News for Japan

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 6   Next›  Last» 

EHS family began the 215Km protest walking against mobile phone company
Japan Created: 20 Aug 2010
12 August, the protest walking began in Nagano. Participants were a director and 3 menbers of the"Association to protect Environment and Health in Inadani", a menber of the city council and the Shiota Family.
http://homepage3.nifty.com/vocemf/link53.html

mobile phone company NTT docomo
http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/

youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NFZ7pVaBmg

photo
http://ameblo.jp/kitakamakurakeitaing/entry-10620750575.html
http://ameblo.jp/kitakamakurakeitaing/entry-10618473948.html
Click here to view the source article.
Source: From DN2009

Youtube videos against Mast installations!
Japan Created: 18 Jul 2010
Germany
http://ameblo.jp/kitakamakurakeitaing/entry-10592001752.html
Demonstration youtube video of Spanish
http://ameblo.jp/kitakamakurakeitaing/entry-10588736364.html
France, Netherlands
http://ameblo.jp/kitakamakurakeitaing/entry-10514011446.html
Taiwan
http://ameblo.jp/kitakamakurakeitaing/entry-10586002845.html
Source: dn2009

In the LED lighting, there are products who cause the reception obstruction of the radio. (Japanese)
Japan Created: 8 Apr 2010
In the LED lighting, there are products who cause the reception obstruction
of the radio.

Source (Japanese)
LED電球で「受信障害」、街路灯交換へ(読売新聞)
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20100407-OYT1T00468.htm

LED電球、安全性に落とし穴
http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/topics/20100129/212478/
Source: dn2009

The realities of health hazard by electromagnetic radiation Investigation report by doctor (in Japanese)
Japan Created: 2 Apr 2010
In the second assembly member hall of the House of Representatives, The congressional meeting is held on April 9.
Title: The realities of health hazard by electromagnetic radiation Investigation report by doctor
Sponsoring
http://denziha.net/ Nationwide report association that preserves health from electromagnetic radiation
(notice:The mistake might be found in the translation of the name. )

Source (Japanese)

2010年4月9日(金)正午~14時
電磁波による健康被害の実態 ~医師による調査報告
http://denziha.net/
場所:衆議院第2議員会館第1会議室(東京都千代田区)
主催:電磁波から健康を守る全国連絡会

この20年で携帯電話基地局や無線LANなど無線通信が急速に普及しました。一方、携帯電話基地局の周辺では、不眠や頭痛等の体調不良を訴える人が現れ、国内外で撤去を求める訴訟が起き、フランスでは撤去を命じる判決が下されました。また、微量の電磁波で体調を崩す電磁波過敏症という病気も世界的に急増しています。
沖縄の医師、新城哲治先生は、自宅マンションの屋上に建てられた携帯電話基地局の影響でご家族が体調を崩したことから、マンションでの健康調査を行い、基地局の電磁波の影響を確認しています。電磁波による健康被害に直面した医師として、新城先生が携帯電話基地局や電磁波の安全性について報告します(新城先生は翌日の日弁連主催シンポにもご出席しますが、新城先生による調査報告については、より詳しくご報告くださいます)。

入場無料
参加申込み不要(当日会場へお越し下さい)

講師プロフィール
新城哲治先生(医学博士[分子生物学]、内科医)
平成2年琉球大学医学部医学科卒業。専門は白血病などの血液腫瘍。平成9年より自治医科大学分子病態治療研究センター、遺伝子治療研究部(分子生物学講座)に在籍しアポトーシスの研究を行う。平成12年より琉球大学病院第二内科に在籍し診療、研究を行う。平成21年より西崎病院勤務。
加藤やすこ
電磁波過敏症と化学物質過敏症の患者会「VOC-電磁波対策研究会」の代表。電磁波過敏症患者のアンケート調査を行い、救済の必要性を報告する。

問い合わせ:電磁波から健康を守る全国連絡会
Click here to view the source article.
Source: dn2009

Japan Federation of Bar Associations sponsored the symposium of the electromagnetic radiation problem.(the host organization)
Japan Created: 2 Apr 2010
Japan Federation of Bar Associations sponsored the symposium of the electromagnetic radiation problem.(the host organization)
As for the symposium, it is scheduled to be done on April 10.
There is a report that appeals for the health hazard depending on the cellular phone base station etc. , too.

