Ancora Imparo

25 November 2006

Litvinenko Apparently Poisoned with Polonium-210

Filed under: chemistry, physics, science — Darmok @ 11:26 UTC

Former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has been in the international news after suddenly falling ill earlier this month, then dying on 23 November. The cause of his illness confounded his physicians, who initially postulated that might have been poisoned with thallium. However, in a surprising twist, the cause of death now appears to be poisoning with radioactive polonium-210 (210Po). That is, the poison did not work by the usual chemical means, but instead released radiation as it decayed inside his body. Given this unusual method of toxicity, officials in the United Kingdom are now trying to determine how next to proceed. Debora MacKenzie writes in the New Scientist

“This is an unprecedented event in the UK,” said HPA [Health Protection Agency] chief executive Pat Troop. “It is the first time someone in the UK has apparently been deliberately poisoned with a radioactive agent.”

The agency is now assessing the health risks posed to members of the public who may have come into contact with Litvinenko, including family members and hospital staff who cared for him during the weeks he spent in hospital. They are also trying to decide the safest way for pathologists to conduct an autopsy of his body, and indeed whether such a procedure is safe enough to be performed at all.

Polonium on periodic table, from Wikipedia
Source: Wikipedia

Polonium is an extremely rare element. It has an atomic number of 84, meaning that it has 84 protons (and therefore, 84 electrons); its position in the periodic table is shown here courtesy of Wikipedia. There are 25 known isotopes of polonium; polonium-210 (with 126 neutrons) is the most common. Polonium and every element with a higher atomic number (that is, 84 and up) are radioactive; that is, they are unstable, and spontaneously decay into other elements. Ms. MacKenzie goes on to write

Polonium is a radioactive element that is used industrially as an anti-static material. It is difficult to get hold of and not used regularly by research scientists, but very small traces of it occur naturally. The metal is usually made by bombarding the element bismuth with neutrons.

“To poison someone, large amounts of polonium-210 are required and this would have to be manmade, perhaps from a particle accelerator or a nuclear reactor,” said Dudley Goodhead at the UK’s MRC Radiation and Genome Stability Unit. “Polonium has a half-life of 138 days. This means that if that was the poison it will still be in the body and in the area – which makes it relatively easy to identify.”

There are several ways for radioactive decay to occur. Polonium-210 undergoes alpha decay, emitting an alpha particle (two protons and two neutrons, essentially a helium-4 nucleus). As a result, 82 protons (and 124 neutrons) are left. This is lead-206, which is stable. Alpha particles are quite massive, so they cannot penetrate solid matter very well. Therefore, polonium-210 must be inside someone’s body to inflict much damage—so it must be ingested, inhaled, or administered through a wound, according to Roger Cox, director of the UK’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. Mr. Cox believes that Mr. Litvinenko would have to ingest the polonium to account for the large amount found.

According to Scotland Yard, “Traces of polonium-210 were found at the Itsu sushi restaurant in Piccadilly, the Millennium Hotel, Grosvenor Square, and at Mr. Litvinenko’s home in Muswell Hill, London.” The investigation will continue—Britain’s top-level Cabinet team has met, and the country has asked Russia to assist with the inquiry, according to CNN.

Related posts

Is It Getting Hot in Here?

Filed under: environment, global warming, science — Darmok @ 07:22 UTC

The current issue of Scientific American features its yearly SA 50 Awards. It awarded Policy Leader of the Year to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore for his work in helping to educate the public about the danger of climate change, focusing on global warming. His efforts have culminated in An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary film (and also a book) that has been praised by both scientists and movie critics. J.R. Minkel and Gary Stix write

It sounds improbable: a documentary film about global warming, starring Vice President Al Gore, has become the third-highest-grossing documentary of all time. After his loss in the 2000 presidential election, Gore began giving a talk on global warming to audiences around the world. An Inconvenient Truth is the film version (also appearing in book form) of his multimedia presentation. Remarkably, its heavy use of PowerPoint slides actually adds to the narrative, which interweaves explanations of climate science with defining episodes from Gore’s life to convey a mix of alarm and hope.

The film is a paragon of clear science communication. It explains the workings of complex physical phenomena, such as the jet stream, while chronicling the reality of glaciers receding and the increase in carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures. Gore, meanwhile, succeeds in bringing the “moral imperative” of reducing greenhouse gases to a personal level, attempting to convince viewers that their own actions can make a difference.

(continue reading at Scientific American)

Temperature record for the past 150 ears
Source: Wikipedia

Of course, the data supporting global warming are quite well-established now, as this graph from Wikipedia helps to illustrate. Please see their article on global warming for more information. But despite the wealth of evidence, not everyone is convinced. The other day, while browsing blog entries categorized as science here at wordpress.com, I came across a blog entry in which the author apparently discounts global warming, oddly enough, because of the abundant evidence. Without commenting on that logic, I’d like to point out what I thought was the most interesting part of the entry, in which the author speculates why people don’t believe these are random fluctuations (emphasis mine):

…no one ever listens to that theory. Why? Probably because its not as exciting as the end of the world.

This is quite a common perception, and I don’t fault the author for writing it (though I could not resist leaving a comment). It is true that several examples have been cited as possible effects of global warming; for instance, a large outbreak of food poisoning from Vibrio parahaemolyticus (gastroenteritis) in the United States appears to be due to rising ocean temperatures (reference: McLaughlin et al. “Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Gastroenteritis Associated with Alaskan Oysters.” New England Journal of Medicine. 353: 1463–1470 — see abstract). However, while the world as we know it may end, other ecological disasters would probably be needed for humanity’s complete eradication. And even if that were to happen, the world itself will go on just fine without us. We’ve only been on Earth for a tiny fraction of its existence—if Earth’s lifetime is one day, then Homo sapiens evolved around 2 seconds ago. Or put another way, dinosaurs were dominant on Earth for some 100 million years; they went extinct 65 million years ago, whereas Homo sapiens originated perhaps a couple hundred millennia ago, making the dinosaurs’ tenure some five hundred times longer. And of course, human civilization is only five thousand years old, only one-fortieth of our existence.

Nicely illustrating this transience is a short film entitled “Das Rad” (The Wheel, in German with English subtitles). It was nominated for best short film in the 2003 Academy Awards. It’s a very creative look at the progress of humanity from the point of view of two rocks on a hillside. It’s quite amusing. The film is approximately eight-and-a-half minutes long. From Google Video:

Blog at WordPress.com.