Slashdot Mirror


Polonium-210 Available Through Mail Order

Knutsi writes "InformationWeek is reporting that Polonium 210, the radioactive material used to poison former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko is not as hard to get your hands on as some have previously stated. American family business United Nuclear is actually selling the stuff, and other equally exotic materials, on their company website. Could come in handy for the xmas shopping season."

481 comments

  1. Looking for some uranium. Click here by suso · · Score: 1

    Now that guy with the wiggling eyebrows has to be one of the funniest banner ads ever.

  2. New level of cheating. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny



    I wonder how XBOX LIVE will dectect this?

    UberL337: hey thanx 4 sendin over teh drinks!
    TehD00d: NP mang.
    [...]
    UberL337: ug feel sick oh fukkk call ambulsafeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
    TehD00d: Polonipnwed!!!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  3. A Lump of Polonium 210... by Otter+Escaping+North · · Score: 5, Funny

    When a lump of coal just won't do...

    --
    Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
    1. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Someone should give this to Vladimir Putin and his FSS pals for Christmas. Just expressing my sentiment and not a true desire to see a wannabe dictator done in.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    2. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by inviolet · · Score: 1
      Someone should give this to Vladimir Putin and his FSS pals for Christmas. Just expressing my sentiment and not a true desire to see a wannabe dictator done in.

      Hey, I'm as anxious as you are to see Putin finally recognized for the evil, scheming sociopath that he is. (He has to be one, in order to come to power in a quasi-statist bramble of a society.) However...

      ...wouldn't this have been the perfect way for the FSS or whoever to engineer his downfall, in favor of a hardliner?

      So let's practice what we preach, and wait for the evidence to come in. Then, let's second- and third-guess how that evidence might've been engineered to frame somebody for framing somebody. Remember, we are dealing with spooks here. Three levels of misdirection is child's play to them.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    3. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...wouldn't this have been the perfect way for the FSS or whoever to engineer his downfall,

      Were that the case, we would already be hearing calls for him to step down coming from inside Russia. If this is a conspiracy to frame Putin, it seems to be not only very elaborate, but also quite beneficial to the supposed target. Consider the recent poisoning of Yushchenko and murder of Anna Politkovskaya; neither of these events damaged Putin's presidency in any meaningful way, and both advanced his political goals.

      Putin's response to this latest poisoning of one of his critics is absurd; his claim that neither the FSB nor the KGB had murdered anybody since 1959 is pretty incredible. Remember, Putin was at one time the head of the KGB.

      >in favor of a hardliner?

      Putin is a hardliner.

    4. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by marcello_dl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What makes you think it's a KGB operation?

      For simple minds, it's KGB because an exotic poison like radioactive polonium seems kind of a signature it's no ordinary killing.

      For smarty people, it couldn't be a KGB operation because KGB is not so stupid to poison people with exotic stuff when they have ways to make appear it an ordinary killing.

      For chess playing soviet russia folks it could be a KGB operation because KGB could use the polonium as a too obvious link to make people think they're being framed while they're behind it all.

      But, the odds are 50%. So I'd not point the finger at Putin so fast.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    5. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      bet you weren't saying that when mossad squirted poison in that arab guy's ear.

    6. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by ptr2004 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is already clarification on how they sell Polonium 20

      http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm

    7. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Props for the link, was very informative.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    8. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by 241comp · · Score: 1

      How about a lump of aerogel for those who have been good? Soooo tempting. I wish they had the large pieces in stock.

    9. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by aevan · · Score: 1

      Thank you Vizzini

    10. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by aevan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Agreed. We've decided to abandon our Polonium-210 poisoning plan and are switching to Amercium-241 as per recommendation. It's also funnier that way. Anyone have some spare fire detectors?

    11. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Funny
      bet you weren't saying that when mossad squirted poison in that arab guy's ear.

      Mossad uses Zunes on arabs? And Poison, of all distasteful bands... They seem always to reach new lows.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    12. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      You're welcome, Vladimir. Next time shall we use a secure channel instead?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    13. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I especially like:

      In addition, there are dozens of other far more toxic materials, like Ricin and Abrin, which can easily be made using common plant material, and are also undetectable as a poison and untraceable.

      Now, where can I get some Ricin and Abrin?

    14. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Actually, the FSB WANTS everyone to know they did it. The better to silence their other critics both within Russia and in London, etc.

    15. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Now, where can I get some Ricin and Abrin?

      Ricin is an extract of castor beans, which are readily available; abrin, an extract of the coral bead vine.

      (Extraction of the toxins is left as an exercise for the reader.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    16. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny
      There sure is.

      You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources
      at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount.

      Thanks!

      Nuclear Isotope - Alpha Isotope Type: Polonium-210 Qty. 15,000

      Subtotal: $1,035,000.00 USD
      Shipping & Handling: $19.95 USD
      • Bill Me Later!
    17. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      From the linked text:

      "If you really wanted tom poison someone"

      Freudian slip much?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    18. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Dread_ed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forget the other side of the equation.

      Rewmember that poisoning someone is a very personal act of violence. It could be that the KGB used the Polonium to make sure that Litvinenko knew who killed him.

      In vendetta killings it is always sweeter if the victim knows just who is killing them. Anonomyous "Pwned" messages don't suffice. You have gotta leave your tag. What better way to do it than by using a 138 day halflife radioactive element that is obviously made ina nuclear reactor and would cost a million dollars to buy. If that ain't a government calling card I don't know what is.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    19. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Also worth noting is that just when this poor guy was eating polonium-210 the British Govt were signing a treaty to extradite loads of Putins enemys back to the USSR.

      These are the people who made a fortune from some dodgy invlovement in the USSR oil industry privatisation some time ago so paying someone to do this is certainly affordable in return for disuading us Brits from extraditing them back to the Gulag.

      Although it might be nice to blame all this on the President of Russia it is just as likely it was the ex-KGB wannabe capitalists who escaped Russia with all their money at the earliest opportunity.

      I would never have considered this if the guy went quietly (think cyanide), but making sure someone dies a long protracted death from radiation poisoining is far from quiet and was certain to be covered in the British press with lots of photos of some guy looking like he has had too much chemo-therapy which would be sure and cause an emotional response.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    20. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because the KGB would never want to send a message.

    21. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      Claudius didn't work for Mossad.

    22. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny
      bet you weren't saying that when mossad squirted poison in that arab guy's ear.

      I thought their usual poison has a high lead content and is introduced to the subject very quickly.

    23. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by SlothB77 · · Score: 1

      we sell one or two every three months, so an order of 15,000 might look suspicious.

      i love how they say the quantity is a needlepoint, invisible to the naked eye. basically, it is an itty bitty itty bitty teeny weeny little spec under a microscope. how does that NOT get lost in the mail?

    24. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Prune · · Score: 1

      KGB used a ricin-impregnated microsphere injected through an umbrella tip in the 1978 assassination of Georgi Markov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov
      So, you are shown wrong. The whole point is to be obvious and to show they can get you any nasty way they please -- their goal is to scare the dissenters.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    25. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the theory that it was a suicide. It's well known that this guy had a major dislike (understatement) for Putin and the other Russian intelligence people. For all the press this is getting, he was essentially just a disgruntled government employee.

      Polonium 210 is a rather exotic way to go. It's not pleasant, but it's memorable. The deathbed accusation against Putin will probably be hard to shake. Whether he's innocent or guilty, it'll stick with him. I doubt it's enough to bring down his government by itself though.

    26. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, this is a really interesting point. Though I still don't like Putin (slightly more than I don't like Bush/Cheney... or just Cheney). :-) And as I am a supporter of the principle of Ocam's Razor, I still believe that either Putin's Russian government, or a direct supporter of it, was responsible. But the points about spooks liking to screw with Ocam is taken.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    27. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Did you read TFA? Polonium 210 can be bought for $69.99 mail order

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    28. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by Loquis · · Score: 1

      MOP+3

      Cant be a KGB op as they no longer exist, however if you were talking about the FSB then i'd agree

    29. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by iMMersE · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you read TFA? You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources
      at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount.

      --
      codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
    30. Re:A Lump of Polonium 210... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Of course who took the effort and risks of using radioactive polonium was no ordinary killer, there's likely a government behind. The problem is, was the kgb, or somebody who wanted to blame the kgb? What are the official reactions? what the diplomatic downfall? I can think of a dozen ways to put the signature on a killing without the need for the general public to know. Appearing the bad guys in front of the entire world is not a good idea unless you have specific reasons to.

      Hey anybody already did the In Soviet Russia, fish catches YOU! joke?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  4. Not anymore by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

    I stopped in a few weeks back to buy some and some Russian dude in line ahead of me bought the last of it.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:Not anymore by romka1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This company imports it from Russia

      --
      Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
    2. Re:Not anymore by rossifer · · Score: 3, Informative
      This company imports it from Russia
      You're talking out of your ass again. The radiation sources sold by this company come from Oak Ridge, Tennessee where they are made to order in an NRC licensed reactor and shipped directly to the customer.

      You should educate yourself before you speak again on this subject.

      Ross
    3. Re:Not anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was me. But don't wory, I will re-sell it on Ebay as a special offer bundled with the game Taste of CCCP and brand new PS3.

  5. wow, and run by a loon too by wardk · · Score: 1

    great to see the man who runs this place is certifiable

    1. Re:wow, and run by a loon too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      United Nuclear is run by Bob Lazar, who some 20 years ago claimed to have worked on alien spaceships on a secret military base in Nevada

      Loon would be the polite phrase here on plant zogarth.

    2. Re:wow, and run by a loon too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people believe in that stuff.

    3. Re:wow, and run by a loon too by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Funny
      great to see the man who runs this place is certifiable
      What, you mean Taco?
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    4. Re:wow, and run by a loon too by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      I guess that makes it true then.

    5. Re:wow, and run by a loon too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that makes it true then.

      No, but if one person believes it, it is classified as a delusion, if lots of people do we call it religion.

  6. Feh by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Polonium available on United Nuclear's site can be purchased without a license because the level of radioactivity, 0.1 microcurie, doesn't pose a danger, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says.


    Thanks slashdot, but if I wanted baseless scare mongering about the threat of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands, I'd join the Republican Party.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Feh by lixee · · Score: 1
      Thanks slashdot, but if I wanted baseless scare mongering about the threat of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands, I'd join the Republican Party.
      Wow, didn't know Republicans were active in Britain.

      Seriously though, you made an excellent point and I applaude you for it.
      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    2. Re:Feh by spellraiser · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, at Republican Party meetings, all they do is smoke big cigars and laugh over how easy it is to dupe the proles. Afterwards, they go out and throw rocks at hobos.

      --
      I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    3. Re:Feh by jo7hs2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks poster, but if I wanted to ignore the dangers of our world and bury my head in the sand like an ostrich, I'd join the Democratic Party. - or - Thanks poster, but if I wanted to run around screaming like Chicken Little that the sky was falling, while meanwhile smoking a joint, I'd join the Green Party. - or - Thanks poster, but if I wanted to pretend I wasn't a Democrat or Republican to avoid argument, I'd be a Libertarian. /Slashdot is an Equal Opportunity Insultor.

    4. Re:Feh by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When George W. Bush acts militarily to stop dictators from getting WMD he's called a liar, when he acts diplomatically he's called a failure. No wonder the guy doesn't give a damn what the left thinks of him. God bless America and God bless our Commander in Chief.

    5. Re:Feh by Don853 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn! I never knew what I was missing. Where do I sign up?

    6. Re:Feh by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, because when it comes to anything nuclear only evil right-wing loons EVER scare monger in any way.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    7. Re:Feh by InsaneGeek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm confused as to when exactly the following people joined the Republican party (cut and paste job, but makes the appropriate point)

      "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
      - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

      "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
      - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

      "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
      - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

      "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
      - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

      "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
      - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

      "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
      - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

      "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
      Letter to President Clinton.
      - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

      "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
      - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

      "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
      - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

      "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
      - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

      "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
      - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

      "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
      - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

      "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
      - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

      "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
      - Sen. Rob

    8. Re:Feh by Speare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No doubt. The United Nuclear company is great, and this isn't the first time that fearmongering affects their very small and valuable business. That, and clueless frat boys who order the largest magnets they can find, just because it's fun to buy objects which have warnings with phrases like "serious injury will occur if you just carry this magnet through a room without planning your route carefully." Science is already being dumbed down by the nanny state; it's the reason that Mr. Wizard didn't endorse a modern update to his old chemistry sets. Timmy doesn't want to see what happens when boring baking soda mixes with boring tap water, but the school gets in trouble for anything more exotic and meaningful.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    9. Re:Feh by megaditto · · Score: 1

      The true Republicans don't throw stones, they sell them... to Ralf Nader fanboys... who throw them at hobos while we watch.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    10. Re:Feh by hahiss · · Score: 1, Troll

      Apparently you're not quite familiar with how time operates. See, things can be true in 1998 but not in 2003. So, for example, Saddam might have had WMDs in 1998 and not in 2002. And then the quotes you've got here from the 1990's aren't really helpful---though they do make your post seem to have some gravitas because it is just so full of words.

      Moreover, you're also not so clear on how context works. For example, people can say "Saddam Hussein shouldn't be allowed to further develop the weapons we gave him when the Reagan administration supported him" and still not mean that we should wage an immoral war on the thinnest of pretexts. Perhaps one might say that exact sentence and be arguing for sustained international diplomatic and police efforts.

      But other than that, you're right; some Democrats supported this immoral war. They, like the Republicans they supported, are all war criminals; I'm happy to start a bipartisan effort to send them all to the Hague for trial.

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    11. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because he is a liar and a failure. If he had done either of those things competently there would be much less cause for complaint. (Although I concede there would not be much less actual complaint.)

    12. Re:Feh by Shadows · · Score: 1
      Alright, fine, I'll bite.

      From the wikipedia article on Polonium linked to in the story:
      Alpha particles emitted by polonium will damage organic tissue easily if polonium is ingested, inhaled, or absorbed (though they do not penetrate the epidermis and hence are not hazardous if the polonium is outside the body).

      What the story says is that it is really not hard to get your hands on this stuff. The man was poisoned using Polonium because it's rare enough that he would probably die before anybody figured out what was wrong with him. Nobody said "OMG NUCULAR" -- until you did, anyway.
    13. Re:Feh by jonbryce · · Score: 0

      Indeed they are - http://www.sinnfein.ie/
      Though not the same republican party as in the US.

    14. Re:Feh by binarybum · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes but Arnold (the govenator) is trying to change all of this. He is starting a movement where they throw hobos at rocks.

      --
      ôó
    15. Re:Feh by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In order to be able to produce shippable samples you need to buy a larger quantity in bulk. If a family business in the midwest can do it, so can others. Anyway, the materials they offer are low activity, esoteric and not really scary. There used to be other places where you could get this kind of stuff in considerably larger quantities.

      I have not done mol biol for a very long time, but the large biotech suppliers like Boehringer, Amersham, Pharmacia and their Russian competitors used to have considerably more dangerous radioactive material with activities many 1000s (if not millions) of times higher than that. In the days when mol biol required C14 and radioactive phosphorus to get any work done they were selling radioactive phosphate (and later ATP) by the bucket to anyone willing to pay. The checks for eligibility (at least for Eastern Europe and 3rd world were done at the receiving customs including countries where customs would wave anything for 100$. Which practically meant that there were no checks at all.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    16. Re:Feh by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Sign in before you speak and someone MIGHT care what you have to say.I care what he has to say.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    17. Re:Feh by flibuste · · Score: 1
      Sinn Fein is an irish political party. Should I remind everyone that, despite some protestant desire to be so, Irelan is NOT Britain. It is not even in the United Kingdom.

      Why am I not impressed by the level of knowledge in geography from our fellow US citizens?

    18. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At Democratic Party meetings, all they do is smoke dope and laugh over how easy it is to dupe the press. Afterwards, they go out and screw all the hobos.

    19. Re:Feh by flibuste · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh! Look! A moronic troll...

    20. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one cares what you care about.

    21. Re:Feh by acherusia · · Score: 1

      Untrue! I became a libertarian so I could argue with everyone.

    22. Re:Feh by Coward+the+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      You forgot registered independent.

      --
      -- Jason
    23. Re:Feh by slightlyspacey · · Score: 1

      Neither is Ireland :):):):)

    24. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at his URL. He is clearly British.

    25. Re:Feh by markmier · · Score: 1

      I'm an anarchist, you insensitive clod!

      (not really)

    26. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you're replying shows you care at least a little bit. I'm anonymous not because I fear reprisal (I'm not that crazy) but just because I can't be bothered to make an account.

      If you think I'm a troll simply for stating that Bush is a liar and a failure then you have deeper problems. I don't think you're any less of a human being for defending him. Stating one's opinion is not trolling. People like you are allowing this country to be taken over by two nearly identical parties who don't care what's good for the nation. You get so caught up in attacking the "other side" that you don't realize how similar they really are, or how much you really have in common with those liberals and Democrats. Acting like Bush is a great man just because he happens to be President and he happens to be from your party is the mark of an intellectual coward who doesn't want to actually take the time and effort to form an opinion about the man rather than his party.

      I can respect people who think Bush is great. I can't respect people who think so just because he's Republican. And I definitely can't respect people who think I'm abusing the system for stating my views.

    27. Re:Feh by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      Did you have to remind me that I'm part of a species that's THIS DUMB?

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    28. Re:Feh by droopycom · · Score: 3, Informative

      No!!! Go read their website before talking:

      Each order is custom made to a LICENSED reactor, and shipped directly form the licensed reactor to the final customer.
      You would need to order 15000 of there samples, and spend 1 Million dollars in order to get a toxic amount.
      Then you would have to somehow manipulate the isotopes to put them in a form convenient for poisoning.

    29. Re:Feh by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      Poor guy, must suck to be the first president to be criticized by the opposition party.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    30. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sinn Fein is an irish political party. Should I remind everyone that, despite some protestant desire to be so, Irelan is NOT Britain. It is not even in the United Kingdom.

      Sinn Fein is, however, active in Britain. That's how it manages to have several seats in the UK parliament, which I'm sure I need not remind you is based in London, not Londonderry.

      You may of course respond that the Sinn Fein MPs' abstention means they're technically only active in Northern Ireland, which as you quite rightly say is not part of Britain. However, your claim that it's "not even in the United Kingdom" is false: Ireland includes Northern Ireland as well as the ROI, and Northern Ireland most certainly is part of the United Kingdom. (The name is a hint: it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

    31. Re:Feh by banditski · · Score: 1

      Gods, I love how witty the banter is here. Well, when in Rome...

      "Oh yeah, the jerk store called and they're all out of you!"

    32. Re:Feh by jonbryce · · Score: 0

      They are active in Northern Ireland, which despite some catholic desire not to be so, is part of Britain.

      For any geographically challenged yanks out there, the .org.uk in my URL should be a clue that I am from Britain.

    33. Re:Feh by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      They care enough to put words in my mouth.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    34. Re:Feh by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      "That's ok. You are their best seller."

    35. Re:Feh by houghi · · Score: 1

      Then we know what the editors vote, because they are very familiar with dupes.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    36. Re:Feh by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Depends what they mean by "doesn't pose a danger". I note that 0.1uCi is more than three times the maximum permissible body burden for ingested polonium (source: http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/84.html )

    37. Re:Feh by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me what changed in Iraq's WMD capactiy from 1998, when Clinton was saying that Sadam had WMD and we needed to bomb him compared to 2003 when Bush was saying that Sadam had WMD and we needed to bomb him? Me thinks you are forgetting context as well... or did a magical unicorn swoop down and pick up all the WMD right after Clinton bombed them and forget to tell anyone. Their program was the same in 98 and in 03. Your first sentence tries to say that they had them in 1998, *they didn't* there is the same amount of evidence that they were there in 98 as they were in 03.

      Additionally do a search (pick your favorite search engine) and see if there are any Democrats doing any fear mongering this year about North Korea or Iran's WMD programs?

      I also find it rather interesting that a person makes a dig at 45% of the population and gets modded upto 5 and I merely post quotes of leaders from the party containing 45% of the rest of the population doing the exact same thing and I'm modded down as flamebait.... I wonder if people are just a wee bit touchy when someone questions their thinking that their guys can "do no wrong".

      What it really comes down to is an intelligence break down, that isn't specific to leadership. People being mad at either Clinton or Bush is truely stupid, it's the people that have been doing the intelligence gathering for both parties for years that were wrong and need to have the outrage against their failure.

    38. Re:Feh by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      You should know better than to inject reason and respect into the discussion, it just confuses and enrages the partisans.

      Other than that, you sound like a fine person.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    39. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My good sir; you are very much mistaken. Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, of that there is little doubt; but UK is not the same as Britain, hence the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"

    40. Re:Feh by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's only in Soviet California.

    41. Re:Feh by StressedEd · · Score: 1
      Since people wax lyrical about geography, the UK and related issues, here's a challenge for you all. List differences between and relationships of:
      • England
      • Scotland
      • Wales
      • Cornwall
      • Isle of Man
      • Ireland
      • The Republic of Ireland
      • Channel Islands
      • Northern Ireland
      • The United Kingdom
      • Britain
      • Great Britain
      • The Falkland Islands
      • Gibraltar
      • Turks and Caicos Islands
      • Bermuda
      • The British Isles
      There are a few trick ones in there, I'm sure it's also far from comprehensive.
      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    42. Re:Feh by flibuste · · Score: 1

      Here's my answers to this fun trivia.

      England: The main island of UK, source of a lot of beer, soccer and sometimes troubles.
      Scotland: Officially part of UK, hopefully not for too long since the Scottish National Party now has majority at the scot's parliament.
      Wales: Part of UK with the funny accent only welsh people can understand.
      Cornwall: Part of UK no one ever think about.
      Isle of Man: Part of UK where the best bike races occur
      Ireland: An island next to England, which is NOT part of UK, at least for the southern part.
      The Republic of Ireland: the part of said "Ireland" that England could not cause troubles to since beer is better there.
      Channel Islands: Drowned part of UK. Any one lives there in 2006??
      Northern Ireland: the part of "Ireland" that is in "UK" and doesn't have the good beer but annoying religious zealots instead.
      The United Kingdom: An entity you want to forget if you live in an island.
      Britain: Anciently called "Britannia", now usually called "Great Britain". Why great? Don't ask me
      Great Britain: see above.
      The Falkland Islands: islands close to Argentina, where you really have to wonder what Englanders had to do there. Then english army had trouble shpping beer there since the french would shoot the boats with Exocet missiles.
      Gibraltar: Another island (or is it a land?), this time south of Spain, where again you gotta wonder what the englanders are doing, if it wasn't to control entrance to the meditteranean sea.
      Turks and Caicos Islands: You got me here! I have never heard of those. I suppose they don't have beer shipped there.
      Bermuda: my underwear. No...wait...Another island with no beer. This time, in toasty pacific?
      The British Isles: Any island is a british isle apparently...
    43. Re:Feh by StressedEd · · Score: 1
      I suspect you are not being entirely serious.

