Talk:Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko

first name of Mr. Limarev?

According to various sources [1] [2] [3] the first name of Mr. Limarev is Yevgeny (sometimes also spelled Jevgeni or Evgeny) but not Andrey. the information from the source (focus-fen.net) cited in the article seems to be incorrect. --Spitzl 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence against Andrey Lugovoy?

195.178.214.156 10:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Scorpio

British officials several times said, what they have "a lot of evidence" against Andrey Lugovoy. However, currently I found no sources to confirm this statement. Can anybody give me link to any sources, confirming these claims? TIA.

Should we update this article?

A lot of new publications appeared, such as this [4]. So, should we update this article? Do not you think that some of his murder theories are now outdated and should be deleted?Biophys 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Detailed scheme

195.178.214.156 10:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Scorpio

At last I have a detailed scheme of all movements of Litvinenko, Lugovoy & Kovtun during their first visit to London, at 16-17.10.2006. Here:

http://img.rg.ru/img/content/16/79/48/lugovoi.gif

However all comments are in Russian. If anybody wants to make an English-language version, I can help with translation.

Reference to Article 63 of the Russian Constitution

I removed claims that according to the Russian Constitution there is a legal possibility that Mr Lugovoi can be extradited to the UK. The claim was based on Article 63. Here's four secondary sources that argue that Article 63 does not apply to Russian citizens (all in Russian):

• http://constitution.garant.ru/DOC_3300115.htm#sub_para_N_1063
• http://constitution.garant.ru/DOC_3848902.htm#sub_para_N_63
• http://constitution.garant.ru/DOC_3301000.htm#sub_para_N_10063
• http://constitution.garant.ru/DOC_3866952.htm#sub_para_N_63

Yury Petrachenko 09:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article 63, part 2 of Russian Constitution was a valid primary source.

• The limits imposed by its anonymous interpretation #2 ("Речь в данном случае идет о лицах, не являющихся гражданами Российской Федерации") are questionable.
• The interpretation #3 by Okunkov L.A. (no academic merits listed) mixes up article 63, part 2 (extradition of accused) with article 61, part 1 (exile and unspecified hand-over, "выдача"). Even assuming that both 63.2 and 61.1 cover the same issue, that would make Russian Constitution self-contradictory.
• The anonymous commentary #4 refers to article 13, part 1 of Russian Criminal Code,[5] but I doubt that the Criminal Code overrules the Constitution.
• Commentary #1 (V.I. Andrianov, Candidate of Law Sciences) stipulates that the extradition is the right but not the obligation of Russia.

Thanks for bringing up the issue and providing secondary sources.ilgiz 18:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think I have to insist that the reference and the interpretation of Article 63 should be removed. Wikipedia's official policy says

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

So far I have provided 4 independent secondary sources (all I was able to find within a reasonable effort) that interpret the Constitution the other way than you propose. Unless you support your claims with reliable secondary sources, the claim ought to be removed. (If you agree with me, please modify the article yourself.) Now, all the four references above are published sources and were peer-reviewed to be included into Garant. If you check the links more carefully, reference #4 is not anonymous:

Постатейный научно-практический комментарий к Конституции Российской Федерации коллектива ученых-правоведов под руководством ректора МГЮА, академика РАН О.Е.Кутафина

I can assure you that MSAL enjoys the highest reputation among Russian law schools, and being a full member (академик) of the RAS is the highest academic honour in Russia. In the relevant paragraph this source clearly states:

Речь идет об иностранных гражданах и лицах без гражданства, так как запрет выдачи российских граждан установлен Конституцией.

And the reference to the Criminal Code is not used to support this opinion but rather to indicate how the Constitution applies further.

I think this source alone is enough to rule out your interpretation. Please show a reliable source that argues the opposite. Wikipedia is about reporting on secondary sources, not original research. When you "refute" a statement in a published scientific source, it is not enough to just claim so, you should provide a scholarly source that does the trick. Thanks for your cooperation, it's a pleasure to deal with you.

