FAA Data Shows Exploding Batteries Are Rare, Small Risk 183
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."
Sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, sanity is not the most common attribute for rule-makers. It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.
Perspective. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Not the Problem (Score:0, Insightful)
The problem is with intentional detonation. Nobody (sane) is saying that li-ion batteries pose a safety hazard from accidental detonations.
If just one life is saved, it's worth it. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
and presumably ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Opponents say the rules could raise the cost of shopping online and add hassles for fliers.
... somebody, somewhere, wants exactly that.
Who are these people who feel safer when... (Score:5, Insightful)
... 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?
Re:If just one life is saved, it's worth it. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the point (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
It is all about perceived risk, not actual risk.
That's because hindsight is 20/20. If a battery explodes and downs a flight, suddenly lots of noisy people are going "Why would they even let something that stores as much energy as a battery on a flight in the first place?!?!?" and people start shaking their fists. I personally blame the sensationalist media.
Re:Sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Stating that human lives are invaluable is a demonstrably false statement that nearly everyone has heard and the vast majority accept (though they won't practice it). Were it true, it'd be near impossible to leave the house due to the risk of death clearly not being worth whatever job you might have, cars would be horrifying death traps, yaddayadda, we'd all end up being terrified paranoid hermits. With hospitals blanketing the countryside.
Re:Who are these people who feel safer when... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
There were failures of judgement all around on that one. Frankly, I would expect more thought from an MIT student.
Are people looking at the right proposal? (Score:3, Insightful)
According to this post [slashdot.org] and followups, the rulemaking that people are quoting is already in force.
In particular this comment by bwcbwc:
Re:Who are these people who feel safer when... (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel that if they are going to ban liquids because somebody tried to make a bomb with liquids, they need to look at a far greater risk... solids. Every single bomb every brought aboard an airliner, except that one particular liquid bomb, was made from solid materials. They present a clear and consistent danger to all travelers and therefore must be prohibited from aircraft cabins. All solid materials that cannot fit into a single quart-sized bag must be removed from the passenger before passing through security and placed in their checked baggage. There is no valid reason that anyone would need more solid materials than that aboard an airplane.
Re:Who are these people who feel safer when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Another part of the problem is the absurd legal system that makes people forget that unforseen risks are just that: unforseen.
If you die in an accident that could have been avoided, but only if someone had foreknowledge of the future, then well, you died expanding humans' knowledge. Accidents, even death, are just a part of life. We need to live with them.
And yes, before some smartass youngun tells me I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm old enough to know what its like losing family members to accidents. I'm not being callous, I've just realized that no amount of hand wringing and fist shaking will bring them back, or even mitigate the feeling of loss. This realization actually makes grief easier to deal with, not harder.
Re:Sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oblig xkcd (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not the Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sanity (Score:4, Insightful)
Spontaneous human combustion happens far less frequently than battery fires.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sanity (Score:4, Insightful)
What's unforeseen here? and what would be learned in the accident? It seems that the stability of Li-Ion is well understood.
The risk is acceptably small, not unknown.
Re:Sanity (Score:1, Insightful)
Have a link?
Re:Sanity (Score:3, Insightful)
oh and name one person who paid $500k for a baby seat? oh right they didn't, they only cost a few hundred bucks. ther are plenty of better examples of expensive useless safety measure out there, i think you need to pick better ones. try mobile phone radiation protectors.
Re:Precisely (Score:3, Insightful)
If these people keep thinking of the children all the time, I'll have to assume they're pedophiles.