Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (02/22/86)
Though the present tragedy is quite nasty, consider what could have
happened. Let's say that the next scheduled shuttle flight exploded
instead. This next flight was to carry the Galileo orbiter. This
orbiter carrys a load of 43 pounds of Plutonium on-board. (I may have
the figure wrong).
Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance anywhere,
even if you disregard the radioactivity. It has been said that less
than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being.
Now, imagine the shuttle exploding with this cargo. Ten miles up.
Practically maximum possible dispersion.
In the very least, several thousand, perhaps several hundred thousand
people would develop cancer and plutonium poisoning.
In the shuttle tragedy, we lost seven lives, and Challenger. It could
have been much worse.
Brett Slocum
(Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (02/25/86)
And now, the latest installment in Plutonium Hysteria: In article <860222195435.678780@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes: >Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance anywhere, >even if you disregard the radioactivity. The MOST POISONOUS substance anywhere. Do you have any references? >It has been said that less >than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being. Yes, but has it been said by anyone who knows what they are talking about? > >Now, imagine the shuttle exploding with this cargo. Ten miles up. >Practically maximum possible dispersion. Except for the fact that it would have probably remained intact and sank to the bottom of the Atlantic, thereby posing very little danger to anyone. >In the very least, several thousand, perhaps several hundred thousand >people would develop cancer and plutonium poisoning. Yes, I guess that is why Western North America is practically devoid of human population - those damn bomb test killed millions. >In the shuttle tragedy, we lost seven lives, and Challenger. It could >have been much worse. Had the Galileo been aboard, the biggest loss (next to the crew, of course), would have been the Galileo, period. Not even the most hysterical expert predicts that several thousand people would have died. I never believed so many people read the National Enquirer and "news"papers of that sort, but that is the only place I can think of where so many people are getting these ideas.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/03/86)
> Though the present tragedy is quite nasty, consider what could have > happened. Let's say that the next scheduled shuttle flight exploded > instead. This next flight was to carry the Galileo orbiter. This > orbiter carrys a load of 43 pounds of Plutonium on-board. (I may have > the figure wrong). > > Plutonium is widely felt to be the most poisonous substance anywhere, > even if you disregard the radioactivity. It has been said that less > than a pound spread thinly enough could kill every human being. > > Brett Slocum This is nonsense. There's already vast quantities of plutonium in the Earth's crust. Plutonium forms naturally by U-238 atoms capturing neutrons. The last figures I saw quoted for plutonium concentrations in the Earth's crust was .01 ppb. Multiply by AT LEAST several quintillion tons for the mass of the Earth's crust: 10^18 tons * 10^-11 = 10^7 tons of plutonium in the crust. Also, ignoring plutonium's radioactivity (which, because of its chemical similarity to calcium and other transition metals, causes it to concentrate in the bones), plutonium is just another heavy metal, with pretty typical heavy metal toxicity. I wouldn't want to have any big chunk in my diet (just like I wouldn't want a lot of barium in a form that would enter my system), but to claim it's the most poisonous substance is more nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups. (Perhaps some of them can study chemistry and physics one of these days, instead of taking classes in poetics and English literature.)
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (03/05/86)
In article <563@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >...to claim it's the most poisonous substance is more >nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups. (Perhaps some of them can study >chemistry and physics one of these days, instead of taking classes in >poetics and English literature.) I have little respect for many of the neo-Luddites who belong to anti-nuclear groups. However, to claim that EVERYONE who has mixed feelings about nuclear energy or is flat out against nuclear energy knows nothing about chemistry and physics is bilge. There are nuclear physicists who are against nuclear energy, for Ghod's sake. Get YOUR facts straight, mister. But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/08/86)
> In article <563@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > >...to claim it's the most poisonous substance is more > >nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups. (Perhaps some of them can study > >chemistry and physics one of these days, instead of taking classes in > >poetics and English literature.) > > I have little respect for many of the neo-Luddites who belong to > anti-nuclear groups. However, to claim that EVERYONE who has mixed > feelings about nuclear energy or is flat out against nuclear energy > knows nothing about chemistry and physics is bilge. There are nuclear > physicists who are against nuclear energy, for Ghod's sake. Get YOUR > facts straight, mister. > I'm not sure what you are responding to. I, too, have mixed feelings about nuclear power -- it's certainly not the panacea that a lot of people tried to persuade us it was twenty years ago. Read the text at the top -- it is the "anti-nuclear" groups that my comments were directed at -- not everyone, or even every group that is opposed to nuclear power. There are rational and valid arguments against nuclear power -- but you don't see them from the groups that scream "No Nukes!" > But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam > against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the > semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their > culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell > them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable > of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive > as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh. > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly The slam is against people who purport to be knowledgable enough about a subject to be telling other people what the "truth" is, when in fact they haven't studied any of the relevant issues in an objective manner. Incidentally, my argument isn't with subjects outside of the hard sciences -- my argument is with narrowness and specialization. (Of course, that's what we have universities for -- to promote narrowness and specialization.)
