big314mp

Brilliant plan! Make a device so big the plane can't take off. And then just step out of the plane and claim your gold!

We always celebrated june 22, as well as october 27. Didn't know about the 6:02AM - 6:02PM bit though. My chem teacher always gave us an extra credit activity about moles, but that was the extent of celebration. Personally, I like the producing of a mole of water from H2 and O2.

I'm thinking that since gold is so soft, it will be extremely difficult to design and build a gold parachute. The one thing that stuck in my head is, where and how do you tie yourself to the parachute? It seems that if the parachute is thick enough to support your weight, it is too heavy to help, and vice versa. However, gold is a soft, easily deformed metal. So some sort of system that would absorb the energy by deforming lots of relatively thin gold rods seemed like a better solution. Something like a birds nest. And if designed correctly, the increase in weight could be counteracted by the increase in surface area.

I thought the point of this exercise was to design a one time use device, that is made of gold, that we would jump out of a plane in. And then presumably keep the gold should we land safely .

The mythbusters lead balloon experiment comes to mind. Could you instead design a gold shock absorber?

Would a plastic conical flask work? It might make it safer should it break. Doing it in a closed fume hood would also help.

Metals will reflect microwaves, hence why you don't heat food in a microwave with metal on it (aside from the sparking issue).

I somehow convinced myself that this thread was about the US, even though it didn't start there . In any case, ParanoiA already made the point I would've made. I'll play devil's advocate here for a little: What happens if the business owner originally operates the premises as a non-smoking establishment, and then switches to become a smoking establishment?

I have no opposition to the proper use of nuclear technology. It operates like any other tech, except more powerful. This can (and should) be put to good use. My points are simple: Space flight has a notoriously poor safety record. Testing needs to be done to ensure proper safety. This testing needs to ensure that the safety of such a rocket is on the order of a nuclear power plant. Should a nuclear rocket be built, and then release significant amounts of radionuclides, public support for both the nuclear rocket and for terrestrial nuclear power use will evaporate. Quickly. If public support for nuclear power evaporates, it may take a generation or more to rebuild that support. This hampers The evidence: Look at the Chernobyl disaster. Regardless of any science present, it trashed public support for nuclear power. Same for Three Mile Island. It doesn't matter that the safety features were turned off, current reactors are safer, current operators are better trained, etc. None of that matters to the public. My conclusion: You had better make damn sure that this nuclear rocket doesn't blow up and dump a bunch of radionuclides into the air. The public uproar will kill any and all nuclear projects for 30 years afterwards. So I think what I am advocating is reasonable: that such a rocket be held to a much higher standard than current space vehicles.

It is ridiculous to assume that we can plan for all problems with something as risky as space flight. Do you honestly believe that NASA engineers were too lazy to think of as many problems as possible, and engineer solutions to those problems? In spite of their best efforts, 2 shuttles still crashed. That is an unacceptable failure rate for something like a nuclear reactor. And I'm beginning to suspect that you are greatly exaggerating the effect of coal power plants based on this paper: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01604120/1996/00000022/90000001/art00112

Well it is up to the workers to decide whether they want to work there or not.

Ok, this makes sense.

...that was the most depressing thing I've read in a long while. Way to crap all over my day

Well, this shows that it does happen. But why? Is it really only the prevention of tumbling that kevinalm suggested?

The "coal power plants release radiation" is a roundabout appeal to emotion. It won't convince people here, as it is off topic. Look at a nuclear power plant sometime. That is how much overbuilding is needed for people to trust nuclear power, even though that is an application that doesn't go anywhere. Without lots and lots of testing to conclusively prove that it is as safe as a nuclear power plant, the public will not trust it. Also, consider asteroids. Solid balls of rock that are completely obliterated when they hit the ground. That should give you some idea of the level of overbuilding needed.

