Stevedm You are right in what you say, but a scientific theory of risk only considers variables (generic causes, both for accidents and for pathologies) and their manipulation by applying the calculation to obtain a certain generic effect. The particular effect depends on data obtained by observation. In other words, the acquisition of data from experience is translated into theory and it deals with the calculation to assess risk.

Un kurdiel

The formula that I question is a formula, but the variables do not admit quantitative values ​​but qualitative values

CptBeaky

You say the risk matrix is ​​hardly used in Britain. I am very surprised because it is a generally accepted formula (even by renowned institutions), as you can see on the Internet. Perhaps you mean what I have read many times: fire risk assessment, noise risk assessment, risk assessment by inhalation of toxic products, etc. But I don't share these generally accepted ideas (I haven't said they are mistakes). The reason is because, in my opinion, these theories do not value risk but only a cause of risk, specifically the “harmful capacity of a labor system”

To convince you that the science of risk is still very green, I ask you the following questions, to see if you are able to answer, not with your opinion, but based on some theory of risk:

1. What is the definition of risk? The answer “possibility of harm derived from work” does not work because it is not a definition, but the meaning of the concept of “occupational risk”. A meaning is what we should all understand by a concept. A definition goes further because it tells us the causes of a fact and also allows us to assess it if it is a good definition.

2. What is the definition of danger? The answer “source of damage with the capacity to cause accidents and pathologies” does not work, because it confuses the danger with a “harmful agent”. By the way, do you know why no law in the world defines danger? The answer is very simple: because the legislator does not want to make a mistake saying something he does not know (behind the legislator are the greatest experts in a country).

3. What are the direct causes of risk? Nobody knows, because if someone knows the traditional formula that assesses risk, they would not use variables to assess the “risk effect” (probability of accident and severity of its consequences), but rather variables to assess the “direct causes of risk”. I have said in this forum that one of those causes is "insecurity", but not all insecurity, but only the insecurity that directly makes an accident possible.

4. How many kinds of security measures exist, depending on the direct causes of risk that they intend to eliminate? Nobody knows, because if someone knows the formula that assesses the risk would contemplate them.

5. Does a safety measure that prevents damage while an incident occur eliminate the risk? For example, the safety measure of a “differential electrical switch”. The legislation affirms that yes, the same as all professionals. But experience tells us that this is not true: this security measure (and all equivalents) does not eliminate the risk, but the damage that is happening. The reason is very simple. If the risk is possible work-derived damage, then the damage is not possible but real while an electrocution occurs. This kind of safety measure directly eliminates the damage, not the risk.

6. I don't keep asking questions because you already have enough to reflect for having questioned your ideas. As I am a heretic, I know you would like to crucify me. Luckily you can't from a forum. And please, don't make fun of me. I ask a little respect for those who don't think like you.

Originally Posted by: amungar

CptBeaky

You say the risk matrix is ​​hardly used in Britain. I am very surprised because it is a generally accepted formula (even by renowned institutions), as you can see on the Internet. Perhaps you mean what I have read many times: fire risk assessment, noise risk assessment, risk assessment by inhalation of toxic products, etc. But I don't share these generally accepted ideas (I haven't said they are mistakes). The reason is because, in my opinion, these theories do not value risk but only a cause of risk, specifically the “harmful capacity of a labor system”

This shows that you are not even putting in the most basic of research. Look at all the examples on the HSE and you will not see a single risk matrix. Just because you hold an opinion, doesn't make that opinion correct. Yes the risk matrix is a valuable tool in introducing novices to the idea of risk reduction, but it is in no way enshrined in law.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/casestudies/pdf/offlicence.pdf

There is an example directly from the HSE. You do know what the HSE is, right?

You can blame google translate all you like but your flowery language comes across as elitist. I can't for a second imagine what language you are translating from to come up with the words in your replies. Are you misusing a thesaurus? Try to write in more accessible text and maybe we can have a discussion with you. At the moment it just is worth the effort of going through the word salad to get to your point. We have to guess at your meaning, and it feels any reply we make is an inadvertant strawman.

Originally Posted by: amungar

To convince you that the science of risk is still very green, I ask you the following questions, to see if you are able to answer, not with your opinion, but based on some theory of risk:

1. What is the definition of risk? The answer “possibility of harm derived from work” does not work because it is not a definition, but the meaning of the concept of “occupational risk”. A meaning is what we should all understand by a concept. A definition goes further because it tells us the causes of a fact and also allows us to assess it if it is a good definition.

Risk is the likelihood that a hazard will cause harm in combination with the severity of injury, damage or loss that might foreseeably occur. Direct from NEBOSH. You may disagree with this, but it is what we use when we conduct risk assessments.and therefore it is also defined by its use.

Originally Posted by: amungar

2. What is the definition of danger? The answer “source of damage with the capacity to cause accidents and pathologies” does not work, because it confuses the danger with a “harmful agent”. By the way, do you know why no law in the world defines danger? The answer is very simple: because the legislator does not want to make a mistake saying something he does not know (behind the legislator are the greatest experts in a country).

Danger: a cause or likely cause of harm or injury - from the dictionary. I would change it to casuing a "negative state". But I am happy enough with how it is.

Originally Posted by: amungar

3. What are the direct causes of risk? Nobody knows, because if someone knows the traditional formula that assesses risk, they would not use variables to assess the “risk effect” (probability of accident and severity of its consequences), but rather variables to assess the “direct causes of risk”. I have said in this forum that one of those causes is "insecurity", but not all insecurity, but only the insecurity that directly makes an accident possible.

From the above definiation, and the use in risk assements. Risks is the chance of something causing any negative state (damage, injury, illness etc.) balanced with the chance that this state will be happen.

Originally Posted by: amungar

4. How many kinds of security measures exist, depending on the direct causes of risk that they intend to eliminate? Nobody knows, because if someone knows the formula that assesses the risk would contemplate them.

How long is a piece of string? The heirachy means that it is not dependant on the number, it is more dependant on the solution. For example if there is a hole in the ground we can put barriers around it, we can then put signs up, train people, add a gate etc. Or we can just fill the hole in. Many solutions is not always better than just the one. I assume you know this, and therefore this is another of those "lost in translation" moments

Originally Posted by: amungar

5. Does a safety measure that prevents damage while an incident occur eliminate the risk? For example, the safety measure of a “differential electrical switch”. The legislation affirms that yes, the same as all professionals. But experience tells us that this is not true: this security measure (and all equivalents) does not eliminate the risk, but the damage that is happening. The reason is very simple. If the risk is possible work-derived damage, then the damage is not possible but real while an electrocution occurs. This kind of safety measure directly eliminates the damage, not the risk.

This comes back again to the definition of "Risk". If we use the standard definition, then yes it does eliminate the risk (as long as it is working correctly). There is of course a separate risk relating to whether the control is working correctly, I think this might be what you are getting at? 

Originally Posted by: amungar

6. I don't keep asking questions because you already have enough to reflect for having questioned your ideas. As I am a heretic, I know you would like to crucify me. Luckily you can't from a forum. And please, don't make fun of me. I ask a little respect for those who don't think like you.

Maybe you are not British. There has been some mockery, but nobody has even come close to "crucifying" you. We tried to understand, you made no effort to enlighten us and instead told us that we were not intelligent enough to understand you. We ask you to use easier language. Again you blamed goole translate (which i find strange. What are you translating to come up with such terms as "which I call casuistic or “causal noise”, because no scientific theory can contemplate all the particular cases of any phenomenon") and never changed.

I apologise if I have offended you, none was meant. However you have shown no humility. When told that we disagree you have resorted to questioning our knowledge, rather than your own hypothesis. As you seem to be a perosn that values the scientific method you should know that this is not how you prove a hyphosis. Go ahead, do your research. come back when you have actual evidence that you are correct and we the unbelievers are wrong..

