or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › House passes bill protecting Apple's lithium batteries from limitations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

House passes bill protecting Apple's lithium batteries from limitations

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
In a move that could save Apple and other electronics manufacturers billions of dollars, the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation barring proposed limitations that would have classified lithium batteries as hazardous materials.

Bloomberg reports that the bill, which would prevent U.S. limitations on air shipments of lithium batteries from exceeding international standards, passed in the House on April 1, but will need to be reconciled in a House-Senate conference committee.

The new legislation conflicts with a proposed rule by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration that would impose additional limitations on shipments of lithium batteries over concerns that they may overheat and ignite during transport. If the rule came into effect, manufacturers, retailers and airlines would all be subject to new packaging, training and handling requirements.

According to an analysis commissioned by the Rechargeable Battery Association, the limitations would cost $1.13 billion the first year in packaging, transportation, logistical and training costs.

Apple has widely implemented lithium batteries in its mobile devices and laptop computers. The company has worked to develop standards for the manufacture of lithium ion batteries in the past.

In 2006, high-profile battery recalls from affecting notebook manufacturers, including Apple, sparked industry concern over the safety of lithium-ion batteries. The batteries, which were manufactured by Sony, were recalled after reports emerged that the batteries could cause overheating and in some cases fire.

More recently, the tragic earthquake and tsunami that occurred in Japan in March of this year has reportedly caused a shortage of lithium-ion batteries used in Apple's iPod line. Kureha Corp., which has a 70 percent global share in a polymer used in the batteries, was forced to close a factory in Iwaki, Japan after the disaster.

A patent application recently discovered by AppleInsider revealed that Apple is investigating techniques to improve battery performance by increasing the energy density of rechargeable lithium batteries.
post #2 of 34
Thanks for not taking us back to the dark ages.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 34
Come on now, other than speculation when was the last time you read about a plane going down because a shipment of lithium batters exploded?
A lot of companies and people have been riding Apple's nuts lately, it's getting a bit redundant.
post #4 of 34
Thank you Congress for protecting my investment. Now there is one less reason for AAPL to drop. GAME ON!
post #5 of 34
The issue isn't simply one of shipping large quantities of batteries. It also has to do with batteries inside our laptops, iDevices and phones overheating and igniting during passenger flights. A fire in a small and cramped environment of an airplane can spread quickly and lead to the loss of many lives.

I would imagine ambient temperature would play some part in this, as would the device's ability to dissipate heat. Airplanes are cold (maybe it's just me, but I usually ask for a blanket even on a one-hour hop) so that helps.

It's good to know though that the tech and airline companies only value the lives of all their passengers at $1.13 billion.
post #6 of 34
A million different plane parts and materials can ignite and self combust, before worrying about batteries in the cargo. And another million different goods can do so in the cargo apart from those lithium packs. Give me a break with the risk for passengers lives, in some cheesy pseudo scientific crime show maybe....
At least if they wanted to ban lithium for environmental reasons I'd be on board (pun intended) despite the set back for electronics. I mean let,s face it those lithium packs are TERRIBLE ecologically wise, from the making to the disposal. If Apple would find a substitute source of power they'd have a huge claim as most eco friendly computers
post #7 of 34
If you are interested in your personal safety, maybe take the time to do some reading. The speed and ferocity of this fire will give you pause.

..
UPS 6 Dubai - Cologne N571UP 03 SEP 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_6

..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...k-inquiry.html

Investigators have determined that the fire which brought down a UPS Boeing 747-400 freighter near Dubai probably started in the main cargo deck just forward of the wings.

The United Arab Emirates' General Civil Aviation Authority states that there were no declared shipments of hazardous material on the 747, but that package details identified "many" shipments of lithium batteries.

Further investigation found that at least three consignments contained lithium ion battery packs which met hazardous materials criteria and "should have appeared on the cargo manifest", the GCAA adds.

The crew of the aircraft, en route to UPS's Cologne hub on 3 September last year, advised Bahrain air traffic control of a fire warning 22min after leaving Dubai. The 747 was cruising at 32,000ft at the time and turned right to return to Dubai - a distance of some 150nm.

In an interim factual report on the accident the GCAA identifies the approximate location of the fire, in the forward main deck, below areas of ducting for the elevator and rudder controls.

Having been cleared to descend to 27,000ft the crew requested an immediate descent to 10,000ft.

