<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.sea.siemens.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>What the FUD?</title><link>http://blogs.sea.siemens.com/blogs/process-safety/archive/2007/06/08/What-the-FUD_3F00_.aspx</link><description>Earlier this week I listened in as some world recognized experts blathered on about the dangers of embedded safety systems. These gentlemen represented one of the market leaders in process safety, and I was hoping to learn some new things about our industry.</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 (Build: 60809.935)</generator><item><title>Comparative Look at Safety Instrumented System Approaches</title><link>http://blogs.sea.siemens.com/blogs/process-safety/archive/2007/06/08/What-the-FUD_3F00_.aspx#742</link><pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 18:16:03 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">383d8575-c014-4b6d-ae08-8efbebf4dbe0:742</guid><dc:creator>Emerson Process Experts</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Automation World magazine's Wes Iverson recently had a nice article, The Great Safety Debate. He described the various approaches to safety instrumented systems (SIS) and their connections with basic process control systems (BPCS). The article highlights&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>