But safety isn't security, and your random SaaS pets.com clone isn't a space shuttle. Safety is more about reliability. Security in space systems is very much bolt-on and split out: the concern of everyone working on a rocket is that it flies and lands safely. Who is or isn't authorized to launch it is a worry of another department.
Safety is not really about reliability. Maybe as a means to an end. It's about not killing people and maybe not destroying too much of your facility in case things go south.
Safety systems take over if your chemical reaction overheats the reactor; they prevent your logistics team from moving a train while it's being loaded with dangerous chemicals (real example, the safety system was disabled by the logistics people - ironically the company put those with poor safety record from production to logistics, because they could do no harm there).
You're mixing up safety systems with the property of "doing X is safe by construction" - but most plants inherently are not: e.g. in a small reactor that's manually fed, your employees can just input the wrong recipe by accident; the safety systems should then take care of the mess. Or your junior chemist (who needs an expensive, senior chemist for an established process?) can mess up the improvement to the recipe, resulting in rapid unscheduled disassembly of you poorly maintained reactor, including the building and one of its operators (sadly a real example).
