Slashdot Mirror


FedEx Misplaces Radioactive Rods

Hugh Pickens writes "A shipment of radioactive rods used in medical equipment has vanished while being sent by FedEx from North Dakota to Tennessee. Based on tracking information, FedEx is focusing its search in the Tennessee area, but as a normal precaution the company alerted all of its stations 'in the event that it got waylaid and went to another station by accident.' Dr. Marc Siegel says if someone opens the container it could pose some serious health risks. 'I don't believe it has the degree of radiation that, if it were opened, your skin would suddenly slough off. But the concern would be, if this got opened inadvertently and someone didn't know what it was and then was repeatedly exposed to it over several days, it could cause a problem with radiation poisoning,' says Siegel. 'The people that use this equipment in a hospital use protective shielding with it.' The lesson is that active medical material must always be transported in a way that ensures the general public cannot get access to it. 'Medical devices should not be FedExed. They should be sent under a special service,' adds Siegel."

165 comments

  1. In Rod We Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

    1. Re:In Rod We Trust by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't they just ship inanamate carbon rods?

  2. Active Medical Material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The lesson is that active medical material must always be transported in a way that ensures the general public cannot get access to it."
    How about adding 'active radioactive material' to that list?

    1. Re:Active Medical Material? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you have a problem with me using Fedex to ship somebody across the country some radioactive fiesta-ware they bought from me on eBay?

      "Radioactive" doesn't automatically signify "dangerous".

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:Active Medical Material? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Why do you have a problem with me using Fedex to ship somebody across the country some radioactive fiesta-ware they bought from me on eBay?

      "Radioactive" doesn't automatically signify "dangerous".

      In trained and informed hands, not dangerous at all. However I would consider Fiestaware dangerous to someone ignorant of its radioactive properties.

      Should such devices be properly labeled? Probably. Should they be banned from postal services if properly packaged? Probably not.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:Active Medical Material? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Fiestaware is completely safe, the only real danger it could possibly present is heavy metal poisoning and even that is not terribly credible.

      Let me guess, you think only trained and certified people should be allowed to change the batteries in smoke detectors too. Or did you not know they contained radioactive materials? Hell, even analogue wristwatches commonly contain radioactive materials. Do you think we should start sticking great big "DANGER: RADIOACTIVE" stickers on those too? ...wait a second. You don't happen to be employed be the State of California, do you?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  3. FedEx? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 0

    I cannot believe someone thought it was a good idea to FedEx radioactive material. Someone needs to be fired.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must have been a ex-fed.

    2. Re:FedEx? by echucker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Want to bet that the hospital was following the manufacturer's instructions for an RMA?

    3. Re:FedEx? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Right. Of course!

      Brown would have been a much better choice.

    4. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot believe someone thought it was a good idea to FedEx radioactive material. Someone needs to be fired.

      I wasn't aware that you even could send radioactive material by a standard courier service or mail. I thought they generally frowned upon radioactivity, dangerous chemicals etc etc.

    5. Re:FedEx? by Christian+Marks · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you believe in limited government, then it follows that it's a matter of corporate policy whether to ship radioactive materials, which would be completely unregulated. The free market would decide where those rods would end up, and disclosing anything about them would be strictly determined be the effect on the bottom line.

    6. Re:FedEx? by jamesoutlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      FedEx (and other carriers) handle materials like this all the time. Also, if you had bothered to do a little more research you would have found this article:

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/fedex-seeks-missing-shipment-of-radioactive-rods-used-in-ct-scan.html

      quoute:
      "The recovered cylinder, which was about 10 inches long and weighed 20 pounds, contained four rods of germanium-68, used in medical-imaging cameras. Their total radioactivity is 684 megaBecquerels, the equivalent of about 18 microcuries, said David McIntyre, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

      The rods are among the least significant sources of radioactivity from health and security perspectives, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

      If someone had opened the canister, “it would take like 1,000 hours of exposure to get a skin blister,” Munoz said."

    7. Re:FedEx? by ErikTheRed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ummm... a few points:

      1) FedEx is, as far as I know, the only major carrier that handles radioactive material. It doesn't go in their regular package delivery system; they have a separate division that handles it (and biohazards, poisons, explosives, and things like that). See: http://www.fedex.com/us/services/customcritical/specialty/hazardous/index.html

      2) No delivery service is going to be 100% mistake free. Negative outcomes will happen in life. Get over it.

      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    8. Re:FedEx? by v1 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that fedex accepts shipment of radioactive material. they have restrictions on explosives, corrosives, compressed gasses, etc.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    9. Re:FedEx? by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If you believe in limited government, then it follows that it's a matter of corporate policy whether to ship radioactive materials, which would be completely unregulated. The free market would decide where those rods would end up, and disclosing anything about them would be strictly determined be the effect on the bottom line.

      Yes, because other than government regulation there is no possible incentive for FedEx (and others) to not lose packages. It is only the "Packages Must Be Delivered To Their Proper Recipient Act of 1942" that regulates them into doing so. It's also not as though FedEx might want to avoid the bad publicity of misplacing radioactive rods.

      Indeed, any form of limited government could never work, the only realistic option is unlimited government. /sarcasm

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    10. Re:FedEx? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      It looks like they have a separate division for all sorts of stuff: http://www.fedex.com/us/services/customcritical/specialty/hazardous/index.html

    11. Re:FedEx? by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Why? FedEx apparently allows certain radioactive material if packed correctly:

      Look on Page 6 here (may be other pages of interest):
      http://images.fedex.com/us/services/pdf/HazmatShippingGuide.pdf

    12. Re:FedEx? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I can, people do unapproved things all the time either because they are ignorant of the potential consequences or because they thing (rightly or wrongly) that the probability is low enough that they can get away with it.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    13. Re:FedEx? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. The international HUB unit of radioactivity (hours until blister). This is why you run a technical interview before hiring or appointing a spokesperson.

    14. Re:FedEx? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Maybe because explosives, corrosives, compressed gasses, etc all have the potential take down a cargo plane if the material explodes, leaks, etc. However, low level radio active materials cannot.

    15. Re:FedEx? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I was reading an article in a journal (Science I think?) back in the 90s, about the 1918 flu virus. The researches drew some conclusions about the old virus by applying more modern techniques, including sequencing. They obtained the virus from US military tissue samples (apparently the US military preserved tissue samples from dead soldiers back then - in paraffin I think).

      They mentioned that they shipped the samples by FedEx. So, samples of tissue containing a plague that killed a substantial portion of the human race were in some box on the back of a truck right next to somebody's toner cartridge delivery and some legal records...

    16. Re:FedEx? by osu-neko · · Score: 0, Troll

      ... It's also not as though FedEx might want to avoid the bad publicity of misplacing radioactive rods.

      Not enough to ensure it doesn't happen, since it just did. But please, don't let any actual facts contaminate your theory about the effectiveness of market-based solutions.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    17. Re:FedEx? by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're right, a government organisation (or a government regulated organisation) never lost anything, ever.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    18. Re:FedEx? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Nope they just charge extra.

    19. Re:FedEx? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They ship all that stuff, just costs extra.

    20. Re:FedEx? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which is why all that stuff goes through a special part of fedex which uses fedex ground for much of it.

    21. Re:FedEx? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So?

      You think people open random fedex boxes and eat whatever they find inside?

      It seems if it was sealed/preserved well enough to not rot it was pretty safe.

    22. Re:FedEx? by Tridus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This thread is retarded. There's nothing in this story has to do with big government vs small government, or public vs private.

      Something got screwed up in this instance. In a complex system with high volume and lots of humans involved, that's going to happen. 100% perfection is impossible. It's impossible for government, and it's impossible for corporations.

      What we CAN fix is buffoons who take a totally unrelated story and try to twist it to fit whatever ideology they want to push.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    23. Re:FedEx? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Obviously, transporting the active ingredients for a nuclear warhead or a load of spent fuel-piping hot(thermally and in radiation terms) from a reactor would be a terrible plan; but you underestimate the sheer volume of (relatively small) radioactive sources that need to be routinely transported to keep medicine and industry running. Medical imaging and radiotherapy require a grab-bag of radiation sources, some hot enough that they have to be manufactured within days or weeks of use, and industrial inspection, quality control, disinfection, and sundry other purposes require a good deal more.

      Shipping them without proper packaging, padding, a well-sealed pig, and so forth, would be deeply irresponsible; but the idea of simply pulling that(quite substantial) mass of goods out of the ordinary path of shipping is ludicrous. Unless extremely well secured, a specialized shipping service would be more vulnerable to theft and diversion, as well as more expensive. A heavily secured secondary channel would be an incredibly expensive overreaction to a minor incident.

      As it is, packing it properly and just shipping it like anything else that you really want arriving; but isn't otherwise a big deal, is an excellent compromise between cost, safety, and efficiency...

    24. Re:FedEx? by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, 100%.

      I apologise if this didn't come across in my posts, but my ire was directed entirely at the guy who started banging on about 'market forces' etc based on a parcel company temporarily misplacing a parcel within their own building.

      As you say, shit happens, and the amount of shit that can happen is proportional to the size or the complexity of the system in which happenings can occur. If people can make mistakes, then it follows that collections of people will also make mistakes, whether a corporation, government department, co-op, syndicate or knitting circle. There's no political or ideological argument there.

      Thank you for your sterling contribution and hopeful termination of this stream of mindpiss that unfortunately I allowed myself to be drawn into.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    25. Re:FedEx? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      True enough, it is very unlikely that anything bad would have happened to the box. However, consider that if something bad DID happen, what the consequences would be.

      Talk about a black swan...

    26. Re:FedEx? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but I've had far fewer problems with UPS than either Fed Ex or USPS.

    27. Re:FedEx? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Um, past experiences with unregulated businesses pretty strongly implies that that would be the case. Corporations have a tendency to find the acceptable loss to the end user that maximizes their profits, never mind that people assume, and rightly so that the business is going to be taking things more seriously than that.

      While it's unreasonable to assume that 100% of packages will get where they need to go, that's not the same thing as letting a carrier off the hook for making decisions primarily upon cost efficiency.

    28. Re:FedEx? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No, but the tracking system should tell you where the items went. It's one thing to lose benign easily replaceable items, and quite another to lose radioactive materials. Granted the materials were fairly low grade, but that's still radioactive material that's lost and could be irradiating anybody as we speak.

      Plus, while this stuff is apparently relatively harmless, it is quite useful if you're wanting to scare the crap out of people with a radiation scare.

      I'd hazard a guess that the reason why they have a separate system for it is because the consequences are so much higher than for other packages. Consequently I would assume that they're charging more and paying closer attention.

    29. Re:FedEx? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      "This is why you run a technical interview before hiring or appointing a spokesperson."

      But then again, I don't believe everything I read on the internet, either. This "story" is just another anecdote. For all I know, said "spokesman" actually is the guy who works at Denny's.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    30. Re:FedEx? by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I cannot believe someone thought it was a good idea to FedEx radioactive material. Someone needs to be fired.

      Why would it be wrong to hire a shipping company - in this case, FedEx - which has extensive experience in handling moderately hazardous materials and is properly licensed to do so?

      FedEx Ground will handle Class 7 Radioactive Material I materials (bearing the 'radioactive white I' placards and labels) only; that's the lowest class.

      Material meets the White I threshold if the measured radioactivity at the surface of the shipping package does not exceed 0.5 millirem per hour; most White I packages actually fall far below that level. The legal maximum exposure for civilians in the U.S. is 500 millirem per year, and 'radiation workers' are permitted ten times that. Even if we assume that the package is right at the edge of what's permissible, you would have to strap the box directly to your ass for more than a month to get close to the civilian limit.

      Could one get a higher dose if you opened the package and removed the radioactive material from its inner container(s)? Sure -- but that takes a special kind of stupid. All of the packaging is going to be emblazoned with the 'radiation' trefoil symbol; you've got to assume that even if the package were routed to the wrong destination, the receiver is going to hand it right back to the FedEx guy. (Unless, of course, it's a recipient who regularly handles radioactives, in which case, still no worries.)

      This isn't a case where someone decided to cut corners and put radioactive material in an unmarked box to save a few bucks on shipping. It was properly packaged, properly labelled material, accompanied by all the appropriate paperwork and handed over to an approved, accredited, regulated shipper. Yes, someone at FedEx screwed up, but it looks like their procedures for handling lost packages seem to have worked as they should. This is a non-story which is being blown out of proportion by people who don't understand and can't appropriately weigh the risks of handling radioactive materials. ~~~~

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    31. Re:FedEx? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Doubtful, it would have been as dangerous had it emerged today. Part of the problem was that it was incorrectly believed to be a strain of bacteria rather than a strain of virus. Plus we have much more available in terms of antivirals and a much better understanding of how to keep people safe. The masks probably did more harm than good as they only blocked the influenza virus in airborne spit.

      Additionally, much less of the work that people do requires people to actually leave the home, and we now know that the further away you stand the less likely you are to get infected. Take a look at what happened with the H1N1, if you don't believe me.

    32. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Their total radioactivity is 684 megaBecquerels, the equivalent of about 18 microcuries, said David McIntyre, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

      The rods are among the least significant sources of radioactivity from health and security perspectives, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

      If someone had opened the canister, “it would take like 1,000 hours of exposure to get a skin blister,” Munoz said."

      684 megabecquerels is 18 *milli*curies, not 18 microcuries. Mr. Spokesman is off by a factor of a thousand so either he simply mis-spoke the units, or you maybe only need 1 hour of exposure to get blistered**.

      ** completely ignoring the fact that the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the source. Holding it in your hand results in exposure orders of magnitude greater than simply having it in the back of your delivery truck.

    33. Re:FedEx? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      "2) No delivery service is going to be 100% mistake free. Negative outcomes will happen in life. Get over it." FedEx is notoriously bad. As somebody who deals with UPS and FedEx daily, I feel very comfortable saying that FedEx provides abysmal service when compared to UPS.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    34. Re:FedEx? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I do agree with your arguments. Additionally, if you figure that we're the descendants of the survivors of that plague it stands to reason that we'd have a larger level of genetic resistance against it as well. Who can say for sure though...

    35. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown would have been a much better choice.

      You leave Doc Brown out of this. He shipped pinball machine parts, not plutonium.

    36. Re:FedEx? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      we had to switch from UPS (they are cheaper) to Fedex because of unreliable delivery. When we're constantly shipping packages to customers and 1 in 100 gets lost, that's a big deal.