Perhaps if he/she could share his native language, one of us might be able to translate without the bombastic outcome. I'm fairly decent in quite a few languages and if I can, I'll try to assist.

Best of luck and trust me, everyone's been more than decent. When everyone puts on their sarcasm hat, you won't be able to catch on until it's too late and this was not the case here.

Let me know which language you're comfortable with and someone will be able to lend a hand, eventually.

Originally Posted by: amungar

Stevedm You are right in what you say, but a scientific theory of risk only considers variables (generic causes, both for accidents and for pathologies) and their manipulation by applying the calculation to obtain a certain generic effect. The particular effect depends on data obtained by observation. In other words, the acquisition of data from experience is translated into theory and it deals with the calculation to assess risk.

You are loosing the respect of those who are responding to you...so I will not be.

PS

I think it was Tolstoy who said: Nietzche was stupid and abnormal!  If that is your model I would quit while you are ahead..

Hilary

I have been very surprised that you say “I have completely lost myself in pomposity and egomania”, that “my arguments are complex and convoluted that it is difficult to understand what I say to people with bachelor's degrees”, that “I affirm that all the errors are wrong very competent people whom I have addressed ”. Another person in the forum told me that "I think I presume intelligence superior to others (and many people have pressed the button to approve their opinion)."

My surprise is based on the fact that I have never told anyone in this forum: YOU ARE WRONG. On the contrary, I have told several; YOU'RE RIGHT. Even a person in the forum was upset when I told him he was right, because he replied: "I don't like that you give me the reason because I don't seek your confirmation of what I say." All I have done is QUESTION IDEAS generally accepted, not to people. If these ideas, of which I have doubts (I have never said that they are wrong, only doubtful to me) are loved by all of you and it bothers you that I question them (as anyone who believes in God bothers you to question their belief) guilty of having feelings that hurt or bother is not the messenger, but the recipient of the message. I deeply regret that you have misunderstood me in my "underlying" intentions when I express an idea. At no time was my purpose to show off and boast that I have better ideas than ALL of you (as you have told me), but DIFFERENT ideas to those generally admitted. Do I not have the right to do this? In the past, the Catholic Church burned people who questioned the beliefs of the Bible alive. Should I read between the lines that the knowledge studied by all professionals is something similar to the Bible, immovable? You are wrong judging me so badly, because the ONLY idea that I have introduced has been to consider the variable INSECURITY in a work situation to assess risk, which is not contemplated. Is this a sin and I deserve reproaches for all that community, as the Catholic Church did in the past? 

I will answer the other comments tonight.

A cordial greeting

PS I ask for excuses for the translation

And there you have it - you have "told people they are right".  They know they are right, they don't need or seek your approval.  They are experts in their field and the assumption that they will be pleased to be told by you that they are right is pompous and egocentric.  I am sorry that you fail to see this.

Now, your opening statement was:

"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."

We've all tried to explain things, politely, in detail, with the wealth of experience, knowledge, qualifications, etc. which only leaves me to say:

WE DON'T USE THAT FORMULA FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS IN THE UK.

Now, I don't generally use capital letters in a post, it can be considered rude and offensive but if it works for you then I guess it works for me.

Gosh, I loved your response .... wish we had emoticons.

I should also like to know your background in Health and Safety, I am a Chartered Member with best part of 30 years' experience.  I also learn from these forums every day but I am probably further along the Dunning Kruger curve than my esteemed colleague. 

Edited by user 16 August 2019 09:31:54(UTC)  | Reason: I'm totally incompetent when it comes to using quotes - given up.

Dave 5705

I have read your message right now and I immediately got to answer you. I will take some time because I will also answer several of your colleagues. I will say who I am and the reason why I started this thread with my question, which has been a "probe balloon" without trying to prove anything about me, but only to check what professionals think about the current theories on occupational risks. A cordial greeting.

