Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

orau.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#71

Post by danneu »

msisk6 wrote: post #32
bigohms wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember collecting and playing with mercury from thermometers (here in the US), probably why I can't recite PI to anything more than 6 places :)

Back in the early 80s at high school in chemistry class we had a beaker full of mercury we'd float nuts and bolts on. The teacher would just let us grab 'em out of the beaker with our bare hands. Crazy stuff -- I'm still not sure how I feel about it. We've gone too far in the name of safety in some ways but in others it's needed as we learn more about the risk factors. Regardless, my kids experience in school is prof…

I graduated highschool in 2007 and science class was devoid of experimentation. I remember there being a bunch of hype months in advance for a day where we just watched our teacher do something with a bunsen burner. I don't remember what she did with it, but it was undoubtedly within the realm of making food-dyed water boil over a flame.

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#72

Post by troels »

powertower wrote: post #44
pavel_lishin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An official lead casting kit? That's pretty neat. I just pulled cells out of discarded car batteries that I found while playing on a construction site, and melted it in bottle caps over the kitchen stove. I cannot believe my parents let me do ANY of that. The joys of growing up in the USSR.

When I was growing up in the former USSR, we used to sometimes enter the decommissioned parts of a nuclear plant / research station. One day we found what was a deuterium/water solution ("heavy water") in a storage locker and took several gulps of it to prove something stupid. Beat that!

heavy water is not really toxic, is it?

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#73

Post by jackpirate »

choros12 wrote: post #61

Great article. Would like to point out an interesting fact though. $50 in 1951 was worth 1.5 ounces of gold. The article claims that currently collectors pay 100 times more for it in USD terms, aka 5,000usd. Which is 2.5 ounces of gold. In other words in the real value the set appreciated about 75% even though 100 times in nominal terms. In the same timeframe price of oil in gold stayed the same for that example. Eve…

Sorry, but you're wrong. 50 dollars in 1950 would be worth $447.81 in 2010, roughly ten times moer. The dolar value of the toy increased roughly 100 times. Therefore, the true value of the toy increased 100/10 = 10 times. The price of gold is irrelevant. All you showed is that gold would have been a better investment.

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#74

Post by derleth »

troels wrote: post #72
powertower wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was growing up in the former USSR, we used to sometimes enter the decommissioned parts of a nuclear plant / research station. One day we found what was a deuterium/water solution ("heavy water") in a storage locker and took several gulps of it to prove something stupid. Beat that!

heavy water is not really toxic, is it?

If it had already been used as a reactor coolant, or was from some other industrial processes, it could be more radioactive than you would like it to be.

Otherwise, no, unless you get enough of it to saturate your tissues and cause problems due to it being denser than your biochemistry evolved to expect water to be.

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#75

Post by choros12 »

jackpirate wrote: post #73
choros12 wrote: post #61

Great article. Would like to point out an interesting fact though. $50 in 1951 was worth 1.5 ounces of gold. The article claims that currently collectors pay 100 times more for it in USD terms, aka 5,000usd. Which is 2.5 ounces of gold. In other words in the real value the set appreciated about 75% even though 100 times in nominal terms. In the same timeframe price of oil in gold stayed the same for that example. Eve…

Sorry, but you're wrong. 50 dollars in 1950 would be worth $447.81 in 2010, roughly ten times moer. The dolar value of the toy increased roughly 100 times. Therefore, the true value of the toy increased 100/10 = 10 times. The price of gold is irrelevant. All you showed is that gold would have been a better investment.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Calling gold an investment is akin to calling USD or Swiss Franc an investment. It might be but its first and most important function is this of money. Think store of value and not profit.

Currently, an ounce of gold buys you a nice suit in New York. Two hundred years ago 1 ounce of gold was enough to buy a nice suit in London. And 2,000 years ago 1 ounce of gold was enough to buy a nice toga in Rome.

Price of oil in gold fluctuates around 15 barrels per ounce since World War 2.

The list continues... the point is that gold is an excellent store of value reflecting real prices increases much more accurately than government figures (a.k.a. CPI).

Gold is money. Historically, gold has been the best indicator and instrument to gauge inflation. The CPI numbers from Government don't even come close.

