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

Low-Background Steel

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Low-Background Steel

#71

Post by fennecfoxen »

nix23 wrote: post #69
DonHopkins wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just cheaper for whoever salvages the ship -- somebody else had to pay for the sunken cost of building and sinking the ship.

> somebody else had to pay for the sunken cost of building and sinking the ship Na remember it was war, so all the money went back to the economy :/

Money-oriented thinking is a road to economic misunderstanding. The economy is about stuff. In practice one often measures all the stuff using money, yes, because what else would one use? but as a proxy measure for its value; it's never actually about the money itself.

(stuff = "final goods and services" to be technical)

Re: Low-Background Steel

#72

Post by nix23 »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #71
nix23 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> somebody else had to pay for the sunken cost of building and sinking the ship Na remember it was war, so all the money went back to the economy :/

Money-oriented thinking is a road to economic misunderstanding. The economy is about stuff. In practice one often measures all the stuff using money, yes, because what else would one use? but as a proxy measure for its value; it's never actually about the money itself. (stuff = "final goods and services" to be technical)

> because what else would one use?

Energy witch can be food, oil, gas, the energy transformator is a human (or his brain) a maschine or a animal, and the exchange between energie to the endresult is often money. So money/exchangemedium has just the worth both partys agreed on.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#73

Post by est31 »

I'm not sure about some of the the claims of the Wikipedia article.

* First, the article implies that air continues to be the main reason for contamination of steel. It might have been the case, back when atmospheric levels for radioactive elements were higher. However now there is less contamination in the air [0], and the main source for contamination is recycled steel. Either because it itself is non-low-background steel or because e.g. medical radioactive sources were put into the scrap metal supply. See also this IAEA report on scrap metal [1].

* The article also says that the primary source for low background steel are shipwrecks, but I think that's an exaggeration. Especially, the topic came up on hn a few weeks ago and someone in the know debunked it [2].

[0]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Radiocar...

[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20111016193221/http://www.iaea.or...

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23666436

Re: Low-Background Steel

#74

Post by fennecfoxen »

nix23 wrote: post #72
fennecfoxen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money-oriented thinking is a road to economic misunderstanding. The economy is about stuff. In practice one often measures all the stuff using money, yes, because what else would one use? but as a proxy measure for its value; it's never actually about the money itself. (stuff = "final goods and services" to be technical)

> because what else would one use? Energy witch can be food, oil, gas, the energy transformator is a human (or his brain) a maschine or a animal, and the exchange between energie to the endresult is often money. So money/exchangemedium has just the worth both partys agreed on.

Now you are measuring electricity instead of the light you read by, and fuel instead of the vacation trip you take with it. You have worsened the problem I refer to.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#75

Post by nix23 »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #74
nix23 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because what else would one use? Energy witch can be food, oil, gas, the energy transformator is a human (or his brain) a maschine or a animal, and the exchange between energie to the endresult is often money. So money/exchangemedium has just the worth both partys agreed on.

Now you are measuring electricity instead of the light you read by, and fuel instead of the vacation trip you take with it. You have worsened the problem I refer to.

Energy IS electricity, and to create a Lightbulp you NEED energy, it's exactly the same.

For your vacation trip you NEED energie in form of food an fuel, the vehicle you travel in, is made by food and fuel...exacly the same.

If the transport company accept your fuel (or workforce witch again is fulled by energie (your food)) as payment, you exchanged energie to energie, probably they dont and thats why you use a exchangemedium called money.

EDIT: You dont have to messure anything, if you need light exchange energy to light, travel exchange fuel to distance, working body food to (body)-energy. To make stuff you calculate the sum of the energie needed for, and thats the price of the product, sure exeptions like apple exists ;)

Re: Low-Background Steel

#76

Post by mcculley »

Natsu wrote: post #26
goatsi wrote: post #5

Low-background lead is also sought after in shipwrecks [0]. With lead it isn't contamination from nuclear tests that's the issue, but natural radioactivity that needs hundreds of years to decay. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/10/search-d...

It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Also, it makes me wonder why someone enterprising hasn't stockpiled a few tons of the stuff somewhere to let it become low background lead for the future. You'd think that some government or another would be able to drop a million dollars on putting a lead stockpile somewhere safe for t…

What would be the timeframe over which one would make a profit? Our global financial system is based on the 30 year U.S. Treasury bond. There are no economic incentives to plan beyond 30 years.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#77

Post by rossdavidh »

est31 wrote: post #73

I'm not sure about some of the the claims of the Wikipedia article. * First, the article implies that air continues to be the main reason for contamination of steel. It might have been the case, back when atmospheric levels for radioactive elements were higher. However now there is less contamination in the air [0], and the main source for contamination is recycled steel. Either because it itself is non-low-backgroun…

You should update the Wikipedia article. I mean, you've already got the references.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#78

Post by sandworm101 »

Natsu wrote: post #26
goatsi wrote: post #5

Low-background lead is also sought after in shipwrecks [0]. With lead it isn't contamination from nuclear tests that's the issue, but natural radioactivity that needs hundreds of years to decay. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/10/search-d...

It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Also, it makes me wonder why someone enterprising hasn't stockpiled a few tons of the stuff somewhere to let it become low background lead for the future. You'd think that some government or another would be able to drop a million dollars on putting a lead stockpile somewhere safe for t…

Forget filters. It would have to be done in a vacuum and you would need to centrifuge the required gasses/carbon. It is possible in small batches, but the sunken ships do exist ready to harvest. Maybe in the future the market will come.

Re: Low-Background Steel

#80

Post by lukas099 »

mcculley wrote: post #76
Natsu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always confused me how mined lead somehow has more radioactivity. Shouldn't the lead in the ground also have decayed over time? Also, it makes me wonder why someone enterprising hasn't stockpiled a few tons of the stuff somewhere to let it become low background lead for the future. You'd think that some government or another would be able to drop a million dollars on putting a lead stockpile somewhere safe for t…

What would be the timeframe over which one would make a profit? Our global financial system is based on the 30 year U.S. Treasury bond. There are no economic incentives to plan beyond 30 years.

This is interesting. Can you point me to anything that will expand on/help me understand this?
Post reply on HN