USPS Irradiation Damages Electronics 341
meehawl writes: "Bummer. Turns out the USPS's new Electron Beams anthrax zappers can erase and sometimes permanently damage CompactFlash cards. I wonder what other sensitive electronics will get wiped, not to mention seeds, film, some plastics, and so on. I guess it's more reason to use Fedex and UPS, at least unless and until they deploy these beam weapons as well. All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people? Some people think using the beams will lead to more deaths and injuries among operators. Meanwhile, electron beam makers, SureBeam, just got an analyst upgrade." Err, and be careful what you irradiate.
Am I reading this right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I reading this right? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Am I reading this right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone find out how many federal workers have been killed in traffic "accidents" since September 11? I bet it's more than five.
Re:Am I reading this right? (Score:2)
(powers up the good ol' HP)
Lesseee.. there are 4E4 highway deaths a year, in a population of 2.8E8
sniff... I love my calculator.... sniff...
Re:Am I reading this right? (Score:2)
Now, if some airport hired an individual who'd once attempted to hijack a plane (or steal luggage, or whatever) it'd be stupid of them, and open them up to civil liability... but I don't see any reason to get The Long Arm Of The Law involved.
Re:Am I reading this right? (Score:2)
Frankly I have no problem with mail being irradiated for pathogens, there just needs to be more information about what should and should not go through the process.
The only problem is that there are several perfectly safe and legal things that need to be carried from one place to anorher that are destroyed or made harmful by this process (such as copier paper). What is to be done when UPS and FedEx et al also start irradiation? How will electronics be shipped? How about seeds? Foods? In other words, perhaps this solution is worse than the problem.
Consider, for example, that most all mail is in the form of documents printed on the same sort of paper as that which made 11 people sick. What will be the long term effects to being exposed to lesser amounts of the same irritants? Will OSHA start requiring mailroom workers to wear a respirator? Will indoor pollution ('sick buildings') become epidemic?
These are questions that need to be answered now, and none of those responsable seem very interested in answering them.
It is also interesting to note that the federal government seems to be far more interested in eliminating the risks associated with being despised by so many here and abroad than it is in being less despicable.
what about Bacillis thermophilus? (Score:2)
How it's used is, a spore sample is inserted into the office's autoclave, a steam heat sterilizer, with a normal load of instruments to be sterilized. The exposed sample is then send to a lab and cultured. If the B.thermophilis grows the autoclave must be fixed or adjusted, if it doesn't all is well.
Since the mail is now sterilized by irradiation, the B. thermophilis is dead and will never grow, and all of the autoclave check out good no matter how bad they may be!
Now where do you think your greater risk comes from, untested autoclaves at the dentist's office, or anthrax in the mail? Of course the samples can be sent by an alternate carrier that doesn't irradiate, but knowing how the dental profession marks up prices, every patient will pay for the once a month expense.
circumvention device? (Score:2)
Wouldn't that violate the DMCA?
Re:Am I reading this right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Howmany would you have liked to see die?
Consider that in many areas, 10 or so people (or one celebrity) have to be killed in an intersection before a traffic light will be put up. Many more people have died from contaminated food, but inspections of processing plants remain a joke (Why not spend the millions there and protect everyone, not just federal employees?)
In other words, it's not that the 5 deaths don't matter, it's just that 5 deaths matter less than 10 or 100 in the big picture.
There is more to this story... (Score:2, Funny)
It isn't widely publicized, but a person known as Bruce Banner was involved in the development of the electron beam. During testing, he and the photographer that the Daily Bugle sent over to cover the event, Peter Parker, were caught inside the test chamber of the electron. Peter Parker also had the misfortune of having his pet spider with him at the time, which unfortunately did not survive being irradiated.
This can only lead us to one conclusion; Bruce Banner and Peter Parker are Batman and Robin.
Value of a human life? (Score:2, Troll)
That's an interesting question - what price a human life. Is 100 man years of inconvenience to everyone else worth say, one human life? Has anybody considered the thousands of man years invested in the WTC's construction. In some ways, those lost years might be considered part of the death toll. They have to now be re-spent for reconstruction. Time that people could have spent living or with their families.
Re:Value of a human life? (Score:2)
That is why we are allowed to drive faster than 3mph in our cars. If we limited the speed limit to a crawl, we could avoid people getting kill by cars, inside and outside it. But the impact of such a limit would be to much on any speed limit, even more than the people killed on the roads. So there we have already put a value on it.
Re:Value of a human life? (Score:3, Flamebait)
First of all, we still don't know why we are here. Don't get religious on me now. We can't and don't really know anything about ourselves, just that we are typically afraid to die. That's all. Nothing more.
Who was it commenting on the "Sanctity of Life." Some comedian guy. More of a standup philosopher than a comedian. Well, I happen to agree with him on that issue. The ideal of the sanctity of life is all skewed.
Finally, and more seriously, if we valued human life, we wouldn't smoke. We wouldn't drink and drive. We wouldn't drive for that matter. The notion here is "acceptable risk."
Again, the motivation for all this "protecting human life" crap isn't about protecting lives as much as it is about protecting asses. They want to avoid being sued.
