An engineer argues that digital radiation and AI products lack adequate legal safety documentation, calls…

I´m a serious engineer, product developer from Sweden, Europe. Now living in US. I also have 15 years of experience in compiling technical documentation for manufactured products. The radiation that operates with digital products is against our product laws. We cannot ensure the technology as safe for life, health, environment.

Due to this, there is no valid, legal technical documentation for either AI or digital radiation technology.

When there is no legal technical documentation, we do not know what makes us sick. Doctors cannot provide adequate care for the injured. We know that radiation is harmful, but we hide it because many users abuse the technology for their own gain.

We who design, construct products are often good at drawing. When we use images for technical documentation, we use photos or our own illustrations.

Radiation technology and AI are deadly in the hands of countries without knowledge.

We cannot have drones and flying missiles across national borders.

TIME TO UNCOVER THE FRAUD.

The Technical Documentation is often secret or unavailable.

Even if a journalist, doctor would like to review the technical documentation, much of it is

trade secrets. Manufacturers are required by law to keep the technical manufacturing

documentation available to authorities for ten years, but they are under no obligation to

release it to journalists or the public. Without access to the development process, a review

becomes impossible. The exception: Investigative journalism and whistleblowers.

However, there are times when journalists actually do this. This happens primarily in investigative

journalism when a whistleblower leaks internal documents, test protocols or risk analyses that

show that a company is hiding deficiencies, shortcomings.

In those cases, journalists can enlist the help of independent external experts to decipher

the documentation and reveal that a product violates product laws.

PRODUCTS THAT ARE NOT APPROVED FOR INTERNATIONAL USE.

THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED FOR THE USER AND END USER.

International law, human rights, Who takes responsibility?

Does a Government believe that manufacturers can have responsibility for human rights?

To cooperate in this way so that individuals affected by a company's manufactured products

are not deprived of, for example, life and health?

In international laws, human rights are the responsibility of countries, they have agreed to

implement international, national rules.

These rights exist for all of us and their ultimate purpose is to protect us individuals from our

own governments, authorities and from each other.

But companies, what responsibility do they have?

How long will it take before unfriendly governments start saying “not us, but the companies

are responsible”.

What then happens to international law itself and the rights that exist?

TECH DOC. CODE OF HONOR.

THE TEN PRINCIPLES. THE ENGINEER, THE PRODUCT DEVELOPER.

THE ONE WHO CONSTRUCTS THE TOOLS AS A NECESSARY NEED.

Engineers, product developers in their professional capacity must feel personally responsible

for technology being used in a manner that benefits humanity, the environment and society.

Engineers, product developers must strive to improve technology and technological knowledge so as to

achieve more efficient use of resources without harmful effects.

Engineers, product developers must offer their knowledge in both public and private contexts so as to

ensure the best possible basis for decisions and to illuminate both the opportunities and the risks

associated with technology.

Engineers, product developers should not work for or cooperate with companies and organisations of a

questionable nature or with objectives that conflict with personal beliefs.

Engineers, product developers must show complete loyalty to employers and colleagues. Difficulties in

this respect ought to be raised in open discussions, in the first instance at the workplace.

Engineers, product developers should not use inappropriate

methods when competing for employment, assignments or orders, and nor should they attempt to

damage the reputation of colleagues with unfounded allegations.

Engineers, product developers must respect entrusted information of a confidential nature and others'

rights to ideas, inventions, studies, plans and blueprints.

Engineers, product developers should not favour vested interests and ought to openly report financial

and other interests that could impair confidence in their impartiality and judgement.

Engineers, product developers must both publicly and privately, in writing and rhetoric, strive for factual

presentations and avoid erroneous, misleading or exaggerated statements.

Engineers, product developers must actively support colleagues who encounter difficulties as a result of

acting in accordance with these principles and, to the best of their belief,

avert criminal actions against them.

I feel the difference when I'm out in nature.