Slashdot Mirror


USPS Irradiation Damages Electronics

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.

341 comments

  1. Oh goodie. by Mister+Snee · · Score: 1

    I can see this being a really big deal to the type of people who'll have conniptions over anything sciencey and scary-sounding... you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".

    "And now they're putting radiation in our mail! Where will the madness end?"

    These tend to be the same people who are afraid of microwave ovens...

    On the more realistic side of things, though, I can see that being a real problem for all sorts of electronics. It's not really the sort of endurance test they're put through in QA.

    1. Re:Oh goodie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!"

      Well, there's no way of telling what the genetical manipulation will do to our crops in the long run.

      There may not be harmful effects but then again there might be catastrophic effects. Therefore it is wiser not to risk modifying the genetic structure the nature has spent billions of years perfecting. We can very well feed the world without resorting to genetics. The real problem is a political and economical (=greed).

    2. Re:Oh goodie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You can see it being a real problem for all sorts of electronics? Oh, I see, you're one of those whiney "Waaaahh, they hurt my electronics, where will the madness end?!?" kinds of people. Boo hoo hoo! You just paid $40 for a flash card and it was irreversibly damaged by an electron beam? You're a whiner!! Just like those stupid "NO FRANKENFOODS!" people who whine about genetically modified corn that kills monarch butterflies being irreversibly released into the wild. Tough shit! Fuck your personal loss of a flash card and fuck the world's loss of monarch butterflies, you whining putz. Gawd, I hate people who have conniptions over anything that is really shortsighted and destructive. These tend to be the same people who are afraid of removing the door seals on their microwave ovens.

    3. Re:Oh goodie. by Mister+Snee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There may not be harmful effects but then again there might be catastrophic effects. Therefore it is wiser not to risk modifying the genetic structure the nature has spent billions of years perfecting. You're completely correct, but I'm referring specifically to scaremongers with little practical knowledge for whom the words "genetic engineering" conjures up images of Jurassic Park and other such generic doomsday messages of man interfering with nature. Which isn't to say I'm at all in favour of a system that non-selectively bombards peoples' personal items with "the radioactive equivalent of 825 million chest X-rays". Frankly it scares the hell out of me. I just tend to be annoyed by uninformed panic in all its forms. :D

    4. Re:Oh goodie. by Sethb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, but you're overlooking the genetic engineering we've been doing for the last several thousand years.

      Seedless Grapes - Don't occur in nature, they were obtained through selective breeding. Pretty obvious there, without seeds, they can't very well succeed on their own.

      Cattle without horns - Again, selective breeding was used to create safer cattle without horns, but we hardly refer to them as genetically modified.

      While I agree that you have to be careful with what you're throwing into the genetic mix, please don't make it sound like there was some magic spell of perfection cast over our food supply until the Bio-Tech industry came along.

      --
      When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
    5. Re:Oh goodie. by gazbo · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck is it scary to bombard belongings with "the radioactive equivalent of 825 million chest X-rays"?

      Surely your high school physics gives you enough knowledge about different types of radiation ("What?!? You mean there's not just one like those '50s B movies implied") that you're not expecting your packages to get a half-life?

      As a point of interest, many foodstuffs are irradiated before transport to kill all sorts of bugs - It doesn't scare the hell out of me.

      The only way this irradiation is scary is in the sense that I am scared to have expensive electronics damaged.

    6. Re:Oh goodie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come now, you are trying to change the definition of the term genetic engineering.

      Like you said, seedless grapes come from *selective breeding* which is not the same as *genetic engineering* There is a huge novel difference between breeding grapes and cattle over many years to slowly change small features in their genetic makeup and injecting genetic material into species across genomes from another organism. I'm sorry, but fish and tomatoes DO NOT BREED together. You could never selectively breed soil bacteria into corn, potatoes etc. either.

      Not to mention the other novel difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering -- one can be patented.

    7. Re:Oh goodie. by CaptainZapp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "NO FRANKENFOODS!".

      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...

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    8. Re:Oh goodie. by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      While packages and belongings may not develop self-sustaining radiation, I'm sure all the radiation does not instantly dissipate. I'm sure there's some draining out over time,meaning that it is possible to receive a package that is effectively radioactive for a while.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    9. Re:Oh goodie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Not if they are using X-rays.

    10. Re:Oh goodie. by fanatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".

      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.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    11. Re:Oh goodie. by jerde · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right?

      EM Radiation instantly dissipates. You're saying that if they shone really bright lights on your packages that you'd expect them to glow for a bit after you got them.

      Only _nuclear_ radiation can affect objects in such a way as to make them "radioactive". Neutron bombardment, I believe, is the only way to transmute one element into an other (potentially radioactive one).

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    12. Re:Oh goodie. by lha2 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't nuclear radiation be really effective in killing anthrax spores, though?

    13. Re:Oh goodie. by Eric+E.+Coe · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are wrong. While fish and tomatoes do not directly breed (nor are animal-plant species transfers the usual subject of genetic engineering - normally it would be plant-plant or animal-animal), it is concieveable that genes could (and probably have, at more than one point in Earth's long history) be transfered through the mediation of retro-viruses, even between animals and plants. As with most genetic experiments (natural or artifical) probably most resulting hybrids died or were suboptimal. But there is nothing special about genes from one source or another (mutation, combination, transfer) - to think different is to be essentially subscribing to the discredited theory of vitalism: that there is something "special" about living material that makes it different than any other - and that there are therefore special dangers in combining genes in "unnatural" ways. It's religion in disguise.

      --
      An esoteric scratched itch:
      Homeworld Map Maker Tool
  2. Ban Klerck already!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Goddamnit!

    I hereby demand that Klerck's IP(s) are banned and his account is killed.

    If you agree with me, please sign this appeal by replying to my post.

    1. Re:Ban Klerck already!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ban him? WAY too mild of a punishment - I hope he catches anthrax!

    2. Re:Ban Klerck already!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kind of like him. Only if you agree to give him a new home. He could have a good distraction reaming your poop chute all day, and then he wouldn't miss slashdot.

  3. Am I reading this right? by Cpyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people? " What's next? "All this security measures for this 4 planes a year that get hijacked?" "All this bombs for this really small percentage of women that are being tortured?"

    1. Re:Am I reading this right? by Mister+Snee · · Score: 2, Funny

      This could kill a lot more than five people, depending on your definition of "mail-order bride". :/

    2. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people? "

      with statements like that, I really wish you had been one of the 5. Howmany would you have liked to see die? It would have been one hell of a lot more if the one to Daschle had been openned. We just got lucky that's all. Lucky that it was only 5.

    3. Re:Am I reading this right? by Michael+The+Nifty · · Score: 0

      It's for a reason that they call him Michael the Nifty.

    4. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"All this bombs for this really small percentage of women that are being tortured?"
      That is probably the most naive thing I've read this year.

    5. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ya lost me dude.... is your point that you're happy with giving up your civil liberties, due process, probable cause before being searched, and privacy rights and have no problem with the bombing of red cross warehouses and hundreds of afghani civilians?

      The over-the-top security measures that have been introduced are such a massive pain in the ass that I, along with tens of thousands of other US citizens, have little interest in flying while they're in place. If you haven't noticed, the security measures and third-world airport wait times have done, and will continue to do, far more to destroy the US airline industry than they will do to keep retards with plastic explosives in their shoes from boarding planes.

    6. Re:Am I reading this right? by xdroop · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...and yet, the number of people slaughtered on the highways due to drunk-driving is somehow acceptable.


      Can anyone find out how many federal workers have been killed in traffic "accidents" since September 11? I bet it's more than five.

      --
      you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
    7. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure the government is more than capable of making life very unbearable and unpleasant with measures meant to protect us.

    8. Re:Am I reading this right? by Quixote · · Score: 2

      Can anyone find out how many federal workers have been killed in traffic "accidents" since September 11? I bet it's more than five.

      (powers up the good ol' HP)
      Lesseee.. there are 4E4 highway deaths a year, in a population of 2.8E8 .. assuming Federal payroll at 5E5 excluding the military (just a number, sire), this works out to about 70 deaths per year, or about 6 per month. The answer to your question would be about 24.

      sniff... I love my calculator.... sniff...

    9. Re:Am I reading this right? by BreakWindows · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is injuring 11 workers and the potential to kill many more just because Anthrax was sent to a few people a few months ago. 5 dead is a lot when you know them personally, but not in the grand scheme of things, and not when you want to risk injuring (or just screwing over) many more in their memory.

      Trust me...if someone has enough connections to procure a deadly virus like this, they can probably get their hands on an envelope and an official-looking USPS "postage used" stamper and just leave the letter it in your mailbox. Or it can be sent via courier service. Or with any circumvention device that may already exist. This doesn't stop Anthrax any more than that 65 year old ex-cop with a flashlight stops mall-theft. The illusion of safety goes on...

    10. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      I suppose that is why there are laws against drunk driving? There are laws against hijacking planes, still happens. Some real solid logic you have there.

    11. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      The submitter wrote this, not Micheal.

    12. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      Opinion polls don't jive with what you are saying. 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. Tell me, were you so upset about felons working at airports for minimum wage or did you even know about it till the news reported it? It would be a nice little utopia if we could just trust that people weren't sending things through the mail or wanting to crash planes into buildings but it's not. How many lives have been saved for your inconvience?

    13. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Laws against drunk driving only save some of the lives. Banning alcohol would save even more. Banning automobiles would save even more.

    14. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      Let's just ban everything and kill ourselves then. Let's ban silverware, it's been used to kill people and you can eat with your hands. Baseball should be banned, it uses bats that have killed people. You start making the list ok?

    15. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have an idea, let's make it real easy to send any known pathogen through the mail, encourage it in fact, and then the numbers will satisfy your need for validation of events. You know, if the anthrax mailings were successful things could've been a lot worse. You aren't in to planning are you? Pah only 5 deaths, why bother.

    16. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then explain to us why it says in bold characters Posted by michael?

      If they want to take credit for articles, they must deal with the responsibilities.

    17. Re:Am I reading this right? by cduffy · · Score: 2

      I'm not at all upset about the whole felons-working-at-airports thing, any more than I'd be about folks with criminal records (who'd already served their time) working in any other industry I depend on. It really doesn't matter -- a lone felon isn't going to do any significant damage without organizational backing; and those with organizational backing will achieve their goals with or without limitations on airport hiring practices.

      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.

    18. Re:Am I reading this right? by sjames · · 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.

    19. Re:Am I reading this right? by sjames · · 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.

    20. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      Do you think a person with a felony on their record might be prone to lured into an association with a organization? Tell me, do you have a problem with a rapist being hired for security, especially if he wants to take your wife into an interrogation room because he thinks she's suspicous?

    21. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, I also said that more information needs to be given. You didn't express anything I didn't support, I don't support people that don't like themselves being a tad inconvienced for better safety.

    22. Re:Am I reading this right? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I think that any person might be lured into an association with an organization, given the right bait. Convicted felons are not the only "bad people" out there, or even most of them -- and if I were to have a felony record for copyright violation (for instance -- being that some such violations are now felonies, rather than being covered only under civil law where they belong), I'd be damn annoyed if some law prevented me from joining an airline's IT staff, or even their security force were I so inclined.

      I have a problem with a rapist being hired for security, yes -- but that problem is first with the rapist himself (presuming that he resumes his activities), secondarily with the company who hires said individual, and not at all with the government for failing to prohibit it.

    23. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let use some common sense here.

      Anthrax was a SCARE. Thus, the effect was to scare people like you into saying stupid things like "if it saves just 5 lives, any inconvenience is warranted".

      These electron beams aren't intended on actually killing anthrax. They're intended on calming people like yourself.

      Did it work?

    24. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either a troll or a cluefuck. And not very good at the former, but perhaps brilliant at the latter.

      Congrats.

    25. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. With the correct logic, there should be laws against ingesting ethanol. See the logic? Nice logic ... good logic. I mean...

    26. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You moron. He's commenting on something someone else said. Pay attention to the "...".

    27. Re:Am I reading this right? by xdroop · · Score: 1
      No no, my point being that all this paranoia and money could have been spent on lowering the number of people killed in traffic "accidents".

      Really, why are we getting our collective panties in a bunch over five dead people, when many more die on the roads? What is so special about those five people that the others don't have?(I mean, besides the fact that those threatened by this have more power to spend public money than the average poor dead statistic.)

      --
      you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
    28. Re:Am I reading this right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.

      no you idiot. you want us to shoot laser beams at people in cars to make sure they are not drunk.

      jerk ass.

    29. Re:Am I reading this right? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      Do you think it is just about five deaths or the prevention of thousands of deaths? You know the auto companies wouldn't even have seatbelts or stronger frames if it wasn't for government regulations. I believe that drivers licenses should be much harder to get, not as hard as pilots licenses but not as easy as it currently is.

  4. There is more to this story... by mESSDan · · 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.

    --

    -- Dan
    1. Re:There is more to this story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bruce Wayne: Batman
      Peter Parker: Spiderman
      David Banner: The Hulk

  5. Are you mad? by Knunov · · Score: 1, Troll

    "All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?"

    Yes, you inhumane fuckwit.

    To paraphrase Fyodor Dostoevsky, "If the existence of the entire universe, including your happiness, necessitated the torture of even one little girl, would you want it?"

    Knunov

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    1. Re:Are you mad? by phagstrom · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase Fyodor Dostoevsky, "If the existence of the entire universe, including your happiness, necessitated the torture of even one little girl, would you want it?"


