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.<p>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.<p>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...<p>For those interested, here's a video from "Explosions and Fire" on this issue, a channel I highly recommend anyway, this guy is hilarious: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I</a>
The case is <i>technically</i> 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.
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.
That’s stupid as fuck as they still use mercury wetted relays to this day in some places.
So if everyone in Australia ordered one of these, what would they need to do to make it into a bomb?
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.
I mean, hell, a pack of cigarettes contains polonium and lead -210. And Australians smoke quite a bit, last I checked.
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 .
Isn't this the same stuff they used to put in aeroplane tails as a counterweight?
No, it's weapons-grade fissionable material (in microscopic amounts); the engineering material used for its weight, depleted uranium, is not such a thing.
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!<p>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.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-depleted-uranium-rounds-ukraine-sources-2023-09-01/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-depleted-ura...</a> (<i>"US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine"</i>)
> You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools!<p>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 <i>is for wartime</i>, 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.<p>The treaties they're withdrawing from today <i>aren't</i> the post-WW1 Geneva conventions; they are modern treaties that were in actuality products of eras of peace.
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.<p>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.
> You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools!<p>Thank you for not immediately escalating the discussion. Anyway, ever heard of Tungsten? Cool stuff.
Yeah. An active main battle tank will kill more people faster than inhaling uranium dust will.<p>(This does not make depleted uranium rounds anything less than nasty. But it does make them better than the alternative.)
> if you sidestep the issue of waste<p>If you do that, just sidestep the elephant, then nuclear is very attractive indeed!
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.
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.
Most interesting for Australia and generally society is the fact that a judge has to associate the behavior of collecting different materials from the periodic table with mental health issues in order to not ridicule the current laws.
Australia is an island and islands are weird places compared to continental countries. Border security is ridiculously overkill and there’s a mentality that you can just keep x out permanently.<p>The first time you go from a country like this to the mainlands it seems weird they don’t check for things like having an apple in your bag when crossing borders.
I find it a bit odd for press to name the person and discuss their health matters on top. Sounds like quite a punishment in itself getting branded like that.<p>In e.g. Finland names are not published by the press unless the crime is severe and there's a conviction or the person is already a public figure.
Same in Germany.
I think most continental European countries do this. The publishing of names like this seem more like an Anglosphere thing. In Denmark, the press norm is usually first to publish names when they get a prison sentence of 2+ years.
In Germany the full name is not published.
The internet has screw all that up.<p>The criminal justice system should be transparent. Anyone should be able to watch any proceedings. This fits with your requirements as long as people don't report it.<p>The Australia Federal Court live streams but it is illegal to yt-dlp / photograph the monitor etc - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/@FederalCourtAus/streams" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/@FederalCourtAus/streams</a><p>You also need people before and after (if convicted) to know. For instance witnesses or if they too were victims of crime. This is the impossible problem.<p>It's not even the reporting, it's easy search, as old newspapers have been scanned I've seen a few family secrets (of people still alive) that I would never have known and never needed to know.
The court proceedings and decisions are public and can be followed on site and the documents can be acquired by anyone. This is indeed important for transparency and accountability of the system.<p>However the proceedings aren't streamed and the documents aren't online. Some cases can be published online (e.g. supreme court ones) but with identifying information redacted. I think this is good.<p>The policy is voluntary by the press, not a law. Although in some cases publishing such information could be deemed violation of privacy if it's not deemed of public importance. And compiling databases of the personally identifying information could be illegal.
Even worse is that if you google the poor blokes name they had the paparazzi out taking courthouse photos.<p>The gutter press in Australia have a field day at peoples expense.<p>Plenty of precedent of throwing high profile court cases too (hard to find unbiased jurors etc). Lately there's been a number of important cases being declared mistrials.
It always seemed that more often than not the people are innocent when gossip rags dox them pre-trial or during a trial.
Trials are public. This is a feature. This means everything can be reported unless the court puts a ban on it. Note, too that the guy pleaded guilty in this case and I think it is right to publicise the court's reasons for the penalty, or lack thereof.<p>In the UK they release mugshots, full names, and approximate address in the media, after a guilt verdict. Names and approximate addresses are published before since trials are public.<p>Finland, Germany, France, etc. have gone to another extreme. In France they now even withhold the names of people arrested <i>in the act</i> of murder or terrorism because "people are presumed innocent" and "their privacy must be protected"... which is pushing it beyond sensible and common sense, and is fairly recent practice that seems to have spread from Germany.
Hard disagree. It's well known that people who are falsely accused of such crimes end up having to live with the damage to their reputation even after a court finds them innocent, because that's not the news story people remember. In such societies, one's life is effectively ruined the moment one is accused.<p>Innocent until proven guilty, and the same goes for the court of public opinion.
[flagged]
There is a big difference between being accused and going to trial. I agree that identities should not be published based only on "accusations".<p>There is a big difference between being caught in the act and charged following an investigation.<p>Currently Europe is moving/has moved to an extreme position beyond common sense as it has done on several other issues based on "good intentions".<p>In some cases there is also a pressure to charge and go to trial just based on accusations (e.g. rape cases), which is another issue.
You are still innocent at trial.<p>There's no good from this only figurative village mobs and witch hunts.<p>From my experience something culturally more common in the anglosphere too.
This is probably also an instance of a significant cultural difference. Continental Europe generally believes in rehabilitation, whereas the Anglosphere - and the US in particular - strike me more as having a vengeful justice system.<p>Public shaming of people at trial is incompatible with the belief in rehabilitation.
What is the "common sense" here? My common sense can't see really any benefits from publicizing the information.
You are still innocent at trial.<p>There's no good from this only witch hunts. Something more common more recently in the anglosphere too.
Trials are public in Finland, Germany, France etc. In some very severe crimes the name of the suspect may be published. For publicly discussed crimes the names can be usually found in some crime related discussion forums.<p>People are presumed innocent and their privacy must be protected. The mugshot porn is not good for anybody or the society in general.
Even if you are arrested <i>in the act</i> of killing someone you may have some defence that means you are not committing murder (e.g. self-defence, diminished responsibility, I think France still has ‘crime in the heat of passion’ as a defence)
The replies are getting absurd but unfortunately very illustrative of the state of Europe in 2025.<p>The "good intentions" have indeed led to a situation in which criminals are protected beyond the level of protection and rights afforded to victims and law-abiding citizens.<p>People can get in trouble by publishing CCTV footage to identify criminals, to give one basic example. But that's to be expected if some people think that even convicted criminals'privacy should be protected...
In Germany t's illegal to say negative things, or things that would make them look bad, about anyone, living or dead, in any context. Even Adolf Hitler (although that is not enforced).
good. from what ive read/watched about this case, it was absurd and an absolute abuse of the systems in place in australia. the quantities and material properties of the elements in question should have never, <i>ever</i> resulted in the response or charges that occurred.<p>the explanation that "the judge concluded that Lidden had mental health issues and displayed no malicious intent" is absurd in its own right, even if it resulted in a favorable outcome. what a sad, offensively disparaging, and fucked up excuse from a government.<p>here is a (arugably biased) relevant video about the subject from an amateur australian chemist that covers this case: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I</a>
> the quantities and material properties of the elements in question should have never, ever resulted in the response or charges that occurred.<p>This even though “The delivery of the materials – which included a quantity of plutonium, depleted uranium, lutetium, thorium and radium – led to a major hazmat incident in August 2023. The entire street that Lidden lived on was closed off and homes were evacuated” ?<p>It’s not like his activities had zero impact in his community. You don’t mess around with radioactive materials; even small amounts can be extremely hazardous to life and the environment. There’s a reason they’re not easy to obtain.
>It’s not like his activities had zero impact in his community.<p>They didn't. The ridiculous and uninformed government reaction caused this. Nothing he did was even remotely dangerous.<p>>You don’t mess around with radioactive materials; even small amounts can be extremely hazardous to life and the environment.<p>These materials were not dangerous, it was literally a capsule from a smoke detector. As in, an average person would've had it in their house.<p>>There’s a reason they’re not easy to obtain.<p>Right, so difficult to obtain that he was able to simply order them online and have them delivered through the mail.
The article says “the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat”<p>If that’s true, the overreaction and evacuation is higher risk than possession of the elements<p>You can’t blame Lidden for the overreaction of others
That was a severe overreaction by authorities after they knew he had it for <i>months</i> in trace amounts.
What impact?<p>The impact of the Australian Border Force overreacting after they (seemingly deliberately) bungled the situation when they were first made aware of the situation?<p><i>None</i> of the elements this man was in possession of were either in a quantity or quality to facilitate any kind of hazard to anyone. The response by government was unjustified, and should have ocurred before the materials ever reached the purchaser.<p>I urge you to learn about and understand the properties of radioactive materials before making judgement on this situation. The quantities and properties (particularly the encasing) of the materials in question largely render them inert. These specimens are not at all abnormal in the scope of element collection, and the response triggered by the ABF (complete evacuation of an entire street (note, not an entire radius???)) is unwarranted given the quantitites and properties of the elements (both pieces of information they knew beforehand).
