All Risks Are Not Created Equal

I was reminded recently that many of us use the word 'risk' rather loosely, as if it's something we either take or don't take.  It might indeed appear that many of us are firmly ensconced in either one of two extremes, namely cautious, and don't take risks at all, as in ...

Better to be safe than sorry.
Samuel Lover

or  reckless, throwing all caution to the wind, as in ... 

A rash man, a skin of good wine, and a glass vessel, do not last long.
Portuguese Proverb

or

He who hesitates is lost.

adaptation of a line in Joseph Addison's 1712 play Cato: "The woman that deliberates is lost." 

But what if we could take an educated look at 'risk', analyse it, and then be able to decide what our chances are of sinking or swimming by taking any particular risk? What if I were to say that this analytical 'risk assessment' approach is  not only a valid decision tool for mathematicians, scientist and engineers, but also a means for many of us to unlock our stressful state of procrastination, whereby we're torn between doubt and conviction and the consequential dangers or benefits? 

Should it be a case of ... 

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread?
Alexander Pope in "An Essay on Criticism"

or should it rather be a case of ... 

Act in haste, regret at leisure?
Anonymus, Old Adage

Then, of course, besides caution or recklessness, there's a third and far less convincing solution to risk procrastination, as indicated on the stubble holder slogan below:

What if I were to tell you that, in my world of engineering, we take risks every day and on every project?  Would you then deduce that engineers are rash, reckless and impetuous, preferring to shelter behind the old adage of 

No Pain, No Gain?

Or perhaps you may deduce, from the above stubbie holder slogan, that we're all a bunch of 'winos'?

Hopefully not, because risk in engineering is a very important concept, since risk is inescapable, is all around us, and because safety, for all stakeholders and for the environment, means everything to the professional engineer. It follows that we are ethically and morally bound to carefully assess risk so that we may then be able to minimise that risk to a predefined level of 'very low' or 'low'. But before we proceed further, we need to look at a couple of definitions.

First we must identify all the associated hazards, or things that have potential to create harm. 

One by one we then evaluate the probability of each hazard occurring during our design life, and the consequences on human life and on the design environment, should the hazard (or hazards) eventuate. The lowest risk is then defined as having the lowest probability of occurrence (perhaps described as 'barely credible') and the least consequential damage (perhaps described as 'insignificant'). Similarly the highest risk is associated with a very high probability of occurrence (perhaps described as 'almost certain') coupled with the highest consequential damage (perhaps described as 'catastrophic'). 

Once the hazards have been so evaluated into a series of defined risk levels, such as 'very low', 'low', 'moderate', 'high', and 'very high', we can then more meaningfully decide whether to avoid each hazard altogether, or else apply one or more possible controls in order to reduce the risk level associated with that hazard.  When we apply valid controls we aim to reduce the analysed risk level from relatively high, without any control being applied,  to 'very low' or 'low' after the control or controls have been applied. 

This analytical approach can also be applied to a range of situations outside engineering. Hence "All risks are not created  equal " but, after analysis, can be broken down into a series of pre-determined levels, in order to give us a much clearer choice of how best to move forward.  

But does this all sound perhaps like jiggery pokery, hocus pocus, or even smoke and mirrors?  Is this an effective management process or pure wizardry?

In my own background as a geotechnical engineer or 'dirt doctor', we frequently look at how to assess and manage various engineering risks.  One scenario that often sparks public interest and comment is the risk of slope instability and movement, be it landslip or rockfall, and the resultant effects on land development, be it existing or proposed.  Here, based on inspection and experience, typical hazards might be as exemplified in the table below, with possible associated controls alongside.

All risks are not created equal!
Ken's manipulation of Thomas Jefferson's "All men are created equal."

So there we have it ... a quick and rather "fool's guidish" summary of the analysis of risk by hazard identification, application of controls, and then, by determination of probability of occurrence and consequences of failure, allocation of a definitive risk level and hence a solution.  This then enables the hazard (or hazards) to be either avoided, or a control (or controls) set in place to reduce the risk level to 'very low' or 'low'.

If you've followed this so far, then perhaps you may enjoy these hypothetical risk and hazard questions and answers, by way of either reward or punishment ... you decide: 

1. Why are soccer stadiums at risk of burning down?

Because of all the matches. 🤣

2. Why do skeletons never take risks?

Because they've got no guts. 😂

3. What do you call a vegetarian that takes risks?

A vegedarian. 😆

4. Don't count on your risk of getting hypothermia being low.

You may get a little number. 😟

5. Always buy your bedroom furniture one by one at separate stores.

Otherwise you risk getting a sectionally transmitted disease. 😳

6. Why are bad puns unsafe for children?

Because they're a joking hazard. 🤢

7. Why shouldn't elves drive Mini-Mokes?

Because mokin's an elf hazard.  🤕  

...................<<..................>>...................

http://ken-boddie.squarespace.com

The author of the above, Ken Boddie, besides being a sometime poet and occasional writer, is an enthusiastic photographer, rarely leisure-travelling without his Canon, and loves to interact with other like-minded people with diverse interests.

Ken's three day work week (part time commitment) as a consulting engineer allows him to follow his photography interests, and to plan trips to an ever increasing list of countries and places of scenic beauty and cultural diversity.