ISO 21482 specifies an extremely scary-looking radiation symbol [1], to be placed inside such equipment (radiography/radiotherapy etc) as a last-ditch warning. The message might well get through even to a barely-literate scrap thief.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol#Ionizing_radiati...
IIUC this is just water with sugar and a fluorescent dye, not radioactive material (except the natural amount of radioactive deuterium and potassium, that is not enough to make it glow).
(I think I saw something like this here in Argentina, but I don't remember the name and I can't find it in Google. But this example is very similar to what I remember from the ads.)
> It depicts, on a red background, a black trefoil with waves of radiation streaming from it, along with a black skull and crossbones, and a running figure with an arrow pointing away from the scene. The radiating trefoil suggests the presence of radiation, while the red background and the skull and crossbones warn of danger. The figure running away from the scene is meant to suggest taking action to avoid the labeled material. The new symbol is not intended to be generally visible, but rather to appear on internal components of devices that house radiation sources so that if anybody attempts to disassemble such devices they will see an explicit warning not to proceed any further.
Probably there should be some sort of liability for people putting hazard labels on things that aren't hazardous. Ever looked at an MSDS for sodium chloride?
- convey the danger factually
- make people believe or care about it
- discourage young/stupid/intoxicated/reckless/nihilistic people
- discourage smart people who are intrigued by the danger and will be compelled to explore as much of it as they can
- discourage angry people who want to bring the danger to their enemies.
The best thing to do I think is to make sure nobody can even accidentally find it. Drill a deep hole (miles) where you know it won't end up in the earth's mantle while the material is still dangerous, fill it with nuclear waste, seal it and forget about it. The chances of someone accidentally finding it again thousands of years down the line are minimal.
Warnings only make people more curious. I don't remember any warning sign from >1000 years ago that actually keep people away.
That sounds like just the sort of premise for an "eventually it was found" story. How about the exact opposite of this: rather than rely on obscurity/information-hiding, make it widely known that X is where the dangerous stuff is and it is an absolute no-go.
That way, everyone will know that anyone within a Y-radius of X is exactly where they shouldn't be, for widely understood reasons.
Also not every country has a big desert :)
The source was protected by a shutter, the thieves forced it open. If it was locked in a safe, they would have cut that open.
I remember a quote about a large demonstration that took place in Afghanistan or Iraq after the death of a couple local people.
"Look at these people out here, all upset. Are they here demonstrating because we have are military in their country? No. Are they upset because we accidentally bombed a school or house? No. They are upset because a couple guys walked past 3 signs saying "Danger Keep Out" in 5 languages, climbed over 2 fences and got into the live fire range, found some unexploded ordinance and managed to blow themselves up with it. That is what they are upset about."
Applying this standard we’d have run away from petrol a long, long time ago. IOW, the standards you seem to use are unrealistic, and unevenly applied. This really isn’t against you: this exact line of reasoning is quite common and demonstrates that we are terrible at risk management.