"It is likely that less than 5min after the fire indication on the main deck, smoke had entered the flight deck and intermittently degraded the visibility to the extent that the flight instruments could not effectively be monitored by the crew," says the GCAA.

It adds that that flight-data recorder information shows a "movement anomaly" with the elevator, which was not responding properly to control column input.

Seven minutes after the initial alarm, during the emergency descent, the captain transferred control of the 747 to the first officer after declaring a lack of oxygen supply. Portable oxygen is stored behind the pilots' positions and the cockpit-voice recorder indicates that the captain left his seat. There was no further evidence on the recorder of further interaction from the captain for the remaining 22min of the flight.

The jet was inbound to Dubai International Airport runway 12L but overflew the airport's northern boundary at 4,500ft and 340kt.

While the flight crew were advised of the availability of Sharjah Airport, which required a left turn, heading 095 degrees. The GCAA says the co-pilot acknowledged the heading change and entered 195 degrees on the mode control panel.

It adds that the autopilot disconnected, the jet reduced speed and entered a descending right turn at 4,000ft. Several bank-angle, sink rate and ground-proximity warnings sounded before the 747 eventually crashed on a military installation 9nm south of Dubai, killing both pilots.

....

You can do a search on the UPS DC-8 that burned in Philadelphia in 2006.

Have a look at the FAA Hazardous Materials website, or the AirLine Pilots Association website.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...after-ups.html

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dent_chart.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rcarrier_info/

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fas...tr_9-22-10.pdf

..

While a lithium battery fire in the cabin of a passenger plane perhaps can be extinguished, how do you extinguish the same fire in checked passenger bags in the cargo compartments?

Do a search on YouTube about these type of fires.
post #8 of 34
Speaking of batteries, whatever happened to the hydrogen fuel cell power sources that we were reading about a couple years ago? You know, you pour a little methanol (?) in at one end and get electrical power out the other, for a long long time.
post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennywse View Post

Thank you Congress for protecting my investment. Now there is one less reason for AAPL to drop. GAME ON!

Yes, thank goodness the House of Reps is once again looking out for large corporations instead of the people like they're supposed to be doing. Oh, that's right, corporations are people too.
post #10 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post

Speaking of batteries, whatever happened to the hydrogen fuel cell power sources that we were reading about a couple years ago? You know, you pour a little methanol (?) in at one end and get electrical power out the other, for a long long time.

They were probably economically unfeasible for corporations to make. I mean, how are you going to get customers to have to repeatedly buy batteries if they last a long long time?
post #11 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek View Post

If you are interested in your personal safety, maybe take the time to do some reading. The speed and ferocity of this fire will give you pause.

..
UPS 6 Dubai - Cologne N571UP 03 SEP 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_6

..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...k-inquiry.html

Investigators have determined that the fire which brought down a UPS Boeing 747-400 freighter near Dubai probably started in the main cargo deck just forward of the wings.

The United Arab Emirates' General Civil Aviation Authority states that there were no declared shipments of hazardous material on the 747, but that package details identified "many" shipments of lithium batteries.

Further investigation found that at least three consignments contained lithium ion battery packs which met hazardous materials criteria and "should have appeared on the cargo manifest", the GCAA adds.

The crew of the aircraft, en route to UPS's Cologne hub on 3 September last year, advised Bahrain air traffic control of a fire warning 22min after leaving Dubai. The 747 was cruising at 32,000ft at the time and turned right to return to Dubai - a distance of some 150nm.

In an interim factual report on the accident the GCAA identifies the approximate location of the fire, in the forward main deck, below areas of ducting for the elevator and rudder controls.

Having been cleared to descend to 27,000ft the crew requested an immediate descent to 10,000ft.

"It is likely that less than 5min after the fire indication on the main deck, smoke had entered the flight deck and intermittently degraded the visibility to the extent that the flight instruments could not effectively be monitored by the crew," says the GCAA.

It adds that that flight-data recorder information shows a "movement anomaly" with the elevator, which was not responding properly to control column input.

Seven minutes after the initial alarm, during the emergency descent, the captain transferred control of the 747 to the first officer after declaring a lack of oxygen supply. Portable oxygen is stored behind the pilots' positions and the cockpit-voice recorder indicates that the captain left his seat. There was no further evidence on the recorder of further interaction from the captain for the remaining 22min of the flight.

The jet was inbound to Dubai International Airport runway 12L but overflew the airport's northern boundary at 4,500ft and 340kt.