      Hopefully I will never have to make that choice.

      But the measure in this case might be a little to harsh.

      I am willing to bet that more than five people died last year from eating frensh fries. Why havn't this product that obviously kills people been removed from the market?

      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.
    2. Re:Are you mad? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

      So, what happens when a terrorist kills 5 Americans with a gun?

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    3. Re:Are you mad? by Knunov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I am willing to bet that more than five people died last year from eating frensh fries. Why havn't this product that obviously kills people been removed from the market?"

      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

      --
      Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    4. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be pedantic, the torture of the Little Girl presupposes the existence of the universe (and all it contains), hence proving that the universe can exist without the torture of said Little Girl.

    5. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, what happens when a terrorist kills 5 Americans with a gun?

      Assuming he got to his destination on public transportation, we stop and strip search everbody on public transportation on the off chance that they may illegally be carring a gun.

      And assuming that a terrorist used the public mail system to deliver a bioweapon, we irradiate every piece of mail using the USPS on the off chance that they may contain anthrax.

    6. Re:Are you mad? by thogard · · Score: 1

      How many people has the Irradiation already killed? Keep in mind that the only way to get medical samples tested in some parts of the US is to send them to a lab by the Postal Service. How many people are dead already because the USPS radiated their blood samples and the medical tests came back as a false negitve?

    7. Re:Are you mad? by rant-mode-on · · Score: 1
      • "It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it." - Sir Clarence Worley
      The same number of people that died in the WTC are killed by guns every 6-7 weeks in the USA. Perhaps you need to review your comment about being humane...?
    8. Re:Are you mad? by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      Irradiate the terrorist?

    9. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To paraphrase Fyodor Dostoevsky, "If the existence of the entire universe, including your happiness, necessitated the torture of even one little girl, would you want it?"

      Hell yes I'd do it - especially if that bitch was sucking up my cable modem bandwidth when I wanna download pr0n.

    10. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However, this is a process to remove anthrax from the world, not fries. "

      Bullshit. The United States is the number one creator of anthrax in the world by far. If this was a process to remove anthrax, they should stop making 'weapons of mass desctruction.' I think the US needs to be bombed and a team sent in to make sure their programs for creating 'weapons of mass destruction' are halted. The cities of America are not safe until they are razed by bombs just like Baghdad!

    11. Re:Are you mad? by Quixote · · Score: 5, Funny

      "If the existence of the entire universe, including your happiness, necessitated the torture of even one little girl, would you want it?"

      Either way, the girl's a goner... (or am I misreading the question?)

    12. Re:Are you mad? by mESSDan · · Score: 1

      Look Osama, I guess you got an internet connection in your cave thanks to the miracles of 802.11b, but how about this; the first time we USE Anthrax on someone, you can judge us. Until then, you're just another fanatic with a dumb name.

      --

      -- Dan
    13. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Iraq only gassed and used chemical weapons on Kurds. They never used anthrax. Anthrax is just not as effective as chemical weapons.

      Under American realpolitik the Kurds are fish food and we do not give a shit about them at all. You see it is just fine when Turkey attacks Kurdish villages. It was also perfectly ok, when Iraq gassed and killed Kurds by the thousands. The Kurds became useful when Iraq was our enemy during the gulf war as they were useful in making Saddam look like a demon in our press. Also the Kurds were useful as their rebellion helped the coalition forces exit Iraq. The Kurds are now not very useful and demoted back to inhuman and we allow Turkey to make incursions into weakened Iraq to kill a few Kurds every now and then. The PKK offered a unilateral cease fire that Turkey will not accept.

      Another group that is feed to the dogs are the Palistians, as they are not condusive to the framework of American foreign policy. You see killing people is only wrong, if the people being killed can further American heghemony.

    14. Re:Are you mad? by browser_war_pow · · Score: 2

      Well yes you are right but.....

      #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.

    15. Re:Are you mad? by ez76 · · Score: 2
      So, what happens when a terrorist kills 5 Americans with a gun?
      The critical difference lies in the potential accountability of the perpetrator for his actions.

      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 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.
    16. Re:Are you mad? by turbosaab · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The anthrax was thrust upon the postal workers, and the mail recipients, without their consent.

      Actually, they ARE consenting, by continuing to work at the postal service, and even though anthrax is what's been in the news by now, I'd bet there are MANY greater job hazards. Out of the hundreds of thousands of postal workers, I'm sure more than 5 get killed in vehicle accidents every year, probably more than 5 get bitten to death by dogs.

      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.

      How about weighing the lives of 5 postal workers killed by anthrax a year against 100 postal workers killed by irradiation every year. It's not just memory cards that are being affected by irradiation.

      This seems like a situation where someone really needs to do a cost-benefit and see if this is the best use of our resources. Yes, we all want to save lives, and no, we can't save every life, so maybe we should waste millions on something ineffective if the money could be better spent elsewhere.

    17. Re:Are you mad? by jedrek · · Score: 2

      Of course I would. We make decissions like this *every single* day of your lives. You buy food which is cheap because it's shipped by (among other things) trucks and trains. Trucks and trains kill hundreds of people every year, thousands the world over. Pesticides, energy production, industrial waste. Accidents in factories, offices.

      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.

    18. Re:Are you mad? by The+Madpostal+Worker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And even more surprising is that 25,000 people die silently of starvation every day.

      Yet the government doesn't take notice of them.

      --

      /*
      *Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
      */
    19. Re:Are you mad? by cduffy · · 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.

      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?

    20. Re:Are you mad? by vinlud · · Score: 1

      #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.

      only?

      Compare this with W-Europe, where guns are rare.

      2500 less shattered futures, when are the Americans going to realize it can be accomplished fairly easy?

      #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"

      Cars are designed for moving people, guns are designed to kill or wound them, that's the diffrence, a big one imho

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
    21. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare this with W-Europe, where guns are rare. 2500 less shattered futures, when are the Americans going to realize it can be accomplished fairly easy?

      This old crap again... The per-capita homicide rate in comparable U.S. and European cities (comparable income, education and population) is almost identical. Fewer Europeans are killed with guns, true, but if a gun isn't available angry people find other means. Europe has more fatal stabbings per-capita than the U.S. does, for example.

      More significant than gun homicides is the number of accidental deaths involving guns in the U.S. However, educating people about proper use and storage of guns is as effective as banning them, and a whole lot less intrusive. The small number of countries where all adults are members of the military reserve and required to have automatic weapons stored in their homes are an excellent example. Not only do they have few gun-related homicides, they also have very few accidents, because they're all trained. Experience in the U.S. with concealed carry permit holders is similar.

      And do *not* kid yourself that removing guns from a population will be easy.

    22. Re:Are you mad? by sjames · · 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?!!!

    23. Re:Are you mad? by Arlet · · Score: 2

      So, what happens when a terrorist kills 5 Americans with a bomb strapped to his body ?

    24. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to guess you're not "frensh."

    25. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      French Fry death -> Person's fault -> Person deals with it
      Anthrax death -> Post Office's fault? -> Post Office deals with it?

      Hmm...

    26. Re:Are you mad? by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

      "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."

      Blame the victim first. How typically corporate.

      --
      You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    27. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you're a sadistic pedophile?

      ( Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. :) )

    28. Re:Are you mad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean? 25,000 Amercans? I'm sure the American government would take notice of that. But no, what you're talking about is some 25,000 people in a different country, who have nothing to do with the US and have no reason to be noticed by our government. I'm also sure that their respective governments notice the problems but are too busy fighting each other(need I name nations?) of struggling for power to pay attention. In the mean time, the starving populace churns out kids in bulk quantities and creates an even bigger burden on the land.

      And you want the US to take notice? So that we feed some, they have even more kids while remaining unable to support themselves and need more help? No thank you, I wouldn't want the government wasting my money on that.

    29. Re:Are you mad? by gorilla · · Score: 2

      I'd bet that if you counted it up, more than 5 people died in fires caused by frying equipment.

    30. Re:Are you mad? by vinlud · · Score: 1

      This old crap again... The per-capita homicide rate in comparable U.S. and European cities (comparable income, education and population) is almost identical. Fewer Europeans are killed with guns, true, but if a gun isn't available angry people find other means. Europe has more fatal stabbings per-capita than the U.S. does, for example.

      It's easier to kill someone with a gun then with a knife...

      And do *not* kid yourself that removing guns from a population will be easy.

      Much easier then launching a worldwide campaign against some idiot in a country on the other side of the world. Oh wait, maybe you're right, to get rid of weapons some level of civilization and brainsis needed. Poor U.S.A.

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
    31. Re:Are you mad? by vinlud · · Score: 1

      This old crap again... The per-capita homicide rate in comparable U.S. and European cities (comparable income, education and population) is almost identical. Fewer Europeans are killed with guns, true, but if a gun isn't available angry people find other means. Europe has more fatal stabbings per-capita than the U.S. does, for example

      By the way, I was talking about 2500 (mostly) innocent kids. That adults kill eachother is worse enough, but under no circumstance children should become victim of adult madness.

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  6. Value of a human life? by countach · · Score: 2, Troll
    All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?

    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.

    1. Re:Value of a human life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's the likelyhood that more anthrax will be spread via mail?

      Practically zero -- at least if the federal government would face the music and investigate and prosecute their own biowar people who're probably behind the anthrax scare.

    2. Re:Value of a human life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont bullshit around dood - you would be more concerned if god forbid, someone dear to you had been one of those five people.

    3. Re:Value of a human life? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 2

      The price of a human life is valued all the time.
      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.

    4. Re:Value of a human life? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Flamebait

      Oh I love this argument. The "value" of a single human life... how "noble" of you to feel that way.

      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. ...because we happen to be alive! You don't hear dead people commenting on the sanctity of life do you?

      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...

    5. Re:Value of a human life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not emotionalize this. Emotion is the rational killer.

      I will let the emotion pass through me, till only rationale remains.

    6. Re:Value of a human life? by thenerd · · Score: 1

      Oh I love this argument. The "value" of a single human life... how "noble" of you to feel that way.

      I don't know your background at all, but I'd like you to think about this:

      Imagine you had a five year old daughter. (Perhaps you do!). She's going to be innocent of all the crazy ways people can lose themselves and cause harm. She's not going to know an environment in which someone will not give her, within reason, what will give her comfort. She'll have lots of dreams about what she can do. She'll be secure in your love. Think about this being, she trusts you completely. She relies on you completely. You are going to watch her turn into an adult, with all her hopes, fears, dreams changing through the years. You are responsible for her getting there.

      Now I think this human life would be so incredibly valuable to you that you would do anything to continue it, and protect it.

      The funny thing is, almost everyone holds someone else in this kind of regard.

      Human life is incredibly valuable. That doesn't mean it isn't easily done away with, as it is fragile. That's why is it *is* so precious. That's why people have the notion of this 'sanctity' you seem to sneer at. A lot of people care more about others than you seem to, please respect that even if it doesn't seem real to you. It's real to us. Though maybe I've underestimated you - if I have, I'm sorry.

      We value the lives of foreign and faceless people even less.

      'We' may value them less, but 'they' value themselves. If they knew us, they would value us more. Just because we don't know someone doesn't stop them being incredibly valuable to someone.

      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."

      Surely you don't believe that things are as simple as that do you? A whole load of variables, such as environment, the people around us, what we are doing, affect us. Humans are extremely impressionable - think how upset things can make you. Think how you want happiness and success. Maybe sometimes you don't give yourself the fairest deal because of priorities and commitments to others. Other times you need to fit in, because not fitting in would be a whole lot more effort you don't have the energy to make. You want things to happen (because you've got a heart beating), so you can look for excitement. Things aren't as simple as 'Life is valuable, so I will never smoke,' because there are too many of these variables.

      I could go on, maybe you've got my point already and I've over-reacted. In summary: We could all keel over tommorow, but that doesn't stop our lives being valuable. often, however, it isn't our own lives we find valuable. We're not 'noble' in some pretentious way, we just care about people who give us happiness and help things along. Your awareness of this may vary, mine does.

      thenerd.

      --
      The camels are coming. I'm in love.
    7. Re:Value of a human life? by Quixote · · Score: 2

      First of all, we still don't know why we are here.

      I'm here to read Slashdot. Why are you here?

    8. Re:Value of a human life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for debasing this argument into the depths of emotion. Oh your daughter might die? What macabre laws should we pass to possibly protect? Maybe your daughter is an idiot. Should we make all objects she can swallow illegal?

      How about this? You be a man and you protect your daughter and not worry about the government protecting your loved ones, because you are already doing it.

    9. Re:Value of a human life? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      What's the likelyhood that more anthrax will be spread via mail?

      Very little mail is being irradiated. I received a total of one letter that was irradiated. Considering that that letter was probably stuck in the Hamilton post office when it was shut down (judging from the postmark), I think they made the right choice.

    10. Re:Value of a human life? by limber · · Score: 1

      These are two different questions. The 'value of a human life' is something intangible.

      The price, or dollar cost of saving a human life, on the other hand, is generally accepted to average between $3 million to $7 million USD, according to studies on how much people pay for safety devices, and how much income they are willing to sacrifice by taking safer jobs, and insurance costs.

      That is to say, statistically speaking, in the marketplace, a TOTAL cost of up to $3 million to $7 million to save a life is generally acceptable (the cost to a single individual might be a fraction of a cent or two; it's spread out over everybody). That's the marginal value of saving a human life.

      What's interesting is the idea that many government regulations impose a far greater cost per life saved than this marginal value. For example, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on benzene storage are estimated to cost $260 million per life saved. So it can be argued that actually, these regulations are (from the economic perspective) actually costing more lives than they are saving, through the reduction of wealth and the consequent loss of life expectancy.

