[HN Gopher] Australian who ordered radioactive materials walks a...
___________________________________________________________________
Australian who ordered radioactive materials walks away from court
Author : mrkeen
Score : 215 points
Date : 2025-04-26 06:42 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.chemistryworld.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.chemistryworld.com)
| mrkeen wrote:
| Follow-up from:
|
| 'Naive' science fan faces jail for plutonium import
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43449645
| ulf-77723 wrote:
| Most interesting for Australia and generally society is the fact
| that a judge has to associate the behavior of collecting
| different materials from the periodic table with mental health
| issues in order to not ridicule the current laws.
| kitesay wrote:
| Yea
| that_lurker wrote:
| And because of that he most likely will have really hard time
| getting a job after this
| theginger wrote:
| Possibly although given the story about it could go the
| opposite way.
| grumpy-de-sre wrote:
| Pretty sure he won't be getting a license to drive a train
| anytime soon. Especially not with a recorded conviction.
| tw1984 wrote:
| according to australian laws, he has a pretty good chance
| to be sentenced without a conviction recorded.
| grumpy-de-sre wrote:
| "Judge Flannery did not record a conviction against
| Lidden and ordered that he be subject to an 18-month bond
| and recognisance release order."
|
| Thank god, after a couple years he should have a real
| chance of getting his life back in order.
| Cordiali wrote:
| I get the impression that background checks are basically
| standard practice in America. That's not generally true in
| Australia, only in certain industries and roles.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| It seems it kinda depends since there are background checks
| and background checks. In private sector, it ranges all the
| way from credit check to actual invasive paid background
| check conducted by a third party, whose accuracy may very
| wildly ( I don't want to go into too much detail, but buddy
| had some troubled history in one state, but the background
| check conducted in another state did not raise those issues
| at all despite the fact that those same issues would have
| been treated differently, where he is now ). And then (
| mostly ) public sector, where the range goes a little
| further to include checks for IC, which, apparently ( I am
| not aware of anyone who had one ), include actual
| interviews with people in your life.
| skissane wrote:
| > And then ( mostly ) public sector, where the range goes
| a little further to include checks for IC, which,
| apparently ( I am not aware of anyone who had one ),
| include actual interviews with people in your life.
|
| Background investigators from the Australian military
| once came to our house. My father's partner, her friend's
| son was in the Navy and upgrading his security clearance,
| and he'd put her down as a character reference. They
| asked her all kinds of questions - "illegal drugs?
| prostitutes? gambling addict? secretly gay? cheating on
| his wife? beating his wife?" - and to all of them she
| basically said "not that I know of, but as his mother's
| friend I don't expect I'd be hearing about it if he was".
| And apparently they were happy with her answers.
| skissane wrote:
| > That's not generally true in Australia, only in certain
| industries and roles.
|
| In software and IT, it is standard practice (in my personal
| experience) for private sector employers in Australia to
| ask for a national police check (criminal record).
|
| Financial firms (such as banks) demand it, because they
| don't want to hire people with a criminal record for fraud
| or theft, they worry they'll use their insider access to
| commit fraud or theft again. And they often put standard
| terms in their vendor contracts to demand any vendor
| employees working on the contract also have a pre-hire
| criminal record check. Which means if you have finance
| industry customers (or hope to get them in the future), the
| simplest approach is just to do it for all your employees.
| If you are some small business doing tech support for other
| small businesses, you might not bother.
|
| But, since this is not fraud or theft, they officially
| speaking don't care - whether they would in practice,
| likely depends on the individual company (hiring manager
| and HR). Plus someone else mentioned there was no
| conviction recorded, which means he won't get a criminal
| record for this - well, it will probably remain in the
| database forever, but it will be flagged as hidden, so an
| ordinary police check won't include it. (I thought maybe
| that he might temporarily have a record until his bond
| expires, but reading more about it, sounds like that isn't
| actually true.)
| _fat_santa wrote:
| Would he though?
|
| This kid (assuming they go to college, etc) could quite
| possibly get a job in a lab or some other scientific
| establishment. At a place like that everyone would know about
| his case AND know how insane it was.
| rubatuga wrote:
| Don't we all have mental health issues?
| mianos wrote:
| They have the wrong person with mental health issues. Everyone
| involved in this whole story, aside from some guy with a hobby
| collecting elements, are absolutely insane. (I live nearby so I
| have been following the story closely).
| bpiroman wrote:
| Overreaction much? Should there be a ban on americium-241 in
| smoke detectors?
| eesmith wrote:
| 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 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 His lab
| became a Superfund site.
| IsTom wrote:
| In this kind of amounts it follows that import of coal should
| require this kind of license because of thorium content.
| eesmith wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Fine, then TIG welding rods (some of which intentionally
| contain thorium).
| eesmith wrote:
| quoting me: "I presume it will be imported under
| license."
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Nitpick: TIG welding _electrodes_.
| detaro wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It's never reasonable to overreact.
|
| Regular old garden variety proportional response should
| suffice.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| 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.
| jampekka wrote:
| I find it a bit odd for press to name the person and discuss
| their health matters on top. Sounds like quite a punishment in
| itself getting branded like that.
|
| In e.g. Finland names are not published by the press unless the
| crime is severe and there's a conviction or the person is already
| a public figure.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Same in Germany.
| Svip wrote:
| I think most continental European countries do this. The
| publishing of names like this seem more like an Anglosphere
| thing. In Denmark, the press norm is usually first to publish
| names when they get a prison sentence of 2+ years.
| jampekka wrote:
| The 2+ years is the standard in Finland as well. Notably a
| lot heavier crime usually has to take place for such
| sentence than in US or even UK.
| sunaookami wrote:
| In Germany the full name is not published.
| aaron695 wrote:
| The internet has screw all that up.
|
| The criminal justice system should be transparent. Anyone
| should be able to watch any proceedings. This fits with your
| requirements as long as people don't report it.
|
| The Australia Federal Court live streams but it is illegal to
| yt-dlp / photograph the monitor etc -
| https://www.youtube.com/@FederalCourtAus/streams
|
| You also need people before and after (if convicted) to know.
| For instance witnesses or if they too were victims of crime.
| This is the impossible problem.
|
| It's not even the reporting, it's easy search, as old
| newspapers have been scanned I've seen a few family secrets (of
| people still alive) that I would never have known and never
| needed to know.
| jampekka wrote:
| The court proceedings and decisions are public and can be
| followed on site and the documents can be acquired by anyone.
| This is indeed important for transparency and accountability
| of the system.
|
| However the proceedings aren't streamed and the documents
| aren't online. Some cases can be published online (e.g.
| supreme court ones) but with identifying information
| redacted. I think this is good.
|
| The policy is voluntary by the press, not a law. Although in
| some cases publishing such information could be deemed
| violation of privacy if it's not deemed of public importance.
| And compiling databases of the personally identifying
| information could be illegal.
| grumpy-de-sre wrote:
| Even worse is that if you google the poor blokes name they
| had the paparazzi out taking courthouse photos.
|
| The gutter press in Australia have a field day at peoples
| expense.
|
| Plenty of precedent of throwing high profile court cases
| too (hard to find unbiased jurors etc). Lately there's been
| a number of important cases being declared mistrials.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| It always seemed that more often than not the people are
| innocent when gossip rags dox them pre-trial or during a
| trial.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Trials are public. This is a feature. This means everything can
| be reported unless the court puts a ban on it. Note, too that
| the guy pleaded guilty in this case and I think it is right to
| publicise the court's reasons for the penalty, or lack thereof.
|
| In the UK they release mugshots, full names, and approximate
| address in the media, after a guilt verdict. Names and
| approximate addresses are published before since trials are
| public.
|
| Finland, Germany, France, etc. have gone to another extreme. In
| France they now even withhold the names of people arrested _in
| the act_ of murder or terrorism because "people are presumed
| innocent" and "their privacy must be protected"... which is
| pushing it beyond sensible and common sense, and is fairly
| recent practice that seems to have spread from Germany.
| Svip wrote:
| Hard disagree. It's well known that people who are falsely
| accused of such crimes end up having to live with the damage
| to their reputation even after a court finds them innocent,
| because that's not the news story people remember. In such
| societies, one's life is effectively ruined the moment one is
| accused.
|
| Innocent until proven guilty, and the same goes for the court
| of public opinion.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| There is a big difference between being accused and going
| to trial. I agree that identities should not be published
| based only on "accusations".
|
| There is a big difference between being caught in the act
| and charged following an investigation.
|
| Currently Europe is moving/has moved to an extreme position
| beyond common sense as it has done on several other issues
| based on "good intentions".
|
| In some cases there is also a pressure to charge and go to
| trial just based on accusations (e.g. rape cases), which is
| another issue.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| You are still innocent at trial.
|
| There's no good from this only witch hunts. Something
| more common more recently in the anglosphere too.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| You are still innocent at trial.
|
| There's no good from this only figurative village mobs
| and witch hunts.
|
| From my experience something culturally more common in
| the anglosphere too.
| Svip wrote:
| This is probably also an instance of a significant
| cultural difference. Continental Europe generally
| believes in rehabilitation, whereas the Anglosphere - and
| the US in particular - strike me more as having a
| vengeful justice system.
|
| Public shaming of people at trial is incompatible with
| the belief in rehabilitation.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Shame of being convicted of a crime and rehabilitation
| are separate issues and this is not a cultural difference
| between continental Europe (which isn't even an
| homogeneous entity) and the "Anglosphere", either per se.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| A trial is held before any conviction.
| jampekka wrote:
| In Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been
| publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a
| punishment itself.
|
| Being labeled as "a criminal" for sure hinders
| rehabilitation. It reduces opportunities and probably
| affects identity.
|
| Based on how crime and offenders are publicly discussed
| in the US, it seems there's very little interest in
| rehabilitation, except if the person is of high status.
| Per my common sense the US culture is often just plain
| cruel with people revelling in others' suffering if they
| are labeled as "outsiders".
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| > In Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been
| publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a
| punishment itself.
|
| This is to some extent true in the UK as well. Pubic
| figures are likely to lose their income if convicted of a
| crime, whereas someone in a less visible or responsible
| profession is more likely to be able to continue working
| immediately after serving their sentence (or during, if
| the sentence is non-custodial). This is therefore
| considered a mitigating factor during sentencing.
|
| One result of this is that the law can sometimes appear
| to be more lenient on celebrities or other notable
| individuals, but it is really just making the system
| equitable so that the sentence has the same effect
| regardless of the criminal's personal situation.
| blackguardx wrote:
| Don't the celebrities have more money and resources? To
| make the sentence have the same effect they would be
| given harsher sentences.
| jampekka wrote:
| What is the "common sense" here? My common sense can't
| see really any benefits from publicizing the information.
| xvokcarts wrote:
| Don't you think that if it's in the name of the people
| that the people should have the right to know? Aren't
| trials public anyway?
| jampekka wrote:
| If you are interested, you can go to the court to watch
| the proceedings or get the documents.
| xvokcarts wrote:
| OK. How am I then not allowed to post here what happened
| in the court?
| jampekka wrote:
| You are allowed to post what happened in the court. You
| are also allowed to share names and even video to at
| least a limited audience.
| xvokcarts wrote:
| OK, so like on my X account where I publish names of
| people on trial.
| jampekka wrote:
| That depends on the case and for what purpose the names
| are published. But I'd say usually there will be no legal
| ramifications.
|
| What is the purpose for publishing the named?
| rollcat wrote:
| IANAL, but in general, doxxing people is just a really
| mean thing to do.
|
| Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most
| hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help
| reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to
| know who you're dealing with.
|
| Proven innocent? Lawful or not, you're now carrying the
| weight of possibly ruining someone's life even further.
| Sleep on that.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| In the UK, a story is legally considered libellous if
| it's written in a way that could harm its subject, even
| if the facts are true. That means it would be a tort
| against the convicted criminal to name them if it
| wouldn't be in the public interest to do so.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Libel strictly implies false statement and it is a full
| defence to show that the statement is true:
|
| " _It is a defence to an action for defamation for the
| defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the
| statement complained of is substantially true._ " [1]
|
| That has to be the case otherwise it would be unlawful to
| say or publish anything negative about someone!
|
| Public interest defence applies when the statement
| published was false.
|
| Note that convicted criminals are always publicly named
| unless the court forbids it. In that latter case naming
| the person would still not be libel but contempt of court
| (which potentially means jail).
|
| [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26
| jampekka wrote:
| Trials are public in Finland, Germany, France etc. In some
| very severe crimes the name of the suspect may be published.
| For publicly discussed crimes the names can be usually found
| in some crime related discussion forums.
|
| People are presumed innocent and their privacy must be
| protected. The mugshot porn is not good for anybody or the
| society in general.
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| Even if you are arrested _in the act_ of killing someone you
| may have some defence that means you are not committing
| murder (e.g. self-defence, diminished responsibility, I think
| France still has 'crime in the heat of passion' as a defence)
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The replies are getting absurd but unfortunately very
| illustrative of the state of Europe in 2025.
|
| The "good intentions" have indeed led to a situation in
| which criminals are protected beyond the level of
| protection and rights afforded to victims and law-abiding
| citizens.
|
| People can get in trouble by publishing CCTV footage to
| identify criminals, to give one basic example. But that's
| to be expected if some people think that even convicted
| criminals'privacy should be protected...
| d1sxeyes wrote:
| > The "good intentions" have indeed led to a situation in
| which criminals are protected beyond the level of
| protection and rights afforded to victims and law-abiding
| citizens.
|
| Is this true?
| jampekka wrote:
| > The "good intentions" have indeed led to a situation in
| which criminals are protected beyond the level of
| protection and rights afforded to victims and law-abiding
| citizens.
|
| Have you compared the crime rate between e.g. Europe and
| USA?
|
| People who have been sentenced of a crime are people too
| and (should) have rights. Its better for everybody.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| Yeah, this is despicable. For at least the next two decades, if
| you Google this guy's name, you'll see these stories depicting
| this guy as either a dangerous criminal or a sadly misguided,
| mentally unhealthy man, when all he did was order some cool
| rocks for his collection.
|
| These laws need to change, given the Internet's long-term
| memory.
| Uvix wrote:
| In this case there _was_ a conviction. Hence the two year good
| behavior bond, rather than being free and clear.
| seb1204 wrote:
| So what about the company selling the restricted material to him?
| Or the company doing the importing are they also reprimanded in
| some form?
| feraloink wrote:
| Not sure who is responsible for confirming whether he had a
| permit: oversees seller or shipping company, or customs/import
| upon receipt in Australia.
|
| Guardian article says, "he ordered the items from a US-based
| science website and they were delivered to his parents'
| home.... Nuclear materials can be imported legally by
| contacting the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation
| Office for a permit first."
|
| So maybe all of this fuss was due to not having applied and
| received a permit?
| fsmv wrote:
| It isn't actually dangerous in any way. It's just a collectors
| display piece.
| ggm wrote:
| I believe the guy got worried he needed to tell his employer, the
| railway, that he was facing a prosecution. His solicitor advised
| him not to.
|
| They stood him down and terminated him to minimise risk.
|
| I hope he gets his job back.
| kweks wrote:
| "Safe enough to swallow" seems like a scary oversimplification
| for alpha-emitting substances ?
| atemerev wrote:
| Depends on intensity. Microgram quantities of plutonium should
| be generally safe (unlike, say, microgram quantities of
| polonium).
|
| Not all alpha emitters are created the same.
