BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?

Subject: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 08:14 PM

In 1945, the US Secretary of War's office "estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan."

"Officially ... There were 96 'industrial' fatalities. during the construction of Hoover Dam. This figure does not include deaths by other means including heat, heart problems and curiously, pneumonia. Another estimate is 112 and that supposedly includes a longer time frame than just the construction period. Oddly the larger estimate also holds some irony. It begins the count on December 20, 1922 with J.G. Tierney a Bureau of Reclamation employee who was part of a geological survey and drowned when he fell from a barge. Exactly 13 years later, in 1935, his son Patrick W. Tierney, fell to his death from an intake tower."

We all take risks every minute of our lives. We can reduce risk -- not keeping a loaded firearm in a house with children, for instance -- or increase it.

When does risk become unacceptable? The two quotations above are examples of large-scale projects that had estimated deaths and injuries. Actuaries and "risk managers" deal with it all the time as numbers; the people who are injured or die have more personal stakes.

What actually is an acceptable level of risk and how do you determine it for yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 09:11 PM

"Risk management" is an insurance term that, as such, knows no limits-- because any safety risk of which one is aware (in the business world) is one from which one is obligated to protect one's business and "customers"-- or suffer litigation for negligence. The standard there, I believe, is "reasonable care..." A bit nebulous....

Before we decry "risk management" in a vacuum, we have to look in parallel at our litigious society and perhaps ourselves as litigious individuals. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 10:00 PM

I am not decrying it. Far from it. We all manage risk every minute in one way or another, and some of the risks are not at all immediately apparent. For example, outside of my Library is a bronze statue of a young boy, running, books under one arm and a broom in his left hand.

The sculptor's lawyer said that he would have recommended putting the broomstick at a higher angle because as it is it someone could walk into it and injure themself.

We take that risk because it can't be cured (short of defacing the sculpture). But if (when) we add another sculpture we'll do our best to avoid the potential risk we have with this statue.

There is also a sculpture in back. It's made from the metal of melted guns and depicts a youngster, inside a whirlwind spiral of stylized guns, reaching for a white dove and dedicated to an end to violence against youth.

Lovely thing. And it's set on a base about three feet off the ground, which is climbed on by children who could fall and hurt themselves. Again, it's a risk we live with.

My question is, at what point do we say "No, that's too risky"??

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 10:32 PM

There's no external index you can apply to all cases. Risk is contextual. Signing up to fight in WW 2 was a high risk option, but the context was compelling. Vietnam, also high risk, less compelling context.

What is the candle worth in the game?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 10:38 PM

Optimum risk is zero. However, some occasions and types of work carry risks with them. In those lines of work, people and organizations do their darndest to lessen the risks completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Janie
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 10:44 PM

Good question.

Clearly, individuals vary in their ability to tolerate risk and uncertainty. Some are much more tolerant of the risk to others than they are of risk to themselves, and visa versa. The 'angle' or perspective from which the risk assessment is done, which may also have to do with the purpose of the risk assessment is a factor. The level of psychological denial is a big factor, as it determines the perception of risk. Too much denial or too little are equally problematic, but who is to say what is just enough?

Who "we' is will be a factor. "Our" resources will be another factor - both the nature of those resources, and how plentiful those resources are. Values and mores play a significant role,

To live is to risk. To move in the world is a risk. To allow a child to get in a swing, or to climb a tree or monkey bar is a risk. What risk is actually being assessed? In your example regarding the sculpture, if "we" is the corporate entity of the library, then I assume the risk being assessed is the risk of being sued. Which is related to, but not the same as the risk that a child might be hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 10:54 PM

A fine distinction but spot on.

Totally aside from situational differences, individuals have differing degrees to which a given risk is subjectively distorted and becomes large subjectively. Partly this is caused by the adhesion of past loss which "must not happen again", a mechanism which asserts itself even when the differences are far more evident to an outside observer than the similarities.

Dealing with "whether or not the library could get sued" of course is also reckoning on an imponderable about the temperament of library parents, which you can only approximate statistically.

Some folks will tolerate risk bravely in one arena -- say business -- but in another, such as romance, they will grow much more cautious. They have a different "freight index" for one area than another, among other factors.

I think, in the final analysis, it is entirely a subjective call, an individual assessment.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:00 PM

There are certain risks that I do not take.
l. I do not ever fly on airplanes (even before 9/11).

2. Since 9/11 I do not enter the 5 boroughs of NYC.

3. I do not go out in a car on New Years Eve or the night of St. Patrick's Day.

4. I do not serve or allow alcohol at my house concerts because I may be sued if someone drinks too much and has an accident while driving home.

                                                   SOL

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:01 PM

I had a friend who was terrified of flying, so he took trains everywhere. He died. A plane crashed into the train . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:17 PM

Both, my wife and I will not risk surgery with general anesthesia if it is at all possible for the sugery to be done with epidural, spinal, regional, or local. When my wife had hip replacement surgery she shopped around for 3 years until she found a surgeon willing to do the procedure only with epidural and with no sedation whatsoever.
After surgery she insisted on a non-narcotic pain killer, Toridol, which would not make her sleepy. I will not undergo surgery unless it is a life threatening situation.

                                              SOL

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: mg
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:22 PM

I won't drive in snow or ice unless I am caught in something...I won't eat transfats but I drink too much diet coke. I hate living near the ocean in Tsunamiville but that is where my job is. I drive heavier cars than is socially acceptable. I won't live in a city I can't get out of pretty assuredly..Seattle is out, Portland is out...I won't shop in a store that I can't find my way out of in case of blackouts...some of them are designed to confuse you...I used to do a lot of tracheotomies on rats and was pretty good and ever since a nurse says she never travels without a kit I have wanted one too but so far have resisted the urge...my biggest risk is the hereafter and so I try to keep my sins to a minimum and every now and then try to remember how the Act of Contrition goes but I am sure at the time of death I'll be saying Angel of God my Guardian dear or something else that doesn't count as much..oh and I go to stations of the cross every Good Friday because you get a plenary indulgance. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Bert
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:24 PM

You cant' stop living for the fear of dying.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: mg
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:27 PM

Well you can if you are Catholic. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 08:56 AM

I was born and raised Catholic and I'm not afraid of death. I figure that if there IS a God s/he understands me (which is more than I do myself).

About the Library risks: we could also have a bomb set off (as was done to the Salt Lake City Public Library) or an arsonist (which we had in 1979) or someone fall over one of the speed bumps in the parking lot (as happened about two weeks ago). I think that anyone suing the Library would not be very popular with the citizenry since a judgement against the Library would also be against the City (it's a City building and the area around it is considered a park) and that would mean an increase in property taxes.

And if you want to be unpopular in Idaho, raise taxes!

I won't hunt or shoot with someone I don't know well; I won't drive if I've had more than two drinks; I will ALWAYS were safety/protective equipment when working with power tools, including (ironic, since I now have hearing aids) hearing protection. I gave up motorcycles years ago after a friend had his head erased in an accident, and I gave up smoking my pipe (and tobacco in general) back in 1985. And I can't even back the car out of the garage without fastening my seat belt (I also drive with my lights on the daytime).

I try to give myself every chance I can, but I'll still probably be killed by a burning beer truck driven by a drunken driver smoking pot and not wearing a seat belt.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 09:43 AM

...who was born out of wedlock to a crack-using psycho gal in a trailerpark whose birth-control pills had failed because Pfizer lowered their QA standards to squeak the profit margin per unit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 09:57 AM

There's a distinction here (I'm very much into distinctions, as many of you know) that ought to be made:

There is "hazard" and there is "risk". They are not synonymous. They need to be considered jointly.

"Hazard" has to do with the likelihood of a harmful event.

"Risk" then deals with the magnitude of the harm done if the hazard comes to fruition. As I see it, risk equals hazard times potential harm.

Thus, while we have extremely low hazard of an asteroid hitting earth, the degree of damage that would be done in the event of such striking is phenomenal.   Here, the high damage potential is pretty much negated by the exceedingly low hazard. Few (I suppose I can't say "none") of us actually worry about this hazard.

But if you have a very high likelihood (high hazard) of a particular event people will often go to great lengths to avoid it even if the likely damage is fairly small.