I am currently retired. I am an industrial engineer (equivalent to an academic superior grade o degree in a university). I have been a public official in the Government of Spain for almost 40 years. During the first 20 years in the Ministry of Industry, in a position of leadership in industrial security. During the second 20 years in the Ministry of Labor, in a position of leadership in the field of occupational risks. Note: in Spain a Ministry is equivalent to a Government Department (at the highest level; its bosses are part of the Council of Ministers). I read English perfectly, but I speak it and write with difficulty because I have never had the need to use it in the exercise of my engineering profession in Public Administration. Due to lack of spoken and written practice, this language has "oxidized my mind"

When I started my work in industrial and labor safety, I found that there were several theories of industrial and labor risks, but they were useless in the exercise of my profession and, what is worse, they are not theories generally accepted by the international community because they are very limited to solve everyday problems. Surely as you do, the only tool I used were the Industrial and Labor Regulations was a Security Measures Manual. When I went out of inspection of industrial factories, I always had in my hand (and in my mind) a Manual of Safety Measures of the kind of installation that I should check (check list).

Finally I came to the conclusion that I needed a better theory of occupational risk. I searched Google for the expression "occupational risk theories" and found that there was only one link on another issue! There were many more links if I wrote this phrase in the singular, but with links related to this subject, but none linked to occupational risk theories. The European Framework Directive 89/391 / EEC on occupational risks, in Article 3 (Definitions) only includes four definitions and none is the definition of risk or danger. I found it regrettable that there is no European Union law (Directive) that does not define these essential concepts. I have said "definition," not "meaning," which this is written in all dictionaries. I said before that a meaning is what we all must understand, while a definition goes further, because it accurately expresses the essential characteristics, its direct causes, etc. On purpose, a colleague from this forum gave me a link to verify that the concept "danger" is defined in a US law on the link "uslegal.com". I entered this internet address and checked that it says this: "Danger means ... .. The term means ...". Therefore, although it says that it is a definition, it is really a meaning, what we all must understand.

Then I decided to develop this theory based on generally accepted basic ideas that I read in specialized magazines and books (government's library) and, mainly, on the Internet. I asked my colleagues in the Government several times for help, but I never got help (not even from one person!) Because they told me the issues were very difficult and thorny. I continued the development of my theory in absolute  loneliness for more than 20 years! But there came a time when I thought: maybe there is no better theory of occupational risk because nobody demands it. This is why I put a “probe balloon” in this forum, with the hope of checking if occupational risk professionals feel they need a good theory to help them solve their problems without the “wild card” of the Safety Manual, which only includes “prescriptions” to eliminate risks in very particular cases. I don't know a safety manual with criteria to eliminate all kinds of risks! I was especially interested to know if professionals are satisfied with the meanings and definitions of the concepts they use. For this reason I started this thread with a formula that the Spanish "Law on prevention of occupational risks" includes. Well, it does not exactly this formula explicitly, but rather expresses it in words (article 4.2): occupational risk means the possibility that a worker suffers a certain damage derived from work. To qualify a risk from the point of view of its severity, the likelihood of the damage and the severity of the damage will be jointly assessed ”. I have the right to doubt the effectiveness of this formula and, when questioned, I am not questioning the ideas or knowledge of the professionals of this forum, but only this traditional formula (mandatory application in Spain).

I deeply regret the misunderstandings that have led me to believe that I question your knowledge. By God, nothing is further from my intentions! I just wanted to know to what extent you are satisfied with the meanings of the concepts you use. I give an example. In Europe there is a rule called "Regulation of transport of dangerous goods by road", which has been moved to member countries (too bad if the United Kingdom leaves the EU). But, in my opinion, this denomination is questionable (I do not claim that it is wrong) because "dangerous goods" do not exist. What exists are "harmful goods." The danger is in the form of transport, storage, processing, etc. Harmful goods (with harmful aptitude on people). In my theory, the danger is not a harmful substance, but a work situation where there is a high possibility of an accident. But this is another story.

 n subsequent messages I will respond to more criticisms that you make to me, believing that I affirm that I am smarter. No. I am not smarter, because the theory I am developing for more than 20 years and I am about to finish may be a failure. I just want to know if you need a better theory for me not to waste more time developing mine.

