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

Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#111

Post by 0ckpuppet »

MengerSponge wrote: post #93
hammock wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can’t have a good faith discussion then maybe it is a good idea to hide nuclear and animal labs. But with less oversight, that also invites abuse. You can probably imagine abuse on your own in an anima lab, but I would also point out after Obama banned gain of function research in 2014 U.S. scientists moved their lab to China where it continued without the same oversight, and bad things happened.

Joe Public doesn't provide oversight. He's mostly good at generating outrage. Experts provide oversight, and animal research in the US is highly regulated by experts!

This is a problem when the definition of expert is made by politicians and bureacrats instead of academic rigor

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#112

Post by 0ckpuppet »

PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #107
_aavaa_ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bad things?

It's a reference to the theory that perhaps covid came from, and accidentally escaped from, a lab.

Wasn't this theory proven by documents that were released and reported on?

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#113

Post by justin66 »

anjel wrote: post #67

At the Univ of Maryland College Park in the mid 1980s, a campus of 40k students, it was common knowledge the was a small research reactor in full time operation right on campus. I can't imagine it was the only school to have one.

My school for undergrad had, and still has, a "Nuclear Reactor Laboratory." I'm pretty sure everyone who cared understood what was going on there.

The university got in trouble in the mid nineties for having buried nuclear waste as well as medical waste (cadavers) on a remote part of campus, but apparently that's not enough to put a Nuclear Reactor Laboratory out of business. Or a large university's medical system, of course.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#114

Post by MengerSponge »

Teever wrote: post #103
MengerSponge wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe Public doesn't provide oversight. He's mostly good at generating outrage. Experts provide oversight, and animal research in the US is highly regulated by experts!

People like Erin Brokovitch, Lois Gibbs, and Wilbur Tennant seem to have provided significant oversight that has proven beneficial to society. As a Joe Public, how do you suggest that I can verify the oversight of experts? Is there sufficient oversight with animal testing in a place like Wuhan? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Gibbs [3] https://www.sciencefriday…

Erin Brockovich and Lois Gibbs generated outrage, which was well deserved and a societal good. They were working against unregulated/underregulated firms, which did not have effective oversight.

Oversight for PG&E should have come from the US EPA. I suppose the EPA should have handled Love Canal too, but the agency didn't exist when Hooker dumped their pollutants.

Your cultural references suggest you're American, so you don't have a direct way of interacting with a sovereign nation's internal affairs. You can, however, elect competent politicians who support a competent foreign service.

If you want to verify the work of experts, you need knowledge. You need to read, practice, and talk. Once you develop relevant expertise, you're an expert and no longer Joe Public. There are public universities near you where you can learn any of these topics. If you're in a remarkably remote location, you can take online courses. It takes time, but that's true of almost anything worth doing.

If you aren't willing to do that, you're just proving Asimov right: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#115

Post by xg15 »

rnhmjoj wrote: post #110
xg15 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found it kind of depressing that this seems to be the current strategy for fusion as well. You have this insane device that produces a million degree hot ring of plasma and use it... to boil water...

We are still trying to solve the problem that we can't keep the plasma hot long enough to create fusion energy, so working on exotic conversion schemes is one step too far. Consider also how complex these reactors already are, it makes sense to use the simplest method that we know works well.

Makes sense, but from a layman perspective it seems like introducing additional complexity and lots of inefficient, high-loss transmission steps.

We start with detached electrons moving at high speeds (plasma). We want detached electrons moving at moderate speeds (electrical current). And yet, the intermediate steps involve everything from heat, steam, large-scale mechanical forces and magnetic induction, just to get back to the electrons?

It feels more like the "pull in a 500MB framework instead of writing the function yourself" kind of simplicity.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#116

Post by MengerSponge »

0ckpuppet wrote: post #111
MengerSponge wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe Public doesn't provide oversight. He's mostly good at generating outrage. Experts provide oversight, and animal research in the US is highly regulated by experts!

This is a problem when the definition of expert is made by politicians and bureacrats instead of academic rigor

In the dictionary definition that politics is "the total complex of relations between people living in society", academic rigor is defined by academic politics. It is a political problem, which means the definition and fundamental regulation will be made by politicians.

Consider supporting politicians who respect expertise. If you aren't presented with that ballot choice, at least vote against the anti-intellectuals.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#117

Post by 1970-01-01 »

parineum wrote: post #104
1970-01-01 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear accidents were common back then. Activists not only had good intentions they had actual accidents occuring with cover-ups. I think you're only seeing the worst parts here. They didn't follow the science as well as they should but they did get dumping sorted and held the industry liable.

> Nuclear accidents were common back then Name them

Wikipedia has a chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#118

Post by retrac »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #18
wkat4242 wrote: post #10

It wasn't a secret like the article admits later on.

There are no secrets in a legal sense e.g. NDAs. However, there is a culture around private nuclear labs of giving no hint of their existence so that they can hide in plain sight. The objective is to avoid attention, not to be secret per se, though the effect can be similar.

Here in Toronto, every once in a while, someone has a meltdown (if you'll forgive the expression) when they rediscover that there is a CANDU nuclear fuel manufacturing plant in their dense and quiet suburb.

Now CANDU reactors run on natural uranium. So they're forming metal pellets out of uranium powder. The main risk is direct chemical toxicity from the uranium, not the radiation. But for many people "nuclear fuel" might as well mean hot nuclear waste.

The mystical level of dread it inspires in some is hard to overstate. Just to avoid drama from the neighbours it's understandable they try to keep quiet.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#119

Post by _aavaa_ »

0ckpuppet wrote: post #112
PeterHolzwarth wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a reference to the theory that perhaps covid came from, and accidentally escaped from, a lab.

Wasn't this theory proven by documents that were released and reported on?

No, it’s very squarely in the conspiracy theory category.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#120

Post by Teever »

MengerSponge wrote: post #114
Teever wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like Erin Brokovitch, Lois Gibbs, and Wilbur Tennant seem to have provided significant oversight that has proven beneficial to society. As a Joe Public, how do you suggest that I can verify the oversight of experts? Is there sufficient oversight with animal testing in a place like Wuhan? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Gibbs [3] https://www.sciencefriday…

Erin Brockovich and Lois Gibbs generated outrage, which was well deserved and a societal good. They were working against unregulated/underregulated firms, which did not have effective oversight. Oversight for PG&E should have come from the US EPA. I suppose the EPA should have handled Love Canal too, but the agency didn't exist when Hooker dumped their pollutants. Your cultural references suggest you're American, so…

This kind of dismissive attitude and condescending tone is a big part of why people don't trust people who say "trust us, you don't need to know what we're doing to those animals in the secret basement at the university."

For the record I am not American and I have sat in on a few institutional review board meetings that pertained to animal welfare relating to a project that I was involved with.

Post reply on HN