Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpiroman | Hacker News Reader

Overreaction much? Should there be a ban on americium-241 in smoke detectors?

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.

In this kind of amounts it follows that import of coal should require this kind of license because of thorium content.

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."

Fine, then TIG welding rods (some of which intentionally contain thorium).

quoting me: "I presume it will be imported under license."

Nitpick: TIG welding electrodes.

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.

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.

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.

It's never reasonable to overreact.

Regular old garden variety proportional response should suffice.

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.

Maybe you shouldn't get involved with bananas /s

Right, this is the kind of gamesmanship that you can only deter through overreaction. “The nuclear materials I want aren’t a big deal - they’re similar to this other thing that’s legal, so I should be allowed to have them.” We don’t want people thinking this way, even if it’s true in some cases, because we don’t want there to be an active market in plutonium at all.

I don't see how ruining the life of a teenager for having something that is believed to be dangerous through fear mongering but isn't does anything good to society. There are so many things he could get legally to make actual bombs to kill people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com