This is very dangerous especially if the box gets inverted. Also, you might get stuck under other cargo in a non-climate controlled storage area, or have a forklift poke into you. Mosy anyone who has worked in shipping or receiving has seen really damaged boxes.
First thought. For people not into music or this sort of indie rock music. The song is worth a listen for its innovation and sleekness at the time. The song, The Gift, is from Velvet Underground’s 2nd album in 1968. It’s long and is all spoken word. The story comes out of the left speaker and the rock music comes from the right speaker.
The song is influential. The more contemporary ‘Undone – The Sweater Song’ by Weezer in 1994 is influenced by The Gift. Also has sleek rock music and a lot of spoken words.
The lack of oxygen isn't really a problem. At 30-40k feet you will likely pass out, but a few hours will not kill a healthy person. The cold certainly might, but there is enough air for basic breathing needs. Those drop-down oxygen masks on aircraft are really not necessary. If you remain calm you will probably be fine. If you panic then you will pass out and wake up once the plane descends to denser air. I'd be far more afraid of being crushed or snapped in half by the hydraulic gear.
There is thinking that those oxygen masks should be removed from planes. They have likely never saved a life, but they have caused at least one crash after the oxygen generators ignited.
You will pass out in 15 seconds no matter how calm you are. Then, after 4 minutes without oxygen you will begin to suffer brain damage. The oxygen generator the mask is connected to generally supplies about 15-20m of oxygen which is more than enough as it typically only takes 2-4 minutes for the emergency descent the pilot will do after loss of cabin pressure, this is of course, assuming the pilot is still conscious himself. There are numerous accidents where the pilots themselves delay putting on their oxygen masks with disastrous consequences, because your critical thinking and reasoning skills hit the floor within seconds.
The main point of the oxygen masks though is primarily to keep all passengers alert and ready as it is essential that at all times an evacuation can be performed in under 90 seconds. When the passengers are not able to reason correctly due to hypoxia, that's effectively impossible. This is what could kill you and your fellow passengers if you fail to put on your oxygen mask in a pressurization failure incident.
Which incident are you referring to with the oxygen generators igniting? Not this one I hope?
> However, the NTSB quickly determined that just before takeoff, 144[15] expired chemical oxygen generators, each slightly larger than the size of a tennis ball can, had been placed in the cargo compartment in five boxes marked COMAT (company material) by ValuJet's maintenance contractor, SabreTech, in violation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in passenger aircraft cargo holds.
Because that's not exactly the fault of the ones that were installed on the plane itself.
>> You will pass out in 15 seconds no matter how calm you are.
Well, I certainly didn't. In training (military) I did a pressure chamber day with 33,000ft breathing (lots of fun, do it if you ever get the chance). They took us to 12,000 in a big chamber and then fed us a reduced oxygen via masks to simulate 33,000ft. After about a minute I certainly felt effects, but I was very much awake long long after 15 seconds. I was playing solitaire on an iPad thing. After everyone noticed their personal symptoms they switched us over to pure O2. Some experienced tunnel vision and such. All I ever felt was as slight headache and that I was doing worse at the ipad game. I was awake enough to remember the Sargent who walked up and down the chamber looking us in the eye to see if we were awake. He was scary.
There are different kinds of training - it sounds like you got a good one, but it's not fully simulating a blown-door situation. There's a difference between less oxygen @12,000ft and the actual low pressure of 33,000ft: The higher altitude has about 1/3rd the pressure of the lower altitude, so it actively removes oxygen from your body (lungs, blood) faster. But simulating with an abrupt 33,000 feet would cause ear pressure problems, and it's a lot safer (and quickly reversible) to just play with the oxygen concentration.
Also, in this thread, I think you all know this, but wanted to make sure - a chemical oxygen generator "burns" to produce oxygen. The exothermic reaction is started with a small explosive; burning means its producing oxygen. Of course, in the 592 crash, they weren't properly packed with heat shielding, so catching other things on fire (plus the excess oxygen) was the cause of the crash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_oxygen_generator
We did explosive decompression from sea level to 10,000. Fun stuff. Clouds form in the chamber. Going higher than that isnt actually much more violent as the bulk of the atmo is below 10,000. As for oxygen, what matters is the partial pressure of the oxygen rather than the pressure of the other gasses. Breath pure nitrogen at sea level and you will pass out just as quicky as at altitude.
