Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of Risk
done differently Sydney Water, 1998 Small and Widespread The Illawarra and Blue Mountains experience months of drought condition and bushfires
Natural barrier(vegetation) is reduced
Heavy rainfall leading to large amount of low quality run off into the dam
Contamination of main water supply, the Warragamba Dam
Involvement of cryptosporidium and giardia between July and September Cryptosporidium and Giardia in water supply
Natural vegetation reduced caused reduction in natural barrier
Unexpected heavy rainfall
Huge amount of organic waste, animal droppings, ashes, sediments in water dam
Water was not fully purified
Lack of sufficient research on water filtering technology Sydney water should have created their own artificial barrier rather than natural vegetation
High level of technology in water filtering and purifying process
Periodic analysis of all the pipelines to remove moulds
Dam should have different structural design in the aspect of water entering system
More research on water distributing technology Improvement in early filtering system before water reaches the dam
Natural barrier could destroy with natural calamities
Testing water quality
Conducting extensive research in water filtering, purifying and distribution system
Upgrading sewage treatment plants Medium and Widespread 1978 Ford Pinto Fuel Tank Design Flaw Cause for the failure Risk Analysis How things could have been done differently Learning from 1978 Ford Pinto Ford was responsible for all incidents as they knew problem could have fixed earlier.
During design and production, crash tests revealed a serious flaw in the gas tank.
$11 per vehicle in modification too high for Ford.
Weak rare bumper
During collisions, filler tube pulls out of fuel tank.
Fuel tank too close to rear perimeter of vehicle.
Inadequate construction of the fuel tank
Front doors jam shut preventing escape or rescue from burning car.
Lack of any “Hat-Section” rear frame rails to help protect the fuel tank. Modification of the car must have been done earlier during design phase.
Fuel tank could have been made of strong materials.
Different location of fuel tank rather than at the rear
Modification in the bolts, filler tube
Modification in door shut jam Characterized as the most controversial automobile ever built
Ford were unethical company as they did not release the proper information to the customers. (example like tobacco company)
Companies have a duty to design their products to avoid reasonably foreseeable risks of harm
Ford recalled all the damaged vehicle for modifications
They loose money and their image
Cost-benefit analysis is not appropriate in comparing human loss How things could have been done differently Risk Analysis Learning from Bhopal incident Cause for the failure Bhopal Gas Tragedy, India Large and Widespread Union Carbide India Limited, 1984
Leakage of Methy isocyante
Serious fatality – ‘Worst industrial disaster’ Runaway reaction
Malfunctioning of cooling system
Improper connection of flare tower
Failure of vent scrubbers
Improper design of water curtains Ensuring effective design and connection of flare stack
Regular inspection and maintenance of vent scrubbers
Ensuring proper design of water curtains to reach the height of flare tower Chemical industries producing toxic substance must be located far away from the city
Consequences must be confined within factory limits
Maintenance and inspection must be given at most importance
Complaints from duty staffs must be viewed seriously
PRA, STPA, Black Swans An Examination of Risk and the Impact of Fourth Quadrant Events
Examine the fundamental theory of what risk is
Discuss the often overlooked impact of the psychology behind risk
Provide some information that may spark interest in Risk Analysis ideas outside of the typically used tools
Not bore everyone to death Objectives About the presenter 4 What is Risk? Why do we take risk 7
Risk compensation is an effect whereby people adjust their behavior in response to perceived changes in risk. People will act more cautiously if the perception of danger increases and less cautiously in situations where they feel safe. Risk Compensation 9 Theory of Risk Homeostasis was hypothesized by professor of psychology Gerald J.S. Wilde and suggest that we all have a fixed level of acceptable risk that we subconsciously strive to return to equilibrium. The Peltzman Effect was hypothesized by professor of Economics Sam Peltzman and it suggest that as we add more safety controls and protection people increase in risky behavior. Risk Homeostasis 9 The Normal Accident Peltzman Effect 9 The Normal Accident Normalized Deviance Black Swans Fat Tails Lucretius Fallacy The thought that disaster is impossible often leads to an unthinkable disaster. Titanic Effects Laplace's Demon Fragile Please Do Not Shake Antifragile Please Shake Antifragility Antifragility “Be careful not to use statistics as a drunk uses lamp post, more for support than for illumination”
Andrew Lang- PRA System Theoretic Process Analysis
Departure from the idea of Single causal factors
Views safety as a control problem
Uses System Theory as a foundation over the classic analytic reduction approach
Top down vs bottom up STPA Does reliability = safety?
Defense in Depth = Safety right?
Reliability and safety Insider threat mitigation So lets talk about a specific threat.... Ok it sounds a little Orwellian
SCADA monitoring for people
Galvanic skin response
position triangulated by field nodes
Sounds a little far fetched perhaps....? My idea on mitigating the insider threat It is all about striking that balance.
Removing Fragility is great but ultimately we must still be economically viable.
How can we remove fragility from the nuclear industry
Understand that we are susceptible
Look to other industries and dont fall victim to Gap Translation Just to Summarize Questions