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

51–60 of 172 posts

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

#51

Post by 7bit »

billy99k wrote: post #20
jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy. The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.

Ask the Ukrainian how clean Chernobyl is. I hear it became a very touristic place with people dying to get housing there, because the air is so clean.

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

#52

Post by 7bit »

MassiveQuasar wrote: post #37
SonOfKyuss wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The activists of the 60s-90s were witnesses to the nuclear bombing of Japan, domestic nuclear accidents, as well as a nuclear arms race that threatened to wipe out all of humanity. It is unfortunate that we threw the baby out with the bathwater when it came to nuclear power generation, but the people who had issues with nuclear in that era did have good reasons to be afraid.

Were they good reasons or did they just fell victim to their feelings? Not creating nuclear power plants because you're afraid of some bombs is good reasoning? What about the millions of deaths to fossil fuels every year? Are they better than the nuclear accidents we had? I don't think good reasoning is why they felt that nuclear power was bad.

It is. And also because of Chernobyl and Fukushima. But you don't care do you

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

#53

Post by theultdev »

amelius wrote: post #47
jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

Yes, however I suppose it is fuel for conspiracy theories.

no I think it's fuel for boiling water

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

#54

Post by jpalawaga »

alpinisme wrote: post #29
IshKebab wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context "secret" implies they didn't tell the government. Merely not publicising an internal project is totally normal and doesn't warrant "secret project!!"

I guess that depends on how hysterically you read the word secret (including projecting hysterics on others using it). But we at work have a lot of secret projects. Basically everything is given a project code name until it’s public and if you work in R&D you are told not to discuss your work on such projects either outside the company with friends or inside the company with people who don’t work in R&D. That is the…

Is there a penalty to discussing the secret projects? Like if your manager/director/vp knew you were talking specifics without some authorized, what would happen?

It sounds like there is no penalty to the nuclear labs except, if you blab to the wrong person, it’s going to stir up trouble.

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

#55

Post by api »

amelius wrote: post #47
jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

Yes, however I suppose it is fuel for conspiracy theories.

Conspiracists and media brainwashed people will react this way no matter what. Doesn’t matter whether it’s secretive or not. It’s not about you or the subject matter but their need to feel important or in possession of some truth THEY don’t want you to know.

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

#56

Post by Forgeties79 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

> The public cannot be trusted to engage in a discussion about anything “nuclear” in good faith.

I agree the fears and subsequent responses are generally not warranted but to call it “bad faith” (by saying not in good faith) is not fair either. Some people are afraid and don’t understand it. We’ve all seen seen the disasters and communities impacted with higher rates of cancer even decades later as a direct result of the Manhattan Project. This stuff can be dangerous so it’s not meritless even if the reactions are wrong and generally uninformed.

People not engaging in good faith are doing it very deliberately.

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

#57

Post by omnicognate »

The Royal Naval College in Greenwich, London contained a secret, operational nuclear reactor from 1962 to 1996. Decommissioning it must have posed some interesting challenges, given it was inside a 300 year old building designed by Christopher Wren that is part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_reactor

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

#58

Post by 7bit »

billy99k wrote: post #20
jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy. The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.

1. Mining and processing are destructive Uranium mining leaves behind contaminated soil, groundwater problems, tailings, and long-term ecological damage. “Yellow Cake” shows this clearly. These impacts last far longer than any economic benefit.

2. Operation is low-CO₂, but not low-risk Severe accidents are rare, but the consequences are catastrophic when they do occur. Chernobyl and Fukushima are obvious examples. The U.S. history is full of near misses, leaks, hardware failures, and human-factor problems. Calling such a technology “safe” glosses over systemic vulnerability.

3. Waste cannot be neutralised High-level waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years. No human institution has ever maintained stable responsibility for anything even close to that timeframe. Most countries still rely on interim storage because final repositories are politically and technically unresolved.

4. Long-term burdens are externalised The benefits (electricity, profits, political narratives) are short-term and local. The harms (contamination, risk, millennia of monitoring) are long-term and imposed on future generations who cannot consent.

5. “Clean” becomes a marketing word In lifecycle terms—mining, fuel fabrication, plant construction, decommissioning, and waste storage—nuclear energy cannot be “clean” in any holistic sense. It is at best low-carbon but high-burden.

This doesn’t mean nobody can argue for nuclear energy, but it does mean that calling it clean is a simplification that hides very real costs and risks

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

#59

Post by hammock »

orioni wrote: post #19
jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

This is just like how universities hide their animal research facilities. It wasn't until the final year of my biology degree that I found out we had a basement floor under our life sciences building where this research is carried out. I visited a few times as part of a research project I was involved in, and that experience was one of the factors that put me off pursuing a career in biomedical research.

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.

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

#60

Post by cogman10 »

rayiner wrote: post #40
cogman10 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate activists backed and propagandized by the fossil fuel industry and the KGB. And now that there are a number of barriers to creating new nuclear, the propaganda has flipped with fossil fuel companies supporting nuclear because they know it'll be decades before anything real can happen. I have nothing against nuclear and if it can be built I'm for it. But at the moment, solar + battery is quick to deploy and ab…

> Climate activists backed and propagandized by the fossil fuel industry and the KGB Who are the current generation of climate activists backed and propagandized by?

IDK, Maybe china? China is eating everyone's lunch when it comes to producing green tech (particularly solar and batteries).
Post reply on HN