Risk is Never Eliminated
I have faced a little bit of criticism over my claims that investing money in the New Orleans levee system maybe wouldn't have worked. Well, now the National Academy of Engineering seems to be insinuating that levees won't work, no matter what we do.
There had been "undue optimism" about the ability of the protection systems to withstand the impact of a storm on the scale of Katrina.So, no matter how much money we contribute to levees or any structure, there is always the potential risk that a natural event will exceed our design. We can only minimize risk to the extent it is economically feasible and set up systems to mitigate the effects when disasters occur. I don't think ASCE or any engineer should be promising that investing in our infrastructure will result in perfect designs or elimination of risk.
"the risks of inundation and flooding never can be fully eliminated by protective structures, no matter how large or sturdy those structures may be".
Labels: ASCE, ASCE Report, infrastructure, structural engineering
posted by Graeme at
11:57 PM
2 Comments:
Mr. Sharpe,
I don't believe anybody has ever promised that perfection was the goal, let alone attainable. Certainly there isn't a soul (outside of DC politicians) that believes that it is possible to engineer the elimination of risk.
Using rhetoric to make a case for what you believe to be an appropriate way to spend government money is necessary - as I said in my blog, the people who control the purse strings are not engineers, don't understand engineer speak and don't want to hear it.
As I concluded in my blog, "As an engineer that lives in a fast growing city with numerous infrastructure problems, I will say the substance of ASCE’s report on the nation’s infrastructure appears to based in fact and sound reasoning. Certainly the grading system may seem a bit hokey and alarmist - but it appeals to those for which the report was written. In order for the non-engineer to gain an understanding of where an engineer places the current condition of our infrastructure you must be able communicate in a manner that the intended audience can digest and react to. After all, we’ve seen how a 1,100 page report is accepted. Just imagine an 1,100 page report filled with engineer speak."
Taylor Anderson
Hi Taylor, I enjoyed reading your blog and wanted to make sure it was referenced on mine.
Maybe I didn't explain my position very well, but the concept of a report card does not meet the ethical guidelines given by ASCE. Letter grades are relative and subjective. Beyond that, ASCE continues to use loaded language such as "crumbling" and "failing". Those two factors are what made me issue my opinion.
I absolutely agree that we need to invest in our infrastructure. I agree that our elected representatives have little capacity to understand the issue. But the ends do not justify the means. We must find a way to fix the situation without compromising our own standards.
In the end, I count for only one vote. I don't mind if people disagree with me. This website is merely a reflection of my thoughts, not an attempt to set up a shadow engineering society.
Post a Comment
<< Home