Antiquehunter
14th April 2011, 08:04 AM
I've been looking at a number of threads pertaining to big issues such as nuclear power in light of the earthquake & tsunami in Japan, and airline safety / security.
If we look at risk management (from a simple point of view), we tend to gauge things based on two criteria: The likelihood that something will happen, and the impact if something will happen.
Some things, like nuclear power accidents, or airplane terrorist attacks, have a very low frequency of occurrence, but huge impact if they occur.
My question for discussion in this thread - do you think that we can use risk management as a tool to gauge a response to these 'low frequency / high impact' instances? Or does the impact of certain events mean that we cannot responsibly apply this model in considering how we prepare / take precaution.
To kick things off - I'm of two minds. Nuclear power & airplane security are two examples where I think that yes, we should use appropriate risk management to strike an appropriate balance between safety & benefit.
However, I can think of certain things where I believe that we should adopt a zero tolerance methodology - such as nuclear war.
Curious to hear other people's thoughts on the topic (with appropriate trepidation...)
To be clear: I don't want to debate the merits/issues of any specific topic such as nuclear power/airplane security/nuclear war. This thread is for the discussion of whether or not we can responsibly manage risk for 'big' decisions.
-AH.
If we look at risk management (from a simple point of view), we tend to gauge things based on two criteria: The likelihood that something will happen, and the impact if something will happen.
Some things, like nuclear power accidents, or airplane terrorist attacks, have a very low frequency of occurrence, but huge impact if they occur.
My question for discussion in this thread - do you think that we can use risk management as a tool to gauge a response to these 'low frequency / high impact' instances? Or does the impact of certain events mean that we cannot responsibly apply this model in considering how we prepare / take precaution.
To kick things off - I'm of two minds. Nuclear power & airplane security are two examples where I think that yes, we should use appropriate risk management to strike an appropriate balance between safety & benefit.
However, I can think of certain things where I believe that we should adopt a zero tolerance methodology - such as nuclear war.
Curious to hear other people's thoughts on the topic (with appropriate trepidation...)
To be clear: I don't want to debate the merits/issues of any specific topic such as nuclear power/airplane security/nuclear war. This thread is for the discussion of whether or not we can responsibly manage risk for 'big' decisions.
-AH.