Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The bizarre case of Australia's plutonium boy

j_sum1 - 5-4-2025 at 15:46

This hit the news recently. I have not been all over the details, but sufficient to determine that it was an obvious case of gross overreach.

It raises questions about hobby chemistry in general and acquisition in oarticular. The possibility of a disproportionate response to something inoccuous, and how to protect yourself.

I commend Explosions and Fire's excellent breakdown of the situation.
https://youtu.be/M0JGsSxBd2I

Fulmen - 6-4-2025 at 09:56

This has been going on for decades. Firearms, pyrotechnics, explosives, poisons radioactive materials, anything remotely dangerous can trigger similar responses.

Sir_Gawain - 6-4-2025 at 14:38

And just two days ago:
https://youtu.be/js05OEsmsm0?si=Ou75pS11F2B0NGnp
An artist made a uranium-based paint, it didn’t go over well with the TikTok “experts”.

Radiums Lab - 12-4-2025 at 10:31

Does buying uranium, thorium, plutonium, etc.. make someone mentally retarded in Australia ?

Guys please have a look at this post by Royal society of chemistry and note the first three lines :


Screenshot_2025-04-12-23-50-46.png - 178kB

Here's a link to that page :
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/australian-who-ordered-r...

I'm very happy to hear that the boy got released, finally!!!

Precipitates - 13-4-2025 at 21:53

Quote: Originally posted by Radiums Lab  
Does buying uranium, thorium, plutonium, etc.. make someone mentally retarded in Australia ?


Probably the case of the defence, assuming the court would not accept that an individual of sound body and mind would own the items, unless they were going to be used for criminal intent.

CuriousOnlooker - 23-7-2025 at 04:31

This is, unfortunately, not uncommon in Australia, where we're over-policed in red-tape and regulations.
It wouldn't surprise me if one day we needed to have a permit to fart on a public street.

This ridiculous incident over a tiny piece of Plutonium that came from an early smoke detector illustrates the inane media frenzy, over-zealous reporting, and scare mongering that permeates society here. While in the real world repeat offenders who commit violent crimes receive light sentences, which is something I've had personal experience in.

In the 1950's the UK conducted 12 major nuclear weapons tests in Australia, followed by ~700 'minor' dispersion tests.

".. of 45 Aborigines reported to have been caught in the mist, it is thought that more than half later died ... making it between 4 and 7 times as powerful as the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima. It had a core of radioactive uranium-238, which has a decay half-life of 4.5billion years."
Details here

That soil is likely to still contain more radioactivity than the miniscule piece of Plutonium.

Digression:
There was a seemingly benign paradigm shift when I worked in the US, but which was only more apparent after I returned -- in Australia one needs a permit/permission to do many, seemingly innocuous things, whereas in the US it's allowed unless expressly restricted. This was many years ago and it may have changed over there since then, although judging by the ease with which pyrotechnic precursors are available in the US it seems unlikely.

Radiums Lab - 23-7-2025 at 05:34

@CuriousOnlooker I think it is U-235 not U-238.

CuriousOnlooker - 23-7-2025 at 05:39

Quote: Originally posted by Radiums Lab  
@CuriousOnlooker I think it is U-235 not U-238.

That is quite possibly true. I only quoted from the article, and didn't do a deep dive.

Fissile

MadHatter - 23-7-2025 at 07:05

It would have to be 235. 238 is radioactive in its own right but not fissile. There
seems to be a transcription error in article.

chempyre235 - 23-7-2025 at 07:32

Quote: Originally posted by CuriousOnlooker  
Digression:
There was a seemingly benign paradigm shift when I worked in the US, but which was only more apparent after I returned -- in Australia one needs a permit/permission to do many, seemingly innocuous things, whereas in the US it's allowed unless expressly restricted. This was many years ago and it may have changed over there since then, although judging by the ease with which pyrotechnic precursors are available in the US it seems unlikely.

For the most part, chemicals are still fair game in the US, with the exception of those used to make illegal drugs. However, the issue usually comes with supply, as certain chemicals are usually restricted at a corporate level, rather than at an individual one. Also, restrictions on imports also make acquisition of some things difficult. For instance, NaNO2 has been hard to get, as restrictions have been placed on sellers, even though citizens are permitted to own it. Of course, rules and enforcement are hardly uniform, and specific rules may vary from one state/locality to another.

As you said, most things are allowed, unless expressly restricted. This is still (usually) the case.

CuriousOnlooker - 23-7-2025 at 09:19

Quote: Originally posted by chempyre235  

For the most part, chemicals are still fair game in the US, with the exception of those used to make illegal drugs ....
As you said, most things are allowed, unless expressly restricted. This is still (usually) the case.

From the videos of seen from those in the US I can only say that you have no idea how good you have it. I was really quite stunned at how easy many things were, compared to Australia (and European countries from what I've read). After living/working in the US I particularly noticed it when I returned, and felt stifled. I've been pissing and moaning about it ever since. Even the 'right on red' at traffic lights amazed me; the only other time I've done that was in SE Asia where no one cares. Such liberating ideas. It's been a slow tightening of the screws here for many years.
The difference between the two doesn't sound like much, until it's been experienced.

Drug precursors are of course heavily monitored, as is a lot of glassware (depending upon size I believe), and we do have a significant problem in that regard.
Unfortunately the government here makes all-encompassing regulations that sweep up the individual, and the curious onlookers.
I got most of my glassware from China; most of it is sturdy enough, although a few have failed, mostly larger pieces. The largest pieces I've purchased from there would be a 1L RBF and 3L beaker.

Many chemicals are hard to get here, particularly going through commercial supply lines. To make nickel aminoguanidone perchlorate I had to order the nickel carbonate from a commercial supplier, whilst for the aminoguanidine bicarbonate and sodium perchlorate I had to employ subterfuge and the threat of violence -- kidding about the violence, but they were eye-wateringly expensive. Plus I wanted to use different sources for each.
Whilst conc. H2SO4 requires an end user declaration when purchased from a supply company, and also ridiculously expensive, I purchased 5L of 98% for a fraction of the price by finding a cleaning company that sold direct, no questions asked. I just had a quick look online, and I got for ~1/3 of the online price. But compared to the US where you can buy them at any WalMart it's like night and day.
Similarly, the more established supply companies require a declaration for ordinary items such as KNO3 but again going through other channels, when found, can be far cheaper and easier. Those two solved my HNO3 issue, along with some others. As for something like NH4NO3, it's impossible to purchase. Trying to get ClO4- is harder than getting meth., which underscores the absurdity of it.

Interestingly I located a supplier in China for 1Kg of 99% hydrazinium sulfate, which came through as easy as domestic mail. When I enquired about another reagent I was told that they couldn't do it, as their main products were BMK and PMK powders. I didn't know what those were until I looked them up -- they're the drug primary precursors, phenyl-2-propanone and 3,4-Methylenedioxyphenylpropan-2-one, so obviously that Chinese company is part of the international trade in illicit substances. Little wonder my hydrazinium sulfate came through so easily. That's a line I won't cross.

For many reagents it either takes ground work, and time, to locate a source or they need to be synthesised from OTC, as I had to for NaNO2, and many others. I have hit another road block trying to obtain two innocuous reagents, and will have to resort to tedious synthesis if I decide to continue. Although I have a registered business I don't want to fill out any declarations -- the fewer people who know what I have or do the better, as the mere mention of chemistry immediately gets people thinking about drugs, which pisses me off no end.

chempyre235 - 23-7-2025 at 10:40

Agreed. It's irritating when you tell someone about chemistry, and they immediately assume drugs or pyros.