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 μg 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
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.
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.
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.
Think of organizations as a kind of AI. A prosecutorial organization can take on a so-called "paperclip maximizing" dysfunction just like a standard AI. Converts the whole world to paperclips.
The solution actually is to gate the specialist AI's through a generalist process. That's what court is supposed to be, but court is less effective in the modern world.
I really like this framing. It also reinforces my opinion that the thing most like the proverbial AI that turns the entire world into paperclips by far humans. It's a bit fascinating if you look at it from a psychological / mythopoeic point of view: are villains _always_ the evil part of ourselves, even when they're not human?
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.
if a psycho run to stab someone, but a car blinks in his face as the knife is just about to hit his victim, causing him to miss and hit only the arm, why should he get a discount?
> This is the kind of implicit lying that seems pervasive today and I am so tired of it.
I am so tired of it, too. Toying with the legal boundary of lying in communication is pathological, maybe even sociopathic.
Everyone knows when someone is doing it, too. We just don’t have the means to punish it, even in the courts.
The whole “I won’t get punished so I’m doing all the immoral things” habit is foul to begin with. I don’t know how, but I hope our society can get over it. As things stand, there is no way to outlaw being an asshole.
There are glimmers of hope - like Wales trying to ban lying in politics. But of course, the punishment has to be proportional to the offense, not just a slap on the wrist.
If I wanted to take things to an extreme, I'd ask why laws even need to be so specific about which offenses lead to which punishments and which offenses are even punishable in the first place (the "what is not forbidden is allowed" principle).
In theory, you could cover them more generally by saying that any time someone intentionally causes harm to others (without a valid reason), he will be caused proportional harm in return. Then all you need is a conversion table to prison time, fines, etc.
With lying, all you would need to prove is that the person lied intentionally and quantify the expected harm which would have been caused if the lie was successful (regardless if it actually was or not - intent is what matters).
As a bonus, it would force everyone to acknowledge the full amount of harm caused. For example, rape usually leads to lifelong consequences for the victim but not the attacker. In this system, such inconsistency, some would call it injustice, would be obvious and it would be much easier for anyone to call for rectification.
"without a valid reason" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Not only would this idea be impractical and highly subjective, determining what a valid reason is, is the same problem as defining the Law in the first place.
Can you insult someone? Can you say something wrong that you thought was right ("the lion cage is locked") that someone is injured from? What is their duties in checking the info they get is correct? Is there a min wage or not? What value is it? Does it change on city or state? Can under-age people sign contracts? Can they vote?
I never said we didn't need rules, just that when they are too specific, people tend to follow the letter but break the spirit of the rule.
(Sidenote, one deeply ingrained idea is that the law is somehow special compared to other rules. The only real difference is that the law is enforced by violence while other rules are not.)
I was also talking about criminal law so the questions about minimum wage, contracts and voting are irrelevant regardless if you want specific or general rules about punishments.
You don't have to lie to tell a lie. The media have honed well this skill over decades.
"Coffee study found that it TRIPLES, your chance of developing a terrifying form of colon cancer! A 300% increase!"
In reality the study had a sample size of 10 and the odds were for an extremely rare form of lung cancer you have a 0.0003% chance of developing anyway. But now most readers go tell their co-workers "they did a study and found that coffee actually gives you colon cancer".
What I've noticed is that for a lot of people, if you do something wrong through a sufficient number of steps, they feel like the severity is lower.
The opposite is in fact true - causing harm through multiple steps shows intent and the severity is in fact higher.
If a journalist doesn't understand statistical significance, he is either incompetent or malicious. Either way he needs to be removed from his little position of power and if the incompetence is sufficient or the malice proven, he needs to be punished.
Apathetic voters who'll still vote for a terrible party just because they hate the same people the politicians say they do?
MIB put it so succinctly, large groups of humans are exceedingly dumb. It's almost like our individual intelligence drops, perhaps we evolved those effects from tribalism so that organising larger groups was more effective. And perhaps that effect is broken now that we organise in much larger groups than we ever evolved for.
"A bad plan now is better than a good plan later."