| tw1984 wrote:
| kids need to learn science and some basic market economy. if they
| do that, they won't be stupid enough trying to collect the
| "entire periodic table". with Fr priced at like $100m AUD per
| gram, how would some dude living in his parents' apartment going
| to afford that? some primary school knowledge would be enough to
| teach him that gold is actually one of those pretty affordable
| elements to collect when compared to all sorts of those stupidly
| expensive & rare ones.
| Someone wrote:
| > with Fr priced at like $100m AUD per gram, how would some
| dude living in his parents' apartment going to afford that?
|
| You buy a rock that produces Francium.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium: _"its most stable
| isotope, francium-223 (originally called actinium K after the
| natural decay chain in which it appears), has a half-life of
| only 22 minutes."_ , so buying Francium itself is not a good
| idea.
|
| Also (same Wikipedia page) _"In a given sample of uranium,
| there is estimated to be only one francium atom for every 1 x
| 1018 uranium atoms. Only about 1 ounce (28 g) of francium is
| present naturally in the earth 's crust."_, so you wouldn't
| have a gram of it, by a very, very long stretch.
| leonewton253 wrote:
| When I read things like this it makes Australia look like a penal
| colony.
| testing22321 wrote:
| I grew up there, but have been away for 20 years.
|
| I went back recently for a year and saw the whole country.
|
| It very, very much feels like a nanny state with an insane
| amount of rules, and regular folks who try to stop you breaking
| those rules.
| asmor wrote:
| Yet another instance of "the public doesn't understand
| radiation".
|
| Not even a month ago someone making a miniscule amount of uranium
| paint (on a channel that tries to recreate old pigments, most of
| them toxic) was accused of "creating a second Goiania"[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js05OEsmsm0
| shit_game wrote:
| good. from what ive read/watched about this case, it was absurd
| and an absolute abuse of the systems in place in australia. the
| quantities and material properties of the elements in question
| should have never, _ever_ resulted in the response or charges
| that occurred.
|
| the explanation that "the judge concluded that Lidden had mental
| health issues and displayed no malicious intent" is absurd in its
| own right, even if it resulted in a favorable outcome. what a
| sad, offensively disparaging, and fucked up excuse from a
| government.
|
| here is a (arugably biased) relevant video about the subject from
| an amateur australian chemist that covers this case:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I
| otterley wrote:
| > the quantities and material properties of the elements in
| question should have never, ever resulted in the response or
| charges that occurred.
|
| This even though "The delivery of the materials - which
| included a quantity of plutonium, depleted uranium, lutetium,
| thorium and radium - led to a major hazmat incident in August
| 2023. The entire street that Lidden lived on was closed off and
| homes were evacuated" ?
|
| It's not like his activities had zero impact in his community.
| You don't mess around with radioactive materials; even small
| amounts can be extremely hazardous to life and the environment.
| There's a reason they're not easy to obtain.
| IsTom wrote:
| That was a severe overreaction by authorities after they knew
| he had it for _months_ in trace amounts.
| shit_game wrote:
| What impact?
|
| The impact of the Australian Border Force overreacting after
| they (seemingly deliberately) bungled the situation when they
| were first made aware of the situation?
|
| _None_ of the elements this man was in possession of were
| either in a quantity or quality to facilitate any kind of
| hazard to anyone. The response by government was unjustified,
| and should have ocurred before the materials ever reached the
| purchaser.
|
| I urge you to learn about and understand the properties of
| radioactive materials before making judgement on this
| situation. The quantities and properties (particularly the
| encasing) of the materials in question largely render them
| inert. These specimens are not at all abnormal in the scope
| of element collection, and the response triggered by the ABF
| (complete evacuation of an entire street (note, not an entire
| radius???)) is unwarranted given the quantitites and
| properties of the elements (both pieces of information they
| knew beforehand).
| m4x wrote:
| The article says "the quantities of material were so small
| they were safe to eat"
|
| If that's true, the overreaction and evacuation is higher
| risk than possession of the elements
|
| You can't blame Lidden for the overreaction of others
| xvokcarts wrote:
| > The article says "the quantities of material were so
| small they were safe to eat"
|
| The question is did the authorities know that the materials
| were harmless in advance, or only after they acquired them?
| rcxdude wrote:
| They knew, or should have known. They knew exactly what
| he had bought and in what quantity, and anyone who knew
| anything about radioactive material would have concluded
| it was safe, or if they had doubts, they would have sent
| maybe two people to go knock on his door and ask to look
| around.
|
| This was someone or a small group inside the border force
| who didn't have a clue what they were doing, cocked up,
| tried to make a big showy scene of things, and then
| scrambled to save face after the actual experts clued
| them in that a) what he had was safe and b) was 100%
| legal to own. (note that he was prosecuted for something
| that the border force allowed through years before the
| sample they erroneously thought was a problem, and that
| was not illegal to own, only illegal under a very twisted
| interpretation of an obscure law to import).
| ryandrake wrote:
| Also, the question shouldn't be "Did they know it was
| harmless?" It should be "Did they know it was harmful?"
| You don't initiate a huge hazmat incident, close off
| homes and evacuate people just because "you're not sure
| it was harmless." You do that when you _know it 's
| harmful_.
| crooked-v wrote:
| You have an overly optimistic opinion of the police.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| They did know. It was well labelled and initially stopped
| at customs.
|
| They asked the ordinary courier (without hazmat gear) to
| deliver it in person to help build a stronger case.
|
| Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I
|
| The hazmat crew was literally manufactured drama for a
| prosecutor (who somehow continues not to be named in this
| ridiculous case) to build a better case.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Here you go:
|
| Sally Dowling SC - Director of Public Prosecutions New
| South Whales
|
| Frank Veltro SC - Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions
| New South Whales
|
| Helen Roberts SC - Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions
| New South Whales
|
| Ken McKay SC BAB - Senior Crown Prosecutor New South
| Whales
|
| Craig Hyland - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions New
| South Whales
|
| Anne Whitehead - Deputy Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
| (Legal) New South Whales
|
| Esther Kwiet - Deputy Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
| (Legal Operations) - New South Whales
|
| Natalie Weekes - Deputy Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
| (Operations) New South Whales
|
| Deborah Hocking - Deputy Solicitor for Public
| Prosecutions (Operations) New South Whales
|
| Joanna Croker - Deputy Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
| (Operations) New South Whales
|
| https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/about-us/leadership-team
|
| The current head of Fire and Rescue NSW is Jeremy
| Fewtrell.
|
| https://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=135
| crooked-v wrote:
| They stopped it at the border, then let an ordinary
| courier deliver it. Either they knew it's harmless or
| they're intentionally criminally negligent.
| zettabomb wrote:
| >It's not like his activities had zero impact in his
| community.
|
| They didn't. The ridiculous and uninformed government
| reaction caused this. Nothing he did was even remotely
| dangerous.
|
| >You don't mess around with radioactive materials; even small
| amounts can be extremely hazardous to life and the
| environment.
|
| These materials were not dangerous, it was literally a
| capsule from a smoke detector. As in, an average person
| would've had it in their house.
|
| >There's a reason they're not easy to obtain.
|
| Right, so difficult to obtain that he was able to simply
| order them online and have them delivered through the mail.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| To be clear this was initially stopped at the border as the
| old smoke detector he ordered was clearly labelled "contains
| radioactive material".
|
| The authorities decided they wanted to build a case rather
| than stop it there though so they allowed the delivery to
| proceed. So it was delivered by a courier without protection
| because they knew it was harmless. They then subsequently
| sent in a full hazmat crew to close off the street. Not
| because they had to, they just had the courier deliver it
| after all. They closed off the street because the drama would
| apparently help the prosecution build a case of how dangerous
| this is.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I
| nialv7 wrote:
| > amateur australian chemist
|
| I mean, he has a PhD...
| imhoguy wrote:
| Would ordering e.g. uranim glass beads [0] be acceptable?
