Preventive Risk-Reduction Measures

Some examples of preventive risk-reduction measures include ... 

If a botanical is shown to reverse an abnormal test result, modify another drug s adverse event, or act synergistically with another modality, it will usually be best developed as a drug. This is especially true if the botanical provides a distinct benefit for a patient population, but would pose safety concerns if used by the general public. In contrast to prevention, risk-reduction, or health-maintenance trials, therapeutic studies are often able to demonstrate clinical benefit with smaller numbers of subjects and with more tangible measures of outcome. 

Good chemicals control has, however, considerable positive economic effects for enterprises. It is increasingly important for the competitiveness of enterprises. Furthermore, investments in preventive chemicals control leading to the use of less hazardous chemicals and improved information on risks and safe use will have paybacks in the form of a reduced need for costly risk reduction measures for control of exposure, emissions and waste. In addition, better control of chemicals very often results in more cost-effective processes with reduced use of chemicals and less hazardous waste. By applying the concepts of Clean Products and Clean Production as aspects of improved chemicals control, costs for initial investments in many cases may have paybacks within just a few years time. 

SILs are order of magnitude bands of PFDavg, which also reflects the amount of risk reduction of a preventive safety instrumented function. Non-SlS Mainly two parameters, namely, consequence and likelihood, which affect risk, are considered. The consequence is the potential severity of the hazard. The likelihood is the frequency of occurrence. Risk graphs/risk matrices are used for these purposes. The inherent risk can be reduced by non-SlS risk reduction. To assess the risk, one is required to know and evaluate the effectiveness of all non-SIS risk reduction measures to ensure that the risk is reduced to as low as possible before application of any SIS. In other words, it is required to assess whether an SIS is necessary to further reduce the risk. Non-SIS risk reduction methods could be consequence reductions such as a dike, whereas blast walls or blast-resistant control buildings could reduce likelihood. 

Risk avoidance involves eliminating the cause of the hazard. This is accomplished by changes in the inherent risk features of a process or facility, e.g., using noncombustible fluid as a heat transfer medium (i.e., hot oil system) instead of a combustible fluid (e.g., diesel oil). Risk reduction concerns the provision of prevention measures or protection features that will lessen the consequences of a particular incident. Some examples include firewalls, firewater sprays, emergency shutdown systems, etc. Most facilities include some aspect of risk reduction measures simply due to prescriptive or even performance based regulatory requirements. 

Minimising the availability of combustible materials to the arsonist, managing items such as skips and other refuse containers and securing flammable chemicals that could be used as accelerants are all part of the arson risk reduction measures that a company could adopt to prevent this risk of arson and subsequent losses that would be likely to occur following an attack. 

Hence, it becomes possible to prevent electronic instrumentation from becoming a source of ignition in the plant areas if its temperature and stored energy levels can be limited by design, to values below the thresholds for the categories of gases on the plant. We know this from of protection as INTRINSIC SAFETY. This is a form of hazard prevention. It must not be confused with a safety instrumented system but it does feature in the list of risk reduction measures. 

Prevention of fires is a form of hazard protection and the chances of avoiding ignition of fuels appear to be greater than is the case with flammable vapor clouds. Hence the elimination of sparking sources through explosion protection of electrical power equipment is a major protection measure. As noted before intrinsically safe instrumentation is another risk reduction measure. 

Efforts to decrease the risk of falling include balance training, muscle strengthening, removal of hazards in the home, installation of fall-reduction measures such as handrails in the home, and discontinuation of predisposing medications.1,2,10 Additionally, the use of hip protectors is an effective way to prevent hip fractures, although adherence to this measure is poor, and some patients may not be amenable to wearing them at all.10... 

Risk avoidance involves eliminating the cause of the hazard. This is accomplished by changes in the inherent risk features of the process or facility. Risk reduction concerns the provision of prevention or protective measures that will lessen the consequences of a particular accidental event. 

The estimated impact is then compared to hazard acceptance criteria to determine whether the consequences are tolerable without additional loss prevention and mitigation measures. If the identified consequences are not tolerable, the next step is to estimate the ffequency/probability of occurrence of the identified failure modes leading to loss of containment. For simple cases, frequency estimates are combined with consequences to yield a qualitative estimate of risk. For complex cases, fault tree analysis is used to estimate the frequency of the event leading to the hazard. These estimates are then combined with the consequences to yield a measure of risk. The calculated risk level is compared to a risk acceptance criterion to determine if mitigation is required for further risk reduction. 

ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practical) The principle that no industrial activity is entirely free from risk and that it is never possible to be sure that every eventuality has been covered by safety precautions, but that there would be a gross disproportion between the cost in (money,time, or trouble) of additional preventive or protective measures, and the reduction in risk in order to achieve such low risks. 

Especially the system errors had a remarkably high frequency in the failure reports. Two factors account for this phenomenon which can be exemplified by a refrigerator breakdown 1) the risk has been identified before risk exposure and prevention measures can be implemented, ie. discarding the food, and 2) the canteen is compensated forthe costs only when filling out the failure report. As such mary respondents treated the failure reports as atool for economic compensation rather than a tool for risk reduction. 

---