Understanding The Perception Of Risk And Risk Analysis In Ship Grounding And Radioactivity

The Concept of Risk Perception and Risk Analysis

Discuss about the Effect of handle and processing on pesticide.

Perception of risk is a personal understanding of decision making. It refers to the judgements of the people with respect to the likeliness of the occurrence of the deadly disease, illness and injury. Perception of risk is necessary because it helps in recognising the risk related to communication and also risk associated with health (Brown 2014). There are two main dimensions of risk perception: emotional dimension and cognitive dimension. The cognitive dimension can be described as how people understand the risk and know about them, while the emotional dimension can be related to how people feel about the risk. Risk analysis, on the other hand, is a systematic study of risk and the uncertainties that a person encounters during the framing of a public policy, engineering, business and profession. Risk analysis helps in identification of the probable risk which is faced by an organization, institution, and an individual (Vasvári 2015). This study is based on the energy and the non-energy threats, the application of the time sequence model, time zone of a grounding ship, quantification and estimation of the risks.

1. Explosions occurring in a coal mine are not uncommon and there are two types of mine explosions: coal dust explosion and methane explosions. The methane explosion can be related to the catching of fire by the methane gas which is present in the hydrocarbon pockets. The explosion occurs when the methane gas comes in contact with oxygen and there is a presence of a source of heat (Li et al. 2012). Coal dust can also be attributed to the to the reason of mine explosion, however, there are conditions which result into explosion. Such factors are the presence of oxygen, a combustible dust, high concentration of the presence of the dust in the air, the source of ignition, a confined area or an enclosure (Bartknecht 2012). Thus, in this scenario, the energy source is considered as a threat.
2. The light aircraft during the final approach to landing at the Geelong airway came in contact with the power lines. The power line is actually an energy threat here, however, in the accident, the light aircraft is involved and is also designated to be an energy threat because within the engine there is a constant moving of engine parts, the mixing of the fuel along with the oxygen acted as an active energy threat. The explosion in the internal engine resulted in the total destruction of the aircraft and it was an active threat to the two commuters that were travelling by aircraft (Lee, Choi and Seo 2016). The broken power lines were still having the current flowing and it can hazardous for the moving nearby. Thus, the broken power line can be considered as an active energy threat.
3. When a person falls into a cold water body, the body tends to lose heat at a faster rate. The body fails to regain the lost heat due to the constant exposure to cold water. Such condition results from a medical emergency called the hypothermia and this occurs when the temperature of the body falls below the 35 degree Celsius. When the temperature of a body falls rapidly, the organs, nervous system, and heart stop functioning normally. If a person experiencing such condition is left untreated, then there is a higher chance that the respiratory and the heart functioning will stop and the person will eventually die (Dragancea et al. 2013). Thus, it can be inferred that the falling into cold water and the eventual death of the person is a non-energy threat.
4. A suspension bridge actually suspends from two chains or ropes from two tall towers. The majority of the weight is the compression weight due to the vehicles travelling on the deck. The weight on the deck is transferred via the cables to the two towers. The cables that support the deck of the bridge receive the tensional forces of the bridge. The excess of the tensional force has resulted in the breaking of the bridge's support cables. Whereas due to the breakage of the cables, vehicles fell from the bridge and the 11 people died due to drowning. Drowning is a secondary non-energy threat while the breakage of the cable can be attributed to the build-up of the tensional force within the cables (An, Spencer and Ou 2015).
5. Potential energy can be described as the energy possessed by an object due to its position with respect to the other objects. In this case, the part of the cliff may have undergone stress within itself. Thus, when the part of cliff broke off from the whole structure, the potential energy within the rock transformed into kinetic energy. This combination of the potential and the kinetic energy resulted in the death of the couple (Elvin and Erturk, 2013). Thus, in this case, there is the sure presence of an energy source.
6. There can be much reason due to which a building can collapse. A building can collapse due to ground shaking, earthquake, the build-up of the tensional forces within the different parts of the building. Whereas, there are other reasons for building collapses like the usage of improper building materials, deficiency in the design of the building and human error. The presence of the several factors minimizes chances of depicting a single source as an energy or a non-energy source (Windapo and Rotimi, 2012). Thus, the scenario of building collapse can be attributed to both the energy and non-energy source.
7. pesticide food poisoning has two types of effects: long-term and short-term effects. Considering the case, at least 2483 people complained about the illness after eating the frozen fish which was contaminated by pesticide. The people that suffered the illness due to the consumption of the pesticide-contaminated food was because foreign agents entered the body and the body started to react positively (Bajwa and Sandhu 2014). Thus, it can be inferred that in this case, there is an existence of non-energy source.
8. Arsonists are the one that commits the crime by deliberately set fire to the wildland areas and abandoned homes. The fire set by these arsonists to the grass and the trees resulted in an open coal mine catching fire as well. The major risk here is posed not the fire but the arsonists themselves (Gannon et al. 2012). Thus, arsonists here are considered as a non-energy source.
9. The safety barrier is supposed to be working in order to keep the animals safely within the cage. This safety barrier is also meant to keep the humans safely that work outside the cage, however the failure of the safety barrier resulted in to a mishap. The defective bolt was actually the resulted in to the mishap, thus the bolt can be considered as a non-energy source.
10. Findings suggest that the liquefaction of the mining waste was caused due to the mixing of the two different types of tailings like the slimes and the sands. This occurred during the construction procedure and a minor earthquake initiated the process. Earthquake can be considered as an energy source for this mishap, however the major damage was caused by the mining waste that washed across the region and killed around 11 people (Jefferies and Been 2015). The movement of water with such a great force can be positively considered as a threat from an energy source.

