Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (82)	9/13/2005 8:02:27 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

I found the comments on risk assessment that I mentioned. The author, Tim Newman, is a mechanical engineer from the UK who writes a blog called We the Undersigned. I'll quote the part I think makes a valid point about risk reduction, costs, and what I think of as dealing with reality: Does anyone realise that Hurricane Katrina was the 3rd most intense hurricane on record and the fiercest in 35 years to hit the US? Does anybody actually acknowledge that this is an extremely rare event? The whirlwind of bullshit emanating from the media and blogosphere since Katrina's passing is itself looking set to make Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale ... I think the basic problem afflicting most commentators is that they have no concept of acceptable risk and the fact that mitigating risk costs money, with the relationship between money spent and reduction of risk being non-linear. Anyone with an unlimited budget carrying out a risk assessment of New Orleans would have noted that it is hemmed in by a large river and an enormous lake yet lies mostly below sea level, and would probably have come to the conclusion that the city should be moved brick by brick somewhere more sensible. Given that those charged with mitigating the risk of flooding in New Orleans did not have an unlimited budget, they prioritised and came to the conclusion - correctly - that a Category 4 or 5 hurricane was not High Risk (Risk being the product of Likelihood and Consequence). Even now, by most measures, it is still not High Risk because although the consequences are severe the likelihood of reoccurence is slim. Rather than slamming the stable door after the pony has bolted, the money now doubtlessly heading towards Category 5 levees in New Orleans would be better spent mitigating High Risks elsewhere in the US, of which there are likely to be many. Mitigating the High Risks is often relatively cheap, and has long term value. Mitigating Medium Risks and Low Risks can also be cheap. But mitigating ALL risks, and trying to achieve a risk-free situation is infinitely costly to implement. Reducing the last 10% of risk could cost more than the total spent on the first 90%. So a trade-off must be made between money spent and risk reduction, leading to a situation where people live under a level of risk deemed to be acceptable. Take a look at San Francisco, where somebody cleverly built a city of several million people right on top of a geological fault. One large earthquake, the 10,000 year event, would reduce the city to rubble with few survivors. The 1,000 year event would leave tens of thousands dead and the city in ruins. Yet people live there in full knowledge of this, willing to accept the level of risk in their lives. Were the worst to happen and the plates shift, would the residents of San Francisco be yelling at the government for not making adequate preparations for the event, or not spending hundreds of billions of federal money on strengthening buildings which even then would not be guaranteed to survive? Probably. But this doesn't in itself make the government, or anyone else, culpable for the risks which people take when they choose to live in areas which are prone to natural disasters. tradingtimes.co.uk