Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the baron-harkonnen-approved dept.

Medicine 83

DrFrasierCrane writes "You think you feel weighed down when your dentist lays that lead apron on you to take X-rays: how about the doctors who deal with radiation treatments and have to wear those aprons all day long? A Dallas, Texas, doctor has created a 'zero gravity' radiation suit for just that problem. From the article: 'Physicians are supposed to wear a lead apron during those procedures. It is back-breakingly heavy and doesn't cover the body completely. The zero gravity suit eliminates the weight and the exposed openings.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Zero Gravity? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840360)

I take it this guy has invented inertial dampeners?

No? You haven't?

Then don't call it a zero gravity suit.

Re:Zero Gravity? (1, Funny)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840390)

No, he is just passing the inertial momentum to another universe, with slightly different universe constants, and thus, making perpetum mobile. The question is, is there some other universe that is using our universe as a inertium garbage bin???

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840646)

worse than that. this universe is God's septic tank.

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841364)

You imply God needs septic facilities.

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842292)

I suppose if you're God, you could crap anywhere you wanted.

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842478)

oh, but could God crap in a place God have intelligently designed to be impossible to crap in?

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842536)

Not really. If he lives in Massachusetts, the DEP is gonna be all over Him, what with Title 5 septic system inspections and so forth.

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842510)

Well, if we are made in His image, that would require that He have a rectum as well. N'est-ce pas?

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843612)

What about acne, receding hair (except on lower back) and weird spots? God has all that as well? And if God really does look like Alanis Morriset, where's teh bubbs?

Re:Zero Gravity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32848056)

oo, oo, I get the reference! One of asimov's books I think, forgot the title. I remember really liking the first/third part of the book but not so much when they focused on the aliens.

Re:Zero Gravity? (2, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840428)

RTFA. Nothing so high-tech. The suit is just suspended from the ceiling so that the wearer is not burdened by all the extra weight. It's effective weight is zero, although its mass (obviously) is not, just like in zero G.

Re:Zero Gravity? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32840652)

It's effective weight is zero

Unlike the weight of an unnecessary apostrophe, which is crushing.

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849528)

Holy shit, he's invented the string!

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

krovisser (1056294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841386)

How can inertia be dry in the first place?

Re:Zero Gravity? (3, Interesting)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841500)

Don't you mean "Inertial Pampers"? They contain the mess when the dampers go out.

Re:Zero Gravity? (3, Informative)

Graham J - XVI (1076671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841566)

Canceling out gravity doesn't require inertial dampening. The latter would only be used if the suit was rapidly accelerated, which I would guess to be unlikely in an indoor medical setting.

Re:Zero Gravity? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849796)

I take it this guy has invented inertial dampeners?

Too late: Inertial dampeners in action [geekzone.co.nz]

Great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32840376)

I'll wear a radioactive suit if it removes the effects of gravity.

this is stupid (0, Offtopic)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840408)

So it doesn't "weight zero" as they're implying, it doesn't modify gravity in any way, and if it's super light and not lead it probably doesn't protect completely against X-ray radiation. I mean what thin, light substance can stop X-rays? Nothing! It only stops for dense matter. So unless they sewed two spring jackets together and packed em with pixie dust and ground up unicorn horns, I don't think this is a legitimate product.

Re:this is stupid (1)

Asmor (775910) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840450)

Uhh... It is lead, and thicker than the conventional aprons. RTFA/WTFV is too much to ask, of course.

Re:this is stupid (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840490)

Actually, by suspending it from the ceiling, by definition of weight (as opposed to mass) it actually does weigh nothing from the perspective of the wearer.

Re:this is stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32840666)

Quit it with the bait and switch. It's called zero-gravity, not zero-weight. This is misleading.

Re:this is stupid (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840790)

Any circumstance under which you can effective give objects no weight is, for most purposes, considered to be zero gravity or microgravity, even if gravity is still actually present. For example, creating a weightless environment in an airplane doing a fast dive from a high altitude.

It would be more correct to call it a weightless suit than a zero gravity suit, but then it might not get as much attention.

This is not an attempt to redefine natural laws, it's just using commonly understood terms to convey what it the device accomplishes.

Re:this is stupid (1)

KClaisse (1038258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841230)

I fail to see how "Zero Gravity radiation suit" is easier than "weightless radiation suit". One conveys what the product actually accomplishes and the other is useless dribble to catch a nice headline. The device does not effect gravity nor the wearers perception of it. That person still feel the gravity from earth pulling them to the floor. Marketing antics are not the same as making it easier for people to understand.

Re:this is stupid (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842214)

Except that nobody actually does misunderstand it. People here seem to actively be _choosing_ to assume that there is some sort of deliberate attempt here to misguide the public when the only people who seem to be having problems with the terminology are people who already know enough to not misunderstand it in the first place.

Eventually, the thing may have a disclaimer saying that it does not actually create a zero gravity environment, but that's an issue for lawyers to hammer out later, should it ever become mainstream enough that people who could genuinely be seriously confused by the concept might end up using it.

Re:this is stupid (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842598)

Indeed, nobody here is so stupid or naive to actually think a zero-gravity suit have been created (to the effect implied). Still, calling it something else would be proper. Not that it would be the end of the world, but it is better to actively counteract the misuse of terms rather than passively let it pollute the language. Incidently what you've been talking about is Fres = 0, meaning the sum of the forces acting upon the object. Gravity is one of them. While the gravitational force is counteracted it is still present, hence it is not a zero-gravity suit. A zero-gravity suit would effect gravity in a much more profound way.

Re:this is stupid (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841492)

The conditions under a dive in an airplane is said to be like a zero-gravity environment. It is not said it is zero-gravity. There is a huge difference and you're only degrading the language by encouraging misuse. That something is considered alike to zero-gravity is not the same as to say something is zero-gravity. Being weightless feels like zero-gravity because you cannot feel the effect of it, declaring something zero-gravity because you counteract the effect of gravity is stupid. It is like saying there is no bullets because I'm wearing kevlar! It is a zero-bullet vest, it causes bullets to magically disappear.

Re:this is stupid (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842772)

Yes... *LIKE* a zero-gravity environment. It's not unheard of, you know, to use a phrase that conveys a particular concept as a metaphor for what it does, even if at the most technical level, that is not what it actually accomplishes.

Re:this is stupid (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845006)

Yes, like in his kevlar example. Many people call it a "bullet proof vest" when in reality it is a "bullet resistant vest".

Re:this is stupid (3, Informative)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840498)

You should have RTFA. This guy invented "hang it on a hook". No, really - that's the trick. You build a nice, heavy lead shield curtain and then you hang it from the ceiling to hold the weight. I guess if you don't have a handy ceiling mount (maybe you need a portable X-ray?) you could invent a wheeled gantry to carry it around with you. Anti-gravity would come under the category of "marketing hyperbole".

Re:this is stupid (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842026)

Anti-gravity would come under the category of "marketing hyperbole".

Considering its lameness, the category of "idle" is good enough.

Good for some things (4, Informative)

spineboy (22918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840430)

This will be good for doing angios, etc, where they just stand around and watch - which is good, 'cause they just hit the fluoro pedal, and the radiation stream is constant. For stuff like orthopaedics (my specialty), we usually just use spot images, and have to move around a lot, twist the patients legs, reduce fractures, etc, This suit is way too bulky, and wont be useful

Not a bad idea - I can see it getting used.
"zero G" - now that just makes me laugh

Re:Good for some things (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841044)

My mother was an X-Ray tech for 25 years (before she went out on disability due to problems with her retinas)

You say this wont be useful for spot images, but, doesn't the operator usually stand in a shielded area for spot images? Maybe not with portable units but, in dedicated X-Ray rooms.

Also... while traditional lead suits are not all protective... the unprotected areas (like hands and face) are the ones that are far less likely to be damaged by radiation than say... your kidneys.

