin as the English word "peril" with the same meaning). However, from what you say later, I deduce that the word "hazard" is synonymous with the expression "harmful agent", because its meaning seems to be "source of harm." Instead, the meaning of the word "danger" seems to be "high probability of accident." Correct me if I'm wrong.

2. You say: Then we look at the probability of damage or injury arising from that danger, and that probability is the "risk." In my opinion, this is a huge leap, from the beginning of the canonical causal structure of risk (hazard) to the final effect of all causes (risk). All intermediate causes of risk are ignored. In my theory I highlight them by classifying them as "vulnerability", "threat", "incidentality". There can be no more classes: a) the vulnerability contemplates the space-time coexistence of an employee with a harmful agent / factor; b) the threat goes further because it contemplates the accessibility of an employee with a harmful agent; c) the incident goes beyond orque contemplates the physical contact between an employee and a harmful agent / factor. The primary cause vulnerability responds to your final comment, where you tell me "If you have developed the wrong initial question during 20 years of study, then that is a very sad state of affairs and I am very sorry for you." Now you know that the initial question (the initial cause), in addition to the “harmful agent” is the vulnerability of an employee to be in the same place and at the same time. Therefore, do not feel it for me because that is the correct initial cause in any risk theory.

3. You say: Accident investigation is a serious issue in itself and quite complex. In my theory, the canonical causal structure of risk is identical to the causal structure of any accident. The only difference is that the causal structure of the risk ignores the "casuistic" or "causal noise", while the causal structure of the accident does not ignore the particular cases of the specific case, which do not exist in all accidents of the same type, but Each one has its peculiarities. Therefore, it is not necessary to track the accident to its root, because the root of the risk and the accident is identical. Why? Because from a theoretical point of view the risk becomes an accident when there is physical contact of an employee with a harmful agent.

A cordial greeting

thanks 1 user thanked amungar for this useful post.
jonc on 23/08/2019(UTC)
amungar  
#91 Posted : 19 August 2019 19:45:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

I note that they have misinterpreted my words when I said that I cannot give more and more and more details when they continually ask me about them, because then this discussion would be endless. I should shut up at this point and not say that in my next books are all the details, because it is interpreted as propaganda. But that was not my intention and I recognize that it seems that it is. So sorry.

hilary  
#92 Posted : 20 August 2019 06:59:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

Sorry amunger, I have given you a perfectly reasonable and detailed explanation of how we do risk assessments int the UK and you have given me back paragraphs of what can only be described as gibberish.

I think your book will be a best seller - go for it!

Disagree all you like but I've had enough.

thanks 4 users thanked hilary for this useful post.
webstar on 20/08/2019(UTC), O'Donnell54548 on 20/08/2019(UTC), CptBeaky on 20/08/2019(UTC), mihai_qa on 20/08/2019(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#93 Posted : 20 August 2019 08:38:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post
space-time coexistence

I think I just got the full house in "Deepak Chopra Bingo!"

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post
 the vulnerability contemplates the space-time coexistence of an employee with a harmful agent

Translation for you "your employee is near a hazard"

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
hilary on 20/08/2019(UTC)
Zyggy  
#94 Posted : 20 August 2019 08:53:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

I have read all the threads with a mixture of disbelief & utter confusion! However, I intend to pre-order this book, but I just hope that it comes with a pack of crayons for us mere mortals....
thanks 2 users thanked Zyggy for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 20/08/2019(UTC), Dave5705 on 21/08/2019(UTC)
hilary  
#95 Posted : 20 August 2019 09:11:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

Originally Posted by: Zyggy Go to Quoted Post
I have read all the threads with a mixture of disbelief & utter confusion! However, I intend to pre-order this book, but I just hope that it comes with a pack of crayons for us mere mortals....

And a Babelfish

thanks 1 user thanked hilary for this useful post.
chris42 on 20/08/2019(UTC)
Gerry Knowles  
#96 Posted : 20 August 2019 15:06:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Gerry Knowles

Lets just face it there are many ways of assessing risk, and one of those is by having a mathematical claculation which is conveniently placed on a risk matrix.  The size of the matrix will change the accuracy but not necessarly the outcome. So in theory a 5x5 matrix will give a different outcome to a 10x10 matrix.  However it is still down to a person deciding what number is allocated to the probability and the outcome so I may decide that a probability score for a process may be three and severity of the injury may be a four so the risk score is a twelve.  This will probably give a medium rating (work to do to reduce the risk).  The same process may see the scores doubled but in the end the process will still be a medium rating.