      Here's a succinct article on this subject. Please note that this analysis is purely from an economist's viewpoint, and not from any moral or ethical stance.

    11. Re:Value of a human life? by limber · · Score: 1

      A real world historical example of a cost benefit analysis (with respect to saving human lives) undertaken by a major corporation is the well known case of the Ford Pinto.

      In 1971 dollars, the cost of a human life (or the "Societal Cost Components for a Fatality" was worked out to be $200,000. Unfortunately for Ford Pinto drivers, the cost for retooling the manufacturing facilities for the Pinto was calculated to be higher than the above cost multiplied by the number of estimated fatalities.

      A somewhat biased (but nevertheless engaging) account and analysis of what went on is given here.

      So it would be interesting if someone were to do a similar economic analysis of the situation given in this topic, namely the cost of these electron beam scanners versus the 'saved' cost of estimated number of people's lives saved.

    12. Re:Value of a human life? by mlong · · Score: 1
      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.

      Maybe *you* don't know and your whole life revolves around being afraid to die, but you can't speak for everyone.

      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."

      Nope your conclusion is flawed. If someone smokes it doesn't mean they don't value life, it means they are a weakling with no self-will to stop and are probably pretty stupid for starting in the first place. BUT it does not mean that they don't want to live or that they do not value being alive.

      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.

      It has nothing to do with being sued. It has to do with public image and profit. Having people die using your product is not the way to make money.

      And besides that, we die anyway. Nothing can stop that from happening.

      So lets think of nothing else. We can't stop dieing so why bother to do anything to try to stop it? In fact, why not just go out with guns blazing and speed it up...after all, they were going to die anyway...just perhaps 30 years from now.

      --
      //m
    13. Re:Value of a human life? by KjetilK · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I agree with you both here. Especially, I find your argument that everyone has somebody who loves them appealing. It's like when you hear that a palestinian man is killed, four days after he was happily married, and all the grief of his wife. Three days later, an isreali man is killed, the day after his wife gave birth to their first child. Yet, they are alol screaming for revenge. All this should lead to one conclusion, you can't kill to forward your goals.

      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.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    14. Re:Value of a human life? by thenerd · · Score: 1

      I am absolutely with you here, and while I can mod on other threads, I can't on this one. If I could I'd mod you up.

      It's often telling watching what the hand of people who have power do, while ignoring what they are telling you. The US government is an especially interesting thing to watch. Just don't listen to what they say, and watch them do things that are in their own self interest, continuously. Weird. Do they think we are stupid? The problem is, taken collectively, we are to an extent. Individually we are great.

      thenerd.

      --
      The camels are coming. I'm in love.
    15. Re:Value of a human life? by mmontour · · Score: 1

      Who was it commenting on the "Sanctity of Life." Some comedian guy. More of a standup philosopher than a comedian.

      George Carlin, CD "Back in Town".

    16. Re:Value of a human life? by wagnerer · · Score: 1

      Shh, that a secret. The ignorant masses need to be blissfully unaware of that fact or the entire Foundation could collapse.

    17. Re:Value of a human life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey stooooopid. Congratulations on being able to work a scary complicated thing like a compooooooter.

    18. Re:Value of a human life? by mpe · · Score: 2

      It's often telling watching what the hand of people who have power do, while ignoring what they are telling you. The US government is an especially interesting thing to watch. Just don't listen to what they say, and watch them do things that are in their own self interest, continuously.

      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.

    19. Re:Value of a human life? by mpe · · Score: 2

      In 1971 dollars, the cost of a human life (or the "Societal Cost Components for a Fatality" was worked out to be $200,000. Unfortunately for Ford Pinto drivers, the cost for retooling the manufacturing facilities for the Pinto was calculated to be higher than the above cost multiplied by the number of estimated fatalities.

      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...

    20. Re:Value of a human life? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If someone smokes it doesn't mean they don't value life, it means they are a weakling with no self-will to stop and are probably pretty stupid for starting in the first place.

      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, 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!

    21. Re:Value of a human life? by jacobcaz · · Score: 1

      Had I mod points, you sir would be modded up!

      If I live to be 70 instead of 74.9, but I can enjoy a superb cigar every once in a while, I can assure you I will be happier for it!

    22. Re:Value of a human life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to add that I too can agree with both views. In my view, opposite values are complimentary. That is, if you only have one view, you are at a high risk of having an unbalanced view.

      I'd also like to add that your 5-year old daughter will never be safe, no matter what you attempt to do, least of all of death. If you love someone high enough, you will actually cherish that they have a separate life (and death) to live out. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to protect and teach her. I believe the trick is to not do so at the expense of others and "common sense" (which is on the brink of extinction these days) though. That one doesn't "lose one's head" over something so fragile and needy.

      The same merge of dualistic views can be found in your last argument about mass-intelligence vs. individual-intelligence. The two views of intelligence are complimentary. We are weak because we do not hold together, at the same time many individuals are strong. A group of strong individuals, is not always a strong group (in terms of things like cooperation etc). The two entities, a group and it's individuals are different, but also related.

      The camels are coming. I'm in love.

      Yikes! Can I have some of your smoke too? Then we can solve world-problems. :-)

    23. Re:Value of a human life? by the+italian · · Score: 0

      why is that a troll.. he has a very good point. imagine your father spending his life earnings and life time on building a house.. only to have it destroyed in a storm. imagine how he would feel.. he spent his whole life working on that for his family only to have it destroyed leaving him with nothing.

      --
      http://www.1053.org -=We use big words=-
    24. Re:Value of a human life? by Steve+B · · Score: 2

      My recollection is that the $3 million to $7 million is a break-even point. There is a quantifiable positive correlation between wealth and life expectancy; thus, it is possible to calculate that taking $X out of people's pockets will cause Y extra deaths per year. When Y equals the number of lives you expect to save by spending $X, you have reached the point at which it is counterproductive to spend more.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  7. stop whining by lightray · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ``All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people''

    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.

    1. Re:stop whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm sure ``Sensitive: Do not irradiate'' or something of that nature would work just fine.

      Can you also write that on a package containing anthrax? ;-) ... and preferably use "magic" ink that fades away after 2 days...

    2. Re:stop whining by Thrakkerzog · · Score: 1

      So attackers should mail anthrax in letters marked "Sensitive: Do not irradiate" now? :-)

    3. Re:stop whining by lightray · · Score: 1

      Obviously, some other means will be used to inspect the package.

    4. Re:stop whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a foolish thing to say.

      I am sure in Sweden you could save lives by driving at no more than 10 mph. I am sure in Sweden you can save lives by making smoking illegal. I am sure you can save lives with other macabre measures. The point is, is it worth it?

    5. Re:stop whining by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      Actually, what has kept people alive is modern medical science. Look at the researchers at the Mayo Clinic who developed the 1-hour test for anthrax. They can tell you in almost no time at all whether you have anthrax or not. That sort of thing saves lives, not the mass nuking of everything that the USPS gets its hands on.

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    6. Re:stop whining by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 1

      then what death toll would be needed to justify these measures?

      Alot higher than 5. The Post Office is doing this for PR. The flu kills thousands of people every year. Is there a law requiring people to stay home from work when they're sick so they don't infect more people. How about mandatory flu shots? Tens of thousands die every year from car accidents, a large fraction due to driver error. Is there a mandatory program of driver training?

      I'm sure ``Sensitive: Do not irradiate'' or something of that nature would work just fine.

      Gosh, if they allowed this, do you think terrorists might write it on their next anthrax-laden package?

    7. Re:stop whining by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Firstly, it is the postal service's precautions that have limited the death toll to five

      Then why is it that since the irradiation started, no one has been killed by the 99% of the mail which isn't irradiated. Read the article, only mail being sent to federal buildings is being irradiated.

    8. Re:stop whining by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Bioweapon: Do not irradiate or expose to antiboitics"

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    9. Re:stop whining by mpe · · Score: 2

      Look at the researchers at the Mayo Clinic who developed the 1-hour test for anthrax. They can tell you in almost no time at all whether you have anthrax or not. That sort of thing saves lives, not the mass nuking of everything that the USPS gets its hands on.

      Mass nuking of bacteria could have the same problems as mass use of antibiotics too...

  8. Summer Heat, Summer Moisture ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hemos and I, CmdrTaco, were both fourteen. We were just getting ready for the end of summer. We had started out the week with a campout down by the pond. It was a warm night and we seldom slept early. Hemos and I had played all the young boy games and discovered jerking off together last summer. Now we seldom lost a chance to take a squirt.

    Hemos was telling me, CmdrTaco, a story of how his older brother Michael had let a kid we both knew give him a blowjob. Michael said he gave JonKatz a ride home from school and was really horny. He said JonKatz could not stop looking at the bulge in his shorts. Michael said it took some real convincing but he got him to take his cock in his mouth and suck it exactly like his other bitch Jamie did.

    I told Hemos he was full of shit that I knew JonKatz and that he didn't look queer. Hemos said his brother said you could never tell who had queer genes in them, but guys who are willing to suck usually who do it. I didn't believe him but the story made me real hard. Hemos had been constantly horny for the last year.

    "CmdrTaco, you want to suck my dick?" Hemos asked, me. "No way, asshole, that thing would not fit in my mouth." said. "Why not?" he asked. "I'm not gonna put a cock in my mouth and be known as a queer like JonKatz," I told him. "You would," he assured me. "You might have the queer genes. And I promise I won't cum in your mouth," he added quickly.

    I just looked at him, not believing what he wanted me to do. I just shook my head, "You are crazy, dude." He looked at me and said, " You can't tell me you don't want to find out what its like." I said quickly, "Not me, you want one go find JonKatz." He smiled as he looked down at his naked hard cock and then up at me, "Maybe I might find JonKatz for a blowjob, but he's not here and you are, CmdrTaco."

    He pumped his cock a few strokes and paused, "Why don't you just try it? I'll put my jockeys back on and you can just put it in your mouth and jerk me off. Any cum will go in my jockeys and your lips won't touch any skin." he added, arguing like he always did.

    "Since you won't really be sucking a cock, it won't be queer, and if you don't like it, we can stop," he pleaded. I looked down at Hemos's cock and my face turned red as I realized he had me thinking about sucking his cock. Both of us knew that sucking dick was sucking dick. I knew that if I took his cock in my mouth even covered with his jockey shorts that he would have me do it again.

    I looked at Hemos's hard dick. I crossed the line when I said, "put your shorts on it." He quickly grabbed his shorts and pulled them over his rigid cock, "Shit yea, I can't wait. Go for it CmdrTaco." I knelt down between his legs as he sat on the ground cloth. I put my mouth over the head of his cock through his shorts. Hemos said, "Wait I want to know what a blow job feels like and he started taking his shorts back off.

    I watched his four-inch cock plop back against his plump stomach as he removed his shorts. I said, "No way, unless you put them on I'm not gonna touch your cock." Hemos started looking around in the tent and came out with a sheer clothe bandana. "How bout this? It will be more like a blowjob and it still will be as if you're not." He wanted me to actually put a bandana covered cock in my mouth yet he was telling me it would not be queer. I had seen Hemos hard before, but this was different. His cock was rock hard and strained in the bandana. I didn't look at Hemos's face as I knelt between his legs again. I became acutely aware of the wetness where precum had soaked through the thin cloth as my mouth covered the place at the tip of his cock. Hemos was waiting, so I lowered my mouth, and I raised my eyes to Hemos's face and I felt his cock twitching and jumping in anticipation.

    I turned my attention to his cock and I felt the wetness as I forced out more precum from the cock head in my mouth. I grasped his shaft and started to jerk him off with just the cloth-covered head in my mouth. I held his cock at the base as I continued bobbing my head and sucking on his cock. The slow sucking rhythm caused him to reach the edge. He was shooting and his cum was going into my mouth. The cloth was so wet that it did not slow down the spurts of cum in my mouth I never had time to think about or to turn away before a volley of jism shot through the cloth. Cum just flowed into my mouth and I don't know why I continued to pump his cock.

    Hemos was silent as I release his cock from my mouth. He said, "See, CmdrTaco, the cloth did the job and all the cum was captured." There was no way to describe how it felt to suck his dick, but it had been unbelievable. "Well do you have the queer gene? Do you like to suck dick? Want to try it like JonKatz did without the cloth?" Hemos asked. I actually got kind of a thrill and yet was embarrassed that I must have swallowed his cum. I never remember spitting it out.

    I told him that the experience had been unbelievable but that I would not do it again. I was glad that I had gone down on Hemos and I knew I would do it again, though I couldn't tell him that. It was less than an hour when he started begging me to do it again. That was fine by me. I think he knew that I was willing. I guess my reluctance was gone, because I didn't have any trouble going down on Hemos again. The second time sucking his dick was easier for me. Hemos started asking me what it felt like while I sucked him. While I was bobbing up and down, with a little more action, Hemos asked me if I wanted to remove the cloth. He said that it was just he and I and he would never tell anyone. He said it was just two dudes experimenting and that he was just joking about the queer genes. I actually wanted to do it yet I was not prepared to go that far. Hemos knew that I liked to suck his cock, yet he knew that it would mean admitting that I was queer if I admitted it and he knew that I wouldn't do that. He had just completed what it took to persuade me to go down on him that night.

