[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Incident/Accident
From what I understand, folks in the safety field (i.e., industrial
hygiene, fire safety, etc.) are moving away from the word "accident"
because it implies nothing could have been done to prevent it. They feel
that most events that were once called "accidents" were definitely preventable.
At 03:11 AM 1/25/02, you wrote:
>Respect definitions the yet valid IAEA glossary:
>
>accident
>
>Any unintended event, including operating errors, equipment failures or
>other mishaps, the consequences or potential consequences of which are not
>negligible from the point of view of protection or safety.
>
>event
>
>In the context of the reporting and analysis of events, an event is any
>unintended occurrence, including operating error, equipment failure or other
>mishap, the consequences or potential consequences of which are not
>negligible from the point of view of protection or safety.
>
>incident See INES.
>
>The word incident is often used, in INES and elsewhere, to describe events
>that are, in effect, minor accidents, i.e. that are distinguished from
>accidents only in terms of being less severe. This is an arbitrary
>distinction with little basis in normal usage. An incident can be minor or
>major, just as an accident can, but unlike an accident, an incident can be
>caused intentionally. The existing misuses of incident, such as INES, cannot
>be eliminated, but new examples should not be created.
> nuclear incident: [Any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same
>origin which causes nuclear damage or, but only with respect to preventive
>measures, creates a grave and imminent threat of causing such damage.]
>
>conclusions:
>
>a) accident "Any unintended event..........
>b) event "Any unintended occurrence.......
>c) incident ;
>(i)) " Often used to describe events that are, in effect, minor accidents" -
>"distinguished from accidents only in terms of being less severe"
>(ii) "This is an arbitrary distinction with little basis in normal usage" -
>"An incident can be minor or major, just as an accident can"
>(iii) "but unlike an accident, an incident can be caused intentionally "
>
>More conclusion: -
>
>a) If event "Any unintended occurrence.......
>b) If " an incident can be caused intentionally " - In this case incident is
>not an event - Sense or not sense?
>c) "The existing misuses of incident, such as INES, cannot be eliminated,
>but new examples should not be created."...
>
>When I asked why many colleagues from England and USa use incident instead
>accident, is really why I wish to understand better this reason.
>Many express Goiania Incident. There was not incident however rather an
>acident.
>England has a very important document: NAIR - National Arrangements for
>Incidents involving Radioactivity - Why they do not change Incidents by
>Events, like -IAEA INES? - By the way if radsafers are interested can
>download NAIR 2000, as a leaflet pdf format, using
>http://www.nrpb.org/radiation_incidents/nair.htm
>
>Now with respect the first Jack's point, I would like to make some
>comments:
>
> >My early experience and training as a rad con supervisor included specific
> >public relations, now called "politically correct," responses to
> >radiological events or "issues," another one of those words.
>
>Comment:
>
>We can't to avoid the use of the words accident or incident, we have to
>understand the correct nuclear/radiological meaning to use one or the other.
>Event as you refer is exactly this: accident or incident
>
> >Accident" wasn't used because it conveyed a meaning, especially to the
> >public, of a catastrophic event--we don't want to create undue panic or
>concern.
>
>Comment:
>
>Again, we can't avoid explaining to the public the Nuclear/Radiological
>Event Scale. There are several reasons why public has not confidence, I'll
>write two concerning this subject:
>a) Regulatory Authority in many situations tries to minimize the situation;
>b) Spokesperson also in many situations explains by means of abstract words.
>
>Lamentable that there is not an International Radiological
>Event Scale. Last year I did such proposal to IAEA. This takes time and
>IAEA's priority.
>
>Jose Julio Rozental
>joseroze@netvision.net.il
>Israel
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Cristian S. Nicolau <cnicolau@NBNET.NB.CA>
>To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:38 PM
>Subject: Incident/Accident
>
>
>Some years ago, in Romania we had those two terms very well defined:
>Accident=event which affects the persons of the public
>Incident=event which does not affect the public
>I do not know if the new law is using the same terminology but this is a
>good way of using the two words, when describing radiological events. I
>always assumed this was coming from the IAEA recommendations.
>
>Regards,
>Cristian S. Nicolau
>************************************************************************
>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Cristian S. Nicolau <cnicolau@NBNET.NB.CA>
>To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:38 PM
>Subject: Incident/Accident
>
>
>Some years ago, in Romania we had those two terms very well defined:
>Accident=event which affects the persons of the public
>Incident=event which does not affect the public
>I do not know if the new law is using the same terminology but this is a
>good way of using the two words, when describing radiological events. I
>always assumed this was coming from the IAEA recommendations.
>
>Regards,
>Cristian S. Nicolau
>************************************************************************
>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/