I guess I am saying that lets not get tied up with formula and their outcome.  Our profession would command a much higher level of respect if we kept it simple and easy for everyone to understand.

Dave5705  
#97 Posted : 21 August 2019 05:38:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

Blimey, is this thread still going on? 

Does anyone remember that primary school exercise where you had to write a method statement for making a cup of tea or a jam buttie or something for programming a robot to perform? But they must only follow your explicit instructions. Then teacher would make everyone laugh at you because you had poured water into the cup but not instructed for the cup to be taken out of the cupboard, or said to take the jam out of the cupboard but had not actually said "first grow some strawberries"

I can only try to imagine how much more difficult this would have been if they had then said "Now put this through a translator into Martian speak, and remember after it has been translated you can never know whether it makes sense or is complete gibberish because you don't speak Martian?

I can't help comparing this to that scenario. Amungar, I don't know if you are shamelessly trying to plug a book or just telling us your work is for one. I don't know if you are actually being confused by Google translations of our work systems into Spanish, and your replies are further confused by translation back again.

I don't know if you are being deliberately vague in your answers sometimes just to create mystique for a second book, or are simply saying for brevity you will leave that bit out for now. But I do think sincerely that there are flaws in your arguments, but there are too many barriers to communication here to try to debate them with any success.

In truth, there is so much to be unsure of in your posts that making any worthwhile comment is impossible, I think you would be best served looking for peer review in your own language, for now, there must be academics in Spain who can help you? You will get nowhere here.

Good luck with your efforts, do be sure to let us know when the book is available if it is ever published.

Dave

thanks 1 user thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 21/08/2019(UTC)
amungar  
#98 Posted : 21 August 2019 10:10:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Let's recap the way this conversation topic started, which was to question the traditional risk assessment. At the insistence of several people asking me about the direct causes of risk, which I said are ignored by this formula, I was forced to leave this topic of conversation, which generated a lot of controversy with some of my ideas, which sadly were ridiculed by some people (maybe, because of insufficient information that interpreted some of my ideas absurd). Several people have written that this standard formula is used little or nothing. Strangely, they haven't told us what other alternative formulas they use. And we are eager to meet them.

In my opinion, the standard formula “magnitude of risk = probability of accident × severity of its consequences” is questionable for the following reasons (to avoid misunderstandings, there have been many, I have not said that this formula is wrong and I argue that nobody has the right to deprive myself of my right to question it):

1. This formula has been established dogmatically, which is why it is a conjecture. This formula is based on the authority of the one who published it for the first time, which, if I am not mistaken, was the US government agency under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Should we believe in this formula by the authority of its origin? The answer was given by Nobel Prize physicist Albert Einstein, in circumstances that may apply to this case: foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth. Another answer comes from the philosophy of science: it tells us that any formula that does not rely on some theoretical model, but is invented based on the intuition or sagacity of its author, is a suspicious a priori formula because it is a conjecture while It is not proven. In this case, it cannot be demonstrated that this formula is wrong because of its dogmatic nature (it is based on faith). But it can be said that it is arbitrary because it lacks theoretical support, since it has not been deduced based on some accredited scientific theory or experimental facts.

2. It is a seriously incomplete formula because it ignores the pathology, which we know is the second type of possible harmful effect in a labor system.

3. If the value of the risk is different from zero, we accept the hypothesis that the probability of an accident is non-zero. This value implies that there is not enough technical or human security to avoid the accident, otherwise it would be impossible and its probability would be zero. But if there is not enough security to avoid the accident, what prevents it from happening now? The answer to this question is necessarily the following: while the accident does not happen, there is sufficient security to avoid it, which implies that the probability of an accident is zero during this period. But then a contradiction appears, because this probability is both zero and nonzero during the same period. One might think that, in the absence of sufficient security, what prevents the accident is that there is no technical or human failure that causes it. But this is a contradiction, because while there is no technical or human failure it is because there is enough security.

