U.S. soldiers suffering horrible effects from depleted uranium

Good time to downsize the Veteran's Administration, Georgie! I did not know they were using DU for armor. That is such a bad idea that words fail me.

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71585-0.html

More stuff on airplane security

A bunch of stuff recently on Wired about air terrorism and plane safety.

Planes remain vulnerable targets. I think if we want to be absolutely safe with air travel, we either (a) don't travel by air, or (b) everybody's naked, MRI'd, run through a gas chromatograph, and sedated for the length of the trip because we'd burn our eyes out seeing everyone else and we'd tear our brains out by traveling hours watching Biodome on the in-flight movie.


We can detect liquid explosives, but the equipment is a quarter mill a shot, cannot be integrated into current airline screening procedures without massive slowdowns, and generates a lot of false positives. Whee! Good bit about perfecting techniques to catch yesterday's threat, then having to react to tomorrow's.

Here's my solution. Only allow clear bottles and clear liquids. Turn the bottle upside down. Do the bubbles go all the way up? Good. Now take the cap off. Set the bottle on a flat surface. Have a 18" long ceramic probe slid into a disposable plastic sanitized sleeve, sort of like they do with thermometers at the doctor's. Stand the probe next to the bottle, move your fingers down the probe so that they align with the top of the bottle. Now stick the probe in the bottle of water. If there is a significant gap between your fingers and the top of the bottle, this is not good. Final test: flyer must drink a bit from each bottle that they carry. If they can't drink it and keep it down, it just might not be water.


Bomb mules! Amazing how large a quantity of explosives a living human body could contain! And remember those Russian planes that were blown up in mid-flight by Chechen women pretending to be pregnant?


Foiling the would-be hijacker. The Europeans are developing several layers of technology to make it VERY difficult for hijackers to commandeer an airplane and fly it into a building. Some interesting stuff.


All security measures that the gov't takes are RE-ACTIVE, not PRO-ACTIVE. Something happens, we react to it. A guy builds explosives into his shoes, we all have to take our shoes off and run them through an x-ray machine. Gah. So all you need is a mildly clever terrorist to come up with something utterly improbable, and everyone gets bogged down under another layer of "security".

Gas chromatographic "puff" tests (akin to the "swab" tests) would help, but if the terrorists are really oranized, they'll be able to isolate the explosives, clean up everything, then give them to the carrier who has never previously come into contact with such, thus greatly reducing a positive result.


Like I said, 30.06, good telescopic site, tripod. If you're not on a suicide run, you'd want to have a car or two to make a cleaner getaway.

Automobile "black boxes"

http://blog.wired.com/cars/#1537457

Black Boxes Rules Spur Debate

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will set rules within a month governing what information can and cannot be collected in the black box that may be in your vehicle.

In the event of a crash, the boxes (also known as event data recorders) record information including speed and steering. Time magazine details several cases where drivers were convicted of speeding and hit and runs based on the black box data, and Progressive Insurance is offering to lower rates to drivers who install the devices.

Sixty million of the boxes are installed in vehicles today, but auto manufacturers are not required to disclose if they install them. The rules will set a standard interface for downloading the information as today the boxes are proprietary,

Privacy advocates would like to see the boxes eliminated, while Public Citizen argues they should be required in all vehicles. There are four books by author Thomas M. Kowalick discussing the pros and cons of the debate. Since they only record data in the event of a crash, I think they are useful in helping to determine driver fault or manufacturer liability, but the auto companies must disclose if they are included.


My 2005 Toyota has a very detailed description inside the front cover of the owner's manual that describes exactly what the black box records. Interesting stuff. If I were drunk and in an accident, that data would be very damning. I can see using this data for serious or deadly accidents, but convicted of speeding? And Progressive offering lower rates if you install one? I'd love to see their data trying to prove that people with black boxes are safer drivers.

One thing that I don't like, as pointed out by a reply to the original article on Wired, is that it can be seen as an easy way to avoid police work. I don't think that will happen, but by the same token, it is also potential leverage against manufacturer defects. If I have an accident and claim that I didn't lose control and the black box shows something irregular happened, there's no reason why it could not be used against the car manufacturer.

I spoke about the black box in my car in a previous post.