Do Sparrows Like Bach?: The Strange and Wonderful Things that Are Discovered When Scientists Break Free

by Unknown

  But perhaps more than anything this chapter is a warning to all those who want to live beyond the here and now. Forget it. Just keep filling in your tax return and put a sum aside each month for funeral costs and death duty. That way, as Ben Franklin wisely predicted, you won’t end up looking silly…

  Sometimes, the world looked so different that New Scientist was frequently a highly sceptical beast. Among many things we said couldn’t or wouldn’t happen, like colour television, commuting by aircraft and that damned paperless office (and we are still right on that one) was this 1957 editorial on space travel.

  How soon to the Moon?

  Though the launching of the first small satellite—Sputnik 1—into Earth orbit is a necessary first step towards interplanetary travel, it is but a small step towards the solution of a much greater problem, one that bristles with innumerable difficulties and complexities. Though within a few years we may see the launching of a small vehicle that will either impact the Moon or will circle it and return to Earth, it is very likely that generations will pass before man ever lands on the Moon and that, should he succeed in doing so, there would be little hope of his returning to Earth and telling us of his experiences. Beyond the Moon, almost certainly, he is never likely to go.

  (10 October 1957)

  Twelve years later humans had walked on the Moon. Still, we shouldn’t beat ourselves up about our dreadful powers of prediction. That great rocket scientist and former employee of the Third Reich Wernher von Braun was also wide of the mark, although at least he was over-optimistic, unlike New Scientist.

  Space exploration in 1984

  Lunar landings will have long since passed from fantastic achievement to routine occurrence. Astronauts will be shuttling back and forth on regular schedules from the Earth to a small permanent base of operations on the Moon. A part of the activity on the lunar surface may well be the operation of an astronomical observatory, taking advantage of the favourable observation conditions there. Private industry will have entered Earth-orbital operations on a large scale.

  The existence of a low order of life on Mars will probably have been proven, and the significance of the seasonal changes of the Martian canals established.

  (16 April 1964)

  We were, however, terribly, optimistically wide of the mark about the uses for nuclear power and its offspring, the atom bomb. And even the notorious atomic accident at Windscale didn’t put us off.

  A hazard to health?

  The accident at Windscale has aroused questions about the safety of atomic power stations. We believe atomic industry to be no more dangerous than conventional. Radioactivity is easily detected, some chemical hazards are not.

  (24 October 1957)

  Atom bombs to release oil?

  American atomic physicists are giving much thought to peaceful uses for nuclear bombs. Of the several suggestions that have been publicly mentioned, those concerned with the release of underground oil deposits are most common. One such scheme has just been announced by the United States Bureau of Mines.

  Although precise details of this and similar plans have not been disclosed, enough is known of the physical effects of underground nuclear explosions to permit reasonable forecasts of what will happen when a bomb is detonated in various types of oil deposit.

  (15 January 1959)

  Bonkers? They didn’t think so way back when. Atom bombs were expected to have great societal benefits. You could even dig the Panama Canal with them. Couldn’t you?

  Nuclear digging on trial

  Project Gasbuggy, the world’s first commercially sponsored nuclear explosion, is scheduled to take place on 14 November 1967 on a lonely plateau in northern New Mexico. Gasbuggy is the most advanced test yet in the US Atomic Energy Commission’s Plowshare programme, which aims to find peaceful uses for nuclear explosions. Its object is to determine how effectively nuclear explosions can release natural gas from normally impermeable rock. Geologists estimate that successful use of the technique could double the usable gas reserves of the United States.

  In the test, a 26-kiloton nuclear explosive will be detonated 4240 feet below the surface, just under a layer of gas-bearing rock 300 feet thick. The blast is expected to create a ‘chimney’ of broken rock, greatly increasing the flow of natural gas through a well to the surface.

  The most troublesome problem is radioactivity—not from the venting of the explosion, but from the isotopes that will be created in the underground chimney. When the explosive goes off, it will produce a bubble 160 feet in diameter. As the cavity cools, its ceiling will collapse to create the chimney. Most of the radioisotopes produced by the blast will disappear quickly, but three will remain—iodine-131, krypton-85 and tritium. The iodine will decay to a stable form within months and the krypton may be trapped in the molten rock that flows to the bottom of the chimney, but the tritium will linger on.

  Two tests similar to Gasbuggy are scheduled for next year in formations different from those in New Mexico. The AEC is even moving ahead, rather gingerly, with the controversial programme of nuclear excavation. Two tests are designed to gather data on the possible nuclear excavation of a new Panama Canal. Since they would release radioactivity on the surface, the tests were postponed to avoid upsetting US-Soviet talks on a treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

  There are also proposals for using nuclear explosions to release oil from impermeable formations and for nuclear exploitation of shale oil deposits. More radical ideas are waiting on the results of these experiments. The arid state of Arizona, for instance, is studying the possibility of using nuclear explosives to trap rainfall that now evaporates. The explosives could, it is thought, open tunnels for water to run off into underground aquifers.

  (26 October 1967)

  The Gasbuggy bomb was eventually detonated on 10 December 1967. It did stimulate greater gas flow, but uncertainty remained over the size of the improvement. Public opposition grew—nobody would buy gas that might be contaminated with radioactivity, for example—and in June 1975, after 35 nuclear detonations, the Plowshare programme was wound up. How naive we were. We even thought waste radioactive products sounded useful.

  Atom ash keeps cloth clean

  One of the substances present in the radioactive ash from atomic power stations, strontium-90, is now being used by manufacturers of woven and knitted fabrics to overcome fog markings. During the winter, dirty lines are likely to appear on the fabric every time a machine is stopped for lunch breaks, or at the end of the day’s run. The dirt gathers because the cloth becomes charged with static electricity and attracts particles of dirt from the atmosphere.

  Various methods have been used to prevent the fabric becoming charged with electricity. The most widely known is to use an anti-static dressing (based possibly on a diamine fatty alkyl sulphate dissolved in a mixture of mineral and vegetable oils). Another idea is to use a radioactive element.

  This element, a simple bar of metal containing the radioactive substance, discharges the electricity on the fabric by spraying it with atomic particles. What happens, in effect, is that the air around the fabric is made conductive so that the electric charge is carried away.

  The original development of units of this sort was made by the Shirley Institute, using thallium-204 as the radioactive substance. The new elements containing strontium-90 have many advantages: the strontium decays less rapidly than thallium, and the radiation emitted has a rather higher energy, so it can penetrate denser fabrics.

  (6 December 1956)

  Back then we didn’t seem to worry at all about how dangerous strontium-90 might be. We were even happy to wear it.

  Nuclear battery for electric watches

  An American company is now offering a nuclear battery for sale. It is similar to one developed a few years ago in the US, making use of beta rays from a radioactive source to bombard a semi-conductor, which produces a steady but small electric current.

  The new nuclear battery, made by Walter Kidde Laboratorie
s in conjunction with the Elgin National Watch Company, uses promethium-147, a by-product of nuclear fission, as its source of beta rays. An earlier battery developed by the Bell Telephone Company used a strontium-90 source and developed sufficient power to run miniature electronic equipment. The Walter Kidde battery is designed for use in electronic watches and certain electronic applications.

  (28 March 1957)

  Nuclear reactor in a bucket

  A nuclear reactor small enough to fit in a household bucket has been developed by the German firms of Siemens, BBC and Interatom. It is known as the Incore Thermionic Reactor and is intended for future space vehicles. The reactor uses highly enriched uranium as fissile material and liquid sodium as coolant. In contrast to most other nuclear methods of producing electrical power, there are no intermediate moving parts—the current is produced directly by a thermionic effect.

  During fission the interior reaches 1400 °C and thermionic electrons are ejected from the tungsten which coats the fuel. These jump across the gap to the surrounding cylinder and produce an electric current. The total weight is less than 1000 kilograms.

  Such power supplies could be of great importance in powering space vehicles as, unlike solar cells, their output is not subject to an upper limit based on surface area. It may be possible to use them to provide the power to navigate a vehicle into a stationary orbit and even to transmit television signals with enough power for them to be received directly by a viewer on Earth.

  Further development is expected to take from four to six years and a test installation is to be built at the nuclear centre at Jülich.

  (9 May 1968)

  Atomic aircraft

  Enthusiasm for the nuclear-powered bomber project in the United States blows alternately hot and cold. Mr R. E. Gross, chairman of Lockheed Aircraft, one of the two companies with contracts to develop the airframes (the other being Convair), has said recently that if the American government were to give the ‘go-ahead signal’, Lockheed could have an aircraft ready to make its first flight in the mid-1960s.

  The type of aircraft the company has in mind would have the shielded crew cabin in the nose, the reactor in the tail as far from the crew as possible, a small tankage of conventional turbine fuel for take-off and landing so that the reactor was only at full power in the air and never near the ground, and thin straight wings free from the encumbrances of fuel tanks, engines or undercarriage gear. The US Air Force wants atomic bombers of this kind for the same reason that the navy wanted atomic submarines: they could range the world without refuelling.

  But the air force faces one great technical difficulty that did not trouble the navy—weight. Even when the weight of reactor shielding is cut to the minimum by concentrating on a radiation-proof cabin for the crew rather than trying to block all escape of radiation from the reactor, it still remains the biggest barrier to getting an atomic aircraft off the ground.

  And in spite of the unlimited range that only a nuclear plant can give, some scientists believe it is not a development that should be undertaken at this stage. Mr Cleveland, who is in charge of Lockheed’s atomic design, has himself suggested there are serious health problems connected with the maintenance of atomic aircraft because of the radiation leakage. Other experts have pointed to the hazard that would follow the crash of an atomic aircraft, whose reactor would almost inevitably be cracked open, making rescue all but impossible and, if there were a fire, spreading fission products downwind from the wreckage.

