I agree with your direction here John. I think of "hazard" not as a "thing" but as the potential for an action with adverse outcome.
Brent DeWitt Westborough, MA > -----Original Message----- > From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 6:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? > > In message <[email protected]>, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, > Richard > Nute <[email protected]> writes: > > >Yes, a noun represents a "thing." > > > >The noun "hazard" supposedly represents a "thing." > >Can you identify the "thing" that is a "hazard"? > > > >Would you say that a safe product is one that has > >no "hazards"? > > Trick question, of course. Some products have to exhibit hazardous > features in order to perform their intended service. Examples are an > electric drill and a hand saw. > > > >A long time ago, one of my professors described > >some nouns as "thingified abstractions." We tend > >to think that "things" have properties that can > >be detected by one or more of the five senses. > >An abstraction does not have properties that can > >be detected by the five senses. > > I think this is simplistic. It would appear to classify gaseous > nitrogen > as a 'non-thing' and 'child abuse' (which you can unfortunately see and > hear, but is surely an abstraction) as a 'thing'. Or is 'child abuse' a > generic term for numerous harms, and generic terms for harms are > 'things'? > > > >The noun "hazard" represents an abstraction, not > >a real "thing." Consequently, the word has > >different meanings for each of us. For this > >reason, it may not be a "perfectly good" noun, > >depending on the context. > > I would respectfully disagree with the good professor. The word > 'hazard' > is an example of a generic term, and may be defined as 'anything > potentially harmful'. Most 'anythings' can be detected by one or more > senses, but there are extensive exceptions, see below. > > > >We can't communicate very well if each of us has > >a different meaning for "hazard." Indeed, that is > >the case! > > > >Your definition defines "hazard" as some "thing." > > > >If you think about the "thing" that "can hurt you > >or do property damage," I think you will find that > >the "thing" is energy (joules) that is transferred > >from an energy source to a body part or to property. > > I think that is in one sense overly analytical and in another is > incomplete. > > If the 'thing' is energy, are the sources themselves 'non-things'? I > would say they are things, since they do impinge on the senses. So I > think that 'hazard' is a reasonable generic term for these potentially > harmful things. > > Energy transfer from a source to a person or property is not the only > way harm can occur. You may think that the example of liquid nitrogen, > which will *extract* energy from your finger if you are careless, is > trivial, but what about chemical and biological agents? I hope you will > agree that carbon monoxide is hazardous, and it extracts (minute > amounts > of) energy in doing harm to people, and so does Plasmodium, giving them > malaria in exchange. > > > >The next time you're in a discussion, and the word > >"hazard" is used, listen carefully and try to > >understand its definition in the context of the > >discussion. As the discussion progresses, the > >definition may change! > > That may happen to other words as well, unless the group members are > all > philosophers. If they are, of course, the discussion will not progress, > but make circular tours ad infinitum. (;-) > > > >My professor said that we can't have understanding > >unless we have the same meanings for the words we > >use. He further said that we cannot do clear > >thinking unless we have clear definitions for the > >words we use. > > I think most would agree, but you major premise is that 'hazard' cannot > be defined. I believe I have provided a viable definition, which is in > any case close in meaning to your 'the "thing" that "can hurt you or do > property damage,". > > Now, is IEC TC108 a "thing" or not? (;-) > -- > OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk > John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK > If at first you don't succeed, delegate. > But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc- > pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail > to <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to > that URL. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> > David Heald: <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
