Slashdot Mirror


The Outfall of a Helium-3 Crisis

astroengine writes "The United States is currently recovering from a helium isotope crisis that last year sent low-temperature physicists scrambling, sky-rocketed the cost of hospital MRI's, and threw national security staff out on a search mission for alternate ways to detect dirty bombs. Now the panic is subsiding, what is being done to conserve, or replace, helium-3?"

185 comments

  1. an outlaw of balloons by Dan667 · · Score: 1, Troll

    based on how the government usually operates I expect this would be a typical response.

    1. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      based on how the government usually operates I expect this would be a typical response.

      Apples and oranges, Helium 3 is an isotope of Helium. It's kind of like saying we need to conserve water because there's Tritium in it. There will be a shortage of regular Helium as well soon so it's ironic it's still cheap. Helium 3 was a bi-product of cold war weapons making but since we stopped trying to see how many Hydrogen Bombs we could make there's been little or no Helium 3 produced in decades. There were once huge stockpiles but they are largely gone now.

    2. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apples and oranges, Helium 3 is an isotope of Helium. It's kind of like saying we need to conserve water because there's Tritium in it.

      Whoosh!

    3. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The government is not out to get you. Besides; balloons are a small fraction of helium usage.

    4. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahem. The government is not out to get you.

    5. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOOD. We've been foolishly squandering our fucking helium. This shit is not renewable; at le.

    6. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the government is so stupid then how did it make all of that Helium-3 to begin with? That stuff didn't come from your beloved "free market," quit making a fool of yourself.

    7. Re:an outlaw of balloons by AlecC · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They made it for one purpose - building H-bombs. Once they had stockpiles of it, other more constructive uses were found for it. Then they more-or-less gave up the original purpose, so they abandoned the production line. precisely because there was no free market, the new uses had been getting a free ride from the bomb makers. When the bomb makers stopped producing it, the others were left flailing around. This is /precisely/ the kind of problem that arises when resources are allocated by the commands of bureaucrats instead of a market mechanism - the Soviet Union was full of it. The value of something is either ignored completely ir is frozen arbitrarily at some point early in the life of the product.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    8. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing stopping "the market" from doing this, it's just that there's no particular motivation to do it in the first place.

      People misunderstand the market. It's not a cornucopia, it's just a wealth distribution mechanism. The result of the market may as well just be that medical procedures requiring He-3 just get priced out of reach for anyone who isn't a celebrity or executive.

    9. Re:an outlaw of balloons by AlecC · · Score: 0

      I agree that there is nothing special about the market. But state intervention can destroy a market. If He-3 had not been a state monopoly, a market would have developed - and might well have found cheaper ways of producing the desired commodity. And the current shortage may result in such a market appearing, in five or ten years. It is just a pity that it was not enabled to do so earlier

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    10. Re:an outlaw of balloons by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      There is no malice from the Government - it's a case where they're too flipping stupid to be malicious.

      But then, of course, any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

    11. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Danse · · Score: 2

      I won't bother with a list of anecdotes.. they're easily searchable. you are wrong.

      I love it. The old "my argument is so good, I don't even have to make it" argument.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    12. Re:an outlaw of balloons by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's incorrect.

      Helium-3 is a *byproduct* of the *existence* of hydrogen bombs. More specifically, byproduct of the existence of tritium. Tritium decays into helium-3. Helium-3 was unwanted, while tritium was wanted; there were actually some projects to attempt to convert the helium-3 back into tritium.

      This shortage has absolutely nothing to do with how easy or hard helium-3 is to produce or acquire, nor is it a testament to how "free market planning" works so much better than central planning. Quite the opposite, this is a well known phenomenon of free markets: products which are of lower value and which are produced in a limited number of places as a byproduct of producing a more valuable goods can be extremely vulnerable to price swings.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    13. Re:an outlaw of balloons by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Simple, they buy it from Canada.

  2. Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just get it from the moon, it's much more abundant there. Or, skim from the cloudtops of the gas giants.

    1. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Senes · · Score: 1

      The moon is hard enough on its own, but gas giants have much higher gravity than Earth.

      Combine this with the fact that it takes us an incredibly long time to reach one of those planets, and we're looking at something that is still quite a long ways off. If anything, we're going to need a substantial economic boom before it becomes possible to dump funding into space programs again.

      The thing is, we're looking at a problem that exists right now and we need solutions right now - not decades down the road.

    2. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Informative

      For anyone who has problems visualizing the gravity wells: http://xkcd.com/681_large/

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      best xkcd ever!

    4. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build some more atomic weapons.

    5. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Build some more atomic weapons.

      That's a really silly idea. They shouldn't build any more atomic weapons until they've used up the ones they've got.

    6. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Obviously, we should be scooping He3 from Deimos or Phobos.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    7. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we should have yearly quotas for use. Human nature being what it is most nuclear powers would slack off until the Christmas to New Years week to lob 'em.

    8. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by Rei · · Score: 2

      "Just get it from the moon" -- as though it doesn't cost $5-15k per kilogram just to get a *vehicle* into *low earth orbit*. Let alone the surface of the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon and hauling enough manpower and equipment to mine the moon. For something that's found in parts-per-billion quantities, mixed in with parts-per-million quantities of something that's essentially chemically identical (He-4).

      It's way, way easier to produce He3 here on earth; it's a decay product of tritium, which is bred from lithium which is exposed to a neutron flux (aka, a lithium blanket in a nuclear reactor). Which is why it was a byproduct of our thermonuclear weapon stockpile; as they sit, their tritium slowly decays.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    9. Re:Moon, or harvest from gas giants by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Its at .01ppm or about 10000x less than commercial U ore. It is 100x easier to make it here. Even today without fusion.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  3. Mining the Moon, of course by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    Mind you, all I know about the subject is an old Macintosh game ...

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by korgitser · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Moonbase, played it on pc.

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    2. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was just reading about Helium-3 on the far side of the moon earlier today...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon#Potential

    3. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by shawb · · Score: 2

      More information about some of the unexpected difficulties in Lunar mining can be found in this documentary I just watched today.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    4. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 1

      I think we're living in dire times and must construct Mooncraft, but beware of the creepers...

    5. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Great film but they could have skipped making hundreds of clones by sending me. I would love to live on the moon.

    6. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by CTU · · Score: 1

      I think we're living in dire times and must construct Mooncraft, but beware of the creepers...

      LMAO...BEST COMMENT EVER!!!!!!!

      Tho I'd be a bit more worried about the skeletons myself.

    7. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      "Thats some very nice helium-3 you have there. Be a shame if something would happen to it. ssssssssssssssssssssss"

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    8. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Of course, real gamers know that the hardest part of doing anything on the moon is just landing.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You think that's the worst? That's just the beginning. Wait 'till the freakin' Russians show up. The helium is just a cover. It's really about the biometal.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Lag.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    11. Re:Mining the Moon, of course by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      Funny this should come up today. I just started watching Moonlight Mile the other night.

  4. This is easy by WizADSL · · Score: 0

    There's tons of it on the moon....

    1. Re:This is easy by PPH · · Score: 1

      There's tons of it on the moon....

      So all we have to do is to solve the Sam Rockwell clone shortage problem.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:This is easy by dryeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Spread very thin though. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial_supplies

      The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm in sunlit areas,[40][41] and concentrations as much as five times higher in permanently shadowed regions.[2] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[42] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 100 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3),[43] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.[citation needed]

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:This is easy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      There's tons of it on the moon....

      So all we have to do is to solve the Sam Rockwell clone shortage problem.

      I believe he has an Infinite Improbability drive so cloning him should be just a matter of finding how improbable it is.

    4. Re:This is easy by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Also the regolith is quite dense and tightly packed. Astronauts had trouble pushing a probe more than 20cm or so into the surface. So your mining equipment would have to skim the surface and deal with a lot of rocks and irregularities. Thats a lot of problems to solve for a little bit of Helium 3.

  5. no idea what this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have no idea what this post is even about, slashdot has really gone downhill

    1. Re:no idea what this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have no idea what this post is even about, slashdot has really gone downhill

      I have no idea what you are posting about. Anonymous Cowards are still the same.

      *initiate recursive logic*

    2. Re:no idea what this is by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

      I have no idea what you are posting about. Anonymous Cowards are still the same.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    3. Re:no idea what this is by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Damn it! You're not an Anonymous Coward! Now you've ruined it for everyone!

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  6. Free market by snsh · · Score: 0, Troll

    If most of the helium-3 demand is driven by lung x-rays, and you suddenly need $5000 of He-3 instead of $500 of He-3 to do an x-ray, then the result will simply be fewer people and animals getting x-rays.

    Unless the situation is that government funded Medicaid/Medicare is going cover the $5000 cost for the x-ray, in which case the result will simply be the owners He-3 stockpiles getting insanely rich at the expense of taxpayers.

    1. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is hoping you don't need this x-ray done. You might die of irony.

    2. Re:Free market by hedwards · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Perhaps, this is an indication that animals shouldn't be given X-rays. I know it's going to drive the PETA people nuts, but the bottom line is that animals < humans.

    3. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given humans are a subset of animals, what you're basically saying some humans are more equal than others.

    4. Re:Free market by korgitser · · Score: 1

      My guess is that if there were stockpiles of He-3 there wouldn't be a crisis.

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    5. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're new here, right?

    6. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You get the same result with private insurance. Insurance coverage is inelastic; that is insurance companies aren't going to change the policies because of a spike in prices for a particular procedure in a single year.

      Now let's say the prices continue to rise, you might argue that private insurance will respond quicker. But then you have to ask yourself why private insurers in this country do such a poorer job holding down prices than gov't insurers (or more regulated insurers) elsewhere.

      It's sad when liberal classical economic proponents today sound like the Marxist apologists of yesteryear. I think it's time to bow to reality and reconsider some of the basic premises underlying your theories, because as they are they don't capture reality, no matter how good they look on paper. (And hand-waving about the supposed crippling federal regulations just wouldn't seem to cut it, because while they might suffice to explain some inefficiency, they don't really explain the inexorable and dramatic growth in inefficiencies.)

    7. Re:Free market by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Not if people are insured buddy.

      This is why people are paying up to $1500 a month for insurance and other countries are going bankrupt trying to insure its citizens. If everyone had no insurance then I would agree the market would change this.

      The problem is everyone gets xrays and that raises the cost for the uninsured and this is what we have today.

    8. Re:Free market by ue85 · · Score: 2

      Lung x-rays? I work in healthcare and have no idea what this "lung x-ray" you speak of even is. I am assuming you are referring to MRI techniques. In any case realize there are plenty of cost effective alternatives for lung imaging, from plain film chest x-rays to CT (with or without pulmonary angiography) and nuclear ventilation with either xenon or aerosols. The if cost increased there wouldn't be fewer people getting treated, they would simply just go to alternate modalities of equal worth.

    9. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because, naturally, the vagaries of the market are so much more important than human life. We live only to serve the economy, OH WAIT!

      The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around. Their "goodness" may be judged exclusively by how well they accomplish this.

      I doubt a shortage will be allowed to continue though since DHS needs it to check our Chinese diethylene glycol laden toothpaste for bombs.

    10. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what he's saying, yes. How is that either logically incorrect or morally wrong?

      Self preservation is the most sensible, and yet, compassionate line of thinking that we evolved to have. I'd rather same a creature in my own species than a prize poodle.. but that's not out of a defined hate toward prize poodles.

    11. Re:Free market by Hammer · · Score: 1

      I know it sounds silly.... but RTFA

      a simple X-ray will show the lungs as black holes in the body, a mystery box of trouble. But if a patient takes a breath of helium-3, the resulting MRI is so bright it looks as though the patient inhaled a light bulb

    12. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But, oh wait!

      Those ridiculously large stockpiles of an otherwise difficult-to-harvest material have been sold off at artificially cheap prices by the US. It's an engineered crisis. .. and in the cosmic irony department, this captcha was 'conspire'.

    13. Re:Free market by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      Fine you pedantic cock, Humans > (The set of all animals excluding humans)

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    14. Re:Free market by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

      Not to deny the effectiveness of that technique but I had a collapsed lung a year ago and it showed up on X-Ray without and He3, granted it was rather faint but I guess it all depends on what you're looking for.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    15. Re:Free market by Toonol · · Score: 1

      That's not even superficially logical. What he's saying is that some animals (the human subset) are more important than other animals (the non-human subset). You're saying that humans are animals, therefore animals are humans. Nobody sane believes that.

    16. Re:Free market by peterxyz · · Score: 1

      Given humans are a subset of animals, what you're basically saying some humans are more equal than others.

      Yep - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

    17. Re:Free market by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard of that one but it makes sense. Interesting... thank you. (toothpaste with diethylene glycol impurities)

    18. Re:Free market by Hammer · · Score: 1

      I am no doctor, I just read the article, a rare occurrence on /. :-). I had pneumonia a couple of years ago and that also showed up on X-ray. I guess this refers to some specific problems with the lungs.

    19. Re:Free market by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      This has always bothered me. "Free-market" fundamentalist (usually neo-liberals here in Sweden) seem to think of the "market" as a living organism that has precedence over all else, including human life (except their own of course). We all have different values I suppose, live to work or work to live, but they just seem completely out of touch with the real world to me...

    20. Re:Free market by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around."

      "Respond to" /= "serve".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:Free market by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because, naturally, the vagaries of the market are so much more important than human life.

      Sure, you can think of it that way. Or you can think of it as claiming one life is better than all lives.The label you use "the market" is just shorthand for everyone else's activity including such things as chest x-rays. Those activities are important in their own right (else they wouldn't be buying helium 3).

      One effect of the higher price of helium 3 has been the invention of means to recycle helium 3. That wouldn't have been discovered in the absence of strong incentives (that is, high prices for helium 3) to do so. It's also worth noting that just because someone might want a chest x-ray doesn't mean that they need one. High prices discourage more frivolous uses of helium 3.

    22. Re:Free market by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      And like he said "nuclear ventilation with either xenon or aerosols"... in other words, there are other compounds, such as hyperpolarized xenon-129, that can achieve very similar results to helium-3. So yes, helium-3 is very useful in this area, but there are good substitutes available.

    23. Re:Free market by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around. Their "goodness" may be judged exclusively by how well they accomplish this.

      The problem with your statement is the definition of "us".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Free market by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Nay. Serve is a proper choice of words. They are INSTRUMENTS with which we manage our resources. A set of tools. Not an entity comparable to us in any way.

      The moment you lose control of your tools, you modify them to get control back or destroy them. In this regard, to reference popular culture, skynet is a great example.

    25. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 1

      Market forces can be used for positive effects such as encouraging the development of recycling techniques. However, we must carefully temper that or it will instead create mostly human suffering.

      The market *IS* often meant as a shorthand for everyone else's activities, but it's a terrible over-simplification that is more often used to sweep some of those activities under the rug. It is also far too often treated as some sort of oracle that automatically produces the most moral answer (naturally the people who believe that tend to be the ones who have enough money to never have to do without).

      Clearly, there exist circumstances where a shortage is intractable and some form of rationing is required. The free market fundamentalists would say just jack up the price and let those who truly need it but have no money die even while others who are flush with cash use it to make party favors. Others would prioritize based on our best medical guess as to who is likely to be helped (no sense doing it for someone who will inevitably die or for someone in perfect health, the guy who could be saved by the diagnosis gets the scan) and if any is left over we can make party favors. Further dividing, some would try to accomplish this with a command economy (which has never worked in practice) while many others simply make a few adjustments (such as socialized medicine) to provide corrective input into the market so that it better reflects our ethics.

    26. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes. A great many assume when a politician says "us" he means citizens of the country when he actually means himself, his closest friends, and the corporations they run.

    27. Re:Free market by khallow · · Score: 1

      Market forces can be used for positive effects such as encouraging the development of recycling techniques. However, we must carefully temper that or it will instead create mostly human suffering.

      There's another way to say this. I want to impose (or continue to impose) on the freedom of a lot of other people so I can get my health care cheaper. The problem is that your life isn't that valuable.

      The market *IS* often meant as a shorthand for everyone else's activities, but it's a terrible over-simplification that is more often used to sweep some of those activities under the rug. It is also far too often treated as some sort of oracle that automatically produces the most moral answer (naturally the people who believe that tend to be the ones who have enough money to never have to do without).

      Tell you what. Come up with a better way and then we'll have something to talk about. "Socialized medicine" might not be another command economy, but it commits the same mistakes. A central authority decides what everything costs, which medical care provider gets what resources, and how much people pay for it. And it has the same lethal flaw as a command economy, namely, it's run by people who don't and can't know what's going on.

      As to this particular article, there are three important ways that the helium 3/health care markets deviate from free markets. First, the supply is controlled by the federal government and sold off in an irrational manner.

      Second, health insurance through an employer is heavily subsidized, The worker gets an untaxed benefit.That's somewhere around 20-35% of the overall health insurance amount. By itself, it probably explains a considerable portion of the difference in health care costs between the US and the rest of the developed world. Then toss in the mandates on what employer-based health insurance is supposed to provide and that explains a bunch more.

      The combination of the two result in more consumption of medical care and as a result more consumption of helium 3.

      There are a few other cost-control things that could help like fixing malpractice lawsuits and improving supply of medical professionals. My view is that an effective health insurance market with these cost controls would reduce medical costs below that of current socialist countries.

      Clearly, there exist circumstances where a shortage is intractable and some form of rationing is required.

      Again, nothing better than a market at this. Even if an omniscient being could somehow make All The Right Choices, doesn't mean it would. After all, maybe the patient is of the wrong political persuasion or engages in behavior such as smoking, no exercise, poor diet, etc that becomes immoral because society rather than the patient pays for the health care.

      to provide corrective input into the market so that it better reflects our ethics.

      Or maybe the ethics are the problem. I don't favor markets because they are somehow moral or ethical. I favor them because they work.

    28. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 1

      When you find yourself feeling seriously ill, be sure to sit on the curb next to the trash cans. Otherwise I'll have to charge your family 10 strips of latinum to drag your corpse there myself. For another 10, I'll try to keep the dogs from peeing on you till the trash men come.

      As for your claim that I am out to get something for nothing, I haven't even needed healthcare for the last 25 years fortunately. Any benefit to me would be merely theoretical at this point.

      There is a common pattern in socialized medicine I have seen over and over. That is people complaining about it until I tell them that in the U.S. they would just have to wait until their illness gets life threatening to get treated, then declare bankruptcy after. The look of horror on their faces tells the story well.

      You may not understand why people getting health care is more important than your "right" to eat caviar on toast points while sipping champagne, but if it gate bad enough, you will when the rabble comes banging on your door with a shotgun.

      You do a fine job building strawmen for the horrors of socialized medicine, but not such a good job finding real world examples where any of that happens.

      However, If you REALLY want a free market in healthcare, you'll have to make all drugs available over the counter. Restricting them distorts the market If you want an FDA, it will have to be advisory only and it's funding will need to be based on voluntary membership. It could recommend drugs but not absolutely prohibit them unless there is actual fraud (such as they don't contain what they claim to or they have been solidly proven ineffective). If I want to cook up and sell my magic cancer elixir that's my business, not yours. Anyone may practice medicine. The patient would be well advised to check for credentialing by some reputable accreditation body but if they can't afford that, they can at least get something.

      I'm guessing we'll just have to write off antibiotics. They will get misused until they are fully ineffective, but at least we'll keep the socialists at bay.

      In other words, here in the U.S. the government has already seriously curtailed my rights to provide my own medical treatment and to find others who will do it cheaply, and so it owes me a suitable replacement for that.

      Honestly, either of those polar positions would be moral but the current middle of the road is indefensible. Between the two though, the socialized medicine looks like the better solution for individuals and for society as a whole.

    29. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the situation is that government funded Medicaid/Medicare is going cover the $5000 cost for the x-ray, in which case the result will simply be the owners He-3 stockpiles getting insanely rich at the expense of taxpayers.

      Whether it's the market or the government paying, stockpile owners will get rich regardless.

    30. Re:Free market by khallow · · Score: 1

      As for your claim that I am out to get something for nothing, I haven't even needed healthcare for the last 25 years fortunately. Any benefit to me would be merely theoretical at this point.

      Since you haven't needed health care for the last 25 years, you probably won't need it for the next 25 years either, theoretically. Which is good given the general trend to more expensive health care. I can see no reason for self-interest either, theoretically.

      There is a common pattern in socialized medicine I have seen over and over. That is people complaining about it until I tell them that in the U.S. they would just have to wait until their illness gets life threatening to get treated, then declare bankruptcy after. The look of horror on their faces tells the story well.

      You must talk to some pretty stupid people then. There are two alternatives to this horror story. First, buy health insurance. Second, self-insure by saving a lot of money.

      In other words, here in the U.S. the government has already seriously curtailed my rights to provide my own medical treatment and to find others who will do it cheaply, and so it owes me a suitable replacement for that.

      You don't have a right to force anyone, people, businesses, or governments to provide you cheap health care. Your rights are only being curtailed in your imagination.

      However, If you REALLY want a free market in healthcare, you'll have to make all drugs available over the counter. Restricting them distorts the market If you want an FDA, it will have to be advisory only and it's funding will need to be based on voluntary membership. It could recommend drugs but not absolutely prohibit them unless there is actual fraud (such as they don't contain what they claim to or they have been solidly proven ineffective). If I want to cook up and sell my magic cancer elixir that's my business, not yours. Anyone may practice medicine. The patient would be well advised to check for credentialing by some reputable accreditation body but if they can't afford that, they can at least get something.

      The customer should be doing this already. Also keep in mind that it is grossly negligent, perhaps even criminally negligent to provide you with drugs that doctor knows don't work or are actually harmful.

      You do a fine job building strawmen for the horrors of socialized medicine, but not such a good job finding real world examples where any of that happens.

      You're not too shabby either.

    31. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 1

      You don't have a right to force anyone, people, businesses, or governments to provide you cheap health care. Your rights are only being curtailed in your imagination.

      So, if I in my own considered personal opinion need a splint, a few doses of Penicillin G (for prophylaxis) and a couple days on morphine (and it's a good thing I know these things because doctors are too expensive) I can just pop on down to the pharmacy and buy it (not asking for a freebie here, I'll pay cash)? Nobody has passed any silly market distorting laws to prevent that have they?

