Introduction of the concept of risk within safety science in The Netherlands focussing on the years 1970–1990

Abstract

Introduction of the concept of risk within safety science in The Netherlands focussing on the years 1970-1990 Word count: 13.880, clean text ex summary and refs: 11.591 Summary 1. Introduction 2. Materials and methods 3. The period up to 1970: the emergence of the concept of risk 2.1 Operations research 2.2 Reliability engineering 2.3 Risks of flooding 2.4 Risks and nuclear energy 2.5 Risks in process safety 4. The seventies and eighties: quantification of risks in The Netherlands 4.1 The need for a quantitative approach 4.2 The concept of risk in the process and nuclear industries 4.3 Debating quantitative risk analysis in separate disciplines 4.4 LPG integral study 4.5 Quantitative risk analysis as presented in the Dutch "colored books" 4.6 Criticism of quantitative risk analysis 4.7 Risk perception 4.8 Risk-based approach in Dutch occupational safety 4.9 The acceptability of risks 5. The period after 1990: Risk becoming an accepted concept 5.1 Process Safety: quantitative risk analysis methodologies documented in textbook series 5.2 Exposure to: acceptable risk carcinogenic substances: basis for determining an acceptable risk level 5.3 Occupational safety: introduction of the concept of risk inventory and evaluation (RI&E) 6. Discussion and conclusions 6.1 Developments decisive for introducing the concept of risk in safety science in The Netherlands 6.2 Theories, models, and metaphors developed in the considered period (1970-1990) 6.3 Development of quantitative models 6.4 Risk as a new model 6.5 Differences between the introduction of the concept of risk into occupational safety and into process safety 7. Literature

Why regulators assess risk differently: Regulatory style, business organization, and the varied practice of risk‐based food safety inspections across the EU

“…Where there are conflicts, inspectorates may resist changes to the way that they work by adapting risk assessments in ways that suit their own professional concerns (Rothstein et al 2006). At the same time, one might expect such problems to arise less in Anglo-Saxon countries and the Netherlands, which have been global leaders in putting risk ideas at the center of their 'Better Regulation' strategies (Black 2005;Oostendorp et al 2016), than in other advanced capitalist economies such as Germany and France, which have proved more resistant to such reforms (OECD 2010b(OECD , 2010c.…”

Safety management systems from Three Mile Island to Piper Alpha, a review in English and Dutch literature for the period 1979 to 1988

“…Few people are willing to bear risks if benefits are unclear, so the societal context is pivotal (Conrad, 1980;Fischhoff et al, 1981;Short, 1984;Covello et al, 1987). A detailed description on the acceptability of risk was discussed in one of our earlier publications (Oostendorp et al, 2016). In the nuclear industry probabilistic risk analysis was an accepted safety technique.…”

“…Thus the quantitative approach to risk, suggesting an absolute level of safety, slowly changed status to a best practice method in cost-benefit analyses. (Oostendorp et al, 2016, Paté-Cornell, 1987.…”

“…The increased interest in reliability engineering, operations research and risk analysis for external risks was treated in the CPR committee, the committee for prevention of disasters. CPR published their so-called 'coloured books' to support QRA (see Oostendorp et al, 2016).…”

“…Previous publications examined periods extending from the late 19 th century until 1979century until (Gulijk et al, 2009Oostendorp et al, 2016;Swuste et al, 2010Swuste et al, , 2014Swuste et al, , 2016. These reviews provide insight into developments of the international scientific safety domain and in The Netherlands.…”