Slashdot Mirror


Alaskan Cyclotron - Not in My Backyard!

j-beda writes "Wired reports that "Albert Swank Jr., a 55-year-old civil engineer in Anchorage, Alaska, is a man with a mission. He wants to install a nuclear particle accelerator in his home." To be used to create medically useful isotopes, and even though some of the neighbours are supportive, opponents "compared potential damage from a cyclotron mishap to the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident" though an expert says "Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves." It looks like the Anchorage Assembly plans to hold an public hearing on December 20 to determine whether Swank will be permitted to install the device."

392 comments

  1. old news by Monkeyfobia · · Score: 0

    old news.... Old, but still Funny

  2. I can understand the hold by millahtime · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can understand the hold. It's all about risk. People in the area most likely don't know the possible repurcussions of this. At least, they havn't been stated before the record. If the repurcussions are low, I am sure this will go in without a problem. Have to look out a little for public safety.

    1. Re:I can understand the hold by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      He used the N...... word. People are scared. Nothing that can't be solved by a little explanation.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's all about risk.

      What risk? Oh, wait, you mean the risk that the crackpots that the "opposition" digs up saying that a cyclotron could blow all of alaska to kingdom come could actually be right?

      Look, I know people talk about bias and shit, and how everyone should listen to "both sides" of every argument, but didn't it occur to you that sometimes the other side is just plain wrong?

    3. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know how exactly makes those things the NRC, but here in Argentina someone with a particle accelerator would need to:
      - Get a license to own a radiological facility;
      - Get a license as an operator for this equipment (or hire someone);
      - Hire radiological protection personnel and equipment (personal and area detectors) or contract the Atomic Energy Comission for this;
      - Get a license to operate this facility;
      I'm not sure if urban planning has much to do with this... cyclotrons and other particle accelerators are installed in hospitals (and I don't know someone is too much concerned about having a hospital in their neighbourhood).
      And no... it's not about risk... it's about fear. Most of the time is about fear and politically driven disinformation.

    4. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, that probably explains why the US is in the forefront of technological innovation and Argentina is not.

      You know? Opportunities and stuff like that. Let smart people do cool things, and the society will get ahead.

      Most people are idiots - their opinions aren't worth much anyway.

    5. Re:I can understand the hold by pocopoco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just like how irradiated food succeeded so brilliantly even though it is safe? Most people hear the word radiation or nuclear and that's it for them, logic never comes into play.

    6. Re:I can understand the hold by sporkmonger · · Score: 1

      I'm not even slightly surprised about the hold. People put some crazy things in their backyard. A guy just down the road from me decided to install a helipad in his backyard (without first getting a permit) and he's got helicopters flying in and out of his backyard now. Now, that... that deserved some legislation, if not for the safety issues, then at least because of the noise pollution. The whole community is pissed about that one. But a cyclotron? I mean, the guy's gotta be a little nuts to even want to do this, but still, if it's quiet and the only danger is to the guy building the dumb thing, why the need for emergency legislation? Did anyone involved bother to find out how his cyclotron works before getting upset?

    7. Re:I can understand the hold by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I want to see the proof for "most people" argument that the general populace is dumb. All to often I see a story like this on /. and some posters use the comment most people are too dumb to understand this technology. I want to see proof that backs this up. Is the general population that dumb where they can't be educated or do you just want trying to make yourself superior?

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    8. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, that probably explains why the US is in the forefront of technological innovation and Argentina is not.

      May be this comment is just too stupid to be replied... but if someone really cares about USA and Argentina regulations they can compare them:

      Nuclear Regulatory Commision (USA)
      Autoridad Regulatoria Nuclear (Argentina)

      They would probably be similar because these issues are usually discussed internationally by the International Comission on Radiological Protection and then the participant countries aprove their recommendations as regulations.

    9. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's the problem? He installs a helipad without getting approval, you install an anti-aircraft battery without getting approval. These things have a way of sorting themselves out.

    10. Re:I can understand the hold by penguinoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can understand the hold. It's all about risk. People in the area most likely don't know the possible repurcussions of this. At least, they havn't been stated before the record. If the repurcussions are low, I am sure this will go in without a problem. Have to look out a little for public safety.

      No, it's all about fear. So a cyclotron can produce nuclear reactions. So what. It only produces radiation in one direction, and I could stand in front of one plenty long without dying (yes I would get damaged). But put a chunk of lead in front of it and no problem, or just point it upwards.

      It might be able to explode due to heavy magnetic fields, but that wouldn't be very powerful. You should be afraid of natural gas, that can make a real explosion. Maybe people are justified in being afraid of nuclear power plants, but there are several models that can't explode.

      I can't believe I'm saying this, but a lot of people should start moving to Kansas...

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    11. Re:I can understand the hold by billdcon · · Score: 1
      What's the problem? He installs a helipad without getting approval, you install an anti-aircraft battery without getting approval. These things have a way of sorting themselves out.

      Heh. Where are my mod points when I need them?

    12. Re:I can understand the hold by diablomonic · · Score: 4, Funny

      49.9 % of the population has below average inteligence

      --
      watch "the money masters" on google video
    13. Re:I can understand the hold by SageMusings · · Score: 2

      Psst....Buddy, want to buy a .Sig?

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    14. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people is not dumb. But this issue needs a little knowledge of science to be understood, and not knowing about nuclear physics and engineering doesn't make people dumb, just disinformed.

      The problem is most people fear things they can't understand, so political decision can be driven managing people's access to (dis)information. Finns won that information fight at Olkiluoto and now they are building their 5th NPP (btw, Finns, who haven't developed lots of nuclear technology, are one of the best nuclear operators of the world of Western and Soviet designed NPPs both in safety and reliability).

      Some people (including well educated ones) think radiation is artificial and antropic... but if you check the facts you will see human contribution to people's exposure is minimal. I don't know anyone who cares about radiation exposition when deciding if moving or not to the mountains (higher cosmic rays exposure, higher dose from Radon). But if they are about to move near a nuclear power plant I'm sure they will think about it twice...

      I think people have to be informed about the risks and try to disipate their fear. That's the only way high technology projects can be accepted.

    15. Re:I can understand the hold by somersault · · Score: 1

      how do you know that it isn't that 1% of the population is dumb, but that they are so dumb as to bring down the average to only having that 1% of the population below the average? >_> You're one of them, aren't you =p Also the grandparent poster has clearly never had a job or watched the new, or he'd realise how dumb people are. In fact he's reading slashdot, how come he doesnt know yet?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:I can understand the hold by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      s/average/median/
      and spell intelligence correctly.

    17. Re:I can understand the hold by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      Although it is best to do this on a Friday. Statistics have shown that if you shoot down your neighbor's helicopters on a Friday, there's less chance of an incident. But I must say, that is an excellent way to fix the glitch.

    18. Re:I can understand the hold by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 1

      But then, the average intelligence would be higher, hence, more people are of below average intelligence.

      --
      Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
    19. Re:I can understand the hold by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't intelligence tend to follow a lognormal distribution rather than a normal?

    20. Re:I can understand the hold by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. People fear that which they do not understand.
      2. Nuclear Physics is hard* (apologies to Barbie(R))
      3. People fear Nuclear Physics

      *Definition: Hard: "Cannot be completely understood by any human based on common adult eduction methods**."
      **Definition: Adult Education Methods: "a 3 minute news story delivered on television in a sensationalized manner by a non-technically educated reporter."

      I think my sig is rather appropriate today...

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    21. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most people is not dumb.
      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
    22. Re:I can understand the hold by neural+cooker · · Score: 1
      One side may be wrong, but at least give them a chance to talk about it to reach a consensus on the subject. If one side perceives a risk that is found to not be there, it is important to alleviate the perception of risk, otherwise they might do something logical and try to protect themselves from the false risk. Like, in this case, maybe breaking into his house and dismantling his cyclotron.

      Also, discussing a subject with people who don't share your opinion about it is not the same as agreeing that they might be correct on the subject.

    23. Re:I can understand the hold by itchy92 · · Score: 1

      Is the general population that dumb where they can't be educated or do you just want trying to make yourself superior?

      Yes, to both.

      /semi-serious humor

      Regardless of how smart or stupid you choose to perceive people, the fact is that "nuclear" has one set connotation in people's minds. In truth, even I have an initial-- skepticism, for lack of a better word-- when I hear "nuclear" or "radiation". Now, personally I know that "nuclear" simply means "dealing with the nucleus" and "radiation" means "giving off energy", so my concerns are quelled. Being afraid of these concepts is like being afraid of "propulsion devices", because one such device is a gun (pardon the poor analogy).

      So is the general population so dumb that they can't be educated? Meh, debatable. But is it probable that they will be educated, when they've had 60 years to learn? Not really.

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
    24. Re:I can understand the hold by zerus · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of risk (99% of it to himself), which is why if he wants to build one, then he is going to have to follow all the same procedures that a hospital does when submitting a license application and radiation assessment for an accelerator. Nothing more, nothing less.

    25. Re:I can understand the hold by somersault · · Score: 1

      no, the average is the mean, maybe you're thinking of the mode? I'm just thinking that the 49.9% figure is flawed =P "Mean is one kind of average. It is computed by summing the values and dividing by the number of values. Two other common forms of averages are the mode and the median. The mode is the frequently occurring value in a set. The median is the middle value of the set when they are ordered by rank." http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/ a/avg-mean.html

      --
      which is totally what she said
    26. Re:I can understand the hold by foniksonik · · Score: 0

      Somewhat off topic, but I think many people don't like irradiated food because it's been irreversibly turned into 'not-food', as opposed to being afraid that it's radioactive.... much like many people don't eat extremely processed 'food products' either.

      I also don't eat 'table salt' since it's not really salt... just "sodium chloride combined with an iodine source"

      Something can be safe and still not good for you. Eating irradiated food is like eating a bunch of fibre and starch, it will fill you up but you'll starve slowly unless you supplement your diet with those low-grade vitamins at the store... and still you'll be malnourished and end up with multiple chronic disorders due to nutritional deficiencies.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    27. Re:I can understand the hold by pogson · · Score: 1

      Some Anonymous Coward wrote:"why the US is in the forefront of technological innovation and Argentina is not." The US used to be in the forefront of technological innovation. That is long past. Now the US is in the forefront of litigation. M$ comes to mind. Bloat and obsolescence are honoured in the US. Check out Asia. M$ is in rapid decline there. The top reason for businesses to switch to Linux is that their competitors have switched and they are at a disadvantage without using Linux. M$ is selling 20th C products in the 21st C. That doesn't fly well. The rest of the world will eat them for lunch. Look at automobiles. The US is still using gas guzzlers. Look at steel. etc. Look at Intel. They are selling their chips at a very high price compared to AMD for similar performance and using more power, too. Intel is going down because the world can see they are second rate. Both of these US corporations do most of their business outside the US and are essentially global e.g. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/manufacturing/ manufacturing_at_a_glance.pdf http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_ 52_502,00.html The cyclotron going to Alaska is sixties technology. It produces only a little gamma radiation if C12 blocks are used to prevent neutron emission. It should have some concrete shielding or be placed underground. Very little chance of environmental contamination. Internal parts may be readioactive.

      --
      A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
    28. Re:I can understand the hold by aelbric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that the general reaction to anything nuclear is tantamount to instantaneous hysteria. Even if the "other side" is misguided, there is never harm in a public conversation about an issue that is disputed. I could understand wanting to know a bit more if this guy were living next to me.

      Emergency legislation banning home cyclotrons? Gimme a break. Why not just have a councilmember go talk to the guy and say "Hey, look. Your neighbors are concerned. How about coming and giving a presentation to explain this thing to everyone before you install it?"

      My problem is that every disagreement in this country has to be some kind of a crusade nowadays. Don't like something? Protest! Shortchanged at the store? Sue! Teacher give your kid a B-? Lynch him! Guess we've lost the art of conversation.

      My opinion: If there is no serious, likely risk, let him have it.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    29. Re:I can understand the hold by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is not a matter of people being ignorant on nuclear technology or worry about it being in there backyard. Maybe they are worried about the potential for ignorant people handling said technology leading to bad things happening.

    30. Re:I can understand the hold by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      He doesn't even need to go to an illegal method to sort things out.

      I have a few ideas to share.

      1. An array of Roman Candles fired off prior to take off or landing. Though, a smart lawyer can find a way to get you in trouble.

      2. Large helium balloons held down by thick ropes.

      3. Smoke grenades, bonfire smoke, burning your own leaves, etc.

      4. My most innocent idea... a duck pond filled with ducks. Just scare them into flying towards the helipad. You can't sue Mother Nature. hehe...

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    31. Re:I can understand the hold by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent down as full of shiat.

      Vitamin C, for example is chemically fairly close to glucose and can be synthesized in large quantities.

      If the food is getting enough radiation to break up vitamins, it's you are doing it wrong.

      Radiation treatment kills LIVING cells, in particular bacteria and viruses and so on... stuff that makes you sick.

      Sodium chloride or sodium iodide is the same no matter what the source. (Psst, that's why they call it that, because it IS that.) It doesn't matter if the atoms come from the moon, the ocean, or horseshit.

      Parent is spouting typical left-wing holistic medicine hokum masquarading as "health".

    32. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > I think many people don't like irradiated food because it's been irreversibly turned into 'not-food',
      >
      >Eating irradiated food is like eating a bunch of fibre and starch, it will fill you up but you'll starve slowly unless you supplement your diet with those low-grade vitamins at the store... and still you'll be malnourished and end up with multiple chronic disorders due to nutritional deficiencies.

      (On the off chance that you're not trolling - and if you were, good job, I bought it :)

      "Bullshit."

      And you should be thankful that no restaurant had the balls to stand up to the hippie/lawyer industry and say "You guys who don't eat meat at all - fuck you, we're not selling to you. You guys who look for someone to sue every time something goes wrong - fuck you, we're not selling to you either. You guys who just want a burger with a little pink in the middle? Maybe even a little pink in the juice? Yeah, you. We're selling a product you like. You used to be able to order it at a restaurant. You used to be able to cook it without your wife going apeshit. Well, thanks to irradiated beef, we guarantee that you can eat it again, and you can do so safely. Come to Fred's Nukeyburgers, and get a burger like Grandpa used to make. Because nobody else has the balls to sell one."

    33. Re:I can understand the hold by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      "Parent is spouting typical left-wing holistic medicine hokum masquarading as "health"."
       
        Personally I don't like either your post or his. For instance, in your post, which certainly masquerades as an authoritive statement, you claim "radiation treatment kills LIVING cells, in particular bacteria and viruses and so on..." Gee, I guess I should inform the medical community that viruses are now "living cells"? What kind of dreck is this?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    34. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like how irradiated food succeeded so brilliantly even though it is safe? Most people hear the word radiation or nuclear and that's it for them, logic never comes into play.

      Who makes these decisions? Most people I know never had the choice to buy irradiated food. I don't know if they would, but it's hard to blame people who weren't involved.

    35. Re:I can understand the hold by Stroman+Rebar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just as an FYI, here in the US the NRC doesn't regulate cyclotrons, individual states do. There is a loophole in the regs about short lived radioactive material. Since all parts of the cylclotron are non-radioactive (or start that way, neutron activation eventually rearing it's ugly head) and most of the products produced by cyclotrons have short half lives, that falls out of the perview of the NRC. The FDA steps in if the products will be used for human consumption, but otherwise it is up to the State Radiation Protection Agency (or equivalent) to regulate the use of cyclotrons. I know that some folks within the NRC aren't happy about it, but that is the situation as I understand it.

    36. Re:I can understand the hold by Macdude · · Score: 1

      Radiation treatment kills LIVING cells, in particular bacteria and viruses and so on... stuff that makes you sick.

      You need a constant influx of bacteria and viruses in order to keep our immune system strong. If you "cleanse" your immune system you'll end up getting whipped out by a flu or the common cold.

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    37. Re:I can understand the hold by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Gee, I guess I should inform the medical community that viruses are now "living cells"? What kind of dreck is this?

      They are living cells. More importantly, bacteria is what makes you really sick, and it's alive. Radiation kills it dead.
      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    38. Re:I can understand the hold by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's why I recommend that, after eating your irradiated food, washing your hands with antibacterial soap, and spraying your house with lysol, you should go outside and eat some dirt!

    39. Re:I can understand the hold by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      maybe you're thinking of the mode?

      Actually, from your own quote it would be the median. Suppose there are 100 people in the population. Two have an IQ of 1, everybody else has an IQ of 2,3,4...99. The mode is 1, the median and mean are about 50.

      The median always splits a population into two groups of equal size (+/-1).

    40. Re:I can understand the hold by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      *Definition: Hard: "requires work".

      Fixed it for you.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    41. Re:I can understand the hold by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You aren't very good at math, are you?

      Also, look up the difference between average and median.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    42. Re:I can understand the hold by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      "radiation treatment kills LIVING cells, in particular bacteria and viruses and so on..." Gee, I guess I should inform the medical community that viruses are now "living cells"? What kind of dreck is this?

      You know what he meant. Other then the (technically) incorrect use of "cell" instead of "organism", he's 100% correct.

      As for "For instance, in your post, which certainly masquerades as an authoritive statement,"...
      foniksonik's post is conjecture and his opinion whereas foniksonik's post is (for the most part) fact.

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    43. Re:I can understand the hold by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      it's more than that. you see, there are a few people in the world who are hoarding all of the intelligence, and the "average intelligence" is actually much higher than most.

      Much like communism.

      Although, granted, none of them post on slashdot.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    44. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viruses are not living cells. Bactera are.

    45. Re:I can understand the hold by arfonrg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Radiation treatment kills LIVING cells, in particular bacteria and viruses and so on... stuff that makes you sick.

      You need a constant influx of bacteria and viruses in order to keep our immune system strong. If you "cleanse" your immune system you'll end up getting whipped out by a flu or the common cold.


      It doesn't "cleanse" your immune system, it keeps it active (the old "if you don't use it" rule) and you'll get a steady supply of bacteria and viruses from plenty of other sources. It's also an argument of WHICH bacteria and viruses you get. Some are worse than others.

      Irradiation is the second best thing that has happened to food supply with canning being the first.

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    46. Re:I can understand the hold by rifter · · Score: 1

      "Gee, I guess I should inform the medical community that viruses are now "living cells"? What kind of dreck is this?"

      They are living cells. More importantly, bacteria is what makes you really sick, and it's alive. Radiation kills it dead.

      Viruses are not complete cells (they don't have DNA). And they're not really living, either, at least not in the sense that bacteria are living. They cannot reproduce or grow and they don't consume food for energy. That's why they are called Viruses. They have to invade other cells and inject genetic code using the RNA they do possess which causes the cell to produce more viruses (among other things).

    47. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I do post occasionally.

    48. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want proof? Just look around you!

      Take a look at the lawbooks.
      How many are there to prevent the general public from stupidity and irresponsibility?

      Look at disclaimers on advertising and warnings on consumer products.
      On a bottle of spray paint: "Do not spray in your face."
      A full-face motorcycle helmet with a giant arrow pointing to the front.
      A stroller on the market: "Remove child before folding."

      Work in the ER for one night. See how many people come in missing a finger, a bit singed, or ingested something they shouldn't. You'd be suprised to hear some of the stories.

      Ride with a cop for one night. See how many people put their own lives and others in danger for absolutely insane reasons.

      Sit with a judge in a courtroom for one night.
      See how many people understand their rights; how many claim ignorance of laws that are basic common sense.

      Take a look at how many people have been scammed via telephone / e-mail into giving out banking information, getting involved in fake pyramid schemes, etc. Sure greed is a factor, but that greed inevitably causes people to do stupid things.

      You know the old saying "There are no stupid questions." Why is that? Because the idiot asking the stupid question hopefully will become less stupid as a result of the answer.

    49. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on the distribution of intelligence :) If we had a population where everyone had the same intelligence (e.g. were dumb as a rock), that breaks down.

      Now, half of the population *is* below the median (by definition).

    50. Re:I can understand the hold by NidStyles · · Score: 0

      Nothing you stated had anything to do with science. It was all based on corporations.

      --
      Yes, I said it.
    51. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you know that it isn't that 1% of the population is dumb, but that they are so dumb as to bring down the average to only having that 1% of the population below the average?
      Because IQ by definition gives a normal distribution which by its properties has the mean splitting the population in half. Thus 50% of the population has an IQ lower 100 and 50% has an IQ higher. What you have to realize about intelligence is there's no absolute metric - it's a relative one based upon the average intelligence of the population at the time. So scoring an IQ of 100 on todays scale is not the same as scoring 100 on the same IQ test 20 years ago (20 years ago you'd have scored higher).

      Also the grandparent poster has clearly never had a job or watched the new, or he'd realise how dumb people are
      Do I even have to say anything?

    52. Re:I can understand the hold by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      "Guess we've lost the art of conversation."

      Interestingly, those cable news shows that claim to feature rational debate from "both" sides (as if there are always exactly two sides to an issue) are part of the problem.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    53. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn your math sir/madam. If you measure intelligence on the basis of IQ and then your population sample gives IQ resuts of,

      55,55,57,100,60,66,55,50,160

      Then the mean (average) is about 73.1 which puts 7/9 (or 78%) of the population below average.

      Actually, since average is SUM(score)/# scores, you can get anything from ~0% of the population is below average to almost 100% of the population is below average.

      If you want the measure of intelligence in a population you not only need the average, you also want the standard deviation.

    54. Re:I can understand the hold by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most people hear the word radiation or nuclear and that's it for them, logic never comes into play.

      Man, you don't know how true that is. I know a bunch of hippies and post-hippies and most of them are really bright but if you try to tell them that the rays from some radioactive particles are incapable of penetrating skin they tell you it's a government conspiracy.