      It's somewhat telling that UPS doesn't even touch radioactive stuff.

    37. Re:FedEx? by dondelelcaro · · Score: 1

      I cannot believe someone thought it was a good idea to FedEx radioactive material.

      We ship radioactive material via FedEx all the time. It's properly packaged, labeled, and there's nothing particularly exciting about it. In fact, the dry ice that it is packed in is generally considered to be more dangerous than the radioactivity itself. (In this case, I'm talking about 250Ci of 32P ATP, which is laughably small, but I believe you can send milicurie amounts through FedEx when properly packaged.)

      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    38. Re:FedEx? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, nevermind the fact that said spokesperson listed the actual radioactivity in two separate valid units, and only added that last bit for the layperson.

      You're not a people person are you?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    39. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because explosives, corrosives, compressed gasses, etc all have the potential take down a cargo plane if the material explodes, leaks, etc. However, low level radio active materials cannot.

      Stop trying to use logic against the nuclearphobics, it never works.

    40. Re:FedEx? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Negative outcomes will happen in life. Get over it.

      Man you really hit the nail on the head with that one. You've expressed what I see as the major problem with today's world as succinctly as I've ever seen it put before. I should make that my sig.

      Everyone buys into the mainstream media/government scaremongering so badly that they have totally lost perspective of what they are giving up to mitigate what is really a tiny risk - we are so scared of things like terrorism, germs, kids having an accident/getting sick/getting snatched by a nutter that we don't really enjoy life any more.

      </OldManRant>

    41. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, nevermind the fact that said spokesperson listed the actual radioactivity in two separate valid units...

      And in two separate numbers. 684 MBq is equal to 18 mCi (milliCuries), not 18 uCi (microCuries). So one of the figures is wrong by a factor of 1,000.

      (To be fair, it's almost certainly the writers misquoting the spokesman. That's why they are journalists, they'd kill people if they had a real job.)

    42. Re:FedEx? by Christian+Marks · · Score: 1

      What we CAN fix is buffoons who take a totally unrelated story and try to twist it to fit whatever ideology they want to push.

      How do you propose to fix them?

    43. Re:FedEx? by will381796 · · Score: 1

      We return used sealed sources to the manufacturer for our equipment ~ every 6 months. It's completely normal, appropriate and LEGAL to utilize Fedex to ship radioactive materials (RAM) so long as you comply with all DOT regulations. Assuming that these were used sealed sources being returned to manufacturer, they were most likely fairly well decayed and probably being shipped either as a Class I or in excepted packaging. And as they're SEALED SOURCES, there's no risk of contamination unless someone intercepted it to blow it up for various nefarious purposes. You used to be able to ship via UPS and DHL but they pulled out of the hazardous material shipment business. RAM isn't the only hazardous material moving through fedex's shipment facilities. You have corrosives, flammables and biological specimens being shipped via Fedex all over the country and the world. So don't let a little bit of radioactivity scare you. There's a lot more dangerous stuff that can kill you a lot sooner than some sealed sources if you're gonna get all in a huff about using Fedex.

    44. Re:FedEx? by will381796 · · Score: 1

      Um...actually they're the ONLY ones in the US that ship RAM. UPS and DHL no longer do it. But Fedex does ship explosives, corrosives, compressed gasses, biological specimens and toxins, etc.

    45. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,we can't fix that; haven't you been watching this retarded thread, and the dozens like it on /. every day?

    46. Re:FedEx? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      erm, not quite. The link you pointed to is for the Custom Critical services, which is a separate division from FedEx Ground and FedEx Express. FedEx Express also accepts "dangerous goods". Certain classes of DG is loaded into special containers and placed in a crew accessible position and hooked up to a fire extinguisher in case of in-flight fire. Radioactives are generally loaded further aft in the load to protect the crew from errant radiation. there are limits on the amount of Radioactive material, the classes of radiactive material (IIRC: class 1 1.0 rads), and total flight rad load. So, radioactive shipments are sorta kept separate from the regular sorting process (these are considered to be non-conveyable and are hand sorted and then moved to the flight area where they can be processed by the line DG agent or a Ramp Agent and loaded into a container containing regular freight. Once it's at the destination, a courier will deliver the package as normal, but with some consideration for time/distance from the driver's seat.

      (I was a memphis ramp agent/dg specialist for ~8 years)

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    47. Re:FedEx? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Also, the overwhelming majority of our radioactive shipments were radioactive medicines. If a package misses sort, FedEx will actually charter a flight to ship rads out at times, that's how important the rads are. They usually have a very short lifespan and a delay of a day means the medicine is worthless). I hated to see rads left behind because someone's life could be depending on that medicine. Same with organs, etc. I can't speak for the other ramp agents/DG specialists, but I took it as a point of pride to get this stuff out.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    48. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/SPA_App/OfferDocuments/SP7060_2006060413.pdf
      It goes air, I see it all the time at work (material handler for fedex express)

    49. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point is you're stupid to think that it's somehow strange that someone would ship radioactive material through FedEx.

    50. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure he can understand what you just said? It's a pretty long sentence ;).

    51. Re:FedEx? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      1 in 100? You sure? That's terrible.

      Maybe should outsource to a bunch of Indians:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabbawala#Supply_Chain
      http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-24-2002-20997.asp

      "Forbes awarded the humble dabba-wallahs a 6 Sigma performance rating, a term used in quality assurance if the percentage of correctness is 99.9999999 or more. In other words, for every six million tiffins delivered, only one fails to arrive. This error rate means in effect that a tiffin goes astray only once every two months."

      That said, Forbes' percentage of correctness isn't that high, so they might have got that wrong ;).

      --
    52. Re:FedEx? by Confusador · · Score: 1

      We can fix that? We're going to be billionaires!

    53. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-buffoon fascist!

    54. Re:FedEx? by v1 · · Score: 1

      Looks like they do "White Glove" service for radioactive materials.

      With a name like that it's hard to imagine them losing something they're "white-gloving"

      TFA: FedEx Custom Critical White Glove Services feature specially trained drivers and specialty equipment for the safe transport of your most sensitive shipments. These services include a full range of temperature-control offerings as well as a complete suite of Secure Transportation Solutions.

      Sounds like total FAIL on their part. They claim to have this under control?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    55. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.
      This article and the summary is exaggerated. I used to work as an export officer at an airport. Such materials are transported by passenger and cargo planes every single day. Cancer patients need them and the materials don't stay radioactive for too long, so expediting them on a "must go" basis is mandatory.
      Such radioactive materials and other more hazardous substances are classified as Dangerous Goods. IATA has thick manuals and examinations to allow people to handle them. All dangerous goods are properly labelled and easy to identify. You can see the same signs on oil trucks transporting oil for the nearest gas station.
      Here's a small link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_goods
      Class 7 is what you're looking for.

    56. Re:FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're incorrect on both points.
      The only companies that do not transport dangerous goods (radioactive goods being just part of a wide range of products) are the companies operating charter flights, simply because they do not always follow well established schedules and are difficult to schedule the cargo for them or they simply don't bother with getting a license to transport such goods. Most passenger flights carry radioactive materials. Those materials are well shielded, handled according to IATA regulations and the people who handle them have undergo training and continuous certification. And of course, they pose no thread to passengers.

