Bank Menatep provided the foundation for Khodorkovsky's bidding for Yukos in 1995 in the infamous "loans-for-shares" scheme. In this manipulation, a small group of individuals well connected to government structures were handed valuable pieces of state property in return for cash "loans" (which in many cases were funded by the bank accounts of the state bank). One purpose of this operation was to help Boris Yeltsin's reelection in 1996. Khodorkovsky paid a small price of 350 million dollars for Yukos, considering that approximately $1.5 billion USD has been spent purchasing the assets that now make up Yukos, with a market capitalisation of $31 billion USD. He claims that the depressed value of the company came from widespread fears that the Communists would win the next legislative election and seize it back.

Widespread fears that we know from "Spinning Boris" were helped along by the two Republican consultants hired by the campaign organizers, one of whom was Khodorkovsky's partner Nevzlin.

Maybe they should have titled that movie "Spinning Yukos."

At first I thought it was a wild idea to propose that Khodorkovsky would even think he could influence the next election and get his company back by killing Litvinenko and maybe even Politkovskaya and making it look like Putin was to blame.

But look at how these people operate. Such a maneuver would be almost expected from them.

These murders make Putin look like a Stalinist. But making Zyuganov look like a Stalinist was how they got Yukos so cheaply in the first place.

Mossad.

The trail is intentional.

It will path through Russia.

No chance of looking under the hood of Israeli nuclear plants.

At a time when Putin is clearly looking to foster closer strategic relations with Iran, Israel needs Putin to be demonized in the eyes of the West to push its agenda.

This dovetails nicely for many reasons.

I can't vouch for the expertise of the interviewee. But it strikes me as highly doubtful, given his educational and professional back-ground, that he would be guilty of some of the errors he is being charged with by the posters here. The posters themselves are sometimes guilty of mistaken assumptions and outright errors in their "critical analysis".

Just to cite one egregious example, among many possible instances: Reader crumley states that "beta and gamma decay are different. Another error in this article is the numerous times it says 'beta gamma' decay or activity. Beta decay and gamma decay are two different types of radioactive decay."

Where to begin? Well, first off, there is no such thing as "gamma decay". There are three kinds of decay events that result in the transmutation of an isotope of one element into one or more isotopes of another element, or elements. They are:

(1.) Fission: Fission can be spontaneous or induced. It is induced when a nucleus is struck by a neutron of just the right energy (it is not just a matter of brute force; the target nucleus behaves approximately like a liquid that separates into two droplets). The target nucleus splits apart into two smaller nuclei of different atomic number and weight (different elements).

(2.) Alpha Decay: This is a special case of spontaneous fission of an unstable nucleus (unstable means basically the same thing as "short half-life"). A particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons (Helium nucleus) is emitted. The atomic number of the emitting nucleus has been reduced by two, making it a different element, and its atomic weight has been reduced by four (approximately, as there is a tiny amount of binding energy/ mass involved, as well).

(3.) Beta Decay: A nucleus is transmuted into an isotope of another element when a single unstable neutron undergoes spontaneous decay (the neutron is unstable due to complex tensions involving the relative proportions of protons and neutrons, and the amount of binding energy present; effectively, it is behaving as though it were "free", as all free neutrons will undergo decay at a random rate clustered around an average neutron half-life). In beta, the decaying nucleus emits a single electron and a single gamma photon of discrete energy. By emitting an electron (charge -1) the neutron is transmuted into a proton (charge +1). The nucleus now has an atomic number that is one less than it had originally, and is now an isotope of a different element.

The interviewee's use of the term "beta gamma" is correct. There are several kinds of events that can produce gamma photons-- e.g., matter/ anti-matter annihilation. Each kind of event has its own characteristic-- i.e., discrete-- frequency or energy. The origin and characteristic energy of the gamma photon emitted in a beta decay event is what qualifies it as "beta gamma".

Those who are arguing that this article is "not up to Salon's standards", need to go back to the drawing board; or, perhaps more to the point, a more advanced textbook than the one they've been reading.

wmsberry@charter.net

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:

• Contrary to Large's claims, polonium 210 is widely available. It is a commonly used gamma source found in many kinds of labs all over the world. Polonium is also used in a number of industrial applications. If the non-static brush guys can order this in quantity, so can anyone else.
• Although, as Large asserts, polonium metal is insoluble in water (and, therefore, would be retained in the gut), many simple compounds of polonium are highly water soluble. My guess is that the polonium used to kill Litvinenko was in the form of a polonium halide salt, which would dissolve in water readily. No nanotechnology required.

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:

• Put a science reporter on this story, and deliver the facts.
• Institute new procedures for vetting scientific and technical material in advance of publication.
• Publish a piece on how this happened, and what Salon is doing to ensure that it will not happen again

Greg