People have evolved to unify behind a strong (and aggressive) leader because historically the biggest threat to one's tribe (and therefore genes) were other tribes. You might not be in the right but it doesn't matter to evolution, what matters is that you kill the people trying to kill you, regardless of who started is.
This primitive drive is why every time the going gets tough, people elect charismatic and abusive leaders - because their lizard brain wants to fight an external enemy and abusers are good at giving people that enemy (Jews for Hitler, immigrants and gays and anybody who is slightly different for Trump, ...).
---
The issue is that for most of our evolution, such a leader could units hundreds, maybe thousands of people and if a tribe behaved aggressively and unjustly towards its neighbors, those neighbors would units against it and "keep it in check" (which is a euphemism for fighting and killing them).
But these days you have 3 superpowers, 2 of which are dictatorships and the 3rd is on track to become one. There is nobody to keep them in check.
> There are glimmers of hope - like Wales trying to ban lying in politics
Lol. Give me a break. This is like all the "combat disinformation" bullshit. You claim something is a lie or disinformation because your government appointed expert said so and jail someone. When years later it's undeniable that you were the one lying you said "we did the best with what we had at the Time".
Naive solutions only give more power to those in power and are abused routinely.
Obviously all available tools will by used by bad people. What we need is:
1) Good people to also use those tools - a lot of self-proclaimed good people think some tools are bad and therefore they won't use them. But tools are just tools, what makes it good or bad is who you use it against / for what reason.
A simple example is killing. Many people will have a knee-jerk reaction and say it's always bad. And they you start asking them questions and they begrudgingly admit that it's OK in self defense. And then you ask more questions and you come up a bunch of examples where logically it's the right tool to use but it's outside of the Overton window for them to admit it.
A good way to reveal people's true morality is movies. People will cheer for the good guys taking revenge, killing a rapist, overthrowing a corrupt government, etc. Because they naturally understand those things to be right, they've just been conditioned to not say it.
2) When bad people hurt someone using a tool, we need the tool to backfire when caught.
Obviously, to jail someone, the lying needs to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" - i.e. Blackstone's ratio. Oh and no government appointed experts who get to dictate the truth. If the truth is not known with sufficient certainty, then neither side can be punished.
This threshold should be sufficient so that if it later turns out the person was not in fact lying, the trial is reevaluated and it will show that the prosecution manipulated evidence to manipulate the judge into believing the evidence was sufficient.
Alternatively, since incentives dictate how people play the game, we can decide that 10:1 is an acceptable error ratio and automatically punish prosecutors who have an error rate higher than that and jail them for the excess time.
So yes, if A jails B and it later turns out this was done through either sufficient incompetence or malice, then A should face the same punishment.
---
I am sure given more time, we can come up with less "naive" and more reliable systems. What we know for sure is that the current system is not working - polarization is rising, anti-social disorders are more common, inequality is rising, censorship in the west increased massively in the last few years, etc.
So either we come up with ways to reverse the trend or it will keep getting worse until it reaches some threshold above which society will rapidly and violently change (either more countries fall into authoritarianism or civil war erupts, neither of which is desirable).
Just because something doesn't work doesn't mean anything you propose will be better. That's how we get security theater or worse, the war on drugs.
> So either we come up with ways to reverse the trend or it will keep getting worse until it reaches some threshold above which society will rapidly and violently change (either more countries fall into authoritarianism or civil war erupts, neither of which is desirable
Bullshit. That's your thesis. But hey, if you want to start that violent revolution to overthrow the government do post about it here. I'm sure you'll be successful in this day and age.
You first act as if the current situation is the best we can do by pretending that no alternative can be better by implying that any alternative is naive.
I attempt to be reasonable and explain in good faith.
Yet then you admit the current situation doesn't work while at the same time continue acting as if a solution is impossible by pretending any attempt at a solution is worse without actually giving any specific criticisms.
On top, you:
1) (Probably intentionally) misrepresent what I said - I never said I wanted a violent revolution, I warn about it.
2) Mock me.
EDIT: Oh and I just noticed you attacked another commenter for absolutely no reason[0]. I would very much like to understand your goals because without further explanation, just going by your behavior here, they seem diametrically opposed to a better society for no valid reason.