We all do this kind of balancing every day of our lives.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 12:44 AM

What Dave says is eminently reasonable; in a logical world you'd quantify danger by multiplying the probability of an event happening by
some number describing the seriousness of that event. We don't operate in a logical world, though. The amount of effort and money expended to reduce a risk is much more a function of how dramatic that risk seems to be. Expenditures involved in mining safety, say, are much greater than those for pedestrian safety. I won't even discuss terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:41 AM

I think the answer lies in the word "acceptable". If the risk does materialise and you can still look at yourself in the mirror and say "it was worth it", then it is acceptable. It's to do with where you hold the balance of the risk against the related rewards, and that can be different for different people.

So Rabbi-Sol finds the risks of flying unacceptable. But others do not. No point in arguing it out, because for him the rewards (getting there faster, the thrill of flying, the pleasure of queueing to be body-searched etc) are too light in his balance against the risk of an accident, loss of life etc.

It is also to do with how much you value the things to be risked. Your life, for example. If you think a longer life is your ultimate treasure, you will not risk it for anything.

Risk is fear-related.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:08 PM

Acceptable risk is always the risk one runs voluntarily, unacceptable risk is the risk other people actions or lack of actions put me into. So often the same people who practise a high risk sport complain about a lower risk industrial plant in the vicinity.

For industries and work, there are some measurable standards (perhaps depending upon country) which make sense:

If one hour of working is less dangerous or at most as dangerous as one hour of non-working (without sleeping) in the same country then there is no good reason to complain about the level of dangers of this particular work according to court decisions.

One standard for a universally acceptable lowest risk level (in the sense, that it is not worth trying or spending money to reduce this level of risk furthermore) is the risk of dying between 5 and 15 years of age.

One paradox I see in me (and other people): the less we lose by a sudden death (in terms of expected remaining years to live) the more we avoid risks.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 03:49 PM

The paradox is well established. In Greece we see people beyond a certain age suddenly getting religion. No-one genuflects like a 75 year old, they say...

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 03:54 PM

I dunno, George. I'm 78, and my knees aren't really up to genuflecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 03:57 PM

Must be the olive oil over there, I guess... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 03:48 PM

sorry, above was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 04:12 PM

The multiplication Dick is commenting on is a normal part of large project management administrative tricks. I don't know that it really adds much value but at least it makes a requirement that risks be intentionally identified, and weighed and compared, even if the math is a little footloose.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 05:33 PM

Wolfgang told us:

One paradox I see in me (and other people): the less we lose by a sudden death (in terms of expected remaining years to live) the more we avoid risks.

Ahh, Wolfgang, you are, I think, choosing the wrong standard of "less to lose" by death as one ages.

Yes, as one gets older there are fewer years left which might be lost by a sudden demise. But that very fact tends to make the years yet to be lived more precious, in the minds of many. This may or may not be easily justified by logical manipulation of objective factors, but it is an observable phenomenon in the subjective attitudes of many.

Thus, with fewer years expected to live, there may well be MORE to lose, not less.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:42 AM

Rapaire, The most insidious use and misuse of risk management comes in the form of research that is commonly called
Cost Risk Benefit Analysis.

Lets take the 300 tazer deaths (not the 30 that the taser industry reported - moving the dicimal point is very popular these days)

300 deaths out of 1,000,000 tazerings is a small percentage.
Also there are fewer reported injuries inflicted upon police personnel.

The cost risk benefit sounds good but as you said "it should only be used in a life threatening situation" and this is no part of the analysis.

An unconcious woman in diabetic coma was tasered by a cop to see if she was awake. A handcuffed pregant woman was tasered after immobilized. A man was tasered in a swamp. A man was tasered in a Mickey D's after complaining in a loud voice that he was badly burned by a McDonalds hot apple pie.
These true life examples do not influence the cost risk analysis.

OTher uses of the CRA allows a certain dose of poison or pesticide or heavy metal to be dosed to you per serving.
Yet it does not take into to account cummulative effects.

Cost Risk Management is used by corporations to legally kill an allowable number of people.

Sometimes when a procedure will guarantee the murder of a person it still is still deemed a good thing for the speculative "long run" knowledge that will be gained..

When a vaccine is known to hurt a certain number of people it is decoded by the CRA formula that it is OK.

Whats the problem?

Its the people who often $profit that chose the number...not you.