This does seem cool but, I don't see why you would even need it for spot images most of the time.
-Steve

eyes = cataracts (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32857354)

Spot images that I'm referring to are by the surgeon, being used to get a trajectory for a screw for instance, and typically they are not shielded, 'cause I have to hold the drill while looking at the x-ray.

Zero G what? (3, Insightful)

AkaXakA (695610) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840434)

Zero Gravity? It's hanging from the ceiling!

In other news, I have a couple of zero-gravity lamps in my house.

And, finally, on topic: GOOD that finally someone thinks of properly protect doctors, as they're kind of essential to medicine.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840522)

You still have swag lamps? That's so retro! I bet you have orange shag to:)

Re:Zero G what? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840560)

It may sound a bit hyped to call it "zero gravity", but in terms of what weight really means, it's actually not an entirely inappropriate term from perspective of the wearer: The wearer can move around in quite massive garb that for him, has no weight.

Re:Zero G what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32840792)

Therefore it should be called zero-weight lead curtain.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841614)

Neither the mass of the lead curtain nor the effect of gravity on it is gone. Therefore it is not and I repeat not a zero-gravity suit. You're simply encouraging continued misuse of the language, something which degrades it and hurts its ability as a medium for concise as a well as meaningful communication.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842092)

Neither does sticking something in water affect its mass, but it sure as heck affects its WEIGHT, which is the net force of gravity on an object. In this case, the net force of gravity on the suit placed on the wearer, being fully countered by being suspended from the ceiling, is zero.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842180)

Oh, so buoyancy == zero-gravity too? That's the same as saying that I'm currently zero-gravity because I'm not sinking through the ground.

Re:Zero G what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842520)

Zero-gravity is not possible unless you're infinitely far away from any mass. Thus, nothing can be zero-g, but it is very well possible to obtain a weight of 0. But if your mass is 0, you're either travelling with the speed of light, or you will cease to exist very fast.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

asukasoryu (1804858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843480)

Weight is the product of mass and acceleration due to gravity. Putting something in water does not affect either. Reactionary forces do not change weight. Putting something in water may cause it to float due to buoyancy, but its weight does not change. Same goes for this "invention." Its weight is not changed; it is supported by the ceiling instead of the wearer. Gravity is certainly not affected making the title sensationalist.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845732)

Weight is the net force acting on an object. The product of the acceleration due to gravity and its mass is only one term of that expression (and in most cases the only one of any significance).

Re:Zero G what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32848092)

Incorrect, weight is defined by w=mg (which is just another way of saying f=ma) For example a bouyant object that floats has a force pushing up that is exactly equal to the weight pushing down, otherwise the object would sink. So this suit has a weight denoted w, counter acted by a force (denoted as x) exerted by the thing that holds it up which must equal the objects weight but in the opposite direction. so in terms of magnitude (x=w=mg) or (F=w-x=0). I'm going to assume the suit won't be perfect and exert *some* weight especially around where it bends around arms/legs so even then it's not zero anything. The net force acting on an object doesn't have a name other than "net force acting on an object" or "Fnet" or "Ftotal" or something, weight is a very specific thing and constitutes of *only* mass times gravity, not multiple terms including mass times gravity.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32851336)

Did you take grade 9 science? Weight is *NOT* just mg... that's the force on an object due to gravity. That's all it is. Weight is the force that pushes against that from a singe reference point (usually a horizontal surface on which the object rests).

Re:Zero G what? (2, Funny)

igadget78 (1698420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841384)

Zero Gravity? It's hanging from the ceiling!

His to-do lists have won Pulitzers.

He's never neaded lip balm.

Whatever side of the tracks he's on ... is the right side.

If he say's something is Zero-Gravity ... it is.

He is the most interesting man in the world.

Re:Zero G what? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32949364)

Wow, seriously? I came up with the idea of adding a layer of lighter-than-air gas, which I think is much better, in about 5 seconds!
I guess I’m gonna be rich!

Thats nothing... (5, Funny)

M4n (1472737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840502)

I've invented a time machine that can take you into the future. You lay on it and close your eyes and when you open them again - pow, you are in the future. Admittedly it looks just like a bed, but appearances can be deceptive.

Re:Thats nothing... (1)

AkaXakA (695610) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845474)

+1. Classic.

Re:Thats nothing... (1)

BlackHawk-666 (560896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849570)

You're in infrigement of my patent for a similar machine that looks like a chair and a six pack of beer! Expect to hear from my lawyers.

Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840530)

Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit

Hmmm... that's how all the super villains start. Next it will be "Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".

Re:Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840602)

Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit

Hmmm... that's how all the super villains start. Next it will be "Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".

The zero gravity suit eliminates the weight and the exposed openings.

So it won't be goatse man to the rescue then.

Re:Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841042)

Next it will be "Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".

Ehmm, wouldn't that be a bit like Angelina Jolie coming over to you and saying "give me your wallet or I will give you a blowjob"?

Re:Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32840638)

Next it will be "Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".

Do your worst! ..please?

Re:Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32840882)

"Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".

Fine, take Jersey.

Re:Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32841034)

Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit

Hmmm... that's how all the super villains start. Next it will be "Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".

That's a threat?

Re:Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843322)

Hmmm... that's how all the super villains start. Next it will be "Hand over Fort Knox or I'll float New Jersey off into outer space".

"Hand over Fort Knox AND I'll float New Jersy into space" might work better.

Re:Doctor Invents 'Zero Gravity' Radiation Suit (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32953282)

    That sounds like a fair deal. Well, there are a few other places I'd ask him to take away too. :)

Exaggerated? (2, Informative)

goontz (1441623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840540)

"Back-breakingly heavy"? Admittedly, I've never worn the aprons for more than the few minutes that an X-Ray takes, but they're not that heavy. Heck, it could even have some core-strengthening benefits. What about Law Enforcement or Military Personnel who have to wear bullet-proof vests all day long?

The video won't load for me right now, but the thing looks pretty cumbersome to have on you all day long and I'd be interested to see how it is attached (or suspended?) and "follows" you as you move around a room. The increased coverage that it provides definitely seems like a good thing, but there appear to be some major trade-offs.

Re:Exaggerated? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32841124)

"Back-breakingly heavy"? Admittedly, I've never worn the aprons for more than the few minutes that an X-Ray takes, but they're not that heavy. Heck, it could even have some core-strengthening benefits. What about Law Enforcement or Military Personnel who have to wear bullet-proof vests all day long?

I think the aprons are - much - heavier than bullet-proof vests because aprons contains a crazy amount of lead, which has a high density, whilst bullet-proof vests are made of kevlar, nano tubes or something else which do not have a high density.

Re:Exaggerated? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844218)

Some vests contain trauma plates, in addition to fiber of one sort or another, and those are both heavy and stiff(of course, for exactly this reason, most people who aren't expecting to take any rifle fire on a given day generally skip them).

More broadly, though, military and law enforcement sometimes put up with excessively weighty gear because it's the best of bad alternatives, not because carrying heavy things is morally salubrious. If it were practical for them to have more armor; but carried for them, you'd be damn sure that they'd be doing the exact same thing(see, for example, research on powered exoskeletons...) Doctors, because they tend to face radiation exposure indoors, in predictable places and at predictable times, are just easier to make "carry-assisted" armor for.

Plus, I suspect that, given that doctors are expensive to train, and experienced doctors are considered valuable, a comparatively cheap mechanism that allows a doctor to work until the age where he is incapable of being an effective doctor, rather than until the age where he can't wear a lead suit all day, could easily pay for itself in a very short period of time.

Re:Exaggerated? (1)

kombipom (1274672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32846744)

Doctors are often not as fit as "Law Enforcement or Military Personnel" if you've got a bad back standing around in a lead gown for hours at a time can take quite a toll.

Having said that this seems like the sort of thing that one interventional radiologist will insist on having installed at huge cost to the hospital and it'll get used twice then pushed off into the corner. We've seen this kind of thing before. The last one was nick-named the pope-mobile, it was basically a lead phone box on wheels with arm holes and lead acrylic windows.

Re:Exaggerated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32868490)

Maybe the doctors should just hit the gym a bit more often.

Prior art (1)

sepelester (794828) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840680)

I invented the same thing back in the dark ages. I called it "rope with spring" and the patent is still pending.

I'm a genius! (5, Funny)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840716)

I just invented a zero gravity device for storing clothes. I'm going to call it, a "hanger"

Acrylic Face Shield? (1)

Jayws (1613285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32840744)

You can actually make a radiation shield that lets light pass through it by simply 'impregnating' acrylic with lead? Dangerous radiation is higher in frequency then normal light but is it really possible to block the one and not the other? I don't have a great understanding of how waves behave in the environment, but this stuck out as odd to me.

Re:Acrylic Face Shield? (1)

Idarubicin (579475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841416)

You can actually make a radiation shield that lets light pass through it by simply 'impregnating' acrylic with lead?

Yes. Such barrier materials are widely commercially available, for exactly this sort of purpose: here's the first hit I found [supertechx-ray.com] . The material is usually horrifically expensive, but that's true of virtually any special-purpose material with scientific or medical applications. Leaded glass is also often used in radiology suites.

Doesn't anyone ever use Google before asking questions?

Re:Acrylic Face Shield? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841526)

block, no. Attenuate, which is better than nothing? yes.

Re:Acrylic Face Shield? (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842876)

Lead is (or at least was) a common dopant for many types of optical glasses used to make lenses, prisms, etc. Lead content is also one of the things that differentiates "crystal" (the kind in grandma's china cabinet) from glass. One way to tell if the stuff from grandma is real is to take it home in your carry on luggage. if it is really crystal, TSA will likely make you open the bag for visual inspection because the crystal is opaque to their Xray scanners.

Re:Acrylic Face Shield? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844246)

A few years ago, we all would have been reading this thread through just such a material. A few of us may still be.

The reason that CRTs were made of leaded glass was to protect the user from the X-rays one can generate by firing three 40 kilovolt electron guns through a vacuum and into their face. Those let the visible light through just fine, and largely protected users from eyeball cancer.

Need to blend this with a space suit (1)

RickyG (1009867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841014)

Sounds like the boys from NASA should get hold of this technology, since the guys in long term space are being bombarded on a regular basis. It might cut some of the current suits mass down, or give the mass over to particle stopping material, instead of radition protection. Even in the ISS, the exposure rate must be high.

Re:Need to blend this with a space suit (1)

flink (18449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842702)

That's funny, because I thought that was exactly what was meant by the headline. To me "Zero Gravity radiation suit" = "Radiation hardened space suit"

Re:Need to blend this with a space suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32843636)

Me too, when I saw the title...LOL

Invented by Doctor who? (1)

snsh (968808) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841058)

Re:Invented by Doctor who? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841754)

Field testing new signature in 5...
4...
3...
2...

HEV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32841202)

Too bad, I was hoping it would be orange and come with a multipurpose crowbar.

But is is grizzly-proof? (1)

CyberDong (137370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841328)

I was hoping this guy [youtube.com] had added new features to his suits...

Dear Dr. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32841896)

I think you mean Weight offset, not zero G.

Are your hangers a Zero G device?

Other then that, well done.

Zero Gravity Gun slingers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842222)

In the western days they would tie zero gravity neckties to gunslingers who were caught by the local town welcoming committees.

Lead Balloons (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844160)

Just make the vest hollow and fill it with helium.

Solution (1)

JeremyCS (1851806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32849234)

Just paint a lambda on the chest, and I think all the the slashdotters will be willing to forget this zero gravity nonsense.

Disappointment again (1)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 4 years ago | (#32853034)

And I already thought "W00T! SOON WE'LL BE FLYING IN SUITS WITH SOME RADIATION"!!! Disappointment again... (this conclusion sounds like XKCD, doesn't it? I need hobbies...)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?