Slashdot Mirror


Swede Arrested For Building Nuclear Reactor

An anonymous reader writes "A 31 year old Swedish male was arrested for trying to build a nuclear reactor in his apartment. He got hold of radioactive material thru mail-order purchases and from smoke detectors. Police raided his apartment after he had contacted the Swedish Radiation Authority (Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten) to inquire if it was legal to construct a nuclear reactor at home."

410 comments

  1. Now, Come On ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

    Geez, everyone's a critic. He's just trying to send electricity back onto the grid and he probably couldn't get approval from his landlord to put solar panels on his roof.

    1. Re:Now, Come On ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your landlord refuses to allow solar panels, it's a safe bet he won't green light a nuclear reactor in the broom closet

    2. Re:Now, Come On ... by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Well, a nuclear reactor potentially adds a whole new meaning to "there goes the neighborhood".

      P.S.Namely, there it goes in a cloud of radioactivity.I know nuclear reactors generally can't explode.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Now, Come On ... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I wonder what episode of Make he saw.. and I'm wondering how the hell I missed it.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    4. Re:Now, Come On ... by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      I know...Right!? I mean it's not like when this guy did the same thing in his dad's shed.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    5. Re:Now, Come On ... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Sadly, knowing most landlords, I'm thinking the guy probably would, if only because it wouldn't require bolting the thing onto the structure.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Now, Come On ... by black+soap · · Score: 1

      No, but when they catch fire and vent radioactive smoke and soot, there might be a problem.

    7. Re:Now, Come On ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strikes me this is down to he cant do that and deprive us of our rip off energy bills than you cant do this because it is unsafe energy companies and governments thinking of their bottom lines more like
       

    8. Re:Now, Come On ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did that go through several language translations? Or are you vectoring the "far as decided" meme?

    9. Re:Now, Come On ... by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      But I thought radioactivity was good for you?

    10. Re:Now, Come On ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Tuesdays.

    11. Re:Now, Come On ... by 2names · · Score: 1

      Only if it's passed on to you by a spider bite.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    12. Re:Now, Come On ... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      According to comic books, it can give you superpowers.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Now, Come On ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As long as he doesn't have to bolt it down or changes something with the appearance of the house, most landlords wouldn't really complain too much. If they get their cut of the power, it's a sure thing they'll not only green light it but shoot down any complaints of neighbors concerning radiation or other minor complaints.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Now, Come On ... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Only if you're a superhero and only if it happened to you in the 60s.

      *sigh* Even radiation was better in the past.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Now, Come On ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I know nuclear reactors generally can't explode.

      Pretty sure that goes for, er, modern, professionally designed reactors. A thousand dollar homemade reactor in a closet -might- not have the same safety level.

      It's kinda like how they say flying is safer than driving: the assumption is you're going on a commercial flight and not jumping off a cliff with a pair of cardboard wings taped to your arms.

    16. Re:Now, Come On ... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      But, hey, if he was 'incorporated' we should just let the 'corporation' do whatever it wants. Less regulation is better for business...except maybe the light bulb business....

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    17. Re:Now, Come On ... by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Actually, the reason I said it was because the fuel generally used in nuclear reactors (U-238) can't explode, even if you deliberately tried designing it to. It's simply too stable. Although it can produce material that will explode (i.e. plutonium), without extracting it there isn't enough to achieve that kind of criticality. Hence, Iran spending vast amounts of money on centrifuges for enrichment. I believe that is true for most kinds of nuclear material. No idea what kind this kid had, but unless it was Plutonium or U-235 (or similar, which I'm guessing is a little unlikely), it simply won't explode.

      Now, by "explode" I mean the massive, kiloton-yield, mushroom-cloud forming kind. It certainly could... get out of hand, maybe even make a nice little fireball and vaporize a large section of the surrounding area. Wouldn't even level a whole block, probably, though the fire might. Of course, you might wish it did just level a block, once the radioactive material spreads. In other words: seriously, don't try this at home.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    18. Re:Now, Come On ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Actually, the reason I said it was because the fuel generally used in nuclear reactors (U-238) can't explode, even if you deliberately tried designing it to. It's simply too stable....by "explode" I mean the massive, kiloton-yield, mushroom-cloud forming kind. It certainly could... get out of hand, maybe even make a nice little fireball and vaporize a large section of the surrounding area

      Oh. Well darn, I really liked my bit about "the assumption is you're going on a commercial flight and not jumping off a cliff with a pair of cardboard wings taped to your arms." It was a good line. You had to go and bring physics into it and ruin it. Thanks a lot!

    19. Re:Now, Come On ... by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      His fuel was americium-241. Or at least some of it was. TFA says he bought some fuel (didn't say what) and got the rest by taking apart a smoke detector, which would be the americium. 241 is pretty stable, and is generally only dangerous if you eat it, so depending on what he bought, it probably wasn't too terrible.

      Of course, you can buy uranium on Amazon, though I wouldn't doubt if they had some sort of check in place if you try to buy more than a calibration amount.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    20. Re:Now, Come On ... by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Of course, you can buy uranium on Amazon, though I wouldn't doubt if they had some sort of check in place if you try to buy more than a calibration amount.

      Holy shit I did not know that. Thanks for pointing that out, more or less made my day. I'm a bit confused why they sell uranium on Amazon, but hey, thats still pretty awesome. Incidentally, some of the reviews for it are amusing. As are the "customers who bought this also bought".

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    21. Re:Now, Come On ... by pjfontillas · · Score: 2

      As long as he doesn't have to bolt it down or changes something with the appearance of the house, most landlords wouldn't really complain too much. If they get their cut of the power, it's a sure thing they'll not only green light it but shoot down any complaints of neighbors concerning radiation or other minor complaints.

      Radiation from a nuclear reactor is a minor complaint?

      --
      Life. Is. Good.
    22. Re:Now, Come On ... by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm sure some of them also reviewed "Tuscan Vitamin D Milk, 128 oz."

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    23. Re:Now, Come On ... by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      The reviews are hilarious. Especially the one that complained he only had half the sample after the halflife was over ;)

      They (well, not actually they - it's another store selling it via Amazon) sell it because people who have Geiger counters need to calibrate them. There's all sorts of lab equipment and supplies sold on and through Amazon.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    24. Re:Now, Come On ... by Roachie · · Score: 1

      yea, there is some evidence that a small dose has beneficial effects.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    25. Re:Now, Come On ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, unless it damages the basic structure of the building.

      Let's face it, how many tenants have Geiger counters, huh?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Now, Come On ... by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      yea, there is some evidence that a small dose has beneficial effects

      on other people, preferably random strangers far away.

    27. Re:Now, Come On ... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      OMG, this guy was arrested as a teen for building a nuclear device and now they found him stealing smoke detectors at age 31. His face is all pock-marked with sores that look like he was exposed to too much radiation. Some people never learn.

    28. Re:Now, Come On ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Err, I have one (but I'm not a tenant, just a flat owner) and my friend has one (he is a rent-paying tenant).

      But then again, I read /. and he doesn't use the Internet. Or have a phone. Landline or mobile. According to theoretical statistics, neither of us probably exist.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    29. Re:Now, Come On ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in very small doses, according to homeopaths. Because, obviously, it's the radiation that "cures" your from cancer. (You know, as opposed to destroying all the cells there, but whatever.)

  2. Lesson learned by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never ask for permission, but just do!

    1. Re:Lesson learned by impaledsunset · · Score: 2

      If you're going to ignore the answer to a question, sometimes is best to not ask it at all.

    2. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except the question was never answered (at least in TFA) as to whether it is legal or not to build such a reactor at home. The only real information is that once you attempt to do it, police will come, arrest you, seize your property and intimidate you.

    3. Re:Lesson learned by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      It's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission, unless you're looking to stay out of jail...

    4. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like: if you should have asked the question a while ago, it might not be worth it to ask it anymore.

    5. Re:Lesson learned by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      If you follow the chain of comments to which you're replying, that would lead you to the chain of events that actually occurred.

      The chain of events proposed by Impaledsunset is:
      1. Guy calls Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten and asks if it's legal to build a nuclear reactor at home
      2. Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten replies in the negative
      3. Guy builds nuclear reactor anyway
      4. Guy gets arrested

      Whereas the friendly AC tells us that the real chain of events is:
      1. Guy calls Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten and asks if it's legal to build a nuclear reactor at home
      2. Guy gets arrested

    6. Re:Lesson learned by luckymutt · · Score: 1

      It's easier to be forgiven then to get permission.

    7. Re:Lesson learned by sacridias · · Score: 0

      If nothing else go to your friends house and browse the laws on line. Better, use your friends cell to make the call.

    8. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gotta hand it to the Swedes here. While the Swedes give government agencies 26-letter names (with two of those letters being non-ASCII), us Americans would say "what, fuck that, abbreviate it."

    9. Re:Lesson learned by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Right, dammit! You see where it landed him to ask nicely.

      The next guy will learn from his mistake and will just do it and have them worry 'bout the crater he leaves when it cooks off.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Lesson learned by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, the sensible thing to do for Strals...whatever would be to do a

      3. Check whether he follows the order.

      That's what I'd expect them to do. I guess the arrest is a reaction to the recent killing spree from, I guess the subject of "potential terrorism" is currently a wee bit touchy in Sweden.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Lesson learned by cupantae · · Score: 1

      I hope you know that the massacre was in Norway. Swedes are probably more shocked than those of us further away, but it's not a great indicator of terrorism in Sweden.

      --
      --
    12. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't ask, don't tell, just do it already.

    13. Re:Lesson learned by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      I gotta hand it to the Swedes here. While the Swedes give government agencies 26-letter names (with two of those letters being non-ASCII), us Americans would say "what, fuck that, abbreviate it."

      Why do you think it took him six months to contact them? "Let's see, I've gotta call StrÃ¥lsÃkerhetsmin... no, StrÃ¥lsÃkerhats... no, StrÃ¥lsÃkerkets... no [six months later] StrÃ¥lsÃkerhetsmyndigheten, got it!"

      (What are the chances Slashdot will mangle the accented chars, sigh)

    14. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Always easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.

    15. Re:Lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never ask for permission, but just do!

      "It's easier to beg forgiveness than get permission."

    16. Re:Lesson learned by rusl · · Score: 1

      at church camp we had the motto: "forgiveness is easier to ask for than permission"

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
  3. Well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the Anarchist Cookbook's nuclear reactor WILL work. Thanks, Jolly Roger!

  4. Better to ask forgiveness than permission by barlevg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love that the only reason he got busted is because he asked if it was okay...

    Seems like he should have either:

    (a) Asked BEFORE acquiring the material or

    (b) Not asked at all

    1. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by icebraining · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Or not do it at all.

    2. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      shut the fuck up

    3. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by vlm · · Score: 1

      (c) Known enough about the subject not to ask a really stupid question.

      Asking an ignorant, easily researched question about safety related topics, in any field, is the intellectual equivalent of hanging a "kick me" sign on your rear.

      One problem is anything radiation related is hyper sensationalized due to ignorance, so we'll probably never get the real story past the journalist filters.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It seems to go onto prove the old adage "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission"

      However, in the context of radioactive materials, it might not be wise...

    5. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obviously you will never go down in history as a discoverer of anything. You know since most discoveries are made by tinkerers and by accident.

    6. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... you sound like... so... much... fun...

      So, in your world, progression is only a government function. >_>

      I have to say, a lot of tech/science has been done in "the field". You and the Afghans have similar beliefs. :D

    7. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      The maxim is that it's EASIER to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Whether its better or not depends on how much forgiveness you're asking for.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by icebraining · · Score: 1

      There's progression, and there's building a fission reactor in an apartment (so, right next to other people).

      If you want to build a safe invention, go right ahead. If you want to build a fission reactor, you should get a permit and a safe place where any problem can be contained safely, not on the other side of a wall of some family's home.

    9. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What the fuck makes you think a fission reactor isn't safe?

      It's less dangerous than the gas fucking fire. Less likely to kill you, less likely to kill the neighbours, less likely to destroy the building, less likely to poison the dog down the street.

      Make it a _big_ fission reactor and sure, there are some additional complications, but fission reactions aren't inherently dangerous, especially at low scale.

      Don't believe me? Buy a geiger counter and promise to stab yourself every time it goes 'click' inside your house.

    10. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      I really want to agree here but, this is one of those areas that tests my resolve a bit.

      Look at the pictures on this guys blog. He blew up a container that he was working in and contaminated his whole stove area. Who knows what other messes this guy was making. Did you see the pictures of the original Radioactive Boyscout recently? (when he was caught stealing smoke detectors).

      Admittedly, they are doing some cool stuff, and I have no qualms about them putting their own lives at risk for the love of their hobbies but... Even the original guy said that by the end of it, he could detect the elevated levels of radiation several houses away. Given the inverse square law, thats, a bit scary.

      Never mind the contaminated mess he could be leaving behind. An apartment where someone else may have to live, and you share walls with others, just really is a bad spot for this.

      Thats not to say he couldn't savely have the reactor there once built but...preparing the materials, and other operations that can contaminate the apartment?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    11. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Hmm, fair point, well made. I withdraw my objection. :)

    12. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If you want to build some invention with "gas fucking fire," I expect you to do it outside and far from people too. The major problem is not so much having a fission reactor, as building one.

      And the fact that radiation already exists doesn't mean that more won't be dangerous.

    13. Re:Better to ask forgiveness than permission by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think that asking the appropriate government agency is, by its very definition, doing research the easy way - exactly what you're saying he should have done.

