Slashdot Mirror


UK Lab Traces Polonium To Russian Nuclear Plant

reporter writes "British authorities had identified polonium 210 to be the radioactive poison that killed Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian spy who defected to Great Britain. Now, according to a disturbing report, the authorities have identified the source of the poison to be Russia. Bloomberg ominously reports, 'Scientists at the U.K.'s Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, west of London, have traced the polonium 210 found in London to a nuclear power plant in Russia, the capital's Evening Standard newspaper reported today. Officials at the establishment didn't return calls.' A cold chill just fell on relations between Russia and the West." In another twist to this developing story, the shadowy Italian security consultant who dined with Litvinenko has also fallen ill with radiation poisoning.

413 comments

  1. And so... by Omeger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Second Cold War begins...

    1. Re:And so... by kharchenko · · Score: 0

      Why? Because a defected spy was assassinated? That's part of the spy game - defectors frequently end up on a hit list, especially if they continue to be involved in the shady affairs.
      While I certainly think the whole affair is barbaric, it's hardly unusual. Perhaps the method of poisoning is, but that should raise more curiosity than alarm.

    2. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for your insightful analysis, James. Or should I call you double-0?

    3. Re:And so... by plalonde2 · · Score: 1

      Remember, a cold war with Russia is much better for the economy than a hot war with Ira[qn].

    4. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I thought George Bush gazed longingly into Vladimir Putin's eyes and saw a friend?

      Oh...

    5. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is George Bush's fault.

    6. Re:And so... by elucido · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Hey now wait a second, that is an over-statement.
      You are suggesting that this situation is going to blow up into another cold war?

    7. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More pages to remove from my great russian encyclopedia. I just wish they'd quit killing people cause I have better things to do than remove pages all day long.

    8. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Jewish propaganda. The media has been full of this crap since the 'spy' died. Every day. Headline story. All the time. It was so obvious from the beginning that they were pushing an agenda, and this is just more crap. How the hell do the 'scientists' know the 'polonium' came from a Russian plant? What 'polonium' are we talking about? How was it brought into the country without killing anybody? Did nobody think of THAT?
      Typical Jewish propaganda. Trying to start world war three, no doubt, because, after all, they are 'God's chosen people', and we are their 'cattle'... (Goyim)

    9. Re:And so... by goober1473 · · Score: 1

      or doesn't as the entire of Europe need Russia's gas supplies. I am looking forward to how this pans out, I suspect the ex-Russian spy link will allow the UK government to keep this relatively quiet on a political front and so keep friendly relations with Russia. That way my heating bills stay low as the gas supply stays reliable. We (the UK) then spend the next few months discussing renewable energy and nuclear, nuclear gets the signoff and we all get cheap electricity to heat our houes and food.

      Or the UK kicks up a huge fuss, the Russian's take exception and cut the supply/put prices up and the UK suffer a real cold war, back to the nuclear debate. Excluding the warming effects from global warming to keep us warm - incedentaly my roses are flowering - it's december for god sake, where is the snow?

    10. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Litvineko's exile was caused by internal Russian affairs. Cold War was international. The only (known) thing why this case is international is that he was killed in UK.

    11. Re:And so... by DonnieD701 · · Score: 1

      Damn.. Did you get beat up one too many times by a little Jewish kid when you were growing up?

      --
      A witty saying proves nothing. Voltaire (1694-1778)
    12. Re:And so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They call me double O not double 0

  2. Will Bush back America away by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 0, Troll

    And avert anything possible from this, or will it stand by its lapdog?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. Where is the reactor? by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article doesn't say... Do they know if it came from a reactor near Moscow, or if it came from a reactor on the periphery of Russia? That is, does Russia have plausible deniability by saying that rogue agents unattached to the central government did it? Or is it clear that the assassination was ordered by the higher-ups in the Russian government?

    1. Re:Where is the reactor? by WarlockD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A more disturbing question however is what are we going to do about it? Even if we did trace it to the reactor to Russia, what do we do? Europe is stuck by being reliant on Russia for their gas supplies. US has more issues with Iraq and Iran to worry about it. Not to mention being a veto power in the security consol, where do you think demands of an investigation are going to lead to?

      Russia could just come out and say they killed the guy, but with the power they pushed on the Ukraine on energy supplies, the Russians have much more leverage.

    2. Re:Where is the reactor? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Its still not clear that it was an assassination. We still don't know just how much of this polonium is around our normal lives to be worried about the scaremongering.

      Could the guy have been smuggling radioisotopes using the same method as drug mules (condoms full of product) and had an "accident"? Polonium is an alpha emitter, and is thus not dangerous unless absorbed. And a condom would block the alpha particles quite nicely. I'm not sure how bioavailable pure polonium is, but if it were in the form of a salt, I could see it getting absorbed in fatal quantities.

      -b.

    3. Re:Where is the reactor? by mmontour · · Score: 1

      We still don't know just how much of this polonium is around our normal lives to be worried about the scaremongering. Maybe all planes contain traces of it,

      There will be some natural polonium-210 anywhere that has radon gas in the air, or uranium in the soil. It's also found in cigarette smoke. I don't know how the natural concentration compares to the 'traces' that are being reported in this case.

    4. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> "US has more issues with Iraq and Iran to worry about it"

      Why would the US want anything to do with it? This is an issue between the UK and Russia.

    5. Re:Where is the reactor? by bcc123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why would the US want anything to do with it? This is an issue between the UK and Russia. US is for strong sanctions against Iran over their nuclear program. Russia is against such sanctions. EU is somewhat-maybe-possibly... On top of that, US is against the sale of air defense weapons to Iran, because it would obviously make it harder to invade. So what do we have? A big scare is started in Europe that involves "Russia" and "nuclear". Given that an average person won't care for the difference between palladium and uranium -- they both sound scary, the timing of the whole thing is really weird. It seems like a really dumb thing for the Russian government to do... at this time. Especially since all the time-tested methods for taking care of people like burglary or car accidents are as available as they ever were. Now let's think who could benefit from this situation?
    6. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Russia produces 8 grams of Polonium-210 monthly and sells it all to US:

      Russia exports 8 grams of polonium-210 monthly, all to the United States. He said there had been no exports to Britain in five years.

      So where did Polonium-210 come from?

      I like propaganda as much as the next guy but it reminds me too much of the hysteria preceding the Iraq war.
    7. Re:Where is the reactor? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're thinking of polonium-218, with the radon. Its half life is 3 minutes. Polonium-210 is different. It's a popular radioisotope for 3 reasons:

      1. Its half life is a convenient 120 days or something (not microseconds or decades).
      2. It decays to lead 208 which is stable.
      3. It is a pure alpha emitter (no beta or gamma) which makes it relatively safe to handle as long as you do not ingest it.

      Polonium-218 has none of these properties.

      They sell small amounts of polonium-210 in those little plastic red disks you find in high school chem labs. United Nuclear was selling them for like $69. You'd need to buy a lot of disks to kill a Russian spy.

    8. Re:Where is the reactor? by westlake · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Its still not clear that it was an assassination.
      We still don't know just how much of this polonium is around our normal lives to be worried about the scaremongering.

      Good lord.

      When was the last time you heard of an accidental death traced to ingested Polonium?

      When was the last time you heard of any death caused by radioactive poisoning that couldn't be immediately traced to an industrial accident or something of that sort?

      It's pure coincidence of course when Russian made Polonium kills a Russian dissident living in exile in Britain.

    9. Re:Where is the reactor? by thestudio_bob · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, what is supposed to happen is that the remaining powers unite with economic and political sanctions, but as we all know, this rarely happens. Unless of course it's against America.

      If governments are united in punishing Russia, then theoretically the people of Russia would hopefully do something (protest or with a vote) to remove the bad guys from government. And our governments would do everything they could do to protect the nations that may be affected from the retaliation from Russia.

      --
      The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    10. Re:Where is the reactor? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Possible, but the amounts are so miniscule and so easy to hide that there are plenty of other, safer, ways to smuggle the stuff if you wanted to. You could hide it in practically anything.

    11. Re:Where is the reactor? by LindseyJ · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, another tinfoil who is using less-than-circumstantial evidence to try and pin this on the US. After all, we're the EVIL EMPIRE (tm), right? We must have done it, nevermind the zero amounts of evidence or motive.

      As for the Iraq war FUD, Its always nice to only look at one side of the story and pretend that's all there is to it, isn't it? The lies and misinformation (read: no lies or misinformation but just bad intelligence) perpetrated by the Right to get us into the war are about on par with the lies and misinformation (read: actual lies and misinformation) perpetrated by the Left in an attempt to get us out.

    12. Re:Where is the reactor? by plopez · · Score: 1

      like a diplomatic pouch?

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    13. Re:Where is the reactor? by mmontour · · Score: 2, Informative

      The radon-222 decay chain contains Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210. Link (PDF).

      There is a small gamma component to Po-210 decays, but only something like .001%.

      The United Nuclear sources are 0.1 uCi. Antistatic brushes are available with up to 500 uCi, and industrial ionizers can contain up to 40 mCi.

    14. Re:Where is the reactor? by cakefool · · Score: 2, Funny

      "They sell small amounts of polonium-210 in those little plastic red disks you find in high school chem labs. United Nuclear was selling them for like $69. You'd need to buy a lot of disks to kill a Russian spy."

      Whereas the average civilian can be killed with only a couple...

    15. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah yes, another tinfoil who is using less-than-circumstantial evidence to try and pin this on the US. After all, we're the EVIL EMPIRE (tm), right?

      Then how's the search for WMD in Iraq coming? Iraq must've had it, according to the US government propaganda at the time. So, is the illegal Iraq war evil and, if so, what does it make of the US?

      See Is Putin Being Set Up? if you want to know why I think the way I do.

    16. Re:Where is the reactor? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Tossing this in, because some context seems to be needed: this particular ex-spy has claimed to have proof that the Russian government were responsible the 1999 bombings that led Russia to declare war on Chechnya. If true, they are guilty of *bombing their own people* to get into a war, and if Putin was indeed behind it, he is an evil piece of shit that needs to be taken down.

      Systematically, all the people who have been exposing Putin have been assassinated since this summer. The polonium trick almost worked, because the half-life would have made it disappear in a month. Someone thought of grabbing a geiger counter. And now Putin is shown to be responsible... which makes one reasonably certain that the spies who accuse him, and the reporter, were right about the 1999 mass bombings. And oh yes, the pedophila.

      A major criminal is running a nuclear power, and is murdering those who are exposing him. Good thing Bush read his soul through his eyes, and pronounced him a trustworthy man.

    17. Re:Where is the reactor? by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "he polonium trick almost worked, because the half-life would have made it disappear in a month."

      Well, half of it. oops. Guess that point doesn't hold up in physics. Damned science. A small amount still would have been present for an indefinite period. Still, damned lucky someone grabbed a counter. I assume the hair falling out and the leukemia was a screaming pair of clues.

    18. Re:Where is the reactor? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      I assume the hair falling out and the leukemia was a screaming pair of clues.

      I don't think he had leukaemia - an overproduction of leukocytes by his bone marrow at the expense of other blood components. I'd suspect that his bone marrow was just completely zapped by the alpha particles emitted and wasn't producing much of anything - neither red not white cells.

      -b.

    19. Re:Where is the reactor? by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      Indeed, today's commentary in the newspaper was more or less like this:

      Either
      (a) The Russian state did it, and so our energy supply is in the hands of raving lunatics with nuclear missiles that will stop for nothing
      or
      (b) Some rogue Russian elements did it, and so our energy supply is in the hands of a government with nuclear missiles that cannot control its raving lunatics that will stop for nothing

      Both options suck, and they are both outside our reach. As the old Chinese curse goes, May you live in interesting times.

    20. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Its still not clear that it was an assassination.
      We still don't know just how much of this polonium is around our normal lives to be worried about the scaremongering.
      Maybe all planes contain traces of it, maybe different sinks for it exist within products we buy.
      Maybe you are dumber than a sack full of cow shit.
    21. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh for mod points... +

    22. Re:Where is the reactor? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm not sure how bioavailable pure polonium is
      Not very. There are no stable isotopes of polonium. The longest lived isotope has a half life of ~100 years. However, what he was poisoned with (Po-210) has a half-life of only ~140 days. So, if it were found naturally in general, we would also have to find its parent, Bismuth-210, or some other element isotope which decays to Polonium-210, in much greater quantity. Polonium does occur naturally in pitchblende, a uranium ore, where it is the decay product of something or other. Also, if it were bioavailable at all, I think we'd have heard of many more deaths already, and our cancer rate would be much higher. This stuff is so incredibly toxic. A cube 0.35 millimeters on a side is 2400 times the lethal dose. So having it floating around with the dust (it vaporises quite readily and without stimulation) would tend to cause massive amounts of death in the year or so that reasonable amounts of it were still around.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    23. Re:Where is the reactor? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia says the lethal dose is 200 uCi. So if you could get the Polonium out of its ceramic capsules (or whatever) in the antistatic brush, then you could kill two and a half people with it. But you would need 2000 of the little exempted sources from United Nuclear to kill someone.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    24. Re:Where is the reactor? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      We're talking about Russia here, the black marketeer's darling. Just because the material came from Russia doesn't mean it was used by an agent of, or at least the consent of, the Russian government.

    25. Re:Where is the reactor? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself - Denmark, Norway and the UK produce more gas than they require.
      (just shame I've moved to Belgium..)

      ..but the ones who are supposed to kick Putin et al out of office, are the Russians. Come next election, they might just be tired of him?

      /G

    26. Re:Where is the reactor? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Good thing Bush read his soul through his eyes, and pronounced him a trustworthy man.

      By Bush's standards, he is.

    27. Re:Where is the reactor? by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Arguing about WMDs or Liberation or whatever they're telling you is the reason to invade someone this week is as stupid as arguing about microsofts latest OS being marketed as "Faster and more stable than ever before". Those are all marketing. Pure fabrications and lies, nothing else. It doesn't matter which fictional 'side' they came from, because there's no truth in either.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    28. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a matter of fact Putin's resignation will be mandatory. Russian presidents are only allowed to serve two terms.

    29. Re:Where is the reactor? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      2. It decays to lead 208 which is stable.

      Whoops, meant to say lead 206. I'm surprised none of you nitpickers caught that.

    30. Re:Where is the reactor? by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Zeros and Fours man, zeros and fours. Alpha drops the isotope number by four, and changes the element name. Beta changes the number by zero, but also changes the element name. The whole chain is alpha and beta emissions. Now do you feel nitpicked?

      Po-210 is a daughter product of Bi-210, by beta decay. Halflife for this is only about 5 days, so if you start with Bismuth-210, you will very rapidly get a material that is mostly polonium-210, and then the 138 day half-life for that is a choke point that will give you an increasing percentage of both Po-210 and Lead-206. Whoever is testing the Po-210 technically had to check for Bi-20, and Pb-210 to see if the original source was something higher up the chain. The didn't really need to test for Po-214, Bi-214 and other very short lived intermediates (and probably couldn't), but probably had to test for Radon-222, as that has a half-life of just less than 4 days, long enough for traces to remain if that's where the reaction started.

      It's really a fascinating risk issue (although I'm sure fascinating is not a word a person on the receiving end would use). If someone was originally poisoned with anything above Lead-210, then whoever handled it had to act very quickly from isolating mostly pure any one form to delivery. Lead-210 is technically doable, but if some spy had to take it from a reactor to the target, would be half decayed to Po-210 by the time he could get there. Po-210 is the first step in the chain where you have something relatively hot, but not decaying so quickly that refining a relatively pure amount is near impossible, and at the same time, for the same reasons, it's the first place in the chain where the refined substance would be optimally safe to handle for long enough to carry it to the target and deploy it.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    31. Re:Where is the reactor? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      It's an alpha emitter, you could carry it in your wallet in full view and it would not be spotted. Or better yet put it in the hold luggage. Remember the amount used was tiny, we are talking milligrams.

    32. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there's a lot of speculation he might reform the political system and stay in power as a chancellor under some ceremonial president.

    33. Re:Where is the reactor? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      It's amusing that you accuse the left of the what GWB and Blair's administration have been most guilty of. Here's an interesting leaked memo from the pre-war planning stage:

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-15936 07,00.html

      Of course, all politicians lie for a living - it's part of the job. We just don't put up with being led into a war under false pretences. That's a crime.

    34. Re:Where is the reactor? by Gandalf_the_Beardy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Curies are not a dose - dosage is measured in sieverts. The Wikipedia article fails to appreciate that the specifica activity meantion is over the entire life of the sample, that the sample is biologically eliminated much faster than the half life, and that fatal dose of 4sV has to be a whole body dose, and has to be prompt, not over a time period. I've posted elsewhere the amount needed, but it's more like 3mCi rather than 200uCi

    35. Re:Where is the reactor? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There is lots of polonium in tobacco for instance. Seems to come from the phosphate fertilizers. Just google for tobacco and polonium. Couple of example links
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking
      http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/FIPR/FIPR1.nsf/9bb2fe 8f45c4945e85256b58005abaec/5dc7355eabaa3e3c85256b2 f00591a7e!OpenDocument

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    36. Re:Where is the reactor? by jd · · Score: 1
      If there are enough contaminants of other isotopes and materials to have identified the country of origin, they have enough to specify which nuclear reactor it came from. By using the ratio of original isotopes to daughter products (the isotopes a radioisotope will decay into), you can also get an excellent idea of when the Polonium was formed. Atomic Mass Spectrometry can be used to identify the component isotopes and is routinely used for just that. When Daresbury's 20 MeV accelerator was still open, it was used to study concentrations of toxic metals with far greater differentiation between isotopes of near-identical mass, with hundreds of times below the threshold of most lab counter-top equipment. There are labs in the world still capable of doing such work. With the massive concentrations involved, unless the daughter products are just too similar to be distinguished, it should be possible to get a specific day and maybe a specific time of day.


      Since we know the flights used to bring the material into Britain, if we knew the time it was removed from the reactor, we could infer the time it spent going from the known reactor site to the airport it was smuggled from. It shouldn't be hard to determine what set of scenarios would meet the constraints imposed by the known time interval and known distance,


      If the British Government has any interest in solving the case, all of this will have been done already. Japan and Australia have accelerators capable of AMS runs at this level of sensitivity. Two days of travel, maybe two days to get the runs set up and producing repeatable results, and maybe two or three days work between nuclear chemists and physicists to interpret the results.


      Sure, sure, this would be expensive. So's an anti-terror operation. Accelerators cost about $2,000 an hour just to operate (never mind staff), but that's still only $32,000 plus air-fare to eliminate 90% of the unknowns. Compared to how much to keep a special emergency working group in the House of Commons, plus who-knows how much of Scotland Yard ripping its hair out, plus MI5 and MI6 internal investigations on what was known, what was not known and what damn well should have been known.


      MI5 deals with national security, MI6 on international intelligence/counterintelligence. As this was an internationally-planned infiltration of nationally secure territory, agents in both EITHER missed this entirely or were asked to kindly not bother the glowing green Russian agents. The latter is not impossible - if an agency is aware of a much bigger threat, they will allow the smaller one through in order to get more information. Britain allowed itself to be bombed, for that exact reason. So this is possible. Unlikely, but possible. It has been done. More likely, both divisions failed BADLY in their operations. Failures in that line of work seem to end up being buried, just not under paperwork.


      GCHQ will also no doubt be asking a few questions, for the same reason. By now, they'll have certainly extracted every phonecall made and (if the suspects used European cell phones) will know exactly where those people were at all times, whether the phone was on or not. (The CIA was hauled over the coals for that one, after an operation in Italy, not too long ago. Let's see if this lot even bothered to read the papers first.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    37. Re:Where is the reactor? by dryeo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually some people believe that most smoking related cancers are caused by Polonium-210. A pack and a half smoker is exposed to about 8000 mrem a year ( http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/canc er.rad.html )
      caused by polonium-210 and lead-210. This comes from the phosphate fertilizer used by all the big tobacco companies.
      Another interesting site is http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_to bacco.html
      or just google tobacco and polonium

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    38. Re:Where is the reactor? by plopez · · Score: 1

      mt "tinfoil hat" tags didn't come through. good point.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    39. Re:Where is the reactor? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Well every year thousands of smokers are killed by cancer after ingesting polonium-210 (and lead-210). Of course this isn't talked about too much as there are vested interests in selling tobacco.
      http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/canc er.rad.html
      and lots more available via google

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    40. Re:Where is the reactor? by WarlockD · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why they went with a radioactive substance with a half life of 138 days? Though, they must have known they would have detected the radiation, not to mention the stuff is radioactive enough to leave traces. Even if it was after a year, I bet someone would wonder why the hell there is a bunch of Palonimom 206 in his body.

      I "could" believe the CIA might have a hand in this; I tend to believe more in incompetence than skill. There have been ALOT of political assassinations in Russia of late and I think that Putin, or whoever is pulling his strings, was just overconfident. I have yet to hear of a hostage situation that goes well because of Russian security forces (Beslan or Dubrovka) It doesn't sound like the kind of government that makes sound, rational decisions.

      If it wasn't the Russians, its VERY hard for me to think otherwise, it might of been Alexander Litvinenko himself that did it. Maybe he made a mistake with the dosage? Gets sick, finds a radioactive substance that is ONLY made in Russia? He is suddenly upgraded from a dissident to an "enemy of the state" right there.

    41. Re:Where is the reactor? by Raenex · · Score: 1
      And now Putin is shown to be responsible

      You've jumped from "the plotonium can be traced to Russia" to having proven that Putin is behind it. That's quite a leap there. I'm not saying he doesn't look suspicious, but there are people who could have ulterior motives for making it look like Putin. All the players use dirty tricks; unfortunately, the truth is often hard to find.

    42. Re:Where is the reactor? by solitas · · Score: 1

      A couple? They look to be about the diameter of a quarter (http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm), so I'm pretty sure that if you inhaled one _just_right_... :)

      --
      (from UN's website:)

      A SPECIAL NOTICE ABOUT POLONIUM-210

      With the recent news of Polonium-210 being used as a poison, a good deal of incorrect information has been passed around (primarily by the media) concerning the Polonium isotope and radioactive materials in general. 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, as well as any of 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, distributors such as United Nuclear Scientific Supplies (and just about any isotope distributor) 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 is so small that they are 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.
      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 to 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, such as Ricin and Abrin, both of which can easily be made, and are also undetectable as a poison and untraceable.