Japan Federation of Bar Associations
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/

source (Japanese)
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/ja/event/100410_3.html

シンポジウム「身の回りの電磁波とその問題」
私たちは、送電線や携帯電話・家電・パソコンなどの電気機器により便利な生活をしています。

しかし、これらから発せられる電磁波に囲まれてもいます。欧米では電磁波過敏症や子どもなどへの影響を考えた規制や対策がとられている国がありますが、わが国では電磁波に関する情報が少なく、まして対応策についての議論もされていないのが現状です。

本シンポジウムでは、被害実態や国際的動向、国・自治体の取り組みなどをふまえて、将来取り返しのつかない被害が発生しないよう、今後わが国で電磁波の問題にどのように取り組むべきか、また、電磁波に関する情報公開やリスクコミュニケーションはいかにあるべきかについて考えます。

日時2010年4月10日(土)13:00~17:00(開場:12:30)

場所弁護士会館17階 1701会議室(会場地図)
(千代田区霞が関1-1-3 地下鉄丸の内線・日比谷線・千代田線 「霞ヶ関駅」B1-b出口直結)

参加費等参加費無料・事前申込不要(直接会場へお越し下さい)

※電磁波に過敏な方の来場が予想されますので、フロアでの電波を発する機器の使用はご遠慮ください。携帯電話等の電磁波で動悸・頭痛・吐き気等の症状が現れ、体調を崩される場合があります。

※香料(香水、整髪料等)の使用、ドライクリーニング直後の衣類等の着用はお控えください。

プログラム総合司会:竹澤克己会員

電磁波による被害事例の報告(被害者)
基調報告
基調講演 坂部貢氏(東海大学医学部教授)
パネルディスカッション

コーディネーター
浅野明子会員・高峰真会員

パネリスト(予定)
・大久保千代次 氏(電磁界情報センター所長)
・加藤やすこ 氏 (VOC-電磁波対策研究会代表)
・新城哲治 氏(医師・被害者)
・坂部貢 氏(東海大学医学部教授)
・本堂毅 氏(東北大学大学院理学研究科助教)
主催日本弁護士連合会
問合せ先日本弁護士連合会 人権部人権第二課
TEL:03-3580-9510/ FAX:03-3580-2896

当連合会では、本シンポジウムの内容を記録し、また、成果普及に利用するため、会場での写真・映像撮影及び録音を行っております。撮影した写真・映像及び録音した内容は、当連合会の会員向けの書籍のほか、当連合会のホームページ、パンフレット、一般向けの書籍等にも使用させていただくことがあります。また、報道機関による取材が行われる場合、撮影された映像・画像はテレビ、新聞等の各種媒体において利用されることがあります。撮影をされたくない方は、当日、担当者にお申し出ください
From DN
Click here to view the source article.
Source: dn2009

The petition of resident's health hazard by the cellular phone base station a problem in Nara Prefecture Ikaruga-cho.(Japanese)
Japan Created: 30 Mar 2010
The petition of resident's health hazard caused by the cellular phone base station became a problem in Nara Prefecture Ikaruga-cho.
Ikaruga-cho submits the opinion in writing that demands the restriction of the electric wave to the government.

1.In the installation of mast, Ikaruga-cho demands to the government obligating both the explanation to the surrounding area resident and mutual
agreement with the resident to a portable company.

2.The Ikaruga-cho assembly demands to strengthen the restriction of electromagnetic radiation strength.

3.Ikaruga-cho demands the following from the government:Execute a nationwide epidemiological surveillance about the health hazard by
the electromagnetic radiation. ``

Source (Japanese)
====================

奈良県斑鳩町 議会だより 政府への意見書全文
http://www.town.ikaruga.nara.jp/gi/pdf/gi-63all.pdf
斑鳩町HP
http://www.town.ikaruga.nara.jp/


斑鳩町議会議員 飯高昭二のホームページ
12月定例会で「携帯電話基地局の電磁波対策を求める意見書」を満場一致で可決!
http://www.komei.or.jp/giin/ikaruga/iidaka_syoji/activity/act_45841.shtml 


政府関係機関に一件の意見書を送付

12月定例会では、携帯電話基地局の電磁波対策を求める意見書」が
委員会提案され、本会議最終日に満場一致で可決しました。

携帯電話基地局の電磁波対策を求める意見書

近年、携帯電話は、電子メール、ウェブ端末としての機能を有し、その利便性から国民生活に欠かすことの
できない情報通信端末として急速に普及してきました。

一方、携帯電話の利用に伴う電磁波による健康被害もクローズアップされ、EU先進諸国では、電波基地局
に厳しい規制基準が設けられ、若年者の携帯電話使用について制限指導などの予防措置が図られています。

わが国においては、電磁波に関して健康被害との因果関係は認められないとする政府見解もあり、また、本
年2月には、大分地裁において「健康被害が起きる恐れの高度の蓋然性を認めることはできない」とする判決
が言い渡されました。

しかしながら、電磁波の危険性や健康被害との因果関係は十分に立証されているものとは言えず、全国各地
で携帯電話電波基地局の建設をめぐって地域住民の反対運動や携帯電話事業会社との紛争が起きています。

携帯電話基地局開設に係る監督官庁である総務省では、電波法に定める技術基準等の審査は実施されているものの、設置の際の周辺地域住民への対応については、指導の範囲を越えていないのが現状であり、紛争を未然に防ぐためにも周辺地域住民への説明と合意が必要不可欠となっています。

以上の点から、日本政府に対し次のことを要望いたします。

記

1.電波基地局設置には、周辺地域住民への説明と合意を義務付けること。
2.電磁波強度の規制を強化すること。
3.電磁波による健康被害について全国的な疫学調査を実施すること。
`
以上、地方自治法第99条の規定により意見書を提出いたします。

平成21年12月17日

奈良県斑鳩町議会
Click here to view the source article.
Source: dn2009

The Kamakura city council decides the dispute prevention ordinance of the mast installation
Japan Created: 28 Mar 2010
The Kamakura city council decides the dispute prevention ordinance of the mast installation. The opinion in writing is submitted to the government.

