4 ms·

Overreaction much? Should there be a ban on americium-241 in smoke detectors?

eesmith 1y ago
The legislation doesn't include americium, and even if it did‚ I presume it will be imported under license. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03417/latest/text https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03417/latest/text says "Nuclear material means any source or any special fissionable material as defined in Article XX of the Statute." and Article XX only mentions uranium, plutonium, and thorium. In any case, high-schooler David Hahn showed us what's possible with a bunch of smoke detectors, camping lantern mantels, and the like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn His lab became a Superfund site.
- IsTom 1y ago
  In this kind of amounts it follows that import of coal should require this kind of license because of thorium content.
  - eesmith 1y ago
    I believe that is addressed in the sentence after the one I quoted. "Nuclear material means any source or any special fissionable material as defined in Article XX of the Statute. The term source material shall not be interpreted as applying to ore or ore residue."
    - duskwuff 1y ago
      Fine, then TIG welding rods (some of which intentionally contain thorium).
      - nandomrumber 1y ago
        Nitpick: TIG welding electrodes.
      - eesmith 1y ago
        quoting me: "I presume it will be imported under license."
mvdtnz 1y ago
[flagged]
- ggm 1y ago
  The amount is tokenistic and would not have caused dissent held by a school for teaching purposes. He is a good person and this is a stupid application of the law to no benefit. Since it was imported through postal services and identified there were heaps of opportunities to avoid this. This is the least worst outcome having had charges brought but it was an overreaction to bring charges.
- dtech 1y ago
  The amount was so small it couldn't be used to cause harm
  - otterley 1y ago
    The article says it caused a serious hazmat situation and his neighborhood had to be evacuated.
    - r4indeer 1y ago
      The next paragraph also reads... > However, The Guardian reported that Lidden’s solicitor, John Sutton, had criticised the Border Force for how it had handled the incident, describing it as a ‘massive over-reaction’ because the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat. He reportedly said that he had been contacted by scientists all around the world saying that the case was ‘ridiculous’.
    - m4x 1y ago
      He did not cause a serious hazmat situation. The authorities decided to evacuate a street, and are responsible for the seriousness of their over-reaction. The packages were labelled correctly, and blocked at the border, and USPS delivered them anyway. He offered to send them back as soon as he was made aware they weren’t permitted. The real failure here is at the border, where they were flagged and then let through, followed by the absurd over reaction of the authorities to a situation they’d enabled
detaro 1y ago
Many places have very different opinions on sources inside certified devices vs outside. E.g. in the US you can freely ship an americium-based smoke detector around the place. But the source extracted from it as a cool "element sample", shipping that is not okay and quite likely to get you in trouble.
SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
Americium can’t be used to build a nuclear bomb. I think it’s entirely reasonable for a country to overreact to nuclear arms control, especially if there are escape hatches like the one used in this case to let people off the hook when deserved.
- adrr 1y ago
  Only plutonium 239 can be used to make nukes. Assume it was plutonium 238 that this person bough. Same thing goes with uranium. Why you're allowed to buy it, because you can't turn it into a bomb.
- nandomrumber 1y ago
  It's never reasonable to overreact. Regular old garden variety proportional response should suffice.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    It’s sometimes reasonable. Overreacting sends a clear and irreplaceable signal that nobody can fool around or test the limits. It’s a big deal, it will always be treated as a big deal, and anyone who isn’t 1000% sure what they’re doing should be deterred from becoming involved with nuclear materials.
    - dragonmost 1y ago
      Maybe you shouldn't get involved with bananas /s
      - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
        Right, this is the kind of gamesmanship that you can only deter through overreaction. “The nuclear materials I want aren’t a big deal - they’re similar to this other thing that’s legal, so I should be allowed to have them.” We don’t want people thinking this way, even if it’s true in some cases, because we don’t want there to be an active market in plutonium at all.

The legislation doesn't include americium, and even if it did‚ I presume it will be imported under license. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03417/latest/text https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03417/latest/text says "Nuclear material means any source or any special fissionable material as defined in Article XX of the Statute." and Article XX only mentions uranium, plutonium, and thorium. In any case, high-schooler David Hahn showed us what's possible with a bunch of smoke detectors, camping lantern mantels, and the like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn His lab became a Superfund site.

IsTom 1y ago
In this kind of amounts it follows that import of coal should require this kind of license because of thorium content.
- eesmith 1y ago
  I believe that is addressed in the sentence after the one I quoted. "Nuclear material means any source or any special fissionable material as defined in Article XX of the Statute. The term source material shall not be interpreted as applying to ore or ore residue."
  - duskwuff 1y ago
    Fine, then TIG welding rods (some of which intentionally contain thorium).
    - nandomrumber 1y ago
      Nitpick: TIG welding electrodes.
    - eesmith 1y ago
      quoting me: "I presume it will be imported under license."

mvdtnz 1y ago

[flagged]

ggm 1y ago
The amount is tokenistic and would not have caused dissent held by a school for teaching purposes. He is a good person and this is a stupid application of the law to no benefit. Since it was imported through postal services and identified there were heaps of opportunities to avoid this. This is the least worst outcome having had charges brought but it was an overreaction to bring charges.
dtech 1y ago
The amount was so small it couldn't be used to cause harm
- otterley 1y ago
  The article says it caused a serious hazmat situation and his neighborhood had to be evacuated.
  - r4indeer 1y ago
    The next paragraph also reads... > However, The Guardian reported that Lidden’s solicitor, John Sutton, had criticised the Border Force for how it had handled the incident, describing it as a ‘massive over-reaction’ because the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat. He reportedly said that he had been contacted by scientists all around the world saying that the case was ‘ridiculous’.
  - m4x 1y ago
    He did not cause a serious hazmat situation. The authorities decided to evacuate a street, and are responsible for the seriousness of their over-reaction. The packages were labelled correctly, and blocked at the border, and USPS delivered them anyway. He offered to send them back as soon as he was made aware they weren’t permitted. The real failure here is at the border, where they were flagged and then let through, followed by the absurd over reaction of the authorities to a situation they’d enabled

detaro 1y ago

Many places have very different opinions on sources inside certified devices vs outside. E.g. in the US you can freely ship an americium-based smoke detector around the place. But the source extracted from it as a cool "element sample", shipping that is not okay and quite likely to get you in trouble.

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago

Americium can’t be used to build a nuclear bomb. I think it’s entirely reasonable for a country to overreact to nuclear arms control, especially if there are escape hatches like the one used in this case to let people off the hook when deserved.

adrr 1y ago
Only plutonium 239 can be used to make nukes. Assume it was plutonium 238 that this person bough. Same thing goes with uranium. Why you're allowed to buy it, because you can't turn it into a bomb.
nandomrumber 1y ago
It's never reasonable to overreact. Regular old garden variety proportional response should suffice.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  It’s sometimes reasonable. Overreacting sends a clear and irreplaceable signal that nobody can fool around or test the limits. It’s a big deal, it will always be treated as a big deal, and anyone who isn’t 1000% sure what they’re doing should be deterred from becoming involved with nuclear materials.
  - dragonmost 1y ago
    Maybe you shouldn't get involved with bananas /s
    - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
      Right, this is the kind of gamesmanship that you can only deter through overreaction. “The nuclear materials I want aren’t a big deal - they’re similar to this other thing that’s legal, so I should be allowed to have them.” We don’t want people thinking this way, even if it’s true in some cases, because we don’t want there to be an active market in plutonium at all.