Slashdot Mirror


Program To Detect Smuggled Nuclear Bombs Stalls

Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that a program to detect plutonium or uranium in shipping containers has stalled because the United States has run out of helium 3, a crucial raw material needed to build the 1,300 to 1,400 machines to be deployed in ports around the world to thwart terrorists who might try to deliver a nuclear bomb to a big city by stashing it in one of the millions of containers that enter the United States every year. Helium 3 is an unusual form of the element that is formed when tritium, an ingredient of hydrogen bombs, decays — but the government mostly stopped making tritium in 1989 after accumulating a substantial stockpile of Helium 3 as a byproduct of maintaining nuclear weapons. 'I have not heard any explanation of why this was not entirely foreseeable,' says Representative Brad Miller, chairman of a House subcommittee that is investigating the problem. Helium 3 is not hazardous or even chemically reactive, and it is not the only material that can be used for neutron detection. The Homeland Security Department has older equipment that can look for radioactivity, but it does not differentiate well between bomb fuel and innocuous materials that naturally emit radiation like cat litter, ceramic tiles and bananas — and sounds false alarms more often. In a letter to President Obama, Miller called the shortage 'a national crisis' and said the price had jumped to $2,000 a liter from $100 in the last few years. With continuing concern that Al Qaida or other terrorists will try to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the United States, Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas."

224 comments

  1. There's plenty on the moon! by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The moon is covered in helium 3. There, we have to have a manned lunar colony in order to be safe from terrorists!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Snarkalicious · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mom?

    2. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by yurtinus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I need a correlation between "moose knuckle" and "camel toe"

      Do you think you could deliver that in car-analogy form?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    3. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's why you guys need to act quickly and outlaw Islam before it gets out of hand.

      Sure, you'll have an initial clusterfuck of riots and deportation, but there is only one thing that Islamic savages understand -- the fist. The Knights Templar^W^W American military will gladly help you with that.

      Once the Islamic question is dealt with, you won't have to worry about bombings and 9/11-type stuff (that is, there'll be no excuse for corrupt goverment operatives to fly planes into your own buildings). There will be mass-denouncements of Islam as millions of women throw off their chains and veils and run free throughout the streets in orgies of elation and self-expression. The female-male ratio will become 30:1 as the men will refuse to renounce Islam and will be subsequently deported.

      The macho Muslim men won't like that, of course, but they can go back to Algeria and Pakistan and be pissed off over there. It's not like those regions will ever become civilized. America grabbed two big bags of shit with Afghanistan and Iraq and now America is trying to neatly dispose of the bags of shit while staining itself with shit in the process.

    4. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replies like this are the ultimate anti-troll. Makes me happy.

    5. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I need a correlation between "moose knuckle" and "camel toe"
      Do you think you could deliver that in car-analogy form?


      1975 Camaro.

    6. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      And we don't even have to man it! We can use clones and HALs with Kevin Spacey's voice.

      -FL

    7. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Funny

      >Do you think you could deliver that in car-analogy form?

      F450 vs a Miata.

    8. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Oh wow.

      I am SOOO trying to think of something clever to say that involves DHS, TSA, and my "radioactive banana".

    9. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Exactly!

    10. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I would stand up and give a Rebel Yell if head screw at NASA got a memo stating, "We NEED a Moon Base with a working H3 Refinery, YESTERDAY!!! Where the hell is it?" Sincerly Barack. Looks like another Disney script in the making...

    11. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While waiting to get back to the moon, let's build up our thermonuclear stockpile. Then when our detection system is in place, we can sell the excess nukes to the terrorists. They will be thwarted by our detection network and confiscated to be resold to extremists.

    12. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that's the point of this. Mine the moon or we're not safe from suit-case nukes. They aren't as dumb as we are.

    13. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The moon is covered in helium 3. There, we have to have a manned lunar colony in order to be safe from terrorists!

      If it's not possible to shut down DHS, then perhaps second-best would be transferring a large chunk of their budget to NASA. Somebody see to that please.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Oh wow.

      I am SOOO trying to think of something clever to say that involves DHS, TSA, and my "radioactive banana".

      Look, I don't know about your bananas, but as long as they leave my cat litter smuggling operations alone, it's fine by me.
      My kitty litter comes in by custom made submarine (they can hold about 2500 kg), that swim in groups. Then it's brought to the beach in waterproof bags (80 kg per bag) by swimmers and attached to sleds drawn by trained dogs. They pull their load of litter to bro's that centralise the distribution in their district.

      They have to lay low for a couple weeks, then they can start to distribute their litter, using local pushers.

      You've probably met them. When you're in a cinema queue, that guy whispering "kitty kitty" in your ear. Or when you're entering the pizza shop, that bloke in the hoodie holding a toy mouse by the tail... Yes, they're all litter pushers.

      It's a huge industry and it's all around you. If you have a cat, you know where to find us.

      If you don't.. well, if you know what's good for you, best to look the other way.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    15. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by physburn · · Score: 1
      I'm all for a Lunar Base and Lunar Mining, but its not easy and realistical its not going to happen until at least 2030. In the mean that helium 4 comes from the same places that natural gas comes from and contains traces of helium 3 so stocks of helium 3 will regrow slowly until we run out of natural gas. Perphaps we can find some other way to detect radioactive materials.

      ---

      Nuclear Proliferation Feed @ Feed Distiller

    16. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Swoosh!

    17. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. The rich genocidal maniac tax. "I'm sorry sir. Just because we sold you a nuke in order to destroy your US oppressors, doesn't mean that you have the necessary permits to destroy your US oppressors. We'll have to seize this WMD. In the future, please fill out the proper paperwork first. Have a nice day."

    18. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I think this is insightful. Not because it would really keep us safe, just the very idea that we are "in danger" or that anyone with nukes would actually use them in such a way is well.... so ridiculous that you may as well use it to justify a lunar base.

      I mean seriously, this unceasing snipe hunting is just ridiculous. We are talking about a group of people that generate unrealistic attack vectors and gets caught incompetently failing to even get their ideas off the ground way more often than they manage even a low-tech attack.

      So far, in all of history, we are looking at a statistically insignificant number of large events, which mostly have no effect but to make us overreact and waste time and money on unscrupulous "security experts" to dream up new attack vectors to protect us from... even after the very people we are to be protected from show themselves time and again to be incompetent and disorganized.... when they even exist (more frequently, they don't even manage that)

      0 benefit pork barrel program stalled. Our risk remains at infinitesimally small,

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    19. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, that's pretty fucking funny. I'd plus 1 you if I had some mod points. People here on slashdot really need to develop a sense of humor. (Although judging by the poor quality of this comment system, slashdot people have a difficult time developing anything that works properly!)

    20. Re:There's plenty on the moon! by lennier · · Score: 1

      "The moon is covered in helium 3. There, we have to have a manned lunar colony in order to be safe from terrorists!"

      Well, technically it only needs to be 'manned' by ONE crewmember... and a Gerty.

      Just make sure the long-range communications relay satellite has a 'malfunction', know what I mean?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  2. The dollar is tanking!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hyperinflation ensues

  3. Fear it not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  4. Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, this was foreseeable. But at the time nobody needed large quantities of this sort of radiation-detection gear, and nobody foresaw circumstances where we'd suddenly develop a huge demand for it. So when production was stopped, nobody saw the consequences as being any major problem.

    1. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Is that because they hadn't seen The Sum of all fears yet?

    2. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Miller is saying there is no reason we shouldn't have been able foresee running out before attempting to build so many radiation detectors.

    3. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by thermopile · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are other neutron detection technologies out there. Commercial nuclear power reactors have used other technologies for years.

      Boron-10 lined proportional counters, fission chambers, boron trifluoride, lithium doped glass ... there are lots of other options out there. None of them may have quite the same sensitivity, but you can just pack more sensors in to overcome sensitivity.

      To make a slashdot analogy, it's kind of like if all Debian developers caught swine flu and perished. Not a big deal, just move over to Ubuntu or Fedora.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    4. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      if all Debian developers caught swine flu and perished. Not a big deal, just move over to Ubuntu

      Ummm...

