https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id Professor James A06 en-us 2020-09-07 19:34:00 UTC 2026-01-21 17:57:27 UTC hello@padlet.com isaacgardberg https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725355054 I would not change the report and would inform my employers that taking no action would be against the law and could result in a lawsuit if anyone is harmed by these chemicals, this lawsuit would hurt the appearance of the company and lead to potential clients to not choose to purchase our services. It is my duty as an employee to ensure that my company is kept safe from such things and so must not change the report. 
It is also my duty to ensure that no one is harmed by these chemicals and so must keep the report unchanged. money is not worth another's life and health. If I were to be fired and blacklisted then I will simply invoke whistle blower laws and if need be leave the area to find another job. my job is not worth more than another's health and so if it must be lost to protect another from a risk then let it be lost. ]]> 2020-09-07 19:45:55 UTC https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725355054 isaacgardberg https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725363494 I believe that it is the responsibility of an engineer to make a product that helps mankind, and that the appropriate safety procedures are always taken. An engineer should also ensure that their product is being used responsibly and for the benefit of mankind, and must either modify or destroy their creation if it is not. These are the extents of an engineer's responsibility in my eyes. 
Other engineers who interact with another's creation should ensure that it is not misused or abused as well and should speak out if the creation is used maliciously. ]]> 2020-09-07 19:53:19 UTC https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725363494 isaacgardberg https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725527218 These two documents do not adequately show the risks of the challenger's flight. The first document mentioned the risk of losing lives but was more focused on the damage to the launch area. This would portray in a reader that death would be the worst possible outcome and that the destruction of facilities was the primary concern. Thus a reader would not view the risks as too great and so failed to portray the risks. The second document never mentions the possibility of the flight crew dying and only really mentions possible rocket damage and thus fails to adequately portray the risks. ]]> 2020-09-07 22:48:17 UTC https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725527218 isaacgardberg https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725558110 The risk of death is acceptable so long as it is relatively small. Having too little risk will lead to little innovation, no one would be willing to invent or experiment under the fear that someone could die, so some amount of risk must be accepted for progress to be made. Having no concern for any risks including death would be naturally foolish because it discourages testing which can lead to failed projects and money being wasted. This would also likely lead to potential volunteers being dissuaded fearing for their lives. NASA had operated under the risk of their astronauts dying and still succeeded in setting up satellites, creating a space station and getting to the moon, though with a few tragedies such as challenger. Given NASA's successes and the inherent failings that too little and too much concern for risk can lead to, the best approach becomes one of moderate risk which NASA embodies to a fair extent being the acceptance of a relatively low risk of death. ]]> 2020-09-07 23:21:29 UTC https://padlet.com/isaacgardberg/9dvh2ro25mp934id/wish/725558110