Rich, et al
AH, now you are getting to the “specifics” J Whilst I (and many others!) are very well aware of all those other “contributory factors” (some of which I also outlined to SWMBO’s friend’s partner!), I didn’t want to “go into that level of detail” in my initial post >From some experience, I think there are some somewhat fundamental differences >in the way in which various sectors of the risk assessment communities view >how “risk” should be assessed. On this side of the “Pond”, I seem to recall that the “slightly more simplistic” approach I outlined earlier has been mainly the prevalent one, whereas on “t’other” side of the “Pond” then the approach you outlined may be more prevalent, as it seems to be in some sectors of industrial standards risk assessment (e.g. in 623286). I’m n d ot saying that either one is “right or wrong” – but it does highlight the many differences in opinions on how to approach risk assessment AND that both of them are generally very complex due to all the likely underlying factors! As for the original “Act of God” “issue”, one does have to wonder why this can nowadays, with “all that we know” about the World, technology, human behavior, widespread availability of information, etc., can really be attributed to an “Act of God” that no-one could possibly have predicted (unless, of course, those gods and demons of the ancient religions do actually exist as we cannot possibly predict what they might or not do!) John E Allen W. London, UK From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: 30 December 2019 23:20 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] act of God versus safety Hi John A. and all: A different process than “risk assessment:” A hungry polar bear is a hazardous energy source. The bear’s energy exceeds John A.’s defensive energy, thus John A. can expect to be injured or worse during a polar bear encounter. The safeguard for John A. is distance. However, if the London Zoo had a polar bear (it doesn’t), the safeguard would be a fence or cage or some other form of polar bear containment. Assuming the containment method is reliable, the probability of John A. injury from a London Zoo polar bear is no more than the distance safeguard. When John A. climbs a ladder, he has potential energy that increases with increasing height on the ladder. If he should fall, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy imparted to the body when it collides with the ground. The principal safeguard is behavior (skill). A supplemental safeguard could be a harness which would arrest his fall before he hit the ground. I have considered “energy” imparted to the body as the cause of injury. And, I have identified one or more safeguards for prevention of transfer of the energy to the body. As I said, a different approach. Best wishes for the holiday season, Rich - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