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass
| dhx wrote:
| Maybe covered by the following exemptions of section 3 of
| Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Regulations 1987?[1]
| (1) For the purposes of paragraph 9(c) of the Act, each of the
| following kinds of nuclear material is nuclear material of a
| kind to which Part II of the Act does not apply: (c)
| source material that is incorporated in: (i) the
| glazing of a finished ceramic product; or (ii) an
| alloy in the form of a finished constructional product, being
| an alloy the source material component of which is not more
| than 4% by weight of uranium or thorium; (d) source
| material that is contained in: (i) a chemical
| mixture, compound or solution, or an alloy, in which the
| uranium or thorium content by weight is less than 0.05% of the
| weight of the mixture, compound, solution or alloy;
|
| There's probably dozens of other acts and regulations which
| would also apply to which the exemptions above may not apply--
| for example, legislation related to import declarations and use
| of mail services.
|
| [1]
| https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B02071/2023-10-27/2023-1...
| feraloink wrote:
| Probably would be entirely acceptable if one applied for and
| received a permit for them.
|
| >can be imported legally by contacting the Australian
| Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office for a permit first.
| feraloink wrote:
| Woah, this doesn't sound like over-reaction but the reporting
| doesn't give enough details to know:
|
| >While his actions were criminal, the judge concluded that Lidden
| had mental health issues and displayed no malicious intent....
| The delivery of the materials - which included a quantity of
| plutonium, depleted uranium, lutetium, thorium and radium...
|
| Seems weird that the judge said Lidden had mental health
| "issues". Who knows how severe or debilitating the so-called
| mental health issues are? Not sure how the judge can make that
| decision on his own, about Lidden's mental health excusing him
| for doing something "criminal", although one wonders too how well
| the 1987 nuclear non-proliferation law was written, and if it was
| even applicable given small amounts Lidden possessed.
|
| Key question is Lidden's purchase amounts of plutonium, depleted
| uranium, lutetium, thorium, and radium for his home periodic
| table display. (I totally understand the motivation for wanting
| to do that! I would love to have every element, even a tiny bit,
| for that reason too.)
|
| Plutonium seems most concerning. It doesn't exist in nature but
| Pu-239 is the by-product of Uranium-238 used for fuel by nuclear
| reactors. (Not certain about isotype numbers.) Lidden bought
| depleted uranium, so that's more okay... I guess. (Don't know
| what its half life is even after "depletion".) Pu-239 and Pu-240
| half-lives are thousands of years. Due to the radioactive alpha
| decay of plutonium, it is warm to the touch!
|
| I wonder if he even had real plutonium, because even the non-
| weapons grade costs at least US$4,000 per gram.
|
| Final thought: Chemical toxicity of (undepleted) uranium U-238 is
| comparable to its radioactive toxicity. Chemical toxicity of
| plutonium Pu-239, Pu-240 etc. is minor compared with its
| radioactive toxicity. By chemical toxicity, they're referring to
| the tendency for plutonium to spontaneously combust if exposed to
| moisture, or in hot humid weather. It can even catch on fire when
| submerged in water.
|
| EDIT: Reduce verbiage
| IsTom wrote:
| Plutonium was in form of an old soviet smoke detector,
| containing micrograms of it. This case is whack.
| feraloink wrote:
| Thank you. I only read the second, more recent article, not
| realizing that their was a prior one.
|
| Case seems ridiculous. Judge's ruling, despite no penalty, is
| embarrassing because he doesn't seem to understand the lack
| of danger of such small amounts, AND made gratuitous public
| statement about Lidden's mental health.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| You're questions are already answered in the article:
|
| 1. The items were on display in this bedroom
|
| 2. The quantities were so small that they were deemed safe to
| eat.
|
| This sounds like more of a case of the border force wanting to
| raise awareness rather than any actual danger being presented
| feraloink wrote:
| The article only said that his solicitor (lawyer?) described
| the quantities as being so small they were safe enough to
| eat.
|
| I read some more about it (Guardian)
| https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
| news/2025/apr/11/scien... and entirely agree with you that
| the border force over-reacted, and could have spent the money
| and resources more effectively than by pursuing this.
|
| Also, via Guardian, this attitude is demeaning and
| depressing:
|
| >"At a sentence hearing in March, the lawyer described Lidden
| as a "science nerd" who committed the offences out of pure
| naivety. "It was a manifestation of self-soothing retreating
| into collection; it could have been anything but in this case
| he latched on to the collection of the periodic table,"
| mmooss wrote:
| > Who knows how severe or debilitating the so-called mental
| health issues are? Not sure how the judge can make that
| decision on his own, about Lidden's mental health excusing him
| for doing something "criminal
|
| Perhaps the judge made the determination based on evidence,
| such as testimony from experts? I don't know but does anyone
| else here?
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| When I was in grade-school, my classmate's father was a
| collector of model trains. And he was, in fact, so avid and
| dedicated with his collection that every shelf and available
| space in his home was filled with those model trains. I indeed
| visited them a couple of times and, being the grandson of a
| railroader and owner/operator of a Lionel set myself, I was
| quite awed by the variety and cool stuff on display. In fact,
| his daughter once visited another friend's home, and she was
| utterly mystified as she looked around, asking "but where are
| the trains?"
|
| Now there is surely a fine line between obsession and
| dedication in a collector's spirit, and this particular fellow
| became quite successful in real estate, so that he was able to
| open up a storefront in a very busy area of town and dedicate
| the space as his "private museum". By that time he had branched
| out into collecting automobiles, yes full-size ones,
| typewriters, purses (his wife liked those), phonographs and all
| sorts of other amazing, mostly mechanical, wonders. He took
| over for the local model train shop just down the way. So
| anyone in the market for a train set can also linger for a
| gander at his comprehensive museum setup.
|
| So I am unsure if his obsession presented any sort of
| disability; he certainly ran a business, had a good wife and
| children (who also ran businesses), and he was eventually able
| to parlay this collection into something quite public, if only
| a breaking-even "vanity project" where his friends dropped by.
|
| So, like, I would never discourage someone from cultivating a
| cool collection of stuff at home if there's a chance it turns
| into something like that. But just piling on ugly radioactive
| waste in your bedroom? I'm not sure that's a sane decision. I'm
| not sure that's something I would pay to see, or even come over
| for lunch. I would nod, smile, and call some hotline on the
| guy, myself.
| wolfgang42 wrote:
| _> just piling on ugly radioactive waste in your bedroom_
|
| This is an egregious mischaracterization which detracts from
| your otherwise excellent comment. Lidden was working on
| collecting the periodic table in decorative display cases.[1]
| I don't get the point of coin collections either, but that
| doesn't mean I would describe one as a "grubby heap of heavy
| metals."
|
| [1] https://www.luciteria.com/element-cubes/plutonium-for-
| sale
| nandomrumber wrote:
| > half-lives are thousands of years
|
| This means it isn't very radioactive at all.
| deng wrote:
| Good for him. This was an absolute ridiculous case. Lots of
| everyday items contain radioactive substances: old smoke
| detectors, uranium glass, old watches with radium dials, anti-
| static brushes, the list goes on and on. As a side note: coal
| power plants put quite a bit of radiation into the environment
| (technically 100x more than nuclear plants, if you sidestep the
| issue of waste), because coal contains Uranium and Thorium.
|
| The amounts of Pu that were imported were not only minuscule, but
| also embedded in acrylic for display. As an alpha radiator, this
| is 100% safe to have and put on a shelf. You would have to
| completely dismantle it, crush the few mg of Pu into dust and
| then inhale it to be dangerous to your health.
|
| I understand that people are afraid of radiation. I am too.
| However, it is important to know that radiation is everywhere all
| the time, and it is always about the dose. At the same time, we
| allow for instance cars to pollute the environment with toxic
| particulates that lead to many cancers, and somehow we accept
| this as unavoidable. But I digress...
|
| For those interested, here's a video from "Explosions and Fire"
| on this issue, a channel I highly recommend anyway, this guy is
| hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| Dont forget cobblestone in regions with high natural
| radioactive materials. If they mine for uranium in the rocks
| the rocks used to pave the surface and build houses are going
| to be also mildly active .