So get off your high horse and have a look at reality. We do not value life as much as you might think. We value the lives of foreign and faceless people even less. More people die on the freeways than did in the WTC. Okay, maybe not all at once but still!
And besides that, we die anyway. Nothing can stop that from happening.
...oh it's too early in the morning for this...
Re:Value of a human life? (Score:2)
I'm here to read Slashdot. Why are you here?
Re:Value of a human life? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the original comment, about all the fuzz for five lives is still relevant. The reason why it is important is that people tend to be scared about things they have no reason to fear, but pay no attention to things that are really dangerous. Things that are spectacular, things that go boom and go on the news are generally considered more dangerous than deaths that go unnoticed.
This leads to a bizarre situation: Big resources are invested in something that has very little effect, not because it makes people safer, only because it makes people feel safer.
Spending something like $40 billion on war on terror, is it going to make you safer? It is certainly not making the number of people who may want to attack the US smaller. And, does it really affect their abilities? Really?
Resources are finite, so if you really love somebody, anybody then you should make sure that they are used wisely. That they are indeed used to promote safety, not used to promote a feeling of safety. For example, bringing armed guards on planes sounds like an idea that makes people feel safer, but to me, it sounds like what hijackers need to do is get the guards gun, making it even easier.
Well, while radiation may be bad to computer chips, being a physicist, I'm not really that concerned about radiation anymore. It's rarely a health issue.
Re:Value of a human life? (Score:2)
Also it can be just as notable what they don't do. e.g. no calls for the resignation of senior USAF officers. Even though the lack of interception of the highjacked aircraft is notable.
Re:Value of a human life? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit. Have you ever stopped to consider that some folks, just maybe, smoke because they actively want to? I love tobacco. I love smoking a pipe. I enjoy the occasional cigar. Even a good cigarette every couple of months (sadly, there aren't many good brands--I think it must be the paper). Very infrequently I'll have some chewing tobacco.
I smoke because I value my life. I want to enjoy the time I have. I like the taste of the tobacco as it swirls up the stem and out the mouthpiece. I love the feel of the smoke. I enjoy blowing smoke-rings.
And you know something? Far from being addicted, I often forget to smoke. As in, for a week or two at a time. I've been smoking for six years now--more than half a decade--and I have never been addicted. That's the nice thing about pipesmoking.
You know something else? Oddly enough, pipesmokers live longer [pipeable.org], as was found in the '64 Surgeon General's report. The '70 Surgeon General's report found that pipesmokers who smoke 4 or fewer bowls a day live longer than nonsmokers.
It seems to me that the stupid ones are those who do not engage in a pleasurable, enjoyable and safe activity which prolongs their lifespans. It seems to me that the weaklings are those without the self-will to disbelieve that lies which are crammed down their throats.
Smokers of the World Unite! In Fumo Veritas!
Re:Value of a human life? (Score:2)
The 200,000 USD was more a matter of "how much a court case for damages might cost us on average". Rather than anything so vague as "social costs".
Effectivily it was a case of "it's cheaper for us to kill people than be safe. Therefor the law obliges us to kill people". At least until a judge changed the rules by giving an award which would have made it cheaper for Ford to have changed their design...
stop whining (Score:3, Interesting)
What a short-sighted thing to say. You're whining that protections against the launch of a biological attack might erase your digital camera pictures? Firstly, it is the postal service's precautions that have limited the death toll to five; and secondly, if you mean to imply that a mere five deaths doesn't warrant this astounding level of inconvenience, then what death toll would be needed to justify these measures? ie, how long would you wait? This isn't like holding secret military tribunals or any of the other civil-liberty-violating measures that have been discussed -- this is a simple, safe, effective, and prudent thing to do. I'm sure that the first time a UPS package or FedEx package is found to contain Anthrax or anything similar, then the private couriers will immediately begin irradiating their packages too. In fact, it might even become required by law.
If you're sending something by mail that could perhaps be damaged by certain handling in the mail, you can write a message on the outside of the package requesting special handling. ``Photographs: do not bend.'' ``Perishable: do not freeze.'' Sensitive materials ranging from high speed film to live queen bees are routinely sent through the mail, and it works just fine. I'm sure ``Sensitive: Do not irradiate'' or something of that nature would work just fine. Your mail might be ever so slightly delayed due to the alternate handling, but you'll live.
It's my country, I can whine if I want to. (Score:3, Interesting)
No. We're whining that the compactflash card that we pay $250 for online could show up damaged at our homes and never work right in the first place, because the postal service chose to do interesting things to its package en route. We're whining that our prescription-by-mail medicine may have been altered in unknown ways and may no longer make us well or may in fact be toxic.
I haven't been to a post office in a couple of weeks. Have they posted large safety orange "WARNING, WE IRRADIATE YOUR MAIL, YOUR FILM AND ELECTRONICS WILL BE DAMAGED AND YOUR MEDICINE WILL BECOME TOXIC" signs everywhere yet? How many dozens or hundreds of people die in the United States every year from slipping in the bathtub? what death toll are you waiting for to justify the banning of bathtubs?
You can't legislate away death. Living has risks. Tell the folks at the commerce department whose paper gave off toxic gas because it was irradiated that it's safe. I'm sure that'll be very comforting to the terrorists who have been mailing anthrax, to know that they can just write "do not irradiate" on their envelopes full of death. Look, if this is such a wonderful thing like you say it should be done to everything. If it can't be safely done to everything, maybe it shouldn't be done at all: creating a false sense of security is much worse than being insecure and knowing it.
Re:stop whining (Score:3, Funny)
Re:stop whining (Score:2)
Mass nuking of bacteria could have the same problems as mass use of antibiotics too...
Wrong. (Score:2, Informative)
things don't become radioactive by being irradiated.
(except if it's fast neutron radiation, in which case radioactivity may be induced)
On the other hand there is cause for concern when it comes to the chemistry.
When organic compounds get hit by gamma radiation, radicals are formed,
chemical bonds are broken, etc. It's a big mess,
and given the huge diversity of substances being irradiated, it's far to early to tell if
dangerous compounds are formed or not. (probably mostly:not)
One example is that gamma radiation can cause oxygen to form ozone, which is poisonous.
What scares me most... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is rapidly getting ridiculous. And I feel no safer.
- A.P.
Re:What scares me most... (Score:2)
"Our right to shop for housewares in a safe environment outweighs his right to anal sovereignty. This is America, dammit."
Re:What scares me most... (Score:2)
Except that the results would be more deaths. Due to black market alcohol adulterated with all kinds of things far more toxic than ethanol and "wars" between black market suppliers and law enforcement.
Making a "bad thing" illegal most of the time not only dosn't work but creates a worst situation.
The Sledgehammer and the finishing nail (Score:2)
Rather than focus on irradication of what most probably is not there (anthrax), we'd do well to focus on methods that allow us to detect its presence in a non-destructive and non-damaging fashion to the contents of the mail. Once detected, we can use the irradication method, or perhaps we'd choose isolation and chemical testing in order to find the source of the moron that was putting anthrax in the mail.
For instance, we've come a long way in x-raying luggage, adding expert systems that attempt to assist the operator in identifying potentially hazardous items. Something similar is needed that can identify chemical compounds behind barriers such as paper, plastic, and perhaps even metal.
If I'm correct, what this method would need to look for (where anthrax is concerned) is a chemical residue or trace, in powder form. I like the idea of using a beam of radiation, since it can pass through a sealed package and its contents without causing us to become a society that searches people's mail by hand.
What I think would be optimum is a very low intensity radiation at just the right frequency to excite the structure of the Anthrax such that it immediately shows up as a "hot spot" on the detector circuitry, yet with the beam kept at a low enough power that flash memory cards don't get erased or damaged, film doesn't get fogged, paper doesn't release noxious fumes, etc...
Do I know how to accomplish this? Sorry, not my field... But I'm hoping someone whose field this is sees my comments. Perhaps it'll trigger an idea in the right direction.
Re:The Sledgehammer and the finishing nail (Score:2)
And the dog, if trained for it, is also going to find things like explosives in the mail.
Re:The Sledgehammer and the finishing nail (Score:2)
This sort of thing can be done to detect explosives [pentacore.com], by measuring the ratios of certain chemical elements (e.g. explosives often contain high amounts of nitrogen). A neutron beam is directed at the target, and when a nucleus absorbs a neutron it emits a gamma ray at a distinctive energy level. By looking at the gamma spectrum, it's possible to tell what the target's made of.
However, this method can only measure bulk chemical properties. It would be hard for such a system to tell the difference between Anthrax and other benign organic substances like paper.
"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... (Score:2)
Oh dear..
I'm afraid your thinking is just a touch flawed. Yeah, Americans had their head in the anthrax bucket for a month straight, and it only killed a handful of people. By your logic, we should just dismiss what happened on 9/11 because only 3000 people died, and only a handful of buildings collapsed. We should go after Boeing because after all, they manufacture FLYING DEATH WEAPONS that PERMANENTLY DAMAGE stuff.
Don't be so dramatic. The same technology used to irradiate your Compact Flash at the post office is the same technology used to heat your damn burrito at CIrcle K. Take your tinfoil hat off and relax.
Cheers,
Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... (Score:2)
Don't be so dramatic. The same technology used to irradiate your Compact Flash at the post office is the same technology used to heat your damn burrito at CIrcle K. Take your tinfoil hat off and relax.
Yeah, but you don't see me putting CF cards in the microwave, do you?
Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... (Score:2)
This particular tactic has been thwarted. It was thwarted on the fourth plane when passengers elected to stop the hijackers or die trying. We're now making the cockpit entry-proof. Publicize the fact regardless of any number of people killed, bullets fired, bombs threatened that the cockpit door will NOT open, and the problem's solved.
Yes, new tactics will be developed in attempts to take over airplanes. But it has become substantially harder to do, and even last time only two of four caused horrific damage (the Pentagon loss, on the ground and in the plane, was roughly the same as if a fully-loaded 747 had crashed).
As far as antrax goes
Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... (Score:2)
Electromagnetic radation (nonionizing) like the microwave is different than particle beams (ionizing).
The microwave oven basically shakes the burrito. The electron beam pummels it with electrons, which can change the nature of the atoms. Somebody who's studied this stuff should explain the differences.
Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... (Score:2)
You're basically correct, although the situation is little more interesting than that. For example, anyone who's ever put a light bulb or an AOL CD into a microwave oven will have seen a fair bit of ionization. There are even industrial ultraviolet lamps [fusionuv.com] that use microwaves to ionize mercury vapor inside a sealed bulb. However, in these cases electrons are being accelerated to high energies by the electric field of the microwave radiation, so it's not really the microwave radiation itself that is doing the ionizing.
Also, red light can be considered "ionizing radiation" if it happens to land on a molecule of chlorophyll [mit.edu]. However, this is a special case. Normally electromagnetic radiation has to be in the ultraviolet or above before it is considered ionizing.
Quick review: gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves, and radio waves are all the same thing - electromagnetic radiation. Each "type" above refers to a particular range of frequencies. The energy per photon is directly proportional to the frequency. Microwaves therefore have less energy per photon than visible light, and much less energy per photon than x-rays or gamma rays.
The energy of an electron beam can range from something comparable to an x-ray photon (e.g. 25keV in a television) up to several GeV in nuclear physics research labs [jlab.org].
Some types of radiation, like positrons and neutrons, can affect matter even at near-zero kinetic energy. Positrons will combine with electrons, converting their mass into gamma radiation. Neutrons can be absorbed by an atomic nucleus, causing it to release other radiation or (in some cases, like uranium) fission.
Permits for radiation (Score:2, Interesting)
So what happens when... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the old "import an animal to destroy a local pest" problem all over again.
Re:So what happens when... (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, it would explode inside the e-beam machine (possibly injuring nearby workers, depending on the size of the explosive and how well shielded the machine was). Then the investigators would attempt identify the source of the package, and prosecute the sender. It wouldn't be too hard to have a camera taking pictures of each package as it went into the e-beam machine so they'd know exactly which package went boom.
I don't really see the point of this question. Anyone could send an explosive designed to go off at some point in the mail-delivery chain. E-beam treatment doesn't really add to this risk, and it does reduce the risk of people receiving biological agents through the mail. Conceptually, it's a pretty good idea. However, as these stories show, the actual implementation leaves something to be desired.
If it turns out that "normal" mail (paper, common plastics, ink, etc) will survive a radiation level that's high enough to be useful in killing the biological agents, then all that has to be added is a new "do not irradiate" option for the sensitive packages. Mail in this category would be screened more heavily, hand-inspected, require a verified return address, etc.
However, if it turns out that the level of irradiation needed to be useful against biological agents is so high that "normal" mail will always be toasted, then the whole idea is dead in the water.
Re:So what happens when... (Score:2)
Expect to see an increased level of tracking, similar to what the courier companies have now.
One possibility would be to put individual serial numbers onto postage stamps (e.g. a 2D printed barcode). You'd show your national ID card when you bought the stamps, and that info would be recorded in a database in case there was ever an "incident" with one of your packages.
The postal system is going to have to "grow up" the way the Internet did. The past was convenient but trusting, with anonymous mail and cleartext passwords. The future will require increased accountability and authentication, like it or not.
Five people almost became 200,000+ (Score:2)
I was glad to see so many more people completely pissed off at that comment. The poster must not have heard that the last anthrax sent to DC was potent enough to kill "hundreds of thousands of people". When the government was too scared to open it thinking they couldn't contain it, I took notice.
It doesn't help much that I live about 15 minutes from West Trenton, NJ -- the source of all that Anthrax going to NYC and Washington.
Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate it when I see statistics like that in the media. Sure, it was enough to kill hundreds of thousands if you lined them up and administered a minuscule bit to each, but it's not likely that that would happen. You might as well say that a terrorist had enough knives (one) to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
So can water (Score:2)
Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ (Score:2)
You can't kill thousands of people just by removing a knife from it's sheath. Unless you expect thousands of people to line up and slit their own throats by walking past the knife tied to a tree.
Yet, you can kill that many people with anthrax by spraying it into the air with a leaf blower upwind from a small city. How about feeding a supply into the ventilation system of the next domed stadium hosting a playoff game? That's not "hundreds of thousands" but its a heluva lot worse than 5, which wasn't quite enough for the original poster.
I wonder if.... (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if the irradiation process degrades latex?
We could be blameing the government for a rash of unwitting pregnancies.
Course, it won't affect the slashdot crowd. Slashdotters don't have sex, they fsck.
~z
A problem with fumes (Score:2)
In this cases it was not the workers that were irradiated. It was just the package. But I guess it cooked something, accounting for the fumes.
Unintended Consequences (Score:2)
Re:Unintended Consequences (Score:2)
What? You mean we are only trying to defend against criminals "smart" enough to get anthrax, but dumb enough not to stamp "FLASH Card, do not Zap" on the envelope?
This isn't going to work if we let some of the packages escape (unless we let them go at random, then we still may eliminate the anthrax threat, but we will then destroy film/flash/medical samples/stuff).
AOL CDs (Score:3, Funny)
There's good and bad in everything, I guess.
No duh (Score:2, Informative)
They've been saying this since the process started. In fact, the plastic bad that my irradiated mail arrived in had the following note on it:
The letter was yellow and fell apart to some extent when I opened the envelope.