While the flight crew were advised of the availability of Sharjah Airport, which required a left turn, heading 095 degrees. The GCAA says the co-pilot acknowledged the heading change and entered 195 degrees on the mode control panel.

It adds that the autopilot disconnected, the jet reduced speed and entered a descending right turn at 4,000ft. Several bank-angle, sink rate and ground-proximity warnings sounded before the 747 eventually crashed on a military installation 9nm south of Dubai, killing both pilots.

....

You can do a search on the UPS DC-8 that burned in Philadelphia in 2006.

Have a look at the FAA Hazardous Materials website, or the AirLine Pilots Association website.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...after-ups.html

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dent_chart.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rcarrier_info/

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fas...tr_9-22-10.pdf

..

While a lithium battery fire in the cabin of a passenger plane perhaps can be extinguished, how do you extinguish the same fire in checked passenger bags in the cargo compartments?

Do a search on YouTube about these type of fires.

Where in that story did it say that the lithium batteries were the cause of the fire?

I thought all the problems with lithium batteries where during use - and there is research going on to add materials to the internal components of batteries to either self heal meaning longer life and or to self seal if there is a short - in both cases caused by degradation of the materials that are passing the charge.
post #12 of 34
"the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation barring proposed limitations that would have classified lithium batteries as hazardous materials."

The issue is whether the mountains of lithium batteries that are going to be disposed of just like a wadded up napkin are safe to dispose of in this manner. Failure to classify lithium batteries as hazardous waste is expedient for large corporations but long-term that isn't the point.

The House is an asylum for the incompetent (Mark Twain).
post #13 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek View Post

150nm and 340kt

Not familiar with these unit abbreviations (nm & kt) - can you expand for the metrically challenged?

Thanx!
post #14 of 34
Partial Quote Only

Quote:
Originally Posted by seek View Post

If you are interested in your personal safety, maybe take the time to do some reading. The speed and ferocity of this fire will give you pause.

...

I am not disagreeing with you on potential dangers ... but we need this stuff.

Isn't the better way to recognize the fact this material is potentially dangerous and transport it accordingly and as safely as possible? Obviously any hearing should have recommended greater levels of safety precautions and research into safer techniques for shipping. More research into shipping is clearly needed. After all, even now after all these years car manufacturers continuously research safer gas tank designs.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #15 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot View Post

Not familiar with these unit abbreviations (nm & kt) - can you expand for the metrically challenged?

Thanx!

Nautical Mile and Knot as best I know. Not exactly metric.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Yes, thank goodness the House of Reps is once again looking out for large corporations instead of the people like they're supposed to be doing. Oh, that's right, corporations are people too.

Yes, specially now that our "unbiased" supreme court has ruled that corporations can pay and purchase representatives.
post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Yes, thank goodness the House of Reps is once again looking out for large corporations instead of the people like they're supposed to be doing. Oh, that's right, corporations are people too.

Yeah I laugh at that too. That's an interesting take actually. A single entity such as a corporation with the ability to influence as a single entity regardless of any internal discussion is 'people' in some people's view.

I kind of prefer it when people are actually counted and vote individually. I don't like any form of block vote or block influence from either side be it union or corporation, seems a little feudal to me. I guess even a Republic is in the end a nod in that direction.


I'm just out of touch with reality, I know ... after all bribery, er I mean lobbying is legal ...
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I'm just out of touch with reality, I know ... after all bribery, er I mean lobbying is legal ...

Yes, it is in the United States. That's why the US has one of the least corrupt governments in the world. Conflicts of interest and bribery are perfectly legal.
post #19 of 34
There are so many layers of dishonesty on this topic it is really quite hard to unravel them all.

One way of being dishonest is to consider things out of context.

For example- the claim that lithium batteries are bad for the environment is, on the face of it, false. Nobody here has presented any danger to the environment from them, but more importantly, this claim can only be made by showing that the alternative -- what we'd use if these were banned-- is not *worse* for the environment.

This is why the environmentalist movement is a joke-- or would be if it were funny. They rant against modern technologies that are actually better for the environment than the alternative, but ignore the consequences of having to shift to the alternative if they were successful. An environmentalist is one who thinks it would be better if our cities were covered in coal soot rather than oil smog. I've yet to meet one who actually cares about the environment or knows enough science to advocate for policies that would clean up the environment. (Here's a hint- successful capitalist societies are always cleaner than highly regulated socialist ones, yet "environmentalists" are always socialists. Why? Because socialism is what they advocate and the environment is a convenient lie to peddle it.)

The idea that the supreme court ruled that companies are people is a flat out lie. Shame on everyone who repeats it. The supreme court ruled that the PEOPLE in companies maintain their right to free speech, even though they pool their money in the form of a corporation to exercise it. This is exactly what the first amendment says. Anyone who disagrees with it, disagrees with the constitution and thus, as advocating for an illegal (unconstitutional) government.

Those against "company speech rights" or "corporate personhood" are really against human rights, and are using dishonesty to make their evil sound less evil.

If you want to claim that lithium batteries are dangerous to transportation-- try providing some evidence of such, and then also, you have to provide context and show that they aren't also safer than the alternatives. I don't think anyone denies there are some risks-- but there are risks inherent to running transportation vehicles completely empty. If zero risk is your standard-- well it can never be met and thus your arguments are nonsense to begin with.

Finally, these "Regulations" are not meant to protect people-- they are just the typical government shakedown.

They threaten to violate companies rights by banning substances, and in response ,companies pay them off.

Don't blame the companies for paying them off-- blame the criminals in government-- mafia thugs, really-- for shaking them down and driving up our costs, making us poorer.
post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antinous View Post

"the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation barring proposed limitations that would have classified lithium batteries as hazardous materials."

The issue is whether the mountains of lithium batteries that are going to be disposed of just like a wadded up napkin are safe to dispose of in this manner. Failure to classify lithium batteries as hazardous waste is expedient for large corporations but long-term that isn't the point.

The House is an asylum for the incompetent (Mark Twain).

No, that isn't "the issue" at all, at least in terms of the most recent legislation. It is specifically and only about the safety of transporting lithium batteries. It's not about hazardous waste; it's about hazardous materials. I had to do my own digging to confirm this. Here's the actual propose regulation in question: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-281.htm
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

If you want to claim that lithium batteries are dangerous to transportation-- try providing some evidence of such, and then also, you have to provide context and show that they aren't also safer than the alternatives. I don't think anyone denies there are some risks-- but there are risks inherent to running transportation vehicles completely empty. If zero risk is your standard-- well it can never be met and thus your arguments are nonsense to begin with.

Finally, these "Regulations" are not meant to protect people-- they are just the typical government shakedown.

They threaten to violate companies rights by banning substances, and in response ,companies pay them off.

Don't blame the companies for paying them off-- blame the criminals in government-- mafia thugs, really-- for shaking them down and driving up our costs, making us poorer.

Read the proposed regulations (link in my post just above this one). They aren't proposing "banning" anything. it is about labeling, packaging, and shipping practices. They do provide evidence that improper handling of lithium batteries is risky. I'm not saying the cost-benefit analysis justifies these regulations, but it's not true to say that these batteries are completely "safe." I'm generally a cynic, but in this case I think the motivation for these proposed regulations is very clearly human safety (not a "government shakedown").
post #22 of 34
I don't understand why large quantities of batteries would by shipped by air anyway. Seems to me that would be a very expensive way to ship as opposed to container ships (not that you'd want a fire on a container ship.) All these shipments of products by air that we anecdotally hear Apple does all the time has got to be a factor in keeping costs/prices high.
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek View Post

If you are interested in your personal safety, maybe take the time to do some reading. The speed and ferocity of this fire will give you pause.

..
UPS 6 Dubai - Cologne N571UP 03 SEP 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_6

..

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...k-inquiry.html

Investigators have determined that the fire which brought down a UPS Boeing 747-400 freighter near Dubai probably started in the main cargo deck just forward of the wings.

The United Arab Emirates' General Civil Aviation Authority states that there were no declared shipments of hazardous material on the 747, but that package details identified "many" shipments of lithium batteries.

Further investigation found that at least three consignments contained lithium ion battery packs which met hazardous materials criteria and "should have appeared on the cargo manifest", the GCAA adds.

The crew of the aircraft, en route to UPS's Cologne hub on 3 September last year, advised Bahrain air traffic control of a fire warning 22min after leaving Dubai. The 747 was cruising at 32,000ft at the time and turned right to return to Dubai - a distance of some 150nm.

In an interim factual report on the accident the GCAA identifies the approximate location of the fire, in the forward main deck, below areas of ducting for the elevator and rudder controls.

