Talk:Probabilistic risk assessment/Archives/2016
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please write a better article
I had to take a class that was 2 hours long for this and this is all you have down? Seems like only someone who wanted to take another swipe at the Fukushima disaster wrote anything. Here, someone who is good at writing semi-plagurize this (well, it's not plagurism if you cite your source, right?): http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/probabilistic-risk-asses.html TodKarlson (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Incomprehensive criticism
It doesn't matter if Nancy Leveson is of MIT and she said it: The criticism demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how and why risk works. It IS an evaluation of one event, that is its strength and weakness. It CAN evaluate feedbacks, etc., if the evaluator understands the effect. It can do non-linear effects, the formula is P x I, and if non-linear equations are substituted - it can do non-linear, but that would defeat the purpose of this simple analysis method. Of course you can't create perfect fault trees, for the same reason you can't predict the future. However, it has been demonstrated, that it is useful to parameterize. In addition, you can predict things you do not know about, using history and a basis set. GESICC (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)