1. the various types of consequences that could have arisen from the case are as follows:

• Shipping poses a direct danger to the reef when the ships try to cross the reef. From the superficial analysis it does not reveal much, however from inside the reef, the condition is much worse and present a hostile condition.
• The major problem that can result from the crossing of the ships across the reef is that it results in the death of the corals. Ships are likely to face accidents inside the reef due to the hostile conditions. While if the crossing ship is containing oil then it might cause oil spill and might damage the whole environment. This affects not just the corals but also the entire ecosystem and also harms the fauna and flora of the area (ABC News, 2018).

1. The severity of each of the consequence can be related to the damage of the reef by the ship has resulted in it to a scar which was 1.9 miles long and was 820 feet long. When the ship entered the reef, due to the shredding of the hull about 3 tons of oil leaked. It was later found that the marine life in the reef was flattened and the shoal structure was damaged by the vessel's weight. The damage was not severe because there was no presence of the toxic chemicals from the spillage, however, the recovery might take around 10 to 20 years (Gelineau 2018).
2. The event that occurred in the Great Barrier Reef is a destruction of ecology and the environment and the prime reason is the human error. The act was done deliberately and resulted in the loss of the ecology and environment and thus can be designated as a non-energy threat. The oil spillage that occurred on the reef was not significant and thus the energy source threat can be nullified.
3. the possible mechanism of the event might have included the diverting the cargo ship into a different direction. This would have bypassed the direct passage through the Great Barrier Reef and at the same time would have prevented the occurrence of this event.
4. The preconditions of the mechanism can be described as the measures that could have been taken in order to avert the mishap and the accident. The exact usage of the GPS coordinates, along with care route planning. The southern extremity of the Great Barrier Reef provides the alternative route for the ships to bypass the reef and the proper integration of the monitoring arrangements can effectively advert any future occurrence this kind of mishaps (ABC News, 2018).

(i) Ship grounding can be described as an impact of a specific type of ship on the waterway side or a seabed. The process can be done intentionally or deliberately in order to land the cargo and the crew, repair or maintenance. Whereas, the case is totally different if there is an accident, and in cases where accidents occur the ship run aground. There are hazardous effects of grounding of ships, this might result in damage to the hull structure. Severe damages might lead to human casualties, loss of the ship, cargo spills, hull breaches. From the global data point, about one-third of the accidents occur with the commercial ships. This type of accidents come in the second place after the collision of a ship with another ship. There are several reasons for the grounding of ships and they are: organizational and human factors, speed, type of the vessel, age of the vessel, waterway geometry, depth of the waterway, wind, waves, visibility, tide, darkness, current (Mazaheri,  Montewka and Kujala 2014).

 The timezone 1 offered several different types of events or the causation factors depending upon which the ship grounding specifically depends. Human error is the prime reason and alone is the major contributor to the grounding accidents over the world. Improper and insufficient information of the navigational waterways and the port is the main cause of the grounding accident. Improper retaliatory measures were undertaken in an untimely manner and the negligence of the manoeuvrability is the main cause of the major grounding accidents. It depends on the manoeuvring potentiality and this is a deciding factor of how a ship will be stranded after the procedures of grounding are undertaken. Captain's error is the most important contributory factor with respect to the ship grounding. The grounding of ship generally occurs due to any person steering or the captain steering the vessel does a mistake in steering, navigation or any other ship operation.

Causes and Effects of Ship Grounding

 Human error is considered over the other approaches because human error alone is the major contributing factor. Other than the GPS, the manoeuvrability and the steering is done by the humans and thus the human error is bound to occur here (Safety Institute of Australia 2018).

