Re: Safety Culture -Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

With all due respect (and that is a lot) to Bernie Cohen, I must express a qualm or
two about this "safety culture" story.  Clearly, the per capita accident death rate in
the US has declined steadily (but not monotonically) since it peaked in 1936 but
there are many factors involved in the change and it is difficult to determine which
factors are dominant.  My best guess is that the most important factors are (a)
increased wealth and (b) advances in technology.  

I know of no data on causality so we can only guess, based primarily on anectotal
information.  For example, our collective attitude toward safety seems to be
illustrated by the popular reaction to the 55-miles-per-hour speed limit; that is, we
are all for safety so long as someone else pays and it does not inconvenience us. 
Another telling example is the earthquake tragedies:  only a few years ago, we had
a major earthquake in a major city (San Francisco) at rush hour and 30 people were
killed; a year or so later, a similar event occurred in Armenia and 30,000 people
were killed.  I see the primary difference as being in wealth: in San Francisco they
had better concrete, better rebar, better engineering, etc.  Clearly, it was not a
matter of the people moving out of  earthquake zones.  On a more personal level, I
was impressed by seeing a major construction project continuue for over a year
without a cable breaking.  This was impressive because, (long, long ago) when I
was working construction, cable breaks were almost daily occurrences.  We were
careful, so only the unlucky were killed, but the benefit of the advanced technolgy
is manifest.

Some factors are difficult to assess.  For example, the work accident mortality rate
has declined significantly since OSHA came onto the scene.  The rate of decline,
however, has not changed from what it was before OSHA.  How do we evaluate the
benfit, if any?  Similarly, tort actions seem to provide motivation for improved
safety, but frequently the awards are so outrageous as to promote nothing but
higher levels of liability insurance.  Unquestionable, propaganda/advertising affects
behavior, but its role in safety is open to debate.  The massive propaganda
campaign can be credited with a decline in smoking, but the campaign against
radiation has kept us from using radiation pasturization to prevent millions of cases
of food poisoning which cause thousands of deaths.

It is a complex world.

Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov