> ----------
> From:         spam_OUTglennTakeThisOuTwriteme.com[SMTP:.....glennKILLspam@spam@writeme.com] on behalf of
> Glenn Johansson[SMTP:glennKILLspamWRITEME.COM]
> Sent:         Wednesday, August 13, 1997 5:20 AM
> To:   'pic microcontroller discussion list'
> Subject:      OFF TOPIC!!! RE: Reliability thinking and risk assesment
>
>       >Would you ever quote this formula to the parent of a child
> killed in
>       >a plane crash - Eh ?
>
> How does a person in power decide how much money to set aside for
> improved fire safety that could save lifes and equipment in a fire,
> how much money to set aside for additional robbery prevention that
> could save lifes and money in the event of a robbery, and how much
> money to set aside for non-safety related things like marketing
> campaigns, etc? Regardless of how much you have spent on safety you
> can always buy more safety if you spend more money, so you have to put
> the limit somewhere and say "in this hallway we need fire
> extinguishers every 49 meters, but every 48 meters would be
> unnecessary". Or do you mean that all budgets should always spend 100%
> of the money on safety? What is it that you want to achieve with this
> - maximum human life on earth, instead of the more common objective
> maximum human happiness (in Governments and in personal life) or
> maximum company profit (in company management)? Sure, an airline
> company can have a crew of 200 people radio-xraying all metal
> components before takeoff to minimize metal fatigue-caused plane
> crashes and install airbags in all seats to minimize injuries in the
> event of a crash etc. As you understand this would be possible but
> incredibly expensive. Do you find this cost acceptable just because it
> would probably save some lives over a long period of time? If you
> don't want to keep the formula I mentioned in the back of your head,
> then what is it that you as a person in power would base your
> decisions on? Is it media campaigns, saying "cute kid drowned in deep
> black well - now we must rebuild all wells and make them safer so it
> never happens again", or a calculation (using a scientific risk
> analysis concept) of which safety measures can save more lives? Maybe
> you can save twice as many lifes per year with the same money, if you
> instead spend it on improving safety at railway crossings, or by
> implementing anti-smoke campaigns. Or maybe you will find that too
> much money is already spent on all types of safety. Or too little. You
> can't just close your eyes to science and say "the dead kid's parents
> have such a terrible time right now, that I don't want to seem cynical
> by looking at statistics, therefore I as the President will spend all
> the Government's budget to rebuild all the wells in the country. I
> will not do anything about railroad x-ing safety because no cute kids
> have been killed in such accidents for a while now. However, I will
> make it mandatory for all citizens to wear helmets at all times (even
> at home) since this would have saved about 20 lives over the last two
> years".
>
> Studies has been made, investigating how different politicians value
> different lifes. In Sweden, politicians spend 30 million kronor on
> measures to prevent kids from drowning in wells (split across how many
> less kids died after the measures were implemented). 24 million kronor
> per saved life was spent on saving lives at railroad crossings, and
> 6000 kronor was the value of a life of a smoker according to how much
> the Government budget spent on anti-smoke campaigns. If we compare
> different countries, Porgugal valued railway crossers' lives 15 times
> less valuable than Sweden did. And USA of course (as the most
> hysterical safety nation) valued their lives twice as much as Sweden
> did. If the politicans acted on risk management analysis rather than
> being dependant on things that the voters understand (such as avoiding
> divorces and sex scandals), many more lives would have been saved on a
> more even budget of the same size.
>
>       >How do you quantify HARM ?
>       >
>       >Is it a number, can you put a number to the pain of a burn
> across your
>       >face for 20 years - who do you think you are ?
>
> Of course it could be difficult to say "I value this burn mark to
> 124323 dollars" or "I would pay 5218.12 dollars to have 5 toes just as
> everyone else" because it's hard to analyse feelings! This is a
> problem courts face each day when they are to decide how much
> settlements should be. Sure it's cynical of them to say "you get 10
> 000 dollars for a whiplash and 2000 dollars for a broken leg", but
> still they HAVE to convert the emotional harm to some type of value
> between 0 and 999999999999999 dollars.
> The fact that this, artistically, is very cynical, is doesn't mean
> that risk management is a science that should be ignored. On the
> contrary! To be able to save as many lives as possible for the money
> available, you need to be scientific.
>
> You still haven't explained exactly how YOU manage risks. Do you split
> potential dangers of different magnitude into two groups which you
> call "not dangerous" and "dangerous", and spend anything to make the
> dangerous things less dangerous and do nothing about the dangers which
> have been ranked "not dangerous"? Or do you simply go by intuition and
> hunches?
>
> >In the context of the clock radio how do you decide from the number
> you
>       >get from your 'formula' whether you should make a mental note
> about its
>       >contstruction - as this might be useful when filling in an
> insurance
>       >application - Eh ?
>
> If you think it is going to take 15 minutes to analyze the fire safety
> of a clock radio, it is going to mean it costs you 12.50 dollars if
> your salary is 50 dollars per hour. (If it's your spare time, your
> time is still about as valuable - slightly LESS if you really wanted
> to work longer than what you do, and slightly MORE if you really
> wanted to work fewer hours per day). If the estimtated probability
> that what you will learn from the investigation of the clock radio is
> about 5% that it is built in a way you appreciate it is 2% likely to
> cause a fire, which will cause predicted damages of an average 2000
> dollars, then the threat has a value of 2 dollars (0.02*0.05*2000),
> which means you overreacted by 625% (12.5 / 2) on this threat.
>
> This is somewhat simplified, but I could make it more advanced and
> take into consideration many more factors (especially the value of
> what a fire would damage), and the result would still be about the
> same.