      Still, three of those are roughly in the right direction. I suppose 3/17 ain't bad. It's almost half way to a pass!

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    44. Re:Feh by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      You left out Canada.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    45. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Poland!

    46. Re:Feh by strat · · Score: 1
      Nah, at Republican Party meetings, all they do is smoke big cigars and laugh over how easy it is to dupe the proles.
      Ironically, smoking is almost certainly the most frequent way that people increase their body burden of Po-210.
  7. Order yours here by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm

    "Only Legal Source" ..... not for long

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:Order yours here by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      "Only Legal Source" ..... not for long

      Whatever you do, don't take apart a smoke detector. Or a night scope. Or a glow in the dark keychain. Or a level gauge. Or an old pair of dentures. Or a wick from a gas camping lamp.

      There are actually quite a few mail-order sites for nuclear materials. The stuff is expensive, but it is available. The only difference is that most sites request proof of licensing for such materials before they'll sell them to you. In that way they separate the valid research, medical, and industrial uses of radiological materials from the hobbyists who happen to have a lot of money.

      Honestly, it's kind of odd that someone would have poisoned the guy with polonium. I mean, there are so many other types of poisons (most being much more effective) even in our own homes. Heck, mix some radiator fluid into his starbucks mocha and he'd never know the difference! The only thing I can figure is that they were hoping that he'd get cancer and no one would question why. *shrug* Pretty poor plan if you ask me.
    2. Re:Order yours here by udderly · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that when going out to dinner with ex-KGB, one might need this.

    3. Re:Order yours here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Honestly, it's kind of odd that someone would have poisoned the guy with polonium. I mean, there are so many other types of poisons ..."

      Ok, Name me one.

      Name me one which doesn't cause any effects for several days after ingestion, so I have time to get out of the country and clear all my tracks. And after that, causes unusual symptoms so that doctors will be confused. And, after ingestion, though it causes no immediate symptoms, is 100% fatal no matter what medical support is provided. As well as being tasteless, odourless, colourless and only requiring a minute dose to kill. While not being a great danger to the administrator....

      Seems to me you're pretty much stuck with a radioactive substance. And of all radioactive substances, an alpha-particle only emitter is the easiest to conceal from radiological detection.

      Unless, of course, you know different?

    4. Re:Order yours here by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Honestly, it's kind of odd that someone would have poisoned the guy with polonium. I mean, there are so many other types of poisons (most being much more effective) even in our own homes. Heck, mix some radiator fluid into his starbucks mocha and he'd never know the difference!

      From what I've heard it was terribly hard to find that the poison was Polonium. Since it's an alpha emitter, he won't show up as particularly radioactive. The only way they found it was the doctors somehow found there was helium in his urine. You'll also note he died of heart failure. Not exactly something that screams POISON!

      The only thing I can figure is that they were hoping that he'd get cancer and no one would question why.

      The KGB may not have been able to have any "plausible deniability" here, but they aren't so stupid that they thought he'd just get cancer. The quantity they gave him killed him in a very short period of time. It's quite clear that they wanted him to die quickly.

      It does kind of make me wonder what the hell is up with the KGB now. They've been caught at least three times in the last couple years trying to poison people. Either they're extremely incompetent, or they want to send a message to the world to watch out. My guess is "watch out", (especially to any KGB agents reading this post).

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Order yours here by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Seems to me you're pretty much stuck with a radioactive substance. And of all radioactive substances, an alpha-particle only emitter is the easiest to conceal from radiological detection.


      Mercury Poisoning

      A lot less sophisticated, but just as effective. And you can even administer it externally.

      As for confusing the doctors, it's obvious that a radiological material failed to do that. In fact, most hospitals have rather extensive radiological areas and procedures. So the chances of the symptoms eventually being recognized are fairly high.

      If that still doesn't fit the bill, there are dozens of slow acting poisons from medieval times that would confuse the heck out of modern doctors.
    6. Re:Order yours here by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      You'll also note he died of heart failure. Not exactly something that screams POISON!

      Except that he was extremely sick for days leading up to that. Radiation Poisoning is not exactly a quick and painless death.

      It does kind of make me wonder what the hell is up with the KGB now.

      It makes me wonder what the heck they were thinking. It was an incredible risk to assume that the source of his illness would never be found. Polonium in that quantity is nearly impossible to get ahold of, and absolutely screams "spies did it!" They couldn't have left a louder calling card if they had tried.

      Of course, the real question is what was so important to risk a public relations nightmare by having him killed? So he was a vocal opponent of the Russian government. And? So is the rest of Russia. Either the person who gave the order was stupid (never to be discounted with Putin) or they were worried that he was going to expose some sort of important secret.
    7. Re:Order yours here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've ordered chemicals from United Nuclear before. I got a nice letter a few months later by the US Justice Department stating they were aware of my purchases and to "remind me" of the federal laws regarding making and possessing certain explosives. Big brother IS watching.

    8. Re:Order yours here by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      Heck, mix some radiator fluid into his starbucks mocha and he'd never know the difference!

      The problem with "conventional" poisoning is that it tends to show up in the autopsy. There's all kinds of chemicals for which we can detect even the minute traces of a distant metabolite. But no toxicologist test for heavy metals. I'm actually surprised that this was ever found out. Someone must've gone quite a ways beyond the call of duty.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    9. Re:Order yours here by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they wanted other potential dissenters to know that our spies have a longer reach than you might guess, and no one will stop us after the next headline from Brittany/the Royals/Idol/Big Brother shows up.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    10. Re:Order yours here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should it be illegal? I can buy rat poison at a store. What's the real difference? Except rat poison is probably a lot cheaper.

    11. Re:Order yours here by crosbie · · Score: 1

      It is possible, no matter how improbable, that one may be interested to frame one's alleged assassins for one's own assassination - especially if you have mistaken the significance of your own obsession as equivalent to the significance of your assassination.

      I am waiting to hear of one place where Po210 has been found that Litvinenko has not himself already visited.

      If an assassination, it is strange that Po210 has been found in places other than on Litvinenko, and only in places that he visited. One would assume an assassin would be careful to only leave traces where it was useful to leave traces - presumably nowhere apart from the victim.

      I suspect all crime novelists from Agatha Christie to John Le Carré are laughing their heads off at how transparent the whole thing truly is.

      If Litvinenko had anything truly incriminating to say, he would have been silenced a little more abruptly...

      I suspect the manner of his death speaks louder than any words he had to say (whether assassinated or not).

    12. Re:Order yours here by spun · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait, so you're saying I shouldn't suck the juice out of thermometers?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Order yours here by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The toxin in Destroying Angel toadstools is close to what you want. There are some initial symptoms that look like a minor case of food poisoning -- nausea and such -- but those pass in a day and you apparently recover. A few days to a week later you die because the toxin has destroyed your liver.

      There are plenty of others. Somewhere around here I've got a whole book on poisons (including radiological). Some are pretty nasty ways to go (although hardly undetectable). Oxalic acid (found in rhubarb leaves, some other inedible parts of certain plants) for example, reacts with calcium ions in your cells to form needle-like, insoluble crystals of calcium oxalate. That book is more toxicology oriented, but I've seen one for mystery writers that concentrates on the hard-to-detect (or misleading) stuff.

      If you do want to go the radiation route, an x-ray machine is the easiest to conceal from radiological detection because it can be switched off, and fairly portable if you omit the six inches or so of lead shielding that commercial models have. Don't know how long you'd need to expose the victim for, though. Maybe you can hide it under his bed...

      --
      -- Alastair
    14. Re:Order yours here by AJWM · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't recommend it, but metallic mercury isn't really that bad. It's mercury compounds that are nasty, and stuff like methyl mercury is really nasty -- it'll seep through a rubber glove and be absorbed through the skin.

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. Re:Order yours here by johnjaydk · · Score: 1
      It makes me wonder what the heck they were thinking. It was an incredible risk to assume that the source of his illness would never be found. Polonium in that quantity is nearly impossible to get ahold of, and absolutely screams "spies did it!" They couldn't have left a louder calling card if they had tried.

      Perhaps they wanted to be found out. Spread the word that if You fsck with us then we'll get You and it's going to be unplesant ... FUD on an entirely different level than we are used to.

      Power politics at it's best.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    16. Re:Order yours here by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Honestly, it's kind of odd that someone would have poisoned the guy with polonium. I mean, there are so many other types of poisons (most being much more effective) even in our own homes.

      If it was the FSB (ex-KGB) of which I'm not 100% convinced, this may have been meant as a warning to their employees who are thinking about defection. Basically: "even if it takes us a decade, we *will* find you and we *will* kill you in a such a way so that you'll wish that you'd be dead long before you actually die."

      -b.

    17. Re:Order yours here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, well, there's always Appollonium
      Egad, that's a retarded joke.
      Better go anonymous on this one.

    18. Re:Order yours here by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      Ok, here's one. Mushroom Amatoxin Poisoning. From the link:

      Poisoning by the amanitins is characterized by a long latent period (range 6-48 hours, average 6-15 hours) during which the patient shows no symptoms. Symptoms appear at the end of the latent period in the form of sudden, severe seizures of abdominal pain, persistent vomiting and watery diarrhea, extreme thirst, and lack of urine production. If this early phase is survived, the patient may appear to recover for a short time, but this period will generally be followed by a rapid and severe loss of strength, prostration, and pain-caused restlessness. Death in 50-90% of the cases from progressive and irreversible liver, kidney, cardiac, and skeletal muscle damage may follow within 48 hours (large dose), but the disease more typically lasts 6 to 8 days in adults and 4 to 6 days in children. Two or three days after the onset of the later phase, jaundice, cyanosis, and coldness of the skin occur. Death usually follows a period of coma and occasionally convulsions.

      Additionally, orellanine poisoning has a longer latent period, but would require a larger dose.

      The final type of protoplasmic poisoning is caused by the Sorrel Webcap mushroom (Cortinarius orellanus) and some of its relatives. This mushroom produces orellanine, which causes a type of poisoning characterized by an extremely long asymptomatic latent period of 3 to 14 days. An intense, burning thirst (polydipsia) and excessive urination (polyuria) are the first symptoms. This may be followed by nausea, headache, muscular pains, chills, spasms, and loss of consciousness. In severe cases, severe renal tubular necrosis and kidney failure may result in death (15%) several weeks after the poisoning. Fatty degeneration of the liver and severe inflammatory changes in the intestine accompany the renal damage, and recovery in less severe cases may require several months.

      The disulfiram-like toxins are nasty. Drink, and you go into organ failure.

      Mushrooms in this last category are generally nontoxic and produce no symptoms unless alcohol is consumed within 72 hours after eating them, in which case a short-lived acute toxic syndrome is produced.
      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    19. Re:Order yours here by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Ok, Name me one.

      Acetaminophen aka Tylenol. Fatal dose is only about 4x the therapeutic dose. It's bitter, though, so I'm not sure how easily it would be to conceal. And alcohol makes the effect worse.

      -b.

    20. Re:Order yours here by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Old thermometers, maybe. Most (I would be surprised if not almost all) thermometers made now use alcohol instead of mercury.

    21. Re:Order yours here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to check your source for the 4x statistic. Wikipedia is reporting somewhere around 12x (6g required to kill, and 500mg to 1000mg being a normal dose)

    22. Re:Order yours here by Vellmont · · Score: 1


        So he was a vocal opponent of the Russian government. And? So is the rest of Russia.

      Yah, but the rest of Russia isn't a former KGB agent that's written two books critical of Putin's government. Perhaps Putin is afraid that others will do the same thing at this guy. Killing him in a spy vs spy kind of way sends that message I was talking about.

      --
      AccountKiller
    23. Re:Order yours here by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do, don't take apart a smoke detector. Or a night scope. Or a glow in the dark keychain. Or a level gauge. Or an old pair of dentures. Or a wick from a gas camping lamp.

      You're right about smoke detectors, wicks, and dentures.... Most night scopes are just IR LEDs coupled with a high-sensitivity CCD with significant gain feeding an LCD panel.... Maybe some of the really old ones used radioactive material, but nothing current does AFAIK. Glow-in-the-dark keychains are just phosphorus. Back forty years ago, you could get glow-in-the-dark stuff that mixed radium in with the phosphorus to provide a constant glow, but AFAIK, that has been illegal to sell for many, many years. A level gauge (assuming you mean a bubble level) is just an air bubble in a liquid, which is usually colored ethanol (alcohol).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    24. Re:Order yours here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote somebody else (on the subject of Darwin award winners), "If you have to ask that question, then yes, you probably should".

    25. Re:Order yours here by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      Most night scopes are just IR LEDs coupled with a high-sensitivity CCD with significant gain feeding an LCD panel.

      You might want to tell Ameriglo that.

      Glow-in-the-dark keychains are just phosphorus.

      Sure about that?

      AFAIK, that has been illegal to sell for many, many years.

      Only in the U.S. We still manage to import them every so often, though. Thinkgeek was selling such keychains a year or two ago. And they're not so much illegal as considered a "frivolous use of radioactive materials". Some of the illuminated watches used by police and military glow using the exact same techniques, but aren't considered as "frivolous". So you can purchase them over the counter in the US. (Go figure.)

      A level gauge (assuming you mean a bubble level) is just an air bubble in a liquid, which is usually colored ethanol (alcohol).

      Level Gauges
    26. Re:Order yours here by rossifer · · Score: 1
      Most night scopes are just IR LEDs coupled with a high-sensitivity CCD with significant gain feeding an LCD panel.
      You might want to tell Ameriglo that.
      Those aren't scopes. Those are sights. Scopes look like this and involve optics. Gun sights are significantly simpler.

      I do like tritium sights though.

      A level gauge (assuming you mean a bubble level) is just an air bubble in a liquid, which is usually colored ethanol (alcohol).
      Level Gauges
      His assumption is valid. When you use the term "level", without clarifying that you're talking about a hopper fill-level indicator, you're being deceptive. I'll wager that nobody who reads this post has ever seen a "hopper level gauge" in person. And since they are uncommon devices, then they don't suit the purpose of the original list, which was to show how radioactive substances are used in everyday items. Hopper level gauges aren't everyday items.

      Regards,
      Ross
    27. Re:Order yours here by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      Those aren't scopes. Those are sights.

      Interesting point. I didn't know there was a difference. Thanks for the correction. :)

      Here is a product that purports to be a scope w/Tritium.

      When you use the term "level", without clarifying that you're talking about a hopper fill-level indicator, you're being deceptive

      Actually, I honestly didn't remember what it was precisely. I was just quoting from memory when I mentioned it. I was thinking more like the pipe gauges and the like. Industrial, but more likely to be found in many types of jobs.
    28. Re:Order yours here by rossifer · · Score: 1

      I've heard of similar scopes, and that most definitely is a scope with a tritium illuminated reticle. That's a pretty special purpose scope. Very few hunters use AR-15's for hunting and that's about the only non-military gun you or I can easily own that can mount it.

      The tritium sights from Ameriglo are much more common. Not to minimize your correct assertion that scopes with tritium components do actually exist :)

      Regards,
      Ross

  8. xmas gift by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think Bolonium is a much more appropriate holiday gift. After all, its atomic weight is deliciously snacktacular.

    1. Re:xmas gift by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

      Even better, what I think is referred to as "baloney" (the food product) in the US is "polony" in the UK (at least the bit I grew up in):
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/polony

    2. Re:xmas gift by tkw954 · · Score: 5, Funny
      I think Bolonium is a much more appropriate holiday gift. After all, its atomic weight is deliciously snacktacular.

      You said "snacktac-u-lar", it's "snackta-cle-ar", dummy.

    3. Re:xmas gift by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I prefer weapons-grade Bolonium (a la Cubert). Much purer, almost what comes out of Washington.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    4. Re:xmas gift by strider44 · · Score: 1

      What an appropriate place for the grandparent's signature: "The best comments ever seen on slashdot".

  9. not "easy" by mugnyte · · Score: 1


      You'd be surprised about shops like this. Feds will obviously track the payments and shipments of these things. Even medical devices which contain less damaging isotopes have strict tracking. Don't believe the friendly face isn't watching you.

  10. He ingested it at a restaurant you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how that could have happened...

  11. Give up another freedom! by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Indeed...American Citizens cannot be trusted with nuclear materials...shit they can't even be trusted with a goddamn telephone it seems, judging by the evesdropping our government does.

    Really getting disillusioned by the land that claims to be "Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave".

    --
    Blar.
  12. uranium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have bought a chunk of Uranium ore. It is used for checking that my radiation survey meter still works at least partially.

  13. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 5, Funny
    Who cares about Uranium, when we can have supermagnets!

    Read the page, see the bait:
    Two of these magnets close together can create an almost unbelievable magnetic field that can be very dangerous. Of all the unique items we offer for sale, we consider these items the most dangerous of all. Our normal packing & shipping personnel refuse to package these magnets - our engineers have to do it. This is no joke and we cannot stress it strongly enough - that you must be extremely careful - and know what you're doing with these magnets.

    They even say "beware" elswhere. It must be good.

    Can you even resist?

    Luckily therse things cost money, or noone would care about the Flying Spaghetti Monster anymore. The Flying Magnetatorus would rule supreme.
    1. Re:Moo by 3770 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did buy magnets from there. They are freakin' awesome.

      I accidentally held them too close to each other with nothing in between and they slammed together with such a force that they made sparks and got chipped. I couldn't for the life of me get the magnets apart again until I realized that I could set one on the edge of a table and put my weight on the other to slide them apart but it still hurt my hands to do that.

      The strength will amaze you and I only bought the 1" cube magnets. I can't even begin to imagine the strength of the really big ones.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    2. Re:Moo by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

      Among the most dangerous things you can give your small child are magnets - particularly the small pea-sized sort that are used in toys that are moved around on a platform by other magnets placed underneath.

      If a child swallows more than one of these magnets, they can find each other through bowel tissue and clamp together, eventually killing the tissue that ends up between them due to lack of blood flow and possibly perforating the bowel.

      The magnets they are talking about can break bones if you don't handle them correctly, and if you've ever handled smaller magnets before (who hasn't), you know that it can be tricky trying to arrange more than one magnet (even small ones) without allowing them to collide. You could probably also kill yourself with these magnets in freak circumstances.

    3. Re:Moo by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Dangerous, hell. Give your kid dozens of them. He can use them to build a Gauss gun.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Moo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuddy fud, fud fud.

      Furthermore, I retort "so what, they're awesome".

    5. Re:Moo by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 1

      I like the warning that they can ONLY ship them via UPS ground as they mess with aircraft navigational systems.

      This website would be great if you were a high school science teacher but it looks like they sell a lot of potentially scary stuff...

    6. Re:Moo by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      That sh*t really is dangerous. It they're strong enough, they'll slice off a finger or two if you'd like. This is coming from a guy who "plays" with gorram powerful electromagnets in the lab all day ;)

    7. Re:Moo by andphi · · Score: 1

      Luckily therse things cost money, or noone would care about the Flying Spaghetti Monster anymore. The Flying Magnetatorus would rule supreme.

      How sure are you that these supermagnets are not the work of His Noodly Appendage?

    8. Re:Moo by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Don't make fun of the Great Magnet, lest his might B-field reach out and deflect you at right angles to your intended path!

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    9. Re:Moo by DLG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You could probably also kill yourself with these magnets in freak circumstances.

      Just as an aside, can you think of any object where this is not true?

    10. Re:Moo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnets and client-side pricing.

    11. Re:Moo by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Large Neodymium magnets are ridiculously dangerous, but don't underestimate the small ones, either. A small one I had (1cm x 1cm x 2mm) flew with such force at a metal surface that it shattered upon impact.
      I've also had the misfortune of pinching flesh between 2 8cm cube magnets, and the only way I could get them apart was to anchor one on a metal filing cabinet, the other on a pair of pliers, and then pull the pliers away from the cabinet (Note: Getting skin caught between two neodymium magnets is one of the big No-Nos). I have no desire of ever having a larger one like the inch cube 3770 has, simply because of the safety and responsibility (or injury) that goes along with having one... although it would be pretty nifty to hang a bike from one.

      Despite this, they are pretty neat, if not just because they kick the ass of wussy refrigerator magnets. thinkgeek offers a package with assorted small neodymium magnets, as does k&j magnets, who I ordered mine from back before thinkgeek picked them up.

    12. Re:Moo by Prune · · Score: 1

      I got an N45 grade one from eBay, about four times as big (2"x2"x1"). I had it in my pocket as I walked past the refrigerator that day. I had to take off my pants now stuck to the fridge door, and then took two of us to slide the thing off the edge.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    13. Re:Moo by 3770 · · Score: 1


      BWaaahahahaha!!!!

      I can totally see how that happened.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  14. I might be missing something..... by 8127972 · · Score: 1

    .... But *WHY* is this stuff freely available? Shouldn't it be a controlled substance of some sort? It almost seems that there are drugs and booze that have tighter restrictions.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .... But *WHY* is this stuff freely available? Shouldn't it be a controlled substance of some sort?

      Eh, why not? It's not like you need polonium 210 to kill someone. A big stick can be used for the same purpose, and rat-poison can also be bought over the counter. And unlike e.g. guns, polonium 210 has other uses than to kill people. Most of those reasons advance science.

      Apart from that, why should everything you don't have a need for, need to become "a controlled substance"? I don't know about you, but I have no wish to live in a society where everything is regulated, over-regulated, and then regulated again. I'm for gun control, because guns are a big problem in todays society. I'm not convinced that polonium 210 is a big problem in todays society.

      It almost seems that there are drugs and booze that have tighter restrictions.

      Those things are addictive. Polonium 210 isn't.

    2. Re:I might be missing something..... by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because there is nothing special about radiation.