      What, research has to be done with Google and Wikipedia now?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  5. What are you in for? by TehNoobTrumpet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Prisoner 1: "I raped a bitch and killed her. What're you in for?"
    Prisoner 2: "I built a nuclear power plant in my kitchen."

    1. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prisoner 3: "I downloaded and shared 10,000 movies."

    2. Re:What are you in for? by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Prisoner 5: "I published the encryption algorithm used by an American company, which is legal where I live"

    3. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "And they all moved away from me on the Group "W" bench there."

    4. Re:What are you in for? by ginbot462 · · Score: 2

      OMG? What happened to Prisoner 4? You bastards, wait until Number 6 hears about this. (He'll probably look smugly at you .. in knowing sort of way)

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    5. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And causing a nuisance...

    6. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prisoner 4 was there for autism. Somebody at an airport found his attitude suspicious.

    7. Re:What are you in for? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      She was caring for a hedgehog. From the same source... http://www.thelocal.se/35230/20110729/ Those Sweeds are a bunch of criminals!

    8. Re:What are you in for? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      10,000? They'll be out loooong before you are.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:What are you in for? by Nofip · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a case of the Prisoner's dilemma. =)

    10. Re:What are you in for? by Amouth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Arlo: "Littering." And they all moved away from me on the bench
      there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I
      said, "And creating a nuisance." And they all came back, shook my hand,
      and we had a great time...

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    11. Re:What are you in for? by haruchai · · Score: 2

      Arlo Guthrie: Littering

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    12. Re:What are you in for? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      He profited from what I heard ;)

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    13. Re:What are you in for? by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 1

      No, Prisoner $ is not a number, he is a free man.

    14. Re:What are you in for? by Sean_Inconsequential · · Score: 1

      :s/$/4

      Gah! I am a failure, no wonder no one likes me.

    15. Re:What are you in for? by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prisoner 3: "I had consensual sex with two women, who then met up and withdrew consent after the fact. They only busted me after I leaked crimes committed by the US Army."

      Don't forget, this is Sweden.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    16. Re:What are you in for? by Mikkeles · · Score: 5, Funny

      Prisoner No. 6: "I am not a number!"

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    17. Re:What are you in for? by munky99999 · · Score: 1

      In my nerd hope Prisoner 2 would be considered so awesome that nobody would pick on him.

    18. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think he's a dollar sign...

    19. Re:What are you in for? by sp4ni3l · · Score: 1

      Yes you are (sorry can't help myself. Just need to rub it in.). Correction: :s/\$/4 Yours just replaced the end of the line with a 4 (effectively adding it to the end of the line)

    20. Re:What are you in for? by cvtan · · Score: 1

      Prisoner #4 "Hey what happened to #4? I recorded video of a police traffic stop."

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    21. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my nerd hope Prisoner 2 would be considered so awesome that nobody would pick on him.

      Nerd Prisoner 2: "That's a nice credit rating you got there. Shame if something happened to it."

    22. Re:What are you in for? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Your fingers might not match your brain (liek me ;), but I think you're the only one to get the Number 6 ref.
      Be seeing you!

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    23. Re:What are you in for? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Or at least, maybe he could convince them that he's so radioactive that close bodily contact could render someone sterile and impotent (yeah, radiation doesn't usually cause impotence, but there's no reason to disabuse the other convicts of that notion *grin*).

    24. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prisoner 1: "I raped a bitch and killed her. What're you in for?"
      Prisoner 2: "I built a nuclear power plant in my kitchen."

      Prisoner 3: That's nothing. I had a couple of Metallica albums in my "shared files" folder!

    25. Re:What are you in for? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      And creating a public nuisance.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    26. Re:What are you in for? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Mmwwaa ha ha ha-ha ha!!

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    27. Re:What are you in for? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Prisoner 1 and 2 complain about being locked up with a highly dangerous criminal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    28. Re:What are you in for? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Prisoner $ has been released already because he had the money to hire a lawyer that got him out on a technicality.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    29. Re:What are you in for? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ah YOU are the guy that had them? Wow, I know the guy who still likes Metallica!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:What are you in for? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Prisoner 1: "I raped a bitch and killed her. What're you in for?"

      but enough about glenn beck

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    31. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --and creating a nuisance

    32. Re:What are you in for? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      He was an alien that was out on parole in order to make a movie.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    33. Re:What are you in for? by umeboshi · · Score: 1

      LOL :)
      I should've seen that one coming.

    34. Re:What are you in for? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Warden: "Correct! Your exponent is all 1s! Plus I can infer your non-zero fraction has a clear high bit, because you're signaling the fact!"

    35. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Prisoner 2 never ever will be sentenced to prison (and most likely will not be fined either).

    36. Re:What are you in for? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      He had consensual sex with a woman who later wished she hadn't. He was convicted of not foreseeing the future, the filthy chauvinistic bastard.

    37. Re:What are you in for? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      He had consensual sex with a woman who later wished that she hadn't. He was convicted of not foreseeing the future, the filthy chauvinistic bastard.

    38. Re:What are you in for? by N0Man74 · · Score: 2

      Prisoner 6: "I published a link on my blog to Prisoner 5's algorithm."

    39. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is on-topic, I don't know why he was modded off-topic.

    40. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prisoner #7: My daughter saved a baby woodpecker from our pet cat. http://wusa9.com/news/article/161065/158/Woodpecker-Saving-Daughter-Costs-Mom-500

    41. Re:What are you in for? by apqvist · · Score: 1

      Prisoner 3: "I had consensual sex with two women on the premise that I use a condom. I tore it and ejaculated inside them against their explicit will, and after they learned I had did that to both of them they filed charges. I desperately try to convince everyone that my leaking crimes committed by the US Army was the reason I was charged."

      FTFY

    42. Re:What are you in for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And after he was released, he found out he had fathered a child with her, so they jailed him again.

    43. Re:What are you in for? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      There is no number 4.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    44. Re:What are you in for? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because countries should ignore each other's laws. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    45. Re:What are you in for? by Kyont · · Score: 1

      Prisoner 4: "Hey, I missed my turn!"

      --
      You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
  6. The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Choice quote: "To get it to generate electricity you would need a turbine and a generator and that is very difficult to build yourself".

    Yeah, it's not like thhey're nineteenth century steam technology like the redundant safety systems.

    1. Re:The hard parts by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Choice quote: "To get it to generate electricity you would need a turbine and a generator and that is very difficult to build yourself".

      On its face, the quote is correct. A turbine and generator would be hard to build yourself. From scratch.

      However, you can go to an automotive junkyard and pick up a used turbo unit for a few bucks, and while you're there, you can pick up an alternator, too. Now the problem is no harder than piping the steam from a pressure cooker through the turbo, and hooking the turbo to the alternator. Just add fission and you're on the grid!

      A lot of people are playing with homemade turbine engines made from junked car parts. Perhaps they are deliberately trying to make it sound hard to discourage other Swedes with too many smoke detectors from trying a similar experiment.

      --
      John
    2. Re:The hard parts by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would get you out some electricity. Building it as a continuously-operating system is somewhat trickier.

      Even trickier than that is getting it into your house power grid, which means syncing up the AC and other EE-grade power issues. You can buy the device you need, but it would end up costing more than just buying power from the power company, and be less convenient. (Plus, he was doing it in an apartment, probably without direct access to the mains.)

      He didn't want to generate power, just do a little tinkering. He might well have hooked it up to a junk generator at some point, just to prove he could, but it wasn't the point. And the authorities were right to get nervous about it: the materials are toxic as well as radioactive, and putting more lives at risk than his. Get yourself a shed in the middle of nowhere next time.

    3. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't be that hard to find one ... I remember a Mister Rogers episode where he had a tiny steam boiler hooked up to a turbine that powered a light. Maybe too small for his little reactor, though.

    4. Re:The hard parts by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Personally I would be a bit leery of an old junk yard turbo since most people who have a turbo car don't bother to take care of it, like let the car idle so the turbo cools off so you don't scorch the oil in it before shutting the car off, or doing regular oil changes. Now if it was off a relatively new car that was just totaled then I wouldn't be anywhere near a leery. But it is easily doable.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:The hard parts by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      There's a great essay by Leonard Read about how incredibly difficult it is to make a pencil from scratch. A steam turbine and generator are a bit more complicated than a pencil.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    6. Re:The hard parts by Talderas · · Score: 2

      Mr Rogers is a terrorist!

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    7. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took a college course (3 credits) in electric transformers, motors, and generators. It's surprisingly easy to grasp, requiring only the most basic algebraic skills. It's hard to build a *perfectly efficient* generator yourself, but it's surprisingly easy to get some copper, some iron, and some of this, that, and the other thing, and make a perfectly fine working motor or generator on your own to whatever your specific needs are, and to build the transformers to step the power to whatever your needs are, either for running home appliances or feeding it back to the grid.

    8. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why assume he wanted electricity? A subcritical pile makes heat. Heat is energy, heat is expensive. It gets cold in europe in the winter. Stack the pile in your furnace in the winter, unstack it in the summer so it doesn't make heat. Easy peasy. Only real problem is the toxic result of fission. Also libyans might try to steal your pile, so send a HS kid back in time to tell you when you need to wear a bullet proof vest. Easy.

    9. Re:The hard parts by plover · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're talking about building a kitchen table nuclear reactor, and your safety concern is that the junk-car turbo might not have been properly operated?

      I like your style!

      --
      John
    10. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla turbine bitches.

    11. Re:The hard parts by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      awesome back to the future reference. if only i had mod points...

    12. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, you can go to an automotive junkyard and pick up a used turbo unit for a few bucks, and while you're there, you can pick up an alternator, too. Now the problem is no harder than piping the steam from a pressure cooker through the turbo, and hooking the turbo to the alternator. Just add fission and you're on the grid!

      This true Fallout engineering!

    13. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that in a nuclear power plant design, the water loop is closed, must transfer heat quickly, and must have a high flow rate. Controlled fission is easy compared to the turbine.

    14. Re:The hard parts by mikael · · Score: 1

      My god, he's trying to live off the grid - he didn't try and plant vegetables in his front lawn by any chance?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    15. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a really nifty generator setup - I don't recall how it's constructed, but it uses AC power for magnetization, and when run it will automatically generate AC power that is in sync with the magnetization current.

    16. Re:The hard parts by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Not so quick there.

      While its still possible to put the DeLorean together, where the hell are you going to get the flux-capacitor? Hmmm? You can't just buy some LED's in a plastic tube formed in a triangle from just anywhere, you know.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    17. Re:The hard parts by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      Feeding power into the grid is not all that difficult. The alternators required for this are easily available (mostly for wind-power/solar power) and some states actually will let you run the power meter in reverse. Here is the first link from Google http://www.solazone.com.au/gridinvert.htm. It can break even in the long term (based on US retail costs) if you feed the power back in during peak demand and use all the subsidies for Solar power.
      . I would think the break-even determinant would still be his cost of his generation, not the ancilliaries like alternators and what not.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    18. Re:The hard parts by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      On its face, the quote is correct. A turbine and generator would be hard to build yourself. From scratch.

      Actually its quite simple to build both from scratch. Hint: Nikola Tesla.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    19. Re:The hard parts by Roachie · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of peeps on YouTube running junkyard turbo gas turbines. Its just a matter of time before someone scatters one and kills themselves/somebody.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    20. Re:The hard parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "where the hell are you going to get the flux-capacitor?"

      From Thinkgeek of course!

      http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/on-sale/9fc6/

    21. Re:The hard parts by Agripa · · Score: 1

      There's a really nifty generator setup - I don't recall how it's constructed, but it uses AC power for magnetization, and when run it will automatically generate AC power that is in sync with the magnetization current.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-fed_electric_machine

    22. Re:The hard parts by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      Or he could take those small model steam engines into the 21 century!

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  7. Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    What's the big deal about being "arrested"? Police (and others) use their power of arrest all the time. The big story will be if he is charged with something.

  8. I'l bet... by vk2sky · · Score: 2

    ...it's that bloody boy scout, up to his old tricks again.

    1. Re:I'l bet... by Talderas · · Score: 2

      He wasn't even an Eagle Scout at the time. He earned that later. Can you imagine if he was an Eagle Scout? I bet you he either would have figured out some awesome new method for nuclear power generation or would have died in the process as so many Eagle Scouts seem to do in the name of progress (Roger Chaffee, Ellison Onizuka, William McCool).

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    2. Re:I'l bet... by Cogita · · Score: 1

      He wasn't even an Eagle Scout at the time. He earned that later. Can you imagine if he was an Eagle Scout? I bet you he either would have figured out some awesome new method for nuclear power generation or would have died in the process as so many Eagle Scouts seem to do in the name of progress (Roger Chaffee, Ellison Onizuka, William McCool).

      I Just had to comment, "William McCool" is a freaking awesome name. Any kid with a name like that will go places.

      --
      -- "The Price of Freedom of Speech, of Press, or of Religion is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."
    3. Re:I'l bet... by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

      I'll take that bet. I knew him.

    4. Re:I'l bet... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      I find it rather remarkable the number of former scouts that were part of the manned space program. I find it a bit of a morbid honor to know that Eagle Scouts were part of each major catastrophe that occurred. (Apollo 1 [Roger Chaffee], Apollo 13 [Jim Lovell], Challenger [Ellison Onizuka], and Columbia [William McCool]).

      I know there are some people who hate the Boy Scouts for various reasons and love throwing about the serial killer Eagle Scouts but one thing we do see time and time again is that Eagle Scouts do typically live up to the expectations and can probably be found in disproportionate numbers in high calling fields.

