Australian who ordered radioactive materials walks away from court

4/26/2025 at 8:42:32 AM

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

by deng

4/26/2025 at 3:08:07 PM

To be clear this literally was an old smoke detector. Not even kidding.

https://hackaday.com/2025/04/06/a-tale-of-nuclear-shenanigan...

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.

by AnotherGoodName

4/26/2025 at 1:23:56 PM

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.

by perihelions

4/26/2025 at 1:41:35 PM

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.

by deng

4/26/2025 at 1:59:52 PM

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.

by InsideOutSanta

4/26/2025 at 2:32:23 PM

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.

by Cordiali

4/26/2025 at 2:04:58 PM

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.

by cjbgkagh

4/26/2025 at 2:11:41 PM

That’s stupid as fuck as they still use mercury wetted relays to this day in some places.

by ohgr

4/26/2025 at 2:57:57 PM

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.

by potato3732842

4/26/2025 at 1:42:58 PM

So if everyone in Australia ordered one of these, what would they need to do to make it into a bomb?

by dullcrisp

4/26/2025 at 2:10:35 PM

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.

by deng

4/26/2025 at 1:44:53 PM

I mean, hell, a pack of cigarettes contains polonium and lead -210. And Australians smoke quite a bit, last I checked.

by madaxe_again

4/26/2025 at 2:36:07 PM

Agreed, this case is bananas.

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?

[1] https://engineeredlabs.com/products/plutonium-element-cube-t...

[2] https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/collection/nuclea...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

by thadt

4/26/2025 at 2:40:10 PM

The plutonium sample is reported to be something similar to this,

https://carlwillis.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/analysis-of-sovi... ("Analysis of Soviet smoke detector plutonium" (2017))

by perihelions

4/26/2025 at 12:34:17 PM

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 .

by ashoeafoot

4/26/2025 at 1:11:04 PM

> if you sidestep the issue of waste

If you do that, just sidestep the elephant, then nuclear is very attractive indeed!

by thoroughburro

4/26/2025 at 1:17:40 PM

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.

by fsmv

4/26/2025 at 1:19:19 PM

Reality likes to have a word with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

by deng

4/26/2025 at 1:36:56 PM

> we have extremely safe storage solutions

This doesn't mean "we don't have unsafe storage solutions".

by viraptor

4/26/2025 at 1:52:19 PM

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.

by deng

4/26/2025 at 3:02:59 PM

>Humans are simply terrible at long-term safety

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.

Surely you see the irony.

by potato3732842

4/26/2025 at 2:56:55 PM

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.

by slavik81

4/26/2025 at 2:02:34 PM

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

by whamlastxmas

4/26/2025 at 2:30:20 PM

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.

by LightBug1

4/26/2025 at 1:20:59 PM

Isn't this the same stuff they used to put in aeroplane tails as a counterweight?

by oniony

4/26/2025 at 1:25:43 PM

No, it's weapons-grade fissile material (in microscopic amounts); the engineering material used for its weight, depleted uranium, is not such a thing.

by perihelions

4/26/2025 at 1:33:55 PM

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.

by deng

4/26/2025 at 1:52:33 PM

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.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/us-send-its-first-depleted-ura... ("US to send depleted-uranium munitions to Ukraine")

by perihelions

4/26/2025 at 2:12:54 PM

> 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.

by seabass-labrax

4/26/2025 at 2:25:45 PM

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.

by perihelions

4/26/2025 at 2:44:18 PM

> 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.

by seabass-labrax

4/26/2025 at 2:06:03 PM

Yeah. An active main battle tank will kill more people faster than inhaling uranium dust will.

(This does not make depleted uranium rounds anything less than nasty. But it does make them better than the alternative.)

by AnimalMuppet

4/26/2025 at 2:26:03 PM

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.

by m4rtink

4/26/2025 at 3:09:24 PM

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.

by jandrewrogers

4/26/2025 at 2:15:03 PM

> You're welcome to go to the front lines and attack the Russian tanks with your own preferred tools!