[dead]
> amateur australian chemist<p>I mean, he has a PhD...
I believe the guy got worried he needed to tell his employer, the railway, that he was facing a prosecution. His solicitor advised him not to.<p>They stood him down and terminated him to minimise risk.<p>I hope he gets his job back.
Here's a technical discussion about the item* in question (*may or may not be identical),<p><a href="https://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/analysis-of-soviet-smoke-detector-plutonium/" rel="nofollow">https://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/analysis-of-sovi...</a> (<i>"Analysis of Soviet smoke detector plutonium</i>" (2017))
Follow-up from:<p>'Naive' science fan faces jail for plutonium import<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43449645">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43449645</a>
Overreaction much? Should there be a ban on americium-241 in smoke detectors?
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.
The legislation doesn't include americium, and even if it did‚ I presume it will be imported under license.<p><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03417/latest/text" rel="nofollow">https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03417/latest/text</a> 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.<p>In any case, high-schooler David Hahn showed us what's possible with a bunch of smoke detectors, camping lantern mantels, and the like. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn</a> His lab became a Superfund site.
[flagged]
The amount is tokenistic and would not have caused dissent held by a school for teaching purposes. He is a good person and this is a stupid application of the law to no benefit.<p>Since it was imported through postal services and identified there were heaps of opportunities to avoid this.<p>This is the least worst outcome having had charges brought but it was an overreaction to bring charges.
He did something stupid and nobody got hurt. The law needs to be relatively forgiving in these circumstances. A culture that punishes people that we don't know harshly for mistakes is not a good society.
The amount was so small it couldn't be used to cause harm
Looks like he lost his job though?
Woah, this doesn't sound like over-reaction but the reporting doesn't give enough details to know:<p>>While his actions were criminal, the judge concluded that Lidden had mental health issues and displayed no malicious intent.... The delivery of the materials – which included a quantity of plutonium, depleted uranium, lutetium, thorium and radium...<p>Seems weird that the judge said Lidden had mental health "issues". Who knows how severe or debilitating the so-called mental health issues are? Not sure how the judge can make that decision on his own, about Lidden's mental health excusing him for doing something "criminal", although one wonders too how well the 1987 nuclear non-proliferation law was written, and if it was even applicable given small amounts Lidden possessed.<p>Key question is Lidden's purchase amounts of plutonium, depleted uranium, lutetium, thorium, and radium for his home periodic table display. (I totally understand the motivation for wanting to do that! I would love to have every element, even a tiny bit, for that reason too.)<p>Plutonium seems most concerning. It doesn't exist in nature but Pu-239 is the by-product of Uranium-238 used for fuel by nuclear reactors. (Not certain about isotype numbers.) Lidden bought depleted uranium, so that's more okay... I guess. (Don't know what its half life is even after "depletion".) Pu-239 and Pu-240 half-lives are thousands of years. Due to the radioactive alpha decay of plutonium, it is warm to the touch!<p>I wonder if he even had real plutonium, because even the non-weapons grade costs at least US$4,000 per gram.<p>Final thought:
Chemical toxicity of (undepleted) uranium U-238 is comparable to its radioactive toxicity.
Chemical toxicity of plutonium Pu-239, Pu-240 etc. is minor compared with its radioactive toxicity. By chemical toxicity, they're referring to the tendency for plutonium to spontaneously combust if exposed to moisture, or in hot humid weather. It can even catch on fire when submerged in water.<p>EDIT: Reduce verbiage
You’re questions are already answered in the article:<p>1. The items were on display in this bedroom<p>2. The quantities were so small that they were deemed safe to eat.<p>This sounds like more of a case of the border force wanting to raise awareness rather than any actual danger being presented
The article only said that his solicitor (lawyer?) described the quantities as being so small they were safe enough to eat.<p>I read some more about it (Guardian) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/11/science-nerd-ordered-radioactive-materials-parents-sydney-home-spared-conviction-ntwnfb" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/11/scien...</a> and entirely agree with you that the border force over-reacted, and could have spent the money and resources more effectively than by pursuing this.<p>Also, via Guardian, this attitude is demeaning and depressing:<p>>"At a sentence hearing in March, the lawyer described Lidden as a “science nerd” who committed the offences out of pure naivety. “It was a manifestation of self-soothing retreating into collection; it could have been anything but in this case he latched on to the collection of the periodic table,”
Plutonium was in form of an old soviet smoke detector, containing micrograms of it. This case is whack.
