Nuclear Scanning Catches a Radioactive Cat On I-5 594
Jeff recommends Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat's story from a community meeting with Northwest border control agents. Seems their monitoring for dirty bombs from the median of Interstate 5 caught a car transporting a radioactive cat. "It turns out the feds have been monitoring Interstate 5 for nuclear 'dirty bombs.' They do it with radiation detectors so sensitive it led to the following incident. 'Vehicle goes by at 70 miles per hour... Agent is in the median, a good 80 feet away from the traffic. Signal went off and identified an isotope [in the passing car]. The agent raced after the car, pulling it over not far from the monitoring spot.' Did he find a nuke? 'Turned out to be a cat with cancer that had undergone a radiological treatment three days earlier.'"
I know the name of its owner.... (Score:5, Funny)
Poor thing... (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know the name of its owner.... (Score:5, Funny)
Washington--which is a quantum superposition between Oregon and Canada.
Re:I know the name of its owner.... (Score:5, Funny)
ObFuturama (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know the name of its owner.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I know the name of its owner.... (Score:5, Funny)
'catatomic'
Lolcat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lolcat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lolcat (Score:5, Funny)
Ha, ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ha, ha (Score:4, Insightful)
Civics 101? Who can count that high?!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
When U.S. citizens were children, most didn't learn their civics lessons. They didn't need to because they were going to be Pro Football or Baseball players, or actresses, or pick any other excuse you would like. They don't bat an eyelash now when they hear "if you have nothing to hide" or "we are benevolent protectors" (except to wonder what the word benevolent means.) Henry David Thoreau said that people will get exactly the kind of government they deserve, and that is indeed what the U.S. citizens have received.
Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Informative)
I'm just throwing this out there. I know this is somewhat off topic. Just don't forget organizations like Angel Flight [wikipedia.org] (West [angelflight.org], South Central [angelflightsc.org], East [angelflighteast.org], and North East [angelflightne.org]) exist to assist ambulatory patients that can't otherwise afford air transportation for specialized, non-local, medial treatment. Of course, they help with other emergencies too, such as after Katrina.
If you have a medical and financial need, Angel Flight may be able to help you side step financial and time problems created by road travel and the TSA during public air travel.
Re:Ha, ha (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ha, ha (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Happens all the time (Score:5, Interesting)
The detectors are very sensitive. Aparently the steel in many shipping containers built in China sets it off because the chinese are recycling a lot of the steel that was in now-decommissioned nuclear reactors.
Re:Ha, ha (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah I once had a set of RJ45 crimping tools in my backpack that I happened to use as carry on luggage. As I waited on line to go through the TSA checkpoint and remembered they were in the bottom of my bag I was afraid of 2 things (1) the tools being confiscated because they could be used as weapons, and (2) the agents not knowing what they were and detaining me. Well they did attract TSA attention. The woman operating the scanning machine asked me if they were "telephone tools" and I said yes. She asked her supervisor who let me go through with them. So yes bringing strange things through airport security will raise eyebrows, but its not always a one way ticket to Gitmo.
asking for a tag (Score:5, Funny)
Don't feel bad for the cat (Score:4, Funny)
cool. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:cool. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:cool. (Score:5, Funny)
KTHXBAI
Re:cool. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the story has a slight smell of urban legend. Snopes hasn't picked it up yet, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can give the cat thyroid medication twice daily or zap it.
The 3 days is kind of strange though. I was told that the cat has to stay at the clinic for a week to get rid of most of the radiation.
Catching radioactive humans (Score:3, Interesting)
A friend of mine was undergoing medical tests last year and he was stopped at the entrance to the San Diego city dump when getting rid of some trash. Not freeway speeds, of course, but he was in a moving, closed vehicle. Apparently people dump radioactive stuff.
Re:LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Informative)
They have [newscientist.com].