The only one I had heard of (from a PopSci article) was a sunroof that had an integrated solar panel that powered a small fan to cool the inside of the car on hot days. Well, the solar panel costs a certain amount of energy to build. If the solar panel does not produce at least that much energy over its life (which may be quite short as was pointed out) then it isn't worth it. The sun does shine in alaska, just not too brightly. At least that was the logic I used to justify my point. Although I seem to be mistaken on this one: http://www.absak.com/library/solar-photovoltaic-power Damned logic fails again

The article mentioned 3 scram modes. In all of the scram modes, the radionuclides are still on the spacecraft. If the entire space craft runs itself into the ground, then what? Unless the craft is so obscenely overbuilt that it couldn't get off of the ground, you will have a radionuclide release. And I can virtually guarantee you that a mess like that would kill all public support for both nuclear powered space travel, as well as terrestrial use of nuclear power. Is that really what you want? And, just to pass on some advice, appeals to emotion won't convince anyone here.

Nifty colors, and you may be charming?

Asking people not to smoke in certain areas is fair enough. The question then becomes, which areas? I am very uncomfortable with the notion that government should legislate what happens on private property. The examples I listed were just a few of many different positions that entail certain risks. Factories could spend millions of dollars to install robots to prevent workers from being exposed to the risks in the manufacturing of cars. Or we could just outlaw cars, as they are too risky to everyone. If someone can avoid a risk on their own, why does this risk need to be outlawed by the government? That strikes me as a nanny state. I suppose this will all finally boil down to the public safety vs public freedom debate, at which point we will have a stalemate .

Assuming something like that is a rather dangerous thing to do on a science forum . You couldn't be more mistaken. Going to space is a risky endeavor. Even with technology that we supposedly have mastered, the safety record of space flight is pretty awful. For example: According to wikipedia, the space shuttle has had 128 flights. 2 out of these 128 flights resulted in destruction of the orbiter. Thus, this implies a 1.6% chance of the space shuttle blowing up . This is not a promising record for putting nuclear materials into flight. I'd like to see you sell that one to the public.

Be mean and dump a bit of KOH in it, so that it has a nice burn to it.

This was a very cool article. I think the technology will need decades of ground testing before it will be accepted however. An accident/explosion on the way up (or down) would be absolutely unacceptable.

Yet we expect firefighters to run into burning buildings to save lives. Yet we expect police to put themselves in danger to stop criminals. The military. Drug test subjects. Chemists exposed to carcinogens and mutagens (this actually happened to a woman who lives down the street from me, and it caused birth defects in her son). The designer of the new Toyota Hybrid Camry allegedly died from overwork and exhaustion. Test pilots of experimental planes. Heck, even secretaries getting carpal tunnel syndrome from typing too much. But god forbid we allow wait staff to be exposed to some tobacco smoke. People in many different sectors of business and industry are paid to take risks and do a job. I don't see why this is any different. As to the other bit, I don't think I typed out my point quite clearly. The point that I was trying to make, is that people accept crap air quality for some reasons but not others. The question is, why is tobacco smoke separated from all of the other reasons that air ends up polluted?

actually it was the yeti with high voices that someone mentioned before

See, my objection is less about the issue of pollution, and more of an objection to legislating what people do on their private property. I see the work place as the private property of the employer. Some people work in hazardous positions, and perhaps wait staff in smoking areas should be paid more, according to the additional risk to the additional risk that they shoulder. I am also reluctant to suggest a law about indoor pollution because I can see that enforcing such a law would involve some serious trampling of individual rights. ParanoiA brought up a very valid point about children in smoking households will be unfairly exposed to relatively high levels of indoor pollutants. Perhaps some indoor pollution law may be necessary, but at the moment, I can't think of any way to implement it properly. Perhaps if you could suggest one, I may take your side on this I think a valid question that needs to be answered is "How far does a smoker need to distance him/herself from another person such that the effect of the smoker on the second person's air is negligible?" In my experience, I can smell cigarette smoke (outdoors) from maybe 15-20 ft away, but I can hardly believe that it is impacting my health. That's why I think that outdoors people should be allowed to smoke. In my experience, it seems to be a politeness issue more than a health one.