>Simply bringing two pieces of metal together for instant death? It's absolute magic!

There wasn't anything instant about the death, from Wikipedia:[1]

  Despite intensive medical care and offers from numerous volunteers to donate blood for transfusions, Slotin's condition was incurable.[2] He called his parents and they were flown at Army expense from Winnipeg to be with him. They arrived on the fourth day after the incident, and by the fifth day his condition started to deteriorate rapidly.
  
  Over the next four days, Slotin suffered an "agonizing sequence of radiation-induced traumas", including severe diarrhea, reduced urine output, swollen hands, erythema, "massive blisters on his hands and forearms", intestinal paralysis and gangrene. He had internal radiation burns throughout his body, which one medical expert described as a "three-dimensional sunburn." By the seventh day, he was experiencing periods of "mental confusion." His lips turned blue and he was put in an oxygen tent. He ultimately experienced "a total disintegration of bodily functions" and slipped into a coma. Slotin died at 11 a.m. on 30 May, in the presence of his parents.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin#Slotin's_death

It was instant in that his fate was sealed in an instant. This is unlike basically every other form of death. If you're bleeding out there's a chance you can be patched up and transfused. If a cancer is killing you it could get treated. But Slotin was a dead man walking the moment his hand slipped; there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Exactly. I figured my meaning was assumed in the earlier comment.

But the details also adds to the magical element. It's not just being reckless, but being reckless with a horrible, excruciating, protracted, torture curse.

A story of using a screwdriver to fiddle with a loaded gun while the muzzle is pointed at you wouldn't have the same appeal, because the consequence is so much more direct and mundane.

It was a form of death that was extremely novel, considering the entire history of humanity. He wrecked his entire body at the molecular level in a way that takes days to fully take effect. Before nuclear research the only ways to kill you comparably were either very violent and immediate, dosing with some chemical aggressor (e.g. venom, fungal toxin), or rabies. Radiation poisoning works at the physical level, like getting punched really hard in every covalent bond in your body. Death by a trillion cuts.

> or rabies

Rabies is actually a great comparison. It has similar magical/horrifying feel to it. Like with the screwdriver slip-up, catching rabies can look like a total non-event; here, it doesn't kill you yet, merely starts the timer on a bomb. The countdown can be anything between days and years, and when it runs out - when the first symptoms start showing - you're already dead. Then the dying happens, which... relative to radiation sickness, I'm really not sure which is better.

To add an insult to injury, rabies is very much curable before the symptoms show - but you have to realize you may have been exposed in the first place.

It also reminds me of the horrible stories that exist on the Internet about people committing suicide by means of a paracetamol overdose (usually with a lot of alcohol as well).

They are found, rushed to the hospital, they wake up and feel better, everybody can meet them and see them alive and know of their attempt -- but they're walking dead, their liver is incurably damaged and they die in a few days.

That's also exactly how some poisonous mushrooms kill you, which I mentioned earlier. You become seriously ill for a bit and you recover, but your liver is already destroyed and you die a few days later. The only way to save you is for someone to think to test for that and to get you a transplant before then, so practically impossible.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91-Amanitin#Symptoms_of_po...

> suicide by means of a paracetamol overdose (usually with a lot of alcohol as well)

In his final days, my dad, dying from leukemia in home hospice care, had been getting his calories entirely from a cocktail of beer and V-8 juice — and taking a lot of acetaminophen (aka paracetamol, the generic of Tylenol) for the pain. As I brought him his latest "meal," I warned him that too much alcohol and acetaminophen would wreck his liver and kill him. He brightened and asked whether that'd be a way for him to end it. I said I didn't know the details but that as far as I knew it'd take days and be even worse than what he was experiencing. (He died the next day, 15 years ago yesterday.)

But actually there are tons of visual jokes about people looking down the barrels of loaded guns, cannon, even lightsabers:

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comments/1hy7fu/never_look...

I didn’t think of it this way before, but yeah, the demon core memes are absolutely cousins of this type of loaded weapon humor.

What they said is that it wouldn't have the same appeal, which is true. Someone shooting themselves by looking into the barrel of a gun as a joke is funny because it's a really obviously stupid thing to do. Luke lightsabering himself in the eye is funny first due to shock value, and second as a form of observational humor by pointing out how even though lightsabers are so obviously dangerous, there's not a single mishap where someone maims themselves with their own weapon in the movies.