Re:LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:4, Interesting)
The clinic kept him for three days after the treatment, both to observe and to let some of the radioactivity die down. After he came home, we had to keep him separate from our other cats (we have five total). We were cautioned not to dispose of his litter in the trash; it should be flushed. The clinic said the county dumps have radiological sensors that scan everything going into the dump, and the litter would definitely set off the sensors. It would cause an investigation that would have the trash company trace back where that particular trash truck picked up garbage from and could cause a lot of unneeded trouble. We were advised not to hold the cat for more than 20-30 minutes per day and to wash our hands thoroughly after any contact with the cat.
I knew our pet would be "hot" when he came home, but I had no idea the cat could set off a roadside sensor. Either this fellow didn't let the lab keep the cat for the required 3-4 days before transporting him or the sensor was amazingly sensitive. If so, I'm actually quite happy about it. If somebody is transporting a radioactive cat is found, they're detected, nobody gets their fur in a fluff, and everybody goes their way. If somebody is transporting a dirty bomb or components thereof, they're detected and law enforcement deals with it. I see nothing here to complain about.
Re:LOL @ Privacy Tag (Score:5, Interesting)
The hospital was busy, and had no open waiting rooms while I waited for the results. They sat me down in a side room. Every couple of minutes a tech came in and was checking on a piece of equipment. He ended up with this very puzzled expression on his face. Left and came back a few times.
Eventually it looked as if a lightbulb had lit in his mind and he glanced at the machine, then at me, then back at the machine. Eventually he asked me 'So, let me guess, you are radioactive?' With a sheepish grin I replied what type of test I was in there for and that they had placed me in the room. Apparantly he had been trying to test some type of radioactive material as well and his numbers were 100x larger than what he had been expecting. The radiation I was emitting threw off his numbers to an extreme degree from across the room.
I drove home a few minutes after that and had there been a radiation detector on the side of the road I'm confident that I would have set it off as well.
It's all fun and games... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Funny)
FBI goon: "What's the matter??? CAT GOT YOUR TONGUE?"
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are reasons to do some scanning for nuclear material, but if a few stray particles from a medical procedure is going to be enough to stop someone, there needs to be some decisions made on the sensitivity of the scanner.
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are reasons to do some scanning for nuclear material, but if a few stray particles from a medical procedure is going to be enough to stop someone, there needs to be some decisions made on the sensitivity of the scanner.
That probably can't be helped. Cats and people travel openly while real radiological bombs should be transported in a closed box with a radiation shield. In order to catch the latter, the msensitivity cannot be low.
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Insightful)
fear factor. People are deadly scared of radiation and it isn't enough to say 'the levels are harmless' to stop the panic.
See this: http://radarmagazine.com/features/2006/12/toys-print.php [radarmagazine.com]
"4. Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab"
Honey, why is your face glowing? In 1951, A.C. Gilbert introduced his U-238 Atomic Energy Lab, a radioactive learning set we can only assume was fun for the whole math club. Gilbert, who American Memorabilia claims was "often compared to Walt Disney for his creative genius," had a dream that nuclear power could capture the imaginations of children everywhere. For a mere $49.50, the kit came complete with three "very low-level" radioactive sources, a Geiger-Mueller radiation counter, a Wilson cloud chamber (to see paths of alpha particles), a spinthariscope (to see "live" radioactive disintegration), four samples of uranium-bearing ores, and an electroscope to measure radioactivity.
Called one of the most dangerous toys of all times, despite totally harmless radiation levels, yes?
Imagine a dirty bomb made from ground depleted uranium bullets (Iraq, Afghanistan and some more have a plenty of them, just to pick up and use) goes off in Manhattan. Of course you and me know depleted uranium is called 'depleted' for a reason and you'd have to try really hard to get any results off it. But imagine how would a "Joe Average" react to the news: "Manhattan has been contaminated with slightly radioactive Uranium dust. The radiation level is entirely harmless. There is no reason to panic, the radioactive dust will not affect your health."
Oh! Come On. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all fun and games... (Score:5, Interesting)
An 18-wheeler truck would hardly feel it. A meter at the end, a fake wall hiding the content, pretty hard to spot.
