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.
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.
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
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:Am I reading this right? (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:Are you mad? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet the government doesn't take notice of them.
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.
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:What scares me most... (Score:1, Interesting)
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!