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.
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?!
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.
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.
... 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?
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
I was going to mod you down, but then I saw you used the correct homonym "you're" so I couldn't bring myself to do it.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
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:
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!
Maybe we should have a story feature that adds an automatic link to the appropriate xkcd comic. I think it would be more useful than the current twitter or facebook links.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Still not a real risk.
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.
If these people keep thinking of the children all the time, I'll have to assume they're pedophiles.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.