A different hideout: in Poland, the police found drugs smuggled that way but only thanks to a tip they got.
A transformer (no, not the robot. A voltage changing device), and hide the material in the core. You can't take it apart without damaging it without unwinding a few miles of wire off the coil. In Poland, these were electric welding machines, each housing a few pounds of cocaine right inside the hollowed-out transformer core. If you want nuclear materials transported, you can get an industrial size transformer, the size of a small house. It can't be checked without being damaged beyond repair, its composition is mostly densely wound copper wire and closely laid steel plates (5 tons of lead wouldn't make a difference, plus the steel and copper mean a good shield already) and inside of the core is spacious enough to host a quite large nuke, not just a dirty bomb.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
9/11 happened without any indication (that anyone paid attention to anyway).
That would indicate that you are underestimating their capabilities.
They are usually well funded and are very determined.
You dont need much material for a effective dirty bomb.
It can also be transported in smaller quantities.
That makes lead a valid option for transportation.
You assume they wouldnt use a clean room.
I'd say that if they knew there was a possibili
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...ah, yes from the interview with the surviving hijackers...no, wait.
source?
Radioactive cats... (Score:4, Funny)
(captcha: murders)
Look, an Isotope! (Score:5, Funny)
Holy smokes! Isotopes [thefreedictionary.com] everywhere!
I'm surprised they needed a detector to find something that, by definition, comprises all of matter.
So let's say... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. I'm a cancer patient undergoing radiation therapy. What can be done to prevent the horror of being pulled over by the KGB? Would it be reasonable to issue "radiology patient" tags, like they issue handicapped tags for the handicapped?
3. What is the false positive rate of such monitoring? Here, we have a cute example of a sick cat setting off a false positive. What about other incidents like this that fail to get into the newspaper?
Grump
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I'm remodeling my house. I go down to Home Despot/Slowes and buy a dozen smoke detectors. Would I get pulled over for being a suspected terrorist?
Whether they would search you without permission would be a more interesting question. I think the police are well within their rights to pull you over and ask why you're emitting radiation. After all, the constitution doesn't prevent us from being stopped and asked questions.
2. I'm a cancer patient undergoing radiation therapy. What can be done to prevent the horror of being pulled over by the KGB? Would it be reasonable to issue "radiology patient" tags, like they issue handicapped tags for the handicapped?
3. What is the false positive rate of such monitoring? Here, we have a cute example of a sick cat setting off a false positive. What about other incidents like this that fail to get into the newspaper?
I'm not sure this matters. Are people's rights being trampled as a result of this monitoring? I'd feel more strongly about this story if there was mention of someone getting arrested, hassled, held, etc. On the other hand, if they de
Re:So let's say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The false positive rate does matter, regardless of whether or not rights are being trampled. When you conduct any sort of large scale surveillance activity, the base rate fallacy [wikipedia.org] implies that most of the triggering events will be false positives. With too many false positives, your surveillance program is worse than useless -- it wastes money that could otherwise be better used on other security initiatives.
I know there is some emotional appeal in arguing that "if it saves even one life, etc. etc. then it's worth any amount of money" but in the real world that's just not true. In the real world, spending one billion dollars to save a life might be a bad idea if spending that same money on some other program would save two lives. In comparing the relative merits of two or more different security proposals, the false positive rate is one important factor to consider, because it affects the cost/benefit analysis.
Of course, people's rights matter as well, because that also affects the cost/benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the American public is seemingly too dumb to perform any sort of analysis involving more than one variable. Since the false positive rate involves math, it doesn't have any political appeal at all. Hence the Republicans fixate only on the terrorists, and the Democrats when not fixating on the terrorists focus only on civil liberties to the exclusion of all else.
Re:So let's say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Considering that traffic has killed approximately 280.000 Americans since 9/11 one could wonder how many lives would have been saved, had the 'war on terror' money been spent on improving road safety.
One could also question wether terrorists would find terror a useful weapon if nobody cared more than they do about traffic risks.