Having been cleared to descend to 27,000ft the crew requested an immediate descent to 10,000ft.

"It is likely that less than 5min after the fire indication on the main deck, smoke had entered the flight deck and intermittently degraded the visibility to the extent that the flight instruments could not effectively be monitored by the crew," says the GCAA.

It adds that that flight-data recorder information shows a "movement anomaly" with the elevator, which was not responding properly to control column input.

Seven minutes after the initial alarm, during the emergency descent, the captain transferred control of the 747 to the first officer after declaring a lack of oxygen supply. Portable oxygen is stored behind the pilots' positions and the cockpit-voice recorder indicates that the captain left his seat. There was no further evidence on the recorder of further interaction from the captain for the remaining 22min of the flight.

The jet was inbound to Dubai International Airport runway 12L but overflew the airport's northern boundary at 4,500ft and 340kt.

While the flight crew were advised of the availability of Sharjah Airport, which required a left turn, heading 095 degrees. The GCAA says the co-pilot acknowledged the heading change and entered 195 degrees on the mode control panel.

It adds that the autopilot disconnected, the jet reduced speed and entered a descending right turn at 4,000ft. Several bank-angle, sink rate and ground-proximity warnings sounded before the 747 eventually crashed on a military installation 9nm south of Dubai, killing both pilots.

....

You can do a search on the UPS DC-8 that burned in Philadelphia in 2006.

Have a look at the FAA Hazardous Materials website, or the AirLine Pilots Association website.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...after-ups.html

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...dent_chart.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rcarrier_info/

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/fas...tr_9-22-10.pdf

..

While a lithium battery fire in the cabin of a passenger plane perhaps can be extinguished, how do you extinguish the same fire in checked passenger bags in the cargo compartments?

Do a search on YouTube about these type of fires.

I don't see where your article says the lithium batteries caused the fire.

One other thing: My wife and I got a divorce, my neighbors argued a lot, so using the same lithium logic, my neighbors caused our divorce.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

There are so many layers of dishonesty on this topic it is really quite hard to unravel them all.

One way of being dishonest is to consider things out of context.

For example- the claim that lithium batteries are bad for the environment is, on the face of it, false. Nobody here has presented any danger to the environment from them, but more importantly, this claim can only be made by showing that the alternative -- what we'd use if these were banned-- is not *worse* for the environment.

This is why the environmentalist movement is a joke-- or would be if it were funny. They rant against modern technologies that are actually better for the environment than the alternative, but ignore the consequences of having to shift to the alternative if they were successful. An environmentalist is one who thinks it would be better if our cities were covered in coal soot rather than oil smog. I've yet to meet one who actually cares about the environment or knows enough science to advocate for policies that would clean up the environment. (Here's a hint- successful capitalist societies are always cleaner than highly regulated socialist ones, yet "environmentalists" are always socialists. Why? Because socialism is what they advocate and the environment is a convenient lie to peddle it.)

The idea that the supreme court ruled that companies are people is a flat out lie. Shame on everyone who repeats it. The supreme court ruled that the PEOPLE in companies maintain their right to free speech, even though they pool their money in the form of a corporation to exercise it. This is exactly what the first amendment says. Anyone who disagrees with it, disagrees with the constitution and thus, as advocating for an illegal (unconstitutional) government.

Those against "company speech rights" or "corporate personhood" are really against human rights, and are using dishonesty to make their evil sound less evil.

If you want to claim that lithium batteries are dangerous to transportation-- try providing some evidence of such, and then also, you have to provide context and show that they aren't also safer than the alternatives. I don't think anyone denies there are some risks-- but there are risks inherent to running transportation vehicles completely empty. If zero risk is your standard-- well it can never be met and thus your arguments are nonsense to begin with.

Finally, these "Regulations" are not meant to protect people-- they are just the typical government shakedown.

They threaten to violate companies rights by banning substances, and in response ,companies pay them off.

Don't blame the companies for paying them off-- blame the criminals in government-- mafia thugs, really-- for shaking them down and driving up our costs, making us poorer.

Hey I hear Glenn becks show might not get renewed by faux news.
Not sure what made me think of that.
post #25 of 34
Thank you, Sony, for screwing this up for all of us.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

This is why the environmentalist movement is a joke-- or would be if it were funny. They rant against modern technologies that are actually better for the environment than the alternative, but ignore the consequences of having to shift to the alternative if they were successful. An environmentalist is one who thinks it would be better if our cities were covered in coal soot rather than oil smog. I've yet to meet one who actually cares about the environment or knows enough science to advocate for policies that would clean up the environment. (Here's a hint- successful capitalist societies are always cleaner than highly regulated socialist ones, yet "environmentalists" are always socialists. Why? Because socialism is what they advocate and the environment is a convenient lie to peddle it.)

Well, I guess this post answers the question about what Glenn Beck is going to be doing with himself after his show goes off the air.

"'Environmentalists' are always socialists". Please. Get a clue.
post #27 of 34
Congratulations Jessi on setting a new world record for logical fallacies in a forum post.
post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

There are so many layers of dishonesty on this topic it is really quite ... poorer.

Thanks Jessi you finally made me figure out the ignore sittings on AI. Not even the fandroids could do that. You=ignore. g'bye
post #29 of 34
A. The International Civil Aviation Organization and the FAA classify lithium batteries as hazardous materials and currently require strict packaging and labeling when transporting them by air.

B. The Dubai accident and similar accidents where lithium batteries have been "present" but never declared the official cause have all involved improperly labeled or packaged lithium batteries. The existing rules provide for safe packaging and labeling to ensure safe transport.

C. The proposed rules by PHMSA would impose labeling and packaging requirements in disharmony with the rest of the world, which follows the ICAO Technical Instructions.

D. The ICAO Technical Instructions were forged by world governments, including the FAA and industry, in order to harmonize shipping standards so as not to disrupt the carriage of lithium batteries and commerce. Let's say that again. The industry helped write the rules to require strict labeling and packaging, which costs money but vastly improves safety.

Basically, PHMSA is attempting to remedy a problem, which is caused by failure to follow the existing shipping rules, by imposing new (not safer) rules on shipments in the US. In such a case, there would be then two sets of rules in the world, creating further confusion and exacerbating non-compliance. They have not demonstrated a safety benefit to their new rules and are receiving pressure not just from Congress but also from ICAO and other governments as their rules would significantly disrupt commerce.
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Yes, thank goodness the House of Reps is once again looking out for large corporations instead of the people like they're supposed to be doing. Oh, that's right, corporations are people too.

You nailed. it.

The GOP doesn't give a crap about Americans only it's check writing corporate partners...
post #31 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

Hey I hear Glenn becks show might not get renewed by faux news.
Not sure what made me think of that.

HAHA! So true. Another brain-dead lemming who speaks for the rich, and for free. How do they continue to find these people?!

If I'm gonna make up stuff and support corporations over people and the planet, at least I should be on their payroll along with the rest of the politicians...
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

Hey I hear Glenn becks show might not get renewed by faux news.
Not sure what made me think of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silencio View Post

Well, I guess this post answers the question about what Glenn Beck is going to be doing with himself after his show goes off the air.

"'Environmentalists' are always socialists". Please. Get a clue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Congratulations Jessi on setting a new world record for logical fallacies in a forum post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Creative View Post

Thanks Jessi you finally made me figure out the ignore sittings on AI. Not even the fandroids could do that. You=ignore. g'bye

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie View Post

HAHA! So true. Another brain-dead lemming who speaks for the rich, and for free. How do they continue to find these people?!

If I'm gonna make up stuff and support corporations over people and the planet, at least I should be on their payroll along with the rest of the politicians...

Wow. So five people with nothing but lame attacks and distractions from the content of Jessi's post and only one person who actually dealt with the content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

Read the proposed regulations (link in my post just above this one). They aren't proposing "banning" anything. it is about labeling, packaging, and shipping practices. They do provide evidence that improper handling of lithium batteries is risky. I'm not saying the cost-benefit analysis justifies these regulations, but it's not true to say that these batteries are completely "safe." I'm generally a cynic, but in this case I think the motivation for these proposed regulations is very clearly human safety (not a "government shakedown").

Thank you for actually addressing the content and helping everyone on the forum better understand what's going on! Double points for not attacking and just informing!
post #33 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A patent application recently discovered by AppleInsider revealed that Apple is investigating techniques to improve battery performance by increasing the energy density of rechargeable lithium batteries.

Thanks for telling us that Apple is wants to improve battery performance by improving battery performance.
post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Thank you, Sony, for screwing this up for all of us.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › House passes bill protecting Apple's lithium batteries from limitations