      Airline companies have to obey regulation. It does not matter if it is Fedex or some other company. For serious mistakes involving dangerous goods, the airline company may lose its right to transport such goods. Certain dangerous goods may not be loaded onto passenger flights. The captain of the plane must also be aware exactly what cargo is he transporting.

      The problem here is that Fedex is suddenly in tight shoes, they have lost a package that is usually handled with great care. Quite embarrassing :)

    57. Re:FedEx? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The article implies though it doesn't explicitly state that the package was sent via a normal fedex service rtather than one of thier special ones. There isn't much a carrier can do if an idiot sends something by an unsutiable service and fails to make them aware of the packages true contents until after the package is lost!

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    58. Re:FedEx? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      How long to sprout banjos?

  4. Well I wouldn't know anything about that... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    But I did get this box of great door props the other day from Fedex.

    Just jammed the rod right under the door at the office, works like a charm.

    1. Re:Well I wouldn't know anything about that... by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      idiot.

      those are toothpick-blanks. whittle one down and get to work!

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  5. contradiction much .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA clearly states that the rods were located and its radioactive container was not opened.

    "The rods were incased in a metal container called a "pig" that contains their radiation. Munoz said when they were recovered at the Knoxville station Friday no one had opened that casing."

    "Everything's fine, the pig itself was not opened, and we're making arrangements to deliver it to the recipient," Munoz said.

    1. Re:contradiction much .. by pickens · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually at the time this story was submitted to Slashdot and posted to the front page, the rods had not been located.

      The story was updated after the rods were found but Fox didn't mention that they had changed the story, given the story a different headline, and kept the whole story at the same URL. Normally when a story changed this substantially, the news organization publishes a new story, or at least notes that the story has been updated or corrected.

      Here is the cached version of the story and the headline at the time it was submitted as a story to Slashdot.

      http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=radioactive+rods+fox+news&d=1094018597270&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=d977f9e4,d2527ef2

      FedEx Searching for Radioactive Shipment That Vanished Between N.D. and Tenn.

  6. not shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big surprise... lost in Tennessee. As a TN resident i can say that not only FedEx but UPS and the USPS havent a clue here

    1. Re:not shocked by hawguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a former resident of Memphis who knew a number of Fedex employees there at the Fedex corporate office, there are a number of very bright Fedex employes in tennessee, and even the delivery drivers claim that they have greater oversight there since they are so close to the main office.

      A single misplaced package doesn't imply incompetence given the millions of packages delivered daily. I've sent hundreds of packages (including when I lived in TN) through Fedex and only had one get completely lost. I've had a similar experience with UPS.

    2. Re:not shocked by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Tennessee is one of those places where the best and brightest and most educated will relocate to? Or one of the places where the smartest and most capable people tend to stay?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:not shocked by wwphx · · Score: 1

      I will not use FedEx if I can avoid them. I had my laptop shipped off for repairs, paid through the nose to get it back promptly, and they won't deliver up my mountain from El Paso when it's snowing. And they won't give their driver's chains because "they're dangerous". This is from the location manager's mouth. UPS will, I've seen a UPS truck back down my road to deliver my meds. My worst possible case is I can pick up my package from the UPS depot at the nearest town 20 miles away. I couldn't even get FedEx to call me when their driver was in that town for me to pick it up.

      I could have driven to Phoenix (500 miles one-way), gotten the laptop repaired, and driven back and saved both time and money.

      Never again. Now whenever I order anything, I ask them what carrier they use and tell them to use UPS or USPS.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  7. Radioactive? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    Man, I thought it was bad when the Canada Post delivery guy was stealing my review copies of video games from Activision.

  8. Bad summary by seifried · · Score: 1

    The article linked actually says they already found them. What is with these craptastic and sensationalist titles today?

    1. Re:Bad summary by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      The article linked actually says they already found them. What is with these craptastic and sensationalist titles today?

      Have you considered the slight possibility that when this story was submitted to /. the rods were missing, and have been found (and TFA updated) since?

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    2. Re:Bad summary by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Yes but its an editor's job to review that kind of thing before putting it on the front page - or at least appending an update to the bottom of the article (as they sometimes do for bigger stories)

    3. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered the slight possibility that when this story was submitted to /. the rods were missing, and have been found (and TFA updated) since?

      It's impressive enough he read the article once.

    4. Re:Bad summary by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      Yes but its an editor's job to review that kind of thing before putting it on the front page - or at least appending an update to the bottom of the article (as they sometimes do for bigger stories)

      Slashdot has editors?

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    5. Re:Bad summary by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      He MUST be new here.

    6. Re:Bad summary by jc42 · · Score: 1

      More to the point: Fox News has editors? ;-)

      If you'd glanced at the link in the summary, you might have noticed the .foxnews.com domain. And they did their usual trick of updating the story in place, even after the story had significantly changed by the discovery of the missing package, and not giving readers a clue that a major change had taken place.

      (And, no, Fox isn't nearly the only online news source that this this sort of thing. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    7. Re:Bad summary by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      In a truly shocking development on here, I did actually read TFA ;)

      As an 'other side of the political spectrum' example, BBC online news regularly update stories in place too. As Tom Jones says, "It's not unusual.." :)

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    8. Re:Bad summary by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah; it's taking a while for the field of journalism to establish standards for such things. Updating in place wasn't possible with earlier kinds of publication, but it's easy enough with computerized reporting.

      With all the criticisms of the /. editors, this is something that they usually seem to get right. The usual practice here is to label updates as such, and include the time. Maybe eventually this will be standard practice with the mass media, too.

      Or not. So far, the indications haven't been encouraging. It is normal for people who found they made a mistake to try to cover it up, and with online news, all it takes is a bit of editing (and hoping that not too many people have saved a copy of your earlier version ;-).

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    9. Re:Bad summary by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you think, but I find that the attitude of a news source to updating-in-place depends on their background. A newspaper-owned site will usually have a mindset of an article being 'published' and then staying the same (like a printed newspaper); whereas a broadcaster's site will often consider the news to be an ever-evolving narrative, and see nothing wrong with altering a web article to reflect later developments.

      Personally, considering that web news is text based and archivable, I would consider a newspaper to be the nearest offline cousin and would rather that web news was persistent as a historical record. The idea of articles changing silently seems a little Orwellian to me. It can be very useful to know what the news was, even if it later transpired to be wrong.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    10. Re:Bad summary by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I would consider a newspaper to be the nearest offline cousin and would rather that web news was persistent as a historical record. The idea of articles changing silently seems a little Orwellian to me. It can be very useful to know what the news was, even if it later transpired to be wrong.

      I think you've pinpointed the main point of the issue. Changing a "news" report as the info comes in may make sense if you're thinking only of the present. But it discards the historical value of the reporting. A record that shows who knew what when is much more useful, after the fact, than just a statement of what we (thought we) knew when it was all over.

      In this particular story, all we're left with is "FedEx lost a package containing radioactive medical material, and then found it". If that's the only record left of the story, it's of little value. Delivery services lose track of packages all the time, and then find them. That used to be the norm, of course. Before it became possible to track packages and communicate in real time with the delivery people, it's what always happened. You'd put a package on a truck or train or airplane, it would leave, and until it arrived somewhere, you didn't actually know where it was.

      But in this case, if there's an investigation, you can be sure that they'll want records that show the documented progress of the delivery. Without that, you can't figure out what went wrong, and you can't easily modify your procedures to decrease the likelihood of it happening again.

      Even if you don't care about that, I'd think that a "news" organization should recognize that a lot of their audience is interested in the progress of the news. Otherwise, for an extreme example, we wouldn't need to report on a sports event (or a war). We'd just wait until it was over, and report who won. But that would hardly satisfy the large part of the audience who wants to know how it all happened.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  9. FedEx Flat-Rate RADShip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it glows, it goes.

  10. I can only imagine... by airfoobar · · Score: 1

    FedEx CEO gets called in the middle of the night.
    "Yeah, uh, boss..."
    "*Yawn* Just spit it out, man."
    "It's about the rods, sir."
    "The rods?"
    "The radioactive rods, sir."
    "What %$^&ing idiot would send radioactive rods through FedEx, anyway? So, what about the radioactive rods?"
    "S-sir... We lost them, sir."
    "%$^&."

    1. Re:I can only imagine... by Higaran · · Score: 1

      I bet that there is going to put some disclamer on fedex boxes, and shipping labels and stuff, in BIG letters that they do not accept anything radioactive.

    2. Re:I can only imagine... by hawguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They already have a procedure for accepting radioactive goods, why would they change that because of a single temporarily misplaced package? It's not like this is the first radioactive package they've hauled, and I'm sure it's not the first that they've misplaced.

  11. Rods recovered, not opened by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to TFA the rods have now been recovered, unopened at a FedEx facility in Knoxville. Panic over.

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  12. 'humor' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    How is this funny? Does it amuse you? Funny how? How the fuck is this funny?

    1. Re:'humor' tag by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Holy outrage, Batman! Different people are amused by different things. Sometimes they're amused by something that offends you.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:'humor' tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely missing the Goodfellas reference.

  13. Media Mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always ship my radioactive rods Media Mail to save $$$$$...

  14. Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a non-story. FedEx actually handles a LOT of radio-active material and the only people at any level of risk are the crew on long flights. Quit whining, grow a pair of testicles, and realize that just because it's "radioactive" doesn't mean the world is going to end if someone looks at it wrong. Oh, and learn how to package your shipments properly so that the address and airway bill don't fall off. Then you won't have to get yelled at by your boss and then shuffle the blame onto the delivery company.

    There are some incompetent fools in this story (and not just the editors!), but they don't work at FedEx.

    1. Re:Fools by Beerdood · · Score: 1

      Quit whining, grow a pair of testicles, and realize that just because it's "radioactive" doesn't mean the world is going to end if someone looks at it wrong.

      Well, I had a working pair of testicles before but I suspected something was wrong with them when I got scared and read this story and your quote. So I went to the doctor, and got them checked to make sure they were functioning. He said they were working fine, but unfortunately he used a medical device with some radioactive material for the testing, and now they won't work :(

      --
      Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
  15. Horrible article by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 1

    This is supposed to be "News for Nerds" - so why link to a Fox News article with almost no technical information whatsoever? For example: what nuclide was involved? How high was the activity?
    After some searching on Google News, I found this article. Apparently, it was 684 MBq of Germanium (which should mean it's 76Ge). Unfortunately, that isotope is not in any of my data sheets, so I can't tell you what that means in terms of dose rate...

    1. Re:Horrible article by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently, it was 684 MBq of Germanium (which should mean it's 76Ge). Unfortunately, that isotope is not in any of my data sheets, so I can't tell you what that means in terms of dose rate...

      Correction: it was 68Ge. As I stated, I couldn't find it in my data sheets, so I just looked at a list of germanium isotopes - which only listed naturally occurring ones. Silly me!

      I do however have data for the next step in the decay chain, 68Ga (68Ge decays by electron capture, so let's just disregard that first decay). The first sheet I found put it at 0.103 mSv/h/MBq beta skin dose and 0.173 mSv/h/MBq gamma at 30 cm. At 684 MBq, that means a dose rate of about 70 and 120 mSv/h at 30 cm, respectively.
      So no, these sources weren't particularly dangerous. Even at that close a distance (if you don't speak metric, 30 cm is about a foot), it would take half a day of exposure to become acutely ill (radiation sickness starts setting in at around 1 Sv). And as radiation sources don't tend to be that big, you can probably consider these rods point sources, which means that the inverse square law applies: at double the distance - only 60 cm - it would take four times as long.

    2. Re:Horrible article by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Yep - most likely fuel for a Gallium-68 generator, which is used as a positron source for calibrating PET scanners (article says "CT scanner" but meh, details - it's lost nucular stuff!)

    3. Re:Horrible article by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      This is supposed to be "News for Nerds" - so why link to a Fox News article with almost no technical information whatsoever?

      Because slashdot editors just don't give a damn anymore.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Horrible article by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      But compare it to the radiation dose the TSA considers harmless from their back scatter system. That might tell us something.
      And true the news does not know how to report and follow up on these very common transports of short lived isotopes.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    5. Re:Horrible article by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >it would take half a day of exposure to become acutely ill

      Of course you're trying to reassure people, but the very people you're trying to reach will find this information as more reason to panic.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  16. FedEx insanity by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

    Just last week we shipped some laptops from one work location to another, and had to go through the process of getting proper package labeling due to the lithium ion batteries being contained inside. After getting everything labeled per their regulations, FedEx rejected and returned the shipment because there were two parentheses missing in the shipping label text. We added the two parentheses and it shipped fine.

    1. Re:FedEx insanity by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Just last week we shipped some laptops from one work location to another, and had to go through the process of getting proper package labeling due to the lithium ion batteries being contained inside. After getting everything labeled per their regulations, FedEx rejected and returned the shipment because there were two parentheses missing in the shipping label text. We added the two parentheses and it shipped fine.

      What's wrong with that? They're parentheses for God's sake! They're important.

      Don't you know anything about programming?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:FedEx insanity by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you know anything about programming?

      I was talking about shipping packages, not programming. Don't you know anything about marsupials? :^P

  17. What a Dick! by Simonetta · · Score: 2, Funny

    " 'Medical devices should not be FedExed. They should be sent under a special service,' adds Siegel."

        What a chickensh*t dick! He wants us to pay a HUGE price supplement for any shipment of anything marked 'medical equipment'. After all, he's not paying for it.

        So instead of a shipment of a case of wooden tongue depressers being sent for $25 it will cost $350 because it is marked 'medical equipment'. You know this will happen.

        If something is delicate or harmful_if_opened then just F*CKING mark it so when shipped. It doesn't matter if it's nuclear fuel rods or one-drop-kills-the-whole-block snake venom or whatever. Give it a 'special' tracking number. Mark the package in bright orange stickers written in English and Spanish "Don't open this package, nitwit! because you could die and take out the people around you also." Make sure that you don't lose it. You are a global shipping company: you're supposed to know what you're doing.

        Warn people about the consequences about being stupid, and, having warned them, refuse to accept any responsibility for the bad things that happen when people ignore your warning.

        By the way, if something is labeled -Dangerous!- -Hazard!- -Caution!- don't tell me that you're not to blame for messing with it because the label was in English and you only speak Spanish or whatever. Learn a few English words like 'caution' 'danger' 'warning'. It will serve you better than learning words like 'pussy' or 'Burger King'.