4. The mathematical concept accident probability considers a set of similar jobs and, consequently, with the same magnitude of the risk. This is an inconsistency, because we intend to determine the magnitude of the risk in a job chosen at random in a set, where we must know beforehand the magnitude of the risk in all of them, because they must be equal in all the jobs in the set. Otherwise, the probability of accident is meaningless. If the risk is not the same in each and every job, the calculation of the probability of accident is equivalent to calculating the probability of taking "six" in a set of dice loaded differently.

5. The formula is valid only in the case where safety measures are not applied that prevent harmful action during the incident of physical contact of an employee with a harmful agent (for example, does not consider the safety measure of an airbag , or of a differential electrical switch, which act while the harmful agent acts on the human body).

If anyone has anything to object to these considerations, I invite you to refute them with respect towards me, as well as my dealings with you.

A cordial greeting

thanks 1 user thanked amungar for this useful post.
jonc on 23/08/2019(UTC)
fairlieg  
#99 Posted : 21 August 2019 10:14:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fairlieg

Originally Posted by: Gerry Knowles Go to Quoted Post

Lets just face it there are many ways of assessing risk, and one of those is by having a mathematical claculation which is conveniently placed on a risk matrix.  The size of the matrix will change the accuracy but not necessarly the outcome. So in theory a 5x5 matrix will give a different outcome to a 10x10 matrix.  However it is still down to a person deciding what number is allocated to the probability and the outcome so I may decide that a probability score for a process may be three and severity of the injury may be a four so the risk score is a twelve.  This will probably give a medium rating (work to do to reduce the risk).  The same process may see the scores doubled but in the end the process will still be a medium rating.

I guess I am saying that lets not get tied up with formula and their outcome.  Our profession would command a much higher level of respect if we kept it simple and easy for everyone to understand.

Gerry is abolutly spot on and he already knew that;-) and does not need me to confim or ratify his assertion!  You can skip to my point at the end of my post because this middle bit...... good luck if you read it.

The UK regulator does not require an assessment of "likelihood" of an outcome.  BS EN IEC 31010:2019 allows for the interchangeable use of "Likelihood" and "Probability" as there are few direct equivalences in other languages.  “Probability” is a mathematical term.  In non-technical parlance, "likelihood" is usually a synonym for "probability," but in statistical usage there is a clear distinction in perspective: the number that is the probability of some observed outcomes given a set of parameter values is regarded as the likelihood of the set of parameter values given the observed outcomes

Discrete Random Variables

Suppose that you have a stochastic process that takes discrete values (e.g., outcomes of tossing a coin 10 times, number of customers who arrive at a store in 10 minutes etc). In such cases, we can calculate the probability of observing a particular set of outcomes by making suitable assumptions about the underlying stochastic process (e.g., probability of coin landing heads is pp and that coin tosses are independent).

Denote the observed outcomes by OO and the set of parameters that describe the stochastic process as θθ. Thus, when we speak of probability we want to calculate P(O|θ)P(O|θ). In other words, given specific values for θθ, P(O|θ)P(O|θ) is the probability that we would observe the outcomes represented by OO.

However, when we model a real life stochastic process, we often do not know θθ. We simply observe OO and the goal then is to arrive at an estimate for θθ that would be a plausible choice given the observed outcomes OO. We know that given a value of θθ the probability of observing OO is P(O|θ)P(O|θ). Thus, a 'natural' estimation process is to choose that value of θθ that would maximize the probability that we would actually observe OO. In other words, we find the parameter values θθ that maximize the following function:

L(θ|O)=P(O|θ)L(θ|O)=P(O|θ)

L(θ|O)L(θ|O) is called the likelihood function. Notice that by definition the likelihood function is conditioned on the observed OO and that it is a function of the unknown parameters θθ.

Continuous Random Variables

In the continuous case the situation is similar with one important difference. We can no longer talk about the probability that we observed OO given θθ because in the continuous case P(O|θ)=0P(O|θ)=0. Without getting into technicalities, the basic idea is as follows:

Denote the probability density function (pdf) associated with the outcomes OO as: f(O|θ)f(O|θ). Thus, in the continuous case we estimate θθ given observed outcomes OO by maximizing the following function:

L(θ|O)=f(O|θ)L(θ|O)=f(O|θ)

In this situation, we cannot technically assert that we are finding the parameter value that maximizes the probability that we observe OO as we maximize the PDF associated with the observed outcomes OO.

