Letter: Limits on safety of the tunnel

Limits on safety of the tunnel

Sir: The letters about the safety of the Channel Tunnel from Alan Beard and Richard Hope (17 and 19 May) prompt me to point out a fundamental truth. There is no such thing as absolute safety and safety is always, without exception, compromised by commercial considerations. I write as a civil engineer who has been responsible for the design of numerous structures which, if they were to fail, would put the public at risk.

Risk must be assessed and balanced against commercial considerations. That is one of the functions of the engineer. To paraphrase the old American definition: an engineer does for 50 cents what any fool can do for a dollar. It would, for instance, be possible to reduce the risk of a loaded 747 crashing on to a populated area by closing Heathrow and building a new airport elsewhere - but who would be prepared to pay?

The fire in November 1996 was almost a worst-case situation, with a highly flammable cargo producing toxic fumes, but in spite of procedural problems no lives were lost. Compare this with the record of the ferries and only then decide where any money might best be spent on safety improvements.

H J WARD

Howard Ward Associates

Radcliffe on Trent,

Nottingham