    1. Re:What a Dick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Fedex is the only carrier I would trust to ship dangerous goods, simply because they don't play football with packages and their drivers are really careful. UPS would gladly break open a package marked "Dangerous Goods" if it meant they could save a few cents.

      FedEx and UPS both occasionally lose packages. When they do it it's smarter to let them know and make a claim.

      Caution! Dangerous Chemicals!

      Cuidado! Caramelo que es delicioso!

    2. Re:What a Dick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If something is delicate or harmful_if_opened then just F*CKING mark it so when shipped. It doesn't matter if it's nuclear fuel rods or one-drop-kills-the-whole-block snake venom or whatever. Give it a 'special' tracking number. Mark the package in bright orange stickers written in English and Spanish "Don't open this package, nitwit! because you could die and take out the people around you also." Make sure that you don't lose it. You are a global shipping company: you're supposed to know what you're doing.

      I'm not sure if you're aware, but having done some work at the local FedEx facility, the people on the shipping floor make around $8/hour with no benefits. Believe that anything small enough that seems like it might be valuable is making its way into somebody's pants for an attempt at being snuck out of the building.

    3. Re:What a Dick! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Man are you naive. Boxes marked like that would be the very first to be 'lost'. It's like having a big sign that says "STEAL ME!".

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:What a Dick! by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Sorry dude, I have to disagree.

      Radioactive material is allowed to be shipped by plane and special precautions are usually required. FedEx is right to bitch here. They have violated quite a few regs by inadvertently moving a radioactive package by air.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:What a Dick! by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Agree but for one thing. He's so stupid he doesn't realize he IS paying for it......or would be next time he gets medical care of any kind, or pays an insurance bill.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    6. Re:What a Dick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely ridiculous, you're right. We ship medical devices, or spare parts for them all the time by couriers. The problem is that a lot of people, like Siegel, work in a field and forget that although they work with medical devices, the entire class of such things is significantly larger than their little corner.

      Most medical devices are not dangerous if you only open the box, and most are not as sensitive to shipping constraints as radio-isotopes.

      Imagine that a customer's life-saving medical device is down because of a broken part - you've got to get it there, or even ship an entire new device. If it's in a slightly more remote area, you won't get a special service to deliver it, you rely on courier services because they can get it there quickly, and 99% of the time it gets there, gets there on time and doesn't arrive broken.

    7. Re:What a Dick! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Given that the radioactive source was packaged in a sealed pig, a totally boring, mainstream service is probably actually the safest way to ship it.

      Unless you want every single medical/industrial radioactive source(it isn't talked about much; but this is a lot of hardware, those things have all kinds of uses) to travel under military guard, the low-profile option of just slapping the source inside a suitable container and fedexing it as though it were just another boring package is probably a great deal more theft/diversion resistant than is splashing "zOMG RADIATION!!!!!" on it in day-glo orange and sending it by some special courier service.

    8. Re:What a Dick! by camperslo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're aware, but having done some work at the local FedEx facility, the people on the shipping floor make around $8/hour with no benefits.

      More pay and strict discipline are in order.

      Spare the rod, spoil the child

    9. Re:What a Dick! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Most medical devices are not dangerous if you only open the box, and most are not as sensitive to shipping constraints as radio-isotopes.

            I don't know, my thermal transfer paper for my EKG gives people heart attacks and rhythm problems all the time... and all I have to do is push a button. Dangerous stuff, man, keep away from it.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:What a Dick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do fire the bottom rung workers who get caught stealing, but it's still a common occurance despite poor man's TSA like security leaving the building.

    11. Re:What a Dick! by m50d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyone who stuffs radioactive rods in their pants is gonna get what they deserve without any need for the judicial system.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:What a Dick! by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      At least UPS will still get it to the door, if maimed. If you're lucky, FedEx will deign to leave you a note saying you can get the package at the depot later that evening. If you're not, they'll think about dropping a note out the window as they drive by. You're sure as hell not going to get a package from them, though!

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    13. Re:What a Dick! by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      See I have the reverse problem. UPS I have given up and just ship it to their warehouse in the first place... They won't leave it at an apartment. FedEx on the other hand, dropped off my $150 shipment on black friday, and I won't be back until monday. Hope no one steals the shit off my porch in 3 days! Luckily I live in a small town, so stealing isn't much of a problem, but seriously, no signature required?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    14. Re:What a Dick! by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      "Signature required" seems to be up to the shipper, not the shipping service.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  18. Labels by denshao2 · · Score: 1

    I'm assuming that the contents should be labeled as radioactive, and that should eliminate the problem of an unsuspecting person getting a large dose of radiation from playing with the contents of the box.

  19. Fox News Changed the Story at the Original URL by pickens · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually at the time this story was submitted, the rods had not been located.

    The story was updated on the Fox News Site after the rods were found but they kept the original URL.

    Here is the cached version of the story at the time it was submitted as a story to Slashdot.

    http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=radioactive+rods+fox+news&d=1094018597270&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=d977f9e4,d2527ef2

    FedEx Searching for Radioactive Shipment That Vanished Between N.D. and Tenn.

    By Diane Macedo

    Published November 26, 2010

    | FoxNews.com

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. - FedEx reports that a shipment of radioactive rods used in medical equipment has vanished while being sent from North Dakota to Tennessee.

    FedEx spokeswoman Sandra Munoz says the rods, which are used for quality control in CT scans, were being returned to their manufacturer in Knoxville, Tenn., from a hospital in Fargo, N.D. Three shipments left the hospital earlier this week, but only two arrived at their destination.

    "We're looking for that third one," Munoz told FoxNews.com.

    Based on tracking information, FedEx is focusing its search in the Tennessee area, Munoz said, but as a normal precaution the company alerted all of its stations "in the event that it got way late and went to another station by accident."

    The rods are incased in a metal container called a pig that Munoz says is roughly 10 inches tall and weighs about 20 pounds.

    "As long as people do not try to open the metal container they will not be exposed to any remaining radiation," she said.

    But Fox News Medical Contributor Dr. Marc Siegel says if someone does open the container it could pose some serious health risks.

    "I don't believe it has the degree of radiation that, if it were opened, your skin would suddenly slop off. But the concern would be, if this got opened inadvertently and someone didn't know what it was and then was repeatedly exposed to it over several days, it could cause a problem with radiation poisoning," Siegel said. "The people that use this equipment in a hospital use protective shielding with it."

    The lesson here, he says, is that active medical material must always be transported in a way that ensures that the general public cannot get access to it.

    "Medical devices should not be FedEx'ed. They should be sent under a special service," Siegel said. "There are courier services and several other ways to do that without getting into the general pool. I think that was a mistake that's not generally the way medical supplies are sent.

    "If FedEx wants to be involved in transporting medical materials, it should be completely separate and with all kinds of checks and balances so this can't happen," he added.

    Munoz says FedEx follows a series of regulations when transporting objects like the rods in this shipment. This was no exception.

    "There are regulations on how this type of equipment has to be packaged, the quantities that can be shipped, and we were all within the regulatory requirements," she said.

    1. Re:Fox News Changed the Story at the Original URL by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      ... the company alerted all of its stations "in the event that it got way late and went to another station by accident."

      The rods are incased in a metal container ... ...your skin would suddenly slop off. ... ... must always be transported in a way that ensures that the general public cannot get access to it.

