Methods for Comparing the Risks of Technologies

Lawless, Edward W.; Jones, Martin V.; Jones, Richard M.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_6

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the biggest risks to which the welder operator and auxiliary workers are subjected is the cutaneous risk because they come into contact directly or indirectly with a variety of chemicals found in liquids, solids or gaseous [10][11][12].…”

Section: Risk Assessment By Skin Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributions to risk injury evaluation of human skin contact caused by welding technology in mechanical engineering a company

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.Assembly by welding is a very important pollutant technological process, mainly of the atmosphere and soil. The formation of gas in welding process is the result of electrodes, fluxes burning, formation of fused bath and welded seam. A large number of human operators feels different adverse effects on health. Most problems appears in respiratory system and include bronchitis, respiratory irritation, fever caused by smoke, changes in lung function, decreased immunity to infection and a possible increase of lung cancer risk. Very little information are available about effects on the organism and skin after exposure to fumes from welding, therefore. In this order, this paper do a risk assessment by skin contact. Starting from the main parameters for the evaluation of a cutaneous risk, it was determined a score of danger, a score of surface and a score of frequency. It results a risk associated with each class with a value Scut = 100.000, that indicates a very high probable risk with immediate proposing corrective measures.

show abstract

Section: Risk Assessment By Skin Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributions to risk injury evaluation of human skin contact caused by welding technology in mechanical engineering a company

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The basic premiss is that alternatives can be selected by systematically comparing the advantages and disadvantages which would result from the estimated consequences of a choice. CBA therefore presumes that there are alternative options available[21].…”

Section: Techniques and Concepts Used In Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of systems thinking to risk management:

White

1995

Management Decision

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systems thinking is holistic, that is it deals with wholes rather than parts and is relevant to tackling ill‐structured “messy” problems. Reviews the literature on risk to identify the techniques and concepts used in the management of risk and the identification of potential failures. The majority of the concepts identified are found to be systematic and reductionist. Also identifies related concepts not used in the techniques which are found to be more holistic. Classifies the concepts according to their use and holistic qualities. Briefly describes a systems approach to failures. As risk is associated with uncertainty and ill‐structured problems, suggests that systems thinking could be a valuable aid to risk management.

show abstract

“…model is sometimes referred to as a 'comparative risk assessment' because it estimates the relative costs, benefits, and risks associated with one or more technical approaches to a problem. Lawless, Jones and Jones (1986) used similar procedures with studies concerning saccharin use by the public (with and without regulatory constraints), mandatory versus optional vaccination against pertussis, and traditional versus newer surgical approaches to hernia repair. The decision process begins with the identification of individual and social needs and the range of technological and non-technological approaches available to help meet them.…”

Section: A Model For Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risks, choices and behavioral treatment

Meinhold

Mulick

1990

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent arguments against the use of intrusive behavioral interventions in the treatment of handicapped people are examined. The anti-aversive position was found to be based on assumptions about the negative impact of aversive procedures, and to consider only a small subset of the variables that should be taken into account when treatment decisions are made. A preliminary application of formal decision-analysis techniques that have been developed in response to other controversial technologies had a number of benefits including: (a) sharpening the distinction between scientific and social criteria; (b) sensitizing decision-makers and scientists to the range of costs, risks, and benefits associated with treatment decisions; and (c) identifying critical areas of research. Decision-analysis techniques were found to be helpful in directing scientists and policy-makers towards more informed decision-making.The position has been advanced that highly intrusive behavioral interventions should not be used in the treatment of handicapped people. Various groups have taken strong positions against the use of behavioral treatment procedures that employ aversive stimuli, and the issue is currently receiving extensive discussion in professional and scientific journals (for example Guess et al.;Guess, 1988;Iwata, 1988; Mulick, in press). The anti-aversive treatment viewpoint is reconsidered in this paper. Arguments presented in a monograph by The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) by Guess et al. (1987) and those by Guess (1988) are taken as representative of the anti-aversive position. It is argued that the anti-aversive position is motivated primarily by tacit assumptions about the costs associated with aversive behavioral procedures, and that it fails to consider the full range of costs, risks, and benefits that should be taken into account when behavioral treatment decisions are made. An alternative approach based on decision-analysis models that have been developed in response to other controversial technologies is then presented. Finally, the authors describe how such a model might be applied to decisions about the use of behavioral interventions and they suggest directions for future research that will lead to more informed decisions. THE ANTI-AVERSIVE POSITIONThe TASH monograph and other statements of the anti-aversive position (for example LaVigna and Donnellan, 1986;Turnbull et al., 1986), emphasized several concerns about the impact of aversive behavior management techniques. Aversive techniques were said to have a negative impact on disabled people, on people who use the techniques, and on social perceptions about disabled people. The technology 0084558 1 /90/0 1 0029-1 6$08.00

show abstract

Methods for Comparing the Risks of Technologies

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Contributions to risk injury evaluation of human skin contact caused by welding technology in mechanical engineering a company

Contributions to risk injury evaluation of human skin contact caused by welding technology in mechanical engineering a company

Application of systems thinking to risk management:

Risks, choices and behavioral treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About