    The next week Hemos was busy all the time and he didn't talk about what we had done. I thought he was ashamed and I even noticed that he would get hard sometimes while we hung out together. But would always say he had better leave. I thought that he did not want to be embarrassed around me. It was about a week later when I found why he would leave. He told me that he had come home from our trip and that JonKatz was at his house with his brother. He said that he watched him give Michael a blowjob. He said that JonKatz was always trying to get Michael to let him suck him off again, so he said he let him. Now he sucks Michael off all the time. Hemos said after he saw JonKatz go down on his older brother. He looked at me and said "Shit JonKatz sucked me too. Boy it felt good." He smiled and said, "Almost as good as you suck." Hemos was good at getting me to do whatever he wanted. There was no denying I got off on sucking him and I knew what he wanted me, CmdrTaco, to do next.

    1. Re:Summer Heat, Summer Moisture ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LMAO... Takes me right back to my youth. C'meer boy!

  9. The Problem of Evil by Knunov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I found the exact quote. I should have looked harder before making the original post, but the point is the same:

    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

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    1. Re:The Problem of Evil by swb · · Score: 2

      If torturing one little girl could have prevented the Holocaust, would you have supported it?

      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?"

    2. Re:The Problem of Evil by NMerriam · · Score: 2

      Let me get this straight -- he would not be willing to kill one person, and would prefer to maintain his own personal virtue, rather than allow the 6 billion people currently alive (and billions more in the future) to live happy and everlasting lives in paradise?

      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?

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  10. Wrong. by k98sven · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is cause for concern; true, anyone worried about their mail turning radioactive is misguided:
    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.

    1. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      things don't become radioactive by being irradiated.

      And who told you that?

      The government??

      They said similar things about DDT back in the 50s...

    2. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are not gamma rays, even the name electron beam suggests that it beams electrons - that kind of radiation is beta radiation, far less dangerous (mostly because it's not able to penetrate just about anything like it wasn't there) than gamma.

    3. Re:Wrong. by mazachan · · Score: 1

      Isn't this akin to saying that if I microwave food, then the food will become radiated?

    4. Re:Wrong. by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right. But my point is still valid,
      since the chemical effects are actually even worse for electron beams. The charge on the electron make them much more reactive.
      (That's why they don't penetrate, and in this sense alpha and beta radiation is worse than gamma)

    5. Re:Wrong. by 1stLexicon · · Score: 1

      I don't need the government to tell me that you can't make things radioactive by irradiating them with gamma or beta rays. To make something radioactive you have to change the composition of the nucleus. It simply isn't physically possible for gamma or beta radiation to do this.

    6. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhat similar.

      The electron beam equipment is most similar to that lovely CRT you're sitting in front of, but at insanely higher power, and without the pane of lead-including-glass to drop emitted levels down to a level that even the 'frankenfood' crowd can feel safe about. (That's not to say Monsanto isn't f**cking it up- but {Monsanto f**ckups => banning genetic engineering} == {lobotomists => banning surgery.})

      Trouble is, lots of things don't take kindly to being microwaved, and while the e-beam method might be friendlier to certain things (I presume they've tested it on CDs), to be certain you can safely irradiate a package, you need the sort of scanning-and-detection equipment that'd make mass irradiation unnecessary. Of course, scanning of that sort violates privacy...

      From the standpoint of moral algebra, random irradiation/keeping the equipment ready and on standby against a perceived threat would probably be the wisest choice. When one guy gets anthraxed, you can go through and irradiate everything still in the system, sparing the recipients of any duplicate mailings, while still keeping it fairly safe to mail electronics during peacetime.

  11. ReGM birdies. by satanami69 · · Score: 1
    You need to check out Harvest of Fear which is a PBS documentary on GM foods. Personally, I cannot stand those Greenpeace protesters. They have set fire and destroyed more than Monstanto has, yet they still think they are doing right.

    I'd like to think that GM foods can be safe, but the doc shows a nice ad of a happy family underneath a birds nest promoting DDT(which is from the 50's) before they knew the real dangers.

    Getting back to the irradiation, this step was more for easing the general public opinions of anthrax letters. We all wanted to see action, and this was the best idea used. Now that we know that the side affects are worse than the prevention, it's time to scrap it and start over. Maybe we can genetically modify canaries to die whenever they detect anthrax spores(kinda a throwback to the coalminers)

    --
    I really hate Dan Patrick.
  12. What scares me most... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is what is going to happen when someone smuggles C4 onto a plane in his ass, and gets caught. Full-body-cavity searches for all passengers!

    This is rapidly getting ridiculous. And I feel no safer.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:What scares me most... by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

      Some people view full body cavity searches as an opportunity, not a burden.

      At any rate, your feeling of safety is irrlevant, what is important is results. And if it saved even one life, including the moron that submitted this whine disquised as a story, It would be worth it.

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    2. Re:What scares me most... by joib · · Score: 1

      Actually, your feeling of safety is damn important, in many cases more important than the actual level of security. For a (long) explanation, see for example Bruce Schneier's Crypto-Gram Newsletter September 30, 2001, and the links therein, especially the ones about airline security.

    3. Re:What scares me most... by rcw-home · · Score: 2
      Check out the January 4, 2002 goats comic.

      "Our right to shop for housewares in a safe environment outweighs his right to anal sovereignty. This is America, dammit."

    4. Re:What scares me most... by ronys · · Score: 1

      Or what if the terrorist would have been smart enough to ignite his shoes in the lavoratory? Sure the smoke detector would have gone off, but by the time someone would have forced the door open, too late...

      --
      Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
    5. Re:What scares me most... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      At any rate, your feeling of safety is irrlevant, what is important is results. And if it saved even one life, including the moron that submitted this whine disquised as a story, It would be worth it.


      *If*

    6. Re:What scares me most... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      News reports say he was going for broke (obviously) and wanted to ignite the wing fuel tank.

    7. Re:What scares me most... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banning alcohol and enforcing the ban with life imprisonment would save countless lives. Do you think its worth it?

      How about banning automobiles?

    8. Re:What scares me most... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gives a whole new meaning to a 'shaped charge'... ]

    9. Re:What scares me most... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Banning alcohol and enforcing the ban with life imprisonment would save countless lives. Do you think its worth it?

      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.

  13. The Sledgehammer and the finishing nail by AgTiger · · Score: 2

    I think what we're seeing is the first of many "oopses" that show that strong irradiation of mail may be approaching this problem in the wrong fashion. As I implied in the subject line, they're driving a finishing nail with a sledge hammer.

    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.

    1. Re:The Sledgehammer and the finishing nail by Reziac · · Score: 2
      Or maybe a low-tech solution that already has a track record: sniffer dogs. A good dog's nose IS up to the task, no matter how well-wrapped and sealed the package is. If there are so much as half a dozen identifiable molecules worth of leakage (which there is with every sort of packaging one could reasonably send thru the mail) the dog can find it. This is as good or better than the most sophisticated test equipment can manage.

      And the dog, if trained for it, is also going to find things like explosives in the mail.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:The Sledgehammer and the finishing nail by mmontour · · Score: 2

      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...

      This sort of thing can be done to detect explosives, 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.

    3. Re:The Sledgehammer and the finishing nail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With current technology, anything of this sort would equally detect sugar, coffee, your marijuana order from that site in .nl, etc.

      Analyzing DNA remotely is still a ways off- the recent gadgetry from Cepheid and other biotech companies is only just making accurate field-testing possible within an hour or two- and that's when you have the physical powder all over hell, so it's easy to get a real sample into the test tube.

      All this new field-based PCR+?? equipment probably costs around $1/test, if not quite a bit more. Apply that $1 test to every piece of mail that passes through the system, and... well, we knew the $25 stamp was coming...

  14. Seatbelts in schoolbuses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not manadatory, because the lives saved were not
    "worth" the money spent refitting the nations's
    schoolbuses.

    I'd take seatbelts in schoolbuses over this stupidity, anyday.

  15. "Beam Weapons"? Come on.... by Bowie+J.+Poag · · 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,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... by haruharaharu · · 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?

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    2. Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... by dhogaza · · Score: 2

      To a certain point we *should* ignore the events of September 11, in terms of changing our daily lives.

      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 ... the FBI formally contends that they believe the source is domestic, from one of our biological weapons facilities. Surely this suggests more effective ways of dealing with the threat than trying to sanitize each and every piece of mail or parcel shipped by the USPS?

    3. Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuckin' 'tard, microwaves != electron beam

    4. Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... by Dr.+Awktagon · · 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.

    5. Re:"Beam Weapons"? Come on.... by mmontour · · Score: 2

      Electromagnetic radation (nonionizing) like the microwave is different than particle beams (ionizing).

      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 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. 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.

      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.

  16. the nature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the nature has spent billions of years perfecting.

    The nature does not perfect anything: the evolution only crawls towards imperfection. Human eye, for instance, is massively imperfect design.

    1. Re:the nature by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Evolution's lazy, and typically crawls towards the minimum that works.

    2. Re:the nature by Eric+E.+Coe · · Score: 1

      "Evolution" as an English word, means more than what is actually occurring in nature. The process in nature that we label "evolution" has no "direction". Random chance and a generic selection function (offspring <=> no offspring) does not a defined direction make. You get what you get.

      --
      An esoteric scratched itch:
      Homeworld Map Maker Tool
  17. Postal workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the postal workers are angry because their supervisors didn't move quickly enough to diagnose and treat them.

    Hmmm... Let me get this straight: The POSTAL WORKERS are mad because somebody ELSE was jackassing around instead of doing THEIR FUCKING JOB?!?!

    1. Re:Postal workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An excellent point.

      I've been wonder about this: why is it that employers like the postal office or DHL seem to attract IQ 85 slackers?

      I mean if I were lazy like these sonsofabitches I'd steer clear of any work involving moving large crates from point A to B.

    2. Re:Postal workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      why is it that employers like the postal office or DHL seem to attract IQ 85 slackers

      Could it be because you get to break stuff (at UPS in particular)?

  18. Permits for radiation by Raul654 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought you needed a ton of permits to work with ionizing radiation, and it would stand to reason that to get them you would have to prove what you are doing is safe. How did they manage to get the permits and get this started so suddenly?

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Permits for radiation by FredGray · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that these companies were previously in the meat/produce irradiation business, so they would already have been licensed for that.

  19. It's a conspiracy, man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They must have been doing it all the time, but they've now only gone public!

    What else is our government doing to risk our health! First fluorine in our drinking water, hormones in beef and now our daily dose of either radiation or anthrax -- kindly delivered by the workers of the postal office.

  20. So what happens when... by b1t+r0t · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So what happens when someone puts some kind of explosive into a package that detonates when hit by an electron beam?

    It's the old "import an animal to destroy a local pest" problem all over again.

    --

    --
    "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
    "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    1. Re:So what happens when... by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      It explodes in their homes???? Maybe you meant to say x-ray wavelength radiation but generically said electron in your haste to be intellectual? What you are talking about would be some kind of receiver attuned to a frequency where it would act as a switch when something was broadcast on that frequency.

    2. Re:So what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It explodes in their homes???? Maybe you meant to say x-ray wavelength radiation but generically said electron in your haste to be intellectual? What you are talking about would be some kind of receiver attuned to a frequency where it would act as a switch when something was broadcast on that frequency.
      Whose haste to be intellectual? Nice zero-score named post there.

      The difference between you and the parent poster is that everyone understood what he was trying to say, whereas nobody gives a shit about what you are.
    3. Re:So what happens when... by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      Ah ignorance is bliss. Good thing that there are people looking out for you that actually take the time to understand what that means, you'd still be living in a cave if you weren't living off the achievements of others.

    4. Re:So what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we're all living off the achievements of others. It's just that most people are less of an ass about it thatn you...

    5. Re:So what happens when... by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      LOL, so you don't mind being an ignorant ass. I'm sure there is something on TV for you, maybe a movie about a bomb that is set off by an "electron"

    6. Re:So what happens when... by mmontour · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what happens when someone puts some kind of explosive into a package that detonates when hit by an electron beam?

      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.

    7. Re:So what happens when... by CentrX · · Score: 1

      Just like they found the person who was sending anthrax, right?

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
    8. Re:So what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats only because he or she was smart enough to stop

    9. Re:So what happens when... by mmontour · · Score: 2

      Just like they found the person who was sending anthrax, right?

      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.

    10. Re:So what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Anyone could send an explosive designed to go off at some point in the mail-delivery chain"

      You're missing the point. You must feel right at home on slashdot.

      Look. This irradiation is supposed to be a PR move. Its a way that says "don't worry, your mail is safe".

      Since its a PR move, then by god, you attack the PR move.

      Think through cause and effect here.

    11. Re:So what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      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.


      Why would you prosecute the person sending the package? Its perfectly legal to ship explosives. I do it every day at fed-ex. They have to be plainly marked though... Seems like it would be pretty easy to send something hazardous without getting caught though....

      Also, the camera idea really wouldnt work because USPS consolidates their packages into ugly orange bags. I know this because fed-ex is moving a good deal of USPS's mail these days! Well...come to think of it - I dont know at what phase things get consolidated, so maybe it would work if it was e-beamed before the consolidation.....
    12. Re:So what happens when... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Those machines would get mighty expensive if they blew up every other week.

  21. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    there other companies out there that can do it more efficiently and cheaper.

    Yeah! Privatisation! Just look how well it worked for the British railways: a total and complete timetable chaos and increased costs.

    That would happen here as well if the job of delivering post was given to let's say three lowest bidders. But I guess you wouldn't mind it as long as it is cheap. I bet you buy those smokin' AMD processors, too.

  22. Five people almost became 200,000+ by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

    All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?

    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.