      The sad thing is that coal plants release more radioactive material into the air every year than has been released by all nuclear accidents put together. So the NIMBYists against new nuclear plants are directly responsible for cancer deaths due to radioactive materials. Idiots.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:I can understand the hold by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not always good to kill off all the cells. Ever hear of live food? Like beer :D

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re:I can understand the hold by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      I was always puzzled why some kids like to eat their buggers. I was told that the bugger taste/nutritional content closely parallels the taste of McDonald sandwiches but I doubted the evolutionary significance of Big Mac. So It is the other way around actualy - we are primed to eat this kind of stuff for our own good and Big Mac is just a surrogate.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    57. Re:I can understand the hold by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Food is still alive when/if you eat it right.... irradiation does the same amount of damage to the nutrition in your food as cooking it, say microwaving it for a few minutes... and then after it's been sitting on a shelf for several days in this half-cooked form, slowly decomposing (not rotting mind you, just decomposing at a chemically level, like milk does when exposed to sunlight), then you go ahead and put it in your fridge for another day or two, then finally you'll cook the stuff, further damaging the nutritious value before you ingest it.

      You know the old adage "garbage in, garbage out" well you're essentially putting 'corrupted' data into your system... yeah it looks okay at first glance... but it just won't give you the kind of results you'd hope for.

      p.s.

      Sodium chloride or sodium iodide is not Salt. It is a chemical that tastes salty. Salt is a misture of minerals from organic and inorganic sources, sodium chloride being one of them. It's like calling fermented grape juice Wine.... it's not, it's just fermented grape juice.

      Real Salt should taste buttery and have a complex flavor both salty and sweet. If you've never tasted any, you're missing out on life buddy.

      Also try a good $40 bottle of wine... let it breathe for an hour so the aldehydes and ketones will evaporate and mix correcly with the alcohol and trace juices, then drink out of a glass made for the type of wine... it's a whole different experience from the 2 buck chuck you must be drinking.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    58. Re:I can understand the hold by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well I was thinking things like eggs, ground beef, and poultry where there is a significant risk even in industrialized nations of getting nasties in with the food.

      Heck, I wish I had a "store" I could take my stuff to get it done. I'd be having beef tartar or "canibal sandwiches" every week.

      "Canibal Sandwich" = hard roll, raw ground beef with raw egg cracked over top. Salt, pepper, onion powder and green onions or chives. Yum.

    59. Re:I can understand the hold by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Uhm.... sodium chloride is indeed salt. One of many compounds called "salts".

      Yes you can buy table salt with other compounds in it if you want. However, the chief component of sodium chloride is required for it to be sold as "salt" in a grocery store.

      If you are changing the stuff with radiation, you are using too much radiation.

      I like cheap wine. Drink whatever floats your particular boat I guess.

      Your food snobbery doesn't change the physics of what happens during irradiation of food. Here's the Center For Disease Control's take on it; CDC on Irradiation

      You should expect that if you spout pseudo-science crap on Slashdot that someone will call you out on it.

    60. Re:I can understand the hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no reason to get so pedantic. In conversational speech, average can mean either mean or median, depending on context. The grandparent was not submitting a paper to a scientific journal, so the general non-technical usage of the word average to mean median is accurate.

      And, by definition, an IQ of 100 is the median.

    61. Re:I can understand the hold by budgenator · · Score: 1

      There is no state legistature or city council in the entire continent that would be able to draft legislation banning cyclotrons without banning television CRTs unless they recieved massive help from academic and industrial experts. Hell I remember people making linear accellerators for high school science fair projects and I'm 52; mine was geneticaly modified radishes. Today some kids are make hydrogen fusion reactors in high school.

      If he can get the instalation past the city building code inspectors and a pass radiation machine inspection from the alaskan public health dept.; they'd have a hard time stopping him.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    62. Re:I can understand the hold by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1

      Wow, some random yahoo built a helipad in his yard and people are using it? Who the hell is this guy, Scrooge McDuck?

      --
      Sleep is futile.
    63. Re:I can understand the hold by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I also don't eat 'table salt' since it's not really salt I suppose your one of those people who uses sea salt, extracted from our seas presently suffering from man-made pollution because it healthier than eating sea salt from a sea that existed a 100 million years before man was arround to make pollution.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    64. Re:I can understand the hold by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I guess i have a hard time considering any organism without metabolic activity as living, as far as killing a virus, I believe the proper term is inactivated,

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    65. Re:I can understand the hold by sporkmonger · · Score: 1

      I believe mostly it's his own helicopter being used, but yeah. It's pretty rediculous.

    66. Re:I can understand the hold by Macdude · · Score: 1
      You need a constant influx of bacteria and viruses in order to keep our immune system strong. If you "cleanse" your immune system you'll end up getting whipped out by a flu or the common cold.
      It doesn't "cleanse" your immune system, it keeps it active (the old "if you don't use it" rule) and you'll get a steady supply of bacteria and viruses from plenty of other sources. It's also an argument of WHICH bacteria and viruses you get. Some are worse than others.

      Eating iradiated foods, drinking heavily filtered water and using anti-bacterial soap will all reduce the amount of bacteria (and in the case of irradiation, viruses) you are consuming. That will weaken your immune system and make you more susceptible to viral infections and bacterial diseases. Our bodies are capable of dealing with almost any bacteria or virus if our immune systems are in top shape.
      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    67. Re:I can understand the hold by core+plexus · · Score: 1
      Emergency legislation banning home cyclotrons?

      Here's a story I read some time ago that includes the link to the regulations (*.PDF)

      FTA: "An article at KTUU stated: "Albert Swank, the technician who proposes operating the accelerator, says it would be no more dangerous in a neighborhood than a dental X-ray machine.

      "It poses less of a threat than many X-ray machines that are located within the community," said Swank. "

    68. Re:I can understand the hold by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Yes I've read the CDCs take on it... and I tend to take it with a grain of Salt, the kind that comes from the sea, or deposits left from sea water... much like I take the US Recommended Daily Allowance data... it's a minimum recommendation for basic health. So if you barely want to be healthy, then stick to the RDA and stick to irradiated food... then realize that to get what your body needs, you're going to end up eating way too many calories.. just to get your daily minimums of various nutrients.

      CDC stands for Center for Disease Control... their primary concern is that irradiated food isn't going cause significant issues with the food supply... much like how you're allowed to have a certain number of insect particles, foeces, etc. etc. in food without worrying that it will lead to illness that the body cannot fend off with a normal immune system.

      I didn't say that irradiated food would cause massive or even mild cases of radiation poisoning.. I said it (the food) is no longer a legitimate source of nutrition that you can count on for a healthy life. It's just not good for you if you have the choice of eating non-irradiated foods.

      Don't try to spout off your ignorance as knowledge just because you believe that the separated parts of something equal the whole, they don't. Your individual cells don't make up a person if you've split them all up, then recombined them in some pseudo-form of yourself... it's the built up relationships between them that make up the whole, not the parts themselves in proximity to each other. This is why sodium chloride/iodide is not Salt, and why sour grapes don't equal wine. You're a fool if you believe that.

      Think about this: words mean nothing without a culture to share... an apple is just a fruit unless it's also symbol of knowledge and a common placeholder for the color red and something kids bob for on halloween and a target for a stage Archer...

      There's more to life than empirical data kid. I'm telling you that irradiated food is bad because it's no longer food... it's damaged goods, like a person who gets to see their parents killed at age 5, it's no longer whole.

      But believe what you will... I won't take that leap of faith with you though. Enjoy your crappy food and your crappy wine, just don't complain when you end up with MS or Lupus or some other chronic and systemic illness you can't figure out how you got.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    69. Re:I can understand the hold by foniksonik · · Score: 0

      No I don't eat Table Salt because it's the end result of an industrial chemical process. I'll eat Salt that's been mined from deposits on land no problems... if it's from the right deposits... meaning actual ocean bed deposits, not rock salt... which is inorganic in composition, hence the rock part.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    70. Re:I can understand the hold by stor · · Score: 1

      1. People fear that which they do not understand.
      2. Nuclear Physics is hard* (apologies to Barbie(R))
      3. People fear Nuclear Physics


      Maybe we need a nuclear physics version of this.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    71. Re:I can understand the hold by somersault · · Score: 1

      I was saying for example if everyone apart from 2 people had an IQ of 105 and a couple had 1, then the averagewould get dragged down but not exactly 50% would be under the average. The median would not always split the groups in equal size, unless there was a perfect spread, and an even number of people in the group. Fisk fisk.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    72. Re:I can understand the hold by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Exactly:
      for and against!
      With me or against me!
      Darkside and Lightside! (of the gaffer tape)
      On or Off!

      Come we're computer geeks we know that the world is binary in this information age :-)
      Now let me show this prototype of a binary transistor I made...

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    73. Re:I can understand the hold by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      You know I htink you're onto something!
      Dogs will eat grass when their digestive system is missing fibre, preganant women will have cravings.
      It only makes sense that living in sanitised conditions makes people crave McDonalds...

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  3. May be he should have opeted for a Brige by chandip · · Score: 5, Funny

    Local lawmakers rushed to introduce emergency legislation banning the use of cyclotrons in home businesses. State health officials took similar steps, and have suspended Swank's permit to operate cyclotrons on his property.

    This the same lawmakers who wanted a A bridge to nowhere costing $941 Million?

    --
    the sig
    1. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by bcattwoo · · Score: 4, Informative
      This the same lawmakers who wanted a A bridge to nowhere costing $941 Million?

      Now to be fair, the bridge itself cost only $223 million. The $941 million was for the overall pork that Alaska got in that bill. That works out to ~$1500 per Alaskan compared to the $86 per citizen for the country as a whole.

    2. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it wasn't a brigde to nowhere, it would have connected property, owned by a politician, to the mainland. Just the thing to raise the value of his land.... after houses are planted all over the island.

      Getting back to the orginal story, if the guy seriously wants to build a cyclotron for medical isotope production he should consider buying a building on the outskirts of town. While I understand the principles of a cyclotron, used to spend weekends with my father at Lawerence Berkeley Labratory during runs, just don't think it is appropriate in a neighborhood.

      Hmmm I like the idea of buying every citizen in Alaska a nice yacht, the waters off of Baja California are much nicer in the Winter than Alaska... No I don't live in Alaska, but I would be will into learn... if I could get a yatch... with broadband speed connetivity.

    3. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by jo7hs2 · · Score: 1

      State health officials don't usually build bridges, or make laws, for that matter.

    4. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

      $941 million could have bought a lot of cool science gadgets. Just think, that's a couple Mars probes right there. Or, more topically, that's a couple million XBox 360's.

    5. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by guaigean · · Score: 1

      As an Alaskan, I can say that MANY of us feel the bridge to Ketchikan is a sinkhole. It's a waste of federal money, and I've been to Ketchikan... There's not much there. However, a bridge to Anchorage (our largest city) is also prodded and poked at, despite the fact that it has significant growth opportunities for Alaska, and this bridge is also part of that bill.

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
    6. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. This is the Anchorage Assembly. Open your Google Earth... a couple thousand miles seperates these towns. Most Anchorage residents I know (I to am one of them) think the "bridge to nowhere" is a crazy waste of tax dollars.

      The guy building this device lives in the downtown area of Anchorage (Pop. 250,000+). This isn't about the safety of the residents as scients tells us that is not a concern. The issue is a guy building a big-ass machine in the middle of a high-value downtown area. If your nieghbor was doing something that was pissing off all the other nieghbors, reguardless of the safety or legality, you've got to try and work within society's tolerances. The truth is Alaska's a big place, if he really wants to make this without a lot of hassle, an hour drive north will give his all the space he could ever need.

    7. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your nieghbor was doing something that was pissing off all the other nieghbors, reguardless of the safety or legality, you've got to try and work within society's tolerances.

      Not for everything. There are some rights your neighbors should not be able to take away. For example, in the US, many neighborhoods formerly had rules against residents selling their homes to Black or Jewish families. Many more dscriminatory rules of this type existed. Those rules are plainly wrong.
      So it's not quite as simple as "You can't do _____ if all your neighbors are against it."

    8. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That works out to ~$1500 per Alaskan compared to the $86 per citizen for the country as a whole.

      How much per square mile? You make it sound like Alaska is robbing and pillaging from the rest of the US. Would you care to look at the resources Alaska provides the US? The largest zinc mine in the world, one of the largest lead mines in the world, possibly the largest gold deposit in the world (just found, the mine is being built now), oh, and some oil that is always making it in the news. I see that Alaska gets about $1500 per square mile for pork, but the rest of the US is at about $90,000 pork per square mile. Alaska is a bargin.

      Oh and yes, both bridges are useless pieces of pork. One is a bridge to the airport that will take longer for the drive than the ferry it is replacing. The other is a redundant bridge to an uninhabited area that our US Representative and his friends have lots of land at. Both should be done away with, but that doesn't change the fact that our pork really isn't that bad. We do have a lot of area to cover with the money provided.

    9. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by bcattwoo · · Score: 1
      How much per square mile? You make it sound like Alaska is robbing and pillaging from the rest of the US.

      Feeling defensive? I merely pointed out the facts without any editorial comment at all.

      If you want to get pissy though: Do the citizens themselves provide these resources? Does that zinc, lead, and oil get provided to the rest of the U.S. for free or do the companies that extract it instead get paid at whatever the market rate is? Don't you also get some kind of dividend check from the state on the taxes it levies on that extracted oil?

    10. Re:May be he should have opeted for a Brige by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do the citizens themselves provide these resources?

      No, but the "pork" is often used to improve the infrastructure to reach the remote areas to access these resources.

      Don't you also get some kind of dividend check from the state on the taxes it levies on that extracted oil?

      Sure. But why not? In Texas, when you buy land, you get the mineral rights as well. The state of TX doesn't own much land. So they don't get much from the removal of oil. However, in most cases, the resources in Alaska are removed from public land, or from land the government holds the mineral rights to. So, I do own a portion of that oil extracted, as it belongs to all Alaskan residents. And, with the oil prices as they are, the market where it is, and other factors, the check in two years should be back up to over $2000 per Alaskan. Oh, and Alaska is still one of the most profitable (for the private companies) oil fields in the world, despite the remote location and harsh conditions.

  4. Three Mile Island by students · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wasn't very dangerous either.

    1. Re:Three Mile Island by qwertphobia · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope you were being facetious.

      Three Mile Island was nearly catastrophic. And radiation did leave the plant during the accident.

      A quick Google search gave me this:http://www.fatherryan.org/nuclearincidents/tm i.htm/

      I was a young child then, and I still remember the terror of living within the evacuation area. Nobody knew when they would need to jump in the car and leave their homes behind.

      --
      Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
    2. Re:Three Mile Island by Flaming+Babies · · Score: 1
      Three Mile Island was nearly catastrophic.
      Yep...and all because some guy thought he was smarter than his equipment.
      Nice link though...One of the most notable outcomes of the Three Mile Island disaster was the ultimate collapse of the nuclear power industry
      What collapse? I work for a company that supplies the nuclear industry and we're setting new sales records every year.
      It may have slowed things down a little, but collapse, not even close.
      --
      The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
    3. Re:Three Mile Island by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least this fella can stick a sign out the front... "Gone Fission"....

      I'll show myself out.

    4. Re:Three Mile Island by Eccles · · Score: 1

      How about "the collapse of the nuclear power plant construction industry?" It's been a long time since a new plant has been licensed.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    5. Re:Three Mile Island by Flaming+Babies · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe in the U.S.
      ...but is that because of 3MI?

      Why aren't new nuclear plants under construction in the U.S.?
      Nuclear- and coal-powered plants are "baseload" facilities that operate continuously. Few
      baseload power plants have been built in the United States since 1980 because much of the
      country has excess electricity. Many utilities have only built "peaking" plants: small
      facilities, generally fueled by oil or natural gas, that quickly can be turned on and off,
      according to swings in demand.

      More are now being planned.

      --
      The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
    6. Re:Three Mile Island by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      No, the threat of a nuclear reactor going meltdown and melting down through the mantle, coming into contact with supercold water and suffering drastic thermal expansion/contraction and spreading nuclear radiation for a few hundred miles is minimal.

      That's what the Three Mile administrators said, too.

      Shame it didn't actually happen, might have knocked some sense into them. Came damn close though.

      --
      Goten Xiao
    7. Re:Three Mile Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in the US, but the rest of the world are still building. Hell the UK alone is expected to start building a whole series of new plants within the next decade.

    8. Re:Three Mile Island by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Then you're talking about the US nuclear industry. A new nuclear reactor is being built in Finland as we speak.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    9. Re:Three Mile Island by starwed · · Score: 1

      I think the point was that people initially claimed that 3MI wasn't dangerous.

    10. Re:Three Mile Island by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Three Mile Island was nearly catastrophic. And radiation did leave the plant during the accident.

      If you look at it in a global view, I would suspect more people die of lung related diseases from coal and fossil fuel emmissions on a yearly basis than ever died of 3MI, Chernobyl, and all nuclear releated accidents put together.

      I'm not supporting one over the other or even advocating nuclear power, but you have to remember sometimes that if a disaster or worse case scenario looks worse on paper or in people's minds or in actuality (like 3MI or Chernobyl), it is generally the more mundane that tends to be more unhealthy or causes more deaths.

      Kind of like deaths related to cars vs deaths related to plane crashes but I'm breaking my own rules about analogies here (well this isn't internet related).

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    11. Re:Three Mile Island by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      You suppose my neighbors would object if I install a magnetron in my kitchen for the purposes of irradiating comestibles with RF radiation?

      Imagine the outcry. Hell, we'd have to have a city council meeting at the very least.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    12. Re:Three Mile Island by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Three Mile Island was nearly catastrophic.

      It certainly wasn't good, and it definitely underscored the need for more modern designs in nuclear power plants. However, the plant *did* shut down like it was designed to do. And even if it hadn't, we still wouldn't have had another Chernobyl on our hands. Chernobyl was a poor design that was intentionally compromised for "testing". A very bad situation indeed.

      The TMI design was sufficiently different that the materials wouldn't have been able to spread in the way that Chernobyl did. (And Chernobyl has been somewhat overstated, mind you.)

      And radiation did leave the plant during the accident.

      It's not the radiation you need to worry about. Radiation falls off according to the inverse square law. Unless you were standing next to the plant itself, you weren't in much danger. The *real* problem is the radioisotopes. If they escape the plant (which is what happened in Chernobyl's rather spectacular boiler explosion) they will make their way into the food and water supplies, and - by extension - into our bodies. Those radioisotopes would then proceed to give you cancer from the inside out.

      I was a young child then, and I still remember the terror of living within the evacuation area. Nobody knew when they would need to jump in the car and leave their homes behind.

      Which is the sad part about the lack of public education on everything nuclear. The plant was not a "bomb" waiting to destroy your neighborhood. Had TMI gone through a spectacular failure, you would have been able to evacuate without too much difficulty. The local resources would have been contaminated, but otherwise you would have been reasonably safe.

      Keep in mind that the dozen or so people who died in Chernobyl were people at the plant. All other deaths (which have been greatly exaggerated by the media, mind you) were from radioisotope contamination. Thankfully, most everyone who experienced Thyriod problems were treated. (An impressive feat given the status of the Soviet government at that point.)

      Don't get wrong. Nuclear technology can be a scary thing, and people DID die in Chernobyl. Had something worse happened, people might have died from TMI as well. But the amount of FUD surrounding these two incidents has caused massive (perhaps irreparable) damage to the development of safer technologies for controling nuclear power. Technologies, mind you, that could be useful in the next generation of power production. Even Fusion performed without proper safeguards is a very dangerous practice.

    13. Re:Three Mile Island by weiserfireman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was a Nuclear Power Technician in the US Navy. The week I arrived in Idaho for prototype training at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, scientists and nuclear engineers arrived from around the world to recreate TMI. INEL has about 200 nuclear reactors of all sizes and ages. They were all built for research purposes. They had one that they felt was similiar enough to the TMI reactor for their purposes. They recreated the conditions of TMI and let the reactor go to see just how bad it could have gotten. The result? As predicted, the nuclear reaction stopped when all the water was gone, there was some core damage due to residual heat. But that was it. No catastrophic melt down. No failure of the primary reactor vessel, no breach of secondary shielding. No measurable (ie higher than natural background) radiation levels were ever measured outside the fence at Three Mile Island. I don't minimize the emotions of the people who lived in the area at the time. Their fears were real. But those fears were a result of purposely inadequate education of the general public about nuclear science by the Government. It is much easier to protect a "secret" if no one understands what you are talking about.

    14. Re:Three Mile Island by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      "nearly"??? nearly doesn't count, you're alive and posting and not dying of cancer. Unlike some soviet reactor designs (*cough* *cough*), we have decent containment systems, which would have kept 3MI from killing you even if coolant ran out. Disclaminer: YIWINPPAROS (yes, I've worked in nuclear power plant as refueling outage scheduler)

    15. Re:Three Mile Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you were joking - did you even look to where you linked to? Its a high school and the web site was created for a computer class. So everything on the internet must be true - especially facts about a highly debated incident. Whether or not it scared you as a child has no baring on what actually happened

    16. Re:Three Mile Island by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

      "And radiation did leave the plant during the accident."

      OH MY GOD! TRACE AMOUNTS OF RADIATION WERE RELEASED!

      SHUT DOWN THE COAL-FIRED PLANTS NOW!

      Yes, coal-fired plants do release radioactive materials into the atmosphere. There's one plant in Utah that dumps more radioactive material into the atmosphere in a single day than the TMI accident. (This is due to trace amounts of uranium in the coal burned by the plant.) Oh, let's not forget that in addition to being radioactive, the uranium that the aforementioned coal plant releases is chemically toxic too, as opposed to the krypton released by TMI which is chemically inert and hence there is no way for it to bind itself to anything in the body. Let's not forget all the other chemical nastiness in the emissions from coal plants.

