Talk:Western Australian radioactive capsule incident

"19 Becquerel" is definitely wrong.
I know all the sources say "19 Bq", but that's obviously off by many, many orders of magnitude. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose …

Caesium sources like this one are usually in the Multi-Megabecquerel range. 2001:9E8:2B20:2B00:281F:2EB2:16B1:EB0D (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems everyone is parroting the same absurd figure. There's an issue of general scientific culture. David Olivier (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 19 Bq is just over the activity of a Banana (15 Bq).
 * So the 19 Bq figure is obviously wrong.
 * However it is encased in a silver capsule. I did a calculation if that capsule was pure Ceasium. Then the activity would be 1,4 Tera Becquerel.
 * I don't know what the half-value of the layer of silver is and what the thickness of the silver layer is. That would certainly reduce the amount of radiation. 82.217.40.181 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The original briefing used gigabecquerels but the activity wasn't mentioned in any government sources. The Guardian has updated their article: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/28/missing-radioactive-capsule-wa-officials-admit-it-was-weeks-before-anyone-realised-it-was-lost 109.240.3.209 (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chief health officer has made a statement that the correct figure is 19 Gigabecquerels. Steelkamp (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

More info?
There is iofo missing from this article... Jack Upland (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are they lying to us about the extent of the Aust nuke program?
 * Any connection w nuclear subs?
 * Plausible deniability?
 * Seriously! You have 30,000 edits and have posted this bullshit. Steelkamp (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are your reliable sources for those claims/queries? Compusolus (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you need a source for a question???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has a deficit of WHY.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not being helpful. Saying "Are they lying to us about the extent of the Aust nuke program?" is an idiotic statement. What has this incident got to do with this article at all? Same with "Any connection w nuclear subs?". There is no connection whatsoever between the loss of a radioactive capsule used in mining and nuclear submarines. Keep your conspirational bullshit off Wikipedia. Steelkamp (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Jack, while your sympathetic editorial stance to, say, North Korea has always been challenging, this - this is just beyond the pale. I'm going to put this down to a bad reaction to cold medicine or something. Don't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs)
 * My apologies. I didn't realise.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Did you know
I reckon we could get a good did you know hook out of this article. The article is eligible as it is less than seven days old. As the article creator, would you mind if I create a did you know nomination? And do you have any suggestions for hooks? Steelkamp (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Steelkamp Go for it. Perhaps ...that a radioactive capsule missing somewhere in Western Australia was found after a seven day search? Compusolus (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Add a paragraph on the impact/aftermath (eg, Prime minister slams 'ridiculously low' penalty for mishandling radioactive material) and play on radioactive vs. political fallout. Moscow Mule (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That article doesn't consider state laws for mishandling dangerous goods. Grassynoel (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)