baconaut
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 26-10-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
United Nuclear Mentioned in Po-210 case
I picked up the SF Chronicle today, and on the front page is a big photo of a UN alpha emitter and the headline "Ex-spy's poison on the internet."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/28/M...
This can't be good publicity for us or them.
|
|
|
Nerro
National Hazard
Posts: 596
Registered: 29-9-2004
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Whatever...
|
|
Sure it is, any publicity is good publicity.
It will boost their "bad-ass factor" 
#261501 +(11351)- [X]
the \"bishop\" came to our church today
he was a fucken impostor
never once moved diagonally
courtesy of bash
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
Why pay such exorbitant prices for your Po-210???
From this giant photo store in New York
http://www.adorama.com/CPSMR1.html?searchinfo=static&ite...
you can get 2500 times as much Po-210, 250 uCi vs 0.1 uCi, for only $14. Thats a whopping 50 ng. (The store page doesn't specify the 250 uCi amount,
but I know this to be the case.)
|
|
|
Fleaker
International Hazard
Posts: 1252
Registered: 19-6-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: nucleophilic
|
|
Utterly ridiculous
But naturally who wants to villanize a large photo supply when they can target an eccentric physicist who's already been in trouble (even if he sells
2500X less than what is obtainable at the photo supply)? Perhaps it would be worthy to mention that to the author of that article if he/she should
follow up on it.
[Edited on 29-11-2006 by Fleaker]
Neither flask nor beaker.
"Kid, you don't even know just what you don't know. "
--The Dark Lord Sauron
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Fleaker
Perhaps it would be worthy to mention that to the author of that article if he/she should follow up on it.
|
I vote against letting any journalist know about the good Po-210 sources. My motives are completely selfish, though. I just want to keep *MY*
source.  After all, unlike most elements, you can't just buy this once, since
it loses about 90% every year.
|
|
|
baconaut
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 26-10-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sent this to the author of the article, I don't think any sources will be lost...anti-static brushes will stay in demand...
"http://www.adorama.com/CPSMR1.html?searchinfo=static&item_no=22
That's about 2500x more Po-210 than is sold in United Nuclear's samples, and much, much, cheaper too. It doesn't do a company much good to have their
name linked to an assassination, especially if the company has nothing to do with it. Home chemistry keeps getting a bad rep from the media: they're
all either meth cooks, terrorist-bombers, or crackpots from what I've seen reported. This (obviously) isn't the case for the majority of them. United
Nuclear exists as one of a shrinking number of chemical suppliers who dare to sell supplies to the average citizen. It's not illegal or wrong to buy
chemicals, to be a home chemist, but if the misinformed public keeps on believing what they read it will be for sure.
This is a public forum of many highly intelligent home chemists who work for advancement of knowledge or fun, not with malicious intent. I recommend
you check it out: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/index.php"
Kinda lame, and now that I look back at it, also a bit rude. Oh well.
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
Slashdot is now discussing the United Nuclear Po-210 sources...
http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/11/29/169254.shtml
[Edited on 29-11-2006 by pantone159]
|
|
|
baconaut
Harmless
Posts: 8
Registered: 26-10-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Got a response back from the author:
"Dear Cody,
My thanks for your thoughtful letter, which is also much more polite than some of the angry missives I've received! I feel no hostility toward
chemistry buffs. However, there are important public safety issues here that go far beyond the self-interest of home lab enthusiasts, and I expect
regulators might soon be reassessing rules regarding this kind of online commerce. In an age of terrorism, when people must ransack their pockets
simply to get on a plane, home chemists can hardly expect to be immune to any federal or media scrutiny. The Unabomber was a "home chemist," too.
Best, Keay"
I feel that if there is going to be a "reassessing (of) rules regarding this kind of online commerece" that it isn't necessary. The amounts of Po you
can get off the internet is miniscule in toxicity compared to chemicals less toxic but more easily and more cheaply available at the local store.
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by baconaut
Got a response back from the author:
"The Unabomber was a "home chemist," too.
Best, Keay"
|
Did he just say...GAH....WTF...(*cry*)...This guy is the prime example of the sheeple mentality. He does not deserve the dignity of a nice reply.
What this asshole deserves is his email used to register on gay porn sites.(anyone want to do this? I am not going to such websites).
Since he is most likely reading this now that he has the site link.
The unabomber was no more a chemist than a fucking methcook, such scum do not deserve to even eat the mercury waste of a real chemist. Now I have no
idea what the unabomber used, but the ability to follow a procedure to make an explosive does not make one a chemist, just as the ability to bake
cookies does not make one the iron chef. You obvious are full of hostility to 'chemistry buffs' as noone who had done more in depth research than
watching fox or cnn would make such a statement. You are no more than a fearmongerer.
|
|
|
Ozone
International Hazard
Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Integrated
|
|
Hello all, in the "sane" world.
I would suggest that this misguided individual *read*:
1. Vonnegut, K.; Sirens of Titan
2. Orwell, G.; 1984
3. Huxley, A.; Brave New World
I would ask them if this is what they which the world to be like.
I for one do *not*; I do not wish to be a practitioner of an art which can be practiced only under the auspices of institution. Chemistry would not
have evolved in this sort of environment. This is counter productive to *any* society, and is not relegated solely to the United States (of North
America).
Horrifying,
O3
If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire, quoted from Kevin Courcey, "Religion a Natural When it Comes To Terrorism"
and,
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
also Voltaire.
-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
This blog, linked by the New York Times, both mentions United Nuclear and points out that the amounts that UN sells are insignificantly small.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/poison-poison-ev...
It does seem to get something wrong, however, in that it implies that the anti-static brushes have less Po than the sources, when it is the other way
round.
|
|
|
pantone159
National Hazard
Posts: 586
Registered: 27-6-2006
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: desperate for shade
|
|
This NY Times article talks about Po-210 availability in other places, including some anti-static fan packing c. 30,000 uCi. No United Nuclear
scaremongering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/weekinreview/03broad.html?...
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Most of the antistatic applications of alpha emitters have been switched to beta sources, or so I am told.
This hack at the Chronicle is just trying to get in on the feeding frenzy.
What's next? Is he going to go after smoke detectors?
The public is irrational on this subject and the media loves to keep them that way.
So do some government agencies. Look at how the women who presently runs MI5 (the British security service) is hyping the whole dirty-bomb thing out
of all proportion.
They had some Islamic nutter who was nattering on about buying about 5000 smoke detectors and harvesting americium then scattering it around.
I did the math. In theory he could have collected less than 1 g of americium. Ho hum. Yawn. Americium isn't polonium.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