The Japanese country Kanagawa Prefecture Kamakura city council made the dispute prevention ordinance concerning the installation of the cellular phone base station.
At the same time The Kamakura city council requests that the government does the epidemiological surveillance of the health hazard by the cellular phone base station.
In addition, the city council requests the government to strengthen the restriction of the electric wave density.

Source {Japanese}
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/e-japan/kanagawa/news/20100326-OYT8T00130.htm
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/kanagawa/20100326/CK2010032602000115.html
http://news.kanaloco.jp/localnews/article/1003250024/
Click here to view the source article.
Source: dn2009

Toyota “sticking pedals” recall is a smokescreen
Japan Created: 21 Feb 2010
Their sudden unintended acceleration problem is caused by electronics either due to EMI, lead-free soldering or software “bugs”.
Contents
1 US Government’s NHTSA contacted me for advice on EMI and Toyota electronics 1
2 CTS pedal replacement could not have saved Mark Saylor and his family 2
3 It is difficult/impossible to stop a runaway vehicle with the brakes 2
4 EMI generally leaves no trace of a “defect” after an incident 2
4.1 Why no “defect” can be found afterwards 2
4.2 “Latch-up” as a possible cause 3
4.3 What kind of misoperations can occur? 4
4.4 “Black Box” data recorders 4
4.5 Redundancy 4
4.6 Lack of evidence proves nothing 4
5 Complex electronics cannot be reliable enough for safety-critical systems 4
6 EMC testing cannot prove EM immunity for safety-critical systems 5
7 Auto electronics do not employ safety principles that have been commonplace, even mandatory, in many other industries for decades 6
7.1 “Fail safes” must be independent systems 6
7.2 Making the driver the back-up for vehicle control failure is bad practice 7
8 Standards 7
9 Lead-free soldering 7
9.1 Tin whiskers 8
9.2 Brittle solder joints 8
9.3 Tin Pest 8
9.4 Higher soldering temperatures can weaken components 8
10 Software 9
11 References 9

