The Rhisotope Project: Insertion of radioisotopes into live rhinoceros(wits.ac.za)
wits.ac.za
The Rhisotope Project: Insertion of radioisotopes into live rhinoceros
https://www.wits.ac.za/news/latest-news/general-news/2024/2024-06/a-novel-way-to-save-rhinos-.html
125 comments
This is a proof of concept project. The “3 years” is not because of some inherent difficulty, it’s just a typical research project.
From the article:
> …will closely monitor the health and vital statistics of the rhinos over a period of six months, in order to determine the viability of this approach.
If this approach is shown to be healthy, I’m sure it could be done much faster.
From the article:
> …will closely monitor the health and vital statistics of the rhinos over a period of six months, in order to determine the viability of this approach.
If this approach is shown to be healthy, I’m sure it could be done much faster.
> After three years of meticulous and dedicated hard work, the Rhisotope Project at Wits University has successfully inserted low doses of radioisotopes into 20 live rhinoceros.
Sounds like there is some inherent difficulty requiring years of meticulous and dedicated hard work to insert doses into 20 live rhinoceroses.
Sounds like there is some inherent difficulty requiring years of meticulous and dedicated hard work to insert doses into 20 live rhinoceroses.
> inherent difficulty requiring years of meticulous and dedicated hard work
I'm not quite convinced of this. If you watch the video in the article they demonstrate the procedure. Considering that they typically paint the rhino's horns with substances to make them undesirable to poachers, they clearly have the capacity to subdue and restrain the rhino already. And in the video they show a person using a standard hand drill, who drills into the rhino. You can see this at 0:20 and them insert the device at 0:34, where just after they show another horn being drilled into. And they do it several times throughout the video while the narrator explains the process.
I suspect that the 3 years is far less due to the actual "installing" it into the rhino (as it looks like once subdued the process is really <15 minutes...) but rather to things like regulation and determining the nuances like "how many isotopes do we need" (clearly more than one), "what types of radiation are more detectable?" "what levels of radiation will sustain and be detectable when transporting horns across international airports?", "Are we causing harm to the rhinos through the radiation?", "does the radiation leech into the rhino's body, such that while the device is safe inside the horn it would be harmful," "how often does that happen, especially given when they fight?", "do the devices stay in place for sustained periods of time?" and so on. There's quite a lot of important questions and many I'm sure that an actual expert in this could ask, but I'm nowhere near a rhino expert (or even enthusiast) [though am experienced with radiation technologies] and I have a bunch of questions that would reasonably take years to adequately answer.
It isn't "ah fuck, rhinos are so hard to catch that we're only able to catch one every 2 months" but "okay, we've installed these devices in 5 rhinos, are they still there 3 years later?" and "oh fuck, that type of glue and that drilling depth didn't work because we lost 10 devices in the first year. Time to update our methodology."
I find these kinds of questions magnitudes more likely than the explanation that they couldn't catch 20 rhinos and drill into their horns. Especially given what can be seen in the video about how the rhinos act.
I'm not quite convinced of this. If you watch the video in the article they demonstrate the procedure. Considering that they typically paint the rhino's horns with substances to make them undesirable to poachers, they clearly have the capacity to subdue and restrain the rhino already. And in the video they show a person using a standard hand drill, who drills into the rhino. You can see this at 0:20 and them insert the device at 0:34, where just after they show another horn being drilled into. And they do it several times throughout the video while the narrator explains the process.
I suspect that the 3 years is far less due to the actual "installing" it into the rhino (as it looks like once subdued the process is really <15 minutes...) but rather to things like regulation and determining the nuances like "how many isotopes do we need" (clearly more than one), "what types of radiation are more detectable?" "what levels of radiation will sustain and be detectable when transporting horns across international airports?", "Are we causing harm to the rhinos through the radiation?", "does the radiation leech into the rhino's body, such that while the device is safe inside the horn it would be harmful," "how often does that happen, especially given when they fight?", "do the devices stay in place for sustained periods of time?" and so on. There's quite a lot of important questions and many I'm sure that an actual expert in this could ask, but I'm nowhere near a rhino expert (or even enthusiast) [though am experienced with radiation technologies] and I have a bunch of questions that would reasonably take years to adequately answer.
It isn't "ah fuck, rhinos are so hard to catch that we're only able to catch one every 2 months" but "okay, we've installed these devices in 5 rhinos, are they still there 3 years later?" and "oh fuck, that type of glue and that drilling depth didn't work because we lost 10 devices in the first year. Time to update our methodology."
I find these kinds of questions magnitudes more likely than the explanation that they couldn't catch 20 rhinos and drill into their horns. Especially given what can be seen in the video about how the rhinos act.
There is not enough information to draw that conclusion. Anyone familiar with academia (or even a R&D tech project) can imagine what could take 3 years: ethics board approval, getting permission from the relevant government agencies, finding and hiring local Rhino experts to do the tagging, iterating on design of the drill and placement of isotopes, waiting to find enough rhinos that fit the high-standards demanded for a POC study (extra large, extra healthy, etc), and so on.
Or the other way: If it really took three years to tag 20 rhinos with everything working at full speed, don't you think the University and the researches themselves would be the first to realize this is impracticle? Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out?
Or the other way: If it really took three years to tag 20 rhinos with everything working at full speed, don't you think the University and the researches themselves would be the first to realize this is impracticle? Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out?
> Anyone familiar with academia (or even a R&D tech project) can imagine what could take 3 years
Yeah honestly (as an academic; on applied side), when I saw "3 years" my first thought was "wow that's fast." And the second one was "was that just to get approval or is that they've had the device in the rhino 0-3 years and are testing how effective their methods are at staying in and not doing long term damage to the animal?" Because the latter question I can see taking even longer. Though they say a rhino is poached every 20 hrs, so I think there's probably some urgency to the matter where 3 years of testing is good enough.
> Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out?
Well... I also don't have faith in journal reviewers so who the fuck knows.
Yeah honestly (as an academic; on applied side), when I saw "3 years" my first thought was "wow that's fast." And the second one was "was that just to get approval or is that they've had the device in the rhino 0-3 years and are testing how effective their methods are at staying in and not doing long term damage to the animal?" Because the latter question I can see taking even longer. Though they say a rhino is poached every 20 hrs, so I think there's probably some urgency to the matter where 3 years of testing is good enough.
> Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out?
Well... I also don't have faith in journal reviewers so who the fuck knows.
I often see this (gp's) sentient on HN and it is quite surprising to me given how people here specifically work in technology. Are we not intimately familiar with how one typically starts with small trial groups before we scale, so that we understand the effectiveness and safety? Or are we just "move fast and break things" and leave a mess in our wake with no one spending time to clean anything up. I guess that would explain enshitification.
But seriously, S-curves aren't just about how the middle part looks exponential. Both ends are slow. Slow to start and slow to end. When technology B replaces technology A it is (almost) always WORSE than technology A initially. The difference is that its theoretical maximum is higher. Because guess what? In the long run if you stack a bunch of S-curves together, you get an exponential curve. And this is how so much technology has improved, including transistors, solar, batteries, and so on. Sometimes this slow start can be on the order of decades! The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X (1983) wasn't "a failure," it was a step to the IBM Simon (1992) which was a step to the iPhone (2007).
So if you're exclusively chasing things that are better *now*, you won't make any progress. You have to invest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
But seriously, S-curves aren't just about how the middle part looks exponential. Both ends are slow. Slow to start and slow to end. When technology B replaces technology A it is (almost) always WORSE than technology A initially. The difference is that its theoretical maximum is higher. Because guess what? In the long run if you stack a bunch of S-curves together, you get an exponential curve. And this is how so much technology has improved, including transistors, solar, batteries, and so on. Sometimes this slow start can be on the order of decades! The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X (1983) wasn't "a failure," it was a step to the IBM Simon (1992) which was a step to the iPhone (2007).
So if you're exclusively chasing things that are better *now*, you won't make any progress. You have to invest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
Rhino horn is not ivory. Its keratin. Higher value to weight ratio than ivory.
Gotta wonder if it would be better to instead focus on making it easier to source keratin from a bioreactor / cell culture. Crash the market with "counterfeit" rhino keratin which is as good as the real stuff anyhow.
Wool is mostly keratin, also hooves and nails.
And feathers, turtle shell, but they are made or another type of keratin.
To be honest, each the keratin of each animal is slightly different, with small changes of the composition, something like plastic that can be made softer or harder tweaking the compostition.
Anyway, I guess it's not about the exact composition, but the "magic" part of the rhino horn.
And feathers, turtle shell, but they are made or another type of keratin.
To be honest, each the keratin of each animal is slightly different, with small changes of the composition, something like plastic that can be made softer or harder tweaking the compostition.
Anyway, I guess it's not about the exact composition, but the "magic" part of the rhino horn.
> making it easier to source keratin from a bioreactor
Keratin is readily available and cheap
Here's 50g of it on Amazon for $16: https://www.amazon.com/Myoc-Keratin-Powder-Conditioner-Produ...
And you can get it from chemical manufacturers in purer forms for much more expensive but that's true for any high grade chemical.
In fact, if we type your question into Google we find this 2019 article that even references a 2015 article about attempts to do exactly that: https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22723289/3d-printed-rhino-...
I highly suggest googling solutions that you think are rather obvious. It can often lead to surprising results as things can interestingly become complex. And at the worst case, you find that your idea works and you can throw in a citation to give your proposition more weight. Seems like a win win to me and at very little cost in time.
Keratin is readily available and cheap
Here's 50g of it on Amazon for $16: https://www.amazon.com/Myoc-Keratin-Powder-Conditioner-Produ...
And you can get it from chemical manufacturers in purer forms for much more expensive but that's true for any high grade chemical.
In fact, if we type your question into Google we find this 2019 article that even references a 2015 article about attempts to do exactly that: https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22723289/3d-printed-rhino-...
I highly suggest googling solutions that you think are rather obvious. It can often lead to surprising results as things can interestingly become complex. And at the worst case, you find that your idea works and you can throw in a citation to give your proposition more weight. Seems like a win win to me and at very little cost in time.
The great irony is that rhino horns grow back. Poachers would actually make more money in the long term if they didn't kill the rhinos.
I'd guess that most buyers of objects made from rhino horns are more interested in its rhino horn nature than its keratin composition. If keratin became suddenly abundant, I doubt it'd impact the rhino horn market very much
I know nothing of that market though, could be entirely wrong
I know nothing of that market though, could be entirely wrong
But good counterfeits would crash the market. It’s already run by crooks. They’d be happy to cheat.
I also know nothing of it, it's just a fun thought. In a previous life I really enjoyed faking parking permits and IDs and transcripts and stuff... it would be pretty fun to return to that but this time be one of the good guys: faking rhino horns for the sake of protecting actual rhinos.
Then rich Chinese dudes who can't get a boner will demand a video of their rhino being killed and the horn being taken.
Surely that sory of video would be easy to fake if needed these days?
I think being able to produce reliable supply chain traceability is indistinguishable from keeping detailed notes on a criminal conspiracy. None of the players want that besides the consumer. Never happen.
Sure, but it isn't clear to me that China actually cares about stopping rhino poaching, and I imagine the major players in the conspiracy never set foot in South Africa, and just have local low level agents (ie the ones we are told are so poor, they need to poach the rhinos to survive) exposed to consequences.