    5. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      If Debian just went poof, Ubuntu would still exist; it's just that the development cycle would likely take a serious hit. Either that or they'd pull a Linux Mint and completely rewrite everything to be based off of Fedora or something. Anyway to get this back on topic... The real problem with the Helium-3 shortage is Tritium which decays into Helium-3 over time. The government didn't anticipate needing truckloads of Helium-3 to detect nukes entering the country so not enough Tritium was stockpiled specifically to make Helium-3. We get most of the Helium-3 from our Hydrogen bomb stockpile which uses the Deuterium + Tritium fusion reaction. Since we didn't need much Helium-3 or Tritium, we didn't put the Li-6 + n => T + He4 reaction to good use but we can now. We also as the GP noted, have the option of using alternative detectors although their effectiveness may not be as high as Helium-3 based detectors. So in other words, it's an annoyance but not really the doom and gloom that the summary suggests.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    6. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Wow, didn't even read the summary:

      The Homeland Security Department has older equipment that can look for radioactivity, but it does not differentiate well between bomb fuel and innocuous materials that naturally emit radiation like cat litter, ceramic tiles and bananas — and sounds false alarms more often.

      Other types of detectors work in nuclear power plants because nobody is trying to ship a boatload of coffee beans through the middle of a power plant.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    7. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by thermopile · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I read the summary. I neglected to account for slack-jawed troglodytes like yourself trying to pass themselves off as nuclear engineers. My bad.

      Nuclear instruments, like those sold by GE Reuter Stokes and LND detect neutrons -- they infer the power of a reactor by measuring how many neutrons leak out of the reactor core. (They are calibrated by comparing the analog readout under a known power condition ... say, by the flow meters going into a turbine, in a process called a calorimetric.) The DHS detectors mentioned in the article have neutron detectors in them that use He-3 to do the neutron detection.

      However, the false alarms alluded to in the summary are not due to neutrons; the false alarms stem from gamma rays, another form of radiation. Coffee beans, kitty litter, ceramics, bananas, and all the other sources of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material emit gamma rays. The equipment mentioned in the summary also has gamma ray sensors, which occasionally produce an alarm on things like kitty litter. I assure you, if one were to drive a truck full of kitty litter through the containment building of a nuclear reactor, the instrumentation would be completely unaffected. The NRC regulators might look at you funny, though.

      Admittedly, the summary (and most of the linked articles) did not draw the distinction very well between the gamma detectors (i.e., the source of the false alarms on the older detectors) and the neutron detectors (based on He-3, which is going away). Hope this clears things up.

      PS - in the future, I will research my Linux distributions better before making bad analogies on Slashdot. whoops.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    8. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of them may have quite the same sensitivity, but you can just pack more sensors in to overcome sensitivity.
      Well, that's just the thing: you can't do that and have your detector be man-portable. Ideally, customs officials and/or DHS inspectors would be able to sweep containers before they're unloaded at one of our ports. If the terrorists manage to get a nuclear weapon into Long Beach harbor, or New Orleans, or wherever, they can just set it off right there.

      This story is a big deal only insofar as you think it likely that terr'ists will actually get their hands on a functioning nuclear explosive. Personally, I think these fears are somewhat overblown. But hey, I know a lot of hardworking nuclear scientists at PNNL and elsewhere who are more than happy to apply for those DHS grants to solve this particular problem. They gotta eat, too.

    9. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by the_womble · · Score: 1

      I thought Mint has always been Ubuntu based? Mepis switched between from Debian to Ubuntu and back, but that is not that drastic.

    10. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Except for that fission research group hawking laser-compressed deuterium-tritium pellets here on Slashdot a few weeks ago, whose premise of using tritium as a critical component of their fuel are, once again, trumped by reality.

    11. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Get a dictionary.

      foreseeable, adjective

      1 : being such as may be reasonably anticipated 2 : lying within the range for which forecasts are possible

      foreseen \-sn\, transitive verb to see (as a development) beforehand

      They the same meaning!

    12. Re:Foreseeable doesn't mean foreseen by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Close but not the same,

      foreseeable means that something can be forseen, not that it was/is forseen. Just because a forecast is possible doesn't mean anyone bothered to do the calculations and research needed to make that forecast.

      It's kind of like the difference between "knew" and "should have known"

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  5. This could slow down other work by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

    Helium 3 is also used in cryogenic coolers that reach temperatures below 0.4K. These are used for cooling radiotelescope bolometers and other exotic scientific instruments. I remember pricing it a few years ago for a bolometer we had that lost its He3, and being astounded at the price. Sounds like it was a bargain back then.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
  6. Concern? Who's concerned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "With continuing concern that Al Qaida or other terrorists will try to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the United States..." Who, exactly, has continuing concern about terrorist nuclear bombs smuggled through US ports?

    1. Re:Concern? Who's concerned? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Who, exactly, has continuing concern about terrorist nuclear bombs smuggled through US ports?

      The people charged with protecting the US against terrorism? They are evidently a little more concerned about such things than you are.

    2. Re:Concern? Who's concerned? by cusco · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pretty much anyone who knows the state of the former Soviet stockpile. Victor Bout at one point was said to have one for sale for $40 million. No one is sure where it went, but since Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings hadn't yet been exposed it likely ended up in the US stockpile.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Concern? Who's concerned? by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Well I don't but just because I don't live there, as an external viewer I'd say that it amazes me that such thing have not happened yet, not that I want it to happen really. But do you understand how Cocaine gets into your country? those are thousands of metric tons of dope coming trough your borders, it comes in airplanes, containers and even some guys with very, VERY basic education can, actually, design and build submarines to deliver the dope

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdI1y4sdPZE

      So, yes, anyone can build a "dirty" submarine in the middle of the $jungle, without your fancy technology and cutting edge tools and get it too close to USA for someone to pick up the package and smuggle it inside. Are you really not concerned? Who needs ports? Those guys don't need a port, or are you telling me that it doesn't matter because no blow ever reaches US streets? really? DIY Submarines are the new shit! from 5 subs built 4 deliver their cargo! and they return and deliver again several times. A dirty (not even nuclear loaded) sub just need to get too close just one time, wait for the right wind forecast and deli#$%%&[SUBMARINE_CABLE_CUT]

  7. make it so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having these detectors would be about 1000X more effective at protecting the USA from attack compared to the GWBush/NeoCon approach. Instead the idiots decided to waste $$$TRILLIONS in the Middle East searching for non-existant WMDs... hoping the current administration is better in the long term.

  8. Wired covered this one in Aug 2000 by Zondar · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html

    1. Re:Wired covered this one in Aug 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article completely confuses helium and helium-3, though.

    2. Re:Wired covered this one in Aug 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/helium.html

      Don't worry it could be worse. Tomorrows top story is "First Atomic Bomb Test a Success!" Personally I can't wait for the coverage of the first man to walk on the Moon. The Wright Brothers story last week is still one of my favorites.

  9. Glad we got that covered. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas.

    It's a good thing that it is impossible to place a container on a non-commercial vessel. It is also good that it is impossible to NOT ship a weapon in a large cargo container.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:Glad we got that covered. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Will they inspect all trucks entering the US from Canada and Mexico?

    2. Re:Glad we got that covered. by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      They'll probably try to slip through some legislation under the guise of doing exactly that to stop the "terrorists" then it'll be used to harass anyone trying to cross the border for whatever reason they can think of at the moment.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Glad we got that covered. by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a huge fucking waste of time, and it won't be done seriously for more than the first 3 days or so. The amount of freight bound for the US has to be absolutely enormous.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    4. Re:Glad we got that covered. by Foobar_ · · Score: 1

      They already have bloody huge x-ray scanners installed at the border crossings for that. They can see people being smuggled inside steel containers or a truck's chassis.

    5. Re:Glad we got that covered. by Nethead · · Score: 1

      You haven't tried crossing from BC to the US lately, eh?

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    6. Re:Glad we got that covered. by gbutler69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. That's the idea. These things can scan traffic for nuclear materials as you drive through at 30 mph.

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    7. Re:Glad we got that covered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that's the new economic stimulus plan.

      Step 1: Delay imports at the border.
      Step 2: Ship American products immediately to stores
      Step 3: PROFIT!!!

      This will save us all! We'll be able to resume pumping real estate up to astronomical levels on loans no sane person should ever take! "Normality", a.k.a. The American Bubble Machine will be humming again, this time FOREVER. All you bastards that said politicians were worthless can SUCK IT!

    8. Re:Glad we got that covered. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      When we first put the detectors in here, the Canadian couldn't get a trash truck across the boarder for two weeks because of the radiation picked up. Finally they had to steam clean the trash trailers to get them through.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:Glad we got that covered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Google "Emma Maersk"
      Happy geek wet tech dreams

  10. Congressional mandate by EvanED · · Score: 1

    "Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas."

    Eh, what'll it matter. It'll only be in effect for a few months.

    1. Re:Congressional mandate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call twelve months plus twelve days of a year "just a few months"?

    2. Re:Congressional mandate by Keith_Beef · · Score: 1

      "Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas."

      Eh, what'll it matter. It'll only be in effect for a few months.

      Oh great...

      I'm sure it's easier to bribe officials or otherwise get around the inspections in somewhere like Namibia, Pakistan or the Philipines, rather than at the US port.

      K.

    3. Re:Congressional mandate by cusco · · Score: 1

      The idea is to route all cargo through ports run by politically connected companies. Your cargo of potatoes might embark in Lima, Peru, but have to travel through Dubai or Taipei first so that it can be 'certified'. It's not by accident that Hong Kong, one of the busiest ports in the world, inspects 100 percent of containers but the US can't even surpass ten percent.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  11. Ineffective waste of money by fluffy99 · · Score: 0

    This just means the terrorists will simply drive it over the border. It's not hard to smuggle stuff into the US without going through an inspection point. Just look how well 100% inspection is working for curbing the drug traffic. They hide it in coffee beans in shipping containers. Anyone reasonably crafty will just hid the radioactive materials in a lead lined container.

    1. Re:Ineffective waste of money by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If cocaine emitted a detectable neutron signature the war on drugs would have been won years ago, IMHO.

    2. Re:Ineffective waste of money by Snarkalicious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purpose of the border check system was never to actually stop the flow of drugs, silly. It was to drive out as many small players as possible, and concentrate the market into a few well funded/armed cartels. In this way, bribes come in at the director/secretary/senatorial level in a quiet and efficiant manner. Skipping the middle man (i.e. the border guard/local sheriff) on the bribery chain keeps my smack nice n' cheap.

    3. Re:Ineffective waste of money by sexconker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dogs are better at finding drugs than any scanner is at finding nuclear material.

      Less expensive too.
      Less training involved, too.
      Less maintenance, too.
      Cuter, too.

      The war on drugs isn't meant to be "won", it is meant to be perpetually exacerbated to ensure the continued employment and empowerment of those waging it.

    4. Re:Ineffective waste of money by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Except that lead containers show up just fine on other scanners they already use.

    5. Re:Ineffective waste of money by Leebert · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't want a reliable test for drugs, anyhow. Dogs are less reliable and more difficult to quantify.

      Want to search a car? The dog "hit" on the car. Doesn't matter what the dog actually did, only matters what the K9 officer claims.

      What, you're going to put the dog up on the witness stand?

      The dog thing is yet another assault on the 4th amendment.

    6. Re:Ineffective waste of money by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      If cocaine emitted neutrons, we'd have other problems.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    7. Re:Ineffective waste of money by sexconker · · Score: 1

      While there are handlers who will abuse the system and claim the dog indicated when it didn't, they don't need to dog to make up bullshit to search your car/house/pants/whatever.

      If the cops want to hassle you they will.

      I'd personally rather be hassled while getting to watch doggies.

  12. Hmmm... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    I typed two posts prior to this one, and backspaced over both of them. The first was the thought that the machines were already there and this publicity was a rouse to try to catch trafficers. Then I realized I was just feeding the conspiricy side of my brain. I then typed up a joke about how I wasn't going to fall for their ploy to seize my precious nuclear product. I then decided better of that given I didn't relish the thought of MiB showing up at my front door based on some lame FBI web crawler hit. So yea, here I am. How's it going guys?

    1. Re:Hmmm... by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Goin' great Last Available Usern.
      (Or should I say - "USAs all be an evil rat"?)

      Your weapon... fun-sized... shipment of ura... American candy... will be arriving shortly.

  13. nuclear reactors to the rescue by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm guessing there's also a shortage of Tritium which decays into Helium-3 with a half-life of 12 years. If you have enough Tritium around and wait long enough, you'll have fresh Helium-3. You can make more Tritium by exposing Lithium-6 to a high neutron flux like that found in nuclear reactors. The neutron splits the Li6 as LI6 + n => T + He4. Russia might have quite a bit of it laying around owing to the size of their nuclear arsenal that we could buy.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:nuclear reactors to the rescue by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're talking about but you mentioned Tritium and I just wanted to suggest getting in touch with Samantha Carter.

    2. Re:nuclear reactors to the rescue by IvyKing · · Score: 1

      Another way to do this would be to use a D-D neutron source, in which you will get tritium from 6Li(n,alpha)T reaction, plus you will get get tritium and 3He from the D-D reactions.

    3. Re:nuclear reactors to the rescue by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      That's fine for small scale operations but what you're essentially suggesting isn't feasible on the larger scale that He-3 production will need to be. We've got enough reactors that we get 20% of our power from them and there's tons of neutrons being emitted with nothing better to do than make TRitium for us.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:nuclear reactors to the rescue by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Mckay had nearly driven her mad on the show as it was; could you imagine what would have happened if someone else as arrogant and annoying as myself were on the show as well? :)

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    5. Re:nuclear reactors to the rescue by necro81 · · Score: 1

      There is a program to restart tritium (and, by extension, 3-He) production at one of the Oak Ridge reactors. The problem, however, is that this can't be done with the push of a button. The reactor may need some retrofitting to accommodate the 6-Li stock, then there's the equipment to capture the tritium and purify it, then the wait for enough of it to decay to 3-He before you have a usable quantity. It's something that you'd hope someone would have had the foresight to have up and running, oh, a decade ago, but alas there isn't someone with that kind of foresight calling these shots.

      This is very similar to the occasional hiccups in the supply of medical radioisotopes. Most of the world's supply is produced by a relatively ancient heavy-water reactor in Canada. To reduce the risk, assure supply, and generally be smart, I would have expected the United States to develop its own production capabilities at some nuclear plant a long time ago.

      But, again, although there seems to be enough diffuse understanding of this problem in government, it isn't concentrated enough to create the necessary supercriticality to cause anything to happen.

    6. Re:nuclear reactors to the rescue by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      12 years is long enough to be a PITA, according to wikipedia that means you need 18 tons of tritium in storage for every ton of helium 3 production.

      And of course you have to make the tritium in the first place.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  14. ...like lung imaging. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Run 3He through a polarizer and feed it to someone in an MR scanner, and it lights up the airspace inside the lungs like a Christmas tree. Makes it dead easy to see ventilation defects (emphysema, etc.) and functional issues that are very difficult to spot with any other imaging technique. But Homeland Security Theater has jacked the price so high that even by medical-procedure standards it's prohibitively expensive.

    We've spent lots of hours designing and building a reclamation system so that we can collect the stuff, one MOUSE lungful at a time, and pump it into cylinders which we'll ship back to the supplier for purification. Yes, the amount a MOUSE breathes in a study is expensive enough to justify reclamation.

    We're also working on xenon imaging, which does some things almost as well as 3He, and some things better. It's still hideously expensive, but at least you can get it from the atmosphere, instead of painstakingly milking it from aging thermonukes.

    1. Re:...like lung imaging. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Rather than putting the 3He in the mouse, put the mouse in the 3He.

    2. Re:...like lung imaging. by lul_wat · · Score: 0

      We've spent lots of hours designing and building a reclamation system so that we can collect the stuff, one MOUSE lungful at a time

      How many Olympic-sized swimming pool is that?

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    3. Re:...like lung imaging. by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Alright, well you clearly sound like you know what you're talking about on this subject, so perhaps you could answer a few questions that are likely weighing heavily on many of our minds:

      1 - If I were to suck on a baloon filled with 3He, what would be the resulting effect on the frequency response of my vocal chords?
      2 - Same question as above, but replace "I" and "my" with "Mickey Mouse"
      3 - If I were to breathe reclaimed Mickey Mouse 3He, would I gain supernatural powers and large ears?
      4 - Have all those years on the steamboat given Mickey Mouse emphysema and does he have long to live?


      Inquiring minds must know!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    4. Re:...like lung imaging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it would be difficult to move mice without leakages, and a mouse fur can probably trap at least three mice breaths of gas...

    5. Re:...like lung imaging. by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Helium 3 is chemically indistinguishable from helium. For nearly any example you can think of, the answer is going to be "same as helium". (except for nuclear properties)

    6. Re:...like lung imaging. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Alas, when you mix 3He with oxygen, it starts depolarizing, fast. We've got to mix it on the fly, right before it goes into the mouse. It's tricky, but we've gotten the hang of it. (Royal "we" here; I'm just a data plumber.)

    7. Re:...like lung imaging. by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Informative
      Helium 3 is chemically indistinguishable from helium.

      However, the effect on the vocal cords is not chemical, it is physical. Because He is less dense than air, the vocal cords can vibrate faster in it than in air.

      Since He3 is less dense than He4, the effect will be slightly increased.

    8. Re:...like lung imaging. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I were to suck on a baloon filled with 3He, what would be the resulting effect on the frequency response of my vocal chords?

      Since it's about 25% less dense, it would make your voice go even higher than regular 4He. Especially if, right after you inhaled, we told you how much that lungful cost. (About $7k.)

      That's another way xenon is superior. It makes your voice go low, not high, as it's much denser than air -- and it gets you stoned, too.

    9. Re:...like lung imaging. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Especially if, right after you inhaled, we told you how much that lungful cost. (About $7k.)

      Don't worry, I borrowed a page from 42's playbook and didn't inhale...... ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:...like lung imaging. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LXe or GXe? Some 20 ton LXe dark matter detectors will be coming online in 10-15 years. Chances are this will lead to a significant increase in worldwide Xe production. After purchasing for those detectors is complete, Xe prices should drop.

      A nice alternative is LAr detectors. Much cheaper, they'll just require a larger volume due to the lower density. Trivial 3-d position reconstruction, only annoyance are the vacuum and cryogenic equipment.

    11. Re:...like lung imaging. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      That's another way xenon is superior. It makes your voice go low, not high, as it's much denser than air -- and it gets you stoned, too.

      Mmmmm... Hypoxia.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:...like lung imaging. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Xenon is a general anaestethic, so it isn't just hypoxia.

    13. Re:...like lung imaging. by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      How can it be an anesthetic, it's a noble gas - it doesn't react with anything, so no reaction no anesthesia.

    14. Re:...like lung imaging. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      That is a bit of a mystery, yes. WP mentions a hypothesis, where it interacts with the hydrophobic regions of a protein, thus changing the folding. But as long as we have no theory of what causes general anesthesia, it is difficult to speculate about what causes it in one particular instance.

    15. Re:...like lung imaging. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Ahh, yes, another model might explain it. In short, if nerve signals are solitons in the cell membranes, lowering the "melting point" of the membrane would require the solitons to be more energetic. If there is not enough energy present to make the soliton, the nerve signal cannot propagate, which would cause anaesthesia. As xenon is fat soluble, it would have this effect. But that model is highly speculative...

    16. Re:...like lung imaging. by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      By displacing the oxygen (since it's heavier than O2), you can get varying amounts of hypoxia (depending on how much Xe you breathe). It's a physical, not a chemical reaction.

      --

      -Bucky
    17. Re:...like lung imaging. by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Noble is not what it used to be:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_tetrafluoride
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_hexafluoride - my favorite Xe compound
      And generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_compounds
      Oops, new favorite Xe compound is: Xe Endohedral fullerene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endohedral_fullerene

    18. Re:...like lung imaging. by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Yes, chemistry of the nobel gases is fascinating. However, I don't think oxidation of xenon is going in in vivo. Clathrates might play a role, but not redox-chemistry.

    19. Re:...like lung imaging. by shentino · · Score: 1

      No, but it does crowd out the active oxygen you normally require to stay conscious.

      As an aside, why on earth you just made me your foe is beyond me.

  15. A problem for physics research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Helium-3 is also used for detecting neutrons in Neutron scattering experiments. Neutron scattering is used in lots of materials research, and for many purposes it's the only feasible technique. The strain on Helium-3 reserves is already felt when building new detectors or an old one needs the occasional refill.

  16. Program To Detect Smuggled Nuclear Bombs Stalls by thewils · · Score: 1

    I have programs that stall all the time. Just run it under a debugger and you'll see why almost immediately.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  17. 0.4 Kevins by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do you get 0.4 Kevins? Is this some sort of midget? It's dangerously close to 0 Kevins.

    My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.

    It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).

    Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.

    Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.

    At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last rights. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.

    It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.

    The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.

    It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.

    Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.

    1. Re:0.4 Kevins by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am sorry, but other than the midget crack in the first line, that was amusing and quite harmless.

    2. Re:0.4 Kevins by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last rights.

      "You have the right to die silently. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you on Judgement Day. You have the right to an attorney, although the judge is already omniscient so it's fairly pointless. If you cannot afford an attorney on Judgment Day don't worry, neither can anyone else. If you understand these rights as they have been read to you then say 'amen'."

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:0.4 Kevins by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      No, the problem with America is people whose arseholes are wound so tight they can't crack a smile.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:0.4 Kevins by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Last rights?

      Oh you mean last writes, no that doesnt seem rite either.

      (-:

    5. Re:0.4 Kevins by MrMr · · Score: 1

      It's a pity I don't have mod points, because that remark deserves +5 Funny.

    6. Re:0.4 Kevins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just pissed my pants from laughing so hard at this one!!!!!

      Nice!

    7. Re:0.4 Kevins by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's the joke.

    8. Re:0.4 Kevins by selven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last writes? You're going to die and all you care about is your filesystem?

  18. Umm, what? by syncrotic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's seriously a program aimed at developing and deploying a fleet of nuclear bomb detectors at every port in the United States?

    What kind of ridiculous bullshit is this? Did someone at the DHS watch a few episodes of 24 to come up with this? It's movie-plot anti-terrorism at its absolute worst: imaging ridiculously specific scenarios and spending enormous amounts of money to guard against them.

    As if a terrorist organization resourceful enough to obtain a *nuclear fucking weapon* would somehow have difficulty bringing it into the country. This is a nation into which several metric tonnes of cocaine and thousands of illegal immigrants are successfully smuggled every year, and someone imagines that they'll be able to erect a perfect wall to keep a few kilograms of metal out of the country?

    What congressman's nephew is being paid to make these detectors?

    1. Re:Umm, what? by horza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. It's not as though US law enforcement aren't being given insufficient tools for the job. Detention without charge, torture, no access to legal council for suspects, abductions of suspects from any country, mass surveillance without oversight, biometric controls at airports... Shouldn't the wholesale abandonment of liberty have bought you a bit of safety?

      Phillip.

    2. Re:Umm, what? by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Personal speedboat goes out a couple miles. Bomb is loaded onboard. Boat comes back in and is towed to the final destination hitched to an SUV. Just in case, also put a few kilos of cocaine onboard. That way if the police find it they'll take it to the impound yard in a populated area.

    3. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      god dammit, stop posting shit like this, terrorists read slashdot.

    4. Re:Umm, what? by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or just ship it in a commercial container and detonate the thing in the port of Los Angeles, it's not like it's remote.

    5. Re:Umm, what? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could be far far worse. These things could deployed in enough numbers to satisfy DHS, only to have a bomb still go off in the future.

      Two things will happen. The US will be locked up tighter than East Germany. Second, we will find ourselves in vigilant warfare conducted by our own citizens and ex-members of the armed forces. No nation on earth will stop the chaotic violence and bloodshed that will soon follow.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually it has.. major terrorist plots have been busted and prevented unneeded deaths because of these new tools.

      I, for one am glad these tools are at their disposal. Its kept us safe, and that's all I care about. Even the Messiah Obama hasn't rescinded any of them so he knows they are worth the price.

    7. Re:Umm, what? by deuterium · · Score: 1

      Politics. Some day, if something happens, someone might ask "why didn't we do this?" Fear of "common" sense.

    8. Re:Umm, what? by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it it totally impossible that a container could be added to a ship already at sea. I mean its not as if ships have cranes or anything.

    9. Re:Umm, what? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I saved all the good ideas. That was just the first thing off the top of my head. Anyone without a vested interest in the massive detector program would come up with it in an instant.

    10. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's seriously a program aimed at developing and deploying a fleet of nuclear bomb detectors at every port in the United States?

      What kind of ridiculous bullshit is this? Did someone at the DHS watch a few episodes of 24 to come up with this? It's movie-plot anti-terrorism at its absolute worst: imaging ridiculously specific scenarios and spending enormous amounts of money to guard against them.

      As if a terrorist organization resourceful enough to obtain a *nuclear fucking weapon* would somehow have difficulty bringing it into the country. This is a nation into which several metric tonnes of cocaine and thousands of illegal immigrants are successfully smuggled every year, and someone imagines that they'll be able to erect a perfect wall to keep a few kilograms of metal out of the country?

      What congressman's nephew is being paid to make these detectors?

      Hey! I know you! You're the same guy who'll be bitching and screaming at the top of his lungs about how the government should have known a nuclear terrorist attack was in the works and how they should have done something to stop it.

    11. Re:Umm, what? by stinkytoe · · Score: 4, Funny

      That kinda reminds me of what I heard Tom Clancy say in an interview once, and I am paraphrasing. When asked how one could bring a nuclear bomb into the states he said: "Just wrap it in cocaine and bring it through the Port if Miami."

    12. Re:Umm, what? by syncrotic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, you don't. Know me, I mean.

    13. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually work directly on this project. Ive been saying this all along jokingly to my coworkers. If they have been backpacking coke across remote borders for this many years...The technology and science behind it are fascinating and its really fun work but ultimately I just have a hard time believing in the end product. To me it just seems like some sort of stereotypical government pork barrel type project. Ah well, whatever brings home the bacon I guess

    14. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even those like myself who do have a vested interest in the program think about this sort of thing often. Its just the higher ups at DNDO and the like that seem to be clueless

    15. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't terrorist this brown guys with a towel in their heads, that rides camels and are all covered in sand, that do not believe in science, despise any trace of logic and have lower IQ's?But they actually read /.? Oh right mass media.

      also how do you know terrorist actually read /.? You sound like you actually "know"

    16. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Currently we have something around 94% detector coverage across all of our ports and 99.??? coverage of all mail in the US.

      Just to note, a terrorist attack will not be from a nuke. It will be from an orphaned radiation source:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

      All deaths were caused by hand contact from something found in a junkyard.

    17. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the summary (not even TFA!): "Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas."

    18. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, we don't.

    19. Re:Umm, what? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's going to work. Because it's impossible to load a bomb onto a ship while it is at sea.

      And impossibly to bribe someone in [insert shit hole shipping port] to get something loaded on the "wrong" ship.

    20. Re:Umm, what? by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it's impossible to load a bomb onto a ship while it is at sea.

      And a nuclear bomb is so big it can't fit into a modest-sized sailboat of the kind that people have been known to sail around the world in. There are thousands upon thousands of such boats, and the rate of inspection of cargo is pretty much nil. So unless you're going to stop everyone crusing along your coasts and inspect them, no matter how small the boat, you're going to have to live with the risk that nuclear weapons will be delivered to your shores.

      I'm sure the Organs of the State would love to institute a program of random coastal inspection. After all, harrassing innocent sailors is the only way to keep America safe, and the revenue they could generate from seizing yachts would no-doubt keep them in coke and hookers for a long, long time.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    21. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Personal speedboat goes out a couple miles."

      A couple of miles? The bomb's already in US waters at that point. Like roughly 10 miles in territorial, or including continguous 22 miles in. That's a pretty big f'ing oversight. Considering inspection would have been in the last 198miles, given economic zone rights.

      The whole point of detectors anyways isn't that they cannot be bypassed, but to detect what they can. And funnel traffic through other avenues that we'll then attempt to close.

      Personally, I'm in favor of the detectors for another reason--I think there is a lack of screening for radioactive materials in general products, and this could cut down on the spread. The scenario I'm thinking of is similar to that US national science lab that had detectors at the entry in case someone tried to steal material; instead, it detected incoming nuclear material in something that wasn't supposed to be at all radioactive.

      btw, isn't this hypothetical whole scenario crap you're thinking of the same shit that when Homeland thinks of, they get flak for? If you can do it, why can't they? Because they spend money and actually produce devices that might work, while you...well, sit in your mom's basement?

      "Bomb is loaded onboard."

      Speedboat consequently sinks from weight of the bomb plus triggering device and crate, putts back to port so slowly from the weight the coast guard figures something is wrong, or is caught speeding on the water anyways..

      Just kidding.

      "That way if the police find it they'll take it to the impound yard in a populated area."

      At which point it's still exploded at ground level, and the explosion goes freaking straight down and up. Damage, deadly, etc. and all that, sure, but they might as well have loaded diesel fuel and fertilizer in the same location.

      The real reason a nuclear device works is because it's detonated well before it hits the ground, using the overwhelming force so the blast crushes everything beneath it and the wave blows everything outside of it down from the force. Explode it at ground level, the force goes up and into air, or into the ground and the impacted is absorbed. Anything sideways is going to be negated quickly by buildings and such, and thus it acts like a regular bomb.

      So, even with your 24 scenario and little cocaine trick, the nuke acts more like a conventional bomb. Even the radiation fallout is limited due to ground impact, given most of the material ends up being buried.

    22. Re:Umm, what? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The difference between my theoretical thinking and DHS is that they use it as an excuse to spend a gadzillion dollars on new toys that won't do a bit of good and to curtail our rights which also won't do a bit of good. I use it to show why we're better off remaining a free country and spending the cash on something useful.

      It's apparent you spent your time learning lame insults rather than physics.

    23. Re:Umm, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now you know that the terrorists won the "war on terror" years and years ago.

      Create turmoil in america? Check.
      Cause financial chaos? Twin towers = check.
      Create a society run by fear? Check.

      Basically, they destroyed america with a few lives and some propaganda videos afterwards. Win, win, win.

      I just find it both sad and amusing that the USA keeps fighting this "war on terror" that they lost long ago. I mean seriously, accept your loss and move on! You can't win EVERY war.

  19. December 21st, 2012 by sexconker · · Score: 1

    You call twelve months plus twelve days of a year "just a few months"?

    You call 11 months, 20 days, and a few hours "twelve months plus twelve days"?

  20. welcome to science in the US by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems we know how to do just about anything these days, but lack the ability to actually get it done

  21. from the i-see-a-business-opportunity-here dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a coincidence that the cousin of the DoHS's director owns a chemical manufacturing plant that can produce helium 3...

  22. As he reads this, by byrdfl3w · · Score: 0

    Ken Welch is dancing a jig in reverse.

  23. Another Crisis? by Vengance+Daemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is there anything going on in the U.S. today that is NOT a "national crisis"? We need a break.

    1. Re:Another Crisis? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      That's a consequence of an increasingly powerful and omnipresent central government. It makes "raising alarms" the most efficient way to get funding; far more efficient than civilized discussion or hard work. (It is also known as "begging for a handout".) It's infected industry, science, and personal finance.

    2. Re:Another Crisis? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the consequence of giving anyone the position to make announcements and proclamations. Even without the government, night news would still be on at 6 to tell you that something IN YOUR HOME or AT SCHOOL or ON THE JOB can kill you!!!

    3. Re:Another Crisis? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      feck

      on at 6 to tell you at 11.

  24. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by caluml · · Score: 1

    No one petitioned a military judge to order his arrest.

    It's illegal to speak out against things?

  25. another way to make tritium by jfb2252 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    International Committee on Future Accelerators Beam Dynamics section newsletter abstract under the URL.

    While the emphasis in the six articles is on transmutation of nuclear waste and accelerator driven nuclear power plants, the same accelerators can generate neutrons to breed tritium from lithium. The fusion demonstration ITER will have blanket with lithium to demonstrate breeding since its fuel is a deuterium-tritium mixture.

    It would be lovely for the US accelerator community if the US DHS forked over $1.5B for a system to breed tritium and, in its spare time, transmute long lived waste isotopes so used fuel rods would decay to radiation levels below that of natural uranium ore within one thousand instead of one hundred thousand years.

    http://www-bd.fnal.gov/icfabd/Newsletter49.pdf

    The theme is "Accelerator Driven Sub-Critical Assemblies (ADS) and its challenge to accelerators." This is a topic that could have a deep impact on the future of our society. As we all know, developing clean energy and protecting the environment are two top priorities in countries around the world. ADS is an accelerator-based technology that may provide a viable solution to these major problems. Jiuqing collected 6 excellent articles in the theme section. They give a comprehensive review of this important accelerator field, including valuable lessons learned from the past.

    1. Re:another way to make tritium by confused+one · · Score: 2, Funny

      Another method would be to fund a few prototype generation IV power plants. A gas-cooled fast reactor should fit the bill nicely.

  26. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0

    mod parent up, i burned my points and my karma for the day!

    --
    "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  27. we don't need no steenkin' helium by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    large mass of plastic and scintillating material is all that's needed, someone is just making excuses

    1. Re:we don't need no steenkin' helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto,I worked on cosmic ray detection 5 years ago and if you setup 2 chuncks of plastic with some photomultipliers you can even use the background radiation to identify packages that contain shielding.