You can undergo training to improve function during hypoxic events and some people are naturally better at dealing with it, but that doesn't mean the general population will have the same experience, so I don't think removing this vital tool for aircraft safety is a good call due to a single incident (let me know if you have a reference on that as I'm very curious).
It would make more sense to determine why the incident occurred and modify the design of the oxygen generators to avoid that scenario in the future, which is what I assumed happened.
15 seconds is the time at FL400 and it's not a total loss of oxygen, you've got more than 4 minutes before brain damage. While a healthy person would probably wake up fine after the emergency dive someone who already has health issues is another matter.
Loss of pressure at 30k is deadly. In recent history a mechanic forgot to reset 'oxygen' to 'auto' after some debugging session. The two pilots missed it on their checklist.
While they were climnbing they gradually lost consciousness. One of the non flight crew ended up being the only conscious person on board. When his air ran out, he lost consciousness.
The flight ended when all kerosine was used, by flying into a hillside.
Totally agree, being smashed by the wheel sounds dangerous.
The lack of oxygen for a long period though can have severe consequences or even kill someone.
That is at least in the mountain where you need more oxygen as you are moving but staying few hours in any condition at 30-40k feet still does seem a problem to me.
30-40k ft is absolutely a problem. Even if you remain conscious, you're completely unable to think coherently and generally have no idea what you're doing. Stay there long enough and you will unquestionably suffer brain damage and probably death as well.
SmarterEveryDay did a good video about hypoxia training that demonstrates the very rapid onset and severe effects of hypoxia at cruising altitudes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfF2MTnqAw
There's a reason why it's called the Death Zone (26k feet). And people that go up there acclimate for days or weeks, often with oxygen tanks anyways. And this plane story is likely going from sea level instantly to 40K.
See the childrens' book "Mailing May", which is (IIRC) based on a true story. They put postage stamps on a child and mailed her on a passenger train that also carried mail, because postage was cheaper than fare for a passenger. They bent the rules that allowed mailing live chicks to cover her.
Tangentially related: Duchesne, Utah, wanted to build a railroad station, in the hopes of attracting a railroad. They mailed the bricks for the station to the town, because mail was cheaper than freight rates on wagons.
I'd remembered a couple in Alaska wanted to build a cabin up a river with no road. So they got an address assigned, then mailed the building materials a brick at a time. It became the Post Office's problem. Had to hire a boat.
Not only that, but these days "gamma" refers to nuclear sources, "x-ray" refers to electron sources--there is no actual dividing line.
Thus a gamma device can't be turned on and off, if it's got much energy you need an awful lot of shielding.
I suspect they're talking about scanning *for* gamma radiation, not *with* gamma radiation. As in someone smuggling nuclear materials. (Note, however, that when you're scanning people it's another matter--when you find someone that trips the geiger counter it's probably medical, not nefarious.)
Yep, I'm aware of the distinction that makes an EM wave gamma radiation, though I've heard the terms hard and soft X-rays which makes me think X-rays in gamma territory - it's all pretty exotic to me. I'm just not sure I've heard of imaging with gamma outside of orbital observatories - gotta be tricky when the wave you're trying to image can penetrate so much.
But your medical comment got a laugh out of me because it reminded me when my high school physics teacher came in and held a geiger counter up to himself and it went nuts - turned out he'd just had some sort of scan with radio contrast.
My wife set off a gamma detector in the Shanghai/Pudong airport--heart scan. Fortunately, their security isn't insane, it was resolved actually too easily for my taste. (No effort was made to determine if she was hot as opposed to carrying something hot.) Here they have simply thrown people in prison when the radiation detector went off--100% of who were hot for medical reasons.