>
> Glenn
> Sweden
>
>

> ----------
> From:         glennspam_OUTwriteme.com[SMTP:@spam@glennKILLspamwriteme.com] on behalf of
> Glenn Johansson[SMTP:KILLspamglennKILLspamWRITEME.COM]
> Sent:         Wednesday, August 13, 1997 5:20 AM
> To:   'pic microcontroller discussion list'
> Subject:      OFF TOPIC!!! RE: Reliability thinking and risk assesment
>
>       >Would you ever quote this formula to the parent of a child
> killed in
>       >a plane crash - Eh ?
>
> How does a person in power decide how much money to set aside for
> improved fire safety that could save lifes and equipment in a fire,
> how much money to set aside for additional robbery prevention that
> could save lifes and money in the event of a robbery, and how much
> money to set aside for non-safety related things like marketing
> campaigns, etc? Regardless of how much you have spent on safety you
> can always buy more safety if you spend more money, so you have to put
> the limit somewhere and say "in this hallway we need fire
> extinguishers every 49 meters, but every 48 meters would be
> unnecessary". Or do you mean that all budgets should always spend 100%
> of the money on safety? What is it that you want to achieve with this
> - maximum human life on earth, instead of the more common objective
> maximum human happiness (in Governments and in personal life) or
> maximum company profit (in company management)? Sure, an airline
> company can have a crew of 200 people radio-xraying all metal
> components before takeoff to minimize metal fatigue-caused plane
> crashes and install airbags in all seats to minimize injuries in the
> event of a crash etc. As you understand this would be possible but
> incredibly expensive. Do you find this cost acceptable just because it
> would probably save some lives over a long period of time? If you
> don't want to keep the formula I mentioned in the back of your head,
> then what is it that you as a person in power would base your
> decisions on? Is it media campaigns, saying "cute kid drowned in deep
> black well - now we must rebuild all wells and make them safer so it
> never happens again", or a calculation (using a scientific risk
> analysis concept) of which safety measures can save more lives? Maybe
> you can save twice as many lifes per year with the same money, if you
> instead spend it on improving safety at railway crossings, or by
> implementing anti-smoke campaigns. Or maybe you will find that too
> much money is already spent on all types of safety. Or too little. You
> can't just close your eyes to science and say "the dead kid's parents
> have such a terrible time right now, that I don't want to seem cynical
> by looking at statistics, therefore I as the President will spend all
> the Government's budget to rebuild all the wells in the country. I
> will not do anything about railroad x-ing safety because no cute kids
> have been killed in such accidents for a while now. However, I will
> make it mandatory for all citizens to wear helmets at all times (even
> at home) since this would have saved about 20 lives over the last two
> years".
>
> Studies has been made, investigating how different politicians value
> different lifes. In Sweden, politicians spend 30 million kronor on
> measures to prevent kids from drowning in wells (split across how many
> less kids died after the measures were implemented). 24 million kronor
> per saved life was spent on saving lives at railroad crossings, and
> 6000 kronor was the value of a life of a smoker according to how much
> the Government budget spent on anti-smoke campaigns. If we compare
> different countries, Porgugal valued railway crossers' lives 15 times
> less valuable than Sweden did. And USA of course (as the most
> hysterical safety nation) valued their lives twice as much as Sweden
> did. If the politicans acted on risk management analysis rather than
> being dependant on things that the voters understand (such as avoiding
> divorces and sex scandals), many more lives would have been saved on a
> more even budget of the same size.
>
>       >How do you quantify HARM ?
>       >
>       >Is it a number, can you put a number to the pain of a burn
> across your
>       >face for 20 years - who do you think you are ?
>
> Of course it could be difficult to say "I value this burn mark to
> 124323 dollars" or "I would pay 5218.12 dollars to have 5 toes just as
> everyone else" because it's hard to analyse feelings! This is a
> problem courts face each day when they are to decide how much
> settlements should be. Sure it's cynical of them to say "you get 10
> 000 dollars for a whiplash and 2000 dollars for a broken leg", but
> still they HAVE to convert the emotional harm to some type of value
> between 0 and 999999999999999 dollars.
> The fact that this, artistically, is very cynical, is doesn't mean
> that risk management is a science that should be ignored. On the
> contrary! To be able to save as many lives as possible for the money
> available, you need to be scientific.
>
> You still haven't explained exactly how YOU manage risks. Do you split
> potential dangers of different magnitude into two groups which you
> call "not dangerous" and "dangerous", and spend anything to make the
> dangerous things less dangerous and do nothing about the dangers which
> have been ranked "not dangerous"? Or do you simply go by intuition and
> hunches?
>
> >In the context of the clock radio how do you decide from the number
> you
>       >get from your 'formula' whether you should make a mental note
> about its
>       >contstruction - as this might be useful when filling in an
> insurance
>       >application - Eh ?
>
> If you think it is going to take 15 minutes to analyze the fire safety
> of a clock radio, it is going to mean it costs you 12.50 dollars if
> your salary is 50 dollars per hour. (If it's your spare time, your
> time is still about as valuable - slightly LESS if you really wanted
> to work longer than what you do, and slightly MORE if you really
> wanted to work fewer hours per day). If the estimtated probability
> that what you will learn from the investigation of the clock radio is
> about 5% that it is built in a way you appreciate it is 2% likely to
> cause a fire, which will cause predicted damages of an average 2000
> dollars, then the threat has a value of 2 dollars (0.02*0.05*2000),
> which means you overreacted by 625% (12.5 / 2) on this threat.
>
> This is somewhat simplified, but I could make it more advanced and
> take into consideration many more factors (especially the value of
> what a fire would damage), and the result would still be about the
> same.
>
> Glenn
> Sweden
>
>