Slashdot Mirror


Robot Saves the Day at Radiation Lab

An anonymous reader writes "Nature.com is reporting that records released this week by the US defense department read almost like a bad movie plot. Back in October a high-security radiation lab had a cylinder filled with radiation get trapped in its delivery tube network. Fortunately a specially designed bomb-disposal robot was able to retrieve the canister before the radiation was able to eat its way free.

235 comments

  1. Dupe by ajwitte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dupe of http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/ 17/0226200&tid=216&tid=14 This version links to a different story though... (fp?)

    --
    chown -R us ~you/base
    1. Re:Dupe by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Darn, I was too slow!

    2. Re:Dupe by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same story, different news source.

      Not that it seems to make any difference, but do the editors ever read the stories? *EVER*?

      Sheesh.

    3. Re:Dupe by radiotyler · · Score: 1

      Well, at least the title for this one isn't as outlandish as the last.

      --
      hi mom!
    4. Re:Dupe by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, we really get tired of MOST of the dupes here and as we have discussed before, sometimes dupes are a good thing because we don't get all the stories because we're not connected all the time.

      This is the first I have seen this story posted here although judging by some of the comments, a quick search would display the duplicate story.
      I wonder if there should be a notification icon or something to denote dupes though. Just to appease the dupe hating crowd.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    5. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scuttle could have actually searched for this one and not found it because Zonk's idiotic summary had nothing related to what actually happened in it. Maybe as a service, Slashdot is now de-moron-ing all of Zonk's stories and posting them again.

    6. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to the /. main page. Go to the bottom. Click on 'yesterday's news'. HAND.

    7. Re:Dupe by woolio · · Score: 1, Funny

      Perhaps someone can make a robot that prevents dupes on /.

    8. Re: Dupe by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > You know, we really get tired of MOST of the dupes here and as we have discussed before, sometimes dupes are a good thing because we don't get all the stories because we're not connected all the time.

      It's also nice at Christmas time, because the needy can sift through the old comments and find stuff to post under the new story to boost their karma.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:Dupe by metlin · · Score: 1

      The editors can't do it, and you think a robot would? :p

      (I'm sure you're making them feel warm and fuzzy all over)

    10. Re:Dupe by woolio · · Score: 1
      The editors can't do it, and you think a robot would? :p


      Sadly, yes, I think it could.....

      But that would likely mean less ad-revenue... (less page hits from people ranting about the dupes).
    11. Re:Dupe by metlin · · Score: 1

      You see that * symbol next to your id? I had that, once.

      I stopped subscribing to Slashdot for the simple reason that the editors did not care. Several times over, I would point out mistakes and dupes, and they wouldn't do a damn thing.

      A couple of them, especially Timothy and Jamie, happened to. But most of the rest of them simply didn't care, no matter what.

      The reason I subscribed was to support a website I enjoyed. And the reason I now don't is because the very people running it do not care. And of course I use ad blockers, because heck, the people running it don't care two hoots about doing thier bloody job right. So, why should I even bother?

      And I'm not the only one who stopped subscribing for this reason. So, in the end, I think it evens out.

      (yes, I know - it was a joke, but I couldn't stop ranting anyway)

    12. Re:Dupe by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Well, at least the title for this one isn't as outlandish as the last.

      But this is pretty damn oulandish:
      "the radiation was able to eat its way free".

    13. Re:Dupe by m50d · · Score: 1
      You know, we really get tired of MOST of the dupes here and as we have discussed before, sometimes dupes are a good thing because we don't get all the stories because we're not connected all the time.

      Get off your ass and read the stories from when you weren't connected then, they're still there if you click on the date. You're a tiny proportion of all the users, better to inconvenience you a little bit than inconvenience everyone. Besides, if there weren't so many dupes you wouldn't have missed as many stories from when you weren't connected, because they'd still be on the front page.

      --
      I am trolling
    14. Re:Dupe by luna69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As was this: "...a cylinder filled with radiation..."

      Radiation is a phenomenon, not a thing. The cylinder was filled with materials which were radioactive.

      Sigh.

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    15. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sometimes dupes are a good thing because we don't get all the stories because we're not connected all the time.

      Using the IntarWeb 101:

      The IntarWeb is not like TeeVee[tm]. You don't have to sit down and watch what is "on" at that exact moment. If Slashdot runs a story, and you aren't around to read it, you can read it when you get online simply by clicking that 'Older articles' link to catch up on what you missed.

      Repeats are necessary with TeeVee[tm] because it's a broadcast medium. Repeats aren't necessary with the IntarWeb because you get to pick what is "on". You don't want to miss articles when you are offline? Then don't! Read them. You don't need CmdrTaco to hold your hand for you do you?

    16. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? What TFA failed to mention is it was a canister full of
        Rabid radioactive zombie hyenas!

      Although I am surprised this ordeal went on for three weeks, wouldn't something that unstable start to go through a couple half-life cycles anyway? If it's hot enough that normal radiation shielding isn't effective, how long does it take for decay to occur? Or, conversely, what are the odds in 3 weeks that such constant high exposure starts producing unstable isotopes in the ducting system around it...

    17. Re:Dupe by nacturation · · Score: 1

      ... we don't get all the stories because we're not connected all the time.

      That's why there's this link to yesterday's stories, etc. When I don't read slashdot for a few days, I just go back and skim through the titles looking for topics of interest. So, no... I don't think dupes are a good thing, especially not for something that made the front page. It wouldn't be so bad if something in a subsection were duped to the front page as that gathers more exposure and comments than being buried in the IT section.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    18. Re:Dupe by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      Iz-nawt a dupe! That was on hardware.slashdot.org, and this is on science.slashdot.org. Totally different websites!</straightface>

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    19. Re:Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Radioactivity is a phenomenon, not a thing.

      Radiation is a thing in that it is "stuff" emitted from radioactive materials.

      So the cylinder was most definitely had a radiation in it as a natural consequence of having radioactive materials in it.

      Just in case you wanted to nitpick.

      Sigh.

    20. Re:Dupe by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      You'll never guess who posted this one though: http://slashdot.org/~*%20*%20Beatles-Beatles

  2. Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First the "Robot Saves Troops" story and now this. Pretty cool how robots are actually helping us nowadays.

    "By now, the robot had been in the radiation zone for 90 minutes. The team decided to regroup, but the robot's electronics had failed and it was rooted to the spot. Thankfully, the team had tied a rope around the machine, and it was hauled in, almost knocking over a radiation shield in the process."

    This part sounds remarkably familiar...

    "On the third day, and after three weeks of continuous warning sirens..."

    Whoah. It took them THREE DAYS? I'm glad this wasn't (obviously) a really serious problem. If it were some sort of radiation based bomb, they'd get fried.

    From reading these two articles, it seems that if we could somehow shield these robots from outside radiation, these jobs would be done in a flash.

    Unfortunately, we need them to recieve radation because if they DON'T, we can't communicate with them.

    Now, I'm not a physicist, but might a Faraday Cage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage) built with an appropriately sized mesh do the job? Just as a microwave lets some radiation out (we can see the burrito cooking inside) while keeping the harmful radiation in (we don't get toasted by the microwaves), couldn't this be used to do the reverse, that is, allow communication in while shielding the robot from radiation?

    I realize that these cages must be in a specific shape to work correctly, but if the core components at least, can be shielded, this go a long way towards solving our problems.

    Heck, the arms and stuff we can even make (god forbid) mechanical, perhaps in such a way that they won't get owned by the radiation at all.

    --
    http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    1. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by ajwitte · · Score: 5, Informative
      Now, I'm not a physicist, but might a Faraday Cage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage) built with an appropriately sized mesh do the job? Just as a microwave lets some radiation out (we can see the burrito cooking inside) while keeping the harmful radiation in (we don't get toasted by the microwaves), couldn't this be used to do the reverse, that is, allow communication in while shielding the robot from radiation?
      A Faraday cage would only be effective against EM waves, not against particle emissions.
      --
      chown -R us ~you/base
    2. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Is there anything tough enough to sheild against these particle emissions? And, as a side note, although a Faraday cage wouldn't apply to this case, might it be useful in another?

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    3. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by cbreaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you solved it. Good job. Too bad these folks that play with this ultra-radioactive cobalt (the kind that kills you in 30 seconds or less) every day didn't think of that.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    4. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1
      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    5. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by jlaxson · · Score: 1

      Thick enough lead would do the job, although from the original article that would be way too much lead to be able to walk around in. Also from the original article, the gamma radiation strength drops so quickly with distance you need only be a few hundred feet away and the exposure isn't much more significant than normal background radiation.

      --
      On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
    6. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Whoah. It took them THREE DAYS? I'm glad this wasn't (obviously) a really serious problem. If it were some sort of radiation based bomb, they'd get fried.
      Why act rashly in a non-emergency situation? Perhaps they could have fixed the problem faster, but had the opportunity to work more deliberately, and took it.
    7. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by InvalidError · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A centimeter worth of lead would stop most of the lower-energy stuff.

      The story is kinda ironic: the irradiated cobalt was intended to test electronics against radiation. So, the robotics lab that lended the robot got a free test-run to verify their radiation tolerance calculations.

      Note to would-be evil geniuses: put your bombs in shells made of irradiated cobalt isotopes, it may disable would-be bomb-disposal robots and personnel before they can do anything about it. Radiation labs will get a free test of their security measures and delivery tubes out of the deal.

    8. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating rash action - quite the opposite.

      But OTOH, Seriously, if this were a bomb and they had a 24 hour time limit, do you think they could do something similar? The article leads me to believe not, which is what concerns me. This should be a situation that they can deal with EASILY in under 3 weeks.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    9. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might block the betas it gives off with a faraday cage around your robot, but the gammas it gives off are probably going to shoot right through. You want mass to block those.