1 US Government’s NHTSA contacted me for advice on EMI and Toyota electronics
The US Government’s National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA) has been wanting to speak to me for some weeks, to discuss the EMI implications of Toyota’s spate of sudden unintended acceleration incidents. They said they wanted to speak to me because they had no-one on their staff with my experience or knowledge of EMI and EMC.
I imagine the fact that I’ve been presenting IEEE EMC Symposium papers on EMC and Functional Safety since 2001, including one addressed to the auto industry at a symposium in Detroit in 2008, played a part in their decision.
They also said they wanted to speak to my colleague, Dr Antony Anderson (www.antony-anderson.com), a forensic electrical engineer, because they had no-one with his knowledge or experience either.
I eventually spoke for over an hour with two of their senior officers, on February 2nd, while I was in Florida attending a Sudden Unintended Acceleration case as an Expert Witness against the Ford Motor Company (my first ever appearance in court, anywhere, for any reason!).
Unfortunately, a confidentiality agreement prevents me from describing what we discussed.
2 CTS pedal replacement could not have saved Mark Saylor and his family
California Highway Patrol officer Mark Saylor and three family members, were all killed when their Lexus crashed and burned after a 100+mph race down a highway in San Diego County, on August 28, 2009, see http://suddenacceleration.com/?p=302.
During the incident one of his family phoned 911 and spoke to the emergency services for nearly one minute, you can hear a most distressing recording of the call at http://suddenacceleration.com/?p=431.
It is not credible that a Highway Patrol officer with Mr Saylor’s 19 years experience would have pressed the wrong pedal, or been unable to deal with a gas pedal that got stuck on a ridge in the floor mat, or was a bit sticky, for over a minute with a car full of passengers.
And CTS, whose alleged “sticky pedals” are being replaced in the current Toyota recall, recently said (see: www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXlnWY76DKARDE459OFtAWoYEZdA) "CTS wishes to clarify that it does not, and has never made, any accelerator pedals for Lexus vehicles and that CTS also has no accelerator pedals in Toyota vehicles prior to model year 2005".
It was Mark Saylor’s terrible fate that started this current media furore over runaway Toyotas, which started off as a “Toyota Sudden Acceleration” story.
But I note that over recent weeks it has morphed into a “Toyota Sticking Pedals” media story, with terrible accidents like Mark Saylor’s played down – as if a floormat or sticky CTS gas pedal could somehow have been the cause of his death along with three members of his family.
3 It is difficult/impossible to stop a runaway vehicle with the brakes
Tests performed by the motor industry, by the Japanese Government, and for the US Government, including recent tests by Toyota on its ES-350, all show that it is very difficult indeed – and may be impossible for some people. Even if you do manage to do it, the stopping distance is enormous.
This assumes that the brake pedal is pressed only the once, and is kept firmly pressed down until the car stops, and is not ‘pumped’.
Many people have been taught that if the brakes don’t stop the car quickly enough, pumping can help increase brake pressure. This is the wrong approach when the engine is high-revving because in this condition it does not provide much vacuum for the brake booster. If you press the brake pedal more than just the once when the engine is revving flat out – you lose the brake boost from its vacuum servo and braking effectiveness is actually lost.
4 EMI generally leaves no trace of a “defect” after an incident
4.1 Why no “defect” can be found afterwards
Switch on a light. Then switch it off. Now prove that the light was ever switched on.
You can’t do it – the electricity that flowed in the circuit leaves no trace.
Electronic circuits can operate in many ways, and as design engineers we are used to improving them so that they behave the way we want them to with sufficient reliability for the application they are intended for.
If a light is turned on when it is supposed to be off, it doesn’t suffer any damage. In exactly the same way, when an electronic circuit operates in the wrong way, or at the wrong time, it doesn’t suffer any damage either, and – like the light – once it is working as intended again there is no trace of its former incorrect behaviour.
When an electronic circuits or the software or firmware that runs on them performs one of its normal operations at the wrong time, for example giving full-throttle when it is not required; or when it performs the correct operation but with an error – for example setting the speed to 100mph instead of 50, the electronic circuit suffers no more stress than if it was behaving normally.
Misoperations in electronic circuits can be caused by electromagnetic interference (EMI), and this is explained more fully in Annex B of the IET’s 2008 Guide on EMC for Functional Safety [1].
Some types of EMI, like direct lighting strike, have sufficient energy to cause actual damage, and as a result are relatively easy to diagnose after the fact. Electrostatic discharge can also sometimes cause damage, but an electron microscope is usually needed to spot it. Most types of EMI do not have sufficient energy to cause actual damage, they are very weak and do no more than distort or otherwise confuse the electronic signals in a circuit, causing it to suffer from errors or misoperations in the operation of its hardware, software or firmware.
Many electronic circuits will eventually recover from their errors or misoperations when the EMI is removed. Analogue circuits can recover quite quickly, whereas digital microprocessors running software or firmware might have to wait until they are reset by a “watchdog” circuit, which in some cases might take several seconds, although careful design is required to make sure that watchdogs will recover from all foreseeable situations. Digital “state machines”, and electromechanical “relay logic”, can remain in an incorrect state until reset manually.
If an electronic misoperation does not disappear of its own accord or due to circuit operation, it might be possible to detect it after an accident as long as the ignition is not turned off. But one of the first things people do after an accident is turn off the ignition, so such evidence is immediately lost. Police and other emergency services/first responders might even disconnect the battery to help prevent fires from occurring in damaged vehicles, similarly erasing all evidence of the misoperation.
