Science and engineering are ready-made for such retrospective analyses. We turn back time to see which physical, chemical, and biological principles dictated the outcomes. This is primarily an exercise in what historians refer to as “deconstruction” of the steps leading to the negative outcomes, or what engineers call a critical path. When there is a problem, especially if it is considered to be a disaster, considerable attention is given to the reasons that damages occurred. If any of the legs is missing or weak, our decision is questionable, no matter how strong the other two legs are.įailure analysis is an important role of every engineering discipline, including environmental engineering. Thus, environmental decisions can be likened to a three-legged stool. And, if we fail to share information and include all affected parties in every aspect of environmental decisions, we have failed in a fundamental component of risk communication. If we fail to apply these principles within the societal context and political, legal, economic, and policy milieu, we have failed in a fundamental component of risk management. Risk assessment must be based in sound science. If we ignore physical, chemical, and biological principles, we have failed in a fundamental component of risk assessment.
Do we blame the water, the air, or the rock? Generally, no we blame the engineer, the ship captain, the government inspector, or whomever we consider to have been responsible. A rock in a landslide falls at an increasing rate of speed. Air moves in the direction of high to low pressure. The cases in this book are examples of human failure, coupled with or complicated by physical realities. A sound risk-based approach to solving environmental problems requires credible risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication.
0 kommentar(er)