    10. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 4, Informative
      Now, I'm not a physicist, but might a Faraday Cage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage) built with an appropriately sized mesh do the job? Just as a microwave lets some radiation out (we can see the burrito cooking inside) while keeping the harmful radiation in (we don't get toasted by the microwaves), couldn't this be used to do the reverse, that is, allow communication in while shielding the robot from radiation?

      I realize that these cages must be in a specific shape to work correctly, but if the core components at least, can be shielded, this go a long way towards solving our problems.

      It isn't the shape of the Faraday cages that's special. It's the size of the mesh. The mesh has to be significantly smaller then the wavelength of the radiation you are trying to keep out. Microwaves have a wavelength of 1-300mm. The wave-length of gamma rays is less then 0.00000000001mm. That's much smaller then the distance between atoms in a typical solid, so the idea of a mesh becomes kind of absurd.

      I doubt that the problem with shielding is communications. After all you could put the shielding on the side facing the radiation, and leave the side towards the crew open. Gamma radiation doesn't go around corners. Or, as others have suggested, you could just run a cable to the robot. I think the actual problem is weight. Lead is heavy. You might be able to pile a ton of lead around the cpus and memroy, and just crank up the horsepower of the motors. However, by their very purpose you can't put the sensors behind lead sheilds, since all they would see then would be the lead shield. Not very helpful.
    11. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by kfg · · Score: 0

      For historical reasons (we had sensors to detect phenomena before we understood what the phenomena were, thus the phenomena were named before we knew that the hell we were talking about) the word "radiation" is used for entirely different phenonena. Although this isn't necessarily wrong from a linguistic point of view it is confusing from a technical.

      Your Farady Cage blocks electromagnetic radiation (so does a paper bag for that matter. Put a paper bag over your head to test this).

      What we are dealing with here, as another poster notes, is particle radiation. Bits of atomic nucleus zipping through the air very, very fast.

      In essence, teeny-tiny little bullets.

      Put your burrito in the microwave oven. Start oven. Take aim at burrito with a .22 . . .

      Get the picture?

      KFG

    12. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by scheme · · Score: 1
      But OTOH, Seriously, if this were a bomb and they had a 24 hour time limit, do you think they could do something similar? The article leads me to believe not, which is what concerns me. This should be a situation that they can deal with EASILY in under 3 weeks.

      If this were a bomb, do you seriously think they would be shuttling it around in a pneumatic air tube? They were working with a sample about the size of a mouse and the air tube was probably the quickest way of delivering the sample without exposing people to the radiation or having to worry about in the delivery electronics failing due to radiation exposure.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    13. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Then if communications aren't a problem, set up sensors a safe distance away and feed them to the lead-enhanced robot.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    14. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the original article (which i didn't read) says distance helps much against gamma radiation it is bullshit. Alfa and beta radiation can be countered with distance (the air sorta shields you). Gamma is more like light. You can decrease the intensity, like you can when moving away from a light bulb, but if the radiation is significant, it is still a problem.

    15. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually Cobalt 60 is a Gamma emitter. Gamma is EM but very high frequency. The majority of the radiation from it is not particle radiation unless you count photons are particle radiation.
      The holes in the shielding on a microwave have to be smaller than the wavelength of the microwaves. Gamma has a wavelength smaller than visible light so the holes would have to be too small for even light to pass through. It is also a lot more energetic so the thin metal shielding used in a microwave wouldn't be of much use. So a faraday cage "could" work if it was thick enough and had small enough crystal structure the be effective the only problem is I don't know of any material that meets those requirements off the top of my head. A high density shield of say, lead would be far simpler.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      >>> First the "Robot Saves Troops" story and now this. Pretty cool how robots are actually helping us nowadays.

      No - this is exactly the same story, around the same incident at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. This story is a dupe.

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/ 17/0226200&tid=216

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    17. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by east+coast · · Score: 1

      First the "Robot Saves Troops" story and now this. Pretty cool how robots are actually helping us nowadays.

      Yeah, it's better than it was back in the day when they use to enslave us or just shoot us with their ray guns. The 50s must have sucked.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    18. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by jlaxson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Distance helps a ton when protecting against a radiation source. Assuming the source radiates in all directions, the amount of radiation received is proportional to the surface area of a sphere at whatever radius. I know for electromagnetic radiation it can be measured in mW/cm^2, not sure what the appropriate exposure unit is for gamma radiation. At 100 yards, the amount of radiation received is 120,000 times less than at 1 yard, and so forth.

      --
      On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
    19. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Aglassis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is there anything tough enough to sheild against these particle emissions?

      Depends on what it is. For alpha and beta particles, generally a couple pieces of paper will be an effective shield (since the particles are charged, they interact electrically--the alpha more so than the electron). For neutrons, a highly hydrogenated substance, such as water or polycarbonate, will be effective slowing down neutrons to thermal energies. It depends on the energy of the initial neutron, but typically you need only a few feet. You can then easily capture the neutrons in the end with a boronated substance. For gamma rays, any substance that is very dense will do since it will give the incident photon more chances to react. Each time the photons interact with a electrons (or occasionally, a nucleus), Compton scattering occurs and the re-emitted photons (now a spherical wavefront) now have a lower frequency. Given a thick enough dense substance, such as lead, very few high energy gamma rays will sneak through.

      In general, only neutron and gamma radiation is significant for radiation workers or equipement because alphas and betas are so easy to shield.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    20. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      actually a lab tech came up with the idea 4 years ago but its still pending congressional, security, and ISO compatibility approval. this is a government lab we're talking about, after all.

      cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    21. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      The property of gamma rays to pass through anything is actually used to make shielded sensors and cameras. The optical wavelengths are bounced into the sensor with mirrors or prisms, while the gamma radiation goes through the mirror and past the sensor. It's not perfect, and you need a point radiation source and enough shielding to matter around the sensor itself, but it can be done.

    22. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Forbman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gamma radiation is very high energy (and short wavelength) EM radiation. Neutrons are...neutrons. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei, and Beta radiation is positron radiation. That's about it for the types of radioactive decay radiation [sic].

      A sheet of paper is sufficient to block alpha particles. A thin sheet of wood will effectively block beta radiation. Lead works well for neutrons, and a LOT of lead is required for gamma radiation.

      Read back on the experiments with that B-36 that had a nuclear reactor on it. The crew area at the front was protected from the otherwise unshielded reactor core by something like 20 *tons* of lead...

    23. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our benevolent, shielded robot overlords...

    24. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Aglassis · · Score: 1

      Gamma radiation is very high energy (and short wavelength) EM radiation. Neutrons are...neutrons. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei, and Beta radiation is positron radiation. That's about it for the types of radioactive decay radiation [sic].

      A sheet of paper is sufficient to block alpha particles. A thin sheet of wood will effectively block beta radiation. Lead works well for neutrons, and a LOT of lead is required for gamma radiation.


      Beta radiation is high energy electrons or positrons. In beta minus decay (from a nuclear conversion of a neutron to a proton), an electron and an electron-antineutrino are emitted. In beta plus decay (from a nuclear conversion of a proton to a neutron), a positron and a electron-neutrino are emitted.

      Lead does not work well as a shield against neutrons. Being that neutrons have no net charge, they do not interact very strongly electrically (though they do have a very small electrical and magnetic moment due to the fact that they are composed of quarks). Hence, they will pass right through lead without a problem. Only very light nuclei will allow them to bounce off losing a significant amount of kinetic energy. This is why most nuclear reactors are moderated with water--it is hydrogen rich (a light nuclei) and is more effective at stopping neutrons. If you want to know more information, read the neutron moderation section of the DOE's reactor theory technical standard (V1) (warning: large PDF).

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    25. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      caveat: alphas and betas are hazardous to personel in cases of inhalation or ingestion

    26. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by kfg · · Score: 0

      That's about it for the types of radioactive decay radiation [sic].

      There are only two types of radiative phenomenon that are relevant to the discussion:

      1.Self propogating waves of an electromagnetic field

      2. Little bits of stuff going really, really fast

      The two phenonema are fundamentally different. Whether the stuff is one bit or four bits stuck together is not.

      Overdetailing is the curse of understanding. "Ghost Hunters" rely on it.

      KFG

    27. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      But OTOH, Seriously, if this were a bomb and they had a 24 hour time limit...

      Yeah, if the terrorists had a bomb, and they put in a pneumatic tube, but then it got stuck, and you only had 24 hours to find it and get it out, there are three questions that come immediately to mind:

      1. Would the robots get there in time?
      2. Would we be allowed to torture the terrorists, or would the evil villain John McCain prevent it?
      3. What kind of crack are you smoking?

      But OTOH, Seriously, what kind of crack are you smoking?

    28. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by thereddeal · · Score: 1

      This article is sensational journalism at it's best. I am a licensed radiographer - certified to work with both Cobalt-60 and and X-Ray radiation. The type of emitter used in this article consisted of a quantity of cobalt-60 that is completely sealed in a capsule made of stainless steel or some other such material. The radioactive material stays in, the alpha particles are blocked by the enclosing container, and all that is emitted is the gamma radiation. Gamma radiation does not cause other objects to become radioactive - it is a waveform emission, much like light or sound - but at a much higher frequency. It appears to me that the situation that this article describes is a serious one, but one that is very possible to contain. There is essentially no time limit for finding the solution - as long as humans are kept at a safe distance. When considering that gamma radiation (like light) decreases with the square of distance, this probably works out to be a few hundred feet... Nothing is becoming radioactive, or is "eating through" anything in this case. And regarding the Faraday Cage - I don't know if this is a possible solution, but my guess is that shielding is the solution to this problem - as in, what would you make the Cage out of that would not be permeated by the gamma rays? With the strength involved, such things as thick lead or (even thicker) concrete would be a couple of standard shielding materials.