Even if the vehicle in question was left running with its engine screaming away, it would take quite some time to get the appropriately-skilled people and their electronic test gear to the site, by which time the vehicle may have run out of fuel or the engine may have overheated and failed for some reason due to its unusual stress, or the consequences of damage in the accident.
Even if you could get an “emergency electronic response team” to the site of an uncontrollably-revving vehicle, it is often impossible for them to access the points in the circuits that they need to attach their probes to, without dismantling a module. And dismantling might requires the module to be unplugged and so lose its power.
4.2 “Latch-up” as a possible cause
A class of rather more serious electronic device malfunction is called “latch-up”, and makes an entire integrated circuit (IC) “seize up”, as if catatonic, with all of its outputs frozen at full-scale (either high or low).
Latch-up is caused by any pin of an IC being driven to more than a volt or so beyond its positive or negative DC power supplies. This can happen due to conducted, induced or radiated noise coupling, e.g. from the inductive flyback of switched loads (‘spikes’), or electrostatic discharge (ESD). Interestingly, ICs are more susceptible to latch-up when they are hot, and also when exposed to ionizing radiation. The pins of microprocessors in an automobile are exposed to spikes and ESD all the time, in particular spikes from the ignition system. It could be that although they pass all their EMC tests and are normally immune to those EM phenomena in a vehicle and so don’t latch up, but when a secondary cosmic ray shower reaches the earth’s surface the additional radiation is sufficient to allow an ignition system spike to cause the microprocessor to latch-up. I haven’t yet found data for the probability density function for the intensity of cosmic radiation at the earth’s surface, so can’t estimate whether it ties up with the number of runaway Toyotas.
The only thing that will recover an IC from a latched-up state is to turn its electrical power supply off, When turned back on again, it performs as normal again. Latch-up is a problem for all types of ICs, whether analogue or digital, and of course when a digital processor is latched-up, its software or firmware cannot run at all so any recovery techniques they have designed into them cannot work.
During a latch-up, the IC’s electrical power consumption is only limited by its external power supply circuit, and if this has a low impedance and can supply a high current, the IC can overheat and suffer damage as a result.
The electrical supply in an automobile is nominally 12Vdc (actually, closer to 14V in normal driving) but most ICs used in auto electronics have to be operated at lower voltages, such as 8V for early analogue cruise controls (e.g. using the Intersil CA 3228E) or 3.3V for a modern digital microprocessor. Whilst the vehicle battery is capable of sourcing hundreds of Amps, the voltage reduction circuits that power the electronics from the vehicle’s 12V supply have a limited current rating, and often aren’t capable of delivering enough power to a latched-up IC to allow it to heat up by enough to cause damage, or even obvious discolouration. So, once again, we find that the malfunction leaves no evidence after the fact.
Latch-up used to be a very serious problem when ICs were first used in real products, but over the years the semiconductor industry has become better at designing protection into its ICs. However, like all EMI issues, it is impossible to provide 100% guaranteed protection against latch-up, especially when “showers” of secondary cosmic radiation are taken into account.
4.3 What kind of misoperations can occur?
When vehicle electronics have control of the butterfly valve in the throttle, as all cruise control and throttle-by-wire systems do, a misoperation in their hardware or firmware can cause the butterfly valve to take on an uncommanded setting. It might close shut, oscillate, stick fast at some angle, or open wide.
In a recent case in Australia (concerning a Ford rather than a Toyota), what appears to have happened is that the cruise control stuck on at 80kph, and the driver could not switch it off or change its speed setting. See: www.theage.com.au/national/no-fault-in-cruisecontrol-terror-car-20100107-lwdd.html?autostart=1).
All of these possibilities have safety consequences for control of the vehicle, but of them all the wide-open-throttle is the scariest and the one that historically has caused the most accidents, injuries and deaths (see www.suddenacceleration.com and www.antony-anderson.com/cruise/cruise.htm).
It only takes a second or two of unexpected full throttle to cause a potentially fatal accident, so a momentary electronic misoperation that the vehicle’s electronics automatically recover from can cause a serious accident and vanish without leaving a trace.
4.4 “Black Box” data recorders
As far as I am aware, the “Black Box” data recorders that provide a record of vehicle operation, are not totally independent from the vehicle’s electronic circuits. Rather than using their own sensors, which would add significantly to their cost, they record signals taken from the vehicle’s existing electronics. So, for example, if the vehicle’s circuits were interfered with and as a result “believed” that a full throttle had been commanded by the driver, the data recorder would show that the driver had pressed hard on the gas pedal whereas an independent sensor on the gas pedal would show a different result.
But modern gas pedals themselves are complex electronic devices, quite capable of being interfered with themselves and giving an incorrect output to the engine’s electronic control system. So even if a black box data recorder used an independent sensor for gas pedal position, if it used the same technology as the one sending a signal to the engine control system, it could well be interfered with in the same way, giving the same false output.
4.5 Redundancy
A common way of improving the reliability of electronic circuits is to use redundancy. But if the redundant or “parallel” devices or circuits use the same technology, then they will probably respond to EMI in the same way – making the redundancy technique ineffective. For this reason, EMI is known in safety engineering as a “Common Cause” problem.
4.6 Lack of evidence proves nothing
Just yesterday, I saw in the daily news an automobile manufacturer stating that: “We can find no evidence that EMI is a cause of sudden acceleration, therefore EMI cannot be the cause of it”.
I suspect that all auto manufacturers have used this logically unsound statement over the last 30+ years, Toyota being the latest.
But of course we would expect EMI to leave no traces of its passing. Every halfway competent EMC design engineer knows this, including those who work for the auto manufacturers themselves.