    --
    Intelligent Life on Earth
    1. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by graxrmelg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The poster must not have heard that the last anthrax sent to DC was potent enough to kill "hundreds of thousands of people".

      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.

    2. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I was born with enough arms to choke 1 million people. All it will take is a couple years if they all lined up and waited for me to eat and rest.

    3. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be better to just say that you could kill a billion people if you could get them so they all lined up. It would take only 2 days for them to die of dehydration or even less depending on the weather.

    4. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by ez76 · · Score: 1
      When the government was too scared to open it thinking they couldn't contain it, I took notice.
      To be fair, wasn't the issue that they didn't want to compromise any details of the letter that might help them find the perpetrator?
    5. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The poster must not have heard that the last anthrax sent to DC was potent enough to kill "hundreds of thousands of people".

      ..and where did you hear this? Reference, please.

      You do know that the seriously dangerous form of anthrax has to be inhaled, that's per-person inhalation of several THOUSANDS of spores created from a sophisticated milling process, and that's tough to do in a way that will get to hundreds of thousands of people - too much dilution of the spores in the large air volume. ESPECIALLY from ONE letter.

      Skin anthrax responds well to antibiotics.

    6. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      You might as well say that a terrorist had enough knives (one) to kill hundreds of thousands of people

      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.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    7. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by meehawl · · Score: 1



      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.

      And irradiating all that mail isn't going to stop your hypothetical stadium massacre. I don't see the connection.

      --

      Da Blog
    8. Re:Five people almost became 200,000+ by gorilla · · Score: 2
      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.

      Neither of which would be affected by the USPO irradiating packages. First decide what problem you're trying to solve, then work out what actions you can take to solve those problems.

  23. Info: how strong is the electron beam by AtomicBomb · · Score: 1
    The compactFlash article suggested that the electron beam supplies 55kGy... (ie 55kJ per kg of material) In order to quantify how strong is the radiation, I run a quick search:

    According to FAS, it is massive. LD50 (ie 50% killing rate) for 55kGy is
    about 80%. The big ass electron gun is really equipped for the atomic age. Maybe, eBay and Amazon will office us a choice of "radiation hardening" as gift wrap for our electronic gadget.

    PS: I know how will be the survivers of WWIII. The postal worker who hides within the within that mail disinfecting machine. :-)

    1. Re:Info: how strong is the electron beam by daknapp · · Score: 1
      According to FAS [fas.org], it is massive. LD50 (ie 50% killing rate) for 55kGy is about 80% [fas.org]. The big ass electron gun is really equipped for the atomic age. Maybe, eBay and Amazon will office us a choice of "radiation hardening" as gift wrap for our electronic gadget.

      I don't know where you got those numbers from, but they weren't the ones on the website you quoted. 55 kGy whole-body dose for a human is 100% lethal. Radiation treatment for cancer tends to have localized doses that are measured in cGy (0.01 Gy); this is much, much more.

    2. Re:Info: how strong is the electron beam by AtomicBomb · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, you are right... Wrong conversion factor... 55k Gy should be 55000 Gy or 5500000 cGy. It is way off the LD50 chart in the quoted FAS chart (on the dangerous side), which suggests that a dose of > 1000 cGy is almost certainly lethal. It just makes the figure even more impressive.

  24. All this disruption? by zachusaf · · Score: 1

    All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people? RTFM.

    1. Re:All this disruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people? RTFM.

      Which manual? The one that came out of the womb with me?

  25. I wonder if.... by zerocool^ · · 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

    --
    sig?
    1. Re:I wonder if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scully: come over here, look at this, it broke!

      Mulder: it was from the irradiation at the Post Office.

      Scully: I just hope that everything is ok.

      Mulder: ugggh, yeah, everything is fine.

    2. Re:I wonder if.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you wrap stuff in aluminum foil if they will spark like metal in a microwave? If you wrapped latex or compactflash cards with foil, would they survive?

  26. A problem with fumes by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    A package irradiated as part of the government's anti-anthrax screening gave off a noxious gas Thursday when it was opened at the Commerce Department, sickening at least 11 workers, a fire official said [...] a package of copy paper tightly wrapped in plastic gave off a noxious gas when it was opened. He said health officials believe the irradiation process can cause paper to give off hydrocarbons that are harmful when concentrated.

    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.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  27. Unbelievable by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

    Only five people?

    HOW MANY before it's worth the meaningless contents of your compact flash cards?

    Even YOUR life is worth the contents of that flash card.

    Not many people have 'make a fool out of myself before thousands of people and drag a few other people down with me' on thier to-do list, but by golly you managed!

    -10 out of 10 for style to you,
    -100 out of 10 to the /. staff for even posting the article. C'mon, guys, READ the damn thing first.

    --
    /* .sigs are irrelevant */
  28. Unintended Consequences by Detritus · · Score: 2

    Even if you think some unknown number of destroyed compact flash cards is an acceptable price for killing bacterial spores, that will rarely be present, what about other things that can be damaged or destroyed? What about blood, stool and tissue samples that are mailed to medical labs for testing? How many people will die because the sample was degraded or destroyed, and the test result was incorrect? What about prescription medicines that are damaged by the radiation? Sure, the packages can be labelled. We all know how delivery services take careful note of labels on packages.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Unintended Consequences by ez76 · · Score: 1
      What about blood, stool and tissue samples that are mailed to medical labs for testing? How many people will die because the sample was degraded or destroyed, and the test result was incorrect? What about prescription medicines that are damaged by the radiation?
      The difference is that all the accidents you mention could be avoided with nominal care and forethought. Compare this to, say, widespread infection from unirradiated mail loaded with spores.
    2. Re:Unintended Consequences by stripes · · Score: 2
      Sure, the packages can be labelled. We all know how delivery services take careful note of labels on packages

      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).

    3. Re:Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a solution to the problem with "whats in the box marked fraglile, do not radiate" SEE through boxes! Seriously, if it is marked "do not nuke me" then the post office, like UPS (Which DOES DO random box checks for illegal materials) USPS has the right to open the packages to verify the contents! Think about how much it would cost to use CLEAR BOXED for medical, flashcard, and other things which will die or be harmed from radiation... the same guy trained to watch the radiation machine could see the contents of the box and approve of it.

      just imagine the Postal worker
      "Stool sample, flash card, queen bees, NEXT ITEM"

      I was a student at a high school back with the Columbine Bull $h!t, they made everyone use CLEAR SCHOOL BAGS to verify nobody was "packing heat" According to the school, there never was a gun incodent for the last 3 years they didnt catch... Maybe we should apply that same logic to packages that can't be NUKED

  29. Thats cold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of like the first in a series of M$ virus. More is on the way.

  30. Re: Only 5 people argument by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    People who were arguing the value of human life vs. data in the posts below, calm down. Remember you live in America, land of the great. Every day your country proves that human life is worth far less than other things, such as.. money, and... er.. money. Why build tall, even when it endangers lives? because it saves money. Why put 100's of people into one big plane?.. money. Why were sufficent measures not put in place to [try and] stop hi-jackings and suicide attacks _before_ they happened? yes, because its was a waste of money. Im not even going to talk about how violating your sacred first amendment for the dmca is because of money, that would be offtopic :)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  31. how is this news now?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this was reported by almost every major news agency pre-xmas. nice that the "stuff that matters" finally got around to mattering.

    jebus - slow news day michael or just too much absinthe last night?

  32. Thankfully, I'm not an american. by RapaNui · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Karma be damned.

    Listening to these fucking insane rants posted here, I'm just thankful I'm not american.

    Fucking arrogant Yanks.

    Welcome to the _real_ world.

    1. Re:Thankfully, I'm not an american. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welcome to the FBI's "watch" list! :)

    2. Re:Thankfully, I'm not an american. by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      Better to be a self righteous, whatever it is you call yourself? Sorry this element exists in every society? Maybe you're British and should be practing you hooliganism for the World Cup? You know I read about Brits saying they are gonna make Japan wish they weren't having the cup. Maybe I should classify all British people based on that? Hell if you aren't British let me know your nationality and I'll go ahead and make a generalization on it.

    3. Re:Thankfully, I'm not an american. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a coincidence. I'm glad you're not an American.

      You'd be the guy in the corner whining about how the government needs to provide a safety net because you're too f'ing lazy to get a job and take responsibility for yourself.

      I'll bet you'd like the PM to come and wipe your arse when you're done. After all, isn't that what government is for?

  33. Did you actually say this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?

    Are you out of your mind? Do you mean to say your film and flash cards are more important than those peoples lives? I really hope you didn't mean it that way, you insensitive fuck.

    1. Re:Did you actually say this? by hazem · · Score: 1

      No... he's actually saying that there are other things that kill many more people. And that instead of spending an incredible amount of money on such a low risk event, we should be spending that money on higher-risk events, like falling in bathtubs. For example, in 1998, 98 Americans were killed by "bites and stings" (see the CDC: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html)

      Are you saying that the lives of these 98 are less important than the 5 that died of anthrax? Where's the campaign and massive expenditure to stop these senseless deaths?

      Even better (worse, really), 3228 died in 1998 of "Medical care, Adverse Effects" What about them?

      So, you see, it's not just a matter of 5 lives vs inconvenience. It's a matter of how much is spent to prevent a low-risk death compared to higher risk events. Anthrax is scary - a bee sting is not.

  34. AOL CDs by paulywog · · Score: 3, Funny
    Maybe that's what happened to my latest free "NEW AOL 7.0" CD?

    There's good and bad in everything, I guess.

  35. This is good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can use this to zap the seeds of stupid people.

    The slashdot janitors can be the test cases.

  36. SC by mincus · · Score: 1

    I dont know why they are irradiating mail, we all know that it doesnt work well against objects, you need something fleshy like zerg zerglings or overlords.

    .mincus

  37. Congrats Uber Geek by Thatto · · Score: 1

    Your Geek-dom has finally put technology ahead of human life.
    Congrats

  38. No duh by anthony_dipierro · · 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:

    November 2001

    Dear Postal Customer:

    The mail that is being delivered in this bag has been irradiated at a facility in Bridgeport, New Jersey. The irridiation process used at the Bridgeport facility was tested and found to be effective in destroying anthrax by an interagency team of scientific experts that recommended release of this mail for delivery. While the irradiation process is safe, it can affect some products that might be contained in this mail. The products on this list, if contained in a package or envelope that has been irridiated, should not be used. You should discard them and obtain replacements.
    • Any biological sample, such as blood, fecal samples, etc., could be rendered useless.
    • Diagnostic kits, such as those used to monitor blood sugar levels, could be adversely affected.
    • Photographic film will be fully exposed.
    • Food will be adversely affected.
    • Drugs and medicines may not be effective and their safety could be affected.
    • Eyeglasses and contact lenses could be adversely affected.
    • Electronic devices would likely be inoperable.

    While the irradiation process sucessfully kills anthrax, if your mail contains any suspicious substances we urge you to set it aside and contact local law enforcement authorities. This can help in the investigation.

    The group of experts that tested the irradiation process was organized by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and included the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, the Food an Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    We apologize for the delay in delivery of this mail and for any inconvienience that may have resulted. Our primary interest is to assure that this mail is safe before being delivered to you. More information is available at 1-800-ASK-USPS.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    Sincerely,

    Thomas G. Day
    Vice President, Engineering

    The letter was yellow and fell apart to some extent when I opened the envelope.

    1. Re:No duh by ColaMan · · Score: 2

      The products on this list, if contained in a package or envelope that has been irridiated, should not be used. You should discard them and obtain replacements.

      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"

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:No duh by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      And preferably find another carrier that tells you this before you send your items through the system.

      Or just pay for insurance on your shipments.

  39. Disruption as the measure of worth by srussell · · Score: 1
    All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?

    Since others have commented on the relative worth of those five people's lives, I'll just point out that there was significant disruption due to this "campaign", including: a postal worker strike at a office; the shutting down and decontamination of a federal building (a suite of which is, AFAIK, still closed); the salaries of numerous FBI agents who's job these past six months has been to try to solve this case; panic, fear, and stress to the lives of thousands, if not millions...

  40. a lot more than 5 die by ekephart · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?"

    People die for MANYreasons.

    How many kids die from drugs every day?

    How many people die from poverty?

    etc...

    Without defending the original statement, what we are doing here is deciding where to spend time, money and energy preventing deaths. Effectively though are we deciding who is more important to save? How many Americans would give up cheap gas and larger and larger SUVs so people in the Middle East, Africa, and South America could eat decent meals, get affordable medication, and learn to read? How many Americans would essentially take a hit to their checkbook for an implementation aimed to save lives other then their own (be it the people in their town, state, ethnic group, country, intl alliance), and not because said plan didn't aim to protect them too, but because there was no threat to them in the first place. For instance, would an affluent suburb support inner-city sports or reading programs aimed to reduce crime and dropout rates. Not likely. They would most likely brush it off as "not my [city's, state's, neighborhood's] problem". I would hope that many Americans would support these things, but I have my doubts. We have no attention span (50 yrs TV, 100 yrs marketing), we don't know our own history (one thats both bloody and brutal but heroic and rich), we are short-sighted (oops, we trained those guys?).

    --
    sig
  41. Electrons = Gamma Rad? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, shame on you for the "only 5 people" comment. Second, the mail is being irradiated by electron beams....but the article mentions X amount of gamma radiation...now, maybe i've forgotten my physics, but aren't electrons (a subatomic particle) and gamma rays (high frequency electromagnetic rays) completely different? As far as i know, theres no way to create gamma rays by shooting stuff with electrons.