Re:No duh (Score:2)
And preferably find another carrier that tells you this before you send your items through the system. It's a bit-fucking-late when your film/urgent-stool-sample/human kidney arrives all irradiated to hell.
They might as well have said "Do not use us to send anything other than plain paper, it'll be nuked"
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Only five deaths... (Score:2, Insightful)
Any person so determined could commit suicide without a gun. The same goes for homicide. The only deaths clearly attributable to guns here are accidental deaths. You could also include some of the indeterminate deaths and homicides, as some no doubt would not have happened without the immediacy and "convenience" of a gun.
Still, that it no argument that none of those 30,708 deaths would not have happened witout firearems. In fact, I'd venture a guess most of those would still have happened - with a different weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only five deaths... (Score:2)
Rather questionable, where does this idea come from? It's rather difficult to interview successful suicides...
Many of the people that use guns to commit murder would be far too cowardly to try to kill with a knife or their bare hands. Ever heard of a drive-by knifing?
Well just this weekend there was a murder at a London train station using a knife and last September some people armed with knives enguaged in mass murder.
Also one important thing to consider is that someone intendeding murder isn't going to be concrened with if they might be changed with having an illegaly held firearm. Private firarms arn't legal in Belfast, but that didn't stop a postman being shot dead on Saturday morning.
Re:Only five deaths... (Score:2)
If guns weren't used, less people would succeed commiting suicide, but the number of attempts probably wouldn't change. According to this [nih.gov], 4 times more men die of suicide than women, while 3 times more women attempt suicide. That's because 79% of firearm suicide deaths were men, while women usually try less lethal methods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only five deaths... (Score:2)
Secondly, where people are incapable of making their own evaluation of the safety of a product, the government is entitled to step in. Drugs are perhaps the most obvious example.
Finally, where a product can impact third parties, governments are entitled to step in.
Re:Only five deaths... (Score:2)
Only so long as you only want to use it on your own private land. Once you take it onto public roads then it becomes an issue for the government, because your choice of vehicle can impinge on other people's lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only five deaths... (Score:2)
What if your family got anthrax? (Score:2)
Re:What if your family got anthrax? (Score:2)
Nearly everbody who dies leaves behind close relatives and friends who would do anything to save them. This is very moving, but not a basis for rational decision making.
In the end, we're all going to die. Nothing we do can prevent that. The only thing we can do is use our limited resources to make our life worth living. Part of this life is taking risks. If you don't want your wife or kids to die, don't have a wife or kids. Yet, in pursuit of their happiness, many people face the risks, and have a wife and kids.
They will let their kids smoke, drink, drive a car, cross a street.
I'll let mine handle mail.
What if your family dies from the irradiation? (Score:2)
What if their prescription medicine has been irradiated and has become toxic (due to chemical breakdown) and it kills them? Or if it just doesn't work any more and they die of what it was supposed to cure them of?
What if your grandmother's medicine arrives in the mail and they DID stick a warning label on it but she can't afford to get it replaced so she takes it anyway, it doesn't work, and she dies?
What would it be worth then?
The point is that they clearly haven't thought out all the consequences of this. They're so eager to prevent any further anthrax cases that they're not considering potential adverse consequences of their concept of a solution.
Problem Solved (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Most of the threads here are just (forgive me for saying) moronic. "All this for just 5 deaths", "This is the last nail being hammered into our coffin", "Oh dear me... my rights have been violated". Please.
How many people buy a hard drive and expect it to be shipped in an envelope without padding or an anti-static bag? None. You ship me a drive like that, I'll send it right back without testing it. Sure, it might work; but that's not the point. It may or may not work very long. Not worth the risk.
Similarly, now when you ship a compact flash card, you'll have to protect it properly. Duh. A hard drive isn't susceptible to this beam because it is surrounded by the plastic case... which is covered on both sides with about 2 or maybe 3 mil of aluminum. So, from now on, ship compact flash cards wrapped in aluminum foil or, once "professional" baggies are available, use those.
An electron beam needn't be harmful, folks. I can't remember the exact equation of how far the electrons will penetrate, but in my work with Auger Electron Spectroscopy, a 3keV beam only gets me about a nanometer into the surface of a material. Going to higher energy proportionally increases the depth--but really this isn't something that's difficult to shield against. This isn't nearly as big a deal as people are making it out to be.
Re:Problem Solved (Score:2, Insightful)
Problem changed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, now I feel safe.
If what you're saying is right, what this means is that we're all just going to have to pay for more expensive wrapping for our mail, particularly for film, medicine, or electronics, for no actual benefit.
Re:Work around (Score:2)
Assuming that the irradiation will kill Anthrax in the first place. Bacteria can be very tough, consider the ammount of hassle the NASA went to to demontaminate the Viking probes. So that terrestrial microbes wouldn't contaminate Mars.
Re:Problem Solved (Score:2)
Similarly, now when you ship a compact flash card, you'll have to protect it properly.
So what's to keep the crazies from protecting their anthrax 'properly' when they mail it?
Re:Problem Solved (Score:2)
Nothing, but if you don't open the tinfoil envelopes, it won't be quite such a problem.
Unless I want to get my new credit card, or if the anthrax is concealed between 2 sheets of aluminum foil. The foil itself would naturally need to be concealed by several sheets of paper, perhaps junk mail.