      According to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact -sheets/3mile-isle.html ,the average dose to people nearby was 1 millirem. That's 1/6th of the dose from a full set of chest x-rays and less than 1% of yearly exposure to background radiation.

      In short, coal-fired plants do more damage to the environment each day than the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history.

      Chernobyl does not count here, because it could not have happened in a U.S. power reactor, here are a few reasons why:
      U.S. power reactors are fully water-moderated. If the water boils off, the core will likely melt, but the reaction will begin slowing down because the water is needed for the reaction to continue. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was graphite moderated and hence the reaction could continue even when water boiled off.

      U.S. power reactors don't contain large amounts of superheated flammable substances in their core. The initial incident at Chernobyl was a steam explosion that wouldn't have been bad if not for the fact that it exposed the superheated radioactive graphite in the core to air, which immediately began burning violently, dispersing the core's contents into the atmosphere.

      Operators of U.S. power reactors don't disable all of their reactor's safety systems in order to run dangerous experiments. (Chernobyl's reactor should have scrammed itself long before the accident occurred, but the operators intentially disabled all of the reactor's safety systems.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    17. Re:Three Mile Island by mlush · · Score: 0
      It's not the radiation you need to worry about. Radiation falls off according to the inverse square law. Unless you were standing next to the plant itself, you weren't in much danger. The *real* problem is the radioisotopes. If they escape the plant (which is what happened in Chernobyl's rather spectacular boiler explosion) they will make their way into the food and water supplies, and - by extension - into our bodies. Those radioisotopes would then proceed to give you cancer from the inside out.

      ... so your saying little radiation got out, just radioisotopes? Of course, radioisotopes are not at all radioactive and don't emit any form of dangerous radiation at all do they

      <snip> Which is the sad part about the lack of public education on everything nuclear. The plant was not a "bomb" waiting to destroy your neighborhood. Had TMI gone through a spectacular failure, you would have been able to evacuate without too much difficulty. The local resources would have been contaminated, but otherwise you would have been reasonably safe.

      Where did the OP say bomb?? All he talked about was the fear of having to leave ones home without notice never to return... which is pretty horriffic for anyone

    18. Re:Three Mile Island by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      I think your site is a bit biased, especially when it says:

      However, the good news is that the end is in sight--the reactor is scheduled to be decommissioned

      or almost as bad:

      There have been numerous medical cases which precipitated directly from radioactive fallout, and countless others which have not and cannot be proven.

      while other people suggest:

      No identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred and "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident ... is approximately one."

      Three mile island was mostly just scary.

    19. Re:Three Mile Island by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      might have knocked some sense into them

      It knocked some sense into other people. France, in particular, waited until the technology was more mature, and doesn't seem to be having problems.

    20. Re:Three Mile Island by khallow · · Score: 1
      Maybe in the U.S.
      ...but is that because of 3MI?

      I'd say "yes". IIRC, there was a strong correlation. The industry was slowing down by the time of 3MI, but no new plants were started in the US after the accident (for the next three decades).

    21. Re:Three Mile Island by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl was terrible, the IAEA estimates that it will eventually cause several thousand deaths due to thyroid cancer. This is because contamination can only be prevented, not treated once it has happened.

      As far as TMI goes, there was a lot of concern at the time that they hydrogen bubble in the reactor core at TMI would cause a breach of containment. The accident did not prevent development of safer reactor designs, the newer designs are far safer. Even today, however, we still don't fully understand all of the materials science which occurs in a pressurized water reactor, so it's tough to say how safe the newer designs can actually be.

      The real reason why nuclear power has not become more prevalent in the US is cost. It's currently much cheaper to generate power by other means, but only because nuclear plants are very well regulated while other types are not. Having worked at a company in the nuclear industry, nuclear reactors scare me. But while there is a certain amount of unknown risk in operating them, it's better than the alternative of coal which exposes the public to high radiation doses while it poisons the air and contributes huge amounts of global warming gasses. Solar power could also help out quite a bit if its costs were lowered, I'd love to see the US government invest a higher portion than 0.5% of its energy budget into research and conservation to help realize this goal.

    22. Re:Three Mile Island by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... so your saying little radiation got out, just radioisotopes? Of course, radioisotopes are not at all radioactive and don't emit any form of dangerous radiation at all do they

      You have missed my point, sir. My point was that leaking radiation is not a serious danger to the general populace. Had radioisotopes leaked, THAT would have been a serious danger.

      Where did the OP say bomb?? All he talked about was the fear of having to leave ones home without notice never to return... which is pretty horriffic for anyone

      Perhaps the OP did mean that he was afraid of an orderly evacuation of the area due to contamination. More likely, (especially given his point about "radiation leaking") he and others were scared that the plant would have effects similar to a bomb. It was quite common at that time (and even today, I'm afraid) to believe that nuclear power plants can produce effects similar to a nuclear weapon. i.e. The two main concerns are that the plant will suffer a nuclear detonation or that the plant will produce a constant stream of radiation that will kill everything in the area.

      Now if the OP wishes to correct me and tell me you are correct, that is fine. But in the meantime I must assume he is referring to the perceived effects of a nuclear power plant.

    23. Re:Three Mile Island by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

      krypton released by TMI which is chemically inert and hence there is no way for it to bind itself to anything in the body.

      I'm Superman you insensitive clod!

      --
      Here we go again!
    24. Re:Three Mile Island by Tesen · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder if the same residents know that if they own a CRT they already have a small Particle Accelerator in their houses already! Oh no! We must outlaw TV's now!

      Tes

    25. Re:Three Mile Island by students · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that we agree. The three mile island acident was not dangerous, because the reactor was never breached. I'm sure it was scary. But people are also "terrified" by Al Qaeda even though it has killed very few people.

    26. Re:Three Mile Island by jerald_hams · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the dozen or so people who died in Chernobyl were people at the plant. All other deaths (which have been greatly exaggerated by the media, mind you) were from radioisotope contamination.

      Apparently you've bought into the Soviet propaganda. I grew up in Kiev (~80 miles south of Chernobyl) and was there at the time Chernobyl blew up. The government denied anything was wrong for days and refused to evacuate the area. People knew something horrible had happened since the families of everyone with Party connections disappeared the next day.

      Aside from the ~30 workers who died at the plant, thousands of soldiers who were recruited to drop sand and lead onto the burning reactor died several months to years later (they were breathing in radioactive dust). Their deaths were never acknowledged by the government.

      Nobody knows how many people died from cancer as a result of Chernobyl, the government never tried to assess the damage. Anecdotally I would guess the number is very high. My grandmother died of cancer, my grandfather has several forms of cancer right now, all of their friends have died of cancer, my mother had cancer.

      Try telling something as stupid and cruel as "Thankfully, most everyone who experienced Thyriod problems were treated" to my grandfather, whose tumorous thyroids were removed earlier this year.

      Jesus! I know you want to bolster support for your pet cause, but why would you ever believe *anything* the Soviet government said?

    27. Re:Three Mile Island by Stregone · · Score: 1

      Definitly! The government needs to start a CRTs for Plasma program.

    28. Re:Three Mile Island by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      These are the real figures from sources other than the Soviet goverment. I'll say again, the death figures have been highly overstated by the media.

      Try telling something as stupid and cruel as "Thankfully, most everyone who experienced Thyriod problems were treated" to my grandfather, whose tumorous thyroids were removed earlier this year.

      My best wishes to you and your grandfather. I hope his recovery has been swift and as painless as possible.

      I realize that you and many others have personal feelings on the issue. What the Soviet government did with Chernobyl was NOT a good thing. Especially to the fire fighters and soldiers who weren't told what the problem was. Or the people allowed to gawk at the pretty lights coming out of the reactor building. Or allowing people to remain long enough to eat and drink from the local resources. Or a million other things the Soviet Union did completely wrong to make the situation worse.

      But nothing is gained by overstating the event.

      Consider the case of Alexander Yuvchenko. He was in the reactor itself, and suffered FAR worse effects from the event than yourself or your grandfather. Here's what he has to say:

      Q: What do you think about nuclear power?

      A: I'm fine about it, as long as safety is put head and shoulders above any other concern, financial or whatever. If you keep safety as your number one priority at all stages of planning and running a plant, it should be OK.


      Considering what he has been through, he's a truely amazing man.

    29. Re:Three Mile Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The three mile island acident was not dangerous, because the reactor was never breached. I'm sure it was scary. But people are also "terrified" by Al Qaeda even though it has killed very few people.

      Well, AQ has killed very few people compared to influenza, auto accidents, alcoholism, major earthquakes/tsunamis, a typical war, etc. But it has killed a lot of people compared to Ted Bundy, sharks, etc.
      The Three Mile Island accident was much less deadly than any of these, as it is generally estimated to kill on average approximately one person due to cancer. Of course that estimate is not without some controversy.

    30. Re:Three Mile Island by jerald_hams · · Score: 1

      There are so many problems with the study you linked to.
      First of all, it *does* rely on Soviet propaganda-statistics.
      The Chernobyl accident resulted in a total number of 237 individuals who were suspected of suffering from acute radiation sickness (ARS). Of these, 28 died due to radiation exposure.
      How else could these numbers be obtained if not from the Soviet government? What external agency would have had access to medical records?

      Second, the current state of health reporting in post-Soviet countries is abysmal. What can a statement like: This is now reported as 600-800 total cases [of thyroid cancer]. There are 3 associated deaths in this population. possibly mean, when millions of people in the affected area are too poor to see a doctor (and public healthcare requires bribes to get treated). My other grandfather in Kiev would be living on a $33/month pension (if not for money my family sends him). His situation is not abnormal. On that money most people can't afford to bribe a public doctor or hire a private. The problems of the poor and elderly generally go unreported.

      Even worse, how can any study tally the medical problems of the millions of ex-Soviet citizens who have left the affected area since the collapse of the Soviet Union?

      The WHO puts the estimate of thyroid cancers resulting from Chernobyl at 4000 [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005 /pr38/en/%5D, a number I think is too low (for the above reasons).

      Also from your link: Most (est 95%) of these cancers are treatable with no long term adverse prognosis except the need for routine thyroid medication.. Maybe a highly invasive surgery to remove your thyroid glands, followed by a lifetime dependency on thyroidal hormone supplements sounds like fun to you. But maybe you'd change your opinion if the government dumped radioactive iodine in *your* drinking water.

      As for the Yuvchenko quote: I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with nuclear power. It's done safely in the US, France and other countries. But I *do* have a problem with people trying to pass off Chernobyl as "no biggie". The damage done by that disaster is literally incalculable. Just because you check some records and find "Oh ho! Not much cancer here!" only means you had a reason to not look very hard.

    31. Re:Three Mile Island by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      As long as we're talking about coal and toxic contaminants, I want to add in another one I discovered when looking up information on disposal of compact flourescent bulbs. The EPA and most munincipalities allow private individuals to dispose of flourescent bulbs in ordinary trash despite containing mercury. The reason is the amount of mercury released when they're discarded and broken is offset by the amount of mercury contained in the coal needed to be burned to power an equivalent incandescent bulb.

    32. Re:Three Mile Island by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 1

      No, the threat of a nuclear reactor going meltdown and melting down through the mantle, coming into contact with supercold water...

      That would be *VERY* impressive. Melting through the crust all the way to the mantle would be an incredible feat that has so far not been accomplished. Finding supercold water in the mantle mixed in with all the red-to-white-hot molten magma would be an incredible discovery as well!

    33. Re:Three Mile Island by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      >.>
      .

      --
      Goten Xiao
    34. Re:Three Mile Island by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      As for the Yuvchenko quote: I think you misunderstand me. I have no problem with nuclear power. It's done safely in the US, France and other countries. But I *do* have a problem with people trying to pass off Chernobyl as "no biggie".

      In that case, sir, you have misunderstood me. I have never once called Chernobyl "no biggie" or anything to that effect. I called it a tragedy, but highly overstated by the media.

      Everything else you have stated has been your personal feelings on the issue, and are not representative of any established facts. I understand your family has gone through tough times, and you have my sympathies. I lost my father to cancer when I was a small child, so I've been there. But to accuse others of inventing facts and demeaning the tragedies because of your own feelings only serves to demean all those who have suffered.

  5. NIMBY YIMBY by corcoranp · · Score: 2, Funny

    That'll bring down your NIMBY score...
    I'd put a skateboarding halfpipe next to him, maybe that will improve the area.

    --
    Peter Corcoran
    1. Re:NIMBY YIMBY by millahtime · · Score: 1

      People fear what they don't understand. They hear nuclear and they think 3 mile island or world war 2. They don't think of safety. A little education and reassurance is what people need. Head to head fighting will loose this. The people need to have their point of view changed.

    2. Re:NIMBY YIMBY by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      They hear nuclear and they think 3 mile island or world war 2. They don't think of safety.

      That's the amazing thing. "Radioactive" goes in one ear, and "OMGF" comes out the mouth without stopping to think whether it's actually dangerous or what the benefits are.

      In many smoke detectors on the market, there's a very small amount of Americium, a radioactive isotope that releases alpha particles when it decays. Most people are blissfully unaware of the presence of such a horrible grave threat in their homes, but if they did know about it, they'd throw that smoke detector out the window, saying, "The city building inspector can go screw himself. I'm not gonna let my children die from brain cancer just because 'they' claim it will keep them from dying from smoke inhalation when my cigarette catches my mattress on fire in the middle of the night."

  6. (What do you care about the subject for?) by shobadobs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is just people being stupid. Also the reason they dropped 'Nuclear' from NMRI.

    1. Re:(What do you care about the subject for?) by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is just people being stupid. Also the reason they dropped 'Nuclear' from NMRI.

      I think it was more that if you went to your hospital and said you were in for an NMR, you might have received something other than a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance scan... ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:(What do you care about the subject for?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually i'm pretty sure it's documented somewhere that the reason they just call it mri is because (i'm guessing some committee or the creators of the tech) thought the public would be too fearful of the new technology(as they fear it enough already).

    3. Re:(What do you care about the subject for?) by dwandy · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    4. Re:(What do you care about the subject for?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm not mistaken, NMR is a different field than MRI. While an offshoot, NMR is at the molecular scale -- more a tool for cell biologist rather than MDs.

    5. Re:(What do you care about the subject for?) by ivan+kk · · Score: 1

      For those that don't get it, NMR, when said out loud, is pronounced en-em-a

      From dictionary.com,
      enema
      1. The injection of liquid into the rectum through the anus for cleansing, for stimulating evacuation of the bowels, or for other therapeutic or diagnostic purposes.
      2. The fluid so injected.

    6. Re:(What do you care about the subject for?) by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      For those that don't get it, NMR, when said out loud, is pronounced en-em-a

      Maybe in New England. In the rest of the English-speaking world, "NMR" said out loud is pronounced "en-em-ar".

      For those of you in New England... "Fork" and "Fuck" do NOT sound the same.

      First time I visited my wife's relatives in Massachusetts, I nearly crapped my pants when my future mother-in-law, after dropping her eating utensil on the floor, asked my future father-in-law if he could go "get her a clean fuck".

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

    7. Re:(What do you care about the subject for?) by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      I thought they went from calling it NMR to MRI; I'd never seen "NMRI" in print. Yes, there is no ionizing radiation present, but: (1) there is a magnetic field present, a potentially dangerous one if it's switched on near ferromagnets -- there was a Bond movie in which this happened; and (2) it's used for imaging -- some used of NMR, such as identification of organic compounds, don't involve imaging. So I believe the new name is more descriptive.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  7. Phear Science by ch-chuck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    also beware of those cookies /. gives you from doubleclick.net, ru4.com and who know where else.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  8. Re:Go for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anchorage has a quarter million people, not exactly what most people would consider a "remote area."

    I guess you could have meant remote as in far away from you, personally, but then your comment would make less sense.

  9. It cant be any more dangerous by mustafap · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Than living in a country where everyone has a gun ;o)

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    1. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only some of them have guns..... All of them can vote.

      This scares me far more

    2. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only some of them have guns..... All of them can vote.

      This scares me far more


      Then I guess the only way you can sleep at night is the knowledge that only about 40% vote in presidential elections, even less for most mid-term federal elections.

    3. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Formica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean like Switzerland?

    4. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by nordicfrost · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      It is not so much the ammount of guns as the easy availablity at home. I'm a gun owner in Europe (2 semi pistols) and overall, we have just as many guns at home as the US, due to the fact that the national guard store their weapons at home. I don't care for the American attitude towards guns, but that is their problem. What scares me is how they treat their weapons and their hostility towards safe gun practice. I store the guns in a gunvault, approved by the insurance company, bolted to the concrete wall, hidden in my flat and protected by an alarm. This is the demands the police have for gun ownership, and I like them. On the american discussion boards, they often debate how their guns were stolen and what to do. This is a non-issue here, since it is practically impossible for thieves to stel the guns, and since my apartment has an alarm they never even bother to try. Crime averted. From what I see on the discussion boards, a rather large segment of the American gun owners store their guns in extremely dumb places like drawers, closets and small lockable boxes around the house and vechicles. This is, of course, an invitation to thieves. Especially sinve gun boxes are very easy to identify by their size and apperance. Many of them also carry their gun around on their body, loaded. This is strictly forbidden where I live and for a good reason. Easy access to guns lead to more gun use. Simple as that. This goes for police, civilians and criminals. Here, the guns are hard to get by, even if they exist in a lot of homes, since it is a hunting nation. But it is a nation educated in gun use (there's a demand of clean police record, gun club membership, 3-day mandatory course and proven gun club participation for over six months plus recommendation from gun club predsidents to get a handgun here. Shotguns and hunting rifles are easier).

      What America lacks is not more gun freedom, but more gun sense. Every yahoo can get a gun, fine, but the real trouble starts when you lose the gun to someone due to poor storage sense. I guess that if the US would try to improve on the huge loss of firearms to criminals every year, the NRA would freak out and go to Capitol Hill chaning the second amendment. I don't see anywhere that the second amendment calls for moronic storage of their firearms? I'm a bit scared when I read bout civilians storing 10+ firearmsin their home, just locking them in a closet. Here, that is punisable because you don't want to give the thieves an edge. Over there, it's "part of my freedom, dangnabbit!".

    5. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phew, I was afraid I'd read a story where no one made an offtopic swipe at the US. Good show old bean. Well, now that this is settled, I can go back to adding unnecessary vowels to words and being a fop. Cheerie ho!

    6. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      I don't have a gun...nor does anyone I know, save those who own hunting rifles...which are few.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    7. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      What America lacks is not more gun freedom, but more gun sense. Every yahoo can get a gun, fine, but the real trouble starts when you lose the gun to someone due to poor storage sense.

      Unfortunately, it's difficult to legislate common sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the 2nd amendment. But just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. It's scary to think that every yahoo you get into an argument with on the road might be packing a gun under his seat, or that the belligerent drunk in the local bar might have a concealed weapon on him.

      Everyone has this image of someone breaking into their home and needing to defend themselves. But this is actually very rare. Most shootings happen when two people get into an argument in the neighborhood, on the street, or at a club or bar and one of them has a gun on him or in his car.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by OverkillTASF · · Score: 1

      More accurately,

      "Living in a country where everyone can own a gun, but most good people choose not to for some reason, so the bad guys who do have guns (And break the law to do so) essentially own the streets because everyone else is too passive and dreamy to think that "self preservation" is someone else's job."

      Self preservation is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

    9. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you even want a gun if you can't carry it with you? Why would you want a gun in your house if you can't get at it to defend yourself? You seem to be missing the entire the point of having a gun.

    10. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What scares me is the media and political parties are so good at playing us that presidential elections always come within a few percentage of 50% of the popular vote each.

    11. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by OverkillTASF · · Score: 1

      Ha, that should be...
      "So passive and dreamy that they think Self Preservation is someone else's job." And I proofread it too. (Sigh)

      Oh well. Guess I sure made an ignorant redneck out of myself on that one.

    12. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by eMartin · · Score: 1

      "On the american discussion boards, they often debate how their guns were stolen and what to do."

      Why does that remind me of the cartoons where Speedy Gonzalez steals the cheese from the mousetraps?

    13. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by fbjon · · Score: 1

      I think that the issue of bad guys owning the streets has more to do with the ratio of bad guys to good guys on the streets.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    14. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Liam+Slider · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Easy access to guns lead to more gun use. Simple as that. This goes for police, civilians and criminals.
      Sure, it's a lot easier for me to shoot the bastard who's shooting at me, if I have easy access to a gun. And easy access to a gun sure leads to a lot of gun usage during target practice, or out hunting.
      I guess that if the US would try to improve on the huge loss of firearms to criminals every year, the NRA would freak out and go to Capitol Hill chaning the second amendment. I don't see anywhere that the second amendment calls for moronic storage of their firearms? I'm a bit scared when I read bout civilians storing 10+ firearmsin their home, just locking them in a closet. Here, that is punisable because you don't want to give the thieves an edge.

      What about kitchen knives? Stabbings are far more common than shootings, even in this country. Way more common than shootings. And accidents with knives are far more statistically common than accidents with firearms. So why no cry to restrict knives, or to keep all civilian knives locked in heavily secure, expensive, vaults in the home? They are far more dangerous! And what if someone broke into your home, stole one of your knives, and killed someone with it! That would be your fault for not locking them up!

      At least, it's a comparable argument to yours about guns.

      And have you considered the economics? The poor have rights as well in this country, including the right to bear arms. Many poor families rely heavily on hunting in order to afford food. Hunting isn't just an entertainment for the upper classes here. Do you think these people can afford large, expensive, hidden vaults in their homes in which to store guns?

    15. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone can get a gun, it doesn't really matter if they're locked up outside of child safety concerns. Most homicides are committed by people that know the victim(s), so they have ample opportunity to obtain a means of indulging themselves if they're so inclined. You can argue that you'll at least reduce shootings committed by felons in the commission of some other illicit behavior, except that primitive guns are not especially complex devices to construct, and there already exists a number of prefabbed parts. You simply increase the difficulty for a criminal to obtian a means of shooting someone by locking your gun in a safe, at the cost of completely removing any utility as a defensive weapon.

      People carry guns in "stupid" places because they want to be able to use them to defend themselves should someone attack them. It's intended as a means of protecting their person and property. Your handguns are useless for accomplishing that.

    16. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by cheesygrapes · · Score: 1

      People carry guns in "stupid" places because they want to be able to use them to defend themselves should someone attack them. It's intended as a means of protecting their person and property. Your handguns are useless for accomplishing that. Yet, since guns stored in your house are statisticly more likely to end up harming the owner than protecting them, he is protectin himself and property (or at least himself) by locking them up like that.

    17. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by cheesygrapes · · Score: 1

      What about kitchen knives? Stabbings are far more common than shootings, even in this country. I'm gonna assume you're in the U.S. here, otherwise ignore the following: I don't know if this statement is true, but it seems like the kind of thing you just made up. What I do know though, is that in homicides, the leading cause in the U.S. is with firearms. From teen homicides alone 80% are caused by guns and teens usually have a much harder time getting guns than adults.

    18. Re: It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What about kitchen knives? Stabbings are far more common than shootings, even in this country.

      You know what? In Britain there is a legislation proposed to ban pointy kitchen knives, to prevent stabbings, since they are far more common and serious than cutting-ups. After all, there is no need for pointy knives in regular kitchen food prepare job. It could save dozens of lives every year.

      >The poor have rights as well in this country, including the right to bear arms.

      No they do not have that in the COUNTRY, as is. They only have it on federal property/area. Everywhere else it is up to the state/community/private_owner etc., since the 2nd amendment is not protected under the 14th amendment umbrella, as of now, per SCOTUS.

    19. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      American gun owners store their guns in extremely dumb places

      Can't argue with that.

      Many of them also carry their gun around on their body, loaded. This is strictly forbidden where I live and for a good reason. Easy access to guns lead to more gun use.

      But that's not the whole story. In the US, as far as we can tell, concealed carry laws have caused a small, but very definite, decrease in violent crime in every state that has passed them. Your example shows that people who have easy access to guns are more likely to use them, but doesn't say anything about what happens when other people have access. FBI statistics (in the "Why Carry?" section) conclude "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense.", and I haven't found a counterpoint to that.

      Over there, it's "part of my freedom, dangnabbit!".

      Well, it is! Under the US Constitution, bearing arms is mixed with free speech, freedom of religion and the right to a trial. You might find it odd, but think how anti-Nazi laws or "no head scarves in school" rules in Europe might look to an American.

    20. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by msdschris · · Score: 1

      Good to hear that your firearm will be of good use locked in a vault when a theif does decide to break in. Do you even bother to keep ammunition on the premises?

      Certainly those who own firearms need to use common sense, nobody would argue against that. Common sense tells me that keeping firearms from the law abiding population does absolutly nothing to stop crime.

    21. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Taevin · · Score: 1

      And, statistically, getting in our vehicles and driving to work is the most dangerous thing we do everyday. I suppose we should have remote locks on our cars that you have to call the county sheriff's department to unlock before you can drive as well then?

      Whether those statistics are correct or not, trying to protect people from themselves is likely to be unsuccessful at best - even more so by legislating it. Stupid people will do stupid things no matter what anyone says about it. They're still going to look down the barrel of their loaded gun, still going to drive 90 miles per hour in heavy rain while talking on their cell phone, still going to hold wood they're cutting with their hand in front of the power saw, still going to run with scissors/sharp objects... you get the point. You'll also notice that locking up any of the dangerous (yet important and useful) items I just mentioned would not stop the obvious injury/death. The only thing it would do is reduce the speed at which you could access said item which certainly could be a problem in a case where quick action is required (like a home invasion).

      Granted, being robbed while you are at home is not likely to happen but is that really a good reason to waste society's resources in a doomed attempt to save the idiots from themselves?

    22. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yet, since guns stored in your house are statisticly more likely to end up harming the owner than protecting them,

      Urban legend stemming from a deeply flawed study that was discredited a long, long time ago.

    23. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by nordicfrost · · Score: 0, Redundant

      First; it is extremely unlikely that a thief will try to enter an occupied house. This is so rare, that when it happened to a handful (6-8 houses) this summer it made national headline news. It was a gang of criminals from eastern Europe who were not very adept to see wether people were in the houses or not.

      Second; none of these criminals had weapons on them and noone were harmed. They knew very little about this country, but they knew that if they would have guns on them and they were detected (or even worse for them, use their weapons) they would become the center of of a trigger happy armed police hunt that would last a long time. The police around here are normally unarmed, but they do know how to operate an MP5 and can get permission to arm within minutes. Seconds if they need or do it themselves if the situation is critical. That is why they did not arm themselves.

      Third; this country has a very, very liberal self defense law. You are allowed to do whatever it takes to protect yourself or another person from harm. This be things like murder, rape or natural disasters. Yet, the issue of gun carry is moot here, and the few times a gun has been used in argued self defense it has been deemed murder. Why? Becaus,when armed with guns, the victim often use excessive force. You are allowed to stop a perp from commiting or finishing the attack, but the last self defense cases were merely pissed off property owners shooting the perp in the back, on the run.
      It is much easier to stop a rape with a heavy stone than a gun (in most rapes, arms are held by the attacker leaving only the legs as a self defense tool.) if you are a passer by that witness this. Around here, most attackers will think it is an air gun or a toy gun anyway and may try to attack you. Unless it is a shotgun, because they are prevailent. There is no court in this country that will convict you for knocking a rapis unconscious until the police arrive (median responce time is around 5 minutes for such calls, they get extreme priority).

      Fourth; we have gun culture. Guns are used for hunting and sports. Not self defense. That is why I have (and is allowed to have) a gun, for recreational shooting. And by the way, by the looks of the target skills of those gun owners i chat with in the US, I find it very amusing that they rely on the gun as a self defense tool. I hope the attacker is within 5 meters...

      Fifth; (this is in reply to another posting) re: knives vs. guns. Have you ever heard about a drive-by with knives? No? Then you obiously haven't understood the difference between the two.

    24. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by msdschris · · Score: 1

      1. Unfortunatly illegal entry crimes in this country are far more common.
      2. Your "Gang of criminals from Eastern Europe" sounds more like a lost bunch of teenage hooligans than any actual real criminal threat. Must have been a very slow news day indeed.
      3. The passerby should be so lucky as to find a large stone to stop a rapist. You're not actually serious about this?
      4. I would suggest that when faced with a situation where you had to defend yourself with a firearm that accuracy would not be your first thought. I'm sure that your match grade, floated barrel, windage adjusted rifle will be very helpful in such situations. Perhaps as a large object to swing at the attackers head. On the other hand if I'm being shot at I am probably likely to run in the opposite direction of the gunfire, regardless if I am hit.
      5. You bring up a good point... Ban cars as they do cause many more times the damage of firearms per year.

    25. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What scares me even more is listening to people saying they voted against somebody as opposed to voting for somebody. Also, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    26. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Whether those statistics are correct or not



      They're not. They're just propaganda from the old, deeply flawed and long-discredited NEJM/Kellerman study. The actual study didn't show that "guns stored in your house are statisticly more likely to end up harming the owner than protecting them". It did, however, have a few statistics that are obvious, but seem sinister if you can't be bothered to think for 10 seconds, such as "most people are killed by friends or family members". In the study, they included such relationships as "pusher/addict" and "pimp/prostitute" in the group, not to mention defining rapist and victim as "friends" when the victim knew her attacker.

      There is also strong evidence to suggest that the data itself was biased, in that it shows some correlations that seem suspect. For example, homes with dogs were even more likely to have murders than homes with handguns and the risk of murder in homes with rifles was almost zero (that latter point, of course, was never published in the results).

      The most accurate information refuting the study is probably from the work of Dr. Kleck, who showed about 2 million+ legitimate defensive uses for handguns each year in the U.S. (most which do not result in injury or the the loss of life; and therefore aren't reported to the police, etc. In most cases, merely brandishing a firearm will cause an attacker to flee). Compared to the typical handgun death numbers (in the US), the result is that a handgun is really about 100 times more likely to be used to save a life than it is to cause a death.

    27. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      1. Sucks to be you. Why not go for the low-crime, low murder option? It's your to choose.
      2. They were arrested, and in a population of four million (and a region of 1 million), they caused the entry crime stats to spike. Make no mistake, they were effectiv, trawling high class residantial ares during night, braking into as much as four - five houses and flats per night. They were in teams of two, approx. four teams operating in the city and two in the larger region. Forced entry is rare and practically non-existent. Further; see above.
      3. During military, I learned that up close an effective hand weapon is not a gun (since they are son easy to avoid, ironicaly). The most effective is the extensible baton. (Usually) non lethal and renders an assilant to be a non threat quickly. I don't know why, but americans put far, far too much faith in ther small weaponry like hand guns. When assulted, most won't be able to use it effectively anyway. Specially in a country where every attacker must assume that their victim is armed and dangerous so they have to be even more dangerous. Guns are only effective after extensive tranging, beyond the rageng in lifelike situations. In half the time it took me to learn how to actually use the handgun under extreme pressure, we learned effective techniques to render an opponent defenseless with our bare hands. Stealing the gun from an opponent is actually quite easy when you learn it, and most people will let you so close to them that you can practically grab the gun. Be very glad that the assailant don't have MP training if the only defense you have is a gun.
      4. I shoot a stock Glock 17 in competitions. No mods what so ever, besides a polished trigger. In combat, we use them for that not just bragging at the NRA meetings, it will remain snugly inside a hip holster. Only to be used if there is no other weapon available. As the saying goes: "a pistol is only useful for fighting your way back to the rifle you never should have put down anyway". My educated guess from medic training and the like is that a civilian without proper gun training will have a substantually larger chance of firmly killing the drywall of his house than the assailant. With a two - three week course, they might have a chanse to do something useful with the gun, and actually defending themselves. But luckily I live a place where I don't have to worry about gun crime at all (it's not non-esistend but very rare and confined to the hardcore criminals who never use it on civilians since it means a lot more time in the slammer if they are caught with it), the police respond quickly to emergencies and we actually can engage an assailant with something other than a gun. Yes, I am serious. Our former prime minister, othervise a dick, actually knocked a bank robber unconcious with a waste basket during a robbery. Our police spend more time on the treadmill than the donut shop, so they actually outpace the criminals and can run after them without fearing gun use.

      Imagine that.

      5. Pffft... If you are going to use straw man arguments, at least have the imagination to do something more relevant than that. How about gun accidents and pool accidents? Now go google. And stop using the car so much, you are only digging the hole for your nation even bigger.

    28. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that all stabbings are fatal.

      Also the "teen homocide" figure is inflated...most of those teens are gang members killing other teenage gang members, usually over the profits that can be had in the drug trade. In virtually every case, their guns are not legally obtained, but black market items, obtained with drug money. Gangsters are not indicitive of "regular people with guns."

      And regardless of the exact statistics, does the point not remain valid? Knives are still extremely dangerous, and everyone has them in their home. Everyone has several in their home. Many places of business have them as well. In most cases, these "deadly weapons" are not locked up in secret hardened vaults like it's demanded that guns must be. The reasoning that guns must be locked up like this is to prevent theft by someone who would do harm with them....and that anyone who doesn't secure their firearms in such a fashion is responsable for that harm. So why does that not equally appliy to kitchen knives? Why is there not a demand that every house have an expensive "knife vault" into which all knives must be securely locked when not in use to prevent theft? If anyone steals your knife and kills someone with it...clearly that's your fault. Right? That's the argument being put forward here with regards to guns. Why doesn't it apply to anything else?

    29. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

      Ok please, please, please, either use a word document program or learn to spell..there are more typos there then I have ever seen in one post.

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    30. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by msdschris · · Score: 1

      No thanks, while my country is not ideal, I do find it better than most in almost every aspect. I have a feeling that if a large number started to imigrate to your country those oh-so-low crime stats would certainly see a big spike because it would destroy the homogeneous quality of your country.

      I'm not trying to argue that merely owning a firearm is in any way, shape, or form a replacement for training. The ability to own, carry and operate the right tool for the job is important. I do believe that you are over-generalizing those who own handguns in this country. I know you are thinking of a bunch of cowboys with a shoot first ask questions later attitude, blah, blah. There are a fair bit more than 4 million (295M+) here with a bit over 200 million firearms. We civilized, law-abiding citizens do not go around shooting our neighbors left and right. The ones who do carry at all times generally do throughout their lives without incident. Your solution will not work here and vice versa.

      Nice choice for target, I have a G21 myself and just sold my 17.

      I would think that far more homicides were commited with a motor vehicle than a pool myself.

    31. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by mfrank · · Score: 1

      So, do you lock your gun up every time you leave the house? I've only had my house broken into once, when neither I or my roommate were home, and the only thing they stole was my roommate's revolver. They found his long guns, but left them. Didn't find his 9mm. Seriously, if you were going to break into a house, would you choose one that's occupied or one that's unoccupied? If you want to shoot a burglar, you pretty much have to make them think you're not home.

    32. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by msdschris · · Score: 1

      Locked in my holster, yes.

    33. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, don't read it.

    34. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by nordicfrost · · Score: 1

      Nice that we can agree to disagree. My G17 has had 2000 rounds through it since I bought it privately a couple of months ago. My GF/SO is planning on (former Navy medic / NATO sailor) buying a Jericho 941 in the Baby Eagle (9x19, full steel reciever) TCN-coated edition. Since it is a good target gun. And pink. She has been a gunclub member for nearly 6 months and is thereby allowed to buy the gun and store it in my gun vault.

    35. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

      If you cant use common English and proper spelling then don't try!

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    36. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "So why no cry to restrict knives, or to keep all civilian knives locked in heavily secure, expensive, vaults in the home? "

      because a 5 year old with a knife isn't much of a threat to an adult.
      A 5 year old with a gun is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    37. Re:It cant be any more dangerous by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1
      because a 5 year old with a knife isn't much of a threat to an adult. A 5 year old with a gun is.
      Why, that must happen almost a dozen times a year or less! The horror must be stopped!
  10. The real question, by gentimjs · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do I get one installed in MY home? While it doesnt have the style points of being able to say "You do realise each one of us has an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on our backs?", it certainly would be a conversation peice ;-)

    1. Re:The real question, by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      I blame myself.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:The real question, by Windsinger · · Score: 1

      "Wer're ready to believe YOU."

    3. Re:The real question, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do I.

  11. Back Yard science by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Plenty of people do stupid shit in their garden sheds, thats what they are there for!
    I have read about a kid building a reactor from smoke detectors, and the NZ guy who built his own cruise missile.

    I sense a business opportunity for lead lined garden housing :)

    Also, didn't Young Einstein manage to split the beer atom in his? (and with a hammer and chisel if I remember rightly)

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Back Yard science by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I sense a business opportunity for lead lined garden housing

      You are too slow.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Back Yard science by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Holy $^&"£^& shit!

      Thos guys sell uranium ore.

      Are they legit and for real?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Back Yard science by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's nothing illegal about rock collecting, or even getting low level stuff like U-238 spent fuel pellets.

      Everything they sell is very low level, not very dangerous at all and well below any legal threshold for regulation.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Back Yard science by RandoX · · Score: 1

      I've purchased several things from them over the years. No uranium, but I've always gotten everything I've ordered, as advertised.

    5. Re:Back Yard science by eMartin · · Score: 1

      I'd expect something in their FAQ about safety, but they don't seem to mention it anywhere.

      I'd love to get one of these, but not if it's going to make me sterile or make my hair fall out.

    6. Re:Back Yard science by readersheds.co.uk · · Score: 1

      Some of our sheddies have some great projects but this one takes the cake and biscuits and even the tea.

    7. Re:Back Yard science by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can't really build a nuclear reactor with the radioisotopes in smoke detectors. Yes, you can collect the Americium-241 found in smoke detectors, but you won't get much. You could even collect quite a bit of it, if you collected, say, several tens of thousands of smoke detectors, but it would be useless. The isotope is found in an oxide form. Those oxygen atoms would act as neutron absorbers, immediately damping any reactions. One would have to purify the element, something that's beyond the abilities of a kid. Even then, you wouldn't get enough neutron emission to create a chain reaction. You'd just have a pile of stuff emitting low level gamma rays and alpha particles.

      I read the link and it is very obviously fake. I mean, come on, the kid had the same last name as one of the discoverers of nuclear fission, Otto Hahn. And really, with the steps outlined in the article, you'd only get a few grams at most of any of the materials. Certainly not enough for a reactor.

    8. Re:Back Yard science by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      A rock?

      The ore samples are very safe, that's why it may not be clear where they talk about safety. They do talk about it somewhere.

      They basically say "don't keep a pile of hundreds of pounds of high grade ore in a closed room, or radon could build up over time"...

      Look at it this way, your average exposure to radiation per year is about 1000-2000 millirem. More if you live in the high elevations of the west.

      The highest level samples they sell might be 100,000 cpm, converting that to millirem using some very rough estimates, that gives about 0.25 mrem/hour at about 1cm distance, with a very localized exposure (not whole body like your normal background sources are).

      So yeah, even if you kept it in your pocket all year, right next to the boys, it would only be about double background radiation levels.

      Not exactly sterilizing, and most people don't carry high grade ore samples on their person 24 hours a day for a year anyway.

      In other words, they are completely safe.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:Back Yard science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... Wikipedia never lies, does it? Well... it's often mis-informed, but this guy has been documented in many different places. As per the article, he acquired his substances from more sources than just smoke detectors, including one of his prime discoveries, an entire vial of Lithium paint in the back of an old clock which he bought for $10. I don't entirely follow his methods of turning some of the radioactive materials in salt, but he apparently followed up by aiming a neutron gun at it. Is it all plausible? *shrug* Heck if I know. I'm not a nuclear engineer.

    10. Re:Back Yard science by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I have read about a kid building a reactor from smoke detectors

      Last I heard, he was working on the USS Enterprise as a nuclear engineer.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    11. Re:Back Yard science by njh · · Score: 1

      Radium paint. It was a vial of Radium paint.

    12. Re:Back Yard science by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Uh, go to Amazon and look up "Radioactive Boy Scout". If the story's a fake, it's good enough to get a non-fiction hardback book published.

    13. Re:Back Yard science by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Uh, go to Amazon and look up "Ufos Visiting Earth". If the story's a fake, it's good enough to get a huge amount of non-fiction hardback books published.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:Back Yard science by mfrank · · Score: 1

      As I recall, the original magazine article never claimed he'd built a working reactor. But evidently, his house is now a Superfund site:

      http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q3501.html

  12. lack of science by emamousette · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You would think that after the Manhattan project didn't incenerate the earth as it was feared it would by some people incited by a few wrong-headed scientists, that folks would do a little research before knee-jerking their way to denying this man his chance to do basic research.
    To me, the only valid complaint one might make without having ana advanced degree in physics would be wondering about the effects of the huge magnetic pulses this would put out and the effects on his neighbors' electronics for the few micro seconds a day. But then again, if their house is close enough to be affected by these fields, they're too close anyway.

    1. Re:lack of science by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Fantasy and delusion will trump reality every time. Look at all the fluoride and anti-vaccine freeks out there. It's easy to manipulate people, just hook into their innate self-rightousness and moral outrage, and they'll buy into any bullshit you care to throw at them.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. But In Soviet Russia by students · · Score: 1

    Nuclear Reactors Melt YOU!

    Like Chernobyl, which was dangerous.

  14. Need article text by miaDWZ · · Score: 1

    *sigh*

    Can someone please post the article text - I go to the site, and it says I must watch an ad to read the article, so I watch the stupid ad, then click the link to go to the article, then it brings me back to the page saying I must watch an ad...

    Yay for online advertising.

  15. NIMBY! by QuantumPion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While obviously a cyclotron can't compare to a commercial nuclear power plant, I wouldn't want my neighbor building one. Aside from self-electrocution, they can release high energy photons which could reach other people, if improperly shielded. There is also the issue with any radioactive waste he may produce. The risk may be miniscule, but people generally shy away from non-controllable risks. While the guy is a civil-engineer, TFA doesn't say whether he has training or experience in nuclear technology or health physics either.

    That said, I think it would be awesome to have a back-yard cyclotron. Imagine all the cool things you could do, activate pennies, evil radioactive monsters, become THE HULK, etc.

    1. Re:NIMBY! by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Seconded. If you whack a heavy metal target with a good enough e- stream it is bound to spit at least some high energy X-rays. I am not sure if you can get gamma rays on a "backyard" device, but X-rays should not be a problem.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:NIMBY! by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      And I could shoot my potato cannon through my neighbors window. Or my neighbor could shoot a rifle through mine, he's got guns too.

      I've never been formally trained in weapons handling, and I doubt he has either.

      Life is full of uncontrolled risks. You just have to take responsibility for your actions, which means learning about the potentially dangerous thing you plan to play with, and taking proper precautions.

      There's thousands of other legal things this guy could do that are plenty more dangerous to his neighbors if mishandled. People just see the word nuclear and freak out. I've had people over that will not even come near my uranium doped glass marbles after they see them glow under blacklight. The Ralph Nader/concerned scientists helped cause this FUD around all things nuclear, through blatently false propaganda.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:NIMBY! by msdschris · · Score: 1

      Nor do I appreciate my neighbor calling Chemlawn and dispensing cancer causing chemicals where pets and children play and which will leach into the groundwater. This is a much larger risk but how many people use these services to keep their lawns green?

    4. Re:NIMBY! by McSnarf · · Score: 1
      Life is also full of problems caused by thoughtless idiots.

      Last cyclotron I saw (admittedly in the 70s) was in a room with massive concrete walls and a powered concrete door for a reason.
      OTOH, I cannot imagine that there are no specific laws in place that govern the requirements in terms of building construction and safety.

      However, the same applies to biotechnology ("I am a biologist. I want to do some virus research...") and chemistry ("I did chemistry in school. Bet I can make Tabun in my basement ?").

      While I agree that people often freak out without reason when "nuclear" is even uttered in conversation (especially when Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is involved), not everything short of reactor or bomb technology is safe or free of avoidable danger.

    5. Re:NIMBY! by kabocox · · Score: 1

      That said, I think it would be awesome to have a back-yard cyclotron. Imagine all the cool things you could do, activate pennies, evil radioactive monsters, become THE HULK, etc.

      You've just hit on the real reason that they don't what it. They don't want their kids visiting him and becoming The Hulk or Spiderman.

    6. Re:NIMBY! by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      With all the talk about cancer, he seems to want to manufacture tracers for PET scans (like fluorine 18), which have short half lives, so hospitals have to have fresh batches every day. If that's true, he's making stuff that's so safe that it is specifically made to be injected into people and needs to be manufactured locally. I really don't see too much risk.

      Last cyclotron I saw ... was in a room with massive concrete walls and a powered concrete door for a reason.

      Different reactions require different amounts of power and have different side effects, just like oil refineries and kitchen stoves are both chemical reactors, but otherwise have little in common. High schoolers are building weaker ones. Heck, your CRT TV's a particle accelerator, too.

      On the other hand, a little caution isn't a bad thing. :)

    7. Re:NIMBY! by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think I would want my home computer(s) on the same local transformer loop on the electrical grid either.

      UPSs and surge protectors can only do so much.

      That guy is going to be using A LOT of power and have BIG magnets for that thing.

      Maybe he should move his buisiness to I dunno... maybe a comercial park or something where that sort of stuff is better tolerated. A buisness running from a home that causes problems for the residents in a residential neighborhood needs to shut down or move IMO.

    8. Re:NIMBY! by bigpat · · Score: 2, Informative

      While obviously a cyclotron can't compare to a commercial nuclear power plant, I wouldn't want my neighbor building one. Aside from self-electrocution, they can release high energy photons which could reach other people, if improperly shielded. There is also the issue with any radioactive waste he may produce. The risk may be miniscule, but people generally shy away from non-controllable risks. While the guy is a civil-engineer, TFA doesn't say whether he has training or experience in nuclear technology or health physics either.

      The fact that he actually sought a permit should be a good indication that he is looking to play by the rules, seems that such concerns could be easily handled with some sort of inspection by appropriate authorities. I had a neighbor who kept exotic pets in his backyard, he had a license and every once in a while a state inspector would stop by and check out his backyard to make sure the animals were being well cared for. The risks seem comprable.

    9. Re:NIMBY! by polypody · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fortunately even high-energy X-rays (which is what you would be dealing with in terms of photons) don't get very far in air so the guys neighbors will be safe. That's why the dentist jams the x-ray machine in your jaw. I worked for several years around synchrotrons and the major risk is electrocution, NOT radiation.

    10. Re:NIMBY! by iabervon · · Score: 2, Informative

      A small cyclotron is probably no more likely to leak nastiness than a microwave or CRT, and his cyclotron would presumably get inspected on occasion. It's not like it uses hazardous fuel or is self-sustaining. (For that matter, a cyclotron isn't particularly "nuclear"; it accelerates either ions or electrons). If I were his neighbor, I'd be primarily concerned about him overloading the electrical wires in the neighborhood or erasing his guests' credit cards with the big electromagnet.

      TFA does say that he's built cyclotrons before, and he doesn't seem to planning to actually do the medical testing himself. On the other hand, I'm not clear whether he intends to have a PET scanner in his dining room, or whether there's a CAT scanner in the area that could be made dual-use. If there's a local hospital that's got the equipment or space to use the tracers he's going to produce, I don't see why he wouldn't install the cyclotron there, rather than trying to get the tracers to the scanner before they decay each time. The University of British Columbia hospital, for example, gets their tracers from a cyclotron a mile and a half away, and they needed to install a pneumatic tube to get them to the hospital in time.

  16. Profit... by squoozer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Step 1: Bury head in sand / soil / tarmac / other ground covering.

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: Profit.

    I am starting to think "people" won't be happy until we are all clones - of course we couldn't be clones due to cloning though. Sigh.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  17. Pish and posh by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1, Insightful
    It's kinda unlikely he will be able to make a cyclotron of any usable size. The main hangup is the magnet-- you need many many many tons of iron for the core, many many tons of copper for the windings. Unless he has a 50-ton crane and $500,000 for the core and wire, he's not going to get very far.

    I guess he could go with superconducting magnets, but that requires mad crogenic skillz. And you still need lots of iron.

    Even then he's going to need another big jar of cash for the RF generator, excellent high-vacuum skills and lots of electricity. Then if he's lucky, he *might* be able to generate a microamp of million volt electrons-- about what the average cat brushing by nylon curtains can generate.

    I wouldnt worry too much about the nuclear-spiltting capabilities here.

    1. Re:Pish and posh by plover · · Score: 4, Informative
      RTFA. He's not "making one". He's receiving a donated used one from Johns Hopkins University. It's already fully functional, it just needs a power cord and a place to park it where the neighbors won't complain.

      But you're right: I wouldn't worry too much about the nuclear splitting capabilities either. Adequate lead shielding will protect the neighbors just fine.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Pish and posh by Surt · · Score: 1

      Do you want to have to install lead lining for your home when one of your neighbors decides to do this?

      And risk your children licking it?

      Or do you want to trust the same crazy neighbor who wants to run one of these things in a residential rather than industrial zoned area to install and maintain proper shielding?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:Pish and posh by CronicBurn · · Score: 1

      I don't think you read the article correctly. A particle accelerator was DONATED to him by a University. He's not trying to make one.

      --
      if I were able to see further, it was because I stood on the shoulders of Giants -Newton
    4. Re:Pish and posh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I would reccomnd a non-toxic material for shielding such as a water jacket, or steel plate. The mass absorption coeffecient and Density is lower but that just means you need thicker shielding. Iron density 7.87 gm/cm^3 absorption coeffecient for Mo Ka x-ray at .711A ~38. Lead, density 11.34 absorpition coeffecient ~122. Rough estimate lead is 3-4 times as effecient shielding material. so if the allication indicates that .1" lead shielding is appropriate, 1/2" steel shileding would probably work as well.

      I would trust that surplus medical equipment is properly shielded.

    5. Re:Pish and posh by adminispheroid · · Score: 1

      Always refreshing to see a brief message well-packed with misinformation.

      1. High field superconducting magnets don't need to use iron. They can far exceed the saturation field of iron, or any other ferromagnet.

      2. Cyclotrons aren't used to accelerate electrons, they are used to accelerate ions.

      3. Said accelerated ions can then participate in nuclear interactions, and I don't know of any other use for a cyclotron. I assume that's what you mean by "nuclear-splitting." In any case, radioactive materials can result. And the guy's stated intention is to make radioisotopes for medical procedures.

      4. As others have pointed out, the guy is not building the cyclotron, it's being donated to him.

    6. Re:Pish and posh by FredGray · · Score: 1
      Yes, metal works for the x-rays, but you also need something like concrete to deal with the neutrons.

      I would trust that surplus medical equipment is properly shielded.

      You shouldn't trust anything. You make your own calculations of expected radiation levels, and you verify your calculations with measurements as you slowly ramp up the beam current.

  18. dihydrogen monoxide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet he wants to use dihydrogen monoxide as a coolant too. Got to watch out its dangerous stuff. http://www.dhmo.org/

  19. Probably the worst thing that could happen... by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    ...is never a good way to describe a potential risk or accident.

    We will know it didn't work by the 20 foot crater where the guy's house used to be.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  20. Original Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Albert Swank Jr., a 55-year-old civil engineer in Anchorage, Alaska, is a man with a mission. He wants to install a nuclear particle accelerator in his home. But when neighbors learned of plans to place the 20-ton device inside the house where Swank operates his engineering firm, their response was swift: Not in my backyard. Local lawmakers rushed to introduce emergency legislation banning the use of cyclotrons in home businesses. State health officials took similar steps, and have suspended Swank's permit to operate cyclotrons on his property. "Some of the neighbors who are upset about the cyclotron have started calling it SHAFT -- Swank's high-energy accelerator for tomography," attorney Alan Tesche said. "Part of what's got everyone so upset is we're not sure when it's going to arrive on the barge. We know Anchorage is gonna get the SHAFT, but we just don't know when." Tesche is also the local assemblyman who represents the area where Swank and his cyclotron would reside. Johns Hopkins University agreed to donate the used cyclotron, which is roughly six feet tall by eight feet wide, to Swank's business, Langdon Engineering and Management. The devices are relatively scarce in Alaska, and are used to produce radioactive substances that can be injected into patients undergoing PET scans. Short for positron emission tomography, a PET scan is similar to an X-ray. During the imaging procedure, radioactive material administered to the patient can help medical professionals detect cancerous tissue inside the body. The substance typically remains radioactive for only a couple of hours. For Swank, the backyard cyclotron is a personal quest: He lost his father to cancer years ago, and he says his community needs the medical resource. He also wants to use it to inspire young people to learn about science. "My father worked with me while I was building my first cyclotron at age 17 in this same home, and he encouraged all of the educational pursuits that resulted in who I am," Swank said. "Because of that and my desire to not see other cancer patients suffer -- if I can use this technology to prevent one hour of suffering, or stimulate one young person's mind to pursue science, I will devote every resource that I possess to that." Swank maintains the device is not dangerous for nearby residents. But assemblyman Tesche says noble intentions don't outweigh potential risks and nuisances. He and others fear a particle accelerator could pose hazards such as radiation leak risks to nearby residences. They also think the large amount of electricity it consumes could drain available power in the neighborhood. "We in Alaska embrace technology, and we love it -- but we would like to see this in a hospital or industrial area, where it belongs," Tesche said. "We don't need cyclotrons operating out of back alleys, or in someone's garage." In a letter to the city assembly, the South Addition Community Council compared potential damage from a cyclotron mishap to the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident. "Cyclotrons are not nuclear reactors," explains Roger Dixon of the Fermi National Accelerator laboratory or Fermilab in Illinois, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. "Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves." At Fermilab, Dixon oversees the world's highest-energy collider, about four miles in circumference. It smashes matter and antimatter together so scientists can study the nature of energy. Dixon told Wired News that shielding from concrete walls or lead sheets is typically used to prevent the electrical beams produced by smaller cyclotrons from escaping. "Our neighbors here at Fermilab like us," said Dixon. "But then, our particle accelerator is not installed in a living room." Some of Swank's neighbors are not worried. Veronica Martinson, a homemaker who has lived next door to Swank for 36 years, thinks a cyclotron next door might be a good thing. "Albert was a star science student when he was a child," Martinson said. "He wants schoolchil

  21. Here ya go by QuantumPion · · Score: 3, Informative
    Albert Swank Jr., a 55-year-old civil engineer in Anchorage, Alaska, is a man with a mission. He wants to install a nuclear particle accelerator in his home.

    But when neighbors learned of plans to place the 20-ton device inside the house where Swank operates his engineering firm, their response was swift: Not in my backyard.

    Find local technology jobs. Local lawmakers rushed to introduce emergency legislation banning the use of cyclotrons in home businesses. State health officials took similar steps, and have suspended Swank's permit to operate cyclotrons on his property.

    "Some of the neighbors who are upset about the cyclotron have started calling it SHAFT -- Swank's high-energy accelerator for tomography," attorney Alan Tesche said. "Part of what's got everyone so upset is we're not sure when it's going to arrive on the barge. We know Anchorage is gonna get the SHAFT, but we just don't know when." Tesche is also the local assemblyman who represents the area where Swank and his cyclotron would reside.

    Johns Hopkins University agreed to donate the used cyclotron, which is roughly six feet tall by eight feet wide, to Swank's business, Langdon Engineering and Management.

    The devices are relatively scarce in Alaska, and are used to produce radioactive substances that can be injected into patients undergoing PET scans.

    Short for positron emission tomography, a PET scan is similar to an X-ray. During the imaging procedure, radioactive material administered to the patient can help medical professionals detect cancerous tissue inside the body. The substance typically remains radioactive for only a couple of hours.

    For Swank, the backyard cyclotron is a personal quest: He lost his father to cancer years ago, and he says his community needs the medical resource. He also wants to use it to inspire young people to learn about science.

    "My father worked with me while I was building my first cyclotron at age 17 in this same home, and he encouraged all of the educational pursuits that resulted in who I am," Swank said.

    "Because of that and my desire to not see other cancer patients suffer -- if I can use this technology to prevent one hour of suffering, or stimulate one young person's mind to pursue science, I will devote every resource that I possess to that."

    Swank maintains the device is not dangerous for nearby residents.

    But assemblyman Tesche says noble intentions don't outweigh potential risks and nuisances. He and others fear a particle accelerator could pose hazards such as radiation leak risks to nearby residences. They also think the large amount of electricity it consumes could drain available power in the neighborhood.

    "We in Alaska embrace technology, and we love it -- but we would like to see this in a hospital or industrial area, where it belongs," Tesche said. "We don't need cyclotrons operating out of back alleys, or in someone's garage."

    In a letter to the city assembly, the South Addition Community Council compared potential damage from a cyclotron mishap to the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident.

    "Cyclotrons are not nuclear reactors," explains Roger Dixon of the Fermi National Accelerator laboratory or Fermilab in Illinois, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. "Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves."

    At Fermilab, Dixon oversees the world's highest-energy collider, about four miles in circumference. It smashes matter and antimatter together so scientists can study the nature of energy.

    Dixon told Wired News that shielding from concrete walls or lead sheets is typically used to prevent the electrical beams produced by smaller cyclotrons from escaping.

    "Our neighbors here at Fermilab like us," said Dixon. "But then, our particle accelerator is not installed in a living room."

    Some of Swank's neighbors are not worried. Veronica Martinson, a homemaker who has lived next door to Swank for 36 ye

  22. Great .. now this will by bxbaser · · Score: 3, Funny

    call attaention to my cyclotron and they will pass laws and ordanaces banning them ,and i just replaced the electrode cooling pipes with a radiator from a 1972 ford maverick.

  23. no negative effects? by mabus42 · · Score: 4, Funny

    in the article they quote an expert from fermilab. incidentally i grew up less than 5 miles from there and all i have to show from it is this third eye and multiple superfluous nipples. one of my neighbors was affected to the extent that he can set things on fire by only using his mind... why did i have to get the shaft when it comes to deformities/mutations caused by cyclotrons? WHY GOD WHY?!?!?

  24. There goes my reason for not going into physics by dyfet · · Score: 1
    One of the historically frustrating parts of the "practice" of physics, particularly nuclear physics, is that one normally cannot just "do" physics on your own, such as setup a bevatron in the backyard. Well, at least that used to be true! :).

    Of course there are now other cutting edge fields that also are now open to low power and smaller scale/lower cost experimentation as well. These include fun with lasers, slowing light through different mediums, and of course the ever popular tabletop "cold fusion" experiments. Some of these do have low enough cost to offer the garage or shed bound would be noble prize winner an oppertunity.

  25. Depends on where beam can be aimed or misaimed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The particle beam won't burn holes in anything like the laser in Real Genius but it will certainly give you more than your annual allowed exposure for dental xrays. Also side scatter from the beam hitting the target is an issue.

    So, would you trust this guy? Do you feel lucky?

  26. Take the city's side on this one by PartyArtie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This guy's running a business. If he's using industrial equipment, he should be in an industry-zoned location. Why would he be running it out of his house? Save money on a building? Avoid paying property taxes? Avoid OSHA regulation? Not so noble. It's not like he's a weekend inventor with contraptions in his basement that likely would only hurt himself. This is heavy-duty equipment (20T) that will be used by a (presumably) for-profit company.

    1. Re:Take the city's side on this one by dwandy · · Score: 1

      Hey let's try and keep a grip: neighbour is a relative term in Alaska...

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
    2. Re:Take the city's side on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if this guy is running a business? Who is the city to tell him what he can and cannot do on his own property? If a person wants to take a risk and run a business, that's there perogative, what business do busy-bodied bureaucrats have getting involved? None.

    3. Re:Take the city's side on this one by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      1. The guy is already running his buisness out of his home. It is a small buisness, and running buisnesses out of the home is something that many people in the U.S. do.

      2. The guy is not doing this for profit. The guy lost his father to cancer and is now on a mission to fight cancer, and the area where they are at (Alaska) only has a handful of the things, making it difficult to provide people with cancer treatments. The cyclotron was given for free by John Hopkins University because of the the critical lack of cyclotrons.

      3. All the experts agree that this machine is no danger to the public. "Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves."

      Sure, I guess there are all kinds of government regulations, rules, restrictions, etc., etc., that "protect" us (kind of like the Mafia protects people), that could be used to shut this thing down... but remember that these rules have costs. Why do you think that surgery that cost a days wages in 1950 now costs $70,000+? Or that patients who are on the verge of dying from AIDS can't take experimental drugs (until they have been determined "safe")?

      To restrict the production of medicines that sick people need, where there is no danger to the general public, purely on the principle of enforcing the rules, or NIMBY paranoia, is insanity.

    4. Re:Take the city's side on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1. The guy is already running his buisness out of his home. It is a small buisness, and running buisnesses out of the home is something that many people in the U.S. do."

      Most home businesses don't use 20 ton industrial strength equipment.
      You can't build a landfill, store chemicals, use industrial heavy equipment, etc. in your back yard. That's the reason for zoning laws.

      "2. The guy is not doing this for profit. The guy lost his father to cancer and is now on a mission to fight cancer, and the area where they are at (Alaska) only has a handful of the things, making it difficult to provide people with cancer treatments. The cyclotron was given for free by John Hopkins University because of the the critical lack of cyclotrons."

      Who cares what he is doing this for? You think he is going to treat people in his home? Are you serious?

      "3. All the experts agree that this machine is no danger to the public. "Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves."

      And a industrial strength car-crusher isn't a danger either but I can't buy one and operate it in my back yard in a residential neighborhood, can I?

      Many cities have zoning laws and restrictions for the installation of x-ray machines, which most consider harmless too.

    5. Re:Take the city's side on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the 20th (and 21st) century. We have something called land use regulations now, and the government *does* have the right to tell you what you can and cannot build in a populated area.

    6. Re:Take the city's side on this one by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      You don't need to convince me that there is a legal precedent for restricting this kind of thing. I am sure that what they are doing has been done in the past, and there is legal apparatus to go after the guy. (Although, from the article, it appears that what he is doing is legal, if the city council had to pass a law after the fact specificly to stop him)

      What I am questioning is the sanity and morality of it. Laws are supposed to provide some sort of benifit or protection to society. The government having the power to restrict something, is not a justification for the government to restrict something. (although faith in the government is becoming almost a self-justifying quasi-religion in itself nowadays).

      Having a car crusher in your back yard creates a lot of noise, water runoff from the vehicles can put metals and plastic residue into the soil - There is a danger, and hence a rational reason for restricting it with zoning laws.

      But there is no noise, pollution, or any other danger from having this device! Not letting the guy have the device is about as rational as not letting the guy own a Ouji board because it will attract evil spirits to the neigborhood. It is because people fear the words "Nuclear", or "Radiation", the same way they would fear the number "13", or the number "666". It is a perfect example of anti-science fearmongering, and NIMBY politics, regardless of any legality of the thing.

    7. Re:Take the city's side on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand your post and by no means was suggesting blindy following law, however my main point was that regarless of danger, etc., the cyclotron is not a commercial product and therefore does not go through the level of safety testing, certifications, etc, usually required by such.

      "It is because people fear the words "Nuclear", or "Radiation""

      I don't know that is the complete reason...people have microwaves, don't they?
      But wouldn't you think people would be concerned if someone built a 20 ton microwave in their back yard?

      To me it is more an issue of industrial vs. commercial equipment.

      I will definitely agree that the public is stupid, though.
      Even if the machine is not innately dangerous, some idiot will come along and make it dangerous. This guy might know what he is doing, but does it set good precident?

  27. Will they burn him at the stake... by PhotoBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... if he's found guilty of witchcraft?

    1. Re:Will they burn him at the stake... by bohemian72 · · Score: 1

      No. This is the United States we're talking about. Even in the pre-U.S. North America we never burned anyone for witchcraft. He'll be hanged, once he confesses under a load of heavy rocks.

      --
      The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
  28. from TFA by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    He doesn't plan to build one, he will just get a second-hand one. Not your usual ebay stuff though...

    "Johns Hopkins University agreed to donate the used cyclotron, which is roughly six feet tall by eight feet wide, to Swank's business, Langdon Engineering and Management."

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  29. Pretty soon everyone will want one... by nojayuk · · Score: 1
  30. Oh Great by RodeoBoy · · Score: 1

    Now everyone will have one if this guy succeeds. I can hear my wife now, "The Jones just got a new cyclotron." How can a guy keep up.

    1. Re:Oh Great by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Build a hadron supercollider or so. Most of al no time machine those are sooo next year!

  31. This guys to build list by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

    1. Cyclotron
    2. Build own stargate with postorder material
    3. Build warp engine
    4. Build working deathstar on 1:1 scale
    5. Build new porch at house so car can stand in shadow in the hot Alaskan summers.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    1. Re:This guys to build list by RetroRichie · · Score: 0

      6. ???
      7. Profit ...right?

    2. Re:This guys to build list by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Somewhere at deathstar is a profit moment I would say.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    3. Re:This guys to build list by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1
      2. Build own stargate with postorder material
      He's going to need a new toaster.
  32. Property Values by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    Folks may be (perhaps legitimately) worried that property values might drop significantly in the surrounding area if this guy gets his way (I know it's Alaska, but let's pretend it's Anytown, USA). I understand that argument that it's your property and therefore your right to do whatever you want with it, neighbors be damned, etc., but if that's the way you feel, think about Joe Anchorage when he gets transferred back to the Continental US in six months and finds that his property's value just took a 33% cyclotron nose dive . . . just making the point that it might not be safety issue as much as a money issue. When in doubt, follow the $$$.

    1. Re:Property Values by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's nothing legitimate about an obsession with "property values". Nobody has a right for their property to maintain a certain value. If land speculation is a critical part of your retirement plan, you might want to consider some less risky investments.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:Property Values by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's just used as an excuse for the prohibitionist-type busibodies to try to tell you what you can and can't do on your own land.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Property Values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The neighborhood in question in the article is probably one of the 'highest rent' places within 1500 miles.

      It is in downtown anchorage, and notoriously infested by attorneys.

    4. Re:Property Values by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      I live in Las Vegas. I want to winn big for no other reason than so I can move into a neighborhood with a "Housing Association"**.
      I will then paint my house Black with diagonal yellow safety stripes.
      I will then plant a small airplane nose first in my front yard.
      I will pay the association fines
      when the neighbors property value drops far enough, I will buy thier houses cheap, remove the airplane, paint the house, sell it all for $$$, then go get some sizable land without an association. </rant>

      ** Housing Association n. 1. A group of old rich people who have nothing better to do than tell you to cut your grass or pay a fine. 2. A group of snobs who think your business is theirs. 3. A quasi-elected body that is required to agree to in order to buy a decent house in the Las Vegas/Henderson Metropolitan area.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
  33. Could you clarify your joke ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It msut be an insider joke because searching on google for "NMR" , "NMR operation" and "NMR hospital" only gave back web site about magnetic resonnance...

    1. Re:Could you clarify your joke ? by farnz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "NMR" pronounced as three individual letters sounds similar to "enema". When hospital staff are underpaid, overworked, or just plain rushed, there's a high risk that they'll misidentify your need and you'll get something you didn't expect.

    2. Re:Could you clarify your joke ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "EN EM AR"
      "EN EH MUH"

      Oh yeah, that's pretty similar.

      I've noticed that there's practically no communication between people at the ER. You have to answer the same questions for every single person that comes. None of them know if any of the others have looked at you. And if you're lucky someone will erase you from the board early and they'll leave you there while you're waiting to be treated for an hour, only to be surprised to find you there.

    3. Re:Could you clarify your joke ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most British and Australian accents words ending with 'a' are almost always pronounced with a half-voiced 'r' sound at the end.

      So there.

  34. Don't cross the streams....It would be bad. by waterford0069 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dr Ray Stantz: You know, it just occurred to me that we really haven't had a successful test of this equipment.
    Dr. Egon Spengler: I blame myself.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: So do I.
    Dr Ray Stantz: Well, no sense in worrying about it now.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back.

  35. Objections not entirely crazy. by dotmax · · Score: 5, Informative

    These things are not toys. They make prompt and residual radiation. It's made to transmute elements into radioactive forms. Concern is not unreasonable.

    Again: this machine will be used to make radioisotopes. Short half lives or not, the proximal homowners have a legitamite reason to be concerned about a radioisotope factory next to their homes. What about contamination issues?

    2: It is reasonable to have some concern about shielding. Anything energetic enough to make radionuclides can also make X-rays by the assload. Given that we're talking nuclear transmutation, a concern about neutron radiation (fairly long ranged and not stopped by standard rad shielding).

    ASS-U-Ming the installation will be industry standard, there shouldn't be a problem. If this guy doesn't know what he's doing, he could cause problems. Given that nobody seems to know what his specific shielding and radcon/exposure control plan is... he screwed up by not getting preapproved in advance.

    FWIW, i have run a re-tasked SDI helium-3 RFQ PET accelerator, and currently run the Tevatron, have manufactured antiprotons for the last 7 years send the Giant NuMI Neutrino beam from Fermilab to Minnesota, so i have a clue.

    Let us rise above our usu. cynical smirking condescencion and allow as how the loi polloi have a legit concern in this instance. .max

    1. Re:Objections not entirely crazy. by js7a · · Score: 1

      I think the guy just wanted to provide Ancorage with fluorine-18 which is unavailable in Alaska. The energies involved in that aren't going to zap anyone if he does it right. Plus, the accelerator was already assembled, tested, run for years, licensed, and inspected.

    2. Re:Objections not entirely crazy. by panopea · · Score: 1

      DotMax is correct, these things are not toys. I am willing to bet he could never get this thing going anyway. I have been building these things for 20 years. They are tricky, radioactive, and it is a long process to produce particle beams, even after 10 the one built. the components (extractor) inside of these puppies can be quite hot ! I can not overemphasize the high voltage danger. All deaths in the industry that I remember have been from electrocutions.

      They need a huge support system,Scantronix, EBCO, CTI, and others build these in heavy concrete cells. A small machine like this would take about 2 two car garages for the machine, shielding, power supplies, cooling system and control console.They need lots of cooling water, tap water will not work. The magnets, magnet power supplies, arc, and 15 - 20kv RF stages need cooling. Infrastructure to build, run , and test a vacuum system is not inexpensive. A Hydraulic system is needed. The magnets need realigned and mapped just from the move. (even if the coils are not leaking). Just getting beam to a low energy beam stop takes forever. That does not guarantee extraction. It is a noble cause to produce F18, A cyclotron is only one part of the puzzle. Have fun building one anyway.

  36. Did you say Civil Engineer? by foolish_to_be_here · · Score: 1

    If a Civil Engineer can have an "unlicensed proton pack in his back yard", then why not let a Gray Hound bus driver fly 737's. Who needs a Nuclear Engineering degree anyway? Street car conductor or brain surgeon? Is this guy related to Jethro Bodein of the Clampet clan?

    --
    Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
    1. Re:Did you say Civil Engineer? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Er, he already BUILT one HIMSELF in college! I think
      he knows how to run one.

    2. Re:Did you say Civil Engineer? by confused+one · · Score: 1
      Not necessarily. You could build a small desktop cyclotron fairly easily using readily available components and, in doing so, create little if any danger to anyone, except for the high voltage(s) present.

      As the system gets larger and larger, your safety systems requirements change. You begin producing higher voltages and have to be more careful of things like coronal discharges. You begin to have significant energy stored in the magnetic fields in your steering magnets (you can't just flip a switch and turn them off). Your shielding requirements change as you begin to get to higher energies where you're no longer making x-rays and begin making gamma. At that point you may start to see neutrons kicked out of the target and beam-line walls... If he's planning to make radioactive isotopes in any quantity, he's at those energy levels.

      Then there's the resulting radioactive materials to deal with. In minute quantities, it's no big deal -- as in trivial. However, he's acquiring a research grade machine that can probably produce sizeable (yet still relatively small) quantities of isotopes. If handled properly they too are not a real problem. The key is the handling and disposal. Can he prove he is capable of PROPERLY handling and shielding the materials and can he provide for their PROPER DISPOSAL at the end of their useful life.

      I'll admit all of this is fairly trivial. I suspect that if he was putting it into a hospital or university setting, or into an industrial setting people might not object as strongly. The fact that he wants to put it in his home, begs to question whether he's serious about the shielding, safe handling of radioactive materials, and other safety issues.

  37. I fear my neighbors too! by AB3A · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I presume this guy has a reasonable "back yard." The article didn't say how large his property was. Assuming that Swank has room for a reasonable building in his back yard to house this endeavor, I don't see why this is any different than a garden shed or a garage.

    With all those household chemicals, pesticides, sprayers, fertilizers and the like, one could easily mix them wrong and gas the neighborhood to death. The gasoline from the lawn mower might leak and cause an explosion from the fumes. The pesticides might get in to someone's well and poison them. The mulch pile might catch fire and smoulder...

    The list is long. The point is these are every day hazards that people are comfortable with. This is all about feelings and very little about the actual hazard. It's not even about ignorance. People are woefully ignorant about the products they use in their houses every day.

    I say hire a PR firm through the local hospital, buy the neighbors some doughnuts, and listen to the chatter. Clearly there are a few arrogant idiots who need to be identified and pushed back in to their caves^H^H^H^H^Hhomes.

    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    1. Re:I fear my neighbors too! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I presume this guy has a reasonable "back yard." The article didn't say how large his property was.

      The only property he owns in Anchorage is less than 1/5 of an acre (7000 sq ft), and it is on the outskirts of downtown. So, he wants to build a Cyclotron on less than 1/10th of an acre (what would be a "back yard" with a house and such on a lot that size) in downtown Anchorage. But, he does appear to own the lot next to his dad, so maybe it will span both back yards. The only cyclotron I've ever played with is the one at Texas A&M, and you had to wear the badges to go through and it was huge (mutiple levels, tens of thousands of square feet, a great place for the end of some bad action movie). It wouldn't fit on both lots put together, let alone in the backyard of one. Can one scaled down that far still produce useful results? Oh, and this is all based off data I found on the Internet that may be out of date. It is possible that he moved or bought an additional piece of property that he is trying to use, but the data is less than a year old, so he would have had to move fast.

  38. Worst thing? by WilburCobb · · Score: 1

    an "expert" says "Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves"

    X-ray tubes are much simpler to build, produce lower energy radiation and yet dentists have to protect themselves from daily use.

    Cancer is the worst thing.

  39. Wont happen by MrEcho.net · · Score: 0

    Theres no way in hell this is going to fly.
    1: Elemdorf AFB is just outside of Anchorage, like 2 miles if that.
    1.1: Yes Anchorage is a pretty big city, still doesnt matter, the AF wouldnt let it happen. To much of a risk/threat of something going wrong.

    2: Unless this guy really knows what hes getting into, the local and Fed gov wont let him, to much of a risk of him self, and the area around him.

    1. Re:Wont happen by Liam+Slider · · Score: 3, Funny
      .1: Yes Anchorage is a pretty big city, still doesnt matter, the AF wouldnt let it happen. To much of a risk/threat of something going wrong.
      Risk of what? That he's turn it into a death ray and demand, "ONE MILLION DOLLARS!?"
  40. How about banning smoke detectors? by jcr · · Score: 1

    If his neighbors are going to get up in arms about negligible radiation hazards, who don't they also ban cosmic rays while they're at it?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:How about banning smoke detectors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If his neighbors are going to get up in arms about negligible radiation hazards, who don't they also ban cosmic rays while they're at it?

      Cosmic rays don't sound dangerous. If you call'em NUCLEAR COSMIC RAY ENERGY, it might get more attention.

      On the other hand, if the dude just called his accelerator a ``circular TV tube with lots of magnets and switches, built to heal children'' then it might not be objected to.

  41. lies, damn lies and nuclear-related information by natmakarvitch · · Score: 1

    > The people need to have their point of view changed. The people need objective information instead of the usual bullshit. The IAEA (ONU's agency for civil nuclear energy), for example, is full of lies. They even declared in 200509 that only 4000 people (grand total) have and will die from the Chernobyl disaster. I tried to understand this figure: no published scientific work (only draft reports with no clear author for each assertion), the '4000' figure is not written in it as such and the corresponding approximation stated is only related to cancers to come in a given subgroup (not the grand total!), the model used (Hiroshima - Nagasaki) is inadequate (high external radiation during a brief period, albeit most Chernobyl's victims receive low radiation, with a fair internal (food) fraction, for a long period), the population analyzed is a subset (mainly Russians) and not qualified (therefore probably not representative and insufficient), the very report states that his results are highly inaccurate (lack of good data, inadequate model, other morbidity specific to the context...), the whole stuff is published as an OMS work albeit this organization is in fact tied to the IAEA for anything related to nuclear (OMS just cannot publish anything not approved by IAEA), during the official report presentation the OMS guy responsible for it did not even try to show that the model used is adequate and said that the published figure was coined by the "public relations" department and not by the scientists... I can carry on but you get the picture. The whole stuff, published thru the media by some "The people need to have their point of view changed." sort of technocrats, gives "4000 people died and will die, period". This is the way they think: "We cannot anymore decide without informing anyone, but the average citizen is stupid, let's feed him/her with some lies in order to continue doing our stuff". Let's refuse and resist 'till some objective and clear information becomes available!

  42. Oblig. Futurama Quote by NLG · · Score: 5, Funny

    Farnsworth: "So what are you doing to protect my constitutional right to bear doomsday devices?"
    NRA Guy: "Well, first off, we're gonna get rid of that three day waiting period for mad scientists."
    Farnsworth: "Damn straight! Today the mad scientist can't get a doomsday device, tomorrow it's the mad grad student! Where will it end?!"
    NRA Guy: "Amen, brother. I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax. For duck huntin'."

    This story made me think of this. Am I the only one?

    --
    Flash is the Herpes of the Internet.
    your.opinion > /dev/null
  43. Dr. Weird by SlashSquatch · · Score: 1

    Gentlemen, Behold! I will now fire this particle accelerator at that marauding grizzlies' ass!

    --
    Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
  44. christmas lights! by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    what kind of christmas light shows could he make with this?

    create his own aurora borealis? (although redundant, since he's in alaska)

    and i don't see how anyone can oppose this guy if they accept the principle of existing contemporary christmas light displays that consume more power and emit more radiation than your average cyclotron

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  45. FUD from people who pronounce it nucular by crovira · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry if the word nuclear in anything scares some people but this cyclotron is for generating microscopic amounts of nucleotides for use in radiology.

    He isn't some towel-head deforming the unborn in the name of some thing unspeakable or likely to blow up the neighborhood as the equipment is more likely to screw with people's TV signals than to leave a smokin' crater.

    Next they'll riot and walk 'round with pitchforks in front of the dentist's because he's got an X-Ray machine. What?

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  46. Mail Order Nukes by nojayuk · · Score: 1
    http://www.cashncarrion.co.uk/cnb/shop/cashncarrio n?op=catalogue-products-null&prodCategoryID=11

    and have a look about half-way down the page for the "glow in the dark" keyrings. Quote:

    "Inside each GlowRing is a single sealed glass tube which contains a minute amount of active gas that permanently reacts with a luminescent coating."

    Translation: "active gas" == tritium.

    I've got a couple on order at the moment, for geek-type Xmas presents. They limit sales to UK customers only.

    "Please note that due to international regulations regarding this item THIS PRODUCT IS ONLY AVAILABLE TO UK RESIDENTS AND CANNOT BE SENT TO ANY ADDRESS OUT OF THE COUNTRY."

    1. Re:Mail Order Nukes by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      I've had a glowring on my keychain for about 4 years now. Still glowing strong. They are indeed illegal to import to the US, but they're on ebay all the time.

  47. This is too ignorant to be on /. by grolaw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look folks, the amount of material produced would be very, very small - on the order of micro or pico curies of the DIAGNOSTIC isotope of fluorine - that has a 6 hour half-life!

    Iodine 131 is another reagent common in treating thyroid cancers...

    Molybdenum has an isotope with a half-life measured in seconds! Used in scintillation scans of soft tumors. Molybdenum has six stable isotopes and almost two dozen radioisotopes, the vast majority of which have half-lives measured in seconds. Mo-99 is used in sorpation generators to create Tc-99 for the medical nuclear isotope industry.

    Finally, the cyclotron is not radioactive - it bombards the target element to create an isotope that is radioactive. I'd live next door to one - even in Anchorage (spent last August in that city) with the extrodinary earthquake & tsunamai risk - because the cyclotron could only release the very small amount of material that it was bombarding at the time of a catastrophic failure.

    Also, have any of you folks noticed that AK is 5 time zones removed from the East Coast? You simply can't ship these short-lived isotopes.

    Many hospitals have cyclotrons for that very reason! Others have manufacturers in the same city. Not the case in AK.

  48. THey need to get a life by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    This thing is probably far less dangerous then the industrial x-ray machines they use to check for metal fatigue, and welding integrity.

    The neighbors biggest worry should be problems with their wifi when its operational.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  49. select quotes by God'sDuck · · Score: 1
    "For Swank, the backyard cyclotron is a personal quest: He lost his father to cancer years ago..."

    "'My father worked with me while I was building my first cyclotron...,' Swank said."
    "Swank maintains the device is not dangerous for nearby residents."


    interesting...
  50. there is no real offsite risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no real offsite risk with a medical cyclotron. They accelerate protons, not photons, not electrons, and make sources like F-18 for PET scans. the NIMBY people should really just shut their pie holes. unless he takes his source he would create, and start feeding it to people, they are so short lived, by the time it could migrate offsite, most of it would have decayed. I despise ignorance, and tree hugging hippies who think that their skewed sense of reality is based in fact.

  51. Radiation phobia by shadowj · · Score: 2, Informative
    Most people hear the word radiation or nuclear and that's it for them, logic never comes into play.
    Very true, unfortunately. That's exactly why the medical imaging technology called Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was renamed. The technique is a variation on an earlier technology called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR). Someone (probably one of the early MRI manufacturers, like GE) realized that the word "nuclear" would have doomed the product, so they changed the name... along the same lines as renaming "Chinese gooseberries" to "kiwi fruit".
    --

    --Larry

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

    1. Re:Radiation phobia by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Chinese Gooseberries...ewwwww, that's nasty. No wonder they changed the name.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Radiation phobia by richardablitt · · Score: 1

      Possibly the similarity between 'NMR' and Enema had an influence as well?

    3. Re:Radiation phobia by visgoth · · Score: 1

      I wonder how people would react if they knew that good, wholesome canola is actually called rapeseed...

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    4. Re:Radiation phobia by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's what I call it every time the conversation comes up. I haven't scared anyone away from "canola" (there is no fucking canola plant, ferchrissake) but it does lead to a pregnant pause every time you ask someone if they cook with rape oil.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Radiation phobia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is rape oil like Mung?

    6. Re:Radiation phobia by Telecommando · · Score: 1

      Actually, while technically the same, rapeseed and canola are definitely different.
      Rapeseed oil is highly poisonous but makes an excellent lubricant in certain applications.
      Canola is a variety of rapeseed that was mutated (by nuclear radiation, IIRC) to have a non-poisonous oil.
      They're the same, but different.
      Besides, who would want to buy "Nuclear Irradiated Mutant Rapeseed Oil"?

      --
      Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
    7. Re:Radiation phobia by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      "Besides, who would want to buy "Nuclear Irradiated Mutant Rapeseed Oil"?"

      You can buy that stuff!?
      {rubs hands together}
      Now my GM army of mutant irritates Sea Bas can rule the world!!!!!!!!

      MWA Ha HAAAAAA!!!!

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  52. So Silly by pyite · · Score: 2

    Such a silly thing to oppose. There's a cyclotron a few hundred feet from me and I'm not frightened. I'm right next door to Rutgers Physics' Cyclotron. Maybe I'm not frightened because there is NO DANGER. *Sigh*

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    1. Re:So Silly by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add "@#$%^&* NO CARRIER" to the end of your message. :)

  53. So when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are they going to port linux to it?

  54. People fear the unknown by Halo- · · Score: 1
    While I "understand" the hold, it annoys me. The problem is that people fear the unknown. I'm sure these same folks would freak out if someone told them most their smoke detectors are radioactive and thus "nu-klear" as well. The fact that the isotopes emit alpha particles which are blocked by something as simple as a sheet of paper doesn't register.

    It's not reasonable to expect the general public to be experts in particle physics, but I'd like to think they could at least be bothered to do a little reading before getting hysterical.

    1. Re:People fear the unknown by Elminst · · Score: 1

      and thus "nu-klear" as well

      no no... the proper pronunciation is "NUKE-you-lahr" ;-)

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    2. Re:People fear the unknown by budgenator · · Score: 1

      considering that americium is a strong alpha emmiter in addition to emitting neutrons and gamma radiation, and has a half-life of 7370 years, that makes it about as toxic as the plutonium 241 it comes from via beta decay! Let the hysteria begin.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  55. Sigh by CBob · · Score: 1
    Do you realize the horrible danger that this could cause??

    What if everyone with a computer wanted a particle accelerator???

    (set sarcasm OFF)

    PET scans used hot glucose if I recall,and the 1/2 life on that stuff is pathetic. I got more radiation for my money when I got my cardiac scan. Complete with a warning not to visit the White House for 1 week.

    Now for the energetic photons and particle folks...Neon signs do a nice job of charged plasma photon emission (makes light) and anyone who's got a CRT is also looking at 15-30kv accellerated electrons slamming into the phosphor(light and some x-rays).

    The electron gun in the CRT is a particle accelerator.

    One of those(a pointed wire in the tube will do), a chunk of metal, a vac pump & some major glass blowing skills all hooked up with a HV source will get you a "crude" X-ray tube.

    Backyard reactor? Research reactor? Those, I'd worry about a little. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.htm for the basic into for stuff that goes all atomic like.

    Now, if this guy put a sign up that says synchrotron radiation research, I might not want to walk up to the front door when the lights are dimming.

    BTW, I really, REALLY do not want to see this guy's electric bill. Nor do I want to find out if he find out what RF burns are.

  56. Reaction to the word "nuclear" by vmxeo · · Score: 1

    Reading the article, I get the distinct impression that the residents don't really understand what a cyclotron is. They just see the word "nuclear" and freak out. Someone once explained why you don't see the term "Nuclear Imaging" posted in hospitals anymore-again the word "Nuclear" just doesn't go over very well (they changed it to benign names like "MRI").

