Slashdot Mirror
FAA Data Shows Exploding Batteries Are Rare, Small Risk
ericatcw writes "While the US government is intent on adding new rules around the shipment and carrying of Lithium-Ion batteries on passenger and cargo planes, data from its own Federal Aviation Agency show that the risk of being on an airplane where someone — not necessarily you — suffers a minor injury due to a battery is only one in 28 million, reports Computerworld, which analyzed the data (skip to the chart here) using the free Tableau Public data visualization service. Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely. Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers and consumers."
Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.
I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally.
Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely.
That is probably very close to the same odds as being on a plane targeted by terrorists; look how calmly we are responding to that threat.
The problem is with intentional detonation. Nobody (sane) is saying that li-ion batteries pose a safety hazard from accidental detonations.
We could make air travel even safer by making the planes travel slower. Cut the speeds by half or more. No one needs to travel 500mph. That's just an unnecessary luxury, nay, an irresponsible thrill. We should limit aircraft to no more than Mach 5%, and require that their wheels are never more than three or four inches above the ground, so that in the event of a lift failure, there's not far to fall.
There are other measures that can be enacted to improve airline safety even further, and if it saves even one life, we should enact them, too. It's unacceptable that anyone should die as a result of anything they do.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
http://xkcd.com/651/
While we're using stats, the likelihood of a terrorist flying your plane into a building is even lower, especially given that the cockpit is locked now. [...]
Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.
... somebody, somewhere, wants exactly that.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Getting blown up by terrorists.
and what is the probability of someone successfully blowing up a plane using liquids?
zero!
... the people running our security repeatedly prove to be absolutely clueless?
Let's look at a list, shall we?
They want to ban batteries when there isn't any scientific proof of an interesting risk.
They ban knitting needles when nobody has ever hijacked a plane with knitting needles.
Liquids are banned outside 3 oz amounts held in a quart bag despite their own scientists failing to demonstrate how such fluids can be used as an explosive, and the only terrorist to date that has used fluids only succeeded in burning himself.
They banned pilots from carrying tweezers after 9/11. Why, because pilots might honestly hijack themselves should they find tweezers in their pocket?
Pocket knives continue to be banned, and are thrown away costing consumers millions in lost property without any evidence that having pocket knives adds to any risk to anyone.
Canes *are* allowed on planes. Clearly a better choice of a weapon than a pen knife.
Cell phones clearly thwarted a attack on the capital on 9/11, but the use of cell phones on planes continues to be banned.... despite no evidence that cell phones pose any risk to navigation equipment (despite years of claims otherwise without scientific proof).
A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs. It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously, I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation, but don't they actually train security people? And if they are not trained, are we safer?
I could go on. That's just off the top of my head.
Seriously, when are we going to make rules based on actual risk? When are we going to admit you can't eliminate all risk? When are we going to deal with risks we can address, and accept risks we can't do anything reasonable about?
http://xkcd.com/651/
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.
Isn't that the whole point of these rules?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
For what it's worth, you can comment on the proposed legislation here:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a75fb2
Of course, do your research first.
According to this post and followups, the rulemaking that people are quoting is already in force.
In particular this comment by bwcbwc:
28 millions batteries please... and i'd like to make sure that it will be air mail... and that if anything happens, i get reimbursed with an extra for my trouble
It's far less likely that someone will get injured in a car accident while on a commercial airliner than than it is that someone will get injured by an exploding battery on a commercial airliner.
Of course, do your research first.
I did my research; I read the summary on slashdot!
Economists have already solved this problem. Instead of trying to place their own values on human life, they determined how much people actually value themselves. Jobs that come with higher risk only attract workers at high enough pay. Comparing how much higher that pay is versus similar but lower risk jobs allows for a realistic value. In the end it turns out that most people value themselves at around $5 to $10 million dollars. The EPA came up with around $7 million dollars so this seems pretty well accepted.
I got a Nexus One, and they give you free overnight FedEx shipping, meaning it traveled on a cargo plane to get to me. There's a huge label on the shipping box warning about the lithium-ion battery inside, and that the carrier shouldn't handle the box if it is damaged. I was pretty surprised to see that on there; kind of stupid.
And they often abandon the shit eating OS after they find out that the community is infested with faggot cock smokers.
The FAA employs economists to assess the economic and risk impact of possible regulations, such as exploding batteries.
One that came up a few years back was whether to require infants to have their own airline seats. Sounds like an obvious safety issue. Require every child to have a seat, then they are safer, no? The FAA economist did an assessment that the increased cost of travel to mothers and families would lead many to travel instead by car. This would lead to many more infant car deaths on the highways than would ever be saved by a child in it's own seat really making a difference in a plane crash.
