Huh, I never thought about a difference between a risk and a Hazard. So how would jumping out of that airplane with a parachute on shift the percent from hazard to risk?
Hazard vs. risk is an interesting comparison. In geological engineering we have our own way of seeing it. Take rockfall, for example. Hazard depends solely on the probability of rocks, and the size of those rocks, that may roll down a mountainside. Risk, on the other hand, includes the presence of houses, roads and other structures. Risk considers the amount of damage rockfall may cause to human lives and structures, and also considers the economic damage. Without the presence of people/structures, hazard may be high, but risk will be low. I can't really think of a way to compare this to uranium though.
I think the point Corby is trying to get across here is the with good engineering practices and understanding the risks of a situation, the risks can actually be eliminated. He is just saying that there is really no danger any longer in uranium mining because all of the dangers that were present have been addressed and so uranium mining is now just like any other mining operation.
Just speaking from an engineering standpoint here, but I don't think that we can every say honestly that risk is totally eliminated. I know that this is what the public wants to here and some engineers out there are glad to tell them this, but in the end it doesn't do us any good to pretend that there is no risk. I say this knowing that I too am guilty of trying to say that there is no risk, but the truth is that it is always there. This is especially true for the nuclear industry as we are just playing with stuff that has inherent hazard. With such a hazard, we can engineer to reduce the risk to a safe level, but I don't think we can ever say that we can get rid of the risk. Where there is hazard, there will always be some inherent risk. Don't get me wrong, I am all about conquering risk. But I think the public will like us a lot more if we stop trying to pretend there is not risk. Lets just convince them that the risks are not worth stopping the progress we can achieve with nuclear power.
Never mind! It's working now :). Of course, the public perceives different sorts of risks differently. So there is a gap between how s&e's see risk and the public sees it. Which is why we study communication...
Huh, I never thought about a difference between a risk and a Hazard. So how would jumping out of that airplane with a parachute on shift the percent from hazard to risk?
ReplyDeleteHazard vs. risk is an interesting comparison. In geological engineering we have our own way of seeing it. Take rockfall, for example. Hazard depends solely on the probability of rocks, and the size of those rocks, that may roll down a mountainside. Risk, on the other hand, includes the presence of houses, roads and other structures. Risk considers the amount of damage rockfall may cause to human lives and structures, and also considers the economic damage. Without the presence of people/structures, hazard may be high, but risk will be low. I can't really think of a way to compare this to uranium though.
ReplyDeleteI think the point Corby is trying to get across here is the with good engineering practices and understanding the risks of a situation, the risks can actually be eliminated. He is just saying that there is really no danger any longer in uranium mining because all of the dangers that were present have been addressed and so uranium mining is now just like any other mining operation.
ReplyDeleteJust speaking from an engineering standpoint here, but I don't think that we can every say honestly that risk is totally eliminated. I know that this is what the public wants to here and some engineers out there are glad to tell them this, but in the end it doesn't do us any good to pretend that there is no risk. I say this knowing that I too am guilty of trying to say that there is no risk, but the truth is that it is always there. This is especially true for the nuclear industry as we are just playing with stuff that has inherent hazard. With such a hazard, we can engineer to reduce the risk to a safe level, but I don't think we can ever say that we can get rid of the risk. Where there is hazard, there will always be some inherent risk. Don't get me wrong, I am all about conquering risk. But I think the public will like us a lot more if we stop trying to pretend there is not risk. Lets just convince them that the risks are not worth stopping the progress we can achieve with nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteWhoa...loving Aaron's comment. Exactly what I was going to say.
ReplyDeleteSatira, I can't get your video to play. Can you send me a link? Or try reposting?
ReplyDeleteNever mind! It's working now :). Of course, the public perceives different sorts of risks differently. So there is a gap between how s&e's see risk and the public sees it. Which is why we study communication...
ReplyDelete