<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Machinery Safety 101</title>
	<atom:link href="http://machinerysafety101.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://machinerysafety101.com</link>
	<description>Safe designs for safe workplaces</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 01:07:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>National Day of Mourning</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/28/national-day-of-mourning/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/28/national-day-of-mourning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[April_28]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fatalities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Day of Mourning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today is the 28th of April, the National Day of Mourning for Workers Killed at Work. Each year in Canada workers, employers and citizens gather to pay their respects to people killed at work. This is as important a day &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/28/national-day-of-mourning/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/28/national-day-of-mourning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to become Instantly Incompetent</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/10/how-to-become-instantly-incompetent/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/10/how-to-become-instantly-incompetent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:30:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incompetence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standard]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many engineers and designers fall into a really simple trap, one that makes them instantly incompetent. These are not stupid people. They have the qualifications, so what is it that can catch someone out this badly? It’s called ‘complacency’. Complacency is that state &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/10/how-to-become-instantly-incompetent/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/04/10/how-to-become-instantly-incompetent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Third Level of the Hierarchy: Information for Use</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/01/16/the-third-level-of-the-hierarchy-information-for-use/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/01/16/the-third-level-of-the-hierarchy-information-for-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Information for Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2006/42/EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CE Mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CSA Z432]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hierarchy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Product Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve written about the Hierarchy of Controls in past posts, but I’ve focused on the ‘engineering’ side of the control equation: Physical changes to machine design to eliminate hazards, and mechanical or electrical control systems that can reduce risk. The &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/01/16/the-third-level-of-the-hierarchy-information-for-use/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2012/01/16/the-third-level-of-the-hierarchy-information-for-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<series:name><![CDATA[Hierarchy of Controls]]></series:name>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>31-Dec-2011 — Are YOU ready?</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/12/30/31-dec-2011-are-you-ready/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/12/30/31-dec-2011-are-you-ready/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Control Functions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Control Reliability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functional Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISO 13849]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[controls reliability 13849 machinery  interlock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EN 954-1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EN ISO 13849-1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IEC 62061]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISO 13849-1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1446</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[31-December-2011 marks a key milestone for machine builders marketing their products in the European Union, the EEA and many of the Candidate States. Functional Safety takes a positive step forward with the mandatory application of EN ISO 13849–1 and –2. &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/12/30/31-dec-2011-are-you-ready/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/12/30/31-dec-2011-are-you-ready/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<series:name><![CDATA[Circuit Architectures Explored]]></series:name>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why I wear a Poppy on 11-Nov</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/11/why-i-wear-a-poppy-on-11-nov/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/11/why-i-wear-a-poppy-on-11-nov/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1434</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent article in the Independent, Robert Fisk writes that the poppy has become nothing more than a fashion statement in the UK. Merely a way to show that you are British, or to score points with the boss, &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/11/why-i-wear-a-poppy-on-11-nov/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/11/why-i-wear-a-poppy-on-11-nov/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inconsistencies in ISO 13849–1:2006</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/10/inconsistencies-in-iso-13849-12006/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/10/inconsistencies-in-iso-13849-12006/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:30:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Control Functions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Control Reliability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functional Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISO 13849]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2006/42/EC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[controls reliability 13849 machinery  interlock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EN ISO 13849-1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve written quite a bit recently on the topic of circuit architectures under ISO 13849–1, and one of my readers noticed an inconsistency between the text of the standard and Figure 5, the diagram that shows how the categories can &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/10/inconsistencies-in-iso-13849-12006/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/11/10/inconsistencies-in-iso-13849-12006/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<series:name><![CDATA[Circuit Architectures Explored]]></series:name>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bye, Steve. Thanks for everything!</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/06/bye-steve/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/06/bye-steve/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:07:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1418</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today marks a turning point for me. With the loss of Steve Jobs, the world is a lesser place. His brilliance, vision and charisma changed the world for the better in so many ways. As anyone who knows me well &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/06/bye-steve/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/06/bye-steve/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Standards in Music</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/05/standards-in-music/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/05/standards-in-music/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Standards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Working in a field that is standards heavy, I often get questions from clients and students about the origin of standards. Recently I heard a discussion on CBC radio talking about the origins of musical notation, and I realized that &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/05/standards-in-music/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/05/standards-in-music/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interlock Architectures Pt. 6 — Comparing North American and International Systems</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/03/interlock-architectures-pt-6-comparing-north-american-and-international-systems/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/03/interlock-architectures-pt-6-comparing-north-american-and-international-systems/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:30:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Control Functions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Control Reliability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Functional Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISO 13849]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North American Robotics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robotics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[controls reliability 13849 machinery  interlock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CSA Z432]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EN 954-1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EN ISO 13849-1]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve now written six posts, including this one, on the topic of circuit architectures for the safety–related parts of control systems. In this post, we’ll compare the International and North American systems. This comparison is not intended to draw conclusions &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/03/interlock-architectures-pt-6-comparing-north-american-and-international-systems/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/10/03/interlock-architectures-pt-6-comparing-north-american-and-international-systems/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<series:name><![CDATA[Circuit Architectures Explored]]></series:name>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Risk Assessment Fails—Again. This time at DuPont.</title>
		<link>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/09/27/how-risk-assessment-fails%e2%80%94again-this-time-at-dupont/</link>
		<comments>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/09/27/how-risk-assessment-fails%e2%80%94again-this-time-at-dupont/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Doug Nix</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Risk Assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machinerysafety101.com/?p=1377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent report released by the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) looks at a series of accidents that occurred over a 33-hour period on January 22 and 23, 2010 at the DuPont Corporation’s Belle, West Virginia, chemical manufacturing plant. A number &#8230;<p class="read-more"><a href="http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/09/27/how-risk-assessment-fails%e2%80%94again-this-time-at-dupont/">Read more &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://machinerysafety101.com/2011/09/27/how-risk-assessment-fails%e2%80%94again-this-time-at-dupont/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<series:name><![CDATA[Risk Assessment]]></series:name>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: machinerysafety101.com @ 2012-05-19 14:36:12 by W3 Total Cache -->