The point I am trying to make, let’s not bet on outcomes for workers.  The "incident" is binary outcome (1/0) and they will either get hurt or not.  If we imagine they will get hurt how do we control the "energy" that will cause the damage.  We focus to much on prevention and rely on the preventative measures, yet people still get hurt because there is so much variability in the systems they work in however, we don’t think that that bad outcome could happed because because we beleive the preventative measures we took would be enough to .... well prevent it.  Sadly, our imagination lets us down.  To the point being made by Gerry here we all perceive risk differently.  If we assume that even with all the preventative measures in place the worker will still be hurt that forces us to think about controls that separate them from the harmful “energy” in the system so that that “incident/failure” can still happen but there is no loss or damage because the “system” can recover and the worker can move on.

Yes most of this was a cut and paste job from the interweb and yes I may have been trying to add to the confusion (except that last paragraph) I hope it didn't make your eyes bleed.

 IMHO, this thread is a non-conversation (yet I still posted twice).  Lets stop making bets on workers safety!

amungar  
#100 Posted : 21 August 2019 10:17:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

Error correction

5. The formula only consider the case where safety measures are not applied that prevent harmful action during the incident of physical contact of an employee with a harmful agent (for example, does not consider the safety measure of an airbag , or of a differential electrical switch, which act while the harmful agent acts on the human body).

CptBeaky  
#101 Posted : 21 August 2019 11:43:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

 Several people have written that this standard formula is used little or nothing. Strangely, they haven't told us what other alternative formulas they use. And we are eager to meet them.

I got to this bit and stopped reading, maybe I will try again later. We have, on numerous occassions, pointed out they we (often) don't use ANY formula. We use our own competence (knowledge, training, skills and experience) to ensure that adequate controls are in place. If we are ot sure we seek out professionals with more competence (sometimes by asking questions on this very forum).

I even linked oyu too an example risk assessment done by the HSE (our own govenmental deptartment that deals with health and safety) in which there wasn't ANY formula used. This is why we are getting frustrated with you. We have pointed out many times that your original premise doesn't apply in the UK, but you refuse to listen too us. You ignore all the evidence we have proving that it isn't a required formula in the UK.

Roundtuit  
#102 Posted : 21 August 2019 11:59:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

heat + fuel + air is equivalent to platform + participants + engagement resolution in both cases remove at least one side of the triangle
hilary  
#103 Posted : 21 August 2019 14:56:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

 Several people have written that this standard formula is used little or nothing. Strangely, they haven't told us what other alternative formulas they use.

Excuse me?  I wrote you down a formula for risk assessments.  It did not contain any numerical factors but, nonetheless, it was a formula.

Definition of formula:  "a method or procedure for achieving something".  

Edited by user 21 August 2019 15:00:07(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked hilary for this useful post.
webstar on 22/08/2019(UTC)
biker1  
#104 Posted : 21 August 2019 15:17:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Well, this thread has been entertaining, in a perverse kind of way.

Please tell us, amungar, what the weather is like on your planet.

You throw in random and unnecessary words to try and make yourself look clever, you torture language to make points that no-one understands, you maintain that you don't say we are wrong but are constantly telling us we are, and you won't, or can't, take on board what others are saying.

Please tell us when your book will be published, as I occasionally suffer from insomnia, and I am sure it would be cheaper than hypnotherapy.

Or, you could be just winding us all up...............

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
webstar on 22/08/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#105 Posted : 21 August 2019 16:17:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

...have your ever listened to someone and then wondered who ties thier shoe laces for them?  :O

thanks 2 users thanked stevedm for this useful post.
webstar on 22/08/2019(UTC), biker1 on 23/08/2019(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#106 Posted : 22 August 2019 10:56:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Let's give this a go then....

