What is risk?

[Begbie]

The stuff in the news recently about it being too risky to fly through the volcanic dust cloud has brought to mind a particular bugbear of mine:

Why is the level of risk never given as a percentage?

Examples:

It has been stated that eating a lot of red meat makes it x times more likely that you will contract certain types of cancer. What % of people contract these cancers without eating red meat? If I was given this information, I could make an informed choice as to whether to change my lifestyle. ie Is it worth taking the risk?

What % of air travellers die due to aircraft failure in normal circumstances? What % were likely to die due to aircraft failure if the plane flew through the dust cloud? If the risk was quantified, aircraft operators and passengers could decide if they thought that the level of risk was acceptable.

I could go on for ages on the subject. If the actual risk % was published, most of the newspaper 'scare stories' would disappear overnight.

[New-un]

The risk you put up and interesting OP= 0%.

Cheers,

Jeff.

PS; Thing is Begs, do you mind if I call you Begs?, is if one aircraft had gone down the people who make the forecasts on this stuff (set up after Chernobyl) would have got sued/critised to fuck.

[Raff67]

The risk with the volcanic ash imo is/was even though the airlines were sending up test flights and reporting everything is ok no-ones air traffic body wanted to start flights and have airplanes falling out the sky.

The yanks, or was it canadian military flight tests gave a different result with engine damage. I think the commercial airlines were doing anything they could just to get planes in the sky, risk or not.

It is a well known fact that vulcano ash and jet engines don't go so imo they were justified to stop all flights.

[New-un]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raff67

The risk with the volcanic ash imo is/was even though the airlines were sending up test flights and reporting everything is ok no-ones air traffic body wanted to start flights and have airplanes falling out the sky.

The yanks, or was it canadian military flight tests gave a different result with engine damage. I think the commercial airlines were doing anything they could just to get planes in the sky, risk or not.

It is a well known fact that vulcano ash and jet engines don't go so imo they were justified to stop all flights.

I agree.

Good post.

Site admin here appear to be wise.

[imperial109]

I think the main hold up has been waiting for the engine and chassis manufacturers to conclude their tests on how much damage the ash is causing. At the end of the day I would rather have them making the calls on how safe it is to fly, rather than the airline bosses opinions as they sit behind a desk.

[Begbie]

My point wasn't necessarily about the volcanic ash. It's about 'risk'.

Saying to me that I have 5 times more chance of getting colonic cancer if I eat red meat than if I don't eat red meat is meaningless. If the chances of a non-meat eater getting colonic cancer are 1 in 10, then yeah, having 5 times more chance of contracting it if I eat meat would make me change. If the chances were 1 in a million, I wouldn't change. Others have their own 'thresholds'.

The point is, the 'risk' of the thing being compared to happening has to be quantified.

[New-un]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

My point wasn't necessarily about the volcanic ash. It's about 'risk'.

Saying to me that I have 5 times more chance of getting colonic cancer if I eat red meat than if I don't eat red meat is meaningless. If the chances of a non-meat eater getting colonic cancer are 1 in 10, then yeah, having 5 times more chance of contracting it if I eat meat would make me change. If the chances were 1 in a million, I wouldn't change. Others have their own 'thresholds'.

The point is, the 'risk' of the thing being compared to happening has to be quantified.

It's because it's not a risk to an individual, but a large group of people. If one plane goes down out of 5,500 flights from the UK (I think that's the figure they quoted on the news) that's what, 100 people killed on one plane out of a 1/2 million odd who are flying that day. The odds are actually in your favour.

Say to 1/2 million people; eat this single piece of meat and there's a chance you could die in 20 years from cancer, is not a fair comparison as it's their choice to eat it. Although if they'd said to a group of people "sign this and you can fly but it's at your own risk"....good luck finding a cabin crew who are being put up in a 4/5 star hotel and don't want to risk their lives to get home....even if the risk isn't that large; but it's still a greater risk than a normal flight.

[stuben1980]

Dont know about jet engines.But my Fooking new car was covered in brown dust .Not shopping at iceland ever again

[Begbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by New-un

Say to 1/2 million people; eat this single piece of meat and there's a chance you could die in 20 years from cancer, is not a fair comparison as it's their choice to eat it.

It is a fair comparison. Taking the flight, eating the piece of meat, leaving the house in the morning, it's all personal choice. There's risk involved in all.

Experience has shown us that leaving the house is probably an acceptable risk. We have, however, no experience of many risks as identified by scientists or highlighted by the media. I want something quantifiable to compare the identified risk to.

I wish that I hadn't mentioned the volcanic ash as that is clouding this discussion. (See what I did there? )
Your predecessor never really got a grasp of probability, despite being a scientist, so I can understand why you can't.

[glenman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

It is a fair comparison. Taking the flight, eating the piece of meat, leaving the house in the morning, it's all personal choice. There's risk involved in all.

Experience has shown us that leaving the house is probably an acceptable risk. We have, however, no experience of many risks as identified by scientists or highlighted by the media. I want something quantifiable to compare the identified risk to.

I wish that I hadn't mentioned the volcanic ash as that is clouding this discussion. (See what I did there? )
Your predecessor never really got a grasp of probability, despite being a scientist, so I can understand why you can't.

He had a predecessor? Is he like some sort of phoenix rising from the ...

[New-un]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

It is a fair comparison. Taking the flight, eating the piece of meat, leaving the house in the morning, it's all personal choice. There's risk involved in all.

Experience has shown us that leaving the house is probably an acceptable risk. We have, however, no experience of many risks as identified by scientists or highlighted by the media. I want something quantifiable to compare the identified risk to.

I wish that I hadn't mentioned the volcanic ash as that is clouding this discussion. (See what I did there? )
Your predecessor never really got a grasp of probability, despite being a scientist, so I can understand why you can't.

