So they are going to put small ammounts of radioactive stuff in the horns of live Rhinos so that they are easier to detect at border patrols? Have I understood it right?
Seems a little extreme to be honest.
> These radioisotopes will provide an affordable, safe and easily applicable method
And
> After three years of meticulous and dedicated hard work [...] in collaboration with a team of experts who are leaders in the world of rhino conservation and veterinary work, will closely monitor the health and vital statistics of the rhinos [...]
Not sure why you want to just dismiss all that
1. Affordability and Ease of Application: The article states that the radioisotopes are intended to be an affordable and easily applicable method for marking rhino horns. This means that the technology, once developed and refined, can be applied to rhinos without significant cost or complexity. The goal is to make it practical for widespread use.
2. Three Years of Research and Expert Collaboration: The three years of research and the involvement of a team of experts highlight the rigorous development and testing phase needed to ensure the method's safety and effectiveness. This initial investment of time and expertise is necessary to create a robust, scientifically validated solution.
3. No Contradiction: The extensive research and expert collaboration do not contradict the claims of affordability and ease of application. Rather, they ensure that the final product is safe, effective, and ready for widespread, practical use. The upfront investment in research is typical for developing innovative technologies and does not imply that the method itself will be costly or complex to implement once it is ready.
4. Scaling Up: The project's next phase involves closely monitoring the rhinos to demonstrate the method's efficacy and safety. If successful, this proof of concept will pave the way for scaling up the application to more rhinos and potentially other endangered species. The affordability and ease of application refer to the potential widespread deployment after the initial research phase, not the development phase.
In summary, your confusion arises from conflating the initial research and development effort with the final application's intended affordability and practicality. The article suggests that after this rigorous development phase, the method will be straightforward and cost-effective to implement on a larger scale.
Was wondering what ChatGPT's answer would be to this comment chain. (Also mostly checked that what it claims about the article‘s content is correct)
I’d say unorthodox measures to curb poaching and trade are not uncalled for.
All the world's rhino horns put together are worth more than all the world's gold put together? All of Africa's rhino horns are worth more than all of Africa's gold? A single rhino horn is worth more than a single bar of gold? 1kg of gold? The same mass of gold? The same volume of gold?
It's like wondering whether gold is worth more than Microsoft by comparing an ounce of gold to a share of Microsoft. Or to an ounce of Microsoft share certificates!
The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap. And I seriously doubt that rhino horns are worth more than 15 trillion USD.
From the perspective of smugglers and their stuff, that's about the worst possible comparison.
So much so that yours is literally the first time ever that I've heard anyone even suggest market cap for a smuggled substance; looking at the definition of that term, I don't think that term is, or even could be by analogy, meaningful in this context.
It's always money per mass, £$€ per imperial or metric, never anything else.
Comparison by weight is useful to give an idea of the price. It's just like measuring distances in football fields. Don't worry too much about that. Also, a cargo ship full of gold [2] is probably very valuable, but a magical cargo ship full of rhino horns will probably collapse the market and be worthless.
Here is a list of most expensive materials per weight https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materia... it includes saffron and antimater that have a very short shelf life, a few radioactive things that are expensive only beacuse they are difficult to produce [3]. If I had to stock huge quantities, I'd be very conservative and store gold and platinium.
[1] Gold has a huge value per volume ratio. Toilete paper not.
[2] Assuming it doesn't sink.
[3] Aluminium used to be very expensive, until someone invented a method to make metalic aluminium easily.
When you go to the store you compare bananas by the size of the company that produced them? Or by the price per kg?
How is price per unit of mass not fundamental?
I refuse to believe that you are actually confused that one commodity costs more per gram than another one.
You are completely correct. While the statement is factually correct regarding the cost of rhino horn, it is completely meaningless information.
We may as well throw in the cost per gram of a heart transplant while we're at it.
I will say that annual demand is probably the more meaningful figure to work with, and it would be even more useful to express that in terms of "how many more years of this level of demand will lead to the extinction of rhinos."
~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg
Unless that's the case, which seems unlikely, all the gold is still worth more than all the rhino horns.
Also, gold's density is about 19 g/cm^3. I can't easily find a figure for rhino horns, but let's guess about the same as fingernails, horse's hooves, etc., which is about 1.25 g/cm^3. Gold is 15x denser, so at the prices you've shown, gold is still worth more than rhino horns per unit volume.
Because weight is the best way to compare things.
What are you trying to achieve by arguing that a common turn of phrase doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means?
If the dose is low enough (like a x-ray for a person per year) it's not a problem. If the dose is high it's dangerous. https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Also the horn is made of compressed hair. https://www.savetherhino.org/our-work/protecting-rhinos/what... So the local radioactivity is not a problem, you must calculate the distance to the head.
I assume the doses are small enough to be harmless.
https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/food-cooking/recipes/a11882/...