      NASA serves as a prime example of this.

      The Boy Scouts recently had their 2,000,000th Eagle Scout (in the history of the organization). There's no way to tell how many of those Eagle Scouts are alive and currently residing the the US. With a current US population of 307 million estimate that means the total number of Eagle Scouts is 0.65% of the current US population. It's a crappy comparison but it also serves as a ceiling if every Eagle Scout was still alive.

      39 astronauts of 312 in NASA's history have been Eagle Scouts. 12.5%
      2 astronauts of 12 that walked on the moon have been Eagle Scouts. 16.6% [Neil Armstrong Apollo 11, Charles M. Duke Jr Apollo 16]
      3 astronauts of the 17 that have died in the manned space program have been Eagle Scouts. 17.6%

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    5. Re:I'l bet... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Is it the full name or just the last name of McCool?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  9. headline != article content by rbrausse · · Score: 5, Informative

    he was questioned by the police because he apparently violated some Swedish nuclear material laws.

    the story in short:
    - he invested $950
    - he bought radioactive material and dismantled one domestic fire alarm
    - he blogged about his expirements
    - he asked the Swedish authorities if it is allowed to build a nuclear reactor
    - some official accompanied by police offices visited his flat and found no radiation problem
    - he was questioned at a police stations and was afterwards released
    - all the nuclear stuff was confiscated

    1. Re:headline != article content by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Is he being charged with anything?

      If not then that actually seems a fairly reasonable response given that he asked permission before doing anything risky.

    2. Re:headline != article content by vlm · · Score: 2

      Everything about the story makes sense except for

      - all the nuclear stuff was confiscated

      What he was doing, and what he owned, was perfectly legal, right?

      That's the whole point of exempt sources... Ultra super low power, yet detectable with good gear... Assuming he wasn't stupid enough to beg borrow steal non-exempt sources...

      Now if he had unlicensed non-exempt sources, I can see why they'd throw the book at him and confiscate it all. I'd even more or less support it. I have friends who are in charge of non-exempt sources and the legal requirements are mostly sane and sensible so its not only legally correct but also scientifically / morally / ethically correct to follow non-exempt source licensing laws. So many laws in the US are corrupt that its weird that I can actually whole heartedly support one...

      I'm sure that screwing around with a domestic fire alarm is 1) Perfectly safe 2) thru a peculiarity of a loophole of the law is technically illegal. But thats right up there with ripping off mattress labels, or currency defacement laws.

      Anyway does anyone know if he was busted with the Swedish-chef equivalent of exempt or non-exempt sources? Maybe Sweden must have the concept of exempt sources, modern industrial society more or less depends upon it?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All his nuclear stuff was confiscated, plus:

      - police uniforms
      - chemicals
      - hand grenade replicas
      - computers

      From a Swedish forum where he posted under the nickname "Psychopatic" in the section physics/mathematics/technology. Source: https://www.flashback.org/sp31878961

    4. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From his blog
      110722 - Project canceled!
      Wednesday, I was arrested and sent to jail, when the police and the Swedish Radiation Safety Authory searched my apartment. They took all my radioactive stuff, but I was released after a hearing. But I am still suspekt for crime against the radiation safety law.

    5. Re:headline != article content by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that screwing around with a domestic fire alarm

      He also ordered radioactive material from overseas.

    6. Re:headline != article content by vlm · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that screwing around with a domestic fire alarm

      He also ordered radioactive material from overseas.

      so?

      If its a non-stolen legally exempt source under the overseas country laws (probably USA) and also is a legally exempt source under local laws (most likely) and if he followed the export/import/shipping laws (hmm, getting complicated here, but for exempt sources its generally not a big deal) then it doesn't matter.

      People/companies ship radioactive material overseas, perfectly legally, all the time. Even the non-exempt stuff is really no big deal even when you follow all the laws, most of which are common sense anyway.

      No one wants to discuss which laws he broke, if he broke any, just a lot of "radiation = girl cooties" and "get in your couch and watch Oprah like you're supposed to, prole" babble. What he did can easily be done completely legally and above board, or if you almost intentionally try very hard can be multiple felonies.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He admitted that he intended to build a nuclear reactor, and accepted a summary punishment. Summary punishment is only handed out for fines and/or conditional sentences, which means he got fined and/or a conditional sentence.

      Summary punishment: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecute/Summary-punishment/

      Original article in swedish: http://hd.se/angelholm/2011/08/01/forsokte-bygga-karnreaktor-i/

    8. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blogs in swedish is found at:
      https://www.flashback.org/t1612034
      https://www.flashback.org/t1614572

      The first blog starts a message about the visit by the police, (it is translated by using google translate).

      "So here it is ...

      I was arrested for violation of the Radiation Protection Act, after having held the radioactive material without permission. During the search found also some police uniformes that they seized. At the hearing they said that I was a suspect in the pretext of public position as well.

      I recognized the violation of the Radiation Protection Act, but said I was unaware that I had done wrong, as I was. But I denied the pretext of public status. I never provided them for me to be a policeman. One time I had it in public, when I was 14 years o We would dress up in high school (17 years ago). Then posed in the pictures on the internet.

      Then they took even my computers, o them, there are a lot of weird ... Among others a lot about drugs, I abused heavily 10 years ago, since then maybe someday. But I am interested in such as giving advice on drugs o similar. Therefore, there is a lot of it in the computers. Then there where many papers on such toxins o how to kill people with the help of these, is this illegal?

      Can you go on conspiring to murder? Then I tried some of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, just because I was curious. Will they report me to the Swedish security police? Late in the MSN logs, I have written little about the weapons.

      What do you think? Its probative value is that which is found in the computer? That's what I worry most for."

    9. Re:headline != article content by beanpoppa · · Score: 2

      - all the nuclear stuff was confiscated

      Then the fire inspector came and cited him for not having any functioning smoke detectors.

    10. Re:headline != article content by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Of course I don't want to discuss which laws he broke, I have no idea what the Swedish legal code says about radiation materials. I was just pointing out that he didn't only "screw around with a fire alarm."

    11. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he asked the Swedish authorities if it is allowed to build a nuclear reactor

      What was their answer?

    12. Re:headline != article content by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      he asked the Swedish authorities if it is allowed to build a nuclear reactor

      What was their answer?

      probably something like "AAAARGH!"

      [According to Swedish Radiation Safety Authority Regulatory Code 2008:6 page 3: A permit is required for construction and a licence for ownership and operation of a nuclear facility. A licence to operate a nuclear facility is thus issued to a specific owner.]

    13. Re:headline != article content by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Is he being charged with anything?

      That all depends on the materials and the precautions he was using. Of course, it is easiest to be charged with beta radiation, because that's just raw electrons. But the Americium 241, which was obtained from smoke detectors, emits ionizing radiation in the form alpha particles and he could have received a charge from that as well. However, with the small quantities he was likely dealing with, I doubt the charge was even in the microvolt range. Furthermore, alpha and beta radiation is easily blocked with a piece of foil, or paper.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    14. Re:headline != article content by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      You can start with exempt sources and end up with a non-exempt source. A pallet of smoke detectors are exempt, but it you concentrate all the Americium, you end up with a regulated source. Google "radioactive boy scout" and you'll find http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html among others. David Hahn concentrated the thorium in gas lantern mantles to get about 2 mCi, well above the regulatory threshold. Of course, he managed to turn his parents' back yard into a Superfund site, too.

    15. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's possible he'll get it back. I once had my chemicals confiscated under suspicion of making explosives or drugs, but once it was proven (by my statement, my roomate's statement and by the nature of the chemicals) that I didn't, I was given everything back.
      Yes, I'm a Swede.

    16. Re:headline != article content by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      - some official accompanied by police offices visited his flat and found no radiation problem

      Er, no. Whether the official found a problem is unspecified; the guy that was arrested said he hadn't detected a problem himself. Alpha particles aren't the easiest things to detect, because of their low penetration.

    17. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget... this is the legal system we're talking about here.

      Things like "you're doing stuff I don't understand. You're under arrest" are par for the course.

    18. Re:headline != article content by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Thursday: The last 24 hours have seen some major changes. I'm growing more powerful than ever before. The tumors hurt but, the pain gives me the edge to go on. Ive developed night vision, webbed feet and a non-painful priapism.

      The smell of cordite in the night... I am ... THE SKUNK FOX!

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    19. Re:headline != article content by Tomato42 · · Score: 1

      > - all the nuclear stuff was confiscated

      oh bugger, now he'll need to buy bananas again

    20. Re:headline != article content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything about the story makes sense except for

      - all the nuclear stuff was confiscated

      What he was doing, and what he owned, was perfectly legal, right?

      In Sweden, it is also legal to have poisonous snakes in your apartment, on certain conditions. That is, if you have a clearance with the right authorities, if you don't, they take your snakes away. You might get a clearance later, but you won't get "your" snakes back (simply because they are not yours any longer, by you breaking the safety rules, they are now government property).

      Obviously, having poisonous snakes in your apartment is something that authorities should know about. The firefighters need to know about it in case of a fire, ambulance personnel need to know about it in case they have to enter your apartment (e.g. if you have been bitten by a poisonous snake), your neighbours need to know about it, in case one of your snakes one day find its way down to their apartment through the water toilet or air vent. Even if it is legal to have poisonous snakes in your apartment, ff you don't follow the rules for having them, they get confiscated.

      I think you can see the resemblance, from the governments point of view, between having poisonous snakes and have unshielded radioactive material in an apartment. And also, they (the authorities) are the ones that get blamed if an accident happens, not the shit-for-brain that like to play with dangerous toys and expose other people for hazards without their knowledge.

      It is also illegal to import or trade in radioactive goods without clearance from Swedish authorities, or just about any goods from outside EU or the Nordic Union. You don't want to know how much radioactive waste from old Russian nuclear weapons and facilities that find their way over the Swedish border each year, usually without even the buyer knowing that it is radioactive, he (it is almost always a he) just thought he made a bargain in cheap scrap metal or something similar, not that he would get sick and that it would kill his sperms (another one for the Darwin awards) while he was handling it.

  10. Nope by symes · · Score: 2

    He was not trying to generate electricity - "To get it to generate electricity you would need a turbine and a generator and that is very difficult to build yourself," he told HD. He was just tinkering! Obviously a DIY purist. This guy should get a geek medal or something. Utterly brilliant. And I am very pleased I'm not his neighbour.

    1. Re:Nope by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      The submission is a litte incomplete. Where are the plans and schematics of his reactor!? It could be the heigth of geekness and coolness if most of the case and support structure were made of LEGO.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  11. another attempt by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Informative

    This kid tried (badly, apparently) to do the same in the US a while back. I lived only a couple of streets over, but had left the area a dozen years before his attempt. I think I delivered newspapers to his house.

    1. Re:another attempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd heard about him, but I didn't know he was arrested recently for stealing smoke detectors and has radiation sores on his face. I thought the guy would be a bit smarter now that he's in his thirties.

    2. Re:another attempt by dascritch · · Score: 1

      You're glooming

      --
      (Sorry my bad French) Je fais parler les Guignols de l'Info. Le pied, quoi.
    3. Re:another attempt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy crap. Try doing a google image search for "David Hahn" and look at his face.

    4. Re:another attempt by moonbender · · Score: 1

      There was also a guy (nivenhbro) in the Ars Technica forums who conducted pretty crazy nuclear experiments at home. Apparently, he ended up irradiating himself. =/ People in the forum were split between giving him cautious engineering advice and flat out telling him to stop immediately. Finally, one guy apparently called the FBI on him.

      Huge drama etc. This is the original thread (with gems like "I got that shit wrong. I am breeding plutonium 239. I got it messed up." and "I am laying off the x-rays for a while. I figured my latest dose to be about 50rem, so I am going to play it safe for a bit."), and this is a followup thread.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    5. Re:another attempt by sycorob · · Score: 1

      That is the craziest thread I've read in a long time. Thanks for destroying my morning's productivity! :-)

  12. Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    and that's one way government destroys economy, by preventing people from experimenting with their ideas and possibly finding better and cheaper solutions to energy needs. I am not saying this guy would find a better and cheaper solution necessarily, but what we have here, is government that interferes and definitely this prevents many more people from trying and finding something.

    1. Re:Government destroys economy by rolfc · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is patents that prevents people finding better and cheaper solutions, as we can see in the software industry now.

    2. Re:Government destroys economy by somersault · · Score: 1

      Considering he was doing this in his own home, with a risk of irradiating his neighbours, I think it was right to stop him experimenting. If he did it in a properly shielded location then it wouldn't be so bad.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      My first reading of your comment confused the hell out of me, because I read it as parents, not patents.

      But after the second reading I see what you are saying, I've been saying the same thing as well.

      But governments prevents market from working, be it patents or just preventing people from tinkering.

    4. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Again it's not government's business. If the neighbors don't like what he is doing, it's between them and this guy.

    5. Re:Government destroys economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I take a big shit in your living room, is it "not the government's business"?

      If enforcing that a citizen does not interfere with the health, safety, and property of another citizen without consent is "not government's business" then what the hell is government's business?