Notably, we had passed through two US airports at 4x and 8x the radioactivity, didn't set off any alarms. Either there weren't detectors, or they were capable of filtering out alarms at that energy level (Tc-99m isn't useful for a bad guy, a detection is always medical.) I find the latter very unlikely when scanning a large area.
Me neither actually. I had only this vague recollection from high school Physics that they used gamma to scan shipping containers (but this was 10 years ago).
I'm not sure it would actually be cheaper than a first class ticket. I'm not very familiar with cost of shipping, so I'm going off very rough numbers her, but [1] UPS lists next day air shipping for packages over 100 pounds to be between $2 and $7 a pound. Maybe these aren't the correct numbers to use, but even if it costs $3 a pound, we're looking at $450 for a 150lb person. That's not including the weight of any accommodations. And that's assuming pretty much the low end of shipping costs for non-human accommodations.
Until this is a common form of middle-ish-class travel but is used as an effective assassination mechanism...
"A delegate from the CH to the EU was extinguished due to an apparent oxygen regulator that failed and all 100 of the Chinese Delegation passed during transit due to suffocation"
RaMell Ross shipped himself from Rhode Island to Alabama in 2021. He has created an installation called Return to Origin currently on display at the Museum of Southern Art in New Orleans.
I got to see it recently -- it is fascinating and moving.
Maybe I'm too old, but these stories amount to "in an old rural area, where everybody knew everybody, paying postage on the kid provided a decent excuse for Post Office managers to look the other way when folks wanted an employee to escort their kid somewhere".
When (a few decades later) I first started walking to kindergarten as a kid, my mother paid an older (maybe 5th grade) neighbor kid 10 cents a day to make sure I got there & back okay. (It was a bit over 1/2 mile each way, otherwise alone. And 10 cents would easily buy a full-sized candy bar back then.)
That is actually an old legal trick. By mailing something to yourself you are getting a sealed envelope that is dated by a government agency. If you want to prove that you had or knew something at a particular time (like a copy of a will or a statement by someone) then it is a useful scheme.
If your post office is accepting open envelopes then they need to stop doing so. It's not just against various rules but can jam the machines that sort envelopes.
You could tack it shut just enough to get by, but not actually full seal it. For that matter, you could probably just stuff the outer flap down inside the envelope and maybe put a very small piece of tape on it. Same difference in the end. The point being, mailing yourself an envelope doesn't really prove anything about the provenance of whatever is found inside later.
I guess you could tape it shut and then carefully remove the tape when you get it. Once you have something you want to "send to the past" you use whatever natural stickiness comes with the envelope.
I've gotten a decent number of envelopes where the flap is simply tucked into the envelope rather than any attempt being made to seal it. It's all been junk so if a few come apart they don't care. I believe there was some rate advantage to doing it that way.
Fomite spread has definitely been confirmed. It's a low-probability scenario but not impossible--worth paying attention to if you have done a lot about the airborne vector, not worth looking at if you're not.
It doesn't last very long out in the open--but it can last longer sealed up and longer still on cold products.
Doesn't make sense, because the vaccine does not prevent infection. Meaning the vaccinated are getting infected at same or higher rates than unvaccinated, and spreading it just the same. Current data for Ontario. 3rd graph. Case rate per 100k.
Ontario is 89% fully vaccinated by your own link. In order to assess whether vaccinated are getting infected at same or higher rates (certainly untrue, but that is what you assert), you have to adjust for the fact that there are vastly more vaccinated in Ontario. A quick and dirty (but still pretty good) method is to simply multiply the "unvaccinated" numbers in "3rd graph. Case rate per 100k" by 10. If you make that adjustment it is quite clear that the unvaccinated are getting decimated by infection as compared to the vaccinated. This holds for graph 1 (in ICU) and graph 2 (in hospital) as well.
From the link: "Rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 is calculated by dividing the number of cases for a vaccination status, by the total number of people with the same vaccination status, and then multiplying by 100,000."
I'm as surprised as you are, but those particular graphs do indeed support GP's statement about vaccinated having higher case rates. (Doesn't mean the risk is the same: are the vaccinated more likely to have parties?) But GP has no evidence for the vaccinated "spreading it just the same".