In goverment the CRA is the measuring stick for nearly everything.
You don;t think it would be avused just for political reasons do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 12:25 PM

That, Donuel, was what I said at the beginning. So many would die in battle for the Japanese home islands, so many would die building Boulder Dam.

Where is the line? How much is too much? We put ourselves at risk just by being alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 12:49 PM

Hell, if you're gonna run a war, you're gonna end up counting bodies, one way or another. The alternative is to do it on rumopr, which is full of risks also. MEtrics do help.

But they don't truly do "ethics". As Donuel points out, it is so easy to twist metrics around that you have to consider who is choosing the number to offset the vested interest of the calculator.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 01:19 PM

Amos, I said that? You made it sound much better :)

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 01:29 PM

By the 1960's the evidence was clear that the over 300 atmospheric massive nuclear explosions (by the US alone) were going to result in over 20,000,000 cancer deaths. The wisdom that prevailed sent the nukes underground which still leak but not as bad.

I have seen the goverment docu,mentaries/propoganda films that alled the people would in the future die from the tests already done as the heros of the cold war.

The 1960-1980 1000% rise in childhood leukemia isn't heroic to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: redsnapper
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:01 PM

"Hazard" has to do with the likelihood of a harmful event. "Risk" then deals with the magnitude of the harm done if the hazard comes to fruition.

Not so.

A hazard is defined as a potential source of harm.

Risk is a combination of the likelihood of harm occuring and the severity of that harm. (in other words risk has two components).

There is rarely such a thing as "zero risk" in anything involving human endeavour despite the inclination of politicians and others to wish it so.

Risk management, while a systematic process, always has a subjective aspect as different situations will have a different balance between risk and benefit. For example, a risky medical procedure might be acceptable if the patient would otherwise die but would not be acceptable for a routine elective procedure. The acceptability of a risk depends on many factors including personal, societal and cultural values. Risk management normally involves reducing identified risks but frequently there will be a point where risk reduction beyond a certain point becomes uneconomical.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: redsnapper
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 03:04 PM

P.S. I do not work for the government or industry but do teach risk management.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 04:44 PM

I look at statistics. Then I determine as best I can how much control *I* have over becoming a statistic.

I see that a certain % of woodworkers eventually experience cuts and lung problems...but I also see that adopting certain rules and habits can put ME on the 'safer' side of the bell curve, so I do my woodworking and use safety procedures and wear dust masks and never drink before using equipment.
   In the same way, I drive autos, even though terrible accidents happen every day....but I do NOT speed (much) and I am not a type-A impulsive driver, and won't ride with those who are.
   On the other hand, I always wanted to climb mountains and ski-jump....but I see that even the BEST of those who do often experience serious injury, because of the limits of their control over the outcome, so I choose NOT to try those things.
   I do NOT gamble...I KNOW the odds are against me, and I have little disposable income. I do not play the stock market, as it takes way too much study to avoid is being just another form of gambling.

   This life is quite complicated, but as long as I can find enjoyment thru reasonably safe practices where *I* have significant control, I will play the game. No...I'm not an adrenaline junky.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 11:55 PM

The problem with over-reducing risk is that by eliminating a small risk (dammit, I hate the jargon. I'd much rather use risk as the combination of severity and probability of undesired effects) is that if the probability of damage is slight and the severity is great, we often wind
up banning something that would otherwise benefit the vast majority of the people involved. Take VIOXX, f'rinstance. For many pain sufferers it was about the only thing that worked. I know several well educated, intelligent folks that would be willing to take the (unlikely but severe) risk of taking it for the benefit of dramatically reducing pain.
Or consider the banning of hexachlorophene in hospitals--because a number of nurses failed to use it properly (failure to rinse it off) it's no longer used in hospitals. As a direct result, bacterial infection rates soared.

Identifying risks is a great and noble practice. Banning substances that may cause suh risks is often a serious mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Risk Management, Or, How Much Is Too?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:12 AM

It is also true that individual temperament defines an envelope of acceptable risk. Outside the envelope, one becomes uncomfortable with too much risk and too little predictability in one direction, or with things being too safe and too predictable on the other.

It is a very good thing to be aware of the risks you are taking at any given moment, and take them willingly, providing you are drawnt o do so by the benefits of taking them. After all, that's why the chicken crossed the road.


A