But this bankrupt argument is still being used today, because it sounds persuasive to people who don’t realise that it is logically incorrect. This is why it is a favourite of politicians and bureaucrats.
For more on this, read my article: “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”, EMC Journal, Issue 78, September 2998, from the archives at www.theemcjournal.com.
5 Complex electronics cannot be reliable enough for safety-critical systems
Making millions of vehicles as safe as people expect means reliability of safety systems like engine speed control must be in the parts-per-million-per-year, or less.
Ask yourself – how often during each year, am I prepared to accept that my car brakes, or steering will not work, or my engine will run out of control at full throttle? Like most people, you probably answered “never!” – but, since it is impossible to make products perfectly safe, we must expect that such problems will occur from time-to-time.
Of course we would hope that they don’t occur too often, and that the automobile designer has reduced the risks of such events so that the risk of death to a driver, passengers or third parties is close to or less than the average risk of dying that we all face as a matter of course (about 1 chance in a million each year for the UK).
Assuming a vehicle is driven one hour each day, six days each week, every week of the year, means it is driven for 312 hours a year. Combining this with our target death rate of one in a million each year, means that our safety-critical vehicle electronics must not fail in such a way as to cause a death at the rate of about 3.2·10-9 per hour’s driving. To put it another way, the Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) that causes a death should be 312 million hours of driving, about once in every 35,600 years for a single vehicle driven continuously, 24/7.
Since this is an average calculation, if we were testing to prove reliability, we would need to amass at least 50,000 vehicle-years of continuous testing to begin to have confidence that our design really was in the right ball-park of safety. To actually achieve good confidence in the safety of our design, we would probably test several examples of vehicles, say 10, continuously for at least 5,000 years each.
According to official NHTSA figures, about 1% of officially recorded sudden unintended acceleration events result in a death. So if we assume that only 1% of electronic misoperations that cause full-throttle misoperations result in a death, we might feel that we could increase our likelihood of sudden accelerations to 3.2·10-7 per hour of driving, equivalent to an MTTF of 3.12 million hours, which we could get a handle on by testing 10 vehicles continuously for only about 500 years. Or 100 vehicles continuously for 50 years each.
Given the timescales over which new models of vehicles are produced, let’s assume that the most time that could be allowed for safety testing of the complete, finished vehicle is 6 months. So to prove the reliability of our electronics against full-throttle misoperations we would have to test 10,000 vehicles continuously over that time.
Remember, this assumes that we are allowing vehicles to roar away at full throttle at a rate that is 100 times greater than the risk of dying as a result. Some people might find this idea objectionable, and want a lower rate of full-throttle misoperations. After all, some of the 99% of sudden acceleration incidents that do not result in a death, will result in injuries of various severities and/or property damage. And those that have no injury, death or damage will still be very frightening and have psychological effects.
Of course, the above is a very simplistic analysis and many holes could be poked in it. One hole is that it is estimated that only about 10% of sudden unintended accelerations are ever recognised and reported as such. If a car goes out of control and crashes killing the driver, who is to say how or why it happened? For example, in Australia, it is normal for the auto insurance companies to pay out less in the case of an accident that only involved a single vehicle. The assumption is that the driver is always in control of their vehicle, and if it goes out of control it must be the driver’s fault and so they deserve less compensation.
The point I am trying to make here, is that the electronic reliability that is required to achieve vehicle safety is much higher than can possibly be proved by any conceivable test plan.
6 EMC testing cannot prove EMI immunity for safety-critical systems
Expanding on the “10,000 vehicles tested continuously for 6 months” example above, if we were testing for auto electronics’ resistance to various electromagnetic phenomena, and since EM phenomena are tested one at a time, then if we assume 5 different kinds of test are needed we would need to have 50,000 EMC test laboratories all testing vehicles at the same time continuously for 6 months.
But in fact, vehicle manufacturers will test just a few vehicles in their EMC test labs for a week or so each, to “prove” EMC.
When any EMC tester says: “Our products pass all our very stringent EMC tests in our 32 million dollar test chamber, therefore they are totally immune to all forms of EMI” – all this proves is that the tester doesn’t understand how very limited is his range of test stimuli compared with the real world, and also doesn’t understand anything at all about design verification, especially where safety issues are concerned.
Nothing can ever be made totally immune to EMI, its all a question of cost versus risk.
Here's a relevant quotation from a Ford internal document, concerning the effectiveness of testing (note that DV stands for Design Verification, and EED for Electronic Engineering Division):
DV TASK FORCE REPORT 8/30/85: "There exists a prevalent misconception in EED that DV is a set of tests used to endorse a final design. This is a degradation of the original intent of the DV process. A small sample of vehicles or components is incapable of assuring that robust designs will be released." (my italics).
Notice here they are talking about design verification in general, not about design verification for safety-critical vehicle systems such as throttle controls. (Mind you, in a document dated October 31, 1989, Ford listed cruise controls under “Convenience and Entertainment”, not under “Affects Vehicle Operation”!)
As I was writing this article, I once again saw in the daily news an automobile manufacturer stating that: “None of our EMC testing has ever caused a sudden acceleration, therefore EMI cannot be a cause of sudden acceleration”.
