Live data from Hacker News

Australians scour desert for dangerous radioactive capsule smaller than a penny

nytimes.com

271–280 of 357 posts

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

#271
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking, 10 x-rays per hour doesn’t sound so terrible. But if you bring it closer than 1 meter it would start getting exponentially worse.

Not exponentially, just inverse-quadratically :)

Presumably something that got exponentially worse with proximity would have badness e^(-kr) where r is distance and k is some constant. So depending on k, it’s worse by some constant amount when you bring d down from 1 meter to zero. This is, notably, finitely worse.

But k/r^2 (different k) is a whole different beast. It’s infinitely worse at zero distance!

Of course, the radioactive source itself is not a point, and the human body isn’t a point either, so it’s not infinitely bad at zero range. Closer than a meter or so (very roughly the size of a body), it will merely concentrate the exposure over a smaller portion of the target and deliver a larger fraction of its total output to the target. The latter effect is a constant factor not vastly greater than 1 when comparing 1 meter to zero meters.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best reply on this thread. Everything in Australia kills you or at least causes horrible pain. Even that cute platypus or that harmless-looking shell on the beach. And now this.

Fortunately, over 85% of us live in the cities, due to much of the rest of the country where most of the dangerous shit is being mostly uninhabitable anyway. The further south you live the safer you are generally speaking. Where I live (far south) the most dangerous creature you're going to run into in the city is probably a redback spider, which is related to a black widow, and there hasn't been a confirmed death fr…

> This capsule has been lost in one of the most remote, uninhabitated parts of the country.

And we wonder why Western Australian Aboriginal poet and playwright Jack Davis, OBE, OA referred to kartiya as fringedwellers (clinging in fear to the edges of the continent).

A quip second only to Kartiya are like Toyotas. When they break down we get another one.

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

#273
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the nature of highly radioactive materials. Walk past it? No problem. Walk on the crushed capsule, brush your hand against the bottom of your shoe, eat a sandwich? Die horribly.

Hyperbole. "the equivalent of 10 X-rays in an hour" So no, walk on it and you would never know. Nobody dies, not without carrying it around for days. Then they get burns. It's important to understand the numbers - and the magnitude of this radiation source is concerning but not dire.

The point is that the danger depends on how people interact with it. That's why they're doing this PSA (and trying to recover it). It would be very easy for that little canister to get ruptured, and loose radioactive material is a very different game from nicely-packaged-in-a-capsule material.

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

#274

Radiation detection is my specialty. This source is Cs-137, few hundred mCi. It's easy to detect within a few seconds at distances of a few tens of meters or more with professional detection equipment if there is direct line of sight. If it was knocked off the road, though, the question will be if it fell into a crack or other such place because then the radiation is somewhat shielded and it would take much more meas…

That's good to know, some useful context:

tldr: It's going to take a while

The search area is immense. People (even locals) fail to understand the incredibly vast distances. Sure, you can think up a comparison from your own context of a few hundred kms... but does your example have nothing, and I mean, literally nothing manmade but the road infrastructure itself in the proximity of the horizon for sometimes hundreds of kms? Few places do. In more remote places than this, say in the Kimberly, you might as well be on the moon. There's nothing out there to support you or resupply you; you always have to think about that ahead of time.

It's the middle of summer here, we are approaching our hottest month (February). Pavement, being a heat island, makes working alongside or on it a slow process. Exposure and heat stroke are real risks.

On the upside, the roads are sealed, and in relatively good condition and well designed when compared to say much of the US or the poorer parts of Europe but the odds that it falls into a crack or pothole will scale with the distance. A vehicle-mounted detector makes obvious sense but could be costly. However, as we know, especially at these temperatures, roads are slow moving rivers. It might even become embedded if it did indeed land on the surface. In which case it sounds like we may never find it.

Assuming it's most likely in the literal middle of nowhere. The risk of a member of the public coming into to direct physical contact would be highly unlikely. There are sections of road that haven't had human feet walk on them since they were last poured. But that introduces an interesting problem. What happens next time maintenance replace that section? Do crews need to be wary of digging it up, possibly aresolising it in the process? Maintenance is probably the most likely human contact scenario. Does every safety management plan now include the incredibly remote chance of finding it?

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

#276
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What motive would someone have to do this? Seems like a baseless conspiracy theory

It’d be very useful. Imagine having a weapon capable of killing someone off covertly. You could keep the capsule in a lead box, and whenever you want to get rid of an enemy, put the capsule somewhere close to where they sleep, and leave it there long enough to induce radiation sickness or cancer in the target. Then you could retrieve the capsule and continue this process with another enemy.

Radiation sickness is not particularly covert.

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dang it, I wish I didn't have real architecture design work to do today, because this seems like it'd be a lot of fun to research. Pure horizontal scaling would be trucks with survey counters. Pure vertical would be getting the US to retask one of those radiation-sensing satellites they use to characterize stuff like the Urals trace. (Not that that'd be likely to happen - national security, etc. But have the embassy…

- "Pure vertical would be getting the US to retask one of those radiation-sensing satellites they use to characterize stuff like the Urals trace." That's an extraordinary thing to mention in passing; do you have a source for this?

Not as such, no. On further research, it looks like the understanding that led me to surmise the existence of such a survey capability was significantly incomplete.

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

#278
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting algorithm problem. Given the parameters to maximize detection and minimize time/resources, how would you direct a drone or something to find the capsule? How would that change with 2 drones? 4? 8? As many drones as there are flyable Geiger counters in the country?

You'd pretty much start with a local radiometric survey company (there are a few in Perth) using a 50 litre doped sodium iodide cyrstal pack (a bit heavy for a drone) and scintillation counters in a crop duster flying at 40 m ground clearence dead centre down the road at 70 m/sec for the full 1,400 km road length. Post process the 256 value gamma spectrum, correcting for cosmic, aircraft signature, remove the mean av…

I was going to say that too.

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a critter moved it or ate it then it's probably gone forever. At a distance of 1 meter the dose rate from that source is already not extremely hazardous unless a person were exposed for an extended period of time (like a full day or two). Getting closer, like putting it directly against your torso, would mean serious health effects in a matter of minutes. Bit of contradiction in your statement here? If putting it…

Playing devils advocate, what if a bird grabs it and fly's 1000 meters before death?

Then hopefully they don't take it to their nest next to your window.

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

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm amazed at the gymnastics possible with such an innocuous phrase. It is almost perverse. Imagine trying to parse this out starting from a position of good faith.

You think I'm not in good faith - that's fine. But surely you have to concede that "I'm just asking questions" make it really easy to insinuate without directly stating, yes?

I'm just admiring the twists here, trying to understand and appreciate the gymnastic talent involved.

The triple handspring is when you insinuate that users of that phrase must be insinuating. Perfect 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 Olympic finish is when it is all done out of an abundance of paranoia.

I thought the conspiracy theorists were the paranoid and deranged ones, which is why we didn't want their unfounded and nutty comments? Apparently there is a conspiracy theorist lurking behind every tree, bush and use of, "I'm just asking questions".

Surely you have to concede with that logic there must be innumerable other phrases, trees and bushes that we haven't yet discovered?

I propose that we form a committee so that we may ensure the safety of our fragile establishment views from this menace.

Or maybe we could just skip it and engage with comments at face value, in good faith. Maybe he said just what he said? Don't know about you, but I'm a terrible psychoanalyst. Nor do I have time to go deep on every turn of phrase on the Internet.

Post reply on HN