Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [nanotech] Re: can nanotech be introduced into our bodies?

Expand Messages
  • grimm@aol.com
    I agree. This discussion is definitely went off track. The ideas we are all describing here come straight out of some religious, science fiction mix. On one
    Message 1 of 41 , Jun 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree. This discussion is definitely went off track. The ideas we are all
      describing here come straight out of some religious, science fiction mix. On
      one hand we have the apocalyptic images we have to books like the bible, and
      the koran. Technology is bad and it will kill us all. Lets all run back to
      the woods. Every decade and every century, people have feared some sort of
      technology. This is no different. No matter what anyone does, this will be
      here and we will all use it. Then there is the science fiction aspect that we
      all get from movies like Terminator and the Matrix, where are own technology
      turned on us. The bottom line is that any technology will bring both good and
      bad. But the most important thing to understand that for thousands of years
      we controlled our progress and we will continue to do so. Anything we create
      we will control. Never will there be a time that our own technology will be
      smarter or better than us. Naturally, it will be used for both good and bad,
      just as nuclear technology was. We fear our missles, but without that
      splitting atom where would we be now. Our nuclear energy is on the verge of
      sustaining life on the planet. And if I am wrong and the end somehow comes
      from this, well then it was meant to be. Nature took its course because
      nature is all about life and death. Nothing stays alive forever.
    • Eugene Leitl
      ... There have been several nuclear accidents in former USSRs and successor states history. In fact the normal operation of USSR/successors nuke shops can be
      Message 41 of 41 , Jul 3 9:39 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ed Minchau wrote:

        > The one major nuclear accident in the USSR (Chernobyl) was *not* due

        There have been several nuclear accidents in former USSRs and successor
        states history. In fact the "normal operation" of USSR/successors nuke
        shops can be considered a chronical calamity.

        > to faulty or "primitive" design. It was due to a few drunken
        > engineers pulling all the control rods out of the reactor, to see how
        > much power they could generate before the reactor blew its top...
        > just sober enough to do it, and just drunk enough to not think about
        > the consequences.

        Don't spread false rumours. What happened is that a) they were running an
        experiment b) in low power the reactor behaviour was very unstable, and
        they had to switch off the automatical shutdown to be able to conduct the
        experiment c) the control rods did have a paradoxical effect on
        criticality during early insertion.

        So, IIRC they went into low regime (with automation switched off), and
        starved the reactor. Then then attempted to go higher, but the reactor was
        just sitting there. Then, they suddenly got a monster surge, panicked, and
        manually triggered the emergency rods, which in the early insertion stage
        actually enhanced the criticality.

        The rest is history.

        These things are easy to judge in the retrospective, unfortunately only in
        the retrospective.

        -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
        ______________________________________________________________
        ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
        57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.