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Granite benchtops.
| thoroughburro wrote:
| > if you sidestep the issue of waste
|
| If you do that, just sidestep the elephant, then nuclear is
| very attractive indeed!
| fsmv wrote:
| The waste isn't even that bad. There's not that much of it
| and we have extremely safe storage solutions. We way over
| engineered the safety by orders of magnitude. Nuclear waste
| storage facilities can take a direct missile hit and still be
| safe.
| deng wrote:
| Reality likes to have a word with you:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
| viraptor wrote:
| > we have extremely safe storage solutions
|
| This doesn't mean "we don't have unsafe storage
| solutions".
| deng wrote:
| Humans are simply terrible at long-term safety. How often
| do we have to experience that until we say: while it
| might be _theoretically_ possible to store this stuff
| securely for thousands of years, apparently, we are just
| unable to do it, be it because of incompetence, greed, or
| both.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| I'd rather us try and almost always successful store
| harmful waste than spew all of it directly into the air,
| killing millions of people. Over a million people die
| every year from carbon emissions from things like gas and
| coal power plants and vehicles
| nandomrumber wrote:
| You'd think if that were the case, you'd at least know
| someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows
| someone who's cause of death was _coal fired power plant
| emissions_.
|
| You're characterising it wrong. Epidemiologists estimate
| the days of lost life across a population due to
| environmental exposures.
|
| If you add all those up they aren't equivalent to number
| of lives lost.
| slavik81 wrote:
| We better get good at it. There are many dangerous
| chemicals used in all kinds of industry that we need to
| store forever because they will always be harmful to
| human health. Lead, mercury, cadmium, and other toxic
| elements will never break down.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > There are many dangerous chemicals used in all kinds of
| industry that we need to store forever
|
| Or better yet, reuse.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >Humans are simply terrible at long-term safety
|
| He says while we carbon swaths of our planet out of
| habitability at current technological/economic levels
| because the available solutions are good and not perfect.
|
| Surely you see the irony.
| dreghgh wrote:
| Do you see the irony in trying to fix a problem caused by
| persistent, universal short term and selfish thinking
| with a solution which relies on no one thinking like this
| in the future anymore?
| zizee wrote:
| Sometimes it is good to tradeoff solving a known short
| term problem, by taking on a solution with a uncertain
| long term issue.
|
| If the world had continued to adopt nuclear power
| unabated, it is likely that climate change would not be a
| problem, and millions of cases of cancer not occurred.
|
| This is not to say it is now time to adopt nuclear carte
| blanche, but to demonstrate that your way of thinking is
| not without issue either.
| hectormalot wrote:
| I think people also heavily underestimate what 1000s of
| years means. This type of storage has to survive 3x as
| long as the Egyptian pyramids. The problem is not just
| technological. At those timespans you can't assume the
| country you live in - or the language you speak - to
| still exist.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| do you have a link with where all the gigatons of CO2
| emitted annually are stored safely?
| hobs wrote:
| However kitty litter will take them out
| https://practical.engineering/blog/2025/4/15/when-kitty-
| litt...
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Not sure why you're down voted, but who cares. This is THE
| issue. I hope you're forgiven, in time, for stepping out of
| line in the cathedral of modern nuclear power.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| The nuclear waste issue is such a non-issue that the
| overwhelming majority of nuclear waste, the actual spent
| fuel, is stored on site at the nuclear power plants.
|
| Long lived nuclear waste just isn't that radioactive, and
| highly reactive nuclear waste products just aren't that
| long lived.
|
| If the waste is vitrified (glassified) it becomes basically
| chemically non-reactive too.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It is not "THE" issue, it's barely even "an issue". The
| amount of radioactive material produced by a fission plant,
| and the form in which it comes, makes it trivial to store
| relatively safely - certainly much, much easier than the
| CO2 waste that most of our other energy generation
| solutions emit.
|
| Also, the biggest issues with nuclear power are (1) the
| risk of catastrophic meltdowns, (2) the risk of using it as
| cover for nuclear armament, (3) the massive capital
| expenditure to create a plant, and (4) the amount of water
| needed for cooling and running the plant. All of these make
| the problem of taking some radioactive rocks and burying
| them trivial in comparison.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Do I remember correctly that modern thorium-based reactor
| designs mitigate at least #1 and #2?
| yellowapple wrote:
| And #4 can be addressed by not using potable water for
| cooling. Even assuming a reactor is water-cooled in the
| first place, that water has to be purified anyway before
| it can be used as coolant - so might as well just use
| seawater if you're gonna have to purify it anyway.
|
| Hell, a coastal nuclear plant could be a net- _negative_
| water consumer with a desalination plant onsite.
| California could completely abolish the very notion of
| "drought" within its borders by going all-in on nuclear
| and desalination. It probably never will, though, because
| rich landowners are California's most protected class and
| anything that'll lower their property values (by
| "ruining" the pretty coastal views) is verboten.
| oniony wrote:
| Isn't this the same stuff they used to put in aeroplane tails
| as a counterweight?
| perihelions wrote:
| No, it's weapons-grade fissile material (in microscopic
| amounts); the engineering material used for its weight,
| depleted uranium, is not such a thing.
| deng wrote:
| True, depleted uranium is not fissionable, but it's still
| nasty stuff. It is used for amor-piercing ammunition and
| turns into fine dust on impact. For instance, kids playing
| in abandoned tanks inhale it, and it still radiates alpha
| and beta particles, leading to lung cancer later in life.
| It needs to be outlawed.
| perihelions wrote:
| You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the
| Russian tanks with your own preferred tools!
|
| The people doing the actual work, today, use depleted
| uranium[0] rounds, because they have common sense and
| prefer to not have a main battle tank survive long enough
| to shoot back at them. "Let's not use (mildly) toxic
| weapons" is a fair-weather principle that disappears the
| moment the weather ceases being fair. Like cluster bombs,
| or landmines: all of the civilized countries in Europe
| that adopted these idealistic bans, in peacetime, they're
| repealing those treaties left and right, now that the
| moral dilemmas are no longer academic.
|
| [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-
| depleted-ura... ( _" US to send depleted-uranium
| munitions to Ukraine"_)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Yeah. An active main battle tank will kill more people
| faster than inhaling uranium dust will.
|
| (This does not make depleted uranium rounds anything less
| than nasty. But it does make them better than the
| alternative.)
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| > You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the
| Russian tanks with your own preferred tools!
|
| By that logic, we should skip the depleted uranium and
| head straight to thermonuclear weapons, and throw in some
| Sarin for good measure. No, the purpose of prohibiting
| such weapons _is for wartime_ , and whilst it is true
| that some countries are backsliding on previous
| commitments, that comes out of cowardice; it should not
| be reinterpreted as pragmatism. The rules of war weren't
| idealistic, they were prompted by very real horrors that
| were witnessed on the ground, especially during the Great
| War.
| perihelions wrote:
| I don't believe that's historic; the landmine convention
| was drafted in 1997, and the cluster bomb one in 2008.
| The European nations that dominated these movements (USA
| signed neither) were in peacetime, and had known nothing
| other than peace for a very long time.
|
| The treaties they're withdrawing from today _aren 't_ the
| post-WW1 Geneva conventions; they are modern treaties
| that were in actuality products of eras of peace.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| > I don't believe that's historic; the landmine
| convention was drafted in 1997, and the cluster bomb one
| in 2008
|
| Not historic in the sense of 'old', but still motivated
| by real horrors that Europe witnessed. The Bosnian War
| occurred only a couple of years prior to 1997 and left
| the region with over a thousand square kilometres of land
| contaminated by live landmines, which are still being
| cleared today. I don't know about cluster bombs
| specifically, but I would imagine that the (widely
| televised) Second Gulf War and the conflict between
| Israel and Lebanon had something to do with changing
| European perception of the weapons.