If you click through each age group individually, they all show the unvaccinated rate per 100k as much higher than vaccinated. Yet, the "All ages" group has the opposite.
That doesn't seem like it should be possible. The age ranges supposedly cover every age (0 to 80+ seems like all ages to me), and within each sub-group, unvaccinated case rates are larger... it doesn't seem possible for the all-ages graph to show the opposite.
Yes, they stopped tracking by age, I believe October 24th. So when you switch the graph to view by age group you're seeing the graph upto October 24th. It shows you data before Omicron. There's a disclaimer on top of the page explaining this.
Toilet paper is the one thing I do not want to run out of, so I always have plenty of backup. All of my bathrooms are well-stocked, and I make sure there's spare rolls in the basement.
When I replenish one of my bathrooms, if I'm getting low on spare rolls, I pull out my phone and order more off of Amazon. The price is quite similar to the grocery store, and it's about as easy to order more from Amazon as it is to put it on my shopping list and buy some at the grocery store.
BTW: I'm not as crazy as my parents. At the beginning of the pandemic we all had plenty of backup rolls, but my parents are a little neurotic and had my sister and I looking for their specific brand. (They think their septic tank will explode if they use anything but Scott.) I managed to get a giant box of Scott, with plenty of toilet paper for all three of our households, sent to my house. My parents refused to use it because it was 2-ply instead of 1-ply. When I finally went inside of their house when it was safe, they managed to hoard a 2-year's supply of toilet paper in their basement.
It varies widely. For just me, I'd estimate a two year supply of toilet paper is ~24 rolls. For another member of my household, well, I doubt a two years supply would physically fit in my 3 bedroom house.
my grandfather used to drive to another town half an hour away, because toilet paper was one or two dollars cheaper. No one could ever convince him that he paid more in gas than he ever saved. But he always had a small room full of toilet paper! He also kept his bonds in...the trunk of his car.
Do you live in a weird area? Like very remote or extremely low density or something? Or are you just upper class? I would assume getting all your groceries delivered from amazon would be significantly more expensive than buying them from a supermarket.
It may be the opposite -- if you live in a city with amazon fresh, the prices are about the same as the grocery store. Various amazon sales/credits (and cashback from an amazon credit card) usually offset the delivery price. If you live somewhere where they fulfill whole foods, then those prices are the same as well.
FWIW I live in a city and don't have a ton of storage space, so getting bulk prices from a warehouse store is impractical. TP and Paper towels come on subscribe and save and are cheaper than the corner store, and roughly the same as the grocery store.
I still shop in person most of the time because I like to pick my produce and the substitutions tend to be a mess, but delivery is great when things are busy or we want a bigger order.
In the LA area, I've noticed that the vast majority of grocery store customers are elderly. It's common for me to be the only person under 50, besides sometimes mothers with kids in tow or some dude buying beer. Whether I'm on the westside or some random suburb, it's like this. Once enough of the elderly die off, so will many of these grocery stores, I think. One of the few exceptions is Trader Joe's for some reason. Even I have been buying more groceries online just to avoid the abysmal experience of grocery stores.
Very strange. So people buy their TP online and get it shipped to them with more paper around them than it takes to make the rolls themselves? Opening, breaking down and disposing the box seems much more work and wasteful.
I understand groceries delivered by Instacart etc., but I don't understand ordering bulk non-perishable consumables online when a one time trip to a wholesale store like Sams would be much cheaper and "greener".
> Very strange. So people buy their TP online and get it shipped to them with more paper around them than it takes to make the rolls themselves? Opening, breaking down and disposing the box seems much more work and wasteful.
TP ships to grocery stores in cardboard boxes too; if you buy the large sizes, they just put the shipping label on that box.
- Stores could recycle/reuse the boxes a lot easier and maybe they do.
- You don't have to handle the breaking down and disposing yourself.
- How many people doing this are buying 96ct boxes?
- It takes a ridiculous amount of space for last mile delivery especially if they are buying the 96ct box which would be the closest to efficiency of a wholesale store, but still not as good.
I'm not a eco-nazi so I don't really care to squabble over emissions, but it's a bit silly, do people in LA not do wholesale runs a couple times a year for bulk items? It just seems wasteful for the delivery system and yourself, financially and otherwise.
You can buy more in bulk and shipping doesn't just involve the delivery driver, whose truck you just took 1/4th the space of with TP, requiring more resupply trips.
Shipping to a wholesale store is obviously more efficient than to the last mile, I don't see how that's up for debate. Generally you run other errands as well.
In my experience, which I acknowledge is limited to my circle, the only major errand for most households is bulk grocery shopping for the family or shared house. Note that "groceries" here means everything you buy in a big store or cluster of walkably-close stores, so it covers more than just food.
Other journeys in a vehible: A commute maybe, but those are separate journeys from bulk groceries because every household member is going to a different place. Also it's less likely to be in a car. Carrying large shopping bags on a train or bus to another city is not much fun.
Occasionally other trips to social events, see a doctor or whatever, but that's not going to happen in the same trip as bulk groceries.
There is nothing else regular that requires a journey in a vehicle.
Having a delivery driver do a planned circuit to multiple households to deliver bulk groceries is much less driving and pollution than having every household drive to the store and back.
Sure, that last mile is less efficient than shipping to the wholestore store, but that seems irrelevant to the point at hand. It's still much more efficient to do the last mile in a single planned circuit than multiple last miles where everyone goes in and out separately.
You are making guesswork drive a lot of your opinions here. Why can you buy more in bulk in person than when a truck drives to your building? The concept of "last mile" makes no sense for Amazon, since they will drive past your address in the suburbs anyway, and in a city they're already driving to your building (several times per day if it's big).
I agree Instacart is probably garbage for the environment, because in the suburbs it's often a passenger car delivering for just one household, but that's just equal to the baseline.
There's limited space on that truck, you know that right?
They have to resupply. Bulk TP takes up room, a little amount of TP is inefficient.
In no way is getting TP delivered to you ever more efficient than buying from a wholesale store.
You're trying to justify it, for whatever reason. I'm not advocating to banish it, it just seems silly.
> and in a city they're already driving to your building (several times per day if it's big).
Yes they're driving around all day because everyone is buying stuff like TP lol.
- edit to reply below because post limit -
TP is a lightweight, large volume package. The more TP you order more frequently, the less space the truck has, the more amount of resupply trips needed.
The alternative (normal way) I'm proposing is not those cars filling the same void as the truck. It's that you should buy in bulk those items, directly, less frequency and leave more room for mass last mile delivery of items that are small / perishable / unavailable in bulk.
> There's limited space on that truck, you know that right?
What sort of delivery mode is this statement supposed to defend?
I deleted a lot of text to substitute this simple question: if you wanted to bring toilet paper to all 250 apartments in our building, would you use a passenger car or a truck?
I live in lower Manhattan. Stores here aren't particularly cheap, but I haven't done a thorough comparison. Even if the stores were cheaper, the time savings would cover a pretty big difference. Having kids certainly increases the value of time.
These responses are really unsettling to me. For how much people complain about Amazon's power and unfair treatment of workers, how it ruins small business, moves money out of rural areas, how shipping price increases are driving inflation, how bad shipping/Amazon is for the environment... it's jolting to see people say they order not only a lightweight but high volume material like toilet paper, but also the majority of their groceries to their homes. Everyone I know shops at WinCo, Fred Meyer, Trader Joes, and the Co-Op. The only thing I've ever considered hitting the 'subscribe and save' button on is a medication for my dog.
Why exactly do you think in person shopping is better for the environment? Studies usually come out in favor of delivery.
On top of that we live in an apartment building, and a single truck makes deliveries for dozens of, if not a hundred, households (there are 250 units, and multiple trucks arrive each day). Imagine if all of us drove cars to accomplish this instead.
If all you did with a car was get groceries, it would probably be more economical to just order delivery. Most people use their car for a lot more than that, though.