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.
- "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.
It is but these reactors use U235 which has a half-life of 700 million years. So yeah they will still be pretty much radioactive when they come down. Also, the decay products tend to be radioactive too and have their own half lives on top of that.
You think if someone was evil and willing, they’d design and launch a satellite designed to seek out another satellite and take it out of orbit in a way that causes it to drop randomly into the atmosphere?
All this instead of simply launching a satellite that does what they want? Or skipping the satellite and doing it with terrestrial solutions?
That’s the problem. It’s up there. Getting it down requires you to get something of significant mass up there to provide that delta v to deorbit it, and even then you’re not entirely sure exactly where it will land. You could probably target a large country, but not a city.
Instead use all that feta v you need to get your “shoving device” and just send it direct.
To deorbit one of those satellites you need an icbm capability already
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.
"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.
"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".
> "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.
You can say the same about a lot of other things, e.g. being divorced, being in a same-sex relationship, being adopted: somebody out there will judge you negatively for it, but fearing their judgement is part of what gives it power.
The stigma for mental issues is still a lot more severe than sexuality etc, and the court knows they can do it without consequences. Mental health issues are often viewed as a moral failing or a weakness of a person who can't get their life sorted out, a bit like how people are judged for laziness. Very easy to stick to a "criminal" without anyone batting an eye.
If the judge instead said "this guy's not that bad, he's just gay" it wouldn't go over so well.
The mental health evidence is introduced by the defence, not the prosecution. In most cases, the prosecution has no interest in raising defendant’s alleged mental heath issues (since it may well result in a lighter sentence, in more extreme cases even be grounds for an acquittal), while the interests of the defence is obvious.
And if the defence introduces mental health evidence into the sentencing, the judge is legally obliged to rule on it - explaining whether it was accepted or not, and if it was, how big an impact it had on the sentencing decision-if the judge didn’t do that, they risk either party successfully appealing the sentence, in extreme cases even being disciplined.
And even if it is a “plea deal” - the sentencing procedure is fundamentally the same as if there isn’t one, it is just the prosecution commits not to ask for a harsher sentence than agreed, the defence still has to introduce mitigating evidence and the judge has to rule on it; if the defence doesn’t, there’s a risk the judge may decide the agreed sentence is too lenient and overrule the agreement.
"Good for him. This was an absolute ridiculous case."
Absolutely so. I watched Tom's Explosions & Fire video just after he published it and as he said this prosecution was a gross overreaction by authorities. I say that as someone who once worked in nuclear safeguards/surveillance (I'm an ardent non-proliferation guy).
Living in Australia one has become to expect such incidents although this was the first one involving nuclear materials. The reasons are complex and too difficult to describe in detail here but it's a combination of poor education in tech matters, a very timid, risk averse and conservative Australian population and the fact that we've precious little high tech industries/infrastructure, concomitantly we've almost no high tech culture to speak of.
Moreover, it wasn't always like this, it has gotten worse over the years. For instance, when I was at school quite some decades ago we had samples of metallic uranium and some small amounts of other radioactive materials to do physics experiments with. Today, the mere thought of that would send shivers down the backs of educators and most of the population.
Such high levels of timidy and concern are not just limited to radioactive materials, the same concern applies to chemicals well and above that necessary to protect public safety—for instance, the state where I live has now banned fireworks (and that's just for starters).
That has ramifications past just safety considerations, one of the reasons I became interested in chemistry was fireworks and that we leaned to make black powder in highschool chemistry and actually got to test it (today, even that's banned in our school system). Similarly, we've even produced a generation of kids and young adults who've never seen liquid mercury.
Let no one say I'm against safety as I'm particularly careful around dangerous substances. That said, you can have both in a well regulated environment and with a well educated population.
Without hands-on experience, Australia is deskilling its population and tragically this unfortunate prosecution is testament to that.
Superstition and witch-burning are natural human behaviors. Philosophy has always required a ceaseless struggle against them. William Kamkwamba was nearly lynched by his neighbors for building a windmill.
Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of the fact. BTW, I've always thought civilization is only one step removed from superstition and witch-burning if but not for the fact of education.
That film was made about 40 years ago and even then the Dundee character was a dying breed and only found in pockets of Australian society—those parts where life was hard and day-to-day activities were hands-on with the physical world (like those portrayed in the film).
Even in the '80s most Australians wouldn't have lived and worked like that, these days much less so. Most Australians live in a highly urbanized city environment and many of them live in high-rise buildings without even a backyard. Moreover, nowadays, they mostly work in the service industries such as banking, finance, tourism and retail. Put simply, a reasonable percentage would hardly know one end of a screwdriver from another let alone perform manual labour or know how to ride a horse, or use a lathe or milling machine.
That may sound harsh but having lived through that time (I was an adult when the film was released) I reckon that's a reasonable assessment. You also need to keep in mind that Australia has essentially killed off its manufacturing industries over that time with China being the beneficiary. Thus, Australian society has lost many of those hands-on, down-to-earth skills it had at the end of WWII through to the end of the 1960s. Today's Australian society is nothing like it was when I was growing up, I now live in a totally different world.
BTW, what made Paul Hogan (Dundee) so suitable for the film's character was that he is one of that dying breed of hardworking ruffians and was so before he became an actor, his persona was essentially behind the making of the film. He came from the rough outback opal mining town of Lightning Ridge and then worked as a rigger on the Sydney Harbour Bridge—a very dangerous job that required working at hundreds of feet in the air—those with the slightest fear of heights would have been terrified, and that would include most Australians. (I can say that because in my younger days I used to work on radio and television towers—shame I can't show you photos I took from the top of them).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean they are still sold at your local hardware store. The bulb in the tilt switch below is the same as the mercury tilt switches that have been around for 100 years.
OMG that's a switch and switches are used in nuclear weapons! (lol!)
Of course this is even a step further removed. He had mercury and some tilt switches use mercury and switches are used in nuclear weapons therefore he was making a bomb!
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.
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.
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.
As a child I bought mercury tilt switches from a tandy store (in Australia) with the intent of making a tilt game controller input for my terrible 8 bit computer (this was decades before acceleromters in game controllers). It was too laggy and had to be debounced and it sat in a box for years. Also had a collection of mineral ores in a drawer near my bed which probably included some dodgy stuff. This case was bullshit and appears to be more about agency politics than public safety.
The guy also had explosive and a triggering device in his car! It's a good thing for him police didn't seize his air-bag as evidence. (Being sarcastic.)
The Pu is from an old soviet smoke detector, containing roughly 40μg of Pu, which creates a few μCi 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.
> 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.
Using that definition of dirty bomb, a firecracker inside a banana is enough. Perhaps it should include a minimal threshold, like it's enougt to kill 1 person in the linear no threshold model.
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.)
Nothing about the law is really about danger. It's all based on an international weapons treaty. In my opinion, the more you know about weapons and weapons laws, the more you realize how often ridiculous cases arise.
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 .
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
People who are exposed to radiation typically do not die of acute radiation poisoning. They die of cancers years later. People who are exposed to coal plant pollution also die of cancers and all sorts of pulmonary diseases.
You do probably know someone, and almost definitely know someone who knows someone, whose death was due to chronic coal fired power plant emissions. The fact that that's not what's on the death certificate doesn't mean it's not what happened.
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.
An interesting example of bad waste management in the 70's.
But hardly an argument for how safe nuclear energy can be. You wouldn't judge the safety of aviation based on the Wright brothers plane.
Also note that one of the problems on that mine is not only the radioactive waste, but also mercury, lead, arsenic, and other product not coming from nuclear facilities. That kind of waste is dangerous for basically ever compared to the radioactive atoms. Yet nobody talk about it.
Nuclear energy is not the only industry producing nuclear waste. You've got also significant radioactive waste produced by the medical, research, defence, mining, and other industries. And so we need safe waste storage regardless of the existence of nuclear power plants.
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.
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.
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.
I actually tried to do some back-of-the-napkin calculations about this a while ago and unfortunately, even if you made nuclear regulations sane, so that the cost came down significantly, I still don't think it would be cheap enough for ag use, which is the actual issue with droughts in CA. Municipal water you could likely supply completely with desal and it wouldn't even get that much more expensive, but 70% of water use in CA is for ag, and they couldn't support the price increase.
