- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
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.
