Re: Follow the Breadcrumbs
- From: ThePsyko <thepsyko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 04 Dec 2006 18:02:41 GMT
On 02 Dec 2006 I stormed the castle called alt.2600 and heard Me cry out
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:18:50 GMT, Tannhauser Gate
Me <no-address_for_spammers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
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 deal of
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
The exempt quantity amount of Polonium-210, or any of the
radioactive isotopes sold is so small that they are essentially
invisible to the human eye.
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 specified.
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 invisible.
Of course it is, so your apparent inference that the press is wrong
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 is *not* "cut and pasted straight off of the United Nuclear
isotopes page" The following text is the part you omitted, because
your attention span gave out before you got to the end of the page.
No, you useless ass, I omitted it because it was irrelevant.
Note that this is
the part that uses the phrase "invisible amount," which is the phrase
that makes your interpretation collapse.
I interpreted nothing, I cut and pasted text from a web page and made
no comment on it. You obviously have the IQ of a garbage can, boi.
"In comparison, Amercium-241 is a similar toxic Alpha radiation
emitter. Instead of a half life of 138 days like Polonium-210 has, it
has a half life of over 450 years. It is far more toxic - and there is
10 times more than the 'exempt quantity' amount in every smoke
detector in your home.
If you really wanted to poison someone, you would of course have to
come up with a way to remove the invisible amount of material from the
exempt sources - which is just about physically impossible and combine
them together. Of course you would also need that 15,000 exempt
In addition, there are dozens of other far more toxic materials, such
as Ricin and Abrin, both of which can easily be made, and are also
undetectable as a poison and untraceable.
Although it obviously works, Polonium-210 is a poor choice for a
Another point to keep in mind is that an order for 15,000 sources
would look a tad
suspicious, considering we sell about 1 or 2 sources every 3 months.
Make sure you are truly knowledgeable about a subject before you start
repeating and spreading potentially incorrect information related to
Pay close attention to this last paragraph, junior, and stick with
computer programming, leaving the nuclear science to the MIT men. Or
go back to college and TAKE A SCIENCE CLASS!!!
It so happens that I'm one of only a handful of people listed with the
state of Georgia as a "Qualified Expert" on radiation shielding
design. There are literally hundreds of radiation shielding designs on
file with the state of Georgia for medical facilities state wide
drafted and calculated by yours truly, and bearing my signature.
Radiation shielding happens to be a large part of my occupation. The
few here that know who I am can and I'm sure will verify that.
I've seen a patent of yours. I was impressed then and remain so to this
Public Enemy #7