Posted By Chris Packham Hazard is the intrinsic property to cause harm. Risk is the probability that in a given situation the harm could occur. For this to happen there will need to be an "exposure" of some sort to the risk. Chris

Posted By Simon Chidwick A definition could be: Electricity is a hazard- electrocution is the risk.

Posted By Tom Doyle Hello All, My understanding is; Electricity is an energy source. Typical HAZARDS associated with this type of energy are shock and burn. These hazards can result in varying degrees of harm. Severity is a result of the hazard being considered. In the worst case we should consider electrocution due to shock, which would result in a fatality. Risk in this case is a function of severity and probability of contact with the energy source. This probability can be influenced by exposure and the ability to avoid the hazard. So RISK must be a function of severity and the probability of harm. Cheers, Tom Industrial Safety Integration Canada

Posted By Pete Longworth Derek Imagine you want to cross a road. One of the hazards is the vehicular traffic using the road. The risk is the likelihood that you will be hit by a vehicle. If you cross a quiet country lane the risk is quite low. If you cross a busy high street the risk is higher and if you try to cross the M6 the risk is extremely high. As Chris said earlier the risk is the likelihood that a given hazard will cause harm.

Posted By pluto There are many fractional interpretations of these terms. Mine is; Hazard is anything that could cause harm Likelihood is the chance of that harm occurring Risk is the combination of hazard and likelihood...also known as the potential outcome! So in the 'crossing the road analogy, it is the likelihood of being hit that varies between the M6 and a country road, the risk or potential outcome, ie getting squashed, is the same.

Posted By pluto Al, You are of course right in all practical senses but that is the beauty of forums like these...even anoraks have to do something on a friday night!

Posted By Chris Jerman The reason that these definitions are important becomes very clear when you try to teach people how to write risk assessments. If you don't agree a 'standard' (regardless of your views on the individual terms here today)you will not get a consistent result out of the other end. If you ask people to describe hazards - one says electricity, one says working with electricity and one says electrocution and the other says it's the ladder, you are not going to get anything worth printing. Whether we ALL agree on the terms is a moot point. Personally I feel that there are very clear definitions but many seem to disagree and many are indifferent - so be it. But surely in your own environment, you must care if they see it they same way as you do? Therefore definitions do matter. Unless of course you see producing risk assessments as something to simply demonstrate compliance with the law. In which case I don't care what you think. Chris

Posted By Derek Carpenter Sorry you take a slightly cynical view Pluto. If a question exists its worth taking input but debate without trying to summarise some objective view is a pointless exercise. This is not a debating society. Listening is part of learning and with learning comes improved wisdom. Some of the comments here led me to think more broadly and seek to relate what i was understanding. There is no obligation on anyone to comment at all. I dont have to agree with some things said but i am broad minded enough to note those things that are constructive and add some reality. Opinion can go on forever. We all have one. Its picking out the value that counts.

Posted By Mark Eden If you identify a hazard that has potential to cause any kind of risk to those exposed, then you need to do something to minimise that hazard ? Forget likelihood X severity, the hazard posses the threat not the risk therefore there is a need to do something about the situation.

Posted By Chris Packham Let me put the following forward for discussion. Water on the skin is a low hazard. We swim in it, we wash in it, the skin needs a certain water content to function properly. For many of us, therefore the 'risk' that water will cause an adverse health effect is minimal. However, statistically water is also the most common cause of occupational skin disease. Where exposure of the skin to water is frequent, then it can cause damage to skin cells and result in irritant contact dermatitis. Thus whilst generically water is a low hazard substance, in this particular situation the risk of damage to health is high. Thus I contend we cannot consider the hazad on its own. We need to consider the potential for that hazard - given the particular situation we are dealing with - to cause damage to health due to the person(s) being exposed. My experience in my field is that it is rarely the chemicals with a high intrinsic hazard that are the major cause of occupational skin disease. The hazard is clear and appropriate precautions are taken. It is those chemicals which are not considered hazardous (and probably do not even have a risk phrase) that are the one that result in the skin problems I am called in to resolve. I could complicate the topic even further by pointing out that irritant contact dermatitis is almost always chronic and multifactorial, i.e. a result of repeated exposures to many different chemicals with varying hazard levels! This makes risk assessment interesting, to say the least! Chris

Posted By patrick carr Here here,pete, Identify the hazard, 5 steps to a risk assessment,

Posted By Tony Priest pluto I also was wondering on the nature of the post. In my opinion the definition between risk and hazard are not important, one reason is because many of the posts here have their own interpretations and not all are the same and the other reason is because I expect this question is related to risk assessment. The most important part of the risk assessment process is to identify all of the hazards (potential to cause harm etc) the next important part is to control the hazards by either reducing the likelihood or the severity or both. How we work out the risk or risk level in-between is not to detrimental in the assessment process as it will only tell us the risk level, i.e. give us an idea of the level of importance. I have come across many risk assessment methods and ways of conducting risk assessments, and seen many varied levels of risk for the same task/process which has been down to the individual person conducting the assessment which make these assessments subjective whether we understand the terms or not. When I conduct risk assessment audits I ensure that all of the hazards have been identified and then ensure that the hazards are adequately controlled, I do not get bogged down with the in between parts and I think that is what has happened in this tread, and I therefore agree with Al.