Dear Ken
That is precisely the point I was trying to make: all companies (and people)
always weigh up all the costs and risks that they know about and act
accordingly.
The problem arises when certain risks are unknown or ignored, for whatever
reasons.
I see it as part of every engineer's job to inform the people who make the
cost/risk decisions about all the costs and risks associated with a certain
course of action.
What I find in practice is that most engineers are aware of the costs but as
it is so hard to quantify the risks they often don't bother. Also, many
engineers are uncomfortable with quoting numbers that they can't accurately
calculate to five decimal places.
Hands up all those whose formal (or in-company) engineering education
included risk analysis and estimation and how to present the data to
management????
So in many cases management don't have the full information on which to base
their cost/risk decisions.
Regards, Keith Armstrong
In a message dated 05/01/02 01:27:34 GMT Standard Time,
ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:
> Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues
> Date:05/01/02 01:27:34 GMT Standard Time
> From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor)
> To: cherryclo...@aol.com, emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>
> My take on it is that rather than appease ridiculous demands, a company
> ought to look at the profit vs. risk vs. cost to consumer and decide, heck,
> it ain't worth it. Case in point on the news today I heard that DPT shots
> are in short supply, because two companies quit making it. They quit
> making it because there were a very small number of bad reactions to it and
> there were lawsuits or gov't action. Well, my kids are beyond that stage
> but I sure feel sorry for the people out there whose infants are at risk
> for whooping cough, diphtheria and pertussis. The only thing worse than
> watching your child become seriously ill is knowing it was easily
> preventable.
>
>
> S on 1/4/02 7:37 AM, cherryclo...@aol.com at cherryclo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> Hey, Ken, let's try to be realistic here!
>>
>> Sure - we should try to get laws we don't like changed, but that isn't
>> going to happen overnight and in the meantime we have to operate within
>> the law as it stands.
>>
>> Or are you suggesting immediate insurrection by product manufacturers?
>> (Outlaw manufacturers roaming the wild wild west - an interesting
>> concept!)
>>
>> The IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety is concerned with such legal
>> aspects, but is also concerned with saving lives in a world where
>> electronic control of safety-related functions is proliferating madly.
>>
>> As my paper at the IEEE's EMC Symposium in Montreal and my recent article
>> in ITEM UPDATE 2001 show - at present EMC standards don't address safety
>> issues, and most safety standards don't address EMC-related functional
>> safety issues.
>>
>> Regards, Keith Armstrong
>>
>> In a message dated 03/01/02 17:24:42 GMT Standard Time,
>> ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:
>>
>> >>> Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues
>>> Date:03/01/02 17:24:42 GMT Standard Time
>>> From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor)
>>> Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>> Reply-to: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor)
>>>
>> To: c...@dolby.co.uk (James, Chris), acar...@uk.xyratex.com
>> ('acar...@uk.xyratex.com'), emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>>
>>
>> >>> There is an inherent contradiction in this anti-profit, anti-technology
>>> point-of-view that I cannot and will not defend. All I am saying is that
>>> people who feel this is wrong should stand up and say so, not write
>>> guides for how to go along with it.
>>>
>>
