If college professors taught with this much clarity more students would get A's! My biochem professor assigned us to watch this and at first i was like "wtf would i watch a 1950's kids movie!?" but this actually made more sense than all the ranting should did during lecture. I know now why she wanted us to watch this. SMH -_-
seriously i might have searched hundreds of videos on atoms and nuclear energy but these videos really break it down so anyone can understand something fairly complicated, though slightly outdated, very great videos
I love the aesthetics. The culture got so gaudy and ugly with the advent of the 70s. Model homes - wow, it's like every human being had their aesthetic sense surgically removed during the night. And today it's like they're trying to move society in to the prison yard and the prison yard into society.
anything that can be developed for the progress of man, someone at sometime will use it to destroy man, such as the case with Iran now. However i am a great believer of nuke energy for power plants. We have not built a new reactor in 33 years, because of 3 mile island incident. Technology has advanced so much in that time, to make it safer. We dont even use the same technology to build cars that was used 33 years ago, go figure.
Nuclear and coal plant cancellations spiked prior to 3-mile island. This was driven by 10-20%/year interest rates and limited demand growth due to the oil embargo.
The other major reason is the NRC. They are not allowed to weigh ~30 000 deaths per year from coal particulates(~5-10 Chernobyls worth) against the comparatively miniscule risks with nuclear; they added many years to build times by forcing utilities to retrofit things into their designs.
It's almost criminal that it takes only 3-5 years to build a nuclear plant, but it takes at least 5 years and a few hundred million dollars(you are billed per bureaucrat-hour) for the NRC to process an application.
God help you if you want to build anything other than an LWR.
Before ICBMs were develops there were prototype nuclear powered airplanes(russians even tested one. They never managed to solve the shielding weight-problem, so you couldn't fly it for an extended periods of time) and nuclear cruise missiles(e.g. see project pluto, a 500 MW unshielded reactor intended to go mach 3 at tree-top level. Reactor was tested but it never flew).
An indirectly nuclear powered airplane is feasible; use a VHTR to produce hydrogen for airplanes.
Perhaps, still wouldnt the problem remain that if it crashed we'd have... well you know.. KABOOM? Thats the point Im trying to get at.
Could you imagine what would have happened on 9/11 if terrorists had gotten their hands on atomic powered commercial jetliners? It'd take out a Hell of a lot more of NYC than just the WTC.
I dont think Id like to visit my relatives riding on a potential nuke. The fact that mechanical failure can and WILL happen pretty much negates any benifiial applicatons
But the reactor is sitting in an aircraft proof structure on the ground and producing hydrogen or some other fuel(methanol, DME and ammonia are other candidates). You don't take the reactor with you or you will have insurmountable shielding problems(even the pilots will get a significant dose).
Reactors aren't nukes. It's physically impossible for them to explode with a nuclear yield. At worst you can melt them and volatile fission products can boil off or you can have a steam explosion.
obviously thats why we dont have nuclear aircraft and may never, at least ones that dont go into space, although interestingly enough they did plan and i think started to build a nuclear powered aircraft engine but scrapped it for obvious reasons
@ap327145 Actually, I heard scientists are now working on micro-reactors (the magazine Discover said so, I think). This might make it feasible to have atomic planes/cars.
Very educational, I find this awesome, science rocks. Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it because I've got this nuclear physics and atom project coming up, so I got the point how everything is.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow this is lib terrorist propoganda.We need 2 fight the iranins in iran so we dont have 2 fight thm hre.U libs need 2 b detaind untl ucan prove u r not a teorist.If any iraqi tries to take my FREEDOM Iwill blow up his cave cmd cntr.IranNchina have been stckpling WMDs2 use aginst us an our Israeli friends in th form of a mushroom cloud in th global wr n terror.Whn th final nuclear bttle comes to our home streets we need world govt. an hive mind and every1 get microchip so prs bush cn kep us safe
This is a very strange question and will require more than 500 chars to properly answer.
Firstly, it's unavoidable if you want to be alive.
Potassium, an element necessary for life, always contains some potassium-40 which is a beta emitter.
All plants absorb radioactive carbon-14 and incorporate it into sugars, starches, fats and cellulose when they grow; it is formed continually in the upper atmosphere. Can't eat fossil fuels.
Secondly, small doses of radiation can't be shown to be harmful.
The standard model for radiation induced cancer is the linear no-threshold model(LNT), but it's more or less impossible to tell below 100 mSv.
E.g. the LNT model predicts ~4000 cancer deaths for Chernobyl spread out over decades; in the same timeframe a few hundred million people will die from cancer not related to Chernobyl in the same populations.
A J-shaped hormesis response(like alcohol) or threshold is not impossible.
Thirdly, there are life-saving treatments in nuclear medicine. Isotopic markers are attached to some chemical; when you inject, inhale or eat those molecules your metabolism or blood circulation determine where in your body they end up.
Because they emit radiation you can image it, take picture of were they went that help you diagnose disease.
amazing! your knowledge and intent to spread awareness is inspiring! and you can answer things in a more comprehensive manner then my since teacher. i don't really know what the hell your talking about though, im an artist and writer not a nuclear phisist. but thats ok, even if our brains work differently i can still try to understand you. what your saying is theres trace amounts of radiation in everything.. even the things we eat to live. and um isotropic makers can help determine where
a body is having problems. small amounts of radiation are not that bad, so its cool. i guess it only counts for big things, then i can destroy white blood cels leaving a person helpless against dezese and unable to heal.
not to mention the background radiation that we've evolved to live in over millions of years that surrounds us and our planet, yeah nuclear science and the topic of radiation is pretty f-ing interesting
@Montork Radioactive Could potentially mutate a person's DNA if exposed long enough time period. This mutation can cause unstoppable cell division, which known as Cancer and could spread to every part of the body if the condition is match. The Bottom line, stay away from radioactive energy ahhaa.
@7seng7 wow, i made these comments 3 years ago! in that time i have learned a lot, not just about nuclear energy but also tones of other things too. like the fact that since chalk rivers down for repairs theres a world wide shortage of the nuclear isotope used in medical procedures to find and break up cancer cells. i also now know that in many parts of the world including france they re-use the same rods over and over again after dusting off the used, dead, uranium in a process called
@Montork reclamation. my point is that all things in this world are both good and bad in different uses. fire can kill and destroy all in its path, coal mining has killed millions in the most painful ways imaginable and blackened the air. nuclear energy seems to be almost just a stronger fire, it needs to be tended to and carefully watched because if it gets out of hand the land it burns is unable to grow...
@Montork not just for a year but for many many years. but that's the price you must pay for more powerful types of energy. did you know its now almost safe to return to Chernobyl? they do guided walking tours, most of the dangerous radiation has become harmless.
This is a great video, just slightly inaccurate. When the neutron hits uranium it releases three neutrons that are all capable of splitting other uranium atoms in case anyone cares.
@jocelynmuch Yes, they are all capable. It's just, only at the critical mass, the PROBABILITY of hitting another U-235 atom is high enough to be able to produce a large enough explosion. In lower amounts, there is a smaller chance, but it is very unlikely (at best) that a nuclear explosion will start.
I love these old educational movies thanks for putting it up.
Nogls 4 months ago
If college professors taught with this much clarity more students would get A's! My biochem professor assigned us to watch this and at first i was like "wtf would i watch a 1950's kids movie!?" but this actually made more sense than all the ranting should did during lecture. I know now why she wanted us to watch this. SMH -_-
josiejss 5 months ago
Love this!
davesmith20092009 7 months ago
I think this video just let be pass science
JesusAndCoTheBand 9 months ago
oh that is a great movie. thank you for posting it.
northbeachfilms 1 year ago
UNFORTUNATELY, MANKIND has used his KNOWLEDGE to perpetuate EVIL...instead of using it for the BETTERMENT of MANKIND...
Taharah007 1 year ago
Old info-films are so pedagogical. They illustrate and explain everything in such a way that it is easy to understand!
EinarKempe 1 year ago
seriously i might have searched hundreds of videos on atoms and nuclear energy but these videos really break it down so anyone can understand something fairly complicated, though slightly outdated, very great videos
ap327145 2 years ago 2
@ap327145 Yeah. Since this is under copyleft (allowing remixes), we're able to make an updated version. Why don't we do that?
SpaceTime4D 1 year ago
Cool info.. What year was that??
petestrat07 2 years ago
1953
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
those giant representations gave me the heebies
JESUSSDAD 2 years ago
dont get it but cool
TheSpolly2 2 years ago
Africa is so well defined at 1:15
blink234234234 2 years ago 2
THEY LEFT OUT AFRICA LOL
xXDominoXx 2 years ago
it's a shame none of those dreams have been realised when we could be living forever on free energy by now due to nuclear applications.
ryanlewisjones 2 years ago
I love the aesthetics. The culture got so gaudy and ugly with the advent of the 70s. Model homes - wow, it's like every human being had their aesthetic sense surgically removed during the night. And today it's like they're trying to move society in to the prison yard and the prison yard into society.
