Talk:Western Australian radioactive capsule incident

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Western Australian radioactive capsule incident appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 February 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the search for a lost radioactive capsule along a 1,400-kilometre (870 mi) stretch of road in Western Australia was likened to looking for a needle in a haystack?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Western Australian radioactive capsule incident.

Wikipedia

Australia: Western Australia / History Low‑importance

	Australia portal Western Australian radioactive capsule incident is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"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://wiki.riteme.site/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chief health officer has made a statement that the correct figure is 19 Gigabecquerels. Steelkamp (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@Jack Upland: Where are your reliable sources for those claims/queries? Compusolus (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a source for a question???--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a deficit of WHY.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep, I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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