Best regards to all. And I apologize to those who have offended me by making fun of me because of a misunderstanding, my fault for not saying this from the beginning.

Hi amungar,

Thank you for your detailed response, it puts things in a different perspective but still, it does seem your time is better spent on furthering the knowledge base of the the profession (sharing your experiences I mean) rather than get caught up in updating definitions.

Risk is such a subjective term that I don't see how a definition will add objectivity to it. I've followed the "new age" safety talks of Todd Conklin, Sydney Dekker, Carsten Busch, Ron Gantt and the rest of them. None of their theories stand up to srutiny when you methodically start to dissect them. One thing though, most will agree, they are heavily biased and subjective in their assertions. 

I'm no fan of Heinrich, but I've been in workplaces where it was almost impossible not to think of pyramids, similar to that feeling when you're in Eastern Europe and can't help but think of Kafka.

You mention the fact that a definition will accurately express its direct causes. I would argue that would be against the very principle of humbleness and continual learning of the safety profession as direct causes are usually quite easily highlighted even when assesing risk and we're looking for the "unseen and unpredictable". I'm hopeful that one day OHS will adopt some PSM principles and methods of assesment and create sort of a hybrid (i know some organizations are already trying something out but it's still in the cradle).

Having had a short stint working with a government agency, I understand the frustration as the bureucratic and cumbersome legislations in place make it difficult to perform a job without following all the little tick boxes. But I've never been stopped by definitions to try and go above and beyond. If you ask people here, UK's OHS regs could use a tweak and members of this community actively influence it in some manner but it's always an attempt to move things further and evolve rather than "define".

We've got enough definitions to go around and plenty of methods to asses risk and one could argue that it's not effective as we still have people hurt. The problem I see is not in the definition but in the fact that this is still a rather "new" profession trying to cover all aspects of all industries at all times, which is kind of silly if we're being honest. 

The formula you've mentioned is seldom used and to be honest, I'd love to read some of your articles based on work experiences, hurdles, government backlogs, gov cronyism and the effects this has on the profession. I'm always up for a good read and I believe people that have been through the ranks (shop floor and evolved into an OHS practitioner) will always have valuable feedback.

The OHS profession needs both academics and grunts (I feel I'm more of the latter) but I've lately seen a constant search for the "next big thing" and an answer to all questions. It's not the definition of risk that will stop someone from using his phone while driving, somehow, innately, he will know it's a "dangerous" activity. 

There's always room for new theories and I strongly believe no one will argue against this, but rather, most people that have replied questioned the point of this particular exercise. 

"What exists are "harmful goods." The danger is in the form of transport, storage, processing, etc. Harmful goods (with harmful aptitude on people). In my theory, the danger is not a harmful substance, but a work situation where there is a high possibility of an accident. But this is another story."

I would argue that the danger is greatly reduced or inexistent if that harmful substance is replaced by water. A chemical splash in the eye might leave me burned and blind for life wheres a water splash might just cool me off on a sunny day. So that harmful substance, whetever you wish to define it as, plays a major role in the risk profile.

The fact that Spain has a mandatory application of this formula goes back to my previous statement on the role of governments in the OHS and the bureucratic mountains of paperwork it creates. When you were involved on the field how were the risk assesment conducted? Was statistical data used to quantify and rate risk? Was it through observations, records of past events, interviews? 

Sorry for the wall of text, but I wouldn't want anyone to have spent 20 years on something and be misunerstoood because of the medium of communication.

Best of luck with everything and my apologies, but because of the translator or the fact you come from a romance speaking country, the text did seem bombastic/pretentious and that put people off. That's the plight of those languages, it takes us 10000 words to express what we mean (as apparent from the novel I just wrote).