99rhetbaboons 2 years ago
sweet
Zaisorian 3 years ago
cringe @ 4.03 & 4.11
jch31384 3 years ago
not bad for a 50's documentary.
Kation666 3 years ago 4
life is amazing
Zoootex 3 years ago
1:41 The Microscope Looks Like The Communist Sign
NigelAndres 3 years ago
Nuclear powered Jetliner...
Does this strike anyone else as an exceptionally BAD idea?
ReverendSyn 3 years ago
y is it a bad idea if u can use it for a good idea sure u can used it for bad pepisies BUT it can be also used for good perpisies.
XoxEm0xoXF 3 years ago
hmm 911 nuke planes,,,yepper not good
mikebe41 2 years ago
Egad.
Hadn't considered that. But good point.
I was just thinking about regular crashes due to plain old fashioned mechanical failures and snafus. But damn if that isn't a chilling scenario
If you think airport security is a pain in the ass NOW, just imagine what would happen if nuclear engines entered the equation.
ReverendSyn 2 years ago
anything that can be developed for the progress of man, someone at sometime will use it to destroy man, such as the case with Iran now. However i am a great believer of nuke energy for power plants. We have not built a new reactor in 33 years, because of 3 mile island incident. Technology has advanced so much in that time, to make it safer. We dont even use the same technology to build cars that was used 33 years ago, go figure.
mikebe41 2 years ago
3 mile island had little to do with it.
Nuclear and coal plant cancellations spiked prior to 3-mile island. This was driven by 10-20%/year interest rates and limited demand growth due to the oil embargo.
The other major reason is the NRC. They are not allowed to weigh ~30 000 deaths per year from coal particulates(~5-10 Chernobyls worth) against the comparatively miniscule risks with nuclear; they added many years to build times by forcing utilities to retrofit things into their designs.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
good info to know..thanks:)
Seacap999 2 years ago
It's almost criminal that it takes only 3-5 years to build a nuclear plant, but it takes at least 5 years and a few hundred million dollars(you are billed per bureaucrat-hour) for the NRC to process an application.
God help you if you want to build anything other than an LWR.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Before ICBMs were develops there were prototype nuclear powered airplanes(russians even tested one. They never managed to solve the shielding weight-problem, so you couldn't fly it for an extended periods of time) and nuclear cruise missiles(e.g. see project pluto, a 500 MW unshielded reactor intended to go mach 3 at tree-top level. Reactor was tested but it never flew).
An indirectly nuclear powered airplane is feasible; use a VHTR to produce hydrogen for airplanes.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Perhaps, still wouldnt the problem remain that if it crashed we'd have... well you know.. KABOOM? Thats the point Im trying to get at.
Could you imagine what would have happened on 9/11 if terrorists had gotten their hands on atomic powered commercial jetliners? It'd take out a Hell of a lot more of NYC than just the WTC.
I dont think Id like to visit my relatives riding on a potential nuke. The fact that mechanical failure can and WILL happen pretty much negates any benifiial applicatons
ReverendSyn 2 years ago
But the reactor is sitting in an aircraft proof structure on the ground and producing hydrogen or some other fuel(methanol, DME and ammonia are other candidates). You don't take the reactor with you or you will have insurmountable shielding problems(even the pilots will get a significant dose).
Reactors aren't nukes. It's physically impossible for them to explode with a nuclear yield. At worst you can melt them and volatile fission products can boil off or you can have a steam explosion.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago 4
Alrighty. Fair enough.
ReverendSyn 2 years ago
obviously thats why we dont have nuclear aircraft and may never, at least ones that dont go into space, although interestingly enough they did plan and i think started to build a nuclear powered aircraft engine but scrapped it for obvious reasons
ap327145 2 years ago
@ap327145 Actually, I heard scientists are now working on micro-reactors (the magazine Discover said so, I think). This might make it feasible to have atomic planes/cars.
SpaceTime4D 1 year ago
woowowow i loved it..it sooo good and meaningful in terms of understanding.
Lionheartone 3 years ago
Thankyou!!
I hope I get a better understanding of chemistry now ^^
sihinta 4 years ago
Very educational, I find this awesome, science rocks. Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it because I've got this nuclear physics and atom project coming up, so I got the point how everything is.
Sebastian0785 4 years ago 2
thnx u it is v good ^^
nazar201 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow this is lib terrorist propoganda.We need 2 fight the iranins in iran so we dont have 2 fight thm hre.U libs need 2 b detaind untl ucan prove u r not a teorist.If any iraqi tries to take my FREEDOM Iwill blow up his cave cmd cntr.IranNchina have been stckpling WMDs2 use aginst us an our Israeli friends in th form of a mushroom cloud in th global wr n terror.Whn th final nuclear bttle comes to our home streets we need world govt. an hive mind and every1 get microchip so prs bush cn kep us safe
prokkets 4 years ago
learn to speak english if you want people to understand your point of view.
pzsnr 4 years ago 2
isnt getting anything radioactive near human blood a bad thing?
Montork 4 years ago
Depends on the amount I guess. Not sure.
willmed 4 years ago
Generally speaking, yes. But Im sure there are some controlled situations where it's viable.
Then again this was in the early days so they might have been in error.
ReverendSyn 3 years ago
This is a very strange question and will require more than 500 chars to properly answer.
Firstly, it's unavoidable if you want to be alive.
Potassium, an element necessary for life, always contains some potassium-40 which is a beta emitter.
All plants absorb radioactive carbon-14 and incorporate it into sugars, starches, fats and cellulose when they grow; it is formed continually in the upper atmosphere. Can't eat fossil fuels.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Secondly, small doses of radiation can't be shown to be harmful.
The standard model for radiation induced cancer is the linear no-threshold model(LNT), but it's more or less impossible to tell below 100 mSv.
E.g. the LNT model predicts ~4000 cancer deaths for Chernobyl spread out over decades; in the same timeframe a few hundred million people will die from cancer not related to Chernobyl in the same populations.
A J-shaped hormesis response(like alcohol) or threshold is not impossible.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
Thirdly, there are life-saving treatments in nuclear medicine. Isotopic markers are attached to some chemical; when you inject, inhale or eat those molecules your metabolism or blood circulation determine where in your body they end up.
Because they emit radiation you can image it, take picture of were they went that help you diagnose disease.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
amazing! your knowledge and intent to spread awareness is inspiring! and you can answer things in a more comprehensive manner then my since teacher. i don't really know what the hell your talking about though, im an artist and writer not a nuclear phisist. but thats ok, even if our brains work differently i can still try to understand you. what your saying is theres trace amounts of radiation in everything.. even the things we eat to live. and um isotropic makers can help determine where
Montork 2 years ago
a body is having problems. small amounts of radiation are not that bad, so its cool. i guess it only counts for big things, then i can destroy white blood cels leaving a person helpless against dezese and unable to heal.
Montork 2 years ago
not to mention the background radiation that we've evolved to live in over millions of years that surrounds us and our planet, yeah nuclear science and the topic of radiation is pretty f-ing interesting
ap327145 2 years ago
@Montork Radioactive Could potentially mutate a person's DNA if exposed long enough time period. This mutation can cause unstoppable cell division, which known as Cancer and could spread to every part of the body if the condition is match. The Bottom line, stay away from radioactive energy ahhaa.
7seng7 11 months ago
@7seng7 wow, i made these comments 3 years ago! in that time i have learned a lot, not just about nuclear energy but also tones of other things too. like the fact that since chalk rivers down for repairs theres a world wide shortage of the nuclear isotope used in medical procedures to find and break up cancer cells. i also now know that in many parts of the world including france they re-use the same rods over and over again after dusting off the used, dead, uranium in a process called
Montork 11 months ago
@Montork reclamation. my point is that all things in this world are both good and bad in different uses. fire can kill and destroy all in its path, coal mining has killed millions in the most painful ways imaginable and blackened the air. nuclear energy seems to be almost just a stronger fire, it needs to be tended to and carefully watched because if it gets out of hand the land it burns is unable to grow...
Montork 11 months ago
@Montork not just for a year but for many many years. but that's the price you must pay for more powerful types of energy. did you know its now almost safe to return to Chernobyl? they do guided walking tours, most of the dangerous radiation has become harmless.
Montork 11 months ago
This is a great video, just slightly inaccurate. When the neutron hits uranium it releases three neutrons that are all capable of splitting other uranium atoms in case anyone cares.
jocelynmuch 4 years ago 3
Thank you for pointing that out. Always glad to learn about little details like this.
willmed 4 years ago
@jocelynmuch Yes, they are all capable. It's just, only at the critical mass, the PROBABILITY of hitting another U-235 atom is high enough to be able to produce a large enough explosion. In lower amounts, there is a smaller chance, but it is very unlikely (at best) that a nuclear explosion will start.
SpaceTime4D 1 year ago
@jocelynmuch
thanks, and i love this movie.
northbeachfilms 1 year ago
Yup, incredible the power if the atom.
willmed 4 years ago
*of
willmed 4 years ago