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/08/86)
In article <702@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes: >But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam >against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the >semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their >culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell >them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable >of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive >as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh. While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the scientist who tries/succeeds. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
jimb@ism780 (03/09/86)
>> But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam >> against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the >> semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their >> culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell >> them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable >> of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive >> as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh. > While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the > scientist who tries/succeeds. > = Bill Ingogly >> = Matthew P. Weiner Bullsh*t! As someone who is more-or-less tri-cultural (hard science, social science, the arts), I find that tolerance/acceptance/understanding across the chasms is pretty low all the way around. But in general, more of the liberal arts types will admit that they don't understand scientific/technical points of view and are willing to be educated. More "techies" either *think* they have a superior understanding of social sciences/liberal arts or discount it as meaningless. (The pure arts people seem to be in their own world; even I have trouble relating to some of them.) A side consideration is what society values and labels intelligence. At this point in history, math and verbal skills are "in," leaving people with other kinds of intelligence sucking hind tit. The "techies" dominate in the math-oriented skills and the liberal arts types dominate in the verbal, leading to all sorts of "Tastes great! Less filling!" confrontations. Personally, I benefit from this; my abilities are such that I move among both groups with moderate ease and I earn a very decent living essentially acting as an intepreter between the two groups. From a more distant perspective, though, "Feh!" Society is the less for the division and many individuals are poorer for it in terms of unfulfilled potential. -- from the musings of Jim Brunet ima/ihnp4/ism780 hplabs/hao/ico/ism780 sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/09/86)
In article <60000003@ism780> jimb@ism780 writes: > > >>> But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam >>> against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the >>> semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their >>> culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell >>> them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable >>> of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive >>> as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh. > >> While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the >> scientist who tries/succeeds. > >> = Bill Ingogly > >>> = Matthew P. Weiner > >Bullsh*t! As someone who is more-or-less tri-cultural (hard science, social >science, the arts), I find that tolerance/acceptance/understanding across the >chasms is pretty low all the way around. But in general, more of the liberal >arts types will admit that they don't understand scientific/technical points >of view and are willing to be educated. More "techies" either *think* they >have a superior understanding of social sciences/liberal arts or discount it >as meaningless. (The pure arts people seem to be in their own world; even I >have trouble relating to some of them.) > >A side consideration is what society values and labels intelligence. At this >point in history, math and verbal skills are "in," leaving people with other >kinds of intelligence sucking hind tit. The "techies" dominate in the >math-oriented skills and the liberal arts types dominate in the verbal, >leading to all sorts of "Tastes great! Less filling!" confrontations. >Personally, I benefit from this; my abilities are such that I move >among both groups with moderate ease and I earn a very decent living >essentially acting as an intepreter between the two groups. From a more >distant perspective, though, "Feh!" Society is the less for the division and >many individuals are poorer for it in terms of unfulfilled potential. > > -- from the musings of Jim Brunet > > ima/ihnp4/ism780 > hplabs/hao/ico/ism780 > sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780 ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
jis1@mtgzz.UUCP (j.mukerji) (03/10/86)
>>of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive >>as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh. > >While it is uncommon to cross the two cultures, it is usually the scientist > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >who tries/succeeds. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 I doubt very much that there is any evidence to suggest that the scientists try/succeed any more than liberal arts majors do. Of course, some "scientists" like to believe that that is the case for the edification of their collective ego or whatever other strange reason!:-) Jishnu Mukerji AT&T Information Systems Middletown NJ mtgzz!jis1 The usual disclaimers....
carroll@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/13/86)
Not to fan the flames of moderation or anything, but my experience in dealing with techies and humanists is that while the techies think LAS stuff is worthless, they usually don't have the disdain (active dislike) for it that the humanists have for technological things. Most engineers don't mind LAS as long as they don't have to deal with it, while the large scale techno-phobic movements in the country today speak volumes of the often out-right hatred of non-technicals for math/science/technology.