Re: [SystemSafety] WG: words you cannot use at GM

From: Peter Bishop < >
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 18:35:27 +0100

The the UK nuclear industry there is the concept of "tolerability or risk" Tolerability in this case relates to the potential victim who can have different views about different sources of risks - and is particularly intolerant of nuclear

Peter Bishop

Mike Rothon wrote:
> On 22/05/2014 13:46, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:

>> On 2014-05-22 14:31 , Nancy Leveson wrote:
>>> I think saying that "acceptably safe" is safe is a ridiculous 
>>> definition.
>> Nevertheless, it is de rigeur in Europe. The UK Health and Safety 
>> Executive says that is how it
>> judges, with "acceptably safe" usually meaning a one in a million 
>> elevated chance of dying:

> Sorry to be pedantic, but I think that the HSE paper you linked
> discusses 'acceptable risk' rather than 'acceptably safe'.
> Although perhaps synonymous, I think the HSE choose wisely because the
> concept of risk as a continuum from 'horrendously unacceptable risk' to
> 'nicely comfortable risk' is relatively intuitive. Rightly or wrongly,
> in UK general parlance 'safe' conveys something more black and white,
> most people would say it is either safe to cross the road or it isn't.
> However I have certainly used 'acceptably safe' in the past to mean
> acceptable risk (where 'acceptable' is defined) and probably will do so
> in the future - purely because it is de rigeur as you say.
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety_at_xxxxxx

Peter Bishop
Chief Scientist
Adelard LLP
Exmouth House, 3-11 Pine Street, London,EC1R 0JH
Recep:  +44-(0)20-7832 5850
Direct: +44-(0)20-7832 5855
The System Safety Mailing List
Received on Thu May 22 2014 - 19:35:43 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jun 04 2019 - 21:17:06 CEST