[ RadSafe ] RE: 15000 units of Po210

Ed Hiserodt hise at sbcglobal.net
Tue Dec 19 20:06:00 CST 2006


Almost makes you feel sorry for those unfortunate murderers who've wasted
all that money on bullets and knives when they could have just pulled a few
static eliminator brushes off convenient stereos and gone on a killing
spree.  I found 1960 and 1980 models of "eliminators" on the internet -- are
they still available, or gone with the turntable?

Ed Hiserodt

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Keith Welch
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:10 AM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: 15000 units of Po210

Ten million dollars?  Sheeesh.  Looks like United Nuclear is part of the 
problem.  That info on their website is just bogus.  You can buy 500 uCi 
(I seem to remember a consensus that a few millicuries is lethal) static 
eliminator sources for 20 bucks (online, with a credit card and no 
license).  And that news report is even more flaky.  What a bunch of 
hogwash.  Sounds like some rag-mag trying to fan the flame of a 
conspiracy theory.  Fact is anybody with a credit card can buy enough Po 
to kill someone with, and could likely produce the poison by simple 
mechanical means (it wouldn't take a chemist or physicist).  Yes, they'd 
get pretty contaminated doing it, and they'd waste a lot of the Po, and 
it might not be in the most efficient form to be absorbed, but hey, it's 
cheap, just buy ten times more than you need.  Basic precautions would 
keep them from  killing themselves in the process.  My guess is 
somewhere, someone's got a really crapped-up basement - but not for too 

Keith Welch

> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:45 -0500
> From: Cindy Bloom <radbloom at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Po-210: What is a unit?
> To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Message-ID: < at mail.comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
> The United Nuclear's website supports Jim's conjecture.
> http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm
> Cindy
> At 09:01 AM 12/19/2006 -0500, Jim Hardeman wrote:
>> >Ivor --
>> >
>> >Just guessing, but I would think that "unit" in this context means the 
>> >amount of material present in one of the sources that United Nuclear 
>> >offers for sale for $69 ... sort of like counting how many smoke
>> >you would need to make an RDD. If I remember correctly, the United
>> >sources are distributed in the US as exempt items ... meaning that each 
>> >one (from memory) would contain ~0.1 microcurie or less of Po-210.
>> >
>> >Jim Hardeman
>> >Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us
>> >
>>>>> > >>> Ivor Surveyor <isurveyor at vianet.net.au> 12/18/2006 18:29 >>>
>> >The following report is from the
>> >AUSTRALIAN.    Can somebody please explain what
>> >is meant by a "unit of radioactivity," as quoted in the article.
>> >
>> >Russian spy's fatal dose of poison cost $13m
>> >Correspondents in London
>> >19dec06
>> >
>> >BRITISH police believe the radioactive substance
>> >used to kill former Russian spy Alexander
>> >Litvinenko cost more than $US10 million ($13 million).
>> >
>> >According to The Times, preliminary results from
>> >the post-mortem examination on Litvinenko's body
>> >have shown he was given more than 10 times the
>> >lethal dose of polonium-210, large quantities of
>> >which were found in his urine.
>> >
>> >"Only a state-sponsored organisation could obtain
>> >such a large amount of polonium-210 without
>> >raising suspicion on the international market,"
>> >said Alexander Goldfarb, a friend of Litvinenko.
>> >
>> >United Nuclear Scientific Supplies, based in New
>> >Mexico - one of the few companies allowed to sell
>> >polonium-210 over the internet - said it would
>> >take at least 15,000 units of the isotope to kill someone.
>> >
>> >With each unit costing $US69, it would have cost
>> >more than $US10 million to deliver Litvinenko's fatal dose.
>> >
>> >"You can't buy this much off the internet or
>> >steal it from a laboratory without raising an
>> >alarm, so the only two plausible explanations for
>> >the source are that it was obtained from a
>> >nuclear reactor or very well-connected
>> >black-market smugglers," an unidentified British security source said.
>> >
>> >British detectives working on the case in Moscow
>> >were due to return to Britain this week.
>> >
>> >Security sources said Russian officials refused
>> >to ask questions of Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri
>> >Kovtun - both of whom met Litvinenko on the day
>> >he fell ill - that British detectives wanted
>> >answered. They had not complained publicly
>> >because of the importance of the case to
>> >diplomatic relations between Britain and Russia.
>> >
>> >High-ranking Kremlin officials have mocked
>> >Litvinenko's boasts, after he defected to
>> >Britain, about his role in their security services.
>> >
>> >Minister of Defence Sergei Ivanov claimed that
>> >Litvinenko, far from being a top KGB spy as he
>> >liked to claim, was merely a prison guard.
>> >
>> >Mr Ivanov said Litvinenko had never had access to
>> >secret or important information and was "of such
>> >poor character" he was dismissed from the Russian
>> >security agency when it was being run by Vladimir Putin.
>> >
>> >"He was never a spy and never knew anything of
>> >any real value to give to any (foreign
>> >intelligence) service," Mr Ivanov said. "He was
>> >just a Russian who meant nothing to us."
>> >
>> >Referring to the letter in which Litvinenko
>> >accused the Kremlin of poisoning him, Mr Ivanov
>> >said:"We didn't care what he said and what he wrote on his deathbed."
>> >
>> >Kremlin officials again described the accusations
>> >of Russian involvement made by Litvinenko and his friends as ludicrous.
>> >
>> >Valentin Velichko, a colonel who is president of
>> >Honour and Dignity, a powerful group of KGB
>> >veterans, dismissed Litvinenko as "a nonentity".
>> >
>> >He said in an interview with the Rossiiskaya
>> >Gazeta newspaper that Litvinenko was never a
>> >target for Russian intelligence because he was
>> >not important enough to bother with.

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list