    Want to have fun with this? Tip off residents that someone has ordered and installed a nuclear device called a magnetron in their home. Watch what happens...

    1. Re:Reaction to the word "nuclear" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term isn't "Nuclear Imaging" it's NMR, you've conflated the
      terms NMR and MRI; MRI being the ignorant friendly term used.

    2. Re:Reaction to the word "nuclear" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "I get the distinct impression that the residents don't really understand what a cyclotron is. They just see the word "nuclear" and freak out."

      I don't know about that. People know about and understand pesticides and chemicals and use them everyday (treat lawn, kill insects, etc), but you can't store oil barrels full of them on your property can you?

      I don't know that is so much the "nuclear" word as the size and function of the device.

      "Tip off residents that someone has ordered and installed a nuclear device called a magnetron in their home. Watch what happens..."

      Well, that is a COMMERCIAL device that has passed a whole number of safety and health tests and assumably went through some sort of regulation.

      The problem is that this is a 20 ton piece of INDUSTRIAL equipment being used and stored in a residential area; not regulated under the same conditions of a COMMERCIAL device.

  57. He finally completed the series... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    ... the obscure "Time-Lime Home Cyclotron" completes the series coveted by collectors!!!

  58. Alaska = Federal tax revenue sinkhole by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 1

    I've been thinking: it's no secret that the blue states subsidize the red states with tax dollars. Save for a few exceptions (PA and TX I think), the pattern of net cash flow is rather stark. And AK has to be one of the biggest recipients of Federal aid per capita, and one of the lowest contributors.

    Why don't we just revoke its statehood and sell it to the Chinese?

    Think about it. If you're the kind of person who thinks government should be run like a business, then this state, as a business unit, is a chronic money-loser. Even if it managed by some miracle to achieve positive cash flow, it would be well below the federal government's cost of capital. So why not do what the Russians did in 1867, and just sell it off as a way to pay down the national debt? Unlike West Virginia or Mississippi, Alaska has actual resale value.

    Alternatively, we could use the Alaska Territory as collateral for all of those Treasury bonds that the Chinese are buying up. Either we pay off the national debt, or we adopt a flag with only 49 stars.

    (ducks)

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    1. Re:Alaska = Federal tax revenue sinkhole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think Military Importance.

      Now Shut Up.

      Just to be fair, I'd rather be in a blue state (preferrably right here in Alaska, hey, it could happen... maybe)

    2. Re:Alaska = Federal tax revenue sinkhole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an original and interesting idea, though it will never happen :-)

      For one thing, Alaska is part of the US "defensive triangle" which includes Hawaii and Panama.

      -j

    3. Re:Alaska = Federal tax revenue sinkhole by guaigean · · Score: 1

      As others have said, Alaska serves two very vital roles: Oil and Military Defense. These alone are worth the support (as they are in various other states). If you don't build an infrastructure for people to live, no one will want to live there. With no one there, no one works the Oil fields. While they can force the military there, oil companies are civilian employment, and you have to encourage people somehow. Additionally, Alaska is responsible for a HUGE amount of natural resources, including multiple minerals and metals, logging, and fishing. So tell me, is it worth the US having control of its own resources, or is it better to have to buy them all from a competitor?

      --
      Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
  59. Will he use this to make Isotope Soap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Geza X :


    "...isotope soap, isotope soap...
    ...wash my head, now my brain is dead...

    with isotope soap, isotope soap
    ...wash my ear, couldn't hear for a year...

    isotope soap, isotope soap..."
    ...wash my dick, now my babies are sick

    isotope soap, isotope soap..."

  60. I'll play Devil's advocate for the hell of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why does the guy have to do it out of his house, exactly? They say he runs his "engineering buisiness" there, but that could be an office with a PC and a printer. As usual, the reporting on the story is the bare minimum for the article's author to collect a paycheck.

    Yeah, the cyclotron poses no physical threat, but one is addressing the nuisance factor here. In my neighborhood we've had a couple attempts by people to start businesses out of their homes that were disruptive to the area (constant power tool noise, incessant traffic, etc.) They were stopped by zoning laws, and you know what? Three cheers for the zoning laws.

    There's more to life than science. Maybe some of you aren't homeowners yet, and don't appreciate the simple pleasure of getting home to your little quiet nook, and not having some jackass trying to run a semi-industrial woodshop in his garage across the street because he doesn't want to have to pay rent in a proper facility.

  61. may be dangerous by thoper · · Score: 1

    near my house, in a principal hospital, they buy an linear accelerator for cancer treatment, they build a 2.5m concrete wall and a faraday cage made out of 30cm steel (not sure about the material) to shield the damm tning and protect the city.... if this guy is talking about one of those, i REALLY dont want one of those in my backyard... sorry bout the engrish

  62. out of this world by nazsco · · Score: 2, Funny

    > "Probably the worst thing that could happen with small cyclotrons is that the operator might electrocute themselves."

    Or send himself to another world!

  63. re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is not so much that "the general population is too dumb to be educated", but rather, the typical person you run into "on the street" is walking around with a head full of misconceptions and urban legends, rumors and half-truths.

    If you don't yet believe that a good 50% or so of the "general population" has irrational fears of such things as "radiation" and "nuclear energy", randomly ask some of them about such things. (EG. "Hello sir. Would you say that the possibility of getting brain cancer from using your cellphone too often is a real concern or not?" ... or "Hi mam. What are your thoughts about potential health hazards of living in a house that's placed not too far away from some high power lines?")

    To make things more complicated, a LOT of people make good money off sustaining these irrational/illogical fears. Sometimes, it's because they're part of a non-profit agency that needs this fear to ensure their continued existance. Other times, it's because some con-artists have a business selling useless devices that are only purchased by those who misunderstand the concepts. (You did buy your radiation blocking cell-phone sticker thingie off eBay, right?)

  64. Use Common Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to live in a normal, nice suburban neighborhood. When I decided that I wanted an X-Ray Diffractomerter (Cu and Mo tubes, running at 800W to extend lifetime because the tubes are expensive), we moved to a rural area where it wouldn't disturb neighbors and built a 40'x40' shop with a 12'x12' shielded room to house the instrument. WHy doesn't the guy just go rural, or isn't there enough rural land near Anchorage?

  65. Why Alaska? by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

    Any particular reason? I did not RTFA, but it seems like this might be one of those solutions looking for a problem. If it's merely "just because" then I would have to vote nay on the project. Just build another one in Illinois, or Iowa, or something ... you know, states that are bland anyhow. No reason to mess around constructing something in Alaska.

  66. The general populace isn't stupid... by JetJaguar · · Score: 1
    They just don't care enough about issues of science to take the initiative to understand what's really going on. This makes them susceptible to people that are just out to make a name for themselves or an agenda to push, regardless of whether or not they have anything relavent to say.

    It also allows them to be easily swayed by anyone that can make a technical sounding argument that is based more on an emotional appeal, "We need to take a balanced approach, because of (insert technical sounding jargon here)" or "If this is put in your backyard, your kids will sprout six arms and all your boys will develop penis cancer."

    To make matters worse, the news media all too often plays right into the hands of the fear-mongers. In an effort to be "balanced" and "letting the viewers decide" the news media will give a voice to any yahoo that will provide a counterpoint to any statement made by the proponent of anything.

    Most people are capable of learning to think critically, and be able to see through this kind of bullshit. But few of them are taught the skill.

    --

    Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!

  67. Ahh... My Hometown... by moorley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm still getting used to living in the states, but there are times I do miss Anchorage. The folks there are... unique ;-)

    West Anchorage Highschool was a place of many tales as well. Underground bunkers that students from all over the district would try to sneak into the ductwork and access ways to go see. I even remember seeing a bunch of them down through an access plate in Junior Hall a good 20 feet down. Underground newspapers and pranks. But that's another tale.

    If you ever get the chance to visit Anchorage it's a fun town. Nothing like living at the biggest town at the tip of the Western United States expansion. I wouldn't trade my youth there for anything.

    --
    "Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me :)
  68. Accent issue? ? by timesucker · · Score: 1

    Must be a Boston accent or something. Pahk the kah in hahvahd yahd. (Park the car in Harvard yard.)

  69. Re: radiation in one direction by frankie · · Score: 0

    Flatly false. First off, we're talking about a homebrew cyclotron built by an amateur (civil engineering is not the right specialty). It might spew beta and x-rays around the full circle if it's improperly designed, built, or operated.

    Second, even a perfectly designed cyclotron will emit cyclotron radiation by definition. It's a required side effect of turning the beam.

  70. other dangers by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    You still would have to trust that he's not going to let the beam escape, that shielding is done properly, and that he handles any activated materials properly - this is not something that should be done in residential area. There's also the matter of safety near large magnets and high current conductors, could even have an accident with those that might be of concern to neighbors (power outages, metal fires, etc.)

  71. Inventors: Use your most powerfull ally: by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Human stupidity. DON'T TELL THEM that you're building this scientific thing with lots of scary big words in it. Tell them it's a shed for your gardening tools. Hell, it's Canada, tell them you're growing pot.

    Even when a young lad, I heeded it well: "An ounce of keeping your mouth shut beats a ton of explanation." That's saved my ass - in every imaginable context.

    1. Re:Inventors: Use your most powerfull ally: by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Hell, it's Canada, tell them you're growing pot.

      Yeah, yeah, yeah, Alaska, Canada, whatever....

    2. Re:Inventors: Use your most powerfull ally: by tgd · · Score: 1

      Well you can't exactly TELL them you're talking about Alaska? I mean its pretty simple to find something in an area that small, best to tell them its in Canada, and throw them off!

  72. Cyclotron in My Back Yard? YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hey,

    Swank is doing this because he understands what he is doing and because he wants to help folks who suffer with cancer, like his father who died from cancer. He wants to help. The greatest risk of this project is that Swank could electrocute himself. If you live in Anchorage and feel that it is rediculous to have this project shut down by people who do not take the time to gain understanding, say something about it. To have this in Alaska could reduce the suffering of many people with cancer.

    To express a comment to the Mayor of Anchorage, Mark Begich: www.ci.anchorage.ak.us/Feedback/mayorfeed.html

    To express a comment to the Anchorage City Assembly, send a message to the assembly clerk: gruensteinbe at muni.org

  73. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    "Hello sir. Would you say that the possibility of getting brain cancer from using your cellphone too often is a real concern or not?"

    Exactly. 90% of the idiotic population of this world hears the word "radiation" and IMMEDIATELY thinks "nuclear radiation" - Even though there are other types of radiation in the world. Only a VERY limited subset of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum (gamma rays) are nuclear in origin, and also not all nuclear radiation is electromagnetic - most of it is particle radiation.

    There are many forms of electromagnetic radiation that are utterly and completely harmless, such as the light from a light bulb.

    Cell phones can't cause cancer - it's not the right type of radiation. Microwave electromagnetic radiation can cause damage in one way (heating), and that requires far higher power levels than any cell phone to have any effect whatsoever on a human body.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  74. Containment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any kind of nuclear equipment must be installed in a full-fledged containment. No economic or otherwise excuses. You know what a containment is? Eight feet of reinforced concrete shielding encased in a half-yard thick precision-welded stainless steel sphere or dome. Critical equipment inside must be protected with extra missile shields (usually 12" concrete slabs). Atom is no kidding. Don't be like the russkies, who installed energetic fission reactors in light-structure halls and when it exploded all the junk went through the roof - literally.

  75. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by flosofl · · Score: 1

    90% of the idiotic population of this world hears the word "radiation" and IMMEDIATELY thinks "nuclear radiation"

    Yeah, and the rest of the idiots make up stats...

    --
    "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
  76. Folks who never even *took* science in jr. high by whitroth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... or maybe slept through it in elementary school. Hell, my *high* *school* had a cyclotron, and this was the early-to-mid sixties. (If you're wondering, Central High, in Philly.)

    But that's like the idiot article that a friend passed along to me, who's worried about the plutonium-powered RTG on the Pluto mission "polluting space with radioactivity" (I'm not making this up!)

                    mark

    1. Re:Folks who never even *took* science in jr. high by bani · · Score: 1

      hopefully you pointed out to said friend what a complete moron he is.

      i'm guessing he still believes in that shit. most people stupid enough to fall for it in the first place cannot be easily wavered from their cherished irrationality.

    2. Re:Folks who never even *took* science in jr. high by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Hell, my *high* *school* had a cyclotron, and this was the early-to-mid sixties. (If you're wondering, Central High, in Philly.)


      That's kind of like saying your high school produced and used a superconducting magnet, so no one should worry about someone having an MRI in their apartment.

      Cyclotrons vary by many orders of magnitude in power. Just because your high school cyclotron didn't produce any apreciable radiation or radioactive material doesn't mean this one doesn't. People do get quite scared whenever the word "nuclear" in mentioned, and it's not always warranted. In this case though I wouldn't leap to that conclusion unless you have an idea of the scale of this particular cyclotron.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Folks who never even *took* science in jr. high by elmo258 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't use the fact that Central High had a cyclotron to argue that cyclotrons are safe. If I recall correctly some students did build one in the 60's, but they never actually got permission to use it.

  77. Can you say "Oil"? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    I knew you could. Remember the Exxon Valdez? It wasn't carrying Saudi Oil when it rammed the rocks. Although "Sewards Folly" has been blessed in recent years by a Senator (Ted Stevens)who, by dint of his fortunate location as head of the Senate apppropriations committee, has helped with all manor of piggish things for Alaskans (usually subsquently named after him), things should be returning to the normal levels of federal benificience as he recently got booted off his chairmanship.

    But Alaska pork only looks excessive if you compare it on a dollars per population metric. If you used dollars per square mile it would look like we're pork paupers.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  78. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by Sylvius · · Score: 2, Informative

    While I generally agree with your point, a lot of the details are really, really wrong:

    The fluorine isotope you mentioned (F-18) can be made on a cyclotron, but has a half-life of 108 minutes, not 6 hours.

    Iodine 131 is used to treat thyroid cancer, but is generally a waste product of nuclear reactors, not made with a cyclotron and it has an 8 day halflife. It can be volatilized and cause thyroid damage and cancer induction (think people hundreds of miles downwind of Chernobyl).

    Molybdenum (again, reactor byproduct, not cyclotron made), decays into Technecium-99m, which is used in nuclear medicine scintillation studies, but has a half-life of 6 horus.

    Finally, the cyclotron is not radioactive, you are correct, but after a while, the shielding, etc, is bombarded with so many particles that it itself can become radioactive (the inner surfaces). It's still perfectly safe to be outside the shielding, but removing the shielding down the road can be a pain.

    Overall, if he were doing it correctly, I'd say it's probably perfectly safe for his neighbors. However, if he plans to run it as a production cyclotron for diagnostic imaging, he should be doing it the right way and putting it someplace zoned for commercial use and with adequate electrical infrastructure.

  79. Cyclotron...YIMBY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take a cyclron. I would probably even take a breeder reactor.why not? I'm fairly sure given that a cyclitrons are used practically everyday, they help produce a little known element who's symbol is H, I don't think you've heard of it. A breader reactor would be just dand as well, given that LANL has (at least acording to community tech, the local LANL rag)a better history than coal plants (see december 96 of RedHearing why coal is so terrible and gas is not much better- 40tons per a day of radiation that pruduces enough Rads to mutate fish scary!)

  80. How to keep building... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a no-brainer.

    He should immediately withdraw any intention of building a 'nuclear doom-machine'. And say that he will change his hobby to 'high-voltage electrostatic laboratory equipment'.

    In the meantime .... I, for one, welcome our new garden shed-based nuclear overlords ...

  81. They have no clue. by doit3d · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work in medicine. A cyclotron is just simply a big circular magnet. Electrocution from the power driving the magnets is the most dangerous thing possible, IMHO. Sheilding in the area where the drugs are bombarded by the machine to create the isotopes is quite adequate. Handeling procedures in place for these drugs and machines used in their production by the FDA, NRC, & other medical oversite organizations is very extensive. Here are just a few drugs off the top of my head that are used commonly that have short useful working span: Technetium-99m has a half-life of 6 hours. Fludeoxyglucose has a half-life of 109.8 minutes. C-11 methionine has a half-life of 20 minutes. ...and the list goes on. Many drugs used in diagnosis & treatment of cancers & other ailments require an on-site cyclotron because of the short half-life. It is not possibly to make these drugs in the lower states & fly them to Alaska in a timely mannor for them to be effective for dianosis and/or treatment. What this gentelman wants to do is needed & I commend him for trying to help others.The people who are against him building this thing are not very well informed.

    --
    "This is America... where the will of the few outweigh the outrage of the many..." - Unknown
    1. Re:They have no clue. by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a difference between arguing "need" and "needs to be here".

      The guy can do that in a comercial park somewhere in Anchorage rather than a residential neighborhood.

      Problem solved.

    2. Re:They have no clue. by clnelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The disaggreement isn't just about the cyclotron (ok a lot of it's about the cyclotron). It's also the fact that the business model isn't appropriate for a residential area. This guy is right in the middle of the neighborhood and he has to rush his stuff to the hospital. He should be setting up in a small office near the three major hospitals in Anchorage (all located whithin 15 blocks or so of each other --Providence, Regional, and the Alaska Native Health Center). But instead he's in a downtown residential neighborhood that's two or three school zones away from the hospitals through cross town rush hour traffic. It just isn't a good idea. The zoning wouldn't allow him to set up a barber shop, I don't see why they can't refuse him his medical production and courier business.

    3. Re:They have no clue. by an_art · · Score: 1

      I've worked in science and technology for 36 yr. I handled radio-isotopes safely and happily for several of those years. If a neighbor told me that he intended to install a cyclotron, my first reacion would be "go dude!" I would politely suggest using enough concrete blocks to stop the X-rays, but it's an exciting idea. If he then told me that he intended to manufacture radio-isotopes next to my house, my reaction as a parent and homeowner would then change to "I don't think so...!" As soon as you talk about isotope manufacture you need to talk about air vents with filters and holding tanks for your contaminated liquid effluents. That's why we have industrial parks and zoning laws. The history of radioactive work is full of exciting advances and "seeming" miracles, but it is also punctuated by incidents of poor judgement, studity and negligence. That's why we have codes of best practices, backed up by zoning laws.

    4. Re:They have no clue. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For medical use, the best place to set it up would be on the UAA campus. Get the state to pay for it for research and educational purposes, then let the hospitals use it for making such drugs. UAA is central to all the hospitals (well, Alaska Regional is farther than the other two, but not unreasonably far), has available land, isn't in a residential area, and would benefit from the new research opportunities.

      And it is certainly more reasonable than his home, which as of 1/1/2005 was on 10th, still considered part of downtown (and a small lot of 7000 sq ft).

    5. Re:They have no clue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You mean, a cyclotron is a simply a big magnet that accelerates electrons over 30kev into a target and thus makes X-rays.

      SciAm published an article about how to make a linac in your basment and recommended taping photgraphic film all over the room to find out where all the secondary x-ray emissions were so you wouldn't stand in them by accident.

    6. Re:They have no clue. by Black+Acid · · Score: 1
      A cyclotron is just simply a big circular magnet.

      A strong magnet is only one component of a cyclotron. Cyclotron's also require an electric field, produced by an alternating current of frequency f=qB/(2pi*m) (where q=the charge of the particle, B=magnetic field strength, m=mass). The electric field accelerates the charged particles at a=qE/m into a magnetic field, causing a curvature of radius r=mv/(qB). The particle will curve back and the electric field will accelerate it in the opposite direction. As the electric field accelerates the particles faster and faster, the radius of curvature will increase until the radius is large enough for the particle to exit the cyclotron and smash into something. Better particle accelerators have been developed for studying particle physics, however, as this article indicates, cyclotrons are still used in the field of nuclear physics. I, for one, would have no problem with a cyclotron in my back yard.

    7. Re:They have no clue. by dotmax · · Score: 1

      Your recitation of half-lives is a very good argument for siting this cyclotron in the basement of a hospital.

      To expand: if the guy is making short-lived radioisotopes, then he has to get them from the production facility to the hospital FAST.

      Do you really want someone rocketing through town with a vial full of radiocarbon/flourine whatever? far better to do it in the basement of a hospital (or, FTM, in a bermed-over structure in the parking lot) where transport time+distance is reduced.

      I'm also thinking there are probably some significant liscensine and permitting issues assoc. with transporting nuclear meds on public roads. And i'm betting this guy hasn't done jack about securing the necess. permits.

  82. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by toQDuj · · Score: 1

    While the cyclotron may not be radioactive, you do need an adequate set of shielding walls (say, about three meters of concrete) for any decently powered cyclotron. We have a few here on the university grounds, and a new one was installed a few years ago. The old one is currently inoperative, and still sits inside the building. The building itself has now been filled with offices, since they cannot tear the shielding down yet. They'll have to wait about 20 years for the radiation in the concrete chamber to get sufficiently small to have it demolished by standard means.

    The chamber itself does get flooded with radiation though. Some diffracted by air, some leaking, so in general, it's not safe to stand around one of those in operation. As said before, the new one has three meter thick concrete walls around it.
    Still, not half as dangerous as a nuclear fission reactor though. different radiation energies too.

    B.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  83. yeah, remember the terror... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Cause that's about all there was.

    Don't get me wrong, it was nearly catastrophic. But it wasn't catastrophic.

    There was a small amount of radioactivity released, and it blew out to sea.

    The thing there was the most of in the accident was terror. Honestly, it's pretty typical. People just don't understand radioactivity, and it is invisible, so they go way off the handle when having to deal with it. Like people freaking out over irradiating food.

