What is the (risk) Matrix?
June 16th 2010 01:31
At my Department of Materials Engineering, before starting any research project, you’re required to fill out a form characterizing its risks and hazards in detail. The form needs to identify both the likelihood and consequences of each risk (which, depending on your project, might range from getting your hair caught in the microscope’s focus knob to inhaling asbestos fibers), and rate the overall danger it poses based on the combination of those.
This procedure, oddly enough, was the first thing I thought of when reading media coverage of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the various responses to it. Undoubtedly, BP and/or the relevant agencies did a similar assessment when the Deepwater Horizon field first opened. As we see now, the consequences of an accident of this type are very high (and not just the environmental destruction – there are also economic and strategic issues involved), but contrary to what MSNBC and Obama’s moratorium on offshore drilling might tell you, the likelihood of such an accident is actually relatively low. Serious oil accidents of this type actually occur at most once every few years – one reason that Exxon Valdez is still a byword for oil accidents after so many years is that there was not anything of the same scale until now.
It is similar to the fact that nuclear power is constantly derided as “unsafe” by elements of the media despite the world seeing only about four civilian nuclear accidents that actually involve radioactive material and serious health effects per decade. It is important to remember, even as we deal with the effects of the Deepwater Horizon accident and determine who must bear the responsibility for it, that just as in my laboratory, such incidents cannot be assessed solely in terms of their possible outcomes, and that the activity has many benefits in addition to its risks.
This procedure, oddly enough, was the first thing I thought of when reading media coverage of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the various responses to it. Undoubtedly, BP and/or the relevant agencies did a similar assessment when the Deepwater Horizon field first opened. As we see now, the consequences of an accident of this type are very high (and not just the environmental destruction – there are also economic and strategic issues involved), but contrary to what MSNBC and Obama’s moratorium on offshore drilling might tell you, the likelihood of such an accident is actually relatively low. Serious oil accidents of this type actually occur at most once every few years – one reason that Exxon Valdez is still a byword for oil accidents after so many years is that there was not anything of the same scale until now.
It is similar to the fact that nuclear power is constantly derided as “unsafe” by elements of the media despite the world seeing only about four civilian nuclear accidents that actually involve radioactive material and serious health effects per decade. It is important to remember, even as we deal with the effects of the Deepwater Horizon accident and determine who must bear the responsibility for it, that just as in my laboratory, such incidents cannot be assessed solely in terms of their possible outcomes, and that the activity has many benefits in addition to its risks.
| 102 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
