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?

• Are they lying to us about the extent of the Aust nuke program?
• Any connection w nuclear subs?
• Plausible deniability?

There is iofo missing from this article... Jack Upland (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Seriously! You have 30,000 edits and have posted this bullshit. Steelkamp (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: 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

@Compusolus: 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)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a radioactive capsule missing in Western Australia was found after a seven day search? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-01/australian-radioactive-capsule-found-in-wa-outback-rio-tinto/101917828
  • ALT1: ... that the seach for a lost radioactive capsule along a 1,400-kilometre (870 mi) stretch of road in Western Australia has been likened to looking for a needle in a haystack? Source: https://www.9news.com.au/national/wa-lost-radioactive-capsule-search-update-we-are-not-trying-to-find-the-small-capsule-by-eyesight/ec05960c-5fd4-4ba7-9a4c-e83ec7709080 https://www.watoday.com.au/national/who-will-pay-for-wa-s-1400-kilometre-radioactive-capsule-hunt-20230201-p5ch6q.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pull-up (exercise)
  • Comment: Anyone can feel free to suggest another possible hook.

Created by Compusolus (talk). Nominated by Steelkamp (talk) at 07:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Western Australian radioactive capsule incident, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Before I review, I just wanted to see if others could confirm this article's eligibility. It was created on 27 January and nominated on 3 February; i.e. nominated after 7 days but not within 7 days as per WP:DYKCRIT. I'm probably just being semantic so I'll leave a review anyway. Let's see: Article is new enough(?) and long enough. I'd recommend expanding the lead as, at present, it does not mention the resolution to the situation. The first sentence in "Timeline" will also need to be sourced before passage. QPQ is done. If passed, I'd go with ALT1, but recommend changing "searching" to "looking" so as to not repeat words. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Krisgabwoosh Yes, 3 February was the last day it could be nominated within the 7-day window. It's fine. Are you happy to approve now with a green tick? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to approve it once the other issues have been addressed. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh: I've added a citation for that sentence, expanded the lead and have changed alt1 as suggested. I agree that alt1 is the better hook. Steelkamp (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good to go then. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)