
In 1951 there was a children's U-238 Atomic Energy Lab playset for $50 - chaostheory
http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/atomictoys/GilbertU238Lab.htm
======
jpdoctor
My grandfather worked for AC Gilbert, which made the Erector Set, and American
Flyer trains. I had rather complete sets growing up, and couldn't figure out
why my erector set and toy trains were so much better than everyone else's.

But another toy was a lead casting kit: You would melt lead in a crucible,
which would then pour into a mold.
<http://www.girdersandgears.com/kaster.html>

Never had the atomic energy kit, probably because I was already too stupid
from the lead fumes out of the crucible.

~~~
pavel_lishin
An official lead casting kit? That's pretty neat. I just pulled cells out of
discarded car batteries that I found while playing on a construction site, and
melted it in bottle caps over the kitchen stove.

I cannot believe my parents let me do ANY of that. The joys of growing up in
the USSR.

~~~
powertower
When I was growing up in the former USSR, we used to sometimes enter the
decommissioned parts of a nuclear plant / research station.

One day we found what was a deuterium/water solution ("heavy water") in a
storage locker and took several gulps of it to prove something stupid.

Beat that!

~~~
troels
heavy water is not really toxic, is it?

~~~
derleth
If it had already been used as a reactor coolant, or was from some other
industrial processes, it could be more radioactive than you would like it to
be.

Otherwise, no, unless you get enough of it to saturate your tissues and cause
problems due to it being denser than your biochemistry evolved to expect water
to be.

------
rmason
My grade school class toured the Enrico Fermi 1 nuclear power plant in the
sixties. They had a movie showing us that by the time we were adults that all
cars would be nuclear powered.

When it came time for questions I asked what would happen if one of those
nuclear powered cars were in a bad crash and its reactor was compromised?

The guy rolled his eyes at my teacher and said next question ;<). Later the
teacher told me she thought it was a perfectly valid question and he dodged
it.

Several years later that plant had a partial fuel melt down. They said no
radiation was leaked but there was dispute about the official account. There
was a book (and later a song) written about the accident.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Almost_Lost_Detroit>

------
slavak
Apparently the first half of the 20th century was _fucking awesome_ [1].

[1] [http://www.cracked.com/article_19481_the-8-most-wildly-
irres...](http://www.cracked.com/article_19481_the-8-most-wildly-
irresponsible-vintage-toys.html)

~~~
lutorm
What a bunch of overblown crap... "wildly irresponsible" my ass! It's
perfectly safe holding a piece of red-hot glass, as long as you _don't hold
the red-hot part_. But since the red-hot part is also the part that's _in_ the
Bunsen burner, you generally don't do that. Glass has such low thermal
conductivity that the part that's not heated stays at room temperature.

Edit: I "played" with most of those as a "kid" (the radioactive kit excluded,
that would have been awesome.) I put those words in citation marks because I
wouldn't call it play, per se, and there's obviously an age limit. But,
believe it or not, "kids" (something like 12 and up) are capable of being
perfectly responsible and learning proper respect for things like using tools.
Heck, in many countries kids are saddled with _real_ responsibilities at those
ages.

Receive responsibility and you will learn responsibility. But if you lived the
sheltered life that typical American kids seem to live, I guess you have no
way of knowing that...

~~~
exDM69
Exactly! These were the kids that grew up to be the adults who flew to the
moon and engineered the internet.

------
edw519
Reminded me of this line from "Back to the Future":

Doc: I'm sure that in 1985, plutonium is available at every corner drug store,
but in 1955, it's a little hard to come by.

------
johno215
Lesser known fact. Most homes contain alpha radiation sources through their
use in smoke detectors.
<http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/smoke_alarm.html>

That being said, radiological material regulations are very strict these day.
Back when I was working at a lab at school, I had to go through several days
of safety courses before I could even be in the same room as some very weak
alpha particle sources. The work I was doing did not utilize them, and the
whole time the sources were locked in a cabinet.

It amazes me that this playset contained beta and gamma sources. Hopefully
they were extremely weak; but still the radiation accumulates. (alpha particle
sources are really only dangerous if ingested or inhaled, since outside the
body, air shields against them)

~~~
lutorm
Many (most?) homes also contain Radon gas, and it and its daughters are alpha
and beta emitters.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon>:

 _Radon is responsible for the majority of the public exposure to ionizing
radiation._

~~~
justatdotin
no, not most. but a significant percentage in the us[a]. where I live,
ionising smoke alarms have been deprecated in favour of photoelectric
alternatives.

------
glimcat
In 2012, there was the Raspberry PI computer for $25. As much fun as I'd have
with a Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab, the present isn't too shabby either.

I've also seen someone fly a Geiger counter on an autonomous quadcopter, so
there's that.

~~~
tomjen3
You know those things could be useful to detect radiation leaks or even dirty
bombs.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I wonder how sensitive they are. What's to stop some jerk from buying uranium
and scattering it around the city triggering a rash of false positives?

[http://www.unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&c...](http://www.unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_4)

~~~
sliverstorm
That is why it is a Geiger _counter_. Low count, low threat. High count, high
threat. To my knowledge you can't fake a dangerous amount of radiation.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Sure, but if you're shipping radioactive materials into the country, you
probably want to wrap it in lead, or anything that'll keep it from damaging
you while in transit, which means lower counts, right?

~~~
sliverstorm
Yes, lead can mask a highly radioactive object in transit. But I don't see
what that has to do with false positives?

~~~
pavel_lishin
I figure that even a small amount of detected radiation would make people
worry - "oh no, a terrorist is trying to smuggle plutonium into the country
but his lead-lined briefcase has a hole in it!" - so generating a lot of false
positives might cloak an actual delivery.

Or it could just cause panic, akin to calling in random bomb threats.
Terrorism doesn't really have to kill anyone, just has to scare them.

------
moylan
i grew up with a copy of 'the boy electrician' that my father born in 1921
had. it showed how to build an xray machine from 'commonly available' parts.
the only warning was a brief note that long exposure caused blood vessels to
break which looked like bruising. though this warning is missing from the 1913
version. i do know that the plans were removed from later 1930ish versions.

i'd say that there were at least 1-2 other experiments that would be
discouraged due to health and safety these days.

<http://danielwebb.us/projects/pd_tech_books/>

~~~
giardini
I have a 1940 copy of "The Boy Electrician" given to me as a boy by the
librarians when our small-town library closed. It includes a section on X-rays
("[X-ray tubes] usually cost about four dollars and a half.") and shows how to
connect the tube to a spark coil, how to make a fluoroscope and how to make
photographs with X-rays. No warnings are present!

This is a wonderful book because it covers so much ground and the writing and
drawings give a physical sense of the topics: static electricity, magnetism,
electrochemical cells, induction and capacitance, even semiconductors (cat's
whisker detectors and selenium photocells).

------
juiceandjuice
You can get uranium ore from the four corners area pretty easily (for free) if
you know how to spot it, especially around Moab, Utah.

You can build a cloud chamber with everclear and dry ice easily. If you have
enough area (the size of a dinner plate, for example) it's very easy to spot
muons at a rate near 1 particle every two seconds.

The problem with geiger counters is often the dead time after ionization. If
you run at too high of a voltage and/or have too many particles, you risk
saturation (which also isn't good for the high voltage power supplies)

------
jbyers
The section of the pamphlet titled "Radioactive Source Replacement" is
spectacular. I wonder how many -- if any -- reorders they ever processed. Was
there a crate of radioactive zinc sitting in Gilbert's warehouse waiting to be
shipped to rosy-cheeked little scientists?

~~~
bwag
"...waiting to be shipped to rosy-cheeked little scientists?"

Or whatever address those rosy-cheeked little scientists decided to put on the
form. I remember sending ants to unsuspecting neighbors using the refill from
that came with my ant farm.

------
gdubs
It reminds me of this great story from Harper's called "The Radioactive Boy
Scout: When a Teenager Attempts to Build a Breeder Reactor"

<http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/0059750>

------
arethuza
You can still buy uranium ore pretty easily:

[http://www.unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&c...](http://www.unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_4)

------
herge
Would love to read a copy of "Dagwood Splits the Atom"

<http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/atomictoys/dagwood.htm>

~~~
51Cards
Enjoy:

<http://www.sparehed.com/2007/05/14/dagwood-splits-the-atom/>

------
prebrov
Nowadays they have things like Genetics and DNA Science Kit for 30 bucks which
seems insanely cool to me.

~~~
MPSimmons
And fuel cells, too

------
billpg
This guy's planning to rebuild the kit. [http://depletedcranium.com/time-to-
revive-the-nuclear-energy...](http://depletedcranium.com/time-to-revive-the-
nuclear-energy-experiment-set/)

(He's also running for Congress.<http://www.packard2012.org/> )

------
monochromatic
Polonium 210? They were not fucking around.

------
rhplus
From a CPI calculator: $50 in 1951 has the same buying power as $435 in 2011.

That's a heck of an expensive toy!

~~~
joezydeco
I thought the same thing, but then I realized it's not much different from a
kid asking for a new videogame console on the launch date, including all the
accessories. A tricked out PS3 would run you over $600.

------
ctdonath
In 1985 I was borrowing radioactive samples from the chemistry lab and
exposing & developing photo paper in the art lab with them.

Gotta wonder whether my toddlers will be allowed to boil water in school when
they get to 10th grade.

------
commieneko
I remember similar science kits from the early '60s. I had my eye on a set
that had a cloud chamber, but I'm pretty sure it was not this set. Science
toys were all the rage. There were several series of science kits I would buy,
my favorite was one that built a small electric motor that could also be re-
ranged into a generator.

------
juanre
Makes me think of an exhibition on Marie Curie I saw in the Nobel museum in
Stockholm not long ago. Shoe sellers used to have x-ray machines, so that they
could look into the shoe and make sure that the fit was correct. And you could
buy radioactive make-up for "bright" (literally) women...

------
choros12
Great article. Would like to point out an interesting fact though. $50 in 1951
was worth 1.5 ounces of gold. The article claims that currently collectors pay
100 times more for it in USD terms, aka 5,000usd. Which is 2.5 ounces of gold.
In other words in the real value the set appreciated about 75% even though 100
times in nominal terms.

In the same timeframe price of oil in gold stayed the same for that example.
Even though it is also 100 times more in USD terms.

~~~
jackpirate
Sorry, but you're wrong. 50 dollars in 1950 would be worth $447.81 in 2010,
roughly ten times moer. The dolar value of the toy increased roughly 100
times. Therefore, the true value of the toy increased 100/10 = 10 times. The
price of gold is irrelevant. All you showed is that gold would have been a
better investment.

~~~
choros12
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Calling gold an investment is akin
to calling USD or Swiss Franc an investment. It might be but its first and
most important function is this of money. Think store of value and not profit.

Currently, an ounce of gold buys you a nice suit in New York. Two hundred
years ago 1 ounce of gold was enough to buy a nice suit in London. And 2,000
years ago 1 ounce of gold was enough to buy a nice toga in Rome.

Price of oil in gold fluctuates around 15 barrels per ounce since World War 2.

The list continues... the point is that gold is an excellent store of value
reflecting real prices increases much more accurately than government figures
(a.k.a. CPI).

Gold is money. Historically, gold has been the best indicator and instrument
to gauge inflation. The CPI numbers from Government don't even come close.

At the end it all really boils down to: is the Government provided CPI number
or gold better instrument to gauge inflation?

My take is that if something has worked great to gauge inflation for the last
5,000 years then it probably still measures it pretty well.

The CPI number from Government that has vested interest in underreporting
inflation? (because of debt). Thank you, buy I firmly believe that is has been
grossly understated for for the last 60 years, ergo my numbers probably
illustrate the real increase in value of the set better.

~~~
cjy
But gold isn't the only store of value. You could have used silver or copper.
And, the value of gold fluctuates wildly in response to fears of future
inflation. This creates a lot of noise. Finally, you should know that most
economists consider the CPI to overstate inflation due to substitution bias:
<http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-16.html>

