7 ms·

To be clear this literally was an old smoke detector. Not even kidding. https://hackaday.com/2025/04/06/a-tale-of-nuclear-shenanigans-from-down-under/ https://

To be clear this literally was an old smoke detector. Not even kidding. https://hackaday.com/2025/04/06/a-tale-of-nuclear-shenanigans-from-down-under/ https://hackaday.com/2025/04/06/a-tale-of-nuclear-shenanigan... He ordered an old smoke detector online as part of his collection of elements. This contained, as pretty much all old smoke detectors once did, radioactive elements. In minute quantities. It gets worse the more you look into this too. The hazmat crew that closed off his street? Days earlier they let the courier deliver his old soviet smoke detector in person, no protective gear. As in they knew it wasn't dangerous but put on theater to make a better case for prosecution.

martin-t 1y ago
This is the kind of implicit lying that seems pervasive today and I am so tired of it. This alone is sufficient evidence of their malicious intent and should be enough to punish the people responsible for trying to ruin an innocent person's life. But it's not gonna happen because the law is not written to punish people using it maliciously against others and most people simply won't care anyway.
- redeeman 1y ago
  they should be punished 10x more severely than they were trying to do to him
  - martin-t 1y ago
    A do believe causing harm without justification should automatically result in punishment that causes the same harm to the abuser multiplied by a multiplicative constant but 10x is probably too much. Usually, I'd suggest something between 1.5 and 2. He was facing 10 years IIRC, giving them 15 seems reasonable. This constant should increase with repeated abuse so people who are habitual offenders get effectively removed from society. Some countries already have something similar, like the 3 strikes law, but that has issues with discontinuity (the 3rd offense is sometimes punished too severely if minor). I'd prefer a continuous system, ideally one that is based on actual harm. --- We also need mechanisms where civil servants (or anybody else, really) can challenge any law on the basis of being stupid. If the law is written so that it prohibits any amount (or an amount so small that it is harmless, even if he imported dozens of these samples), it is stupid and should be removed.
    - redeeman 1y ago
      "actual harm" is insane. if a psycho run to stab someone, but a car blinks in his face as the knife is just about to hit his victim, causing him to miss and hit only the arm, why should he get a discount?
      - martin-t 1y ago
        That was a figure of speech. It should probably be something like `max("harm caused adjusted by level of intent", "harm intended")`.
- AnotherGoodName 1y ago
  I believe this behaviour is normalized in prosecution. Accusing someone or a crime? Raid their kitchen and bag every knife as a weapon and every household chemical as explosive precursors to get the jury on your side.
  - unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
    Think of organizations as a kind of AI. A prosecutorial organization can take on a so-called "paperclip maximizing" dysfunction just like a standard AI. Converts the whole world to paperclips. The solution actually is to gate the specialist AI's through a generalist process. That's what court is supposed to be, but court is less effective in the modern world.
    - zellyn 1y ago
      I really like this framing. It also reinforces my opinion that the thing most like the proverbial AI that turns the entire world into paperclips by far humans. It's a bit fascinating if you look at it from a psychological / mythopoeic point of view: are villains _always_ the evil part of ourselves, even when they're not human?
- caseyy 1y ago
