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."
I think the real problem is that people could make their Li-Ion batteries explode intentionally.
If the FAA wanted to reduce our risk, they would require us all to own smart phones (and Li-Ion batteries). How many dangerous car trips could be avoided if we all had mobile internet? How many unruly passengers would be pacified by the plane's WiFi?
Getting blown up by terrorists.
True enough ... the problem is that the government will simply say, "yes, but just imagine what would have happened if we hadn't spent all those billions of taxpayer dollars on security, pawed through all that underwear, and stolen all those laptops."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Don't even need knock out gas. Just drop cabin pressure, everyone will fall asleep eventually.
This would have seriously pissed me off when I was traveling to India. I took 6 spare batteries for my SLR. (Electricity was shaky, and I could get almost a full week of shooting with out recharging)
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.
Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.
The university I go to is basically banning bake sales and 'cooked goods' sales on campus for fear of the event that someone might get sick from it.... nevermind the fact that they've been going on nearly daily for decades without issues... nevermind the fact that there haven't been any complaints about it and the buyers are fully aware of the food and its production/delivery.
Move along and keep your head down, it is now illegal to look up because you might accidentally look right at the sun and suffer eye damage...
(sarcastic example of the bleak future of this kind of thinking)
Actually, these already exist. They're called maglev trains.
The problem is that actions taken have nothing to do with risk management. You can look at impact and risk of various things and compare them with the actions taken as precaution and you'll notice that there is no connection whatsoever. Look at the risk/impact situation for terrorism, traffic accidents, smoking and child abuse and then look at the actions taken around them and tell me with a straight fact that those actions have anything to do with a risk/impact assessment.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's put this a different way.
Suppose you have a football team with only 11 resources. And suppose they have a "zero tolerance" of any apparent threat made by the other team. So EVERY time it looks like the ball is handed to a running back, they blast in for a tackle on that guy.
This football team is going to lose, and they are going to lose because they cannot distinguish *apparent* threats from *real* threats. The *real* threats are constructed to not look like threats in the early stages of execution. Or they rely on a shifting of resources by the other team to deal with a fake threat while the real threat goes unopposed.
Terrorism and flight safety are very much the same sort of situation. If you are not dealing with real threats, and wasting your resources on trivia, you are not doing your job.