I wonder what would happen if Al Qaeda claimed they'd infiltrated the safety departments of several multinational car manufacturers, as well as the DMV and a multitude of road planning commissions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other places like, for example, the law. Innocent until proven guilty. There's nothing magic about it.
And none of them have been convicted, which means they're all still innocent. I've checked. Have you?
Let's say, then: (Score:5, Interesting)
2) I was under the impression that oncologists were in the habit of doing just that--giving "doctor's notes" to patients with outpatient implanted brachytherapy seeds or devices. Being treated with a linear accelerator would not be likely to leave a perceptible amount of radiation in your body (photoneutrons from high energy linacs might cause some activation, but I don't think that it's generally a serious concern as far as setting off radiation alarms). Would it also bother you that you might well set off radiation alarms at nuclear power plants, if you happened to work at one, while being treated for your cancer?
3) From a machine perspective, this was not a false positive. From a judicial/social standpoint, it was. I don't have much more to add beyond that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So let's say... (Score:5, Funny)
Plus if you live in Montana or California, tough luck. These states support terrorism by rejecting REAL ID and thus endangering you! (endangering you by your rendition to Gitmo).
Already invented? (Score:3, Funny)
nothing wrong with this (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an excellent coffee table story (Score:5, Interesting)
No Human in the car? (Score:5, Funny)
Cosmic.
Schrödinger's cat! (Score:4, Funny)
OMG, they measured and saw it! the paradox is solved!
Radioactive Steel Rebar (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The thing that worries me is... (Score:5, Funny)
I do not want a hot cat sitting in my lap.
Re:The thing that worries me is... (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously a slashdotting geek to the very core. I'll take a hot pussy on my lap any day of the week.
The man from the cat detector van. (Score:5, Funny)
S: What man?
C: The man from the cat detector van.
S: The looney detector van, you mean.
C: Look, it's people like you what cause unrest.
S: What cat detector van?
C: The cat detector van from the Ministry of Housinge.
S: Housinge?
C: It was spelt like that on the van (I'm very observant!). I never seen so
many bleeding aerials. The man said that their equipment could pinpoint
a purr at four hundred yards! And Eric, being such a happy cat, was a
piece of cake.
S: How much did you pay for this?
C: Sixty quid, and eight for the fruit-bat.
S: What fruit-bat?
C: Eric the fruit-bat.
S: Are all your pets called Eric?
This is Nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
It's common knowledge that frogs are a problem for the feds around there. That's amphibians, not the French.
Here's the problem. Frogs live in the ponds by the cooling towers. The frogs are radioactive. The frogs jump out on the road and get squished. There are then lots of radioactive tires rolling in and out of town. The multi-million doallar system purchased to keep people from sneaking radioactive material out of the area is therefore useless.
Why the hell is the water in the coolant ponds radioactive? Isn't that a bad sign? Nobody cares, they are all used to it by now. The thing with the frogs sure is funny though.
My friend used to work in a nuclear assay lab (Score:4, Interesting)
She said all the pine needles in the woods near Oak Ridge are highly radioactive.
She also monitored the lobsters caught in the Pacific next to the San Onofre plant near San Diego. Once they sent up extra lobsters: some to assay, and some to eat!
Warning. Re:This is Nothing (Score:3, Funny)
If the terrorists read about this, then they would plan like below:
1. Come to Oak Ridge, TN with an empty 2-tonner truck.
2. Squash and drive over thousands of radioactive frogs in a matter of weeks shouting their usual battle cry "death to infi..."etc.
3. Buy a Geiger counter locally and check for enough radioactivity.
4. Skip to Mexico/border country and get a dirty bomb (I w
Excerpt from terrorist handbook (Score:5, Funny)
At what cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Insightful?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, I find that most comments are Insightful and Informative.
Come on people, a RADIOACTIVE CAT!
Oh well, I guess this may be given an Insightful too...
Strip searches for NYC subway cancer patients (Score:4, Informative)
So stupid... (Score:5, Interesting)
But more importantly, this is an innocent person that was harassed by the Homeland Insecurity types over something he'd done legitimately. What a waste of time and effort.