I was quite impressed that the FAA was considering the bigger picture. This is just another example of how *some* gov't agencies show some sanity.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html
Seems that this value is well studied. So you take the average person's remaining life expectancy times the worth of a human life/year, and there you have it.
Just adds proof of how insane the Goons at TSA-HLS and DNI are: in order to justify their continued illegal existance they must fund, plain and support (bankroll) terriorist organizations and promulgate irrational fear at all levels of the US government (their pitiful efforts to brainwash the society are failing). It is the sworn and affirmed intent of the Director of HLS and Director of National Intelligence to destroy the United States of America and its citizens, their most hated enemy.
I seem to recall reading the chance of being in a plane crash are 1 in 20,000.
The government better shut down the airlines and give us all our Lithium-ion batteries back for public safety.
I'm not flying anymore and it's not because I'm scared. It's because I'm tired of the hassle.
For the record I love to fly, I've flown since I was a small child. I used to fly with a pocket knife then. Later I added a multitool to my person and flew with that. Back before 9/11 those were allowed. Notice that not one of the hijackers used a pocket knife or a multitool, yet they are banned. I'm waiting for the day that I'm not allowed to take my cane. I think on that day I'll use it to whack the screeners upside their heads.
The whole reason I'm not going to fly is I feel it's the only way for us to regain control of the situation. Once people stop flying because of the hassle and restrictions then the airlines will start screaming for the reduction in the screening.
I say let's go back to pre 9/11 requirements with the exception of secured cockpits. Then and only then will I start flying again. Until that time, I'll drive, take the train or even the bus. Yeah I might end up sitting next to someone that hasn't showered in days but at least that will be more pleasant then dealing with asinine security restrictions designed to do nothing but appease the paranoid masses.
We should just have Fifth Element type sleeping whatever. Press a button at the beginning of the flight and you're out till the end. Bring almost anything on board, no worry about some crying baby next to you, no fear of flying or etc. Fall asleep, wake up, you done.
..not so much fun bags
"Getting killed in a car accident, by contrast, is 4,300 times more likely."
Then by all means, let us not mix our metaphors.
According to the latest WHO report on preventable deaths world wide http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/avoidable-deaths-worldwide-scope-of.html 1.3 million people die annually from car accidents.
Dividing by 4300 gives us 302 (rounded to whole number) people annually suffering an injury from battery boomage while on an airplane. The question of 'acceptable collateral damage' aside, that's 25 chances per month for an inflight laptop flameout. Not studied was how likely one of these is to cause an accident, with or without fatalities.
So much for governmental oversight agency produced 'reassuring' statistics.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
What's more, this failure to assess risk properly is a bigger waste of tax and income than almost anything else, from the tax dollars going to foreign wars, to the insurance dollars wasted on allowing risky behaviour and vehicles on the roads. I find it quite amazing how "fiscally conservative" people can go all knee-jerk about spending money on near-imaginary threats, simply because some right-wing bloviator gets exercised about it, and then regards the (vastly greater) risk of getting killed on the roads or the streets as just an aspect of civil liberties.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
1 time 3000 people died, compared to the roads which claim 42,116 Americans a year. Heck about 100 people a year die from lightning. So over the last 45 years lighting is more deadly than terrorists
The geek is addicted to false and misleading analogies.
The population of the WTC complex at the noon hour on a weekday was around 100 thousand.
The 42 thousand accidental traffic deaths a year he talks about will never occur in a single incident in downtown Manhattan.
The terrorist can make such things happen.
The single traffic death has limited and definable consequences.
The twin towers were 13 million square feet of office space, a transport hub, a shopping center and a tourist attraction - and most significantly a vital part of Manhattan's financial district.
Highly skilled people, in very specialized trades, not easily replaced, and all in their prime earning years. This not a hit any city could have rebounded from easily, not even a city as rich and powerful as New York.
The attack on the WTC was, of course, co-ordinated with simultaneous attacks on Washington.
If the geek does not like world he is living in now, he might usefully consider what would have followed from the mass murder of the American Congress.
A MIT student is nearly shot while picking up a friend at the air port because her T-Shirt had a proto board mounted between her boobs. It had blinking lights and wires.... Seriously, I can understand how a regular person might not understand the situation, but don't they actually train security people? And if they are not trained, are we safer?
You might want to take a closer look at the shirt she was wearing. MIT student arrested for entering Boston airport with "fake bomb' Without examining the board how can you be certain of its function?
People are misreading the WRONG government document.
As KiahZero noted, the correct document is PHMSA-2009-0095.