Just about all the auto manufacturers have used this feeble attempt at an excuse over the last 30 years, Toyota being the latest to trot it out. But although they really mean nothing at all, such statements sound persuasive to people who aren’t specialists in electronics, EMI or statistics.
But the very simple analyses in this section and the previous one, shows that one should not expect any practical EMC testing to cause a sudden acceleration. The statistics mitigate against finding any such thing.
I am not saying that it is impossible to do EMC tests that could replicate sudden acceleration in the laboratory – just that the application of the normal testing regimes to vehicles chosen at random should not be expected to find anything.
Leaving aside the statistical argument above for a moment, a few simple examples suffice to shut up the "EMC testing is sufficient" brigade. For example, the fact that in safety engineering, products are always tested with reasonably foreseeable lifetime faults simulated, to check that the product stays safe despite the occurrence of a likely fault. It might not work, but at least it is safe.
In a modern auto electronics module there are many foreseeable (even likely) faults that will remove the module's protection against one or more of the normal electromagnetic phenomena it is exposed to. But EMC testing is only ever done on new modules or new vehicles with fault-free construction.
(Indeed, if any manufacturing faults are found in modules or vehicles during EMC testing, they are fixed and the tests redone. But they don't fix their manufacturing process to stop it from producing overly-susceptible vehicles from time to time!)
There are about 10 additional reasons why the standard vehicle EMC testing is inadequate and/or insufficient, where safety is concerned, see section 0.7 in the IET’s 2008 Guide [1].
When automakers rely on testing as their only way of verifying the EMC of safety-related systems, what they are really doing is using their customers to do the final EMC design verification of their vehicles.
Once you have a few hundred thousand vehicles on the road, in all weathers and in all conditions, you really start to find out how robust your design was!
7 Auto electronics do not employ safety principles that have been commonplace, even mandatory, in many other industries for decades
7.1 “Fail safes” must be independent systems
Since 2000, IEC 61508 [2] has codified the international best practices to be used when safety engineering the hardware and software of complex electronic systems – basically, anything that uses a microprocessor. The UK’s Health and Safety Executive use it as their guidance when assessing the safety of industrial control systems and the like.
61508 makes the perfectly reasonable assumption that complex electronic systems cannot be relied upon to be safe enough for most purposes. Instead, independent “safety systems” – or “fail-safes” – are required to be added to reduce the risks to acceptable levels. Sometimes two or more independent fail-safes are necessary.
Safety systems are simple and can use any appropriate technology. Because they are simple their designs can be assessed and verified using a wide variety of techniques (not simply by testing) to achieve the level of safety risk considered to acceptable by the user.
However, in the auto industry, all the functions that are called fail-safes, are not independent and so have only a limited effect in increasing the reliability of the complex electronics
I am not aware of any vehicle manufacturer who has a real fail-safe on the throttle control. Though many have devices that they call “fail-safes”, they are not because they aren’t independent of the throttle control system. Generally (like the so-called “smart brake” systems that some vehicles are fitted with, that close the throttle when the brake is pressed, regardless of the position of the gas pedal), are nothing more than an extra few lines of software running on the engine/throttle control computer – the very electronics that needs a fail-safe in case it misoperates!
7.2 Making the driver the back-up for vehicle control failure is bad practice
In almost every field, the operator is not generally made responsible for operating (or being) a safety system, except in special circumstances where the operator has been trained to deal with the specific situation, and there is sufficient time for him to respond correctly.
However, another favourite excuse of the auto makers is to pretend that a driver should always be able to respond correctly, in a split second, to a failure mode they’ve never dealt with before and have not been training to deal with, for example, a high-revving engine that can’t be stopped without turning off the ignition.
Making drivers the back-up systems for poorly designed safety-critical systems they have not been trained in, is just plain bad safety engineering practice.
When you realise that the “startlement” effect of a completely unexpected and unique vehicle failure mode can last for 2 to 3 seconds, and think of how much damage you could do on a busy road with a vehicle running amok for that length of time, you can see how stupid it is to even imagine that it is acceptable to expect the driver to regain control quickly enough.
And this is before we consider the ineffectiveness of standard braking systems when faced with a wide-open throttle, an engine that has reached 4000 rpm or more, and rear-wheel (or 4-wheel) drive through an automatic transmission, as mentioned earlier. Front wheel drive vehicles are easier to stop, because the brakes on the front wheels are so much more powerful than those on the rear. But that does not mean a front-wheel-drive vehicle with its engine racing at full-throttle is going to be easy to stop! Also, brake pads are not designed for stopping a vehicle under such conditions, so will overheat and fade, reducing braking effectiveness.
In the USA people seem to believe that pumping the brakes (repeatedly releasing end pressing the brake pedal) is what you do if braking effectiveness seems too little. But as explained earlier, with a high-revving engine the vacuum boost for the brake servo is not replenished, so pumping the brakes has the exactly opposite effect to what is intended – brake boost is reduced and braking efficiency is lost. Of course, no vehicle’s Owners Manual includes such a warning. Yet still the auto makers trot out their line about drivers being in control of their vehicles.
8 Standards
The International state of the art for how to achieve functional safety is IEC 61508 [2]. It assumes that complex electronics cannot be made safe enough, and that they will need at least one additional truly independent fail-safe that uses a different technology (so doesn’t suffer from the “common cause” problems typical of EMI) to achieve acceptable levels of safety risk.