The irradiation doesn't seem to raise the bar much (since anthrax is already very hard to obtain and handle safely) unless the power is raised high enough to make shielding useless. If that is done, many commonly mailed items (such as credit cards) will have to be delivered by expensive courriers.
The net result of all of this? The mail will get more expensive and less useful while terrorists and nut cases switch to other, more effective, measures including contact poisons.
USPS radiation kills *all* electronics (Score:2, Informative)
More info on rad-hard ICs (Score:2, Informative)
55 kGray = 5500 kilorad.
Radiation-hardened ICs can withstand "only" 300 kilorad [intersil.com].
Think it's safe to send your consumer-grade electronics through the mail?
Thermal labels go black after irradiation (Score:2, Interesting)
It was lucky that I didn't use a thermal label for the return address as well or I never would have known that this was happening.
The mechanicms of over reaction (Score:2)
It's next to impossible to put forward such arguments, especially in the very emotional times after great losses of lives when safety decisions are made. Still, it's an undisputable fact that there is a limited amount of resources, and if you choose to put it where you can save one life for $100M, rather than where it can be done for $1k, you're not really saving lifes, even if you think you do.
About 6500 people die every day in the US. I haven't done the math, but I feel pretty safe saying that if we spent as much per life saved on other dangers than mailed anthrax, we would be bankrupt many times over.
So why does this happen? Because of the intense media coverage, anthrax is on everybodys mind, and the government has to "do something". Thus, it's really not about "saving lifes", but about PR and saving face.
I thought they were just doing LETTERS (Score:2)
I was under the impression that they were just doing letters. What point is it to do packages?
Why don't I just line my box with lead or aluminum foil (obviously if I know how to make anthrax, I can calculate how thick the foil needs to be). Then put my anthrax in it.
People get all kinds of letters from strange sources. But hardly ever strange packages, right? Except of course for public figures, but perhaps their mail should be treated differently.
It's just more SNAKE OIL designed to make everybody feel good. Like checking for nail clippers at the airport.
As for the five lives comment, well I guess in the USA we value whatever life is broadcast on the evening news. But I agree with the poster's sentiment, there's a balance to be made between the illusion of safety and the day-to-day functioning of society.
More Careless Disregard for Human Life (Score:2, Flamebait)
It is even further disturbing to see the discussions about it here... how everyone who argues against such emotion gets even more selfish, uncaring responses, and how some people are relating this to deaths from drunk driving or careless eating.
This is a PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY MATTER. French fries don't kill you the same way anthrax does. Drunk driving is a result of irresponsible behavior and is not tolerated much at all in this country, and our society has gone to great lengths to prevent needless deaths from auto accidents in general... why could we not apply this to eliminating anthrax and other biological threats from our postal mail system?
Because you want to send a compact flash card unwrapped in a 34 cent envelope? Shame on you.
But it's not even that. It's that you think that your needs for freedom and convienience are more powerful and weighty than the public's need for safety and security. And on top of that, you implicitly and coldheartedly suggest that if those 5 people hadn't died yet, but they would if they stopped irradiation, you'd still consider stopping it because you don't want to risk damaging improperly marked electronic equipment.
It's not all of you. Some of you are actually appalled by this, as am I. But the rest of you... that's just sick. And, sadly, this kind of stuff happens all the time on here. And it's Michael who usually posts it, too. He does a poor job of weeding out such bad taste from what might be an interesting discussion. Rather than say "All because 5 people died...", we could ask "How can we eliminate the public health threat AND ensure the safety of our equipment?" The fact that it isn't appalling to you to say the former is appalling to the people among us who value human life, no matter how sick and fucked up it can be at times.
Ah, who's listening to me anyway? Go back to your coffee, games, and coding.
Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life (Score:2)
Trying to secure ourselves from specific acts of terrorism is like trying to secure audio on a CD so that it can't be copied.
Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life (Score:2)
The beam is applied to a significant amount of mail, it isn't tested first. It is just done. And no, you won't be able to ship something through such a system and have it NOT get irradiated if it goes through the equipment.
For the moment this procedure will deal with the current threat, in the future it could be applied again at a moments notice to prevent a major outbreak.
Think of this whole thing as a computer virus. Th only reason more people weren't effected is because something WAS done. Mail was stopped. High-risk mail was then treated and moved on.
If nothing were done the numbers would likely be a hell of a lot higher than 5.
And somebody would try something even more effective than anthrax. Maybe even somethinbg contagious.
Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life (Score:2)
Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life (Score:2)
I suppose my point was lost in this, though: the submission itself was appalingly careless about human life. The issues of irradiating mail and/or sending electronics in the mail are certainly worth some discussion, and this is a perfect forum to do so. However, such issues are not quite as urgent as the safety of Postal Service employees as well as the mail sending/receiving public in general. I'm not trying to be melodramatic, but I personally find that attitude intolerable and harmful to society. It's even scarier to consider that supposedly intelligent people think that way. What good is anything you do in life if you don't give a shit about anyone else?
Some people forget that non-postal workers died from the anthrax contamination, including some lady who lived out in the boondocks in CT. Scary stuff. It could have been one of you who read this site.
