Talk:Risk assessment/Archives/2014

First post

(added header to 1st post)--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs grammatical improvement. I skimmed the first few paragraphs and attempted to fix a few, but the sentence structure and general grammar is quite poor

Own page for health risk

It would seem to me like a good idea to move the section on health risk assessment to a new page? Is anyone in disagreement? --Jimjamjak 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Dbavale 10:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) It would be helpful if someone writes on Risk Assessment Methodology...

This is a messy page, I agree. But I don't think that health risk assessment should be moved out. It is best found here as a section. Similarly the "probabilistic risk assessment page should be a section here. 194.254.175.14 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree - risk assessment is about establishing the magnitude of an identified risk based on both Probability and Impact of a risk event occurring. It is not unique to the health industry by any means. It is often applied in Systems Engineering and Program Management.--96.244.247.130 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To me, risk assessment methodology can either be general or specific. For examples, the risk assessment in environment for a specific component is very different from that of finance to that of disease control.

Explaining the Explanation

I don't think the mathematical notation helps. Would it not be simpler to say something like:

Risk of anything = Magnitude of Potential Loss multiplied by Probability of that Loss

and then

Total Risk = Sum of all Individual Risks

NRPanikker 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the mathematical explanation confusing, but it is also wrong. It treats risk like expected values that can be summed because they are independent events. The risk associated with two bad events occurring is usually much worse than the sum of one or the other occurring. As an extreme example, losing the use of half your brain is “bad” but survivable. Losing both halves is much worse than “very bad.” If the objective is to mathematically show the impact of either of two events occurring, but not both, the formula is still wrong because the intersection of the two events needs to be subtracted out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpaulw (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The other problem with that definition is that it presumes the risk-taker is "risk neutral". I added a section to point out a criticism of that approach based on some recent books.DFLovett (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The method at http://www.rdware.com/Riskit/index.html hints at a different way to calculate risk. (Scroll down to Sections 4 and 5. I may be biased because I was exposed to their marketing :-) In the meantime, isn't the formula on the main page still the essence of how most practitioners calculate and manipulate risks in real life?-- era (Talk | History) 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

kathryn ingram, rhian davy, steph kinver, lianne oakley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.10.36 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Learning to assess personal risk

Wikipedia should have an article or section about the skill of learning how to assess risks, and in particular for children to learn that skill. This obviously involves taking risks and therefore getting injured from time to time.

There is some about this in Risk aversion and Forest kindergarten but neither of those places are quite right. I think a section here might be the right home. I want to build up some references. Comments and suggestions are welcome.

• Managing risk in playground provision
• Dynamic risk assessment
• I climbed right up to here

-- Rixs (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Variance

Quote: "Risk with a large potential loss and a low probability of occurring is often treated differently from one with a low potential loss and a high likelihood of occurring. In theory, both are of nearly equal priority"

That is not true because the variance of both distribtutions is not equal... 222.173.235.20 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. Feel free to edit the article. Pm master (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

---

Comments from 570fmf

In my opinion it would be beneficial if you hyperlink some core concepts to other wiki articles as Neurotoxin andRisk assessment. I do also recommend to change the title to something as "EPA's Neurotoxicity RA guidelines" since only EPA's point of view is considered. I would also recommend to contrast information with the WHO or EU guidelines regarding this matter. I liked how you developed the subject and how you used tables to make "visually friendly" the article. You may consider the use of images about the subject to do more attractive the article. Very good job!!!570fmf (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)