BA Aircraft grounded - Radioactive Scare
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds to me as if the aircraft grounded in Moscow is an act of retaliation by the Russians. I can't believe that BA would choose to check it there rather than bring it back to base. After all, it's been flying around for a few weeks since this substance was on board, one more sector wouldn't have been a problem.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chavistan
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds to me as if the aircraft grounded in Moscow is an act of retaliation by the Russians. I can't believe that BA would choose to check it there rather than bring it back to base. After all, it's been flying around for a few weeks since this substance was on board, one more sector wouldn't have been a problem.
33,000 Passengers involved in Radiation Event.
The Telegraph is reporting that 33,000 pax have been potentially exposed to Polonium 210. So much for searching for suspicious liquid explosives at security checkpoints. Ain't science grand?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../npoison30.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../npoison30.xml
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How exactly would you detect a particle the size of a few grains of sand when the radaition can be shielded using a cardboard box?
Interesting thread, especially the information from those who clearly know what they are talking about.
The rants about airport security are misguided, as several have pointed out. The purpose of screening passengers, crew, baggage, cargo and mail prior to boarding, and ground staff working in the RZ, is to prevent acts of terrorism and/or piracy against passenger aircraft in flight, not to save the world from assassins. No-one is ever going to carry out either of those with a few grams/milligrams of Polonium 210, undetectable in a container anyway.
You could of course say exactly the same about some of the other things that are banned, and you would be right. But that's another issue.
The rants about airport security are misguided, as several have pointed out. The purpose of screening passengers, crew, baggage, cargo and mail prior to boarding, and ground staff working in the RZ, is to prevent acts of terrorism and/or piracy against passenger aircraft in flight, not to save the world from assassins. No-one is ever going to carry out either of those with a few grams/milligrams of Polonium 210, undetectable in a container anyway.
You could of course say exactly the same about some of the other things that are banned, and you would be right. But that's another issue.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if Ive missed this but:
Have BA only checked these 2 or 3 aircraft? If so it would be interesting to test a further batch of aircraft, perhaps BMI, Virgin, a couple of charter and a freight operator or 2.
See if this also gives a reading for Polonium 210
Have BA only checked these 2 or 3 aircraft? If so it would be interesting to test a further batch of aircraft, perhaps BMI, Virgin, a couple of charter and a freight operator or 2.
See if this also gives a reading for Polonium 210
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If indeed it was polonium 210 detected, they have not indicated whether the levels were consistent with natural background levels, or significantly higher.
I am willing to wager that you could take any three planes in the BA fleet and detect very low levels of raqdioactivity, even Polonium 210 perhaps.
As for becoming poisoned by having been a passenger on one of these flights, virtually zero chance. After all, anyone who smokes is poisoning him- or herself with polonium 210 every day.
Polonium-210, which emits alpha particles, is a natural contaminant of tobacco. For an individual smoking two packages of cigarettes a day, the radiation dose to bronchial epithelium from Po210 inhaled in cigarette smoke probably is at least seven times that from background sources, and in localized areas may be up to 1000 rem or more in 25 years. Radiation from this source may, therefore, be significant in the genesis of bronchial cancer in smokers. Science 17 January 1964: Vol. 143. no. 3603, pp. 247 - 249
DOI: 10.1126/science.143.3603.247
DOI: 10.1126/science.143.3603.247
It would be interesting to see what the level of polonium 210 might be on one's clothing after a long night in a smoke-filled pub.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those worried about airport security it is worth bearing in mind that Alpha particles are stopped by about 30mm of air. Even if a container had some on the outside, detecting them would entail getting a radiation detector within 30mm of everything in the luggage and on the person without even a piece of paper getting in the way. Then trying to decide whether the reading was background or something larger.
It is also worth mentioning that Brazil nuts are Beta emitters and that the glowing bits of your watch or snazzy compass are firing radiation as we speak. Alpha is hardly a problem unless you eat it - having said that, BA are obviously doing the right thing.
Its fun to play with a Geiger counter (Beta detector) as more than you would imagine is radioactive. What about the Granite we have on our kitchen work surfaces? (If you are richer than me!).
It is also worth mentioning that Brazil nuts are Beta emitters and that the glowing bits of your watch or snazzy compass are firing radiation as we speak. Alpha is hardly a problem unless you eat it - having said that, BA are obviously doing the right thing.
Its fun to play with a Geiger counter (Beta detector) as more than you would imagine is radioactive. What about the Granite we have on our kitchen work surfaces? (If you are richer than me!).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 68
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shurely the 3 a/c have been grounded not primarily for safety reasons but to permit investigation of where the stuff was carried - in cabin or in hold - and this could indicate by whom. One of us has commented that the poisoner would be killing him-herself by handling the stuff: Madam Curie did this for years before she died, and even then not demonstrably from radioactive poisoning. Brave lady nonetheless.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Age: 48
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may seem like a stupid question, but if Polonium 210 can be shielded by a simple cardboard box or piece of paper, then how have traces of it been found on board these aircraft?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: EGTE / EHAM
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's a stupid question at all: I would have thought that the traces found around London could be explained by the victim excreting traces of his "dose" but not those on the aircraft. Unless the would-be "assassin" was already poisoned himself, I wonder what is being seen here... 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is the Alpha particles emitted by the Polonium that can not pass through stuff. The contaminant on the aircraft is Polonium itself, which was presumably on the clothes of some passengers, or worse still in the sweat or other bodily fluids of contaminated individuals.
Also there is no reason why the assassin has to be dead. A drop or two of a Polonium containing solution in his soy sauce for example, and Bob's your uncle. Just don't eat it yourself.
Also there is no reason why the assassin has to be dead. A drop or two of a Polonium containing solution in his soy sauce for example, and Bob's your uncle. Just don't eat it yourself.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still remember the demo in third year physics at school where the alpha radiaiton source was held in front of a piece of paper and the detector immediately went quiet. Oh useful to know I thought.......
IMHO this has been way over milked by the media. Unless I was being remarkably and uncharacteristically intimate with a Russian spy I am confident that I am not about to pop my clogs of radiation poisoning. However the media heard "Radiation" and went into full public scare mongering frenzy as they are too dim to know that Alpha radiation and Gama radiation (the stuff from Plutonium etrc) are VERY different animals. Gamma will kill you stone dead. Alpha will be stopped by your skin. UNLESS you are ingeniously forced to eat it in which case it will kill you as surely as ............say rat poison.
However I'm sure that if rat poison were found to have been carried on a BA767 without permission we would not be grounding aircraft and talking to the BBC.
IMHO this has been way over milked by the media. Unless I was being remarkably and uncharacteristically intimate with a Russian spy I am confident that I am not about to pop my clogs of radiation poisoning. However the media heard "Radiation" and went into full public scare mongering frenzy as they are too dim to know that Alpha radiation and Gama radiation (the stuff from Plutonium etrc) are VERY different animals. Gamma will kill you stone dead. Alpha will be stopped by your skin. UNLESS you are ingeniously forced to eat it in which case it will kill you as surely as ............say rat poison.
However I'm sure that if rat poison were found to have been carried on a BA767 without permission we would not be grounding aircraft and talking to the BBC.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's a stupid question at all: I would have thought that the traces found around London could be explained by the victim excreting traces of his "dose" but not those on the aircraft. Unless the would-be "assassin" was already poisoned himself, I wonder what is being seen here...
Almost suredly, the assassin did not poison himself or herself and thus none of his or her bodily secretions (sweat, mucus, saliva) would contaminate an aircraft with the poison.
This whole issue of the planes strikes me as an investigative tangent gone amuck, and will ultimately prove to be non-productive other than for journos in search of big headlines.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well, if it was the Transaero in Moscow, I donīt think it will be leaving LHR for a while. Not sure if it was a passenger carrying or ferry flight. If it was carrying passengers it raises questions of when it became suspect....
The Grauniad: .......Mr Reid said in a statement to the Commons: "A fourth aircraft of interest, which is a Boeing 737 leased by Transaero, arrived at London Heathrow Terminal One this morning. Passenger details will be collected and the Health Protection Agency (HPA) will contact individuals if any matters of concern are found."
The Grauniad: .......Mr Reid said in a statement to the Commons: "A fourth aircraft of interest, which is a Boeing 737 leased by Transaero, arrived at London Heathrow Terminal One this morning. Passenger details will be collected and the Health Protection Agency (HPA) will contact individuals if any matters of concern are found."
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no reason to think the poisoner would be dead unless he ate the stuff or sucked it off his fingers. Unlikely. The poisoner could have washed his hands in Polonium and been quite safe unless he ingested it.
The BA stuff to staff says that the holds are not affected and it is the cabin that is the subject of these tests, so baggage handlers need not worry. I'm sure none of the rest of us need worry either.
Oh, and your smoke detectors contain an Alpha source too. There is an emitter and a detector. If smoke gets inbetween the two, it stops the Alpha getting to the detector and sets it off. I wouldn't be surprised it it were Polonium in them, but it could be many things.
The BA stuff to staff says that the holds are not affected and it is the cabin that is the subject of these tests, so baggage handlers need not worry. I'm sure none of the rest of us need worry either.
Oh, and your smoke detectors contain an Alpha source too. There is an emitter and a detector. If smoke gets inbetween the two, it stops the Alpha getting to the detector and sets it off. I wouldn't be surprised it it were Polonium in them, but it could be many things.
Last edited by Jetstream Rider; 30th Nov 2006 at 13:07. Reason: smoke alarms