Peter Tarver and Gary McInturff bring up the topic
of "inherently unsafe" products.
Peter identifies these products as inherently unsafe:
> three-ring binders (mechanical hazard)
> any pointed writing implement (mechanical hazard)
> plain old mechanical staplers (mechanical hazard)
> paperweights (mechanical hazard)
> pushpins (mechanical hazard)
> bath tubs and swimming pools (drowning hazard)
> in-sink garbage disposals (mechanical hazard)
> refrigerators and freezers (suffocation hazard)
Gary responds:
> None of which are designed to intentionally do harm, for good or bad.
What is the difference between Peter's example of
inherently unsafe products and any electrical
product that is plugged into a wall outlet? The
electrical product is also inherently unsafe. What
is the difference?
The way we avoid injury from Peter's example products
is through our behavior. We take on a personal
responsibility to avoid injury from these kinds of
products and situations. (Peter could have added
the simple processes of crossing a street or climbing
stairs as inherently unsafe.)
Our behavior is a process which is learned from being
taught, from observation, and from experience.
Consider the new-born child. He is fearless. He has no
personal responsibility. He is totally dependent on
the people around him for his safety (and everything
else). We can't monitor him continuously, so we place
him in a crib that contains him and prevents him from
falling.
As the child grows, we teach him or he learns from
observation or experience about things and actions that
might hurt. We only allow him to cross streets and
climb stairs with supervision. We teach him not to
touch hot things and other things that might injure
him. We teach him how to use tools such as knives
and hot-pads in a manner that won't injure him. We
continue to monitor his abilities to deal with energy
sources until we are satisfied that he can do so
without injuring himself or others. At this point, he
assumes personal responsibility for his and others'
safety with respect to a particular energy source.
The process of obtaining a driving license or permit is
an example of this learning process. The prospective
driver is taught, is provided with opportunities for
observation and experience, and then is monitored and
tested until we are satisfied that he has assumed
sufficient personal responsibility to drive a vehicle
without injuring himself or others.
Note that all of these inherently unsafe situations
are readily detectable and recognizable by mature
people. For readily detectable and recognizable
unsafe situations, we rely on personal responsibility
and behavior for protection against injury.
On the other hand, we have insidious unsafe situations
such as electric shock. (Indeed, who among us has NOT
experienced the unexpected electric shock?) Most
people cannot detect a live conductor simply by
observation. So, where we cannot, from experience or
observation, recognize an unsafe situation, we require
the product to provide protection against such unsafe
situation. The way we avoid injury from products with
insidious unsafe situations is through safeguards that
are a part of the product, such that we do not rely on
personal detection and personal avoidance behavior.
Best regards,
Rich
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
