https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramatorsk_radiological_accide...
In any case the primary expense is going to be one of paying off all the people to get the right approvals. Crunching the numbers on how to safely rectify it and actually going through those actions will be dirt cheap compared to getting someone with the "right credentials" to tell the government, the insurers and whoever else that your obvious solution any highschooler can crunch the numbers on is in fact acceptable
[1] https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2017/10/17/misunderstood-ca...
"the equivalent of 10 X-rays in an hour"
It's important to understand the numbers - and the magnitude of this radiation source is concerning but not dire.
is key here -- leading to ingestion, which is much more dangerous than brief proximity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committed_dose#Physical_factor...
Ingesting is of course a completely different story and will indeed kill you horribly.
Inside your body? Another story.
"the equivalent of 10 X-rays in an hour"
The numbers matter. This instance, the device hardly matters. Not as much as a national news report anyway. We'd be better off reading about pay disparity or access to health care.
What jobs you're referring to? Your examples cite years and months but the quoted sentence states "in an hour."
This sort of thing has happened before with loose radioactive sources.
If the goal is to minimize loss of life, I think there are far better things that time could be spent on than looking for this thing. People are bad at thinking about opportunity cost.
You are only asking questions, I understand. Please don't do that here [1].
See the Goiânia incident [2] for inspiration how such a tiny thing could be so threatening to random unsuspecting animals. While the medical source in that case was much larger – perhaps making it less dangerous because it was easier to find, although it did fall apart in more pieces – the effects when in close contact with tissue or being ingested are very similar.
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.
That said, this method while effective may take some time, and the major concern here may not be so much the direct radiation emission from the intact source, as the possibility of damage leading to dispersal of its contents. In the Goiânia incident of 1987 [1], scrappers removed a Cs-137 source from an improperly decommissioned radiotherapy machine and broke it open, dispersing the loose isotope material it contained in ignorance of the danger it posed. Several people died, others were badly injured, and at least one house and a lot of soil had to be removed for disposal. If this lost Australian source is similar in design to that one, warning people about it while looking for it is an eminently sensible public safety measure.
If the military lost a hand grenade on a similar road trip, I'm sure people would want to find it, and this source is at least as dangerous.