I personally find it inconvienent that I can't depend on the mail system to ship electronics if I needed to without some sort of irradiation protection... but who gives a shit if that's what it takes to solve the anthrax problem at the moment? I don't question it one bit, and if it's a reliable, inexpensive, and safe method of decontaminating mail, then I'm all for it. I also support research that would find any other reliable, inexpensive, and safe method of decontaminating mail that would not risk damaging anything being sent through the mail, too. For the time being, though, irradiation is fine with me.
And as for the fact that you can't stop terrorism... well, you can try to contain it. And I'm willing to try hard. I've been willing to try hard to contain terrorism for years, and that emotion only grew stronger in me as I watched, with my own eyes, the collapse of the World Trade Center from 4 miles away.
This is why I also don't complain about being thoroughly searched by airport security and having to wait in a long line for it. If it's effective, and it's what we got for now, I've got nothing to say about it... and anyone who complains about it too much really doesn't deserve the benefits we have from our (relatively) free society. If they don't like it, they can move to Afghanistan.
Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life (Score:2)
Bullshit. Sorry, but five lives out of two hundred and fifty million over the course of 3 months are nothing. Yes, they were human beings. Yes, they loved and were loved in return. But more people die from falling airplane toilet-flushings! Five lives are experimental error. That's the cold hard truth.
And to inconvenience and endanger millions because of five deaths is careless disregard for the living. Did you see the official notice on things which are effected by irradiation? Medical samples, testing kits, contact lenses, food? How many lives have been lost because the right medicine wasn't available, because the testing kit lied, because the fellow's contact lenses were screwy and he crashed into a tree?
That's careless disregard. Pointing out the lunacy of even bothering to trouble oneself over fewer deaths than are due to sharks isn't.
Sensitivity Training (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but if one of those people were a close family member, then you'd care more about personal safety than some damn compact flash cards. I can't believe I actually had to read that.
And in other news (Score:2)
Seriously though (Score:2)
The Problem of Evil (Score:2, Interesting)
Taken from The Brothers Karamazov
Ivan: "Tell me yourself, I challenge you answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature that little child beating its breast with its fist, for instance--and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
Alyosha: "No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.
Knunov
Re:The Problem of Evil (Score:2)
Presume that you know that the consequences of not torturing this girl are the grinding, hideous death and mutilation of millions.
I know people that would say "No" they wouldn't have tortured the little girl.
Its interesting to rephrase the question as "How many must die for your sense personal virtue? How will you explain your virtue to the relatives of the dead?"
Re:The Problem of Evil (Score:2)
Why don't we rephrase the question again: would you personally be willing to commit the most heinous of crimes, and suffer eternally in hell for it, if you knew that doing so would uplift the entire human race?
Re:Are you mad? (Score:2)
- A.P.
Re:Are you mad? (Score:2)
A shooter knows that when he takes aim at a group of people and fires that he could be held accountable, barring escape or suicide. This is what keeps most sociopaths in check: fear of accountability; fear of justice. At the same time this is what lets our nation sleep well at night: knowledge that criminals could be held accountable and could be brought to justice; not that they necessarily will be but that it is at least possible.
Anthrax and other bioagents are tele-weapons and as October showed us, remote biological assaults have far less potential for accountability; their perpetrators stand a far smaller chance of ever being brought to justice. That is why going after the people who would use these so-called asymmetric [emergency.com] weapons is so critical. And in the meantime, since the nation (OK, senators, anchorpersons and postal workers) can't rely on anthrax flingers being be brought to justice, it's up to the government to give us Cipro, smallpox vaccines and irradiation, the next best things.
Re:Are you mad? (Score:2)
Re:Are you mad? (Score:5, Funny)
Either way, the girl's a goner... (or am I misreading the question?)
Re:Are you mad? (Score:2)
Every single day people die because we, as a society, have decided that, in exchange for the a certain level of comfort, we will sacrifice the lives of a few people. People die because of economic reasons, plain and simple. Just as I don't think cars should be banned because 5 people died in a car accident, I don't think all mail should be irradiated just because of a terrorist campaign that killed 5 people.
It's a simple exchange: comfort for life. We make it every day. I'm making it now. It's part of what makes us humans, a selfish ability to value our comfort over that of others.
But I wouldn't have it any other way.
Re:Are you mad? (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone dies from eating french fries, it is probably because they choked to death or it was the last LDL placed on the cholesterol camel's back. In both cases, it was likely the fault of the person eating the fries, for either eating too quickly or eating too much fatty food.
The anthrax was thrust upon the postal workers, and the mail recipients, without their consent. If you are weighing the lives of 5 people against the blanking of a few memory cards and the people come up light, you need your scale calibrated.
"Death (even so-called "unnatural" death) is a consequence of life. If everytime someone dies, we remove or restrict what ever killed that person, this planet would be a boring place."
I couldn't agree more. If it ever became socially acceptable to hunt down and kill personal injury lawyers, I would be the first to lock and load. However, this is a process to remove anthrax from the world, not fries. Or diving boards. Or 'dangerous' toys. Or hot McDonald's coffee.
Though I mostly agree with your sentiment, I don't think it applies to this case.