      Although it obviously works, Polonium-210 is a poor choice for a poison.

      Another point to keep in mind is that an order for 15,000 sources would look a tad 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.

      (For those of you with a slightly warped sense of humor, we do sell a Polonium-210 coffee mug)

      --
      Any 'radioactive boyscouts' out there want to start scraping-out smoke detectors?

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    43. Re:Where is the reactor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polonium 210 (element 84) decays into lead 206 (element 82), which is stable.

      Captcha word: instruct

    44. Re:Where is the reactor? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      However, obviously since the lethal dose of Po-210 is so low, and you don't hear of smokers dying every day with symptoms like Litvinenko's, even from cigarettes, the amount of Po-210 is miniscule. I don't even want to think about how many packs of cigarettes you'd have to process in order to get the amount of Po-210 that killed Litvinenko.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    45. Re:Where is the reactor? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure how bioavailable pure polonium is,
      Whoops. I didn't understand what bioavailable meant last time I replied to you. I took it to mean "available to lifeforms"... bzzt. For those of you who are like me, bioavailability refers to the percentage of the amount of a drug that has been administered that reaches full dispersal throughout the body. So, if you take any drug intravenously, the bioavailability is 100% (unless the halflife is in microseconds or something.). Anyway, I'm not sure how bioavailable it is either. However, I do know that pure Po tends to vaporise quite easily. If you had a block of it sitting on a table, after a while it would have all dissolved into the air. This of course leads to inhalation of it.
      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    46. Re:Where is the reactor? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      I was using dose to refer to an amount, as in a dose of cough syrup is 4 tablespoons, rather than radiation dose (or dose equivalent, which is Sieverts). If you only consider the radiation dose, perhaps the lethal amount is 3mCi. However Polonium is a heavy metal, and as such will have chemical properties that make it toxic as well. Perhaps if this is taken into account, the lethal amount is closer to 200uCi.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    47. Re:Where is the reactor? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 1

      Right, but acute poisoning is completely different from cancer. A cancer can form from just a single mutation. It doesn't come from an accumulation of anything, rather whenever you smoke a cigarette you have a small chance of a cancer forming as a direct result of that cigarette; the risk each time is miniscule, but summed over a lifetime it becomes appreciable.

  4. A cold chill in relations? by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A cold chill just fell on relations between Russia and the West.

    An even bigger chill will occur if we get too uppity with Russia about this. As a major supplier of European natural gas, we could be sitting freezing in our homes within a week or two if Russia turned off the taps. We have been on the verge of a gas crisis here in the UK for some time now.

    Diplomacy cuts both ways, and I dare say the UK government isn't going to push this too far given the energy situation.

    1. Re:A cold chill in relations? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As a major supplier of European natural gas, we could be sitting freezing in our homes within a week or two if Russia turned off the taps.

      Build more atomic power stations and invest in reprocessing technologies and you won't have to worry about the Russians. You're still using MAGNOX reactors from the 60s since the NIMBY (not in my backyard) crowd has blocked building of new ones.

      -b.

    2. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The following article says that British storage capacity is at 96% and the winter is predicted to be mild...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5402370.stm

      Maybe it's not as bigger problem as you make out?

    3. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Plus, if you build more nuclear stations you'll have your own supply of Polonium-210 with which to poison the Russians!

    4. Re:A cold chill in relations? by radl33t · · Score: 0

      Join the 20th (or 21st) centrury and heat your homes with waste heat. ASk your neighbors how it's done. Natural gas is for sissies and it was the wrong infrastructure to develop. This was known 40 years ago.

    5. Re:A cold chill in relations? by joe+155 · · Score: 1

      you are partially right, we do need to avoid dependence on any country who could ever become hostile to us. Pretty much that means any country (we might be able to trust those in the EU because it would be suicide for them economically to do anything like cutting us off, but even then don't put all your eggs in one basket). I would rather we put in renewable energy sources though, god knows we have enough wind and waves, we could fairly easily provide all the energy we'd ever need if we just made a one off investment in this stuff in a serious way. There is a need to get rid of NIMBYism so we can protect ourselves into the future.

      As a side note I think with a one off investment of 100Billion pounds the government could create a state owned company which sells energy at a competitive price and gives future dividens (in the same way owning shares works) to everyone in the country. I think we could raise that much money with a one off super tax...

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    6. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with you. Nobody's going to give Russia an ultimatum unless they do something *really bad, like for example unauthorized copying of people's intellectual property.

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    7. Re:A cold chill in relations? by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      Some European countries have been smart enough to not fall for the Russina gas lure.
      I am glad we don't trust them for historic reasons.

    8. Re:A cold chill in relations? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      All the nuclear power stations in the world won't help when you need gas to heat your house and cook your food.

    9. Re:A cold chill in relations? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative
      All the nuclear power stations in the world won't help when you need gas to heat your house and cook your food.

      Last time I checked, electrical resistance heaters for cooking and heating homes had been around for the best part of a century. In the British climate, which is moderate year round, you could probably even get away with using heat pumps for climate control since the winter temperatures (at least in Southern England) seldom stay below freezing for long.

      -b.

    10. Re:A cold chill in relations? by dotbenjamin · · Score: 1

      We need our gas power plants to take up the slack on the national grid when the renewables such as wind aren't providing us with enough power. The National Grid needs a certain electrical supply, yet most of our renewables are far from consistent in their power output. That's why we need the gas - oil, thermonuclear or coal stations are not as easily or quickly turned up or turned down, whereas with gas you can literally turn a dial. Build more "atomic power stations"? That won't solve the problem. Takes a while to really get these nuclear stations up and going to our specifications. (Besides, he's talking about heating homes, and few homes have electrical central heating.)

      --
      Nothing like blowing your own trumpet.
    11. Re:A cold chill in relations? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Electric heating is very ineffective, and electric cookers are beyond worthless.

    12. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot tell the difference between the two situations; than you and Sladhdot's argument of I.P. has lost all its credibility.

    13. Re:A cold chill in relations? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Electric heating is very ineffective

      Properly-designed electric heat is as good as any other form of heat. It's used a lot in Washington, DC, which has colder winters than most of Southern England and it works fine. Don't confuse the cheap "radiator" heaters with a properly designed home heat system!

      electric cookers are beyond worthless

      They take getting used to, and aren't as fast as gas, but they do work. The problem is that there's often not perfect contact between the pot bottom and the heating coil. This can actually be fixed with induction heaters that heat by inducing eddy currents in a non-ferrous pot bottom.

      -b.

    14. Re:A cold chill in relations? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      the gas - oil, thermonuclear or coal stations are not as easily or quickly turned up or turned down, whereas with gas you can literally turn a dial.

      What about electrolyzing water to form hydrogen during times of low demand and burning the hydrogen in gas-turbine type power plants during times of high demand?

      -b.

    15. Re:A cold chill in relations? by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've lived in an all-electric home for 15 years. The electric heaters keep the room pretty much exactly at the temperature you set on the thermostat. In addition, they make almost no noise (silent in operation, a little bit of popping from the housings expanding when they turn on at night) compared to the constant rushing sound of steam or water radiators. The glass-top electric stove heats up in under a minute, and in a definate win over gas can be cleaned just by wiping it down like the rest of the counter. Oh, and it can manage it's own surface temperature too, since it can turn the element on and off. Best of all: no pilot light to have go out and leave you with a smoking crater to return home to.

      Oh, and since my power comes from the local nuclear plant, I'm not sending clouds of greenhouse gases and radioactive carbon isotopes billowing into the atmosphere.

      The depressing part is that the house and the nuke plant were put up in the 70's ... not new tech we're looking at here (the stove is an early-90's replacement for the original unit)

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    16. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      You don't need electricity to run heaters. Use electricity to pump heat out of the ground. Works for cooling, too. Free energy, mostly. Instead of creating the heat, you just move it from one place to another.

      Seriously, the hell you are in is based on your reliace on fossil fuel. Pebble based reactors are damned safe in counterpoint to bowing before a polonium poisoner in the east.

    17. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      That's BS. Electric cookers are fine - I have a fan assisted electric oven. Baking is consistent, takes the same time every time, and is faster than in a gas oven. I have a gas hob though, I prefer gas for pans - but I've used electric hobs and they are perfectly servicable.

    18. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I live in the Isle of Man. I've not yet turned on the central heating - it simply hasn't got that cold yet. We actually have milder winters than the south of England thanks to the moderating effect of the Irish Sea.

    19. Re:A cold chill in relations? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      I prefer gas for pans

      If push came to shove and people really wanted the benefits of gas flames for cooking, what about building a hydrogen stove that electrolyzes water on the spot? You'll use electric power albeit less efficiently, yet you'll have the fast heat that can be applied to any surface from a flame.

      -b.

    20. Re:A cold chill in relations? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Best of all: no pilot light to have go out and leave you with a smoking crater to return home to.

      I don't know about the UK, but most stoves and ranges (hobs) in the USA don't use pilot lights. They either use a catalytic ignition system where passing a small stream of gas over a catalyst causes the catalyst to heat and ignite the main flame, or they use electric spark ignition.

      -b.

    21. Re:A cold chill in relations? by mph · · Score: 1
      If push came to shove and people really wanted the benefits of gas flames for cooking, what about building a hydrogen stove that electrolyzes water on the spot? You'll use electric power albeit less efficiently, yet you'll have the fast heat that can be applied to any surface from a flame.
      It would be simpler just to buy an electric induction cooktop, which already exists, and and has a very fast response time, like gas. There are some limitations, like the pots having to be made of compatible materials, but most of the better cookware lines are designed to work.
    22. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a side note I think with a one off investment of 100Billion pounds the government could create a state owned company which sells energy at a competitive price and gives future dividens (in the same way owning shares works) to everyone in the country. I think we could raise that much money with a one off super tax...

      Nothing ever goes wrong when you give government more control over the people.

    23. Re:A cold chill in relations? by jadavis · · Score: 1

      You have two choices:

      (1) Being forced to use heating and cooking utilities that work perfectly fine, but are not your particular preference
      (2) Allowing foreigners to kill your fellow citizens at will without repercussions

      #1 doesn't sound so bad, after all. I mean, heat is heat.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    24. Re:A cold chill in relations? by gstovall · · Score: 1

      I live in the United States, in Arkansas (central US). The large majority of our state's electricity is nuclear, and it works quite well for us. Much less expensive than natural gas, so much so that an adjacent state (Louisiana) has sued to transfer some of their utility cost to us, because they mandated that the utility company (which services both states) use natural gas rather than nuclear, and now they're paying the price. Unfortunately, the federal government believes their complaint has some merit, so our rates will be going up to cover their poor decisions.

      Anyway, I have a pure electric (heat pump) house, and it works quite well for me. Weather is colder here in the winter than in the UK, so heat pumps should work nicely there.

    25. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "you could probably even get away with using heat pumps for climate control since the winter temperatures (at least in Southern England) seldom stay below freezing for long."

      Better yet, in a region that's been industrialized for so long, they likley still have networks for pumping hot steam from point A to point B for heating. Making steam is what nuclear reactors do very well.

    26. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      A small problem: there is nowhere enough of electricity to replace natural gas. The main consumer of natural gas is industry.

    27. Re:A cold chill in relations? by kirun · · Score: 1

      Umm... the utilities were nationalised for years in the UK. Please provide examples of how the local electricity boards used to crush the people with their iron fists.

      --
      I'm scared of numbers that can't be written as a fraction. It's an irrational fear.
    28. Re:A cold chill in relations? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      They don't work perfectly fine. Electric cookers cannot be adjusted quick enough to cook anything reliably.

    29. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be true for a ring heater but on a modern hob there is no real difference and if your as reckless as I cooking drunk is some what safer. I have just moved from a house with an electric cooker to a house with a gas cooker and the only the only thing that I've noticed is that cleaning the ceramic hob is a little easier than the many components of a gas top.

    30. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      Smart point, but wasn't the AllOfMp3 complaint officially made by the USA? Since the USA has almost no reliance on anything Russian at all (except the occasional spaceship), I'm not sure it's comparable (although the British music rights people are pretty pissed about AllOfMp3 as well).

    31. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that storage is never a good solution to gas problems. The storage capacities are absolutely tiny. I would love someone to actually give the correct figures, as I may be wrong, but I recall reading that our stores are divided into 'short term' and 'long term' stores with the short term able to last merely a day at full supply, and long term somewhere in the range of a few days/week.

      If what I recall is roughly true, then a dip of, say, 10%-20% in gas supply (or an increase in demand) would lead to brownouts in supply within a week or two.

    32. Re:A cold chill in relations? by njh · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the false dichotomy, can I just point out that switching to nuclear is no guarantee that the poisoner will or won't strike again.

      (and besides, doesn't Europe import all it's nuclear fuel anyway?)

    33. Re:A cold chill in relations? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      First, use an inductive cooking surface instead of a resistive heating coil. Changing the pan temperature with inductive cooking is even faster than with gas.

      Second, improve your cooking skill. Yes, it is more fun to cook with gas than resistive electric. No, it is not impossible or even particularly difficult to cook with resistive electric.

      Ross

    34. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      No, it certainly isn't. But getting more self reliant and not letting the suspected poisoner keep his leverage does mean you have more options on how to deal with it.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    35. Re:A cold chill in relations? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      With a gas cooker, when you want to reduce the heat you just turn it down. With an electric cooker, your food burns.

    36. Re:A cold chill in relations? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Except the pipeline to Norway is now open :-) We don't get gas from Russian anymore, or at least don't need to.

    37. Re:A cold chill in relations? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Actually electric heating is 100% efficient. That is everything you pay for is converted into heat. Of course you could use the nuclear powerstation to produce hydrogen gas and pump that down the pipelines instead of methane. We have already managed one transition from town aka coke produced gas to natural gas.

    38. Re:A cold chill in relations? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Halogen hobs are the best. Induction cookers have problems for people with pacemakers and the like. I would note that getting a new gas oven in the U.K. is almost impossible. They are all fan assisted electric ovens. I have lived all my life in a house with an electric cooker.

    39. Re:A cold chill in relations? by benjonson · · Score: 1
      Oh, and since my power comes from the local nuclear plant, I'm not sending clouds of greenhouse gases and radioactive carbon isotopes billowing into the atmosphere.


      Great! Umm, what are you doing with the waste?

      --
      =-+
    40. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! No Blood For OI... Sorry, NATURAL GAS!

    41. Re:A cold chill in relations? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Our invest heavily into research on energy storage. As it is, if the west would come up with good Ultra Ultra Capacitors, it would drop the need for Oil or Coal. Alternative combined with Nukes would cover every thing. Why? because, you can run the plants at night and charge the capacitors. Basically, we need a good way to handle the base-line and spikes loads. Building more plants will not solve it cheaply. But Good storage will.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    42. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I still prefer a gas stove to an electric one. Instant heat on/off and also for adjusting the temperature. It's not a huge deal, but I would never argue that electric stoves are more desirable.

    43. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the waste. The original source of the Magnox fuel was leftover inputs to the nuclear weapons programme. Burning it in Magnox facilities was not the most efficient way to get rid of the leftover natural Uranium and the variety of other materials (some SEU, some actinides), but converting the first two Magnox facilities (which bred plutonium for weaponry) to a commercial fuel cycle was easy and cheaper than implementing some other design. Reusing the design for subsequent plants was straightforward too.

      35 000 tonnes of Magnox waste was reprocessed at the B205 plant and some 15 000 tonnes was returned into commercial fuel cycles. There remains a fair amount stored there (Sellafield) and in Drigg. Despite a recommendation that the waste be disposed of in a deep hole in the ground, it's liklier that it will stay onsite until it is ready to enter another commercial fuel or mixed commercial-disposal cycle. Which one really depends on whether politicans fear public reaction to transporting the waste abroad (Canada and France are obvious destinations) or building a breeder reactor domestically.

    44. Re:A cold chill in relations? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      An even bigger chill will occur if we get too uppity with Russia about this. As a major supplier of European natural gas, we could be sitting freezing in our homes within a week or two if Russia turned off the taps.

      You have a point and I suppose that in theory that could happen, but in reality I think not. Russia has only pushed around countries like Belarus and Ukraine, which were getting natural gas at below market costs. This also had something to do with Russia's loss of influence in both countries, but a lot of it is just money. As long as you guys keep paying your bills on time, they won't turn off the tap. Believe me when I tell you that in that part of the world, money is everything. Russia needs your money. If they get too testy, you guys will just try to do an end run and go to another supplier if possible. Russia saw some movement towards that last year when they tried to cut off Ukraine. The last thing Russia wants is the EU to cut a deal with Turkey or one of the "stan" countries and just bypass Russia altogether in the future. Right now the EU has plans for the future to get some of its gas from non-Russian sources and the last thing Russia would want is for that to change to the EU getting 100% of its gas from countries other than Russia.

    45. Re:A cold chill in relations? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      IME the best oven/stove comes with gas burners for the pots and pans, and an electric convection oven.

      If you have more interest in cooking than simply "Must. Eat. Something ..." then you'll appreciate that having to wipe the occasional spill is a good price to pay for the flexibility of a gas burner. My wife is a semi-professional cook and much prefers gas to electic for pots and pans - but hates gas for the oven.

      As with most things, it's down to the way you use the tools. Stoves often need hands on control minute by minute, whereas ovens need to be exactly the same temperature for longer periods of time.

      Also, having lived in all-electric houses myself, if there's no hot water in the tank, you're SOL. With an instant gas heater though, that hot shower is always available :)

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    46. Re:A cold chill in relations? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      (we might be able to trust those in the EU because it would be suicide for them economically to do anything like cutting us off, but even then don't put all your eggs in one basket

      Before World War One, it was believed that a large European war was basically impossible, because it would destroy the economies of the countries involved.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  5. This is scarier than RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had no idea they could do traces like this! I'm considering scramming my home reactor right now. Does anyone know how they accomplish this tracing technically? Could this lead to a move against people exercising their constitutional rights to home doomsday devices?

    1. Re:This is scarier than RFID by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt they cannot determine which reactor produced the material based upon the alpha radiation pattern, but it might be possible if they actually have an actual sample (for instance removed from his stomach).

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:This is scarier than RFID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Since polonium 210 atoms are indistinguishable, the only way to "trace" its origin would be to follow a trail of polonium 210 on the ground from source to destination, or to compare the signature impurities (other elements/isotopes) of the polonium with the signature impurities of each possible source of it.

  6. A question I have about the poisoning? by technoextreme · · Score: 1

    Can you be poisoned by any Alpha source entering your body or is it just a problem with certain types? I was just wondering this because there are radiation sources all around this. Im not a chemist so I wouldn't really know the answer to this but Slashdot has plenty of people who can answer this?

    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Alpha sources are hazardous because they are highly ionizing, therefore any source which emits alpha particles is dangerous to swallow. However, I do not know weather Polonium 210 has other properties which make it poisonous.

    2. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by m94mni · · Score: 1

      Alpha radiation is always dangerous.

      "Because of this high mass and strong absorption, however, if alpha radiation does enter the body (most often because radioactive material has been inhaled or ingested), it is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation. It is the most strongly ionizing, and with large enough doses can cause any or all of the symptoms of radiation poisoning. It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is about 100 times greater than that caused by an equivalent amount of other radiation. The alpha emitter polonium-210 is suspected of playing a role in lung and bladder cancer related to tobacco smoking."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle

      See also

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium-210

      Note that Polonium-210 is *also* a chemical poison, which is not true for all alpha sources. I do believe the alpha radiation is the big issue.

    3. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by Spazntwich · · Score: 1

      I am not a scientist of any sort, but the way I understand it, any alpha emitter (of sufficient radioactivity) isn't something you want making its way through your digestive tract.

      While alpha particles may be very easy to stop by our skin on the outside, once in you, there's enough of the little bastards to really rearrange your DNA in the cells that come in close contact to the source.

    4. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Informative
      Can you be poisoned by any Alpha source entering your body or is it just a problem with certain types? I was just wondering this because there are radiation sources all around this.

      Actually, just swallowing the source and having it pass through your system is unlikely to do serious damage. Intestinal mucus would probably block the alphas pretty nicely. The source would have to be in a bioavailable (absorbable) form - i.e. some bare metals or preferrably a soluable salt.

      -b.

    5. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by RsG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not sure exactly what you meant to ask, but here goes.

      Alpha radiation can't penetrate skin. So superficial contact with an alpha emitter isn't really a concern. OTOH, if you ingest/inhale an alpha emitter (like polonium 210), then your internal organs can be exposed to it. This, obviously, is a bad thing. In polonium's case, IIRC, it's soluble in bodily tissues, and has a very short half life of 138 days, so it's quite dangerous (remember that half life and radioactivity are inversely linked).

      Beta, gamma and neutron radiation are somewhat different. Those can get through skin, so superficial contact is a potential concern. Beta is blocked by aluminum foil (get out your tinfoil hats!), gamma and neutron require denser materials such as lead, or thicker, less dense materials like deep soil. Neutron radiation has the added hazard of neutron activation (it can render previously safe materials radioactive).

      Additionally, ionizing radiation from sources other than radioactive decay, like X-rays and UV, can generally be bad for your health; these can be seen as less serious than gamma radiation, but more serious than alpha (UV is blocked by sunblock for example). Non ionizing radiation is de facto harmless, barring intensities severe enough to cause thermal burns.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    6. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      Any could give you radiation poisoning depending on the activity present. Polonium tends to be high activity and is a pure alpha (no gammas/betas) which is probably why it was used.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    7. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by ATMD · · Score: 2, Informative
      I understand it's a biochemical poison, too.

      From the editorial of this week's New Scientist:
      Polonium-210 is not a substance to mess with. Weight for weight it is 250 billion times as toxic as hydrogen cyanide. It is chemically poisonous and a potent source of alpha particles. As these collide with other particles they generate heat: 140 watts per gram of the isotope. In the body, energetic alphas smash up DNA and interfere with cell division. Just 120 nanograms can deliver a fatal dose of radiation.
      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    8. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Polonium tends to be high activity and is a pure alpha (no gammas/betas) which is probably why it was used.

      Not to nitpick, but according to wikipedia Po 210 is a very low gamma emmitter (1 in 100,000 decays). But I'd guess you're right that it might have been picked because it's hard to detect unless you're looking for it.

      --
      AccountKiller
    9. Re:A question I have about the poisoning? by dotbenjamin · · Score: 1

      Almost any alpha source will affect you, in sufficient dose. In most cases the danger is posed by the alpha particles emitted more than by the actual chemical. Radiation around us isn't alpha radiation. Alpha radiation seldom travels or penetrate through more than 10 centimetres of air, that's why it's only a threat when ingested or in contact with the body.

      --
      Nothing like blowing your own trumpet.
  7. Disturbing? by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    It'd be disturbing if the Polonium came from the reactor in Petten (which makes medical isotopes for most of Europe), but Russia was already suspected to be behind this assassination, so I'd hardly call this result disturbing.

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  8. Wrong link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The linked article does not say anthing about the origin of the poison?

  9. Well... by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't suppose anybody could tell *when* this radioactive material was made in Russia. Perhaps it was actually made in the Soviet Union? If so, then nobody can say for certain that the Russian government is responsible for this... bigger things went missing when the government changed, IIRC.

    I can't see a reason why the Russian government would poison the former spy so long after he defected. The death wasn't exactly instant, so if they were worried about some secret he hadn't told yet this wasn't the way to go.

    Also of note is that the Russian government is perfectly aware that we can trace radioactive elements to their source. They also know that if you spray an area with mist then lead your target through the area that the person leading will *also* get sprayed with the same mist.

    To me this whole thing seems just a bit wrong... while it was by no means a simple plot, it doesn't seem to have been very well thought out if it was done by the Russian government. Unless of course it *wasn't* done by the Russian government, or even by someone who wants relations between the west and the Russians to deteriorate. I'm not normally a big fan of conspiracy theories and I certainly can't think of anyone who would benefit...

    The only logical thing I can think of is a rouge person or small group with a grudge against the former spy.

    --
    Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    1. Re:Well... by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can't see a reason why the Russian government would poison the former spy so long after he defected.

      Because he was publishing embarassing exposees about Russian politics. His book Blowing Up Russia blames the Russian government for the apartment bombings used as an excuse for escalating the war in Chechnya. It's easy to see why some would want to shut him up permanently.

    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but what makes you think that you (or anyone else on Slashdot) has any idea what's really going on here? Do you have some sort of insight into the world of international spies that the rest of us don't? No, of course not. So whatever "logical" conclusion you've come up with isn't going to carry any weight, sorry to say. One important part of logic is established facts; other than the fact that the man was poisoned, and that the polonium came from Russia, you quite literally have no other information available to you. Your logical conclusion is, at best, an uneducated guess.

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acording to United Nuclear (http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm) Polonium 210 has a half-life of only 138 days. This is pretty short and indicates that the matieral must have been created quite recently to still be so dangerous. It is therefore almost certain that this cannot have been in storage since the old days of the USSR.

    4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polonium-210 has half-life of 138 days, so it is safe to assume it was created rather recently.

    5. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polonium-210 has a half life of aproxx. 138 days. If it came from the Soviet Union it'd be practically worthless by now.

    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When" is possible to determine with radioactive materials because of their half-life. Polonium 210 has a half-life of 138.376 days, so by determining it's current radioactivity, you can tell a lot about the materials past.

    7. Re:Well... by KingArthur10 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Polonium 210 has a half life of only 138 days. To have enough survive from the cold war era that they'd still have lethal amounts is far fetched at best. Wikipedia link on Polonium 210

      --
      I came, I saw, She conquered.
    8. Re:Well... by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Informative


      I don't suppose anybody could tell *when* this radioactive material was made in Russia.

      I bet you actually could tell when this material was made, or at least last purified. Po 210 decays into Pb 206, which is stable. Assuming there's enough Pb 206 to outnumber the natural Pb 206 in the human body (Pb 206 is naturally in the environment making up 24.1% of all lead), you could measure the ratio of Po 210 to Pb 206 and determine how "old" the Po 210 is, since that ratio would go down as the Po 210 "ages".

      There's another possibility that the natural Pb 206 in the body would so outnumber the Pb 206 from the Po 210 decay that you wouldn't get a meaningfull answer.

      --
      AccountKiller
    9. Re:Well... by theycallmeB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that Polonium 210 has a half-life of 138 days and the Soviet Union collapsed about 15 years ago, there would be about 3 parts per trillion left of any Po210 produced during the last days of the Soviet Union. In fact there would be 2 parts per million (or less) left of any Po210 produced before Putin became the President of Russia. So if the Po210 used to posion Litvinenko went missing from a Russia reactor, it was the current Russian government that lost it.

      As for who did it, nothing tells your critics what to go do with themselves quite like the long, painful and very public death of one of said critics. Sometimes a contract murder just doesn't get the point across.

    10. Re:Well... by vondo · · Score: 1

      No, you can't. As someone else pointed out, you have to look at the ratio of polonium to its decay product. In this case, the decay product is lead, which is naturally occuring. Considering the small dose of Po 210 needed to kill someone, my guess is that measuring this ratio and correcting for the naturally occuring amount is going to be difficult. But looking at the activity is worthless in and of itself.

    11. Re:Well... by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are assuming that Russia wants to keep it a secret that they murdered the guy. If Russia is trying to intimidate defectors/critics, etc., then you want something that can be pretty clearly linked to Russia. Using Polonium is not so much to be secret, but to make sure the target suffers before they die. Kind of like the modern version of being stabbed in the head with an icepick.

    12. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A half life of hundred and thirty something days means that the material was ''made'' recently -- the guys who did this got the stuff from a reactor just a couple months ago..

    13. Re:Well... by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Which indicates VERY strongly to a government/intelligence source. I doubt very much that the restaurant cook had some in his back pocket. Also indicates that the government was sending a message: "Da. It was us. What do you intend to do about it? Go do your mother, kooltyoorni."

    14. Re:Well... by drobel · · Score: 1

      The famous MSM again... Its really a bizarro world we are living in... hardly ANYONE asks the obvious question... WHY?? Amazing indeed!!! I saw a segment on the news (when it just came out) and there was a picture of the guy and his book.. where the title read "Blowing up Russia Terror from Within" (same as your amazon link) but this is the kicker, they changed the picture or rather, cut it!Yes, they Cut the picture so that the lower part of the guy and the lower part of the book cover disappeard!! Yes, the "Terror from within" was cut!!! And Not a single one has talked about what he accused FSB for (and Putin), they just said he was a "critic"!!! How about that!!! ?? I dont know... it's kind of funny... or something...

      --
      50 million Americans believe in creationism..
    15. Re:Well... by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      Polonium-210 has, as someone else said, a half-life of 138 days. That means that, if you start on day 1 with 1 gram of Po-210, on day 139 you have 500 milligrams of Po-210 and 500 milligrams of decay products (in this case, Pb-206, (lead) which is stable). On day 277, you have 250 mg of Po-210 and 750 mg of Pb-206. On day 415, you have 125 mg of Po-210 and 875 mg of lead. And so on...

      Here's a useful reference.

      http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/te xt/Po/key.html

      So I would consider it an extremely safe bet that the Po-210 was manufactured within the last year, probably within the last three months.

    16. Re:Well... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      And how many conspiracy theories about US government blowing up buildings can you find?

    17. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to silence an opponent you don't use a poison that takes 23 days(!) for your target to die. Organisations that want someone silenced have always used near instant stuff. Choosing a death bed of 23 days guarantees just one thing, publicity...

      The one who did this is very probably Russian so the source is not that strange.

      Some options:
      A) It was suicide (the killer was Russian)
      B) It was committed by Anti-Putin groups in London to blame Putin (the killers were Russian)
      C) It was done by the Russian mafia, they hate Putin as well (the killers were Russian)
      D) It was done by some rogue Russian group, not commanded by Putin (the killers were Russian)
      E) It was done by the FSB on Putin's orders (the killers were Russian)

      Knowing the source doesn't get you much closer to whoever did it.

    18. Re:Well... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the difference is those conspiracy theories are mostly false, so the US government doesn't worry too much about the quacks spreading them around. If they were true, you'd imagine the government might get a bit more ruffled about it.

      The fact that this guy was killed indicates pretty strongly to me that he was correct and truthful about the Russian government, and that they silenced him permanently, as they seem to have been doing with many critics recently.

    19. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but let's geek out and run some numbers anyway. Let's say some Polonium got stolen in 1996. How many 138 day periods occur in ten years? I get about 25.724... let's just say 25.

      To have one lethal dose of Polonium left from that batch, you would need to have stolen 2^25 lethal doses in 1996. In this case, a lethal does would be about a milligram. 2^25 / 1000 is about 33554 grams.

      Googling up an article on the case, I'm seeing an estimated monthly Polonium production rate of... 8 grams per month. So no, I don't think anyone managed to sneak 300+ years worth of Polonium production out of Russia. (same article also says there are only 30-40 reactors capable of producing the stuff, so even if that 8 grams figure is per reactor, that's more than 7 years of the *worldwide* output!)

    20. Re:Well... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      The only logical thing I can think of is a rouge person

      What do you have against native American indians? :)

    21. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they'd kill him and make people take seriously a book which otherwise nobody would've taken notice of? The whole Putin-did-it thing doesn't make any sense.

      If he had had any real secrets to kill for they'd have killed him instantly. Otherwise they wouldn't have killed him at all.

    22. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Berozovsky sacrificed his shabbos goy (Litvinenko) in his struggle with Putin :)

  10. Bad for nuclear energy by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *note* I feel sorry for the families for their loss, this post is not ment to sound as thouhg I mean otherwise.

    This is a terrible event for nuclear energy. Directly connecting murder to radiation poisoning to only-in-nuclear-plants-production is devistating for public opinion. It won't matter that radiation generated by polonium can't even pentrate paper, let alone paper; that it is lethal (if ingested or inhaled) is what will stick in people's mind. Worse yet, news reports other people unrelated to the victims showing signs of minor levels; one analyst called it the 'equivalent of a dirty bomb' which is ludicrous but it'll still going to stick in the public's mind just as we really need to start developing new nuclear plants and technology.

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative
      It won't matter that radiation generated by polonium can't even pentrate paper, let alone paper; that it is lethal (if ingested or inhaled) is what will stick in people's mind.

      What's worse is that coal contains traces of natural polonium. Burning coal releases more radioisotopes into the atmosphere than the equivalent energy production by a decently-run (i.e. no serious accidents) nuke power station.

      -b.

    2. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes, hopefully people will realize that this is a completely different problem than the reactors though, and it's a political attack, not a technological one. As long as we have politicians (what's suspected right now) willing to harm people with their resources, I'm not sure taking away reactors will help much. It would harm our societies a lot though.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing good in nuclear energy.

    4. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess that means the coal, oil and gas industry could benefit from this as well, seeing that they provide most of the electricity not generated in nuclear power plants.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      The money that goes into nuclear power plants doesn't go into the coffers of Big Oil. It also doesn't go into the coffers of Big Coal. That's a pretty good thing.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    6. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Uhh, why do we really need to start developing new nuclear power plants?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      Well, for one, the sooner we get Generation IV plants developed, the sooner we have a good method of generating hydrogen that isn't tied to coal or oil. New power plant take years to build and get up to max efficiency, we need to start building today for our energy needs tomorrow. While we've got supplies of coal and natural gas, we're still a net importer of energy.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    8. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by dangitman · · Score: 0

      Seeing as new nuclear plants take so long to build, then shouldn't the priority be on energy sources which can make a difference more immediately, like wind and solar? These can also generate hydrogen. We can also cut consumption, which is by far the easiest way to manage our energy demands. Everybody using just a little less energy would save as much power as building many nuclear plants would create.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by njh · · Score: 1

      Instead going into the coffers of Big Uranium.

    10. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      I'm not so confident in mankind's ability to safely store nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years (note: nobody has figured out how to do that yet, all storage facilities are for "interim" storage). There will be major problems when a world war comes around or our civilization collapses and everybody forgets about that nuclear waste along with everything else. It happened many times in our past, there's no reason it can't happen again.

      Not that it's likely to ever affect us (apart from Chernobyl-like incidents) but heck, we know relatively little about what happened only 2000 years ago and keep finding buildings and cities by pure chance only. If anything our records are more ephemeral than ever.

    11. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by rossifer · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Seeing as new nuclear plants take so long to build, then shouldn't the priority be on energy sources which can make a difference more immediately, like wind and solar?
      The only reason nuke plants take so long to build is NIMBY attitude. Wind and solar are no panacea. Wind plants are only economical in a few locations in the US, most of which already have wind generators running. Solar takes an enormous initial investment and has it's own problems given how remote the most economical locations are.

      We can also cut consumption, which is by far the easiest way to manage our energy demands.
      Easy, huh? Ever tried to change an industrial culture to consume less power? When gas prices rose dramatically this past year, people drove less, but we didn't do anything else less. If anything, overall consumption went up. Changing people's behaviors is infinitely harder than simply building twenty new nuclear plants, as long as there is political willpower is behind it (i.e. exemption from frivolous lawsuits).

      Nuclear power is where this country's future is. Lots of nuclear power. If we don't decide to do that, there won't be nearly as much of a future. Maybe you think that's okay. I haven't made up my mind on that subject yet.

      Regards,
      Ross
    12. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      Actually, Yucca mountain was designed just for that kind of purpose. Set deep inside the longest dormant mountain in the US in an area specifically chosen because it's geologic composition prevents any leaking into ground water, we're digging out a massive storage space to store nuclear waste in ultra-hardened corrosive and leak resistant containers. The Yucca mountain site is designed to use robotic placement of the drums to minimize any need for people to enter it as well as maximize the storeage. As a final precaution, the creation of long-lasting, language-independentwarnings are being used throughout the site to ensure any future intelligences, aware of nuclear waste or not, will understand that this is a place to avoid.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    13. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 0

      Wind and Solar are nice, but they take up so much space. Nuclear power is so much more space efficient. One could argue that a distributed energy system (as in everyone generates there own power via solar homes, etc.) but a centralized system is just so much easier to get electricity to the most people. Not everyone wants to set up and maintain solar panels and windmills.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    14. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by pafrusurewa · · Score: 1

      Yucca Mountain isn't operational and won't be for another ten years. Its safety is dependent on a number of assumptions that are impossible to predict like environmental changes and earthquakes (yes, not very probable, but you just _cannot know_ what will happen in 10,000 years; what if somebody decides to build a dam there in 10,000 years and flood the site? Impossible, you say? Entire ancient cities have been flooded, inadvertently or not, without checking what lies underneath, most recently in Turkey).

      Regarding signs: every single sign relies on our cultural background. There are no universal signs, not even for concepts like life, death or danger. There are many contemporary 'universal' pictograms that you probably don't understand, simply because of cultural differences. And that's just within our current civilization.

      Don't kid yourself. All it does is postpone problems, not solve them.

    15. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      A Dam? In the Nevada (Nuclear) Test Site of the Nevada desert in which Yucca Mountain is situated? The volcanic tuff of which the mountain is built out of isn't going away unless the mountain goes away; volcanic tuff is slightly permiable to water and even if the unlikely happens and a huge earthquake cracks open the mountain storeage facility, the tuff is would stop the waste seepage well before it reaches the water table, 300m below; even if the climate gets much wetter. Wet enough for a dam. In the desert.

      Sure, it's true that signs are still going to be tied to culture, but we can make them as readable as possible. I can't read Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but I can tell when a bunch of people are lying down in unnatural positions that they are dead. Then again, if they aren't advanced enough to learn to interpret the signs, they probably aren't advanced enough to get through the concrete and steel barriers we're building into the storage facility.

      I fail to see how it merely postpones the problem. The idea is to store the waste until it is no longer dangerous, not stop the creation of nuclear waste. If you want to talk about dealing the waste in another way, we can greatly cut down on the production of the waste via reclaimation of uranium and other materials from spent nuclear fuel. Sure, it doesn't remove all the waste, but 95% of the waste can be reused for fuel.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    16. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The only reason nuke plants take so long to build is NIMBY attitude.

      No, it isn't they take a long time to design, plan and build.

      Easy, huh? Ever tried to change an industrial culture to consume less power? When gas prices rose dramatically this past year, people drove less, but we didn't do anything else less. If anything, overall consumption went up. Changing people's behaviors is infinitely harder than simply building twenty new nuclear plants,

      I think you'd be surprised, if there was actually a serious attempt at this. Look how quickly attitudes towards race and women in the workplace changed, for example. Look at how quickly people became scared of terrorism and were willing to pass laws based on the fearmongering. If people in power treated the issue with a fraction of the urgency they did with terrorism, cultural change could come quite quickly.

      Nuclear power is where this country's future is. Lots of nuclear power. If we don't decide to do that, there won't be nearly as much of a future.

      Evidence?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    17. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by dangitman · · Score: 1

      One could argue that a distributed energy system (as in everyone generates there own power via solar homes, etc.) but a centralized system is just so much easier to get electricity to the most people.

      This is the crux of the issue for me. Nuclear, while it has good points, just perpetuates the centralized "grid" mentality. We need to move beyond this. Power transmission over long distances is inefficient. We don't have large-scale storage capabilities yet, and distributed power adds redundancy, in case of emergencies.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    18. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by orzetto · · Score: 1
      Burning coal releases more radioisotopes into the atmosphere than the equivalent energy production by a decently-run (i.e. no serious accidents) nuke power station.

      This misconception keeps appearing again and again and again. Even if burning coal releases radioactive isotopes, this is irrelevant as these are well spread in the atmosphere. Radiation is one of those problems that, if spread well enough, is no problem anymore, as there is a threshold under which humans do not suffer any significant effects from radiation.

      The problem with nuke waste is that it is concentrated and therefore harmful.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    19. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Mihai+Cartoaje · · Score: 1
      It won't matter that radiation generated by polonium can't even pentrate paper, let alone paper; [...]
      If I remember correctly, in the famous experiment, Rutherford was surprised that alpha particles were bouncing off gold.
    20. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by Mihai+Cartoaje · · Score: 1
      If I remember correctly, in the famous experiment, Rutherford was surprised that alpha particles were bouncing off gold.
      I meant that some alpha particles were bouncing off gold.
    21. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by rossifer · · Score: 1
      No, it isn't they take a long time to design, plan and build.
      You're quite simply misinformed.

      There are turnkey nuclear reactor designs that can be built on mass-production lines, shipped to their installation site and dropped into place within a month. That's a faster deployment time than a natural gas turbine plant (currently the fastest type of fossil fuel generator to install). All that's required (as I said before) is the elimination of frivolous lawsuits to let the market appear and to allow these business plans to move forward.

      Evidence?
      What? You sound an awful lot like an ID proponent right there. That nuclear is not only good but very good is a position on an issue, not a conclusion.

      But if you'd like to understand my logic: after serious consideration, no other proposal has any credible assertions to make. Wind is already close to maximum extraction in the US. Large scale solar is so expensive to install, it doesn't pay back the investment. Ever. Future solar tech will help make solar more practical in the small scale, but the non-fossil fuel story with the fewest problems that can actually replace fossil fuels is nuclear.

      Assuming a 500% increase in power production, existing "used once" nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused for another 100 years. Reprocessing isn't without cost, but it doesn't require any more mineral extraction, supplies of "used once" fuel are already located close to existing industrial centers, the reprocessing equipment is markedly friendlier to the environment than new mining. Basically, we can make gold from a slurry of crap that we're currently not allowed to touch under laws written by fearful legislators in the 70's and 80's.

      Wikipedia is actually a great resource for learning if you'd like to read up on recent (last 15 years or so) developments in nuclear reactor design or fuel reprocessing. But then again, I also just recommend that more people get back into reading. Reading anything. The world just opens up when you develop a habit of broad and occasionally deep reading.

      Regards,
      Ross
    22. Re:Bad for nuclear energy by dangitman · · Score: 1

      There are turnkey nuclear reactor designs that can be built on mass-production lines, shipped to their installation site and dropped into place within a month.

      Yeah right. Planning permits take longer to complete than that. And what about safety checks? Are you seriously suggesting that a complex nuclear power plant can just be set up in a month? And what about planning and building the waste disposal facilities? There aren't any long-term disposal facilities in existence today.

      All that's required (as I said before) is the elimination of frivolous lawsuits to let the market appear and to allow these business plans to move forward.

      What do you mean by "frivilous" lawsuits?

      What? You sound an awful lot like an ID proponent right there.

      Huh? Where did I mention ID?

      That nuclear is not only good but very good is a position on an issue, not a conclusion.

      But that's not what you said. You said that nuclear power was the only way to have a future. A pretty extreme position. There are many other alternatives, if society wishes to explore them.

      after serious consideration, no other proposal has any credible assertions to make. Wind is already close to maximum extraction in the US. Large scale solar is so expensive to install, it doesn't pay back the investment.

      Even if we were to believe your statements, which are erroneous - why do you conveniently ignore consuming less energy? There is no way we need to use as much energy as we currently do. So, why do you omit that option from your argument, seeing as it is so easy to do, compared to increasing energy generation?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  11. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    The Slashdot FAQ says the politics section is for stories related to US Government politics. This story has no political connection at all, US or otherwise.

    Relations between the West and Russia (though weakened, it's still got 50% or so of the world's nukes!) are definitely an appropriate story for "Politics". If there's no section for non-US politics, perhaps the editors should start one. This may have been a predominately US site at one time, but it is no longer, and politics of other countries are fair game IMHO.

    -b.

  12. The thing is... by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter whether or not Russia was directly involved now. They NOW have a DIRECT link to Russia - there is a solid connection. Whether or not it was Russia's central government that caused it now doesn't matter, the thought now exists solidly.

