4 ms·

So 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

So 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 ago
If 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    If 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 ago
      Sure, 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 ago
        It 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 ago
        My 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.
      - usuehfjfi 2y ago
        Yeah, not fundamental. When you go to the store you compare bananas by the size of the company that produced them? Or by the price per kg?
      - yreg 2y ago
        > Sure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade. How is price per unit of mass not fundamental? I refuse to believe that you are actually confused that one commodity costs more per gram than another one.
  - j16sdiz 2y ago
    All of above. ~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg
    - jstanley 2y ago
      Well 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 ago
        Price 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 ago
Article 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Tip: It only „seems“ and „sounds“ that way. Your conclusion is quite obviously based on incomplete information.
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      Sure, but so is the affirmative conclusion.
  - ylk 2y ago
    You 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 ago
The 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 ago
They 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 ago
  Typically 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/...

yreg 2y ago

If 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 ago
What 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Sure, 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 ago
      It 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 ago
      My 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.
    - usuehfjfi 2y ago
      Yeah, not fundamental. When you go to the store you compare bananas by the size of the company that produced them? Or by the price per kg?
    - yreg 2y ago
      > Sure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade. How is price per unit of mass not fundamental? I refuse to believe that you are actually confused that one commodity costs more per gram than another one.
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  All of above. ~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg
  - jstanley 2y ago
    Well 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 ago
      Price 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 ago

Article 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Tip: It only „seems“ and „sounds“ that way. Your conclusion is quite obviously based on incomplete information.
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    Sure, but so is the affirmative conclusion.
- ylk 2y ago
  You 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 ago

The 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 ago

They 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 ago
Typically 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/...