  42. Well by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    "All this bombs for this really small percentage of women that are being tortured?"

    Not to piss on your parade, but if you truely believe that I suggest to be a tad more critical towards your ministry of propaganda.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have yours, he has his. Except you seem to have a holier-than-thou attitude about it.

  43. all mail?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The MSNBC article indicates that mail going to the capitol was being irradiated. Is mail destined for elsewhere also being irradiated??

    Maybe I missed it, but how widespread is this in the USPS system??

    I ask this as a Canadian who occasionally orders things from the US - I'm a little concerned about stuff I order (mostly electronics and geeky gadgets hard to find in Canada) getting zapped. It's extremely doubtful Thinkgeek is going to send me anthrax in the mail ;)

    Glenn

  44. What did this, I wonder? by nsayer · · Score: 1

    I mailed a CD-R to my brother. When it arrived, it looked almost exactly like a CD-R that had been intentionally destroyed by being put in a microwave for 5 seconds. I ended up hand-delivering a replacement (this was over the Christmas holidays) since I was going to be in town anyway. I can't imagine that they would be using radiation strong enough to do this, but what else could account for this level of damage?

    1. Re:What did this, I wonder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it probably _was_ an anthrax beam. I don't know how much was in the package you sent it in(weight), but the beam bases the amount of power on the weight of the package.

      I won't go into detail here, but you don't even need that much power to do that kind of damage, because the shape of the cd (ring) resonates with the magnetic waves from the irradiation machine.

      If you were to put a lead ring in an envelope, it might even melt. (!)

      //just some electronics student

  45. Pretty good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Considering the anthrax has nothing to do with that osama guy, and you have things like this: Capitol cop charged with anthrax hoax.

    I'm sure next after Osama 'escapes' to Iraq, and then 'escapes' to North Korea, Somalia, and any other place we need to bomb they'll determine that Linux is a tool of terrorism and have linux users rounded up and put in jail without recourse.

  46. Only five deaths... by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Informative

    All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?

    Although the self-righteous amoung us have pounced on this statement, it's not out of line. We can't substantially change our way of life every time someone dies.

    Look at automobiles. A 1981 VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) weighed about 1,800lbs. A modern Golf weighs in at about 2,800lbs. Most of that weight gain is because of safety regulations requiring everything from stronger bumpers to airbags to bracing in the doors. In another 50 years, will economy cars weigh as much as Chevy Suburbans due to ever-increasing safety regulation?

    What if it could be shown that taking people's guns away wuld prevent deaths? In the U.S. in 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. And no rational person could possibly claim that self-defense uses of firearms saved anywhere near that many lives. So does that death toll justify repealing the Second Amendment (right to bear arms)?

    We are slowly paralyzing ourselves as a country. We need to realize that we can't legislate or regulate death out of existence. People are going to die, sometimes tragically before their time, no matter how many laws, procedures, rules, and regulations we put into place.

    1. Re:Only five deaths... by mlong · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Although the self-righteous amoung us have pounced on this statement, it's not out of line. We can't substantially change our way of life every time someone dies.

      Look at automobiles. A 1981 VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) weighed about 1,800lbs. A modern Golf weighs in at about 2,800lbs. Most of that weight gain is because of safety regulations requiring everything from stronger bumpers to airbags to bracing in the doors. In another 50 years, will economy cars weigh as much as Chevy Suburbans due to ever-increasing safety regulation?

      So you're saying that the safety improvements to automobiles are not needed, that they should never have been done (because they WERE done due to people getting killed or maimed). And you're saying that the lives being saved to this very day are not worth it because look at all that extra weight on the car!

      How does this crap get modded up anyway?

      --
      //m
    2. Re:Only five deaths... by Magus311X · · Score: 1

      Look at automobiles. A 1981 VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) weighed about 1,800lbs. A modern Golf weighs in at about 2,800lbs. Most of that weight gain is because of safety regulations requiring everything from stronger bumpers to airbags to bracing in the doors. In another 50 years, will economy cars weigh as much as Chevy Suburbans due to ever-increasing safety regulation?

      The new Audi A4s are over 3500lbs I believe, and that's still quite a compact car. The new S4 will likely weigh 2 tons.

      Probably a tank though.

      -----

    3. Re:Only five deaths... by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that the safety improvements to automobiles are not needed, that they should never have been done (because they WERE done due to people getting killed or maimed). And you're saying that the lives being saved to this very day are not worth it because look at all that extra weight on the car!

      Correct. It is not the government's role to protect people from their own decisions. If A consumer demands a safer car, then that consumer should have the option of buying one. But, if I want a Lotus Elise for the performance or a VW Lupo for the fuel economy, it's not the government's role to tell me that they aren't safe enough for me. That's why there are government crash tests; so that consumers can make an informed decision.

      How does this crap get modded up anyway?

      People who don't know the difference between the words "this" and "that" are not intellectually qualified to pass jugement on what I write.

    4. Re:Only five deaths... by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the U.S. in 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. And no rational person could possibly claim that self-defense uses of firearms saved anywhere near that many lives.

      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.

      --
      ± 29 dB
    5. Re:Only five deaths... by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      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.

      I'm not saying that none of those deaths would have happened, but most would not have.

      Guns make suicide easy and private. Most suicides would not happen if the person had to poison themselves, jump to their death, etc. That's why we have such a high suicide rate in the U.S.

      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? Ever hear of some kid showing up at school with poison to try to kill all of his classmates? How about family arguments that end in gunshots? You are, statistically speaking, three times as likely to die in a domestic dispute if there is a gun in the home.

    6. Re:Only five deaths... by Goonie · · Score: 2
      In principle, I agree with you, however I think you've chosen a bad example. With cars, if you drive an unsafe car, you make it too easy for other people (or other factors like bad roads, built by the government) to accidentally kill you. In that case, I believe governments are justified in restricting the cars that can be driven on their roads.

      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.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    7. Re:Only five deaths... by stmfreak · · Score: 1

      What if it could be shown that taking people's guns away wuld prevent deaths? In the U.S. in 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. And no rational person could possibly claim that self-defense uses of firearms saved anywhere near that many lives.

      Well, I'm rational and would claim that self-defense probably does save this many or even more lives. There are supposedly 2 million incidents a year in the USA in which a firearm is used in self-defense (John Lott's study, look it up). However, that number seems inflated. It would require 1 in 100 people (not including kids) per year to defend themselfs with a gun. So let's assume it's an order of magnitude off.

      Even at 200K incidents per year, we're heavily outweighing the 30K deaths. And seriously, suicides don't count, so it's only 13K deaths, some of which, no doubt, were justifiable homicides caused by innocent civilian killing guilty bad-guy with their gun.

      Remember, not all homicides are crimes.

      Even not counting the direct conflicts where someone got shot, there are the stand-down conflicts like when my friend pulled his gun and the gang of three muggers hit the dirt. He and his wife went home safely that night.

      Finally, we have the preventative impact of firearms. This comes into play when the prospective neer-do-well needs cash and decides to get a job because mugging/robbing is just too dangerous since you never know who has a gun.

      As for the post office's irradiation plan. Get a clue. It's not for the five people who died. It's for the millions of people who MIGHT die from mail order viruses if we do nothing.

      Now if we could only be assured that the irradiation equipment will really be used on all civilian mail instead of just mail into D.C.

      --
      These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
    8. Re:Only five deaths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's for the millions of people who MIGHT die from mail order viruses if we do nothing."

      Since this is only to protect federal workers from "deadly mail", I assume you have a misunderstanding of the amount of people who work in Washington DC?

      Really, read the article before commenting.

    9. Re:Only five deaths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ever heard of a drive-by knifing?

      No, but we had a helluva fly-by knifing. Probably because X-ray machines detect guns far more easily than they detect box-cutters.

      Ever hear of some kid showing up at school with poison to try to kill all of his classmates?

      But what if the kid showed up with some plastic instead?

    10. Re:Only five deaths... by hob42 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, it sounds like a good example to me. I'd say the same for seatbelt and helmet laws, while we're on the safety subject. Based on this reasoning, the government has no business butting into my business.

      I'd also compare this with the previous mention of guns... I'd personally feel less safe with a gun in my home than without it (I will admit I live in a pretty safe town, but anyway) for fear of accidents, but that doesn't mean the government should be restrict us from owning them, does it?

      Government restrictions on things like speed limits, drunk driving, and so on, are attempts to prevent others from violating your safety. These are attempts to restrict things that "can impact third parties."

      Now, the issue I see with car safety regulation is not the inability of people to evaluate the safety properly, it's money. If the government didn't mandate safety regulations, the cheapest cars would be deathtraps, and would be the only cars for poor people to afford. This is where these laws have been good -- not just the well-off can afford safe cars.

      My $.02...

    11. Re:Only five deaths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As for the post office's irradiation plan. Get a clue. It's not for the five people who died. It's for the millions of people who MIGHT die from mail order viruses if we do nothing.

      I guess then we should start with irradiating all copies of outlook...

    12. Re:Only five deaths... by shatteredpottery · · Score: 1
      That's misleading. A modern Golf is a much larger car as well - I'm 6'4", and I absolutely did not fit in the 1981 version, but I'm decently comfortable in the modern version. It carries far more luggage. It's got a much more powerful (and bigger and heavier) engine. It's got a large number of luxury devices standard, that the spartan 1981 version didn't offer at all. And it's got a helluva lot more sound insulation and structural bracing which makes it a quiet car, whereas the1981 model was like driving in a tin can with pebbles rattling around.

      Surely some of that contributed to the weight gain? No doubt safety features contributed weight as well, but note that road deaths in the U.S. have dropped from about 50,000 to about 40,000 annually. That's despite a larger population and more drivers. And I doubt it has much to do with drivers getting better... :)

      --

      A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire

    13. Re:Only five deaths... by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      There are supposedly 2 million incidents a year in the USA in which a firearm is used in self-defense (John Lott's study, look it up). However, that number seems inflated. It would require 1 in 100 people (not including kids) per year to defend themselfs with a gun. So let's assume it's an order of magnitude off.

      Why not assume that it's just a bogus "study" contrived to support a position? Once one assumes that a study could be off by an order of magnitude, it's only reasonable to write off the study as meaningless.

      From Time: Other critics raise questions about whether Lott massaged the numbers. One arcane quarrel: for statistical purposes, Lott dropped from his study sample any counties that had no reported murders or assaults for a given year. Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University took Lott's figures and analyzed crime rates only in counties with populations above 100,000. Using this yardstick, right-to-carry laws reduced aggravated assaults 67% in Maine--but increased murders 105% in West Virginia. Still other critics note that in concealed-carry states, only about 2% of people have even bothered to get a permit, and they tend to be white males in suburban counties, hardly the population most at risk. After Philadelphia passed a concealed-carry law in 1995, the number of people with such permits rose by 10,000 in two years. But the murder rate remained as high as it had been for the previous decade.

      So John Lott's "study" is hardly above reproach.

      And seriously, suicides don't count, so it's only 13K deaths

      Why don't they "count." People died and most of those people would not have died if they did not have access to a gun (suicide statistics from other countries without guns bear this out). Why? It's a lot easier to squeeze a trigger than to climb a high structure and jump to one's death. Most people would be hard-pressed to throw themselves in front of a train. The list goes on, but I'm sure you see my point.

      As for the post office's irradiation plan. Get a clue. It's not for the five people who died. It's for the millions of people who MIGHT die from mail order viruses if we do nothing.

      No, you get a clue. The anthrax-tainted mail was sent weeks ago. There have not been subsequent mailings. It's not part of a new wave of crime. It's an isolated nut-job. If you want to protect against anthrax, worry about it being spread by aerial means, not via the mail.

      Irradiating all mail to prevent anthrax is like x-raying all mail to look for explosives because the Unabomber sent some via the mail. It's a gross overreaction.

    14. Re:Only five deaths... by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      But what if the kid showed up with some plastic instead?

      Oh my God! He's got a credit card! Run for your lives before he charges!

    15. Re:Only five deaths... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Guns make suicide easy and private. Most suicides would not happen if the person had to poison themselves, jump to their death, etc. That's why we have such a high suicide rate in the U.S

      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.

    16. Re:Only five deaths... by mpe · · Score: 2

      Correct. It is not the government's role to protect people from their own decisions. If A consumer demands a safer car, then that consumer should have the option of buying one. But, if I want a Lotus Elise for the performance or a VW Lupo for the fuel economy, it's not the government's role to tell me that they aren't safe enough for me.

      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.

    17. Re:Only five deaths... by paulcammish · · Score: 1

      Although the self-righteous amoung us have pounced on this statement, it's not out of line. We can't substantially change our way of life every time someone dies. [sarcasm]Why not? We seem to be doing it over here in the UK...[/sarcasm] Some lunatic storms into a school and kills a load of children. Result? No firearms above .22 cal., and that includes anyone licenced for things like sport shooting (apart from Shotguns, but thats another story). So now, one of the very few olympic things the UK was good at, we cant even practice legally! Hey, at least you guys still have your freedom of speech... (for now)

    18. Re:Only five deaths... by nathanm · · Score: 2
      Guns make suicide easy and private. Most suicides would not happen if the person had to poison themselves, jump to their death, etc. That's why we have such a high suicide rate in the U.S.
      The US has a relatively low suicide rate. See this page for a map depicting different countries' rates.
      If guns weren't used, less people would succeed commiting suicide, but the number of attempts probably wouldn't change. According to this, 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.
    19. Re:Only five deaths... by nathanm · · Score: 2
      People died and most of those people would not have died if they did not have access to a gun (suicide statistics from other countries without guns bear this out).
      No, you have no idea what you're talking about. There are many countries with much stricter firearm laws with higher suicide rates. See this map from the World Health Organization for details.
    20. Re:Only five deaths... by fmaxwell · · 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.