Buyers aren’t interested in “keratin” - they are interested in “rhino horn”. This is about mystical benefits from phallic animal parts. You aren’t going to tackle the market by fueling it.
If we could only built a 3d printer that would work with keratin...
Also.. Geiger counters are not expensive and they can just ignore the tiny fraction of injected rhinos.
They'll kill the rhino, then test it. If it tests positive, they'll just leave the carcass to rot.
No one is talking about testing live rhinos. Even in the best case scenario this is to catch poachers after the rhino is dead.
I'm not sure that it would be detectable with a Geiger counter. Other chemical analysis methods are used to detect isotopes like this
They say that the plan is to use existing radiation detectors at ports. Another article [1] mentions that the isotope emits Gamma rays, one of the types of radiation that can be detected by a Geiger - Muller tube.
[1] https://www.extremetech.com/science/scientists-turn-to-radio...
[1] https://www.extremetech.com/science/scientists-turn-to-radio...
According to the article, the radioisotope is specifically meant to be detected by the handheld radiation detectors typically used by customs agents. If it can't be detected by passive radiation detectors, there is even less argument for its efficacy.
The flux follows the inverse square law, however, which means to detect if a rhino is tagged you'd have to get really close. Admittedly I don't know anything about the mechanics of rhino poaching, but considering how aggressive rhinos are I imagine poachers would prefer to shoot them from a decent range for their own safety.
No one is talking about scanning live rhinos. Even in the best case scenario, this is to catch poachers long after the rhinos are dead.
One reason it’s an improvement is that radiation is detectable by already-existing methods used at the borders. So it will help catch them in the act of smuggling.
Unfortunately by the time this detects a piece of ivory, the damage is already done. If it took 3 years to inject 20 rhinos, it's unlikely that a large enough portion of the population could be injected to act as an effective deterrent for those actually killing the animals. Even for those actually involved in moving the ivory, it's only a deterrent if they actually face consequences at these borders - many states have weak enforcement of anti-ivory laws, and many more have bribable customs agents. Further, ivory has a value to weight ratio that is extremely conducive to smuggling.
> Unfortunately by the time this detects a piece of ivory, the damage is already done
Reminds me of one of the worst "abolish the Police" arguments: By the time you put a murderer in jail, the victim is already dead.
Reminds me of one of the worst "abolish the Police" arguments: By the time you put a murderer in jail, the victim is already dead.
So you're saying... it's a good idea, there's hope, and that they should do it.
> Over 11 000 radiation detection portal monitors are installed at airports, harbours and other ports of entry, including thousands of trained personnel equipped with radiation detectors, all of which can detect the smallest radioactive particles.
I didn’t realize this. Injecting small, safe radioactive material into rhino horns seems like an incredibly good hack: turn all that nuclear monitoring equipment into poached animal artifact detectors.
I didn’t realize this. Injecting small, safe radioactive material into rhino horns seems like an incredibly good hack: turn all that nuclear monitoring equipment into poached animal artifact detectors.
Classic case of a societal problem that technology tries to paper over, and does a poor job doing so. Rhino horns are used for their keratin and "traditional" medicine ingredients.
Radiation portal monitors will not detect all quantities and there are simple techniques for masking these detections with sheilding, or via nuisance alarms if they are detected. [1]
Shark fin extraction, for shark fin soup, has a similar cultural problem. Influential people in the communities that consume these products, ie Yao Ming, could make a lot more progress by simply having public campaigns against it. [2]
[1] Source: me, I am a radation detecion PhD who works on similar kinds of problems, with similarly or more capable systems. [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJG7RaLX-DM
Radiation portal monitors will not detect all quantities and there are simple techniques for masking these detections with sheilding, or via nuisance alarms if they are detected. [1]
Shark fin extraction, for shark fin soup, has a similar cultural problem. Influential people in the communities that consume these products, ie Yao Ming, could make a lot more progress by simply having public campaigns against it. [2]
[1] Source: me, I am a radation detecion PhD who works on similar kinds of problems, with similarly or more capable systems. [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJG7RaLX-DM
Any deterrence scheme relies on awareness and uncertainty just as much, if not more than, an actual technology. If poachers think it will raise the chances of detection, even if that chance isn’t 100%, that’s just as good to deter them.
Sure, the multiagent problem needs communication of the credible threat to the bad actors. "Credible threat" implies that bad actors don't collect information about the system, technical and non-technical, that implies the balance of risk and reward isn't tilted in favor of continuing their actions.
Only if the percentage of the population injected is high, which is unlikely given it took 3 years to inject 20 rhinos. If the percentage is small, the poachers could just get a cheap radiation detector and screen out whatever portion of their haul is contaminated before passing it along. Further, many smugglers are unconcerned with detection, they already likely bribe a customs agent to ignore it.
Even if the poachers can detect the contamination, they are probably going to kill the rhino, flee the area, and then assess the goods. So you still have a dead rhino unless the doping is well communicated and obvious to all.
> Rhino horns are used for their "traditional" medicine ingredients
The "product" is ruined.
Not fully ruined... since the injections are typically not loose contamination, for fear that it migrates into the rhino via capillary action or irradiates the rhino more than people are comfortable with.
Smugglers would likely be able to use simple, cheap detectors to remove these.
Potentially they don't remove the pils, simply grind the horn + source into medicine... the amount of radiation will not cause acute effects to the person who ingests it and will likely just cause some "unexplainable" tumor or system failure later in life or after a prolonged consumption.
Smugglers would likely be able to use simple, cheap detectors to remove these.