As it stands, agricultural water users are massively underpaying (given the high demand and dwindling supply); correcting that would make nuclear-powered desal a lot less unattractive. Southern California in particular is a major issue, given the widespread effort to grow crops in the Mojave for whatever boneheaded reason; if they want to do that, then they should absolutely be making their own water via desal instead of robbing Northern California (via the aqueduct system) and Nevada/Arizona (via the Colorado River's mandatory downstream allocations) - and if desal water's "too expensive", then the prices of both of those sources needs jacked up to match it.
Probably won't ever happen, though, given how hard the ag sector lobbies for every direct and indirect subsidy they can get.
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.
This is an important point that a lot of people don't seem to understand. The longest live materials that are the hardest store are the least dangerous.
You are acting like this is some kind of gotcha...I literally would do this for extremely reasonable sums. Unless you are grinding up and swallowing these materials (which requires that you first break into their storage casks), they are not at all dangerous.
All I read above is "If's" "As long as" "Unless'" , etc.
I'll do further research but my initial impression is that you're all operating like economists ... "ceteris paribus".
The funny thing is. Life isn't like that. Mismanagement, cost compromises, engineering fuck ups, climate disaster, terrorism, etc are almost de rigueur ...
There are many cases where I'd agree with you that the economic model is an elaborate mathematical ruse to discount externalities and critical tail risks.
In this case I'll pose a question. Consider a geologically stable location within the US of your choosing. How deep would a hole have to be before you would no longer be concerned about the potential consequences of mishaps? Is that depth technologically viable for us to reach today?
Keep in mind that the contingency plan here is to simply fill in the pit and forget that it exists.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
The main reasons those weapons aren't used is not idealism, it's because they're not actually that effective in a battlefield scenario.
Strategic nukes in particular are a hilariously bad example here. In most cases in war, the objective is to take ground, and making the ground uningabitable is counter productive. MAD, aka "pragmatism", is the main factor that prevents their use in general.
Chemical weapons, well, let's hope MAD holds there too, to some extent. But the US to my knowledge never signed any treaties banning them. We took them out of inventory because they're not that useful to a modern, mobile military.
Nuclear weapons don't make territory uninhabitable. (Nuclear reactor meltdowns do, but they are very different.)
More precisely, ground that receives fallout is deadly for 2 or 3 weeks. Ground that has been in actual contact with a nuclear fireball might stay deadly longer than that, but that will be only a tiny fraction of the area of the attacked country.
Ok, then tell me where the battlefield usage is for thermonuclear weapons. Or more importantly, tell the world's military planners, because I'm mostly parroting them when they (a) say they don't see one and (b) visibly don't plan for one.
The Soviets had a war plan which was shown to Western historians during the thaw of the 1990s in which they nuke hundreds of military installations in the NATO countries except for Britain and France (to reduce the probability of retaliatory nuclear strikes from those 2 countries) as the opening move of an invasion to grab the Western part of the European plain. If I remember correctly, the plan was to send in the tanks only hours or days after the nuclear attack, relying on the fact that the armor of the tank would be adequate shielding against fallout (although I'm sure the plan included an effort to map where the plumes of heavy fallout ended up and mostly avoiding sending even tanks into those areas).
Also, NATO famously included nukes in most of their plans for defending against such an invasion. In fact, the US invented, built, tested and stockpiled a type of nuke (namely, the neutron bomb) specialized for taking out tanks (although none of these neutron bombs were moved to Europe as far as I can tell). Tanks are mostly immune to attack by ordinary nukes: to take out a group of tanks with a nuke, you need to configure the nuke to burst on the ground, and ground bursts don't cover enough area to be a practical way to take out enough of the Soviet Union's tanks in a full-scale invasion of NATO.
They planned all kinds of crazy things in the cold war. Most of them have been phased out, except for attacking military installations which I count as a strategic usage. (And per the surrounding discussion, very much a live possibility, so it doesn't count as evidence of abandoning tech due to the inherent horror. I got distracted but my main point is, these things stay in the toolbox or not entirely on pragmatic grounds.)
