[ RadSafe ] RE: 15000 units of Po210
Gillespie, Timothy J.
gillespietj at ornl.gov
Wed Dec 20 10:15:33 CST 2006
The ORAU web site has some interesting information. Apparently, the polonium in the older Staticmaster devices was adsorbed onto resin beads that were then fired into a ceramic. Modern static eliminators use foils.
http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/consumer%20products/staticeliminator.htm
Tim Gillespie
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Bernard L. Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:50 AM
To: Jim Hardeman
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: 15000 units of Po210
Does anyone know how the Po-210 sources are securely sealed without stopping the alpha particles which are used to eliminate static electic charges? The seal must really be secure because escaping Polonium is highly volatile and once released it spreads everywhere.
Jim Hardeman wrote:
>Folks --
>
>I went back and looked at Georgia's Rules and Regulations for
>Radioactive Materials ... NRC's and most states' regulations for
>exemptions and the like should be similar (if not identical).
>
>As I indicated in an earlier e-mail, the exempt quantity for Po-210 is
>0.1 microcurie (good memory on my part!). There is, however, a
>provision for general licensure for static elimination devices
>containing sealed Po-210 sources up to 500 microcuries ... I'm not sure
>as to these particular devices (I'm not in our materials program) but
>normally persons selling generally licensed devices are required to
>report to the radiation control authority in a particular jurisdiction
>the names, addresses, etc. of persons or firms acquiring such devices
>within their jurisdiction ... and this notification requirement may
>vary from one jurisdiction to another. The distinction between an
>exempt source and one acquired under a general license may be subtle,
>but the general license does at least allow for "some" ability to
>backtrack. But the bottom line is, yes, it is is legal for "anyone" to
>own a static elimination device containing up to 500 uCi Po-210 ... and
>for that matter, there's no legal restriction against "anyone"
>possessing more than one (1) of these devices.
>
>My $0.02 worth ...
>
>Jim Hardeman
>Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us
>
>
>
>>>>Keith Welch <welch at jlab.org> 12/19/06 11:09 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>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
>long.
>
>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: <5.2.0.9.2.20061219092228.03561380 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
>>>>
>>>>
>detectors
>
>
>>>>you would need to make an RDD. If I remember correctly, the United
>>>>
>>>>
>Nuclear
>
>
>>>>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:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>_______________________________________________
>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:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
--
ÐÏࡱá
_______________________________________________
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: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list