Making science slow down means that you make the best and brightest not do their best in the research. So this drives them to optimizing algorithmical trading.
Also, you would want to slow down the research of new things and imncrease the research of implications; but how do you draw a line? Is the fact that a nuclear reactor can go critical and level a nearby city a useful cautionary knowledge about building power plant or a “stop giving them ideas” thing?
ETA: I do not mean that any of the currently running reactors is that bad — I mean how to research nuclear fission in years 1900-1925 to have a safe nuclear power plant before a nuclear bomb.
I do not say that a modern nuclear reactor can level a city. I don’t even claim or disclaim that the worst currently running nuclear reactor can level a city under reasonably imaginable coditions (I tend to agree that the fallout will be a problem, but a full-scale nuclear explosion is very unlikely but I have not enough evidence and knowledge to be sure either way).
I describe a situtation of the research of nuclear fission. Imagine that someone knows that a bigger pile of uranium emits more radiation and wants to build a power plant based on this in 10–20 years. Some research is done to be able to predict the behaviour of such a system — of course, there are no power plant designs from Earth-2010-our-timeline.
How should one do the research to prevent Chernobyl type disasters, minimize the risk of Fukushima type disasters and not find something that makes military build a nuclear bomb before first nuclear power plant is built?
Note that one needs to do enrichment both for a power plant and for a bomb.
It is true that simply piling even warhead-grade enriched uranium will not lead to a weapon-scale explosion, but the results of building a reactor without careful research into implications are not likely to be good.
Making science slow down means that you make the best and brightest not do their best in the research. So this drives them to optimizing algorithmical trading.
Also, you would want to slow down the research of new things and imncrease the research of implications; but how do you draw a line? Is the fact that a nuclear reactor can go critical and level a nearby city a useful cautionary knowledge about building power plant or a “stop giving them ideas” thing?
ETA: I do not mean that any of the currently running reactors is that bad — I mean how to research nuclear fission in years 1900-1925 to have a safe nuclear power plant before a nuclear bomb.
If you claim that a modern nuclear reactor can level a nearby city, you are telling a falsehood.
I was slightly unclear. Your statement is true.
I do not say that a modern nuclear reactor can level a city. I don’t even claim or disclaim that the worst currently running nuclear reactor can level a city under reasonably imaginable coditions (I tend to agree that the fallout will be a problem, but a full-scale nuclear explosion is very unlikely but I have not enough evidence and knowledge to be sure either way).
I describe a situtation of the research of nuclear fission. Imagine that someone knows that a bigger pile of uranium emits more radiation and wants to build a power plant based on this in 10–20 years. Some research is done to be able to predict the behaviour of such a system — of course, there are no power plant designs from Earth-2010-our-timeline.
How should one do the research to prevent Chernobyl type disasters, minimize the risk of Fukushima type disasters and not find something that makes military build a nuclear bomb before first nuclear power plant is built?
Note that one needs to do enrichment both for a power plant and for a bomb.
It is true that simply piling even warhead-grade enriched uranium will not lead to a weapon-scale explosion, but the results of building a reactor without careful research into implications are not likely to be good.