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

1. This formula has been established dogmatically, which is why it is a conjecture. This formula is based on the authority of the one who published it for the first time, which, if I am not mistaken, was the US government agency under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Should we believe in this formula by the authority of its origin? The answer was given by Nobel Prize physicist Albert Einstein, in circumstances that may apply to this case: foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth. Another answer comes from the philosophy of science: it tells us that any formula that does not rely on some theoretical model, but is invented based on the intuition or sagacity of its author, is a suspicious a priori formula because it is a conjecture while It is not proven. In this case, it cannot be demonstrated that this formula is wrong because of its dogmatic nature (it is based on faith). But it can be said that it is arbitrary because it lacks theoretical support, since it has not been deduced based on some accredited scientific theory or experimental facts.

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this to you yet but, WE DON'T NEED TO USE THIS FORMULA TO DO A RISK ASSESSMENT! Therefore we don't accept it dogmatically. If the use of the formula is optional, it cannot be said to be dogmatic. Even the highest safety body in our country doesn't use this formula on their own risk assessment examples. Your premise is WRONG!

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

2. It is a seriously incomplete formula because it ignores the pathology, which we know is the second type of possible harmful effect in a labor system.

I must assume by "pathology" you are saying that we don't take diseases and illnesses into account when we do these risk assessments...erm.... Yes we do. Any professional worth their salt takes this into account. We have COSHH assessments that we build into our risk assessments, with govenment guidelines on safe levels. We have tables explaining they dangers of exposure to these substances. We have health surveillance programs based on these to check whether our controls are working. We do manual handling, HAV etc. assessments to ensure our workforce are not exposed. We install LEV based on risk assessments.

Do you want to know why these aren't always shown by using the risk formula? Because WE DON'T NEED TO USE THAT FORMULA.

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

3. If the value of the risk is different from zero, we accept the hypothesis that the probability of an accident is non-zero. This value implies that there is not enough technical or human security to avoid the accident, otherwise it would be impossible and its probability would be zero. But if there is not enough security to avoid the accident, what prevents it from happening now? The answer to this question is necessarily the following: while the accident does not happen, there is sufficient security to avoid it, which implies that the probability of an accident is zero during this period. But then a contradiction appears, because this probability is both zero and nonzero during the same period. One might think that, in the absence of sufficient security, what prevents the accident is that there is no technical or human failure that causes it. But this is a contradiction, because while there is no technical or human failure it is because there is enough security.

Do you even understand what you are talking about? The chance of anything happening is always dynamic. It only becomes 1 after the actuality. Even if we did use the formula (and we don't always) that is the whole point of the "Likelihood"  number. To insinuate that the securities are good until the accident happens is non-sensicle. If we are working at height with no controls are the "securities good enough until someone falls off? Can you not understand that by putting controls we reduce the risk, but it will never be zero? Good job that we concentrate on the controls and not arbitary numbers for a formula that WE ARE NOT OBLIGED TO USE.

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

4. The mathematical concept accident probability considers a set of similar jobs and, consequently, with the same magnitude of the risk. This is an inconsistency, because we intend to determine the magnitude of the risk in a job chosen at random in a set, where we must know beforehand the magnitude of the risk in all of them, because they must be equal in all the jobs in the set. Otherwise, the probability of accident is meaningless. If the risk is not the same in each and every job, the calculation of the probability of accident is equivalent to calculating the probability of taking "six" in a set of dice loaded differently.

This would be a problem if someone relied on a formula that was subjective to guide their control choices, rather than using their own competence alongside best practise and guidelines that have been scientifically shown to reduce risk. Do you know who relies on that formula? NOT US!

By the way, are you aware that even when/if we did use the formula, we use it on a case by case basis? We do NOT just copy paste from somebody elses assessment. However we would have a way of determining likelihood/frequency and severity that was based on a consistent level (severity 1 = cut/bruise, 2 = 1st aid treatment needed etc.)

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

5. The formula is valid only in the case where safety measures are not applied that prevent harmful action during the incident of physical contact of an employee with a harmful agent (for example, does not consider the safety measure of an airbag , or of a differential electrical switch, which act while the harmful agent acts on the human body).

I think you need to go back to basics on this one. Taking you air bag example. If we used only used the formula you take objection to we would have this...