      Okay, who did the frigging editing on this article?

      It's not "way late", it's "waylaid"...which can, in some cases, make things 'way late', but that's not the point...
      Things cannot be "incased", only "encased"...
      Since when does radiation cause skin to "slop" off? Slough off, perhaps...

      With all this, it's a minor miracle that they actually used the right spelling for "ensures"...

      Seriously, doesn't anybody proof-read articles before sending them out any more? I'm not usually a spelling/grammar nazi, but sloppiness like this just chaps my ass...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    2. Re:Fox News Changed the Story at the Original URL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, who did the frigging editing on this article?

      Relax, it's Fox News! They probably get more letters from their ignorant readerbase when they use correct spelling and grammar than they do when they don't. ("Hey y'alls misspellded 'slop off' in your website story.")

    3. Re:Fox News Changed the Story at the Original URL by rootmonkey · · Score: 1

      I know you are just posting a quote, but for the record CT scanners are not calibrated with these radioactive pins, PET scanners are.

      --

      Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
    4. Re:Fox News Changed the Story at the Original URL by FlightTest · · Score: 1

      While it's amusing to poke fun at fox, have you ever seen the AIAA daily briefing? The grammar is horrible, double words or missing words are common, and usually about once a week they get "their" and "there" wrong. And this is from a supposedly professional organization. Somehow proper English and grammar has become the exception rather than the rule.

      And yes, I'm sure there's something wrong with my post as well, however I don't hold myself out to be a professional news or technical organization.

      --
      Merde, il pleut encore!
  20. Oooopps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I know where the are - the TSA just found them in Taco's anus!

    1. Re:Oooopps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You're thinking of intimate carbon rods, but they don't belong in tacos.

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

      You may be joking, but based on what I've read here on slashdot, it might be the truth. What is your source?

  21. Radioactive is useless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A lantern mantle is slightly radioactive as well, but nobody is terribly concerned when they're lost in shipping. The question becomes "how radioactive?".

    The article references some Fox News paid commentator who's an internist, not a radiologists or CT scan technician who said "I don't believe it has the degree of radiation that, if it were opened, your skin would suddenly slop off". But then goes on to speculate about the potential for radiation poisoning. Given his qualifications and degree of confidence, it would be foolish to draw any conclusions about the safety of shipping these things via FedEx.

  22. count on it by swschrad · · Score: 4, Informative

    I had a nuclear scan scheduled for a week after the 9/11 attack. I suddenly started getting one or two calls a day from the medical center... it's off, it might be a week out, it might be two weeks out, we don't know... hey, come in your scheduled time, we just got a trickle of material, and we can do 8 or 9 tests.

    the issue is, of course, the planes weren't flying. the special courier services weren't allowed to operate. the FedEx and UPS planes weren't allowed to operate. it's too far to drive the material. they finally found two containers of material at a distributor ten miles away that was to go out of activity tolerance in a day and a half.

    a shipping container for, let's say for the sake of not spilling the beans, under a dozen doses, has three layers of radioactive protection. there are two layers of spillproof/shatterproof for both the short-lived nucleotide and the source that creates it from another short-lived nucleotide.

    so, just as drunken truck drivers can move classified "special weaponry" across the country routinely, as we read earlier this week, certain amounts of radiostuff packed to standard X can be shipped per courier flight. not enough to wipe out a city, a little more than you are allowed without a higher-tier inspection system.

    but do be advised it's not good stuff to keep around as a curiousity.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:count on it by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Not truck drivers, sir - federal agents. "Federal agents hired to transport nuclear weapons and components sometimes got drunk while on convoy missions, a government watchdog said Monday." And it's not as bad as it sounds. They were hitting the bars once the work day was done. Maybe it would've ben better had they gone to bed, but they weren't tooling down the road with a load of nukes, pounding Four Lokos, or something.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    2. Re:count on it by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      so, just as drunken truck drivers can move classified "special weaponry" across the country routinely, as we read earlier this week

      You know, it's incidents like this that make me think the people are going to be clamoring for Skynet to exist, initially to make the roads safer so their packages get to their destination (self-driving 18-wheelers), then of course with automated machinery comes military uses, and we're done.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  23. Slashdot isn't the only one with editing problems by TagPopper · · Score: 1
    From the article

    The rods were incased in a metal container called a "pig" that contains their radiation.

    Emphasis addeded. I suppose they do that en case the package falls into the hands of innocent children?

  24. FedEx does require special labels and/or packaging by ysth · · Score: 1

    A superficial google search reveals that FedEx requires special labeling for all radioactive materials and special packaging for some. But I'm sure they thank slashdotters for the suggestion.

  25. smartpost? by bhcompy · · Score: 1

    Did they sent it Smartpost? That's the best way to lose a package. From Dallas to Chicago to Los Angeles to San Francisco to Ogden to Los Angeles to San Diego to Los Angeles and out for delivery. Maybe.

  26. I like Fedex for things like this by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    Because it's very rare for them to lose anything -- the boxes get there and still have the corners intact, unlike UPS (I don't have stock in either company, but my own company ships and is shipped to a lot, fedex creams ups, pure and simple). Since we weren't told what it was, maybe it was nothing hotter than a lamp mantle (the old kind, the new ones aren't radioactive at all). Surely it wasn't a therapeutic amount of Co60 or something, or the pig would have been hundreds of pounds to stop the hot gammas. You know how that is -- OMG, it's radioactive! -- probably about 1/10th as much as the face of an old big ben clock (which actually can make you sick, eventually) or a few smoke detectors. In other words, as some one who works with radioactive stuff, without a lot more info, there's nothing to see here, move on.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  27. Break Moments in De-evolution by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

    The real problem is illustrated by all the videos of teenagers whacking each other with fluorescent bulbs across the back, till they bleed of shattered glass, just so that they can get featured on Break.com. Clearly radioactive rods are next.

  28. Simple solution. by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

    Just fill the medical kits at all of the stations with Rad-X and Rad-away and you're golden.

  29. Nuclear Health Risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think anyone really gives a damn about nuclear health risks. If they did, this would have caused an uproar:
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n10_v62/ai_21200692/

    When I first read this, I thought it was bunk. Then I started checking and found that a real business was developing for nuclear scanners in the steel industry. Radioactive scrap metal is so pervasive that large companies buying castings routinely scan the castings that they buy.

    You may not get a high dose from a short exposure, but would you want the sleep on a bed made from this stuff? When we sell it to China, it can come back in any form.

     

  30. I am the Grand Prince of Nigeria ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... some dumbasses from FedEx delivered me radioactive rods, instead of blood diamonds. The Princess was not amused, and said that a necklace of radioactive rods would not get her a place on Dancing with the Stars!

    The royal physician snooped around with his Geiger counter, before screaming "Holy fucking shit! Jesus fucking Christ!" He then proceeded to get his hairy ass out of the Royal Quarters.

    If anyone is interested in buying radioactive bars, please send me your bank account IDs, passwords, and anything else that you shouldn't send to strangers.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:I am the Grand Prince of Nigeria ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.poeghostal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/homer_2.jpg

      Why is Corey Hart's Pacman ghost sitting on Homer's head?

