"Risk assessment" vs. "Hazard evaluation"??

Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no longer a member of ISA due to the failings of my local chapter. I am still waiting for info on becoming a member at large.

[/ QUOTE ]Not following this: you can be a member of any chapter or none. nothing to do with isa membership. you may want to rejoin soon cuz february issue's theme is risk and there will be a lot in there about that.

I joined the western chapter not because i live there but because it seemed to have a lot going on. I may join another chapter next year; who knows?



grin.gif
 
Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

[ QUOTE ]


Anyway, I think I've hijacked this thread enough - sorry JP:



[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, this is great stuff.
cool.gif


jp
grin.gif
 
Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

[ QUOTE ]
...the links in that old thread are horribly tunnel-visioned toward the defect, ignoring strength gain from woundwood and reaction wood and possible pruning or support, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guy, I agree in general, but I would not have used the term "...horribly..." At the time that those formulae were developed (early nineties) they were cutting edge. I tried to convey that by saying "older publications", but I probably should explained more.
 
Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

"The Horror" per Colonel Kurtz, is the thousands of very stable trees that have been removed due to that formula. I first saw the drill test in 1992 on a nice oak near the Deer Park Inn at the Vanderbilt House in Asheville NC--ASCA goes to 5-star spots. Low profile, could have been pruned to fix lean but nooooooooooo it had a "thin shell" on one side and so down it came. Exploration of mitigation options: minimal. Tough oak wood would not have broken, except with the saw.

Schwarze p. 17 of Diagnosis book understatedly says: "There appears to be a trend in tree risk assessment to substitute information on wood anatomy and host-fungus association with quick and simple measurements using invasive diagnostic techniques. This is rather discomforting and unprofessional, as arborists should take pride in the fact that both trees and wood-decay fungi are complex organisms, and the decision to retain or condemn a tree has far-reaching consequences for the urban environment."
 
Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

Standard care based on systematic assessment is defensible.

liability is everywhere. We can run if we are scared, but we cannot hide.
 
Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

I agree it's defensible the unfortunate reality is a society with a zero tolerance mentality.

Ancient trees in Europe, could we see the same in our urban centres?
 
Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it's defensible the unfortunate reality is a society with a zero tolerance mentality.

Ancient trees in Europe, could we see the same in our urban centres?

[/ QUOTE ] Only insofar as WE work to increase risk tolerance (which is well above zero at present), one tree at a time. That comes with our outlook seeing and communicating tree value and not overstating unfortunate mindsets as "reality".
 
Re: \"Risk assessment\" vs. \"Hazard evaluation\"??

That zero tolerance arises after an accident. Then the cry goes out, "never again!".....

But, we do need to increase risk tolerance or more importantly clarify for clients what really is a risk as opposed to a fear, oft times unfounded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom