Murder by Tylenol

Mary Kellerman, a 12-year old of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, woke up early and complained to her parents of a sore throat and runny nose. They gave her an Extra-Strength Tylenol Capsule and retreated back to bed. They arose at 7 a.m. to find their daughter collapsed on the bathroom floor. She was pronounced dead after being immediately taken to the hospital.

It was September 29, 1982. The day had barely begun in the greater Chicago area and it had already claimed the life of a little girl. This was just the beginning to what would later be labeled a tragedy.

Paramedics had arrived on the scene at the residence of Adam Janus, a postal worker, to find him barely clinging to life. He was rushed to the hospital and the attempts to resuscitate him failed. Mr. Janus had become the second victim to what would labeled the Tylenol Crisis.

By October 1st, there had been a total of seven deaths related to Tylenol, including two relatives of Adam Janus. Authorities and medical officials were able to ascertain that all the deaths involved the popular pain killer Tylenol.

Upon further investigation, it was found that the bottles of Tylenol that led to the deaths contained cyanide. Investigators found that certain bottles had been tampered with and placed back on the shelves of certain stores. Johnson & Johnson, Tylenol's parent company, proceeded with an expensive recall of all its products.

Because of all this tragedy, the FDA mandated anti-tamper measures be implemented on all over-the-counter medication. With the help of product consultant Calle & Company, Tylenol released the invention of Gelcaps, which were effectively tamper-proof capsules.

Tylenol took a big hit in sales due to the product tampering, but was able to overcome with effective pricing and marketing. The investigators were not as lucky; the culprit of the tampering was never found.

Are Traffic Cameras Fair?

I have heard many people protest the idea of traffic cameras to catch those who speed. While I know that they can have some errors, I would rather see them in use to keep people honest. Some say that this isn't fair, but I think if you are breaking the law, then you should pay the consequences. Most don't feel the same way as I do, and it shows when speed cameras become targets of vandalism.

A company in Holland has developed a speed camera that is near indestructible. The Innovative Digital Enforcement Environment, or IDEE, stands at 13 feet tall and can withstand heat, tampering, and impacts. It has sensors connected to the base to alert authorities when it is being tampered with. But at a cost of up to $100,000, is it worth it?

In my opinion, no. People will still find cheap ways to tamper with the cameras, such as spray paint, tape, or Vaseline. The cost of upkeep will be huge and people will begin to learn the locations of such cameras and either adjust their speed around them, or take alternative routes.

If there was a way to hide the cameras so that no one saw them, then that might work, but as long as people are aware of them, they will be avoided or vandalized.

I'm not for speeding as I see it as dangerous, especially on residential streets. I have debated with others over this and most of them say it is their right to go the speed that they choose. Now, I'm not saying that speed limits don't annoy me from time to time, but I believe that if there is a posted speed limit, then it should be enforced.

Enforcement of speed limits is difficult and labor intensive. That is why an automated system works best, but whenever technology advances, so does the general population in finding a way to beat the system.

Does your vote count?

When the Constitution was created, there were provisions included within Article II that provided us with a body of electors from each State. These electors were to cast their ballots for who they wanted as President and then cast a separate ballot for who they wanted as Vice-President. Each State is awarded a certain number of Electoral votes based on the number of Senators and Representatives in the House. When all votes are tallied in each State, the electors will compile their votes and the candidate with the most electoral votes will get those electoral points.

Here is where it becomes redundant. 27 of the 50 States require the electors to vote the same way as the popular vote. Some of those States even have penalties for those who do not do so. I'm not saying this is wrong, but what I don't understand is if they are required to vote the same as the popular vote, why have the Electoral College at all? Why not just tally up the popular vote and the candidate that wins in that State receive those electoral votes?

The answer lies in Article II of the Constitution and Amendment 12 of the same document. These require States to have electors. There have been a couple of attempts to change this, but nothing has ever come close to being passed through the House or Senate.

I don't believe we should have electoral votes or points at all. Like we saw in the 2000 election, the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the election (Al Gore). Although this is very rare, it should not happen. There should not be a reason why the candidate with the most popular votes should not receive the Presidency.

Direct popular vote would also encourage more third party candidates. Since most third party candidates are not funded as well as their more popular adversaries, they find it difficult to travel to a lot of States and try to "win" each. With the popular vote, they could easily be seen on T.V. debates, or on the internet and people would know that their vote did not get wasted because of the electoral college process.

Of course, the Electoral College has at least one benefit. When and if there is a recount needed, it is only done in the particular state where there may have been a discrepancy. There may not be a way to differentiate votes by State in a popular vote contest, leaving a recount to the whole country.

Overall, I see the electoral process as a big waste of time. I feel that if people thought that their votes really counted in an election, such as with a popular vote contest, that there would be more people at the polls.

Are there any other opinions on the subject?

For more information: NARA FAQ

Chinese High-Speed Rail

By the end of the year China will be operating their first domestically produced high-speed rail line. Operating between the 71 mile (115 km) Beijing-Tianjin route, the new rail line will reduce the trip from 70 minutes to a half hour. Capable of moving 600 passengers, the line will be just in time for the Beijing Olympics next August.

Nine months ago, I brought up the idea that America should have its own high-speed rail. It seems that I'm not the only one with this idea, as Wired magazine wrote an article on the topic. To me, it just seems like this would be the perfect competition to airlines and bus travel, neither of which are looked at fondly.

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association is also looking to increase the awareness of high-speed rail in the central United States. There are many existing tracks that could be upgraded and straightened to create viable high-speed rail lines. In many places tracks have been upgraded and used as high-speed lines and the ridership has increased.

I believe that people would use high-speed rail if it was available to them as a comparable alternative to driving and flying. For most comparisons, the distance is limited to 500 miles, or a three hour flight. I would be more inclined to take rail if the prices were comparable, even if it meant that it would take an extra hour in travel. Passenger rail cars are more spacious and comfortable. They can provide better than an aircraft can, so I would have no qualms about taking rail.

Now, if we could just get the government and investors on board.