> people neglect them and then sue the company Yes, they do, just like every other product, including dangerous products. Some of those products handle similar

> people neglect them and then sue the company Yes, they do, just like every other product, including dangerous products. Some of those products handle similar amounts of energy and some involved chemistry that was just as hazardous as LiNiMnCoO2 orLiNiCoAlO2. To accommodate these hazards sometimes we required the end user to get special training/licensing (e.g. cars). The most important safety feature that we've learned over the last few centuries is that hazardous products must be designed to fail safely. > Remote monitoring ensures This is useless for safety[1], because the network isn't a reliable to the degree that is required for safety. You have to assume the network will not be available, sometimes for long periods of time (months), sometimes for reasons outside the user's control. Anybody selling a product that ignores the lesson of the Therac-25 should be held criminally liable for any damage/injury caused by their product. [1] it may be useful for other reasons unrelated to safety [2] (pdf) http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf