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."

4 of 392 comments (clear)

  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: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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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