  13. My theory of what's going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is pretty obviously a KGB-style hit. It's too complex to be otherwise.

    But it's so elegant. My guess is they poisoned him on multiple occasions. They probably had no good way to poison just him, and didn't want an international bloodbath on their hands. So they poison him and everyone around them multiple times, with a poison that doesn't break down and stays in the body for weeks or months (polonium-210 fits this bill perfectly.) The other people they poison don't get enough of a dose to show symptoms, but after a while, their target has a lethal amount in his blood stream, and there's not much anyone can do.

    It's beautiful. Nobody other than state-sponsored assassins would have the resources (polonium 210 is not exactly easy to come by,) knowledge (it's not exactly easy to deliver either) or reach to pull something like this off. I'm starting to think they wanted to get caught too, just to prove to any critics of Russia that they are not safe anywhere.

    This hit was designed to send one message to anyone who might think otherwise: don't fuck with Russia.

    1. Re:My theory of what's going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I disagree that he was poisoned on multiple occasions. I suspect that that was the reason for using the polonium. A particle the size of a grain of sand would have been enough to kill here. Ans easy enough to drop in the food of an unwitting suspect. As another poster mentioned, this was pretty sloppy and it looks like the mafia bribed someone in a nuke plant to obtain the polonium.

    2. Re:My theory of what's going on here by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But it's so elegant."

      The murder makes headlines the world over before the guy even actually dies, and you call this "elegant?" Elegant compared to what, the average GTA game? More elegant than dropping a piano on his head? WTF?

      You don't get away with murder either with such an exoctic and obvious poison, nor nor by murdering others around him in exactly the same, easily-identifiable way, giving investigators yet more evidence to work with. Elegant would have been some chemical substance that has all the earmarks of heart disease or some other common killer.

      My God, if this is what passes for "elegant" in the field of murder these days, no wonder prisons are overflowing with captured criminals.

      "It's beautiful. Nobody other than state-sponsored assassins would have the resources"

      EXACTLY! Narrows that list of suspects right down, doesn't it? If it weren't for the fact that nuclear security in Russia is a joke, if the Russian government actually did this, they'd have a better chance of deflecting blame and avoiding suspicion if they just sent a MiG over his house to drop a bomb down his chimney!

      If this is a state-sponsored political assassination, this is the worst one evar. Tin-plated generalissimos in banana republics do a better job of disappearing enemies. It is far, far more likely that this was done by somebody with the mentality of a 12 year old in an effort to blame the Russian government for this. Heck, I'd believe that this was done by those who believe themselves to be friends of the Russian government, because then the rationale of the motive would be as stupid as the actual murder.

    3. Re:My theory of what's going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elegant is slit wrists and some aspirin in the forest.

  14. Could Putin ever be so stupid? by EzraSj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before people start saying this is obvious proof of Putin's guilt, stop and think about it. Why would anyone EVER use polonium to kill someone? Radioactive substances are probably the one of the most controlled substances in the world, with only a relatively small number of places they can even be produced. I can think of fewer weapons that would leave such an obvious trail.

    If someone wanted only to kill this Litivinenko to silence him, or for revenge, or whatever, there are a million easier and more convert ways to do it. Poisons that are just as effective and less traceable, bullets, hell even a car bomb would have been better. The fact that someone went to all the trouble of using polonium to do the deed makes this either a well funded and stupid assassin, or a well funded assassin whose true ends are much more complicated than simply killing a retired KGB man.

    --
    Meta, Meta, Meta
    1. Re:Could Putin ever be so stupid? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they WANTED to get caught. Litvinenko was a critic of Russia who had fled because he didn't want to "disappear." There are others like him. The best way to get them to shut up is to kill one where he thinks he is safe, and let everyone figure out exactly how you did it. The whole incident will get blamed on a mid-level military officer, but the message it sent is clear.

    2. Re:Could Putin ever be so stupid? by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A low dose of an alpha emitter would be a perfect untracable poison. There would be no acute radiation posioning systoms - it would just screw up his bone marrow and kill him via infection. It would be VERY hard to detect the polonium. It is possible they screwed up the dosage.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    3. Re:Could Putin ever be so stupid? by EzraSj · · Score: 1

      I guarantee you that all the ex-KGB would have heard about Litivinenko's murder whether it was sensational or not. They are ex-spies, after all, and they probably worry about this stuff often enough to keep it on their radar. Why would this hypothetical assassin need to involve the international media in a spectacular murder and give Russia a black eye in the process?

      --
      Meta, Meta, Meta
    4. Re:Could Putin ever be so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here's an interesting take on 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?
      ... and from the The Nuking of Alexander Litvinenko:

      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.


      Do you see similarities between the Iraq war and and Litvinenko's case coverage?
    5. Re:Could Putin ever be so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An astute analysis, indeed. Having Litvinenko die so publicly hardly benefits Putin, even if Putin did order him to be eliminated. A dosage mistake, however, is quite plausible, especially if the person administering the poison was ignorant about the substance being employed.

  15. It doesn't much matter.... by Marnhinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone that spent several years recently (2001 - 2004) in Russia, the location of the reactor doesn't much matter. The government in Moscow is just as corrupt as anywhere else (we bribed low level officials all the time for registration [simply put - people aren't paid enough and often turn to outside sources of income]).

    I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy. The FSB, underfunded and undermanned as they are, is still very professional. They (the FSB) would have known that the radioactive elements would be traced. Personally, I'd bet this was done by some elements of government that are mafia (very common and they can afford to be sloppy since they are much harder to track). The dead guy had a long history of making enemies...

    --
    There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
    1. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      The dead guy had a long history of making enemies...

      That would make an excellent sig.
      Sounds like a Clint Eastwood line from 'Forgiven'.

    2. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy. The FSB, underfunded and undermanned as they are, is still very professional. They (the FSB) would have known that the radioactive elements would be traced. Personally, I'd bet this was done by some elements of government that are mafia (very common and they can afford to be sloppy since they are much harder to track). The dead guy had a long history of making enemies...

      Ever think they didn't care if it was going to be traced to them? Perhaps the murder of Anna Politkovskaya did not send the message loudly enough that they were trying to get out, It doesn't matter where in the world you hide, you will be killed and it will be painful.

      Even with this traced back to Russia, Putin has enough plausible deniability to fend off any criticism from the west at this point. The message however is prettty clear if you've been following who has been shot or posioned in the Russian media lately.

    3. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by rednip · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy.
      You might have said the same thing about Nixon. Corruption and crime are nothing new in politics, and those that hold office will continue to prove that they are simply human. Sure the KGB (or whatever they are calling it these days) are 'smarter' than 'that' as a group, but it's likely that whoever is doing 'these dirty deeds' doesn't report though the normal chain of command, nor are these plans well vetted with the experts in the community. I believe that it is most likely that they thought that a quick onset of cancer is a lot less likely to make the evening news. Chances are that they didn't anticipate the number or the sensitivity of radiation detectors, nor the astute analysis of the medical staff. I guess that is what happens when you dust off 30 year old assignation plans from the KGB archive.
      The dead guy had a long history of making enemies...
      If this was the first one of Putin's critics to meet a unfortunate end, you might have a point. In fact the first 'official' response (from state controlled media) suggested that he may have committed suicide. Sorta like the proverbial mod boss claim that his dead colleague in the room simply 'fell' on his knife 27 times. To me it looks like it now the Russian voters time to clean house, that is of course if Putin doesn't stop them.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    4. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1
      Ever think they didn't care if it was going to be traced to them? Perhaps the murder of Anna Politkovskaya did not send the message loudly enough that they were trying to get out,

      And what message is that? don't become an outspoken conspiracist who has fallen into obscurity?

    5. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm Russian.

      You know what, about 95% of people in Russia do NOT care about Politovskaya and Litvinenko. Most of reactions in Russian forums and blogs were 'Oh? What?'. Politkovskaya had almost ZERO influence on Russian politics because she supported Chechen militants back in 90s and she is _always_ against the government (she's a nutcase). Few more years and she would slide into oblivion.

      Actually, you might say that Politovskaya became popular after her death.

      BTW, nobody believes that FSB has killed Litvinenko. They are not that sloppy.

    6. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy.

      You're not thinking like the intelligence community.

      If you witness a hit and your first instinct it to say "the way this hit was done, it clearly isn't [insert intelligence operative X here]," then the first perpetrator you should suspect is [intelligence operative X]. In fact, that's so well known, you probably shouldn't much suspect intelligence operative X, as you should suspect someone who wanted to frame intelligence operative X by making the hit look so clearly like it couldn't have been them that everyone in the intelligence community will suspect it must have been them. Especially if X had a motive.

      Then again, if everyone thinks it's so clearly not X that it must have been X that they then conclude it must not have been X, then again it probably was X.

      In conclusion, it's not easy to draw conclusions regarding the actions of the intelligence community. You certainly can't make any assumptions based upon obvious evidence, as if the evidence is obvious, than it's just as likely the intention of said evidence is obfuscation of the truth as it is that the evidence is indicative of the truth. Of course, the same goes for most non-obvious evidence.

      What would be good evidence that Putin was behind this? If strong evidence comes out linking the crime to some faction within the Russian government whom Putin (either knowingly or, more likely, with entirely oblique motives) wants to depose ends up pinned with the blame, and Putin than purges that faction "for justice," and "to appease the international community," then you can figure probably, (but it will remain unproven), that Putin was behind it from the beginning.

      With an X-KGB operative as the near dictatorial head of the Russian state, you can figure that the blame being pinned squarely upon another eventually, pending clever investigation, is one of the (many) necessary elements for knowing it was actually Putin. If the evidence led convincingly to Putin, that would be one of the few ways of knowing it wasn't him. As a head of state, he doesn't want the publicity of that in the common mind, regardless of what kind of reverse psychology it may inflict upon the intelligence community. If Putin wanted to assassinate someone, the evidence trail might drive by The Kremlin, buy it would not end at his door. If it did, then you actually know someone else did it.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    7. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1
      Uh, Putin will be out of office in 2008 anyway. He's only allowed to serve two terms.

      What's interesting is that nobody ever heard of Politkovskaya or Litvinenko before they died. Litvinenko wrote a book claiming that both 9/11 and the bombings in Russia had been orchestrated by the FSB. Nobody took him seriously and if it hadn't been for the fact that he has been poisoned with an obscure radioactive element, nobody here would have ever heard of him. Also, the fact that his death was rather drawn out has contributed immensely to the media frenzy. As someone who doesn't know too much about how secret services operate, I can't help but think, couldn't they just have made it look like a heart attack? A car accident?

      If you ask the simple question, who stands to gain from all this, it's definitely not Putin. He was already incredibly embarassed by the Politkovskaya murder - which interestingly coincided with his visit to Europe, and he was greeted with shouts of "Murderer, Murderer!" everywhere he went.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    8. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? A bit of constitution changing, that I am sure he can arrange and what do you know a third term is possible.

    9. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by baffled · · Score: 1

      I don't think any higher up (in organized government) would be dumb enough to order a hit this sloppy. Radioactive poisoning is a sloppy death for a nuclear plant operator. If someone simply wanted him dead, he would've been shot. That being said, seems either Putin or one of his cronies wanted to send a message, or an enemy of Putin wanted to make it appear as such. I highly doubt someone found radiological contamination to be the most convenient method of murder.
    10. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by animefanlee · · Score: 1

      FSB=renamed KGB same old group with a new name putin kgb old gaurd

    11. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by BigFootApe · · Score: 1
      I can't help but think, couldn't they just have made it look like a heart attack?

      No problem. Gaseous Prussic acid or digitalis both work for this.
    12. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by tftp · · Score: 1

      He was asked to do that on many occasions, and he replied that it would be bad for the country, and he will leave the office as scheduled.

    13. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by perbu · · Score: 1

      Of course she had zero influence - in Russia. Russia isn't exactly a real democracy and people that criticize the government are not given much attention by the state-controlled media.

      And yes, she was portrayed as a nutcase - by the same media. She still recieved a rather substantial amount of international awards for her work.

      It doesn't really matter what you think about FSB killing or not killing Litvinenko. What matters is that a lot of people believe Putin is willing and capable of instrumenting "wet jobs".

    14. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by hughk · · Score: 1

      Putin may go, but it is unlikely that the Siloviki (interests behind Putin, primarily associated with the security services and military) are going to want to move out of the Kremlin.

      There was that rather famous incident when a bunc of FSB people were caught with RDX inside the cellars of an appartment building in Ryazan and later the RDX seems to have transmuted to sugar during the investigation. Berzovsky's TV channel made much of this and this, along side his wanting to act as an intermediary with Chechnya that led to his downfall. However, the unstable security situation at the time contributed directly to Putin's success at the ballot.

      Yes, the guy's death was very public. It would be impossible to prove a direct connection to the Russian state but this was a murder with a message. These were very popular with the Soviet security servivees too (remember Trotsky).

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    15. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      She had zero influence even when Beresovsky was the owner of a major central TV-channel.

      And these international awards are often thought of as a payment for her loyalty to her western employers (and this is not a metaphor, her organization openly received CIA funding during 90-s).

      Back in 1999 when there was a full-scale war in Chechen republic, she said during a talk-show that Russia should scale-down its army and ask US for support (and US/UK was known to support Chechen militants at least morally).

    16. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BTW, nobody believes that FSB has killed Litvinenko. They are not that sloppy.

      Sure, they are not that sloppy. Had they killed the guy, they could have made everybody else believe that they were not involved... Oh, wait!
    17. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      I'm Russian.

      You know what, about 95% of people in Russia do NOT care about Politovskaya and Litvinenko.
      Indeed, because we are too busy rebuilding our empire-for-the-sake-of-empire and childishly waving the middle finger at the US (as if they care) pretending to be a superpower. A sad state of affairs, I'd say.

      That said, it's certainly more than 5% who cared. If you count the entire new wave of opposition, liberal democrat, national democrat, and socialist/communist - all of whom cared because it was a message essentially directed at then - it's certainly more than 5%.

      Most of reactions in Russian forums and blogs were 'Oh? What?'
      Now that's a lie. People who have access to the Internet in Russia are on average more politicized, so there was a much more noticeable reaction online. It certainly wasn't "oh? what?" from the the blogs I've read. It was mostly either expression of sorrow and regret from the opposition camp (excepting far left and far right), or gloating delight from the overwhelmingly pro-Putin "national-patriot" camp.

      BTW, nobody believes that FSB has killed Litvinenko. They are not that sloppy.
      There are perfectly good reasons for why the assassination was done the way it was done, and they were rehashed many times already, here on Slashdot and elsewhere. How is it sloppiness?

      On a side note, "nobody" is certainly not correct. A cursory reading of the Russian LJs will quickly prove otherwise.

    18. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Raenex · · Score: 1
      BTW, nobody believes that FSB has killed Litvinenko. They are not that sloppy.

      It's quite possible that the Russian government wanted the assassination to be traceable to Russia. Then they can officially deny involvement (because the polonium could have been obtained on the black market), and still leave people suspicious. It sends a chilling message to other high profile speakers that would speak out against the Russian government.

      Then again, it could have been a false flag attack, or a private hit. The truth is hard to come by.

    19. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you are being so interested in acronyms, go and find what SVR was and how it was related to KGB (it was not). Then go around repeating West media myth of ex-KGB president.

    20. Re:It doesn't much matter.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Russian terror in Chechnya
      - Centralization of power
      - Centralization of media
      - Shutting up opposition/opponents
      - State-backed ethnic hate/racism

      These were some topics we heard about from Politkovskaya. She was heard and was not a nutcase. She opened our eyes.

      I am not Russian.

  16. Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by qwertyman66 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure that I'm not the only person here from the UK who is getting sick or the way that the mass media is hyping up this. Yes the poor guy was killed with something that is radioactive. So what? It emits alpha radiation. The radiation can't penetrate the skin. If you go by what the papers are saying you would get the impression this is on the same level as a nuclear bomb. It is a sad reflection on how our society has gone that the media are hyping this up to unbelievable levels, and people are swallowing it. Simply because something radioactive was used. From what I have heard, the radiation is secondary here. The metal is toxic if you ingest it anyway. So why play up the radiation? Because people don't understand it. I hate the mass media, they play to peoples' fears and always report on what they think will get the biggest reaction. If they could just cut it out I might be tempted to actually buy a newspaper more often.

    1. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by cliffski · · Score: 1

      agreed 100%. Im sick of this story. Foreign government secret services kills man. film at 10. Seriously why is it a big deal (apart from the fact that a mans been killed, which is obviously pretty bad for his family)? do we really think our secret service doesnt try similar stunts? We even tried to bump off ghadaffi for crying out loud, and the US govt has made more attempts to wipe out castro than I've had hot meals, and thats foreign LEADERS, not just a critic of your government.

      What amazes me is that *anyone* used radiation to bump someone off. Thats just stupid, its instantly suspicious and points to who did it. Unless thats what they wanted (to warn others off) I cant see why they would do this. Far subtler to just run the guy over, or shoot him.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    2. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Foreign government secret services kills man. film at 10. Seriously why is it a big deal"

      He was a British citizen, or at least was granted asylum.

      I know that Bush has played into the whole Gen-X apathy towards politics and history, but you have to understand that poisoning another country's citizen is called "an act of war". Really.

    3. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that I'm not the only person here from the UK who is getting sick or the way that the mass media is hyping up this. Yes the poor guy was killed with something that is radioactive. So what? It emits alpha radiation.

      I don't think the hype is because of radiation - but rather because this reads like something out of a spy novel - and unearths cold war tensions. Of course it's a big deal when someone gets assasinated in such a public way. It would have been big news, even it was a conventional poison.

      So why play up the radiation? Because people don't understand it. I hate the mass media, they play to peoples' fears and always report on what they think will get the biggest reaction. If they could just cut it out I might be tempted to actually buy a newspaper more often.

      Funny. The people who have been hyping the radiation on this slashdot thread have been people like you, complaining about the hyping of radiation, and linking it to nuclear power, etc.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Far subtler to just run the guy over, or shoot him.

      Perhaps subtlety was not what they were after, but rather to send a loud message?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by mvdwege · · Score: 1
      [Alpha] radiation can't penetrate the skin.

      And I am getting sick and tired of this ignorant bullshit.

      Yes, alpha particales are massive enough to get stopped by the first mm of the epidermis, if the radiation source is outside your body. The problem is that an ingested alpha emitter will emit particles that get stopped by the first few mm of sensitive tissue, like the inside cells of the colon. The havoc that is wreaked when a high energy alpha particles are stopped by human cells is lethal.

      There is rather a difference between alpha particles transmitting their energy to dead matter (outer skin), and living, dividing cells inside the body.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    6. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by OfNoAccount · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason they're playing up the radioactivity is because it's by far the most likely cause of death. A lethal radiation dose can be obtained through ingesting as little as 50 nanograms of Po210 - 50ng is a spectacularly small amount.

      Compare that to the batrachotoxin found in the Golden Poison Dart Frog, something which is regarded as highly toxic, which has a lethal dose of around 40 micrograms.

      In other words ere talking nearly a thousand times less material required to kill someone with Po210, than a serious neurotoxin...

      I agree that there's too much news coverage though, but then most news stories in the past few years have aimed to scare the population.

      As for who did the deed? Unlikely to be the FSB, particularly not if the Po210 traced back to Russia ;)

    7. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by @madeus · · Score: 1

      It's not 'ignorant bullshit', the previous poster made a factual statement and was correct.

    8. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you missed the part about the US trying to kill Castro, who was not merely a foreign citizen but a foreign national leader?

    9. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And the sun is a star. What does that have to do with the very real poisoning of a British citizen? The same as the top poster and yours; Absolutely nothing. If polonium is out of the body, the he would have lived. So why did he die? Because it was in the body.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by @madeus · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with the very real poisoning of a British citizen?

      I appreciate that not paying any real attention to events outside the US and wading in half cocked are common national pastimes, but even so, if you (and the previous poster) knew anything about the story then the point the parent was making might not have gone right over your head as it has done.

      The media in the UK are all but making out everyone is at risk from radiation poisoning as a result of contamination, with references to the not less than three aircraft, and various hotels and restaurants visited by the victim that are showing traces of contamination. Obviously, the public is not at any risk from that sort of contamination (at least, no more than they are just living in some of the more radioactive cities in the UK). That's why it's relevant that it's not liable to harmful unless ingested.

      As far as all responsible news sources are currently reporting, no associates of Mr Litvinenko have actually 'fallen ill' even though a number of people are also contaminated. Again, explicit relevancy there (they are not liable to actually become ill just as a result of hanging around near Mr Litvinenko - even though, as with his former partner, they are technically now contaminated with Polonium-210).

    11. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed the part about the US trying to kill Castro, who was not merely a foreign citizen but a foreign national leader?

      Maybe Cuba decided that declaring all-out war on the US was a bad idea?

    12. Re:Gah! Not more on the Polonium! by Raenex · · Score: 1
      As for who did the deed? Unlikely to be the FSB, particularly not if the Po210 traced back to Russia ;)

      Unless they wanted plausible deniability while sending a chilling message at the same time. In the world of political intrigue and assassinations, it's hard to say.

  17. Italian Contact Safe by JymmyZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks as though the Italian contact with Litvinenko is safe and isn't suffering any radiation sickness, though he was admitted to the hospital with concerns of massive radiation poisoning. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,19 62535,00.html

    --
    The unexamined life is not worth living
  18. More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...the first cold war never ended.

    The neocons prematurely declared victory when the soviets imploded from within with their socialist disaster.

    Even more salient is the fact that many of these tribal theocrats that we are fighting in the GWOT are those that our US tax dollars created and propped up ourselves are a counterbalance to the godless commies.

    It seems a perfectly valid argument that we never won the cold war, we are still fighting it and paying for it, and war with Eurasia has merely been replaced with a war on East Asia.

    1. Re:More like... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The neocons prematurely declared victory when the soviets imploded from within with their socialist disaster.

      Nah, the Cold War "victory" was of the same type as the "victory" over Germany after WW 1. The Allies beat the Germans, but they left an impoverished, dispirited people who were educated and in possession of fairly advanced technology. The time was ripe for a charismatic leader to come in with promises of wealth and victory and rebuild their war machine. Same goes for Russia ca. 2006.