      Too many people think of radiation as this magical, unstoppable death ray; I call this the OMG RADIATION!!1! attitude.

      Fact is, there's a whole whackload of far more dangerous things you can get your hands on legally and easily, not least of which is any number of guns, which are also very dangerous when handled carelessly or by an unskilled/untrained operator.

      Cigarettes and alcohol are pretty dangerous too, and I couldn't even begin to list the deadly poisons we can stroll into any store and buy completely legally. You can start with the pest control isle, then add the majority of the cleaning isle, and then maybe a lot of the automotive liquids (antifreeze in particular is a dangerous thing if you've got pets or children around), then tack on much of the agricultural isle. Note that I'm not listing products, I'm listing store sections, because that's how readily available these things are.

      Honestly, the only reason to prefer radioactive substances to poison someone is because it plays right into the OMG RADIATION!!1! attitude, which even here on "enlightened" slashdot is in ample supply. It's just another deadly poison; no less, but no more.

      (To break yourself of the OMG RADIATION!!1! attitude, I recommend the following: Learn about background radiation levels. (If you think that "normal radiation" levels are "zero", you are firmly in the grip of OMG RADIATION!!1!.) Learn how X-Rays work and how they compare to background. Learn about how smoke detectors work; odds are very good that you are within a few tens of meters of an OMG RADIOACTIVE! substance. This will either break you of panicking, or give you a heart attack; either way you'll be free of OMG RADIATION!!1!.)

    3. Re:I might be missing something..... by 3770 · · Score: 3, Funny

      .... But *WHY* is this stuff freely available? Shouldn't it be a controlled substance of some sort?

      Eh, why not? It's not like you need polonium 210 to kill someone. A big stick can be used for the same purpose, and rat-poison can also be bought over the counter. And unlike e.g. guns, polonium 210 has other uses than to kill people. Most of those reasons advance science.

      Polonium 210 doesn't kill people. People do.

      If you want my Polonium 210 you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.
      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    4. Re:I might be missing something..... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I'm for gun control, because guns are a big problem in todays society.

      Which is why you should be against gun control. The problem is that not everyone has one.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    5. Re:I might be missing something..... by digitalderbs · · Score: 1

      I'm a chemist, and I do think that selling chemicals can be irresponsible. Sure, you can kill people with a stick, but (1) it's pretty easy to figure out how to kill (or not kill) someone with a stick whereas you can easily inadvertently kill with chemicals, and (2) acutely toxic chemicals can have significant environmental impacts -- suppose someone were to drain an acutely toxic chemical.

      That said, a quick skim of their website doesn't reveal anything acutely toxic and dangerous in the quantities sold (to me).

    6. Re:I might be missing something..... by geoffspear · · Score: 2

      Uh, right. And we should just give nukes to every country in the world, because then we wouldn't need to worry about Iran and North Korea having them.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    7. Re:I might be missing something..... by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And unlike e.g. guns, polonium 210 has other uses than to kill people.

      Ugh. The vast majority of guns in the US have never, nor will they ever, be used for killing people. Seeing as how we have so few natural predators left, hunting is an absolutely vital element of the wildlife conservation effort in many countries. Hunting provides healthy, lean meat, untreated by growth hormones and antibiotics, it controls populations, reducing disease and famine, it provides funding for programs that preserve wildlife habitats....

      Guns can be used for a lot more than shooting people.

    8. Re:I might be missing something..... by lohphat · · Score: 1

      ...because restricting substances makes them go away right?

      Have you not been paying attention the the INCREASE in availability and potency of "illegal controlled substances" in the last 30 years of teh Wor ahn Drugz?

    9. Re:I might be missing something..... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1
      Too many people think of radiation as this magical, unstoppable death ray; I call this the OMG RADIATION!!1! attitude.

      But it's so much fun when you hold a geiger counter up to them and yell, "OH MY GOD! YOU'RE EMITTING THOUSANDS OF BECQUERELS OF RADIATION!"

      Then watch them go nuts for a few minutes before you finally explain to them that the postassium they need in their diet is a smidge radioactive. And God-forbid that our descendents might date our corpses with the Carbon-14 we're carrying around...
    10. Re:I might be missing something..... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      You know, you have helped me see the light here.

      I'm going to melt down all the small arms I own and donate the funds I receive from selling the scrap to the VPC.

      Can you recommend any other inanimate objects over which I can get hysterical?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    11. Re:I might be missing something..... by Ramble · · Score: 0
      "Which is why you should be against gun control. The problem is that not everyone has one."

      Meanwhile we British (and Europeans) are laughing at you from our gun-controlled contries while you get shot down.

      --
      "Oh boy"
    12. Re:I might be missing something..... by mortonda · · Score: 1
      One of my favorite quotes from LotR:

      Those who live not by the sword can still fall on them
    13. Re:I might be missing something..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If we criminalize guns then only criminals will have them.

      It's basic economics (supply and demand) why prohibition of any kind never works. When there is a demand for an item--whether it be guns or crack--be assured there will be someone to supply that demand in exchange for wealth, money.

      We can either allow people to do this above board, where things are safe (no bathtub gin or homemade explosive devices that kill the person who bought it and everyone in a 100 yard radius) and disputes can be litigated legitimately. Or you can can do it under the table, in which you create turf wars, black markets, bad quality products (like bathtub gin, impure cocaine, etc).

      If it's one thing history has shown us it's public policy cannot do a damn about supply and demand; it can only redirect the channels one must go through to get what they demand. Most citizens who want a gun for themself for protection only won't go to the blackmarket to get one... but the guy who's gonna rob you and possibly kill you, you think he gives a shit about breaking one more law?

      Learn some economics and then get back with us. :)

    14. Re:I might be missing something..... by inviolet · · Score: 1
      Apart from that, why should everything you don't have a need for, need to become "a controlled substance"? I don't know about you, but I have no wish to live in a society where everything is regulated, over-regulated, and then regulated again. I'm for gun control, because guns are a big problem in todays society.

      It must be nice to have a lifestyle, gender, social class, job location, and residential neighborhood such that you don't need a gun. Do you suppose that the rest of us enjoy the same oversafe status?

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    15. Re:I might be missing something..... by BMonger · · Score: 4, Funny

      I avoid radiation at all costs. Most of the time I sit safely in front of this CRT screen here reading Slashdot.

    16. Re:I might be missing something..... by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are missing something. It is controlled. Look at how much United Nuclear will sell you.

      The prevailing attitude seems to be nuclear == BAD BAD BAD, but, like all things, they have their uses. Many products use radioactivity, are perfectly safe, and wouldn't work without it. Another good example is smoke detectors, which use americium 241 as a controlled source of ions.

      In this day and age any scientific dabbling seems to be viewed with suspicion. Sad.

      ...laura

    17. Re:I might be missing something..... by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As the article says, these guys are selling quantities of 0.1 microcurie. The maximum allowable dose for ingested Polonium-210 is 0.03 microcurie according to Wikipedia. (Quote: The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1,100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie), which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 × 10-12 gram. )

      Note that "Maximum allowable body burden" is far from lethal. That is the amount where your employer has some explaining to do if you work at some place using polonium and that amount is found inside you; on the other hand, 0.02 microcurie would be considered fine. So eating one of those 0.1 microcurie things will be unhealthy, but I don't think it would do you permanent harm.

      I was told that there are about 300 million guns around in the USA, and each one is capable of doing a lot more damage than 0.1 microcurie of polonium.

    18. Re:I might be missing something..... by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Make sure you save some laughs for this idiot too.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    19. Re:I might be missing something..... by Temkin · · Score: 1

      Then watch them go nuts for a few minutes before you finally explain to them that the postassium they need in their diet is a smidge radioactive.



      That "smidge" as you put it accounts for fully half of your lifetime exposure from all sources, far exceeding C14.

    20. Re:I might be missing something..... by mcvos · · Score: 1
      It must be nice to have a lifestyle, gender, social class, job location, and residential neighborhood such that you don't need a gun. Do you suppose that the rest of us enjoy the same oversafe status?

      It is indeed nice to live in a place where not every nutcase or estranged teenager has access to a gun. I think it would be nice if more people could enjoy such safety.

    21. Re:I might be missing something..... by flibuste · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! Doesn't it seems like the major problems nowaday is BECAUSE everyone wants one?

    22. Re:I might be missing something..... by parcel · · Score: 1

      Those things are addictive. Polonium 210 isn't.yeah, I could quit any time!

    23. Re:I might be missing something..... by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      Now that's funny, I don't care who you are...

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    24. Re:I might be missing something..... by xip.dk · · Score: 1
      From the United Nuclear website:
      You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount.
    25. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      It must be nice to have a lifestyle, gender, social class, job location, and residential neighborhood such that you don't need a gun.

      So tell me, which lifestyle, gender, social class, job location, and residential neighborhood is it that you live in/have, that makes you need a gun.

      Is it coke dealer, female, criminal, a snake pit, Somalia?

      Do you suppose that the rest of us enjoy the same oversafe status?

      Ermm... Yes!

    26. Re:I might be missing something..... by hanssprudel · · Score: 1

      Did you mean this?

      Eowyn: "The women of this country learned long ago that those without swords may still die upon them."

      That is from the movie. I don't remember any such quote from the book.

    27. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Uhm, the vast majority of guns in the US have never, nor will they ever, be used for hunting. And a typical hand-gun is also completely useless for hunting. However, I have nothing against people who are gun-nuts either. If they want to spend their time down at the shooting range, firing at cardboard silhuettes of arabs, it's their choice. What I want to do, is to limit the number of people who choose to keep a loaded gun somewhere in their house, where it waits to be stolen, played with by their children, etc... just because they believe it will somehow "protect" them if 69 ninjas suddenly attack them.

      And I didn't say anywhere that I was against guns. I said I was for gun control! Which is a completely different thing than being against guns in general.

      Gun control would imply such things as

      1. Every gun is registered in a central register
      2. It is the responsibility of the owner to make sure this register is updated if there is a change of owner, etc...
      3. Gun owners must have a police attest, declaring that they are not convicted criminals
      4. Gun owners must get a license, which prove they know how to safely store, transport, and handle a gun
      5. You are not allowed to own or handle a gun without that license, unless it is under supervision by a licensed instructor
      6. Your license can be revoked if you fail to comply with regulations of how to safely store, transport, and handle a gun.

      It's amazing that we have this for cars, but not for guns.

    28. Re:I might be missing something..... by AJWM · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you want my Polonium 210 you'll have to pry it from my hot dead hands.

      There, fixed it for you.

      --
      -- Alastair
    29. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      In that case, you can just as well claim that the problem is that you aren't allowed to kill criminals and other people you dislike. Having a gun will not defend you from criminals. Killing the criminals does!

      Look, if somebody points a gun at you, and fires, it doesn't matter a damn thing whether you have a gun in your hand, pocket, car, bedroom, hunting cabin, or whatever... You are still dead. Guns don't protect people - Regulation does!

    30. Re:I might be missing something..... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Funny
      Then watch them go nuts for a few minutes before you finally explain to them that the postassium they need in their diet is a smidge radioactive.

      Not to mention sleeping together with someone increases your dose from the Evil Potassium. (Still about 0.1 millirem per year extra :) By contrast normal background is about 50-100 mrem/yr, and smoking a pack a day gives you about 1000 mrem/yr.

      -b.

    31. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Gun registration was one of the first things the Nazis did. I guess you're in good company.

      BTW, home invasions are a regular occurrence these days, especially here in Arizona with all the illegals. Keeping loaded guns at home is a good idea if you care about your family's safety.

    32. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      But isn't that exactly the same rationale I used? Only when it becomes a problem, or it becomes common enough for us to see that it will become a problem, should regulation be introduced. Otherwise, we are creating regulation, solely for the purpose of creating regulation. Which helps no-one.

    33. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sounds like England. Guns are fairly rare there, yet people are being maimed and killed left and right by muggers and other criminals using knives and other non-gun weapons in what has become a crime epidemic.

      I'll keep my gun, and I'll be happy to use it against anyone threatening me with a knife, gun, baseball bat, or whatever.

    34. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly how does regulation prevent a criminal from using a gun? If he's a criminal, he's already ignoring laws. Are you really that stupid?

    35. Re:I might be missing something..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all of these registration requirements and limitations on firearms are similar to the types of things you find in the Communist Rules for Revolution document.

      A free society should not tolerate these restrictions on firearms ownership.

    36. Re:I might be missing something..... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      odds are very good that you are within a few tens of meters of an OMG RADIOACTIVE! substance.

      No, the odds are close to 100% that you have an OMG RADIOACTIVE! substance inside your body right now. The main one is potassium (K40). It's not very radioactive, but that means that OMG, it has a half life of over a billion years! Then there's C14, which occurs naturally in the atmosphere (via cosmic ray interaction with nitrogen), is absorbed by plants, which you (or your food) then eat(s).

      Then for those living (or flying) at altitude, there's cosmic rays. For those in granite buildings or living atop granite bedrock (Manhatten, for example) there's uranium in the granite.

      Ignorance of relative levels aside, I think one of the factors that makes radiation so scary (to some people) is that it's not detectable by human senses (at least not at levels that haven't killed you already by the time you notice it). That makes it "magic". An acute dose is also not a pleasant way to go (but nor are a lot of other things). Acute doses are hard to get, though. Marie Curie worked and lived with some pretty intensively radioactive materials, and she lived to just a few months shy of 67.

      --
      -- Alastair
    37. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      Yes. And the nazis also built roads and infrastructure. They almost completely removed unemployment. And they invested in industry and completely rebuilt their contrys failing economy. That they also regulated guns come into the same (good) category. Just because the nazis did something, doesn't mean it's evil or a bad idea. Without the nazis, we may not even have reached the moon yet!

      And I challenge you to find any statistic that at least vaguely indicates that keeping loaded guns at home is a good idea. Even in the military, they don't generally handle loaded guns unless they have to. And they keep a lot more discipline there, than you can do with your family!

    38. Re:I might be missing something..... by kpang · · Score: 1

      That is a silly argument. First, just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean we shouldn't. They had plenty of policies that I do not agree with and several that outright offend me, but that doesn't mean that everything they did was wrong. Second, if you read the OP, you would notice that he / she isn't against owning a home. Gun control doesn't mean you can't keep a loading gun at home to defend yourself and your family. It simply means that in order to have a gun you need to have it and yourself licensed. All gun control is advocating is that guns go to people who know how to use them and are not likely to abuse them. How does this prevent you from protecting your family? If anything, it reduces the chances of some ex-con having a gun to break into your house with in the first place.

    39. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not? MAD worked for over half a century, I don't see why it wouldn't work now.

      Plus, it'd finally give us something else to hear about on the news other than the latest round of "omg you have nukes" "omg no we don't that's a power station" "omg yes you do you're just faking it" "omg we are not" "omg are too" "omgnot" "omgtoo" between the US and Iran or NK.

    40. Re:I might be missing something..... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      In this day and age any scientific dabbling seems to be viewed with suspicion. Sad.

      Of course it is. Those with the power (gov't and big money) are terrified at the thought that some young Edison or Tesla wannabe might come up with the next disruptive technology. Mainly they're worried that the next Bill Gates might recognize and capitalize on it before they do, or that scientific inquiry just encourages asking too many questions.

      Of course having the Consumer Product Safety Commission ban hobbyist scientific gear is a nice (and maybe even unconcious) cover. Think of the children.

      (Please do. Think about the world they're growing up into. Sigh. It's the 21st century, want to know where your flying cars went? The guy that (in an alternate universe) would have invented them wasn't allowed to play with "dangerous" toys as a kid, and now writes computer games.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    41. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mattintosh · · Score: 4, Funny

      if 69 ninjas suddenly attack them

      Hmm... how would I provoke such an attack by this particular type of ninja?

    42. Re:I might be missing something..... by Baba+Ram+Dass · · Score: 1

      "Guns don't protect people - Regulation does!" Regulation also keeps me from smoking this fat joint right now. Oh wait, no it doesn't.

      --
      Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
    43. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Look up Switzerland. Every male in the militia (which is most of them) is required to have a fully-automatic rifle in his home. Everyone else has pretty easy access to various weaponry. Shooting is the nation's most popular sport. Violent crime is quite rare there.

    44. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      Regulation reduces the amount of unregistered guns in circulation. Criminals will not get access to registered guns, unless they steal them. Registered guns will be stored safely, to reduce the risk of that happening. Which means that, over time, the number of guns available to criminals drops. And the number of legal, registered guns, increase. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?

      And just because you are a criminal, doesn't mean that you will do anything criminal. There are at the moment, relatively few serial killer/rapists compared to petty thieves. Yet both are criminal. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?

    45. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Gun control doesn't mean you can't keep a loading gun at home to defend yourself and your family. It simply means that in order to have a gun you need to have it and yourself licensed.

      This is the first time I've ever seen this. Wake me when gun-control advocates actually try to pass a law against the lines you allege here.

      All gun control is advocating is that guns go to people who know how to use them and are not likely to abuse them. How does this prevent you from protecting your family?

      Maybe that's what you advocate, but that's certainly not what gun-control laws advocated by gun-control advocates aim for. Instead of attempting to limit who gets guns (which is already done in the US for handguns), they try to ban various weapons and features of weapons, like magazines with too many rounds, bayonet lugs (?!?!), and other silliness.

      That is a silly argument. First, just because the Nazis did something doesn't mean we shouldn't. They had plenty of policies that I do not agree with and several that outright offend me, but that doesn't mean that everything they did was wrong.

      Most things they did were pretty wrong. Their use of gun control had very sensible purposes. To reduce violent crime? Nope. To prevent certain ethnic groups from violently opposing the government when it tried to take them to the gas chamber? Yep! Gun control is workable if the government isn't oppressing you, but can be a real killer when it does.

    46. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      Marihuana isn't regulated. It's illegal. (OK, there are some very few exceptions of medical marihuana). And I'm not against you smoking that fat joint. I'm against the violence and crime that is a natural consequence of the prohibition against marihuana. Your point was?

    47. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Registered guns will be stored safely, to reduce the risk of that happening. Which means that, over time, the number of guns available to criminals drops. And the number of legal, registered guns, increase. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?

      And you think that criminals won't mug anyone because they don't have a gun handy? Ever heard of a knife? Are you really that stupid?

      And just because you are a criminal, doesn't mean that you will do anything criminal. There are at the moment, relatively few serial killer/rapists compared to petty thieves. Yet both are criminal. Do I really need to spell this out for you? Are you really that stupid?

      So you think someone intent on assaulting and mugging or carjacking someone will balk at breaking a gun-control law? Are you really that stupid?

    48. Re:I might be missing something..... by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1
      And I challenge you to find any statistic that at least vaguely indicates that keeping loaded guns at home is a good idea.

      Your parent poster did mention one such situation: when deaths due to home invasion are greater than deaths due to gun accidents. Ideally they'd be able to fortify their dwelling enough that they wouldn't need firearms for self defense, but ideally home invasions wouldn't occur in the first place.

    49. Re:I might be missing something..... by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 0

      OMG RADIATION!!1!

      I don't think you realize the gravity of the situation, so I repeat:

      OMG RADIATION!!1!

    50. Re:I might be missing something..... by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the only reason to prefer radioactive substances to poison someone is because it plays right into the OMG RADIATION!!1! attitude

      Which, of course, is probably why it was used - the KGB could have killed the guy in any number of discreet ways; they chose to off him in a way guaranteed to cause him to suffer & to be plastered all over the news for weeks. A very nice warning to others.

    51. Re:I might be missing something..... by Jerf · · Score: 1

      You're right. I'll have to add that to any future desensitization posts I make.

      You've got to ease people in to it though; jump them straight to "you eat radioactive foods every day" and they'll probably just flat-out disbelieve you. First you need to show that a low level is perfectly normal.

      I did enjoy your panicking over a billion! year half-life. It's a big number, that must be worse, right? :)

    52. Re:I might be missing something..... by Gregory+Cox · · Score: 1

      The grandparent post is about nuclear weapons, so why are the examples in this post things like "homemade gin"?

      If we're talking about drugs, I agree with you that turning people into criminals is not the solution. And heavy surveillance of bank account transactions are more worrying than the problem they're supposed to be solving. Also, let's not argue (for the moment) about polonium, and if you want to keep a rifle under your bed for when They come for you. (You could accuse me of going off topic by saying it, but I think I'm still addressing the wider issue raised by the article.)

      But nuclear weapons? Are you really suggesting that private citizens should be allowed to make nuclear weapons if they want? I've read that building a simple nuclear bomb doesn't take that much in-depth knowledge or technical refinement. Say that I and my small team of fellow researchers want to build a uranium or plutonium bomb. We've done all our homework, and of course the whole project is just a leisure pursuit, like building model railways - we'd never dream of hurting anyone. You're seriously OK with letting me do it?

      Normally I'd assume that you didn't really mean that, but your post said "prohibition of any kind never works", explicitly ruling out any exceptions to your statements with the parts in bold or italics, so I have to take your word for it.

      --
      If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
    53. Re:I might be missing something..... by Jerf · · Score: 1

      If you didn't insist on holding your Polonium 210 in your hands, they might not be (thermally) cold and dead.

    54. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      I would rather be mugged by someone with a knife, than someone with a gun. If owning an unregistered gun is illegal, once the police find out about someone with a gun but no license, they have reason to arrest him, search his house for evidence, etc... This will reduce the amount of criminals with guns.

      And a small side-note. Yes, weapons used in crime, are surprisingly often weapons that are designed especially for killing humans. Although a filet knife is perfectly adequate for killing someone, if you are ever killed by a random stranger with knife, I bet the chance that he's using a tough-looking combat-knife is much higher than that he is using an equally tough-performing but domestic-looking filet-knife. The reason for this must be that criminals aren't usually the brightest of the bunch. And yes, this is a side note, because if no rambo-knives are available, the lunatic killer is probably going to use a filet-knife, so outlawing tough-looking knives won't help much.

    55. Re:I might be missing something..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've long thought that one reason that people react so strongly to OMG RADIATION is that it has been used as a theatrical device to get audiences to suspend disbelief. Peter Parker was bitten by an OMG RADIOACTIVE spider and now he is Spiderman. Many other of our favorite superheroes came to be because of their exposure to OMG RADIOACTIVITY. Most of the really good^H^H^H^H awful sci fi flicks from the fifties and sixties used the same conceit. Some how no one would believe that if Peter Parker was shot by a snub-nosed .38 he would become a superhero.

