• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 5th, 2023
  • ???@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoWorld News@lemmy.ml•Uranium prices hit post-Fukushima high on nuclear power revival
    53·
    11 months ago

    I guess you’ve never heard of the beach with sand that is more radioactive than Fukushima and has been since long before nuclear energy or even nuclear weapons. People go there because the black sand is pretty and because it doesn’t have enough ionizing (cancerous) radiation to hurt anyone, it’s actually really popular.

    Not all nuclear power plants are equal. Fukushima barely reached “level 8” on the danger level of nuclear accidents, which is the catch-all “really bad and off the charts” level. Even though Chernobyl was also “off the charts”, the soviet nuclear program was also focused on using power plants to make weapon’s grade plutonium and their design was flawed severely, so Chernobyl was and still is much, much worse.

    Three Mile Island was a maintenance issue, and Fukushima was due to catastrophic damage, so what if we could build a nuclear plant that relied on something other than technology to prevent a meltdown?

    Simple, gravity. Trains used to crash into disconnected carriages from other trains whose engineers never realized a coupler broke. Now, when a train starts, there’s pressurized air in a hose running the length of a train and when it fails the air is released; that was the only thing keeping the brakes on every car _de_activated. So the train immediately comes to a halt. That’s what an actual failsafe is, but nuclear plants currently in operation don’t have that because they were built in the 1950s and 60s on the cheap.

    Instead of air, an electromagnet in a NEW design keeps a seal at the bottom of the plant closed. If the electricity fails, the seal is opened by gravity. When the seal is open, the nuclear fuel is sent dropping into a cooling tank with enough water to keep them cooled off for 100 or more years, during a mere few months of which we can repair the minimal damage easily. Unfortunately, the design was held back for decades for numerous nontechnical reasons, and now the average person is too fucking terrified of past failures based on the lies of businessmen and the shortsightedness of Cold War paranoia to use something that actually works.

  • ???@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•If you had access to a scifi-level artificial super intelligence that could simulate anything perfectly at unimaginable speeds, what experiments would you want to run that would be unethical otherwise
    1·
    1 year ago

    The one that led to McBling and Reality TV. I wouldn’t try to force fashion to remain shiny bubblegum pop grafittipunk/shibiyapunk futurism to stick around or anything, I just think it had more staying power under normal conditions that was lost solely due to the nature of life from 2001-2008.

    People don’t change fashion at the drop of a hat for financial crises, that just strengthens counterculture and futurism. They change their tastes suddenly when innocent people die in a new and unexpected way. That’s why art from the time period just before and during the Black Death is filled with more cynicism than even the past 7 years (roughly since Trump was elected), why an Oriental symbol of peace was ruined by the Nazis, and why the climate crisis has made FairPhone the only smartphone brand that survives without shoving ads down your throat.

    Or at least, so it seems to me, I’m not a sociologist. What I also am not is petty or authoritarian, I’m not trying to make everyone wear 30 year old clothes or check their emails on an iLamp computer. I just know I’d like to see a world where people don’t have to rely on mass production to provide the things we need to live, because then you’re required to change your stuff out the moment it’s broken or obsolete.

    My point is, I was trying to say your idea would make planned obsolescence and obsolescence in general themselves a relic of early civilization, so limiting such a world to one genre or style of product that only remains popular for ~10 years before becoming nothing but zeitgeist and nostalgia feels needlessly restrictive. I can see how it could be taken the opposite way, sorry about that!

  • ???@lemmy.dbzer0.comtoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•If you had access to a scifi-level artificial super intelligence that could simulate anything perfectly at unimaginable speeds, what experiments would you want to run that would be unethical otherwise
    161·
    1 year ago

    Simulate one human life, from beginning to end, in a way that allows unethical experiments to be dismissed as recurring nightmares by the individual, and not cause permanent damage to this simulated person. When their life ends, I’d arrange to talk to them, explain everything, apologize for the necessity of the experiments, and offer him immortality and/or freedom with no strings attached. He can get a biological or robot body, or stay virtual, but it’s not up to anyone but him/her/? at that point.

    I’d be fine with my life being an experiment under those circumstances as long as the results were put mostly to saving or improving lives, but I’d never be willing to put someone else in that position if I didn’t; if you couldn’t find a person like myself in real life with that opinion on the possibility, it’s unjustifiable. If, however, you engineered their life just enough to strongly encourage that level of altruism, and made it comfortable and not dehumanizing when not involved in an experiment as well as having a ban on cruelty and gaslighting in doing the experiments, and apologize for having to resort to these measures at all, I could see the person not being overly upset.

    Whether it meets the code of ethics for scientific research is another matter.