Search Results

Rational design for fire safety necessarily includes consideration of risk tradeoffs that tend to reduce one risk but may increase another. Traditional engineering design criteria can be supplemented with important factors that rely on expertise from other disciplines. Engineering analysis may be able to address reduction in fire risk due to the introduction of new technology, but may not address the social costs associated with this new technology. For example, the resultant increase in vehicle cost may prevent some people from purchasing a vehicle (impacting individuals' lives), may reduce the number of vehicles sold (impacting manufacturers), and may reduce taxes collected (impacting the government). This must be weighed against decreased risk of property damage, injury, and fatality due to fire. In this paper, the methods of benefit-cost analysis from economics were applied to make this evaluation.

The process of design inherently involves consideration of risk trade offs; intervening to reduce one risk often increases another. In addition to creating a design for the intended function of the product, a rational process of risk management involves prediction of risk through design analysis, statistical evaluation of the history of similar products, and potentially multidisciplinary teams to address diverse causes of risk. As a case study, this paper examines the benefits of using one class of fire retardant to reduce risk of vehicle fire injuries and the countervailing health risk due to increased quantities of fire retardants released in the interior environment. Data sources for fire and health risk were researched and interpreted for use in the analysis. Information needed to reduce the uncertainties in the risk predictions are identified for future refinements to the conclusions.