Foreword by Jerry Havens

I am honored to have the opportunity to update Professor Lees discussion of Major Hazards. Had the events of 9/11 not occurred, there would be little that I could add, but there is today a new dimension to the problem of major hazards. For fifty years now, we have been wrestling, sometimes not effectively enough, with problems of human error since 9/11 we are forced to consider malicious acts as well.

I cannot improve on Lees definition of a major hazard as being of low probability of realization combined with the likelihood of very great harm if realized. Although this definition may be virtually useless in the eyes of the law, hence most regulatory uses, I think Lees had in mind the public, and the public will ultimately decide the acceptability of activities it considers major hazards. Although benefits accrue to all effective loss prevention activities, major or not, prevention of the realization of major hazards will, I believe, become increasingly important in maintaining industry s reputation as a good, and safe, neighbour.

Lees is primarily interested here in major technological hazards, but he skillfully compares them with natural hazards with which the public is more familiar. He points out that technological hazards can rival natural hazards in severity, as some incidents that have occurred in the twentieth century suggest. Despite significant efforts made to improve public safety, the general public is sadly uninformed about the extent of misery that can accompany major accidental releases of hazardous materials perhaps best...