      Perhaps I'm industrious but cash poor, I'll grow poppies and make my own morphine, that should be OK shouldn't it? I'm pretty good at growing yeast cultures as well, I should be able to get some good antibiotics going too. Perhaps because I have the entrepreneurial spirit I'll produce extra and sell it to my neighbors for less than the CVS wants. Again, no market distorting laws to prevent any of that right? It's not like anyone is trampling on my right to self help or anything.

      As long as there's nobody trampling on my market freedom, I'll modify that old color TV to produce X-Rays and I can set bones for myself and my neighbors as well.

      OH! Look! the cops are coming. I'll bet they want me to give them a checkup too! What do you mean possession of a controlled substance? Practicing medicine without a license? Possession and distribution of a dangerous drug without a prescription? Never heard of it! I assure you, according to khallow my rights are only being curtailed in my imagination. Now SHOO!

    32. Re:Free market by khallow · · Score: 1

      OH! Look! the cops are coming. I'll bet they want me to give them a checkup too! What do you mean possession of a controlled substance? Practicing medicine without a license? Possession and distribution of a dangerous drug without a prescription? Never heard of it! I assure you, according to khallow my rights are only being curtailed in my imagination. Now SHOO!

      Oh look, descent into madness. None of the above were relevant to my assertion. Getting arrested by the mean police for any of the above activities doesn't mean that you magically have a right to force someone to give you cheap health care.

      Some people can take disagreement, even thrive on it. Others snap.

    33. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 1

      You claimed that nobody was in any way limiting my rights to self care. I showed through a narrative the the limitations are so pervasive they're obvious but overlooked.

      Oh look, descent into madness.

      Where is the madness? Is it madness to apply my own knowledge to better my own situation or is it only madness if I want to help my neighbors who might otherwise do without basic needs?

      Getting arrested by the mean police for any of the above activities doesn't mean that you magically have a right to force someone to give you cheap health care.

      How do you figure? From a standpoint of ethics, if you take something from someone, you owe them something of at least equal value in return. If you force the transaction upon them, you owe them even more in return. They take from me the ability to take care of my own problems and they distort the market so that prices are driven up until illness and bankruptcy walk hand in hand. Thus, they owe me in return cheap health care.

      Or do you believe it's just fine to take from others without compensation as long as it supports your agenda? If so, you should applaud me if I decide to take free healthcare for myself.

    34. Re:Free market by khallow · · Score: 1

      You claimed that nobody was in any way limiting my rights to self care.

      Nope. I didn't make that claim. Do you see where your error lies now?

    35. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your rights are only being curtailed in your imagination.

      Perhaps you'll remember typing that now?

      Now, back on topic. Do you or do you not find it acceptable to take from others without providing compensation of equal or greater value?

    36. Re:Free market by khallow · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you'll remember typing that now?

      i understood your claim to mean that you wanted cheap health care not that you wanted to direct treat yourself. I, of course, oppose most of the federal government intervention in this area (including drug laws, regulations against medicine practiced without a license, etc). But just because the federal government oppresses us in one way doesn't give us the "right" to have it oppress us in more ways than it currently does.

      Such arguments lead to destructive cycles of government overreach. A typical example is the creation of a public good (for example, the subsidy portion of subsidized health insurance), followed by regulation and government intrusion into our lives in order to enforce that public good (for example, regulation penalizing health insurance that is too good, ie, "Cadillac plans", making sure we don't engage in behavior that increases our health insurance subsidy, etc).

      The current health care system in the US is a very broad example. State and federal governments have passed many laws and regulations which have made health care very expensive compared to what people get in other countries. Rather than fix this law, you propose we slide into the socialist health care schemes that these other countries use rather than prune the thicket that is causing the problem in the first place.

      But that just results in making the problem worse. For example, Obamacare didn't implement one of the existing national health care systems. Instead, if Obamacare should survive to maturity, it will increase the drain on health care costs and overall government spending.

      Even the Congressional Budget Office, the blatant propaganda tool of Congress, admits now that the cuts in Medicare weren't enough to cover the subsidies for health insurance. Medicare expenses rise for most state governments. And it's obvious that the rule changes for insurance drive up the rate of cost increase for insurance (which in turn probably means much higher insurance subsidies than expected by the CBO).

      What didn't happen was any attempt to deal with the real problem, high health care costs. So what happens in ten years when the US sees perpetual massive deficits, interest payments larger as a fraction of GDP than current military spending, and far more expensive health care costs, even with subsidies? I guess someone will "fix" it again and make the problem worse. But they won't implement one of the existing national health care plans (assuming those even look attractive in ten years).

      In hindsight, I don't understand your thoughts at all. You warn of the dangers of the free market despite knowing that the problems of US health care have nothing to do with free markets. You even scare ignorant Europeans with bogus scare stories. Now you're trying to rationalize national health care because the federal government through various regulations won't let you self-treat. What the hell?

      Sounds to me like you've been infected with a parasitic meme. Better get that checked out.

    37. Re:Free market by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's very simple really. I personally believe that fully 100% socialized medicine is the correct course of action. I'm guessing that when legislators are on the hook for the costs they'll somehow find a way to get around to fixing the high price. We're supposed to be a somewhat cohesive society, not a bunch of jackles.

      If that isn't going to be the case, the polar opposite is the next most morally justifiable. Get completely out of it. That seems fairly unlikely since it would mean giving up the sacred cow drug laws.

      I can respect either of those positions as ethical. The middle of the road is completely indefensible. If I am to face laws that drive up prices and prevent me from both self help and freedom to contract with someone of my choice to take care of my health, then I am at least owed an alternative of equal value in return. That would be nationalized health care.

      I agree that Obamacare is NOT a good answer at all. It's more like legally mandating participation in the broken system so it doesn't have to fix itself than anything else.

      Considering that medical costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the U.S. it's not such a big scare story. Fully 1/3 of Americans can NOT afford health insurance. That's seriously messed up.

  7. Being done? by no-body · · Score: 1

    Probably the same as to peak oil and other pressing issues - bury head in sand == ignore == trust in god, it's His will anyway.

    1. Re:Being done? by NalosLayor · · Score: 2

      Your metaphor would be valid if oil was a byproduct of automobile manufacturing.

    2. Re:Being done? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Your god gives you oil when you stick your head in the sand??? Boy did I pick a loser then!

    3. Re:Being done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same as to peak oil and other pressing issues - bury head in sand == ignore == trust in god, it's His will anyway.

      You forgot the "claim doing anything about it will cost American Jobs" part. Meaning that it's OK to end up in Mad Max Land as long as we have jobs to offshore today.

      That's the one thing that never made sense about the anti-global-warming crowd. Regardless of whether AGW is real or not, have they forgotten that the same claim was made about anti-pollution equipment? and that an entire new industry came from that?

    4. Re:Being done? by no-body · · Score: 1

      It looks to me you are not familiar with the metaphor of someone sticking the head in the sand.

      Please look up the background in answers.com.
      What it means that in imminent danger somebody does not address the issue, looks away and perishes.

      This applies with peak oil and other environmental issues.

    5. Re:Being done? by VolciMaster · · Score: 1
      It's where they keep finding it in the middle east

      just sayin'

    6. Re:Being done? by no-body · · Score: 1

      But not much longer - that's what peak oil means. And - world's industry is hooked on oil full blast with no replacement in sight - same for He.
      Irreplaceable - alternatives need to be found and implemented but...

  8. Dirty bombs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wild guess: stop looking for dirty bombs? If they are as common as Al-Qaeda operatives, the US gov't needs only to stop searching for fictitious boogymen and the demand will fall drastically.

  9. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    naa, slashdot 3.0 already used up all the frosty piss

    and it shows....

  10. Gross... by 2Bits · · Score: 1, Funny

    The MRI imaging requires the patient hold his or her breath for 10 seconds. Instead of just breathing out normally, the patient exhales into a helium-impermeable bag

    Note to self: next time doing MRI in the hospital, do not inhale that stuff, don't want to imagine where it came from...

    1. Re:Gross... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      from TFA: Woods then super freezes the helium to remove moisture and charcoal filters it, making the helium good for a second use. Until the FDA approves the recycled helium for humans, however Woods anticipates this may be a way for veterinarians to access the coveted helium-3. not that it would matter

    2. Re:Gross... by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      The MRI imaging requires the patient hold his or her breath for 10 seconds. Instead of just breathing out normally, the patient exhales into a helium-impermeable bag

      Note to self: next time doing MRI in the hospital, do not inhale that stuff, don't want to imagine where it came from...

      And why do they talk about a X-Ray of a chest then compare it to inhaling He-3 for an MRI? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare a normal MRI scan and an He-3 enhanced scan?

    3. Re:Gross... by dinsdale3 · · Score: 1

      As someone who performs helium-3 MRI on a regular basis, I can hopefully clear up a few things:

      - Helium-3 MRI is a research-only technique
      - The "veterinary use" is for animals in medical research, not taking "Fluffy" to the Vet.
      - Before any recycled helium ever made it to humans, it would have to go through FDA-approved GMP processes. Given the enormous paperwork hassles involved, it is more likely that the recycled helium-3 would only ever be used in animals and in non-medical applications (e.g. low temperature physics).
      - Just about everyone performing helium-3 MRI is trying to capture the exhaled gas whenever possible to conserve the supply. There is also a significant push to transition to the use of an isotope of Xenon gas. While Xenon-129 is much more abundant than helium-3, there are differences in its properties that make it better or worse suited for different experiments.

  11. Temporary problem. by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are large amounts of He3 being made in heavy water reactors that is not being collected. Until now there has been little motivation to go through the trouble and expense of modifying these reactors to extract it, but it's not THAT hard. At some point it will just be done and then we'll be fine. This is only a short-term problem. DNRTFA, of course.

    --

    Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    1. Re:Temporary problem. by MrQuacker · · Score: 2

      It depends on how much gas is produced, and what it costs to capture it. At $1500/L I cant imagine it would take that long to recoup the investment.

    2. Re:Temporary problem. by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, now I've RTFA, and it is one of the worst science articles I've ever read outside New Scientist or Conservapedia. Let us delve in:

      But the isotope, helium-3, like many rare Earth elements, has been in high demand with only limited supply.

      Helium is not a rare earth element. I have a feeling this line was inserted just to pitch the link below it.

      The gas is part of the leftovers that come from cooking up a hydrogen bomb: you know two parts uranium; one part tritium

      No idea where that ratio came from. It's not true and irrelevant.

      While there are other ways of decaying tritium without needing to build a bomb to do it...

      Is the author fully ignorant of nuclear physics or is she gearing up for some kind of scam where she sells "Tritium Decayers" to the government?

      But if a patient takes a breath of helium-3, the resulting MRI is so bright it looks as though the patient inhaled a light bulb.

      Not as bad, but misses a great opportunity to explain HOW He3 helps lung imaging. He-3 doesn't exist in any significant quantities in the body, so you can tune the MRI to look for that nucleus and bam, you can see the shape of whatever you fill with it.

      Until the FDA approves the recycled helium for humans...

      The FDA needs to approve this? That's odd, I wonder why. Too bad you didn't explain why or tell us what stage of approval its in.

      For a party that suddenly saw the balloons all pop, despite the warnings, everyone jumped.

      wat

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    3. Re:Temporary problem. by DBHolder · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is not as easily solved as you make it out to be for a few reasons. The first being demand and the second being supply. The article doesn't really go into much detail but the real demand issue is the rising use by of He3 by the US gov in portal monitors. He3 tubes are by far the best devices available for neutron detection. Since 9/11 the US gov demand for He3 neutron tubes exploded and pretty much ate the entire stockpile. This has caused major headaches for everyone who uses He3 like the medical field and basic science research.

      On the supply side He3 is created when tritium decays on a 12 year half-life. The largest supply of this for many years was the US nuclear weapons program. Production now, however, is nothing like it used to be. Without the tritium production we don't have the He3. Even if we did we might not meet the kind of demand we have for He3 now. In order to make 1kg of He3 you need to let 2kg of tritium decay for 12 years. Or you need to let much larger quantities of tritium decay for shorter periods of time. Either way you need a lot more tritium than we have.

      Additionally getting He3 from heavy water reactors is probably not an option. The best way (the way the US gov does it anyway) to make tritium presently is by putting lithium rods into a reactor and then removing the tritium from the rods (its a fission product from lithium). While tritium is produced in heavy water reactors by neutron capture, the cross sections are very low. This mean you would need to separate the heavy water out from the tritium rich water (centerfuges) and then remove the tritium form the water molecules with electrolysis and then again separate tritium from deuterium. This ignores the fact that All the commercial reactors in the US are light water (normal H20) and countries that use heavy water (Canada) may not be interested in stockpiling tritium.

      Production difficulties aside tritium is just plain expensive. tfa cites the He3 price at $5000 a liter with a goal of more like $1500/L. This puts the price roughly $37500 a gram. Tritium is presently $25000+ / g and that is a subsidized price. Its estimated that actual production cost is upwards of $75000 / g

      Given all this, if we had a cheap easy solution laying around we would have done it by now.

    4. Re:Temporary problem. by hcdejong · · Score: 2

      Helium is not a rare earth element

      You're right, it's not a "(rare earth) element". Unfortunately, journalists and other Muggles tend to use the term as "rare (earth element)", applying it to any element that's not abundant.

    5. Re:Temporary problem. by peterxyz · · Score: 2

      Helium is not a rare earth element

      You're right, it's not a "(rare earth) element". Unfortunately, journalists and other Muggles tend to use the term as "rare (earth element)", applying it to any element that's not abundant.

      The original text said

      But the isotope, helium-3, like many rare Earth elements, has been in high demand with only limited supply.

      badly worded, yes, but plausably trying to draw a link to the recently reported shortage of rare earth elements

    6. Re:Temporary problem. by mcelrath · · Score: 1

      4He is dominantly extracted from natural gas, and according to Wikipedia, the fraction of 3He in it is quite large. Why are we not processing natural gas, or its extracted helium, to remove the 3He? That seems a lot more efficient than making tritium, and waiting for it to decay...

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    7. Re:Temporary problem. by Enigma23 · · Score: 2

      The FDA needs to approve this? That's odd, I wonder why. Too bad you didn't explain why or tell us what stage of approval its in.

      Most medical apparatus is single-use, unless you can autoclave it to ensure it is totally sterile for subsequent uses. The FDA would need to approve the recycling and filtering system to ensure that future patients won't catch anything from previous ones. IANAD.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une .sig
    8. Re:Temporary problem. by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I had never heard of Conservapedia before. Now I really wish I hadn't.

    9. Re:Temporary problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting 3He from heavy water is an option. The tritium is a contaminant of the heavy water, and it is regularly removed because of its radioactivity. You're right that it doesn't amount to much, but for countries that have heavy water reactors already (e.g., Canada) it becomes a side business that is worth the cost of extraction, especially since it has to be done anyway for operational reasons. There is a dedicated Tritium Removal Facility at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario.

    10. Re:Temporary problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job we're protected from those links by 403s then I suppose.