Thank you for not immediately escalating the discussion. Anyway, ever heard of Tungsten? Cool stuff.

by deng

4/26/2025 at 2:58:27 PM

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.

by jandrewrogers

4/26/2025 at 7:30:19 AM

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.

by ulf-77723

4/26/2025 at 2:53:21 PM

Don't we all have mental health issues?

by rubatuga

4/26/2025 at 8:02:12 AM

And because of that he most likely will have really hard time getting a job after this

by that_lurker

4/26/2025 at 3:09:26 PM

Would he though?

This kid (assuming they go to college, etc) could quite possibly get a job in a lab or some other scientific establishment. At a place like that everyone would know about his case AND know how insane it was.

by _fat_santa

4/26/2025 at 2:40:51 PM

I get the impression that background checks are basically standard practice in America. That's not generally true in Australia, only in certain industries and roles.

by Cordiali

4/26/2025 at 8:15:03 AM

Possibly although given the story about it could go the opposite way.

by theginger

4/26/2025 at 8:17:08 AM

Pretty sure he won't be getting a license to drive a train anytime soon. Especially not with a recorded conviction.

by grumpy-de-sre

4/26/2025 at 8:24:57 AM

according to australian laws, he has a pretty good chance to be sentenced without a conviction recorded.

by tw1984

4/26/2025 at 8:32:00 AM

"Judge Flannery did not record a conviction against Lidden and ordered that he be subject to an 18-month bond and recognisance release order."

Thank god, after a couple years he should have a real chance of getting his life back in order.

by grumpy-de-sre

4/26/2025 at 7:57:29 AM

Yea

by kitesay

4/26/2025 at 7:32:41 AM

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.

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.

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 3:09:52 PM

Yeah, this is despicable. For at least the next two decades, if you Google this guy's name, you'll see these stories depicting this guy as either a dangerous criminal or a sadly misguided, mentally unhealthy man, when all he did was order some cool rocks for his collection.

These laws need to change, given the Internet's long-term memory.

by InsideOutSanta

4/26/2025 at 7:43:24 AM

Same in Germany.

by seb1204

4/26/2025 at 8:00:06 AM

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.

by Svip

4/26/2025 at 8:09:11 AM

The 2+ years is the standard in Finland as well. Notably a lot heavier crime usually has to take place for such sentence than in US or even UK.

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 8:06:01 AM

In Germany the full name is not published.

by sunaookami

4/26/2025 at 7:53:44 AM

The internet has screw all that up.

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.

The Australia Federal Court live streams but it is illegal to yt-dlp / photograph the monitor etc - https://www.youtube.com/@FederalCourtAus/streams

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.

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.

by aaron695

4/26/2025 at 8:06:10 AM

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.

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.

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.

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 8:20:11 AM

Even worse is that if you google the poor blokes name they had the paparazzi out taking courthouse photos.

The gutter press in Australia have a field day at peoples expense.

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.

by grumpy-de-sre

4/26/2025 at 1:20:41 PM

It always seemed that more often than not the people are innocent when gossip rags dox them pre-trial or during a trial.

by formerly_proven

4/26/2025 at 8:20:15 AM

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.

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.

Finland, Germany, France, etc. have gone to another extreme. In France they now even withhold the names of people arrested in the act 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.

by mytailorisrich

4/26/2025 at 8:25:20 AM

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.

Innocent until proven guilty, and the same goes for the court of public opinion.

by Svip

4/26/2025 at 9:05:31 AM

[flagged]

by trallnag

4/26/2025 at 9:09:59 AM

How does that disagree with the comment you are replying to?

by lazyasciiart

4/26/2025 at 9:21:55 AM

I didn't fully read the comment nor did I understand it. Just wanted to leave behind my steamy short opinion that goes against the statement "protecting convicted crimimals' privacy is good" that I've been reading between the lines here and there

by trallnag

4/26/2025 at 8:34:00 AM

There is a big difference between being accused and going to trial. I agree that identities should not be published based only on "accusations".

