Power plant example
Ooops, I am currently writing a publication about how to prepare and to perform a risk estimation workshop. I decided to replace my usual example of the power plant by a hospital example. I do this for two reasons. Firstly, I feel at awe to discuss about the cost of a power plant explosion. It feels like doing something nasty on a graveyard. (I think of Japan.) Secondly, I am not sure whether I am right with my argumentation.
This is what I wrote in an earlier publication:
"My favorite example of a risk event where the mere risk number does not make sense is the one of a severe accident at a nuclear power plant. Such an event´s probability is very low, but the damage can be so high that it cannot be quantified reasonably. When assuming numbers for probability and damage and multiplying them, you can obtain any arbitrary number, depending on the assumptions, and if you calculate that the risk is 1000€ per month, this is of no significance, because it is clear that such an accident must never happen, independent of whether the risk is 10€ per month or 1000€ per month. The argumentation of above works here also: If we knew for certain that a nuclear power plant explodes once a year, we would not build them."
Reads a bit like nonsense, because a lot of people still think that nuclear power plants are a safe (and cheap!) way of producing energy.
I know: Psychologists can explain this using terms like "risk perception" and "risk attenuation". It is known that risk perception is constructed by a social process, not by facts. Thinking about this is a bit scaring because this means that a lot of avoidable accidents happen while on the other hand people by risk amplification constrain their lifes and avoid doing things that are not so dangerous after all.
OK, I return to my numbers. They make feel safer, don´t they?
This is what I wrote in an earlier publication:
"My favorite example of a risk event where the mere risk number does not make sense is the one of a severe accident at a nuclear power plant. Such an event´s probability is very low, but the damage can be so high that it cannot be quantified reasonably. When assuming numbers for probability and damage and multiplying them, you can obtain any arbitrary number, depending on the assumptions, and if you calculate that the risk is 1000€ per month, this is of no significance, because it is clear that such an accident must never happen, independent of whether the risk is 10€ per month or 1000€ per month. The argumentation of above works here also: If we knew for certain that a nuclear power plant explodes once a year, we would not build them."
Reads a bit like nonsense, because a lot of people still think that nuclear power plants are a safe (and cheap!) way of producing energy.
I know: Psychologists can explain this using terms like "risk perception" and "risk attenuation". It is known that risk perception is constructed by a social process, not by facts. Thinking about this is a bit scaring because this means that a lot of avoidable accidents happen while on the other hand people by risk amplification constrain their lifes and avoid doing things that are not so dangerous after all.
OK, I return to my numbers. They make feel safer, don´t they?
AndreaHerrmann - 1. Apr, 13:53
