David, Aw shucks, and I just hit the button on an email telling someone to use the matrix. But let me tell you one of the good things about the matrix. In order to use it, you have to have data on the severity of the risk.
So this person was emailing about a job involving Q-tip surface cleaning of a very large, complex surface area by a number of workers on a large object (one that will remain nameless because it may identify the project). More than one person would be involved and while the surface just looked like there was schmutz on it, it became clear on a literature search that this schmutz probably was lead salts with cadmium, chrome VI and a bunch of toxic metals thrown in for laughs. To save money, they didn't want to identify the schmutz and just use good universal precautions. But the matrix requires a number indicating the severity of the potential hazard, ergo: analyze the schmutz and give it a number.
This is also the ethical thing to do because the client whose cleaned massive object will be returned to them certainly should be informed about what is likely to be released at the surface again over time to protect their own maintenance people.
Score one for the matrix.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: David C. Finster <dfinster**At_Symbol_Here**WITTENBERG.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2019 10:01 am
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Validity of the risk matrix
While stumbling around the web with regard to thinking about the risk matrix, I came upon an article that questioned its value:
The essence of the argument, I think, is that estimates of probability are very unreliable. I=E2=80™d appreciate the wisdom of the list regarding this essay and its conclusion.
Dave
David C. Finster
Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry
Wittenberg University
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at
membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