    11. Re:Temporary problem. by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      If only it had been blocked for me.... I spent the last 45 minutes or so reading bits and pieces and now I'm slightly ill--as in the process that leads to vomiting has started. How can people be so stupid. I'm stopping before it gets worse.

    12. Re:Temporary problem. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The article has problems, but that "rare Earth" comment is merely confusing. It means elements or isotopes rare on Earth. People will misread it or associate it with the "rare earth" materials, as you did. That confusion is a very understandable one, and the editor should have noticed it.

      If it were spelled "rare earth", then it would be clearly wrong.

    13. Re:Temporary problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wat is a brilliantly cromulent words. In all seriousness can't wait for it to be added to the dictionary.

    14. Re:Temporary problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get all riled up, it is clearly a collection of Douglas Adams' notes, published posthumously: DouglasA
      Therefor, it is to be read as humorous fiction. And it does succeed very well at that.

    15. Re:Temporary problem. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yea this was almost as bad as a lot of stuff on wired.
      The simple solution is to start producing tritium again. It really isn't even that hard to do.
      1. Build some heavy water reactors like the CANDU.
      2. collect the the H3.
      3. Wait.
      4. Profit.
      Actually the US needs to restart tritium production anyway to keep our nuclear weapons functioning as along as we are going to keep them. As too keeping them or not being a good idea others can debate that to their hearts content.
      Also HE3 is only used for a few very rare type of MRIs. While important the fast majority of MRIs do not use any HE3 at all.
      And to the nutters that want to compare it to "peak oil" we actually know how to make HE3 and all of the HE3 that we where using came from industrial processes. This is more like the problem of "peak" 57 Chevy bodywork. All it will take is for people to want it bad enough for production to restart.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:Temporary problem. by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      The question is not with (rare Earth) element vs. rare (Earth element); it's with referring to 3He as an element at all. It isn't an element at all. He is an element, 3He is an isotope. This is an important distinction, and one that any competent science writer should get right every time.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    17. Re:Temporary problem. by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      The gas is part of the leftovers that come from cooking up a hydrogen bomb: you know two parts uranium; one part tritium

      No idea where that ratio came from. It's not true and irrelevant.

      Probably came from the Starfleet Tech Manual. You know, the section that also specifies the proper matter/anti-matter intermix ratio.

    18. Re:Temporary problem. by rossjudson · · Score: 1

      So we have to build bombs, in order to detect bombs?

    19. Re:Temporary problem. by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's the same as the situation with indium. Indium is found in conjunction with most copper, lead, tin, etc ores. However, there's historically been such a low demand for indium that just a couple mines had recovery circuits. And right as indium demand started to rise, one of the mines went out of business as its primary ore was no longer economical. So indium prices went through the roof in 2004/2005. Of course, that triggers more mines to install recovery circuits, but it takes time to get a new recovery circuit online.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    20. Re:Temporary problem. by Rei · · Score: 1

      All the commercial reactors in the US are light water (normal H20) and countries that use heavy water (Canada) may not be interested in stockpiling tritium.

      I'm sure Canada is up for the challenge; they have a real can-du attitude. ;)

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    21. Re:Temporary problem. by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      According to the last link you provided, they have fewer than 39,000 registered users, and only 392 were active in the last 90 days. Not exactly the kinds of numbers that suggest they're actually influencing anyone.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    22. Re:Temporary problem. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:Temporary problem. by treeves · · Score: 1

      From that same article: "Wittenberg also writes that extraction from US crustal natural gas, consumes ten times the energy available from fusion reactions."
      i.e. it's just not worth it.
      And I would not say 0.5 to 5 ppm is a large fraction.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    24. Re:Temporary problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if there was a buyer for Canadian tritium our reactors would stop leaking the stuff...

    25. Re:Temporary problem. by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      The ratio of registered users to readers is very low. The number that really got me was the total page views: over 217 million.

    26. Re:Temporary problem. by jarlsberg71 · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. They're disproving the theory of relativity because they're too dumb to understand why things don't always follow Newtonian physics and they have no idea about quantum states. My favorite was the last example about the barn and ladder. They'd disprove Schrodinger's cat cause a cat can't be alive and dead at the same time, cause that just doesn't make sense. Or it'd be a zombie and they're evil. **sigh** I wish they were blocked at work too

      --
      E8B8B
    27. Re:Temporary problem. by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Oh my, it looks like they've been slashdotted.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    28. Re:Temporary problem. by FrootLoops · · Score: 1
      I really need to stop reading anything on that site. I can't edit it (it'd be horrible to get started even attempting to correct anything... and they don't have an automated signup form), but my inner mathematician just cringes on

      Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

      I've studied quite a bit of abstract and linear algebra and a chunk of relativity but this is news to me. "Time" is both a vector and a component of a vector! And of course it can have no inverse--no more reasoning or justification could possibly be necessary or reasonably expected to explain what the hell this statement means! All hail the fount of knowledge and wisdom that is Conservapedia! Seriously, do they think every scientist in the world just makes shit up all day long? Actually, that would make sense--they figure everyone just does what they themselves do: say whatever nonsense comes to mind, write it down, and defend it to the death when challenged, not because you're really right, but because that's just what you do.

      Wow. That explains basically all of their behavior.... They were never good at figuring things out themselves, but they can argue decently in an indecisive way, so they figure everyone else does the same. And then Mr. Shlaffy (sp? no way am I looking it up) started a Wiki where like-minded folk can be shockingly stupid together.

    29. Re:Temporary problem. by jarlsberg71 · · Score: 1

      I gave that site out to a few friends, but the best I got in return was THIS. I'm voting conservapedia gets a mention in dickipedia.org

      --
      E8B8B
  12. Other sources by afidel · · Score: 1

    So is this one of the impacts of The Helium Privatization Act of 1996 or is separating the Helium-3 from the more common isotopes too energy intensive to have made the Bush Dome Reservoir a viable source?

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Other sources by XiaoMing · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's actually a fundamental physics + policy issue, but a different policy than the one you're referring to. As the article very briefly touched on, He-3 comes from the decay of Tritium. Tritium is the stuff that we put into the H-bomb (Fusion reaction rather than the atomic bomb's Fission reaction, basically redonkulously more powerful). The policy in question came from the end of the Cold War, where nonproliferation, disarmament, and the end of tritium creation.

      The physics comes in because tritium has a half life of ~13 years. This means that if someone gave you a canister of pure tritium, after two decades it'd be 1/4 tritium, and 3/4 He-3. Do the math for when the cold war ended, and you start to see why we're feeling the hit from the end of this "production cycle".

      It's also important to note that H-bombs, crafted from Tritium (Hydrogen-3), have a different yield once enough of the warhead has decayed into He3, which is actually one of the real main reasons why we're reducing our stockpile even though we didn't agree to the nonproliferation treaty. We're re-refining what tritium is left and putting it into new warheads (as a tanent: using more advanced warhead designs than the previous ones they replace too, so nonproliferation/stockpile-reduction in this case is a very generous casting).

      While there are many "alternative" ways to create He-3, it's pretty obvious from this situation that trying to buy $150 dollars of decayed bomb innards is definitely going to be cheaper than trying to buy refined nuclear-reactor extract. But at the same time, that was probably taken into account for the final price adjustment to $1500/L.

    2. Re:Other sources by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yes but I have to assume at least some of the trapped helium in those reserves was created from the decay of naturally occurring Tritium. Wikipedia gives its abundance as 0.000137% of He which means unless it has some property that makes it easy to separate it would probably be extremely energy intensive to do like say cooling it to below 4K where the Helium-3 remains gaseous but the H-4 becomes liquid.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Other sources by XiaoMing · · Score: 1

      Apologies, forgot to mention but my "separation" scenario was an indirect reference to a couple threads up regarding light and heavy water nuclear reactors (as well as any that have the balls to use a Li breeder blanket).

      As an aside, calling tritium "naturally occurring" is about as much of an oxymoron as one can make, since any naturally occuring tritum that was on this planet would have turned into helium before it even cooled down and solidified. Within 100 years, of the Earth's composition settling down to a happy state, there would have been 0.3% of the tritium left that it started out with. As you're referring to the He-3 contribution to Helium's atomic mass, It's more correct to refer to it as just relative abundance in nature, rather than suggesting that there's some constant source of Tritium (which once again, any appreciable quantity that exists now is completely manmade) is decaying into He3 in nature.

      Double aside: Same goes for Pu239, which has a half-life of ~24,000 years. That's why all crazy developing-nation-weapons-projects start with the enrichment of Uranium-235 (halflife of 700 billion years, when not pissed off by neutrons).

    4. Re:Other sources by afidel · · Score: 2

      By naturally occurring Tritium I mean from sources like cosmic bombardment and the decay chain of other radioactive materials. Since the He-3 itself doesn't decay that means it should accumulate over geographic time and some percentage of any large concentrations of He will obviously contain some non-trivial amount of He-3. My question was around how feasible it would be to extract whatever amount is present in the Billions of liters of He we have stockpiled.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Other sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tritium does indeed occur "naturally". Neutrons created from cosmic rays interaction in the atmosphere caprure on deuterium in the worlds oceans to make tritium all the time ...

    6. Re:Other sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion reaction rather than the atomic bomb's Fission reaction, basically redonkulously more powerful

      No it isn't. Fission of a Uranium atom produces more than an order of magnitude more energy than D-T fusion (per atom counted, per weight it's the other way around ). The main function of Fusion in a hydrogen bomb is to provide very energetic neutrons that accelerate the fission, and also allows the use of much cheaper Uranium-238 as opposed to Plutonium or enriched U-235. Nevertheless the main source of energy in almost all nuclear weapons is fission. The fusion reaction is mainly there to supply a large quantities of neutrons to speed up the fission process.

    7. Re:Other sources by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but my understanding is that He-3 and He-4 aren't distributed uniformly across the various helium reservoirs on earth. In particular most of the deep reservoirs of helium are the byproducts of nuclear (alpha) decay, and so are very rich in He-4. On the other hand cosmic rays generate a lot of tritium (and therefor He-3) in earths oceans and earths atmosphere.

    8. Re:Other sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helium does not accumulate because it's so light. It constantly escapes to space (Atmospheric escape). Big gas giant planets have so much helium and hydrogen because their escape velocity is so big that lighter gases can't escape. Smaller planets like earth lose helium that is produced by radioactive decay to atmosphere and then to space.

    9. Re:Other sources by afidel · · Score: 1

      Obviously it accumulates in certain places since up to 7% of the Texas natural gas stream can be He.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:Other sources by Rei · · Score: 1

      (as a tanent: using more advanced warhead designs than the previous ones they replace too, so nonproliferation/stockpile-reduction in this case is a very generous casting).

      I had a friend who as a translator on one of the old nuclear weapons and delivery systems stockpile reduction treaties with the old USSR before its collapse. She referred to the treaties as a scam because both sides wanted to get rid of their old weapons anyway, and this was just a way for each of them to get some positive PR out of it.

      She also had an idea that she presented to... I forget what it was, but I think he was the Soviet equivalent of a colonel. She and some colleagues found it tragic to see these valuable, brilliant pieces of technology, the ballistic delivery systems, just being crushed by bulldozers. So they concocted a (largely tongue-in-cheek) plan to retrofit them into intercontinental pizza delivery systems, and did all of the design work and calculations for fun. You'd have to modify the heat shield and the reentry beta, as well as install proper racks to keep the pizzas in place, and an off-the-shelf spacecraft parachute system. You launch them frozen and they'd come out properly baked. Delivery to anywhere in the world, no matter how remote, in half an hour or so; the cost of the retrofits would make the delivery charge something like $20 per pizza (assuming you ordered a warhead full of them).

      Unsurprisingly, the guy looked at them like they were crazy ;)

      --
      Present day. Present time.
    11. Re:Other sources by Rei · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, if you want a boosted design. But you pay for the U238 tamper in terms of mass and a dirty burn. The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, was actually the cleanest, as they replaced the U238 tamper with a lead one -- cutting its yield in half, but making it so 97% of its yield was from fusion.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
  13. decomission more nukes by wan9xu · · Score: 1

    and you end up with more than enough he3 and a better probability that earth survives the next world war.

    1. Re:decomission more nukes by MrQuacker · · Score: 2

      The bombs dont give off the gas. Making the stuff that goes into the bombs makes the gas. So to get more He3 we actually need to build more bombs.

    2. Re:decomission more nukes by wan9xu · · Score: 1

      no, we don't need to. there already is enough of this stuff floating around in the form of nukes. all that needs to be done is to take the nukes apart and repurpose it. iirc this is exactly where most he3 came from in the last few decades, i.e. since the end of cold war.

    3. Re:decomission more nukes by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually there's only about 75kg of Tritium in the current stockpiles according to one report I ran across while researching some other posts so the current stockpile probably are NOT sufficient to meet possible demand even if we wait till 90+% have decayed. On the other hand we could generate Tritium just to produce He-3 for peaceful purposes but then the cost would apparently be closer to the $1,5000/L quoted in the article.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:decomission more nukes by wan9xu · · Score: 1

      that 75kg was calculated from the 225kg total mfr'd since 1955. the way you calculate he3 price, you assumed the decayed tritium lost. it's not. it exists as he3 in nuke heads. this decayed he3 cannot be "harvested" until the nuke is decommissioned.

    5. Re:decomission more nukes by Rei · · Score: 1

      False. It's the tritium in the warheads that decays into He3.

      --
      Present day. Present time.
  14. Quite obvious by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    The reason the helium is becoming scarce on earth is because it's too light and escapes from the earth's atmosphere. So how do we stop that? Simple, make it heavier like we did to our own fat asses. If there is one thing we are great at it, it's getting fat, why can't we extend that to Helium? "So Mr. Helium 3, would you like to supersize that today?"

    By the time we are done with helium it won't even be able to get off the floor, let alone escape the atmosphere.

    1. Re:Quite obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you left out God Bless America

    2. Re:Quite obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another example of good ol' fashioned common sense showing up scientists and their fancy equations. Better add it to Conservapedia.

  15. New Temporary Tax that will never expire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expect a new "temporary" tax on airline tickets to pay for the Helium-3 increases for the TSA. Once an alternative to Helium-3 or a new source that removes the shortage appears . . . don't expect the "temporary" tax to ever go away.

    Remember, once our loving government get's a hold of our money it is no longer our money, it's their money and they don't feel any obligation to ever let us have it back.

    1. Re:New Temporary Tax that will never expire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Germany, where they added another "temporary" income tax after the unification to get funds for bringing the East up to spec?
      Hint: Two decades later they're still paying it.

  16. outfall? by sirdude · · Score: 1
    "The fallout of the Helium-3 crisis"? Dyslexia?

    Am I the only one noticing the plummeting quality in journalism across the board? Besides the drawbacks of relying on spell-check and other automation, the gradual shift in the publishing industry towards the Internet seems to have dented profit margins significantly enough to affect the QA process. Books, papers, magazines ... they all seem to be suffering from this malaise.

    1. Re:outfall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be a more regional thing, but that's an acceptable use of fallout as far as I know, and I've never heard the word outfall. Do you maybe mean outcome?