Originally Posted by: amungar

I give an example. In Europe there is a rule called "Regulation of transport of dangerous goods by road", which has been moved to member countries (too bad if the United Kingdom leaves the EU). But, in my opinion, this denomination is questionable (I do not claim that it is wrong) because "dangerous goods" do not exist. What exists are "harmful goods." The danger is in the form of transport, storage, processing, etc. Harmful goods (with harmful aptitude on people). In my theory, the danger is not a harmful substance, but a work situation where there is a high possibility of an accident.

OK Amungar. Thank you for explaining the situation, that does make things clearer.

Firstly, it is likely that some of the confusion arises from your literal translation of words you may be using. For example, the word 'superior' appears in the translation, probably translated from 'highest' (the education degree in your story).  I think this may have happened many times in your posts. In many cultures, it is common to describe one's own achievements as a way of placing weight behind one's position to make the statement one is making. Certainly in Indian and Asian cultures, possibly Spanish too. In English however, it is considered boastful and conceited, (unless said by a third party to describe someone's authority to speak, in which case it is praise. It is OK to praise another person, it is definitely not OK to praise oneself!) This kind of faux pas is common illustrating cultural differences. This immediately gets peoples backs up! It is strange how the English consider it such poor form to talk about our own achievements, but frown upon it we do.

Secondly, in the excerpt, you have quoted the transport regulations you argue the difference between danger and harmful. You look critically at the words because you see it as inaccurate. In some ways you are correct, the substance may not be dangerous until you do something to it. This is a discussion most of us have not had since our training, though I have read several forum threads on this very subject) An object is not dangerous until it is placed in a particular location and you trip over it where it becomes a trip hazard, which must be controlled. It is like saying that falling from height is not harmful, it is the sudden stop at the bottom that causes harm! It is semantics Though I do like the idea of changing it to "The Sudden Stop at the Bottom Regulations!  To us, we commonly use such expressions without thinking too much about the usage because the true meaning is implied, we all know what we mean.

There may be a third element here where you are applying true mathematics to a textual formula, I don't know, and frankly, I don't see any further need for discussion. I would politely say you are chasing inaccuracies where there is semantics, and it is all getting lost in translation. You might as well argue "What colour is 14?" It's nonsensical. 

Finally, in your search for theories of occupational risk by which I think you mean why accidents happen (causal models) there are many Heinrich, Domino, Swiss Cheese et al. If you want to know what we all think of these then a question might be better placed on the study support forum.

So Amungar, you have created quite a stir with your thread, I hope you will not be offended if I suggest now that it will serve no purpose to continue in its current form, and wish you luck with your future research and thank you for your contribution.

Kind regards, Dave

PS. Mihai and I were obviously typing at the same time, I posted last. Sorry for any duplication.

Edited by user 17 August 2019 07:48:41(UTC)  | Reason: posts crossed in post

my head hurts after 'reading' this post.

Dave5705

It is also addressed to you the answer I gave to Mihai-qa

You say: "Somehow you are correct, the substance may not be dangerous until…." I know that it is widespread to use the concept of "danger" as a source of harm and as a "cause of risk." But if we accept this, what does the expression "danger of accident" mean? I understand it as "high possibility of accident". In this case, the danger is not a source of damage (in my theory it is an agent/harmful factor), but a work situation where there is harmful capacity (damage in my theory) and a high possibility of accident. For this same reason, in my theory "danger is not a cause of risk", but "high risk".

I don't want to create any controversy. I have been forced (it was not my intention) to explain some ideas about my risk/contingency theory, because of the misrepresentation that the forum has given to my words, probably due to the defectiveness of the Google translator. a cordial greeting

Amungar

To be honest I don't think there has been much "teasing".

....and we understand that you are using Google translator. Doesn't stop you putting in some paragraphs that would make your long dissertations (or partial dissertations) easier to comprehend and respond to.