      How does it "impinge" on your life if I choose to drive a car without an airbag, 5mph bumpers, or side impact protection? Seriously. I'd like to know. Auto safety legislation is almost invariably designed to protect the car owner, not the other people on the road.

      I'll agree that the government should protect you from me and vice-versa. To that end, legislation regarding things like the type and arrangement of lights and the type of tire (e.g., DOT approved) is proper and reasonable. But if you would rather give up occupant safety features for performance, economy, prestige, style, etc., that's your business and your's alone.

    21. Re:Only five deaths... by Troed · · Score: 2
      Oh f*ck off .. all civilized beings except americans know your view on firearms is just plain insane.


      It's sooo boring seeing all this pro-gun bullshit on Slashdot where you actually expect the adults to have some education and brains.



      (Why bother about being down-moderated, some people you manage to tick off with your replies wait until they have moderator status and then find you 5 last posts and give them -1 overrated to "get back" .. how lame .. my karma is always around 50 anyway)

    22. Re:Only five deaths... by balthan · · Score: 1

      Oh f*ck off ..

      And you count yourself among the "civilized beings?"

    23. Re:Only five deaths... by Troed · · Score: 1
      I'm not american, thank God. We're not as hypocritic about language, sex etc in Sweden.

    24. Re:Only five deaths... by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      With cars, if you drive an unsafe car, you make it too easy for other people (or other factors like bad roads, built by the government) to accidentally kill you.

      If driving a Lotus Elise makes me "too easy for other people... to accidentally kill", should we also ban bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds, and pedestrians from our public roads? Should the elderly and infirm have their driving priviledges taken away because they could be killed in an accident that you or I would walk away from?

      Going away from the on-road examples, should we ban quadrapalegics from public buildings because they are too easy to kill them if someone accidentally starts a fire? Should we ban skydiving because the person packing the chutes could too easily kill someone if he makes an error?

      Isn't my personal safety a risk that I should evaluate?

      It is my belief that the government has these responsibilities to the citizens in matters of public safety:

      1. To provide information so that consumers can make informed decisions about personal safety. Good examples of this is the NHTSA crash tests and product labelling laws.

      2. To legislate only when the public cannot be adequately informed. This is necessary when you could not reasonably expect the public to be able to understand or evaluate the risks. Example: FDA approval of foods and drugs.

      3. To protect me from you and vice-versa. A good example is the bumper height law to provent me from being decapitated by your bumper should there be an accident. Another example is laws that limit the pollution that you and I can spew from our vehicles.

      And that's the whole list. Any decisions about my personal safety should be left up to me.

    25. Re:Only five deaths... by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 2

      (Why bother about being down-moderated, some people you manage to tick off with your replies wait until they have moderator status and then find you 5 last posts and give them -1 overrated to "get back" .. how lame .. my karma is always around 50 anyway)

      Why mention that? I never considered that, let alone did it. Bragging about karma - now that is lame.

      Now, on to the meat of this. Care to become something besides a troll? The whole point of your post appears to be "guns are stupid and so are you so there."

      --
      ± 29 dB
  47. Herbs by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    I have a question for the scientific elite in this fine family type forum:

    Should I have my er! oregano courier have the next package routed via the US, since the contents might be EXTRA POTENT upon arrival ?

    Anxiously awaiting your answer...

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  48. What if your family got anthrax? by alen · · Score: 2

    What if you mother, father, wife or kids got anthrax from the mail? Would it be worth it then?

    1. Re:What if your family got anthrax? by Capt.+Beyond · · Score: 1

      Well, considering anthrax is more treatable than the flu, it wouldn't really matter if they got proper treatment now would it?

      --
      -- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
    2. Re:What if your family got anthrax? by Arlet · · Score: 2

      No.

      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.

  49. Problem Solved by clark625 · · 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.

    --
    Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
    1. Re:Problem Solved by raynet · · Score: 1

      But are they using alfa, beta or gamma radiation? Alfa rays stop on the paper of the envelope, beta would go a bit further, but not through metal and gamma rays will go through any envelope you could mail.

      If they are using beta radiation what prevents the terrorist to mail the spores with aluminium foil protected envelope??

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    2. Re:Problem Solved by ronys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er, if it isn't difficult to shield against, than the same shielding will work for anthrax, no? Back to square one...

      --
      Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
    3. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, uh, why don't the bad guys just shield the anthrax in their letters the same way?

    4. Re:Problem Solved by sjames · · 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?

    5. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing, but if you don't open the tinfoil envelopes, it won't be quite such a problem.

    6. Re:Problem Solved by Foamy · · Score: 1
      How about the opposite solution?

      I work with viruses and bacteria and we indeed need to mail them to colleagues on a regular basis. So instead of shielding your contents and hoping the shielding is sufficient how about they never get irradiated in the first place? I would have no problem whatsoever having it be required of me to inform the postal service that I am transporting biological materials. How would this work.

      You might put a big orange BIOLOGICALS sticker on your package for one. You could have PHOTOGRAPHICS, ELECTRONICS etc stickers as well.

      The USPS might require that any sample which is not to be irradiated be packaged in a minumum sized box which by it's virtue is not handled by machine and thus is not an anonymous rider among the mail.

      The USPS might require additonal "handling" fees for such packages.

      Such packages might have to be mailed from the Post Office itself or by a licensed agent.

      These are just ideas, but my point is that we have to be able to ship things that will not be irradiated. IMO the solution is to clearly identify those items which are not to be irradiated and to make it a little more difficult for a person to mail them.

      Imagine Tom Daschle's office receives a box with a BIOLOGICALS sticker on it front and center. Do you think the staffer will open it in Tom's office? I doubt it. The idea is that if you or anyone should receive a package that has clearly not been irradiated, then you have it incumbent upon yourself to exercise appropriate caution when opening that package.

      Some may argue that the bioterrorist will just send his samples in one of these packages. Could be, but it's clear that terrorists like Bin Laden and his ilk don't really care much, and in fact want it known, what they did, so they'll use whatever means necessary to achieve their end. However, if some guy like that Shoebomber nut shows up at the DC postoffice wanting to ship "electronics" to the President, maybe, just maybe, the postal worker would either deny him or, send the package off for closer inspection prior to shipment.

      On the other hand, some right-wing nut who used to work at a govt. lab and absonded some military grade anthrax, might have second thoughts about dropping his package addressed to Tom Daschle off, in person, to a postal worker.

    7. Re:Problem Solved by sjames · · 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.

    8. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you don't know the radiation dose, how can you possibly make these kinds of statements?

      Please. Save the energy of all that typing because its pretty clear you don't know diddly about what's really happening.

      And this got modded up?????????

    9. Re:Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Do you think the staffer will open it in Tom's office?"

      Here's the problem.

      Dashle is probablyl a certified moron. He's the guy who said the tax cut caused the recession. Thus he's either a liar or a moron. I think he's really really honest, therefore he's a moron.

      Therefore he probably hires stupid people as staffers as well.

      And....well... you see the problem, right?

    10. Re:Problem Solved by justins · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that if packaging becomes available to protect sensistive electronics from the beam, it will also suffice to protect the bugs which the beam is meant to kill.

      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  50. Ever hear of Monsanto? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can see this being a really big deal to the type of people who'll have conniptions over anything sciencey and scary-sounding... you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".

    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 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 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 approved for human consumption.

    Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator. 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.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:Ever hear of Monsanto? by Mister+Snee · · Score: 1

      Completely unintentionally, I've learned two interesting things this morning: 1. People are far too concerned about one person's off-handed comments about GM foods, and 2. "NO FRANKENFOODS!", which I completely made up, is a really good meme. ;) Apologies for starting the off-topicstorm...

    2. Re:Ever hear of Monsanto? by lha2 · · Score: 1

      Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator. 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 realize that if these plants cross-polinate with unmodified plants, the results could be catastrophic.

      If the plants are sterile, there's little danger of them cross-pollinating. Alternatively, if they /do/ cross-pollinate, then they weren't sterile, and their offspring should be able to reproduce also.

      People don't seem to understand that we (who are alive in 2002) have eaten little but genetically engineered food our entire lives--it's just that now instead of saying "oh, this stalk of corn has characteristic x that we want, and this other stalk has characteristic y--let's mix them and see how many times it takes before we get stalk z that has both characteristics", some stuff can be done on the molecular level. Big deal.

      When I was younger, we would drive cross-country, and there would be stalks of corn whose leaves would droop. You will find now that a good 95% of corn has leaves that point up, to catch the rain. Makes taller plants. Cheaper corn. Happier me when I go to the store.

      I'm guessing that the same people who don't like genetically modified food are the same people who don't like "chemicals" in their food, ie, the people who failed high school science (or who got passed out of pity) (as though the body cares from where the C6H12O6 is derived).

    3. Re:Ever hear of Monsanto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but frankenfood isn't original to you.

    4. Re:Ever hear of Monsanto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I have a B.S. in chemistry from Penn State University, one of the top schools for chemistry. And I have to say, I buy a lot of organic food, because I *DO* know what kind of crap they use as pesticides. As for GMO's, I know most won't hurt me, but I don't think enough is known about their environmental impact to just have them all over the place. For example, I don't remember what the plant was, I think it was maybe some kind of corn, but anyway, it was definitely one of the Monsantos that are "sterile." These plants aren't sterile. They have a gene that causes any seeds to die before they can germinate, which means any plants that cross pollinate will die off. Anyway, the pollen from the corn or whatever killed off a ton of already threatened butterflies. Not cool if you ask me. If a little bit of pollen can kill of butterflies, what are the long term affects of these plants on us?

  51. USPS radiation kills *all* electronics by Ewann · · Score: 2, Informative

    The radiation level that the USPS is testing now (and maybe has in production already) is so high that even radiation-hardened microchips (for space and defense systems) cannot withstand it. Also, some packages have been reportedly catching on fire because of the high radiation levels.

  52. Thermal labels go black after irradiation by boxo1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I use thermal labels to address my business mail and I've had several returned with "Address Unreadable". The label turns jet black after irradiation.

    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.

  53. More info on rad-hard ICs by Ewann · · Score: 2, Informative
    The article states that 55 kGray is being used to irridiate the mail.

    55 kGray = 5500 kilorad.

    Radiation-hardened ICs can withstand "only" 300 kilorad .

    Think it's safe to send your consumer-grade electronics through the mail?

  54. Use FedEx, eh? by thesolo · · Score: 1

    FYI, USPS outsourced Priority Mail to FedEx last year. So I wouldn't be surprised if we saw FedEx scanning packages in a similar fashion.

  55. The mechanicms of over reaction by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    The field of risk management is perhaps where society is at it's stupidest. If you calculate the dollars spent per saved life for supposed life saving actions, there is a span of 9 magnitudes, IIRC.

    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.

  56. which plastics, and whats this about seeds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    both of which I get in the mail, so what are the types of plastic and are any seeds immune?

  57. I thought they were just doing LETTERS by Dr.+Awktagon · · 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.

  58. profit over people by theirpuppet · · Score: 1
    Profit Over People, a simple statement, which causes Genetically Modified foods to be sold (mind you, the US has very few other choices than this food in grocery stores) without ever testing long term effects on humans.


    Profit Over People causes companies to dump chemicals into the rivers, streams, bays, oceans, and air without thought to humans.


    Profit Over People causes the EPA to grant quotas to companies allowing them so much harm in a year, and if they don't use it all up, it carries over to the next year (unlike our vacation time).


    Concern for Human Life extends far beyond. A simple thing such as an Anthrax scare, that harms so few, causes panic, and allows the USPS to potentially do much much more harm. How can someone possibly think this safe to begin with?


    Will anyone ever test the effects before deployment? In a word: No. In a statement: Not without people getting off their a$$e$, getting informed, and voting. Because when citizens make decisions, it won't be to allow untested genetic engineering on the dinner table, toxic chemicals in their drinking glasses, and irradiated mail on the hall table.

  59. cd-r by warrior · · Score: 1

    I apparently damages cd-r media (which I've always thought to be somewhat sensitive anyways). CD's that work here in colorado don't by the time the get to a friend in Washington, DC, but they're just fine when I send them to destinations that aren't likely to be using the irradiating equipment yet (small town Nebraska). This is just speculation.

    --
    Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
  60. low intensity? by SeeMonkey · · Score: 1

    your understanding of science astounds me. the reason we (god bless the united states of america) use anthrax as a biological weapon is that it's indestinguishable from several million other fine powdery substances. You ever notice how when there's an anthrax scare no information about the validity is released for some three days? We have to take samples and grow cultures. While it's not unreasonable to expect the usps to take an extra three days to deliver a given piece of mail do you really them to make a practice of it?

    and as far as your radiation detection goes I don't know why you think you know anyhting about science. I found your post amusing because for the most part people who have no understanding of current technical capabilities, such as yourself, refrain from making public statements of their ignorance. Stop watching star trek and pick up the textbooks for those science classes you failed in high school. you'll find them just as boring as you did last time, but much more realistic and applicable

  61. circumvention device? by CokeBear · · Score: 2

    circumvention device?

    Wouldn't that violate the DMCA?

    --
    Reality has a liberal bias
  62. More Careless Disregard for Human Life by brianvan · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    I don't even have to repeat the quote from the title, you all know what it is. It is tasteless, uncaring, and selfish in a disturbing way.