At the end it all really boils down to: is the Government provided CPI number or gold better instrument to gauge inflation?

My take is that if something has worked great to gauge inflation for the last 5,000 years then it probably still measures it pretty well.

The CPI number from Government that has vested interest in underreporting inflation? (because of debt). Thank you, buy I firmly believe that is has been grossly understated for for the last 60 years, ergo my numbers probably illustrate the real increase in value of the set better.

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#76

Post by dquigley »

msisk6 wrote: post #32
bigohms wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember collecting and playing with mercury from thermometers (here in the US), probably why I can't recite PI to anything more than 6 places :)

Back in the early 80s at high school in chemistry class we had a beaker full of mercury we'd float nuts and bolts on. The teacher would just let us grab 'em out of the beaker with our bare hands. Crazy stuff -- I'm still not sure how I feel about it. We've gone too far in the name of safety in some ways but in others it's needed as we learn more about the risk factors. Regardless, my kids experience in school is prof…

Maybe most high schools have gotten that way, but I had a very different experience. Made some chemical mixture in Chemistry that would go up in a puff if it was bumped. In my high school engineering classes, we stripped the motor out of a CNC router, attached a custom built head on it and then connected that router's computer to another control box we used to control two robotic arms, a conveyor belt, and a couple of control valves for water.

There are still a few good high schools left at least.

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#78

Post by cjy »

choros12 wrote: post #75
jackpirate wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you're wrong. 50 dollars in 1950 would be worth $447.81 in 2010, roughly ten times moer. The dolar value of the toy increased roughly 100 times. Therefore, the true value of the toy increased 100/10 = 10 times. The price of gold is irrelevant. All you showed is that gold would have been a better investment.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Calling gold an investment is akin to calling USD or Swiss Franc an investment. It might be but its first and most important function is this of money. Think store of value and not profit. Currently, an ounce of gold buys you a nice suit in New York. Two hundred years ago 1 ounce of gold was enough to buy a nice suit in London. And 2,000 years ago 1 ounce of gold was enough…

But gold isn't the only store of value. You could have used silver or copper. And, the value of gold fluctuates wildly in response to fears of future inflation. This creates a lot of noise. Finally, you should know that most economists consider the CPI to overstate inflation due to substitution bias: http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-16.html

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#79

Post by meric »

danneu wrote: post #71
msisk6 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the early 80s at high school in chemistry class we had a beaker full of mercury we'd float nuts and bolts on. The teacher would just let us grab 'em out of the beaker with our bare hands. Crazy stuff -- I'm still not sure how I feel about it. We've gone too far in the name of safety in some ways but in others it's needed as we learn more about the risk factors. Regardless, my kids experience in school is prof…

I graduated highschool in 2007 and science class was devoid of experimentation. I remember there being a bunch of hype months in advance for a day where we just watched our teacher do something with a bunsen burner. I don't remember what she did with it, but it was undoubtedly within the realm of making food-dyed water boil over a flame.

I graduated highschool in 2007 and "luckily" our chemistry teacher assessed us with our bunsen burner skills every fortnight. We basically put all sorts of chemicals and heat them up; recognize what materials depending on color of the flame; create compounds from different elements; etc... Once some of that stuff splashed into my eye, after the burner was turned off and I took off my goggles. Off to the eye wash I went...

Re: In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50

#80

Post by CamperBob »

jpdoctor wrote: post #70
CamperBob wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vapor pressure of molten lead has got to be pretty low... and I expect the bioavailability of elemental lead isn't all that great in any event, compared to some of its salts. You're probably OK. :)

> The vapor pressure of molten lead has got to be pretty low If you go to the bottom of the Kaster link: Cast Number 12 was a whistle. The casting was in multiple parts, and I never figured out how to assemble it (I actually thought it was supposed to be a biplane. Probably the fumes again.) So you were supposed to assemble this thing and then stick it in your mouth. :O > You're probably OK. There are those who disag…

There are those who disagree with you. :)

Valid point, I don't think a good case can be made for putting a lead whistle in your mouth.

But I wouldn't worry about the fumes. It's likely no worse than SnPb solder fumes, which don't contain any appreciable amount of lead.

Post reply on HN