9 ms·
The Rhisotope Project: Insertion of radioisotopes into live rhinoceros
- red1reaper 2y agoSo they are going to put small ammounts of radioactive stuff in the horns of live Rhinos so that they are easier to detect at border patrols? Have I understood it right? Seems a little extreme to be honest.
- yreg 2y agoIf it's of little harm to the rhinos then it's rather clever.
- Sharlin 2y ago> This has led to their horns currently being the most valuable false commodity in the black-market trade, with a higher value even than gold, platinum, diamonds and cocaine. I’d say unorthodox measures to curb poaching and trade are not uncalled for.
- jstanley 2y agoWhat does it mean for rhino horns to be worth more than gold? There are lots of ways to measure it. All the world's rhino horns put together are worth more than all the world's gold put together? All of Africa's rhino horns are worth more than all of Africa's gold? A single rhino horn is worth more than a single bar of gold? 1kg of gold? The same mass of gold? The same volume of gold?
- JoshGG 2y agoIf you’re unfamiliar with how commodity gold is priced, it’s by weight. So this comparison is likely comparing price per unit of weight.
- jstanley 2y agoSure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade. It's like wondering whether gold is worth more than Microsoft by comparing an ounce of gold to a share of Microsoft. Or to an ounce of Microsoft share certificates! The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap. And I seriously doubt that rhino horns are worth more than 15 trillion USD.
- ryankrage77 2y agoIt would be atypical to trade a physical commodity for a share. This is the purpose of money.
- ben_w 2y ago> The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap From the perspective of smugglers and their stuff, that's about the worst possible comparison. So much so that yours is literally the first time ever that I've heard anyone even suggest market cap for a smuggled substance; looking at the definition of that term, I don't think that term is, or even could be by analogy, meaningful in this context. It's always money per mass, £$€ per imperial or metric, never anything else.
- gus_massa 2y agoMy guess is by weight. (It also may be by volume, that I guess is very important to transport illegal things, but it's too abstrtact. [1]) Comparison by weight is useful to give an idea of the price. It's just like measuring distances in football fields. Don't worry too much about that. Also, a cargo ship full of gold [2] is probably very valuable, but a magical cargo ship full of rhino horns will probably collapse the market and be worthless. Here is a list of most expensive materials per weight https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materials-in-the-world-188955/ https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materia... it includes saffron and antimater that have a very short shelf life, a few radioactive things that are expensive only beacuse they are difficult to produce [3]. If I had to stock huge quantities, I'd be very conservative and store gold and platinium. [1] Gold has a huge value per volume ratio. Toilete paper not. [2] Assuming it doesn't sink. [3] Aluminium used to be very expensive, until someone invented a method to make metalic aluminium easily.
- j16sdiz 2y agoAll of above. ~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg
- jstanley 2y agoWell then it's not all of the above unless there's more than 375 million kilograms of rhino horns in the world, because all the gold is worth 15 trillion dollars. Unless that's the case, which seems unlikely, all the gold is still worth more than all the rhino horns. Also, gold's density is about 19 g/cm^3. I can't easily find a figure for rhino horns, but let's guess about the same as fingernails, horse's hooves, etc., which is about 1.25 g/cm^3. Gold is 15x denser, so at the prices you've shown, gold is still worth more than rhino horns per unit volume.
- usuehfjfi 2y agoPrice per volume is not used because volume changes with altitude. This is the reason planes measure fuel by weight. And scientists measure gases by weight. Because weight is the best way to compare things.
- a_c_s 2y ago"x is worth more than gold" means the price per unit of weight of x is greater than that of gold. What are you trying to achieve by arguing that a common turn of phrase doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means?
- Aachen 2y agoArticle says > These radioisotopes will provide an affordable, safe and easily applicable method And > After three years of meticulous and dedicated hard work [...] in collaboration with a team of experts who are leaders in the world of rhino conservation and veterinary work, will closely monitor the health and vital statistics of the rhinos [...] Not sure why you want to just dismiss all that
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoIt seems like the two things you quoted contradict each other. 3 years and a team of experts in their field doesn't really sound affordable or effective unless it's scaled up quickly and it's efficacy actually demonstrated somehow.
- ylk 2y agoTip: It only „seems“ and „sounds“ that way. Your conclusion is quite obviously based on incomplete information.
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoSure, but so is the affirmative conclusion.
- ylk 2y agoYou are confused because you interpret the meticulous and time-intensive nature of the research as potentially conflicting with the claims of affordability and ease of application. To clear up this confusion, let's break down the key points: 1. Affordability and Ease of Application: The article states that the radioisotopes are intended to be an affordable and easily applicable method for marking rhino horns. This means that the technology, once developed and refined, can be applied to rhinos without significant cost or complexity. The goal is to make it practical for widespread use. 2. Three Years of Research and Expert Collaboration: The three years of research and the involvement of a team of experts highlight the rigorous development and testing phase needed to ensure the method's safety and effectiveness. This initial investment of time and expertise is necessary to create a robust, scientifically validated solution. 3. No Contradiction: The extensive research and expert collaboration do not contradict the claims of affordability and ease of application. Rather, they ensure that the final product is safe, effective, and ready for widespread, practical use. The upfront investment in research is typical for developing innovative technologies and does not imply that the method itself will be costly or complex to implement once it is ready. 4. Scaling Up: The project's next phase involves closely monitoring the rhinos to demonstrate the method's efficacy and safety. If successful, this proof of concept will pave the way for scaling up the application to more rhinos and potentially other endangered species. The affordability and ease of application refer to the potential widespread deployment after the initial research phase, not the development phase. In summary, your confusion arises from conflating the initial research and development effort with the final application's intended affordability and practicality. The article suggests that after this rigorous development phase, the method will be straightforward and cost-effective to implement on a larger scale. Was wondering what ChatGPT's answer would be to this comment chain. (Also mostly checked that what it claims about the article‘s content is correct)
- gus_massa 2y agoThe dose makes the poison. If the dose is low enough (like a x-ray for a person per year) it's not a problem. If the dose is high it's dangerous. https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ Also the horn is made of compressed hair. https://www.savetherhino.org/our-work/protecting-rhinos/what-is-rhino-horn-made-of/ https://www.savetherhino.org/our-work/protecting-rhinos/what... So the local radioactivity is not a problem, you must calculate the distance to the head.
- surfingdino 2y agoThey are rhinos. It's not like your sister is brining one home on a Sunday to meet the rest of the family. /s I assume the doses are small enough to be harmless.
- adolph 2y agoTypically she starts the salt soak the day before because the recipe calls for an hour per pound and rhinos are really big. https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/food-cooking/recipes/a11882/my-favorite-turkey-brine/ https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/food-cooking/recipes/a11882/...
- wanderingstan 2y ago> Over 11 000 radiation detection portal monitors are installed at airports, harbours and other ports of entry, including thousands of trained personnel equipped with radiation detectors, all of which can detect the smallest radioactive particles. I didn’t realize this. Injecting small, safe radioactive material into rhino horns seems like an incredibly good hack: turn all that nuclear monitoring equipment into poached animal artifact detectors.
- tomp 2y agoThe statement is false, unfortunately. There's definite a positive (non-zero) threshold below which it doesn't trigger. Bananas are radioactive, and while a single banana doesn't trigger the alarms, a lot of bananas might! from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose > Although the amount in a single banana is small in environmental and medical terms, the radioactivity from a truckload of bananas is capable of causing a false alarm when passed through a Radiation Portal Monitor used to detect possible smuggling of nuclear material at U.S. ports.
- netsharc 2y agoHN headline in 3 years: airport sniffer dogs being trained to smell for bananas. Because that's what the horn-smugglers will be carrying in attempts to deflect why the airport scanner is detecting radiation in their luggage.
- ben_w 2y agoIt's the potassium in the bananas, so potassium rich salt will also do this. Presumably many other common items are also sufficiently potassium rich.
- fullspectrumdev 2y agoIf you leave a scintillating detector such as a Radiacode or similar on a bag of potassium chloride water softener salt for a while you can actually detect a very slight amount of radioactivity and generate a spectrum :)
- Sharlin 2y agoI wonder what radioisotopes they’re using. I assume it’s a gamma emitter because alpha and beta would be readily absorbed by the horn and any packaging material?
- CorrectHorseBat 2y agoThis is genius, but what stops the poachers from removing the material?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- madamelic 2y agoI would figure cost and time. Poachers are looking for a quick payday and having to do this would cost additional time & money that will drive them elsewhere. Sort of like the adage of the best security is being less of a target / more of an annoyance to rob than your neighbor.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y agoEdit: Here was nonsense. I should read the article properly.