There is a big difference between being caught in the act and charged following an investigation.

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".

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.

by mytailorisrich

4/26/2025 at 8:37:46 AM

You are still innocent at trial.

There's no good from this only figurative village mobs and witch hunts.

From my experience something culturally more common in the anglosphere too.

by KoolKat23

4/26/2025 at 8:51:43 AM

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.

Public shaming of people at trial is incompatible with the belief in rehabilitation.

by Svip

4/26/2025 at 9:05:54 AM

Shame of being convicted of a crime and rehabilitation are separate issues and this is not a cultural difference between continental Europe (which isn't even an homogeneous entity) and the "Anglosphere", either per se.

by mytailorisrich

4/26/2025 at 10:09:45 AM

In Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a punishment itself.

Being labeled as "a criminal" for sure hinders rehabilitation. It reduces opportunities and probably affects identity.

Based on how crime and offenders are publicly discussed in the US, it seems there's very little interest in rehabilitation, except if the person is of high status. Per my common sense the US culture is often just plain cruel with people revelling in others' suffering if they are labeled as "outsiders".

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 2:23:53 PM

> In Finland sentence can be reduced if the case has been publicized widely, i.e. the "shame" is seen as a punishment itself.

This is to some extent true in the UK as well. Pubic figures are likely to lose their income if convicted of a crime, whereas someone in a less visible or responsible profession is more likely to be able to continue working immediately after serving their sentence (or during, if the sentence is non-custodial). This is therefore considered a mitigating factor during sentencing.

One result of this is that the law can sometimes appear to be more lenient on celebrities or other notable individuals, but it is really just making the system equitable so that the sentence has the same effect regardless of the criminal's personal situation.

by seabass-labrax

4/26/2025 at 9:11:52 AM

A trial is held before any conviction.

by lazyasciiart

4/26/2025 at 9:08:04 AM

What is the "common sense" here? My common sense can't see really any benefits from publicizing the information.

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 10:00:03 AM

Don't you think that if it's in the name of the people that the people should have the right to know? Aren't trials public anyway?

by xvokcarts

4/26/2025 at 10:13:46 AM

If you are interested, you can go to the court to watch the proceedings or get the documents.

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 10:20:35 AM

OK. How am I then not allowed to post here what happened in the court?

by xvokcarts

4/26/2025 at 12:42:42 PM

IANAL, but in general, doxxing people is just a really mean thing to do.

Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with.

Proven innocent? Lawful or not, you're now carrying the weight of possibly ruining someone's life even further. Sleep on that.

by rollcat

4/26/2025 at 2:29:09 PM

In the UK, a story is legally considered libellous if it's written in a way that could harm its subject, even if the facts are true. That means it would be a tort against the convicted criminal to name them if it wouldn't be in the public interest to do so.

by seabass-labrax

4/26/2025 at 10:37:13 AM

You are allowed to post what happened in the court. You are also allowed to share names and even video to at least a limited audience.

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 10:55:23 AM

OK, so like on my X account where I publish names of people on trial.

by xvokcarts

4/26/2025 at 11:58:25 AM

That depends on the case and for what purpose the names are published. But I'd say usually there will be no legal ramifications.

What is the purpose for publishing the named?

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 8:37:33 AM

You are still innocent at trial.

There's no good from this only witch hunts. Something more common more recently in the anglosphere too.

by KoolKat23

4/26/2025 at 8:25:22 AM

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.

People are presumed innocent and their privacy must be protected. The mugshot porn is not good for anybody or the society in general.

by jampekka

4/26/2025 at 12:54:44 PM

Even if you are arrested in the act 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)

by d1sxeyes

4/26/2025 at 1:32:44 PM

The replies are getting absurd but unfortunately very illustrative of the state of Europe in 2025.

