[SystemSafety] (no subject)

Peter Bernard Ladkin ladkin at causalis.com
Wed May 6 11:57:55 CEST 2020

On 2020-05-06 11:34 , Martyn Thomas wrote:
> Ian Levy (National Cybersecurity Centre) told me yesterday that the app
> is not safety critical; it's a Class 1 medical device.  I assume
> therefore that this is the Government's position, however absurd that
> appears.
Suppose around a chemical plant which uses or produces noxious substances there is a warning system
installed for the local population, to warn of biohazards.

First implementation: sirens. We may presume the siren system is E/E/PE rather than, say,
Second implementation: SMS/WhatsApp/Signal messages to mobile phones.

Question 1: does the first come under 61508? Why? If no, why not?
Question 2: Suppose the answer to Q1 is yes. Does the 2nd implementation also come under 61508?
Question 3: Suppose the answer to Q1 is no. Does the 2nd immplementation come under 61508.


Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
Styelfy Bleibgsnd
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/pipermail/systemsafety/attachments/20200506/368fbcb2/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the systemsafety mailing list