    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.

    1. Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life by tshak · · Score: 2

      Although the article wasn't worded elegantly, the point is well taken when understood rationally. The point is this certain level of safety is futile, and won't actually save any lives. It's not practical to build cars with huge aluminum safety cages (read: $60K "budget" cars for starters) to prevent the much more then five lives per day that are lost. So, because car accidents don't make the big news, and the USPS does, we are investing millions in some silly beam instead. This beam will probably become useless once a non-detectable bacteria is used or once special packaging is developed to effectively "hide" the bacteria.
      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.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    2. Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life by topham · · Score: 2

      Your pissed because the beam might kill some electronics.

      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.

    3. Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life by tshak · · Score: 1

      Your pissed because the beam might kill some electronics.


      Not necessarily, but what's the point of mail if it ruins our packages?

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    4. Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life by brianvan · · Score: 2

      There's a lot of things you can't send in the mail. Add unprotected electronics to the list.

    5. Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life by brianvan · · Score: 2

      You have a good point. And I agree about the article not being worded elegantly.

      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.

    6. Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      I suppose my point was lost in this, though: the submission itself was appalingly careless about human life.

      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.

    7. Re:More Careless Disregard for Human Life by brianvan · · Score: 2

      How many people died is not the point. It's also irrelevant that they already died.

      But the way you reference such deaths is heinously callous. I seriously hope you aren't in a position to make decisions about anything I'll ever have to come in contact with. I could be "experimental error" then, perhaps.

      Oh, and mail can be MARKED to avoid irradiation and therefore damage of the goods contained. Such items need a different method of decontamination, though. Please spend less time arguing how irradiation can indirectly kill people and more time thinking of ways to solve the problem of goods that would be damaged by irradiation - other than eliminating it in exchange for no treatment whatsoever, which is dangerous and inconsiderate to postal workers and mail recipients alike.

  63. Your CRT is an E-Beam Gun by ishmalius · · Score: 1

    I don't think the authors have any knowledge of physics at all. Electrons are in everything we do, are the arbiters of every chemical process, and are the binders of every molecule.
    An electron beam is no different from a cathode ray, where electrons are freed from an ionizing or very hot negative source, are are then attracted toward a highly charged positive destination.
    The common CRT (cathode RAY tube) that most you people are using to read this right now has an e-beam aimed directly at your head. It just happens that the vast majority of it is intercepted by the phosphor screen.
    Judging from the link to the activist site, it's not 100% in all cases.

  64. Problem changed. by TheMCP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what you're saying is, this electron beam will kill anthrax, but it's easily blocked... so we all start using electron-beam-proof wrapping... and so does whoever has been mailing anthrax.

    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.

    1. Re:Problem changed. by forkboy · · Score: 1

      If they wrap up their payload of anthrax enough to protect it from the beam, then chances are it's not going to be communicable, at least until the unwitting recipient opens the sealed bag o' death.

      At least it won't contaminate people in contact with the package. Maybe that's what they're aiming for.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  65. It's my country, I can whine if I want to. by TheMCP · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're whining that protections against the launch of a biological attack might erase your digital camera pictures?
    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?
    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?
    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.
    this is a simple, safe, effective, and prudent thing to do.
    Tell the folks at the commerce department whose paper gave off toxic gas because it was irradiated that it's safe.
    I'm sure ``Sensitive: Do not irradiate'' or something of that nature would work just fine.
    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.
  66. So can water by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    A bucket of water can drown a dozen people if adminstered properly as well. So which should we ban, buckets or water?

    1. Re:So can water by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Both. We can't be too careful here, goddamnit!

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  67. Re:Value of a human life?-one_way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Human life is incredibly valuable. That doesn't mean it isn't easily done away with, as it is fragile. That's why is it *is* so precious. "

    Yes it's valuable but not for that reason. It's valuable because we can't bring it back. If we could do away with it, and bring it back, then life wouldn't be quite so precious.

  68. Re:Value of a human life?-Guns Don't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It has nothing to do with being sued. It has to do with public image and profit. Having people die using your product is not the way to make money."

    Tell that to the companies that make weapons.

  69. lead lined bags by vanyel · · Score: 1

    They already have lead lined bags for shielding film, just use those for your sensitive electronics.

  70. what about Bacillis thermophilus? by budgenator · · Score: 2

    What is bacillis thermophilus you ask? It a handy little bacteria that is commonly and legaly sent through the US Mail system by Medical and Dental professionals. Its used because it is highly resistant to heat, it will not grow until its heated to 140 C.

    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.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    1. Re:what about Bacillis thermophilus? by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 0

      Did I say more information is needed? You need to be able to avoid things like this happening, perhaps businesses that will deal in shipping specialty items that they can assure the safety of will pop up? A way is always found.

  71. Sensitivity Training by Boone^ · · Score: 2
    All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?

    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.

    1. Re:Sensitivity Training by meehawl · · Score: 1



      If you read this you'll begin to think of the risks to poorly trained government employees through operating particle beam weapons in close confinement. Sometimes a kneww jerk reaction to a threat causes more problems than it solves.

      --

      Da Blog
    2. Re:Sensitivity Training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure glad you don't run things.

      If you or I die, we're simply part of the fabric of society. Don't unravel the entire fabric because of the many threads break.

      Remove the idea that you're the center of things. It hold you back and makes you talk even dumber on slashdot.

  72. cd damage by crystalplague · · Score: 1

    I sent some software and a divx movie to a friend in Cali. Not only did it take longer than it should have to get there, the divx movie was corrupted whereas it was not when I sent it...hmmm...

  73. Disrupting commerce: The irony by silentbozo · · Score: 1

    If the damage that random e-beams do to products sent via the mail (think everything shipped for eBay auctions for a start) hampers commerce, that will go a long ways to fulfilling Bin Laden's goal of disrupting the US economy.

    Higher shipping charges, disruptions to just-in-time deliveries, the collapse of the USPS as all the business shippers switch to other carriers.

    And the disturbing thing I'm getting from these posts is, the USPS isn't even notifying you when this is done. I'd hate for some critical part to fail prematurely because it was cooked at random.

    Time to put some couriers on the payroll. Hand-carrying stuff is back in style.

  74. Text of Anthrax-laden letters by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Hi! How are you?

    I send you these spores in order to have your advice.

    See you later. Thanks

  75. And in other news by PD · · Score: 2

    Manufacturers of ant farms used for science education are starting to release a new product: cockroach farms. We've always known that after a nuclear war, all that would be left would be radiation resistant cockroaches. These enterprising entrepreneurs aren't going to wait until WWIII to use that characteristing to their advantage. The new procedures at the post office will ensure that the new product is a market success.

  76. Work around by CryoPenguin · · Score: 1

    To shiled your package you only need to block line of sight into the contents. You don't have to make it air-tight. So you could make a bag of anthrax that survives irradiation but is still contagious before openning the package.

    1. Re:Work around by mpe · · Score: 2

      So you could make a bag of anthrax that survives irradiation but is still contagious before openning the package.

      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.

  77. Don't send your Congressman a CF card by radarvectors · · Score: 1

    The USPS is only employing this technology in very specific instances - such as mail bound for Capitol Hill.

    Why not email your bits instead?

  78. yeah, just five people... by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

    God knows my latest electro-toy is worth a few postal employees being killed. If I don't get my new linux powered pda to supplement the five or so I've already got and still don't have any real reason other than it looks cool to own, the terorrists have already won.

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  79. One tool, one way. by serial+frame · · Score: 1
    You know, there is only one thing that human kind can do to prevent many more losses of lives. It's something that far supercedes any weapon that kills, any device that circumvents, any tool that hinders. It's called trust.

    Trusting is like a chain reaction. If the terrorists trusted us (*gasp*) to not attack their people and to not interrupt their way of life, then we can trust them to not attack us. Then, perhaps we could trust that our mail would not be contaminated with irradiation or anthrax, then we could trust the United States Postal Service to safely deliver our packages.

    Though, we must keep in mind that trust is a two-way thing. To be trusted, one must trust.

    Our only problem is that it will be a very long time for us to achieve such a thing.

    Just a few thoughts.

    --

    -
    And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
  80. Risk Management by meehawl · · Score: 1



    I submitted the original story and I really think a lot of people are missing the point. It's about risk management.

    I was not comparing people's lives to a camera smart card, I was trying to get people to think about the health consequences of low-wage, badly trained employees using particle beam weapons in confined spaces, and the dangers to mail recipients from irradiated letters and denatured packages leaking toxic gases.

    The economic fallout is of course tremendous as well. Fundamentally, we are talking about a terror campaign that succeeded due to a classic media panic about a rare scare.

    Perhaps we need to start irradiating all paper money at points-of-sale, to prevent them carrying pathogens? Yeah, that makes sense as well. Right.

    --

    Da Blog
  81. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " I bet you buy those smokin' AMD processors, too"

    Hmm, I realize this is a troll, but AMD processors are faster than Intel processors across the board.

    They're simply better.

    "Intel Inside" is now an insult.

  82. This is not used on all mail!!!! by mwarps · · Score: 1

    The irradiation is only used on mail which was in the contaminated facilities, or which was routed near them, or is currently Target Mail. Unless your mail is coming to you in a color that is not white, but yellowish, and in a plastic bag that says "This mail has been irradiated," then it has not been irradiated. I'm sorry to clarify the FUD that is spreading, but your compact flash cards are safe no matter which carrier you send them through, unless the shipper is incapable of using correct addresses and postage.

    Only USPS Target mail is being sent through the ebeam irradiation, now that the contaminated facilites have been cleared out. Target mail is a piece of mail that looks suspicious enough to be held out and examined (not opened), and poses the threat of causing either physical harm to an employee, or fiscal damage to the USPS.

    The CES is just repeating that which is printed on the back of the Iraddiation Notice Bag that all the irradiated mail comes in. Don't thank them for telling you your stuff may be messed up. The Postal Service already knew and told you before the CES started spouting FUD.

  83. What if your family dies from the irradiation? by TheMCP · · Score: 2

    What if your mother, farther, wife, or kids dies because their diabetes testing materials, or insulin, was irradiated by the USPS in transit to the pharmacy where you bought it and you didn't know about it, and their blood sugar test results are incorrect and they consequently eat too much, or too little, sugar?

    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.

  84. Ahem.... why SHOULD suicides count? by cadallin451 · · Score: 1
    Any person sufficiently motivated can do so without a gun. Granted, a significant percentage would not occur if a gun was not handy, but do we really care? I'm quite inclined to be complete pragmatic about this: they want to die, more power to 'em.

    America has ridiculously high suicide rates anyway, second only to Japan, I beleive, indicative that the problem is something entirely different from guns.

    (*Note: Japan's rate is higher, but guns are nowhere near as common, ergo where is the connection?)

    Back to my original point, so guns can be used for suicide, so what? Will you outlaw knives as well? How about rope? Automobiles? Any of these can be used for that purpose, it all goes back to intent.

  85. Seriously though by HongPong · · Score: 2

    What about these fucking government beams on MY HERB, man!? Tha fuck's up with that shit?

  86. Oh this is lovely by siliconincdotnet · · Score: 1

    Wow, as if postal workers with AK-47s arent bad enough, now someone goes and gives them nukes... How long until some psycho postal employee decides to irradiate their cow-orkers? :)

    --
    Insert witty .sig here
  87. DON'T PANIC!!! by spike+hay · · Score: 1

    GM foods are nothing to be concerned about. If you are crying NO FRANKENFOODS! then you don't understand genetics. I know quite a bit about the subject. All that DNA does is code for proteins. Thats it. DNA has four different kinds of bases, Thymine, Adenine, Guanine, and Cytosine. Three of these bases get grouped together into codons. A codon, through a complicated process involving mRNA
    and many other things, makes an particular amino acid.
    A whole bunch of these DNA codons will produce a protein. A protein is multiple amino acids linked.
    If you insert a gene to produce the Vitamin A protein into a wheat plant, the wheat plant will produce Vitamin A along with everything else. A gene that codes for Vitamin A codes for Vitamin A, nothing else. It won't produce cyanide or anything else that you may be afraid of. One of the things about gm foods is that YOU KNOW WHAT THESE GENES DO. By contrast interbreeding mixes the genomes of two plants and you don't know what will happen.
    One of the persistant arguments I hear is that BT corn (that is, corn with the safe, natural BT insecticide) kills monarch butterflies. I'm sure it does kill monarch butterflies. But it probably kills less monarchs that spraying a highly toxic insecticide from a plane.
    Another argument is that it's not natural and your'e tampering with millions of years of evolution. I got a reality check. The plants that we eat did not evolve for our benefit. They are random products of evolution designed to spread their seeds around better than other plants.
    Take rice, for example. For millions of years, it was a sucessful swampy-area plant. It did not bother wasting energy to meet the nutritional requirements of other animals eating it. Then, around 10,000 years ago, man comes along and finds that rice makes pretty good eatin' and decides to farm it. Unfortunately, this random product of evolution wasn't very nutritious for man, and he got Vitamin A from only eating rice. A few years ago, some people said "Hey, all these people in Vietnam and Laos are starving because they don't get enough Vitamin A in their rice diet. Lets engineer some rice to have vitamin A so they don't die." They did that and that's how we got golden rice, a vitamin A rich rice that's carrot orange from all the Vitamin A in it. That is an excellent example of how we improved on nature.

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  88. Re:Disrupting commerce: The irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    simple solution, ship a exposure sensing device in each package. This will tell you if a item has been iradiated.