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.

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...

by mytailorisrich

4/26/2025 at 9:44:14 AM

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).

by immibis

4/26/2025 at 2:41:39 PM

That's great and all but it's also just not true. Take it from someone living in Germany for the past decade.

by Melonai

4/26/2025 at 2:35:56 PM

I'm encouraged to see Australia has doubled down on its trajectory and declared curiosity a mental health issue. I can't wait to see what the future holds for Australian creativity & innovation!

by keepamovin

4/26/2025 at 8:23:19 AM

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, ever resulted in the response or charges that occurred.

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.

here is a (arugably biased) relevant video about the subject from an amateur australian chemist that covers this case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0JGsSxBd2I

by shit_game

4/26/2025 at 8:35:32 AM

> the quantities and material properties of the elements in question should have never, ever resulted in the response or charges that occurred.

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” ?

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.

by otterley

4/26/2025 at 1:43:39 PM

>It’s not like his activities had zero impact in his community.

They didn't. The ridiculous and uninformed government reaction caused this. Nothing he did was even remotely dangerous.

>You don’t mess around with radioactive materials; even small amounts can be extremely hazardous to life and the environment.

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.

>There’s a reason they’re not easy to obtain.

Right, so difficult to obtain that he was able to simply order them online and have them delivered through the mail.

by zettabomb

4/26/2025 at 8:48:00 AM

The article says “the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat”

If that’s true, the overreaction and evacuation is higher risk than possession of the elements

You can’t blame Lidden for the overreaction of others

by m4x

4/26/2025 at 10:08:56 AM

> The article says “the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat”

The question is did the authorities know that the materials were harmless in advance, or only after they acquired them?

by xvokcarts

4/26/2025 at 10:42:37 AM

They knew, or should have known. They knew exactly what he had bought and in what quantity, and anyone who knew anything about radioactive material would have concluded it was safe, or if they had doubts, they would have sent maybe two people to go knock on his door and ask to look around.

This was someone or a small group inside the border force who didn't have a clue what they were doing, cocked up, tried to make a big showy scene of things, and then scrambled to save face after the actual experts clued them in that a) what he had was safe and b) was 100% legal to own. (note that he was prosecuted for something that the border force allowed through years before the sample they erroneously thought was a problem, and that was not illegal to own, only illegal under a very twisted interpretation of an obscure law to import).

by rcxdude

4/26/2025 at 8:41:42 AM

That was a severe overreaction by authorities after they knew he had it for months in trace amounts.

by IsTom

4/26/2025 at 8:47:02 AM

What impact?

The impact of the Australian Border Force overreacting after they (seemingly deliberately) bungled the situation when they were first made aware of the situation?

None 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.

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).

by shit_game

4/26/2025 at 1:51:11 PM

[dead]

by cowfarts

4/26/2025 at 10:21:57 AM

> amateur australian chemist

I mean, he has a PhD...

by nialv7

4/26/2025 at 7:47:14 AM

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.

They stood him down and terminated him to minimise risk.

I hope he gets his job back.

by ggm

4/26/2025 at 2:26:59 PM

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.

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.

by aunty_helen

4/26/2025 at 2:36:48 PM

England/Wales/Scotland form an island. None of that is true.

by trollied

4/26/2025 at 6:42:59 AM

Follow-up from:

'Naive' science fan faces jail for plutonium import

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43449645

by mrkeen

4/26/2025 at 7:31:13 AM

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

by bpiroman

4/26/2025 at 2:32:28 PM

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.

by detaro

4/26/2025 at 7:48:32 AM

The legislation doesn't include americium, and even if it did‚ I presume it will be imported under license.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03417/latest/text says "Nuclear material means any source or any special fissionable material as defined in Article XX of the Statute." and Article XX only mentions uranium, plutonium, and thorium.

In any case, high-schooler David Hahn showed us what's possible with a bunch of smoke detectors, camping lantern mantels, and the like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn His lab became a Superfund site.

by eesmith

4/26/2025 at 8:46:56 AM

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

by IsTom

4/26/2025 at 11:36:43 AM

I believe that is addressed in the sentence after the one I quoted.

"Nuclear material means any source or any special fissionable material as defined in Article XX of the Statute. The term source material shall not be interpreted as applying to ore or ore residue."

by eesmith

4/26/2025 at 7:52:21 AM

[flagged]

by mvdtnz

4/26/2025 at 8:00:28 AM

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.

Since it was imported through postal services and identified there were heaps of opportunities to avoid this.

This is the least worst outcome having had charges brought but it was an overreaction to bring charges.

by ggm

4/26/2025 at 8:18:47 AM

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.

by kzrdude

4/26/2025 at 8:41:30 AM

The law has been forgiving. No one has been punished harshly. This is a good outcome.

by mvdtnz

4/26/2025 at 2:12:23 PM

No, there was damage done, to Lidden. Public ridicule, shame, humiliation, the loss of his job and the possibility of having a hard time finding future employment.

by soulofmischief

4/26/2025 at 11:03:44 AM

Agree

by kzrdude

4/26/2025 at 8:01:30 AM

The amount was so small it couldn't be used to cause harm

by dtech

4/26/2025 at 8:37:01 AM

The article says it caused a serious hazmat situation and his neighborhood had to be evacuated.

by otterley

4/26/2025 at 8:58:26 AM

He did not cause a serious hazmat situation. The authorities decided to evacuate a street, and are responsible for the seriousness of their over-reaction.

The packages were labelled correctly, and blocked at the border, and USPS delivered them anyway. He offered to send them back as soon as he was made aware they weren’t permitted.

The real failure here is at the border, where they were flagged and then let through, followed by the absurd over reaction of the authorities to a situation they’d enabled

by m4x

4/26/2025 at 9:36:24 AM

USPS is United States Postal Service. They didn't deliver the package once it was received in Australia.

Or does Australia's postal service have the initials USPS too? Not being a pedant, just don't know. (Aside: UK entirely privatized their postal service which is sad given history and doesn't seem to be working out so well.)

by feraloink

4/26/2025 at 1:12:29 PM

Australia has Australia Post, as well as a number of private package delivery businesses but I don’t think any of them are called usps.

by Gigachad

4/26/2025 at 9:32:28 AM

If you read more it was border control making a security theater (2months after they were aware of the situation), instead of calling appropriate government agency that are actually qualified to deal with radioactive material.

If there was a real threat why did they wait so long before evacuation, why didn't they call the appropriate government agency whose job is dealing with radioactive stuff?

by Karliss

4/26/2025 at 8:55:38 AM

The next paragraph also reads...

> However, The Guardian reported that Lidden’s solicitor, John Sutton, had criticised the Border Force for how it had handled the incident, describing it as a ‘massive over-reaction’ because the quantities of material were so small they were safe to eat. He reportedly said that he had been contacted by scientists all around the world saying that the case was ‘ridiculous’.

by r4indeer

4/26/2025 at 8:39:57 AM

Looks like he lost his job though?

by cpach

4/26/2025 at 8:41:06 AM

That's between him and his former employer. I'm only discussing the legal consequences.

by mvdtnz

4/26/2025 at 2:14:55 PM

You can't conveniently consider "legal consequences" in a vacuum. All sorts of court cases have measurable negative effects on the defendant outside of the courtroom. This is often intentional in a corrupt state such as Australia.

by soulofmischief

4/26/2025 at 1:37:59 PM

> 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

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.

by rdtsc

4/26/2025 at 7:45:22 AM

So what about the company selling the restricted material to him? Or the company doing the importing are they also reprimanded in some form?

by seb1204

4/26/2025 at 1:23:44 PM

It isn't actually dangerous in any way. It's just a collectors display piece.

by fsmv

4/26/2025 at 9:24:06 AM

Not sure who is responsible for confirming whether he had a permit: oversees seller or shipping company, or customs/import upon receipt in Australia.