Potentially they don't remove the pils, simply grind the horn + source into medicine... the amount of radiation will not cause acute effects to the person who ingests it and will likely just cause some "unexplainable" tumor or system failure later in life or after a prolonged consumption.
Honestly I'm a bit confused, the descriptions seem contradictory or require an extraordinary level of fine tuning.
If you just insert a capsule of radioactive material, it's easy to make it (extremely) poisonous, easily detectable and harmless to the rhino. But I don't see a way to do all three at once.
If you just wanted to kill the consumers a small amount of an alpha emitter would work quite well, but would be hard to detect and carry a small amount of risk to the rhino if it breaks confinement.
Conversely you could use a strong gamma emitter to make it easily detectable but I don't see a way to do so that would harm the consumers but not the rhino. Best you can do is some level or radioactivity that we're fine with in animals but not in humans because we're hypocrites.
If you just insert a capsule of radioactive material, it's easy to make it (extremely) poisonous, easily detectable and harmless to the rhino. But I don't see a way to do all three at once.
If you just wanted to kill the consumers a small amount of an alpha emitter would work quite well, but would be hard to detect and carry a small amount of risk to the rhino if it breaks confinement.
Conversely you could use a strong gamma emitter to make it easily detectable but I don't see a way to do so that would harm the consumers but not the rhino. Best you can do is some level or radioactivity that we're fine with in animals but not in humans because we're hypocrites.
I think that no one believes killing consumers of these products is a viable solution or that it doesn't have disastrous side effects. What happens with rhinos that die? do we have to collect their tusks and these are rad-waste now?
Making them radioactive with non-penetrating particles might be ok from the standpoint of trying to make them less desirable... but you aren't making them detectable & it is highly controversial to do this.
In reality, and back to the solutions proposed by the article: I don't know if the source article's idea has merit or is just funded by a non-profit where this is a small pet project or if they really don't understand the tradespace.
Making them radioactive with non-penetrating particles might be ok from the standpoint of trying to make them less desirable... but you aren't making them detectable & it is highly controversial to do this.
In reality, and back to the solutions proposed by the article: I don't know if the source article's idea has merit or is just funded by a non-profit where this is a small pet project or if they really don't understand the tradespace.
If this has a chance of getting to 100% of the population, I think if I were the rhino I’d want to take those odds given the alternative is being hunted.
And if it’s eg 50%, I’d very much want to be in the injected 50% because all poaching effort would be in the non treated population. Obviously assuming all animals in an area were injected and that was known to poachers.
And if it’s eg 50%, I’d very much want to be in the injected 50% because all poaching effort would be in the non treated population. Obviously assuming all animals in an area were injected and that was known to poachers.
> Best you can do is some level or radioactivity that we're fine with in animals but not in humans because we're hypocrites.
I don't know if this is the case, but if the life expectancy of rhinos is much less than humans, then there would be radiation levels that are safe for the rhino but harmful for humans. Tumors can take time to develop.
I don't know if this is the case, but if the life expectancy of rhinos is much less than humans, then there would be radiation levels that are safe for the rhino but harmful for humans. Tumors can take time to develop.
> I don't know if this is the case, but if the life expectancy of rhinos is much less than humans,
Luckily this is easily obtainable information on the internet.
'Rhinoceroses’ lifespans vary on species. A rhino’s lifespan is typically 40 to 45 years."
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/blog/rhinoceros-fact-sheet/
That is less than a human lifespan but not by orders of magnitude smaller. Sounds like a very narrow needle to thread.
Luckily this is easily obtainable information on the internet.
'Rhinoceroses’ lifespans vary on species. A rhino’s lifespan is typically 40 to 45 years."
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/blog/rhinoceros-fact-sheet/
That is less than a human lifespan but not by orders of magnitude smaller. Sounds like a very narrow needle to thread.
Do the black-market consumers know that? Fentanyl and xylazine come to mind: not many drug users intend to get those, they can get many batches of what they do want before they get an adulterated batch, and they often don’t find out they got the adulterated kind until it’s too late.
I’m also wondering where we’re getting the idea that it’s extremely toxic if ingested. Maybe it’s in the video? The article seems to suggest that it’s “non-toxic” and that
> “the inserted radioisotopes hold no health or any other risk for the animals or those who care for them.”
I’m also wondering where we’re getting the idea that it’s extremely toxic if ingested. Maybe it’s in the video? The article seems to suggest that it’s “non-toxic” and that
> “the inserted radioisotopes hold no health or any other risk for the animals or those who care for them.”
An additional reference:
> 'The radioactive material would "render the horn useless... essentially poisonous for human consumption" added Nithaya Chetty, professor and dean of science at [the University of the Witwatersrand]'
This contradicts the FAQ page
https://rhisotope.org/faqs/
> Q: What if you drop the radioactive seed in the grass and cannot be found? And other animals accidentally ingest it?
> A: This is a highly unlikely scenario as specific standard operating procedures will be developed to ensure that no radioactive material will be left behind at the treatment site. Should an animal ingest some of the radioactive material subsequent to the initial treatment, the radioisotope will be of such a chemical and physical form that it will quickly pass through the bowels of the animal and be excreted out by that animal. The calculated doses will not do any significant harm.
Perhaps something significant happens when grinding up the radioisotope, but then again this would also happen when ingested by animals (grinding between teeth etc).
https://rhisotope.org/faqs/
> Q: What if you drop the radioactive seed in the grass and cannot be found? And other animals accidentally ingest it?
> A: This is a highly unlikely scenario as specific standard operating procedures will be developed to ensure that no radioactive material will be left behind at the treatment site. Should an animal ingest some of the radioactive material subsequent to the initial treatment, the radioisotope will be of such a chemical and physical form that it will quickly pass through the bowels of the animal and be excreted out by that animal. The calculated doses will not do any significant harm.
Perhaps something significant happens when grinding up the radioisotope, but then again this would also happen when ingested by animals (grinding between teeth etc).
Fentanyl is more complex, now users are more and more looking for it... (source: a friend working in harm reduction)
> "The radioactive dose makes the horn poisonous for humans"
> Radiation portal monitors will not detect all quantities and there are simple techniques for masking these detections with sheilding, or via nuisance alarms if they are detected.
I think more than actual quantities involved, the scary risk of radiation, however unlikely, may be a bigger deterrent for the consumers of these products. The more widely this news spreads, the better it is for the Rhinos.
I think more than actual quantities involved, the scary risk of radiation, however unlikely, may be a bigger deterrent for the consumers of these products. The more widely this news spreads, the better it is for the Rhinos.
A solution doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
Sure, but paying for an anti-shark fin commercial might be as much as a single portal monitor.
Having portal monitors that serve many purposes is good, and generally the biggest impact they have is in the deterrence effect, ie bad actors might be constrained by their existence. However in order for deterrence to be effective it must be a credible capability. Since there are so many smugglers, and they could reasonably implement simple countermeasures, it is likely the deterrence effect is small to nil in this case.
Having portal monitors that serve many purposes is good, and generally the biggest impact they have is in the deterrence effect, ie bad actors might be constrained by their existence. However in order for deterrence to be effective it must be a credible capability. Since there are so many smugglers, and they could reasonably implement simple countermeasures, it is likely the deterrence effect is small to nil in this case.
Isn’t the whole point that the portal monitors are already bought, paid for, and in fact operated by other people?
Nobody cares about preachy commercials, except in that doing the opposite of what they preach makes you edgy and cool.
A big celeb getting caught doing something gauche and getting dogpiled in the press? That is what effective deterrent looks like.
A big celeb getting caught doing something gauche and getting dogpiled in the press? That is what effective deterrent looks like.
People say that, but the data proves good commercials work. Of course not all commercials work, but there is plenty of data showing they do work and what works.
Rhino horns are not made of ivory.
Yes... sorry I am thinking of some related topics in this area, not only just about rhinos. Elephant trade has a similar issue, and this is why my mind was in that space.
Sorry, but if you're going to cite yourself you should do better than "radation detecion".
[deleted]
At least we know I'm not an LLM! (Cant change the spelling now!)
Well, he didn't claim the PhD was in spelling...
The statement is false, unfortunately.
There's definite a positive (non-zero) threshold below which it doesn't trigger.
Bananas are radioactive, and while a single banana doesn't trigger the alarms, a lot of bananas might!
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
> Although the amount in a single banana is small in environmental and medical terms, the radioactivity from a truckload of bananas is capable of causing a false alarm when passed through a Radiation Portal Monitor used to detect possible smuggling of nuclear material at U.S. ports.
There's definite a positive (non-zero) threshold below which it doesn't trigger.
Bananas are radioactive, and while a single banana doesn't trigger the alarms, a lot of bananas might!
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
> Although the amount in a single banana is small in environmental and medical terms, the radioactivity from a truckload of bananas is capable of causing a false alarm when passed through a Radiation Portal Monitor used to detect possible smuggling of nuclear material at U.S. ports.
What bananas emit is basically background radiation and not at all comparable to radio isotopes.
If it was you wouldn’t see bananas at the supermarket
Besides - they worked on this for three years. They likely thought this through beyond banana comparisons…
If it was you wouldn’t see bananas at the supermarket
Besides - they worked on this for three years. They likely thought this through beyond banana comparisons…
HN headline in 3 years: airport sniffer dogs being trained to smell for bananas.
Because that's what the horn-smugglers will be carrying in attempts to deflect why the airport scanner is detecting radiation in their luggage.
Because that's what the horn-smugglers will be carrying in attempts to deflect why the airport scanner is detecting radiation in their luggage.
It's the potassium in the bananas, so potassium rich salt will also do this. Presumably many other common items are also sufficiently potassium rich.
If you leave a scintillating detector such as a Radiacode or similar on a bag of potassium chloride water softener salt for a while you can actually detect a very slight amount of radioactivity and generate a spectrum :)
Bananas are not so radioactive, my guess is that they are using a stronger radioactive source. Perhaps hide the horn inside a truck full of bananas? I guess the horn will be still more radioactive.
Also, each radioactive source produce radioactivity with different energy, so you can use specialized equipment to identify the source. (We used one in the lab in an undergraduate couse of Physics. It's not very big, like the size of a shoe.)
Also, each radioactive source produce radioactivity with different energy, so you can use specialized equipment to identify the source. (We used one in the lab in an undergraduate couse of Physics. It's not very big, like the size of a shoe.)
Probably is by the time they are found, the rhino is dead. They might catch the last guy holding the bag, but I suspect it's passed through a few different groups by the time it reaches the airport. So the poachers just go on poaching as they already got paid.
Yes, for the first few.
But the idea of the test is that this could be done in a wider scale. If a significant portion of horns are being confiscated (via radiation sensors) then there’s fewer horns being sold and less money available for all those middleman groups. Over time the market goes away.
Perhaps similar to how the market for stolen iPhones dried up once people could remotely brick their stole phone. There’s just less money to be made so thieves move on to more lucrative targets.
But the idea of the test is that this could be done in a wider scale. If a significant portion of horns are being confiscated (via radiation sensors) then there’s fewer horns being sold and less money available for all those middleman groups. Over time the market goes away.
Perhaps similar to how the market for stolen iPhones dried up once people could remotely brick their stole phone. There’s just less money to be made so thieves move on to more lucrative targets.
So they have to tranquilize the rhinos first. That in itself can kill the animal.
I can't find a reference, but that reminds me of an old project to dye rhino horns pink. Sadly, a few rhinos didn't survive the process.
I can't find a reference, but that reminds me of an old project to dye rhino horns pink. Sadly, a few rhinos didn't survive the process.
> Every 20 hours in South Africa a rhino dies for its horn.
I didn't know this statistic before - this is disheartening.
I didn't know this statistic before - this is disheartening.
Here’s another one : between 24 and 150 animal species go extinct probably every day !
> current extinctions were ‘up to 100 times higher than the background rate.’
https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_d...
> current extinctions were ‘up to 100 times higher than the background rate.’
https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_d...
I wonder what radioisotopes they’re using. I assume it’s a gamma emitter because alpha and beta would be readily absorbed by the horn and any packaging material?
Speaking as a South African, I hope this can make a difference, every little bit helps.
Unless it can completely stop poaching (which on its own I think is unlikely) I don't think it will solve the fundamental issue that drives poaching, that there is a market willing to pay exorbitant fees.
Ivory has zero physiological medicinal effects, but their rareness convinces certain kinds of (shithead) people that they "must". The rarer the material, the more "special" it becomes, driving up the price further and the higher the price, the more emboldened the poachers become.
Unless it can completely stop poaching (which on its own I think is unlikely) I don't think it will solve the fundamental issue that drives poaching, that there is a market willing to pay exorbitant fees.
Ivory has zero physiological medicinal effects, but their rareness convinces certain kinds of (shithead) people that they "must". The rarer the material, the more "special" it becomes, driving up the price further and the higher the price, the more emboldened the poachers become.
> their rareness convinces certain kinds of (shithead) people that they "must"
A complementary strategy is to relentlessly name and shame the backward cultures that compose this shitheadedness.
So say it with me: Chinese* traditional medicine is backwards and primitive. Chinese ivory buyers are a shameful stain upon humanity.
* The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) reports that nearly all of the current demand for elephant ivory comes from the Chinese market. -https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/economics-...
A complementary strategy is to relentlessly name and shame the backward cultures that compose this shitheadedness.
So say it with me: Chinese* traditional medicine is backwards and primitive. Chinese ivory buyers are a shameful stain upon humanity.
* The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) reports that nearly all of the current demand for elephant ivory comes from the Chinese market. -https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/economics-...
I see that it doesn't bother anyone else that "novel" is capitalized for no reason in the title of the article (the actual article, not just the HN title). So be it, I'll see myself out.
I’m more bothered that nobody came up with “rhinosotope”
At first I thought this was some sort of joke or satire, like the Alameda-Weehawken burrito pipeline. Then I read the bit about rhino horn trafficking and I was like... well, shoot, that's actually a pretty good idea!
This is genius, but what stops the poachers from removing the material?
I would figure cost and time.
Poachers are looking for a quick payday and having to do this would cost additional time & money that will drive them elsewhere.
Sort of like the adage of the best security is being less of a target / more of an annoyance to rob than your neighbor.
Poachers are looking for a quick payday and having to do this would cost additional time & money that will drive them elsewhere.
Sort of like the adage of the best security is being less of a target / more of an annoyance to rob than your neighbor.
[deleted]
Edit: Here was nonsense. I should read the article properly.
Where did you read that? They bore holes in the horns and insert the radiotopes in the horn, not in the whole rhino.
Apologies, I let the title ("injecting") mislead me. I assume it's a multitude of factors:
- poachers/smugglers would need to know about this before they get caught (doesn't save that rhino, but adds friction to smuggling and removes some smugglers/buyers - both the ones caught and the ones who quit because they're worried about it)
- testing for it likely requires non-trivial equipment (again adds friction to the trade)
- depending on how visible the hole is, accurately locating it inside the horn may not be trivial either
- once located, removing it still devalues the horn
- poachers/smugglers would need to know about this before they get caught (doesn't save that rhino, but adds friction to smuggling and removes some smugglers/buyers - both the ones caught and the ones who quit because they're worried about it)
- testing for it likely requires non-trivial equipment (again adds friction to the trade)
- depending on how visible the hole is, accurately locating it inside the horn may not be trivial either
- once located, removing it still devalues the horn
> Starting on Monday, 24 June 2004, Professor Larkin and his team carefully sedated the 20 rhinos
Is that a typo? I'd think after 20 years we'd know if the plan worked.
Is that a typo? I'd think after 20 years we'd know if the plan worked.
I wonder if anyone is trying to lab-grow ivory like they're trying with organs, considering ivory's price there might be margin there.
Given that the demand for it is not particularly rational I’d imagine enthusiasts will want the real thing. (Sigh)
Yes I know rhino != ivory.
Isn't it detected by a cheap geiger counter ? in this case the horn will be just discarded after the rhino jas been killed
This looks like a side project for one of the fake meat companies.
Which „non-toxic radioisotopes“ and how much is a small hole?
So they are going to put small ammounts of radioactive stuff in the horns of live Rhinos so that they are easier to detect at border patrols? Have I understood it right?
Seems a little extreme to be honest.
Article says
> These radioisotopes will provide an affordable, safe and easily applicable method
And
> After three years of meticulous and dedicated hard work [...] in collaboration with a team of experts who are leaders in the world of rhino conservation and veterinary work, will closely monitor the health and vital statistics of the rhinos [...]
Not sure why you want to just dismiss all that
> These radioisotopes will provide an affordable, safe and easily applicable method
And
> After three years of meticulous and dedicated hard work [...] in collaboration with a team of experts who are leaders in the world of rhino conservation and veterinary work, will closely monitor the health and vital statistics of the rhinos [...]
Not sure why you want to just dismiss all that
It seems like the two things you quoted contradict each other. 3 years and a team of experts in their field doesn't really sound affordable or effective unless it's scaled up quickly and it's efficacy actually demonstrated somehow.
You are confused because you interpret the meticulous and time-intensive nature of the research as potentially conflicting with the claims of affordability and ease of application. To clear up this confusion, let's break down the key points:
1. Affordability and Ease of Application: The article states that the radioisotopes are intended to be an affordable and easily applicable method for marking rhino horns. This means that the technology, once developed and refined, can be applied to rhinos without significant cost or complexity. The goal is to make it practical for widespread use.
2. Three Years of Research and Expert Collaboration: The three years of research and the involvement of a team of experts highlight the rigorous development and testing phase needed to ensure the method's safety and effectiveness. This initial investment of time and expertise is necessary to create a robust, scientifically validated solution.
3. No Contradiction: The extensive research and expert collaboration do not contradict the claims of affordability and ease of application. Rather, they ensure that the final product is safe, effective, and ready for widespread, practical use. The upfront investment in research is typical for developing innovative technologies and does not imply that the method itself will be costly or complex to implement once it is ready.
4. Scaling Up: The project's next phase involves closely monitoring the rhinos to demonstrate the method's efficacy and safety. If successful, this proof of concept will pave the way for scaling up the application to more rhinos and potentially other endangered species. The affordability and ease of application refer to the potential widespread deployment after the initial research phase, not the development phase.
In summary, your confusion arises from conflating the initial research and development effort with the final application's intended affordability and practicality. The article suggests that after this rigorous development phase, the method will be straightforward and cost-effective to implement on a larger scale.
Was wondering what ChatGPT's answer would be to this comment chain. (Also mostly checked that what it claims about the article‘s content is correct)
1. Affordability and Ease of Application: The article states that the radioisotopes are intended to be an affordable and easily applicable method for marking rhino horns. This means that the technology, once developed and refined, can be applied to rhinos without significant cost or complexity. The goal is to make it practical for widespread use.
2. Three Years of Research and Expert Collaboration: The three years of research and the involvement of a team of experts highlight the rigorous development and testing phase needed to ensure the method's safety and effectiveness. This initial investment of time and expertise is necessary to create a robust, scientifically validated solution.
3. No Contradiction: The extensive research and expert collaboration do not contradict the claims of affordability and ease of application. Rather, they ensure that the final product is safe, effective, and ready for widespread, practical use. The upfront investment in research is typical for developing innovative technologies and does not imply that the method itself will be costly or complex to implement once it is ready.
4. Scaling Up: The project's next phase involves closely monitoring the rhinos to demonstrate the method's efficacy and safety. If successful, this proof of concept will pave the way for scaling up the application to more rhinos and potentially other endangered species. The affordability and ease of application refer to the potential widespread deployment after the initial research phase, not the development phase.
In summary, your confusion arises from conflating the initial research and development effort with the final application's intended affordability and practicality. The article suggests that after this rigorous development phase, the method will be straightforward and cost-effective to implement on a larger scale.
Was wondering what ChatGPT's answer would be to this comment chain. (Also mostly checked that what it claims about the article‘s content is correct)
Tip: It only „seems“ and „sounds“ that way. Your conclusion is quite obviously based on incomplete information.
Sure, but so is the affirmative conclusion.
> This has led to their horns currently being the most valuable false commodity in the black-market trade, with a higher value even than gold, platinum, diamonds and cocaine.
I’d say unorthodox measures to curb poaching and trade are not uncalled for.
I’d say unorthodox measures to curb poaching and trade are not uncalled for.
What does it mean for rhino horns to be worth more than gold? There are lots of ways to measure it.
All the world's rhino horns put together are worth more than all the world's gold put together? All of Africa's rhino horns are worth more than all of Africa's gold? A single rhino horn is worth more than a single bar of gold? 1kg of gold? The same mass of gold? The same volume of gold?
All the world's rhino horns put together are worth more than all the world's gold put together? All of Africa's rhino horns are worth more than all of Africa's gold? A single rhino horn is worth more than a single bar of gold? 1kg of gold? The same mass of gold? The same volume of gold?
If you’re unfamiliar with how commodity gold is priced, it’s by weight. So this comparison is likely comparing price per unit of weight.
Sure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade.
It's like wondering whether gold is worth more than Microsoft by comparing an ounce of gold to a share of Microsoft. Or to an ounce of Microsoft share certificates!
The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap. And I seriously doubt that rhino horns are worth more than 15 trillion USD.
It's like wondering whether gold is worth more than Microsoft by comparing an ounce of gold to a share of Microsoft. Or to an ounce of Microsoft share certificates!
The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap. And I seriously doubt that rhino horns are worth more than 15 trillion USD.
You seem to be down voted by level 0 thinkers. No doubt they will down vote me now too.
You are completely correct. While the statement is factually correct regarding the cost of rhino horn, it is completely meaningless information.
We may as well throw in the cost per gram of a heart transplant while we're at it.
I will say that annual demand is probably the more meaningful figure to work with, and it would be even more useful to express that in terms of "how many more years of this level of demand will lead to the extinction of rhinos."
You are completely correct. While the statement is factually correct regarding the cost of rhino horn, it is completely meaningless information.
We may as well throw in the cost per gram of a heart transplant while we're at it.
I will say that annual demand is probably the more meaningful figure to work with, and it would be even more useful to express that in terms of "how many more years of this level of demand will lead to the extinction of rhinos."
[deleted]
It would be atypical to trade a physical commodity for a share. This is the purpose of money.
> The only sensible way to make the comparison is by total market cap
From the perspective of smugglers and their stuff, that's about the worst possible comparison.
So much so that yours is literally the first time ever that I've heard anyone even suggest market cap for a smuggled substance; looking at the definition of that term, I don't think that term is, or even could be by analogy, meaningful in this context.
It's always money per mass, £$€ per imperial or metric, never anything else.
From the perspective of smugglers and their stuff, that's about the worst possible comparison.
So much so that yours is literally the first time ever that I've heard anyone even suggest market cap for a smuggled substance; looking at the definition of that term, I don't think that term is, or even could be by analogy, meaningful in this context.
It's always money per mass, £$€ per imperial or metric, never anything else.
My guess is by weight. (It also may be by volume, that I guess is very important to transport illegal things, but it's too abstrtact. [1])
Comparison by weight is useful to give an idea of the price. It's just like measuring distances in football fields. Don't worry too much about that. Also, a cargo ship full of gold [2] is probably very valuable, but a magical cargo ship full of rhino horns will probably collapse the market and be worthless.
Here is a list of most expensive materials per weight https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materia... it includes saffron and antimater that have a very short shelf life, a few radioactive things that are expensive only beacuse they are difficult to produce [3]. If I had to stock huge quantities, I'd be very conservative and store gold and platinium.
[1] Gold has a huge value per volume ratio. Toilete paper not.
[2] Assuming it doesn't sink.
[3] Aluminium used to be very expensive, until someone invented a method to make metalic aluminium easily.
Comparison by weight is useful to give an idea of the price. It's just like measuring distances in football fields. Don't worry too much about that. Also, a cargo ship full of gold [2] is probably very valuable, but a magical cargo ship full of rhino horns will probably collapse the market and be worthless.
Here is a list of most expensive materials per weight https://brightside.me/articles/the-17-most-expensive-materia... it includes saffron and antimater that have a very short shelf life, a few radioactive things that are expensive only beacuse they are difficult to produce [3]. If I had to stock huge quantities, I'd be very conservative and store gold and platinium.
[1] Gold has a huge value per volume ratio. Toilete paper not.
[2] Assuming it doesn't sink.
[3] Aluminium used to be very expensive, until someone invented a method to make metalic aluminium easily.
Yeah, not fundamental.
When you go to the store you compare bananas by the size of the company that produced them? Or by the price per kg?
When you go to the store you compare bananas by the size of the company that produced them? Or by the price per kg?
> Sure, but that's not a fundamental thing, it's just a unit that's convenient to trade.
How is price per unit of mass not fundamental?
I refuse to believe that you are actually confused that one commodity costs more per gram than another one.
How is price per unit of mass not fundamental?
I refuse to believe that you are actually confused that one commodity costs more per gram than another one.
All of above.
~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg
~$400k/kg vs ~$75k/kg
Well then it's not all of the above unless there's more than 375 million kilograms of rhino horns in the world, because all the gold is worth 15 trillion dollars.
Unless that's the case, which seems unlikely, all the gold is still worth more than all the rhino horns.
Also, gold's density is about 19 g/cm^3. I can't easily find a figure for rhino horns, but let's guess about the same as fingernails, horse's hooves, etc., which is about 1.25 g/cm^3. Gold is 15x denser, so at the prices you've shown, gold is still worth more than rhino horns per unit volume.
Unless that's the case, which seems unlikely, all the gold is still worth more than all the rhino horns.
Also, gold's density is about 19 g/cm^3. I can't easily find a figure for rhino horns, but let's guess about the same as fingernails, horse's hooves, etc., which is about 1.25 g/cm^3. Gold is 15x denser, so at the prices you've shown, gold is still worth more than rhino horns per unit volume.
Price per volume is not used because volume changes with altitude. This is the reason planes measure fuel by weight.
And scientists measure gases by weight.
Because weight is the best way to compare things.
Because weight is the best way to compare things.
"x is worth more than gold" means the price per unit of weight of x is greater than that of gold.
What are you trying to achieve by arguing that a common turn of phrase doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means?
What are you trying to achieve by arguing that a common turn of phrase doesn't mean what everyone else thinks it means?
If it's of little harm to the rhinos then it's rather clever.
The dose makes the poison.
If the dose is low enough (like a x-ray for a person per year) it's not a problem. If the dose is high it's dangerous. https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Also the horn is made of compressed hair. https://www.savetherhino.org/our-work/protecting-rhinos/what... So the local radioactivity is not a problem, you must calculate the distance to the head.
If the dose is low enough (like a x-ray for a person per year) it's not a problem. If the dose is high it's dangerous. https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Also the horn is made of compressed hair. https://www.savetherhino.org/our-work/protecting-rhinos/what... So the local radioactivity is not a problem, you must calculate the distance to the head.
They are rhinos. It's not like your sister is brining one home on a Sunday to meet the rest of the family. /s
I assume the doses are small enough to be harmless.
I assume the doses are small enough to be harmless.
Typically she starts the salt soak the day before because the recipe calls for an hour per pound and rhinos are really big.
https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/food-cooking/recipes/a11882/...
https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/food-cooking/recipes/a11882/...
Scientists need to stop mucking with nature. First the "edible vaccines" genetic modification, and now this? I'd rather live in a world where agencies don't have absolute control over us. Perfect enforcement doesn't need to exist.
Are you a rhinoceros?
Ditto. I trust neither their abilities nor their intentions. Keep your big plans well away from me. Thanks.
[deleted]
By comparison, infusion which puts a dye and an anti-consumption toxin in the horns to render the ivory worthless and thus prevent the animals from being killed in the first place is a well developed and inexpensive process that has proven effective.[0] I don't see how radioisotope injection is an improvement.
[0] https://rhinorescueproject.org/how-it-works/