Re: Follow the Breadcrumbs
- From: Me <no-address_for_spammers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:50:55 -0500
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:22:15 GMT, Tannhauser Gate
Me <no-address_for_spammers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:29:03 -0500, Me
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:25:41 GMT, FrozenNorth
Me tossed the following at the wall, and it stuck:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:05:24 GMT, Tannhauser Gate
Polonium 210, huh? Talk about "leaving a trail."
Not exactly a stock item at Eckerds, is it.
Want to buy some:
Foly Huck! LOL. I think I'll pass as I'd probably wind up accidentally
killing MYSELF, but that IS interesting.
Below is a notice posted on the website under discussion. Note the
last line in particular...
"A SPECIAL NOTICE ABOUT POLONIUM-210
With the recent news of Polonium-210 being used as a poison, a good
incorrect information has been passed around (primarily by the media)
concerning the Polonium isotope and radioactive materials in general.
It's important to get the facts correct. The general public is quite
ignorant when it comes to knowledge about radioactive materials and
radiation in general.
The amount of Plonium-210, as well as any of the isotopes we sell is
an 'exempt quantity' amount. These quantities of radioactive material
are not hazardous - this is why they are permitted by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to be sold to the general public without
any sort of license.
Although we do sell these isotopes, distributors such as United
Nuclear Scientific Supplies (and just about any isotope distributor)
do not actually stock them.
All isotopes are made to order at an NRC licensed reactor in Oak Ridge
Tennessee. When the isotope is made, it is shipped directly to the
customer from the reactor to insure the longest possible half-life.
The exempt quantity amount of Polonium-210, or any of the radioactive
isotopes sold is so small that they are essentially invisible to the
In the case of needle sources, the radioactive material is
electroplated on the inside of the eye of a needle.
You would need about 15,000 of our Polonium-210 needle sources
at a total cost of about $1 million - to have a toxic amount."
I think you're misinterpreting this text. The phrase "needle source" has
no scientific meaning, it is a phrase invented by hack journalists to
describe an amount to be so tiny that it cannot be seen without a
microscope, and the magnification of this hypothetical microscope is never
The United Nuclear website (unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm) mentioned at
Slashdot invokes the more useful phrase, "invisible amount," to describe
the make, believe head-of-a-pin measure invented by the press. This begs
the question of whether 15,000 times an invisible amount is still
Of course it is, so your apparent inference that the press is wrong is
Ummm... bro, the notice to which you are replying was cut and pasted
straight off of the United Nuclear isotopes page. Not my inference -
THEY are the ones saying that the press is clueless.
It's really just the same old stupid question of how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin. The obvious answer, "all of them,"
shows the debate over how many pinheads can fit onto the head of a pin is
This reminds me of hack journalists' tendency to measure distances given in
hundreds of yards in terms of "football fields." The football field is no
more a scientifically accurate measurement of distance than heads of pins
is a measurement of volume. Or as I've said so many times before, TAKE A
- Re: Follow the Breadcrumbs
- From: FrozenNorth
- Re: Follow the Breadcrumbs