Pronounce THAT!
The non-corps study of the Army Corps of Engineers' NOLA levees finds fault with the levees. Being nitpicky, surprise, I find fault with parts of the article (New study of levees ...).
The lead author of the report says:
"People died because mistakes were made," he said, "and because safety was exchanged for efficiency and reduced cost."
In my world, efficiency balances the benefits and costs of safety. In other words, the tradeoff being considered is between safety benefits and safety costs, not between safety and efficiency. In fact, efficiency analysis can be used to promote efficiency safety.
Here's another one I don't like:
All of the factors, they concluded, add up to a culture of inattention that put safety lower on the scale than cost.
In a benefit-cost analysis, the benefits of safety should be monetized and compared to the monetized costs. With this analysis it is impossible to rank safety below cost.
This is not to say that I think everyone down in NOLA did a heckuva job. Obviously, the levees weren't built to deal with a big storm. It is hard to imagine that a benefit-cost analysis would recommend substandard levees with all those people living below sea level.
