Measuring risk

If we could measure risk accurately, our decisions would be easy. 

Risk can be measured and expressed in a number of ways. CCPS s Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis (Ref. 4) identifies three main categories of risk measure Risk Indices, Individual Risk, and Societal Risk. 

There are a number of approaches to measuring risks depending on assessment and measurement endpoints selected. At ecosystem level, one can propose a percentage of the affected area with CLs exceeded as an acceptable quantitative parameter for ecosystem risk magnitude. In pristine areas, actual state of the environment may be taken as a reference point for risk characterization. 

Most of the risks estimated to be associated with environmental chemical exposures are much less firmly established. So, although chemical risk information is often expressed in the same form as that based on directly measured risks, it is derived using quite different methods, and almost always includes extrapolations beyond measured risk data. 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of luminescence techniques for real-time monitoring. This review provides (i) an introduction to luminescence fundamentals (ii) an outline of various luminescence techniques, with particular focus on steady state photoluminescent sensing (iii) an overview of the emission measurement risks and (iv) a discussion of current and potential PAT applications. 

Luminescence is often much more sensitive to molecular dynamics than other optical techniques where temperature, viscosity, pH and solvent effects can have a significant influence on the emission response. Analyte degradation for light sensitive fluors and photobleaching for static measurements also influence the emission signal. Because of the wide variety of potential matrix effects, a thorough investigation should be conducted or the sample matrix well understood in terms of its potential impact on emission response. A complete discussion on the fate of the excited states and other measurement risk considerations can be found elsewhere. ... 

NCRP (1993b). National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Risk Estimates for Radiation Protection, NCRP Report No. 115 (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland). 

The public s skepticism about the adequacy of current methods to measure risk will rise, perhaps to unmanageable proportions. 

If we have high confidence in the methods we now use to measure risks from synthetic chemicals, and if we act on the basis of such risks, how can we justify not applying equally vigorous actions to the management of risks from the natural components of food ... 

Our society seems to be willing to accept tangible and measurable risks in our daily activities as a result of cigarette smoking, excessive food and alcohol intake, and the use of the automobile. 

Bhattacharya, A. 2001. Postural balance measurements. Risk assessment of acute exposure to jet fuel. Pp. 72-75 in JP8 Final Risk Assessment. The Institute of Environmental and Human Health (TIEHH), Lubbock, TX. August 2001. 

Data collected from individual remediation projects can be analyzed to prioritize response actions, measure risk reduction progress, and identify the principal program risk drivers to be targeted in the coming year. Suggested procedures for these data analysis tasks are outlined below. 

Risk Measures Ways of combining information on likelihood with the magnitude of loss or injuiy such as risk indices, individual risk measures, and societal risk measures. Risk Reduction Development, comparison, and selection of options to reduce risk to a target level, if needed, or as needed. 

In a complex European market, adequately measuring risk requires sophisticated methods and considerable care. A good risk model should provide a broad coverage without sacrificing accuracy, retain details but remain parsimonious, be responsive to ever-changing conditions, and so on. Certainly, there is no shortage of challenges. 

There was no explicit assessment of safety culture, in combination with a quantitative evaluation of the HSE environment in the accident reports. Such an assessment could be used to get a collective measure or temperarnre of the priority of safety in the organization, related to best practice . In Itho (2004) there is shown a correlation between the level of safety culture and quantitative incidents/acddents thus safety culture could be used as an indicator of the holes in harriers or the level of erosion of barriers, in combination with quantitative HSE data. A more specific measure tan culture is described by Rundmo (1997) i.e. when an employee in the Norwegian oil and gas industry feels at risk he/she is at risk. A proactive indicator could thus be a workplace survey, measuring risk perceptions or performing a more broadly based assessment of safety culture in combination with other local quantitative indicators such as gas emissions, injuries compared with best practice in the industry. 

Identification of critical structures and/or critical functions probability analysis or range of potential consequences quantitative or quahtative analysis Risk reduction (e.g. risk reduction steps for particular measures, risk reduction effectiveness in terms of threat, vulnerability, and consequence of loss of a particular asset, risk reduction effectiveness in terms of threat, vulnerability, and consequence of loss in context of a larger system and the entire Sector). 

The FMEA approach is presumably known to the reader and is not explicated in detail in this paper (otherwise, see e.g. (lEC 2006)). Based on expert knowledge, a list of failure modes of system units or processes is generated. Each failure mode is analysed with regard to its impact, causes, given counter measurement, risk, and recommended elimination measures. Risk is defined by ten classes of F and C. Maximum risk is RFN s = F osk = 10 10 =... 

Risk analysis is applying qualitative or quantitative techniques to potential risks. It reduces the uncertainties in measuring risks. It usually involves frequency and severity. Frequency deals with the likelihood that an event will occur or that a hazard will be present. Severity is the effect of an event when it occurs. Severity has measures of deaths, injuries, disease, or illnesses or loss of equipment or property. Severity may have financial measures. 

---