    6. Re:Government destroys economy by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that it should be perfectly permissible for someone to tinker with chemically dangerous and radioactive chemicals in an apartment building where he will surrounded by other people? Some of those other people being the particularly vulnerable kids and the elderly? The danger here isn't that he could be building a bomb, the danger is that large concentrations of radioactive material is inherently unhealthy. There was no one to make sure he stored it properly, didn't have too much of it, or general making sure he wasn't giving a X-ray levels of exposure to everyone in his building 24/7. Not to mention that the chemicals themselves are often toxic in concentration even ignoring the radiation.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    7. Re:Government destroys economy by vlm · · Score: 1

      Considering he was doing this in his own home, with a risk of irradiating his neighbours, I think it was right to stop him experimenting. If he did it in a properly shielded location then it wouldn't be so bad.

      No one seems able to answer if his sources were exempt or non-exempt. Thats the key.

      As for the "properly shielded location" that is pretty irrelevant, if he had to dough to own a pig and pay inspection fees, unless he's trying to make a political statement, the paperwork to make it perfectly legal would be pretty easy, depending on what he's doing.

      Exempt sources are technically radioactive, and great for experimenting and fooling around, and the level of radiation is right up there with a granite countertop. The reason you use an exempt source instead of a granite countertop is because unlike a granite countertop, a dude with expensive calibration gear verified the exact quantity of the exact isotope, and its reasonably pure rather than a mixture of random junk. Kind of like the difference between a wooden Chinese 25 cent ruler and my $150 American made micrometer is mostly that my micrometer is actually calibrated to measure correctly.

      Non-exempt sources are supposed to be licensed and CAN theoretically be quite dangerous, in addition to being totally illegal if you're not licensed, stored in an inspected facility, etc. A lot of it is chain of custody issues... a sheet metal thickness gauge from an old mill is probably harmless in an apartment, but thrown into a recycler could make an unholy mess if melted. Or tossed into a fish pond that people eat out of, that could be really bad. Much as my box of mouse poison in the basement is perfectly safe while its in my basement, but dumped into a vat of baby food at the baby food factory could be kinda bad.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:Government destroys economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should look at roman_mir's other posts. It is consistent with his own, internal beliefs which in practice are just inane and crazy. He is pretty much against anything the government does. He wants the fed abolished and a return to the gold standard. He thinks federal employees don't pay income tax. Those are some of the more recent posts that I can remember. But I have to admit, this one almost takes the cake. There is a reason that nuclear materials are regulated, and he says that the government is crowding out small business. Unbelievable.

    9. Re:Government destroys economy by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > what the hell is government's business?
      Obviously, it's to "interfere with the health, safety, and property of another citizen without consent" themselves. They hate competition.

    10. Re:Government destroys economy by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Keep in mind that you are replying to Reacher Gilt. If his neighbors get irradiated or killed, they can organize a boycott and let the invisible hand of the market take care of it. After being brutally boycotted, nobody else would ever dare try it again. That's why the police are unnecessary. If you get robbed, simply spread the word. People will not do business with the robber, and then he will starve to death. Much cleaner. You can't have the police stop him. See, he has unlimited and inalienable freedom. If you stop a murderer from murdering a child, you have stolen his freedom to murder, his natural and inalienable right. Without government in the way, he would be totally free to do so.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    11. Re:Government destroys economy by digitig · · Score: 1

      I take it you regularly monitor the radiation levels at home to make sure your neighbours aren't messing with stuff like this. (The worrying thing is that you sound like the sort of person who might.)

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    12. Re:Government destroys economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that it should be perfectly permissible for someone to tinker with chemically dangerous and radioactive chemicals in an apartment building where he will surrounded by other people? [irrelevant sentiment]. The danger here isn't that he could be building a bomb, the danger is that large concentrations of radioactive material is inherently unhealthy. There was no one to make sure he stored it properly, didn't have too much of it, or general making sure he wasn't giving a X-ray levels of exposure to everyone in his building 24/7. Not to mention that the chemicals themselves are often toxic in concentration even ignoring the radiation.

      FTFY. There really was no reason to whip out the "think of the children/elderly" mantra here. It just devalues those of us who aren't elderly or children and who don't want our nads irradiated.

    13. Re:Government destroys economy by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      We've decided some time ago that personal vendettas usually don't work out too well, and that we should let the government step in rather than just 'take care of things' ourselves.

      How exactly would you suggest his neighbors handle this? Assuming they even knew what he was doing.

    14. Re:Government destroys economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some weapons-grade Libertarium.

    15. Re:Government destroys economy by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      There's a proper place to do such work. They are called laboratories.

      You don't do nuclear work (especially experimentation) in your living quarters. That's irresponsible and dangerous to everyone in the area.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:Government destroys economy by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      It was more that kids and old people are particularly vulnerable to this particular threat... Radiation is worse for those with lower resistance and in those development. I wouldn't want to be irradiated either though.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    17. Re:Government destroys economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually on one level, the elderly (past breeding age) are the least vulnerable of all to radiation. And if you are 70, and get enough radiation to statistically give you cancer in 50 years, would you care?

    18. Re:Government destroys economy by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Plenty of tinkerers did just that back oh 40, 50, 60 and 70 years ago. While driving ingenuity of the country. I mean come on, we had people making TNT from nitro in their backyard. Oh well, I suppose there's a reason why there's a shortage of inventors outside of multi-nationals these days.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I do. There are 2 counters actually, not one.

    20. Re:Government destroys economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. They all blew themselves up.

    21. Re:Government destroys economy by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I guess edison blew himself up too. Along with tesla. Tip: Both of them played around making TNT from nitro as ... children.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    22. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Can't have it. Government will not allow you to try and do something that goes anywhere beyond what they want you to do - be a good consumer.

    23. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What do you mean 'if they know'? How would you not know?

      In any case, I am not proposing hanging people on the trees, I am talking about court system, and hopefully one that is not government provided, because nobody can believe that system is unbiased in any way at all.

    24. Re:Government destroys economy by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      A court system that isn't government provided? How then would it enforce its rulings?

    25. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Competing markets for court systems have always existed around the world, it's not a bizarre concept, what's bizarre is to believe that gov't has your best interests in mind with their monopoly on law and enforcement.

      Obviously there need to be private competing systems for enforcement of rulings, just like there need to be competing systems for passing the judgments, and people would have to choose their preferred court system. Clearly to pay for this you'd have to either have the cash or buy insurance.

      Small claims are already enforced with private collections agencies and private security is not unheard of, this is not a foreign concept even in US.

    26. Re:Government destroys economy by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      So if I don't like the judgement does that mean I could get another trial with a competing court? What if my opponent doesn't like that verdict and wants to go back to the first court?

      Small claims are enforced with private collections agencies that can only exist under the legal framework provided by the government, enforced when necessary by the governments court system.

    27. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Court system that is not government based can only exist if it accrues certain amount of credibility. I don't believe in laws passed by government in my view credibility has to be earned. As to one not liking a judgment - that should be up to a contract. You choose a court a stick to it, any attempt to deny the court's finding simply because you don't like the ruling would immediately mean you are in violation of contract.

      Whether the court system is private or public is really secondary to the fact that there must be more than one court system. Competition is paramount, as the rulings by the SCOTUS have shown over the past 100 years, no one monopoly can be trusted, and SCOTUS is a monopoly and they have proven it over and over.

    28. Re:Government destroys economy by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      We keep coming back to the same argument: who enforces the contract?

      I get the idea that you are unhappy with the way the US government is handling things right now, and I am open to the idea that there are better ways to go about it, but the ideas you are presenting are impractical.

    29. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Some localities may choose to have enforcement that is funded locally from say property taxes, others may come up with mandatory insurance based system and others can have completely private and completely voluntary participation and payments into such insurance, and have competing private security forces. This means private jail courts, private jails, private cops for some localities and not for others, but at least this would provide a way for people to choose and vote with their feet.

      For my part, I would prefer to have completely privatized courts and cops and voluntary insurance for covering such costs.

    30. Re:Government destroys economy by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      So if a private court/cop system was successful enough it'd expand into other areas, right? If it was successful for long enough it might grow big enough to cover the entire country. That'd be a lot of power in the hands of one or two companies. It'd be pretty easy then for them to force out any other players. The only difference to what we have now is that you wouldn't have to vote every few years.

    31. Re:Government destroys economy by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      See, I don't believe in natural monopolies, you'd understand better why, if you read this. Natural monopolies are a myth propagated by government that prefers to give out franchise deals and maintain actual monopolies that it creates by regulations/subsidies/tax code.

      In any situation that has space for profit there will be competition as long as there is no government enforcing a monopoly.

    32. Re:Government destroys economy by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Not sure I entirely agree with that, but I'm struck by how civil this has been. Thank you for that.

      I'd replace the word competition with corruption in your second paragraph. I've been treated quite badly by some private entities, so I'm quite wary of them gaining too much power. I at least hypothetically have a voice in government, and have something I can do to redress any injustices.

  13. Overkill much? by Xacid · · Score: 2

    Is it really necessary to raid a guy who was asking for permission in the first place? Seems like he would have welcomed an "inspection" and handled things accordingly from there. Since he was asking for permission it sounds like he wasn't trying to break the law - give the guy some credit. All this is going to do is discourage others from inquiring and just doing whatever they're after.

    1. Re:Overkill much? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yes - didn't you know? Terrorists always go through airport TSA security checkpoints, illegal immigrants always arrive by air, and people who seek to build weapons of mass destruction always ask for permission from the government beforehand!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Overkill much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think its the kind of raid you see before you.
      I'm guessing they came by, knocked on the door and asked to see his experiment, then asked him to join them to the police station for questioning and took the equipment. Not exactly kicking down the door with a full swat team swarming into the apartment kind of raid.

    3. Re:Overkill much? by Xacid · · Score: 1

      I was wondering that too. I'm from the States so police + raid doesn't usual equate to a friendly stroll. Then I started asking myself if it's that much nicer over that way in that aspect too.

      I'm still curious why they confiscated the equipment and not just the radioactive material. I take it this story is too fresh to get any good details yet, but I have a hunch it'll come out.

    4. Re:Overkill much? by tom17 · · Score: 1

      Not quite...

      FTB (From the Blog)
      "Wednesday, I was arrested and sent to jail, when the police and the Swedish Radiation Safety Authory searched my apartment. They took all my radioactive stuff, but I was released after a hearing. But I am still suspekt for crime against the radiation safety law.

      I was ordered by the police to get out of the building with my hands up, then three men came, with geiger-counters and searched me. Then I was placed in a police-car, when Radiation Safety Authory went into my apartment with very advanced measure-tools. "

    5. Re:Overkill much? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Is it really necessary to raid a guy who was asking for permission in the first place?

      Ask permission first and you get licensed to work with non-exempt sources. No problemo.

      F around and ask stupid questions after already doing it, they're gonna come down like a ton of bricks.

      Try building an addition onto your house once by acquiring a building permit before starting work, and once by acquiring a building permit after the work is complete, and report back on which experience was more "fun".

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Overkill much? by fritsd · · Score: 1

      I don't think its the kind of raid you see before you. I'm guessing they came by, knocked on the door and asked to see his experiment, then asked him to join them to the police station for questioning and took the equipment. Not exactly kicking down the door with a full swat team swarming into the apartment kind of raid.

      No indeed, that kind of raid is reserved for more severe criminal cases, such as people harbouring hedgehogs in Hälsingland.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    7. Re:Overkill much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really necessary to raid a guy who was asking for permission in the first place? Seems like he would have welcomed an "inspection" and handled things accordingly from there. Since he was asking for permission it sounds like he wasn't trying to break the law - give the guy some credit. All this is going to do is discourage others from inquiring and just doing whatever they're after.

      If you ask Swedish authorities for anything beforehand, the answer is usually yes. You can have weapons in your apartment (we have more guns per capita then in USA), you can have poisonous snakes, frogs, fish, or whatever, you can play with chemicals and deadly germs. Pretty much anything. But you have to have notified the authorities beforehand, so they know what will happen in case of an emergency (fire, explosion, you getting ill and people needing to enter your apartment to save you) and you have to get clearance that the safety measurements you got is good enough. If you don't ask before you and start playing with/buying your new toys, then you have proved that you are irresponsible and put other people at risk and shouldn't be allowed to play with those toys.

  14. The worying bit is by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Interesting

    He ordered some radioactive material from overseas

    Which was evidently delivered without any of the authorities being notified. How many Jihadi's are reading this and putting in their orders now?

    1. Re:The worying bit is by biodata · · Score: 2

      Replace the words 'radioactive material' with the word 'fertiliser', given recent events, and see whether you are more/same/less worried.

      --
      Korma: Good
    2. Re:The worying bit is by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      personally more worried, a dirty bomb could have affects lasting for decades

    3. Re:The worying bit is by biodata · · Score: 1

      In theory (because the whole dirty bomb theory has never actually happened and is just a security theatre bogey man myth). In actual historical fact, fertiliser bombs HAVE had effects lasting for decades. Oslo city centre will never be the same for instance.

      --
      Korma: Good
    4. Re:The worying bit is by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      personally more worried, a dirty bomb could have affects lasting for decades

      Only in a small area. As for the decades part I believe there are still 2 giant holes in the ground in New York that were created almost 10 years ago.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:The worying bit is by gutnor · · Score: 1

      The effect of the last terrorist attack have already lasted a decade with no end in sight, and they affect the whole nation and arguably the whole world. So we are debating if we are more worried about loosing my right arm than our left arm.

    6. Re:The worying bit is by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      He ordered some radioactive material from overseas

      Which was evidently delivered without any of the authorities being notified

      it was most likely a Radium preperation like this one (or a similar product for scholastic purposes), more intensive radiation sources are strictly controlled.

