Run Your Laptop On Nuclear Energy 607
Reader zymano points to this news.com artcle on innovations in portable power sources. Would you feel comfortable with a radioactive power source inside your laptop or cellphone?
Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!
why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
New regulations (Score:3, Insightful)
Export? (Score:1, Insightful)
Nuclear powered cellphone (Score:3, Insightful)
In all seriousness if the manufacturers can guarentee that its safe I'm all for portable power that lasts 200 years.
What do do with them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Radio Waves and Radioactivity (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear powered cellphone (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw that. I want the manufacturer, a government agency, and a dozen or so independent non-profit organizations to guarantee it is safe. I mean, we saw well letting the company tell us what is safe worked with tobacco.
But do that, and yeah, I'd use one.
Re:What do do with them... (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst part is you're not even harmless. The lack of progress in the battery field due to people being afraid of flamable liquid, and anything that contains the word 'nuclear' or 'radiation' means we're going to keep dumping cadmium and mercury into landfills. It's kneejerk comments like yours based on false information that cause these new technologies to be dismissed without consideration.
For the sake of the rest of us, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk.
Re:What do do with them... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Uses beta particles. Non dangerous[1]
2. Think abou it: All energy used (battery dead) means NO radation remaining. It'd be no worse, than say, lead.
[1] Okay, iif you breath in a lot it my casue problems, but it's not going to make your kids have green skin.
indistinguishable from magic (Score:4, Insightful)
ugh, radiation bad, me no like radiation. it heap bad juju; it give Grog cancer.
Meanwhile, Grog likes woodstove and fireplace. Note that the pleasure of such heat sources is infrared radiation. There is a lot of difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
the article says these devices would use BETA radiation. Whazzat? fast electrons. If they won't penetrate skin, they won't cause mutations, they won't give Grog cancer.
Slashdotters SHOULD know better. If we're half as smart as we think ourselves, then we ought to be able to distinguish between beta radiation, infrared radiation, etc. and also the safe energy levels of each type of radiation
Folks, we have a leadership role here. If we know the techie background to say whether something is safe or not, we ought to apply it to this kind of stuff.
At the airport (Score:2, Insightful)
Me:
"My laptop is nuclear-powered, so don't drop it please."
Federal Screener (recoils in horror):
"You've got a NUKE in here?"
Armed national guardsmen (running hard toward me):
"Get Down Get Down NOWWW!!!"
Some other dudes in uniform (on the radio):
"We've got a 99-56!!! Notify STARTAC!!!"
Me: (writhing on the floor my hands pinned back)
"It's a Dell, Dude!"
About time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear waste (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do do with them... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this include when I plug it into my wall outlet, the electricity from which is generated by a nuclear station?
Perhaps something along the lines of "Portable Nuclear Generator for your Laptop" would have been more appropriate. The next article could be "Portable Birth Control for Men", with the same link.
You mean like regular batteries? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its okay to dispose of them like those others. Probably safer to drop them in the trash than regular nicads..
Nuclear? It'll never happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
People are scared of what RF radiation could do to them. That's RF, as in Radio Frequency. Telling them that it's non-ionizing is pointless. They only understand "radiation" and they don't want to understand any more.
Now someone is proposing a nuclear battery. I wish them luck. With so many people believing that putting a cell phone next to their heads is dangerous today, wait until interest groups discover that the battery they're using is a nuclear device.
Once again, we have what is probably a technically elegant solution being offered to a seriously ignorant public. Expect the risks to be blown entirely out of proportion while "harmless" chemical batteries are added by the ton to landfills every day. Thank-you Jeremy Rifkin. Thank-you Paul Brodur. Thank-you Nancy Wertheimer. Thank-you Rachel Carson. You and your successors have taught a generation of idiots all about fear-mongering. Now we can all pay for the wages of stupidity and political grandstanding.
Meanwhile, because of our societal phobias we'll continue making a mess of our environment.
(Rifkin: Fearmonger on Genetically modified foods. Brodur: wrote the "Zapping of America", a treatise on RF phobias and science by innunendo. Nancy Werthiemer: Co-author of a seriously flawed paper on powerline exposure and lukemia. Rachael Carson: "Silent Spring"; although her cause was reasonable, her facts were not.)
Misleading description (Score:3, Insightful)
The word Nuclear seems to have become a misnomer for anything at all involving atoms. The article you have linked to is not talking about nuclear power at all: power harvested from the nucleus is a distinct thing.
What they are doing is not making a battery out of a nuclear reactor or nuclear power source -- no fission or fusion is being used, therefore, they are not harvesting the power derived from splitting or merging nucleii, so the term nuclear would seem incorrect.
They are simply using some substance that has a certain radioactivity: it has the tendency to decay and release some energy, but other than that, is relatively harmless unless you ingest it or something (You would at least get very sick if you opened and ingested the contents of any battery, however!).
Read from the article:
You won't be glowing or sterilized if you put one of these in your lap, the danger is about as great as using an ordinary battery -- it could pop a leak and fill your lap with mercury, hydrochloric acid, or something, which would be just as bad.
Moreover, if simple radioactive decay is called nuclear because it deals with atoms, then it could perhaps be argued, that all batteries (and indeed, all power sources) are nuclear, because all electrical power sources eventually depend on generating electricity: exciting electrons, and electrons effect atoms.
It is not apparent that there is any danger with this battery that is new, that is, you can't tell by the fact that a battery uses this particular method of power generation that it would be more dangerous than any other kind of battery.
Already happening in other devices... (Score:5, Insightful)
Check it out, then tell me if this is a big deal. (it's not.)
Rob
Re:Not a nuclear engineer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another Beta Test (Score:3, Insightful)
Just for grins, count the number of "death rays" you have around you right now. Perhaps you know them as "lasers". Remember to check you local CD and DVD players.
Re:Nuke batteries (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear waste (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Misleading description -- WRONG! (Score:2, Insightful)
Using a nuclear process is different from harvesting the nuclear power. There is a major difference between the amount of energy released from decay and the release from fusion, for example, which popular conception assumes the same.
To be overtly vague and to misuse popular misconception is a way to mislead people
Re:More importantly.... (Score:3, Insightful)
About time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Beta particles... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now my question is how much radioactive material will these things actually contain? I seem to recall that the largest samples that could be sold to the public (for use in one of my high-school labs) were all well less than a gram for even the lowest level isotopes.