Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the riveting-drama dept.

Original 'Rosie the Riveter' makes masks to fight COVID-19:

At age 94, Mae Krier is back on the front lines — hard at work, helping her country.

One of the nation's original "Rosie the Riveters" employed by Boeing in Seattle during World War II, she built B-17 and B-29 bombers to help support the war effort decades ago.

Now she's fighting a different war, as her still nimble fingers turn out face masks to prevent spread of the deadly coronavirus.

"People say to me, "You helped win WWII and now you are helping our country win this battle over this virus. These are nice things to hear," Krier said.

She makes the mask like the red polka dot bandanas she also makes to remind people of the Rosies, those women who toiled in manufacturing plants with their heads wrapped in bandanas so their hair wouldn't get tangled in the machinery they used to make supplies for the military serving overseas.

They were depicted by a World War II era poster of "Rosie the Riveter" created by J. Howard Miller in 1943.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 15 2020, @01:45PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2020, @01:45PM (#1021901) Journal

    There is, however, evidence-based decision making, and risk-aversion.

    1. The cost of wearing a mask is low.
    2. The risk that going without a mask will cause someone to get ill is, in fact, rather low; but non-zero.
    3. The impact of someone getting ill is rather high.

    So it's obvious - wear a mask.

    1. The risk of a reactor core meltdown is low.
    2. The cost of a containment structure is very high, and must be amortized over the lifetime of the plant, making plant less profitable! (something, something rule of acquisition)
    3. The impact of a reactor core meltdown is devastating, catastrophic. An environmental, health and humanitarian disaster.

    So it's obvious - don't take nuclear plant safety seriously.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:20PM (1 child)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:20PM (#1021923)

    I don't get your point - if risk is low but impact is high, one might well consider taking action even if cost is high. It is a balancing act.

    But one certainly should take action if cost is low.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:27PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:27PM (#1021930) Journal

      To not be sarcastic for a moment, the cost of a reactor meltdown is so high that it simply cannot be allowed to happen. Ever.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.