(do not autoclave)
Do not stare into laser with remaining eye
Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
11–20 of 277 posts
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#12Just got me thinking: What would it take for us to get to a point where there are small, safe nuclear powered "batteries", that can supply enough electricity for a building.
Nice in theory but what if they fall into the wrong hands?
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#13Wonder how I slided into the world of Fallout? WTF!?! We have plutonium powered pacemakers? http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/degraw2/ Ah, okay we had . > Despite the often longer life-expectancies, nuclear pacemakers quickly became a part of the past when lithium batteries were developed. Not only did the technology improve, allowing for lighter, smaller, and programmable pacemakers, but doctors began to…
> allowing for doctors to check in on their patients and replace either the batteries or the pacemakers themselves
I cynically read this as "we needed to get more money out of these patients"
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#14I'm just imaginging trying to explain to TSA that this is the reason their radiological alarms are going off...
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#15So this is the same technology as used in various space probes and the Curiosity and Perseverance Mars rovers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-mission_radioisotope_the...), just miniaturized. Fascinating, but not sure if I would want to have one inside my body...
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#16I had no idea nuclear power had been miniaturized to this extent, wow.
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#17Tragically relevant story to accompany this article: the Goiânia accident.
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#18Wonder how I slided into the world of Fallout? WTF!?! We have plutonium powered pacemakers? http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/degraw2/ Ah, okay we had . > Despite the often longer life-expectancies, nuclear pacemakers quickly became a part of the past when lithium batteries were developed. Not only did the technology improve, allowing for lighter, smaller, and programmable pacemakers, but doctors began to…
> allowing for doctors to check in on their patients and replace either the batteries or the pacemakers themselves I cynically read this as "we needed to get more money out of these patients"
Meh. Maintenance is a good thing when performed well and not excessively.
Heart problems are funky.
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#19Wonder how I slided into the world of Fallout? WTF!?! We have plutonium powered pacemakers? http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/degraw2/ Ah, okay we had . > Despite the often longer life-expectancies, nuclear pacemakers quickly became a part of the past when lithium batteries were developed. Not only did the technology improve, allowing for lighter, smaller, and programmable pacemakers, but doctors began to…
> allowing for doctors to check in on their patients and replace either the batteries or the pacemakers themselves I cynically read this as "we needed to get more money out of these patients"
I read this as:
Most patients don’t survive those 10 years anyways.
Re: Nuclear-Powered Cardiac Pacemakers
#20Wonder how I slided into the world of Fallout? WTF!?! We have plutonium powered pacemakers? http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/degraw2/ Ah, okay we had . > Despite the often longer life-expectancies, nuclear pacemakers quickly became a part of the past when lithium batteries were developed. Not only did the technology improve, allowing for lighter, smaller, and programmable pacemakers, but doctors began to…
> allowing for doctors to check in on their patients and replace either the batteries or the pacemakers themselves I cynically read this as "we needed to get more money out of these patients"
There’s not a single cardiac surgeon in the world who thinks he’s gonna get rich with once-every-10-years follow up appointments. We produce enough new patients to keep them all sufficiently busy.