      -b.

    2. Re:More like... by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Neocons leaving a defeated country alone and helpless to rot and fester, becoming a new totalitarian state? I can't imagine that happening again.

    3. Re:More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attack people on language, based way on victory.

    4. Re:More like... by Catbeller · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Better that, than the ingnorami that Americans are so proudly becoming. I swear, so many apathetic male libertarians who think history is about the military, free markets, WW II and the defeat of communism. South Park Republicans. They have proudly marched to their standard bearer's beat, the ultimate fake educated man, George W. Bush.

      His degree was in... history?

    5. Re:More like... by Dobeln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty decent analogy. Still, the whole "Putin did it because he's bad" line of reasoning can also be analogized to the "Saddam has WMD because he's bad" approach before the Iraq war. Jumping to conclusions in intelligence matters can be hazardous.

    6. Re:More like... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Still, the whole "Putin did it because he's bad" line of reasoning

      I'm not convinced that Putin did it. In fact, we're unlikely to know for certain *who* did it. Ever. The guy made a lot of enemies, and there are also a lot of people who'd be glad to sacrifice one ex-spy to make Putin look like a villain.

      -b.

    7. Re:More like... by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nah, the Cold War "victory" was of the same type as the "victory" over Germany after WW 1. The Allies beat the Germans, but they left an impoverished, dispirited people who were educated and in possession of fairly advanced technology. The time was ripe for a charismatic leader to come in with promises of wealth and victory and rebuild their war machine. Same goes for Russia ca. 2006.

      -b.


      The cold war never ended. The soviet empire coming down was a farce according to KGB agents who defected. Notice that book was published back in 1984.

      Russia is slowly getting back onto her feet economically. She paid off the last of her Paris club debt from the Soviet era under Putin. She helped Bush stumble into the Iraqi war by provinding false intellegence much like America did to Russia to lure them into Afghanistan years ago. The spike in oil prices has helped the Russian economy. So why was Litvinenko killed? Well, he was alleged that al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB (KGB)in Dagestan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

      The US is still fighting the cold war by proxy, even if they don't realize it.

    8. Re:More like... by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Still, the whole "Putin did it because he's bad" line of reasoning

      I'm not convinced that Putin did it. In fact, we're unlikely to know for certain *who* did it. Ever. The guy made a lot of enemies, and there are also a lot of people who'd be glad to sacrifice one ex-spy to make Putin look like a villain.

      -b.

      The guy made a lot of enemies, and there are also a lot of people who'd be glad to sacrifice one ex-spy to make Putin look like a villain.
      That comment is strait from the 'official talking points' from the state supported media. It would seem that the 'anti-Putin' faction seems to be particularly blood thirsty, as they are killing of numerous reporters, and other dissidents. They really need to get that plot to Hollywood as it might make a good thriller. While the tin-hat folk would disagree, I cannot recall one proven historical event where people were 'sacrificed' for a cause in such a way. Sure a few times accidents and random crimes have been 'spun' for political affect (like the Maine in Cuba), but killing off people who agree with you is not a conventional nor logical tactic.

      Hell, the state-corrupted media has even gone as far as suggesting that the former spy killed himself, perhaps with the polonium 210 pack all spies carry.

      The fact is that killing dissidents is old Soviet SOP, the fact that it is making a come back with an old KGB guy at the helm is no real surprise. In my mind the only real question is 'does Putin know or is it being done without his knowledge by those who benefit from his coattails?'. Frankly, I suspect the latter, but only because I don't really want to piss him off, because every one knows what happens to his critics.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    9. Re:More like... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not convinced that Putin did it.


      Which, for the record, isn't exactly a happy thought.

      It's like still being friendly with President Musharraf after Pakistan has been implicated in spreading nuclear technology all over the place; we don't hold him responsible for the actions of the rogue intelligence agencies that control his counry's nuclear technology.

      Still, I don't think this was done around Putin's back. He's a serious hardball player, not some two bit general riding an out of control tiger.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We never step twice into the same river. While it's fairly easy to point out historical similarities the essential difference here lies in demographics. In interwar Germany there was a lot of young men, todays Russia on the over hand is slowly dying out (even more so then the west). Right now the population is decreased by almost 1% p.a. and the rate is rising. Most shockingly there are actually more abortions then births (1.6 million to 1.5 million in 2004) so it's a sort of self inflicted genocide.

      Russia isn't physically capable of trying to compete to become a world power, nor is it on it's way to becoming a European democracy. Right now it's turning into a sort of sultanate, relying on the natural resources present on it's vast territory, to blackmail prodemocratic government in neighboring countries like Ukraine and Georgia and keep themselves in power.

    11. Re:More like... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The fact is that killing dissidents is old Soviet SOP, the fact that it is making a come back with an old KGB guy at the helm is no real surprise.

      It wouldn't *surprise* me if the hit came from Putin, FSB & Co, I'm just saying that it's not certain. The Russians have a long history of doing rather messy murders of their enemies. (Like Oleg Penskovsky who was a GRU double agent for the Americans - when they caught him, after his trial and death sentence they supposedly burned him alive in an incinerator and showed the film of the execution to all new KGB/GRU recruits to encourage loyalty.)

      -b.

    12. Re:More like... by temcat · · Score: 1

      Did you take this info (about burning alive) from a book by Suvorov?

    13. Re:More like... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "cannot recall one proven historical event where people were 'sacrificed' for a cause in such a way"

      It is so common among that Japanese they actually have a title for those they do it to. Kamikaze. Terrorists were sacrificed in a similar manner if you believe the official 911 story and while I am too lazy to open a new tab for Google I am sure you will find dozens of similar incidents.

      The idea that nobody has been sacrificed (voluntarily or otherwise) for a political agenda in the course of history for a political agenda isn't a very strong pillar to rest your opinion on. In fact, all the proven and documented examples one could find of this occurring are just roaches. For each of those you can be certain there are dozens or even hundreds that are classified, hidden, predate accurate records, or otherwise can't be proven to date.

    14. Re:More like... by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What the state-controlled media is suggesting is that 'some unknown persons killed a leading voice of dissent by an exotic poison in an effort to create negative press for a political leader they all oppose'.

      It is so common among that Japanese they actually have a title for those they do it to. Kamikaze. Terrorists were sacrificed in a similar manner if you believe the official 911.. These are not comparative examples, first of all movements sacrifice foot soldiers, or innocents not leaders and primary voices of opposition. Second both of your examples are of the 'we'll kill until you surrender' type, and not an orchestrated media ploy.

      There are some who say that Bush (or the Jews) plotted 9/11, but there are also some who still believe OJ is innocent, that aliens do anal probes, and that a Nigerian will make them rich. P. T. Barnum never did say "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute", but whoever did gave a fair estimation of the availability of gullible people.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    15. Re:More like... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "These are not comparative examples, first of all movements sacrifice foot soldiers, or innocents not leaders and primary voices of opposition."

      Basically I agree with your position that it's very unlikely, but what makes you think a blabber mouth ex-spy and a few jounalists are anything other than foot soldiers? There has been some dodgy stuff happening with their oil industry and billionaires (ie: non foot soldiers) have ended up in prison, not to mention both sides are also in competition with the west for access to the Caspian sea area.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:More like... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1
      However, there is so many anonymously ways to kill someone, I am just wondering why Putin would have chosen this one making sure it would be possible to trace back polonium-210 origin to Russian installations. He should be unsane or there is something else which is not well understood at this point of the story.

      There is the possibility Putin choose this method because he wants all other candidates for the same treatment to be well awared he would not hesitate to eliminate them. However, this is not particularily clever on a political standpoint since it is just crediting the accusations against him and his government. I think he is clever, so, I still think there is something else, but I don't know what, sorry.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    17. Re:More like... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The murder was, as they say, 'for domestic consumption'. If I was a Putin critic, I would have got the mesasge.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    18. Re:More like... by rednip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what makes you think a blabber mouth ex-spy and a few journalists are anything other than foot soldiers?

      Because that is all they have; It's not like Washington is going to stand up for the truth, or for that matter Europe. Hell, we are having enough trouble with Iraq as it is, the last thing we need is them to start supplying them with more Russian anti-tank weapons at a reduced cost and the Europeans are more concerned with heating their homes than a new Russian Plutocracy. Like it or not when people who speak up die, others have a tenancy to keep their mouths shut. Frankly, I gave a pausing thought of continuing this thread, and this is even my 'don't talk about myself account' on this site.

      I would be more open to your (and the Russian state media) accusations of 'wag the dog' assignations, if there was some real historical precedent of media coverage of political killings fully bringing down a corrupt government and placing an opposing leadership in power, but there is none. There is no comparative example of it, and there is no solid opposing leadership to exploit it.

      Everything in this story points to a 30 or 40 year old KGB plot, executed by people who were concern that another shooting would be too 'messy'. Thanks in part to 9/11 and planning for 'dirty bomb' officials and medical staff were prepared to spot and trace nuclear attacks. Add to that our new found access to samples from Russian nuclear plants and old KGB assumptions would be moot. I don't know if Putin was directly involved, but every sign says that it was (at least) done on his behalf.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    19. Re:More like... by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point. In those days there were a lot of rumours and it would have helped the GRU's reputation for such stories to go round. I've tried to substantiate the story about the execution of Penkovsky and cannot find any other source than Suvorov.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    20. Re:More like... by AndyElf · · Score: 1

      > Still, I don't think this was done around Putin's back. He's a serious hardball player,
      > not some two bit general riding an out of control tiger.

      Which may only play in favor of the "not directly involved" story -- considering that Russia is the only country in the world that produces Polonium 210 in industrial quantities, it is way too easy to trace to Russia and a handful of places here, where it can be obtained.

      --

      --AP
    21. Re:More like... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "I would be more open to your (and the Russian state media) accusations of 'wag the dog' assignations,..."

      Slow down cowboy, in the sentance before the one you quoted I said: "Basically I agree with your position that it's very unlikely"

      "Because that is all they have"

      I see your point.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    22. Re:More like... by awol · · Score: 1

      Gimme a freakin' break. This all happened in London. If you wanted someone dead in an un-messy way there are lots of ways that do not even put a trace of blame back on the FSB mothership. Gun toting muggers, home invaders, "drug deal gone wrong", racial attack (he was russian). There are reasons why this might have been FSB, with or without direct executive approval, however it is neither the most likely nor at all likely an explanation. Much more believable is pissed of criminal elements even if it wwas corrupt FSB "tools" that executed the plan.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    23. Re:More like... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      "Don't eat the sushi".

      Fair enough. Consider me warned.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    24. Re:More like... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      In those days there were a lot of rumours and it would have helped the GRU's reputation for such stories to go round. I've tried to substantiate the story about the execution of Penkovsky and cannot find any other source than Suvorov.

      But there were enough other similar stories involving what happened to political criminals that I'd suspect that some of them were actually true. And poisonings of people uncomfortable to the Soviet regime certainly weren't unheard of - there was the Markov case and another defector that was almost killed with radioactive thallium (what they initially suspected Litvinenko was poisoned with).

      -b.

  19. ... And Russia sells all Polonium-210 to US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If I remember correcly Russia produces 8 grams of Polonium-210 monthly and sells it all to US:

    Russia exports 8 grams of polonium-210 monthly, all to the United States. He said there had been no exports to Britain in five years.

    So where did Polonium-210 come from?

    I like propaganda as much as the next guy but it reminds me too much of the hysteria preceding the Iraq war.
  20. Disturbing report? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    according to a disturbing report...

    What's disturbing is that this happened at all. What would really be disturbing would be if the source or vector for this seemed to come from Chechnya or someplace where, rather than Russian politics, it was cultural warfare trotting the stuff out as a weapon. In a wierd sort of way, it's actually comforting that it was out of Russia, aimed at a Russian (however stupidly).

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  21. it's so convenient.... by vleo · · Score: 1

    Ok, so, Putin, former KGB officer, and VERY stupid person it seems, of all substances available to KGB had so conveniently chosen one that is easy to trace exactly to the source, even to a precise reactor in Russia. Now, had this whole thing been planned and done by his political opponents, they would have used some untracable and non-detactable poison, like it was done by the KGB in that past. But because it's APPARENTLY Putin, he used the one that is easy to trace back to him.
    Since it's West/Russia realtions we are talking about there is no need for "innocent until proven guilty" concept, I see...

    --
    Vassili Leonov ...it is the actions that affect us, not the motive...RMS
    1. Re:it's so convenient.... by lawaetf1 · · Score: 1

      Unless it's a double-fake..

      "Putin couldn't be THAT stupid."

      There are layers upon layers, all the way to rotten core that is man's heart.

      --
      CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
    2. Re:it's so convenient.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was related to a non-human core

  22. What do you mean by "we" Euro Ranger? by 0b1knob · · Score: 1

    Russians using their natural gas pipeline for political blackmail? You sound like Ronald Reagan.

  23. Further clarification by technoextreme · · Score: 1
    Not sure exactly what you meant to ask, but here goes.
    Well my question is if it it's possible to be poisoned by another alpha source that is more easily available like the source found in smoke detector or other devices.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:Further clarification by m94mni · · Score: 1

      Smoking is one way:

      "The alpha emitter polonium-210 is suspected of playing a role in lung and bladder cancer related to tobacco smoking."

      And as the article mentions: "The amount of polonium 210 found is of immediate concern as a risk to the man's health, rather than a lower dose that may pose a latent cancer risk"

      So exposer to lesser amounts is still potentially dangerous. When it comes to smoke detectors, the amount must be way too small to pose any danger, plus you don't swallow it, and the radiation won't reach you.

    2. Re:Further clarification by RsG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, well smoke detectors use Americium:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium

      Which is indeed radioactive (and a gamma emitter to boot), but has a longer half life than Polonium (hundreds of years instead of hundreds of days). Remember that decay is a finite process; the longer it takes to finish, the less radiation is emitted per second. So Americium isn't as strong as Polonium.

      Plus, the quantities used in smoke detectors is small - less than a microgram. You'd need an awful lot of smoke detectors to amass a dangerous amount of Americium. That doesn't mean you couldn't kill somebody, but it's a poor choice to slip into food or drink.

      What makes Polonium an attractive poison is the lethal dose. You don't need to slip much into someone's food to kill them. Other alpha emitters aren't as good candidates in this regard. Now, as to why they used a radioactive poison in the first place, I don't know; perhaps they wanted to send a message?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:Further clarification by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Alpha-radiation poisons are one of the very few poisons where even if you identify the poison that was administered, there is nothing you can do. In essence, once you have administered the poison, the guy is dead. Even if he doesn't know it yet. As for why they didn't use good ol' fashioned lead poisoning... I suspect that it is harder to find out who administered polonium as opposed to a couple of slugs to the head.

      This does denote a very sophisticated organization though. Polonium is not easy to obtain, and most people don't think polonium when they want to off someone. As a matter of fact, the method of death often points to the group - everyone's got their favorite methods.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Further clarification by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      the quantities used in smoke detectors is small - less than a microgram. You'd need an awful lot of smoke detectors to amass a dangerous amount of Americium.

      It has been done, by the Radioactive Boy-Scout.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Further clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not quite true.

      Even after a poisoning, you can flush the radioisotopes out of the body by administering a vast excess of isotopically normal element. eg. potassium iodide tablets for flushing out radioactive iodine. All polonium isotopes are radioactive, but it's possible it could be flushed out by lots of, perhaps, calcium.

    6. Re:Further clarification by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      You can try to flush out the poison chemically, with chelation therapy or some such approach. Though you won't get all of it and the tissue damage will already have been done.

    7. Re:Further clarification by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      Why would someone choose Po-210 when they knew what kind of media attention it would garner? If this guy had been shot on UK soil it surely would've been a big deal as well, but would American media (for example) have covered it so closely?

    8. Re:Further clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for why they didn't use good ol' fashioned lead poisoning... I suspect that it is harder to find out who administered polonium as opposed to a couple of slugs to the head.

      oh, lead poisoning !,ah hah! mmm yes i get it, oh that is priceless i must say.

      Polonium is not easy to obtain, and most people don't think polonium when they want to off someone.

      Mmm, yeah so true, I know when I'm looking to 'off' someone I almost always fall back on the ever-reliable egg-beater up the bum.

      As a matter of fact, the method of death often points to the group - everyone's got their favorite methods.

      hahaah, cheesy unreferenced pulp-fictionesque twaddle. Do you talk like that in real life or is it something you save up for special occasions like slashdot posts? you plonker.

    9. Re:Further clarification by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Yes - do not eat the Americium-241 in your smoke detector. Its half life is around 240 years, so it is not nearly as hot as the Po-210 we are talking about, but it's not good for you and might increase your 20 year down the road risk of colon cancer. It's also chemically toxic, about like lead, and the sulfate is pretty easily absorbable.
      Oh, and do not machine a spherical solid with over 60 Kg. mass of Americium 241 either. In those quantities it fissions like Plutonium or uranium. The only reason we don't make Nukes out of it is it takes more than Pu, and so costs a lot more.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  24. Why? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    ``A cold chill just fell on relations between Russia and the West."''

    Why? Why is it so bad the reactor was in Russia? Would it have made any different if it had been somewhere else? If it had been in the UK, would a cold chill have fallen on relations between the UK and the West?

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Why? by Aurisor · · Score: 1

      > Why is it so bad the reactor was in Russia?

      Because now it looks like Putin had one of his critics offed.

      > Would it have made any different if it had been somewhere else?

      Yes. If the polonium came from Russia it's likely that the government did it, because it's difficult for people outside of the government to get access to the reactor.

      > If it had been in the UK, would a cold chill have fallen on relations between the UK and the West?

      Well, UK *is* part of the West. That aside, no, the US and UK have really good relations (and fairly similar stances on these kind of assassinations (for the most part, actions in south america and the middle east aside)). They're likely to accuse Russia of this, and Russia will most likely take great offense. Russo-american relations are already strained over the cold war.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

    2. Re:Why? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``> Why is it so bad the reactor was in Russia?

      Because now it looks like Putin had one of his critics offed.''

      From what I heard, it looked like that already. I don't see how this makes it any more plausible; or, more accurately, I don't see how the polonium _not_ coming from Russia would have convinced anyone that it doesn't have anything to do with Putin.

      ``Well, UK *is* part of the West. That aside, no, the US and UK have really good relations (and fairly similar stances on these kind of assassinations (for the most part, actions in south america and the middle east aside)).''

      Again, I don't see how this is supposed to work. It sounds like you're saying "now that it's been found to come from Russia, we'll blame Russia for it, but if it had been found to come from the UK, we wouldn't have blamed the UK for it, because we _like_ them".

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    3. Re:Why? by Aurisor · · Score: 1

      I agree with your point that it looked like Putin to begin with. I dont think anyone was expecting the polonium to have come from anywhere but Russia. This just confirms our fears and opens the door to a lot of finger-pointing.

      And yeah, as sad as it sounds, that's the way it works. We send Israel billions of dollars of WMDs a year, because we like them. Somebody says that his third cousin's college roommate works with a guy who heard in a bar that Saddam still has WMDs, his country gets invaded and he's sentenced to death.

      Russia whacking guys in western countries ignites cold war tensions. The UK/US whacking guys in western countries is business as usual. Such is the way of the world.

    4. Re:Why? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > If the polonium came from Russia it's likely that the government did it,
      > because it's difficult for people outside of the government to get access
      > to the reactor.

      You might want to read up on the control of radioactive materials in Russia. There probably is nowhere else in the world where it would be easier for criminals to come by such things.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  25. His Contact... by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 1

    According to Reuters...

    "LONDON (Reuters) - Initial tests on an Italian contact of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko show no sign of radiation poisoning, a British hospital said on Saturday.

    Mario Scaramella was admitted to hospital in London when polonium 210, the same radioactive substance that killed Litvinenko, was detected in his body.
    ...
    "He is well. Preliminary tests so far show no evidence of radiation toxicity," a spokesman for London's University College Hospital said of Scaramella. Further tests are due to be carried out over the weekend."

    --
    It's always confirmation bias!
  26. UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by reporter · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Below are two more sources reporting that UK scientists have traced the polonium to a nuclear plant in Russia.

    1. Deadly polonium traced to Russian nuclear plant
    2. Plot Thickens as Spy Poison is Traced to a Nuke Plant in Putin's Russia

    The second source suggests that the isotope composition is the signature that identifies a specific power plant. However, the Atomic Weapons Establishment declined to give the location of the plant.

    I am sticking to my original guess of the culprit: a renegade group in Russia. Various reports have indicated that numerous factions, answering to no one, operate within the Russian government. One of these factions likely committed the crime.

    Putin is just too smart to kill someone in such a blatant way. He would have known that such a gruesome murder would have serious negative consequences.

    1. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin is just too smart to kill someone in such a blatant way. He would have known that such a gruesome murder would have serious negative consequences.

      Such as ?
      Russia has Europe over a barrel (pun intended) with regards to energy reliance. The US isn't going to reignite the Cold War over the death of one spook. China is exceedingly unlikely to be up in arms about whacking dissenters.

      As messages go, this delivers "we can get you anytime, anywhere, any way, so STFU and keep your head down" loud and clear. The desired result, I suspect.

    2. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by modecx · · Score: 1

      What I'm curious to know is how they can claim there is a "signature" that could link this material to anyone, Russian or not, no less than to a particular Russian power station. I'm just an armchair physicist, so could anyone enlighten me?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    3. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``Putin is just too smart to kill someone in such a blatant way.''

      The problem, of course, is that he knows that's what people would think. Do something that benefits you and everybody will suspect you. Do something outrageous that benefits you, and everybody thinks that it has to be someone else.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Informative

      The particular distribution of isotopes. Sure it is mostly Polonium-210, but there are likely to also be small amounts of Polonium-209 and -211 (or perhaps other isotopes, I'm not sure). The ratios of those other isotopes to the total amount of Polonium could indicate where it came from. The distributions will change with time, as the polonium decays. But, if you can also find the decay products, the amounts of those would indicate the original distribution of the polonium isotopes.