Before airbags driving at high speed and crashing: - Severity 5 (very high chance of fatality) x Likelihood 3 (high speed means higher risk ) = Risk Rating 15 (high risk activity)

After air bags: - Severity (fractures etc lower risk of fatality) x Likelihood (No change in the frequency) = Risk Rating 12 (Medium risk activity)

The formula seemed to work just fine! Did we need the formula to decide on whther air bags are a good idea though? No! This is why WE DON'T NEED TO USE THE FORMULA!

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 22/08/2019(UTC), hilary on 22/08/2019(UTC)
hilary  
#107 Posted : 22 August 2019 11:41:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

CptBeaky

Great answer as always.  Probably a waste of time but the rest of us I am sure enjoyed your reasoned response.

MARMALADE - I'm just going to put that out there because it's a big word that has no relevance to anything in this thread. 

thanks 2 users thanked hilary for this useful post.
Andrew W Walker on 22/08/2019(UTC), biker1 on 23/08/2019(UTC)
amungar  
#108 Posted : 22 August 2019 19:15:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
amungar

CptBeaky

Thank you for your kindness of bothering to answer me, something that I thank you very much because there are many more "curious" than "interested".

1. I have said that this formula has been established dogmatically, so it is a conjecture. This formula is based on the authority of the one who first published. I expected you to say whether or not you agree with this opinion. I didn't ask if you need this formula to do risk assessments. As you do not use it, you answer: “Therefore, we do not accept it dogmatically. The use of the formula is optional, it cannot be said to be dogmatic. Your premise is INCORRECT! ” You have misinterpreted me, although (I think) I have explained it correctly. I insist once again: a "dogmatic" formula does not mean that it is of "mandatory application", but that it has been proposed "on the basis of faith" (from empirical intuition in this case), not "on the basis of science ”(Because it has not been deduced based on a scientific theory).

2. I have said that it is a very incomplete formula because it ignores the pathology, which we know is the second type of possible harmful effect. I expected you to say whether or not you agree with this opinion. However, you answer otherwise by saying that you consider illnesses when doing risk assessments. But I haven't asked you if you consider the pathologies when doing risk assessments. You end up saying WE DON'T NEED TO USE THAT FORMULA. I don't care if you use this formula or not; that is not the issue under debate.

3. I have argued logically (not based on my opinion) that a contradiction appears in this formula regarding the concept of "accident probability". I expected you to say whether or not you agree with this logical argument (not an opinion). However, what you say is your own empirical argument trying to refute my logical argument, an impossible claim. In the end you say: Good job that we focus on controls and not arbitrary numbers for a formula that WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO USE. I do not care if you use this formula or not, I have only asked for an opinion before a logical argument that concludes in an inconsistency.

4. I have argued logically (not based on my opinion) that a contradiction appears in this formula because it values ​​risk by assuming that all the risks to be assessed in each job are equal (so the concept of “probability” is applicable to the whole Of jobs). I expected you to say whether or not you agree with this logical argument. However, you answer me with something absurd: this logical contradiction would be a problem if someone trusts this formula. You add: Do you know who trusts that formula? WE DO NOT! I do not care if you use this formula or not, I have only asked for an opinion before a logical argument that concludes in an inconsistency

5. I said that the formula is valid only in the case that no security measures are applied that prevent harmful actions during the incident of physical contact of an employee with a harmful agent. I expected you to say whether or not you agree with this opinion. However, you respond using my airbag example to set your own example to refute me. You intend to prove that I am wrong by telling me that this formula works well with your example, without justifying that I am wrong. You end up with an absurd question that has nothing to do with my objection to this formula: did we need the formula to decide if airbags are a good idea? Do not! That is why we DO NOT NEED TO USE THE FORMULA! I do not care if you use this formula or not, I have only asked for an opinion of a defect in this formula, which consists of "not contemplating insecurity" in the harmful action in the event of an employee's physical contact with a harmful agent.

