Connect with us

News

Elon Musk sets the record straight over allegations that Tesla donated no ventilators to CA hospitals

(Credit: Henry Ford News/Twitter)

Published

on

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has set the record straight about his companies’ ventilator donations to hospitals in CA. Musk’s clarification comes on the heels of reports alleging that no hospitals in California have actually received any ventilators from the CEO or any of his companies. 

On April 14, the Sacramento Bee published an editorial about Elon Musk’s initiative to donate ventilators to California hospitals. The editorial criticized Musk’s decision to supply non-invasive ventilators to hospitals, which were allegedly dangerous to use for COVID-19 patients. The piece’s author, whose name was not listed by the Bee, called the initiative a “fiasco” and alleged that “not one unit has been delivered – and Musk likely never had the real ventilators our hospitals need.” 

The editorial appears to have spawned similar articles alleging the same point: that despite Musk’s commitment to donate ventilators, not one has reached a California hospital. On Thursday, a CNN report was published, citing a quote from a spokesperson of the California governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The allegations were similar to those in the Sacramento Bee’s editorial. 

“Elon Musk and his team told the state that he had procured ventilators and wanted to distribute them directly to hospitals with shortages. The Administration is communicating every day with hospitals across the state about their ventilator supply and to date we have not heard of any hospital system that has received a ventilator directly from Tesla or Musk,” the spokesperson noted.

In response to CNN‘s recent report, Elon Musk provided screenshots of Tesla’s communication with hospitals in California, clearly indicating that ventilator donations had been made. Musk also urged CA Governor Gavin Newsom to address the misunderstanding. 

Advertisement
-

In one of Musk’s shared emails, Tesla asked Phillip Franks of the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services if any donated ventilators went into use. Franks noted in a reply on March 27 that the donated units performed well during testing, and that the machines will be put into use the next day.

Musk also shared a message from Tom Parker, the CEO of Mammoth Hospital in CA. Parker thanked Musk and Tesla for ventilators that were donated to the hospital, stating that the units will be invaluable as COVID-19 cases in the state increased. “These ventilators will be quickly deployed in our hospital in anticipation of the coming wave of patients who will be suffering from the most severe effects of COVID-19,” Parker wrote. 

At the core of the criticism against Elon Musk and Tesla’s donations is argument that most of the units donated thus far are non-invasive ventilators. While these units cannot perform as well as the $35,000 invasive ventilators used for critically-ill patients, the non-invasive units can still be used as backup ventilators for those that are not severely ill from the coronavirus. And during a global pandemic, where cases are rising rapidly, every ventilator counts. 

Also neglected by the Sacramento Bee‘s editorial and CNN‘s report is the fact that the non-invasive ventilators donated by Tesla can actually be reconfigured to work for severely-ill COVID-19 patients. An example of this was done in Mouth Sinai NYC, which also received ventilators from the electric car maker. These efforts from the Mount Sinai team show one thing: the non-invasive ventilators from Tesla are invaluable in the fight against COVID-19, contrary to what poorly-researched critics would allege. 

Advertisement
-

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.

Published

on

By

Starlink D2D direct to device vs Verizon, AT&T (Concept render by Grok)

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.

The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.

That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.

The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.

Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.

Advertisement
-

SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.

The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.

Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know

Published

on

Credit: KTVU

A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.

The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.

There were no injuries reported.

The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.

However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.

At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.

The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.

The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.

An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.

A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.

“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”

Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.

Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.

Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:

  • You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
  • You must leave the area immediately.
  • Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
  • Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.

After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.

Continue Reading