|
| Certainly, the treaties are always drawn up in peacetime
| - it would be impractical to do so during an active
| conflict. However I believe that all of them have been
| prompted by some violent, horrific conflict in the years
| immediately beforehand.
| cpgxiii wrote:
| > However I believe that all of them have been prompted
| by some violent, horrific conflict in the years
| immediately beforehand.
|
| And in the cases of most of the European signatories,
| either the blinding naivete that they would never need to
| fight a "real war" again, or the disingenuous belief that
| while _they_ could take the moral high ground by signing
| and abandoning those weapons, the US would show up and
| use them in their defense if the time came. It also
| allowed these countries to coach more of their defense
| cuts in moral terms, rather than simply as saving money.
|
| Now, of course, those illusions have been rightfully
| shattered, and these countries have been reminded that
| cluster weapons and mines are used on the battlefield
| because they _work_. And modern cluster munitions with
| low dud rates and mines with automatic neutralization go
| a long way towards reducing the collateral damage.
| vkou wrote:
| Europe has been dealing with unexploded ordinance from
| the fallout of European wars for over a century.
|
| Of the countries you listed, its the US that has not
| actually known war. A few of its cities being reduced to
| rubble and a few thousand of its children losing limbs to
| land mines might convince some more of its people that
| war isn't quite the swell adventure they think it is.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| The problem is that it is both pragmatic and cowardly.
| The unfortunate logical consequence of this is that as a
| race we will likely cease to exist as a result of a
| nuclear weapon(s) being used for any number of reasons
| including political expedience.
|
| I genuinely agree with you and I am glad you are pushing
| back on those arguments, but our tendencies does not put
| me in an optimistic mood.
| martin-t wrote:
| > By that logic, we should skip the depleted uranium and
| head straight to thermonuclear weapons
|
| Yes, actually.
|
| (With a massive caveat being if the opponent does not
| also have nukes.)
|
| I mean, why do you think the US nuked Japan at the end of
| WW2? Because it was the most expedient and economic way
| to kill enough people to break the government's will to
| fight and make them surrender.
|
| The estimated losses for the invasion of their main
| islands were 1 million. Would you kill 1 million of your
| countrymen, some of those your relatives and neighbors or
| would you rather kill a couple hundred thousand civilians
| of the country that attacked you?
|
| Ironically, this time the math works out even if you give
| each life the same value. If you give enemy lives lower
| value, how many of them would you be willing to nuke
| before you'd prefer to send your own people to die?
| deng wrote:
| > You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the
| Russian tanks with your own preferred tools!
|
| Thank you for not immediately escalating the discussion.
| Anyway, ever heard of Tungsten? Cool stuff.
| m4rtink wrote:
| I am not really sure but isnt depleted uranium munition
| kida obsolete by this point ? It was used mostly in
| unguided kinetic tank shells and autocannon ammo.
|
| But most of the destroyed russiant tanks in Ukraine are
| due to mines and guided munitions using mostly shaped
| charges, ranging from Javelins to 400$ DiY FPV drones,
| neither of which uses depleted uranium in any form.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Yes, the primary use case was in various direct-fire
| cannon systems, which have become less prevalent over
| time due to limited range. It still has use cases in
| auto-cannons because it significantly improves their
| performance against armored vehicles and allows them to
| go up against armor that may outgun them.
|
| It isn't just used in munitions, it is a component of
| heavy armor. When you blow up a tank you may be
| vaporizing some depleted uranium in its hull.
| dralley wrote:
| Burning tanks aren't exactly environmentally friendly
| either. Like, without the depleted uranium, you still
| probably don't want to be eating around the wreckage.
| jajko wrote:
| What was the last time those uranium rounds were fired
| adequately, cca 1992 from A10 on iraqi tanks? Or 2003?
|
| Abrams tanks on Ukraine dont need uranium munition, thats
| a fact. Everything russia puts against them up to and
| including T90 can be destroyed by regular AP rounds, no
| armatas running around requiring some special toxic
| munition. Suffice to say 98-99% of those abrams shootings
| are aimed at much worse armor than T90 has.
|
| Sure you can try to have the best weapon available for
| all cases and not give a nanofraction of a fuck about
| consequences on civilians, just like US did everywhere.
| Videos of ie Iraqi kids being born en masse with nasty
| radiation diseases is a worry for some subhumans far
| away, not most glorious nation in the world right?
|
| Ie we could pretty effectively end current war in Ukraine
| easily by bombing moscow from the ground with some 10
| megaton bomb, or 10x1 megaton ones, the russian state
| would be in total chaos. Yet we humans dont do it, even
| russians dont launch those bombs on Europe despite
| repeatedly claiming so. Moves have consequences, being
| mass murderer of kids aint something cold shower washes
| away.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| Depleted uranium is a toxic metal but not unusually so.
| Exposure limits are similar to e.g. chromium which is
| ubiquitous in our lived environment. While you wouldn't
| want to breathe it in, depleted uranium is used as a
| substitute for tungsten, another toxic metal that you
| also wouldn't want to breathe in. Fortunately depleted
| uranium (and tungsten) settle out rapidly; you are
| exceedingly unlikely to inhale them unless you were
| proximal at the moment it was vaporized.
|
| The radiation is not a serious concern. It is less
| radioactive than the potassium in our own bodies, and in
| vastly smaller quantities.
|
| Depleted uranium isn't healthy but I don't think we
| should be misrepresenting the risk either. Many things in
| the environment you live in have similar toxicity
| profiles to depleted uranium.
| cpgxiii wrote:
| The alternatives are hardly better. In addition to worse
| penetration performance, the tungsten alloy alternatives
| for APFSDS rounds are not good for the body either,
| particularly if being breathed in as fine dust.
|
| If you have kids playing on recently destroyed armored
| vehicles, there will be an incredible collection of toxic
| materials present. Uranium oxides from DU (which, to be
| clear, are primarily toxic as heavy metals, not from
| their low radioactivity) are really the least of your
| worries when compared to all of the other breathable
| particulates that will be present (e.g. asbestos, all of
| the toxic plastic combustion products, explosive
| residues).
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Well... don't stand close to a tank that is being shot
| at?... or are you worried about the tank crew you are
| shooting at? good luck ,,outlawing" killing means, find
| ,,more humane" methods of murdering each other. come on.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| > It is used for amor-piercing ammunition and turns into
| fine dust on impact
|
| How can it be amor-piercing _and_ turn in to fine dust on
| impact?
| 00N8 wrote:
| The Wikipedia article says it's "self sharpening" on
| impact. I think this involves the projectile's leading
| parts ablating away into burning pyrophoric dust as they
| interact with the target.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Here's a YT video implying something similar.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W_nMRbIlZI
|
| I wouldn't really know how to verify this guys facts, but
| there doesn't seem to be anyone in the comments claiming
| he's massively wrong.
| perihelions wrote:
| The case is _technically_ about special fissionable material
| (regulation of nuclear weapons)--not radiological hazards--but
| all your points stand. Absurd lack of common sense all around.
| deng wrote:
| Well, the police also said he bought mercury, which "can be
| used in switches for a dirty bomb", which is such a stupid
| thing to say, because a mercury switch is just an old form of
| a tilt switch. The idea that someone would buy mercury for
| making his own tilt switch is just so wild, but of course,
| they just put this BS out there to scare people and justify
| their completely overblown reaction.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| Mercury can also be used to make felt hats, and criminals
| often wear hats to disguise themselves, so it's better to
| be safe than sorry when it comes to Mercury.
| Cordiali wrote:
| The Mercury is also the name of a Tasmanian newspaper.
