You are on page 1of 2

10 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2012 www.asse.

org
Risk Assessment
Dont Overlook
Total System Risk
J
ohn Piampiano and Steve Rizzo did a laudable
job in Safe or Safe Enough (Jan. 2012, pp. 36-
43) of outlining the steps necessary to assess risks
for the identifed hazards populating a system. In
an article of only eight pages, it would be impossi-
ble to cover the topic much more thoroughly than
they did. The approach they describe is one that
has been in use for many decades. It has earned
justifable trust at the task of subjectively assessing
the individual risks of each separate hazard mak-
ing up the hazard population found to exist within
a system.
An important warning to risk assessment
practitioners that surely deserves mention is omit-
ted in the article, however, much as it is omitted
from many textbooks and even from recognized
standards dealing with this topic. The authors
approach ignores the importance of recogniz-
ing overall system risk. It is that total system risk
which must be accepted or rejected by the system
proprietor-operator. Moreover, this approach sup-
ports the common misconception that a system is
safe if each of its hazards, when considered alone,
poses risk that is individually acceptable.
Those individual risks are for the most part sta-
tistically independent. Thus, total system risk ap-
proaches the simple sum of those individual partial
risks contributed by each separate hazard. Within
todays manufacturing and processing systems,
hazard populations frequently exceed many dozens
or even hundreds of partial risk contributors to the
whole. Total system risk goes unseen by the analyst
and by the system proprietor-operator who must
assume responsibility for accepting or rejecting it.
Pat Clemens, P.E., CSP
Tullahoma, TN
The Language of Safety
Terms Matter
I
n his Worth Reading contribution in the De-
cember 2011 issue (p. 53), Carl Metzgar writes
about the medias use of the term freak accident. In
a June 2001 editorial, the British Medical Journal
(BMJ) banned the term accident stating, For
many years, safety offcials and public health
authorities have discouraged use of the word ac-
cident when it refers to injuries or the events that
produce them. An accident is often understood to
be unpredictablea chance occurrence or an act
of Godand, therefore, unavoidable. However,
most injuries and their precipitating events are
predictable and preventable. That is why the BMJ
has decided to ban the word accident.
Even before this editorial appeared, I tried to
avoid the use of the term accident in my work.
Daniel Smith Merrick, P.E.
San Jose, CA
Safety Management
Clear Communication Crucial
I
n response to Fred Manueles article, Review-
ing Heinrich: Dislodging Two Myths From the
Practice of Safety (Oct. 2011, pp. 52-61) and the
responses in the December 2011 issue, I would
like to add a couple of things.
I agree with many responders to a point. When
analyzing and investigating incidents, the use of
the fve-why method is invaluable. However, I
have found if you meld that with Robert Magers
Analyzing Performance Problems teachings and
work fow, it is a more complete process and digs
a little deeper. Also, I remember attending a Dan
Petersen seminar in the 1990s during which he
stated that most incidents are the result of some-
ones unsafe actions, but that about 85% of the
time, it was because of a breakdown in the overall
management system.
Experience over the years has taught me that
the one critical element in a management system
that is abused or missing is clear communication.
Thats why I profess safety and health has little
to do with OSHA or science. It has everything
to do with people and the choices they make. I
have found it very enlightening that when you ask
people about why they made a choice or what led
them to believe it was a good choice, the respons-
es will lead to the true causal factors.
At the end of the day, we are human and we
make mistakes based on our choices and our
real-time measurements of what is an acceptable
level of risk. Its not as diffcult as we try to make it
sometimes.
Jc Guard
Portland, OR
Injury Prevention
Required Reading
F
red Manueles article is superb in general and
excellent in its specifc details. I would have
liked more of his view of the behaviorists vis--vis
Heinrich, but I understand that an articles scope
and focus has to be maintained. Maybe someday
he will take on that issue in a robust way.
I have another take on the Heinrich quote H22
(p. 59, 2nd column). [A]nother base therefore
could be established showing that from 500 to
1,000 or more unsafe acts or exposures to me-
chanical hazards existed in the average case before
even one of the 300 narrow escapes from injury
What Readers Are Saying
Reader Forum
Professional Safety encourages readers to write to Reader Forum in
response to specifc articles, editorials, letters, columns and news
reports. The editors reserve the right to select which letters will ap-
pear and to edit letters for brevity and clarity. Send letters to: Reader
Forum, Professional Safety, 1800 E. Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL,
60018; professionalsafety@asse.org.
The
authors
approach
ignores the
importance
of recogniz-
ing overall
system risk.
It is that
total system
risk which
must be
accepted or
rejected.
Copyright of Professional Safety is the property of American Society of Safety Engineers and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

You might also like