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."

So maybe all of this fuss was due to not having applied and received a permit?

by feraloink

4/26/2025 at 8:37:41 AM

Woah, this doesn't sound like over-reaction but the reporting doesn't give enough details to know:

>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...

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.

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.)

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!

I wonder if he even had real plutonium, because even the non-weapons grade costs at least US$4,000 per gram.

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.

EDIT: Reduce verbiage

by feraloink

4/26/2025 at 8:42:38 AM

You’re questions are already answered in the article:

1. The items were on display in this bedroom

2. The quantities were so small that they were deemed safe to eat.

This sounds like more of a case of the border force wanting to raise awareness rather than any actual danger being presented

by hnlmorg

4/26/2025 at 9:16:51 AM

The article only said that his solicitor (lawyer?) described the quantities as being so small they were safe enough to eat.

I read some more about it (Guardian) https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/11/scien... 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.

Also, via Guardian, this attitude is demeaning and depressing:

>"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,”

by feraloink

4/26/2025 at 8:40:29 AM

Plutonium was in form of an old soviet smoke detector, containing micrograms of it. This case is whack.

by IsTom

4/26/2025 at 9:04:06 AM

Thank you. I only read the second, more recent article, not realizing that their was a prior one.

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.

by feraloink

4/26/2025 at 8:18:42 AM

When I read things like this it makes Australia look like a penal colony.

by leonewton253

4/26/2025 at 1:30:11 PM

I grew up there, but have been away for 20 years.

I went back recently for a year and saw the whole country.

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.

by testing22321

4/26/2025 at 8:33:07 AM

Would ordering e.g. uranim glass beads [0] be acceptable?

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass

by imhoguy

4/26/2025 at 9:12:13 AM

Maybe covered by the following exemptions of section 3 of Nuclear Non‑Proliferation (Safeguards) Regulations 1987?[1]

  (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;

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.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B02071/2023-10-27/2023-1...

by dhx

4/26/2025 at 9:26:21 AM

Probably would be entirely acceptable if one applied for and received a permit for them.

>can be imported legally by contacting the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office for a permit first.

by feraloink

4/26/2025 at 8:03:23 AM

"Safe enough to swallow" seems like a scary oversimplification for alpha-emitting substances ?

by kweks

4/26/2025 at 8:11:49 AM

Depends on intensity. Microgram quantities of plutonium should be generally safe (unlike, say, microgram quantities of polonium).

Not all alpha emitters are created the same.

by atemerev

4/26/2025 at 9:51:44 AM

Kinda curious what site this was - I assumed United Nuclear (which I have ordered non-radioactive items from), but they don't sell Pu.

by ryan-c

4/26/2025 at 8:21:40 AM

Yet another instance of "the public doesn't understand radiation".

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].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js05OEsmsm0

by asmor

4/26/2025 at 8:48:03 AM

Collecting the entire periodic table? Noble goal, but good luck with e.g. Einsteinium.

by wzdd

4/26/2025 at 2:30:44 PM

Simon Mayo wrote a book with this premise: Itch (2012). Sequels include Itch Rocks (2013) and Itchcraft (2014).

by wizzwizz4

4/26/2025 at 8:18:36 AM

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.

by tw1984

4/26/2025 at 8:35:38 AM

> with Fr priced at like $100m AUD per gram, how would some dude living in his parents' apartment going to afford that?

You buy a rock that produces Francium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium: “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.”, so buying Francium itself is not a good idea.

Also (same Wikipedia page) “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.”, so you wouldn’t have a gram of it, by a very, very long stretch.

by Someone