| Tasmanians are stereotyped as having two heads, so Tassie
| criminals wear 100% more disguise per disguise.
| AsmaraHolding wrote:
| Suspect is hatless, repeat, hatless!
| aruggirello wrote:
| This is hat speech and should be prosecuted! Only tinfoil
| hats are allowed here.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Oh, as switch, I was thinking they were thinking that the
| mercury would be used in a DIY detonator. I always figured
| the 'dirty' bomb would need more raw materials rather than
| less - though the materials wouldn't need to be fissible.
| ohgr wrote:
| That's stupid as fuck as they still use mercury wetted
| relays to this day in some places.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| I get the whole screeching about hazmat aspect to it but
| a mercury bulb with embedded copper contacts will cycle
| reliably basically forever at earthly temperatures. They
| are very good at what they are.
| secondcoming wrote:
| Are mercury thermometers no longer a thing? My parents had
| a few while I was growing up in the 80's
| hinkley wrote:
| I had a recollection that they were banned but it looks
| like the EPA convinced NIST to stop providing calibration
| services for mercury thermometers back in 2011.
| hinkley wrote:
| There are two or three mercury switches in my house and
| they were all installed maybe ten years ago.
|
| This case is almost as dumb as the Boston PD got in the
| couple of years after the Marathon incident. But at least
| they had ptsd as an excuse.
| nosioptar wrote:
| I've had several analog thermostats that use a mercury tilt
| switch. I assume it'd be easier to just buy an old
| thermostat than to make your own switch.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Wait until the work out mixing household bleach and vinegar
| liberates free chlorine.
|
| Chlorine can also be used as a chemical weapon.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| So if everyone in Australia ordered one of these, what would
| they need to do to make it into a bomb?
| deng wrote:
| The Pu is from an old soviet smoke detector, containing
| roughly 40mg of Pu, which creates a few mCi of radiation
| needed for smoke detection. For fission, you need at least
| several kg of pure Pu239. For a "dirty bomb", any amount
| will do, of course.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| The trick is to rob the smoke detector plant for their
| plutonium stash.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| > For a "dirty bomb", any amount will do, of course.
|
| By that logic, one smoke detector is enough?
|
| I probably wouldn't want to eat a smoke detector, but if
| one was added to a bomb I probably wouldn't be very
| concerned about the impact of the smoke detector.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I mean, hell, a pack of cigarettes contains polonium and lead
| -210. And Australians smoke quite a bit, last I checked.
| decimalenough wrote:
| Not at the current price levels of $50 a pack they don't.
| (Which is inevitably leading to hugely profitable smuggling
| and increasingly violent turf wars, but I digress.)
| thadt wrote:
| Agreed, this case is bananas.
|
| If his "plutonium sample" is actually (probably) trinitite
| which you can just buy online [1], and if we assume an exposure
| of 1 uR/hr at one inch[2], then convert that to BED (Banana
| Equivalent Dose[3] - that taken from the naturally occurring
| potassium-40 in bananas) that's (handwaving actual dose
| calculations) about, what, 1/10 of a banana?
|
| [1] https://engineeredlabs.com/products/plutonium-element-
| cube-t...
|
| [2] https://www.orau.org/health-physics-
| museum/collection/nuclea...
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
| perihelions wrote:
| The plutonium sample is reported to be something similar to
| this,
|
| https://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/analysis-of-
| sovi... ( _" Analysis of Soviet smoke detector plutonium_"
| (2017))
| wolfd wrote:
| I believe it was this https://www.luciteria.com/element-
| cubes/plutonium-for-sale
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| "This item is now discontinued." I wonder if this
| incident is the reason (or if it simply sold out in the
| aftermath).
| perihelions wrote:
| Right, they're both Soviet ionization smoke detectors
| based on Pu-239. The Carl Willis blogpost is a teardown
| of one such similar item.
| thadt wrote:
| Oh, well if that's the case thats waaay more bananas.
| Like maybe around 4000.
|
| Nobody should be eating that many bananas.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| To be clear this literally was an old smoke detector. Not even
| kidding.
|
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| they should be punished 10x more severely than they were
| trying to do to him
| martin-t wrote:
| 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.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| 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.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The smoke detector in question was created in 70s.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Plutonium from soviet smoke detectors is a common item for
| the element collectors subreddit.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/elementcollection/comments/w557i6/
| 2...
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" We still have 30+ nuclear reactors hanging over our
| heads in space that will come down one day."_
|
| To be fair that's multiple centuries away, so there won't
| be very much radiation left. And since they were relatively
| low-power reactors, there wasn't that much to begin with.
| rootsudo wrote:
| He didn't really walk away:
|
| "A 24-year-old Australian man who ordered uranium and plutonium
| to his parents' apartment has been allowed to walk away from
| court on a two-year good behaviour bond.
|
| After ordering various radioactive samples over the internet in
| an effort to collect the entire periodic table, Emmanuel Lidden
| pleaded guilty to two charges: moving nuclear material into
| Australia and possessing nuclear material without a permit.
|
| While his actions were criminal, the judge concluded that
| Lidden had mental health issues and displayed no malicious
| intent"
|
| The court established he had mental helath issues and has 2
| years probation basically.
| crooked-v wrote:
| "Mental health issues" sounds like both a fig leaf for the
| prosecution and a last-ditch smear of the man involved. Now
| he's stuck being publicly associated not just with
| "criminal", but "criminal with mental health issues".
| skissane wrote:
| > "Mental health issues" sounds like both a fig leaf for
| the prosecution and a last-ditch smear of the man involved.
|
| Mental health issues shouldn't be seen as a smear though -
| is it a smear if someone has physical health issues (who
| doesn't, at least from time-to-time?)
|
| A recent study carried out on behalf of the Australian
| government estimated that 43% of Australians aged 18-to-65
| had experienced mental illness at some time in their lives,
| and 22% at some time in the last 12 months.
|
| The same study estimates that in the 12 months prior to the
| study, 17% of Australians had an anxiety disorder, 8% an
| affective disorder (depression or bipolar), 3% a substance
| use disorder.
|
| https://www.aihw.gov.au/mental-health/overview/prevalence-
| an...
| crooked-v wrote:
| It shouldn't be, but it is.
| skissane wrote:
| No doubt to some people it is, but to a lot of people it
| isn't. It isn't a smear to me, nor to many people I know.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| This sounds a bit like it involved those glow vials that people
| use on torches? But those contain tritium. Not plutonium. And
| it's beta radiation not alpha.
|
| I can imagine that some officials had some concerns when they
| heard of plutonium to be honest. Besides radiation hazards it's
| also very toxic. But yeah they should have just taken it away
| and left it at that, considering the tiny quantity.
|
| Ps this whole story reminds me of back to the future :)
| wzdd wrote:
| Collecting the entire periodic table? Noble goal, but good luck
| with e.g. Einsteinium.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Simon Mayo wrote a book with this premise: _Itch_ (2012).
| Sequels include _Itch Rocks_ (2013) and _Itchcraft_ (2014).
| ryan-c wrote:
| Kinda curious what site this was - I assumed United Nuclear
| (which I have ordered non-radioactive items from), but they don't
| sell Pu.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > Australian Border Force superintendent, James Ryan, said he
| hoped the case would make more people aware of the regulatory
| frameworks around what can and cannot be imported into Australia
|
| Ah yes, the truth comes out. It was about making an example out
| of him. They knew immediately it wasn't a big deal but they
| figured to have some "fun". I guess people who weren't aware are
| now aware that of the kind of people who work in Border Force.
| cowhow wrote:
| Last year I returned to Australia from a trip where I passed
| through 6 countries. Of all the borders I went through, the
| Australian customs guys were by far the worst.
|
| Total cunts, talked to me disrespectfully, took apart all my
| stuff, forced me to unlock my phone so they could do a digital
| scan of the contents. I was literally treated better in Albania
| where I was the only one with an American passport and didn't
| know the language.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Australia is an island and islands are weird places compared to
| continental countries. Border security is ridiculously overkill
| and there's a mentality that you can just keep x out permanently.
