Live data from Hacker News

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

orau.org

61–70 of 99 posts

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

#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. Even though it is also 100 times more in USD terms.

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

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why it is a Geiger counter . Low count, low threat. High count, high threat. To my knowledge you can't fake a dangerous amount of radiation.

Sure, but if you're shipping radioactive materials into the country, you probably want to wrap it in lead, or anything that'll keep it from damaging you while in transit, which means lower counts, right?

Yes, lead can mask a highly radioactive object in transit. But I don't see what that has to do with false positives?

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

#63
post #39
post #7

Apparently the first half of the 20th century was fucking awesome [1]. [1] http://www.cracked.com/article_19481_the-8-most-wildly-irres...

What a bunch of overblown crap... "wildly irresponsible" my ass! It's perfectly safe holding a piece of red-hot glass, as long as you don't hold the red-hot part . But since the red-hot part is also the part that's in the Bunsen burner, you generally don't do that. Glass has such low thermal conductivity that the part that's not heated stays at room temperature. Edit: I "played" with most of those as a "kid" (the rad…

Actually, hot glass can be a lot safer than hot water. As long as it's solid it won't soak through your clothes and cling to your skin (causing 3rd degree burns). It might give you a burn (like the one I've just got from the red-hot element in my oven), but it's not like you are going to hold it in your hand going "ouch ouch ouch" - most people will drop it in a split second if it's hot.

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

#64
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't it evaporate fairly easily, though? And can't it also be absorbed through the skin?

As far as I remember, mercury isn't the best thing for you, but it's not as bad as people make out. It takes a fair amount of exposure to do anything too terrible. It's the compounds that become very nasty (eg, dimethylmercury).

I remember an article in wikipedia about CFL's, it had effects of mercury exposure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Enviro...

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

#65
post #37

Lesser known fact. Most homes contain alpha radiation sources through their use in smoke detectors. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/smoke_alarm.html That being said, radiological material regulations are very strict these day. Back when I was working at a lab at school, I had to go through several days of safety courses before I could even be in the same room as some very weak alpha particle sources. The work I…

Many (most?) homes also contain Radon gas, and it and its daughters are alpha and beta emitters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon : Radon is responsible for the majority of the public exposure to ionizing radiation.

no, not most. but a significant percentage in the us[a]. where I live, ionising smoke alarms have been deprecated in favour of photoelectric alternatives.

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

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if you're shipping radioactive materials into the country, you probably want to wrap it in lead, or anything that'll keep it from damaging you while in transit, which means lower counts, right?

Yes, lead can mask a highly radioactive object in transit. But I don't see what that has to do with false positives?

I figure that even a small amount of detected radiation would make people worry - "oh no, a terrorist is trying to smuggle plutonium into the country but his lead-lined briefcase has a hole in it!" - so generating a lot of false positives might cloak an actual delivery.

Or it could just cause panic, akin to calling in random bomb threats. Terrorism doesn't really have to kill anyone, just has to scare them.

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

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but if you're shipping radioactive materials into the country, you probably want to wrap it in lead, or anything that'll keep it from damaging you while in transit, which means lower counts, right?

Yes, lead can mask a highly radioactive object in transit. But I don't see what that has to do with false positives?

[deleted]

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

#68
post #2

My grandfather worked for AC Gilbert, which made the Erector Set, and American Flyer trains. I had rather complete sets growing up, and couldn't figure out why my erector set and toy trains were so much better than everyone else's. But another toy was a lead casting kit: You would melt lead in a crucible, which would then pour into a mold. http://www.girdersandgears.com/kaster.html Never had the atomic energy kit, pr…

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. :)

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

#69
My grade school class toured the Enrico Fermi 1 nuclear power plant in the sixties. They had a movie showing us that by the time we were adults that all cars would be nuclear powered.

When it came time for questions I asked what would happen if one of those nuclear powered cars were in a bad crash and its reactor was compromised?

The guy rolled his eyes at my teacher and said next question ;Several years later that plant had a partial fuel melt down. They said no radiation was leaked but there was dispute about the official account. There was a book (and later a song) written about the accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Almost_Lost_Detroit

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

#70
post #2

My grandfather worked for AC Gilbert, which made the Erector Set, and American Flyer trains. I had rather complete sets growing up, and couldn't figure out why my erector set and toy trains were so much better than everyone else's. But another toy was a lead casting kit: You would melt lead in a crucible, which would then pour into a mold. http://www.girdersandgears.com/kaster.html Never had the atomic energy kit, pr…

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 disagree with you. :)

Post reply on HN