Archives For Communication

20131029-074234.jpg

Why risk communication is tricky…

An interesting post by Ross Anderson on the problems of risk communication, in the wake of the savage storm that the UK has just experienced. Doubly interesting to compare the UK’s disaster communication during this storm to that of the NSW governments during our recent bushfires.

Continue Reading…

While I’m on the subject of visualising risk the Understanding Uncertainty site run by the University of Cambridge’s Winton Group gives some good examples of how visualisation techniques can present risk.

Matrix (Image source: The Matrix film)

Just updated my post on Decision Theory and the Risk Matrix with some more material on the semiotics of colour and the advantages, and disadvantages, of its use in constructing a risk matrix.

Matrix (Image source: The Matrix film)

Why the risk matrix?

For new systems we generally do not have statistical data on accidents, and high consequence events are, we hope, quite rare leaving us with a paucity of information. So we usually end up basing any risk assessment upon low base rate data, and having to fall back upon some form of subjective (and qualitative) method of risk assessment.

Risk matrices were developed to guide such qualitative risk assessments and decision making, and the form of these matrices is based on a mix of decision and classical risk theory. The matrix is widely described in safety and risk literature and has become one of the less questioned staples of risk management.

Despite this there are plenty of poorly constructed and ill thought out risk matrices out there, in both the literature and standards, and many users remain unaware of the degree of epistemic uncertainty that the use of a risk matrix introduces. So this post attempts to establish some basic principles of construction as an aid to improving the state of practice and understanding.

Continue Reading…

For the STS 134 mission NASA has estimated a 1 in 90 chance of loss of vehicle and crew (LOCV) based on a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). But should we believe this number?

Continue Reading...

The Newcastle 2007 storm

In part one and part two of this post I looked at Drew Warne Smith and James Madden’s article, “The science is in on sea-level rise: 1.7 mm”, in terms of it’s worth as a logical argument.

We live under a government of men and morning newspapers.

Wendell Phillips

While Smith and Madden’s argument turns out to be the usual denialist slumgullion it does serve as a useful jump off point for a discussion of the role of the media in propagating such pernicious memes (1) and more broadly in communicating risk. Continue Reading…

The Newcastle 2007 storm

In the first part of this post on Drew Warne Smith and James Madden’s article on climate change, The science is in on sea-level rise: 1.7 mm, I dealt with the factual basis of their argument.

The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.

George Bernard Shaw

In this second part I want to spend some time looking at both the logical and psychological tricks of their argument (such as it is) and how the authors use these fallacious elements to sway the unwary or uneducated readership.

Note that I have based the taxonomy of argument upon that proposed by Thoulesss (1934) (1).

Continue Reading…

The Newcastle 2007 storm

The truth is incontrovertible

According to Drew Warne Smith and James Madden writing in the Nov 7th edition of the Australian:

 “The science is in on sea-level rise: 1.7 mm” , …we don’t need to worry about sea level rises in Australia as a ‘scientific’ 1.7 mm rise is a third less than the government’s overheated predictions…

How Smith and Madden set out to construct a case that government predicted sea level rises are exaggerated provides an excellent example of how fallacious arguments can be used to misinform the unwary, and in this case skew the reader’s perception of risk. Continue Reading…