If someone really does have a radiological weapon, all he has to do now is shield it in layers of lead to escape detection -- or have a radiological cat as a decoy.
I suppose they'll harass people who just underwent cancer treatment as well. Wow. I feel so secure now.
Of course, chemical-based bombs can do a lot of damage as well, but obviously this detector won't pick that up. What a waste of taxpayer's dollars.
Low-tech can always thwart high-tech, anytime. The would-be terrorist on a shoestring budget can always find a low-tech way to circumvent these million-dollar high tech measures. Meanwhile, some egg-heads in government revel in the false sense of security they now have.
Of course, it begs to reason how much of a real "treat" of "terrorism" there really is. Oh, but the big government contractors are loving the windfall from the paranoia. Well, that's the US for ya. Fear for Profit! Yeah, the American Way.
Re:So stupid... (Score:4, Informative)
Compare this to metal detectors at clubs or airports. EACH person is individually scanned and searched. Is this harassment? An overstep of people's rights? How many people carrying weapons do they really find? It is a deterrent, as well as a detection system.
As far as low-tech, agreed, low tech can cause minor problems such as bombing a building and is much easier. A few causalities, makes the news, etc. A nuke going off though, however, that is significant. Destroy a city, widespread panic and fear, international news. Much like the WTC incident.
Re:So stupid... (Score:4, Insightful)
Justified from whose perspective? The cat? The cat's owner?
As one who have been repeatedly been pulled over, visited, and questioned by police when I've done nothing wrong, there is no justification for intruding on the peace of mind of the innocent.
Sorry, but unless that man actually were carrying a radiological device, bothering him is an intrusion on his peace and his life, even if they did "let him go." So does that mean that they will keep pulling him over every darn time he gets cancer treatment for his cat, or drives with his cat somewhere they have detectors? Would you want to be pulled over again and again and again when you've done nothing wrong? If that were to happen to you, would you not see that as harassment?
We really need to revisit the Rights of the Innocent in this country. Basically, all the rights of the innocent have been systematically stripped away, made easy with your latest and greatest technologies. Perhaps you don't mind the NSA tapping your every phone calls and email correspondences and putting them through their supercomputer farms just to see if you are a terrorist or not. But I think most people would have a problem with that!
As far as I'm concerned, if I haven't done anything wrong, then don't bug me. If you (law enforcement, NSA, Homeland Insecurity, FBI, etc.) do, you are invading my peace and my privacy as well. It IS harassment, plain and simple, and I for one will NOT stand for it. And neither should you if you care anything about your own rights.
Perhaps you should see the Minority Report. Basically, we're talking about the same thing here.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
This is not new at all (Score:4, Interesting)
But here's the kicker, since I use a community dumpster, the only way the could identify me was to get the information from mail in my (presumably radioactive) trash.
I learned two things from the encounter,
1 - I need to get a shredder.
2 - That someone has what may be the worst job in the world... radioactive dumpster diving.
Re:doesn't add up (Score:5, Informative)
The guards finally identified one older gentleman and questioned him, only to find out he had been a radiation trace injection four weeks previously. They were cleared and went on their way.
If they have this equipment at all the major crossings and on the interstates, imagine the cost and the amount of money that has been spent on these type of projects.
Re:doesn't add up (Score:4, Insightful)
The worst part is, this post-9/11 monitoring has caught exactly zero dirty bombers. Sure, the article says:
Giuliano says the point really is to catch terrorists. He says it's true that the odds of catching one here may be "a billion to one. But despite that, we have caught two." (Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, who tried to sneak in at Blaine in 1997 to blow up the New York subway; and Millennium Bomber Ahmed Ressam, nabbed at Port Angeles in 1999.)
But don't you find it odd that the only justification that the heightened surveillance post-9/11 works is based on two arrests that were made in 1997 and 1999, before the current surveillance was enacted? While we're at it, what kind of a hack journalist is the guy who wrote the article that he couldn't do some simple math with the dates and figure that out? So what we're left with is spending piles of taxpayer money to monitor and harrass our citizens with no proof whatsoever that it has a demonstrable benefit besides helping employment.
Re:doesn't add up (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257004,00.html?sPage=fnc/specialsections/homelandsecurity [foxnews.com]
Re:doesn't add up (Score:5, Funny)
This is a story about Schrodinger's cat. This is exactly the kind of result you should expect.
T
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Proper investigation (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps it was a persian cat? You can never be too careful with those Al-Qaeda supporters [mwcnews.net]
Re:Proper investigation (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Proper investigation (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the impressive part, they didn't have to "cut" open the cat because they knew what they were looking for inside a car passing at 70MPH; all they needed to know is how much and in what form. A therapeutic amount in a cat is no problem isn't a problem, half a Kg for a car bomb is a problem. Another interesting point is while he didn't actually say it, it sounds like these things are quite portable and was contained in the vehicle.
Fairly dangerous for one reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, they're not weapons that'll kill millions of people at a stroke, but isn't one of the common themes of life that the most striking, obvious, and dramatic dangers aren't always the ones that should merit the most respect and attention?
Re:Hardly dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorists are likely more interested the FEAR and the sensationalized terrifying concept of "Nuclear Fallout" rather than the actual scientific effects of such a dirty radiological High Explosive dispersion device (AKA Dirty Bomb).
Terrorists may actually target key water and food supplies or river systems with radiological explosive dispersion devices.
Any primary "Dirty Bomb" Victims that inhale, eat, drink, or consume into their bodies ANY energetically decaying radioisotopes (especially ones with relatively short half-lives) will have an *almost certain chance* of developing lung and/or bone cancers.
Plutonium-238, curium-244, strontium-90, polonium-210, promethium-147, cesium-137, cerium-144, ruthenium-106, cobalt-60, curium-242, and thulium isotopes all can produce oncogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects on the human body (especially if ingested or inhaled). This happens if the initial exposure does not kill the primary victims.
In any case, it is very very unlikely that a citizen jury of peers would consider the passive monitoring of specific "hot" radioisotopes by US authorities to be a violation of the 4th Amendment's "unreasonable searches and seizures".
NOBODY should have any of the above in their possession unless they are professionals and they would have clearly marked DOT placards on their commercial vehicles as well as DOT, NRC (and probably DOE) approved possession and transportation paperwork and approved containment vessels. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/11.pdf [nrc.gov]
Also, they would have to follow controlled HC (Hazardous Cargo) approved routes within the US highway system. http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/hazard.htm [orau.gov]
I agree that it is interesting some animal and human cancer patients (and other radiologically medicated persons) have been flagged "hot" by roadside sensors and detained by authorities. It is likely that those same sensors can determine the quantity and difference between the americium-241 (one gram is enough for 5000 smoke detectors) from the other more dangerous materials no civilian should never have. http://www.uic.com.au/nip35.htm [uic.com.au]
I am a US citizen, and I DO feel better knowing that these things ARE being actively screened for by our government. It would be terribly irresponsible for our government to NOT look for radioactive substances if technology would allow it to conducted as unobtrusively as it is from the side of a PUBLIC highway or port of entry. Americans don't have a right to own dangerous radioactive components.
OTOH, if they decide to screen for GUNS in the US... that's a Second Amendment right we DO have... and whole other issue.
Re:Hardly dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you misspoke, when you used the word "right" there.
Perhaps, you meant to say, "Americans aren't PERMITTED to possess dangerous radioactive components?"
While the "Right to Keep and Bear Property" isn't one of the explicitly enumerated ones in the Bill of Rights, the "Right to Keep and Bear Property" is the Right upon which *all* other Rights are founded.
Without that absolute right, the notion of having any Freedom or Liberty is ludicrous.
Yes, there's an obvious contradiction in being told that one is Free and at Liberty, but also told that they cannot own, possess or use property without obtaining prior permission from their Masters.
My only advice is: When presented with this historical opportunity to watch a civilization fall, enjoy the show!