TED Conversations

Varlan Allan

Teacher, I CAN READ

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Risk assessments that even find low percentage of danger to human life because of unsafe business practices should not be allowed.

I was living with a oil/gas guy working with one of the big oil companies and I noticed some of the books that he was studying were left out on the table. As it perked my interests I decided to flip through a few pages and was soon shocked to find what kind of risk analysis he had to perform.

Many assessments related to risks of infant mortality and cancer rates. In my mind I thought, "If you even have to consider assessing such risks isn't it obvious that what your doing is not good?"

Related Talks:
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Paul Lillebo

    • 0
    Dec 13 2011: Risk assessment is crucially important in minimizing many sorts of risk in our lives. For example, the US EPA and other environmental protection agencies assess the cancer risk of chemicals in the environment, including the workplace, to determine what safety measures should be required for the handling of various chemicals, and what levels of cleanup are required in the case of spills. Risk assessment led to warnings that have reduced smoking and improved health, and led to the ban on DDT, as examples. Limitations on discharges to national waters are also based on risk assessment of the chemical concentrations in the discharges. Before these limitations were enacted our rivers were highly toxic. Now they're at least much cleaner, as a result of risk assessment and standard setting, though they're not yet satisfactory.

    Similarly, assessment of accident data tells us what kinds of activities are associated with accidents, so we can mitigate those. In short, risk assessment is needed in many areas like manufacturing, building, crime and vehicular accident prevention, etc. Without it, we'd be exposed to many risks that we're spared.
    • thumb

      Varlan Allan 10+

      • 0
      Dec 13 2011: Paul I understand that. My point is not why we have risk assessment, it is that when we know there is a risk to begin with, why do it. Even if there is a 1% chance of harming a human life, it probably shouldn't be done. Many things like "safe limits", like radioactive waste having "unharmful amounts" are nice ways of saying you won't die of it right away. Its similar to things such as msg. I see it in food all the time now, "Permitted food additives"
      This could mean all sorts of bad news considering that there are so many products that have this on their labels.

      My point being, risk assessment is good, but if there is known risk that can ultimately have adverse effects on human life then whatever environment destroying, cancer spreading chemical plant probably shouldn't be allowed to proceed with its production.
      • thumb

        Paul Lillebo

        • 0
        Dec 13 2011: OK, Varlan. Perhaps you might edit your original question to make it a little clearer, then your commenters could edit replies to be more on target. Both Krisztián and I read it the same way, that you were for some reason opposed to the work of assessing risks.

        As Krisztián says, some risk is inherent in every activity. The cancer-causing chemical question is particularly difficult. US EPA has long considered one additional cancer in a million a reasonable maximum limit for chemicals in the environment. A problem is that the combination of all the permitted chemicals in the environment may be much more toxic than you might think by adding up all the individual risk estimates. Also, occupational regulations of cancer-causing chemicals tend to be more lax, with a limitation that may correspond to 1-3 extra cancers in a million. That's a standard one thousand times less strict than the environmental standards. You're probably thinking that the occupational standards aren't strict enough, and I would agree. But the solution to that would be to change the guidelines for risk assessment and do it again. (I spent 25 years as environmental scientist with the state of CA , doing chemical risk assessments.)
      • thumb

        Joseph McMahon

        • 0
        Dec 20 2011: I can not think of any human endeavour that is without risk. Risk to life and limb is what took us from diminutive mamals to masters of this planet. To make power, create medicine, infact all technology has taken place in an environment of graduated risk. :)
    • thumb

      Varlan Allan 10+

      • 0
      Dec 13 2011: Sorry to you to Paul as my wording was a bit off.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.