- CorrectHorseBat 2y agoWhere did you read that? They bore holes in the horns and insert the radiotopes in the horn, not in the whole rhino.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y agoApologies, I let the title ("injecting") mislead me. I assume it's a multitude of factors: - poachers/smugglers would need to know about this before they get caught (doesn't save that rhino, but adds friction to smuggling and removes some smugglers/buyers - both the ones caught and the ones who quit because they're worried about it) - testing for it likely requires non-trivial equipment (again adds friction to the trade) - depending on how visible the hole is, accurately locating it inside the horn may not be trivial either - once located, removing it still devalues the horn
- jjk166 2y agoUnfortunately by the time this detects a piece of ivory, the damage is already done. If it took 3 years to inject 20 rhinos, it's unlikely that a large enough portion of the population could be injected to act as an effective deterrent for those actually killing the animals. Even for those actually involved in moving the ivory, it's only a deterrent if they actually face consequences at these borders - many states have weak enforcement of anti-ivory laws, and many more have bribable customs agents. Further, ivory has a value to weight ratio that is extremely conducive to smuggling. By comparison, infusion which puts a dye and an anti-consumption toxin in the horns to render the ivory worthless and thus prevent the animals from being killed in the first place is a well developed and inexpensive process that has proven effective.[0] I don't see how radioisotope injection is an improvement. [0] https://rhinorescueproject.org/how-it-works/ https://rhinorescueproject.org/how-it-works/
- philipwhiuk 2y agoAlso.. Geiger counters are not expensive and they can just ignore the tiny fraction of injected rhinos.
- alan-hn 2y agoI'm not sure that it would be detectable with a Geiger counter. Other chemical analysis methods are used to detect isotopes like this
- 4gotunameagain 2y agoThey say that the plan is to use existing radiation detectors at ports. Another article [1] mentions that the isotope emits Gamma rays, one of the types of radiation that can be detected by a Geiger - Muller tube. [1] https://www.extremetech.com/science/scientists-turn-to-radioactive-isotopes-in-the-fight-against-rhino-poaching https://www.extremetech.com/science/scientists-turn-to-radio...
- jjk166 2y agoAccording to the article, the radioisotope is specifically meant to be detected by the handheld radiation detectors typically used by customs agents. If it can't be detected by passive radiation detectors, there is even less argument for its efficacy.
- karaterobot 2y agoI see that it doesn't bother anyone else that "novel" is capitalized for no reason in the title of the article (the actual article, not just the HN title). So be it, I'll see myself out.
- Eric_WVGG 2y agoI’m more bothered that nobody came up with “rhinosotope”
- antiquark 2y agoSo they have to tranquilize the rhinos first. That in itself can kill the animal. I can't find a reference, but that reminds me of an old project to dye rhino horns pink. Sadly, a few rhinos didn't survive the process.
- is_true 2y agoThis looks like a side project for one of the fake meat companies.
- carrotcarrot 2y agoScientists need to stop mucking with nature. First the "edible vaccines" genetic modification, and now this? I'd rather live in a world where agencies don't have absolute control over us. Perfect enforcement doesn't need to exist.
- breezeTrowel 2y agoAre you a rhinoceros?
- swayvil 2y agoDitto. I trust neither their abilities nor their intentions. Keep your big plans well away from me. Thanks.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sneela 2y ago> Every 20 hours in South Africa a rhino dies for its horn. I didn't know this statistic before - this is disheartening.
- aziaziazi 2y agoHere’s another one : between 24 and 150 animal species go extinct probably every day ! > current extinctions were ‘up to 100 times higher than the background rate.’ https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_d...
- jonathanlydall 2y agoSpeaking as a South African, I hope this can make a difference, every little bit helps. Unless it can completely stop poaching (which on its own I think is unlikely) I don't think it will solve the fundamental issue that drives poaching, that there is a market willing to pay exorbitant fees. Ivory has zero physiological medicinal effects, but their rareness convinces certain kinds of (shithead) people that they "must". The rarer the material, the more "special" it becomes, driving up the price further and the higher the price, the more emboldened the poachers become.
- elefanten 2y ago> their rareness convinces certain kinds of (shithead) people that they "must" A complementary strategy is to relentlessly name and shame the backward cultures that compose this shitheadedness. So say it with me: Chinese* traditional medicine is backwards and primitive. Chinese ivory buyers are a shameful stain upon humanity. * The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) reports that nearly all of the current demand for elephant ivory comes from the Chinese market. -https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/economics-illicit-ivory-trade/ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/economics-...
- gwbas1c 2y ago> Starting on Monday, 24 June 2004, Professor Larkin and his team carefully sedated the 20 rhinos Is that a typo? I'd think after 20 years we'd know if the plan worked.
- poulpy123 2y agoIsn't it detected by a cheap geiger counter ? in this case the horn will be just discarded after the rhino jas been killed
- sharpshadow 2y agoWhich „non-toxic radioisotopes“ and how much is a small hole?
- rustcleaner 2y agoI wonder if anyone is trying to lab-grow ivory like they're trying with organs, considering ivory's price there might be margin there.
- rustcleaner 2y agoYes I know rhino != ivory.
- Havoc 2y agoGiven that the demand for it is not particularly rational I’d imagine enthusiasts will want the real thing. (Sigh)
- bitwize 2y agoAt first I thought this was some sort of joke or satire, like the Alameda-Weehawken burrito pipeline. Then I read the bit about rhino horn trafficking and I was like... well, shoot, that's actually a pretty good idea!