Accidents at sea: Multiple causes and impossible consequences

Accidents are the consequences of highly complex coincidences. Among the multitude of contributing factors human errors play a dominant role. Prevention of human error is therefore a promising target in accident prevention. The present analysis of 100 accidents at sea shows that human errors were not as such recognizable before the accident occurred. Therefore general increase of motivation or of safety awareness will not remedy the problem. The major types of human error that contribute to the occurrence of accidents are wrong habits, wrong diagnoses, lack of attention, lack of training and unsuitable personality. These problems require specific preventive measures, directed at the change of undesired behaviors. Such changes should be achieved without the requirement that people comprehend the relation between their actions and subsequent accidents

When lives are in your hands: Dilemmas of the societal decision maker

31 pagesA Societal Decision Maker (SDM) is a person who makes risky decisions on behalf of others. Most of the time, such decisions should be based on the wishes and beliefs pf the affected people. This paper explores a few cases in which it could be argued that the SDM, in making decision, should in good conscience disregard the desires of beliefs of the affected people. Several simplifying assumptions are made: The SDM uses decision analysis in making the decision; teh affected people speak with one voice on the matter under dispute; the SDM cannot delay the decision or otherwise avoid the disagreement; the SDM cannot delay the decision or otherwise avoid the disagreement; the SDM is motivated only to make the right decision; the SDM can effectuate an unpopular decision. In this context, the following dilemmas are discussed: (1) What if the people object to the use of decision analysis? (2) What if the people reject the axioms of decision analysis? (3) What risk attitude should the SDM adopt? (4) What concerns should be included in the analysis? (5) What if people are misinformed? (6) What if individual and societal perspectives differ? (7) Do people really want what they say they want? For some of these questions, we argue that the SDM should make decisions against the wishes of the people; for others, we are not sure how to resolve the dispute

Experimental nasal colonization of piglets with methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sequence type (ST)398 is widely spread among livestock. People in contact with livestock have a higher risk of testing positive for MRSA. Several experimental settings have been described to study in vivo colonization of MRSA in pigs, each having its own limitations. The aim of this study was to develop a nose-colonization model in pigs to quantitatively study the colonization of MRSA and the co-colonization of MSSA and MRSA. Two experiments were performed: in the first experiment piglets received an intranasal inoculation with MRSA ST398, spa-type t011, and in the second experiment piglets received an intranasal inoculation with two MSSA strains (ST398, spa-type t011 and t034) and two MRSA strains (also ST398, spa-type t011 and t034) to investigate co-colonization. Colonization was quantitatively monitored for 2 weeks in both experiments. Nasal colonization was successfully established in all piglets with stable numbers of S. aureus between 10(4) and 10(6)CFU. MSSA and MRSA were able to co-colonize

Experimental nasal colonization of piglets with methicillin-susceptible and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sequence type (ST)398 is widely spread among livestock. People in contact with livestock have a higher risk of testing positive for MRSA. Several experimental settings have been described to study in vivo colonization of MRSA in pigs, each having its own limitations. The aim of this study was to develop a nose-colonization model in pigs to quantitatively study the colonization of MRSA and the co-colonization of MSSA and MRSA. Two experiments were performed: in the first experiment piglets received an intranasal inoculation with MRSA ST398, spa-type t011, and in the second experiment piglets received an intranasal inoculation with two MSSA strains (ST398, spa-type t011 and t034) and two MRSA strains (also ST398, spa-type t011 and t034) to investigate co-colonization. Colonization was quantitatively monitored for 2 weeks in both experiments. Nasal colonization was successfully established in all piglets with stable numbers of S. aureus between 10(4) and 10(6)CFU. MSSA and MRSA were able to co-colonize