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."

7 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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?

    2. 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.

    3. 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
  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.