  > This is the kind of implicit lying that seems pervasive today and I am so tired of it. I am so tired of it, too. Toying with the legal boundary of lying in communication is pathological, maybe even sociopathic. Everyone knows when someone is doing it, too. We just don’t have the means to punish it, even in the courts. The whole “I won’t get punished so I’m doing all the immoral things” habit is foul to begin with. I don’t know how, but I hope our society can get over it. As things stand, there is no way to outlaw being an asshole.
  - martin-t 1y ago
    There are glimmers of hope - like Wales trying to ban lying in politics. But of course, the punishment has to be proportional to the offense, not just a slap on the wrist. If I wanted to take things to an extreme, I'd ask why laws even need to be so specific about which offenses lead to which punishments and which offenses are even punishable in the first place (the "what is not forbidden is allowed" principle). In theory, you could cover them more generally by saying that any time someone intentionally causes harm to others (without a valid reason), he will be caused proportional harm in return. Then all you need is a conversion table to prison time, fines, etc. With lying, all you would need to prove is that the person lied intentionally and quantify the expected harm which would have been caused if the lie was successful (regardless if it actually was or not - intent is what matters). As a bonus, it would force everyone to acknowledge the full amount of harm caused. For example, rape usually leads to lifelong consequences for the victim but not the attacker. In this system, such inconsistency, some would call it injustice, would be obvious and it would be much easier for anyone to call for rectification.
    - VierScar 1y ago
      "without a valid reason" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Not only would this idea be impractical and highly subjective, determining what a valid reason is, is the same problem as defining the Law in the first place. Can you insult someone? Can you say something wrong that you thought was right ("the lion cage is locked") that someone is injured from? What is their duties in checking the info they get is correct? Is there a min wage or not? What value is it? Does it change on city or state? Can under-age people sign contracts? Can they vote? Obviously we need the law in any practical world.
- greenavocado 1y ago
  Australia is so ridiculous they closed airspace to fire a 50 BMG sniper rifle For context these rounds are fired everywhere in America daily thousand of times.
  - sunnybeetroot 1y ago
    Can you provide more details?
wkat4242 1y ago
Um but smoke detectors don't contain plutonium. Usually americum 241. Edit: ah so it was a soviet one. They also played loose and fast with nuclear safety. We still have 30+ nuclear reactors hanging over our heads in space that will come down one day. One already did and contaminated a big area in Canada, though luckily a very remote one.
- pierrekin1 1y ago
  I’m surprised you know this but didn’t think further about the situation. Where was anericum used in smoke detectors, and was there perhaps some other region where plutonium was used? Perhaps somewhere colder, more, soviet-ey?
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    I don't have much knowledge of soviet society, that's why. Just their cavalier attitude to nuclear safety. Though to be fair, America wasn't much better in the 50s. Nor was Britain if you read about the "procedures" surrounding the windscale meltdown. Uranium rods would get stuck and people would just poke it with a stick.
    - chupasaurus 1y ago
      The smoke detector in question was created in 70s.
      - wkat4242 1y ago
        I know but the Soviets continued their attitude until much later, when the Americans had already 'grown up' in terms of nuclear safety.
  - rolph 1y ago
    back in the 50s "fire" detectors had a block of uranium and a vacuum tube to detect smoke or ionized combustive particles
- 1y ago