    29. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Nah, gamma radiation is technically a wave (EM wave, same as light and radio). However, through some funky wave-particle duality it can be treated as a particle for the reasons of energy calculations. E=hf, where E is energy in a photon, h is Planck's Constant and f is the frequency of the EM wave.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    30. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by kfg · · Score: 0

      Nah, gamma radiation is technically a wave (EM wave, same as light and radio).

      As per Maxwell's equations. Yes, I am aware. I've read Maxwell.

      KFG

    31. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by sstidman · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm not a physicist, but might a Faraday Cage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage) built with an appropriately sized mesh do the job? Just as a microwave lets some radiation out (we can see the burrito cooking inside) while keeping the harmful radiation in (we don't get toasted by the microwaves), couldn't this be used to do the reverse, that is, allow communication in while shielding the robot from radiation?

      I realize that these cages must be in a specific shape to work correctly, but if the core components at least, can be shielded, this go a long way towards solving our problems.


      I think you might be confusing particle radiation with electromagnetic radiation (don't feel bad, most people don't know the difference). Particle radiation is the spewing of sub-atomic particles caused by the decay of an unstable atom (think atomic bomb). Electromagnetic radiation is the emission of electromagnectic waves (think radio waves). Those are oversimplified and pretty bad definitions (I'm sure someone smarter than me will reply with better definitions...see below), but hopefully that is clear enough to make the distinction for you.

      Particle radiation is generally blocked by using lead. Lead is very dense and therefore blocks the particles from passing through.

      Electromagnetic radiation is generally blocked by using a Faraday cage. The cage does not need to be any specific shape to work, it just needs to fully encompass the object that is to be shielded from EMF radiation. The best Faraday cage would simply be a can; in theory, that should block all of the EM radiation. A wire mesh works as a partial Faraday cage, but will let some of the EMF through. Depending on the size and configuration of the mesh, certain frequencies will be mostly blocked by the mesh while other frequencies will pass more easily.

      --
      Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
    32. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Note to would-be evil geniuses: put your bombs in shells made of irradiated cobalt isotopes, it may disable would-be bomb-disposal robots and personnel before they can do anything about it. Radiation labs will get a free test of their security measures and delivery tubes out of the deal There is no way a bomb circuit could withstand that radiation it melted plastic I'm sure your circuit board would become a puddle of radio active goo. Not to mention you would need multiple robots to assemble and place said bomb unless you can build a bomb and place it in less than 30 seconds.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    33. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by MattSausage · · Score: 1

      Good god people! Encase the thing in lead and have wires coming out the back.. if they could tie a rope on it, they could have a wire bundle out the back. While we're building faraday cages and gamma emitting particle shields, why don't we create some antigravity and solar sails while we're at it. Right after we build the space elevator.

    34. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      Actually you need a combination of light nuclei (water/graphite) to act as a moderator, something with a high thermal neutron capture cross section (like cadmium or boron) and something to shield the gammas resulting from the neutron capture (lead) in order to stop neutrons. High energy neutrons will go straight through lead shielding alone.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    35. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Kermit870 · · Score: 1

      This may be the only safe way to protect the robot, but doesn't it seem a bit counter-productive? ...A thick lead box enveloping the entire robot... Hmmm, how does it actually plan on accomplishing anything?

    36. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      I know for electromagnetic radiation it can be measured in mW/cm^2, not sure what the appropriate exposure unit is for gamma radiation.

      Gamma is electromagnetic. mW/cm^2 is one way to measure it. A slightly better way may be grays (.5 Gy = 50% LD), rads, or even curies.

      These are all different calibrated ways of measuring radiation and its impact on tissue. for instance, a human that receives half a gray exposure for one minute has a fifty percent chance of dying from it. IIRC, IANAP, YMMV, the only reason I know any of this is I looked it up to comment on that OTHER story...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    37. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Technically, gamma radiation is both a wave and a particle. You can treat it as either and the math works out. One of the ways we know gamma radiation is a particle is that it is ionizing radiation - ionizing EM radiation was first predicted by einstein as a photoelectric effect - a prediction that depended upon treating the radiation as particles

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    38. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by MarkusQ · · Score: 1
      There are only two types of radiative phenomenon that are relevant to the discussion:

      1.Self propogating waves of an electromagnetic field

      2.Little bits of stuff going really, really fast

      The two phenonema are fundamentally different. Whether the stuff is one bit or four bits stuck together is not.

      No, as we learned from QM they are fundamentally the same. Photons can be viewed as little bits of stuff going really really fast. And atomic nuclei can be treated as propagating waves. Fundementally, they are the same.

      In practice, there are some significant practical differences, but that's exactly where the sort of nagging little details you so blithely dismiss come in.

      --MarkusQ

    39. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by kfg · · Score: 0

      No, as we learned from QM they are fundamentally the same. Photons can be viewed as little bits of stuff going really really fast. And atomic nuclei can be treated as propagating waves. Fundementally, they are the same.

      And so for ourselves.

      KFG

    40. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Secrity · · Score: 1

      Shield the bulk of the robot inside a lead box, radiation harden or plan on replacing those items that need to be outside of the box to be effective.

          Cameras can be behind the lead shield - use a periscope.

          Motors can be inside the box with mechanical linkage to the outside; or radiation hardened motors can be used.

      Perhaps the robot's batteries could be selected or designed to be used as part of the shielding. Gamma radiation is directional, it is possible that shielding can be moved or added as necessary depending upon the circumstances.

    41. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      Small correction: beta ratiation is most commonly composed of electrons, not positrons. There is ß+ radiation composed of positrons, but it's much less common and not as dangerous as positrons would annihilate themselves before they actually do something harmful :)

      I'd also think neutrons would be blocked more easily then elec/positrons, as they're bigger.

    42. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      > Unfortunately, we need them to recieve radation because if they DON'T, we can't communicate with them.

      Sure we can. Put a long *cable* on it, shield the cable too, and ready you are! There is one more plus with this: You can communicate with it even when the robot is inside walls that sheld radiation too.

      Another solution would be to only allow a certain frequency range. But this would be harder to do. And because ther is a simple solution avaliable, why get in trouble?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    43. Re:Radiation - Seems to be a recurring problem. by KB3 · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid nothing that currently exists can shield gammas and at the same time let RF out. Microwaves are relatively long wavelengths (compared to light), so screens can be made to let visible light through but block the microwaves. For gamma radiation (much, much shorter wavelengths than microwaves), the only shield is thick pieces of "high-Z" material such as lead or steel. Cobalt-60 has fairly high evergy gammas (~1 "MeV" in energy), so you'd need a good-sized plate of Pb to block it (e.g. see http://www.utoronto.ca/safety/RadTraining/Module7. htm; in it they show that a 1.1cm thick lead sheet will reduce the gamma intensity from a Co60 source by 50%). Steel is worse...I *think* you'd be looking at ~ 1" thick for 50% reduction. As the reduction is exponetial with thickness, you'd need many times this quoted thickness to drop the intensity to e.g. 1% (1/2 * 1/2*1/2*.....).

  3. Interesting..... what application? by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the base's Gamma Irradiation Facility was paralysed when a cylinder containing cobalt-60 became lodged in one of the lab's air-pressure tubes,

    Yikes! Cobalt-60 is almost as bad as it gets. Cobalt 60 radiation dosages are almost twice as bad as the actual dosage of radiation one would get from the fallout of an actual atomic device which sort of begs the question of what they are doing with it? Are they modeling fallout? Or are they experimenting with dirty bombs? Lining the inside of atomic devices with heavy metals and other elements is a way to create much more radioactive bombs that have long lasting radiation effects.

    Although there *are* civilian applications such as medical therapy devices....

    The canister, about the size of a salt cellar, was jammed against a seesaw-shaped switch inside the tube that was stuck in the wrong orientation.

    OK, so this sounds like bad design just waiting for someone to screw up and reveal the design flaw.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Interesting..... what application? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Yikes! Cobalt-60 is almost as bad as it gets. Cobalt 60 radiation dosages are almost twice as bad as the actual dosage of radiation one would get from the fallout of an actual atomic device which sort of begs the question of what they are doing with it? Are they modeling fallout? Or are they experimenting with dirty bombs? Lining the inside of atomic devices with heavy metals and other elements is a way to create much more radioactive bombs that have long lasting radiation effects.

      According to this page and wikipedia, there's a number of non-military applications for Cobalt-60: "As a tracer for cobalt in chemical reactions, as a radioactive source for food irradiation, and as a radioactive source for laboratory use."

    2. Re:Interesting..... what application? by wylf · · Score: 1

      seesaw-shaped switch

      screw the design flaw - try saying that fast 10 times!

    3. Re:Interesting..... what application? by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Regardless of WHAT they're doing with it (which is QUITE a valid question by itself), this begs even MORE questions!

      How did it get in a container that couldn't contain it for long enough? Why was it being transported through this tubing that (obviously) didn't have appropriate levels of fail-safe applied (although no one was hurt, I'm sure their plans didn't include a 3 week delay and use of a robot)? Why don't they have other ways of dealing with this?

      You know, the design of the tubing doesn't seem very intelligent. It makes me wonder if these guys are really qualified to deal with Cobalt-60 radiation ;)

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    4. Re:Interesting..... what application? by Malor · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article that I read several days ago said that they use the cobalt-60 to test radiation resistance... they want to see the effects that high radiation levels will have on various pieces of military and civilian hardware. They set up their test gear, shuttle in the cobalt via pneumatic tube, let the gear cook in the extremely intense radiation, and then shuttle the cobalt back into a 'safe' area. I believe the original article claimed that cobalt is good for this, because it doesn't make the whole area permanently radioactive, though I'm not familiar with the reason why. (gamma radiation, maybe???)