    I wish TMI hadn't happened. Honestly if we designed a standardized reactor now with modern equipment and controls, we would no longer be running much risk of accidents. And if we used a pebble bed reactor, even less so. But TMI (caused by the disorganized designs of those reactors and a dumbo) pretty much scotched the building of new commercial reactors.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  84. Accurate Comparison by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > ...compared potential damage from a cyclotron mishap to the Three
    > Mile Island nuclear reactor accident

    That's about right. The machine might be damaged beyond repair but there would be no injuries and no damage to the property of others.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  85. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by toQDuj · · Score: 1

    oh and another thing, the company formerly known as Amersham Health, where I used to work (now owned by GE I believe), did ship its radioactively labelled pharmaceuticals around the globe (half life 6 hours). The trick is to irradiate it to four times (or more) the desired activity, then you'll have a longer time in which it can be shipped.

    and your time zone argument really doesn't cut wood. If it's 5 hours later somewhere else, it doesn't mean that it takes 5 hours to fly there.

    B.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  86. needs to be carefully managed by FredGray · · Score: 1

    I work on an experiment located at one of the world's highest intensity cyclotrons, at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland. It has a proton beam current of almost 2 milliamps. The radiation protection issues there are quite serious, and are carefully managed. This kind of activity needs to take place within a regulatory framework, not in some guy's backyard.

    1. Re:needs to be carefully managed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but this is not one of the world's highest-intensity particle accelerators. This is a relatively small one with a very specific use, and *could* be safely managed as such. I don't think a back yard is the best place for one (much in the same light that I don't think some guy's residental garage is the best place for a commercial auto shop) but we aren't talking about a huge risk to the community. I think just renting a suitable commercial space with adequately designed power and construction would suffice.

  87. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

    Exactly. 90% of the idiotic population of this world hears the word "radiation" and IMMEDIATELY thinks "nuclear radiation" - Even though there are other types of radiation in the world. Only a VERY limited subset of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum (gamma rays) are nuclear in origin, and also not all nuclear radiation is electromagnetic - most of it is particle radiation.

    Reminds me of a family we met on a skiing holiday. The mother was into all kinds of 'alternative' science. She had managed to convince her teenage son that she had given him a wristwatch containing a crystal that would absorb all known forms of electromagnetic energy. He couldn't understand our hilarity one evening (we may have been a little drunk), when a channel on a televison set in the chalet started misbehaving and we were all yelling at him to switch off his watch. You had to be there really.

  88. I wonder why he even asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a nuclear particle accelerator in my house, and my land lady doesn't even know.

  89. particle accelerators = cathode ray tube by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Like the dihydrogen oxide fun, I think it would be funny if a town actually banned crt televisions under the auspices of banning "particle accelerators".

    Welcome to life by permission only.

  90. Re: radiation in one direction by aelbric · · Score: 1

    Your first point is incorrect. This is surplus hardware that has been donated by Johhn Hopkins in perfectly working order.

    --
    nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
  91. Three Mile Island? by chaboud · · Score: 1

    That's it. These people are idiots.

    It's time to sell Alaska back...

  92. Liberals get what they asked for & don't like by ccmay · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I've been thinking: it's no secret that the blue states subsidize the red states with tax dollars.

    And so they should, to the good bleeding-heart liberal who favors progressive taxation and government handouts for the less fortunate. Compare the average yearly incomes in the different states and you will see what I mean.

    According to liberal dogma, the wealthy limousine liberal in Connecticut ought to be proud and happy that the government will take money from him and give it to the poor white trash living in a Mississippi trailer park.

    Funny how fast that left wing sympathy for the downtrodden vanishes, when the benefits go to stubborn rednecks that don't reward their patrons with votes!

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  93. Re: radiation in one direction by Handpaper · · Score: 1
    Flatly false. First off, we're talking about a homebrew cyclotron built by an amateur (civil engineering is not the right specialty). It might spew beta and x-rays around the full circle if it's improperly designed, built, or operated.

    RTFA. It's not a homebrew. Click on the pictures for more info - it's a 'Scandiatronix MC16'. It came out of Johns Hopkins where it was used to manufacture medical radioisotopes. That's what Swank wants to use it for, too

    Second, even a perfectly designed cyclotron will emit cyclotron radiation by definition. It's a required side effect of turning the beam.

    From the next wiki article along:
    Cyclotrons produce spectrally-pure, very-bright far-ultraviolet(=less than 400nm), and soft, low-frequency x-rays, that are difficult to produce by other methods.
    Neither of these are the 'hard' ionising radiation beloved of sensationalist news reports; they have many medical uses.

  94. A real worry, perhaps by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    > ... the operator might electrocute themselves....

    Well if the operator really is schizophrenic, electrocution could be a cause of worry, I suppose ...

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  95. re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beauty is the Eye of the Beholder, especially if it is attempting to charm you...

  96. Re: radiation in one direction by llefler · · Score: 1

    First off, we're talking about a homebrew cyclotron built by an amateur (civil engineering is not the right specialty).

    No we aren't. He has built his own, but apparently no one knew or cared. Now he wants a commercial one, and has found someone that will give him one.

    "Albert Swank Jr - who runs an engineering firm from his house - built his first domestic cyclotron when he was 17. He now wants to upgrade to a meatier Scandiatronix MC16, donated by Johns Hopkins University."

    --
    It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
  97. Cellphones by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Funny
    Cell phones can't cause cancer - it's not the right type of radiation. Microwave electromagnetic radiation can cause damage in one way (heating), and that requires far higher power levels than any cell phone to have any effect whatsoever on a human body.


    I don't know about cancer, but I've seen evidence that cellphones fry your brain, based on the extreme stupidity of the users.

    Admittedly, I never saw them before they got their phones.
    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  98. Keep those bicycles away from me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always knew those no good dirty hippies would want to build a giant concrete structure where they could practice riding their bicycles in circles at dangerously fast speeds. They would then use that newly found speed to get in my way while I'm speeding to work, driving on the so called bicycle lane.

    If they want to get in shape they should ride a safer vehicle. Like a stationary bike. Where you pedal forever but never actually go anywhere. Seems to work great for those fat chicks.

  99. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by ultranova · · Score: 1

    Exactly. 90% of the idiotic population of this world hears the word "radiation" and IMMEDIATELY thinks "nuclear radiation" - Even though there are other types of radiation in the world. Only a VERY limited subset of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum (gamma rays) are nuclear in origin, and also not all nuclear radiation is electromagnetic - most of it is particle radiation.

    It's not the origin of the radiation that matters, its whether or not it has the energy to knock electrons from their orbits - ionize matter, in other words.

    And the "idiots" think along the lines of "I get no benefit from this looney running a cyclotron next door, I might get harm (in the form of potentially hazardous radiation and lowered land value since potential buyers are also considering this cyclotron), so why should I not try and stop him ?" This isn't a matter of stupidity or ignorance, it is a matter of not wanting to get the risks while others get the benefits.

    There are many forms of electromagnetic radiation that are utterly and completely harmless, such as the light from a light bulb.

    I could be wrong here, but doesn't that contain some ultraviolet radiation ?

    Cell phones can't cause cancer - it's not the right type of radiation. Microwave electromagnetic radiation can cause damage in one way (heating), and that requires far higher power levels than any cell phone to have any effect whatsoever on a human body.

    Radiation doesn't neccessarily need to ionize to cause harm. Simply irritating the cells might trigger cancer. Also, you are ignoring the potential carsinogenic effects of the materials used to construct the phones, as well as any potential harm caused by the magnetic fields generated by them. Or maybe the blinking display at incoming call triggers an epileptic seizure. Or maybe the ringtone happens to sound like the mating call of killer bees.

    Not saying that any of these are actual concerns; but saying that something can't cause you harm is almost certainly incorrect, since almost everything can, and in more ways than are obvious at first glance.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  100. El Cerrito cyclotron by 602 · · Score: 2, Informative

    In 1948, four high schools students in California built a cyclotron. Here (scroll down a ways) is the article from Physics Today about it. There was a really nice writeup about it in Scientific American's Amateur Scientist column. There was also a Nov 2004 slashdot thread on homebrew cyclotroning.

  101. Reminds me of RHIC by technoextreme · · Score: 1
    What risk? Oh, wait, you mean the risk that the crackpots that the "opposition" digs up saying that a cyclotron could blow all of alaska to kingdom come could actually be right

    Nah.. You are wrong. The crackpots believe that we can create a blackhole that will destroy the entire earth.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  102. Seems like this would be easy to prove safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, the university that donated this thing obviously knows what is needed to safely operate it. Can't they just provide those specs with the machine, and let that be the basis for this guy's contruction?

  103. You never know... by Ixthus2001 · · Score: 1

    ...he might have an accident involving his accelerator, a liquid lunch, and a couple of rubber bands.

  104. Re:Liberals get what they asked for & don't li by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    And so they should, to the good bleeding-heart liberal who favors progressive taxation and government handouts for the less fortunate. Compare the average yearly incomes in the different states and you will see what I mean.

    It's true they should. The irony I've always taken from the factoid is that the red-state voters are voting for a party who is against the idea of spreading wealth from the rich to the poor. Personally I have no problem with them continuing to benefit from this irony.

    Funny how fast that left wing sympathy for the downtrodden vanishes, when the benefits go to stubborn rednecks that don't reward their patrons with votes!

    You're talking about Democrats, not the "left wing", and yes they view it as a competition, like some kind of team sport, where the redneck red-staters are some kind of enemy. Which is why I refuse to participate in partisan politics.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  105. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Light bulbs generally put out no significant amount of UV, but they do put out quite a bit of IR. That's one reason video cameras tend to have an IR filter; lights wash out CCDs badly enough already, with the IR added to it it's pretty horrible. (I have cameras both with and without.)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  106. michio kaku has him topped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Michio Kaku details in his book Hyperspace his construction of a cyclotron during his high school years...This dude was topped by a teenage kid, who just happens to now be considered one of the greatest scientific minds in the world at the moment....

  107. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    "It's not the origin of the radiation that matters, its whether or not it has the energy to knock electrons from their orbits - ionize matter, in other words."

    Fact: This ability is a function of the energy contained within a single photon, which is an increasing function of the frequency (and inversely proportional to wavelength). Only UV radiation and higher frequencies (gamma rays, x-rays) have enough energy to cause ionization. Any form of RF cannot cause ionization except at extremely high power levels where the electromagnetic field intensity exceeds the breakdown voltage of whatever medium it is passing through. This requires power densities far greater than that of even the highest power microwave ovens.

    "Simply irritating the cells might trigger cancer."

    This is why sticking your head in a microwave oven is a Bad Idea. They have high enough power to cause non-negligible heating in anything that absorbs the RF. (Hell, that's how a microwave oven works.) Standing near a high power transmitter on the order of multiple watts could also cause problems. Not the 200 mW max transmit power of handheld CDMA cell phones. (I think GSM is in a similar power category.) AMPS (analog cellular) was typically 600 mW transmit for handhelds, and 3W for the really old analog-only car-based and "bag mobile" phones. 3W is high enough that continued exposure in close proximity to the antenna might actually cause non-negligible heating effects.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  108. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    I emit infrared radiation on a regular basis. And that's not even counting any X-men mutant powers I may or may not have.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  109. No big deal by loose_cannon_gamer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know what the big deal is. I watched a couple of documentaries back in the 80's about guys who ran around with unlicensed nuclear accelerators on their backs, and it was fine. They mentioned something about 'total protonic reversal', but even when they did that intentionally, it didn't seem like a big deal. And that was New York, not the middle of nowhere, Alaska.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
  110. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by terrymr · · Score: 1

    How many commercial aircraft can cross one timezone in under an hour, at reasonable latitudes ?

  111. He's in *Alaska*! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How expensive is can land prices be on a frozen lump of ice?

    If this guy fired it up in an igloo a few hundred miles from town, no one would even know it's there... but nooooo... he has to go to the *ONE* town in all of Alaska, and then get griped at by the zoning department!

    Moron!

  112. ...from TFA by AB3A · · Score: 1
    Johns Hopkins University agreed to donate the used cyclotron, which is roughly six feet tall by eight feet wide, to Swank's business, Langdon Engineering and Management.


    Clearly Cyclotrons are built that small. In fact, I recall seeing one of the first cyclotrons ever built in the Smithsonian Institution. It was all of about 6" in diameter.
    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    1. Re:...from TFA by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Clearly Cyclotrons are built that small.

      Well, the only one I've ever seen in person is described at http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/K500.html and if you look at that, little things like the picture of it dwarfing a person, or 25 miles of wire in the coils, or all the other cool specifications of the "K500 Superconducting Cyclotron" indicate that it isn't exactly small.

  113. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by grolaw · · Score: 1

    Anchorage has *NO* safe place for this device. The entire city is built on Glacial Till and underlying structures have fault lines.

    Moreover, if you look at a map of Anchorage you will find that more than half of the usable land area between the sound and the Chugach range is occupied by Elmendorf Air Base and Fort Richardson.

    The area just isn't like anywhere else. Permafrost exists only 6 ft down...

  114. Re: "most people" dumb argument and proof by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

    For this post, the part of "Captain Pedantic" will be played by Ed Pinkley.

    <echem> Killer bees use a pheromone, not a mating call.

    Thank you! Thank you very much!

    --
    "Long time listener, first time caller."
  115. Al Swank by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

    Albert Swank ... Al Swank ... Als ...

    Well he sounds like a Slashdotter - how come we haven't heard from him?

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
  116. What about licensing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In most states, I don't know about Alaska in particular, you need to have a license on file with a state regulatory agency to operate any equipment that produces radiation above a certain intensity. Lasers, radar, radios, and particularly X-ray machines. I work in a laboratory and even for the trivial microcurie amounts of P32, S35 and other "week-month" half-life isotopes we recieve regular inspections by our safety office to show that we are in compliance with the regs, that they are stored in locked containers and noone from the public can be exposed above a low yearly limit (I think its about a fifth of what I'm alowed to recieve working with it), on pain of losing our license and not being able to purchase any isotopes.

    This is a machine that produces x-rays in copious quantities, especially if its operated incorrectly. ...usually kept in concrete bunkers with lots of shielding. If he is not licensed and inspected, he shouldn't be allowed to legally turn it on. Everyone around him does have a case.

    The state has a compelling interest to make sure that he's operating it safely. I suspect that if he's not installing it in a hospital, he is selfishly indulging his own pathologic nuclear curiosity. Fireworks are safe used properly too, and yet when my neighbor starts landing them on my roof the police are going to be called, like it or not. Maybe the neighbors should start wearing and logging film badges so they can prosecute him if he does anything wrong.

  117. Thanks: Re:Did you say Civil Engineer? by foolish_to_be_here · · Score: 1

    Thanks to you and the parent for bringing me back to earth. I also dream, and do things that my acquired degree (ASEE) plus LOTS of extra college, still do not "qualify" me to do.... Having said that (and the very best of luck to the BSCE),..."How much is it going to cost him to acquire the energy to perform these task"? This type of equipment does not run off of a +-12VDC lab power supply.

    --
    Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
  118. Re:Liberals get what they asked for & don't li by Politburo · · Score: 1

    According to liberal dogma, the wealthy limousine liberal in Connecticut ought to be proud and happy that the government will take money from him and give it to the poor white trash living in a Mississippi trailer park.

    Except the money doesn't go to the 'poor white trash'. It goes to businesses that waste it away.

  119. Re: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They recreated the conditions of TMI and let the reactor go to see just how bad it could have gotten."

    No wonder the Snake River aquifer is radioactive and heading 100's of miles to Boise.

  120. Re:double triple dog dare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do children really lick walls? Or cyclotrons?

  121. Re:double triple dog dare! by Surt · · Score: 1

    They lick walls for sure. From age 1ish to about age 4 you get to spend all the time you'd care to trying to keep track of what goes into their mouths.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  122. Re:double triple dog dare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do children really lick walls? Or cyclotrons?

    The cyclotron tastes like schnozberries!

  123. Reply to sig. by Descalzo · · Score: 1

    Dude, your link is dead. Or appears to me to be dead.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  124. I think a Ghostbusters quote is apropos by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    "Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back."

    So... as long as he never crosses the streams, Anchorage should be OK? (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  125. Wish List by NoMorePoints.com · · Score: 1

    Cyclotron? Nah,...nobody will mind if I have a Titan II ICBM ( http://home.teleport.com/~boelling/titan.html ) installed in my backyard. You know, to ward off anyone who thinks they can just put a cyclotron wherever they feel like it. NoMorePoints.com

  126. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by spectasaurus · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but if you ship it west, the decay is quite small because the time when you arrive is usually only a little later than when you left. Just don't ship it east.

  127. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by spectasaurus · · Score: 1

    To be modded as Informative, shouldn't the information actually be CORRECT?

    1. Diagnostic imaging using PET and FDG typically uses 5-15 mCi per patient. In a given day, it is not uncommon to make 1 Ci of F18. I know we often make 600 mCi or more and we don't even do a lot a PET.

    2. F18 has a halflife of 109 minutes. Tc-99m has a 6 hour halflife.

    3. Molybdenum does not have a halflife of seconds. It is several days and decays to Tc-99m which is 6 hours. We do not image with Mo.

    4. It is possible to ship F18 compounds longish distances, although of course, not from the East coast to Alaska. Seattle and Vancouver both produce F18 and could conceivably ship to Anchorage. However, I am pretty sure a cyclotron and PET scanner (if not several) already exist there.

    5. Most hospitals do NOT have cyclotrons. In the US PETNET can ship to most locations frojm their network of cooperators. I think they have something like 30 cyclotrons nationwide and supply most of the US.

  128. Re:Liberals get what they asked for & don't li by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
    According to liberal dogma, the wealthy limousine liberal in Connecticut ought to be proud and happy that the government will take money from him and give it to the poor white trash living in a Mississippi trailer park.

    Sure, but the fact that they are still poor white trash living in a Mississippi trailer park shows that the money is obviously going to the filthy rich SUV neo-cons in Mississippi.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  129. Science jargon won't convince residents... by princess_ni · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter how many times you patiently explain that, in actuality, the risks of an accident are pretty low. The point is that everyone's paranoia goes into overdrive upon mention of the word "radioactive." I know that he had good intentions, but it isn't fair on the other residents.

  130. Re:Go for it. by talasian · · Score: 1

    And it's in a remote area basically so I approve anyways ;) this ain't remote...its practically my back yard... (i'm from anchorage alaska.) though that being said... i'm for letting him do it...just to see if he can build a decent one...

  131. Re:Liberals get what they asked for & don't li by yusing · · Score: 1

    None of the people I've ever known who care for someone besides themselves, and who are willing to pay their share in supporting the commons, were riding in limousines. Such ordinary people as I've known certainly constitute the bulk of progressives, who'd rather not see the return of a Roman approach to governance.

    This biased, uninformed, cartoonish rant is hardly "insightful". That it reached a "5" ranking is an empirical demonstration of rotten-in-Denmark.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  132. Re:This is too ignorant to be on /. by clnelson · · Score: 1

    Actually, Alaska is 4 hours different from the East Coast. So is that three time zones removed? Whatever, it takes a long time to get there from Orlando, but it's a short hop from Seatle.

    His drive is probably 30 minutes from the Hosital ... and a 4 1/2 hour delivery to the Helipad at Providence from Seatle, maybe.

    Perhpas he should find a spot for his business in the Hospital district (zoned for business) as opposed to the downtown residential neighborhood (zoned for small children playing hopscotch with their legislator/lawyers in harmony).

  133. Re:Liberals get what they asked for & don't li by ccmay · · Score: 1
    This biased, uninformed, cartoonish rant is hardly "insightful". That it reached a "5" ranking is an empirical demonstration of rotten-in-Denmark.

    My shining intellectual prowess dazzles even the dopey young slackers on Slashdot! Neener neener neener!

    Give it up, hippie, the future belongs to us right-wing puppy-kickers.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  134. You can overload your immune system also... by arfonrg · · Score: 1

    Eating iradiated foods, drinking heavily filtered water and using anti-bacterial soap will all reduce the amount of bacteria (and in the case of irradiation, viruses) you are consuming. That will weaken your immune system and make you more susceptible to viral infections and bacterial diseases. Our bodies are capable of dealing with almost any bacteria or virus if our immune systems are in top shape.

    It's more common for people to overload their immune systems than it is for people to weaken them by eating process food and water. Now, taking immuno-suppressants are a different story...

    You will get PLENTY of germs from everyday existance that will keep your immune system working fine. The food irradiation, water purification and anti-bacterial soaps do more to stop really-nasties (e.g. Staph & Salmonella).

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  135. NRA and gun sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What America lacks is not more gun freedom, but more gun sense. Every yahoo can get a gun, fine, but the real trouble starts when you lose the gun to someone due to poor storage sense. I guess that if the US would try to improve on the huge loss of firearms to criminals every year, the NRA would freak out and go to Capitol Hill chaning the second amendment. I don't see anywhere that the second amendment calls for moronic storage of their firearms? I'm a bit scared when I read bout civilians storing 10+ firearmsin their home, just locking them in a closet. Here, that is punisable because you don't want to give the thieves an edge. Over there, it's "part of my freedom, dangnabbit!".
    *wry grin* As I mentioned in a post below, the NRA is actually one of the better proponents of gun safety in the US. They're the people who'll tell you to make sure that you're trained in gun safety and, importantly, that the rest of your family is trained in gun safety. If your child is old enough to get into things around the house, they're old enough to be taught how to handle a gun, and handle it safely. The problem that the NRA has is that its public perception is based on the lunatic fringe that yells loudly enough to drown out the sensible majority. Personally, I don't do guns, but I grew up in a small town in Kentucky where a large number of the townsfolk had guns and were members of the NRA and I was impressed at the respect they had for their weapons and the measures they took for safety.

  136. Point of a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to be missing the entire the point of having a gun.
    Yeah, the entire point of a gun is to compensate for a small - *BLAM*