For the STS 134 mission NASA has estimated a 1 in 90 chance of loss of vehicle and crew (LOCV) based on a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). But should we believe this number?
Archive for the ‘Communication’ Category
How Likely are we to Lose STS 134?
Posted in Aerospace Safety, Communication, Risk Assessment, Uncertainty, tagged LOCV, Mission Risk, NASA, PRA, Probabilistic Risk Assessment, space shuttle, STS 134 on 02/05/2011 | Leave a Comment »
Communicating Risk (Pt 3) – Memes and the Media
Posted in Climate risk, Communication, Heuristics & Biases, tagged anchoring heuristic, Climate sceptics, media, memes, risk communication on 15/12/2009 | Leave a Comment »
While Smith and Madden’s argument turns out to be the usual denialist slumgullion it does serve as a useful jump off point for a discussion of the role of the media in propagating such pernicious memes and more broadly in communicating risk.
Communicating Risk (Pt 2) – Fallacious Arguments
Posted in Climate risk, Communication, tagged arguments, climate change, Climate sceptics, errors of logic, errors of psychology, fallacious, Risk on 06/12/2009 | Leave a Comment »
In the first part of this post on Drew Warne Smith and James Madden’s article on climate change I dealt with the factual basis of their argument. In this second part I want to spend some time looking at the logical and psychological elements of their argument.
Communicating Risk – (Pt 1) Just the Facts
Posted in Climate risk, Communication, tagged climate risk, Climate sceptics, fallacious arguments, media and risk perception, sea level rise, uncertainty on 15/11/2009 | Leave a Comment »
According to Drew Warne Smith and James Madden writing in the Nov 7th edition of the Australian “The science is in on sea-level rise: 1.7 mm” . Thererefore, according to Smith and Madden we don’t need to worry because it’s a modest 1.7mm rise and a third less than the government’s predictions. The article by Smith and Madden provides an excellent example of how fallacious arguments can be used mis-inform the unwary and thereby shape the public perception of risk.
I tend towards the integrative rather than reductionist view of engineering and science. I'm interested in emergence, networks, relationships and interfaces as they apply to safety.what are the facts?
-
blog stats
- 58,081 hits
my dark matters
- Problems at the US NRC huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/21/gre… Tweeted: 3 days ago
- Knowledge and error flow from the same mental sources, only success can tell one from another." Ernst Mach, 1905 Tweeted: 1 week ago
- "Things that have never happened before happen all the time." Scott D. Sagan - The Limits of Safety Tweeted: 1 week ago
- "The enemy of safety is complexity." Behind Human Error, Woods et al, Ashgate 2010 p 23 Tweeted: 1 week ago
- Engineering a Safer World wp.me/px0Kp-1mk Tweeted: 3 weeks ago
-
what’s new
-
inexplicably popular...
Categories
- Cognitive psychology (41)
- Affordances (1)
- Decision making (15)
- Heuristics & Biases (14)
- Human error (14)
- Errors (1)
- Slips (1)
- Violations (2)
- Safety culture (1)
- Completely Off Topic (6)
- Complexity (54)
- Humour (6)
- organisational safety cultures (4)
- Philosophy (14)
- Ethics (1)
- Logic of Scientific Discovery (8)
- Assumptions (6)
- Risk (36)
- ALARP Principal (2)
- Climate risk (7)
- Communication (4)
- Epistemic Risk (1)
- Risk Assessment (10)
- Risk Perception (1)
- Uncertainty (17)
- Safety (79)
- Aerospace Safety (51)
- Analysis (1)
- Bushfire Safety (4)
- Nuclear Power Safety (5)
- nuclear weapons safety (2)
- Rail Safety (4)
- Space exploration safety (2)
- Traffic safety (1)
- Technology (35)
- fail safe (4)
- System architecting (18)
- Fault tolerance (2)
- Systems of Systems (3)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Cognitive psychology (41)