    56. Re:I might be missing something..... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we all know that handguns are for hunting.

    57. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about hypothetical statistics...

    58. Re:I might be missing something..... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I have read somewhere (no reference) that the MOST common lethal use of a firearm in the United States is a white man shooting himself.

    59. Re:I might be missing something..... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Of course. Think how they'd be screaming about radwaste with a half-life like that.

      And another thought -- those uranium-containing granite countertops! OMG, they prepare food on those?! ;-)

      --
      -- Alastair
    60. Re:I might be missing something..... by rtjohn · · Score: 1

      Regulation won't work on guns anymore that it would for alcohol or anything else that can be made with publicly available knowledge. Any competent machinist can make a gun that is completely untraceable and anyone can make alcohol in their sink if they are so inclined. Once the knowledge is out there on how to do something controlling what people will do with it is impossible.

    61. Re:I might be missing something..... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      But guns are bad and dangerous.

      If we just sprinkle polonium 210 everywhere, we'll have all the lean meat we can eat and we won't need all those naughty guns.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    62. Re:I might be missing something..... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Switzerland, along with most of Europe, sent most of their crazy, psychopathic bizarro crackpot genetic stock to the new world centuries ago!

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    63. Re:I might be missing something..... by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      "[hunting] provides funding for programs that preserve wildlife habitats...."

      I agree with your core points (most guns are never used against human beings and that hunting has some good points), but I suggest leaving this particular point out in the future. "We can tax it and use the money to do warm fuzzy things" can be applied to just about anything (including, say, property ownership, professional sports, porn, gambling, prostitution, marijuana, or heroin). It's such a broad argument that it really doesn't help the gun argument in the slightest.

    64. Re:I might be missing something..... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      If we criminalize guns then only criminals will have them.

      Not necessarily true, if you try to severely eliminate the existence of guns to begin with (including for the use of law enforcement). (I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, just pointing out a possible way of limiting gun access all the way around.) As long as the gun manufacturers keep pumping the firearms out by the millions and distributing them with a great many loopholes in oversight, however, enforcement of gun control laws is bound to be pretty useless.

    65. Re:I might be missing something..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwin's law invoked.

      You lose.

      50 cents to continue. 10... 9... 8...

    66. Re:I might be missing something..... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      #'s 4-6 of your plan would all be unconstitutional (and possibly #3 also). Not to mention, this would probably do very little to prevent people from keeping a loaded gun where children could reach it. People who do that are already stupid and a new law isn't going to change that behavior. It would probably not prevent accidents with guns, the only thing it would do is make prosecution against people who are careless much easier. As far as I'm concerned, having your kid accidentally shoot themselves is probably punishment enough. This is not a big enough problem to warrant the change that you call for. Just as many kids are killed by getting backed over by a car as by playing with guns, and I view it as a similar problem.

      In the US, only 1/3 of all guns are handguns. I don't know how many guns are actually used for hunting, but I think it's fair to say that most guns are used for sporting purposes (hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, etc.). As far as accidents go, as bad as it is, that stuff happens. It's terrible, but it doesn't really warrant completely restricting the rights of the rest of the population. For crime/homicide using guns, there are better solutions that treat the cause of the problem (poverty and lack of education) rather than just the symptoms. Since this is the US however, people like to look at the simple, ineffective solutions such as restricting the gun laws, rather than actually addressing the real issues.

    67. Re:I might be missing something..... by loxosceles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have not thought this through.

      The car analogy. Oh Gods! Cars are driven at high speed on public roads. People operating them had better know how to avoid running into other people, which means understanding traffic laws.

      You need no license, no vehicle registration, and no insurance to drive on private property.

      Guns cannot be used in public except in exigent circumstances involving prompt commission of a violent crime by someone else. You may also note that it is legal to drive vehicles without a license, without registration, in the event of an emergency.

      Guns are not evil. They do not have consciousness or souls. They create no problems by themselves. They are not chemically unstable, radioactive, or biotoxic. (Lead is moderately toxic, but if you want to do something about that, push to unban less-toxic and non-toxic "armor-piercing" ammunition. That term is one of the worst frauds about the entire gun regulation system: the notion that some solid ammunition is "armor piercing" and some is not. It is all a matter of degree. Chunks of metal hurled at high velocity are dangerous. Period. They will go through some stuff, and not go through other stuff. BTW, the worst fraud is that "silencers" are treated identically to guns. Thanks to that bit of genius legislation, significant hearing loss is an ever-present concern for shooters.)

      Guns are pretty much undetectable when carried in public, and the means of production (machine tools) are not regulated. There is a large market for guns, like drugs. Reasonably accurate firearms like AK-47s can be made in machine shops; they were made in villages in the Soviet Union during the cold war.

      More accurate firearms, and specially treated barrels, require CNC machines and cryo facilities, but those are also unregulated.

      The only way to get rid of guns is to fight them like drugs: pick people semi-randomly, and use any excuse you can to invalidate their 4th amendment rights so you can search them, their car, their home.

      You worry about known criminals with guns? Keep them locked up, or support the death penalty for more violent crimes. You don't want them walking around with guns? I'd rather they weren't walking around at all. The nature of our society is such that it can't defend against evil if we knowingly allow evil to walk among us.

      Even if it were true that a world without guns would be a better place, that world is unattainable. Guns are here to stay until more effective weapons arrive.

      The best we can do is:

      1. Do our part to make sure that people we know who are crazy, dangerous, etc. are kept away from guns. Laws don't work. Personal intervention does.
      2. Put no restrictions on other people acquiring guns.

      As for background checks, WHY?! Guns are not the only means of murder. If you're worried that some John Doe buying a gun is a murderer, you should be worried about John Doe whether or not he has a gun. If he's a murderer, he will kill people. If he can't get a gun legally, he'll get one illegally. In the unlikely event he needs to kill someone right now and can't find a gun on short notice, he'll use a brick, a kitchen knife, a chainsaw (GOOD HEAVENS, THEY SELL CHAINSAWS WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS? OHMY SWEET JESUS!), or the Americium from a bunch of smoke detectors.

      sorry for the semi stream-of-consciousness nature of this reply, but I don't feel like reorganizing it.

    68. Re:I might be missing something..... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's amazing that we have this for cars, but not for guns.

      We don't have these rules for cars. You don't need a driver's license to own a car, or even, strictly speaking, to operate one (on private roads, with the owner's permission). You only need the license and registration to use the vehicle on public, State-owned roads. The equivalent for guns would be something like a concealed-carry license requirement (i.e. a license to carry the gun in public areas), which already exists in most places and typically follows the guidelines you've specified.

      Private owners can reasonably refuse to allow you to carry a gun onto their properties, and the government (presuming for the moment that their claim to ownership of "public" property is legitimate) can reasonably restrict possession and/or use of guns on public property, but nothing gives either of them a legitimate right to restrict possession or (non-aggressive) use of any sort of weapon on one's own property.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    69. Re:I might be missing something..... by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      ...... The criminals in the UK also use guns. It is so commonplace for criminals to use guns that the increasingly armed cops keep shooting unarmed serfs because they think the serf may have a gun.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    70. Re:I might be missing something..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunting provides healthy, lean meat, untreated by growth hormones and antibiotics, it controls populations, reducing disease and famine, it provides funding for programs that preserve wildlife habitats.... Guns can be used for a lot more than shooting people.

      Sure, but that's the only use you mentioned.

    71. Re:I might be missing something..... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "It's amazing that we have this for cars, but not for guns."

      Guns are necessary to embed the ability to revolt in American society. The Founders, being _real_ revolutionaries, "got" this fundamental truth.

      An armed and resisting public can wear out an opponent even if they do not beat them in battle.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    72. Re:I might be missing something..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have guns. The government has napalm, tanks, cruise missiles, artillery, jets, attack helicopters, aircraft carriers and unmanned drones that can target you from 2 miles away in the dark.

    73. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I really don't care about how many deaths occur due to gun accidents. Lots of deaths occur because of all kinds of accidents; that doesn't mean we should ban things. How many people die in auto accidents?

      If there are ANY home invasions at all, then people should retain the right to arm themselves and protect themselves from this. If your life hangs in the balance, statistics about accidents just aren't important.

    74. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wow, it's worse over there than I thought.

      How's it going over there with that attempt to ban knives with pointed tips, anyway? Seems pretty silly to worry about that when the criminals actually have guns which are supposedly illegal.

    75. Re:I might be missing something..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It WOULD be amazing, unless you consider that guns (but not cars, horses, or buggies) were considered extremely important to the founding fathers, important enough to write into the constitution, and near the top of all the amendments at that!

      If the government does away with the first amendment, they'll have a much harder time doing away with the second.

      Also, I can't think of any tyrannical leaders that have systematically rounded up car owners and taken their cars away. Perhaps this is because guns are more useful than cars at keeping a corrupt government in check.

      Finally, consider your statements above, but instead of the word "guns", replace it with "jews", "blacks", "gays", "abortion doctors", or any other minority group of your choice. If you argue that people and guns are different, I'd agree. But people and guns (but not cars) have been rounded up and given "special treatment" by tyrannical dictators and other iron fisted leaders time and again throughout history.

    76. Re:I might be missing something..... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      That line was based on the one from the book. In the book, look in the houses of healing. IIRC, it was Gandalf speaking to Ioreth.

      Yes, I've read it too many times.

    77. Re:I might be missing something..... by axotlprogeny · · Score: 1

      I agree. I work as a Radiation Safety Officer at a small laboratory. We deal mostly with weak beta emitting isotopes(Tritium and Carbon-14.)Many people don't understand that there are radioactive isotopes for almost all elements, all putting out different levels of energy causing different forms of damage to different organs. I lost count long long ago how many times I have been asked by people whether I am going to glow or grow a third arm from working where I work. The stigma is strong in the general public against anything radioactive. Probably why we will never see another nuclear power plant open in the US for quite a while.

      Ironically, all smokers receive strong 210P doses. The dose (in REM) an average smoker receives per year is higher than any person that works at my facility.

      And to respond to the previous response regarding the uses of 210P, it is used as a check source for calibration or instruments. I use one to check the response of ion chambers used for air monitoring. These sealed sources aren't easy to break open either. I believe the 210P is diluted in some other metal, and then put into a sealed plastic mini hockey puck.

    78. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      It almost seems that there are drugs and booze that have tighter restrictions.

      And of course restrictions on drugs have worked so well...

      Provided of course that you ignore the stupendous amount of violence created by the black market. And the overdoses and poisonings created by drugs of unknown purity and strength. And the displacement of less dangerous soft drugs by more profitable and easily-smuggled hard drugs. And the breakdown of civil liberties that is inevitable when the government gets it in mind that it has the rightful authority to tell people what to do with their own bodies.

      Modulo those minor concerns, sure, the war on (some) drugs has been such a smashing success of the past three and a half decades, making dangerous drugs so very rare that indeed, one has to wonder why don't apply that strategy to other hazards, why we don't fight a similar war on (some) magnets, chemicals, power tools, sharp pointy things, household chemicals, and other things you can hurt yourself with if you're not careful.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    79. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Normally I'd assume that you didn't really mean that, but your post said "prohibition of any kind never works"

      But prohibition of nuclear weapons hasn't worked. If it did North Korea wouldn't have them.

      And how do you enforce a prohibition on nuclear weapons? Anyone who has one, has by definition an effective defense against any attempt to take it away from them.

      The only long-term solution to the problem of nukes is to build a world where no one feels the need to have one, a world of peaceful conflict resolution.

      And given that we don't seem headed that way. I expect to see a nuclear weapon used in my lifetime. (Well, I'm hoping I won't see it directly, but see it on the news happening somewhere far away.)

      It's a shame that we've wasted decades on the fantasy that nuclear weapons could be controlled by controling technological information.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    80. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Having a gun will not defend you from criminals. Killing the criminals does!

      In fact, in the great majority of defensive firearms uses, the gun is not fired and nobody dies. Displaying a gun and saying "get out of here or get shot" is very effective.

      Look, if somebody points a gun at you, and fires, it doesn't matter a damn thing whether you have a gun in your hand, pocket, car, bedroom, hunting cabin, or whatever... You are still dead.

      Assuming that they hit you in a vital area, of course. It is actually fairly difficult to hit a man-sized target with a handgun at any range.

      Anyway, even assuming great marksmanship, very rarely is violent crime such an assassination, where the killer wants only the victim's death. More often there is a motive such as robbery, rape, or the sick thrill of a up-close and in-person killing. That often gives an intended victim the abilty to shoot first. (Or better yet to threaten to shoot first, causing the bad guy to surrender. Or even better, the possibility of the intended victim shooting first makes the potential attacker decide to call the whole thing off.)

      Guns don't protect people - Regulation does!

      Gun control keeps guns away from violent people about as well as drug laws keep heroin away from junkies.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    81. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      And I challenge you to find any statistic that at least vaguely indicates that keeping loaded guns at home is a good idea.

      Here you go:

      An unloaded gun is worthless for defense, so we can assume that the vast majority of guns used in the between 108,000 and 2.5 million (depending on whose numbers you beleive) annual defensive gun uses in the U.S. are loaded, or are at least stored so that they can be quickly and easily loaded.

      In 2003, 730 people per year were killed by firearms accidents.

      So, there were between 153 and 3,425 times more defensive gun uses than accidental gun deaths.

      Firearms accidents are very rare, you are much more likely to have a fatal fall (17,229 in 2003), or drown (3,306). Indeed more people choked on food (875) than were killed by gun accidents. But falls, drownings, and chokings seldom make the news, while accidental shootings often do.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    82. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      ...the MOST common lethal use of a firearm in the United States is a white man shooting himself.

      Don't know about the white man part, but it is true that more people kill themselves with guns than are killed by other people with guns. (In 2003, the numbers were 16,907 suicides by firearm versus 12,267 homicides by firearm, counting "legal intervention involving firearm discharge" under homicide).

      It is a common disingenuous tactic in gun politics debates to lump suidicide, homicides, and accidents (quite rare) all together under "death by firearm".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    83. Re:I might be missing something..... by 2short · · Score: 1

      "If your life hangs in the balance, statistics about accidents just aren't important."

      If your life hangs in the balance, statistics about accidents are (obviously) a matter of life and death. For example, what if owning a gun increased your chances of being killed by a gun accident by a factor many, many times the chances of the gun being useful in a home invasion. Then owning the gun would obviously be stupid.

    84. Re:I might be missing something..... by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      uhm, the deer, geese, pheasants, etc etc have few natural predators, we have none.



      which of course is why I am all in favour of firearms possession, everyday I look around at the sheeple and realize it's time to thin the herd....

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    85. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, because as we've heard before, there's "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Just because some people come up with some crazy statistic about gun accidents doesn't mean we should pay any attention to it. Most gun accidents happen because people do stupid things with guns, like cleaning them while loaded, playing with them, letting their stupid kids get to them, etc. Don't do these stupid things, and you're very unlikely to have any problems.

      So for myself, I am quite confident that my chances of being killed in a gun accident are very remote (since I'm very careful to make sure they're unloaded when cleaning, am careful in general handling, don't play with them, and don't have any kids (I don't think my 5 cats count)), whereas my chances of my home being invaded are less than remote (as these crime rates continually rise), so in my judgment the risk of owning guns is worth it for the security it gives me in case of crime. And I don't need some naysayers to tell me that they don't think I should have guns, and be able to force this opinion on me.

      If you're going to remove citizens' ability to defend themselves, then the State should be wholly liable for any criminal activity that happens. That means that every time someone is robbed, the State should be required to immediately pay out millions of dollar in damages (and pain and suffering).

    86. Re:I might be missing something..... by 2short · · Score: 1

      " as we've heard before, there's 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'."

      I've certainly heard that before. It is very popular quote, but always with people who want to ignore that the statistics don't support them. Interesting, that.

      But in any case, I didn't say anyone should force anything on you. I said that, hypothetically, if owning a gun increased your risk more than not owning one, then obviously that fact would not be irrelevant, but would actually imply owning a gun was stupid.

      "I am quite confident that my chances of being killed in a gun accident are very remote"

      Glad to hear it, though I wonder how many people killed in gun accidents would have said the same thing the day before?

      "my chances of my home being invaded are less than remote (as these crime rates continually rise)"

      No, actually crime rates both rise and fall. Lately they've been mostly falling, and in most (US) places are at historic lows. It would be hard to call the risk of home invasion anything but remote. Heck, even non-gun-owners have more chance of being killed in a gun accident thatn in a home invasion. But hey, that's just a statistic, and we know what they say about those.

      "in my judgment the risk of owning guns is worth it for the security it gives me in case of crime"

      OK. I'm just saying, I don't know the particulars of your case, but, statistically, almost everyone who makes that judgement is wrong.

      "If you're going to remove citizens' ability to defend themselves, then the State should be wholly liable for any criminal activity that happens. That means that every time someone is robbed, the State should be required to immediately pay out millions of dollar in damages (and pain and suffering)."

      Will you be paying out millions if someone steals your gun and uses it to shoot someone? Actually, forget that, if you're "wholly liable", you're getting the chair.

    87. Re:I might be missing something..... by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      I'll tell this to you like I tell it to every other gun nut. I refuse to have a gun in my apartment in Baltimore because having a gun would make me less safe. Care to tell me how Baltimore is less dangerous than Arizona?

    88. Re:I might be missing something..... by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      Wait a god damn second... being illegal isn't being regulated? Huh? What the fuck are you talking about? The rest of your post I agree with, but your first point about illegal != regulated is asinine. Also, it's mariJuana, not mariHuana as the ignorant Henry Aslinger spelled it during his reign of idiocy.

    89. Re:I might be missing something..... by joto · · Score: 1

      You still haven't shown that even a single of those guns you claim were used for defensive purposes, actually performed a useful defensive function, either as a deterrent, threat, or weapon. You could just as well argue that having ice-cream in the house works as a deterrent against random evil people attacking your family in your house.

      Actually, I find the whole scenario you are worried about so remote that I fail to see why people worry about it. Random burglars will run when they are spotted, regardless of whether you have a gun or not. Only real enemies will stay to mutilate you and your family. Most people know whether they have real enemies who are likely to do that. (And besides, if someone plans to mutilate you and your family, a gun probably isn't going to stop them)

    90. Re:I might be missing something..... by istewart · · Score: 1

      just because they believe it will somehow "protect" them if 69 ninjas suddenly attack them.You marginalize the importance of self-defense, when there are quite a few people who stand to benefit from having a personal weapon available to them... such as, for instance, residents of inner cities where murder rates are typically at their highest. By taking legal guns out of urban areas, you might prevent a few crimes a year, yes, but the criminal enterprises that form the core of illegal activity in such areas are importing and selling weapons right alongside drugs. Even then, you look at someplace like England, which not only has a gun ban but more draconian self-defense laws, and you see crap like "happy-slapping" where lowlifes get away with harassing innocent people because they're unsure what will happen if they try to fight back. Limiting individuals' options for self-defense is not a good course to set a society on, and it can be a significant side effect of attempting to impose civilization from above.

    91. Re:I might be missing something..... by BeEfHokie · · Score: 1
      Actually, I find the whole scenario you are worried about so remote that I fail to see why people worry about it. Random burglars will run when they are spotted, regardless of whether you have a gun or not. Only real enemies will stay to mutilate you and your family. Most people know whether they have real enemies who are likely to do that. (And besides, if someone plans to mutilate you and your family, a gun probably isn't going to stop them)

      That isn't necessarily true. While most petty thieves will flee if you just shout that you're calling the cops, people hopped up on meth or crack or whatever couldn't give a shit. Farmers in West Virginia have this problem often in their barns and storage sheds--meth addicts stealing ammonium nitrate for their cooking facilities (a lot of the ammonium compounds used for fertilizers are stored in gas tanks, it's not uncommon to discover a dead body nearby who accidentally inhaled too much of the stuff). While I would recommend just staying out of the way and letting these guys take the stuff and leave, invariably some farmer somewhere will be encountered as a junkie tries to make a move. These guys are *nuts*, you cannot image the lengths they will go to get ingredients for the stuff. If diplomacy or fleeing aren't options, I personally would recommend a .45 ACP or 10mm handgun, or better yet, a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot (9mm Parabellum and .38s won't cut it on these guys).

      For a home in the 'burbs, I mostly agree with the parent, but as always, there are exceptions to the norm.

      Reference: http://www.bae.umn.edu/ennotes/S/S101-2004-08.html
    92. Re:I might be missing something..... by mcvos · · Score: 1
      Sounds like England. Guns are fairly rare there, yet people are being maimed and killed left and right by muggers and other criminals using knives and other non-gun weapons in what has become a crime epidemic.

      I thought the number of violent deaths in the UK was still a lot lower than in the US.

      In any case, in Netherland it's mostly the criminals themselves who get shot. By rival criminals. Ordinary citizens aren mostly left alone. Ofcourse there are muggers, but they generally just threaten you with a knife, which isn't nearly as lethal as a nervous guy with a gun.

    93. Re:I might be missing something..... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      You still haven't shown that even a single of those guns you claim were used for defensive purposes, actually performed a useful defensive function, either as a deterrent, threat, or weapon.

      Admit it, you didn't even follow the links I provided, did you? The surveys asked people if they had used a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect themselves or someone else, making each reported DGU a clear case of a firearms functioning as a deterrent or weapon.

      Let me make it easier for you. The NRA' Institute for Legislative Action keeps a comprehensive "armed citizen" news archive. Here is a simiar compilation at keepandbeararms.com.

      Random burglars will run when they are spotted, regardless of whether you have a gun or not. Only real enemies will stay to mutilate you and your family.

      Some petty crooks will run when spotted. But home invaders do not. Neither do rapists and stalkers (wouldn't life be easier if they did?).

      (And besides, if someone plans to mutilate you and your family, a gun probably isn't going to stop them)

      Being armed certainly increases the odds of successfully stopping such an attack.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    94. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How exactly would it make you less safe? That sounds like an assumption to me.

      Does having gas-operated appliances (assuming you do) make you less safe? Millions of Americans have gas appliances, yet the only time I see houses exploding is on silly TV shows and movies (where vehicles explode if the slightest thing happens to them, even though we know in reality they wouldn't). How about owning power tools?
      Don't do something stupid with your tools and you won't get hurt.

    95. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ofcourse there are muggers, but they generally just threaten you with a knife, which isn't nearly as lethal as a nervous guy with a gun.

      Perhaps, but if citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves, then the rate of muggings goes through the roof (as it has in England) because there's no consequences for it. And in the process, I understand UK hospitals are seeing lots of horrible knife wounds coming into the ERs. If random citizens might be concealing guns, muggers will think twice about trying anything. Just check out Switzerland's crime rate.

    96. Re:I might be missing something..... by mcvos · · Score: 1
      Perhaps, but if citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves, then the rate of muggings goes through the roof (as it has in England) because there's no consequences for it.

      How much good do you think your gun will be when the mugger has one too? He already has his gun pointed at you. What do you think he'll do when you reach for your gun? If muggers think their victims might carry guns, you're only raising the stakes, and he's more likely to actually shoot you. A better way to stop muggings is to have actual cops on the street, and to track down muggers instead of ignoring them.

      And in the process, I understand UK hospitals are seeing lots of horrible knife wounds coming into the ERs. If random citizens might be concealing guns, muggers will think twice about trying anything. Just check out Switzerland's crime rate.

      But violent deaths due to ordinary citizens snapping and shooting someone are higher in Switzerland than in surrounding countries, and some people are already calling for stronger restrictions on weapons.

    97. Re:I might be missing something..... by Baba+Ram+Dass · · Score: 1

      The guy is right: prohibition never works, even in regards to nuclear explosives.

      But there's a difference in having a prohibition law against--say--pot, and a prohibition law against--say--murder. In both cases, prohibition doesn't deter the activity being prohibited. The difference is that the point of the second law is not to deter but to impose retaliatory force, i.e., justice.

      --
      Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
    98. Re:I might be missing something..... by Baba+Ram+Dass · · Score: 1
      Not necessarily true, if you try to severely eliminate the existence of guns to begin with (including for the use of law enforcement).
      But don't you see... this is exactly what we did with alcohol prohibition, and yet people still got their alcohol. If you did the same with guns, people would still get their hands on them; but instead of having a safety and a gunlock, they'd be homemade arms that'd be more dangerous than the ones you banned in the first place.
      --
      Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
    99. Re:I might be missing something..... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      All of which are ideal against Westernized military forces and less than ideal against dispersed irregulars, let alone dispersed irregulars with public support in our own country. BTW our total quantities of everything you mention are not nearly enough to internally control the US.

      We can't even control Iraq, so what makes you think a divided government and military could easily squelch a genuinely popular domestic revolt?

      Such a revolt would of course include members of the military (who ARE part of the "public"!), with their equipment. The Second Amendment ensures dispersed weaponry available to the public to support a revolt. It does not assume or imply that small arms would be the only resources available.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    100. Re:I might be missing something..... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      It requires a little more skill & effort to create a decent-performing firearm than it does to distill something alcoholic (although maybe not something that tastes good :-).

      If my proposed scenario were implemented, I don't doubt there would be a few "Saturday Night Specials" running around, but their power & accuracy would be quite bad compared to existing weapons, and it would be much less likely to run into someone with a fully-automatic weapon or even a weapon which could be reloaded easily & reliably. It takes a decent craftsman to create a decent weapon, and if the government were running around vigorously repressing such skills, I'm pretty sure they could make decent weapons quite rare.

      As I mentioned before, it's just a thought experiment though - we've already got so many fairly high-quality weapons roaming around (for hunting if nothing else) that even if you completely shut down _all_ arms manufacturers in the world, there'd be plenty of guns available for decades before the scenario I was suggesting would even have a remote chance of occuring.

    101. Re:I might be missing something..... by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      I believe, and no I don't have a study or anything to back it up, that I am more likely to come through a robbery of my apartment unscathed without a weapon. It seems obvious to me that the likelihood of at least one life ending increases with every gun that is added to a situation. I will gladly trade all of my possessions for my life. I can already hear the counter argument from gun owners. I know I'm basically giving open license to anyone with a gun to rob me. It hasn't happened to me yet, and it never happened to my family as we moved from Brooklyn to Jersey City and back to Brooklyn. I respect your desire to own a weapon, respect my desire not to. We can both enjoy our freedoms in our own way without the need to accuse each other of not caring about our families.

    102. Re:I might be missing something..... by loraksus · · Score: 1

      Deer and bears aren't people...
      Bear burgers are damn tasty!

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    103. Re:I might be missing something..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It seems obvious to me that the likelihood of at least one life ending increases with every gun that is added to a situation.

      This seems like very simplistic and bad reasoning to me. Whose life are you talking about anyway? The intruder's life? I sure hope you don't value that person's life. I don't. If anyone enters my home with any malintentions, they're going to be dead, armed or not (the Castle law in Arizona protects me here).

      I will gladly trade all of my possessions for my life.

      That's ok, if that's all the intruder wants. What if he wants to rape your wife and young daughter too? What if he wants to kill you? Read the news; this stuff is common now in home invasions. They don't just want your stuff, or else they'd be careful to only break in when no one's home. These days, they don't care if you're home; they'll happily break in, shoot you, rape your family, and kill them too.

      I'm not asking you to get a weapon, but you seem to have a very naive viewpoint of what dangers are actually present now, and why others would want to arm themselves against these dangers.

      We can both enjoy our freedoms in our own way without the need to accuse each other of not caring about our families.

      In my judgment, refusing to prepare yourself in some way for criminal attacks on your family is downright irresponsible.

    104. Re:I might be missing something..... by Puff+Daddy · · Score: 1

      Fine then, not owning guns is irresponsible and people who don't own guns don't care about their families. Great message, you must be a hoot at parties.

  15. Didn't someone mention this last week? by c0nst · · Score: 1
  16. That amount isn't hazardous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The amount they sell, 0.1 microcuries, is... well, a tiny amount. Seriously, if you ordered 100 vials and gave the full 10 microcuries of it to someone, the radiation from it isn't going to come close to killing them.

    On the other hand, I'm not sure of the biochemical effects of Polonium on the system. Often times these heavy elements have worse biological properties from their chemical interactions than from the radiation they emit. It might well be that it will be chemically toxic to you long before radiation becomes a worry.

    1. Re:That amount isn't hazardous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might well be that it will be chemically toxic to you long before radiation becomes a worry.

      And so are most of the household cleaners I keep in the cabinet under my kitchen sink. It seems the people in power really like to make us scared of anything radioactive. I wonder if the radioactive isotope in my kitchen smoke detector is more or less dangerous than this Polonium-210 ? I think it is time we put dentists on terrorist watch lists. After all, they keep these machines that plot graphs of the insides of the human body on-site using *gasp* radioactive substances.

      Why do people keep on believing these government officials that just want to keep us scared and compliant?

    2. Re:That amount isn't hazardous by paeanblack · · Score: 4, Informative

      Often times these heavy elements have worse biological properties from their chemical interactions than from the radiation they emit. It might well be that it will be chemically toxic to you long before radiation becomes a worry.

      In most cases it's a combination of the two...the chemical properties will ferry the isotope to a sensitive location where the radiation can wreak havoc.

      For example, a weak alpha emitter can be held in the palm of your hand without any effects. An element that acts as a drop-in calcium replacement in the body can benignly sit in your bones. Combine both properties, and you'll have irradiated bone marrow and a world of hurt.

    3. Re:That amount isn't hazardous by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      An element that acts as a drop-in calcium replacement in the body can benignly sit in your bones. Combine both properties, and you'll have irradiated bone marrow and a world of hurt.

      I think you mean permanently sit in your bones, not benignly, and that's strontium-90 you're talking about. Nasty stuff. Just ask the Ukrainians.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    4. Re:That amount isn't hazardous by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i think his point was that stable isotopes of strontium don't do much to you and neither does something of the same radioactive strength as strontium-90 evenly distributed through the body.

      but combine the two and as you say you have a deadly combination.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  17. Distilled for you...because your time is valuable by scuba_steve_1 · · Score: 1

    Sold online by one company for $69 (US). Valid industrial purposes exist. Company is fairly sketchy and the owner claimed 20 years ago that he once worked on alien spaceships on a secret military base in Nevada - presumably a US military base, but the article was not specific so I suppose that it could have also been an alien base.

    Regardless, expect Uncle Sam to land on him like a ton of bricks fairly soon. I hope that his forcefield dome is active.

    "Brace for impact!"

  18. Brighter Teeth, For a Price by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can't take a toothpaste tube on a plane, but Osama can mailorder enough nuke poison to kill all of Chicago on Christmas morning, embedded in gift certificates.

    Enough of this simcurity that pretends to secure us.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      You need in excess of 1000 vials of it to kill *1* person (and that's ingested, not external exposure on a gift card!)....

      So no, he can't mail order enough to kill all of Chicago by embedding them in gift certificates.

    2. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      How?

      UN sells in .1uCi amount, and according to our beloved Wikipedia, the lethal dose for INGESTED is .03uCi (assuming that 3 people in Chicago mistake Osama's gift cards for deep dish pizza and he has a very very fine razor blade to cut the sample into three parts). More people would probably die from the aforementioned deep dish pizza.

    3. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      You realize that .1uCi is 3.3 times larger than .03uCi, right?

    4. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by TheCabal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why I said "3 people". I dropped the fraction.

    5. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're selling 0.1uCi for $69, which is 3x the 0.03uCi lethal dose.

      Umm, NO. 0.03uCi is not a lethal dose. Perhaps you are misreading that crap on wikipedia?

      "maximum allowable body burden" is NOT the same thing as "Lethal dose".

      The government regulates the maximum allowable yearly exposure of workers who handle radiation (I'm one), and the maximum allowable exposure is far far below the lethal dose.

      0.03uCi is NOT a lethal dose of Polonium-210

      Are we really discussing the operational details of poisoning 10-100% of Chicago?

      I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm talking about how the poisoning of one spy is being overyhyped by people like you into 'terrorists can buy enough radioactive material from illegitimate companies on the internet to poison everyone in Chicago!'.

      No. They can't. Simple enough.

    6. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Informative

      '' UN sells in .1uCi amount, and according to our beloved Wikipedia, the lethal dose for INGESTED is .03uCi (assuming that 3 people in Chicago mistake Osama's gift cards for deep dish pizza and he has a very very fine razor blade to cut the sample into three parts). ''

      No, 0.03 microcurie is _not_ the lethal dosis. 0.03 microcuries is the maximum that you are _allowed_ to swallow without the company you work at getting into trouble if it is found inside you.

      Let's say you work at a company manufacturing rat poison. Obviously, some amount of rat poisin could enter your body. Tiny amounts _will_ enter your body. Health and safety authorities will have set a limit of how much rat poison is allowed to be in the body of the workers, without negative consequences to the company. That amount will be far, far, far away from a lethal dosis. It will be the maximum amount that doesn't affect you, not the smallest amount that kills you.

    7. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm wrong, and it takes more than 0.03uCi to kill someone.

      So we're talking about killing 10% of Chicago? Is that OK with you?

      In fact, what I'm talking about is the fake security like prohibiting liquids on airplanes that is total nonsense to anyone not totally insane.

      Care to downplay that, while you're working so hard?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by tehgnome · · Score: 1

      right, and North Korea can order polonium but not ipods

      --
      She must be a TIGER in the bathroom... I mean bedroom... ~Ryan
    9. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Far easier to use rat poison. And the government doesn't track sales of rat poison. Better yet, you can use nicotine, which is fairly easily extractable from cigarettes or nicotine patches. Cyanide maybe? Or if you really want to be sneaky, get some botulism toxin from improperly canned meat. That might even give you some extra time to get away because it would be mistaken for food poisoning!

    10. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      You are wrong, in fact the lethal does is around 500uCi's, so you'll need to revist your calcs and calm yourself a bit

    11. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm wrong, and it takes more than 0.03uCi to kill someone.

      Yes, you are.

      So we're talking about killing 10% of Chicago? Is that OK with you?

      You are, I'm not, and No.

      According to one of the references in that Wiki article, and I've seen others where it is less lethal, 'In rats a dose of 1.45 MBq/kg of 210Po tends to cause death in about 30 days.'

      1.45 MBq/kg

      If you have a 50 kg human (someone small), that's:

      1.45 x 50 = 72.5 MBq needed to kill in 30 days (assuming Kg equivalents between human and rat. It's not strictly, but for some reason they won't let us do the real test...)

      72.5×10^6 Becquerels are needed

      (1 Ci = 3.7×10^10 Becquerels )

      So that makes 1.959 uCi as the amount needed to kill in 30 days. (It's effective biological half-life is 37 days, so the 30 days to kill isn't a bad starting point)

      That's 65x more than you are talking about.

      Chicago's population is 2.8 million. 10% of that is 280,000.

      280,000 x 20 vials at 0.1 uCi/vial = 5,600,000 vials needed.

      Do you really think someone ordering 5 and a half MILLION vials of that isn't going to raise a few flags?

      Oh, and that's ingested. If you talk about putting them on gift certificates or whatever the hell your original idea for external exposure was, we are talking about many *BILLIONS* of vials.

      Please stop over hyping this crap. There are lots of ways the boogie man can get us. This is one of the least likely.

    12. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by jareds · · Score: 1

      Did you know that cyanide can be extracted from apple seeds, and that from four pounds of apples, one can produce enough to kill 10% of Chicago?

      We're only talking about killing 10% of Chicago with polonium in the same sense that we're now talking about killing them with apples.

      It is quite ironic that you complain about restrictions carrying toothpaste on planes, when you express in the same post the sort of irrational fear that leads to such pointless security measures.

    13. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      according to our beloved Wikipedia, the lethal dose for INGESTED is .03uCi

      Umm, No.

      I'll pass on commenting on how 'accurate' Wikipedia is as a reference, and even refrain from bashing the original poster for citing it incorrectly, but on top of all that.... you are reading it wrong.

      It's hard to say what you originally read because the original poster cited it wrong, but I believe you are referring to this:

        "The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1,100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie),"

      'Maximum allowable body burden (dose)' is NOT the same as 'Lethal dose'.

      The government regulates what the allowable yearly exposure dosage is for workers handling radiation. These are way way below the lethal dosage.

    14. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So I need to calm down about my toothpaste being prohibited, when poisons can be mailordered and secreted in a ballpoint pen?

      What is wrong with people reading this thread who think that just because Polonium isn't quite as deadly as advertised, that it's sensible to prohibit millions of air travelers from taking shampoo on vacation?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Do you know that all those examples of easily carrying lethal chemicals on planes is just more support for my point that prohibiting little fluid bottles on planes is stupid?

      That's not "ironic". That's my point. Did I make any point about Polonium, except that its availablility makes the toothpaste restrictions look stupid? Didn't I mention that these stupid restrictions should be discarded?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    16. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, you have a valid point on the shampoo issue. The reason no one's looking at it is because you're distracting them by being a fucking fearmongering idiot about the polonium. You know what else you can do with a ballpoint pen? If you're strong enough, you can kinda stab someone with it.

      Seriously. Shut the fuck up about the polonium, and go back to pointing out the stupid security theatre we're seeing at the airports without giving everyone a reason to dismiss you as a raving lunatic.

    17. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation -1
          100% Flamebait

      So even the simplest criticism of the fake security that makes us unsafe is "Flamebait". No wonder we're stuck with it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:Brighter Teeth, For a Price by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Your point is that fear mongering idiots want to stop you from taking toothpaste onto an airplane.

      So to prove your point, you are a fear mongering idiot about something (polonium) that's 1000x less dangerous than you are claiming.

      Right...

      Being both an idiot a hypocrite at the same time isn't going to persuade many folks to your side.

  19. One question, comrade by Lane.exe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will work on moose and squirrel, yes?

    --
    IAALS.
  20. The amount is extremely tiny by jsimon12 · · Score: 0

    This site will sell you Polonium 210, but only .1 microcuries of the stuff. The lethal dose is 106 microcuries, meaning you need to by more then a 1000 of this guys samples. Which would likely throw up a red flag somewhere :)

    1. Re:The amount is extremely tiny by NerdyJock · · Score: 0

      damn, I was gonna order some of this stuff, and invite my upstairs neighbors over for coffee.

  21. Where's the Litvinenko ltd edition souvenir? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  22. Polonium and Smoking by Venner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I found it a bit amusing when they stated that Polonium was hard to obtain. It is actually drawn from the soil into Tobacco plants and is one of the Really Bad Things implicated in smoking and cancer (along with
    the also-radioactive Lead-210, which emits gamma rays and decays into Polonium eventually.)

    Polonium-210 is an alpha emitter - something you really don't want to ingest.
    I'd have to look up dose-equivalents, etc, but if I remember correctly, it was estimated a two-pack-a-day smoker gets the radioactive equivalent of something like 300 chest X-rays a year. And remember that these are heavy metals that stay in the body for a long time!

    --
    A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
    1. Re:Polonium and Smoking by selex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh come on, why don't you people stomp my only joy in life some more. It causes cancer, it smells, it yellows your teeth, it stunts your growth, it makes you sterile, it slaughters small puppies with a chainsaw...and now its radioactive. Son of a bitch! I'm about to start smoking crack...seems less harmful.

      Selex

      Does the United Nuclear's webpage sell that too?

    2. Re:Polonium and Smoking by goarilla · · Score: 1

      iirc a-radiation is the lesser of all evils
      a-radiation are the cores of He atoms -- whats so bad with a proton+neutron?
      b-radiation are high speed electrons
      and g-radiation (gamma), the diablo of radiation are high energy electromagnetic waves
      those are the worst

      But then again it's been a while since i had to study the risks of
      those 3 radiatons

    3. Re:Polonium and Smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've been curious about this claim for a while.

      According to the relevant wiki, the fertilizer used seems to be important.

      If it is because the fertilizer is contaminated, why continue to use that source? Other plants that do not readily absorb these elements can use the contaminated stuff without the same risks.

      (along with the also-radioactive Lead-210, which emits gamma rays and decays into Polonium eventually.)
      Lead-210 can decay into Polonium (through two beta minus decays), but Lead-210 also exhibits alpha decay. As such, it's not a given that Lead-210 eventually decays into Polonium.

      And since when does Lead-210 emit gamma rays?
    4. Re:Polonium and Smoking by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      It is a bit hard to obtain in a condensed form, you know, without a plant mixed in? I'd like to see someone make a Polonium bead from tobacco plants.

    5. Re:Polonium and Smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Aplha particles are the equivalent of Hummers crashing into your matter. They may not get far through the foyer, but they're going to leave a lot of damage. Gamma radiation is more of a sniper rifle. If it hits the right place, it's bad, and it can go through stuff, but it's not going to cause the same kind of damage the Hummer will.

    6. Re:Polonium and Smoking by VAXcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's like the old physics problem - if you have a gamma source, a neutron source, a beta emitter, and an alpha emitter, all of equal "intensity", and you have to eat one, put one in your pocket, hold one at arms length, and throw one away, which do you do? Easy...since the neutron source will activate other materials and make them radioactive, you throw it away. Beta particles only travel a foot or so in air, so you hold it at arm's length. The alpha particles will be stopped by a layer of cloth, so you put it in your pocket - and the gamma source, being equally deadly at any of those three ranges, you might as well eat it. Having said that, of all the types of emitters, the alpha would be the safest to eat, as long as you're not constrained by those other choices.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    7. Re:Polonium and Smoking by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      d the gamma source, being equally deadly at any of those three ranges

      Wrong: refer to the inverse square law. As you walk away from a lamp, the light intensity is proportional to the inverse of the square of distance. Same goes for a gamma-emitter.

      -b.

    8. Re:Polonium and Smoking by Venner · · Score: 1

      >>Lead-210 can decay into Polonium (through two beta minus decays), but Lead-210 also exhibits alpha decay. As such, it's not a given that Lead-210 eventually decays into Polonium.

      The beta decay branch for Pb-210 is ~100%. Alpha decay is .0000019%.

      >>and since when does Lead-210 emit gamma rays?

      46.5keV gammas on beta decay (4%), to be precise. Not super energetic, but useful for measurements.

      I think perhaps I was thinking of Pb-214 in the Uranium-238 decay chain though...

      --
      A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
    9. Re:Polonium and Smoking by jcgf · · Score: 1

      Why crack and not weed? It's definitely safer.

    10. Re:Polonium and Smoking by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      It is a bit hard to obtain in a condensed form, you know, without a plant mixed in? I'd like to see someone make a Polonium bead from tobacco plants.

      Why bother? I've heard the nicotine in a pack of ciggs is enough to be fatal if concentrated. So just concentrate the nicotine and weaponise it somehow. Fortunately, we don't inhale all of it when we smoke.

      -b.

    11. Re:Polonium and Smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      At the ranges involved, and in comparision to the other sources, it's approximately equal for the purposes of this problem...physics often involves approximations in problem solving, especially for these "back of the envelope" sorts of calculations. I'll have to tell the story that includes the line "first, we approximate to a spherical cow". Also, I learned about the inverse square law decades before you were born...don't teach your granpa to suck eggs, youngster...

    12. Re:Polonium and Smoking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not very good at logic (I post on Slashdot regularly) but why would you choose not to throw away the gamma source?

    13. Re:Polonium and Smoking by evilviper · · Score: 1
      and the gamma source, being equally deadly at any of those three ranges, you might as well eat it.

      That's a wonderful riddle... Kinda' like a crossword puzzle that intentionally has obscure clues that can't possibly fit together...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:Polonium and Smoking by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Well, if you throw away the gamma source, you have to keep the neutron source...and you sure as hell don't want to keep that - since a neutron source will emit neutrons that smash into other atoms. Being neutral in charge, they will not be repelled by the positive charge of the nuclei of the atoms of your body, clothes, etc, and in some cases, will be absorbed into the nuclei it hits, causing an atom of something harmless to become an isotope, often a radioactive one....so it will gradually make things more radioactive as time goes by. The particles from the alpha and beta emitters are charged, and will be repelled by atomic nuclei, and are thus not going to "activate" the material around them. Gamma rays are photons, not matter(as a first approximation for the purposes of this example - neglecting the issue of pair production - gotta mention it so some whippersnapper doesn't correct me again...), and will not activate things they hit.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  23. in soviet russia ... by eneville · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... polonium-210 find you!!

    1. Re:in soviet russia ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not so soviet anymore...

  24. Re:Distilled for you...because your time is valuab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless, expect Uncle Sam to land on him like a ton of bricks fairly soon. I hope that his forcefield dome is active.
     
    From the page "
    United Nuclear has been featured on nationwide
    CBS television news, "Coast to Coast" Radio
    with host Art Bell, Wired Magazine, Maximum
    Magazine, and many other publications & shows.
    See the 'About Us' page for more on our company." and on the about page it claims "United Nuclear was formed in 1986 by Los Alamos scientist, Bob Lazar." I wouldn't say Uncle Sam is coming down too quickly.

  25. antistatic brushes by chroma · · Score: 3, Informative

    Theorore Gray (of wooden periodic table fame) also says that Polonium 210 is used in antistatic brushes for film negatives

    --

    Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
    1. Re:antistatic brushes by mmontour · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, available here for example. The 3" model ($47.84) has 500 uCi of polonium-210.

    2. Re:antistatic brushes by Ipeunipig · · Score: 1

      I love how they describe the alpha particles as "positively charged helium atoms". I'm no chemist but that seems a little off to me.

    3. Re:antistatic brushes by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I've seen reliable calculations (I.E. from actual nuclear experts), that it would take 200 antistatic brushes to provide the amount of polonium that Litvenko likely ingested. That of course assumes 100% extraction (the Polonium in antistatic brushes is alloyed and plated onto foil), and that an insignificant quantity of the Polonium has decayed (since it has a fairly short half-life).

    4. Re:antistatic brushes by mmontour · · Score: 1

      That description is correct - an alpha particle is the same as the nucleus of a helium atom.

    5. Re:antistatic brushes by edremy · · Score: 1
      I love how they describe the alpha particles as "positively charged helium atoms". I'm no chemist but that seems a little off to me.

      IAAC- it's perfectly accurate. Alpha particles are helium nuclei, aka helium atoms without electrons. 2 protons, 2 neutrons, +2 charge.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    6. Re:antistatic brushes by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      And why is that? Alpha particles are helium nuclei. Since they have no electrons, they are positively charged. Thus, positively charged helium atoms.

    7. Re:antistatic brushes by mmontour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have any more details of those calculations? I haven't seen many published estimates of the dose that he ingested in this case. One was around 1 mg, but that seems too high.

      My own rough calculations suggested that a couple of antistatic brushes would be enough to kill someone if ingested:

      500 uCi = (500e-6) * (3.7e10) = 1.85e7 decays/sec
      Energy per particle is about 5 MeV
      (5 MeV) * (1.85e7) = 9.25e7 MeV/s = 1.48e-5 J/s

      Assume the material is evenly distributed in a person's body, mass 100 kg: 1.48e-7 (J/kg)/s = 1.48e-7 Gy/s

      Applying a scaling factor of 20 (for alphas), this equals 2.96e-6 Sv/s. Multiplied by 86400, 0.256 Sv/day or 5.4 Sv in 3 weeks from the material in one brush.

      Not included in this calculation: the fraction of ingested material which is absorbed, the rate at which it is excreted from the body, or different concentrations in different areas of the body. Would these (or other) effects be enough to require a 200x higher ingested dose?

    8. Re:antistatic brushes by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Carey's calculations can be found in this thread.

    9. Re:antistatic brushes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I love how they describe the alpha particles as "positively charged helium atoms". I'm no chemist but that seems a little off to me."

      You are right - you are no chemist and no physicist.

      The alphas from Polonium don't begin life as a helium atom that has its electrons stripped off. It begins life as two protons and two neutrons that has a +2 charge on it as it gets ejected from the polonium nucleus. It will, however, grab electrons from anything else around it and become neutral helium.

      That's why news reports were stating that helium was found in the guy's urine. It was helium.

  26. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium

    "The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1,100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie), which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 × 10-12 gram. Weight for weight, polonium is approximately 2.5 × 1011 (250 billion) times as toxic as hydrogen cyanide. The maximum permissible concentration for airborne soluble polonium compounds is about 7,500 Bq/m3 (2 × 10-11 Ci/cm3). The biological halflife of polonium in humans is 30 to 50 days.[18]"

    The toxic dose is 0.03 micro-curies

    http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm

    Lists their polonium source as 0.1 micro-curie. Now Polonium is only REALLY toxic when inhaled, where alpha particles do the most damage.

    I know they probably track source sales like mad, but yeah, that seems a bit too convenient. I don't know what the disks are made off. If they are, say, ceramic based, it's probably resistant to most methods of extraction. Anything else, well...

    I don't know how much longer then that this will be a 'legal' alpha source.

    1. Re:Wow... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative
      The toxic dose is 0.03 micro-curies

      No it isn't. That's the standard set by OSHA which is several orders of magnitude below the toxic dose in order to prevent health effects in people working with the stuff.

      -b.

    2. Re:Wow... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      According to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
       
      "The maximum allowable body burden for ingested polonium is only 1,100 becquerels (0.03 microcurie), which is equivalent to a particle weighing only 6.8 × 10-12 gram. Weight for weight, polonium is approximately 2.5 × 1011 (250 billion) times as toxic as hydrogen cyanide. The maximum permissible concentration for airborne soluble polonium compounds is about 7,500 Bq/m3 (2 × 10-11 Ci/cm3). The biological halflife of polonium in humans is 30 to 50 days.[18]"
       
      The toxic dose is 0.03 micro-curies

      According to Carey Sublette the Wikipedia is wrong.
    3. Re:Wow... by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 1

      I've actually worked with this stuff. The permissible body burden for Po-210 which is the amount you can safely carry is 0.03uCi. You can carry that amount safely, just like you can swallow a small lump of coal which will have the same radioactivitly from included thorium and uranium. The chemical toxicity of Po is unknown, mainly because the radiotoxicity will nail you stone dead first. Inspiration rather than ingestion is worse, as it does more damage in the lungs and takes longer to eliminate than if it were ingested. Now Litvinenko died within a month or so. That level of radiation poisioning would indicate a large body dosage, probably on the order of 4 to 6 sieverts. Most acute radiation poisioning causes a feeling of being unwell, a week or so of feeling fine - often called with some justifaction the "walking ghost" phase then a final slide into illness and death. The timings indicate a large but not excessive dose. Being as this is internal irradiation from a alpha source things get more complex. Alpha radiation from Po has a CEDE of 5x10-7 Sv per Bq. Running the numbers gives you something like 12 million Bq or about a three thousandth of a curie - 0.02mg of Po 210. It is a very effective radiological poison.

    4. Re:Wow... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      If you carry on reading, you find the LETHAL dose is 520uCi or so. It would cost you over $300,000 to buy a lethal dose from UnitedNuclear. The body burden figure quoted is probably the 'legal safe limit' which is well below the limit that would even make you immediately ill.

    5. Re:Wow... by careysub · · Score: 1

      A lethal dose of polonium-210 is an absorbed dose that will deposit about 600 rads (or 600 centigrays, cGy) of internal radiation exposure before it is eliminated from the body. Given its biological half-life of 30 days, this quantity can be calculated at 4 millicuries (4 mCi, 1.5x10^8 Bq) for an 80 kg man. This is only 0.9 micrograms. Not all of an orally administered dose will be absorbed, so the actual amount that would result in lethal poisoning is more than this.

      The largest amount of Po-210 that can be purchased in the U.S. without a special license is 500 microcuries. The most abundant readily available commercial source for this is in Staticmaster® Brushes:
      http://www.2spi.com/catalog/photo/statmaster.shtml
      which contain 250 microcuries absorbed on a plastic resin. This is 2,500 times the amount in the source from United Nuclear. The Staticmaster replacement element (without the brush) can be bought for $20.

      Extracting the polonium from, say, 30 Staticmaster elements would take a bit of skilled chemistry. The elements would need to be dissolved and the polonium freed, and it would then need to be concentrated into a modest amount of palatable material. Handling polonium is tricky, it is volatile and is notorious for its ability to "migrate" around the lab (which may account for the contamination found at various sites which Litvinenko visited).

      It should be noted that Aleksandr Litvinenko was poisoned with far more than 4 millicuries. A minimal lethal dose would take more than a week to accumulate enough exposure to cause apparent illness, and lethal levels would take a month or more to accumulate with death following weeks later. Litvinenko became ill within one day (it appears), and was dead just over three weeks later. Given the latency of death from Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS), he must have accumulated a lethal dose within a day or so. The amount administered was likely dozens of times the lethal level.

      One possible explanation for the rapid onset of illness and (for radiation poisoning) quick death is that the radiation-sensitive lining of his gastrointestinal system was destroyed before and during the absorption of the polonium. The gastrointestinal subsyndrome form of ARS is very lethal and kills in about three weeks. The transient concentration of polonium in the GI tissue would have been very high, and even polonium that was not absorbed would irradiate the lining.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:Wow... by Prune · · Score: 1

      Oh noes, you ruined his FUD!

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    7. Re:Wow... by seanellis · · Score: 1

      A BBC article suggests that 1mg would be enough to kill Alexander Litvinenko, given the time and symptoms he experienced.

      If you grind through the math, then this is equivalent to approximately 100 GBq (100 billion decays/second) of Polonium. Other sources have suggested 1 GBq would do as well.

      The needle sources sold contain 0.1 microCuries (what is it with America and obsolete units anyway) which is about 3.7kBq, or less than 1/1000 of a percent of 1 GBq.

  27. PBnJ by IM+COOL...UR+NOT...L · · Score: 0, Troll

    i dont no if i should smash pbNj into my buddies math book....he did it to me and i dont no how i should get him back....so i just askin u ppl....pbNj or Ham N cheese....IT UP TO U.... His name is CARSON "feelgood" FOLEY.... HELP ME OUT WITH THIS ONE!!!!!!!

  28. Mod Parent Funny by rootEToTheIPi · · Score: 1

    I'd do it myself if I had points.

    --
    When it comes to pastry theft, I take the cake.
  29. Warning! This is illegal generic Polonium-210... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...and is sometimes produced under dubious standards in Central America or India.

    It does not meet the stringent FDA requirements that approved CIA spy poisons must and is therefore illegal to posses without a prescription from your local block captain.

  30. This, my friends, is... by sheepoo · · Score: 1

    dangerous!

  31. Re:Looking for some uranium. Click here by Possibly+Malignant · · Score: 1, Funny

    Because only people from the midwest laugh at eyebrows...

    Duh.

    I would know. I'm from Cincinnati, OH. And I love eyebrows.

  32. Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bob Lazar. The UFO Area 51 guy. Google him. He's a fraud.

    Ok, that was more than 2 words.

  33. It's a blast! No...literally. by whiskeyriver · · Score: 1

    Boy, this guy's annual "Desert Blast" looks safe and fun. Yikes. http://www.unitednuclear.com/mag.htm

    --



    That's sooo Osama bin Laden.
    1. Re:It's a blast! No...literally. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you see the magnets they sell? I briefly thought about ordering the biggest one, until I started to think about what to do with it when the fun would wear off. Just storing it would be problematic, but think about getting rid of it... Throw it in the garbage bin (ours are plastic so that would work, although I'm not entirely sure about the axle of the wheels) and then watch as the garbage truck comes to collect it. They'll never be able to peel the garbage bin off the truck anymore... :-)

  34. That's low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are being conservative. According to this source, if you believe them, a one pack a day smoker gets between about 300 and 8000 chest xray doses a year.

  35. Antifreeze... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    30 ml can be lethal to adults in some cases - usually more like 100 ml. And it tastes sweet, so it can be mixed into a drink or accidently drunk by a child or pet. Some variants are yellow or red rather than a sickly green. And (at least for dogs) the death produced is an unpleasant one - basically, it's metabolised into oxalate which then crystallises and slices the kidneys to death. The funny thing is that a safer alternative - propylene glycol - already exists but isn't common because it's about 2-3x as expensive.

    -b.

    1. Re:Antifreeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My VW takes propylene glycol antifreeze. And is quite common at anywhere there is a large number of EU cars.

    2. Re:Antifreeze... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      My VW takes propylene glycol antifreeze. And is quite common at anywhere there is a large number of EU cars.

      Maybe the EU has laws mandating it or encouraging its use in new cars? My point was more that various nasty poisons are *already* available off the shelf for a lot less effort than it would take to buy enough polonium from United Nuclear and convert it into a bioavailable form.

      -b.

    3. Re:Antifreeze... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I've used propylene glycol in my cars for years (Sierra or Prestone Low Tox). The only problem I've had is finding a hydrometer to check my mixture of antifreeze and water, since IIRC, propylene glycol has a slightly different S.G. than ethylene glycol.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    4. Re:Antifreeze... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      The only problem I've had is finding a hydrometer to check my mixture of antifreeze and water, since IIRC, propylene glycol has a slightly different S.G. than ethylene glycol.

      I thought that p.g. was used "neat", undiluted at atmospheric pressurs - i.e. the rad cap is open and not designed to hold the coolant under pressure. The boiling point is much higher than "normal" coolant, so you can get away with that, and the heat capacity is higher than ethylene glycol so you can use it undiluted (though the heat capacity is still a bit lower than mixed e.g./water).

      -b.

    5. Re:Antifreeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Propylene glycol isn't that unusual. Here's just one place where I've purchased it lately:
      http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductDetail.aspx?cat egorycode=3219&mfrcode=PST&mfrpartnumber=AF555%5Bp artsamerica.com%5D
      They sell it in the local auto stores, and IIRC, you can even get it at wally-world. Yes, it is $9 a gallon, but regular is about $4-6. So not really 3x the price anymore.

    6. Re:Antifreeze... by trongey · · Score: 1
      My VW takes propylene glycol antifreeze. And is quite common at anywhere there is a large number of EU cars.

      My VW doesn't use antifreeze at all. :)
      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  36. Ripoff by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
    Don't buy this stuff... it's some kind of scam. I ordered a bunch, and I set it aside until I got around to needing it. About one year later when I wanted to use it, more than 80% of it had mysteriously disappeared into thin air! Talk about planned obsolescence... and this stuff ain't cheap. This is worse than inkjet cartridges.

    Since then, I've found a place that will send me Polonium *209*. It costs more, but so far it doesn't seem have the self-destruct feature that the Polonium 210 shysters build into their product.

    1. Re:Ripoff by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Po 210 decays to Pb 206, a stable form of lead. Are you SURE you don't see anything in your container?

    2. Re:Ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you'll have to wait for Polonium v.211 or Polonium 2007 Live for Vista to become available, and see that features it comes with. It won't be cheap though!

  37. This is news? by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

    Huh -- we now have front page news that a certain commodity item can be bought on the internet. I'm sorry, but anybody whos ever even just googled "Po210" already knows this. Where is the "news" aspect of this? Are we going to see headline news now that tells us that books can be bought online at Amazon.com?

    --
    We're all born with nothing.
    If you die in debt, you're ahead.
  38. legal.htm disclaimers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a good laugh. I hope you do too.
    -----------------
    Legal Information,
    Privacy Policy & Disclaimer

    General

    Information and products available on this web site are not intended for Children.
    Some of the products offered can be very dangerous in the hands of
    the inexperienced. If you intend on conducting experiments with pyrotechnic
    chemicals, make sure you are familiar with the materials & chemistry involved
    in your project, or are working under the supervision of an adult who is!

    Legal Information

    Everything we sell is legal to buy and own in the USA with out any licenses, etc.

    Please note that assembling and even possessing EXPLODING DEVICES
    such as M-80's, Cherry Bombs, Silver Salutes, etc. is illegal and considered
    a very serious offense!
    Just because it may be possible to make these devices with materials we sell
    on our website, does not mean it is legal to do so.

    The only exception is for those professionals who posses proper
    Federal, State, and Local licenses to do so.

    This site should NOT be construed as training material for the manufacture of fireworks or firing of fireworks displays. Although some information may be presented that is usable for the manufacture and use of fireworks, it is presented as general information only.

    United Nuclear sells a variety of chemicals, metal powders and supplies commonly used in general chemistry, the manufacture of high power rocket motors and general pyrotechnics. Some of these materials can also be used to make exploding fireworks (such as M-80's, etc.) that can be very dangerous.
    Exploding fireworks such as M-80's, Cherry Bombs, Silver Salutes, etc. are no longer considered fireworks. They are considered high explosives. Manufacturing or possessing these banned devices is a felony.

    If you live in California for instance, just about everything related to pyrotechnics is illegal.
    The California State Fire works Laws are on line, along with the Fire Marshall's Regulations.

    Pyrotechnics and explosives are not safe - factories have been destroyed in the past, and they have access to the best materials and equipment, and take the most stringent safety precautions. Some people on the net have also been injured by accidents, and many of them had years of experience and took extremely comprehensive safety measures.

    Some knowledge of chemistry and physics is essential - if you didn't do high-school chemistry, get yourself a chemistry textbook and read it. Make sure you understand the basic principles involved for any composition
    you might be making. It is a good idea to check a formula out with someone who is experienced in chemistry, to make sure you haven't missed any safety aspect.

    This is Important
    Be very careful with any pyrotechnic formulas or instructions for building devices you find on the Internet. Unfortunately, a very large portion of the information found on various websites throughout the internet is completely wrong - and extremely dangerous. Make sure you trust the source of the information if you are experimenting with chemicals - especially chemicals & pyrotechnic mixtures.
    Just because you might see the same formula listed on more than one website, does not make it correct. People have a bad habit of repeating and reposting bad & incorrect information as if it were true.
    Remember, anyone can post anything on the Internet, right or wrong.

    Anytime we post an chemical experiment or procedure to make something on our site, we test it as thoroughly as possible before posting it. Even with our safeguards, typos can occur and accidental errors do pop up when pages are updated or copied. Pay close attention to what you are doing. If you have any questions, ask someone who is experienced in chemistry.

    There is no information on high explosives on this website,
    nor will we knowingly link to any site that provides that kind of information.

  39. Radioactive sources around the home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also came across this and thought it was pretty funny: http://www.pocketrad.com/PocketRad5.html Unfortunately, I gather the device that they're selling can't detect alpha particles since it uses a geiger-muller rube, and Polonium, is an alpha-only emmitter, but it's still cool. I want one for Christmas!

  40. Big whoop by K.B.Zod · · Score: 1

    So is rat poison.

    1. Re:Big whoop by SydBarrett · · Score: 1

      I usally buy all my poisons from http://www.jlfcatalog.com/

      The more exotic stuff is nice to have when you have guests over.

  41. a great Wired article on United Nuclear by pepax · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:a great Wired article on United Nuclear by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Thirty years ago, the US ranked third in the world in the number of science and engineering degrees awarded in the 18-to-24 age group. Now the country ranks 17th, according to the National Science Board.

      In the end this is all due to the focus on laws, creating a place were patents are more important than innovation, and science education is a liability that can lead to the school being sued by worried parents. Oh well, the 16 countries ranking above won't mind.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    2. Re:a great Wired article on United Nuclear by durdur · · Score: 1

      Agreed it's depressing but it is still possible to obtain interesting and useful items for amateur chemistry use from e-Bay and other sources. Unfortunately they are cracking down rather hard on amateur rocketry, though. A very large rocket club in the Bay Area just lost the use of their launching site - local authorities got too nervous.

    3. Re:a great Wired article on United Nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a shame. I got the potassium nitrate I use to make smoke bombs from a rocket shop on ebay (and only some months ago). It's great fun, and truly pretty safe. I do it outside with glasses and gloves, and if it starts to smoke I take it off the hot plate. The flame is this really great pinkish color from the potassium.

      I do like the part in that story about people starting to make their own chemicals from scratch again. This year at college, chemistry is my most interesting course, mainly for the demos they do. The labs are kind of fun and teach us some useful technique, but the demos are really great.

    4. Re:a great Wired article on United Nuclear by andersa · · Score: 1

      When I heard the name of the Guy that runs this business, I thought 'can't be'.. But sure enough. The guy, Bob Lazar, is the one that made all those claims about having worked on flying saucers at Area 51. Try looking up Bob Lazar on wikipedia.

      Weird..

  42. Santa's Little Helper by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK, Christmas cookies. Or maybe free beer, probably even more popular in Chicago (like anywhere else).

    At $69:0.1uCi, for a lethal dose of 0.03uCi, that's $66M to poison every Chicagoan. Before the volume rate discount.

    I can split hairs with you all day long. It still doesn't get my toothpaste on a plane.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  43. Chemistry sets used to have radioactive materials by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

    I remember finding my dad's old 50's-era chemistry set at my grandma's when I was little, and seeing a little button cylinder with a viewport on the top, so you could see the lump of uranium or whatever glow. Unfortunately, no matter how close I stuck it up to my eyeballs, I didn't see any glow. When I told my dad, he promptly confiscated the cylinder. Interestingly, he left me the dangerous chemicals, organic solvents, etc.

  44. hilarious Independent editorial by Mark Steel by toby · · Score: 3, Informative
    here but pasted in full, in case it "disappears":

    Polonium 210 was cancelled due to signal failure

    If this was carried out by a state department, Putin will announce it's to be privatised

    Published: 29 November 2006

    They must be bemused in Chechnya. Because they had about 50,000 people blown up by Putin and no one gave a toss. They probably made countless attempts to interest politicians and reporters from the West, who said: "Hmm, you've had your hospital destroyed by a tank, have you? Well it's a bit 1940s I'm afraid. Have they killed any of you with rocket-propelled bird flu or a remote-controlled piranha - something a bit sexy?"

    While Putin's army was destroying Chechnya, Tony Blair welcomed him to Britain, and described him as a "great moderniser". And that certainly applies to whoever killed Mr Litvinenko. Because there can hardly be a more modern way of murdering someone than with radioactive sushi. In many ways the two men are so similar that when Putin makes a statement on the incident, he might say: "This is not a betrayal of KGB values. It represents traditional assassination in a modern setting."

    And if this was carried out by a state-run department, Putin will announce it's to be privatised so it can bid for outside contracts. By now they've probably already made a showreel to publicise their work called "Ready Steady Poison", in which a Russian version of Ainsley Harriott chortles: "Now you only need to add a pinch of this stuff. Too much is a waste. Not only that but it's a bit heavy on the palate, and just because you're killing someone, you don't want to drown out the subtle flavours of the salmon."

    Most commentators have suggested the killing couldn't be linked to the hierarchy of the Russian government because it's too clumsy and risky. But this is to underestimate government agents. The CIA's attempts to assassinate Castro included placing a bomb inside an attractive sea-shell, in an area of the beach that he strolled on, in the hope it would catch his eye and he'd pick it up. So by comparison this effort was dry and straightforward. Maybe the world's older secret service agents meet up in gloomy pubs to drink bitter and complain: "Youngsters today have it easy. In the old days, if you wanted to murder someone with sea-food you were up all night making an exploding whelk."

    But this case represents more than one murder, because it's forced much of the British establishment to acknowledge that Russia has gone wrong. This leaves them in some turmoil, because when the Soviet Union collapsed this wasn't just seen as the demise of a tyranny, but the ultimate triumph for capitalism. Big business had won so freedom and prosperity would surely follow. Businessmen scrambled for their piece of this private wealth, and this was celebrated as an example of the new liberty. George Soros, the West's most quoted financier of the time, wrote: "It's robber capitalism, it's lawless, but it's very vital and viable."

    One flaw in this logic was that most of the newly rich Russian businessmen had previously held senior posts in the Communist Party, which is how they got access to this new treasure. Which means the attitude of the country's new owners was: "Under the old system I believed it was my right to be pampered in luxury, while most people were poor under communism. But now I realise it's actually my right to be pampered in luxury, while most people are poor under capitalism. Truly we should be grateful for this historic change."

    If you pointed this out at the time, you were scowled at like someone who suggests the week before a World Cup that England aren't going to win. Now, 15 years later the place is in chaos, to the extent that life expectancy for men has fallen from 65 to 59. Which must be another sign of the new freedom, because in the old days people were forced to endure six extra years of turgid communism, but in the f

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:hilarious Independent editorial by Mark Steel by freedom_india · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is not the first time that the West has had its Foot in Mouth delibrately.
      After all history is ripe: the US state dep.t files describe Mussolini as a "Great Man" and Hitler as a "Great and Able Administrator".
      This was in 1930s when Hitler enslaved Germany, and forced people into Labor at cheap cost,. Of coujrse companies like GE and others made a killing in Germany before the stupid Jap attack blew their plans.
      Blair is not welcoming Putin: It is BIG business which is welcoming him.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  45. Here's what you're missing... by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


    But *WHY* is this stuff freely available?

    It isn't. It's only available in very tiny quantities.

    Shouldn't it be a controlled substance of some sort?

    It is. Maybe you should read the article, or at least think a bit more critically that perhaps both Slashdot and Information Week are just trying to sell eyeballs here and are willing to overlook the fact that the amount available in incredibly tiny.

    It almost seems that there are drugs and booze that have tighter restrictions.

    Funny, I don't recall being able to buy arbitrary quantities of Polonium down the street from my local drug dealer (liquor stores included).

    I'm curious. Are you always so reactionary to news stories, assume the worst, and don't bother thinking critically, or only when the word "nuclear" or "radiation" is in the article?

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Here's what you're missing... by flibuste · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. Are you always so reactionary to news stories, assume the worst, and don't bother thinking critically, or only when the word "nuclear" or "radiation" is in the article?
      Don't tell me you forgot that you're on Slashdot!?

    2. Re:Here's what you're missing... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Don't tell me you forgot that you're on Slashdot!?

      Actually Slashdot is a LOT better than most other web forums. If you've ever read any of those the reactionary, non-critical thinkers outnumber anyone with half a brain by 10 to 1, sometimes 100 to 1. The result is that there's really no learning that can be accomplished by anyone, since the garbage completely overwhelms the non-garbage. From what I've seen on slashdot the ratio is more like 1-1, sometimes 2-1. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. But it's at least likely that you could come back from reading the comments and actually learn something.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Here's what you're missing... by Prune · · Score: 1

      If this should be controlled, so should be the Abrus precatorius vines growing around Florida. If you don't know why, I suggest you chew on one of the pretty black and red 4 mm seeds.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    4. Re:Here's what you're missing... by istewart · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't recall being able to buy arbitrary quantities of Polonium down the street from my local drug dealer (liquor stores included).And poor Doc Brown thought that in 1985, plutonium would be available in every corner drug store. :(

  46. Tritium Light Sources by fabe3k · · Score: 1

    http://www.unitednuclear.com/traser.htm Now this is usefull! With a half-life of over 12 years! You won't need to buy any batteries for a flashlight anymore. It's a darn shame they're out of stock. :-(

    1. Re:Tritium Light Sources by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      I have one of these (well, not those exact ones, but something similar) and they are nowhere near bright enough to be a flashlight. It has the output of an LED on a nearly flat battery.

      Regards
      elFarto

  47. i hope there is some caution by eneville · · Score: 1

    i hope the seller is sensible enough to cease sales during the current time of popularity. there must be lots of people out there wanting to pin things on the KGB.

  48. No you got it backword. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The fear of all things nuclear is the Democrat or even better the Greens stance. "Why should we worry about terrorists explosives in their shoes when you can by deadly Po210 by mail order".

    Get your fear mongering right.

    Remember if you outlaw child pornography, only criminals will have child pornography.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:No you got it backword. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Remember if you outlaw child pornography, only criminals will have child pornography.

      "If you outlaw murder only outlaws will murder". Yeah, then you put them in prison. Am I missing something here?

  49. Buttercup by GWBasic · · Score: 1

    Why am I reminded of the episode of Family Matters where Urkel builds a nuclear bomb?

  50. I believe by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

    That there are many over the counter chemicals that if ingested would have the same result.

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
  51. all i have to say is... by dingDaShan · · Score: 1

    AWESOME!!! Thank you capitalism.

  52. ..or from your friendly neighborhood photo supply, by RealGene · · Score: 1

    ..where Polonium 210 is used as the ionizer in "StaticMaster" brushes, used to clean dust off of negatives.

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  53. VERY small amount by Cauchy · · Score: 1

    I read another article on this company the other day, and it said the amount they sell you is so small that it isn't visible to the naked eye. Um... Anyone wanna buy some? I'll sell you a vial of the same size for 75% of the price charged by United Nuclear.

  54. MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't just a nice article about United Nuclear, but about the decline and fall of intellectual curiosity among kids growing up in the US, courtesy of the usual coalition of the War on Drugs and blubbering soccer moms. It's depressing as hell.

  55. Web 0.1 by Lectoid · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen a website like that since the mid 90's.

    --
    Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
  56. Remember your Paracelsus: by Trespass · · Score: 1

    The dose makes the poison. Most people working in buildings with granite sheathing are getting higher gamma doses than nuclear plant workers are allowed by law to be exposed to.

    1. Re:Remember your Paracelsus: by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Which might be why they don't make nuclear power plants out of granite.

    2. Re:Remember your Paracelsus: by Venner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh yes. It's astonishing how much higher the levels of dangerous nuclide being belched out of coal plants are than are detectable around nuclear plants, for example.

      Radon, as a heavier-than-air gas, obviously sinks. A person living in a basement apartment might have 1000% greater yearly environmental radiation exposure than someone living in a high-rise.
      And I'm sure flight attendants who routinely work the long trans-Atlantic routes get hit with a lot from space. Etc.

      --
      A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
  57. More scary then cyanide by muridae · · Score: 2, Informative

    United Nuclear sells 0.1 microcuries. Polonium 210 emits 4500 curies per gram [1], so that is about .0002 grams per curie. So they are selling 0.00002 micrograms, 0.02 picograms, or if you want to make it look really big, 22 femtograms [2]. How toxic is that? Well, I would suspect there is several times more cyanide in a single apple seed [3]. And wouldn't it be cheaper to get the Polonium from a photography shop, and not a monitored source of radio isotopes? [1]According to http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/polonium.pdf [2]2's are repeating. [3]Strangely, I could not find anything on the internet about how much toxin there really is in apple seeds. Polonium that needs a breader reactor to create, sure, but the poisonous apples at the farmers market, no one is talking about them!

    1. Re:More scary then cyanide by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I did the apple seed calculation once. You'd have to eat about 8 ounces of seeds to be on the high side of human LD50.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  58. Loose lips sink ships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When a lump of coal just won't do...

    Which is why the phrase "loose lips sink ships" was coined. There have been numerous headline-grabbing items like this article on Slashdot and in the media in general which serve no purpose to anyone unless you're making money from the article or you're a terrorist looking for ideas.

    The only reason why al Qaeda began to pursue W.M.D. was because the media kept telling them how supposedly "easy" it was. They had previously written off the idea as being too hard. So people need to have some sense before spreading round information which can cause damage like this.
    1. Re:Loose lips sink ships by cluke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surely not someone advocating "Security through Obscurity" on Slashdot of all places?

    2. Re:Loose lips sink ships by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Which is why the phrase "loose lips sink ships" was coined. There have been numerous headline-grabbing items like this article on Slashdot and in the media in general which serve no purpose to anyone unless you're making money from the article or you're a terrorist looking for ideas.

      Not to mention that this will draw unwanted government attention to United Nuclear which is already under investigation. So that people with a legitimate need for alpha sources (and, yes, I consider the needs of amateur scientists legit) will find them harder to obtain. If you want to murder someone with poison, there are far easier ways to do it than with polonium-210.

      -b.

    3. Re:Loose lips sink ships by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I have sometimes the funny impression that the media attention for wrongdoers seems to encourage stupid acts of rebellion. Few days ago, a campione del mondo of stupidity put online a video of (probably) himself running in motorcycle at twice the speed limit. Video footage was broadcast in italian national newscasts for one day an a half. Why? Nobody gets hurt, while other events killed dozens and didn't get so much exposure. And, Why this guy, other than being denounced (well in Italy he won't do a day in prison, i bet), was offered a free track day ticket by a motorcycle association? Get him to witness how his less lucky pals end up against trees, instead.

      So, back to topic, maybe we should stop assuming that mass media want to educate us . Too often this is not the case.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    4. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Surely not someone advocating "Security through Obscurity" on Slashdot of all places?

      Only on Slashdot would someone think dealing with al Qaeda works on the same principles as dealing with security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. "Security through obscurity" is the entire basis by which national security is built on in any country facing terrorist threats. Printing information in the newspaper for terrorists is not going to improve situations because nerds with their GCC compiler also read it.
    5. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      So, back to topic, maybe we should stop assuming that mass media want to educate us .

      I think you're the first person I've ever seen say that they thought that mass media do want to educate us. Any given person (writer, camera operator, director, etc) might want to educate people; the media companies want to make money. If putting out educational shows does that, that's what they'll do. If regurgitating sensationalist clap-trap makes more, they'll do that instead.

    6. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Pendersempai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but Polonium-210 will kill you if inhaled in quantities as small as a single dust mote, and there's no antidote. Crushing it into a fine powder and dispersing it in a crowded area would probably be more devastating than even bombing the area, and far more horrifying. It would take days to recognize the pattern and probably further days to diagnose, all the while the cloud lingers and kills more and more people. So I don't think it's entirely fair to say "there are far easier ways to [poison people] than with polonium-210," since I'm not aware of any poison this deadly or easily dispersed.

    7. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Zigurd · · Score: 1

      Are there any cases where loose lips actually sank a ship? Or was the phrase just propaganda?

    8. Re:Loose lips sink ships by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Yes, but Polonium-210 will kill you if inhaled in quantities as small as a single dust mote, and there's no antidote.

      The stuff sold by United Nuclear is encapsulated in ceramic, thus difficult to extract. Secondly, you'll need to buy a *lot* of it to approach a lethal dose for a number of people, which will raise red flags with United Nuclear and the Feds. Also, keep in mind that the majority of the particles dispersed won't actually be inhaled. Probably the worst you'll do is give some people an increased risk of lung cancer in 30 years. If you wanted to cause mass hysteria, you'd be better off doing certain chemical reactions involving chlorine bleach (NaClO + H2O) that release chlorine gas which *rots* the lungs - it was used as a war gas in WW I. Or even manufacturing a nerve gas like Sarin. All of which would have a larger terror effect than *maybe* causing some lung cancer a few decades down the line.

      b-.

    9. Re:Loose lips sink ships by DavidTC · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, chlorine gas, aka, mustard gas, is what you get when you mix ammonia and bleach in the right proportion.

      If you mix it in the wrong proportion, you either get an explosion or a fire, depending on which you have too much of, in addition to some chlorine gas.

      Anyone who tries to stop someone from gassing a room full of people by outlawing things is inane.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:Loose lips sink ships by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Incidentally, chlorine gas, aka, mustard gas, is what you get when you mix ammonia and bleach in the right proportion.

      AFAIK, they're not the same. Chlorine gas is Cl2. Mustard gas is an oily organic liquid of some type. Not sure what ammonia and bleach gets you, but I've heard not to try it at home :D

      -b.

    11. Re:Loose lips sink ships by JoshJ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, that gets you Hydrazine- details on the process here.
      This is mustard gas. Not the same. Mod parent down.

    12. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      Ammonia (NH3) and bleach (NaOCl) yields chloramines (NH2Cl) and water. Chloramines, which are a nasty lung irritant by themselves, will in certain pH conditions decompose into (among other things) free chlorine.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    13. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      Get him to witness how his less lucky pals end up against trees, instead.
      That's not too bad, except they might damage the trees. However they could end up against pedestrians, other road users or the local fauna.

      What they do to themselves as a consequence of their own stupidity is their own problem and sanitises the gene pool.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    14. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Surely not someone advocating "Security through Obscurity" on Slashdot of all places?

      You can frame it that way if you want to, but another way of looking at it is that we shouldn't be doing their brainwork for them.

      Intelligence expert (on TV): The terrorists could even place a nuclear device in a shipping container and destroy any of our habor cities
      Osama: Gee that's a great idea, why we didn't I think of that before!

      Now these possibilities need to be considered by the intelligence community, but not all of them need to be communicated to the terrorists.

      Intelligence expert: Oh and why don't you try poisoning our food supply, we're pretty vulnerable there too.
      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    15. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      All those ideas are common sense among military. And you can be pretty sure that every bunch of idiots would come with those ideas for themselves in a brainstorm session.
      The whole idea of living in a democracy can be summarized like that:
      NEWS: Our water supply is vulnerable to a terrorist attack!
      BAD GUY [bored....]: Humm... ok, now tell me something that I don't know
      WE, THE PEOPLE: Hey, you government clowns! you'd better take care of that, or we will kick your asses in the next elections.

      You can be pretty sure, that for a terrorist group with money and brains, figuring out things like this is not that difficult. But if you keep things hidden, how can our politicians be held accountable if something happens? I, for one, prefer to have free press informing me if I am safe, instead of relying on politician that keep talking that everything is allright until it's too late for you to run.
      Just as an example, did you know that people in Kiev heard about the Chernobyl accident before on foreign radios? Thing about all those people happilly marching on Kiev on a First of May parade while heavy radioative fallout was raining on them, and this just because they didn't have free press...

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    16. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Hi Ivan, I thought that in our last meeting it was very clear that you're not supposed to discuss our work in slashdot! Now, stop reading those silly comments. I think that your someone must be ringing your bell in 3, 2, 1.....

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    17. Re:Loose lips sink ships by GeorgeS069 · · Score: 1

      Printing it in a newspaper will show just how stupid people are thinking that these things are hard to do and that their government
      can somehow protect them.

      --
      I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
    18. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Prune · · Score: 1

      chlorine bleach (NaClO + H2O) that release chlorine gas which *rots* the lungs

      There was a raccoon family under our shed, and I used exactly this. Very effective.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    19. Re:Loose lips sink ships by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      There was a raccoon family under our shed, and I used exactly this. Very effective.

      Agh, that's just mean! Shooting them would have been kinder, dude.

      -b.

    20. Re:Loose lips sink ships by mikiN · · Score: 1

      "You're not safe!" - The Press
      "Safety has been an illusion since the beginning of life" - Any biologist
      "Life...don't talk to me about life" - Marvin, the Paranoid Android

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    21. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Prune · · Score: 1

      Didn't kill them, they got away. But that way I was sure they wouldn't come back. These animals are very arrogant and aggressive. I had tried to scare them off several times before, and they always came back.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    22. Re:Loose lips sink ships by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      My national broadcaster doesn't make money.

      "Nation shall speak unto nation." is it's motto.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  59. Story is stupid by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

    As several others have pointed out, what United Nuclear is selling isn't dangerous. Please don't make it harder for scientists that may need this element. It's already a PITA to get Sudafed that works instead of the PE version. For those who don't know, Sudafed and others who use pseudoephedrine as a active ingredient have a odd thing...you get a CARD off the shelf and the pharmacy has to be open. You may only buy 1 box PER day AND you must show ID to buy that box! The reason is because you can make Meth Amphetamine out of Sudafed apparantly. SO you have to SHOW YOUR PAPERS just cause you want the stuff that will actually WORK!

    --

    Gorkman

    1. Re:Story is stupid by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      SO you have to SHOW YOUR PAPERS just cause you want the stuff that will actually WORK!

      Dude, you have it good. Here in Oregon, you can't get it without a prescription. Luckily, I still have some left over from the last time I had to fly with a cold... and there's always diphenhydramine for the evening.

      --
      That is all.
  60. "Harmless" polonium by edxwelch · · Score: 0

    From reading the Wikipedia it doesn't seem so harmless to me:
    "the maximum permissible concentration for airborne soluble polonium compounds is about 7,500 Bq/m3 (2 × 10-11 Ci/cm3)."
    So, couldn't it be used as a dirty weapon if you made it into a fine powder and sprayed it into the atmosphere?

    Some other facts:
    "A great deal of energy is released by its decay with half a gram quickly reaching a temperature above 750 K."

    "When it is mixed or alloyed with beryllium, polonium can be a neutron source: beryllium releases a neutron upon absorption of an alpha particle that is supplied by 210Po. It has been used in this capacity as a neutron trigger for nuclear weapons. "

    So they only sell a small amount of it, this doesn't prevent some one determined enough to acculumate the required amount over a long period of time

    1. Re:"Harmless" polonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, you're pretty stupid

    2. Re:"Harmless" polonium by genooma · · Score: 1

      Not stupid, just "wikipedia smart".

  61. Doseage! by Archeopteryx · · Score: 1

    You cannot get enough from such a source to conduct a poisoning such as what happened in London. This is a TINY sample. Nothing like the right amount.

    --
    Dog is my co-pilot.
  62. A lot of strange shit gets mailed by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    Annually, whenever I seal my Hemoccult card in the self-addressed stamped envelope my personal physician provides and drop it into a mailbox, I wonder whether I'm going to get a visit from Homeland Security for illegally mailing biohazard waste.

    So far, I've yet to have the doctor "The lab doesn't understand what's happened. They couldn't run the test. They say it's almost as if the sample got electron-beam sterilized somehow."

  63. Bob Lazar is an alien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  64. Shotty journalism! by shanec · · Score: 1
    United Nuclear is run by Bob Lazar, who some 20 years ago claimed to have worked on alien spaceships on a secret military base in Nevada, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. Lazar was unavailable for comment on Tuesday.

    Did this paragraph strike anyone else as nothing more than sensationalism in the article? Did someone along the line actually say "hey, this doesn't have all that much pizzazz, so let's make the owner seem like a real nut job." I mean, come on! How does what the owner claimed he did 20 years ago, have bearing on the current story?

    Shane
    (These comments brought to you by a guy that claimed some 10 years ago, that he worked in the sweat shop owned by pre-historic midget squirrels. "My past employment with IBM doesn't have any bearing on this story," he's repeatedly stated.)

  65. Wow, that's crazy by Broken+Bottle · · Score: 1

    That website looks cheap enough to be a fake but extensive enough to be real.

  66. Magnetic hazards by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Modern magnets are so powerful there are real hazards. When magnets were iron or, at the high end, AlNiCo, they couldn't retain a strong enough field to make much trouble, so people thought of magnets as safe. Neodymium magnets, though, can be made strong enough to be dangerous. The Magnetix building set killed several kids when magnets came loose from the plastic parts and were ingested. The CPSC had to order a recall.

  67. Hot Mail by Ranger · · Score: 1

    Great! Now I'll have to add a geiger counter to my mailbox. I'll have to figure out a way to make my anthrax detector smaller.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  68. Don't stand outside in the sun by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    The radiation children get from the sun, just from playing outside can kill too.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  69. Polonium sucks by jtwronski · · Score: 1

    You can't even use it to generate the 1.21 jigawatts necessary to fuel the flux capacitor. Thats why its available at the corner drug store.

  70. Well, doc... by DHalcyon · · Score: 1

    ... no more looking for giant thunderstorms to power your time machine or trick terrorists into stealing stuff for you, nowadays you can just buy nuclear material via mail order.

  71. Guess who runs United Nuclear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bob Lazar!

    Yes! THAT Bob Lazar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

    This is the second time United Nuclear made the news this year-there was a story in Wired about them being raided, several months ago.

    http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry.htm l

    Somebody should do an interview with that guy, he sure sounds interesting!

  72. Maybe a name change is in order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they changed their company name to United Ponies, most people wouldn't give them a second thought.

    Unless they sold nuclear ponies, of course...

  73. Polonium?. Homer Simpson can give you Plutonium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plutonium is much more dangreous than Polonium yet Homer Simpson gets the stuff all the time from Mr. Burns' plant, even MAILS IT (at the expense of the factory)

    The ban of dangerous stuff is useless; they should ban knowledge. People should not be allowed to study physics or chemistry unless they have the proper security clearance.

  74. Re:Chemistry sets used to have radioactive materia by rs79 · · Score: 1

    The luminescent phosphour wore out. Get some luminescent paint and paint it on then look at it under a stong lens and you can see the scintiliations.

    Or get an old watch off ebay with a radium dial and in a very dark place look at it under a strong lens. You can see little nuclear fireworks there.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  75. Re:Distilled for you...because your time is valuab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already HAVE been raided; they sell stuff you can use to make fireworks. They're were totally cool with the BATF, the the Consumer Products Safety Commission got grumpy with them. Huge fine, armed raid, bunch of BS.

  76. Too late for Halloween by giafly · · Score: 1

    Damn! Why didn't they publish this before the trick-or-treaters came knocking?

    United Nuclear Scientific Supplies - looking for some URANIUM? CLICK HERE.

    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  77. Quantity matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    This notice is now on United Nuclear's isotopes webpage:


    A SPECIAL NOTICE ABOUT POLONIUM-210

    With the recent news of Polonium-210 being used as a poison, so much incorrect information has been passed around about the material that it's important to get the facts correct. The general public is quite ignorant when it comes to knowledge about radioactive materials and radiation in general.

    The amount of Plonium-210, and all the isotopes we sell is an 'exempt quantity' amount. These quantities of radioactive material are not hazardous - this is why they are permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to be sold to the general public without any sort of license.
    Although we do sell these isotopes, we do not actually stock them. All isotopes are made to order at an NRC licensed reactor in Oak Ridge Tennessee. When the isotope is made, it is shipped directly to the customer from the reactor to insure the longest possible half-life.

    The exempt quantity of Polonium-210, or any of the radioactive isotopes sold by us or any scientific equipment supplier, is invisible to the human eye.
      In the case of needle sources, the radioactive material is electroplated on the inside of the eye of a needle.

    You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources
    at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount.

    In comparison, Amercium-241 is a similar toxic Alpha radiation emitter and instead of a half life of 138 days like Polonium-210 has, it has a half life of over 450 years. It is far more toxic - and there is 10 times more the 'exempt quantity' amount in a typical smoke detector.

    If you really wanted tom poison someone, you would of course have to come up with a way to remove the invisible amount of material from the source - which is just about physically impossible. In addition, there are dozens of other more toxic materials, like Ricin and Abrin, which can easily be made using plant material, and are also undetectable as a poison.
    Although it obviously works, Polonium-210 is a poor choice for a poison.
    In addition - an order for 15,000 sources would look a little suspicious, considering we sell about 1 or 2 every 3 months.
  78. this stuff is in cigarettes by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    you don't have to look hard to find radioactive material... Would you like a dose of potassium 40? Let me throw a banana at you...

  79. no more ice cream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool. I'm going to stop giving out big scoops of ice cream on halloween and switch to doling out small supermagnets.

  80. Re:Looking for some uranium. Click here by HuckleCom · · Score: 0

    I'm guilty... I'm from the MW and I found it funny as hell.

  81. Re:Distilled for you...because your time is valuab by feyhunde · · Score: 1

    Good sire,

    This company is pretty much the best mail order company for science products that exists. In a number of items, they have their entire stock bought out by homeland security for their own uses. Like their UV flashlights that are useful for searching for explosives.

    They also have a great page up about the Po. It would take 15,000 times the dosage of that $69 vial to get into the lethal range. Which ends up at over $1 million. And then you'd have to combine all the 15,000 needles they come in, which is not gonna happen. You get 10x more in a single smoke detector for far cheaper.

    The guy might be slightly batty, I don't know, but I do know he's got the best chemistry kits you can still buy, and taking this guy outta the market is a blow to future scientists.

    --
    I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
  82. Re:MOD UP by pepax · · Score: 1

    I agree - depressing. Thanks for the 'mod up', btw.

  83. FUD: Pity the Amateur Scientist by obtuse · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm Here's their explanation.

    Not enough to poison someone, almost impossible to extract, etc. Poor United Nuclear will probably be run out of business just like everyone else who helps amateur scientists.

    --
    Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
    1. Re:FUD: Pity the Amateur Scientist by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Too true. It's bad enough that most "chemistry sets" are practically rock candy-making kits in disguise or do lame crap like turning water green.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:FUD: Pity the Amateur Scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or do lame crap like turning water green."...

      If you have a pool and too little time to clean it, you're doing that on a regular basis ;-)

  84. Won't detect Po210... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Po210 is an alpha emitter, so the radiation from it won't penetrate the walls of a Geiger tube to register a reading. Geiger counters are only useful for Beta and Gamma sources.

    What you need to detect an Alpha source is a scintillation detector.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Won't detect Po210... by udderly · · Score: 1

      It's only a little frightening that you knew that.

    2. Re:Won't detect Po210... by mmontour · · Score: 1

      Geiger counters are only useful for Beta and Gamma sources.

      You need a special tube to detect alpha radiation, but it's pretty common even on cheaper models. See here for example.

    3. Re:Won't detect Po210... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Many many thousands of us who have done biology or chemistry for decades know that.

      You frighten too easily.

    4. Re:Won't detect Po210... by udderly · · Score: 1

      You frighten too easily.

      You take things too literally.

    5. Re:Won't detect Po210... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Po210 is an alpha emitter, so the radiation from it won't penetrate the walls of a Geiger tube to register a reading.

      I don't think that's true. I use a $150 Black Cat Systems GM-10 with an LND-712 geiger tube to detect alpha particles.

      Specs here: http://www.lndinc.com/gm/alpha/712.htm

  85. testimony.. by caudex · · Score: 1

    I built a cloud chamber (dry-ice cooled chamber to better view tracks of elementary particles) last year as an independant study project, and decided to get some radioactive material in order to better isolate tracks made from beta sources, alpha sources, etc. One of the sources we got was Polonium 210, all we needed was the permission of our physics teacher.

    Now the project is done, but I still have a radioactive source sitting beside me on my desk.

    So yes, this radioactive source is very easy to come by, and if anyone needs a source with just about one half life gone, look me up..

  86. Check the sources by ferar · · Score: 0

    The man behind this 'business' is Bob Lazar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar)
    He has seen and reverse eng. UFOs among other things.
    Do you trust him? Is this news for nerds, stuff that matters, or just yellow press stuff?

  87. Why not just whack him mob-style? by swb · · Score: 1

    Why wouldn't they just kill him outright?

    I haven't been involved in extra-national assassinations (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn recently...), shouldn't it have been easier to get to him on the street or in his home and then either garrot him with piano wire or shove an icepick into the base of his skull?

    It could have been made to look like a robbery or some other type of crime. Poisoning him with some weird, hard-to-get chemical nobody has heard of only makes it look like some weird, KGB plot to begin with, with all the attendent bad publicity (unless of course they wanted it as an initimidation factor.

    Of course, all of this is assuming it WAS a KGB plot, and not a plot to make the KGB look bad.

    (Yes, I know its not the KGB anymore, at least in name...)

  88. DUPE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who enjoys reading comments down to the last line?
    this information was already posted as a comment (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20823 8&cid=16981042) on the article mentioning the ex-spys' death (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/ 24/1948246)

  89. Futruama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of a Furturama episode

    NRA Spokesperson ". . . and that over there is my mutated anthrax. For duck huttin'"

  90. think of the children! by toby · · Score: 1

    And don't let your kids swallow beryllium coated capsules of Polonium 210 either!

    --
    you had me at #!
  91. Important to know by MrIbanez · · Score: 1
    A SPECIAL NOTICE ABOUT POLONIUM-210 With the recent news of Polonium-210 being used as a poison, so much incorrect information has been passed around about the material that it's important to get the facts correct. The general public is quite ignorant when it comes to knowledge about radioactive materials and radiation in general. The amount of Plonium-210, and all the isotopes we sell is an 'exempt quantity' amount. These quantities of radioactive material are not hazardous - this is why they are permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to be sold to the general public without any sort of license. Although we do sell these isotopes, we do not actually stock them. All isotopes are made to order at an NRC licensed reactor in Oak Ridge Tennessee. When the isotope is made, it is shipped directly to the customer from the reactor to insure the longest possible half-life. The exempt quantity amount of Polonium-210, or any of the radioactive isotopes sold by us or any scientific equipment supplier, is so small, it's essentially invisible to the human eye. In the case of needle sources, the radioactive material is electroplated on the inside of the eye of a needle. You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount. In comparison, Amercium-241 is a similar toxic Alpha radiation emitter and instead of a half life of 138 days like Polonium-210 has, it has a half life of over 450 years. It is far more toxic - and there is 10 times more than the 'exempt quantity' amount in every smoke detector in your home. If you really wanted tom poison someone, you would of course have to come up with a way to remove the invisible amount of material from the exempt sources - which is just about physically impossible and combine them together. Of course you would also need that 15,000 exempt sources. In addition, there are dozens of other far more toxic materials, like Ricin and Abrin, which can easily be made using common plant material, and are also undetectable as a poison and untraceable. Although it obviously works, Polonium-210 is a poor choice for a poison... not to mention an order for 15,000 sources would look a little suspicious, considering we sell about 1 or 2 sources every 3 months. Make sure you are truly knowledgeable about a subject before you start repeating and spreading potentially incorrect information related to it.


    This is posted directly from their website in response to the incident of polonium being used as a poison. Apparently, there ARE regulations on purchasing polonium. Being a terrorist and buying $1 million worth of polonium from that website will most likely set off a tick on the radar of either the company or the government.

    I'm pretty sure that people who are in need of Alpha emitters will be able to safely obtain it from this website without worry of the site being shut down due to assistance of terrorists. If you want to be able to obtain a larger amount from them, a license is required.

    The matter now is... how much polonium was used in the poisoning?
  92. used to be americium was used in phono antistat by swschrad · · Score: 1

    clips that went onto the headshell of a tonearm.

    now you have to take smoke detectors apart to get it.

    surprised nobody posted a statement about a nice book, The Radioactive Boy Scout, which will give the !! OMG !! crowd heart attacks by the pound.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  93. so wrap the GM tube with aluminum foil by swschrad · · Score: 1

    alphas will kick neutrons out of the aluminum foil, and some occasional betas and gammas should come out due to interference which are detectable. alphas are much more destructive to biological tissue due to the mass they have, but the glass wall of a geiger tube will block them from carrying a charge across the gas and causing a click.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  94. The actually tell you how to posion someone... by doomy · · Score: 1
    If you really wanted tom poison someone, you would of course have to come up with a way to remove the invisible amount of material from the exempt sources - which is just about physically impossible and combine them together....

    In addition, there are dozens of other far more toxic materials, like Ricin and Abrin, which can easily be made using common plant material, and are also undetectable as a poison and untraceable.
    --
    ...free your source and the rest would follow...
  95. Only on Slashdot... by overtly_demure · · Score: 1
    I can't believe so few people are aware of this. Way back in high school I remember the little label on the brush warning users not to sniff the polonium. Now I know what will happen.

    Most terrorists, politicians, and journalists are woefully ignorant. Supermarkets, Home Depots, and many other common storefronts are rich sources of dangerous materials for those who are alert and do their homework.

  96. brain my of side either on magnets these held I by genegeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    whatsoever effect ill no felt and

    1. Re:brain my of side either on magnets these held I by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Wow. Strong magnetic fields induce Forth in people? Who knew!

      --
      You Forth love if honk then

  97. Oblig. by sam991 · · Score: 1

    Dr. Emmett Brown: "I'm sure in 1985 plutonium is available at every corner drugstore, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by." Only 20 years late.

    --
    "No, no, no, don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached to."
  98. Re: OT Clutch, Escape from the Prison Planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red Rover, Red Rover,
    Bob Lazar's comin over
    so hurry clear the airstrip
    and light up that stove. By Jove,
    I think it's started. Oh yeah!
    ESCAPE FROM THE PRISON PLANET

  99. Re: any object where this is not true? by pbhj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tau-neutrino.

  100. November 28, 2006 Is Putin Being Set Up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Antiwar has an interesting article on who may be behind the murder:

    In an assassination, one must ask: Cui bono? To whose benefit? Who would gain from the poisoning of Litvinenko?

    What benefit could Putin conceivably realize from the London killing of an enemy of his regime, who had just become a British citizen? Why would the Russian president, at the peak of his popularity, with his regime awash in oil revenue and himself playing a strong hand in world politics, risk a breach with every Western nation by ordering the public murder of a man who was more of a nuisance than a threat to his regime?

    Yet, listening to some Western pundits on the BBC and Fox News, one would think Putin himself poisoned Litvinenko. Who else, they ask, could have acquired polonium-210, the rare radioactive substance used to kill Litvinenko? Who else had the motive to eliminate the ex-agent who had dedicated his life to exposing the crimes of the Kremlin?


    What we see once again is that the western mainstream media cannot be trusted. It's a propaganda machine.
  101. CIA or KGB behind the murder - take your pick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here's an interesting take on the murder by Antiwar. From the article:

    "...To begin with, Litvinenko's own deathbed statement to the contrary, there is no good reason why the KGB would target someone whose wild accusations are no more credible than our own prophets of the "9/11 Truth movement." Here, after all, is a Russian convert to Islam who has accused the Russian security services, specifically the FSB, of bombing Russian cities in an elaborate plot to justify the war on Chechnya and generate political support for Putin's domestic policies. He also claimed that the Russians were behind al-Qaeda and the Beslan massacre: he was sure the KGB trained and funded Ayman al-Zawahiri. He accused Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi of being a Soviet agent, and even went so far as to announce that Putin is a pedophile.

    In any case, Lugovoi is part and parcel of the Berezovsky network, and if he had anything to do with the murder then the theory that this was a falling-out among Russian exiles, dressed up to look like a KGB hit, gains credibility. But how, then, does one explain the method utilized: polonium-210, which only a state is likely to have access to?

    Then again, if we look at Berezovsky's estimated fortune of some $3 billion, his empire is for all intents and purposes a mini-state. Add to this the assets of other exiled oligarchs, including many who fled to Israel, and you have resources equal to the task of procuring and delivering polonium-210 to any target. Yet this still doesn't rule out state involvement in the operation, even if we assume Litvinenko's death resulted from some internecine squabble within the London-based exile community."


  102. CRAP: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, I like this company. I need a lot of what they sell. And they are the only supplier that I don't get pissed with. I even buy refills for a lot of my sons chemistry sets there. I teach with this material. If Slashdot makes a big fuss over it, its going to draw attention. Which might get it shut down like all the other decent chemistry companies.

    So please, ignore this... Don't let the normals get ahold of this information, or the scumbags that run this country.

  103. OT: why was Polinium210 used to poison Litvinenko? by jopet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone now already knows that this is FUD and what UN sells is just a tiny fraction of the toxic amount which is already just a tiny amount.

    What I still do not understand is why anyone would want to use Polonium210 to kill somebody in the first place? There are dozens of substances available to everyone and probably thousands available to a secret service and all of these substances would be as efficient, cheaper, and less problematic for the one who applies them.

    So why on earth use Polonium210?

    My only explanation so far is that it is an extremely sadistic way to kill somebody: no antidote, it takes days and is extremely painful.

  104. Okay, now I'm frightened by spun · · Score: 1

    I certainly hope whoever modded this "insightful" was doing it out of some misguided idea that I needed more karma. The idea of some slashdot moderator sitting down and thinking, "You know, he's right! I probably SHOULDN'T suck the juice out of thermometers," while not actually outlandish given my perception of the IQ of the average /. mod, certainly gives me a moment's pause.

    Well, with that said, here's some more insightful advice:

    You probably shouldn't eat broken glass.
    Fire is hot! Best not touch it...
    Attempting to breath underwater without the aid of SCUBA gear can be dangerous.
    If a woman asks you if something makes her look fat, say no.

    And of course:

    Do not taunt happy fun ball!

    There, if my last comment is any guide, that should get me A +5 insightful.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  105. Call This Number NOW While Quantities Last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Call 1-800-ALQ-AEDA and place your order with the
    world's most dangerous ex-cokehead.

    Thanks in advance.

    Yours patriotically,
    Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

  106. Re:oh silly guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just increase the amount of natural predators. Problem solved.

  107. Encased in ceramic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I eat it, and poop it out in a few hours. Little harm done.

    Low grade stuff (Co-60) I handled in lab was encased in plastic. We washed our hands afterwards because the lead blocks we stored them behind when not in use was more dangerous.

  108. Old, tired, and antiquated. by crmartin · · Score: 1

    Oh, goddamnit, folks, keep up on these things.

    When you buy $70 worth of 210Po, you get one one-trillionth of a gramme more or less. About 1/5250th of a fatal dose, and more like 1/20,000th or less of what was used in London.

    So to buy a fatal dose it's only going to cost about a third of a million dollars.

    You can buy lens brushes with 210Po sources, too.

    Jesus.

  109. So, UnitedNuclear is considered credible now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dodgy website that always gets drug out anytime something "nu-cle-urrr" gets mentioned in the media is back? They don't actually sell anything you know.

    1. Re:So, UnitedNuclear is considered credible now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

  110. Re:Looking for some uranium. Click here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey gang, just thought I should remind everyone that the Eugene Levy fan club meeting is being held at my house this week.

  111. Ahaa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That means Bush can be added into list of potential suspects.

  112. Serious injury may occur... by patio11 · · Score: 1

    ... if a fray boy attempts to cross a room without planning his route carefully. I don't see what the magnet has to do with it.

    (Actually, one of my best friends in college was a frat guy, and really bright. So my comment is exclusive of him. Now, the frat boy who in a drunken stupor stepped on my head when I was a visiting high school senior, yep, thats the guy who needs the warning label tatooed on his keister.)

  113. Errr... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I thought that I also read that it sublimates for unknown reasons? Of course, *hopefully* the stuff would just disperse enough that it wouldn't poison anyone, but I know that I certainly won't be buying any of this stuff.

  114. Re:OT: why was Polinium210 used to poison Litvinen by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    Because it's such a sophisticated and exotic way to kill someone that it "has" to be Putin/KGB that did it... and this is so obvious that it almost certainly wasn NOT Putin. Putin is no dummy - he'd have the guy killed and made to look like an accident if he wanted to kill him (which I sincerly doubt he did). It was presumably done by someone who wanted to people to think it was ("obviously") Putin to discredit him.

  115. Re:Aerogel by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

    Man, their prices on aero gel are expensive. $$0 for a little fragment that came off of a larger piece they accidentally broke apart? Rip off. Aero gel is pretty nifty, it looks like a solid gas, but it feels like styrofoam.

  116. I didn't need to see this. by alshithead · · Score: 1

    My wife is really pissing me off tonight.

    --
    I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
  117. Greatest Shirt Ever by grilled-cheese · · Score: 0

    I don't know about you, but I want the H-bomb shirt to walk around in an airport or police station.

    http://www.unitednuclear.com/tees.htm

  118. United Nuclear recommends other poisons instead by 10100111001 · · Score: 1

    From the United Nuclear Polonium-210 webpage:

    In addition, there are dozens of other far more toxic materials, like Ricin and Abrin, which can easily be made using common plant material, and are also undetectable as a poison and untraceable.

    Even though they were just making a point, it is still funny... "Our stuff isn't good as a poison, but here's some stuff that is!"

  119. Exactly by Circlotron · · Score: 1

    That was =precisely= what I though of when I read the article :-) Glad I had the patience to search all the way here to page five before posting.

  120. Polonium Balloneyum by scotbot · · Score: 1

    Great, so now we can all expect spam asking us if we want Pol0n!um.

    Pol0n!um 210 is the new pot3nt p0ison that every spy is talking about. Here goes some reasons to choose Pol0n!um 210:

    1. You can mix a1cohol drinks with this p0ison with many undesired effects.

    2. Pol0n!um does make them feel dizzy and make vision blurred, so they can't easily drive a car or operate heavy machinery.

    3. Pol0n!um works much slower than any known ED p0ison solution. ttt enters the bloodstream directly instead of going through the stomach, thus they need only 15 days till they feel the effect.

  121. Life Imitates Art, "The Pricess Bride" by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    The Dread Pirate [R]oberts & [V]izzini have a battle of wits to decide whoh shall win the Princess, based on the old posioned goblet trick...

    R: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right...and who is dead.

    V: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    R:You've made your decision then?

    V: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

    R:Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

    V: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    R: You're just stalling now.

    V: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

    R: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

    V: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

    R: Then make your choice.

    V: I will, and I choose-- What in the world can that be?

    [Vizzini gestures up and away from the table. Roberts looks. Vizzini swaps the goblets]

    R: What? Where? I don't see anything.

    V: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.First, let's drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours.

    R: You guessed wrong.

    V: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! Ha ha ha--

    [Vizzini stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right]

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  122. It has a certain flair, admit it by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

    A thousand ways to do it (even a fake robbery resulting in death would've been less suspicious), but Polonium poisoning was chosen. It's like someone rents a Bentley for a hit&run: it has flair.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  123. Re:OT: why was Polinium210 used to poison Litvinen by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    So why on earth use Polonium210?

    My only explanation so far is that it is an extremely sadistic way to kill somebody: no antidote, it takes days and is extremely painful.

    I think you answered your own question admirably.
    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  124. The Amusing Thing About All This by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    is that everybody is perfectly willing to assume that the President of Russia personally ordered a critic poisoned in another major country - thus threatening Russia's diplomatic relations with said country if it ever is proven - just to silence a guy who basically was a raving nutcase that nobody paid any attention to. All the while ignoring the billionaire oligarch who was BEHIND said raving lunatic and who is KNOWN to be a criminal and whose associates are KNOWN to be criminals wanted in Russia for crimes against the government and the people,

    Meanwhile, the same morons vehemently deny the possibility that Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in order to secure oil for his family's oil company cronies, or that Cheney has ANY connections with the amount of money Halliburton has made out of Iraq, or that Israel, KNOWN to commit assassinations practically anywhere on the planet regardless of legality, could have anything to do with the assassinations in Lebanon, despite being the only known beneficiary of such assassinations.

    Double standard, anyone?

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  125. Russian media has its orders by toby · · Score: 1

    A friend in Moscow tells me that the Russian media - such as every "investigative" programme - are carefully putting forward the sychronised line that Putin has nothing to do with the killing. I speculate that the proposition to media outlets could have been:

    "Of course Putin had nothing to do with Litvinenko's murder! Publish this, or you'll end up like Litvinenko."

    (One counter-theory put about very quickly was that Litvinenko committed suicide in order to "raise awkward questions" as Putin attended the EU summit. This of course echoes the line put forward immediately after Anna Politkovskaya's murder, that she arranged it herself to discredit Putin. Yes, this was seriously suggested! I was in Moscow at the time.)

    --
    you had me at #!
  126. Re:I might be missing magnets..... by aqk · · Score: 1

    >> If you want my Polonium 210 you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

    Sorry, Dude -

    If you want my Nyodium MAGNETS, you'll have to
    pry them from my cold dead intestines.

    - Deja VU!

  127. Re:I might be missing elements..... by aqk · · Score: 1

    lock stock and smokin beryllium

  128. Re:Feh British Isles by aqk · · Score: 1
    Sinn Fein is an irish political party. Should I remind everyone that, despite some protestant desire to be so, Irelan is NOT Britain. It is not even in the United Kingdom.

    Why am I not impressed by the level of knowledge in geography from our fellow US citizens?

    Yes... but-

    Ireland is in the
    choke) (gasp)
    British.... ISLES! .... Nyaaahhhh HA HA HA!

  129. Re:Chemistry sets used to have radioactive materia by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

    Good point. If I still had it, I would try that. Thanks.