  31. not drunk drivers by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    so, just as drunken truck drivers can move classified "special weaponry" across the country routinely, as we read earlier this week,

    The agents in question were never driving drunk, with or without the nuclear materials. There were two incidents (in the agency's entire history, reportedly) where *some* agents got completely hammered and the cops were called on them. They were not drunk while transporting the materials.

  32. Why not ship FedEx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most major shipping outfits provide special services for hazardous materials as well as temperature sensitive items.

  33. This could be quite more serious by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    As anyone searching for "Goiania 1986 Cesium" can note, one of the more serious radioactive accidents ever to take place in the World was due to Cesium used for medical purposes from an X-ray machine

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
    1. Re:This could be quite more serious by will381796 · · Score: 1

      Um..".x-ray machines" don't use cesium. X-rays in an x-ray machine are created by applying an electrical current across an x-ray tube. No radioactive materials required. Most likely, based upon how what this article described, this was a Gadolinium or a Germanium sources.

    2. Re:This could be quite more serious by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

      The accidentein Goiania was cesium 137 - and it was quite real. It happened in my contry and made the headlines for about 2 months while great parts of the city were closed for search of contaminated people.

      It may be it was not an simple x-ray machinne - possibliy it as some other equipment - but medical equipment nonetheless. (And rememebr we are talinmg of a machinne out of use by 1986 here).

      --
      -><- no .sig is good sig.
    3. Re:This could be quite more serious by will381796 · · Score: 1

      It was probably an old irradiator used to treat cancer.

  34. Pernicious nonsense! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Ra-di-a-tion! Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  35. I've got ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... this shipment of metal rods that seem always to be warm. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what happened to the inflatable sex doll I ordered.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Better than UPS by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've sent hazardous materials, some radioactive via a variety of carriers. LET ME TELL YOU that FedEx is much worse. They go blabbing all over the news making an embarrassing lot of fuss and generally alarming the public when they lose something like this. UPS however they just don't care. Lose a pound of plutonium, no big deal, happens all the time just fill in the insurance claim and go on your way and we certainly won't tell anyone.

    So yes it is not sensible at all to use FedEx for these sorts of things. Way too much hassle.

    1. Re:Better than UPS by will381796 · · Score: 2, Informative

      UPS doesn't accept radioactive materials. Neither does DHL.

    2. Re:Better than UPS by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but UPS will cheerfully accept 5 gallon plastic containers of concentrated neurotoxins.

      And lose them.

  37. Rectal probing delayed, for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Neapolitano was about to recommend a through rectal probing of all the air passengers in the mid-west, searching for the hidden rod!

  38. here's where they should look... by doug141 · · Score: 1

    On their answering machine. True story... an acquaintance once received a package that was large, and low density, filled with a lot of foam peanuts. There were scuff marks on the top of the package, and the single layer of tape down the seam on top was not stuck to the cardboard. The package contained not only HIS goods, but also a much smaller package of heavy machine parts... FROM someone else, TO someone else. The smaller package had clearly fallen onto his, and had enough momentum to open the flap and fall inside, and the flap then sprang back. He called the courier, but they never got back to him.

  39. Spiderman by ieatcookies · · Score: 1

    Fedex; creating superheros since 1948.

  40. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no shit Sherlock.

  41. Shipping pigs via Memphis? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Probably somebody planned to BBQ them...

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  42. always cutting corners by proudhawk · · Score: 1

    well,
    yet another example of companies and individuals trying to maximize their profit margins, usually at the expense of safety. it used to be that such materials were transported only by U.S.N.R.C. couriers. I guess that some manufacturers figured they'd save a few dollars in shipping. now we have a possible radiation hazard loose on the general public. at least they haven't started with dangerous biologics yet (or have they?).

    --
    Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
  43. old news by gzuckier · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, I see something like that on the intro to the Simpsons every week.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  44. Missing FedX radioactive package NBD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, exactly, is or was the big deal? Considering the huge number of shipments of radioactive medical and other material, I’m sure this isn’t the first time such a shipment by FedX or any other carrier that handles these has gone missing for awhile or permanently. One of my law professors at Vanderbilt in Nashville, not far from the AEC’s Oak Ridge facility at that time, surveyed various carriers about shipping various radioactive products. This was before FedX and UPS. Some said they would call the FBI if anything radioactive were shipped, no matter what it was. Some said “It’s a package, ain’t it?” I worked temporarily in the Dallas post office many years ago. We handled shipments of all kinds of medical things, including radioactive materials and whole blood in glass containers. I remember that well because, in the middle of the Christmas rush, one sack came in with a lot of post cards, an aircraft wheel assembly and tire, some medical equipment that could have been anything, and one smashed glass container of human blood which covered all of the rest of the contents. I didn’t have to deal with that mess but had to wonder what idiot put a glass container of blood and an aircraft tire and wheel assembly, etc., in the same nylon airmail bag. At a time when watches were very expensive, another sack arrived with a shipment from which the watches had been removed leaving only the boxes. Anybody properly trained to handle the radioactive material lost in this instance would have shipped it properly encased so that handling it under normally foreseeable circumstances, much less under proper conditions, would present no significant risk of exposure to harmful levels of radiation. It would also be clearly marked inside and out with the standard international radiation hazard symbol. There wouldn’t be much the average person could do with it, and the only radioactive stuff I have ever ingested, for a test, tasted even less appetizing than the rest of the hospital food. Barring a plane crash, I doubt that a missing package of this type would present any real risk. Now I am familiar with one noteworthy instance where medical equipment containing highly radioactive material somehow got sent to a Mexican junkyard and this got mixed with rebar reinforcing rods to be used in construction without anyone working with it realizing it was even there. Some of which were returned to the U. S. This was discovered when a truck carrying a load of tons of this radioactive rebar passed over a radiation detector at the edge of a facility used to dealing with nuclear weapons etc. But you wouldn’t normally see anything remotely like that much radioactive stuff in a shipment. I also read about a case where a bright student somehow ordered a series of containers of radioactive chemicals until he got caught with a potentially dangerous critical mass if he had the equipment to assemble a bomb after a review of purchases and shipments.. The fact is that countless packages of more or less radioactive stuff get shipped and stored every day. The fact that anyone considers one such FedX package going missing for awhile news testifies to the fact that this is rare and hardly a major risk. Our medical and other industries would grind to a halt without this, as the poster whose medical test was delayed by the grounding of U. S. aviation after 9/11 duly noted. I’m sure that some packages get misdirected, but how many people have been injured or killed as a result? Zero to single digits, probably. A lot of other substances get shipped routinely, too, and usually nobody is killed or seriously injured by them even in wrecks. On the other hand, federal figures indicate roughly 90,000 people a year die as a direct result of medication errors in U. S. hospitals, and we lose several times more teenagers, much less more people, every year in auto accidents, etc. than were killed in the 9/11 attack and all the other terrorist attacks on us.

  45. Re:What a ____ by yakatz · · Score: 1

    Caution! Dangerous Chemicals!

    Cuidado! Caramelo que es delicioso!

    I do not speak Spanish, but your comment still did not look right, so off to Google Translate.
    Sure enough, ... I fell on the floor laughing.
    Dare I say mod-parent-funny.

  46. Re:What a ____ by Talderas · · Score: 1

    Spanish- Atención! Productos químicos peligrosos!
    French- Attention! Produits chimiques dangereux!
    German- Achtung! Gefährliche Chemikalien!

    I like Achtung, it's a fun word to say.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork