Let me say first that the model they use in the story is the same SUV I currently drive, but mine is white and possibly a little older.  That said, here’s the story – the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has issued a report on roof strength of SUVs, and they find the results not the least bit comforting.  The IIHS believes improved roof strength will reduce injuries and fatalities in rollover crashes and has results of their tests available for concerned consumers looking to still buy a gas guzzler but wanting to remain as safe as possible.

By testing the roofs of 11 sport utility vehicles, then looking at the deaths and injury rates in accidents, the institute found that the stronger the roof was, the less likelihood of injury or death.

. . .

Rollovers account for about one-quarter of those who die in car crashes, but SUVs that are higher off the ground than other vehicles are particularly prone to rollovers. The study contends that stronger roofs, like the one on the 2000 Nissan Xterra, could cut injury risk by a third in single-vehicle SUV rollover crashes.

Automakers contend that roof strength improvements will not do anything to safety numbers, but the IIHS disagrees.  I can conceive that the automakers are right – overall safety design is probably more important than roof strength and the cars with the better safety ratings may achieve that by overall design and not just roof strength.  However, it’s hard for me to imagine that the roof strength could be improved without improving the safety overall design just because I know any change to the design has to be checked for consistency with all other design considerations.

This isn’t to indicate any of these vehicles fail to meet federally mandated safety requirements.  It’s that the IIHS believes the mandates are not strict enough.

The current standard requires vehicles to withstand 1½ times the weight of the vehicle before crushing five inches. The administration would like to require passenger vehicles to withstand 2½ times its weight instead. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that’s still not good enough, and argues a passenger vehicle should be able to withstand three times its weight when it rolls over.

As an owner of the SUV that received the lowest roof strength rating, I’m all for improving it.  But as with anything in design, I wonder what will the price be for any improvements?  These businesses have to factor in how much it will increase manufacturing costs for improve safety, how much of that can be passed on to consumers, and where will the dollars go from the edge-case buyers who would buy at the current price but not at any higher price.  It sucks for those only concerned with safety, and sure some people will throw up the “What cost human life?” question, but we all have finite resources, and these changes have to be considered.

So how much would you pay for more safety?  If it cost $100 for a roof with twice the collapse strength you currently have, would you?  What if it cost $1000 more?  How about an increase that cost $500 and cut fuel efficiency 5%?  Where does the trade-off become too much for you?

Technorati Tags: SUV, IIHS, Safety, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

In a close vote, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled today that 1^st amendment free speech protection doesn’t protect forging email headers for spamming purposes. This means convicted spammer Jeremy Jaynes still has to serve his sentence for such practices.

As a result of the 4-to-3 vote, Jaynes will serve nine years in prison for sending millions of illegal spam messages in 2003, absent an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Spamming itself is not illegal. It is allowed under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. However, the law prohibits the use of false or misleading message headers and deceptive subject lines. It requires a way to opt-out, a valid postal address, and that the message is identified as an advertisement.

This is an issue that we’ll probably hearing more about in the near future, as another well-known spammer, Robert Soloway, is headed to court soon to face his own charges for mail abuse and using so-called botnets to send millions of spam emails.

Soloway was arrested in May and charged with sending out tens of millions of unsolicited messages; so many, in fact, that investigators called him the “Spam King,” and his arrest was hailed as a major blow in the fight against spam. Many of Soloway’s unsolicited messages were sent out using hacked “zombie” computers infected with botnet software, prosecutors allege.

The United States Attorney’s Office is seeking more than $770,000 in fines, but Soloway is also facing fraud and identity theft charges that could result in jail time.

Of course, even with this two heavy-hitters out, we’re still seeing far too much email spam. But hopefully these and similar cases will help pare that down eventually.

If criminal prosecutions like Soloway’s are deterring spammers, you wouldn’t know if from looking at your inbox. Security vendor IronPort said that spam volume on the Internet was up 100 percent in 2007, jumping to 120 billion unwanted messages per day.

So we still have a ways to go.

Technorati Tags: Spam, spamming, spammers, email, Robert Soloway, Jeremy Jaynes

It isn’t such a great time to be a guest at a slightly-off-the-strip hotel in Vegas right now, is it?

A substance found at a motel may be the deadly toxin ricin, but authorities said Friday they don’t believe it was intended for a terrorist attack. Lab tests on the substance were pending and seven people were taken to hospitals as a precaution.

“This event does not appear to be terrorism related,” FBI spokesman Richard Kolko in Washington said Friday morning. Kolko said the FBI was assisting local police in the investigation.

That aside, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security are still involved in investigating the find.  But really, that makes sense for this oddity – I just find it humorous that it’s already being said that authorities don’t believe it is related to terrorism, but the DHS is involved in investigating it.

And if you aren’t familiar with just why a box of ricin is a big deal:

Ricin is made from the waste left over from processing castor beans, and can be extremely lethal. As little as 500 micrograms, or about the size of the head of a pin, can kill a human, according to the CDC.

Nasty stuff.  Quick, deadly in small quantities, and I’m guessing easy to keep out of sight.

Technorati Tags: Ricin, Las Vegas, FBI, DHS

That title might need a question mark following it, as I’m not absolutely convinced that this is definitive, but recent research appears to point to hydrogen peroxide as the source of cancer from cigarette smoke.

In the research study, Goldkorn and colleagues describe how they exposed different sets of human lung airway cells (in the laboratory) to cigarette smoke and hydrogen peroxide. After exposure, these cells were then incubated for one to two days. Then they, along with unexposed airway cells, were assessed for signs of cancer development. The cells exposed to cigarettes smoke and the cells exposed to hydrogen peroxide showed the same molecular signatures of cancer development, while the unexposed cells did not.

I wonder what implications this has for folks who use that same stuff to bleach their hair? How much trouble does the evaporating liquid cause to those exposed to it briefly and infrequently?

And a bonus quote for those that believe in the Bill of Rights:

“Guns kill, bombs kill and cigarettes kill,” said Gerald Weissmann, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “While biologists can’t do much about the first two, studies like this will help in the fight against tobacco-related death and disease.

Sounds like a gun-control advocate to me, no? (via QJ Science)

Technorati Tags: Cigarettes, smoking, cancer, hydrogen peroxide, FASEB, science, It works bitches, QJ, Gun control, Bill of rights

No, no. It’s not a movement to prevent vomiting (well, not exactly). What I’m talking about here is the revival of people opposed to Ralph Nader running for President. Since Nader announced on Sunday his plans to improve John McCain’s chances of winning the White House, there has been a good bit of activity from those who believe all Nader does in entering the arena is take away votes from the Democratic candidate. Of course, Nader actually appears to consider himself a serious candidate, and I think he doesn’t see his entrance as a “Let’s let John McCain win” event. However, I think most people with political awareness who AREN’T Ralph Nader at least suspect this to be the outcome of Nader staying in the race (although, there are those who will say his presence did not cause the Gore loss in 2000, except the results they use don’t appear to quite support their argument to me). He probably killed an Al Gore win 8 years ago, and seems ready to do the same for Obama or Clinton this go around.

Now, I wonder if he really is after the White House, or if he’d just prefer McCain to win of the candidates we’re getting for the coming election. Sure, sure – he’ll say he’s serious about the run. And he certainly doesn’t seem like the type to support McCain over Obama or Clinton. Regardless, there are anti-Nader web sites lumbering back to life, and I expect we’ll start getting more of the so-called grass roots movement stuff going (door-to-door, pamphlets, TV ads maybe) to try shutting him down.

It should make for an interesting end of campaigning for the party nominations and a fun twist in the lead-up to this fall’s elections, though, wouldn’t you say?

Technorati Tags: Nader, Ralph Nader, McCain, Election, Presidency