It would appear that my application for one of your, truly revolutionary and awe inspiring, remotes has not gone unnoticed. I have, today, been approached by several officials of the UK HSE (Health and Safety Executive) voicing concerns at several aspects of the design.
First and foremost they fear that the inclusion of the innovative levitation module will encourage third party designers (hackers) to boost the system specification to a degree whereby the power output will be enough to actually raise the operator from the ground. As such they would like an assurance that the software encryption code/s will be robust enough to prevent this scenario, though I gain the impression that this, in itself, will not prevent them from demanding the inclusion of some form of escape mechanism; e.g. a parachute or, perhaps, a retractable ladder. I fear they may even go to the extreme of insisting upon the attachment of a fully load tested (to EN361) safety harness... I believe the thinking is that if the codes are truly unbreakable it will only be a matter of time before some experimentalist attempts the piggybacking method of power enhancemant.
Personally, I smell the underhanded machinations of the airline industry (perhaps concerned at the possible repercussions of cheap, unregulated international air travel) endeavouring to sabotage the project by lobbying political allies to pressurise the HSE into insisting on such ridiculously outlandish safeguards. And I'm afraid it does not end there, for it would appear they have a further unwitting(?) ally in the shape of a Mr Barrington Smythe-Edwards.
You may not have heard of him (anonimity being the key to his success, apparently) but I have been assured that Mr Smythe-Edwards is a leading authority in the field of safety related issues. It is with great regret, therefore, that I have to inform you that the HSE have gained a rather unflattering "Risk Assessment" report from him (undoubtedly commissioned by "you know who") which appertains to the likelihood and implications of falling objects from the levitated remote.
Whilst under normal circimstances a less than favourable report, such as this, would, perhaps, sound the death knell for a project, I must applaud the HSE for their foresight and fortitude, in resisting the clamour for the immediate cessation of all development work. All they are asking for, at the moment, is that you either supply them with a full design brief (so that they can carry out their own statistical analysis) or supply a testimonial agreeing that that the final production model will conform to the following British Standards: BS15590a; 15591c; 15591e; 34769b. Failing this I fear that certification will be withheld unless you are prepared to supply the device with full PPE; i.e. hard hat, face mask, respirator, ear defenders/plugs, body armour, steel toe-capped boots (with metatarsal protection) and thick leather gauntlets (British Standards, for all of which, can be supplied upon request). And if this is not bad enough, I'm afraid worse is to follow.
Under European Directive RX47901/01 any form of nuclear power generation must be registered with the PENPD (that's the Pan European Nuclear Power Directorate). Whilst this directive was obviously amied at the construction, use and regulation of "full sized" nuclear fission plants, sub clauses RX4790/01-23.8 and 23.9, quite clearly state that any material capable of producing radioactive emmisions can only be transported in an air tight, lead lined, stainless steel caes. Unfortunately, I'm afaid that I have it on very good authority that this will have significant ramifications with regard to the portable nature of the remote control unit.
For example, should you wish to move your remote from one end of a coffee table to the other you will, firstly, be required to apply in writing (note that electronic data transfer is NOT acceptable) to department 93X-1a (located in the EU parliament building, Brussels) for permission to do so. Once your request has gone through the various committee stages and gained approval, a preliminary certificate will be issued agreeing, in principal, to the request. At this point the the remote will need to be packed into a certified (EN77856) transportation case, though one must be extremely cautious for the preliminary transportation certificate does not cover the movement of the device into the case. (And if this, to the uninitiated, appears somewhat contradictory, all I can say is that I bid thee welcome to the hall of mirrors that is the wonderful world of Euro-land).
Having safely encased the remote (and avoided the 5 years imprisonment and €10,000,000 fine for failure to comply with the Statutory Nuclear Fuels Transportation Regulations) one must now write to department 93X-1b in order to book a visitation (at the owners expense)from an approved testing laboratory technician. It is his duty to inspect and certify that the transportation case is compliant with EN77856 and fully sealed. His report is then sent to department 93X-1c and once processed a full transportation licence is issued and the transfer of the device can proceed.
On arrival at it's destination a further application to department 93X-1b for a second techician visit is now required. This second technician ensures that the transportation case is the same one as at the outset and that it has remained sealed throughout its journey. His report is then sent to department 93X-1c (who immediately cancel the full transportation licence) and is the forwarded to department 93X-1d for "Unpacking Approval". Once again, however, the owner must be cautious, for the Unpacking Approval does not cover free movement of the radioactice source outside of the sealed enclosure.
Assuming one has, again, successfully avoided criminal liability one can now write to department 93X-1a stating that the device is now in its new location and ready to commence operation. Prior to doing so, however, one must write to department 93X-1b for a third (and final) time requesting the services of yet another technician to test and ensure that there is no radioactive leakage from the transported component/s; i.e. that the itegrity of the cold fusion power cell has not been compromised during transit. Furthermore, for the twelve months following the transfer, quarterly retests will be required. This reduces to half yearly for the succeeding twelve months and annually, thereafter.
I must confess to being somewhat disappointed by all these developments and consequently am hoping, having now enlightened you, that you are able to formulate some proposals/protocols that would eliminate or circumvent these demands. Prior to consideration, however, please note that I have already been approached by the RSPCA, insisting that the dog leash does not have a choke collar attached and requesting the inclusion of a kitty litter tray and scratching post (plus, of course, the obligatory canary perch).
I had, rather, dismissed all this as the work of a crank but given all the above I was thinking that we could, perhaps, assuming the perch proposal is a workable idea, promote the little birdie as a first line safety device... if it goes belly up we know there could be a possible problem, type of thing. It would now seem, however, that this option (for me at least) might not, in the foreseeable future, be available.
In an effort to clarify the anomaly regarding the packing and unpacking of nuclear materials (without contravening the aforementioned regulations) I made contact with the UK Nuclear Power Agency. Quite surprisingly they were extremely helpful in suggesting various materials and strategies but unfortunately, as a matter of record, they also informed the Department Of The Environment of my interest; the nett result being that the Whitehall bureaucratic machine has now lumbered into action.
For reasons best known to themselves, the faceless mandarins of Whitehall, have become somewhat renowned (reviled) for their over zealous application of European Diktats (ref. the case of the "Metric Martyrs"). Apparently, having reviewed your preliminary proposals, I have just received word from Sir Charles Jodrell-Dawson (PPS to the Honourable Frank A. Marshall, the minister for Administrative Affairs) that not only would the government vigorously uphold the implementation of sub clauses 23.8 and 23.9, they would press for additional amendments that would require the encasement to be surrounded by a 4.5m (15/16ft) thick concrete jacket. And a further requirement (undoubtedly a sop to several high profile environmental protection groups) would see the whole assembly crash tested to the nth degree (i.e. run over by a train).
Frankly, at the moment, I can see no means available, to this mere earthling, that will enable the practical use of youe remote. Is it possible that you have alien materials capable of replacing the concrete and lead etc. - obviously I mean something of a more suitably lightweight nature. And if so, will you be prepared to allow some samples to be tested by the National Physical Laboratory? I'm sure that given comprehensive empirical test data I could convince the various European Saftey Agencies of the robustness of the device. If, on the other hand, you find that you are unable to comply, I'm afraid that I'll have to reconsider my order until such time as our earth bound technology is of a level to challenge yours - and by that time I imagine we will have developed our own "Ultimate Remote".