|
| The first time you go from a country like this to the mainlands
| it seems weird they don't check for things like having an apple
| in your bag when crossing borders.
| trollied wrote:
| England/Wales/Scotland form an island. None of that is true.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| There's certainly not a tv show then that follows border
| agents around like in Aus/NZ.
| jey wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you _are_ supposed to declare agricultural
| products at customs. Sure, if the apples are cooked into a pie
| that's probably fine but I believe most countries don't let
| people bring in fresh fruit because of the possibility that
| some pest (insect, fungus) could be hitching a ride on it.
| willy_k wrote:
| I believe the point is that in other countries they won't
| rifle through your bag to verify whether or not you have
| brought apples. I'm not familiar with Australian customs
| though so I could be mistaken.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| If there's one thing Australian's all agree it, it's that
| carrying fruit across certain state boarders is generally a bad
| idea.
| rootsudo wrote:
| Nah, there are many island nations in the world, especially in
| oceania. Only NZ and AU are particularly overkill and security
| for x and y.
|
| Case in point, I go to Indonesia and Philippines - I buy
| produce in either country to bring to the other country, full
| declare it, show it - no one cares. Several kilograms as in
| 10kg+.
|
| Meanwhile, airplane gives passangers apples on flights to New
| Zealand (or was it AU?) and they all get fined $1000 upon entry
| if they kept it.
|
| Now why do I bring produce from an country to another? Cost and
| availability. A green pepper costs $4-6+ in Philippines. It's
| less than 30 cents in Indonesia.
|
| So, to reiterate no - it's clearly Aussie/NZ overkill.
| keepamovin wrote:
| I'm encouraged to see Australia has doubled down on its
| trajectory and declared curiosity a mental health issue. I can't
| wait to see what the future holds for Australian creativity &
| innovation!
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| I visited Australia once. It is an absolute backwater. The top
| engineers, maybe 1000 in the whole country, come to the USA
| anyway to work for Google or Tesla. Not to mention, they import
| 90% of their specialized workforce from Asia.
| justlikereddit wrote:
| Trying to have FUN? In the police state commonwealth of the
| UK/Canada/Australia?
|
| NOT allowed.
|
| You know what else is not allowed there?
|
| Everything else!
| tianqi wrote:
| People laughing at Australia might be missing the point. It's not
| only about scientific danger, but also about border security
| tradition. Australia is an island, and their border mindset is
| very different from land-border countries. That's why you can get
| huge penalties for bringing something as deadly as... a wooden
| chess, to enter Australia without declaration. Not to mention a
| piece of uranium. Respect the different culture please.
| cromulent wrote:
| If the point is that bringing items into Australia could have a
| negative impact as they are not present (such as cane toads,
| rabbits, etc) then sure.
|
| However, Australia already has much uranium. The mine at Rum
| Jungle has quite a lot left. Multiple nuclear explosions have
| taken place there.
|
| This is not equivalent to keeping rabies out, nor a cultural
| issue.
| caseyy wrote:
| No need to respect a culture of paranoia and
| overcriminalization. The same culture is in the US with regard
| to lawful minority immigrants, do you respect it?
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| This title is terrible, he pleaded guilty.
|
| "Emmanuel Lidden pleaded guilty to two charges: moving nuclear
| material into Australia and possessing nuclear material without a
| permit.
|
| While his actions were criminal, the judge concluded that Lidden
| had mental health issues and displayed no malicious intent. He is
| the first person in Australia to be sentenced under the 1987
| nuclear non-proliferation act for the importation and possession
| of nuclear material without the appropriate permits."
| mrkeen wrote:
| He pleaded guilty and then walked away without a conviction or
| penalty (unless he's convicted for something else in the near
| future, in which case this penalty would be added to that)
| nickdothutton wrote:
| I wonder how many lost/unaccounted-for medical x-ray machines
| there have been in Australia since, say 1950.
| rvba wrote:
| I read that Bill Gates has something like that, but he is
| obviously situated in USA and also insanely rich
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think there is something deeply unwell with the governance in
| many anglosphere countries. The extreme risk-aversion and
| deference to the 'concerned neighbor'.
| 127 wrote:
| It's sheep behavior. Looking out only for themselves and always
| going with the flock to hide themselves from risk. What is
| causing it? I would say incentives.
| MrBuddyCasino wrote:
| It is the rule of the old and sick, the moralizing scolding of
| the middle aged schoolmarm hysterically meddling in other
| peoples affairs.
|
| Some call it the longhouse.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| If someone orders something that is illegal for them to possess,
| the seller should refuse to send it to them. Any other system
| could only exist to optimize for the number of arrests cops get
| to make.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| That would require every sender everywhere to be aware of every
| legal requirement everywhere, or at least to every country /
| state they service.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| Most commenters here are calling this court case ridiculous, and
| injustice, but honestly, I think anyone who wants to try this
| should be gently discouraged and ultimately prevented.
|
| So this guy was a bit mental, and decided that his hobby was to
| amass a literal "Periodic Table" on display, in his home? Did he
| have, like, a lot of friends who often dropped by to admire his
| Table and encourage him in his progress? Or, more likely I
| suspect, he was a lonely sad sack who would do anything to
| attract another human being's close interaction.
|
| It also seems that he was amassing a lot of broken junk. Are
| there, like, photos of his collection, because surely it could
| not be overly attractive or neat? If he is basically collecting
| obsolete and unwanted crap then that is a sorry excuse for any
| "home display".
|
| And yes, perhaps all this material in one place was 100% safe for
| our hero. Fine. But still, when he has visitors over, can he
| guarantee their safety too? If a dozen other people got this same
| "collector's bug" and amassed such a collection, could they also
| do it 100% safely and legally?
|
| I hope that the outcome from this case is that they can engage a
| social worker and an agency to help him tip all this rubbish into
| the bin and find some productive, social hobbies that will enrich
| him and somehow help with his challenges of mental illness. The
| last thing a mentally ill person needs is to be isolated with a
| barely-legal, dangerous hobby. Sheesh.
| antidumbass wrote:
| Fascinating that you take the court's ruling that he has a
| "mental illness" at face value.
|
| How would you like it if one of your harmless hobbies was
| declared illegal overnight and your home raided?
|
| How would you feel if the only way the court lets you go home
| without a prison sentence is to agree to be declared "mentally
| unfit"?
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| I am not sure that you and I read the same article, because
| you seem to be misrepresenting material facts in some sort of
| attempt to bait or troll us, so I will not dignify this with
| an actual response.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Try not to be a cunt.
| wolfgang42 wrote:
| The item in question, and presumably the rest of his
| collection, was purchased in the form of an attractive resin
| display cube containing an absolutely minuscule amount of
| radioactive material: https://www.luciteria.com/element-
| cubes/plutonium-for-sale
| ironbound wrote:
| The mining companies must want the uranium monopoly really
| badly.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Australia
| derefr wrote:
| It is this sort of case that makes me think that criminal justice
| systems should expect to output balanced-ternary outcomes by
| default: not "guilty or innocent", but rather "defendant is
| provably at fault / no one is probably at fault / prosecutor is
| provably at fault."
|
| It seems strange that, in cases like this where the charges were
| dropped as ridiculous, you still have to file a civil countersuit
| for the value of your wasted time and emotional stress -- when
| the original criminal case already carried within it all the
| information required to instantly settle such a case in favor of
| the plaintiff. Why not just have any criminal case with a not-
| guilty finding automatically transition into being such a case?
| atum47 wrote:
| Several YouTubers I follow have been approached by the feds for
| some "illegal" project they were doing (NileRed, Backyard
| scientists...). I was pretty sure that this guy would get a
| warning at most
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-26 23:00 UTC)