equation(3) Risk∼(A,C,Ps,U|BK)Risk∼(A,C,Ps,U|BK)Ps is a subjective probability, Bcl 2 inhibitor a degree of belief of the occurrence of A and C, conditional to the background knowledge BK, which contains uncertainties U. This assigned Ps is not seen as a “true” probability, as different assessors provided

with the same evidence may disagree on how to interpret it and may have different personal background knowledge ( Flage and Aven, 2009). Of fundamental importance is that in this risk perspective, it is essential to look beyond the probabilities by providing a systematic assessment of uncertainties in the construction and outcome of the models and underlying assumptions. Given the presence of uncertainties about e.g. the impact scenarios in ship–ship collisions and the need

to make simplifying assumptions in modeling risk, we adopt following risk perspective, with notations as above: equation(4) Risk∼(A,C,Ps,U,B|BK)Risk∼(A,C,Ps,U,B|BK)This risk perspective thus is a fusing of the precautionary and the uncertainty perspective. The aim of risk assessment is to describe uncertainty, here using subjective probabilities Ps, about the occurrence of A and C. There is no reference to a true risk, and uncertainties U and biases B related to the evidence on which the model Obeticholic Acid datasheet is based and the outcome of the model are described beyond the quantities Ps. In the context of oil outflow modeling, the developed model aims to provide a platform where

an assessor can express uncertainty about the occurrence of various impact scenarios through a set of subjective probability distributions Ps. Depending on these location-dependent inputs, the presented model provides a probabilistic description of the possible oil outflows. It thus does not provide a point estimate or an expected value, but a range of probabilities for different oil outflow sizes. In addition, these oil outflow probabilities are placed in context with the uncertainties U and biases B which were made in the oil outflow model construction. Adopting such a risk perspective has several implications. First, accuracy is not the primary modeling aim. Risk modeling and model development for risk assessment O-methylated flavonoid is seen as a reflection of the state of knowledge about the possible occurrence of events and consequences, acknowledging uncertainties and biases. Risk models can in this sense be understood as a basis for argumentation, not as a revelation of truth (Watson, 1994). Second, validation is not seen exclusively in terms of how well the model is able to predict or reconstruct reality. While predictive adequacy is a desirable aim, validation is better understood as an assessment of the strength of arguments in the model construction (Watson, 1994).