    7. Re:The worying bit is by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      In theory (because the whole dirty bomb theory has never actually happened and is just a security theatre bogey man myth). In actual historical fact, fertiliser bombs HAVE had effects lasting for decades. Oslo city centre will never be the same for instance.

      You would have to look hard to find people lamenting the changes to the baltic exchange, or manchester city centre today. With a dirty bomb they could still be contaminated areas.

    8. Re:The worying bit is by Chrisq · · Score: 0

      personally more worried, a dirty bomb could have affects lasting for decades

      Only in a small area. As for the decades part I believe there are still 2 giant holes in the ground in New York that were created almost 10 years ago.

      That's really down to the reaction and deciding what to do with it - it could have been fixed much quicker, and in many countries would have been.

    9. Re:The worying bit is by emanem · · Score: 1

      Even catholic fundamentalists...

    10. Re:The worying bit is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the last terrorist attack was about a week ago, and we are debating whether we are more worried about losing an arm versus a totally theoretical risk that has never happened.

    11. Re:The worying bit is by EdZ · · Score: 2

      lasting for decades

      Or until someone busts out a hose. Whichever is sooner.

    12. Re:The worying bit is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were no dirties bomb in this world then Chernobyls and Fukushima... :(

    13. Re:The worying bit is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that in 1985 plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by! I find the libyans to be a good source of plutonium.. they will take anything for payment including old pinball machine parts.

    14. Re:The worying bit is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and replace the word Jihadi with Christian fundamentalist.

    15. Re:The worying bit is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a dirty bomb they could still be contaminated areas.

      As a physicist, I can tell you that it can be shown that a "dirty bomb" is the most useless and worthless type of a bomb. Radioactive contamination over small area (eg. a city block or 3) is extremely straight forward to clean up. A city block can be cleaned up with a dozen people well within 1 week. Any dangerous contamination levels can be cleaned up in a matter of hours.

      Furthermore, the linked bombings you have linked have occurred in paved areas which makes the cleanup much faster and even more straight forward.

      It's homework to figure out why "dirty bomb" is only ever quoted by the ignorant.

    16. Re:The worying bit is by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      lasting for decades

      Or until someone busts out a hose. Whichever is sooner.

      Have you been to New York City? I'd bet on the decades.

    17. Re:The worying bit is by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Count me in! Manchester's a fucking shithole. It couldn't have been any worse before the bomb, and frankly taking down most of the city centre could only improve it now.

  15. How was this going to work? by volsung · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm puzzled how this guy was going to build a "nuclear reactor" out of mail-order isotopes and smoke detectors. Smoke detectors usually contain Am-241, which is an alpha emitter. The mail order stuff I assume was uranium ore. Was he planning to create neutrons from (alpha, n) reactions and use those to trigger a few fissions from the uranium?

    This sounds like his experiment bears as much similarity to a reactor as a balloon full of hairspray resembles a car engine.

    1. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF?!?! We all have an alpha emitter in our homes?!?!?!?!?!!

    2. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like his experiment bears as much similarity to a reactor as a balloon full of hairspray resembles a car engine

      Hmmm. Interesting. Do you by chance have a newsletter?

    3. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try a Google Shopping source for "Radioactive source" sometime. Top result is an educational kit with an Alpha, Beta, and Gamma source. There are also a number of Gamma emitters available for industrial sensor use, Cobalt-60 and Cs-137, for example, used for all sorts of non-contact sensing and radioactive imaging applications. I work for a company that builds large scale pressure vessels, and they use a gamma source to detect microscopic cracks and imperfections in the welds prior to installation. In the US such sources are all heavily watched and regulated by the DHS, so actually getting them across the borders would be hard if not impossible without a lengthy licensing process. But in other less paranoid countries, that may not be the case.

    4. Re:How was this going to work? by vlm · · Score: 1

      I'm puzzled how this guy was going to build a "nuclear reactor" out of mail-order isotopes and smoke detectors. Smoke detectors usually contain Am-241, which is an alpha emitter. The mail order stuff I assume was uranium ore. Was he planning to create neutrons from (alpha, n) reactions and use those to trigger a few fissions from the uranium?

      This sounds like his experiment bears as much similarity to a reactor as a balloon full of hairspray resembles a car engine.

      Trolling the local authorities asking about homemade reactors is a pretty good sign of being crazy to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which on one side makes him harmless, but on another side might make them wanna check him out before whatever made him bonkers is making him more bonkers and he tries doing something stupid with something that he actually has a chance of successfully operating, like say, a sniper rifle.

      You can build more or less whatever you want with electronic gear in your basement. Millions of people do perfectly successfully and quietly. On the other hand, asking the cops if making an electric chair is ok, and then being surprised when that pisses them off, is just beyond stupid.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:How was this going to work? by hAckz0r · · Score: 2
      Don't worry, just hide behind your newspaper. That will be all you need to stop alpha particle radiation.

      Now after the Americium-241 degrades into Cm or plutonium, that is another matter. For the neutron radiation a good thick wall of lead should do it. Just keep that tucked inside your closet for easy access.

    6. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm puzzled how this guy was going to build a "nuclear reactor" out of mail-order isotopes and smoke detectors. Smoke detectors usually contain Am-241, which is an alpha emitter. The mail order stuff I assume was uranium ore. Was he planning to create neutrons from (alpha, n) reactions and use those to trigger a few fissions from the uranium?

      This sounds like his experiment bears as much similarity to a reactor as a balloon full of hairspray resembles a car engine.

      i thought the same thing, maybe he has a centrifuge.... surely that wouldnt be any more difficult than building a turbine or generator right :)

    7. Re:How was this going to work? by Dencrypt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's his blog. Might explain some of his work.
      richardsreactor.blogspot.com/

    8. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From his blog:

      A meltdown on my cooker!!!

      No, it not so dangerous. But I tried to cook Americium, Radium and Beryllium in 96% sulphuric-acid, to easier get them blended. But the whole thing exploded upp in the air...

      Every dwelling is unique when it comes to the characteristics of the ventilation. But if you live in an apartment block where you can smell your neighbour's cooking when you go up the stairs, you don't want them doing this.

    9. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You direct the alphas at another material (don't remember what it was at the moment -- Beryllium?) to get neutrons. Then you use those neutrons to breed the Uranium.

      You probably won't get more than a few atoms of plutonium this way, but hey, it's a reactor.

    10. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He was apeing this guy: http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html

    11. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's pretty much exactly the way David Hahn (the "atomic boy scout") did it. An alpha emitter - Am-241, but also radium from old clock dial paint - wrapping in IIRC beryllium foil to make a neutron source. The fissionable wasn't so much uranium as thorium (extracted from gas lantern mantles -- back then they still had thorium in them). Hahn had quite the little breeder reactor going in his garden shed.

      Not all nuclear reactors are multi-megawatt power reactors. Indeed, most aren't. Quite a few colleges have research reactors on campus. (Or had; who knows in these paranoid days.)

    12. Re:How was this going to work? by volsung · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware of what is for sale, since we buy these things for our lab. (Although our sources are low enough in intensity to avoid the tracking required for the big boys.) I am confused by the use of the term "reactor" which is typically used to describe a device that is designed to produce fission reactions (or fusion, if you are a Farnsworth kind of person).

      Generating fission is different than having a bunch of things that undergo radioactive decay. You need some neutrons, and a fissile material. It sounds like the (alpha, n) reaction on beryllium is a reasonable guess for neutron production, and you can use the neutrons to induce fission on uranium, even if it won't be remotely self-sustaining.

    13. Re:How was this going to work? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Am-241 can fission from neutron absorption and initiate a chain reaction. A spherical critical configuration needs well over 50 kg of mass, however. There is no possibility from assembling such a large mass from the microgram quantities found in smoke detectors.

    14. Re:How was this going to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhh!!! Icksnay on the airsprayhay.

    15. Re:How was this going to work? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly new or difficult:
      http://science.slashdot.org/story/99/05/20/1320256/Students-Build-Reactor-For-Scavenger-Hunt

      (which you're surely one of the few people on here that can remember being originally posted)

    16. Re:How was this going to work? by cartman · · Score: 1

      I assume you're kidding, but no.

      Don't worry, just hide behind your newspaper. That will be all you need to stop alpha particle radiation.

      The Americium in smoke detectors is already shielded which prevents any meaningful amount of radiation from escaping. Even if radiation did escape, alpha particles are blocked by a few inches of air.

      Now after the Americium-241 degrades into Cm or plutonium, that is another matter. For the neutron radiation a good thick wall of lead should do it.

      Am-241 degrades into Neptunium 237, which is also an alpha emitter, and which is much less radioactive than the Am-241 it replaces.

    17. Re:How was this going to work? by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      "This sounds like his experiment bears as much similarity to a reactor as a balloon full of hairspray resembles a car engine."

      ... It's a smaller, much more explosive version?

      I'm not sure that's comforting.

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    18. Re:How was this going to work? by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Yea, he was trying to use the alpha source(s) to knock neutrons out of the beryllium to try to get fissions in the uranium.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    19. Re:How was this going to work? by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. This is a joke right?

      Ja, I vas playink vit my nookler ractor and zhere was unt fire but its ok because I have plenty of ziagarette butts to put it oout.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    20. Re:How was this going to work? by hAckz0r · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the correction, but that really leaves me wondering about the following statement from Wikipedia from which I had based my original thoughts from:

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Americium#Production_of_other_elements
      "Americium is a starting material for the production of other transuranic elements and transactinides – for example, 82.7% of 242Am decays to 242Cm and 17.3% to 242Pu. "

      I guess this transition only happens if you irradiate it with an external neutron source?

  16. Afterwards... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    ... he received simultaneous job offers from Iran and North Korea ...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  17. Cool by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

    Sounds like 5-digit Slashdot user or something...Extra geek points for mushroom over Stokholm.

    --
    839*929
  18. The world of big government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the big government paradigm, everything you do is subject to whims of a bureaucrat who will decide whether or not you can do it.

    In this case, although apparently he did nothing wrong, his equipment was confiscated, and I suspect he was warned if he made any waves, he would be brought up on charges.

    Other than go to work every day on public transportation living in a suitably small flat (and maybe have an approved "smart phone" as long as it can be tracked), a bureaucrat will decide what is appropriate for you to do, have and where to live.

    The worst part is, half the population thinks that's okay, as if a free person's life is made to serve the greater good.

    These are the first people to look at the Chinese and say "tsk tsk, they don't have the freedoms that we do".

  19. Is this even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can't build tiny nuclear reactors.

    The minimum amount of reactive material you need to keep a chain-reaction going is too high to build tiny nuclear reactors.

    What people call a "tiny" nuclear reactor is the size of a hot-tub.

    1. Re:Is this even possible? by hAckz0r · · Score: 2
      Its possible is you are building an RTG reactor. Its not much more than using the Seebeck effect (temperature differential) to generate electricity.

      Radioisotope thermoelectric generator
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

    2. Re:Is this even possible? by Alioth · · Score: 2

      "Tiny" nuclear reactors can be as small as 9 inches by 16 inches, as in the SNAP-10 used to power a spacecraft in the 1960s (this was a full-fledged nuclear reactor, not an RTG). Much much smaller than a hot tub.

    3. Re:Is this even possible? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Of course tiny reactors are possible, critical configurations of certain elements would need only grams of mass in some cases (extracting any such quantity from the scant artificial sources left as exercise for governments with hundreds of millions of dollars U.S. or more to spend). For example, 20 grams of Am-242m1 can make a reactor with kilowatts of power output: . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium#Fission

    4. Re:Is this even possible? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      more fun facts, the SNAP-10 weighed half a ton. http://www.etec.energy.gov/History/Major-Operations/SNAP-Overview.html

    5. Re:Is this even possible? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      I really wish the U.S. had kept prototyping those things. Nuclear material is the only energy source with a high enough energy density in space to be useful on large-scale spacecraft. (No, at Earth distance and further out, solar energy does not count as "high energy density.")

    6. Re:Is this even possible? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      I predict a new store category at Ikea.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  20. Re:Scandinavians by biodata · · Score: 1

    I don't think there was any indication in the article that this was anything to do with terrorism. See my comment above about fertiliser. If you fear terrorism you will see it everywhere. If you don't then you will not necessarily associate any particular material object with terrorism.

    --
    Korma: Good
  21. Belt buckles, shoelaces and a piece of gum by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who needs radioactive material to build a nuclear reactor? This is clearly no Macgyver.

    1. Re:Belt buckles, shoelaces and a piece of gum by geoffaus · · Score: 2

      I prefer my Mr Fusion

      --
      As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
  22. Link to his blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  23. Next on Discovery... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

    Arrested? He should get his own TV show!

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    1. Re:Next on Discovery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bad boys, bad boys, watcha gonna do?

    2. Re:Next on Discovery... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      What should the format be like? A mix of Mythbusters and Jackass?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Next on Discovery... by Adriax · · Score: 2
      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    4. Re:Next on Discovery... by dainer · · Score: 0

      or a storage unit. you don't crap where you eat.

    5. Re:Next on Discovery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I think I just had half my cup of coffee come out of my nose lol

  24. Re:Scandinavians by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    weapons grade or not

    That distinction would be wrong to gloss over. While it is relatively easy to build a nuclear reactor (not a safe one, mind), building a nuclear weapon (and merely producing or handling weapons-grade nuclear material) requires technological and industrial resources beyond any individual. Therefore, this is not nuke material. It is at worst usable in a dirty bomb.

  25. Extremely old? by kyrio · · Score: 1

    Isn't this extremely old or is he just copying someone else who did this?

    1. Re:Extremely old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a logical OR or a grammatical OR? It can be both or either.

  26. Mail-order? by SirDice · · Score: 1

    I really, really wonder what mail-order company delivers nuclear material?!?

    1. Re:Mail-order? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://unitednuclear.com/

    2. Re:Mail-order? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1
      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:Mail-order? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that you can get some very low level radioactive material through mail order. I worked at a company that had some for testing semiconductors against to ensure that they were properly hardened against radiation. I have also seen Geiger counter calibration kits sold as well so it doesn't seem unreasonable since he was probably buying stuff slightly more radio active than a granite counter top.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Mail-order? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      hmmm, no mention of their brothel-oriented computer consulting services.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:Mail-order? by vlm · · Score: 2

      If by "nuclear material" you mean legally exempt sources, there's a couple places. United nuclear is a marketer/reseller of the actual suppliers. Kind of like digikey and mouser do not manufacture resistors, they resell them. By legal definition exempt sources are harmless; don't sweat it.

      If by "nuclear material" you mean legally non-exempt sources, there's a couple perfectly legal places. Just submit your valid non-expired NRC licensing information, which they'll verify, and then ship the goods. If I recall correctly UPS had a special shipping process that was horrifically expensive. I was very tangentially involved with the NBC gear at my army reserve unit and you could get detection gear non-exempt sources thru "the mail", used for testing equipment and also for training. Think of a licensed animal veterinarian getting licensed non-exempt radio-iodine shots to treat a cat with hyperthyroidism, this stuff is all just off the shelf and business as usual. Follow the law like everyone else in the business. I suppose you could forge a Swedish license to order stuff overseas, but get caught doing that and its well deserved hard time, both for the forger and the shipper who didn't bother to verify the license "just this one time".

      If by "nuclear material" you mean normal household products that are radioactive, like low-sodium salt, or old camping lantern mantles, or smoke detectors, or pretty much anything made of granite, any one of numerous "rock collection minerals", well I guess start with amazon.com. If by some miracle, you have a radiation-free house, it can be just as radioactive as any normal house with just a couple mail order purchases.

      If by "nuclear material" you mean something a meth head stole and is fencing on ebay to raise some money to buy sudafed, well I guess the answer is ebay.com.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  27. Swede Arrested For Building Nuclear Reactor by adalrichschmidt · · Score: 0

    This is hardly newsworthy. All websites (including new ones by Google) undergo normal fluctuations. Besides, the changes are not so drastic to warrant such a publicity. Atlantic International Partnership Madrid Local News and Latest Events

  28. Ugh by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

    Don't write about nuclear anything if you're going to do it "in shrt frm". Have the attention span to type the whole word.

  29. As an immigrant in Sweden I'd say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That there are two swedish facts in this story:

    1) The guy ASKED if it was legal to build a nuclear reactor
    2) There was a public office where he could place such inquiry

    I love this country xD

  30. Easier to ask forgiveness than permissions.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    well maybe not in this case.

  31. Re:Next on CBS by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    Bazinga!

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  32. Strange by maroberts · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall that USia has a number of people trying to build home brew fusion reactors, why not have a few guys experimenting with fission??...

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  33. Un-sharp by Sta7ic · · Score: 1

    That's pretty stupid, overall. He should've done his research before doing some experiments, and the government shouldn't've gone in with a vengeance. As far as silly ways to get arrested, though, it's sillier than getting arrested for making moonshine in the US. http://www.burningstill.com/?q=node/57

    1. Re:Un-sharp by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      bah, what's happened to the American can-do spirit? (sic)
      I can't believe that some enterprising good-ol' boy engineer from Oak Ridge hasn't built a nuclear powered still!
      Come on, this is the 21st century for pete's sake!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  34. Information published by the experimenter himself by Bromskloss · · Score: 1
    • His blog (English), where describes his experiments.
    • Forum thread (Swedish), started by himself, where the arrest and possible consequences are discussed.
    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  35. Nuclear-secrets.com is dead homer used it when by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    it still had real info on it.

    But he needed to steal some plutonium from the power plant to make it work.

  36. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

    And somehow you don't see it as a big deal that they are denying someone's freedom? Being arrested -is- a big deal because it often causes more damage than being charged with a crime.

    Chances are slim that the government will pay you for the emotional trauma of being arrested, the loss to your reputation if you are arrested and all other effects of you being arrested even if you aren't charged with a crime in the end.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  37. I bet he had a DeLorean in his garage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He just needed something to power his flux capacitor. duh!

  38. "Arrested" by scubamage · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I wonder if he was arrested, or "arrested." Meaning, he'll disappear from the grid, and turn up working in a government lab. I'd think sensible politicos would want to nurture this sort of thing.

  39. Nuclear Boy Scout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has been done. By a retarded kid here, who created a superfund site out of the shed behind his moms.

    He's a waking pile of scabbed over tumors now.

    Fun times.

  40. Big power is keeping the little guy down! by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    If we all had mini reactors, we'd be free of oil and electric companies.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:Big power is keeping the little guy down! by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      It's hard enough getting kids to take out the trash, imagine when its nuclear waste?

      "But moooom, I took it out last week! And my hair still hasn't grown back yet!"

    2. Re:Big power is keeping the little guy down! by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      When reactors are outlawed, only off-the-path lunar outlaws will have reactors.

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    3. Re:Big power is keeping the little guy down! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      ...which is probably one of the biggest reasons why they are outlawed.

      The law of most countries is designed to keep you being a good consumer, as most countries governments are really owned by megacorps.

    4. Re:Big power is keeping the little guy down! by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. Fission reactions are bad, and generate bad radiation. Americanism which is in smoke detectors is radioactive. And fission reactors can melt down.

      However there is a nuclear reactor that is safe - a fusion reactor. But they are not viable yet. But I bet the "nuclear" word and the dangers of fission reactors will be used to mar the adoption of safe fusion reactors.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    5. Re:Big power is keeping the little guy down! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      The reason fusion reactors are so incredibly safe is that we keep the safely away fifty years in the future.
      Transporting the generated power back in time has turned out to be a bit of an engineering conundrum.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  41. Re:What is with these fork-truckin' Scandinavians? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

    I'd mod you +1 (Funny,Sick) if I had any mod points.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  42. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by icebraining · · Score: 1

    So being arrested is a big deal, but trying to build a fission reactor in an apartment (so, right next to others) isn't?

    The police here did nothing but their job. He should have informed himself about the legality *before* he got the stuff.

  43. As Prof. Farnsworth would say! by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    "Wernstrom!"

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  44. Hey, everyone needs a hobby. by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Does he get lifetime membership on /. for his choice of hobby?

  45. In Soviet Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuclear reactor live on you!

  46. Contact authorities to inquire about law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too dumb to be that smart.

  47. And the Darwin Award goes to... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    That guy...

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  48. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by DiarrhoeaChaChaCha · · Score: 1

    In the USA perhaps where the perp-walk is something that is considered normal for someone who is merely arrested.

  49. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by del_diablo · · Score: 2

    But the problem was that it is not even illegal to do that in Sweden. It is only a legal "greyzone", and there is no laws for it either.
    What should have happened is that the police deliver a letter stating "we need to approve if its legal or not", ask him to please halt the building process(in case it turns out is would not be legal after a law has been made), and then it goes trough the electeds, and if there are indeed large enough reasons agains it should be illegal.
    Arresting him for it is outright rude.

  50. Re:Prisoner 6 by openfrog · · Score: 2, Informative

    Prisoner 6: "I recorded a video of police beating the crap out of a teenager for no good reason at a bus stop."

    http://neil.fraser.name/news/2010/12/23/
    http://neil.fraser.name/news/2011/04/28/

    P.S. There is a good ending to this story: follow the links to the blog of Neil Fraser, a Google engineer who bailed the guy out after he spent seven months in jail, accused of, since video recording police is not illegal... "attempted lynching"....

  51. Want details by Stellian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How exactly one goes about building a nuclear reactor from mail order uranium (presumably depleted) and smoke detectors (about 1 microgram of Americium 241 each) ? The critical mass of Am 241 is over 50 Kg, so he would need 50 million smoke detectors to build a bomb. For a controlled, moderated reaction, much more, maybe hundreds of Kg. The technology to enrich natural uranium up to reactor-grade level is barely in the hands of states.

    The fact that someone took him seriously and actually sent a guy with a detector AND a police squad to his house shows just how ridiculously incompetent the regulators are, and how paranoid people get when the word "radiation" is uttered.

    1. Re:Want details by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an explosion risk, this guy ranks well below a kid with a pack of sparklers. However, I can see taking some precautions around anyone who has been playing with Am241-containing items in any atypical quantity...

      That stuff is a reasonably zesty alpha emitter, and modestly well absorbed if taken internally, which isn't a good mix. If some noob has been fucking around, it is hardly unreasonable to take the precautionary step of assuming that he's manage to produce a bunch of toxic and radioactive dust.

    2. Re:Want details by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are unfamiliar with David Hahn?

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    3. Re:Want details by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure they were more worried about the radioactive material itself than the possibility he would actually succeed at building a reactor. He was never going to build a working reactor, but it's quite possible he might have acquired enough radioactive material to make himself and his neighbors very sick.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Want details by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      But you need only a few grams for a dirty bomb. Terrrrrists are the craze today, didn't you get the memo?

      And it's not limited to Islamist nutjobs anymore. Especially in Sweden...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Want details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Check his project blog at http://richardsreactor.blogspot.com/, especially the stove top. The flashback thread (in Swedish) hints that the photo may be an old one, unrelated to the current discussion, though.

    6. Re:Want details by CnlPepper · · Score: 1

      Norway...

    7. Re:Want details by interkin3tic · · Score: 2
      TFA points out that he himself didn't expect much of it

      He told the newspaper that had he succeeded in building a nuclear reactor, generating any power would probably have proved beyond him. "To get it to generate electricity you would need a turbine and a generator and that is very difficult to build yourself," he told HD.

      He also claims he had been using a geiger counter and had not detected "a problem" with the radiation.

    8. Re:Want details by JockTroll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, MacReady, get your nordic things right.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    9. Re:Want details by dainer · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was working on a fusion reaction. And I get nervous when people say "rabies" or "herpes", it only natural.

    10. Re:Want details by nullifi · · Score: 1

      Forget Norway...
      Kenya!
      Oh Kenya!
      Where the girafess,
      and the Zebra!

    11. Re:Want details by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      You don't need criticality in order to have nuclear reactions. Criticality just means the whole thing is self sustaining. You can however mix an alpha-emitter ( such as americium ) with beryllium, and the alpha-beryllium interactions would create neutrons that can split even depleted uranium.

      With americium it's probably not too dangerous, but if he had gotten his hand on something like radium or polonium, then it would be reason to worry.

    12. Re:Want details by EdIII · · Score: 1

      it is hardly unreasonable to take the precautionary step of assuming that he's manage to produce a bunch of toxic and radioactive dust.

      Given the recent events in Norway, I could see how the Swedish Radiation Authority thought it was a bit weird (let's face it.. it is) and contacted the police. If you thought of radioactive dust, I am sure the SRA thought of it and the cops thought he could disperse it in a populated area. Quite nasty.

      He got raided because it is not ordinary to build a nuclear reactor in one's house. The level of force may be up for debate, but their interest is quite reasonable.

      All things considered, there are cheaper and safer ways to generate your own electricity than nuclear reactors. I'd leave that stuff for large scale implementations or purchasing a complete and contained unit ready to go.

    13. Re:Want details by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The fact that he called them up and asked about the rules tips him pretty strongly in the direction of "geek" and away from "dirty-bomb suspect" in my estimation, so cop-style force seems a bit tactless; but if I were the hazmat guy who was called in to give him the "Yeah, I totally agree that science is cool; but people who do stupid things with dangerous materials often die and, unfortunately, sometimes take the neighbors with them" talk you bet I would be wearing a dosimeter and protective gear suitable to a potential radioactive dust hazard.

    14. Re:Want details by wesleyjconnor · · Score: 1

      But its a good story, shows the 'world' people are out there protecting you, watching the bad guys blah blah

    15. Re:Want details by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I agree, but it is strange and stressful times right now. In the light of recent events, an investigation was at least warranted. At least a check in person on the guy, or some further questioning about what he was doing geek to geek.

      The SWAT team was way overkill for this if the only evidence they had was his questions to the SRA.

      It does remind me of what is seemingly an attack on chemistry itself in many countries. People that have a love for chemistry and have their own labs, no different than car enthusiasts, are increasingly being treated as threats to society, where they are most certainly not.

      That being said, in this case, I would have rather been on the side of caution and took a deeper look at the guy, I just would not have done it with full tactical gear and weapons.

    16. Re:Want details by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      To be fair to the authorities, they probably didn't know most of the facts from his phone call. When all you have is some loner calling you up to ask if he's allowed to build nuclear reactors, it's probably fair that they'd want to check it out properly.

      Anyway, as other people have pointed out, it doesn't have to be an A-bomb to be a health hazard. Radioactive material does you no good if inhaled or ingested in even relatively small quantities, and they had no idea how safe this guy was being with his material (letting some go out the window, draining it into the water supply, etc.

    17. Re:Want details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the guy's blog about the project:

      "Th-232 + n -> Th-233 (T½ = 22,3 min) -> -> Pa-233 (T½ = 27 days) -> -> U-233
      U-233 has a T½ of 1 590 000 years, and is fissionable."

      "U-238 + n -> U-239 (T½ = 23,45 min) -> -> Np-239 (T½ = 2,356 days) -> -> Pu-239
      Pu-239 has a T½ of 24 110 years, and is fissionable."

      "The Americium-piece lie on about 37 kBq, 37 000 bequerel. The background-radiation is on about 35 Bq. But for my project you need much, much more. About 100 of smoke-detectors. But later I will try another material, instead of getting so many smoke-detectors"

      "Radium is much more effective than Americium. Radium was used into around 1950, in clocks and watches, then it was withdrawn because it was too dangerous. The isotope Ra-226, an -emitter, with a half-life of 1 599 years. It is hightly toxic and decays into Radon."

      "To get neutrons, just mix the -emitter with Aluminum or Beryllium. Beryllium is the best, but it is pretty toxic, and Aluminum is easier to get."

      More: http://richardsreactor.blogspot.com/

    18. Re:Want details by galanom · · Score: 1

      50kg/1g = 50 billion, not 50 million, so it is fair to assume that it is possible. Big business for vendors! :D

    19. Re:Want details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The objective of promoting the wrongness that "individuals instead of states" should be making bombs, may not have been absurd at all? Maybe it was a Trojan Horse packed with harmful intents?

      The obvious silliness of such "harms" may have made the home project into a useful "object" for a far more dangerous concern to society, than radiation or home made devices? The publicity surrounding the announcement could have been used to induce fear and to promote as necessary, a response to that fear. The fear shapes "minds" in response to information; but it the information is propaganda, then the minds are shaped to allow the states to take freedoms in exchange for concerns of personal safety. If you folks would agree to give me all your weapons, i will protect you from the big bad wolf. Fear supported propaganda allows the state to claim, as necessary, more laws, tighter controls, less privacy together with agencies supported by police power to"protect from such [silly, induced, ascribed or imagined] harms".

      A far more dangerous object than "device technology in the hands of playful people" is "fear induction in the hands of authoritarian states". Promoting mass objectives in propaganda rappers is or should be deemed a crime against humanity. Propaganda is the most efficient weapon "those in charge" can use to seduce "those it governs".

      Those in control of the state, are charged by those who control them [rarely ever those it governs], to control and regulate the behaviors and actions of the individual members of the governed society. 9/11 induced sufficient fear and confusion to allow those in charge of those who run the state, to use the law making powers of the state, to overpower U. S. Constitutional prohibitions against search and seizure and privacy and to impose as essential "civil protections" in the form of patriot spy acts to make legal "surveillance" and in the form of security measures and agencies with sufficient enforcement powers to enforce compliance.

      In short, fear catalyzes the work of propaganda; and propaganda controls innocent societies against their will.

  52. They just did a fire drill in Bloom County by Quila · · Score: 1

    When for the science fair Oliver Wendell Jones built a functioning nuclear bomb out of the glowy stuff on a couple thousand glow in the dark watches.

    1. Re:They just did a fire drill in Bloom County by lancelotlink · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting that! I've never forgotten the visual of that teacher with the Einstein hair clapping his hands.

  53. It's been done before by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    Check out David hahn on Wiki or a reputable source.

    It may not be possible to build your own reactor, but it is possible to cause some serious concern.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  54. Re:Prisoner $ by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Prisoner $ ruined the financial system of the entire US but he is a free man because he bought his way out.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  55. Why do you ask questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to which you already know the answers?

  56. It doesn't have to give positive energy output by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    to be called a reactor. All that is required is a self sustained controlled nuclear fission reaction.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  57. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by adsl · · Score: 2

    I am presuming that you are British? In the UK being "arrested" merely means being questioned. It has little to no long term consequences. In other countries being "arrested" means actually being formally charged with an offence. An ""arrest" record stays on your record forever and many job interviewers specifically ask if one has ever been "arrested". As this is a public record it means answering it in the affirmative and hoping that the interviewer listens to your side of the experience. But many would just move on to another candidate. Thus an arrest record can be devastating.

  58. beat oil prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bustards, man decided to be honest and got busted! Actually I was thinking to do the same, I mean reactor, outrages gas prices, natural gas prices and forever rising electrical bill force me to think about reactor as well.

  59. His webpage http://richardsreactor.blogspot.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His webpage: http://richardsreactor.blogspot.com/ for as long as it is up...

    Poor guy. He must be living in a dream world.

  60. Re:Information published by the experimenter himse by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

    With little gems on his blog page like "But I tried to cook Americium, Radium and Beryllium in 96% sulphuric-acid, to easier get them blended.", accompanied by photos of goop spilled all over his kitchen stove, I kinda agree with the authorities here....

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  61. Just wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the mollycoddling of the socialist scandinavian states, it seems there are a lot of 30-ish males bored out of their minds....

    Perhaps they should try to take over Europe next.

  62. During police questioning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They asked if he was crazy, but he promptly replied "No! my mother had me tested!"

  63. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by SEWilco · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's the big deal about being "arrested"? Police (and others) use their power of arrest all the time. The big story will be if he is charged with something.

    He won't get a charge. Neutrons don't carry a charge.

  64. Re:Prisoner 6 by black+soap · · Score: 1

    That's odd that you could "attempt lynching of a police officer," since California defines lynching as "The taking by means of a riot of any person from the lawful custody of any peace officer."

  65. Re:Prisoner 6 by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    kind of a sad story. the kid did time for no reason and the cops and DA got off scot-free! ;(

    and the kid only got off because he had a friend. a lot of us would not have had this kind of help and would rot in prison for a long time.

    the system is broken if this can happen. HOW many months was he locked up - and for no good reason at all!

    how much suffering did the cops and DA get?

    NONE.

    there is no justice. this thing happens a lot and the judges do nothing about it. they all know the system is an out of control machine and its best to just stay out of its lunatic way if you want to stay alive.

    how very sad to hear this about our so-called justice system.

    the DA should be serving LIFE for this. with no parole. then maybe the rich white fucks will think again before ruining a guy's life!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  66. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    I think jobs mostly ask if you have been CONVICTED.

    but you are also partly right; some don't care if you've been proven or voted guilty; they are happy enough to reject you on ANY deviations from center.

    "no job for you. you come back one year. NEXT!"

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  67. In his apartment? Ridiculous! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    I build mine in a rented garage, like all right-thinking people. It's right by the death ray and the free energy machines.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  68. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by captainpanic · · Score: 2

    I also don't like a police state where you can get arrested for no apparent reason. But it's not like there was "no apparent reason". He was playing with goddamn nuclear material!

    What should the police have done according to all you complaining people? Kindly request that he refrains from building a nuclear reactor, and that he delivers the nuclear material before noon the next day, because although it's a grey area in the law, it's best not to play with it in a residential area?

    Of course they raided the apartment and confiscated the whole thing. And when you raid an apartment, and confiscate stuff, you also arrest people.

    Good job, Sweden.

  69. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Same in the US; being arrested means basically having your freedom of movement restricted by the police, even if temporarily. If a cop arrives at the scene and makes you stand at the wall, and tells you you'll be cuffed if you try leaving, that's technically arrest.

  70. Just goes to show by paiute · · Score: 2

    It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Just goes to show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      Best,

      Iran

  71. Oh wait, I forgot by Quila · · Score: 1

    I think Oliver did get suspended for that.

    But it was better than getting raided by the DEA over illegal cat sweat scalp tonic.

  72. I just put a skylight in my place. by drainbramage · · Score: 2

    The people upstairs are furious.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
    1. Re:I just put a skylight in my place. by mikael · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... and glow in the dark.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  73. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the problem was that it is not even illegal to do that in Sweden. It is only a legal "greyzone", and there is no laws for it either.

    I'm sure Sweden has laws against things like reckless endangerment. That Americium is some nasty crap. It's not as toxic as Plutonium, but it's no fun.

    Forget radioactivity for a minute. How would you feel if it turned out that your neighbor had been growing ebola cultures in his living room because he was convinced he could find a cure? I doubt if there are any specific laws against growing your own ebola cultures, but I'll damn sure betcha it's against plenty of laws that are on the books.

  74. Already done for U.Chicago scavenger hunt in 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Photos or it didn't happen.
    OK. Image caption: "Two students (above) pose in front of a working nuclear breeder reactor built in a shed, earning 3,954 points for their team in the Scavenger Hunt of 1999."

    http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050505.scavhunt.shtml

  75. Smoke Detector sources by shoppa · · Score: 1

    The Americurium-241 (about 1 microgram) in a smoke detector is pretty securely packaged up inside a little disc inside a housing that strongly encourages you to not throw it away in the normal trash but instead treat it as recycleable hazardous waste. It's an alpha emitter and the little plastic disc and housing very thoroughly stops the alpha particles from getting out and getting to your skin. That said, pulling the disc out and trying to get the Americurium out is pretty stupid and although the 1 microgram is perfectly safe in its little disc housing (probably even if you swallowed it), removing/scraping the Americurium and getting it under your skin or in your digestive system or lungs would be a bad idea. Conceivably it could mess up family or neighbors. Ingesting, inhaled, or absorbed in blood alpha emitters (even accidentally) is a bad idea. I'm 99% sure that if he was charged with anything, it would be not properly storing or disposing of hazardous waste.

  76. Re:Prisoner 6 by fritsd · · Score: 1

    Wait, are we still talking about Sweden?
    Shiit..

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  77. More on the Radioactive Boy Scout by BcNexus · · Score: 1
  78. The Radioactive Boy Scout by shmorhay · · Score: 1

    An interesting book on something similar done near Detroit a while back is "The Radioactive Boy Scout" by Ken Silverstein, 2005, ISBN-13 9780812966602, that details the adventures of a young lad working on his Boy Scout merit badge for Atomic Energy -- informative reading.

  79. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do your nickname honour.

  80. Why arrested? by shaitand · · Score: 2

    He was obviously making a good faith effort to find out the relevant laws and comply. He bought freely available materials over-the-counter so to speak. This isn't a bad guy but rather a curious one and justice is not served by punishing him. As some point people have forgotten that the law is guideline to justice and that actual justice should be served by the system, not strict compliance with the letter of the law.

  81. Re:What is with these fork-truckin' Scandinavians? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    So the Swedes are constructive, the Norwegians destructive.

    Ahhh, the fun with stereotyping.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  82. Re:Prisoner 6 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    But sure! He stole his soul! He made a picture of him!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  83. i don't worry about regulators overreacting by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    i worry more about the insane things some crackpot might be doing with radioactive elements next door

    you have strange priorities, because the regulators were RIGHT to overreact

    if regulators got the impression some loony toon was playing with radioactivity in an apartment building, they aren't doing their job if they don't overreact

    is this hysteria on my part? false alarmism on my part?

    no, it is false complacency on your part to take the concept of some wackjob playing with radioactivity in tight living spaces lightly

    and if you resent my use of the words "crackpot", "loony toon" and "wackjob", then you have no sense of responsibility, and judging by radioactive boyscout: swedish edition's sense of responsibility, there are far stronger words ic ould have chosen to use

    you don't play with radioactivity in an apartment building. you don't do that. it is highly irresponsible. understand that, or understand nothing. this isn't about freedoms being trounced or overintrusive bureaucracy or the rights of the science minded to explore and build: it is about IRRESPONSIBILITY

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i don't worry about regulators overreacting by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 2

      If the police had come with a search warrant, and arrested him if they found evidence that he was doing something illegal, that would be reasonable. But arresting him merely because he asked permission to make a reactor is silly.

    2. Re:i don't worry about regulators overreacting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could make a movie about radioactive zombies. That would be great.

    3. Re:i don't worry about regulators overreacting by lgw · · Score: 1

      if regulators got the impression some loony toon was playing with radioactivity in an apartment building, they aren't doing their job if they don't overreact

      There's no radiation danger from uranium unless you actually get a reactor to criticality (which he was far from). Americanium is an alpha emitter, so it's only dangerous if taken internally. There's plenty of stuff under your sink that's more toxic than either. Now if was accumulating 100s of pounds of the stuff, then that's worrisome just like accumlating 100s of pounds of drain cleaner or rat poison would be.

        There's no magical "radiation" hazard that's worse than any other toxic subsance at work here. Enough with the scary-scary-nukular-scary panic, already.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:i don't worry about regulators overreacting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, radioactivity. Run for the hills!

      Get a grip. There is nothing wrong or particularly dangerous with the nuclear materials mentioned. The Am-241 source and a geiger counter are a great way to learn about the properties of alpha particles---i.e. put a piece of paper between source and detector and notice that the particles don't make it through. I even did a science project on this when I was a kid. (We got a radioactive pill beta emitter from a friend in nuclear medicine who knew my dad would be responsible with it.)

      So yes, this is hysteria on your part. It was right for the regulators to do a search, make sure he wasn't being an idiot and grinding stuff up into powders, etc. Depending on what they found, they may or may not have over-reacted by confiscating the materials.

      "Don't play with radioactivity"... What's next? Don't play with electricity? Don't play with source code? Just be a good little consumer and don't open the black box.

  84. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by cavreader · · Score: 1

    Governments around the world tend to get a little concerned with anyone building something that requires acquiring radioactive materials that while are not weapons grade or even sufficient for nuclear energy production can still be used to enhance regular ordinance or used in some other manner to contaminate enclosed areas such as a subways or office buildings. I just know there are certain groups reading this article and wondering how many smoke detectors they can afford.

  85. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by kbolino · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

    Not to mention certain forms: http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf (even includes expunged/stricken records!)
    Also, any rental, mortgage, or employment application.

    Sweden could be different.

  86. Maybe he was trying to build a proton pack by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Maybe he wanted to become a ghost buster?
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VXAhX4gd-20J:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_pack+ghostbusters+backpack&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

  87. Build your own! by havardi · · Score: 1

    Tom Weller's Science Made Stupid covered this topic back in 1985:
    http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/14650088?access_key=key-2hz3ld86f19nx2xs0hcx&start_page=31

  88. Re:Prisoner 6 by dosun88888 · · Score: 1

    I am not a number, I am a free man!

  89. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the big deal about being "arrested"? Police (and others) use their power of arrest all the time. The big story will be if he is charged with something.

    He won't get a charge. Neutrons don't carry a charge.

    But Am-241's an alpha emitter. I'm positive.

  90. Re:Prisoner 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is that a good ending? The asshole cops and DA didn't get the punishment they deserve and the kid was forced into accepting bogus charges and not sueing them.

    Just another reason to hate cops.

  91. Assuming you aren't a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kinda being a f*ing moron.

    No offense.

  92. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    This begs the question of "Where do you draw the line?"

    I have gas welding supplies in my residential home's garage. That a bottle of highly compressed oxygen, and a bottle of highly compressed acetylene. Handled improperly, these two bottle could make a BIG mess.

    I have epoxy resins and hardeners, some of which I have to pay exhorbitant shipping costs on because it is a Class 1 poison. Nasty stuff there.

    I have cans of methyl-ethyl-keytone, and other nasty solvents.

    Should I be expecting the police to show up to my house and start confiscating stuff?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  93. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

    What should the police have done according to all you complaining people?

    How about talking to the guy? I know its crazy, but here's just a thought, maybe knocking on his door, saying they have heard reports that he's doing [such and such thing], explaining that he isn't in any trouble at the moment but they will need to do [X and Y] which includes him letting regulators into his house and if dangerous materials are found they may be confiscated. He, of course, has the right to deny them entry, in which case they will have to go and request a warrant.

    They have zero evidence of any malice on his part, why is the first step of the process an arrest warrant rather than reasonable discussion. I'd be willing to bet my life savings that if the cops had showed up at his door and acted reasonably the whole situation could have been resolved without arresting the guy. He almost certainly didn't realize what he was doing would be considered illegal, else he wouldn't have been posting it to his blog.

  94. Re:Prisoner 6 by c6gunner · · Score: 2

    the DA should be serving LIFE for this. with no parole. then maybe the rich white fucks will think again before ruining a guy's life!

    Thaks for that calm, reasonable assesment of the situation, and for not resorting to race-baiting or a lynch-mob mentality. Individuals such as yourself are an invaluable part of the slashdot community. Keep up the good work!

  95. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

    They could have shown up at his apartment, explained to him that if he kept playing with toxic crap he would be charged with something like reckless endangerment, and told him he had 24 hours to dispose of the toxic material in one of the follwing safe manners (complete with some sort of list drafted up by a hazmat team about how it could be disposed of properly).

    I understand he was being irresponsible and his judgement was probably a little bit off, but does he really need to be arrested when a house visit and a strongly worded cease and desist letter probably would have deterred him just fine?

    Is the world so black and white nowadays that you have two options in law enforcement: suspected innocent = no arrest, possibly guilty = arrest.

    What happened to the days of the police being friendly and working with their communities/neighborhoods?

  96. Interesting . . . by Idou · · Score: 1

    When will the other builders of nuclear reactors (especially the ones that blow up) be arrested?

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  97. FUCKUSHIAMA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah in Japan it's legal to spew radiation. Should have done it in Japan.

  98. Quick question... by Mr.Fork · · Score: 1

    How would the authorities and new media react be if we didn't have the Fukushima nuclear crisis we have right now? If not, would we as Slashdotters have gone 'COOL BRO! - SOMEBODY HIRE THIS GUY!' and then that would of been the end of it?

    But no. Why are we playing armchair bureaucrats? I know it was a big 'oops' - but he was nothing more than a individual who has a passion for nuclear technology and let me remind everyone - it was he who contacted the authorities. Has this reaction from authorities moved the hobby into seclusion when we need it MORE out in the open?

    Just something to think about.

    --
    Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
  99. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

    But the problem was that it is not even illegal to do that in Sweden. It is only a legal "greyzone", and there is no laws for it either.

    I work at a nuclear physics lab in Sweden, and you're very wrong. There's quite strict regulations on how you're allowed to handle radioactive and poisonous materials, and opening up smoke detectors to extract the americium might very well qualify.

    Now I guess this may be one of those cases where the regulations have been carelessly written and hence only apply to people who received permission to use them, but in either case I certainly don't blame the police for intervening, especially seeing the guy in question seems completely clueless about what he is playing with. I'd expect them to react the same way if he was grinding up asbestos for some hobby project...

  100. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    Should I be expecting the police to show up to my house and start confiscating stuff?

    Don't be surprised when they do show up. People who like to build things and work with their hands are a shrinking minority. The nanny state is growing. Won't someone think of the children.
    For example: I was working on my old Jeep all weekend. I had several people ask me what was wrong, and look at me strangely when I told them there was noting wrong, and I was just making my Jeep the way I wanted it to be. I also had one woman come by with some irrational comments about safety, and her kids...(I was welding.) I told her to get off MY property, and keep her kids away as well.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  101. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am presuming that you are British? In the UK being "arrested" merely means being questioned. It has little to no long term consequences. In other countries being "arrested" means actually being formally charged with an offence.

    Oh yeah, like in the States.

    Word -- English -- Uhmurrikin
    Arrested -- Stopped -- Informally charged (every police spokesman says he did it but the papers haven't been filed in court yet) and certainly guilty
    Suspect -- Someone we think might have done it -- The criminal who did it
    Alleged -- Someone accused him of doing it -- He not only did it but was brutal and barbaric about it
    Peace Officer -- We call them "Bobbies" -- The guy who beat the hell out of you for asking permission to call your lawyer
    Visiting a residence -- Knocking up a person, showing warrant and ID, and having a little chat -- Kicking down your door, shooting your dog, shooting your 3yo daughter, shooting your 90yo grandmother in her rocking chair, tying the survivors with duct tape and rope, and finally identifying yourselves as Peace Officers

  102. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

    That Americium is some nasty crap. It's not as toxic as Plutonium, but it's no fun.

    You're wrong. Americium is a stronger alpha-emitter than both reactor and weapons grade plutonium. There are some exotic isotopes of plutonium used in space probes that are considerably more radioactive, but most plutonium produced in industry is a mix of Pu-239, Pu-240 and some Pu-241.

    Both elements have similar biological properties, and only a very small fraction is absorbed by the body were you to eat it. As compared to many other radioisotopes ( such as radio-iodine or radium ) both Plutonium and Americium are relatively benign ( but by no means safe ). The greatest health risk is probably if you're exposed to dust of the elements, since the metal particles can then stick to your lungs, increasing the risk of cancer.

    Btw, the toxicicty of plutonium is often greatly exaggerated in general media and movies. It is actually fairly safe compared to many things you can buy off the shelf (drain cleaner, insecticides, sulfuric acid , dishwasher powder , petrol etc ... ) . In general it is the fission waste products produced when nuclear fuel is burned that is responsible for the severe radioactivity of the waste. The fuel itself is fairly safe before it is exposed to neutron radiation. It's the stuff left over after you split the uranium/plutonium that you don't want to even look at without several metres of water in between you and it.

  103. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

    I forgot to add that while plutonium is not very toxic, it is quite reactive and can be a fire hazard if stored inappropriately. In particular it can react with water to create some easily ignited compounds. For this reason it is best to store it in hermetically sealed containers, or as a compound that is less reactive ( such as plutonium oxide ). Nuclear bomb makers get around this problem by electro-plating the plutonium with less reactive metals.

  104. Re:Prisoner 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe the rich white fucks will think again before ruining a guy's life!

    Note that it was a (well-off if not rich) white guy who bailed him out of jail. Agreed that the DA and cops should be punished, but race-baiting and class-baiting don't help the argument any.

  105. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1

    Where do you live? I'm in upstate New York, and nobody would be surprised here to see someone working on his car. I can't imagine someone here coming over to bitch at you for welding.

    --
    <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
  106. There's your answer by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    Police raided his apartment after he had contacted the Swedish Radiation Authority to inquire if it was legal to construct a nuclear reactor at home.

    I'd take that as a "No."

  107. His blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently he blogged about his little project http://richardsreactor.blogspot.com/

  108. "Hello police by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    may I play with anthrax in my apt complex?"

    same thing

    arrest that guy too

    what part of irresponsibly messing with the public's health do you not get?

    yes, it was nice of him to announce his intentions. it shows that he was acting in good faith. but because someone's intentions are pure is not enough. you must also show that you UNDERSTAND what you are doing is dangerous. did he honestly believe messing with radioactivity in a residential apt complex was harmless? if he did believe that, or if he knew it was dangerous, but he didn't care: in either case, arrest him: the man is going to hurt someone innocent

    do you think this is adequate defense?: "honest officer, i had no idea playing with radioactivity in my apt complex might be detrimental to my neighbors"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:"Hello police by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oohhh "radioactivity", that makes it a million times as bad, right? No, there was no potential for any radiation danger to his neighbors here (unless he actually built a working reactor, which he was quite far from).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:"Hello police by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      false alarmism is a problem in this world

      well, false complacency is too

      sure, you go ahead and consider someone messing with radioactivity in an apartment complex no big deal

      rock on, you irresponsible troll

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:"Hello police by jidar · · Score: 1

      Oohhh "radioactivity", that makes it a million times as bad, right? No, there was no potential for any radiation danger to his neighbors here (unless he actually built a working reactor, which he was quite far from).

      You might want to familiarize yourself with the case of David Hahn. A 17 year old kid who tried to build a nuclear reactor in his moms shed and dangerously exposed his entire neighborhood.

      --
      Sigs are awesome huh?
    4. Re:"Hello police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could do a movie about troll zombies. That would be great.

    5. Re:"Hello police by lgw · · Score: 1

      I do know about that case - he got pretty far along, having actually assembled his reactor: it's the addiditon of the neutron moderator that causes trouble. OK, he didn't technically achieve criticality, but he wasn't just storing materials that could be used to build a reactor: he built the thing. He was also using other materials beyond Americanium and Uranium.

      Uranium is as safe as lead (which is still a nasty heavy metal, of course), unless you actually start building a reactor out of it and catalyze fission with a moderator. It's the assembled result that's dangerous, not the raw materials, much as mixing bleach and ammonia can (in theory) be much more dangerous than either alone, possibly even endangering your neighbors in the same building, but we don't worry about having both under the sink.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  109. Re:Prisoner 6 by alexo · · Score: 1

    P.S. There is a good ending to this story: follow the links to the blog of Neil Fraser, a Google engineer who bailed the guy out after he spent seven months in jail, accused of, since video recording police is not illegal... "attempted lynching"....

    This is not a good ending. In fact, it is a terrible ending: jackbooted thugs get to walk all over a person, hold him prisoner for eight months, violate his rights, harass his family and destroy/confiscate his property -- with impunity.

    A good ending would be if the policemen, the prosecutor(s), the DA and everybody else participating in this travesty of justice were actually lynched.

  110. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because a car is up on blocks doesn't mean someone is actually working on it.

  111. WoW! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    So he asked, and they came after him, he should have called from a secure line, or someones elses house.....maybe a neighboor he does not like.

  112. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    Bitches are everywhere. :(
    Outside Vancouver, Canada.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  113. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1

    Nah, I don't live in that part of upstate New York... :-)

    --
    <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
  114. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    If Hollywood has taught me anything, it's that ONLY that guy would be capable of finding a cure.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  115. Re:Being arrested is no big deal... being CHARGED by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    What should the police have done according to all you complaining people? Kindly request that he refrains from building a nuclear reactor, and that he delivers the nuclear material before noon the next day, because although it's a grey area in the law, it's best not to play with it in a residential area?

    Yes. That or came and got the material themselves. I absolutely do not agree with outright arresting him (and I believe that raiding him was also a bit much).

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  116. Strange law by sjames · · Score: 1

    Apparently, this guy was questioned and sent home (sans radioactive materials) but the woman in another article who rescued and was raising a hedgehog faces fines and imprisonment?!?

  117. homebrew fusion power gerneration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://soldersmoke.blogspot.com/2010/06/homebrew-fusion-reactor-in-new-york.html

  118. Radio Interview by bLanark · · Score: 1

    They just interviewed this guy, Richard Handl on BBC's Radio 4, the programme is called "PM" and will be available for "listen again" once the programme is finished - less than an hour from this post date. It's certainly available in *some* overseas areas - I am currently in Luxembourg, EU - and will be available for a week from today (04 Aug 2011). If you do listen to it, the interview starts about 25 minutes into the start of the programme - but the BBC often start these recordings a couple of minutes early - if you don't hear Big Ben chiming at 00:00, then make sure you timeshift appropriately.

    The little I heard was incredible, the guy was arrested by cops with guns, he will appoint a lawyer if a trial will take place, and, while 'cooking' radioactive materials on his stove top, there was an explosion. He did wear rudimentary protective gear. Ho ordered radium from Germany via ebay, and it was delivered by post. I hope you'll get more by listening yourself, I barely paid attention until I realised who they were interviewing - my evening meal was far too tasty.

    --
    Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
    1. Re:Radio Interview by bLanark · · Score: 1

      Oops, this (link to PM section of BBC web site) might be useful if you want to actually listen.

      --
      Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!
  119. Here is a link to the MSN version of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44031333/ns/world_news-weird_news/