https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-66687056
An energy source which could sustain life on the Moon for long periods has been designed by researchers.
This is a bit of a tangent, but the damage that bigotry has done to human progress is staggering. The scientist leading the team is apparently a black Zimbabwean woman. Not so long ago, it would have been impossible for someone like that to lead a team, and that immense talent would have gone entirely to waste.
Think of all the highly intelligent people who were unable to go to university or perform to the best of their abilities because some racist moron assumed they were too stupid. Think of all the women who are scared off pursuing a scientific career to sexist BS.
Think how (overeducated) morons still run entire countries or huge companies, thanks to privilege they don't deserve, while at least one of the cleaners is twice as smart and a better human being than they'll ever be.
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” - Stephen Jay Gould
https://mastodon.social/@jenbanim@mastodo.neoliber.al/111021059217957193
This thread is talking about the fact that 15-20% of the economic gains of the last 60 years or so are the result of decreasing acceptance of overt bigotry in the workplace.
Well said. We don’t talk about this very real byproduct of bigotry nearly enough. This is one of the best arguments in favor of affirmative action, imo.
I’m genuinely curious to hear the opinions of the folks who are downvoting your comment.
Sciencetits
I hope this isn't how we refer to women in science.
(Ps you can edit titles on Lemmy)
Sciencetits : disease cures, Space travel and much more
ScienceDicks : Petrol and plastic companies.
the day we choose tits over dicks our society can progress.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Bangor University has designed nuclear fuel cells, the size of poppy seeds, to produce the energy needed to sustain life there.
As space technology advances at a rapid pace, the BBC was given exclusive access to the Bangor University Nuclear Futures Institute's laboratory.
The Bangor team, which is a world leader on fuels, works with partners such as Rolls Royce, the UK Space Agency, Nasa and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US.
Earlier this month, India made a historic landing near the Moon's south pole with its robotic probe Chandrayaan-3.
One of the mission's major goals is to hunt for water-based ice which, scientists say, could support human habitation on the Moon in future.
The geopolitical author and journalist, Tim Marshall, said the breakthrough over fuel was a step towards a global race to the lunar south pole.
The original article contains 778 words, the summary contains 140 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It sounds like we're staring to catch up to the Fallout universe.
It would be nice to have one of those nuclear potatoes to run my house.
I always thought Nukaa-Cola Quantum would taste like Baja Blast fresh from the soda machine from your local taco bell.
I have it under good authority that Nuka-Cola Quantum gives you the same effect as downing a fistful of sugar and punching yourself in the head.
So it's exactly like it would taste like Baja Blast from your local taco bell... only this time after 3am after drinking or getting high.
It's almost not a flavor but a feeling
Instead of using this on the moon, what is preventing us from putting this power source in a car and either powering the motor or constantly charging a battery?
Because you don't want a fusion reaction happening under your butt. Trust me... If something goes wrong, it'll go terribly wrong.
Leave fusion in billion dollars facilities continuously monitored for any minimal safety risk
It depends heavily on the fuel used.
See, some decay chains have gamma emitters in the line. Those are not good to have around people without several meters of lead, concrete, or water. All things that are a bit too heavy for a car.
Well, you'll likely not die from a source the size of a poppy seed, but you'll likely have a bad time.
Localized radiation burns on whatever body part is closest to the pellet.
If, on the other hand, you choose your fuel well, a thin sheet of metal is more than enough protection. Beta radiation can be blocked by a sheet of paper, and an alpha emitter is only dangerous if you swallow or breathe it.
This - wanted to add that it's generally not a good idea to have radioactive elements not under under lock and key as they have a nasty habit of ending up in scrap yards and the like. Most nuclear accidents are from radiotherapy and x-ray machine sources not getting disposed of correctly and getting picked up by enterprising scrappers due to the high lead content of their housing.
Localized radiation burns on whatever body part is closest to the pellet.
My prostate says "Bring it on!"
Localized radiation burns on whatever body part is closest to the pellet.
My prostate says "Bring it on!"
I was about to say no one is stopping you from dying a gruesome gamma-radiaton induced death, but I would be wrong, because I now realize you're literally shitting on the very people whose job it is to prevent that from happening.
So, I'm sorry I guess?
The reason cited for nuclear propulsion enabling us to get to places like Mars faster is wrong. It's not the amount of thrust, but the ability to use constant thrust longer (because we can fuel longer burns). It's why the plot device of the Epstein drive in The Expanse opened up the whole solar system - they can do a burn for days and use up very little fuel. We're nowhere near that, but nuclear would be far better than conventional rockets that have very limited burn time plus have heavy fuel to carry with them.
Sounds like a recipe for another Moonbase Alpha incident.
(from the Space: 1999 television series)
Plus, I suppose that the small size of the payload will make the potential for widespread radiation poisoning lower in case of an accident.
Small reactors often don't actually have enough fuel to actually melt their containment. And I'm talking Small Modular Reactors in the low MW range.
These pellets would be basically immune to anything even resembling a meltdown unless you had hundreds of them in one space.
No, the risk when dealing with items this small is orphan source. i.e. the loss of a pellet into the wider world.
Orphan source accidents are terrifying but also of very small scale. Usually one or two people who don't know what they've found and lose body parts to it, or just die.
Orphan sources are almost always from improperly disposed of medical equipment. Including the single worst case I can think of.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=-k3NJXGSIIA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
That was horrifying and so sad to watch. It also made me realise that most of us probably don't know enough about identifying nuclear contaminants.
I feel like even if we think we know of nuclear contaminants, identifying it and procedures on what to do in these situations should really be compulsory education for everyone.
The worst part about that was that after exposure, it really seemed like a best case scenario. From what the video showed, it was identified about as quickly as you could hope, and authorities responded well. It’s it we’re missed or they didn’t respond like they did, it could have been much, much worse.
On the other hand, the people who knew there was an orphaned source and delayed recovering it for so long, apought to be in jail
I wouldn't mind a more knowledgeable population when it comes to nuclear physics.
If treated with respect, it's the safest, and best tool we have to power our future.
Instead, we get a weird mix of fearmongering and ignorance that actually makes us all less safe.
although nuclear technology is high risk and high reward.
i think we should give it a chance who knows when thorium based reactors come along?
Still waiting on thorium and fusion reactors to be a thing. If nuclear is a necessity in the meanwhile, the least they can do is to build them in a place far away enough from the general population and natural resources, that way the containment zone in case of a breach would be a lesser loss.
I really hope that thorium and fusion get the r&d & implementation they deserve. It seems we as a species have given nuclear a bad rap because the consequences of nuclear power when they occur are simply more visible than it's counter parts.
What is this article even on about? Is it talking about TRISO fuel? That's not something new (it'd be new if they were talking about a way of manufacturing TRISO particles efficiently/with fewer failed particles). Why are they spelling it as "trisofuel", I can't find anything online using that spelling that isn't this (rather empty) article or copy/paste versions.