Going back to your original post. Should we experiment what the percentage of people is who are going to be killed flying through this cloud of ash to find out what the risk factor is, in your opinion?

[Begbie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by New-un

Going back to your original post. Should we experiment what the percentage of people is who are going to be killed flying through this cloud of ash to find out what the risk factor is, in your opinion?

Forget the fecking dust cloud. You've only brought the the subject up again to disguise the fact that you've no real answers.

I'll give you a hypothetical situation.

Everybody knows that you should wash your hands after you've been to the toilet.

Everybody knows that the towel that you dry your hands on probably holds more bacteria than your hands.

Everybody knows that a hot air blower is more hygenic than a towel.

Everybody knows that some driers are better, more effective and more expensive than others.

What I don't know is the chance of me catching the lurgy if I use the towel. If it's a minutely small chance, why should I (or any business) care what sort of drying system is in place?

[New-un]

Use a fresh paper towel you scruffy cunt. Easily more hygienic than both a hot air blower or a towel in the gents.

It's difficult to put a number on it due to the following factors;

Different organisms survive for different time periods on different surfaces MRSA for example can survive for longer than 9 months on fabrics. Whereas E.coli will last for a few hours. However E.coli is much more likely to cause you illness if you have it on your hands, then handle some food which you then ingest. That said if you have a cut on your hand and there is some MRSA on your dirty towel you would actually be better off not drying your hands on it. Also, it depends on your immune system and whether you have had an infection or if you host the organism already.
Scenario 1. There is an organism on a sweaty towel in the gents at the loca which you are not immune too; you wash your hands, dry on towel then eat a pickled egg; the risk of infection is very high
Scenario 2. You are immune to, or there is no, organisms on the towel then you have the egg; there is no risk.

The likely hood of scenario 1; your immune system (if it's shit; risk is high), the viability of the species and strain of organism (if it survives well and your immune system is shit; risk is higher), the fabric (they survive better on certain fabrics, better than others); if it facilitates survival, then the risk is higher. Presence or absence of nutrients; may prolong the survival rates if the previous person planted some of his cornish pasty on the towel. Environmental factors; is it moist in this Portstewart hell hole of a pub? Is so the risk is higher.
The main reason for washing your hands is to stop passing infections to other people, not yourself (you already have that organism inside/on you). That said the organism from your arse/poo shouldn't be ingested; so the risk of infection not washing your hands after taking a dump and eating food is higher than taking a piss, not washing hands and eating food.

[Burdock]

Don't eat pickled eggs.

Sorted.

Could save the NHS millions.

[revolver]

Risk can't be measured. It's basically the same as gambling. There are only two viable percentages that should every be used and that is 0% risk and a 100% risk aka certainty.

Anything in between that is not justifiably measurable. To go back into the prior discussion about the ash cloud, should they have printed a well calculated and scientifically accurate 1.36% risk of planes falling from the sky the odds against it happening are far greater but it doesn't mean it wont happen and if some sucker sends one up on the basis of that report and it drops on a school in the next town killing 500 kids then whoever printed those stats has to explain to the belligerent and ignorant how even with a 1.36% risk nothing is certain when you're inside the margins of 0 and 100%.

That is why they should never ever print what the risk is. Risk is risk enough.


As for all the bullshit surrounding cancer or heart disease and all that bullshit; everything gives you cancer, everything helps to prevent cancer and everything changes day by day. As i have said before, when you're inside 0 and 100% of risk then you're within your ground to use words like "could" "research has shown" "a scientific study suggests" "a link between" "Top scientists have indicated" and then spew a load of shit at the newspaper and let them run their tired and dying industry all over it.

They may as well come out with "Breathing Increases the Chances of Death 100%. Failing to Breathe also Increases the Risk. If You're Wearing Pants, Start Shitting Them"

[glenman]

Its risky eating peanuts from a bowl in a bar, right?

[New-un]

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenman

Its risky eating peanuts from a bowl in a bar, right?

It's probably more risky eating under cooked food. What needs to happen in the peanut/bowl situation;
Guy/Lass takes a dump whilst wiping his/her arse gets some shit on it.
Doesn't wash hands/doesn't wash hands well enough
Eats some peanuts and it rubs off onto another peanut
You eat peanut
You are not immune to the organism as you've never been infected by it before (fairly rare)
You get ill

All this crap about "we found so many bacteria in a bowl of peanuts" research is bollox. There's bacteria everywhere. There's about 1000 per cubic metre of air and for every human cell in the human body there are ten times as many bacterial cells.

Starting to bore myself now but I will add that I eat peanuts in bars and am not worried.

[Begbie]

The other night, I heard David Mitchell say that cleaning product companies say that there are more germs on your chopping board than your loo seat. As we don't get sick from going to the toilet, they're essentially saying that we don't need their product.

[New-un]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

The other night, I heard David Mitchell say that cleaning product companies say that there are more germs on your chopping board than your loo seat. As we don't get sick from going to the toilet, they're essentially saying that we don't need their product.

It's all a big scam.

When they say "it kills 99.9% of bacteria" I shout at the TV.

Allow me to explain; there are millions of strains and organisms but only three were selected years ago for standard tests. All you have to do is reduce the number of these three test organisms by 3 logs (hence the 99.9%-a 4-log decrease would be 99.99%, 5-log 99.999% etc.). So, for a 3-log reduction; if there are 10,000,000 cells if you reduce it to 10,000 companies can claim the 99.9% thing. 10,000 is still as dangerous as 10,000,000 and the product only works for the strains and organisms tested in the lab not the millions of others kicking around in the environment. Disgraceful they let them claim that.

[stenelly]

ever been on a bus man's holiday new-un ?

http://www.busmansholiday.net/