In the real world there are thousands of causes of accidents and thousands of potential outcomes that might include injury or ill health.

Societal commenatators have even assigned monetary values to different outcomes. As example the UK Government applies a value for the prevention of a fatality (VPF) and values for different types of injury, VPIs (including e.g. various levels of stress). VPF is currently close to £2m. 

These can be used as part of the calculation of what is "reasonably practicable" though most assessments do not attempt to take an approach that is usually unnecessary.

The Rail Safety and Standards Board operates a Safety Risk Model which counts the number of Fatalities and Equivalent Fatalities.

So as example 10 "Specified Injuries" = 1 Equivalent Fatality. At lower severities 200 or 2000 events = 1 Equivalent Fatality. 

Even in theory it is usually helpful to provide practical examples. So, if we have a scaffold platform with no guard-rails and toe-boards we could make an assessment of the probability that someone may fall - that probability is very unlikely to be 50%, but will depend on how long the hazard remains, how many people are at risk and why, and who they are.

Then if someone does fall, the outcome could vary dramatically. I've investigated one accident in which two people fell from such a scaffold platform. One died, the other landed on top of the first and was hardly injured. But the second might have escaped serious injury even if the first man did not act as a mattress.

Then one commentator mentioned the difference between people - one might be old and infirm, another a child with full health at the time of an accident. Health services (not only in the UK) measure treatment outcomes in terms of QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years). You could apply QALYs to injuries before treatment. If both the old and infirm person and the healthy child sustain the same life changing injury, then the old person probably loses less QALYs than the child.

You can quote as many philosophers and eminent scientists as you like, but most of those on these forums are dealing with real world problems!

Peter Gotch, Mihai, Dave5705, CptBeaky  (also to all people in this forum). This is my most important message.      In the real world there are thousands of causes of accidents and thousands of potential outcomes that may include or health problems. I agree with you. 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.

Thus all causes are greatly simplified. In my theory, the essence of the canonical causal structure of risk abstracts from the thousands of causes, because they are classified into only four that are sequential: 1) damageness of a labor system (certain harmful aptitude created by a harmful agent/factor), 2) vulnerability of an employee (space-time coexistence of an employee with an agent/harmful factor), 3) threat of a labor system (accessibility between an employee and an agent/harmful factor), 4) system incidentality (possibility of incident, understanding by incident the physical/psychic contact between an employee and an agent/harmful factor). The first three causes of risk are indirect and the last is a direct cause of risk. In addition, all these causes are active. There is a passive "wild card" cause of different kinds that acts concurrently with each active cause: "insecurity that corresponds to each active cause".

From the previous explanation it is mathematically deduced that risk and contingency (accident and pathology) have two essential causes: incidentality (includes all the previous indirect causes) and insecurity (direct cause). The cause that creates “harmful action” of a harmful agent/factor when in contact with the human body must be added. While this contact (which I call an incident) is possible there is a risk. When this contact is real, there is a contingency (which may be null or non-existent if security measures are applied or not, respectively). This is the essence of my risk/contingency theory. I did not have in mind to reveal this causal structure until I published my theory in a book. But if I have done it now it is for the sole purpose of receiving your opinions, since nobody ever gave me any. Naturally there are many more details, but they would make this basic explanation endless. 

Everything else you say is related to the assessment of risk and contingency. No theory of risk and contingency, by itself, can assess risk and contingency if there is no starting data obtained from the observation. This means "getting out of the theory of risk to obtain data", which we assign to the variables of the risk equation. The result of this calculation is the risk/contingency assessment (amount of damage expected in a possible accident or pathology). The technique to obtain data is experimental. It is not part of the theory of risk. This is the case with any scientific theory.

In summary. 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". Notice that the book only explains the basics. Other researchers interested in this theory should go further to introduce even more details.

Best regards to all readers. Please help me with your opinions to improve this theory.