Someone playing with a screwdriver and a few pieces of various metals is funny because its danger is unintuitive. It's so strange that someone can mishandle such seemingly innocuous objects and then die a few days later because of it, that it's comical. It's a non sequitur.

Weren't the Jedis actual wizards, and others were forbidden from wielding that weapon exactly because someone would get maimed? The weapon is tech but the reason they don't damage themselves is clearly spelled out magic.

Well, Luke wasn't a Jedi when he was first handling it, and Obi Wan didn't seem to mind at all giving such a dangerous object to a completely untrained person. Hell, he didn't even tell him which side to point away from himself.

Obi Wan knew who is it. He said "It's your father's" when he handed it to him.

Reminds me of "Do not look into laser with remaining eye"

> This is unlike basically every other form of death.

It's unlike many deaths. But there are plenty more that share that quality.

> Wetterhahn would recall that she had spilled several drops of dimethylmercury from the tip of a pipette onto her latex-gloved hand.

> Approximately three months after the initial accident Wetterhahn began experiencing brief episodes of abdominal discomfort and noticed significant weight loss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn

That onset reminds me of a children's book about postwar Japan, in which a little girl is running around on the playground and falls down. This extremely ordinary event is treated as an emergency, and it turns out to be one.

Of course there was, that’s not even pedantically correct. Death came instantly, only dying took awhile.

Replace "instant death" with "certain doom" then! Even more fantastical!

I mean, if this should happen to me, I want to undergo euthanasia as soon as possible. If I am already dead, I don't want to unnecessarily suffer. So my question is, did he not want the euthanasia or was it not "accepted" or why he had to suffer so much?

The first person the demon core killed, Harry Daghlian, notably allowed the doctors to study and record information about his deterioration due to radiation. I believe Slotin had a similar motivation - that at least, even this slow, painful death could provide valuable information to doctors and scientists.

This was the United States in the mid 1940s, I doubt euthanasia (or even assisted suicide) was much of a thing back then. Plus, as someone else mentioned, there was also the scientifical aspect of being able to study the effects of irradiation.

You have to admit that the setup of this experiment makes riding a motorcycle, without a helmet, with a .1% BAC, look like more responsible behavior.

The other people in the room got a couple years’ worth of rads from his mistake didn’t they?

I’m sure they rationalized not using an apparatus for this due to embrittlement, thermal expansion, response time, or all three. But from the perspective of someone looking back on this era 50 years later (now 80), Jesus fucking Christ.

Carpenter’s pencils as spacers would have saved his life.

In fact Wikipedia says he was a dumbass:

> The standard protocol was to use shims between the halves, as allowing them to close completely could result in the instantaneous formation of a critical mass and a lethal power excursion.

> By Slotin's own unapproved protocol, the shims were not used. The top half of the reflector was resting directly on the bottom half at one point, while 180 degrees from this point a gap was maintained by the blade of a flat-tipped screwdriver in Slotin's hand. The size of the gap between the reflectors was changed by twisting the screwdriver. Slotin, who was given to bravado,[11] became the local expert, performing the test on almost a dozen occasions,

The real demon here isn't the core it's the flathead screwdriver--lowest among tools. The number of times I've slipped dealing with flathead screws, or stripped them, or nearly had an aneurysm from them is uncountable. No wonder one of these cursed devices played a central role here as well. But yeah he totally could have chucked a couple sticks in there to keep the halves separate and then he wouldn't have died. Oops.

You can add it to your list of its crimes against humanity: killed at least two nuclear physicists.

I'm just surprised it wasn't a Phillips camming out.

Are you sure that's not a JIS screw?

This particular core didn't go to Japan.

Transposed to a very different time and place, the "bravado" here really reminded me of the "repeated dives in a carbon-fiber sub to crushing depths" -- with such setups, it's just a matter of when, not if.

Those people died before they knew they were fucked. At some point acute radiation exposure makes it so they can’t even dose you with morphine properly. Same thing happened at Chernobyl if I recall.

At some point potassium chloride is a mercy.

That's something that seems to be missing from how people perceive the threat of nuclear weapons. It's pleasant and convenient to believe you'll instantaneously combust in a fireball as hot as the sun, but actually only very few people will be so lucky. Mostly it'll take days, weeks, months, and years. Not seconds or fractions of seconds.

Same with accidents involving nuclear power generators (and their waste). Most people on HN won't have the chance to engage in Slotin's flavor of bravado... But the kind involved in recklessly, breathlessly advocating for nuclear power? Quite common, here.

