Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
gederer
Published Letters: 25 Editor's Choice: 1
Polonium 210 is available commercially in the US without a license. I don't know whether it is on the NPT list. Probably not. You don't need to control a nuclear reactor in order to lay hands on this stuff. Take a look at these anti-static brushes, e.g.:
www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=1818
I don't think these guys have a nuclear reactor lying around. Polonium 210 has a number of commercial applications, and is also used for many kinds of scientific research.
We may have abundant cause to think that the Russians were involved in this incident. But, the notion that a state actor is required to explain the presence of polonium is simply wrong.
This is the sort of flub that occurs when a non-science reporter reports on a highly technical topic. A number of the assertions made by John Large in the course of Alex Koppelman's interview defy the common sense of any person with a hard science background.
Two items that jumped off the page at me:
Salon does a fine job of vetting most of the reportage that it publishes; however, the appearance of this article on the Salon web site betrays a profound lack of technical and scientific editorial oversight. For the good of the publication and its readership, Salon should:
Greg
I'm more than happy to stand corrected. I've learned at least half of what I know by finding out that I was initially wrong. I also have no interest in humiliating or one-upping anyone. (Your insinuation that this is my motive is kind of a cheap shot).
I stand by my statement concerning the availability of polonium 210. This substance is not harder to come by than, say, key reagents used in the manufacture of illicit drugs.
My speculation about the use of a halide compound was just that: a speculation. I indicated this by framing my statement as a "guess". Sounds like you know more about this than I do, and I have no problem saying so. Still, Large's speculation that some form of exotic nanotechnology is required to explain this incident strikes me as being unparsimonious. He could turn out to be right. (It would be more interesting, actually, if he did). But, at this point, I would put my money on something far more prosaic. It will be interesting to find out.
Having stated as much, I return to the real intent of my previous post, which is neither to flaunt expertise that I do not possess, nor to denigrate an expert for kicks, but to suggest that Salon improve the quality of its science reporting. Salon should have handed this assignment to a science reporter, should have consulted more than one expert, and should have vetted this story more carefully before affixing it prominently beneath its masthead. Salon does an excellent job in other areas, and ought to do an equally excellent job in this area. I offer these thoughts as constructive criticism in the hope that they will be of some use.
Just to clarify, I never suggested that the culprits in this case extracted polonium from brushes (or any other end-use product containing polonium); but that, if the brush manufacturers can obtain enough polonium to make a go of it, then anybody else could obtain material in quantity from the same sources.
Back in the day, Stan Owsley was able to purchase large quantities of mescaline from legitimate suppliers by setting up a fake lab. He even hosted federal inspectors in his lab, and got away with it. This sort of thing would, I think, be even easier to pull off in Russia, a nation many of whose bureaucrats rely on graft for their livelihoods.
The only people who had the technological skill to pull off this poisoning are to be found among the nuclear powers, and probably only one or two of them at that.
This is why this matters, isn't it? I dispute this. Litvinenko's killers could have purchased their material from a lab or a company, or from a large number of small sources. They could have bought it from a corruptible employee at a nuclear power plant. They could have devised a simple and effective delivery system, and done their murder.
The participation of a state actor is not required to explain this case. It is not yet possible to rule out a plot by rogue actors. It may still turn out that Putin did it. On the other hand, it may not.
Thank you for your obviously sincere apology, which I fully accept.
I agree with you that Putin had both the means and the motive to do this murder, and that his history of violence makes him a prime suspect. He is not a nice man.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