  28. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by jfb2252 · · Score: 1

    RTFA. It states that He-3 is being supplied comercially by the US and Russia. Total available ~20,000 liters/year. With DHS, annual requirement is 65,000 liters/year. I've seen another article, which I didn't bother to search for, which suggested the Russian's had cut back on selling the stuff until the price went up still more.

  29. CANDU reactors by debrain · · Score: 4, Informative

    A byproduct of CANDU reactors is Helium-3.

    I'm not the first to note this, evidently.

    1. Re:CANDU reactors by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      CANDU

      That's the right attitude! ;-)
      You show those "can't do" guys how it's done!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:CANDU reactors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadian helium-3, eh? That stuff isn't bad, but since national security is at stake, I think they'll insist on real American helium-3.

  30. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by retchdog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apparently it is, if you're in the military and the "things" you are speaking out against are the United States and/or its armed forces. Uniform Code of Military Justice, article 134: "GENERAL ARTICLE: Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special , or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_article_(military_law)

    Admittedly that's the final "catch all" article intended to close the loopholes above. Still, by the letter of the law...

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  31. It stalled because... by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 3, Funny

    I probably stalled because it is near impossible to tell the difference between a smuggled nuclear bomb and a TSA approved nuclear bomb in check luggage.

  32. Check the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there's plenty on sale in Jita.

  33. Use BF3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just get the bloody shipping regs to recognize that a wee bit of BF3 in a radiation detector is not a major hazmat issue. BF3 tubes tended to be the norm for neutron detectors until a change in the HAZMAT regs a few years ago... The regs just need to be amended to include an excepted quantity rule for BF3 in a rad detector. Problem solved.

  34. Moderators don't know El Reg units... by IvyKing · · Score: 1

    Since we're talking about mouse lungfuls, either a Bulgarian airbag or Bulgarian funbag would give an answer with fewer leading zeroes.

  35. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by peragrin · · Score: 1

    shh don't spoil his ignorace by letting him whine. we don't want people to believe they actually have freedom afterall.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  36. please please mod this noble sir up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please please mod this noble sir up

  37. Hey Wicked Cool! by gbutler69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just finished working on this project a year ago. I worked as a sub-contractor for Thermo-Fisher Scientific, one of the prime contractors, to DNDO, DHS, and CBP. It was an interesting project. My team was responsible for developing the command and control software for these systems. Had a lot of ups and downs. The technology works fairly well. We did A LOT of testing of the system in both laboratory and field conditions in order to validate the software. Got to travel to great and wonderous places like Nevada Test Site, Southampton, UK, and Antwerp, Belgium. Who'd a thought something like this would put a monkey in the works?

    Funny anecdote: When we installed the system in Southampton, UK, the British and Eurpoean Union representatives were most interest in if it could detect "Cigarettes"? Man, they wanna make sure they collect that tax on your smokes!

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:Hey Wicked Cool! by u38cg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, year on year, cigarettes kill more people than nukes. Amazing, really, and it's just a plant.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  38. Who Pays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article mentions a cost per container of as much as $12.00. Who pays this cost? Is it the shippers? Will it lead to higher prices on imported goods. The program is bound to be in effect for a long time to come and these are important questions.

  39. Say hello to expensive bananas by Interoperable · · Score: 1

    I have nothing more to add.

    --
    So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
  40. Serious physics question by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Regarding nuclear fusion. It is often said that Hydrogen fusion will produce Helium 4 which will then emit a neutron to become Helium 3 - some argument about the Helium 4 having too much energy to remain that way. To digress a bit - this was used as evidence against cold fusion (the neutrons should have killed them). So I looked it up and Helium 4 is far more abundant than 3 both on earth and apparently on the moon. As you can see by the abundance of kids balloons, we are not out of Helium 4 which is in much wider use. So can someone explain to me where all the Helium 4 comes from that was supposed to emit neutrons and turn into Helium 3???

    Thanks,

    1. Re:Serious physics question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps D + D -> He-3 + n. There is no He-4 intermediate (a misconception). It is impossible for He-4 to be formed as D + D -> He-4, as there is only one particle on the right and this would violate either conservation of energy or momentum. In the "too much energy" interpretation you cite, it means that the fusion reaction releases 10's of MeV of energy into the fusion products' kinetic energies, but there is only one product (He-4), and it is at rest in one inertial frame, so there is no kinetic energy - a contradiction. So the reaction is not possible.

      (It is also relevant that nuclei have very limited internal structure, so it is not feasible for this extra energy to go into sub-nuclear motion. If you throw a macroscopic object into a wall, and it stops, conservation of energy is not violated, because it goes into other degrees of freedom (the movement of constituent atoms, that is heat). This does not work with nuclei, hence the counter-intuitive physics.)

      He-4 and He-3 are both stable. He-4 does not decay into He-3.

    2. Re:Serious physics question by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I can't both mod you up and ask a followup question.

      In ordinary chemical reactions, which I'm more familiar with, the conservation of momentum problem is solved by having a third molecule participate in the collision. The 3-forming-2 collision allows energy and momentum to be conserved, but it does seriously limit the rate at which the reaction can proceed.

      So is something like
      D + D + M --> 4He + M
      allowed, where M is an arbitrary atom? Or is it just too hard to get 3 nuclei at the same place at the same time?

    3. Re:Serious physics question by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thanks for clarification of the argument that He4 can't be created in a fusion reaction. My main question remains: Why is there so much more He4 in the universe than He3 when Helium is primarily supposed to come from fusion reactions in stars?

      You can't have it both ways. The evidence (over abundance of He4) suggests that He4 DOES get created in fusion reactions, and hence our models of nuclear fusion must be incomplete.

  41. Congress blocks progress again. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    'I have not heard any explanation of why this was not entirely foreseeable,' says Representative Brad Miller, chairman of a House subcommittee that is investigating the problem.
     
    To some extent it wasn't foreseeable - this program is part of the fallout of 9/11. OTOH, we've had this program coming down the pike for years.
     
    In reality, the DoE has been asking for funding to expand tritium production (for a wide variety of uses) since the mid 90's (correctly foreseeing that there would be a shortage of a material with a limited life span) and Congress has routinely refused the funding.

  42. Why bring a Nuke into the Country? by deboli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't need to land the bomb to cause lots of damage. Anyone resourceful enough to get hold of a nuclear bomb will probably know about the detection system and the best risk avoidance is to detonate it before unloading. You could detonate it below the waterline (in the ship) or above ground (hoisted off deck by the port crane) to be as destructive as possible. No detection possible unless you scan cargo 20km offshore.

    1. Re:Why bring a Nuke into the Country? by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      Congress has mandated that, by 2012, all containers bound for the US be inspected overseas.

      Is 'overseas' more than 20km offshore?

  43. National Crisis: America Needs Break, Urgently by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    WASHINGTON - Yet another national crisis shakes the American people as the White House announced that America is in dire need of a break from all those national crisises. "It's really getting to me," a visibly aggravated Barack Obama told the press, "first we have yet another terrorist warning, then we're out of nuclear weapons to build nuclear weapon detectors and just this morning I had three more peak oil predictions on my desk." Obama then curled up into a fetal position, rocking back and forth, mumbling to himself: "No more crisises, please, make it stop!"

    "If we look at the numbers, it's really clear that we're currently at a record crisis high," told us crisis expert Albert E. Backenhauer in an interview. "We've got the onslaught of national crisises an economic depression brings with it in addition to the ongoing wars on drugs, terrorism and consumers. If this keeps up and, say, the Super Bowl gets canceled because of persisting bad weather, this country might go tits up." He then looked at our reporter like a cow looks at an oncoming train and added: "Oh shit, now they're recursive!" before proceeing to jump out of his window.

    The internet has yet to take a stance on this delicate issue, although seasoned YouTube pundit dirtysanchezlol offered a silver lining of hope by reassuring us that "everythings normal youre still all gay fags".

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    1. Re:National Crisis: America Needs Break, Urgently by 12WTF$ · · Score: 1

      s/crisises/crises/

      --
      Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
    2. Re:National Crisis: America Needs Break, Urgently by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      There's too many crisises to still call them "crises". It's like fish and fishes. If you have lots of different fish you have fishes. If you have lots of different crises you have crisises.

      Also, be careful or you could start a news media orthography crisis.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  44. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ROFLMAO, come on mods, he cant be serious.

    No one is THAT stupid surely.

    Then again whenever someone writes Barrack "Hussein" Obama you just never know if they are real paranoid right wing nutjobs, or just satirising them.

