Hazardous v High Risk
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:32 pm
- 2
Hazardous v High Risk
I am going through some safety policies for a new company I work for. The question I ask is that in the policies they have put Hazardous activities. Me on the other hand like the word High Risk as hazardous seems more uncontrolled. It's like we are putting persons in harm’s way. So, if an activity is risky (i.e. Rock climbing), do you put Hazardous or High Risk? Or am I being petty and either will do?
- witsd
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:37 pm
- 9
- Occupation: Fire safety officer
- Location: Glasgow
- Has thanked: 90 times
- Been thanked: 264 times
Re: Hazardous v High Risk
Hazardous means dangerous without specifying how likely the event is.
High risk means high likelihood of things going wrong without specifying the likely level of harm.
Bleach in a closed bottle 3m away from me is hazardous.
Spraying lemon juice into my own face is high risk.
High risk means high likelihood of things going wrong without specifying the likely level of harm.
Bleach in a closed bottle 3m away from me is hazardous.
Spraying lemon juice into my own face is high risk.
We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because 'two' is 'one and one.' We forget that we still have to make a study of 'and.'
-
- Anorak Extraordinaire
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:55 pm
- 10
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 202 times
Re: Hazardous v High Risk
I would just go with hazardous.
The meanings as outlined by witsd are, imo, in the wrong context to the question being asked. They are right for a risk assessment context but not for a generalisation, which is what I think you would have in a policy. Hazardous simply means dangerous. Its severity or likelyhood is irrelevant in the context of generalising a type of activity, ie a dangerous activity.
I wouldnt worry about how the word seems. No one is going to drag you in to court because of it, so go with the word or phrase that best describes the situation. High risk is too subjective for me. How do you define high risk? its arbitrary, where as Hazardous is a cover all term for the potential for someone being hurt.
The meanings as outlined by witsd are, imo, in the wrong context to the question being asked. They are right for a risk assessment context but not for a generalisation, which is what I think you would have in a policy. Hazardous simply means dangerous. Its severity or likelyhood is irrelevant in the context of generalising a type of activity, ie a dangerous activity.
I wouldnt worry about how the word seems. No one is going to drag you in to court because of it, so go with the word or phrase that best describes the situation. High risk is too subjective for me. How do you define high risk? its arbitrary, where as Hazardous is a cover all term for the potential for someone being hurt.
- witsd
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:37 pm
- 9
- Occupation: Fire safety officer
- Location: Glasgow
- Has thanked: 90 times
- Been thanked: 264 times
Re: Hazardous v High Risk
I appreciate what Stephen is saying, but I think the two words' meanings should be kept clear when used in any H&S context as it only muddies the waters otherwise!
But having said that, yes, in this context it probably doesn't matter too much.
Does anyone read the policies?
But having said that, yes, in this context it probably doesn't matter too much.
Does anyone read the policies?
We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because 'two' is 'one and one.' We forget that we still have to make a study of 'and.'
- Jack Kane
- HSfB Site Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 25074
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:13 am
- 20
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/hsfb
- Industry Sector: Manufacturing Subsea XTs
- Occupation: Senior HSE Advisor for TechnipFMC & HSfB Founder
- Location: Sunny Bo'ness
- Has thanked: 254 times
- Been thanked: 199 times
- Contact:
Re: Hazardous v High Risk
Getting the terminology correct is hugely important, it's not petty at all. If not correct, what does it show? A lack of understanding of the principles of risk assessment by the company as a whole? Routinely using emotive or ambiguous terminology can lead to a structured safe system of work being flawed when it really really matters, regardless of how hazardous the work is.napoleonanderson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:33 pm The question I ask is that in the policies they have put Hazardous activities. Me on the other hand like the word High Risk as hazardous seems more uncontrolled.
For example, I work in an industry where pressure testing of product is required. This is the most hazardous activity we do out of a multitude of others like mechanical lifting, fork lifts, work at height, confined spaces, spray painting, etc. I find that people tend to say our pressure testing is 'high risk' when in reality it's not. The consequences of it going wrong are catastrophic and brutal, but the mitigation controls we have in place actually make it one of the lowest risk activities we do.
Don't get me wrong, in the context of your question I'm being pedantic, but in the bigger picture when having a conversation with an HSE inspector around the terminology of 'pressure testing' and 'working with pressure' it's extremely important to get it correct and demonstrate an understanding of the fundamentals.
I do get hung up on the subject of terminology and I'm sure some people would prefer I didn't, but I'm ok with that. At least we're all talking about it.
Don't even get me started on 'fire' alarm and 'emergency evacuation' alarm!
RoSPA Awards Ambassador and Mentor #RoSPAAwards #HSfB #Proud
There is no such thing as a "stupid" or "daft" health and safety question!
-
- Snr Member
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 9:55 pm
- 17
- Occupation: Consultant
- Location: North Wales
- Been thanked: 31 times
- Contact:
Re: Hazardous v High Risk
I am 100% with Jack on this. Hazard and risk should not be used interchangeably. If you classify an activity as high risk you are saying that a fatality is likely or serious injuries are almost certain. I doubt that is what you mean. Even the most extreme rock climbers would not accept that.
Following on from Jack's example, I do a lot of safety critical task analysis with clients. They will often say that a "pressure test" is carried out when returning equipment to service after maintenance. In a very few cases that is true, and it involves subjecting the equipment to 150% of design pressure. However, most actually perform a much simpler and less hazardous "leak test" where they simply use an inert gas at much lower pressures to make sure all joints have been made up correctly.
Following on from Jack's example, I do a lot of safety critical task analysis with clients. They will often say that a "pressure test" is carried out when returning equipment to service after maintenance. In a very few cases that is true, and it involves subjecting the equipment to 150% of design pressure. However, most actually perform a much simpler and less hazardous "leak test" where they simply use an inert gas at much lower pressures to make sure all joints have been made up correctly.
Risk, safety and health
Human factors and ergonomics
http://www.simplesensiblesafety.co.uk
http://www.andybrazier.co.uk
Human factors and ergonomics
http://www.simplesensiblesafety.co.uk
http://www.andybrazier.co.uk
-
- Anorak Extraordinaire
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:55 pm
- 10
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 202 times
Re: Hazardous v High Risk
Im not using them interchabgeably, im using them in context. Thats a quirk of the English language. The same word has different meanings when used in differing context.
Jacks argument is based around a safe system of work, and I agree, in a safe system of work, it would matter, but the original post is about a policy, and in that context, it doesnt matter whether you call it a risk or a hazard because it is the context that matters here.
I could be wrong, but both your examples in realtion to specific acts, If you think it could cause a problem in a policy document, show me how.
Jacks argument is based around a safe system of work, and I agree, in a safe system of work, it would matter, but the original post is about a policy, and in that context, it doesnt matter whether you call it a risk or a hazard because it is the context that matters here.
I could be wrong, but both your examples in realtion to specific acts, If you think it could cause a problem in a policy document, show me how.