Informa Markets

Author Bio ▼

Safety and Health Practitioner (SHP) is first for independent health and safety news.
March 18, 2015

Get the SHP newsletter

Daily health and safety news, job alerts and resources

The tiger in the cage – when is a hazard not a hazard?

sumatran-tiger-77081_1280Standard health and safety courses often stress the distinction between hazard and risk. This distinction can be lost on mere mortals (students get confused too) and, in an attempt to help the matter we are told the apparently simple definition of a hazard as “something with the potential to cause harm”; we are told ‘something’ can mean ‘anything’ – object, chemical, activity, condition… Despite the apparent elegance of this definition, it is recursive and woolly in practice (I’ll go into that later). We are then sometimes told that hazards are immutable (that is hazards don’t change) but risks do. This, of course is not quite the truth. Closer to the truth is what we recognise as a significant hazard, changes.

‘Hazard’ vs. ‘risk’ is rather easy to see with the often-used example of ‘tiger in a cage’. The tiger represents the hazard (which is always there and doesn’t change) and, while behind bars, presents little risk of actual harm to us (provided we don’t get too close). The reason it works is that the nature of the possible harm is instinctive to all humans – we see the teeth, the claws and the sheer power and we think severe mauling/death. We don’t have to even voice the nature of the harm – It’s a universally shared metaphor that haunts our dreams. The problem with the example, is that it is too easy and does not address the subtlety of many hazards. When it comes to other hazards, the awareness or knowledge may not be shared or even known by anyone.

Chemical substances are a classic example of this – especially the carcinogens. But knowledge is a wonderful thing and there is power in hindsight. The Curies probably didn’t recognise pitchblende as quite so hazardous (radioactive); the “wonder material” that is asbestos hasn’t always been connected with cancer either. Science moves on and it is only by examining and testing substances (or having accidents/incidents) that we become aware. This has lead to what is called the ‘precautionary principle’ in chemical/biological safety – i.e. treat it as dangerous unless proved otherwise (though I would not recommend widespread use of this principle as it can lead to extreme risk aversion).

You see, for us to recognise a hazard, we have to have in mind the nature of that potential harm (so foreseeability). We cannot divorce it from having an idea of what that harm could be (or assessing its potential). Recognising this can depend strongly on awareness and also context.

To take the definition of hazard as it stands, everything on the planet could be considered a hazard (and I mean absolutely everything could potentially cause harm if you think about it too much). But not everything is significant. We know that nitrogen is an inert gas that is a simple asphyxiant (displacing oxygen from air), but only in very high concentrations – so we can confidently ignore it the rest of the time even though it is around 80 per cent of the atmosphere we breath. So the hazard here is not nitrogen itself but nitrogen in high concentrations (because that is the condition which has the potential to cause harm). This reveals another issue: that we are often taught to think of hazards linearly, as single things. But, as you can see from the nitrogen example, practically, a ‘hazard’ might not be one thing or one property but a combination of things which, if occurring together, presents a hazard (a potential for harm).

In another example, we talk about ‘hazards to young children’, which we wouldn’t conceive of as hazards to able-bodied adults. This is context. And behind it we have in mind that the nature of the harm is different for young children vs. adults (the purists among you will probably say I’m confusing hazard and risk – but that’s the point – they are very connected via ‘harm’). In fact we are establishing the significance of the hazard in the given context by recourse to the potential type of harm (clause 5.2 of ISO 17776 implies this consideration as a necessary precursor to evaluation of risks). So, practical consideration of hazards is contextual. Well, it has to be unless you want to be sidetracked by trivia rather than the real stuff in your workplace.

So, when identifying hazards, please don’t be a purist. Take time to explain the nature and significance of the harm to the mere mortals among us, especially if it isn’t obvious.

David Towlson Director of Training & QualityDavid Towlson is director of training and quality at RRC International

Approaches to managing the risks associated Musculoskeletal disorders

In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, we hear from Matt Birtles, Principal Ergonomics Consultant at HSE’s Science and Research Centre, about the different approaches to managing the risks associated with Musculoskeletal disorders.

Matt, an ergonomics and human factors expert, shares his thoughts on why MSDs are important, the various prevalent rates across the UK, what you can do within your own organisation and the Risk Management process surrounding MSD’s.

Related Topics

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bashir Fashola CMIOSH
Bashir Fashola CMIOSH
9 years ago

Excellent clarification, although I was unaware that the ‘tiger in the cage’ analogy has had such poor presentation and reception. I use the ‘knife on the table’ analogy, which posits that a knife on a table is a hazard that can lead to a continuum of risk ranging from no risk at all in an office being demolished; to minor risk in an office full of professionals that will simply remove it to a safe place; major risk in a nursery school and almost fatal risk in a room with an unattended child. In simple terms, your risk assessment must… Read more »

Ray Rapp
Ray Rapp
9 years ago

Even experienced practitioners get these concepts confused. One of the reasons I believe is because of semantics.
The English language is full of contradicting terms – for example, a hazard and hazardous, which is really another way of saying ‘risky’.
When it comes to ‘risk assessments per se the concepts of hazard, probability, severity and risk can become even more confusing.
I’m sure someone will come up with an easy and definitive explanation one day…until then, I will stick with a hazard is tangible or objective if you prefer, whereas a risk is theoretical.

steve paul
steve paul
9 years ago

the problem in safety is the professional who over complicates issues, trying to be too smart. if your senses alert you to “whoa that`s scary” its a hazard and keep risk evaluation simple, what would the man on the clapham omnibus think.What is foreseeable what id significant having seen a lot of assessments undertaken by academics a majority of which seem to sway to the look at me arent i clever with all these words version…….. ………..rather than the more pragmatic view taken by individuals who actually understand the job and what is being done as well as the legislative… Read more »

Vince Butler
Vince Butler
9 years ago

Good article and good replies. I find expaining the ‘harm’ part of the common hazard definion is worthwhile. Also putting the topic into context = we are talking about work activity in a work environment. One other point on the ‘Precautionary Principle (PP)’ mentioned in the article:- when the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the US & EU is signed, there will be the biggest and most significant attack to obliterate the ‘Precautionary Principle (PP)’ ever seen in history. If the EU or its Sovereign Governments hang onto the PP; their tax payers will be liable for corporate… Read more »

Topics: