6 ms·

Best toot about this: https://meow.social/@AtomicMaya@tech.lgbt/112536890144120140 https://meow.social/@AtomicMaya@tech.lgbt/112536890144120140 ''' OH: "we ha

by dlgeek 2y ago

Best toot about this: https://meow.social/@AtomicMaya@tech.lgbt/112536890144120140 https://meow.social/@AtomicMaya@tech.lgbt/112536890144120140 ''' OH: "we had a radioactive source dropped at the swap drop a furry wearing a collar with a shirt showing a furry with the radiation symbol came to dispose of it" most #emfcamp sentence ever '''

semi-extrinsic 2y ago
The furry being referred to is the OP in the link for this post, says they work in civilian nuclear.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  Meh. The comments about it being "dangerous if disassembled", the general tone of "this is really important/urgent!" and the follow-up saying that it's more dangerous than a smoke detector because these devices contain "considerably more" Am241, lead me to believe that if they do actually "work in civilian nuclear" (and it's not as an accountant, sysadmin, or janitor) they are trying to milk this for attention, even if they know better. The source could be the size of a golf ball and it'd be completely harmless if you were more than a few inches away because alpha particles are stopped by an inch or so of air. Thus, alpha sources are only dangerous if ingested/inhaled. Am241 emits a very small amount of weak gamma radiation that isn't really worth mentioning. They mention risk of dust inside the chamber of the device from self-sputtering. That seems like a non-issue given the likely purity of Am241 used and the fact that Am241 sources (such as those in a smoke detector) are bound in a matrix of another material, so if there's sputtering, a good bit of ti will be the matrix, not the Am241. Even if it wasn't in a matrix, the quantity of any self-sputtered material would still be completely inconsequential. We're talking about single atoms of the source being boinked off at a time here, in a really-not-that-radioactive source. Given that there are no warnings or markings about there being a radioactive source inside, my guess is that the case is just, well, a case - an outer shell, and the actual instrument is inside the outer shell- and if there are any warnings, they'd be on that instrument, which you would see if you were to open it up. Everyone really needs to understand that this was a near complete non-issue and that the person who retrieved it exposed themselves (and the people around them) to more risk of injury/death just driving to and from where the source ended up. This is just some furry doing what furries do best - seek attention. Edit: the person in question is now referring in other 'toots' to themselves as a "protagonist" in "the story of orphan sources." This fuss was definitely for attention. I'm guessing the wikipedia article already exists...
  - throwup238 2y ago
    You can see a newer device based on the same design here: https://forcetechnology.com/-/media/force-technology-media/pdf-files/unnumbered/energy-and-environmental-services/mic/mic-manual-rev-4-generel-december-2020-v4-1.pdf https://forcetechnology.com/-/media/force-technology-media/p... Page 33 shows all of the components and 34 shows the Measuring Ionization Chamber with the housing removed and a radiation warning underneath. They both use Americium alpha foil which is the Americium in a gold matrix.
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    I mean, this is an unmarked source that's been dumped at an event which is likely to involve people who are likely to be taking apart whatever they pick up. It's possible someone could have injured themselves, even if it's not going to turn into another Ciudad Juárez incident. Their tone was entirely reasonable, and now it's blown up because people find the story engaging, even if just amusing because it wasn't actually that dangerous, they're reacting to that. I dunno why you find it objectionable enough to believe that it was an action entirely taken for the purposes of attention seeking.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    Are you saying you have more training/experience with source handling procedures than that person? Are you specifically claiming that handing off that much material with potentially no labels (we don't know if there are any in practice, they may be removed or unreadable) to a random person interested in dissembling things is safe? Because otherwise I don't see anything attention seeking there: number of sources verified, taken to disposal, risk confirmed by the author without playing it up.
  - StargazyPi 2y ago
    "completely harmless if you're more than a few inches away" This was in the "disassemble for scraps" tent. I do not think that's a particularly reasonable thing to assume. 95% of the time, someone unscrews the housing, sees the radiation symbol, behaves appropriately. 5% of the time it goes in a garage junk box, gets dropped, kid finds the shiny yellow disc and tries to open it. As it was, this was hilarious, and perfectly on-brand for EMF. I'm glad there's not a small nuclear source sitting in some unknowing person's hackspace, I'm glad someone was watching out, and them wearing cute animal ears makes the story even better!
HPsquared 2y ago
That is a really confusing sentence to parse.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  I'm still not sure how a collar is wearing a shirt, which is the only way I could parse it.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > a furry wearing a collar A person of the furry persuasion who was wearing a collar, presumeably a dog collar, perhaps a cat collar, maybe the collar of an Anglican minister . . . > with a shirt was also wearing a shirt, likely a tee-shirt > showing a furry with the radiation symbol that shirt had a picture on it, as many tee shirts do, that picture was Inception as it depicted a furry with a radiation symbol > came to dispose of it which kind of made sense as that furry was part of the radiation police.
    - aidenn0 2y ago
      Thanks!

by dlgeek 2y ago

semi-extrinsic 2y ago

The furry being referred to is the OP in the link for this post, says they work in civilian nuclear.

KennyBlanken 2y ago
Meh. The comments about it being "dangerous if disassembled", the general tone of "this is really important/urgent!" and the follow-up saying that it's more dangerous than a smoke detector because these devices contain "considerably more" Am241, lead me to believe that if they do actually "work in civilian nuclear" (and it's not as an accountant, sysadmin, or janitor) they are trying to milk this for attention, even if they know better. The source could be the size of a golf ball and it'd be completely harmless if you were more than a few inches away because alpha particles are stopped by an inch or so of air. Thus, alpha sources are only dangerous if ingested/inhaled. Am241 emits a very small amount of weak gamma radiation that isn't really worth mentioning. They mention risk of dust inside the chamber of the device from self-sputtering. That seems like a non-issue given the likely purity of Am241 used and the fact that Am241 sources (such as those in a smoke detector) are bound in a matrix of another material, so if there's sputtering, a good bit of ti will be the matrix, not the Am241. Even if it wasn't in a matrix, the quantity of any self-sputtered material would still be completely inconsequential. We're talking about single atoms of the source being boinked off at a time here, in a really-not-that-radioactive source. Given that there are no warnings or markings about there being a radioactive source inside, my guess is that the case is just, well, a case - an outer shell, and the actual instrument is inside the outer shell- and if there are any warnings, they'd be on that instrument, which you would see if you were to open it up. Everyone really needs to understand that this was a near complete non-issue and that the person who retrieved it exposed themselves (and the people around them) to more risk of injury/death just driving to and from where the source ended up. This is just some furry doing what furries do best - seek attention. Edit: the person in question is now referring in other 'toots' to themselves as a "protagonist" in "the story of orphan sources." This fuss was definitely for attention. I'm guessing the wikipedia article already exists...
- throwup238 2y ago
  You can see a newer device based on the same design here: https://forcetechnology.com/-/media/force-technology-media/pdf-files/unnumbered/energy-and-environmental-services/mic/mic-manual-rev-4-generel-december-2020-v4-1.pdf https://forcetechnology.com/-/media/force-technology-media/p... Page 33 shows all of the components and 34 shows the Measuring Ionization Chamber with the housing removed and a radiation warning underneath. They both use Americium alpha foil which is the Americium in a gold matrix.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  I mean, this is an unmarked source that's been dumped at an event which is likely to involve people who are likely to be taking apart whatever they pick up. It's possible someone could have injured themselves, even if it's not going to turn into another Ciudad Juárez incident. Their tone was entirely reasonable, and now it's blown up because people find the story engaging, even if just amusing because it wasn't actually that dangerous, they're reacting to that. I dunno why you find it objectionable enough to believe that it was an action entirely taken for the purposes of attention seeking.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Are you saying you have more training/experience with source handling procedures than that person? Are you specifically claiming that handing off that much material with potentially no labels (we don't know if there are any in practice, they may be removed or unreadable) to a random person interested in dissembling things is safe? Because otherwise I don't see anything attention seeking there: number of sources verified, taken to disposal, risk confirmed by the author without playing it up.
- StargazyPi 2y ago
  "completely harmless if you're more than a few inches away" This was in the "disassemble for scraps" tent. I do not think that's a particularly reasonable thing to assume. 95% of the time, someone unscrews the housing, sees the radiation symbol, behaves appropriately. 5% of the time it goes in a garage junk box, gets dropped, kid finds the shiny yellow disc and tries to open it. As it was, this was hilarious, and perfectly on-brand for EMF. I'm glad there's not a small nuclear source sitting in some unknowing person's hackspace, I'm glad someone was watching out, and them wearing cute animal ears makes the story even better!

HPsquared 2y ago

That is a really confusing sentence to parse.

aidenn0 2y ago
I'm still not sure how a collar is wearing a shirt, which is the only way I could parse it.
- defrost 2y ago
  > a furry wearing a collar A person of the furry persuasion who was wearing a collar, presumeably a dog collar, perhaps a cat collar, maybe the collar of an Anglican minister . . . > with a shirt was also wearing a shirt, likely a tee-shirt > showing a furry with the radiation symbol that shirt had a picture on it, as many tee shirts do, that picture was Inception as it depicted a furry with a radiation symbol > came to dispose of it which kind of made sense as that furry was part of the radiation police.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    Thanks!