Did the camera have "proximal cause" to the event that befell the child,
well not unless it fell of of the ceiling or the tripod fell over and hit the
infant, or the camera overheated and started a fire. Other than that the
Lawyers need to dig their heads out - juries as well. They are just trying to
chase the money. Cameras don't cause disease likes SIDS. They don't cause
buildings to collapse, or burglaries or whatever else might befall the baby
They are just a convenience. If they an additional input path to the parents
may stop, but the actual monitoring (or the failure of monitoring) neither
helped or hindered the health of the child. The camera manufacturer, even if
this is sold as a baby monitor, I can't see how holding the camera manufacturer
responsible can even be considered, except that it gives the lawyers somebody
to sue with some money. I suppose it might give the parents a misplaced sense
of (and I hate this word) closure because they can blame some body, rather than
just life, fate, or whatever.
I don't doubt your statement that somebody is trying to hold the
manufacturer responsible, I just point out that it is asinine and in my opinion
inexcusable to do so. Recorded history doesn't show a huge plethora of infant
deaths because parents weren't able to have a video camera in the room.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:22 AM
To: cherryclo...@aol.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I have read a part of the IEE guide mentioned below. What I have read on a
paragraph by paragraph basis is fine, but I find the overall philosophy deeply
troubling. The tone of the document is that the manufacturer is responsible
for all uses or misuse of the equipment he sells in concert with every other
type of equipment made or that might be made at some time in the future. This
document is a trial lawyer's dream. It takes us from a society in which a sale
was deemed a transaction of mutual benefit between equals to a society in which
an Omniscient Producer must cater to the needs of an ignorant, childlike
Consumer, and in direct corollary, any misuse of any product by any consumer is
deemed proof that the Omniscient Producer was profiting by taking advantage of
a helpless victim. I realize this document merely reflects this prevalent
view, but the idea that an Industry group would provide such a smoking gun for
some trial lawyer to use in defense of some poor misled swindled consumer is,
to say the least, troubling. To say that Industry standards don't go far
enough, that it is the responsibility of the Producer to be able to determine
all possible environments and failure modes that might ever occur is placing an
impossible burden and any rationale entity, upon reading this document will
immediately cease production of anything that could conceivably ever
malfunction in anyway whatsoever.
Case in point: A friend of mine bought one of these 2.4 GHz remote miniature
video cameras with integral IREDs and is able to monitor his infant twins from
his own bedroom, even in the middle of the night with no lights on in the
twins' bedroom. Suppose that 2.4 GHz link is disturbed in some way and he
misses something important happening in that bedroom. Is the manufacturer of
that video system responsible for any ill that then befalls my friend's twins?
I think not. But this safety guide says yes, and places the manufacturer at
risk.
----------
From: cherryclo...@aol.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 9:49 AM
Once again, John, you seem to be trying to give a negative impression about the
IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety (which you now admit you haven't read)
instead of simply saying what it is that you think is wrong with it.
Of course I am passionate about the IEE guide - my colleagues and I spent a
long time working on it!
When I discovered you were criticising it to the emc-pstc of course I had to
respond - but I was not (and am not) trying to defend the guide, merely trying
to find out just exactly what it is that you (and your silent 'equally senior
experts') don't like about it so I can get it improved.
I am sorry if my wordy emails give the wrong impression - the simple fact is
that I always write too much (as any editor who has had an article from me will
confirm!).
Once again I ask you - and everyone else in the entire EMC or Safety community
world-wide - to read the IEE's guide and let me have constructive comments
about how to improve it.
You can easily download it for free from www.iee.org.uk/Policy/Areas/Electro (-
you only need to download the 'core' document for this exercise and can leave
the nine 'industry annexes' for later criticism).
I'll make it easy for anyone to comment even if they haven't read the Core of
the IEE's guide....
...the guide is based on the following engineering approach, explicitly stated
at the start of its Section 4 and duplicated below.
*****
To control EMC correctly for functional safety reasons, hazard and risk
assessments must take EM environment, emissions, and immunity into account. The
following should be addressed:
1) The EM disturbances, however infrequent, to which the apparatus might be
exposed
2) The foreseeable effects of such disturbances on the apparatus
3) How EM disturbances emitted by the apparatus might affect other apparatus
(existing or planned)?
4) The foreseeable safety implications of the above mentioned disturbances
(what is the severity of the hazard, the scale of the risk, and the appropriate
safety integrity level?)
5) The level of confidence required to verify that the above have been fully
considered and all necessary actions taken to achieve the desired level of
safety
*****
Please - anybody and everybody out there - tell me if there is anything wrong
with this engineering approach to EMC-related functional safety. Involve
experts you know who are not subscribers to emc-pstc too. Please be as detailed
as you can be.
If I receive no constructive comments about the above 5-point approach by the
end of January I will assume that the IEE's guide is on the right tracks and
will not need major revisions. You can send any comments to me via emc-pstc or
directly to keith.armstr...@cherryclough.com or cherryclo...@aol.com.
Interestingly, my reading of IEC/TS 61000-1-2 leads me to believe that it
follows the same general approach as the IEE's guide.
Regards, Keith Armstrong
In a message dated 31/12/01 21:58:43 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
writes:
Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:31/12/01 21:58:43 GMT Standard Time
From: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate)
Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Reply-to: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk <mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> (John Woodgate)
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <17c.18c06c2.296
20...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 31 Dec 2001:
> Quite a number of EMC and Safety experts took part in creating the IEE's
> Guide on EMC and Functional Safety, including a lawyer who specialises in
> high-tech issues. You will find their names listed at the end of the
> 'core'
> of the guide (downloadable from www.iee.org.uk/Policy/Areas/Electro). Many
> of these experts also involved their colleagues and others so we got a
> very
> wide spread of opinion.
My comments referred to the IEC work, specifically verbal reports from
people involved. You will have noticed that the work culminated in a TS,
not a standard as originally envisaged. That in itself may be an
indication of certain difficulties in its passage through IEC.
I think that a passionate defence of the IEE document (which I have not
studied, so will not comment on) *may* also be an indication that there
is more emotion surrounding this subject than is desirable.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero.