Knunov
Re:Are you mad? (Score:2)
This isn't quite so simple. The question is whether to take a measure that might have prevented 5 people from being killed (and may not prevent any more, as those who wished such deaths can and will use alternate measures) but which in doing so cause property damage, perhaps personal injury, and certainly public expense.
That last bit is important. If by raising the taxes of every individual in the United States by $1000 this year you could save a life, would you do it? As for me, even if the person were (say) my little sister, whom I love dearly, I could not take responsibilty for placing some obligation (which taxes surely are!) on an unconsenting and uninvolved public. Surely, there is some point at which public expense to save lives is unquestionably justified -- that being the point when the every individual who would be obligated to pay considers it important enough to consent to the price voluntarily -- but how often does that happen?
Re:Are you mad? (Score:2)
The anthrax was thrust upon the postal workers, and the mail recipients, without their consent. If you are weighing the lives of 5 people against the blanking of a few memory cards and the people come up light, you need your scale calibrated.
I'll bet more people have died from either stress induced heart attacks or suicide brought on by IRS audits than from anthrax. I don't see the federal government being willing to give up a little money in order to prevent those deaths.
Blanking a few CF isn't the issue, making it impossable to ship electronics, magnetic media, copy paper, any food item, etc. is the problem.
Consider, if there were no air travel, all of those people in N.Y. would still be alive! How dare you suggest their lives are less important than your ability to save a few short days when traveling across the country?!!!
Re:Are you mad? (Score:2)
#1 the number one "victim" category for gun violence are criminals. Most gun crime is criminal-on-criminal. If my memory serves over half of the "victims" every year fall in this category
#2, only around 1,500-2,500 kids die every year from any type of gun violence. In any given year at least 2x that are killed by drunk drivers.
#3 on average around 40-50,000 people die in car accidents. Why not ban cars since you have no right at all to own or use them under state law and since public transportation is so much "safer"
Go ahead and ban guns and let's see who will not have them:
1. single mothers with small children living in the inner cities. You know... those areas where the cops can't be bothered to enforce the law because they don't have the balls to do it.
2. farmers living out in the countryside where it would take a hell of a long time to get a cop out to help them.
3. the elderly. Do you honestly think that without a gun that an elderly man or woman has even a shot of defending themselves against a violent offender?
It takes at least 15-20 minutes in most areas for a cop to respond to a call. key words: at least. Yes that means that while someone is breaking down your door with an intent on robbing you, raping you or murdering you or any combination of the above, you have no means without a gun to defend yourself against them. Do you honestly think they aren't armed? Yes, there is a chance you'll die, but there is also a chance you'll die from a heart attack the moment you wake up or get hit by a car on the way to work. You won't reduce the violent crime rate in THIS country by restricting access to guns because there are too many well-armed criminals already. Only their would-be victims will surrender their guns. You need to grow up and realize that the government cannot bring about a crime-free utopia. It's life, it isn't perfect and it won't conform to your petty legislation.
Re:Are you mad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet the government doesn't take notice of them.
Re:Oh goodie. (Score:2, Insightful)
Look pilgrim, for all I care you can stuff all the dreck that you want into your body.
I for my part only ask for a declaration of genetically engineered organisms on the food that I purchase.
Now, as a so much determined lobyist for a brave new world, I'm sure you can explain why the Monsantos of this world so vehemently fight such obligations.
Could it be that they know that I and hundreds of millions of people feeling the same way won't buy this shit?
Anxiously awaiting your answer...
Ever hear of Monsanto? (Score:4, Informative)
I normally don't bother feeding the trolls (even with genetically-modified foods), but here I'll make an exception.
Ever hear of Monsanto?
They're a corporate giant thats a big player in the GM field. Based on their track record, I wouldn't trust them to provide food for my dog or cat...never mind for my own consumption.
Here are a few lowlights:
Monsanto recently sued canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser [percyschmeiser.com] for patent infringement. The reason? His neighbour had been sowing Monsanto GM canola seed and some of the seed blew onto his property.
The Washington Post recently published this article [washingtonpost.com] detailing how for decades Monsanto dumped PCBs into streams in a small Alabama town despite having studies from the '60s describing the damage that was being done.
Monsanto is the parent company of Nutrasweet, one of the nastiest substances [holisticmed.com] approved for human consumption.
Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator [ethicalinvesting.com]. Terminator involves producing seeds that grow sterile plants, requiring the farmer to aquire new seeds from the company every growing season. It shouldn't take much imagination to realise that if these plants cross-polinate with unmodified plants, the results could be catastrophic.
Is this a company you would trust and whose products you want to be putting in your mouth?
Maybe next time you see people waving signs that that say "NO FRANKENFOODS", you might ask why before pointing the finger and screaming "Conspiracy nut!"
With other technologies, there's an element of trust involved. Break the trust and you will get flak every time you try to introduce something new...good or bad. Have the individuals making these sorts of decisions shown themselves to be responsible, looking out for our best interests? Here's your answer: After approving Nutrasweet for use in carbonated beverages, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr left his post and went to work for Nutrasweet's PR division.
Re:Oh goodie. (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest outrage is that the food makers want the right to not tell us that the food contains genetically modified material. What are they hiding? If they weren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't have to lie about it.