HOME |
RSS | 
This 1948 advertisement for a “radioactive soil conditioner” promises a 20% increase in your tomato, beet, lettuce, and carrot crops. What could possibly go wrong? Link -via Boing Boing
When you think of nuclear reactors, do you think of the Chernobyl disaster or the Three Mile Island accident?
Nuclear power has gotten a lot of bad rap (deservedly, actually) but given the advances in safety and the ever-growing need for energy, should we reconsider nukes? Dan Hinge of Environmental Graffiti writes:
The WHO at the time estimated that the blast caused less than 50 direct deaths. About 600,000 people were deemed to have been seriously exposed to radiation, of whom it was estimated that 4,000 would die of cancer over the course of their lives as a result of the explosion at Chernobyl. The figures are horrific. However, to put them in perspective, based on UN estimates from 2001-2004, during this period one person would die of starvation every second. That’s nearly 4,000 an hour [2].
Worryingly, with an urgent need for carbon emissions to be cut and a sustainable and cost-effective source of energy desperately needing to be found, Chernobyl is still cited as a reason not to invest in nuclear power. It is true that Chernobyl is not the only accident that has occurred at nuclear power plants: accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and Windscale in the UK both caused small releases of radioactive material, but no deaths resulted. As one commenter pointed out, TMI was the worst nuclear disaster in US history; and yet it led to no injury or death and almost no environmental damage. That was 30 years ago [3].
Popular Mechanics has assembled a list of five popular toys that were eventually banned in the US. Among the toys on the list is the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab, marketed between 1950-51, which contained actual radioactive materials:
Called “the most elaborate Atomic Energy educational set ever produced” by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, this sophisticated science kit contained four types of uranium ore, its very own Geiger counter and a comic book called Learn How Dagwood Splits the Atom. A form on the back of the instruction manual allowed a burgeoning Ernest Rutherford to send a note to New Haven, Conn., bearing the message, “Gentlemen: I need replacements for the following radioactive sources, (check which): ALPHA____, BETA _____, GAMMA ______ or CLOUD CHAMBER SOURCE____.”
Mechanical engineer and inveterate tinkerer Bill Gurstelle fondly recalls the Atomic Energy Lab, saying, “everybody wanted that kit.” Nowadays, he adds, “science kits are just sugar and salt.” This kit appeared 21 years too soon—the as-yet-nonexistent CPSC never got a chance to ban it. In the meantime, here are the results of our recent experiments with eight new, and decidedly less radioactive, science kits.
Link via Glenn Reynolds | Photo: Oak Ridge Associated Universities
The Northern Soviet waters were equipped with a string of lighthouses to mark the treacherous passages through the dark times of the years. To make these remote beacons autonomous, they were powered by small nuclear reactors. EnglishRussia has the fascinating story of how that all turned out, along with some pretty cool photos.
Then, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the unattended automatic lighthouses did it job for some time, but after some time they collapsed too. Mostly as a result of the hunt for the metals like copper and other stuff which were performed by the looters. They didn’t care or maybe even didn’t know the meaning of the “Radioactive Danger” sign and ignored them, breaking in and destroying the equipment. It sounds creepy but they broke into the reactors too causing all the structures to become radioactively polluted.
Link – via darkroastedblend