(ii) Before the ship grounding took place the several events that contributed to the event begin with the first mate (who is also called as the second in charge of captain) is in charge of the vessel at that moment. The second in charge ordered the docking and loading outside the Gladstone, Queensland. The period mentioned docking by the second in charge was 28 hours and then the de-docking procedures will be proceeded with. The second in charge then went off for 2 hours and in order to rest. It is important to note that his rest was due in 38 hours. After the de-docking took place, the second in charge plotted a course along with the captain and went on to set a course that will commonly set through a shortcut to the sea lane. The coordinate change has been done by the first mate, however, it was not entered into the computer. This fact was communicated to the second mate, however, he forgot to put the new coordinates into the computer. This has resulted in the ship move in accordance with the old coordinates. This has resulted in the ship move into the protected areas of the reef. Like it was mentioned in the previous question, human error played a major role in affecting the ecology and the environment of the reef. This has resulted in to ship grounding and the damage of the reef ecology. The timezone 1 of the time sequence model explicitly mentions about the preconditions that have led to the accident (Safety Institute of Australia 2018).

Radioactivity can be described as the release of the particles from the nucleus of an atom and this results in to a nuclear stability. It is no denying that there are many nuclear isotopes which are unstable and at the same time also emit some form of radiation. The common types of radiation are the gamma, beta and alpha, and the order mentioned is in descending order. There is a potential risk from the radioactivity as it affects the living cells of the tissues when a considerable amount of the ionizing radiation is exposed. Overexposure may lead to cancer and also exposure to small amounts of radiation also result into harmful effects of the body (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2018).

(i) the units of exposure for the radioactive risk is measured in different units. The units that measure the decay of the radioactive elements can be Becquerel (Bq) and curie (Ci). While the exposure is measured as the radiation which is travelling through air. There are certain monitors that can measure the exposure. The units of the radioactive exposure is coulomb/kilogram (C/kg) and roentgen (R) (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2018).

Human Error in Ship Grounding Accidents

(ii) the dose equivalent is termed as the quantity of the radiation which is absorbed by the body and the medical effects after getting exposed to the radiation. Especially for the gamma and beta radiation the dose equivalent is similar to the absorbed dose. In comparison, the dose equivalent is actually larger than the absorbed dose with respect to the neutron and alpha radiation. The reason is that the alpha and the neutron radiation is more damaging for the human body. The unit for the dose equivalent are Sievert (Sv), roentgen equivalent man (rem) and biological dose equivalent which is measured as 1 by thousandth of rem. 1R or exposure is equal to 1 rad and this, in turn, is again equal to 1 rem or 1 thousand mrem (BBC News 2018).  

The probability of radiation can be calculated through the risk probability (P) over a number of people (N) that are exclusively involved in an activity, the whole body annual maximum dose (E) and the radiation risk probability coefficient (C). Thus, the risk probability can be calculated by P= N x E x C.

Effective doses less than the 200mSv, C= 0.5 x 10^-4 or C= 1.0 x10 ^-4. The dose in most of the cases in less than 200 mSv for a single year, c value is taken as 0.5 x 10 ^-4. Thus, the radiation risk probability can be calculated using the formula P= N x E (Waller 2013)

The value of the P is actually the whole body dose and is not the same as the skin dose or an extremity dose. P values must be calculated before the control measures are placed.

(iii) When body reacts with the ionizing radiations, the energy gets transferred to the body tissues. The dose absorbed by the body is the energy absorbed per unit weight of the tissue or the organ. This is expressed in the units of gray (Gy). One joule of energy absorbed dose by 1 kilogram of the organ is equivalent to the one gray dose. 100 rads is equivalent one gray. Committed dose is a term which is used when a material gets in to body through ingestion or inhalation. The dose of the radiation enters the body and gets accumulated. The total amount of the dose that gets accumulated into the body for over 50 years is called committed dose. The quantity of the committed dose can be said to be equivalent with the amount of the radioactive material ingested over an amount of time and the time for which it stays within the body. According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) there are two types of committed dose: committed equivalent dose and committed effective dose (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety 2018).

(iv) the exposure to the high levels of radiation ranging above the 1 gray can lead to different types of sickness in relation to radiation and wide range of symptoms. Vomiting and nausea are the first issues that occur after an hour of exposure and this followed by fever, headache, and diarrhoea. The higher levels of radiation can lead to symptoms that are immediately felt and experienced and this causes the fatal damage to the internal organs of the human body. There is a quantification that radiation absorption over and above 4 grays can potentially kill healthy adults. The major consequence is the significant damage that the ionizing radiation does to the body. The radiations potentially damage the DNA cell which is beyond repair and the long-term exposure can lead to cancer (US EPA 2018).

Dangers of Radioactivity

The range of the consequence values can be quantified differently in to different consequence levels on a scale of 5. The consequence scale will consist of degrees of the risk (insignificant, minor, moderate, major and catastrophic) (Industry.gov.au 2018).