      The reason this could pick out one particular reactor is that each reactor is slightly different, and perhaps consistently generate particular distributions of various isotopes of various elements. However, that is just speculation on my part.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    5. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by calidoscope · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 210Po was presumably made by neutron irradiation of 209Bi (209Bi(n,g)210Bi), where the 210Bi beta decays to 210Po. If there is a sufficient number of very high energy neutrons, some of the 210Po could undergo a 210Po(n,2n)209Po reaction and the signature would be traces of 209Po. This would imply a fast reactor used for isotope production - which are rare (IIRC, the last one in the US was that Fast Flux Test Facility which was shut down over 10 years ago).

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    6. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      Putin is just too smart to kill someone in such a blatant way.

      oh really?

      A prominent reporter working on Chechnya was given poisoned tea, then when that didn't work gunned down near her home. The only serious enemy she had was the Russian state.
      The acting president of the Ukraine was poisoned soon after he took power and almost died - the only serious (ie with that kind of access to poisons and to him) enemy he had was the Russian state.
      There are other examples of Russian politians/journalists but I can't be bothered to look them up.

      Seems to me he doesn't much care what the West thinks, as he's decided they'll see sense when he cuts off the gas supplies again. Some sorrowful, restrained words from Mr Blair, and then it's back to business as usual. Even better for Putin, we'll probably never know the truth.

    7. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      What I'm curious to know is how they can claim there is a "signature" that could link this material to anyone,

      Using the ratio of the different isotopes of the Polonium. There is a whole range of isoptopes going from Polonium-180 to Polonium-210. The number indicates the sum of protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus. Since the number of protons remains constant with all atoms of the same element, only the number of neutrons can vary. In the case of Polonium, this ranges from 104 to 136. Depending upon the process used to manufacture the Polonium, these isotopes will be in different ratios. This can be measured using gamma and alpha spectroscopy.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by MonkWB · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he is so smart that he can order the execution of this man and still escape because no one would think he would be so bold and blatant in deserving blame.

    9. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of all, I'm Russian and I live in Russia.

      You see, Litvinenko, Politkovskaya (and his friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky) are not real threats to Putin. They are considered 'political corpses' since about 2002. Most people under no circumstances will support either of them.

      But these guys are token 'democracy fighters' for most Westerns who do not know intricacies of Russian politics. Now ask yourself: why would Putin kill them?

      So it's much more complex than you think.

    10. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dear armchair physicist,

      You have asked a very good question. Suppose you operate an well-funded advanced nuclear laboratory and you know another advanced nuclear lab makes a particular element of interest. It is very easy for your own lab to replicate precisely the same mixture of isotopes that is normally produced by the other lab. This could be done by using the same manufacturing process and raw materials as the other laboratory, or else by isotope separation and re-mixing to obtain the desired isotope proportions (much more expensive method but your lab is well funded). So your lab can recreate the isotope signature of any other lab. Very useful for certain intricately constructed scenarios.

    11. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Either that, or Putin thinks that by doing something that people wouldn't think he would do, he can maintain an element of plausible deniability.

      It's really rather hard to know whether he ordered it and wanted to make it look like a renegade group did it, or whether a renegade group actually did it.

    12. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      You make it sound *much* *much* easier than it is. The chances of actually being able to do it in practice are very small in the first place. The chances of it being done in this case are vanishingly small to not be worth considering.

    13. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear poor quality conspiracy theorist,

      Setting up a nuclear reactor and manufacturing process to such exacting detail that it precisely matches the output from one particular process is *fantastically* expensive.

    14. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      I guess the number of people who travelled on both contaminated BA planes is very small. If they have localized the contamination within the plane, they probably already know who brought the stuff into the UK by cross checking with seat numbers. Problem is if it is the Russian state he/she could be a none existant person travelling on a fake passport. Though we probably have CCTV and other photographic evidence so we will know what they looked like. There are some advantages to having all those CCTV cameras :-) They really do help after the event to get the guilty bastards.

      Does the UK have an extradition treaty with Russia? In due course that could be rather interesting.

    15. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Watson,

      Any Polonium is *fantastically* expensive. Tunable multi-isotope separators are not.

      Yours, Holmes

    16. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear infant-grade reader,

      That's what I just said.

    17. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The acting president of the Ukraine was poisoned soon after he took power

      Just one correction is sufficient to deprecate your propaganda: Yushchenko had not been the president yet back then.

      Find time to reconsider your preferences ASAP: losers joint is not a good employer, even for retired journalists. BTW, UK islands going to disappear in next two decades (peacefully, by itself), -- another good reason to learn Russian or Chinese.

    18. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      The Dimona reactor, which Israel denies exists, is equally capable of producing Polonium. The very visibility of the murder method makes me think of a frame-up. And who would stand to gain by alienating Russia from the West prior to an attack on Iran, and whose motto is "By deception shall thou wage war", and who has a large history of false-flag operations?

      I have to ask how the AWE can claim the source matches a Russian reactor when they do not have access to Dimona and hence cannot rule it out.

      And it would be very easy to plant traces on jets in order to create a false trail in order to frame Putin and the Russians. Also, some Russian oil barons and Russian Mafia now live exiled in Israel, and they hate Putin for having cut them off from their exploitations and resource-grabs.

      I'm not taking this murder as anything simply explained, having observed over and over that a lot in the news is not what it seems, and there are usually deeper realities.

    19. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now ask yourself: why would Putin kill them?

      Here's motive: because their notoriety is a threat; and here's opportunity: Vladimir Vladimirovich is immune from investigation, and has tremendous power. If he were responsible you can bet that no one would ever find any direct evidence. So this is all hypothetical; we'll never know.

      If you've never been on the receiving end of FSB persecution, it's easy to be naive about what they would and would not consider reasonable, druk moy. They can be very persistent.

    20. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make M micrograms of Po isotope mixture (slow,expensive C1) with lowest required isotope concentration p_min%, separate isotopes (slow,cheap C2), re-mix isotopes (quick,cheap C3) in desired proportions giving of the order of p_min% x M micrograms of Po isotope mixture at cost 100/p_min x C1 + C2 + C3, cost ratio being of the order of 100/p_min. Elementary, my dear Watson!

    21. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Believe me, Politkovskaya was not even close to be a threat.

      Why would Putin kill 'nobody'? If I were him I would've killed somebody who can be a real threat.

    22. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by hughk · · Score: 1

      However, I don't understand the secondary contamination. Whoever delivered the poison would deal with a closed bottle. Alpha get stopped by either glass or polyethylene so there *should* be zero contamination. However if someone else who had the poison administered to them travelled, then they would leak some radiation in their perspiration. This wouldn't be enough to hurt anyone, but it would show up if you started looking for alpha emitters in the seat covers.

      The joke is that this radioactivity was discovered after all the heavy security measures were introduced on all flights to the UK and US. This was applied regardless of origin, even, theoretically, in Russia. Note that given the passenger volume, I think it might be difficult to get the inbound passengers because of the volume coming through Heathrow.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    23. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well since he is no threat killing him a such a painful way will have little danger of backfiring on Putin in Russia. It would also so just how far Putin would could go if his back was against the wall. It could be seen a show of force to his internal threats.
      Not saying that is what happened but you wanted to know a reason why?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    24. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutralize an incoming threat before it gets a real threat? Make your enemies fear something similar could happen to them? Nah, lets ignore all that.

    25. Re:UK lab declines to name specific nuclear plant. by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he ordered it to send a message to Berezovsky?

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  27. The article does not say what the summary says by gus2000 · · Score: 1

    Neither of the linked articles contains the information in the summary. I was not able to find this information in any other articles during a search either. Regardless of who assassinated the man, this particular summary on slashdot seems to be nothing but a provocation. Editors, RTFA before posting!

    1. Re:The article does not say what the summary says by m94mni · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      The bloomberg article certainly contains this: "'Scientists at the U.K.'s Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, west of London, have traced the polonium 210 found in London to a nuclear power plant in Russia, the capital's Evening Standard newspaper reported today. Officials at the establishment didn't return calls.'"

  28. in soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    in soviet russia the... hang on, I'm not feeling to well... /slumps over keyboarddddddddddddddddddddd...

    1. Re:in soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in Soviet Russia, they would have stolen it from an American source. Duh...

  29. Which reactors by romka1 · · Score: 1

    Its just speculation but one of the London's newspapers, there were 2 places which were mentioned in other articles, 1 didn't have any nuclear plants and another doesn't produce the polonium 210 in its current form but does some preparation on the radioactive elements.
    Don't follow every tabloid, especially when the official London investigation didn't post much details yet.

    --
    Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
  30. Is Putin Being Set Up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    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?

    I like the smell of propaganda in the morning.
    1. Re:Is Putin Being Set Up? by Eukariote · · Score: 1

      Quite so. It is highly suspect that the main stream media have immediately and massively covered this story, and that the security apparatus is feeding them with novel little factoids on a continual basis. Keeps it festering. Putin aint no saint, but this media campaign reminds me of 9/11, with Islamism, Osama and the hijackers being fingered, pictures and all, before the day was over.

    2. Re:Is Putin Being Set Up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst comparison ever.

  31. Re:But why by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    Why would you use a hard to handle radioactive material to kill someone.

    Hard to handle? Nah - remember that it's not lethal unless you basically ingest it in sufficient quantity. You could put an eyedropper full of a polonium salt solution in his food when he was taking a leak and absorb maybe 1/10000 of the quantity that he got.

    -b.

  32. The first link does... by Junta · · Score: 1

    In the last paragraph, RTFA.

    That's not to say it is a significant finding yet, as others have pointed out, the material is an exported good so just because they trace it to the reactor does not yet conclusively link it anywhere.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  33. Re:Business opportunity by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Start purchasing natural gas from Newfoundland, Canada by build LNG tankers or an undersea pipeline from Newfoundland, to Greenland, to Iceland, to England. Problem solved.

  34. So who's next? by FishandChips · · Score: 2, Interesting

    London - Londonistan - is now home to a large Russian community as well as a simply huge floating population of "businessmen" and chancers from all over the world. It's hardly a surprise that from time to time they turn out to bring somewhat unorthodox business practices with them as well as some undeclared duty-free items fresh from the reactor core. A former British Intelligence boss has pointed out that this is about the tenth high-profile contract killing involving Russians and not a single one has been solved. Besides, poisoning is a particularly dark crime and appeals to the ghoul in most of us, hence a lot of the publicity.

    I think people forget the massive loss of face the Russians suffered when communism collapsed. Perhaps the Kremlin want to repair some of that damage and get back to what they believe Russia should be doing, which is running the world and dictating its energy policies. I guess the good news is that the Russians are usually too disorganized and hung-over to be much good at that.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
    1. Re:So who's next? by mvdwege · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the Kremlin want to repair some of that damage and get back to what they believe Russia should be doing, which is running the world

      Go read up on your Russian history. For most of its existence, Russia just wanted to be left alone. The Soviet Union was one of the most expansionist phases in Russian history, and even a part of that is understandable as a paranoid reaction to the bloody Nazi invasion. Russia always has had a strong isolationist streak in its foreign policies, up to and including Stalin's policy of 'Socialism in one country'.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    2. Re:So who's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Har, har.
      Have you looked at Russian territory maps throughout the history? They've got enough Labens Raum for everyone so they had no need for expansion, and they weren't totally isolationist (Peter the Great etc), look at pre-meiji Japan they were isolationist to say the least. The expansion of communism served as a shield. Because I think that if SU was surrounded directly by democratic (or whatever would emerge after the WWII without SU intervention) countries I think it would fell down much quicker, and latter wars waged by SU was only to keep the policy of once in, never out. The communism sentiment is much much more stronger in the former SU than in other post communism countries.
      Also you could remember that the WWII started when JOINT forces of Nazis and Soviets invaded Poland (the Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact), a fact that was obscured behind Iron Curtain for 50 years. And it's expansion can't be explained with paranoid reaction to Nazi invasion.
      Russian foreign policy is quite long subject, and most peers in discussion are biased, former SU members forget the facts, I tend to think that Russian policy is an "evil incarnated" (I'm Pole we were ekhm victims to this policy for more than 300 years - another long subject), and as I think the West tends to not give a s*** about Russia.

      And I must add that I don't blame the Russians themselves, because governments tend to manipulate people, and russian gov have PhD in mind control. ...and a note to any Russians out there, do not think about me as another enemy of state or something, just try to compare the governments in the west to your own. I know that Putin brought stability and economic growth. But "every nation that is willing give up little freedom, to gain little security, will deserve neither and loose both".

  35. The strange thing is, why use this method. by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Why use such a bizzare method to kill someone that can be traced so easly. Why not just make him a mugging or hit and run victim.

    1. Re:The strange thing is, why use this method. by ToxicBanjo · · Score: 1

      If indeed this was an ordered hit than it's likely a message to all the former and current operatives... "Don't rock the boat or else!". Given that many critics of the administration have been killed or had "accidents" it's definitely not far fetched.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    2. Re:The strange thing is, why use this method. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the killer wanted to create an atmosphere of tension between the UK and Russia. Perhaps the deceased made some comment about eastern bloc nuclear policies, and someone took offense and wanted to make the guy eat his words. ...and let's not forget stupidity, the most common reason of all.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  36. motives by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I can't see a reason why the Russian government would poison the former spy so long after he defected.

    He either knows something that has recently become sensitive, or he long ago pissed off someone who recently got enough power to get a very cold revenge.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:motives by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Informative

      He said that the government, Putin, deliberately bombed the apartment blocks in 1999 to create a pretext to start a war with Chechnya. He also said Putin was a secret pedophile. That should do it.

  37. Tinfoil hats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does someone use an exotic poison?
    To send a message

    Why does someone use an exotic radioactive poison?
    So it can be traced

    This may be a message to Russia as well. Some person or group as access to their intel and can get through their security with ease.
    If they can get into a reactor to steal some Polonium and can get into their intel to kill off a spy they've been tracking, who's really in control?

  38. Re:Business opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, and do it in two weeks before Russians shut off gas - problem solved. So simple.

  39. Re:Well... Po-110 : 138 day 1/2 life. by DogFacedJo · · Score: 1

    Hence it was made recently.

      It will even likely be possible, based on the ratios of products to Po-10, to calculate quite accurately when the Polonium was produced and refined.

        Polonium works a lot better when folks with resources don't notice it. The victim turns up dead, mysteriously. In this situation it has been making regular world news, and the stuff has left a sparkly trail. Hopefully right back to whoever converted it into a poison from the less leaky compounds that it is normally kept in.

  40. Have you considered by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 2, Funny

    All of this could be a publicity stunt for the next Bond film? We probably won't find out who was really behind these sinister actions until........ you go see the movie

  41. Wrong again. by Cocteaustin · · Score: 1

    The Italian hasn't "fallen ill," he just tested positive for radiation. From the article:

    "Tests have detected polonium 210 in Mr Scaramella's body but at a considerably lower level than Mr Litvinenko. He is currently well and shows no symptoms of radiation poisoning. He is receiving further tests over the weekend."
  42. As a warning to others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a very good warning if people chalk up the killing to a mugger or an accident, or perhaps to pissing off somebody else. It's very clear that he was assassinated, and the particular choice of methods greatly reduces the number of likely suspects running around.

  43. THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Russian reactors make the vast majority of the world's polonium 210, and it is sold worldwide. The fact that this polonium came from Russia is evidence of absolutely nothing.

    1. Re:THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FUD by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      It's evidence that it came from Russia. I assume that the fact is being leaked to put pressure on the Russians. And I'd guess that is being done because the UK government is fairly sure that the new KGB (new acronym) did it on orders. The bitch of course is that they can TRACK THE RADIATION TRAIL, and eventually will find that it leads to Russia's famously immoral spy agency and the Russian government. I assume Putin didn't like being accused of bombing his own people in 199 to start a war, and also the whole pedophile thing would be a kicker, if true...

    2. Re:THIS WHOLE ARTICLE IS FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's evidence that it came from Russia.

      Exactly. Which means nothing. So it's FUD.

      The bitch of course is that they can TRACK THE RADIATION TRAIL

      Ordinarily they couldn't. Alpha particles are so feeble they can't even pass through skin. So a jar of polonium transported from Russia would no more leave a trail than a tin of paint would. Which leaves two explanations for the polonium found on planes:

      • A poisoning victim (or victims) travelled on the planes and sweated or otherwise exuded it.
      • The trail was left deliberately as misdirection.

      The mass of evidence pointing at the Russians strongly suggests they didn't do it. The idea that they transported the polonium in a leaky container is simply preposterous. I doubt we'll ever know the truth.

  44. Putin is the Anti-Christ! by jbertling1960 · · Score: 1

    He even looks somewhat devilish.

  45. Who will rid me of this meddlesome agent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember history, my friends.

  46. Tell me about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why go through all the trouble when simple arsenic will do?

    1. Re:Tell me about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why go through all the trouble when simple arsenic will do?

      Large (relatively) quantities are needed. If somebody had a limited amount of time with there target, getting them to ingest enough arsenic at once seems unlikely. Arsenic was the choice of many in the earlier part of the century because it could be administered over time and would be highly undetectable.

      Which brings up another point. There are other poisons that could be used that would seem more effective and leave less of a trace. Certainly large governments would have the resources at either developing or obtaining highly effective toxins that could obtain the same result with less 'residue' than polonium. Which to me at least, casts a doubt on the russian government. I even think that they would use a bullet (maybe disguised as a mugging) rather than use this apparent sloppy poison.

  47. Double thinking. by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

    It seems that many people here believe that using Polonium is "too easily traced" means that someone is setting-up Putin's government. Is it not possible that Putin's government used such a method in order to get people to say "It can't have been Putin, someone is trying to get us to attack faction-x...", thus attacking said faction and getting rid of Putin's enemies?

    Of course, Putin's enemies may well have thought of this themselves. Perhaps it's faction-y, turning the world against both Putin and faction-x.

    It's a messy situation in any case.

    1. Re:Double thinking. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Well that's just it..it could be just about anything.

      Maybe the Russian government did do it? and figures they can say "hey whe know better then to do anything so easily traced as this its obviously a set up." At the same time their critics will know or at least have to assume they were in fact behind it an behave acordingly. They get the best of both worlds. That is just one of the infinite possiblilites.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  48. Hello? Anna Politkovskaja? by merikari · · Score: 1

    He was not just some former spy. There are plenty of those around the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. He was investigating the murder of Anna Politkovskaja and obviously got too close to the truth.

    --
    My other SIG is a Sauer.
    1. Re:Hello? Anna Politkovskaja? by Andy+Gardner · · Score: 1
      He was not just some former spy. There are plenty of those around the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. He was investigating the murder of Anna Politkovskaja and obviously got too close to the truth.

      So, your saying Russia didn't want anybody to know they murdered Politkovsaja. Litvinenko was close to revealing that the Russia government was behind Politkovskaja's death so they very publicly had him assisinated?

      Wouldn't that kind of be like saying "Hey! we don't want anybody to know we murdered somebody so nobody try and link us to state sponsored murder or we'll murder you like we just did this guy!"

    2. Re:Hello? Anna Politkovskaja? by merikari · · Score: 1

      So, your saying Russia didn't want anybody to know they murdered Politkovsaja. Litvinenko was close to revealing that the Russia government was behind Politkovskaja's death so they very publicly had him assisinated?

      I'm saying that that is what may have happened. What matters is if anyone can actually prove that the government was behind Politkovskaja's death. Now they _may_ have prevented that - and in addition given a very clear signal to everyone: Do not mess with us. At the moment there is no way to prove that the Russian government was behind these assassinations. Few seem to believe that they would be bold enough to pull this off - well, maybe that's just the reason they did it. In the end, no one can prove it, and they can use the "foreign powers trying to control Russia" card to their advantage in domestic policy.

      Another possibility, and one that Russian "media" is definetly going to concentrate on in any case, is that all this could be a ploy against Kremlin.

      I guess we just have to see how this plays out. I'm pretty sure that no definite proof will be presented one way or the other, so it's basically a stalemate that everyone will try to use to push their own agenda.

      --
      My other SIG is a Sauer.
  49. this is getting too like a James Bond plot... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
    Putin is just too smart to kill someone in such a blatant way. He would have known that such a gruesome murder would have serious negative consequences.

    the one where the baddies were trying to make the Russian leader look weak, but then again, I've probably got confused with some other spy movie series...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  50. oh... by miamicanes1990 · · Score: 2, Funny

    those whacky Russians

  51. Flawless Democrat ? by Joh_Fredersen · · Score: 1

    Gerhard Schroeder once called Vladimir Putin a flawless democrat.
    Indeed when Herr Schroede was booted out of the Chancellorship of Germany he was subsequently employed with the Russian state energy giant Gazprom.

    All signals point toward Russia being admitted into the WTO. Oddly www.allofmp3.com was cited as a reason Russia wasn't admitted quite recently.
    Given that RUSSIA IS NOW USING A TYPE NUCLEAR WEAPON TO KILL BRITISH CITIZENS, can we really continue the pretence that Russia made the transition to a "nice" Democratic state, with "Statesmen" such as Vladimir Putin ("flawless democrat" and former head of the FSB)... USING NUCLEAR MATERIALS TO KILL BRITISH CITIZENS IN LONDON ?

    It's not simply a matter of covering this up. This is very, very, very public and I believe it is encumbant on Tony Blair's government to block Russian Entry into the WTO as a consequence of this incident.

    FYI : You can't just assassinate British subjects contaminating parts of LONDON with radioactive material and expect the "capitalist dogs" in the West to let you into their trade clubs, it just doesn't work that way... oddly.

    Can we really maintain the pretense that Putin's regime is anything but, a thinly veiled totalitarian and highly repressive state ? Schroeder's notion of bringing Russia in from the cold, into the club of "Democracies" is clearly devoid of any truth once our "friends" in Russia start to use highly dangerous RADIOACTIVE materials to murder British citizens.

    Do we really need Russian gas that bad ? What happens if Russia invades Georgia for example.... do we continue to look the other way... clap the Russians on the back ... tell the world what a grand transition Russia has made to "Democracy" ? Do we say nothing ... because we're scared of the Ukraine and Germany having a hard time finding natural gas ?

    How far *exactly* do the Russians have to go, before Western Europe and the United States draws a line in the sand and takes some action ?

    In my mind.... killing British subjects.... endangering British subjects with radiation demands some response... economic sanctions... blocking entry to the WTO... whatever.

    Hell... a former Russian Prime Minister may have been poisoned in Dublin Ireland (where I live for any FSB people reading this post) ... I certainly *DON'T* think that Ireland or the UK can possibly support Russia in any way, so long as Vladimir Putin and his ruthless regime continue to put our citizens, Russian citizens and the citizens of state's such as the Ukraine, Georgia and Chechnya lives at risk.

    Perhaps ... long before now.... we in the English speaking West, should have taken notice of Russia. Chechnya has been brutally repressed... and Russia didn't become a responsible Democracy... all that happened was Russia stopped being Communist.

    The cold war may be over.... but, I don't think any of us can pretend that Russia should be accepted into the club of "Democracies" as Herr Schroeder would have liked. I think it's time to be realistic and acknowledge that Russia needs to be contained or transformed, before it is allowed to be come any stronger.

    Can you imagine what would happen if the British had killed a French or German citizen in this fashion ? There would be an international crisis... The EU would be dead for all intents and purposes.

    By that logic, the EU and the WTO must frustrate Russia's economic ambitions so long as Putin and/or a successor of his persue repressive and anti-Western policies.

    Or .... am I mad ?

    1. Re:Flawless Democrat ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... am I mad ?

      Yes.

    2. Re:Flawless Democrat ? by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      "Given that RUSSIA IS NOW USING A TYPE NUCLEAR WEAPON TO KILL BRITISH CITIZENS, can we really continue the pretence that Russia made the transition to a "nice" Democratic state, with "Statesmen" such as Vladimir Putin ("flawless democrat" and former head of the FSB)... USING NUCLEAR MATERIALS TO KILL BRITISH CITIZENS IN LONDON ?"
      +
      "Or .... am I mad ?"

      You're not mad... you're just retarded.

    3. Re:Flawless Democrat ? by Joh_Fredersen · · Score: 1

      huh .....

      figures.

    4. Re:Flawless Democrat ? by aJester · · Score: 1

      Or .... am I mad ? After reading that entire paranoid rant, I think you might be...

      To me, it almost sounds like a "frame-up" that they used Polonium that can be traced right back.
      This sounds eerily like the WMD found in Iraq sentiment.
      The hyping by the mass media also indicates some kind of vested interest... as if sreaming at the top of the voice "It is Putin" will drown other saner, calmer voices from being heard.

      Ask yourself,
      "What if Putin is being Framed".
      "If Putin or KGB wanted to dispose off this ex-spy, couldn't they have done in a more subtle manner".
      "Even if the ex-spy had an accident, or was mugged to death, the other spies would DEFINITELY get the message"

      To me, the fact that the "link" is SOOOO OBVIOUS makes it suspect.
      Especially the War Cry "about the cold War" seems aimed at making Putin seem guilty from the very beginning.

      As for "What if Russia attacks Georgia.... "
      So what? We (US.. with UK's aquicense) attacked Iraq.
      While I don't condone it, What makes such a HYPOTHETICAL scenario worse than the real facts in the ground?
      Different standards for diffferent countries huh?

      Calm down. Take a deep breath. Don't wet your pants by some hype on the media.
      Chances are the Brit Govt wants to pass some laws curbing the citizens rights to "protect them from big bad Russia".
    5. Re:Flawless Democrat ? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      You're not mad. Drink your ovaltine.

              Your Friends,
                      F.S.B

      --
      ~X~
  52. How did they trace it out to some Russian reactor? by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you have a radioactive material created in a reactor, say plutonium, by measuring the quantity of the different isotopes and their half life by product, you can determine from which reactor they come (that is if you have the data) and even "when". Now in that case that would mean they have traced a cocktail of element beside the polonium and the "ratio" match the polonium produced by that particular reactor. What make it a bit implausible for me is that we are speaking of really small quantity here from stuff which have a half life beyond a year... And especially if you refine the polonium and separate it from the rest.

    I also have an opinion on that murder if it interrest anybody :
    I have a conspiracy theory for you: foe of putin where seeing that putin position wasn't that bad right now, and they wanted a quick way to dredge dirt on him. So they procurated polonium then killed a resident in another country which was a vocal agaisnt Putin in a so SPECTACULAR way that it will be for a long time all over the media with all finger pointing at Putin. I do not see what Putin wins by making it so spectacular. True other vocal group might get afraid, but with it all over the media they might be emboldened to go forward and be more vocal, so that it will be even more difficult to elimnate them. No I think an old fashionned car "incident" and an old fashionned "push" in a train station at rush hour or an even more old fashionned slithing of throat would give as much a signal to the other vocal people without even being able to point finger at Russia. But polonium ??? Come on, they could have as well have tatooed "Putin killed me" on the forehead of the guy. This is why I think it is more convoluted and simply guys wanting to pee on putin did this to slime him all over. It looks like it was a total success from what I see in our media...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  53. Re:Why Is This In Politics??!! by Catbeller · · Score: 0

    So, South Park Republican, I assume. Keep that dirty foreign news away from American politics.

    Sort of like an electronics tech insisting that no physics news show up on his newsfeed. They ARE related, you know.

    Proud ignorance has lost your "War on Terror" because neither Bush nor his right-wing followers comprehend anything that happens outside of the United States. Listen: if you want to invade and conquer other countries, LEARN about foreign politics. It's sort of the absolute minimum requirement.

    And oh yes, we won the election. DailyKos and all the rest of us in the Reality Based Community, as Rove or Cheney christened us in that famous "screw you realists" talk. Ignorant men invaded and killed a country, and lost power. Ignorant men wll refuse to care about the polonium poisoning on UK soil. Listen, if you want to be ignorant, just don't read. It's worked for you all before. If you don't care, don't comment. I'm sure Limbaugh has a rerun on somewhere.

  54. What are you talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libertarians hate the fiscally irresponsible, interventionist, authoritarian, theocratic, fair-weather federalism of the neocons. South Park Republicans would see Goldwater more then GW as a standard bearer. Frankly SP Republicans haven't been getting much from the Republican Party these last couple of decades. And big-L libertarians proudly tout their spoiler role against these new-style Republicans.

    1. Re:What are you talking about by NoTheory · · Score: 1

      I don't think libertarians are off the hook that easily. The fact of the matter is that the NeoCons pushed their agenda and their ludicrously ill-thought policies in the name of idealism, and the idealism they borrowed was at least partially taken from libertarian ideals. Don't get me wrong, the out-going republican leadership are opportunists, and have no allegiance to anyone when it doesn't serve their purposes, but if you're being used, your two options are to object to the abuse, or to take your lumps when your benefactors hit the end of the line. And the libertarians who voted for Bush (especially in 2004) can't credibly claim they didn't know what was up.

      --
      There are lives at stake here!
  55. Wouldn't put it past the west by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of spy vs spy stuff going on. The EU is in tough negotiations with Putin & Co over energy delivery, namely natural gas and really didn't have any kind of a lever. We seen what Russia did to one of the old Soviet satellites (forget name of country) last winter. Pinched them hard and quadrupled the price. If memory serves later discounted the price to double with an escalator clause. People where in jeopardy of freezing to death while Putin held strong. Tough negotiator. Anyway, a couple of murders in his backyard will tend to soften him up a bit. I mean if Putin wants to play hard ass tough guy .. well the picture is easy to paint.

    Similar thing in Lebanon where the political assassination blamed on the Syrians (not that stupid) rode the Syrians out of town. Advantage Israel and thank you Mossad?

    Then there's Iraq. Saddam nationalizes Iraq oil, snubs the U.S. and signs oil field development deals with China and Russia, then threatens to switch petro payments from U.S. Dollars to Eurodollars. Eighteen months later the U.S. is bombing, Saddam gets courted by a kangaroo with the resulting public murder but a few weeks away. Meanwhile Russia and China are out of the deal, null and void.

    Of course the oil fields in the Shiite south will fall to Iran who would rather generate electricity via nuclear reactor than burn their would be oil profits keeping the home lamps lit and China has U.S. Dollars to spare. That deal has already been brokered meaning the U.S. gets no oil from Iran or the southern Iraqi oil fields IF Iran's nuclear power option is left standing. If we joint venture with Israel to pancake Iran's nuclear ambitions then oil exports to China will slow with dollar imports found likewise. That in turn means less money for missile deals between Iran and Russia who is not happy about getting their oil deal queered in Iraq and will take vengeance where ever it may be found including Britain more notably, but the entire EU if thats what it takes.

    Personally I'm waiting for Russia to supply the Iraqi insurgents with Russian equivalents to the U.S. Stinger missile so aptly provided the anti-Russian rebels in Afghanistan not that long ago. That probably won't happen since the Iraqi insurgents pretty well have the U.S. on the run with IED's, mortars, RPG's and sniper fire.

    Question: How is the land locked Kurds having essentially been handed Greater Kurdistan with annexation of Kirkuk upon the bloody hand of ethnic cleansing, going to get the oil out and who is going to broker it?

  56. hes a spy! by benicillin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have I missed something? A former spy gets killed by the country he was spying on/for/whatever... were talking about spies, they trick whomever they can to make a buck. Now, he got killed by the person he tricked. What's the big deal? This is not abnormal. If he was spying on the US we might have just offed him ourselves via the legal system.

    --
    "i stand on the edge of destruction" -shai hulud
    1. Re:hes a spy! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      What's the big deal? This is not abnormal.



      That he was killed ... no. The abnormal thing is how he was killed.

    2. Re:hes a spy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was a former spy and a British citizen. Perhaps benicillin (990784) has to look up the definition of terrorism?

  57. Re:No. They didn't, nor could they. by wes33 · · Score: 1
    ... say ... in the article I read (linked in the story) it says:

    Scientists at the U.K.'s Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, west of London, have traced the polonium 210 found in London to a nuclear power plant in Russia, the capital's Evening Standard newspaper reported today.


    Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seems to claim that the British scientists traced the polonium to a reactor in Russia.

    But what's your interpretation?
  58. Situation still not clear by ifchairscouldtalk · · Score: 1

    According to journalist/senator Paolo Guzzanti, former head of parliamentary commission that examined cases of past KGB infiltration in Italy's political life and (apparently) a personal friend of Mario Scaramella, the Italian contact has been told by hospital's doctors that he will die. (AGI, http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200612021822 -1201-RT1-CRO-0-NF11).

    In a statement the Italian Health Ministry declared:

    "In order to avoid useless alarm, in reference to what was stated by Paolo Guzzanti about the health condition of Mr. Scaramella it is my duty to underline that currently Mr. Scaramella, according to what was reported by the British authorities, is doing well as confirmed by the tests carried out up to now. But given that he was exposed to polonium radiation, he will undergo more extensive clinical analysis and be under doctor control in the future because the radiation could have provoked disease both in the acute phase and long-term phase." (AGI, http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200612021941 -1250-RT1-CRO-0-NF11&page=0&id=agionline-eng.oggit alia)
  59. Re:DailyKos is reality based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it is funny that you think people who post on the DailyKos are even remotely linked to reality. I do enjoy reading it for a laugh even though it is a bit disconcerting when you realise that the someone actually believes what they post. I believe you are misinterpreting the past election. The Republicans lost it moreso than the Democrats won it. I think you will find out if the upcoming Congress tries to push the socialist revolution that you and your fellow Kosites want there will be a quick reinstallation of the GOP.

  60. Please mod parent down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as this has nothing to do with polonium nor the "general fear of radioactivity". It has grown into a scandal, and it should be investigated completely. If it were ricine (or some other dangerous poison) would it be different ? No - it would be the same scandalous event - so please: mod parent down as utter troll.

  61. Another reason everybody seems to forget about by rumith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Keep in mind that Russia is currently in talks regarding joining the WTO. And don't listen to the sweet words - joining WTO is a serious blow, if not instant death for Russian industry and agriculture, and Putin knows it. He can't just plainly refuse - that would be very ill-conceived by both the West and pro-West population in Russia (actually, a significant part of it, if not the majority). That's why he's got to do something disgusting so there is at least one WTO member with a veto right which will have no other way but to block Russia's entry. I believe this was the same reason behind the sudden scandal in Russian-Georgian relations two months ago, since Georgia IIRC is a WTO member with a veto right (again, IIRC, all WTO members have a veto right on such decisions). If everything is as I pictured, this is a very smart move, since Mr.Blair look strange if he didn't veto the decision to accept Russia.

    1. Re:Another reason everybody seems to forget about by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

      that would be very ill-conceived by both the West and pro-West population in Russia (actually, a significant part of it, if not the majority).

      I'm wondering what makes you think that "pro-West population" in Russia is a majority. Actually, the most part of Russians don't give a hoot about West. A large part is very suspicious about any action West takes - especially remembering how West supported Eltsin regime.. which was hated by almost everyone, how "West" bombed Serbes, who share the religion with Russians - I doubt CNN shown massive protests against Yugoslavia invasion which took place here and all the hatred towards US and Eltsin (who has "betrayed our brothers") the whole story caused. And it still burns. Only very little fraction of "intelligincia" is pro-West now.. but noone gives a real hoot about them either.

      This Litvinenko story is not aimed at someone at the West, I doubt western reaction really concerned anyone while making the decision. It is clear message to possible dissidents like Litvinenko himself - "traitors will be dealt with". That's why everything is so blatantly obvious here - noone should doubt who did it and why.

    2. Re:Another reason everybody seems to forget about by rumith · · Score: 1

      I'm from Russia actually. Yes, you are absolutely right in what you said. Let me clarify my point however: the working class is more or less patriotic and feels no sympathy towards the US; the elite isn't amused by the West either; but the middle class - the blue collars, company managers - who are mostly concentrated in large cities and have a significant influence in toto are pro-West. The reason is simple: most of them have very intimate ties with Western banks, and they will struggle against change in Russian-Western relations any way they can, including yelling in foul voices about inhumane Putin regime, horrible violation of human rights, crimes against democracy, return to Stalinism and God knows what else.
      Regarding your attitude to the Litvinenko story - well, why such a timing then? Why today and not any other time? If the WTO talks will be prolonged (instead of banning Russia from WTO right now), I would consider a proof of my point of view if another scandal would surface - like Russia selling something nuclear to Iran.

    3. Re:Another reason everybody seems to forget about by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      pro-West population in Russia (actually, a significant part of it, if not the majority)
      Sorry, but we (pro-Westerners) are not a significant part of it. Not a majority, not even a plurality. There seems to be more nationalists these days, in fact, at least judging from how many people they're able to get to the streets to protest when it comes to that.
  62. Re:But why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you use a hard to handle radioactive material to kill someone. Hard to handle? Not really. Polonium 210 is an alpha-particle only emitter. Alpha particles can't penetrate human skin. A glass salt shaker would be sufficient for safe handling (and delivery).
  63. Better than Raping and eviscerating 13y-old girls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean, "poisoning a British citizen so he cooks from the inside-out" is the more civilized alternative usual pattern of Russian soldiers murdering , raping and torturing Chechen civilians, and running "filtration" camps where they rape 13 year old girls ?

    (and the occasional retaliation?)

  64. HPS's Po-210 fact sheet by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Health Physics Society has produced a fact sheet (PDF-format) for Po-210. The information is fairly basic, but it's a starting point if you want to explain about the nuclide to someone who isn't very familiar with nuclear science.

  65. Why radiation kills by kushnir · · Score: 1

    I work with a guy who is an expert in radioactivity and radiation protection. So we just sat down with him to calculate how much polonium-210 is lethal to a human being. It turns out to be less than a fraction of a miligramm. Some people say on this post that alpha radiation can not penetrate skin thus it is not very dangerous. Unfortunately it is not so. If it goes inside as a part of soluable substance than it gets inside your tissues, blood, organs and damages everything around.

    One way to think about radiation damage is the following: Single decay of an Polonium atom carries about million times more energy than chemical transormation of a single molecule in explosives. So one milligram of polonium is roughly equivalent to 1 kilo of explosives. If you swallow 1 kilo of dynamite and it would explode inside - than you are very unlikey to survive. After all 5 grams of explosives are enough to accelerate a bullet. Experts would probably criticise me for such comparison, and they are right, but still it gives you some feeling of damage that radiation will do to your body.

    What worries me a lot in this story are traces of polonium. It is very easy to contain alpha sources as they are usually in hermetic ampules and can not be traced at all. So I see several reasons.

    First is that police is lying or misinterpreting the results. It seems unlikey with the growing amout of evidence, though I can not excude it.

    The second explanation is that there is one or several human beings who do not know that they carry polonium inside them and polonium leaks out of their bodies with sweat and other human liquids. But calculations show that they had to swallow lethal amounts.

    The third one is that traces are done on purpose

    The forth is that the killer was so unprofessional that he made spills all over the place.

    My take on this story is that it is VERY strange. Very unprofessional, very public-oriented, very anti-russian. My prediction is that the whole story soon will be shut tight: no information leaks, no interviews, nothing - and there will be reason to that - real plot will be uncovered, with some dirty unpleasant stories behind it, which would have nothing to do with politics or russian secret services.

  66. Re:No. They didn't, nor could they. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
    I missed that last part, having gotten quite bored with the complete lack of content in the article. You misquoted however, as what it really said was:
    "Scientists at the U.K.'s Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston, west of London, have traced the polonium 210 found in London to a nuclear power plant in Russia, the capital's Evening Standard newspaper reported today. Officials at the establishment didn't return calls." [emphasis added]
    If I was a scientist claiming to be able to trace the polonium back to its source, I'd refuse to speak to anyone too.

    Again ... they didn't. It cannot be done. Period.

    Also, I should point out that it doesn't claim they traced the Polonium found in Litvinenko , but rather the plutonium found in London . If it was found in a container, then they might be able to trace the source of the container. Proving the container came from Russia, would prove where the container came from, but not where the plutonium came from.
    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  67. I believe that should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Begun, this Second Cold War Has..."

  68. "Ominiously?" by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "the authorities have identified the source of the poison to be Russia. Bloomberg ominously reports,"

    OK, where else would you rather have seen the polonium come from? The US? Pakistan? North Korea?

    It's bad enough that this polonium got out in the wild, I don't see why it's "more bad" that it came from Russia.

  69. Obligatory Holy Grail by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    Oh, he wouldn't TYPE "/slumps over keyboard," he'd just DO it.

    1. Re:Obligatory Holy Grail by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was dictating it?

      --
      Eat the rich.
  70. Wars, bombings, murders, lies? Forget it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here's a quote from Toxic Avenger:

    Even the Cold War didn't have this much excitement. One needs to go back at least to the days of the courts of Medici and Borgia. Who needs puerile "Da Vinci Code" conspiracies when you can have this?

    And what about what's going on in the rest of the world -- you know, wars, bombings, murders, corruption, lies? Forget it! The increasingly hopeless and idiotic quagmire in Iraq looks like common banditry, devoid of imagination and suspense. Who cares that it killed roughly half a million Iraqis and thousands of Americans? Boooring!!! Can you imagine - once we were amazed that the thieves who ran Enron or WorldCom pulled off outrageous multi-billion-dollar thefts. How plebeian -- why would anybody but accounting bookworms remember this? Everything seems so quaint in comparison to the Litvinenko murder. It's like comparing Pong to the PS3 console. As for tens of billons of taxpayer dollars disappearing into the black hole of "Iraq reconstruction" - or into the pockets of Halliburtons and Bechtels and other Republican cronies - whoa, keep the change, bro, don't distract us from the really important stuff: all we want to know is, who killed the "former spy" with a tiny speck of polonium!
  71. What were they thinking, anyway? by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're a major nation, and you can't pull off a simple hit? I mean, it's pure evil, but if somebody gave me the job I don't think it would take me too long to find a mobster, tap into his network, and get a decent hit-man who could pull off a plausible "robbery" where the guy got shot, or a car "accident" or even the good old standby like a bomb wired into the ignition. But NooooOOO. They had to go scattering radioactivity that would produce collataral damage, potentially ruining international relationships, and best of all... leaving a trail of radioactive breadcrumbs leading right back to the source!

    What are they going to do to the guy who came up with that idea? Send him to China and then explode a dirty bomb in his apartment in downtown Beijing?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  72. I don't buy it by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

    The Russian government seems to have already been convicted in most people's minds. But it just doesn't add up. Why would they use such an obscure poison that's easy to detect? When someone gets sick really fast, and their hair starts falling out, of course the doctors are going to test him for radioactive substances, and of course they're going to find the polonium. If you don't care who knows it was an assassination, why not just use cyanide or strychnine or ricin? At least those are much easier to obtain, and wouldn't immediately cast suspicion on government labs or nuclear facilities. I think he was poisoned by someone who wanted to turn the Western public against Russia. Someone who is rich and well-connected. Someone like Boris Berezovsky or maybe Akhmed Zakayev.

    Oh, yeah, the article doesn't mention how the polonium was traced to the nuclear plant. Anyone know?

    --
    If you can read this sig, you're too close.
  73. Well.. as opposed to those "hot" chills... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    The alternative to a "cold chill" (a 'hot chill') sounds as half baked as the cold light cloaking device from manhunt in space XD

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  74. we don't need to know, but they do by swschrad · · Score: 1

    it is reasonable to assume, as Tom Clancy has in at least one novel, that because every reactor has differences from design-mates, and all are operated differently due to the whims of their managers, that there are differences in the "impurity" mix of any particular element retrieved from the witches' brew of used fuel rods.

    so there is a "fingerprint" that overall says this Po210 came from a Crudhole type reactor, and this Po210 came from a Stinker type reactor, and it is quite possible that due to defects in shielding or a plugged cooling tube, the presence of element such-and-so means this particular sample came from Gornischt City's Crudhole reactor, possibly between 2001 and 2003.

    it is also quite reasonable to assume that due to weapons inspections requirements in disarmament in the past, the atomic powers have ledgers of this information from folks who normally they don't meet in scientific conferences.

    it is not required that you are "in the loop" that nobody will confirm exists that if Reuters and AP quote senior British government officials to the effect that the Po210 comes from Russia, there is a good chance they could make their case in the UN or world court.

    assuming they decided it was worth releasing the background information that proves the case, which is almost certainly NOT going to happen.

    what good is protecting this information? the first time some wacko bin looney decides to tape a bottlecap of Po210 to a stick of dynamite and flip it off an observation deck someplace, it will go a long way towards pinning down WHICH wacko bin looney is probably was.

    and if they resist arrest, there is no trial.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  75. Re:No. They didn't, nor could they. by paeanblack · · Score: 1

    Again ... they didn't. It cannot be done. Period.

    Every reactor leaves a fingerprint on its produce and waste. Minor differences in the isotope ratios are present in products from separate reactors. Tracing the source of a radioisotope is neither rocket science nor brain surgery.

  76. "putin is too smart to kill someone... by swschrad · · Score: 1

    ...in such a blatant way."

    so was the USSR. the "wet work" was usually done by bulgaria or rumanian secret services. that's not blatant, it's the other guy.

    meet the new boss, same as the old boss...... prove me wrong.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  77. "dangerous" depends on the beholder by swschrad · · Score: 1

    it takes one alpha from one atom hitting the right cell in the right way to cause a cancer.

    less than a picocurie but electically useful in a smoke detector probably means there are hundreds of alphas a minimum per minute coming from that source in the smoke detector.

    that's plenty dangerous enough for me, might not be for you.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:"dangerous" depends on the beholder by RsG · · Score: 1
      it takes one alpha from one atom hitting the right cell in the right way to cause a cancer.
      Eh, replace "Alpha" with "photon in the UV spectrum", and the statement still holds true - both are ionizing, and both are stopped skin deep. There is a definite, proven risk associated with skin cancer from a lifetime of sunlight.

      We live with the risk associated with sunlight (or at least most of us do), because it is a small risk. I don't see why alpha radiation would be any different in the eyes of an informed beholder.

      Now, radon gas say, that would be a bigger risk. Not to mention way more prevalent than smoke detectors.
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  78. Re:No. They didn't, nor could they. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
    "Every reactor leaves a fingerprint on its produce and waste. Minor differences in the isotope ratios are present in products from separate reactors. Tracing the source of a radioisotope is neither rocket science nor brain surgery."
    And every fingerprint taken needs to be compared to another. How, prey tell, did they get the Fingerprint? Presumably Russia sent them a copy? Oh no, you say ... the CIA/MI5 provided it, and the CIA/MI5 insists it is from Russia, so it must be. Hmmm ...

    Again, they couldn't prove it. They don't have a known valid 'fingerptint' with which to compare it. Thanks for playing, though.
    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  79. H Bombs Anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To really wind some of you up one places a %.05 coin size pice of polonium 210 which is an alpha partical emitter nexr to a equal sixe pice of beryllium then a neutron emmitter has been created or in other words a trigger for the second stage of a Hydrogen bomb. The first stage is the atomic bomb but add Tridium and a neutron emmitter and you have a H bomb.

  80. The Putin Bride by TMB · · Score: 4, Funny

    But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of Putin: is he the sort of man who would get the polonium-210 from his own nuclear reactor or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would get the polonium-210 from his own reactor, because he would know that only a great fool would put the evidence within reach. I am not a great fool, so clearly I can clearly not believe the evidence in Russia. But he must have known I was not a great fool, he would have counted on it, so I can clearly not believe the evidence in front of me.

    [TMB]

    1. Re:The Putin Bride by OzBeserk · · Score: 1

      You're stalling.

  81. How does the trace work? by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

    At the risk of sounding like an idiot, could someone tell me how this works? Polonium 210 is a particular isotope of an atom, which should be identical to every polonium 210 isotope you find, right? So how do you trace the origin of an element which is identical to all other samples of the same element? Does the production of polonium 210 leave a particular signature? Perhaps the ratio of polonium 210 to other elements?

  82. Re:No. They didn't, nor could they. by paeanblack · · Score: 1

    And every fingerprint taken needs to be compared to another. How, prey tell, did they get the Fingerprint? Presumably Russia sent them a copy? Oh no, you say ... the CIA/MI5 provided it, and the CIA/MI5 insists it is from Russia, so it must be. Hmmm ...

    These data have been exchanged on a regular basis for over 30 years. Doing so was a practical necessity for strategic arms treaties.

  83. Cold chill my !@!@ by laigle · · Score: 1

    What is everyone so concerned about? The Cold War is finally back! We've got something out there to stimulate the economy, Putin will scare the Islamists into sending us Hannukah cards. Is there anybody out there who still thinks we did ourselves a failure by eliminating the safe, reliable two faction Western dominated world?

  84. so what? by idlake · · Score: 1

    Europe doesn't stop dealing with allies just because those allies engage in a little extraterritorial assassination. I mean, c'mon, the US has been assassinating people it doesn't like around the world for decades, and I'd be really surprised if the UK and France didn't do the same in their heyday. It's the way big powers operate.

  85. Technical question by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    How can one trace a quantity of polonium, presumably found in a dead body, back to a particular power plant in Russia. I am just curious to know how this is done...

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Technical question by drmerope · · Score: 1

      By the trace elements. Every reactor has a signature ratio of trace elements relating to how long its been in operation among other things.

      That said, I'm not sure such an analysis could be performed with a corpse...

    2. Re:Technical question by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Ok, I understand now. Apparently they have found polonium in various places, they did not use the polonium found in the corpse.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  86. This story makeup by journalists, just thinking... by xsoroton · · Score: 1

    If you really interesting to know "who is the killer of formal spy" that you need to think about person like Boris Abramovich Berezovskii. To understated this story you need to know just little bit more than you can read in British news paper

  87. issue is efficiency by barutanseijin · · Score: 1

    Electric heaters and stoves work fine -- except of course during blackouts. (The power was just out here in my neighbourhood in Montreal for 18hrs.) I think the issue is rather efficiency.

    Electricity can be an OK heat source or it can be a waste. It depends on how it's generated. In the case of wind or hydro power, it's fine. (As far as efficiency goes -- there are obviously other issues involved.) The water or wind turns the turbines, and you get a stream of electrons you can send down the grid to get turned into heat in your P4s, AthlonWhatnots & WhizzBangGPUs. Aside from more efficient turbines, a superconducting grid, and more efficient space heaters, there's not much we can do to improve the picture here.

    On the other hand, if you're generating electricity from hydrocarbons, you're losing energy as heat is transformed into electricity at the power plant, as it travels down the grid, and then even more when it's transformed back into heat again in our homes. Neither the generators nor our home heaters are perfectly efficient. Nuclear energy isn't all that better, since it takes a lot of resources + energy to extract and process the fuel -- not to mention the waste.

    1. Re:issue is efficiency by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, if you're generating electricity from hydrocarbons, you're losing energy as heat is transformed into electricity at the power plant, as it travels down the grid, and then even more when it's transformed back into heat again in our homes. Neither the generators nor our home heaters are perfectly efficient.

      Actually, home heaters *are* very close to 100% efficient. After all, any energy that they "waste" is ultimately expressed as - you guessed it - heat. A better solution for the fairly mild English climate are heat pumps, which can move more heat than energy put in, since they're basically Carnot engines running in reverse. So using heat pumps instead of direct heating might offset a lot of the losses from remote generation of power with heat engines.

  88. I'm sure my Karma will pay... but by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

    I really hate to make this a political discussion, but it kinda puts that whole "Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world" thing into perspective.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:I'm sure my Karma will pay... but by DeeVeeAnt · · Score: 1

      Perspective? Putin kills one guy, Bush kills how many thousand?

      --
      Home fucking is killing prostitution.
    2. Re:I'm sure my Karma will pay... but by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      This isn't just "one guy". This is a political criminal, who had fled Russia. Bush may be bad but out of the 100000 Iraqis(and 3000 US soldiers) he killed he doesn't go after ex-Americans who say horrible things about the US.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  89. Re:No. They didn't, nor could they. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize I was communicating with an MI5 operative :-)

    In any case, no reputable news source is making the claim, fingerprinting isn't "tracing" back to a source, and the 100% thing I can guarantee is that they have no proof where the Polonium came from, since the U.S. would have already bitchslapped Russia if they did. I am also 100% certain that they may *claim* they know where it came from, but they never will actually know.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  90. they also traced the sushi he ate to the ocean... by avi33 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Um. Most of the world's Polonium 210 comes from Russia. It can be made anywhere, but according to this article (frr), it's an industrial commodity produced cheaply in Russia:

    In Tennessee, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory sells dozens of types of rare nuclear materials to American manufacturers. But Bill Cabage, a lab spokesman, said it sold no polonium 210 because Russia was able to do so much more inexpensively.

    "That's typical" of exotic radioisotopes, he said. "We can't compete with their prices." Furthermore, this substance could be extracted from off the shelf anti-static devices, and still be "traced" to a Russian source. Nothing to see here, the chill the poster felt was their own lack of understanding.

  91. That's what Stratfor says by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

    Here is a newsletter from Stratfor I've received recently, I just fully agree with what it says.

    =====================
    Russia's Interest in Litvinenko
    By George Friedman

    The recent death of a former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, apparently after being poisoned with polonium-210, raises three interesting questions. First: Was he poisoned by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB? Second: If so, what were they trying to achieve? Third: Why were they using polonium-210, instead of other poisons the KGB used in the past? In short, the question is, what in the world is going on?

    Litvinenko would seem to have cut a traditional figure in Russian and Soviet history, at least on the surface. The first part of his life was spent as a functionary of the state. Then, for reasons that are not altogether clear, he became an exile and a strident critic of the state he had served. He published two books that made explosive allegations about the FSB and President Vladimir Putin, and he recently had been investigating the shooting death of a Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who also was a critic of the Putin government. Clearly, he was intent on stirring up trouble for Moscow.

    Russian and Soviet tradition on this is clear: Turncoats like Litvinenko must be dealt with, for two reasons. First, they represent an ongoing embarrassment to the state. And second, if they are permitted to continue with their criticisms, they will encourage other dissidents -- making it appear that, having once worked for the FSB, you can settle safely in a city like London and hurl thunderbolts at the motherland with impunity. The state must demonstrate that this will not be permitted -- that turncoats will be dealt with no matter what the circumstances.

    The death of Litvinenko, then, certainly makes sense from a political perspective. But it is the perspective of the old Soviet Union -- not of the new Russia that many believed was being born, slowly and painfully, with economic opening some 15 years ago. This does not mean, however, that the killing would not serve a purpose for the Russian administration, in the current geopolitical context.

    For years, we have been forecasting and following the transformation of Russia under Vladimir Putin. Putin became president of Russia to reverse the catastrophe of the Yeltsin years. Under communism, Russia led an empire that was relatively poor but enormously powerful in the international system. After the fall of communism, Russia lost its empire, stopped being enormously powerful, and became even poorer than before. Though Westerners celebrated the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, these turned out to be, for most Russians, a catastrophe with few mitigating tradeoffs.

    Obviously, the new Russia was of enormous benefit to a small class of entrepreneurs, led by what became known as the oligarchs. These men appeared to be the cutting edge of capitalism in Russia. They were nothing of the sort. They were simply people who knew how to game the chaos of the fall of communism, figuring out how to reverse Soviet expropriation with private expropriation. The ability to turn state property into their own property represented free enterprise only to the most superficial or cynical viewers.

    The West was filled with both in the 1990s. Many academics and journalists saw the process going on in Russia as the painful birth of a new liberal democracy. Western financial interests saw it as a tremendous opportunity to tap into the enormous value of a collapsing empire. The critical thing is that the creation of value, the justification of capitalism, was not what was going on. Rather, the expropriation of existing value was the name of the game. Bankers loved it, analysts misunderstood it and the Russians were crushed by it.

    It was this kind of chaos into which Putin stepped when he became president, and which he has slowly, inexorably, been bringing to heel for several years. This is the context in which Litvi

  92. I should not be surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is Slashdot, afterwards. From the article in NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/weekinreview/03b road.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

    In Tennessee, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory sells dozens of types of rare nuclear materials to American manufacturers. But Bill Cabage, a lab spokesman, said it sold no polonium 210 because Russia was able to do so much more inexpensively.

    Nuclear experts said the apparent origin of much of the world's polonium 210 in Russia, including quantities used in American products,, meant that investigations of the toxin's provenance would probably reveal little. What would be surprising, the experts said, was if the radioactive toxin turned out to have been made or mined outside Russia.

    Stop the hysteria - someone needed to put pressure on Russia to agree to something which they refuse to do. I am sure it has nothing to do with access to Russian gas, oil or financial markets for foreign corporations.

  93. well, if the attacker screwed up, it would fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the attacker is dying.

    The stuff is kind of volatile and easy to inhale. They had over 100x the required dose.

  94. Re:DailyKos is reality based? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, the GOP had six years of unfettered rule. The proved to more corrupt,less fiscally discplined and more radical than almost any Democratic controlled government of the last 100 years. While the Democrats may not have a buzzword, sound bite agenda. The GOP smells of pig shit and unless they can warp another event to evoke enough fear, they are not coming back anytime soon.

  95. Scarey how vunerable the west is by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    Back in 1978, Jimmy Carter sounded the alarm about the west becoming dependant on energy from flaky countries. At that time, America imported something like 7% of our energy. Now, we are up to 60%. And what is happening?
    • England sounds the alarm on Global Warming, but really is doing little. If they were serious, they would move heavily towards Nuke and Alternative.
    • America had Bush offer up huge tax cuts for Oil, moderate for coal, and little for nukes. And then he transferred Alternative research funding to Oil and Coal research funding.

    What amazes me, is that the west continues to become more and more dependant on OPEC, CIS, etc. while other countries are ratcheting up their own alternative energy (Iran, Cuba, and Brazil comes to mind).
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  96. A warning to Putin, then? by FFFish · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this was a warning to Putin, not the West. A signal that a powerful mafia group is making a power play, and that he better not stand in the way?

    --

    --
    Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  97. another possibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even as an ex-spy, he would still have had connections within Russia, and probably in lots of other places. Maybe he was somehow involved with the trading of some stolen nuclear material?

    If a larger quantity of it passed through his hands then an accident is plausible; otherwise an associate could have used it to murder him just because it was right there.

  98. Because FEAR is effective and Russia is dangerous by HighOrbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An unremarkable death of a dissident by random accident, common crime, or seemingly natural causes makes no notoriety. It might get rid of the immediate disident, but it will not prevent other disidents from 'causing trouble'. Killing a disident via a not-so-subtle and paticularly gruesome manner sends an unmistakeable message. The message is 'obey, or this could be you'. Killing him overseas means 'we can get you anywhere, anytime'. They want people to know, because fear is an effective means of suppressing dissent.

    Russia is dangerous. It is nationalistic, it is autocratic, it feels humiliated and condescended upon by the West, it is paranoid, it is jealous, and its economy is fragile and only propped up by the current run-up in oil and gas prices. It only needs a ruthless populist (read 'demagogue') to push it over the edge to full-on fascism. It already has pretext for expansion based up the plight of ethnic russian minorities in its former empire.

    Just a dangerous is that for a nationalist Russia, this would be a rational and likely succesful course of action. Russia need but bluster and Europe will cower, while the US is busy elsewhere. Russia would be able to get away with suppressing internal dissent and perhaps annexing some of their neighbors, and they know it. Europe is not psychologically prepared to fight WW3 over the Baltic nations, or Ukraine, or Trans-Dneister and the Russians know this. They need not fear any UN action because they possess a veto in the Security Council (not that the UN is to be feared by anyone anyway, its last meaningful military action was Korea in the 1950s).

  99. Another question by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Just because I was digging into the whole thing. On question arises, as it seems the whole radiation investigation seems to be centered around the planes and certain locations in england. But not the airports. But the Polonium must have passed certain focal points in the airports of moskwa and london as well (especially the normal luggage areas for the hand or the normal luggage) Just a minor question regarding this, how much possibility is there that some contamination in a long term bad dosage still can happen on russian or london airports through to luggage contamination or whatever. I assume by now the chances are close to zero due to cleaning and natural influences, like wind etc... But can anyone with a clue share more insight into this. It seems strange to me that only the planes were really constantly in the news, while I heard nothing about having certain areas on the affected airports being deconaminated.

  100. Cortesy to "Lucky Number Sleven" and Freeman by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    "I told you to do a job, who can't look like a job, but suddenly it really starts to look like a job".
    [The Boss - Lucky Number Sleven]

    (not quite a correct citation, I know, but could not look it up in hurry)

    There are already lot of wild speculations - who can be done this, why this is done, etc. etc. - but what mostly strikes me is that lot of people in the West and Russia itself (and don't give me ironed out shit that no one cares - they do, they simple continue to live like in U.S.S.R. - don't piss on government and you will be fine) in matter of seconds would say that it is murder. And it is ordered by Putin. Because of revenge and anger atmosphere Russia have created around ANY criticism of ANY thing they do it feels really plausible. It is not like they first started to do it, it feels the same in US too, but at least there is no killings of opposition, just lot of character assassination.

    Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, in the age of Fear.

    Why it is always that big nations wants that someone (neighborhood, small countries in their nearest location etc.) loves them? For Christ sakes, we are no enemies, let's first get over the past (one thing what Russia definitely doesn't want, because they don't see that U.S.S.R. was a totalitarian, murderous regime) and let's start trading, cultural exchange (what common crowd usually wants, they are simply tired of politics). But hell no, Russia uses economical tools to punish it's neighbors, like Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukrainia... For what sake? It is the way to earn friends? It feels like Russia still have not gotten out of "strong hand" syndrome. Putin is very big evidence of that.

    I fear for Russia future, because it is not definitely future that Russia would like to have. And I fear for rest of us, because if Russia won't be strong (strong hand syndrome "and let's be friends, then you will get a cookie" isn't evidence of strong country), there will be serious problems for all of us.

    p.s. I'm living in Latvia

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  101. Confusion? by PeterAitch · · Score: 1

    "Hard to handle? Nah - remember that it's not lethal unless you basically ingest it in sufficient quantity. You could put an eyedropper full of a polonium salt solution in his food when he was taking a leak and absorb maybe 1/10000 of the quantity that he got."


    I'm glad that someone wrote this - not that it is wrong, but it does underline how hard it is to get to grips with the quantities involved. The implication (probably unintentional) is of waiters rushing around with bottles of polonium salt solution. This may indeed have been how this element was ultimately administered, but it's certainly not as trivial as the above would suggest, due to the extreme chemical and radiological toxicity.

    Here in the UK, this story been a source of fascination for many. It's been of particular interest to those 33,000 of us who travelled on one of the contaminated planes (in my case, back from Moscow) even though the risk of contamination is essentially negligable, especially given that the planes are now in service again.

    Many ./ers will have done their homework, but if you aren't one of them, here goes:

    'A milligram of polonium-210 emits as much alpha radiation as about 5 grams of radium, and enough gamma radiation to cause a blue glow in the air around it. Polonium has found use in small portable radiation sources and in the control of static electricity. However, it is an extremely toxic substance and must be handled with great care. Polonium was the first element to be discovered because of its radioactivity; it was discovered in pitchblende in 1898 by Marie Curie and named for her native country, Poland.
    Polonium (in common with Plutonium-238) has the ability to become airborne with ease. More than one hypothesis exists for how polonium does this; one suggestion that that small clusters of polonium atoms are spalled off by the alpha decay.
    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 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.'

    It's also expensive to produce by neutron capture from a reactor , in Russia or anywhere else. It has been estimated that the amount of Po-210 used in this poisoning would cost about $20 million to make. So, any eyedropper would have contained an extremely dilute solution. It would still be a risky business, since such small quantities are needed and the killer(s) used a relatively massive dose (according to the post-mortem).

    What's interesting to me is the way the media have mangled the story ("Geiger counters cannot be used to detect alpha-particles", for example, in the Guardian and then put on to the BBC website). Most of the public have, sadly, no idea what's scientifically plausible and many of those who have rung official sources for health advice seem to have had no joy there either.

    At the same time, we do have the expertise (at the AWRE in Berkshire) to determine the source of the polonium from its isotopic spread. (I visited there once, whilst working with neutron-irradiation: very interesting place).

    As for the politics - when did any Government let the facts get in the way of a good deal (for them)? Even in my own working life, insistence on the data hasn't done me any favours - and most of that was in science!

  102. Russian defector checked every meal for radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember vaguely that in the seventies there was a Russian defector who checked every meal and drink for radiation. Russians have a long history of killing their enemies with radioactive stuff. For example a President of Romania was killed this way by the Russians in the early sixties.

    Litvinenko was a professional spy, he betrayed his country and knew what are the risks involved in defecting, he should have checked EVERY THING HE PUT IN HIS MOUTH for radiation. Probably he was too lazy to do it and paid the price for his negligence. He is the first to be blamed for his death. The assasins only did their job and patriotic duty, for them it was business as usual.

  103. Putin has bigger fish to fry by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    More importantly, I really doubt Putin has the time and interest to order individual assasinations. He has much more important issues to deal with than such micro management.

  104. Yep, Suvorov. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
    From WP:
    GRU author Vladimir Rezun, "Viktor Suvorov" alleges in Inside Soviet Military Intelligence that Penkovsky was bound to a board with piano wire and 'cremated alive'.
    So, yes, I think that's where the anecdote comes from.
    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  105. You shuld care. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You are sliding back into an authoritarian regime.

    Those never work in the benefit of the people.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  106. Nuclear reactors: uneconomical white elephants. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    All nuclear energy so far is heavily subsideized by the state, even in the US.

    It is not panacea because it is expensive and sprouts materials that are so dangerous it is not funny.

    Other sources of energy in combination with widespread reductions in the consumption of energy is the only sutainable solution.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  107. The GP poster is showing his age.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    New stoves use a similar system to the one you are describing...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  108. Er, yes. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    With so many politicians in the West parroting about the threat of terrorism, the UK would get the cold shoulder from other countries if proben unreliable when it comes to the handling of radiocative materials.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.