[flagged]
How can it be so deadly/radioactive, yet so hard to detect?
Further, asking questions is indeed the point of these discussions. Re-reading the standards I see no prohibition.
And reading that reference article, the loss it cites was 19Tb (19 trillion bequerels). This lost capsule in Australia contains less than 100. So around what? 10 billion times less dangerous?
Thanks for the reference material, now I'm more sure than ever that this article is some kind of clickbait about a fairly miniscule risk being trumpeted as a national incident.
First, it's important to keep in mind that there are different forms of radiation: ionizing[1] which is dangerous and non-ionizing which is not typically dangerous[2]. Furthermore, ionizing radiation consists of three types, alpha, beta and gamma which have different properties and thus dangerous in different ways and amounts.
The source in question contained cesium-137, which decays almost entirely (95%) by emitting beta particles. The beta particles are stopped by about 1 meter of air[3], but can do significant damage to living cells if nearby.
Thus, trying to detect it is a bit like trying to see a bright flashlight in a fog. Even though it's bright you won't see it until you're really close.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
Where in the HN rules is it forbidding to ask questions?
I think he's referring to this. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with asking questions. I imagine that "you're only asking questions" is a reference to an usual technique of conspiracy theorists of pretending they're just asking questions to defend against being called out on baseless accusations. "Are they putting something in the water that's making the frogs gay? I'm just asking questions".
We don't know the intent here, but I agree with him that "something doesn't add up" could be an insinuation of conspiracy theory, and so against the guidelines.
But surely you have to concede that "I'm just asking questions" make it really easy to insinuate without directly stating, yes?
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.