Thank you. I only read the second, more recent article, not realizing that their was a prior one.<p>Case seems ridiculous. Judge's ruling, despite no penalty, is embarrassing because he doesn't seem to understand the lack of danger of such small amounts, AND made gratuitous public statement about Lidden's mental health.
When I read things like this it makes Australia look like a penal colony.
I grew up there, but have been away for 20 years.<p>I went back recently for a year and saw the whole country.<p>It very, very much feels like a nanny state with an insane amount of rules, and regular folks who try to stop you breaking those rules.
So what about the company selling the restricted material to him? Or the company doing the importing are they also reprimanded in some form?
It isn't actually dangerous in any way. It's just a collectors display piece.
Not sure who is responsible for confirming whether he had a permit: oversees seller or shipping company, or customs/import upon receipt in Australia.<p>Guardian article says, "he ordered the items from a US-based science website and they were delivered to his parents’ home.... Nuclear materials can be imported legally by contacting the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office for a permit first."<p>So maybe all of this fuss was due to not having applied and received a permit?
> Australian Border Force superintendent, James Ryan, said he hoped the case would make more people aware of the regulatory frameworks around what can and cannot be imported into Australia<p>Ah yes, the truth comes out. It was about making an example out of him. They knew immediately it wasn’t a big deal but they figured to have some “fun”. I guess people who weren’t aware are now aware that of the kind of people who work in Border Force.
Would ordering e.g. uranim glass beads [0] be acceptable?<p>[0] <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass</a>
Maybe covered by the following exemptions of section 3 of Nuclear Non‑Proliferation (Safeguards) Regulations 1987?[1]<p><pre><code> (1) For the purposes of paragraph 9(c) of the Act, each of the following kinds of nuclear material is nuclear material of a kind to which Part II of the Act does not apply:
(c) source material that is incorporated in:
(i) the glazing of a finished ceramic product; or
(ii) an alloy in the form of a finished constructional product, being an alloy the source material component of which is not more than 4% by weight of uranium or thorium;
(d) source material that is contained in:
(i) a chemical mixture, compound or solution, or an alloy, in which the uranium or thorium content by weight is less than 0.05% of the weight of the mixture, compound, solution or alloy;
</code></pre>
There's probably dozens of other acts and regulations which would also apply to which the exemptions above may not apply--for example, legislation related to import declarations and use of mail services.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B02071/2023-10-27/2023-10-27/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html#_Toc150603490" rel="nofollow">https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B02071/2023-10-27/2023-1...</a>
Probably would be entirely acceptable if one applied for and received a permit for them.<p>>can be imported legally by contacting the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office for a permit first.
"Safe enough to swallow" seems like a scary oversimplification for alpha-emitting substances ?
Kinda curious what site this was - I assumed United Nuclear (which I have ordered non-radioactive items from), but they don't sell Pu.
Yet another instance of "the public doesn't understand radiation".<p>Not even a month ago someone making a miniscule amount of uranium paint (on a channel that tries to recreate old pigments, most of them toxic) was accused of "creating a second Goiânia"[1].<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js05OEsmsm0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js05OEsmsm0</a>
Collecting the entire periodic table? Noble goal, but good luck with e.g. Einsteinium.
kids need to learn science and some basic market economy. if they do that, they won't be stupid enough trying to collect the "entire periodic table". with Fr priced at like $100m AUD per gram, how would some dude living in his parents' apartment going to afford that? some primary school knowledge would be enough to teach him that gold is actually one of those pretty affordable elements to collect when compared to all sorts of those stupidly expensive & rare ones.
> with Fr priced at like $100m AUD per gram, how would some dude living in his parents' apartment going to afford that?<p>You buy a rock that produces Francium. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium</a>: <i>“its most stable isotope, francium-223 (originally called actinium K after the natural decay chain in which it appears), has a half-life of only 22 minutes.”</i>, so buying Francium itself is not a good idea.<p>Also (same Wikipedia page) <i>“In a given sample of uranium, there is estimated to be only one francium atom for every 1 × 10¹⁸ uranium atoms. Only about 1 ounce (28 g) of francium is present naturally in the earth's crust.”</i>, so you wouldn’t have a gram of it, by a very, very long stretch.