martin-t 1y ago

This is the kind of implicit lying that seems pervasive today and I am so tired of it. This alone is sufficient evidence of their malicious intent and should be enough to punish the people responsible for trying to ruin an innocent person's life. But it's not gonna happen because the law is not written to punish people using it maliciously against others and most people simply won't care anyway.

redeeman 1y ago
they should be punished 10x more severely than they were trying to do to him
- martin-t 1y ago
  A do believe causing harm without justification should automatically result in punishment that causes the same harm to the abuser multiplied by a multiplicative constant but 10x is probably too much. Usually, I'd suggest something between 1.5 and 2. He was facing 10 years IIRC, giving them 15 seems reasonable. This constant should increase with repeated abuse so people who are habitual offenders get effectively removed from society. Some countries already have something similar, like the 3 strikes law, but that has issues with discontinuity (the 3rd offense is sometimes punished too severely if minor). I'd prefer a continuous system, ideally one that is based on actual harm. --- We also need mechanisms where civil servants (or anybody else, really) can challenge any law on the basis of being stupid. If the law is written so that it prohibits any amount (or an amount so small that it is harmless, even if he imported dozens of these samples), it is stupid and should be removed.
  - redeeman 1y ago
    "actual harm" is insane. if a psycho run to stab someone, but a car blinks in his face as the knife is just about to hit his victim, causing him to miss and hit only the arm, why should he get a discount?
    - martin-t 1y ago
      That was a figure of speech. It should probably be something like `max("harm caused adjusted by level of intent", "harm intended")`.
AnotherGoodName 1y ago
I believe this behaviour is normalized in prosecution. Accusing someone or a crime? Raid their kitchen and bag every knife as a weapon and every household chemical as explosive precursors to get the jury on your side.
- unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
  Think of organizations as a kind of AI. A prosecutorial organization can take on a so-called "paperclip maximizing" dysfunction just like a standard AI. Converts the whole world to paperclips. The solution actually is to gate the specialist AI's through a generalist process. That's what court is supposed to be, but court is less effective in the modern world.
  - zellyn 1y ago
    I really like this framing. It also reinforces my opinion that the thing most like the proverbial AI that turns the entire world into paperclips by far humans. It's a bit fascinating if you look at it from a psychological / mythopoeic point of view: are villains _always_ the evil part of ourselves, even when they're not human?
caseyy 1y ago
> This is the kind of implicit lying that seems pervasive today and I am so tired of it. I am so tired of it, too. Toying with the legal boundary of lying in communication is pathological, maybe even sociopathic. Everyone knows when someone is doing it, too. We just don’t have the means to punish it, even in the courts. The whole “I won’t get punished so I’m doing all the immoral things” habit is foul to begin with. I don’t know how, but I hope our society can get over it. As things stand, there is no way to outlaw being an asshole.
- martin-t 1y ago
  There are glimmers of hope - like Wales trying to ban lying in politics. But of course, the punishment has to be proportional to the offense, not just a slap on the wrist. If I wanted to take things to an extreme, I'd ask why laws even need to be so specific about which offenses lead to which punishments and which offenses are even punishable in the first place (the "what is not forbidden is allowed" principle). In theory, you could cover them more generally by saying that any time someone intentionally causes harm to others (without a valid reason), he will be caused proportional harm in return. Then all you need is a conversion table to prison time, fines, etc. With lying, all you would need to prove is that the person lied intentionally and quantify the expected harm which would have been caused if the lie was successful (regardless if it actually was or not - intent is what matters). As a bonus, it would force everyone to acknowledge the full amount of harm caused. For example, rape usually leads to lifelong consequences for the victim but not the attacker. In this system, such inconsistency, some would call it injustice, would be obvious and it would be much easier for anyone to call for rectification.
  - VierScar 1y ago
    "without a valid reason" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Not only would this idea be impractical and highly subjective, determining what a valid reason is, is the same problem as defining the Law in the first place. Can you insult someone? Can you say something wrong that you thought was right ("the lion cage is locked") that someone is injured from? What is their duties in checking the info they get is correct? Is there a min wage or not? What value is it? Does it change on city or state? Can under-age people sign contracts? Can they vote? Obviously we need the law in any practical world.
greenavocado 1y ago
Australia is so ridiculous they closed airspace to fire a 50 BMG sniper rifle For context these rounds are fired everywhere in America daily thousand of times.
- sunnybeetroot 1y ago
  Can you provide more details?

wkat4242 1y ago

Um but smoke detectors don't contain plutonium. Usually americum 241. Edit: ah so it was a soviet one. They also played loose and fast with nuclear safety. We still have 30+ nuclear reactors hanging over our heads in space that will come down one day. One already did and contaminated a big area in Canada, though luckily a very remote one.

pierrekin1 1y ago
I’m surprised you know this but didn’t think further about the situation. Where was anericum used in smoke detectors, and was there perhaps some other region where plutonium was used? Perhaps somewhere colder, more, soviet-ey?
- wkat4242 1y ago
  I don't have much knowledge of soviet society, that's why. Just their cavalier attitude to nuclear safety. Though to be fair, America wasn't much better in the 50s. Nor was Britain if you read about the "procedures" surrounding the windscale meltdown. Uranium rods would get stuck and people would just poke it with a stick.
  - chupasaurus 1y ago
    The smoke detector in question was created in 70s.
    - wkat4242 1y ago
      I know but the Soviets continued their attitude until much later, when the Americans had already 'grown up' in terms of nuclear safety.
- rolph 1y ago
  back in the 50s "fire" detectors had a block of uranium and a vacuum tube to detect smoke or ionized combustive particles
1y ago