Conclusion: I verify that you are only interested in refuting anything I say, as it shows when you “go out on tangents” when what I say is not my opinion but a logical argument. You are obsessed with taking the opposite, like all the other people in this forum. This is evidenced by the fact that nobody has punctured the icon that indicates compliance with what I have said. Not once has someone agreed with something, which indicates that everyone disagrees. They only click on the “agree” icon when someone writes something opposing what I say (more often when they make fun of me, as ignorant people do when they don't understand something). What do I have to say about the constant refutations of everything I say? The same thing Zarathustra said in Nietszche's book: "in the end justice will come to me, even if it is dragging the leg."

hilary  
#109 Posted : 23 August 2019 07:34:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

Amunger

 

You are asking a group of people who do not use this formula and who have probably never seen this formula, whether it is complete or incomplete, has contradictions or is valid.  Answer:  we don't know and we don't care because we don't use it.  Therefore, we cannot either agree or disagree with your opinion as we have no working knowledge of this formula, no background to this formula, no working practices, procedures, standard work, legislation or codes of practice into which this formula fits.  It does not impact us in any way, shape or form.

The simplest answer to your original question of "is this formula correct" would be:

"we don't know because we don't use it and we cannot speculate on something that does not affect us". 

thanks 1 user thanked hilary for this useful post.
webstar on 23/08/2019(UTC)
westonphil  
#110 Posted : 23 August 2019 15:01:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
westonphil

Originally Posted by: amungar Go to Quoted Post

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).

Someone who makes a statement that everyone who cannot understand them will be baffled is not seeking to educate, rather they are seeking to seem superior.

With respect, you create an issue that does not exist and then try to offer a solution to it. The error is to create an issue that does not exist and therefore the solution is not to create the error in the first place.

There is no universal formula and the law does not oblidge people to use something which does not exist.

As for the opinions of top experts, well they are probably baffled. One thing for sure is they are not, and have not been, the people carrying out the millions of risk assessments over decades and which have for the most part kept the majority of people healthy and safe.

Risk assessment is based upon competency to undertake it and a knowledge of the laws that apply and equally an understanding of human nature. In life as with many things people use guides and guidelines in certain situations and they maybe used to assist understanding and/or communication.

I may use a Google map to guide me to my chosen destination but I also bring into play a whole host of other skills and competencies to get me there. It would be easy to just focus on the Google map and miss everything else that is going on.

Cordial Greetings

Edited by user 23 August 2019 15:03:37(UTC)  | Reason: Spellcheck

mihai_qa  
#111 Posted : 24 August 2019 06:03:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

I said I'd stay away from this place, but the inner moth won't obey. I feel it's time for some real scientific arguments to support the current debate, and who better than the master of BS (i think this stands for bevahior safety? - D-Pak is King):

"On the periphery of official wisdom, if we can use that term to describe orthodox ways of thinking, millions of people have experienced and believe in the following propositions:

(Snipped list of woo beliefs)

What these diverse things have in common -- besides being excluded from official wisdom -- is that they imply an invisible connection.

By which I don't mean a mystical one. Just as the material world is connected invisibly at the quantum level, the subtle world is connected by a field of consciousness. A prayer, a desire to be healed, a wish for peace, hope for reassurance about the dead -- each impulse enters the field of consciousness and is responded to, just as every material event enters the quantum field and is responded to, down to the least quark and photon.

The first steps have to be taken, however, despite this welter of confusion. A culture of consciousness is possible. In fact, present-day science is such a culture, although it is based, ironically enough, on the premise that consciousness has no validity except as an emergent property of matter. One can foresee the next culture of consciousness based on connections, which would overturn the whole scientific prejudice against the subtle body, invisible realities, and the primacy of consciousness in general."

That basically sums up my view on things. What's your opinion on it as it pertains to the formula proposed? To me there's no question or doubt they go hand in hand.

Edited by user 24 August 2019 06:14:38(UTC)  | Reason: Reference

Dave5705  
#112 Posted : 24 August 2019 17:54:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

Arrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhppppppppppphhhhhllluuuummmmmmmmmmp!

peter gotch  
#113 Posted : 25 August 2019 10:55:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Dave

1. Can you pronounce that?

2. Can you translate it into Spanish?

Dave5705  
#114 Posted : 25 August 2019 20:09:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

Dave

1. Can you pronounce that?

2. Can you translate it into Spanish?

Hi Peter, I can do neither. I can, however, remove my own spleen with a pickle fork. At the moment that seems preferable than having to read any more of this thread. If this thread were a dog, I would have assumed it were in pain and had it put down by now. If it were a parrot.......
Users browsing this topic
3 Pages<123
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.