People gave their lives so Chernobyl didn’t destroy every well in Eastern Europe for a thousand years.

I have operated a nuclear reactor. There is nothing in common with this tragic experiment. We have strict procedures that are rigidly followed, and are at all times far, far away from fissile material. We don’t suffer bravado.

And when we build dozens more, to cover the capacity nuclear pushers assure us that actual green energy can't? Chernobyl happened. Fukushima happened. Three Mile Island (almost) happened. That's an incident on almost every continent with more than one large reactor. You absolutely suffer bravado, and it's not isolated by culture or geography; it's bravado that's baked into the widespread use of the technology itself. To lack bravado would be to accept that human civilization, in this stage of development, is incapable of responsibly utilizing nuclear power generation at-scale.

Cost vs benefit. Nuclear power has less deaths per kWh than any other source, including wind and solar. Flying is safer than driving by orders of magnitude, but a scary high profile plane crash effects people more than mundane everyday car crashes. Saying to stop using a lower risk option because you are personally more scared of it isn’t exactly a compelling argument.

what? how do you measure deaths per kWh for solar power and get anything above background noise?

People fall installing the panels

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Chernobyl happened because they didn’t have enough spare capacity in the grid to allow the more experienced day shift to do a spin down test, and instead of moving the test or ensuring the right people were on site overnight, they let the inexperienced night shift run the test. This, because management didn’t want to look bad, and they didn’t listen to the engineers.

Fukushima happened because their backup generators flooded and couldn’t provide emergency power to remove decay heat. They flooded because management didn’t listen to the engineers who spec’d a much higher (and more expensive) sea wall.

Three Mile Island can’t be blamed on management in the same way, but indirectly in that they allowed a culture of accepting defects to fester. Operators had so many inoperable or inaccurate alarms and meters that they were initially unaware of any problems, and then they didn’t trust / believe the readings they saw.

Nuclear power, when built and operated correctly, with strict procedural compliance, is incredibly safe. The U.S. Navy has over 7500 reactor-years of safe operation spanning over 75 years, with zero reactor accidents.

I am all for wind and solar where it’s feasible, but you simply cannot beat the density of nuclear fuel, nor its ability to provide 100% base load day in and day out. If you want sustainable green energy (and I do), it must involve nuclear power; fossil fuel plants cannot be replaced by anything else we currently know of.

Reactor accidents will happen with enough reactors. And Chernobyl and Fukushima show that the consequences can be quite severe. Fukushima had "luck" that there was a lot of water involved, which is a decent radiation absorber. We also know that radiation doesn't disperse homogenously, so it could just enrich the food chain at specific points, probably without us noticing.

And there have been incidents on nuclear subs as well.

This is not against using nuclear power, but you should not downplay the risks. Because if something happens, the consequences can be devastating. There is also the problem with nuclear waste, which isn't really solved either.

>Nuclear power, when built and operated correctly, with strict procedural compliance, is incredibly safe. The U.S. Navy has over 7500 reactor-years of safe operation spanning over 75 years, with zero reactor accidents.

What this says to me is that it's unfeasible at-scale unless it's a nationalized venture administered by a workforce with literal military discipline.

This is Soviet propaganda. The real number from Nagasaki and Hiroshima was about half of the casualties were instant. Furthermore fallout is much more understood: after a few short days of hiding inside, the radiation levels will have fallen to where normal life can largely resume without fear, reducing the number of slow casualties.

In Scandinavia we're still sending samples of hunted wild boars to check for cesium. Large parts of Belarus are quite contaminated and the local tyrant is the reason we know very little about how it affects the population in those regions.

Do you have any sources to back these claims? Also, what specifically do you mean by "half the casualties were instant"--is it that "of those who died, half of them died instantly" or "of those killed and injured, half of them received their injuries instantly". Or is it some other thing?

I think you're falling into exactly the sort of trap I was talking about, that the enormity of the devastation is so unimaginably great that it's difficult to imagine what it would actually be like, and to (somewhat lazily) conclude "well, it'd probably be instantaneous". But, for example, this analysis doesn't support that idea at all: https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshi...

Your source says "most died on the day of the attacks, and all within a few months". Your source also says that cancer rates are not as high as commonly believed.

Right, so not instantaneous? Or is this also "soviet propaganda"?

As instantaneous as arial bombing generally.