topic Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust) in Welcome

Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis

j_M007 — Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:39:16 GMT

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47941794

I wonder if anyone thought about the ramifications of renovating shoddily this massive piece of living (albeit now sadly crippled!) patrimony.

Wood from the time of the 14th century; stained glass windows that are irreplaceable, artwork and masonry that are lost.

Why?

Due diligence and due care anybody? Physical, administrative and technical security controls?

On the one hand I grieve for the loss; on the other hand the laxness infuriates me.

Comments, criticisms anyone?

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

j_M007 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:59:07 GMT

The President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, talks about rebuilding and repairing Notre-Dame de Paris. It's like if someone defaced La Gioconda, and then the proprietors said, 'Not to worry, we'll patch that right up!'

This is an interview with Bernard-Henri Lévy who aptly sums up the Notre-Dame tragedy. 'You cannot rebuild the dust.'

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/you-cannot-rebuild-the-dust-a-restored-notre-dame-won-t-be-the-same-says-bernard-henri-l-vy-1.5099665

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

denbesten — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 04:01:02 GMT

Due care and due diligence require doing what a reasonable or prudent man would do. They do not require perfection. Without question the fire is a gut-punch, but that does not automatically mean there is negligence. Until the investigators have facts and conclusions, it probably best to go along with the presumption that it is accidental.

Of course the building will not be rebuilt as it was. Nor should it be. The important part is the resolve to rebuild and for those involved to respectfully marry tradition with state-of-the art. Notre Dame was not built in a single time and with a single design. It consists of many evolutionary changes, including some of its most iconic -- the double buttresses and the spire. This really is just another generational change in the life of the lady. Hopefully, this generation will include modern alarms with more precise trouble isolation and maybe a bit more fire-blocking.

What I have seen so far is the fire bringing humanity together. I see people praying, singing and grieving together in Paris. I see the rest of the world offering support. I see firefighters both doing their job and being heroes at the same time. I see substantial reconstruction pledges. Most of all, nobody died (although sadly 3 responders were injured). Added bonus, the most significant artifacts were rescued/survived (unlike the Brazil Museum).

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

Chuxing — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 13:18:30 GMT

@denbestenVive la France !

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

dcontesti — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:32:18 GMT

@denbesten wrote:

What I have seen so far is the fire bringing humanity together. I see people praying, singing and grieving together in Paris. I see the rest of the world offering support. I see firefighters both doing their job and being heroes at the same time. I see substantial reconstruction pledges. Most of all, nobody died (although sadly 3 responders were injured). Added bonus, the most significant artifacts were rescued/survived (unlike the Brazil Museum).

Our thanks to the brave men and women who are the first responders to events like this. Prayers for those injured.

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

j_M007 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:56:40 GMT

Astoundingly, few injuries have been reported. French sang-froid seems to run in the veins of the City of Light's sapeurs-pompiers. One first responder has been seriously injured according to reports, however.

.Heartfelt thanks and congratulations to all emergency responders all over the world!

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

Beads — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:57:06 GMT

I cannot but hope that the world learns some lessons from this tragic loss. Lessons like removing irreplaceable artifacts and relics before such restoration work commences.

Thankfully, only one firefighter was seriously injured but expected to recover.

It does hearten me to hear of hundreds of millions already pledged to the rebuilding effort as well.

- b/eads

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

j_M007 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:12:29 GMT

Last night over 700 000 000 euro had been pledged. Quite a tidy sum indeed. I hope the Powers that Be will have the sense to manage everything according to best practices and also to implement a ISO 37 001 management framework, along with the usual ISO/IEC 27k series of controls.

I was heartened to hear that UNESCO and partner organizations are undertaking a very careful archaeological-like assessment and reworking of the site. The first thing the interview mentioned, and this was music to my ears, was the establishment of security perimeters and the need to protect the site physically from harm (looters, weather, inadvertent damage by those who are assessing the disaster area.)

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

j_M007 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:17:24 GMT

Vive l'humanité !

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

j_M007 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 17:38:25 GMT

@denbesten wrote:
Due care and due diligence require doing what a reasonable or prudent man would do. They do not require perfection. Without question the fire is a gut-punch, but that does not automatically mean there is negligence. Until the investigators have facts and conclusions, it probably best to go along with the presumption that it is accidental.

@j_m007 writes:

I certainly agree that all signs point so far to human error (I don't assume anyone acted with willful negligence; but I go by the old adage: 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.')

Of course the building will not be rebuilt as it was. Nor should it be. The important part is the resolve to rebuild and for those involved to respectfully marry tradition with state-of-the art. Notre Dame was not built in a single time and with a single design. It consists of many evolutionary changes, including some of its most iconic -- the double buttresses and the spire. This really is just another generational change in the life of the lady. Hopefully, this generation will include modern alarms with more precise trouble isolation and maybe a bit more fire-blocking.

True enough as well, but the fact is it is an ornate living piece of art that had its origins 856 years ago. President Macron says he wants it rebuilt in 5 years. Hmm. experts are forecasting double or triple that time.

What I have seen so far is the fire bringing humanity together. I see people praying, singing and grieving together in Paris. I see the rest of the world offering support. I see firefighters both doing their job and being heroes at the same time. I see substantial reconstruction pledges. Most of all, nobody died (although sadly 3 responders were injured). Added bonus, the most significant artifacts were rescued/survived (unlike the Brazil Museum).

There is an interesting article Scientific American about fight or flight tendencies or tend and befriend tendencies. Fascintaing social psychology, indeed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-stress-of-disaster-brings-people-together/

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

denbesten — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:10:24 GMT

@j_M007 wrote:
President Macron says he wants it rebuilt in 5 years. Hmm. experts are forecasting double or triple that time.

Management and technicians likely have a different definition for "rebuilt".

Management likely sees "rebuilding" as the return of tourists and the ability to hold mass. This could happen with the removal of dangerously weakened materials and the installation of a temporary canvas roof. This seems achievable within 5 years.

Technicians, on the other hand likely will focus on the hiring stone masons, glass artists, lots of big lumber and building a permanent roof with a towering spire. Using this definition, rebuilding will take substantially longer.

So, if this question comes up on the CISSP exam, the "best" answer is 5 years.

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

dcontesti — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 21:16:09 GMT

So are you saying the best answer is "Management"

Re: Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis (You cannot rebuild the dust)

j_M007 — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 23:12:57 GMT

Although. If it has to do with human safety, we need to err on the side of caution and say as long as it's safe for life and limb. 😉