      The writeup on the article is misleading. Radiation doesn't 'eat its way free'... fer chrissake, people! Acids eat things. Radiation just ... radiates. And it was ALREADY free, that's why the needed the darn robot. That whole testing area was absolutely lethal to human beings, even in heavy protective gear. Even the robot couldn't survive it very long... they thought 50 minutes. In actual practice, it lasted longer... but the movement system did fail, so they had to drag it out with a rope.

      To the person asking about building a Faraday cage around it.... as far as I know, a Faraday cage isn't an absolute barrier, it's just a very strong one. It attenuates a signal by a very great deal, making signals interception very difficult. But in this case, the 'signal' (the cobalt) is so incredibly powerful that a Faraday cage would just take the edge off, as it were. If my limited understanding of radiation is correct, it'd be just about as effective as sunglasses in front of a supernova. (and I'm not sure that Faraday cages even *work* at these frequencies... the radiation might just punch right through the shield material.)

    5. Re:Interesting..... what application? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the original article claimed that cobalt is good for this, because it doesn't make the whole area permanently radioactive, though I'm not familiar with the reason why. (gamma radiation, maybe???)

      Correct. Gamma radiation just blasts through stuff.

      For exposed materials to actually become radioactive themselves would require exposure to a neutron flux. This would cause varying degrees of neutron activation in the exposed materials.

    6. Re:Interesting..... what application? by chrisv · · Score: 1
      screw the design flaw

      Don't you mean unscrew the design flaw? ;)

      --

      Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)

    7. Re:Interesting..... what application? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To make a perfect Faraday cage, you need a perfect conductor. For static electric fields, any conductor will work, but the more it's changing (i.e. the higher frequency the radiation) the better it needs to be. Also, the field is changing when it turns on - it will take time to drop to zero inside if it's a bad conductor.

      I'm not sure, but speed of light limits might affect whether even superconductors are good enough conductors for this.

    8. Re:Interesting..... what application? by seifried · · Score: 1

      They're using it to test electronics. The room/building it was in contained the radiation just fine. The problem was they couldn't send a person in to fix it (because said person would die due to radiation exposure).

    9. Re:Interesting..... what application? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      "Cobalt-60 is almost as bad as it gets."

      Someone has never heard of Cobalt-Thorium-G.

    10. Re:Interesting..... what application? by wallyhall · · Score: 1

      "they want to see the effects that high radiation levels will have on various pieces of military and civilian hardware."

      lol, apparently they proved that right. Military Robots don't survive 90 minutes in there!

      --
      I think therefore I am... a Linux geek.
    11. Re:Interesting..... what application? by sickofthisshit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not the speed of light per se, but the fact that conductors need to conduct *current*, and the current is made up of electrons, which have a finite mass (and, therefore, inertia) a finite charge (and, therefore, a finite amount of current is created when one is moving), and a finite number of them in a given volume.

      Metals work as good conductors through the visible because the electrons can move quickly enough in the metal to keep up with the changes in the electric field. With increasing frequency, at some point the electrons will be unable to keep up. This frequency is called the "plasma" frequency; roughly, omega_p^2 = 4 pi n e^2/m, where n is the number of electrons per volume, e is the electron charge, and m is the effective mass of the electron.

      Above this frequency, the electrons cease to be effective Faraday shields against electromagnetic radiation. Instead, the acceleration of the electrons causes the electromagnetic radiation to be scattered and dissipate energy through Compton scattering.

      Gamma radiation is far above the plasma frequency in all metals. To gamma rays, all material basically looks like a bunch of point charges to scatter off of. So you use something like lead which gets about as much electrons in a small space as possible.

    12. Re:Interesting..... what application? by hairykrishna · · Score: 1
      Cobalt 60 radiation dosages are almost twice as bad as the actual dosage of radiation one would get from the fallout of an actual atomic device

      What does this even mean? Co60 kicks out ~1MeV gammas for the most part which suck, don't get me wrong, but the dose you get depends on how much you have. I have done all sorts of lab experiments where I've handled cobalt sources- no big deal. It is a VERY commonly used source- it is in fact one of the reference sources for calibrating the dose rate of various radiation. No need for 'dirty bomb' paranoia.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    13. Re:Interesting..... what application? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nah, there's lots of things even worse than cobalt sources, even the 250 rem/hr ones used to calibrate survey meters look wimpy next to say being a few feet from the neutron field of fuel assembly freshly pulled from a reactor. Or as the old nuke plant rad safety guy told me, if your going to get a 1000 rem go for 10,000 so your nervous system shuts down

    14. Re:Interesting..... what application? by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      "(and I'm not sure that Faraday cages even *work* at these frequencies... the radiation might just punch right through the shield material.)"

      That's the correct answer. It won't absorb some 'some radiation' like you previously speculate - for a faradey cage to shield from radiation, its mesh must be quite a lot smaller than the wavelength of whatever it's blocking. It can block microwaves easily, as their wavelengths are ca. 30cm, but gamma rays have wavelengths of ca. 124 pm, which is smaller than the distance of atoms in most solids. You need lots and lots of lead to stop gamma rays.

    15. Re:Interesting..... what application? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      What about Lithium-Hydrade bombs? I know those were theoretical, back in the 50's. Anyone heard of anything being done with them for real?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  4. Not Really by MrNonchalant · · Score: 3, Funny

    "It sounds like something you might pitch to a Hollywood studio. A high-security US radiation lab is thrown into turmoil when a cylinder spewing out deadly radiation gets trapped in its network of delivery tubes. A robot is sent to try and free the canister before the radiation eats away at its circuits. After a string of failures, the intrepid machine saves the day."

    Not hardly. For that you'd need Tommy Lee Jones and terrorists to some how get involved.

    1. Re:Not Really by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

      also, you need to embellish - the radiation adversely effects the robot's "brain," turning it evil - it then tries to conquer Poughkeepsie.

      --
      This space available.
    2. Re:Not Really by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You only use TLJ if you're doing an action pic. For a romantic comedy you use the sexy starlet de jour.

    3. Re:Not Really by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      What if the TLJ has his brain waves copied into the robot's system and it thinks it's married to his wife and tries to have a romantic interlude with her. That would be cool!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    4. Re:Not Really by rtb144 · · Score: 1

      I would have it try to conquer the Hooter's (restaurant?) in Las Cruces. Much closer to White Sands than Poughkeepsie.

      --
      Sie ist tunbar!
  5. Filled with Radiation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't know 'radiation' was tangable. I'll have to update the Wikipedia article...

    1. Re:Filled with Radiation? by John+Guilt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the walls were completely reflective, creating a 3-d potential well...the robot could tell, as the cylinder smelled of standing waves.

    2. Re:Filled with Radiation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radiation is the byproduct of nuke-u-lar fusions.

      AC cuz I have to be.

    3. Re:Filled with Radiation? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Come on, they teach this stuff in elementary school man! Don't tell me, you probably don't know that radio interference is caused by birds sitting on radio waves either? If electromagnetic waves we're intangible, then how would lightsabers work? I'm sorry if I sound rude, but you really need to read up on physics!

    4. Re:Filled with Radiation? by ultramk · · Score: 1

      ...right after you update the OED entry for "tangible."

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
  6. Exocomps Meets Number 5 by mfh · · Score: 1

    After the fearless heroics displayed by the enslaved mechazoid, the team nicknamed the bot Mighty Mouse (well actually, M^2). Obviously some old school nerds work at the White Sands Missile Range, and possibly because Mighty Mouse's arch rival was Oil Can Harry, an evil cat. Oil can, meet cobalt-60!

    M^2 is not quite as compact as the nick would suggest (judging from the pic ITFA, it looks a bit like Number 5). Still smaller were the Exocomps, those self-aware bots that, given human liberty to choose, saved the day in TNG S6-E9, "The Quality of Life". I can't wait until robots can fly, and make decisions for us. Then I can sit around and read Slashdot all day while my Exocomp does all the unpleasant tasks I need done, like going to work every day, doing my laundry, cooking and cleaning for me.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Exocomps Meets Number 5 by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Yo chief, it was Johnny 5, not Number 5. http://www.johnny-five.com/

    2. Re:Exocomps Meets Number 5 by montyzooooma · · Score: 1

      "I can't wait until robots can fly, and make decisions for us. Then I can sit around and read Slashdot all day while my Exocomp does all the unpleasant tasks I need done, like going to work every day, doing my laundry, cooking and cleaning me." Just a small correction.

  7. A little time discrepancy... by FearTheFrail · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "On the third day, and after three weeks of continuous warning sirens..."

    Whoah. It took them THREE DAYS? I'm glad this wasn't (obviously) a really serious problem. If it were some sort of radiation based bomb, they'd get fried.


    Questions are begged:

    1. Was it the robot that had been used for three days?
    2. Or was that just how long the cobalt had been in there?
    3. ...either way, what in the hell is triggering warning sirens for three weeks straight in a big-time radiation lab?
    --
    ___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
    1. Re:A little time discrepancy... by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Bottom line - It's disturbing that they have uncontrolled sources of crazy amount of radweion hanging around like this, be it 3 days or 3 weeks. 3 Weeks just seems ABSURD. You'd think that with the absurd amount of documentation and planning that they have to do to handle potent stuff like this they'd have a plan for anything.