(v) According to the ISO 3100, risk is defined as the effect of the uncertainty on the objectives. The effect can be described as the negative or a positive definition from what is expected. Uncertainty on the other hand can be described as the condition or state which involves the lack of the information and it leads to the incomplete or inadequacy. With respect to risk management, uncertainty plays a role when the knowledge of an event is complete, and thus increases the chances of occurrence of a risk. Uncertainty does not always come from the inadequate knowledge; sometimes unwelcomed situations or rather sudden change of the scenario can also lead to risk (Thao, Van Tiep and Linh 2014).

Conclusion

Thus, from the following study, it can be concluded that risks occur due to the inadequate and insufficient knowledge of the upcoming events. Risks, however, can also be quantified according to the reason of the causation. The source itself can be quantified as an energy threat and threats arising from the non-energy source. There are certain risks that pose a hazard to the human life to a great extent, whereas other risks are just minor and do not pose as a serious to the humans. Risks not only arise from the natural sources and anthropogenic sources but also from the human errors.

Reference

ABC News, 2018. Coal ship crew charged over reef grounding. [online] ABC News. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-14/coal-ship-crew-charged-over-reef-grounding/395854 [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

An, Y., Spencer, B.F. and Ou, J., 2015. A test method for damage diagnosis of suspension bridge suspender cables. Computer?Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(10), pp.771-784.

Bajwa, U. and Sandhu, K.S., 2014. Effect of handling and processing on pesticide residues in food-a review. Journal of food science and technology, 51(2), pp.201-220.

Bartknecht, W., 2012. Dust explosions: course, prevention, protection. Springer Science & Business Media.

BBC News, 2018. Q&A: Health effects of radiation. [online] BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-12722435 [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

Brown, V.J., 2014. Risk perception: it’s personal. Environmental health perspectives, 122(10), p.A276.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety, 2018. [online] Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety. Available at: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/ionizing.html [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

Dragancea, I., Rundgren, M., Englund, E., Friberg, H. and Cronberg, T., 2013. The influence of induced hypothermia and delayed prognostication on the mode of death after cardiac arrest. Resuscitation, 84(3), pp.337-342.

Elvin, N. and Erturk, A. eds., 2013. Advances in energy harvesting methods. Springer Science & Business Media.

Gannon, T.A., Tyler, N., Barnoux, M.F. and Pina, A., 2012. Female arsonists and firesetters.

Gelineau, K., 2018. 2-mile scar on Barrier Reef from ship. [online] msnbc.com. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/36459923/ns/world_news-world_environment/t/-mile-scar-barrier-reef-ship/#.WqZrMOfhXIU [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

Industry.gov.au, 2018. A1.3 Quantification of consequence/likelihood matrices. [online] Industry.gov.au. Available at: https://industry.gov.au/resource/Programs/LPSD/Risk-management/Appendices/Appendix-1-Risk-analysis/Pages/Quantification-of-consequencelikelihood-matrices.aspx [Accessed 27 Mar. 2018].

Jefferies, M. and Been, K., 2015. Soil liquefaction: a critical state approach. CRC press.

Lee, S., Choi, W.S. and Seo, K.S., 2016. Safety assessment of a metal cask under aircraft engine crash. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 48(2), pp.505-517.

Li, Q., Lin, B., Dai, H. and Zhao, S., 2012. Explosion characteristics of H2/CH4/air and CH4/coal dust/air mixtures. Powder technology, 229, pp.222-228.

Mazaheri, A., Montewka, J. and Kujala, P., 2014. Modeling the risk of ship grounding—a literature review from a risk management perspective. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 13(2), pp.269-297.

Safety Institute of Australia, 2018. [online] Safety Institute of Australia. Available at: https://www.ohsbok.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/32-Models-of-causation-Safety.pdf [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

Thao¹, H.T.Y., Van Tiep, N. and Linh, D.T.T., 2014. Evaluating Risks in Construction Projects Based on International Risk management Standard AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009. Infrastructure University Kuala Lumpur Research Journal, 2(1), pp.38-50.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018. NRC: Measuring Radiation. [online] Nrc.gov. Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/measuring-radiation.html [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

US EPA, 2018. Radiation Health Effects | US EPA. [online] US EPA. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-health-effects [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].

Vasvári, T., 2015. Risk, risk perception, risk management–a review of the literature. Public Finance Quarterly, 1, p.29.

Waller, R. ed., 2013. Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Analysis: Issues, Methods, and Case Studies (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media.

Windapo, A.O. and Rotimi, J.O., 2012. Contemporary issues in building collapse and its implications for sustainable development. Buildings, 2(3), pp.283-299.