    Words cannot describe how much I enjoy their terrified thrashing around now a decent intelligent black man is President. Fun times.

  45. dog are not that good of a tool.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dog are controlled by the cops...
    they are partial...

    tools with black box logging are not..

  46. Problem across many fields by diqrtvpe · · Score: 1

    As a low-temperature physicist, I've been following this issue for some time now, as have many others in my field. At a conference this summer there was a panel discussion on the problem, and how seriously it is affecting not just the low-temp physics community, but many others, as well. A few years ago we could buy He-3 for a few hundred dollars per gaseous liter; it is now pretty much impossible to get your hands on any new He-3, and the prices quoted are in the many thousands of dollars per liter (for when it does eventually become available). As another poster above pointed out, it's used in dilution refrigerators to achieve sub-Kelvin temperatures, necessary for many scientific experiments, as well as some other specialized applications. As others have also pointed out, it's used for MRI; and obviously it's used for neutron detection. There are myriad applications for He-3, and only some of them can be achieved with lesser efficiency with other materials. Part of the reason prices were so low until very recently is that the government had tens of thousands of liters stockpiled, collected over time from tritium decay. A decision was made to start releasing the stockpile, and so global production was bolstered by this stockpiled material, which, while substantial, pales in comparison to the amounts required by DHS. The stockpile has been steadily shrinking for a number of years, and even if we were to access it and use it, that would be a very brief respite to the shortage. He-3 production has been decreasing as we disarm, and it's mind-boggling to think that nobody in the government saw this coming. They're basically the only ones producing He-3, so you'd think they'd be able to do the simple math and see that the amount they'd need to implement their plan would be leaps and bounds beyond what even the US and Russia combined could supply. On a slightly more technical note, this is also very bad news for the low-temperature community. As mentioned before, dilution fridges need He-3 to function, but they also generally need to be immersed in a bath of liquid He-4. With the global He-4 shortage that has also recently been in the news, most new dilution fridges are now what is called cryogen-free, not requiring the bath of 4K He-4 to stay cold, and thus not requiring hundreds of dollars of helium to be cycled through the system daily. However, the cryogen-free fridges happen to require a significantly larger quantity of He-3 to get cold. So not only are we forced to move away from more traditional helium-cooled cryostats, we're also currently unable to fill any of the new type of fridge, at least until the hold on He-3 is lifted, and then probably at significantly increased prices. In the most recent issue of Science there was an article about this, and there's a quote from of one of the dilution fridge manufacturers that if things don't change for the better, they will be out of business in a year. All thanks to the monumental short-sightedness of DHS.

  47. Canada has lots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just buy tritium from Canada, we have lots at the Tritium Removal Facility at Darlington.

  48. Tritium production is politically impossible by forand · · Score: 1, Informative

    The reason Helium 3 is not being produced from Tritium is that storage and generation of tritium has been made politically impossible after a few accidents involving releases near the public. Oddly this doesn't seem to be mentioned on the wikipedia page. But google finds some of the coverage like this from LBL.

    1. Re:Tritium production is politically impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my gaaawd, unsupervised release of a beta emitter! I might actually get irradiated by electrons!

      And if that sounds like Zippy the Pinhead, that's kinda the point. What's with the public's fear of anything and everything nuclear?

    2. Re:Tritium production is politically impossible by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      The source you cite is gibberish.

      "It is now known that low-level radiation is five times more dangerous than bomb radiation with respect to human chromosome damage." Even linear no-threshold is disputable, and their going as far as inverse hormesis is just silly.

      Each cell of a human's body has to cope with about 20000 DNA damage events per year from oxidative damage, and natural radiation adds about 5 such events. Maximum allowed exposure adds another 2-3 events. They also completely omit the fact that there are considerable doses of radioactivity to be found in almost anything in the environment. Potassium-40 in an average human's body generates over 4000 beta decays PER SECOND. And they fail to mention that even under LNT, harm is assumed to be proportional to exposure - sufficiently small doses are completely negligible because they might on average reduce your lifespan by a fraction of a second. It's more rational to worry about a meteor hitting you on the head.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  49. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by 4181 · · Score: 1

    Then again whenever someone writes "Barrack Hussein Obama" you just never know ...

    That's why I took all those headlines on 2008-11-05 with a grain of salt.

  50. I call BS on several levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One:

    We're not out of He3, not even close, and you can buy a He3 detector if you can afford it. I just did, and I'm neither a government guy, or in some eyes, a legit scientist (my degree is elsewhere). But I do nuclear fusion (D-D) research here on my own time and money (programming made me well off) and needed some good detectors for my work, called up LND, and no problem - they are expensive to be sure, but not unavailable, not hardly, they really wanted a sale. And more He3 can be made, just like the stuff we had was "made", primarily. You can thank a recent administration for releasing zillions of tons of our strategic reserve of He (some of which was recoverable He3) because they didn't want to pay the rent on the salt domes it was stuffed under. Thanks George. Was it somehow affecting your profit kickbacks from wanna be oil wells in the same area of Texas?

    But more is coming out of just about every gas or oil well all the time -- you just have to decide it's worth saving (and pay the money to separate it from all the other junk, but it's an easier separation than for heavier elements). A He3 detector doesn't need all that much. A really good one might be a 1" diameter tube a couple feet long stuffed with 10 atmospheres worth, but it takes quite a lot less than that to make a decent detector. That one, I bought, it cost about 2.5k$. They go down in price and sensitivity to about $700 (it's kind of a limited competition market, they get $700 for sneezing in your general direction and $100 for a line cord) and up to the sky for really large ones, which are really just a lot of little ones stuffed into the same moderator.

    Two:
    No you can't just use more other kinds of detectors to get the same sensitivity. There are only so many neutrons coming out of the source, and the other types have far lower quantum efficiency re detection, but once you're got a moderator, the ones that don't "hit" a detector are more or less lost, no second chance, maybe, certainly no third.

    The B10 class detectors (B10 lined tubes or BF3 gas geigers) are only sensitive to slow neutrons, just like He3, but far less quantum efficient (and He3 ain't that great). You can't just stuff them all over the place and not have a moderator to up sensitivity beyond a point.
    And -- they also see gamma rays etc, and produce one heck of a background count on things like cosmic rays and kitty litter (which does not give off neutrons, very few things do in fact).

    To discriminate against the increased background count of the Boron types, you need to count longer -- much longer.
    (See statistics 101, it's kind of depressing when the counts are about the same as background --)

    There are other neutron detectors, scintillator plastics that are large area and can see recoil protons from collisions with fast neutrons, and an interesting design called a Hornyak detector, some of which I've made myself. Not in the same class, and see "background". I doubt we want to push screened things into underground mines to kill off the cosmic background.
    Which isn't even the only one, there's still that kitty litter. That's what they make gamma ray spectrometers for, by the way, and we're not close to running out of the stuff to make them out of, any of the several technologies that can be used, depending on the resolution you need. And, oh, gammas are what mostly come out of weapons fuel, along with alphas that are easy to shield against, a piece of paper stops them. And oh yes, daughter products -- radon and so on that are more or less impossible to stop leaking out. The sad thing is, a nuke just doesn't make that much noise about itself until bang time.

    Would you like to wait essentially forever if each screen took an hour, and there were 10,000 things an hour needing it?
    At every port of entry? It adds up fast.

    Not that this is really needed for the DHS job, they just like to have the nicest and best of everything *your* money can buy them, to cover their butts. Now that

  51. we require more vespene gas by loteck · · Score: 1
    someone needs to teach the US gov how to micromanage their units better. fortunately for us we seem to have early expansion down pretty well.

    maybe the koreans can help?

  52. Jupitoris Fleet! by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

    It's the time for us to build the Jupitoris fleet -- Mohammad Ikhsan

  53. inspected overseas. by jamesh · · Score: 1

    inspected overseas

    Date of scan - 24 Nov 2009
    Results of scan - No radioactivity detected
    Operator - Osama

    impossible to NOT ship a weapon in a large cargo container.

    Definitely. I'd be more worried by the ones that arrive under their own power :)

  54. the lead factor? by bob_slash_kbd · · Score: 1

    Sorry if I'm dense (!) but if you just wrap your nuclear bomb in a lot of lead, doesn't that make it pretty much invisible to any detector?

    1. Re:the lead factor? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Except a halfway cheap xray will notice this giant hole in the scanner, and you'll get flagged for a hand-search anyway. Which is why I doubt we need such highly sensitive detectors at all.