IEC 61508 was first published in 2000 and its second edition is imminent. But the auto industry has only recently produced a first draft of its version – ISO 26262 [3], which is several years from publication and then several more years before it is adopted as normal practice.
9 Lead-free soldering
In recent years, various countries and trade blocs (including the European Union) have banned the use of lead on electrical solder, on the basis that lead going into landfill when electrical and electronic products are disposed of is bad for the environment, and hence for people.
But many accuse them of being shortsighted – lead has been added to solder in quite large amounts for many decades because it made the other main constituent, tin, behave much better, considerably improving reliability.
Now that lead has been removed from solder, which is now mainly tin (with a little silver and copper added) all sorts of new possibilities arise for short-circuits and open-circuits, and intermittent shorts and opens, mainly on printed circuit boards (PCBs) and mainly associated with small-footprint integrated circuits (ICs), especially ball-grid arrays (BGAs).
Its really just another cause of intermittent or fixed short-or-open circuits in electronic PCBs and modules - but one that would not have been any problem until a few years ago, and so could have caught Toyota by surprise.
John R Barnes has created a monumentally huge library of references to the problems of lead-free soldering, especially tin whiskering, see www.dbicorporation.com/rohsbib.htm. Prepare to be totally overwhelmed!
Removing lead from solder has the following effects:
9.1 Tin whiskers
These will grow out of soldered joints and can contact other conductors, causing short-circuits between PCB copper traces and the pins of connectors. They are often no longer than 0.5mm (about 1/50th of an inch) but can grow to 1mm (about 1/24th of an inch) or longer, especially in damp conditions.
Even at 1/50th of an inch they can short between the pins on a modern integrated circuit (IC). And the process of removing the PCB for inspection can brush them off, so you never find them.
And if you didn't accidentally brush them off, they are so thin they are very hard to see - you need a powerful microscope. They are as fine as the finest spider-web threads, yet can carry sufficient current to short-out the electronics. You won’t see them unless you are looking for them.
Being so thin, they can wave around in the breeze and/or due to shocks, vibration and acceleration, causing intermittent short-circuits.
The iNEMI organisation has published guidelines (www.inemi.org) on how to ensure that tin whiskers don’t grow too long, but I don’t know to what extent these are followed by suppliers of electronics to the car industry in general, or Toyota in particular.
9.2 Brittle solder joints
Solder joints made using lead-free solder are less resilient, more brittle, more prone to cracking, especially in areas with large temperature excursions and vibration (e.g. motor vehicles), and especially under large devices such as BGAs – resulting in more open-circuits on PCBs.
These cracks may be invisible without X-Ray inspection, and will often be intermittent.
E.g. when the PCB is mounted in its box and mounted on the vehicle, it is bent slightly and that opens the connection or makes it subject to vibration. But when the PCB is taken out for inspection, it tests just fine.
9.3 Tin Pest
Lead-free tin tends to revert to a different crystalline structure, which means it becomes just grey dust and falls off or is blown away by a breeze. Obviously creates an open-circuit solder joint, and one that is easily spotted if it occurs.
9.4 Higher soldering temperatures can weaken components
Lead-free soldering has to use higher temperatures, and this increases the stresses on the components that are mounted on the board during the soldering process.
Another issue is that the range of temperatures for lead-free soldering is not only higher than for traditional solder, but it is also narrower. Some PCB-assemblers’ soldering equipment may not be able to maintain the temperature within the required bands at all times, causing an increased number of bad joints and/or heat-damaged components.
So the actual components (especially ICs) may test OK when newly-assembled, but fail or behave incorrectly when in use, due to internal changes that require an electron microscope to see.
10 Software
I am not competent to write about software, so I won’t say more than that some software programmes can be unstable when faced with combinations of inputs that their designers did not anticipate or deal with correctly.
And EMI is one way of confusing software so that it behaves in ways never dreamed of by its designers.
IEC 61508-3 is all about how to design and verify software for safety-critical systems, but as far as I am aware no auto manufacturer uses it. And draft ISO 26262 doesn’t include the same guidance, so they probably never will.
11 References
[1] The IET’s 2008 Guide on EMC for Functional Safety.
Free download from www.theiet.org/factfiles/emc/index.cfm,
or purchase as a colour-printed book from www.emcacademy.org/books.asp
[2] IEC 61508:2000, “Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems”, from www.iec.ch. It has 7 parts. Soon to be published as its 2nd Edition.
[3] ISO 26262 (draft, 2009), “Road vehicles - Functional safety”, from www.iso.org. In 10 parts.
By EurIng Keith Armstrong FIET, C.Eng, ACGI, www.cherryclough.com,
phone/fax: +44 (0)1785 660 247, 13th February 2010
www.cherryclough.com,
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EurIng Keith Armstrong FIET, C.Eng, ACGI

The Actual State of Health Injury by Electro Magnetic Field.
Japan Created: 17 Jan 2010
Symptom, Matter of Medical Treatment and Social/Economical Problems
We are a self-help group for Electrically Hypersensitivity (EHS) and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) in Japan.
We carried out a questionnaire research of EHS in 2003, and 2009.
Our participants were only 75 persons in the recently research, but it realized that 50% of participants could not get a
consultation and treatment. The major reason was “ there is no specialty hospital nearby”.


Click here to view the source article.
Source: Iris Atzmon/Agnes Ingvarsdottir

The conciliation adjudication of the health hazard by mobile phone mast was launched. (Japanese)
Japan Created: 9 Dec 2009
The conciliation adjudication of the health hazard by mobile phone mast was launched.
30 plaintiffs and 26 defense lawyers people, in Japan.

http://mytown.asahi.com/miyazaki/news.php?k_id=46000000912070004
( Asahi Sinbun, Majors newspaper of Japan)
Click here to view the source article.
Source: DN

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 6   Next›  Last» 
 News item: