The best is when they use flimsy arguments about needing to "make an example" or "discourage this behavior" or "create a deterrent", as if people in these situations are even aware they're doing anything wrong.
> (...) as if people in these situations are even aware they're doing anything wrong.
Does this excuse even fly? I mean, do you actually believe that a guy who is a self-described "science nerd" with enough interest in chemistry to sought to get a sample of each element of the periodic table would somehow skip any and all references on how the element is subjected to nuclear proliferation restrictions?
Yes, it is possible. Have seen a few nerds who could solve Math Olympiad problems in a jiffy but had extreme trouble navigating government bureaucracy.
I would say that "nuclear proliferation" is about not letting North Korea or Israel getting nuclear weapons [1], not chasing random guy who tried to purchase infinitesimal amount of plutonium.
Awareness that you're doing something wrong is a spectrum. Obviously this guy wasn't intending to build a nuclear bomb, but I'm extremely skeptical that a science nerd could get to the point of building a periodic table collection without learning that plutonium is dangerous and heavily restricted. (The source article doesn't cover this, so just to make sure we're on the same page: plutonium is _not_ any more legal to export from the US than it is to import into Australia, and whoever sold it to this guy was almost surely breaking the law too.)
From what others have posted, this sample was apparently 35 nanograms salvaged from a smoke detector - and was sold by the online store embedded within an acrylic cube labelled "plutonium" in addition to still being in the original casing from the smoke detector.
To me it seems like that's strictly less likely to cause a Goiânia incident than when it was just in an old smoke detector that could've potentially be thrown out without consideration.
>Four months before the theft, on May 4, 1987, Saura Taniguti, then director of Ipasgo, the institute of insurance for civil servants, used police force to prevent one of the owners of IGR, Carlos Figueiredo Bezerril, from removing the radioactive material that had been left behind.
The Goiania accident was caused by government imposition, stopping the owners from moving it from the abandoned clinic before it was looted. The government was the moron there, just as the government is the moron in this story. So a good example, but not in the way you thought, as it shows government intervention with nuclear materials leading to needless tragedy.
The Royal Australian Air Force shut down airspace over an air force base to test fire a “high-powered” single-shot .50 caliber rifle. They are a parody of themselves.
The RAAF didn't test fire, nor did they "shut down" the air space.
Politicians and the police staged an air field adjacent test firing for media that carried risks that caused restricted, and warning notices to be issued for the air space.
A Department of Defence spokeswoman said the activity was supported by Defence.
“For safety, Air Force used a notice to airmen and provided air traffic control for a period of time in the vicinity of the area,” she said.
“At no time were RAAF Base Pearce’s flying operations impacted. The activity was coordinated between WA Police and Defence in accordance with standard procedures.”
National Shooting Council vice president told News Corp the demonstration was an “orchestrated media event to create fear in the community ... they were clearly told it was too risky but they went ahead anyway”.
“There was a very, very high risk of ricochets and therefore injury to members of the public, press and police attending because of the type of targets they were shooting at … they were very lucky to get away with it with no-one being injured, killed or worse for this little sh.t show,” he said.
^^ NOTICE: this is from two years past in 2023 .. The Western Australian newspaper website has wrapped this with a masthead with todays date (2025). If you search on the story there are several links from 2023 referencing this .. I cannot fathom why The West has done this to date other than it's a rag with a monopoly in a small state and they can't be arsed to do a good job here.
As a pilot, if I see a notam "that caused restricted … notices to be issued"-- especially in a military context-- I would be very comfortable describing the affected airspace as "shut down". I'm probably missing something as your link to an apparently low quality story is also paywalled. Maybe they're referring to the fact that the military almost always exempts itself from its TFRs, so technically it wasn't completely "shut down", but by that definition no airspace is ever shut down.
“At no time were RAAF Base Pearce’s flying operations impacted.
I'm also a pilot .. that RAAF base is mostly low traffic and my reading of everything published is they scheduled the media event for dead time and didn't have to abort or turn anything about.
I'd go further and guess that had the base been required for anything (sudden emergancy landing, etc) the media event would have been shut down and pushed away.
None of which supports the hyperbolic aspects of the original GP claim above.