  17. A consequence of the tritium shortage by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a consequence of the decline in the U.S's nuclear industry. Tritium is usually produced in nuclear reactors. It's useful for several purposes, from boosting nuclear weapons to exit sign lighting in aircraft.

    Tritium is made by irradiating lithium with neutrons Tritium decays with a half-life of 12 years. He3, which is stable, is one of the decay products, and that's where He3 comes from. (This is a commercial application of transmutation.)

    The US used to have a reactor at Savannah River to produce tritium, but that was shut down in 1988. Since the early 1990s, there have been efforts to set up a new source, and presently, two power reactors of the Tennessee Valley Authority are used to produce tritium, A few extra lithium rods are put in, and changed out occasionally to recover the tritium.

    The He3 shortage is a side effect of the tritium shortage.

  18. Re:how did it make all of that Helium-3 by ibsteve2u · · Score: 0

    Was an accident, really; Dick Cheney wanted to sound like Donald Duck, but since he's three-faced...

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  19. Dyslexia? by Clay1985 · · Score: 1

    Yes, what is an outfall?

    --
    You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. -Plato
    1. Re:Dyslexia? by peterxyz · · Score: 1

      Yes, what is an outfall?

      traditionally what sewerage comes out of - may be appropriate for use in describing journalism standards
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Outfall

  20. This is not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hedwards is fully entitled to believe that scarce medical resources should be conserved for human, rather than animal use.

    Let's say you had very little money, and your mother and your dog is sick. Which one among you would have the dog treated?

    1. Re:This is not flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you *met* my mother?

  21. The Problem Is by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Some bastard keeps inhaling it to make chipmunk voices. Oh wait! That's me! *Puff* Squeak squeak suck it bitches!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:The Problem Is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helium 3 doesn't work as well for this as regular old everyday helium. DAMHIKT.

  22. Automated Forex Trading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its one of the best for taking info and i like it.
    http://www.articlesbase.com/finance-articles/automated-forex-trading-system-find-the-best-automatic-forex-trading-tool-2066204.html

  23. Opening the door to the moon by Dollyknot · · Score: 0

    There is lots of He3 on the moon, getting to the moon is not hard, the hard, dangerous and expensive part is reaching escape velocity, make this far cheaper and safer and not just He3 becomes more available, but a whole universe.

    The high cost to the human race's colonisation of space is caused by the danger and complexity, of reaching and leaving escape velocity, within the earth's atmosphere, the reason for this is the shuttle has to lift off with over 700 tons of fuel, the whole thing is made even more complicated, by the fact that to survive the heat of around 17000 miles an hour reentry into the atmosphere, by covering the surface of the shuttle, with the equivalent of bathroom tiles

    There is lots of He3 on the moon, getting to the moon is not hard, the hard, dangerous and expensive part is reaching

    The Space Shuttle turned out to be an expensive and dangerous white elephant, the reason the Shuttle was so expensive is, because of its complexity with millions of different manufactured parts.

    There is another route, we can reach the edge of space no problem Burt Rutan proved this with Space Ship one, when he won the 'X' prize by reaching over 100 km twice in one week.

    Yes the Shuttle was 'reusable' but in name only. They could not have turned that around in a week.

    One idea could be to create rocket fuel on the moon, there is lots of water on the moon, use solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen which makes very good rocket fuel.

    Use the rocket fuel to fuel a space tug, use the space tug to accelerate and decelerate Space Ship one, to and from escape velocity in the safety of a vacuum.

    The moon is the door to the solar system.

    Going to Mars is like 'trying to run before we can walk' we need to build a base on the moon first.

    There is lots of silica on the moon, silica is the main component of glass, what we could do is build a huge glass dome with an aluminium skeleton and live under it, some estimates have moon rock, with around 40% oxygen, thus we can breathe if it is extracted.

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
    1. Re:Opening the door to the moon by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      You still have to deal with an unnecessary gravity well launching from the moon. Solar sails and asteroid mining present some fascinating economics: Solar sails can act as solar mirrors, providing rocket free orbital guidance, power for electricity generation and magnetic funneling of the solar wind into a centrifuge for refininng deuterium and tritium out of the solar wind.

      There are interesting reasons to build lunar bases, but this is not one of them. If you need mining operations, use the solar sails to guide asteroids in for asteroid mining. The lead times for return on investment are very long, but that kind of long range investment is what governments are designed for.

    2. Re:Opening the door to the moon by Dollyknot · · Score: 1

      People like you make me think that the rumours that NASA never reached the moon in person, are true.

      Several things increase my suspicions, my original post has now been demoted to a '0' and your reply to it is nonsensical, getting to escape velocity from the moon, is in terms of cost and safety, negligible when compared to the cost of achieving escape velocity from the Earth, my only explanation for your daft negativity is that - you have a hidden agenda.

      Goebbels once said "Make a lie big enough and you will get away with it", Goebbels learned his craft from the double nephew of Freud, Edward Bernays.

      It makes no sense that the human race has not been back to the moon since 1972, imagine how much easier, it would have been in the 60's, had NASA had the technology we have today?

      I'm not saying NASA did not go to the moon, how on Earth would I know for sure? I'm the English equivalent of 'Joe Sixpack', I'm saying comments like yours make me more suspicious.

       

      --
      It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  24. Re:first post by couchslug · · Score: 2

    That would send the price of American "beer" skyrocketing due to the reduced supply of the key ingredient.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  25. The Moon by TM22721 · · Score: 0

    There is a lifetime supply of He3 on the moon. It's just sitting on the surface ready to scoop up. He3 is more valuable than gold. We also need it for fusion reactors. A moon mission would re-unite this country and get out from under the tyranny of OPEC.

    1. Re:The Moon by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      We also need it for fusion reactors.

      No we don't, in all probability. There are essentially limitless quantities of deuterium available for fusion in Earth's oceans. If we want to get practical fusion earlier, we need to invest more on fusion research. Betting billions on a long shot like Helium 3 reactors doesn't make a lot of sense - you might just as well convert your car to run on powdered diamonds.

    2. Re:The Moon by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      lifetime is actually quite short.

  26. Helium Isotope crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very rare and new for me. Can somebody post a link where i can find more information on this topic.?

    Perfume

  27. Did anyone hear Farnsworth say... by seanbruckman · · Score: 1

    "A promising alternative gas for hunting down radioactive neutrons and gamma particles for example is boron, but for medical purposes nothing beats helium-3."
    It's Dolomite Baby!

  28. Re:first post by Archimagus · · Score: 1

    I too miss the old story icons. . .

  29. He3 fusion by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Another possible use for He3 is in fusion reactors that can directly generate electricity with little radioactive by-product.

  30. Absolutely Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress actually just passed a measured dictating the US is to sell of several billion tones (our entire national reserve) of He to help with the deficit.

  31. speaking for the scientific community by nimbius · · Score: 1

    and as a direct consumer and producer, we have not been impacted by the H3 shortage at all really. Anomalous materials research continues on despite the recent resonance cascade event.

    regards,
    G. Freeman
    Theoretical physicist, Lead.
    Black Mesa Research

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  32. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all is looking at the possibility of gettin' yer He3 from Ontario, Canada as well.

  33. "Helium-3 Crisis" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like an awesome console game - where do I buy it from?

  34. Re:What about the SPACE NAZI'S!?! by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

    We don't dare try mining the far side of the moon! The Space Nazi's would get us!!!!!

    http://www.ironsky.net/site/

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  35. God's fault again by illtud · · Score: 1

    Obviously, He should have made more He.