It intrigues me that this seems to be perceived as something so calamitous/ risky.
We have no nuclear powerplants. We have no nuclear submarines. Large portions of the country are staunchly against mining uranium. Most people don't know We operate a single nuclear reactor that only produces medical isotopes. There is no nuance on anything nuclear here because it is almost completely absent from the country.
But the formalism remains: Australian defence forces are not overtly seeking nuclear arms to operate under the Australian flag.
Oh there is intent - enough nukes to end a superpower from the grave is our goal
It was an Australian nuclear scientist (who later became the South Australian Governor) who convinced the USofA that building an atomic weapon was in fact possible.
Australia has a reasonable number of people in the International weapons inspection (conventional and atomic) game.
Australia performs a significant amount of radiometric surveying.
There is no nuance on anything nuclear here (in Australia) because most people choose to remain unaware.
Dutch economic experience where the manufacturing sector declined and suffered general inflation as a result of the booming natural gas sector.
In the context of Western Australia, though, one might argue that the "Dutch curse" is consistently smashing your ships up against the shores of one of the more hostile coasts globally.
All in the name of The Spice Must Flow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipwrecks_of_Western_Australi...
It's simply that he upset organised crime groups. These exist everywhere in the world and theres no suggestion the Australian authorities aren't investigating and trying to bring those responsible to justice.
The state politician who set the anti terror squad on friendlyjordies is more concerning from a freedom standpoint
But the fear of radiation is a deep seated one, cultivated over the last 80 years by constant bombardment (pun intended) of information and media showing the dangers and hazards of runaway nuclear fission.
Radiological dangers are uniquely hazardous - bacteria and viruses dry out and die, poisons and acids can be neutralized. Almost every other hazard on Earth can be eradicated with nothing more than a good hot fire. But unstable isotopes answer to no one but time.
The capsule is incredibly dangerous to anyones health.
My point was simply that, from my vantage point, the media coverage and attention that this incident has received is out of proportion to the likely impact that it will have (i.e the danger it poses to people on the world stage, or even on the national stage in Australia).
As an example, and again only from my vantage point, the situation with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station received less direct news coverage focusing on the dangers it would have posed to the whole European continent than it seems this single capsule is receiving.
Again, not saying the capsule is not a danger to people. Just agreeing that the attention is out of proportions.
Localized? Yes. But limited? You can't see radiation. The absolute worst case would be someone getting it stuck into a tire or a shoe, spreading radiation everywhere they go.
Radiation is not "spread" in the manner you are suggesting. The only affect on passers-by would be transient exposure - less than ideal, but not a fatal risk.
If the capsule were breached and radioactive material were spread, then that would be a disaster posing actual risk to the public at large.
"[in] 1987 in Goiânia, Brazil [..] a forgotten radiotherapy source was stolen from an abandoned hospital site in the city. It was subsequently handled by many people, resulting in four deaths. About 112,000 people were examined for radioactive contamination and 249 of them were found to have been contaminated"
"In the consequent cleanup operation, topsoil had to be removed from several sites, and several houses were demolished. All the objects from within those houses, including personal possessions, were seized and incinerated"[0]
That incident would appear to confirm that radiation (from a radioactive source) is able to be "spread".
That’s just the original source of beta particles being spread around rather than the beta radiation “spreading” in some way.
OK, fair point. We should use phrases like "spreading radioactivity" or "spreading radioactive contamination"?
If the wording is corrected, the original point does still apply. You really wouldn't want a radioactive source stuck in your vehicle's tyre.
The problem is secondary irradiation. Everything contaminated by exposure - even a car - has to be taken, destroyed and the waste dealt with as radioactive waste.
Wow.
Like, you mean the entire 800 million tonnes of iron ore per annum delibrately exposed to radiation guages such as this all needs to be treated as radioactive waste?
Even after it's been turned to steel and worked into bridges, building, cars, etc?
I hadn't realised things were that serious :/
Still, I guess reality is in the middle ground and there are degrees to contamination here.
For that reason metal recyclers run routine radiation scans on all incoming materials before contaminated material enters the supply chain [1][2]. And there have been a number of such incidents[3][4].
[1] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-material-scrap-metal
[2] https://www.hse.gov.uk/waste/radioactive-contamination.htm
[3] https://k1project.columbia.edu/a11
[4] https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/radioactive-scrap-thr...
Just to be clear here .. are you actually claiming that raw iron ore tumbling through a loadout and being density scanned:
* actually contaminates the ore and converts it into the equivilant of radioactive waste?
* that metal recyclers are finding signs of > 800 million tonnes per annum of radiated metals?
* that no one has noticed this and seen fit to write an evironmental study paper about it?
Is there any chance here you conflating actual radioactive metals turning up in recycled metals with what is a long standing global practice that doesn't created dangerous radiatctive iron?
You are regularly irradiated at the dentist, the hospital, in a plane, and in the produce aisle.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and you are the problem.
Americium is used in smoke detectors, and I assume doping with small amounts of radioactive materials occurs in other applications where encouraging cold sparking or arcing is desired.
Thorium is used in some (arc) welding rods:
https://ehss.energy.gov/SESA/Files/corporatesafety/safety_bu...
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-thorium
Have a great day!
That's approximately the distance between New York City and Atlanta, GA.
Or London, UK to Monaco.