Live data from Hacker News

Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

nytimes.com

91–100 of 357 posts

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#91

I really thought someone (US?) had technology (satellites) that could pinpoint radiation sources, even of this magnitude

I had the same thought briefly, but then thought more about it. These are high energy particles. You might remember the article about cosmic rays that sometimes cause a single bit flip in a videogame, and that there is no easy way to shield against it. That makes satellite imaging difficult, because how do you focus some sort of lens, if the particles go right thru everything? You might detect that a cosmic ray or ionizing particle hit the satellite, but not where it came from. The sun? Australia? Space? Plus, think about particle accelerator images and cloud chambers. They are individual streaks. They aren't gradients the way normal light would create an image. So, the farther away you are, the less likely these particles will hit you. If you attached a geiger counter to a hot air balloon, starting from this radioactive capsule, you'd hear rapid clicks, then infrequent clicks, then no clicks, then the clicks would increase due to cosmic rays. If directional geiger counters existed, I feel like people would have been using those instead of what they currently use. So, I doubt satellite nuclear radiation imaging exists.

I looked up Fukushima satellite maps, and they all say they are fluid simulations based on ground sensor data.

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It pretty much broadcasts its location if you wave the right instrumentation around.

You "just" need to wave that instrument over 1400km of highway, potentially with a 100m+ width if the capsule has been kicked some distance away by a truck tyre.

I’m trying to imagine the scale of this. I guess it depends on how close you have to be to pick up the signal. And how many false signals there might be.

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#93

I worked in cosmic rays for a time and there is some overlap between the challenge of finding the capsule, and common astroparticle physics problems. > The capsule, which contains a small amount of cesium-137, is dangerously radioactive, according to the authorities. An hour of exposure at about a meter away is the equivalent of having 10 X-rays, and prolonged contact can cause skin burns, acute radiation sickness an…

but if it fell on a ditch on the side of the highway, the attenuation by the asphalt would be quite significant, even if the original max distance assumption was quite exaggerated. Interesting problem indeed !

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#95
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you realize it once contained polonium?

It had a big label on it that said “DANGER: POLONIUM. DO NOT INGEST”!

A reasonable basis for the polonium hypothesis

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#96

I really thought someone (US?) had technology (satellites) that could pinpoint radiation sources, even of this magnitude

That technique doesn't work on Earth; the atmosphere's too thick to pass gamma rays (in either direction). An atmospheric column has the mass of a ~10 meter column of water.

It's pretty effective on other planetoids, though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Prospector?useskin=vecto...

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#97
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Polonium is 5000 times more radioactive than Radium (just 0.001g of Po emits the same number of particles as 5g of Ra). It has a half life of just 138 days so in only 4.6 years the missing Polonium will be equivalent in radioactivity to Radium, which is known to cause cancer. This doesn't sound like something that should be treated lightly.

I found a polonium-loaded anti-static brush for photography in a box from my parents’ attic. Scared the shit out of me at first. Called the hazardous waste folks and had a fun chat with a perplexed employee. We finally decided that, as it was from the 70’s, it had long since decayed into harmlessness and was fine to throw away.

Applied Science youtube channel uses this and explains it a bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBHIp967TD8

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#99
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Polonium is 5000 times more radioactive than Radium (just 0.001g of Po emits the same number of particles as 5g of Ra). It has a half life of just 138 days so in only 4.6 years the missing Polonium will be equivalent in radioactivity to Radium, which is known to cause cancer. This doesn't sound like something that should be treated lightly.

Sure but all that means is that 1g of radium will have the same activity as 0.2mg of polonium. Of course they will also have different decay spectra etc. We don't know how big the source was that the students lost, but I'm guessing that if they just gave up after a few days, it probably wasn't a very high activity. This means either very low mass, or a higher mass but just older so that it's decayed away.

It was tiny, I think something like this: https://www.flinnsci.com/alpha-source-polonium-210/ap8794/

They were letting undergrads handle it, so definitely wasn't a large source.

Also, hey Chase! Funny to see you in the wild (Ferdi here)

Re: Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

#100
post #45
post #41

Oh, reminds me a of a time some students lost a Polonium source in the physics lab while I was a Masters student. The HoD had them crawling around the building for days with a Geiger counter, but they never found it. Luckily it was a small source and Polonium has a relatively short half-life, but the department had to go through a whole song and dance of declaring an incident.

According to Wikipedia, Polonium is 5000 times more radioactive than Radium (just 0.001g of Po emits the same number of particles as 5g of Ra). It has a half life of just 138 days so in only 4.6 years the missing Polonium will be equivalent in radioactivity to Radium, which is known to cause cancer. This doesn't sound like something that should be treated lightly.

The important question is how much of a sample was lost. Ultimately, AIUI, the health risk depends upon the exposure in a ~ linear fashion. At least, in radiological protection that's used. The LNT model errs on the side of caution; assume that any exposure is harmful, linearly extrapolating from the high dosages seen in Hiroshima, etc, where we have data of the impact of exposure on the body. In reality, we expect a threshold effect as the body is able to repair some damage.

The dose of radiation has different meanings; absorbed, equivalent, effective. These are just different calculations, starting from how much energy the body received (absorbed), to taking into account the different kinds of radiation whose effects differ (equivalent), to where in the body the dose as received (different organs at different risk, effective).

The half-life of 210Po is 138 days, so it's ~10x less active than 223Ra. That's meaningless with respect to the health risk, though; the activity of the sample is ultimately selected by its intended use. Most samples are sized according to the dose requirements. At least, that's my understanding (physics, not medical). In general we don't want to over-size a source as there are greater regulations. Similarly, we don't want sources to become useless too quickly.

In any case, this is definitely bad — 5000x less activity is not good if it's greater than the lethal dose. Because radioactive sources are so small, the risk is not likely to be distributed; you get the whole dose, or nothing.*

* Unless it gets dispersed somehow.

Dose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalent_dose#/media/File:SI... LNT: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/

Post reply on HN