  55. Didn't Slashdot talk about this last year? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Well, not directly He3 I guess, but we did talk about a helium shortage coming... http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/14/0219246

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Didn't Slashdot talk about this last year? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that He3 was so rare in natural helium and/or so hard to extract from it that separating it out was not considered viable.

      The main source of He3 is as a by-product of the use of tritium in nuclear weapons.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  56. There are other technologies available. by Animats · · Score: 1

    Competitive technologies are available. Here's a commercial small, low-cost neutron monitor. That uses zinc sulfide with boron. Boron detectors seem to be gaining on helium-3 detectors. What seems to have happened is that Homeland Security locked onto a specific detector technology and supplier, and now the supplier has problems. This is a bureaucracy problem, not a technology problem.

  57. Sorry, I ate some of it. by mudshark · · Score: 2, Funny

    Back in the 1960s and 70s, a small factory made glow-in-the-dark clock and watch faces across the street from the bakery and kitchens for my school district. They used a paint which released tritium as it dried, and their fume hoods vented out the roof (why not? plenty of air circulation!) and the prevailing breezes carried a nice dose of alpha particles across the street on most days to settle out on the food that we were served. When somebody somewhere was tipped off that this arrangement may not have been completely kosher, some local muckrakers and a couple of curious scientists showed up with a Geiger counter. One dish in particular, sunshine cake, was damn hot and legend has it that the name alludes to its brightness....I blame all my societal maladjustment on this lapse in food safety.

    Kids, don't trust the food just because the lady with the hairnet says it's OK. Get it checked out by one of the guys in the hazmat suits.

    --
    In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
    1. Re:Sorry, I ate some of it. by Otter+Popinski · · Score: 1

      a nice dose of alpha particles

      I know I'm being pedantic, but I think you mean beta particles.

    2. Re:Sorry, I ate some of it. by mudshark · · Score: 1

      Nope, alpha. Cheers.

      --
      In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
    3. Re:Sorry, I ate some of it. by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      Tritium does not emit alpha particles.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  58. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    ROFLMAO, come on mods, he cant be serious.

    I wasn't. Unlike you guys, we right wingers are capable of self deprecation.

    Words cannot describe how much I enjoy their terrified thrashing around now a decent intelligent black man is President. Fun times

    Well, at least we know that all of this so-called social justice crap really is the euphemism for hating white people that we suspected it to be. Having heard "finally its our time" and all this other crap from so-called minorities, we can say with great confidence now that 90% of liberal identity politics is just racism. I mean, if, as Jesse Jackson says that it would be stupid for a black guy to vote against the health care bill, then, why should a white guy vote for it?

    --
    This is my sig.
  59. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

    Because it's good for whites as well? Or is this some kind of battle between blacks and whites where the whites must come out far ahead?

  60. How tell if the is a real crisis in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheney will be cowering in his Bunker

    That is all

    1. Re:How tell if the is a real crisis in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, did you have a point? Other than the fact that you didn't get the memo that Barack Hussein Obama begged us to let him own this shit storm, and now he does?

  61. Not a real biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada has had heavy water reactors for years. Unlike American light water nuclear reactors (which have enriched fuel and a light moderator), Canada has less-enriched fuel, but uses heavy water as a moderator. Once spent fuel rods are removed from the reactor core, they are assembled into bundles and stored in pools of water. Most of the radioactivity is gone, but what little remains makes the water slightly radioactive, and as a by-product of that, a certain amount of tritium is produced. You want it baby? We got it. Take all you want, all sales final. Remember the half life of this stuff is 12 years, so 50 metric tons of this stuff will still have 0.48 kg radioactive in 200 years. (50 metric tons is 50000 kg, and 50000 * .5 ^ (200/12) = 0.48).

  62. Waste Fraud and Abuse by anorlunda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The NYT article says that the current demand for H3 is 65,000 liters per year. WTF!!!

    I can't believe that so much H3 is needed for new screening machines. It must be true that the machines are leaking the H3 or contaminating it and thus needing to replenish it all the time.

    If it were private industry rather than Homeland Security that wanted the screening function, the regulators would force them to refine the design until they need only one liter or less per machine, and then to protect the asset so that it never leaks or gets contaminated. One liter per ten years per screening machine sounds like a more reasonable quota.

    I attribute this crisis to the inability of government to regulate itself.

    By the way, I live on my sailboat and cruise internationally. I know that hundreds of thousands of recreational boats enter the USA every year. Every one of them is capable of carrying one or more nuclear warheads. Are these boats screened? No. In many cases they just call a 800 number to report their entry.

  63. I hope that the dollar sinks further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With China having their RMB tied to the dollar, the difference between the euro, Canadia/Austalian dollar, Yen, Peso vs. the RMB will become so great, that western nations will finally say enough is enough and take action.

  64. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Well, at least we know that all of this so-called social justice crap really is the euphemism for hating white people that we suspected it to be.

    You know, when someone hates a class of people, let's say Catholics (the boy-rape really makes them a convenient target) they don't hate every member of the class. At the same time, Catholics will take ownership of people ("they are good catholics, there are 42532362632 of us") until they become too inconvenient, and then they decry their actions. Perhaps we the light-colored people of the world should take up our lead pipes and smite down the racist whites so that the rest of us can move on down the road. No? Then I guess we'll just have to accept that many persons of color will despise us all, since we all look the same.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  65. Why don't they just tell everybody!! by DNX+Blandy · · Score: 1

    I mean, we have no Helium 3 left, lets tell everybody so they know that they can import nukes without being found out. I would have thought it best to keep this sort of thing COMPLETELY under wraps, what the enemy don't know doesn't hurt.

    1. Re:Why don't they just tell everybody!! by DNX+Blandy · · Score: 1

      As a comparason, it's like me developing an online project, releasing it live, find a security hole and then putting a news item on the front page telling everyone about it and how to exploit it. Stupid.

  66. It's not hypoxia. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    If it were hypoxia, you'd get the same effect from helium. You don't.

    If it were hypoxia, that would imply that we aren't co-administering oxygen. We are.

    It's an anesthetic, albeit a mysterious one, and like other anesthetics, it exerts its effect even without hypoxia.

    "Heavier" has nothing to do with it, unless you're filling a room with xenon from the bottom. Most places don't have the budget for that. It apparently costs around $30/liter -- better than 3He's $2000/liter, but still pricey.

  67. One Invisible Hand clapping by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    "... the 'price had jumped to $2,000 a liter from $100 in the last few years.

    Profit! Further evidence that the free market works: the sound of one Invisible Hand clapping.

    --
    -kgj
  68. We buy their oil... by ebombme · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should just buy some from Iran...

  69. Speak for yourself... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    ...I have a fluorine-based metabolism, you insensitive clod!

    1. Re:Speak for yourself... by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      And are apparantly oxidative enough to oxidize O2 to O2 +
      Must be tough in this atmosphere...

    2. Re:Speak for yourself... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? It's like swimming in food!

      (Apparently, you can actually polarize fluorine and image with it, too. I seem to remember talking with someone about using SF6 as a contrast agent. I don't know if anybody's working on it, though.)

  70. Mod parent up by Starlet+Monroe · · Score: 1

    This. Exactly this.

    Whoever modded this +1 Funny instead of +1 Insightful must have misclicked. The capabilities of the gen IV plants are absolutely unreal; in addition to their staggeringly more effective power generation, they have safety features built into their design that make them the generators of choice. They would also provide us the ability to deliver ultra-high-temperatures for next-generation materials work, produce hydrogen for fuel cells, and desalinate water. That's basically all of our problems solved except carbon scrubbing from the atmosphere.

    --
    ++
  71. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    I was replying to the post below yours.

    Watch otu though your racism is showing, despite your attempts to hide it.

  72. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    No? Then I guess we'll just have to accept that many persons of color will despise us all, since we all look the same.

    As I said, that would be what they call racism.

    --
    This is my sig.
  73. Re:Is there plenty in Russia? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I came to expect the Native Americans at the casino where I used to work to treat me a certain way, and except for the small group that I interacted with regularly which was about my age and gets my sense of humor, I was seldom disappointed, so to speak.

    I don't think I've ever met a racial group that wasn't racist. If my family associates itself with any race in particular it's Mexican... don't get ANY of us started on Mexicans, though. (If you just drove up the 101 from the San Diego area, trying to go at a good clip all the while, you'd be pissed at them too.)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"