#1 Four premises are used to address accident prevention.

Discuss why you think the four premises can

help you to perform a hazard analysis and risk assessment. Which of the premises do you believe is the
most important for determining the role of a safety engineer in hazard analyses/risk assessments? Why?
Your response must be at least 200 words in length.
Ans- The four premises used to address accident prevention are: 1. accidents have causes, 2. accidents
frequently entail risks such as harmful behaviours or activities, unsafe situations, and other circumstances,
3. accidents may or may not have consequences, and 4. consequences may be small or substantial
(severe). These locations can aid in hazard analysis and risk assessment by assisting the practitioner in
determining the who, what, when, and where of dangers and possible accidents. Many of these
assumptions are based on previous research of real incidents. With that experience, safety experts can
assess risks and detect dangers in comparable scenarios. When dealing with the who in a hazard analysis
and risk assessment, we strive to determine who will be exposed to the danger and what the degree of risk
associated with the hazard is. For the what, we want to know what the real risks are associated with the
task. To do this, it is critical to walk through the process with the person who is really completing the
activity. This can give information on the process and may even reveal risks that were previously
unknown. The when aspect helps pinpoint the specific point at which the hazard enters the work. There
may be phases in the activity that do not yet expose the worker to a danger, therefore it is critical to
determine the point at which the person is exposed to the hazard. It is critical to determine the location of
the danger in hazard analysis and risk assessment. It is critical to determine the location of the danger in
hazard analysis and risk assessment. The rationale for this is that the danger may frequently be isolated, or
the worker can be segregated from the hazard, which can reduce or eliminate the chance of exposure to
the hazard.

#2 Compare the multiple factors theory and the energy theory, and discuss the advantages of each in
conducting a formal hazard analysis.
Your response must be at least 200 words in length.
Ans-

According to multiple factor theories, accidents result from multiple causes coming together at
random or in some other sensible way. According to this idea, many elements come together at
the junction point in a random manner (in any given order) to cause an accident. Activities,
conditions, and circumstances are the three key factors that contribute to dangerous situations.
Thus, the many factors hypothesis determines how several elements interact to produce a
danger.

According to William Haddon's energy theory, occurrences will surely occur before, during, or
after an exchange of energy. Energy theory is a perspective on accident prevention that entails
identifying and/or theorising an energy source that might result in mishaps. Once the source of
the energy is identified, it may be separated, modified, or eliminated to reduce the energy
production.

Examples include barrier systems that are created and used to carry out certain tasks, barriers
that stop undesirable functions, and barrier elements that are parts of systems. When
comparing the two, it is discovered that the energy theory is more similar to a single factor
theory since it just identifies the danger at the time of formation. Hence, emphasising what may
be done to minimise the possibility of uncontrolled energy release.

On the other hand, the many factors hypothesis describes a situation in which a single or
multiple individuals, locations, or things combine to create a dangerous risk. It is most likely a
mix of events, situations, and actions. This idea seems to concentrate greater emphasis on what
causes the risk and how to reduce it in the first place. When evaluating a technique or process,
it seems to me that it would be helpful to keep both theories in mind.

A risk should always be eliminated, dangerous situations should be avoided, and one should
know how to respond in an emergency. Furthermore, even if there is a minimal risk threat,
everyone working in a hazardous or risky environment should always be ready for anything.
Any design in the workspace ought to take the energy source(s) into account and be set up to
prevent energy dispersion.

#3 Compare the terms hazard and risk. Give two examples of occupational hazards you are familiar with,
and explain why you believe they are hazards. Using the two examples, discuss variables in the work
environment that you believe may increase the risks associated with the hazards.
Your response must be at least 200 words in length.
Ans- "Any cause of possible damage, harm, or bad health impacts on something or someone" is how
hazards are defined (Canadian, 2017). On the other hand, a risk is the likelihood that a person would be
hurt or experience those negative health impacts as a result of being exposed to the hazard, as well as
the seriousness of the unfavourable effects of the exposure. By comparing the likelihood and severity of a
danger, a risk matrix is frequently used to assess the overall risk associated with it.
A conveyor belt with a sharp edge is an illustration of a workplace hazard. If someone comes in contact
with the sharp edge, it could lacerate them. If the workers are not wearing any personal protective
equipment or if they are unaware of its presence before running their hands across the edge, the hazards
associated with this sharp edge on a conveyor could increase. If someone is not using their PPE, the
severity would be raised, and the likelihood would rise if the hazard's presence is not acknowledged.
Another illustration is flour dust, which, if continuously exposed to, over time, can result in negative health
impacts including cancer. A piping system breach that would enable more flour dust than necessary to
escape into the air or incorrect cleaning techniques that would lead to an accumulation of dust are
workplace factors that could raise the dangers associated with flour dust. Since the employee would be
inhaling more dust at once as a result of the additional dust in the air or accumulated on the equipment,
the hazard's seriousness increases. Since there is more dust nearby, the likelihood has also increased.
To keep personnel safe from these kinds of risks and the risk low and under control, it is essential to
conduct frequent inspections and industrial hygiene monitoring.

#4 Explain the differences between a reactive and a proactive approach to safety. Discuss how the use of
one of the approaches over the other would affect a facility's approach to hazard analysis and risk
assessment.
Your response must be at least 200 words in length.
Ans- The reactive and proactive methods of approaching safety are virtually diametrically opposed. Both
have their uses depending on the situation. The proactive strategy aims to prevent accidents and
incidents, whereas the reactive method responds to or starts with them (Brauer, 2016). The reactive
strategy starts with an accident, an accident investigation, analysis, and finally, preventative measures.
Accidents would be frequent if a facility adopted a reactive approach to safety because they would wait
until an accident occurred before making changes. For many, it's already too late. Today, safety is all
about prevention. This method, which incorporates the incident investigation process and argues that
analytical results may be used to prevent recurrence mishaps, can be helpful in the case of an accident.
By identifying potential dangers or contributing factors and putting preventative measures in place to stop
accidents before they happen, the proactive method attempts to reduce accidents and incidents.
Risk analyses and hazard analyses are used to do this. As a consequence, preventative strategies are
put into place, eliminating the majority of accidents or incidents by reducing risks or regulating hazards.
An organisation may create a strong safety programme with the use of the proactive approach. A
proactive strategy might be beneficial when accidents do occur. Lessons obtained from the incident's
thorough investigation and analysis will be used to change accident prevention strategies.

Risk assessments and hazard analyses would be carried out after an occurrence if facilities adopted a
reactive strategy. First an accident happens, which is then investigated. Next, a hazard analysis is done,
and finally, preventative measures are put into place. putting workers at danger of accidents, or mishaps
that result in exorbitant expenditures for businesses owing to fines, workers' compensation, and
production delays. Today, the majority of organizations recognise the value of a safety culture and try to
prevent accidents. Some even have a zero-accident policy.