I wasn't responding to your message Monona, but to the one about killing the risk matrix. And I think I was the one who wasn't clear. I am certainly not arguing
against data. You need the kind of information you gathered for a quantitative or a qualitative risk assessment. And of course you need it to figure out how to fix the problem.
My beef is with pushing quantitative methods beyond their limits and thereby coming to wrong conclusions or delaying action. We rarely do quantitative risk
assessments, except in rulemakings and comp cases where the courts pretty much demand them. But in workplace audits, we usually operate at the level of: "Hey, there's a fair amount of lead and cadmium in this stuff. We need to make sure nobody's breathing
it in, ingesting it, or taking it home on their clothes."
Mike
Michael J. Wright
Director of Health, Safety and Environment
United Steelworkers
412-562-2580 office
412-370-0105 cell
"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change
the world."
Jack
Layton
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU]
On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 12:27 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Validity of the risk matrix
Maybe I wasn't clear. They definitely were going to address the hazard by using universal precautions. But without knowing what the
schmutz was, you can't assign a priority or even the level of protection needed. This schmutz could have contained sodium, silica, boron and other not very toxic salts. But instead, it was primarily lead with other highly toxic metals. So to prioritize
the hazard, data needs to be obtained. And that was what I wanted them to get. \Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Wright, Mike <mwright**At_Symbol_Here**USW.ORG>
To: DCHAS-L <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU>
Sent: Thu, Oct 17, 2019 12:08 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Validity of the risk matrix
We use and teach the matrix in our occupational safety and health classes all the time. But we don't try to plug numbers into the cells. And we stress that it should
be used to prioritize items, not to decide whether to address them at all. We also build in another variable, although we don't try to construct a 3-dimensional matrix. That variable is the ease of correcting the problem. If we can address two hazards in a
particular cell of the matrix for the price in effort and expense of one, that's what we try to accomplish first.
Our problem isn't so much deciding which decision logic to use to prioritize problems - it's convincing the employer to address them at all.
I can see using the Bayesian approach in the kind of cybersecurity situation the author is familiar with, or in a PSM situation with a highly sophisticated corporate
safety department. However, thinking back a couple of decades, I remember trying to explain to a few plant managers how the total quality management ideas of Deming and Juran could be applied to their safety program (or lack thereof). It didn't go well. Not
sure I want to try with Bayesian statistics.
Director of Health, Safety and Environment
"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change
the world."
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU]
On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 11:07 AM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Validity of the risk matrix
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.
-----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'd appreciate the wisdom of the list regarding this essay and its conclusion.
David C. Finster
Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry
Wittenberg University
