A subjective risk assessment using the method described in ISO31000 was conducted where experts storage site. Experts w...
A subjective risk assessment using the method described in ISO31000 was conducted where experts storage site. Experts were consequences and expressed high agreement about relevant causal mechanisms. For one hazard, two assessors gave likelihood and consequence scores and calculated risk scores, summarised below. One expert is an industry-employed scientist and the other is a scientist employed by an environmental non-governmental organisation (NGO) were asked to assess hazards associated with a proposed high-level radioactive waste provided detailed background evidence describing hazard Hazard Risk Likelihood Consequence Hazard description Assessor Source Score Containment Leakage of failure Industry scientist 4 1 4 radioactive material contaminating groundwater, causing NGO scientist 4 5 cancer in humans potentially leading to fatalities (a) What are some of the reasons why the two assessors disagreed in their risk judgements? (six marks) (b) How would you deal with these sources of uncertainty? (three marks) (c) Describe two factors that influence individual risk perception in expert judgement and explain how they could have affected individual responses in this scenario. (six marks) 20 LC
A subjective risk assessment using the method described in ISO31000 was conducted where experts storage site. Experts were consequences and expressed high agreement about relevant causal mechanisms. For one hazard, two assessors gave likelihood and consequence scores and calculated risk scores, summarised below. One expert is an industry-employed scientist and the other is a scientist employed by an environmental non-governmental organisation (NGO) were asked to assess hazards associated with a proposed high-level radioactive waste provided detailed background evidence describing hazard Hazard Risk Likelihood Consequence Hazard description Assessor Source Score Containment Leakage of failure Industry scientist 4 1 4 radioactive material contaminating groundwater, causing NGO scientist 4 5 cancer in humans potentially leading to fatalities (a) What are some of the reasons why the two assessors disagreed in their risk judgements? (six marks) (b) How would you deal with these sources of uncertainty? (three marks) (c) Describe two factors that influence individual risk perception in expert judgement and explain how they could have affected individual responses in this scenario. (six marks) 20 LC