  (11 July 1957)

  Fortunately, the project never…er…took off. But what about trains?

  Trains to go nuclear

  Plans are being prepared by the German railways for an atomic locomotive powered by a gas-cooled reactor using enriched uranium.

  The plans envisage a locomotive 35 metres long and 3 metres wide, which will weigh approximately 185 tonnes with an output of 5916 horsepower. The vehicle will be supported on eight axles. The gas-cooled reactor will make the locomotive much lighter than previously suggested designs because it will not require a refrigerator car and it will be able to omit a number of secondary safety devices—50 tonnes are saved by using helium as a cooling agent for the reactor and a further 90 tonnes are saved by a reduction in the secondary safety devices. A further weight saving is also possible if the designers elect to use mechanical-hydraulic transmission instead of the heavier electrical type. The reactor will be a Babcock and Wilcox design that is 305 millimetres long.

  Instruments will be installed in the locomotive to detect and measure radioactive emanation from the power plant. The crew will be provided with special clothing, and the driving compartment will be insulated against radiation, noise and heat.

  The running costs of the locomotive are expected to be lower than the cost of operating a steam locomotive in Western Germany but somewhat higher than an electric one. No information is yet available about when construction will begin nor when the new design is likely to come into passenger service.

  (24 January 1957)

  Still, even if we did have fears about radiation—which it seems we did not—it was hoped they could be eased by turning us into Batman.

  Bat blasting

  When the Argonne National Laboratory—one of the four major research establishments of the US Atomic Energy Commission—announced five years ago that bats had survived huge doses of radiation there was considerable excitement. For, it was reasoned, if the source of the bat’s abnormally high resistance to radiation could be established, it might point the way to increasing the resistance of other mammals, including humans.

  (10 January 1957)

  It turned out that only hibernating bats survived high radiation. Once they woke up, it wasn’t so pretty. But our unbridled optimism that we could make radiation-resistant humans can be construed as either terribly sweet or terribly worrisome. And we are quite certain the bats didn’t enjoy finding out. Eventually, though, we began to cotton on to the fact that radiation perhaps wasn’t the panacea for the world’s ills.

  Radiation—a losing game?

  ‘It is apparent that the atomic dice are loaded. The percentages are against us and we ought not to play unless we must’. This was the sharply worded warning on the lead page of the American journal Science this week.

  It was a comment on a research report submitted by Dr E. B. Lewis of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. What the young biologist had announced was something that scientists had been trying to discover since the first atom bomb exploded in 1945. There is a direct linear relationship between the amount of radiation received by a person and the occurrence of leukaemia, a fatal disease of the white blood cells. Lewis demonstrated that if the general population were to ingest the amount of strontium-90 which the radiation effects panel of the National Academy of Sciences last June pronounced to be a safe maximum dose, somewhere between 150 and 3,000 more people would die of leukaemia each year in the United States alone.

  ‘Thanks to Lewis,’ wrote the editorial, ‘it is now possible to calculate within narrow limits how many deaths from leukaemia will result in any population from fall-out or other source of radiation. We are approaching the point at which it will be possible to make the phrase “calculated risk” for radiation mean something a good deal more precise than “best guess”.’

  (16 May 1957)

  Cue the sound of walls crumbling around the atomic research community. But we weren’t always behind the game. There were a few innovations we trumpeted with wide-eyed amazement which we now encounter day-in, day-out. How soon the miracles of yesterday become the commonplaces of today. Well, they seemed eccentric back then…

  Jumping the lights

  De-rationing of petrol has brought back the traffic jam to our cities and towns. All the motor manufacturers are producing to the limit of their capacity and, even if as many as half their cars are destined for export, the remainder will be more than sufficient before long to cause complete congestion in some places.

  Already
in the last thirty years automatic traffic signals have revolutionised traffic control. First installed in Leeds (where they are still referred to as ‘t robots’), they were originally designed to work on a fixed time cycle—so long allowed to one traffic stream and so long to the other. More recently signals have been developed which are operated partly by the traffic itself, which indicates its presence by running over a rubber pad.

  (23 May 1957)

  Sorry, we can’t take your call…

  The telephone in the doctor’s surgery, a taxi service, or even the grocery will always be answered—even when no one is in—now that the ansaphone has received Post Office sanction and becomes generally available in Britain. The machine, roughly the size of a portable gramophone, was developed by Southern Instruments (Communications) Ltd and, in common with most telephone equipment, is to be installed on a rental basis. The minimum cost of rental contracts including service and maintenance is £1 2s od a week.

  (22 January 1959)

  Video, video

  Remarkable though the ‘instant’ processes for black-and-white and colour photography appear today, they are by no means the last word in techniques for the amateur. Simultaneous recording of sight and sound on tape is just one of the coming methods we expect to see.