My first comment in this thread was a response to your, "In most cases in war, the objective is to take ground, and making the ground [uninhabitable] is counter productive" (and the context was nukes in general, not tactical nukes).
Anyway, tactical nukes don't make the ground uninhabitable any more than strategic nukes do.
> 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?
>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.
Except that's not really true. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little to do with "ending the war more quickly"[0]:
"The Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other Japanese colonies began at midnight on August 8, sandwiched between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it was, indeed, the death blow U.S. officials knew it would be. When asked, on August 10, why Japan had to surrender so quickly, Prime Minister Suzuki explained, Japan must surrender immediately or "the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea, Karafuto, but also Hokkaido. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States."
As postwar U.S. intelligence reports made clear, the atomic bombs had little impact on the Japanese decision. The U.S. had been firebombing and wiping out Japanese cities since early March. Destruction reached 99.5 percent in the city of Toyama. Japanese leaders accepted that the U.S. could and would wipe out Japan's cities. It didn't make a big difference whether this was one plane and one bomb or hundreds of planes and thousands of bombs."
I've read this too but it doesn't disprove what US was thinking at the time.
People think others think like them. US being a democratic country and considering the value of a life to be high, I have no trouble believing that the US government did think the Japanese government would consider the cost of continued fighting to be too high.
> The "prompt and utter destruction" clause has been interpreted as a veiled warning about American possession of the atomic bomb[1]
We now largely know strategic bombing does not work [2] but it still doesn't stop some from trying now, it certainly did not back then.
That's not what US military leaders were saying then. Not saying that others weren't confused about that, but the US Military establishment knew what was up.
You hinted at it, and in my initial post included the statement that the atomic bombs (and especially the second -- Nagasaki -- bomb) were supposed to serve as a warning to the Soviets, not any attempt to limit casualties or shorten the war. However, I removed it because I couldn't find any direct quotes about it.
Then again, that's not something the US government would want publicized at that time, given that the USSR was their putative ally at that moment. As such, I'm not surprised that my cursory search didn't find any such quote from that period.
From the article I linked in my previous post[0]:
>General Dwight Eisenhower voiced his opposition at Potsdam. "The Japanese were already defeated," he told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Admiral William Leahy, President Harry Truman's chief of staff, said that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor. Similar views were voiced by Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey, and General Henry Arnold.
I left out this bit, again from the same link I shared previously[0]:
>U.S. and British intelligence officials, having broken Japanese codes early in the war, were well aware of Japanese desperation and the effect that Soviet intervention would have. On April 11, the Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs predicted, "If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable." Japan's Supreme War Council confirmed that conclusion, declaring in May, "At the present moment, when Japan is waging a life-or-death struggle against the U.S. and Britain, Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire."
The emperor's surrender speech made direct reference to the atomic bombs.
Following the Hiroshima bombing on August 6, and the Soviet declaration of war and Nagasaki bombing on August 9, the Emperor's speech was broadcast at noon Japan Standard Time on August 15, 1945, and referred to the atomic bombs as a reason for the surrender.
"Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
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.
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.
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.
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.
IIRC some Abrams tanks in non-export variants use depleted uranium as part of their armor scheme - again not very safe to be around in case it burns out.
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.
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).
The energy involved is enough to turn the both projectile and the armour to liquid.
Once the projectile penetrates the armour it sprays out aa a jet of hot metal and solidifies as dust. (Depleted uranium also burns at high temperatures, so the liquified projectile is also on fire).
Penetration depth (hydrodynamic penetration) is a function of the relative density of the liquids and the length of the projectile, which is why DU is favoured.
The armor and projectile are solid the entire time. It’s just the pressures involved are enough to make the material flow despite that. Actual experiment: cut the rod into quarters long ways, glue it back together, then shoot it. Out the other end of the armor, the rod is in quarters still. Or at least, what’s left.
Also, most materials will burn at a high enough temperature. DU dust is pyrophoric: it will spontaneously catch on fire at room temperature.
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.
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.
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 μg 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