      On the other hand, perhaps they got the robot so late because they had to go through 1283091284102934 requisition forms to get it.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    2. Re:A little time discrepancy... by fossa · · Score: 4, Informative

      The cobalt was stuck for three weeks. The warning sirens are a government regulation, something to do with informing workers of radiation source. The robot was brought in, but it took a while for the team (from Albuquerque) to get ready to go to White Sands with their robot.

      This slashdot article is dupe. See sandia.gov for more poorly written details.

      No, they wouldn't be fired; they work at a national lab :-P Seriously though, electronics that can handle intense radiation are expensive.

    3. Re:A little time discrepancy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Questions are begged

      I don't think that means what you think it means.

    4. Re:A little time discrepancy... by FearTheFrail · · Score: 1

      In a modern, controversial, and generally false way, sure it does. =D

      --
      ___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
    5. Re:A little time discrepancy... by InvalidError · · Score: 3, Informative

      TFA says the alarm was caused by a cylinder wedged inside a transport tube by a defective switch and that it took them three weeks (presumably of trying everything available in-house) to come up with the robot idea.

      The /. article could have been titled "Mighty Mouse strikes back" - TFA says the robot used was called "Mighty Mouse 2".

    6. Re:A little time discrepancy... by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      I have not RTHA, but I wonder if they were simply waiting for clearences or something stupid like that before letting the robot guy's through the gate.

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
  8. Still, it all comes down to the ol'screwdriver by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    On the third day, and after three weeks of continuous warning sirens, the team sent in the robot with a metal screwdriver. It unscrewed the plate, dislodged the switch, and sent the tube safely to its storage bay.

    Dude you mean the government spent $24 million on this project and all we needed to fix it was a screwdriver?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Still, it all comes down to the ol'screwdriver by karmaflux · · Score: 1

      It's the US government. It would have cost $12 million but they needed to buy a screwdriver, too.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    2. Re:Still, it all comes down to the ol'screwdriver by radiotyler · · Score: 1

      Nah, they mean the screwdriver only cost us $24 million.

      --
      hi mom!
    3. Re:Still, it all comes down to the ol'screwdriver by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Bart Simpson: Aw, they were just about to show some close-ups of the rod!

    4. Re:Still, it all comes down to the ol'screwdriver by smithmc · · Score: 1

        Dude you mean the government spent $24 million on this project and all we needed to fix it was a screwdriver?

      Well, the screwdriver cost $23 million...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  9. Droid play by JehCt · · Score: 1

    Very good. Now send the robot to Iraq and see how it does against IEDs.

    1. Re:Droid play by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Or send it to the gynecologist's office and see how it does against IUDs.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Droid play by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      IEDs? Is the military still calling a bomb an IED?

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    3. Re:Droid play by TinheadNed · · Score: 1

      No, they call Improvised Explosive Devices IEDs. A bomb could be anything, which doesn't help when you want to distinguish between something that fell out of a plane that hasn't blown up for some unknown reason and may blow up while you're defusing it - or something that's been purposefully hidden and made out of smaller parts (grenade & tripwire etc). Hence Unexploded Ordnance and IEDs.

      To answer the original question, no - no army would pay for the goldplating of a radiation-proof robot. The whole idea is you want it to be cheap - so you can buy lots of them. Radiation-hardening is really expensive. And yes, I know cheap is only a relative term - but the military do honestly believe they'd rather blow up a £100k robot than have to send a letter back. If nothing else, paperwork for new equipment is much smaller than death and pension.

    4. Re:Droid play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, put it next to a PC and watch it take out IDEs.

  10. radiation eating its way free? by snStarter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean say WHAT? Are the little gamma rays gonna start taking apart the shielding? I dont' think so. They can destroy the solid state components of the robot of course.

    So not only is it a DUP the right-up is by someone whose entire education about radiation appears to have come from watching 1950s science fiction movies.

    OR misread the article.

    1. Re:radiation eating its way free? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, it talks about the radiation eating away at the robot's circuits. Still a bit cheesy, but at least _slightly_ more accurate than the AC post implied.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:radiation eating its way free? by mj2k · · Score: 3, Informative

      you're quite correct... a Co-60 source isn't going to eat through the cicuitry... That's just stupid... It can produce enough heat to melt circuits (assuming it's a very high-fluence source), but the article must've been written by someone ignorant of health physics, since it's quite obvious Co-60 isn't an acid, eating through a container... Finally, these sort of tests were likely done for gamma spectroscopy, where you can use gammas to examine imperfections in materials(it is probably the most common radioactive isotope used in nuclear labs today).

    3. Re:radiation eating its way free? by Erik+Noren · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ohio University has its own reactor which is used for experiments in power generation as well as irradiation of materials. Anyone from nearby colleges can request time with the reactor to irradiate just about anything they want.

      To get the material close to the core, pressurized tubes are used. The canisters that hold the material are made of some sort of plastic-like material for the specific purpose of letting radiation pass through. The problem is, repeated exposure causes the material to become brittle and occasionally a canister will break on the return trip (most often, it seems, when it slams into the retrieval portion of the tube and comes to a halt.)

      The tubes are necessary to prevent people from coming into close contact with materials that are still radioactive for a time. The person running the experiment only has to load the canister with the material they wish to irradiate, load it in the tube system and send it on its way. The system halts when the tube reaches the core. After some time, the experimenter recalls the canister and can do whatever they please with it, knowing that it will still be emitting small amounts of radiation.

      I don't know what the procedure was in the case that a canister failed during transit and material was caught somewhere between source and core. I do know the reactor is not very big (but neat to watch glow in the water) and the radiation danger wasn't too great. I believe it was said that most of the remaining radiation from the material dissipates within 5 minutes of the return. There are tables and shielding boxes with timers on them near the retrieval area.

      The point is that radiation can eat through materials. It may not be the best way to phrase what really happens, but materials exposed to radiation react differently. Many materials become brittle. A radiation source as strong as the one in the article (with no mention as to what the cylinder was composed of) could cause any number of problems for anything nearby. The tubes are meant for short exposures as a material passes through, not prolonged exposure of a stuck cylinder.

    4. Re:radiation eating its way free? by Lactoso · · Score: 1
      snStarter scribbled:
      So not only is it a DUP the right-up is by someone whose entire education about radiation appears to have come from watching 1950s science fiction movies.

      Please, do tell us more about other people's educational shortcomings...

  11. Not to be picky by lifebouy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But "radiation" can't be stored in a container. Radioactive material, however, can be. Add to that the fact that the submitter was anonymous, and this story should not have been picked up. Hmm. I wonder whats on digg right now.

    --
    Drop me a line at:
    Key ID: 0x54D1D809
    1. Re:Not to be picky by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But "radiation" can't be stored in a container. Radioactive material, however, can be. Add to that the fact that the submitter was anonymous, and this story should not have been picked up. Hmm. I wonder whats on digg right now.

      Damn straight. It's ignoramuses like the anonymous submitter who keep irradiated food off the market when there's no rational reason for it. I could be dining off vacu-packed and irradiated steaks all week on a backcountry hiking trip, but because a bunch of dumbshits don't know the difference between "radiation" and "radioactive" I'm stuck with MREs and freeze dried crap.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:Not to be picky by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      Add to that the fact that the submitter was anonymous, and this story should not have been picked up...

      I agree. The submitter should have made up stuff about military troops and radiation proof robots. Only then would it have been worthy of a slashdot story.

  12. I hope that they had robot insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  13. Please..... by fractalrock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...tell me the poster is joking around with the 'filled with radiation' and 'before the radiation was able to eat its way free' comments.

    I was filled with radiation once.....once.

    1. Re:Please..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was filled with radiation once.....once.

      Joe Piscopo fan?

    2. Re:Please..... by fractalrock · · Score: 1

      Joe Piscopo fan?

      Didn't think anyone would pick that up. Not *too* obscure...but getting there.

    3. Re:Please..... by parasonic · · Score: 1

      I was filled with radiation once.....once.
       
      So was Spock. And you see what happened to him!

  14. Re:Interesting..... the very answer.... by thefatz · · Score: 0

    The cobalt, powerful enough to kill a person in half a minute, got jammed between its storage area and the site where it was to be used to test the effects of radiation on vehicles and circuit boards.

    --
    http://www.freebsd.org
  15. coming to a theater near you by Huh? · · Score: 2, Funny

    I smell the next "based on a true story" hollywood stinker. Whoopee!!

  16. Inspired by Actual Events by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny

    The blockbuster event of Summer 2006: Robot Hero

    Starring Ben Affleck as the fucking robot.

    1. Re:Inspired by Actual Events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're talking about the robot Jude Law played in A.I.

    2. Re:Inspired by Actual Events by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, that was Ben Affleck in Robot Sex Kittens, where he played the fucking robot.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Inspired by Actual Events by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Starring Ben Affleck as the fucking robot.

      I thought his name was "Kilroy! Kilroy!"

    4. Re:Inspired by Actual Events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maaatt Daaamon.

    5. Re:Inspired by Actual Events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alan Tudyk please!

    6. Re:Inspired by Actual Events by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      No, I'm sorry. Matt Stone and Trey Parker was not the answer we were looking for.

      The correct answer is, "Kevin Smth" with "Ben Affleck as the fucking shark."

      Thanks for playing!

      -Peter

  17. Come on now by DietCoke · · Score: 1

    Just because they used a Hoover to suck out the tube doesn't mean that the vacuum can suddenly be called a robot!

  18. The answer by phorm · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, we need them to recieve radation because if they DON'T, we can't communicate with them.

    You actually give a solution with your comment...

    the team had tied a rope around the machine, and it was hauled in

    What if instead of a rope it was a well-shielded data cable? Run the robot on a lengthy cable coming off a spool, and then you don't need to use wireless communication.

    1. Re:The answer by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      It's funny how quickly we ignore the solutions that would be evident to people without our level of technology - Just like the mechanical comments. BUT - Assuming a Faraday cage would even work (another poster says not in this case), the data cable would have to leave a "hole" in the cage. I can't think of a good workaround, other than shielding that area (where the cable meets the 'bot) extra hard to compensate. Or just use a really, really tiny fiber optic cable. Heck, it doesn't even have to have a quick transfer rate. Speed isn't the problem here, and I'm sure commands sent to the robot are quite, quite small.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    2. Re:The answer by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ultrasonic modem, the sound waves pass through the shielding and back to the base, or to an ultrasonic microphone and emitter pair on a long wire, since those components would be less sensative than digital circuits

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:The answer by maird · · Score: 3, Informative

      Our local county bomb disposal team has a robot and they only use fibre for remote control to avoid having any EM radiation (even from electrical signaling on copper) triggering the device being handled. I can't believe a small county in Utah is bleeding edge with their robot!

  19. Flood the tube? by phorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they couldn't get the cannister out, would flooding the tube with some form of radiation blocking/absorbing material have worked? Maybe they could have injected it with molten lead, leaded water, or some other radiation dampening material (probably not a permanent solution, but a time-giver).

    1. Re:Flood the tube? by Shimbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If they couldn't get the cannister out, would flooding the tube with some form of radiation blocking/absorbing material have worked? Maybe they could have injected it with molten lead, leaded water, or some other radiation dampening material.

      Nah, it would just make it messier to deal with, and unlikely to very effective - you need a good mass of material to stop hard gamma, and a transport tube is not a good place to try to contain a radioactive liquid.

      Rule 1 of radiation protection: inverse square law beats shielding; just stay the fuck away until it cools off a bit or you get a better plan.

    2. Re:Flood the tube? by morie · · Score: 1

      By shielding a heavy gamma source with lead, you will reduce the gamma-intensity

      You will also get the lead to start behaving as a beta-emitter in many cases

      Bad idea.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  20. What the robot said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Danger, Will Robinson...Danger...

  21. someone smarter to me by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    tell us why the robot isn't permanently irradiated

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:someone smarter to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this radiation source emits gamma rays, not neutrons

    2. Re:someone smarter to me by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 2, Informative

      Irradiation doesn't make things radioactive. Exposure to a neutron flux can cause materials to become activated, but unless you've got a nuclear reactor around this isn't likely to be a problem.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    3. Re:someone smarter to me by TheOriginalRevdoc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cobalt-60 emits gamma radiation, which is comprised of high-energy photons. Photons only react with electrons, not nuclei, so if element X is exposed to them, it will still be element X afterwards, with its atomic number and mass unchanged.

  22. Size of a salt cellar??? by stox · · Score: 1

    Damn, that has to be the largest chunk of Cobalt-60 on the planet. Is it me, or has the quality of proofreading gone completely out the window these days?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Size of a salt cellar??? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      It's a limey way of saying salt-shaker.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:Size of a salt cellar??? by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 1

      That was the size of the canister- not the Co-60 itself. Generally, you get however many microCuries embedded in a poly cylinder or disc to make something large enough to handle.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    3. Re:Size of a salt cellar??? by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You may not realise, but "salt cellar" (also: "saltcellar") is a perfectly appropriate term for a salt shaker.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:Size of a salt cellar??? by stox · · Score: 1

      I do now. Proving once again, you can actually learn something on Slashdot.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    5. Re:Size of a salt cellar??? by chawly · · Score: 1

      I too, have learned something. I read salt seller and have only now realised my mistake.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  23. Cobalt 60's properties by Robotbeat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cobalt 60 decays via Beta (electron) emission (and also emits an anti-neutrino), and has a half-life of 5.2714 years. Of course, electrons don't go far in air and are easily shielded, but Co60 emits gamma-rays (like very "blue" X-Rays) with an energy of 1.33 and 1.17 MeV (MeV= the energy it takes to move an electron from a long ways away to a potential of 1 million volts). Co60 is commonly used in industry for sterilizing and for killing off bacteria on food (it is also used in gamma-ray photography industrially). Cobalt 60 can be produced from bombarding iron with nuclear radiation, like inside a nuclear reactor or near a nuclear explosion.
    Wikipedia article about Cobalt

  24. That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by billstewart · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Radiation shielding is a job that lead does fairly effectively. It's possible to design electronics that are much more radiation-tolerant than conventional electronics, which is why so much NASA and other satellite gear is low-CPU-horsepower antique-looking stuff (e.g. when the Space Shuttle crew first took a Compaq 386 laptop up with them, it had significantly more CPU than the entire rest of the equipment on board, but it's not designed to last a long time in radiation environments.) But if you don't have a weight constraint, lead's your friend. Takes a bit of work to get video cameras shielded well, if you need to point the camera at the radiation source, and if that's likely to be a frequent problem, building in a bunch of spare cameras is a good idea, and cheap.

    Radioactive bomb disposal is fortunately not a frequently-encountered problem - most bomb-handling robots are more designed for conventional explosives, and while it's nice to have well-protected electronics, you'll only need to replace them if the bomb explodes, at which point it's no longer an emergency so cheap easily-replaced parts are just as good. However, Sandia Labs is the kind of place where radioactive explosive Bad Things can happen, and you'd think they'd have some rad-hard bomb-handler robots. After all, their job is designing and building Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US no longer builds nuclear weapons. They actually are dismantling some. Sandia does a lot of SIMULATIONS of such weapons. I'm sure they have materials around to gather data for the simulations but they don't make bombs anymore. When the bombs were made, most were made at a facility outside Amarillo, TX.

    2. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      That is correct, the US isn't building any more nuclear fission weapons. Now they are working on much higher yeild FUSION bombs. France has volunteered (and been suckered in) to test the 'power' equivalent of the technology, so if France suddenly disappears (and a big chunk of the UK) one day, they'll probably abort the research.

      But thats just my opinion. ;)

      cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by TapeCutter · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nuclear fission bombs are currently the only way to detonate much higher yeild FUSION (H) bombs. France is a good choice for the new wepon (err, reactor), we could give the operation a catchy name, how about "Pacific Payback".

      No, I'm not anti-France, just anti-destruction.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 3, Informative

      We are still producing all the components, including a recently revitalized capability to manufacture the fissile pit (technical term for the uranium or plutonium core). We didn't have that ability for about a decade, but have been able to in small quantities again for a few years.

      Bombs were being completely dissassembled and rebuilt throughout, for reliability testing and analysis purposes. In some cases, most or all of the other components were replaced.

    5. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by Albinoman · · Score: 1

      Takes a bit of work to get video cameras shielded well, if you need to point the camera at the radiation source...

      Then dont point the camera at the source. How well to mirrors hold up to radiation?

    6. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by Cunk · · Score: 1

      What happened in the Pacific that we have to pay them back for?

      --

      I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
    7. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It was an attempt at black humour.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by Rostin · · Score: 1

      You mean this facility? I did an internship there. When Google Maps came out, it was one of the first things I checked out. I was really surprised that google had such good pictures of it, then I saw that aerial photo.

    9. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened in the Pacific that we have to pay them back for?
      OMG!
      Hello?

    10. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only reason they don't build nuclear bombs anymore is that they do have so much of them that you could easily destroy the whole planet by breaking it in several parts or at least destroying the whole crust and causing a nuclear winter.

      Watch wor them starting again as soon as we find an alien lifeform on some other planet.

      By the way: Recently i saw some "oh, the us army/navy/whatever is sooo cool! they rule the world"-tv-reportage, where they said that ONE ship of usa's biggest submarine class has the nuclear power of 3600 hiroshima nuclear bombs!
      3600!!! this is enough to destroy a whole continent with every city on it!!
      Now guess how many of those ships exist, and what else exists.

      If this is not the most criminal thing of every lifeform in this solar system, then i don't know...

      Oh wait... the most criminal thing is that poeple actually accept it (proven by the fact that it still exists and nearly nothing changes).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    11. Re:That's a job for *Lead* (and prior planning.) by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Now they are working on much higher yeild FUSION bombs.

      WORKING? I read about hydrogen (H-)bombs in the late 80s. Here some quick facts: They...

      - have 3600 times the power of the hiroshima bomb
      - use a nuclear bomb as a fuse (!!!) because nothign else can (or could back then) create so high tempratures that teh reaction can start (some million degrees)
      - use heavy (somewhat radioactive) water as explosive, working in a similar way as the sun by making helium out of hydrogen. (which is easyer with heavy water because it already has the needed neutrons i guess...)
      - the usa is not the only country that owns them, but it owns (as usual) the most of them.

      And: YES, you can kill a small continent with them.

      P.S.: Wait for the first rusty ones to explode in russia in the next 10-20 years... ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  25. Ok then - Simple solution by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

    Really, REALLY long lead arm. Problem solved.

    --
    http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
  26. Johnny 5.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is still alive.

  27. Perhaps... by ericdano · · Score: 1
    Perhaps the Robots need to help Slashdot's Authors out. Radation causes brain damage, and I think the robot needs to go into the Slashdot bunker. Crawl over all the Anime Porn, and rescue the authors.

    Though, on a positive point, this is the first dupe in a week or two.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  28. So many questions... by komodotoes · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm unsure why it took 2 days to decide to unscrew a panel and 2 attempts to decide that plastic screwdrivers don't work worth poo. Or why they have a "1950's document delivery system" transporting extremely dangerous items. The real heroes of the story: the metal screwdriver and the rope used to haul the broken robot out.




    NeverEndingBillboard.com

    1. Re:So many questions... by natureday · · Score: 1

      I know what it means to be so careful of these things. People need to think first:) Anna-

      --
      Save the world a little at a time http://www.naturewhite.com
    2. Re:So many questions... by RussR42 · · Score: 0

      Perhaps instead of a screwdriver and rope (which took 2 days) they should have used an inanimate carbon rod.

  29. Gamma Imaging for Non-destructive testing by billstewart · · Score: 2, Informative
    My guess is that they're using it to do testing of aircraft components or other heavy military equipment. Some days X-Rays just don't penetrate well enough to image the things that you want, and you need something stonger, and for some applications, gamma rays do the job well. For other applications, you want various different kinds of beams from cyclotrons/synchrotrons/etc., such as protons or whatever. So you've gone and flown your airplane past its design parameters, or crashed your tank into walls and bounced around the crash test dummies, and you want to find out how badly you've bent the metal. Gamma ray imaging might be what you need. Or not.

    I forget if they also use gamma rays to image concrete, or if that's other kinds of radiation, but there are times you want to crash the tank into the wall and see how badly you bent the wall.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  30. I, Robot by adlaiff6 · · Score: 0

    ...anyone remember the one where they figured out the one bad robot with heat radiation?

  31. Take good care of that robot by msbsod · · Score: 1

    Sounds almost like the episode in Star Wars one when R2D2 fixed the shield generator. I hope the hero robot gets the same royal treatment like R2D2. Robots love a good polishing job (and they hate to be naked).

    1. Re:Take good care of that robot by komodotoes · · Score: 1

      Who doesn't love a good polishing? ;)


      NeverEndingBillboard.com

  32. The search for M2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A real movie would have the robot hold his screwdriver up against the glass as his circuits melted.

  33. Sirens with Mute button? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>On the third day, and after three weeks of continuous warning sirens...

    Their sirens must have a 'Mute' button in order to work under continuous sirens for three weeks.

  34. Perhaps a robot to prevent radioactive dupes? by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

    A slashbot that stopped radioactive dupes would be great.

    (Note, if someone has already made this comment, and therefore, my comment is a dupe, the robot could have prevented that too... Maybe a robot mod?)

    (I think I am going to end up in Troll hell for this one. Ah well, been over 5 years since I have had a comment at -1...)

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
  35. In Soviet Russia robot sends YOU in. by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mayak, where the Soviet Union pumped out tens of tons of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Some info on how the Soviets fixed the 'it got stuck' problems - no fancy robots for them. http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so9 9larin "A complete repair would have taken at least 12 months..." ""That meant that the irradiated uranium fuel had to be pulled up by hand into the central hall of the reactor and placed in a special storage area. Then, when the repair was finished, the elements had to be loaded back into the reactor. Over time, we unloaded and reloaded 39,000 fuel elements. All of the plant's personnel took part in this work and they received huge doses of radiation. The repairs were finished in two months." "several hundred kilograms of freshly irradiated nuclear fuel got stuck--men from everywhere in the plant were called out, and one after another they used long steel rods to push the elements into the apparatus. The only protection they had was cotton overalls and gloves."

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia robot sends YOU in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixing things manually was actually quite common in every early military nuclear program. I mean, it's military, it's designed to kill, and if it kills more enemies than friends, it's still good, isn't it? So what's a few hundred radiation induced cancers more or less compared to possibly hundreds of thousands of people fried in a nuclear blast? Military is different from civilian, no matter whether russian or american.

      Then again, this guy is explaining that he got splashed with nasty stuff, mopped up stuff in a contaminated corridor, fixed carts with freshly irradiated fuel on them and participated when they manually removed fuel from a reactor. Surely he's dead several times over and has to be buried in lead coffin, and the same goes for everyone he ever shook hands with. But somehow, 50 years after the fact, he is still able to talk about it. How's this possible? Is he a damn liar? Or is radiation not as dangerous as is commonly thought?

  36. Downsides of commercial technology by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Please insert another $50,000 to continue" Doh!

  37. already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a nuke with something extra packed in too. to kill more people and keep on killing people for years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salted_bomb

  38. Hooray for bots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hooray for bots! I've been tracking this story, and These Guys seem to have the story straight.

  39. Robots are awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do everything that humans can't.

  40. Unfortunately... by Psychor · · Score: 2, Funny

    Unfortunately the robot failed anyway, with only 5 minutes left until the radiation leaked out, destroying civilisation in an evil terrorist plot. Bruce Willis had to throw himself into the chamber and heroically sacrifice his life in order to correct the problem manually. After fixing the radiation leak, he managed to crawl into and activate an experimental cryogenic chamber stored in the same room, before expiring from the overdose of radiation. The probability of him being revived for a sequel is high.

    1. Re: Unfortunately... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Bruce Willis had to throw himself into the chamber and heroically sacrifice his life in order to correct the problem manually. After fixing the radiation leak, he managed to crawl into and activate an experimental cryogenic chamber stored in the same room, before expiring from the overdose of radiation. The probability of him being revived for a sequel is high.

      I thought that was a Star Trek episode.

      No, wait - an Andromeda episode.

      Or maybe an SG-1 episode.

      Or was it an Angel episode? Or maybe Buffy.

      It's so hard to keep your heros straight, when they all do the same thing.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Unfortunately... by funwithBSD · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bruce Willis NEVER dies in his movies... unless he is costaring with Brad Pitt, in which case it was a mercy killing.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Unfortunately... by sstidman · · Score: 1

      Bruce Willis NEVER dies in his movies... unless he is costaring with Brad Pitt, in which case it was a mercy killing.

      Although sometimes he is dead before the movie even starts.

      --
      Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
  41. Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a high-security radiation lab had a cylinder filled with radiation get trapped in its delivery tube network.

    Getting things stuck in your tube sucks.

  42. Repetative... by skogs · · Score: 1

    The number of repetative posts on slashdot in the last few weeks really is impressive. This 'story' ran just a few days ago and got thoroughly torn to bits. How many times must we beat the dead horse?

    --
    Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
    1. Re:Repetative... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      The number of repetative posts on slashdot in the last few weeks really is impressive.
      You must be new here

      We used to complain about multiple dupes on the front page every day. Literally the same story two or three times in a row.

      Sometimes the editors bring back 'old' stories because they think there is more discussion to be had... sometimes they're just fucking up.

      I still don't understand why there is no mechanism for even a basic keyword comparison that can pop up and tell the eds "a story with similar words has been posted within the last x days. Are you sure about this?"
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Repetative... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a well-known troll group that specialises in trying to get dupes (or even triple posts) posted to /.

      It is so effective because the editors of /. don't really keep up with the site. Sad, really.

  43. Good boy. You just keep on telling yourself that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a citizen of the United States of America and I love my country so much it hurts. I trust the government about as much as I would trust a starving cannibal as a bedmate though.

    We're no longer producing nuke'cler weapons? Why, just because the government promises they're not? Grow up.

  44. Ok, but what I wanna know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is what the robot's gonna do with it now that it's got the radioactive death cartridge?

    What did these guys think? That the robot was gonna get there and say, "Ok, here you go guys, you can keep the pesky canister filled with enough cobalt-60 to terrorize human civilization..."

    Um, hello? This is how sci-fi stories start not end.

  45. Re:Apparantly.... by Afecks · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparantly, Robots can stop radiation. But they can't save Slashdot editors from dupes...

    More evidence they don't read their own site.


    and apparently you can't spell "Apparently"... more evidence that you don't read what you actually write...

    all kidding aside... my point is that we all make mistakes :P

  46. Free Day Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a free day pass for the next dupe

  47. Fortunately. . . by munpfazy · · Score: 1

    . . . they had a specially designed bomb disposal robot on hand.

    I'd hate to be around when a cylinder full of radiation get trapped with nothing but one of those generic, off-the-shelf bomb disposal robots on hand.

  48. damn that corrosive radiation by drakewyrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...before the radiation was able to eat its way free." That's choice. Sounds like the tagline from some poorly-researched sci-fi or action flick. Besides, the radiation was already present outside the canister; otherwise, there would have been no danger to personnel and no radiation alarms sounding.

    As for the comment about the container being filled with radiation, I could excuse that as simply a mistake of terminology. You can fill the container with active or contaminated material, but you can't fill it with radiation itself. Contamination is the shit. Radiation is just the stink.

    A more practical analogy would be light as an example of radiation. You can fill a box with flashlights, and you can shine light inside a box, but you can't fill the box with light.

    The article makes reference to the radiation eating away at the robot's circuits. This is pure speculation, but I think this may have been a reference to the effect that high energy gamma radiation can have on digital circuits such as memory. That would be a bit of a metaphor, not a literal corrosion of the circuitry. Certainly, it does not imply that the canister was in danger of impending failure.

    --
    Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? Major: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action
  49. ...This happened to me before by d3ity · · Score: 1

    Somehow, this reminds me of the time when I was in the drive through to the bank. So i was sitting there, put my check in the little container, set the container back on the little pedestal, and pressed the button. The container shot up about three feet, before lodging itself securley in the tube, unable to move. I wonder if something similar happened to the government...except with a pile of slimy green radioactive death-goo, instead of a check. At least, thats the image I get when I look at this story.

  50. Or, to put it another way... by carpevita · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A plucky little expensive robot was destroyed while saving the day recently at the White Sands missile range after gross incompetence in the fields of engineering and risk analysis manifested as a lump of highly radioactive substance becoming stuck in a tube, prompting technicians to attempt to fix the problem basically by kicking it really hard, which broke it even worse, at which point several people valiantly tried to fix the problem with a tool that was not designed for that purpose--since nobody had apparently thought of designing a tool for that purpose--while being continually subjected to blaring sirens and flashing lights, which unfortunately could not be shut off during this tense and delicate operation, leading to much silliness, such as repeatedly barbecuing various bits of plastic. Eventually, they managed to get the pesky thing unstuck while exposing only a couple of people to only a tiny bit of deadly radiation. Somebody then named the robot after a cartoon character.

    The genius who spun this one off on the media is the unsung hero of this story.

  51. That's not true. by raehl · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm stuck with MREs and freeze dried crap.

    There are other options. Like meaty travel companions and a big knife.

    1. Re:That's not true. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      I'm stuck with MREs and freeze dried crap.

      There are other options. Like meaty travel companions and a big knife.

      Ah yes, the "long pork". Al Packer may have been on to something...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:That's not true. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Humans carry a lot of diseases and parasites. While it's convenient to have the food carry itself in, we should remember that it's a pretty dirty way. It may not be a concern for most people, after all, cooking does kill virtually all parasites and disease agents (except a few, eg, some prions), but the original poster clearly put a premium on sterility.

  52. Re:Apparantly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a difference from making occasional human error and sheer incompetence. This isn't the first dupe by any stretch of the imagination. Its like letting a truck driver stay with your company after he has been in hundreds of accidents.

  53. and now, folks, robotic dups! by mennucc1 · · Score: 1

    hey, the article in this post looks soooo similar to the article in Friday's post "Radiation Robot Makes Troops Safer".
    That is they problem with robots; you teach the trick once, and there they go repeating it forever!

  54. Why didn't they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...just send in Vin Diesel to retrieve it?

  55. Go robots! Woohoo! by MortalityTechnician · · Score: 1

    Go robots! Woohoo!

  56. I don't think he/she mistyped :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO, it was really meant "they would be fried" and not "they would be fired", as you assume.

    OTOH, such things feel like someone having wandered near a deep chasm: we were this || close to disaster. And you know what? The "good" outcome is frightening to say the least.

    All things considered, this is like a tale by Asimov (one about a mining robot in Mercury IIRC). ...

    And now I think they downplayed the much necessary medievalists role in the recent "I, Robot" movie... :-/

  57. Using pneumatic tubes? by Pathetic+Coward · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't they have used sneakernet like everyone else?

  58. Dupe radiation by brenddie · · Score: 0

    Im telling you, those are dupe waves

    --
    The best test environment is production. - Me
    chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
  59. Nice robot, real problem. by dotmax · · Score: 1

    The robot looks like your standard ANDROS brand rov, pretty capable. ANDROS type robots are typically designed to blow up suitcases or (these days) IEDs with a water blaster or other single shot thing.

    They are _not_ designed for fiddly little twiddling work, like unscrewing screws. And they also don't typ. have stereoscopic vision.

    So why couldn't they use lead shielding at the site: probably NO ROOM in the pipe-switching installation. And, remember the robot would have to build the wall itself, brick by brick, picking up dose with each step.

    Since these things aren't designed for operation in a nuclear holocaust, their elex are typ not all that rad hard; they're expensive enuf as it is, it's typ. not worth it to outfit rad hardness to them. Just yank it out with a rope and replace the driver boards.

    The manpulator arm camera would probably be the first casualty as the CCD gates deterioriated under the rad blizzard.

    Finally, a faraday cage for gamma rays is just nonesense, and a misconception unworthy of slashdot. Everyone who thinks they should have used one, please go back to high school physics class, ask Doktor Professer for remediation and apologize for graduating. Faraday cages work for photons generated by the electron shell; gamma rays come from proton and neutron decay, and are of staggeringly higher energy and staggeringly lower (smaller) wavelengths.

    The purpose (from the article) of the C0-60 was to test radiation resistance/hardness of materials and elex. Nothing to do with dirty bombs, we use such sources all over the country all the time.

    FWIW, i've measured a (wrongly) unmasked Co-60 sourse with a survey meter from almost a half mile away, through two buildings. These suckers put out the zoomies. V. Scary. When they say: kill anyone who got close to it, they're not exaggerating. .max

    1. Re:Nice robot, real problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot, not your IM client. Don't use retarded abbreviations like "elex" and "typ." Lazy cocksucking faggot.

  60. Tube cannot be filled with radiation by realnihilist · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is impossible for a tube to be filled with "radiation". Radiation would be emitted spherically in all directions from the tube, subject to the inverse square law. That is, unless one was far enough away from the tube for it to be considered a point source. What the tube was filled with is "contamination", which is the source of the radiation. Contamination is the "sh*t"...radiation is the "stink".

  61. Re:Radiation is corrosive.. sort of. by Faeton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    High levels of radiation has a nack for breaking down many materials very quickly. Plastics and organic compounds seem to suffer the most, as the insulation on wiring turns brittle and flaky quite fast at about 1k rem. Working at a CANDU nuclear power plant, everything but the video cameras that monitor the reactor face uses special wires to prevent common short circuits. So you can tell from that that we replace the video cams quite often. Or worse (and usually the case), they stop working and we don't get a front seat view of a LOCA (loss of cooling accident) when it happens =)

  62. Raise your hand if you know how to ... by bjomo · · Score: 1

    ... use the phrase "begs the question" properly.

    http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html

  63. Invocation of the first law??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm

  64. Re:Good boy. You just keep on telling yourself tha by Shihar · · Score: 1

    We're no longer producing nuke'cler weapons? Why, just because the government promises they're not? Grow up.

    No, you can believe that we are no longer producing them because we have plenty. There isn't a need to build any more. The only thing the US is doing in terms of nuclear weapons right now is R&D in how to build better ones, maintaining the current stock pile, and slowly dropping the number of overall weapons.

    Certainly the US is still doing R&D, but R&D is long term project aimed at preparing for an unknown threat far in the future. For all of the threats that exist today and within the next 20 years or so, the US has more then enough weapons and then some. The US could flatten Russia, China, and the EU at the same time, though granted, Russia and the EU could flatten the US back (and even China could offer a little hurt).

  65. Duplicate, and more stupidly submitted, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    before the radiation could eat its way free

    LOL!

    That's actually very stupid.

    And not funny.

  66. Already Done by Shihar · · Score: 1

    The army already makes extensive use of robots to investigate and disarm IEDs. If they come across something that looks suspicious, they send out this tracked robot about the size of a dog with a gripper arm and a camera. They can investigate the IED with the camera. If they determine it to be an IED, they can give the robot a block of C4 in its gripper arm. The robot takes the C4 to the IED, drops it, backs off, and then they blow the IED.

    I imagine the robot they used in this lab is a tad bit more expensive then the disposable IED robots that army uses.

    1. Re:Already Done by rtb144 · · Score: 1

      I think they use det-cord most of the time

      --
      Sie ist tunbar!
  67. Doesnt the robot get irradiated? by doctorjay · · Score: 1

    How were they able to pull it back without harming themselves? The radiation doesnt contaminate the robot?

    1. Re:Doesnt the robot get irradiated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the robot gets irradiated. No, that doesn't necessarily
      mean that the robot is now dangerously radioactive. It depends
      on what type of radiation, the intensity, the duration, and
      the materials in the robot. Some of the robot parts might be
      radioactive for a few seconds after an intense exposure, and
      it would quickly fade. Some parts would not be radioactive
      at all.

  68. Carbon latice? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Some sort of crystaline carbon?

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  69. I saw that too. No can of light for you! by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    The remaining question is: What exactly is in a can of whoop-ass?

  70. ROBOTS by Bellybuck · · Score: 1

    Just another reason to buy rock'em sock'em robots

  71. Concrete with iron ore by jhines · · Score: 1

    Concrete made with iron ore pellets, at least 3 feet thick, was what was used in the hot cell area of Argonne when I was touring there. The walls were made of that up to 8 or 9 feet high. And there was still a warning light anytime the Co-60 source was out.

    The work was done behind a several feet of leaded glass, with master slave manipulators.

    In summary, effective shielding is heavy.

  72. Thank you Mr. Robot! by objekt · · Score: 1

    Bless your cybernetic soul! *sniff*

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  73. Radiation and bomb control by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    There is no way a bomb circuit could withstand that radiation it melted plastic I'm sure your circuit board would become a puddle of radio active goo. Not to mention you would need multiple robots to assemble and place said bomb unless you can build a bomb and place it in less than 30 seconds.
    There are more ways to set off bombs than by electronic circuits. Heck, you could make it a water-clock based bomb if you were so inclined. As for assembly, lead-lined carrying cases are your friends.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  74. Mining Bot by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    All things considered, this is like a tale by Asimov (one about a mining robot in Mercury IIRC). ...
    I can't remember the title offhand, but the fundamental conflict involved trying to get an absolute solution from a problem with varying paramaters. The robot needed to fetch the mercury so as to obey rule 2, to obey human orders. As it approached the mercury, a previously unknown substance was corroding it, thereby partially triggering rule 3, to prevent self-harm, and verging on rule 1, preventing harm to human beings, in that with sufficient corrosion, it would be unable to fetch the mercury for the humans. So it would move towards the mercury until rule 1 overrode rule 2, then move out until rule 2 balanced rule 1, etc. They finally had to break it away by changing its priorities, putting a human in more immediate danger so that the robot had to come to them. It's actually a fairly relevant story for people programming in threaded environments with variable levels of event importance.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  75. Angels and Demons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like something out of Angels and Demons to me.

  76. helping? Surely not by Henk+Postma · · Score: 1
    First the "Robot Saves Troops" story and now this. Pretty cool how robots are actually helping us nowadays.

    Don't be fooled, that's exactly what the robots want us to believe :)

  77. Froth much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I agree with the tenets of your rant, your chosen syntax makes you sound completely insane.