Yury Petrachenko 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for labeling the secondary sources "anonymous" as you pointed me to their authorship.

I looked for opinions supporting my interpretation of Constitution and I found a letter by Prof Daniel Tarschys published as a comment in Financial Times 19 July 2007.[6] He says that article 63 "opens the door" for the extradition. According to Tarschys, Russia has signed an international treaty on extraditions in 1999. He also refers to European Convention on Extradition (1957)[7]

The year 2000 declaration by Russia linking 6.1.a of the Convention with 61.1 of the Constitution seems to regard the right to refuse the extradition. It is only Constitution that mentions an obligation to refuse the extradition in 61.1.ilgiz 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, Prof. Tarschys's comment is not a reliable source for this encyclopedia. It is still only an opinion, not backed by any scientific-quality arguments. He argues that the international treaties by Russian Federation prevail the constitution. The sources I provided above argue that Article 15 states that the constitution is the highest-order law in Russia, being above any other laws or international treaties by Russia. I think you need to find scholarly sources that argue otherwise, not someone's opinions. --Yury Petrachenko 05:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe almost everything found in Wikipedia is a collection of references to verifiable opinions. A scientific quality evidence is an opinion (conjecture) expressed by a scientist or a group of scientists in a respected peer-reviewed publication. I cannot say Financial Times is a scientific publication, but I am going to provide Prof. Tarschys's opinion as a reliable one.ilgiz 05:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Scaramella is in prison?

195.178.214.156 10:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Scorpio

Does anybody know?

If it was just about his cheap provocations and calumny against Italian officials (as it is officially stated) -- why he wasn't in jail before? I wonder, why he was trialed and sentenced *after* Litvinenko affair -- somebody must be extremely naive to believe, what these incidents have nothing in common... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.178.214.156 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 31 July 2007

== Why polonium-210? == I have made some calculations. They do not confirm fully the version of a poisoning with polonium 210. The version of a poisoning with polonium 208 is probable too. Unfortunately I yet have not translated my calculations on English language but when there will be time I shall be engaged in this business.

• the source is not available at this time--Lawpuh 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Now you can see my draft here--Lawpuh 21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)--Lawpuh 09:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiation dose/activity

Forgive me, I'm a medical radiation physicist but I've never contributed anything to wikipedia (despite being an avid reader). I have found fault with the following sentence in this article:

"The effect on Litvinenko appears consistent with a radiation dose of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po."

2 GBq refers to an activity, not a dose. The sentence should read something like:

The effect on Litvinenko appears consistent with an administered activity of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po.

The dose to the patient (or victim, in this case) is measured in Sieverts. Please see [[8]] and [[9]]

Hope this is of help,

Jonnylaney (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Jonnylaney (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a very clear article

It is my understanding from the various linked sources that Litvinenko eat at the sushi bar before meeting at the pine bar. (although at lot of the news articles actually have it the other way around). The Sushi Bar was contaminated at least a week before, along with a lot of other places Lugovoy & Kovtun visited and it was a coincidence that Litvinenko ate there, before he actually got poisoned. This is not very clear in the article and the reader is left with the impression that Litvinenko must have been poisoned at the sushi bar.

Limarev may or may not be missing, but it is more probable from the sources that he has gone into hiding and has not been killed. --82.35.196.149 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This article might be ready for GAC, then FAC.

This article has stabilised a lot recently (due to there being no new news, mostly). I think it's good enough to shoot for WP:GAC and eventually, WP:FAC. Accordingly, I'll nominate it for GAC today. SteveBaker (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Polonium As A Trace

Just wondering if it is true that polonium is used as a trace. From what I have heard in the past is that a person infected with radiation then passes on small amounts of radiation to the people he or she comes into contact with, forming a type of trace that can be monitored. I have been told that even the CIA uses similar techniques, but I'm wondering if this is practical or just speculation. It seems if Russia or any other nation/organization wanted someone dead there are far easier, safer and more cost effective ways of doing it. EZC195 14 January 2008.

Never mind. There seems to be mention of this in the article. If anyone else has more information about this I would be very interested in it. EZC195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezc 195 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there are vastly easier ways to murder someone without creating such a fuss or leaving such an easy-to-follow trail. Furthermore, by using Polonium specifically, this is clearly a message. It says "You know who did this" - because simple analysis of the trace isotope ratios tells you precisely where the polonium was made and the stuff gets everywhere and leaves a very easy-to-follow trail. It's likely that the British authorities know not just which country it came from - but also which nuclear plant and even which reactor within that plant (some have claimed that you can even tell where, within the reactor, it came from). The ratio of Polonium to Lead also tells you precisely (to within a day or two if your analysis is careful enough) when the stuff was made. Nobody in their right mind would leave such an obvious trail rather than using a more conventional poison. Nastier still, they'd have known that this would not be a clean death. That's how it's known that it came from a Russian reactor and not (say) a British one. Whoever did this was sending a message to either the British authorities - or to other people in Litvinenko's position that says "You know who we are - and we're just reminding you how easily we can do this, and how willing we are to act - even in central London." - that's the only reasonable interpretation of these events. If they'd just wanted someone 'vanished' quietly - they'd have much easier and less risky ways to do it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use image was deleted for want of a justification.

Gah! The stupid admins went and deleted the image of Litvinenko at the top of this article because it didn't have a fair use template describing it's use in this article. Does anyone have the original image lying around somewhere (or know where it came from) so we can repost it with the right red-tape attached to it. I think the same thing happened to the 'death bed' photo that was here originally. There was zero notification of the deletion either here or on the Alexander Litvinenko talk page - but if someone can repost it (or better still, let me know where to find it) - I'll fill in the necessary template to make sure it's not deleted again. SteveBaker (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaidar Poisoning Seamusfmartin (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This article assumes, incorrectly, that Yegor Gaidar was poisoned in the course of his visit to Ireland. There is absolutely no evidence of poisoning in this case. Yegor Gaidar was taken ill at Maynooth College near Dublin on the day of Litvinenko's death. He began to bleed from the nose and appeared to be unconscious for a short time. A member of the Russian group attending the Maynooth conference noted that Gaidar had begun to feel ill during a stop-over at Ferihegy Airport in Budapest on his way to Ireland. Gaidar suffers from hypertension and diabetes and doctors who examined him at the scene said his condition was consistent with these ailments. Gaidar was taken to the James Connolly Memorial Hospital at Blanchardstown near Dublin where his condition was regarded not to be life-threatening.

An Garda Siochana, the Irish national police force, conducted an investigation into the event. No traces of polonium or any other poisonous or toxic substance were found at any place in which Gaidar was present. The investigation into the Maynooth event was not and is not part of an "ongoing investigation in the UK and in Ireland" since the event had absolutely no connection with the UK and the investigation in the Republic of Ireland has been completed. Yegor Timurevich Gaidar was released from hospital the following morning and spent the day at the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Dublin where, according to Embassy sources, he was well enough to consume a considerable amount of vodka.

On his return to Russia Gaidar checked himself into a clinic in which the doctors stated that it would be contrary to their medical ethics to declare him a poisoning victim. Gaidar believed he was poisoned but the reason he gave for this was not entirely logical. In short he has stated that since the Russian doctors could not find a reason for his illness it must, therefore, have been due to poisoning.

GA comment

At a quick glance the lead needs to be expanded to several paragraphs per WP:LEAD, and all of the "citation needed" tags need to be addressed. I'd recommend fixing these before someone reviews the article as it may be quick-failed for having the "cn" tags. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've attended to the "citation needed" tags - in most cases we just needed to point to existing references (an article with over 200 citations is REALLY unlikely to have citations that are truly missing!). I have expanded out the introductory section. SteveBaker (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the lead should be expanded further, go into further detail on some of the more important sections and briefly detail some other sections as well. Also, there are multiple single sentences throughout the article. I'd recommend either expanding on them with more information or incorporating them into another paragraph as single sentences shouldn't stand alone. It looks like somebody is reviewing this article right now, so I'm sure you'll see some more detailed requirements that should be met before it passes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

There are too many different assassination theories dated 2006. Should we remove some of the outdated theories to make this article more readable? Right now only two theories remain (I guess): murder by Russian agents and Berezovsky theory. What do you think?Biophys (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly debatable. On the one hand, currently, many of those theories are known to be untrue - on the other hand they were theories at the time and that makes them part of the historical story about the events at the time. I kinda lean towards keeping them - but perhaps shortening their descriptions and putting them into a new sub-section "Discredited theories" or some such. SteveBaker (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe they should be shortened a little.Biophys (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An exception however is "Blackmail plot theory". This chapter simply does not make any claims who presumably killed Litvinenko. It does not provide any theory of his death. It only tells that Litvinenko was involved in blackmail of unknown persons.Biophys (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC) This could be described as a "Svetlichnaya controversy", but I think this is simply not notable.Biophys (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes - but the clear implication is that whoever Litvinenko was allegedly blackmailing would have a strong motive to kill him. If the blackmail claim had been proven to be true (which it wasn't) then the blackmail victim would surely have been high on the list of suspects. But this is now in the realms of speculating about the (known-to-be-false) speculation. So maybe dumping that one is a good plan! SteveBaker (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It did not even tell who was allegedly blackmailed. Whole controversy was around words of a graduate student. It would be great if you looked through the article and edit whatever you think should be edited. Or may be you could comment on something that should be fixed. Thanks. Biophys (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

• "It led them on a trail involving hundreds of people and dozens of locations it was reported on June 5, 2007" - poorly phrased

I cut this myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• "However a lower activity was estimated by a different worker." - needs a citation or removal

I cut this myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Irène Joliot-Curie was the first person to die because of exposure to polonium. Her parents Marie and Pierre Curie were first to discover and name this new element in 1898." - a bit of a fragment, probably best to merge into another paragraph. Similarly merge the two single-sentence paragraphs in the "Sources of polonium" and "Possibly related events" sections.

Not done.

• "even in a product sold on Amazon.com." and "sources in the USA during 2006" and "paid Ms Svetlichnaja's legal costs" - format external links as references

Not done.

• Remove redlinks of people's names, eg Viktor Ilyukhin, Marina Litvinenko and Philip Walker

These have been done. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Yushenkov's death and the conviction and jailing of the co-chairman of Liberal Russia for his murder is widely perceived to have been part of a policy of eliminating the political threat posed by Berezovsky to the establishment. Therefore the accusations from the FSB of Berezovsky's involvement warrant careful consideration." - sounds like OR, need a reliable source that makes this point explicitly and then attribute this interpretation to this source.

I removed the segment. This should be described in Berezovsky article.Biophys (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Subsequently the Duma, on a pro-Kremlin party block vote, sealed all materials related to Ryazan incident for the next 75 years" - citation needed

Reference provided.Biophys (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold for now, but its almost there. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All good comments - I don't have time to fix them up right now - but if nobody else gets there first, I'll fix these last few things in the next few days. SteveBaker (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, drop me a note on my talk page when you're done. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for help, Tim. But please correct my last version since I have accomodated already a lot of your comments. If you think Svetlichnaysa controversy should stay - please put it back. If you think introduction is not good - please correct it. You are very welcome to do that.Biophys (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, a part of intruduction could be shortened like that: "Litvinenko accused Russian secret services of organizing numerous terrorist acts, most notably Russian apartment bombings." This way we simply refer to other existing articles.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all of these have been done, but the majority have and the more serious OR has gone. This is good enough for now. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko poisoning

The lead where it lists all of Alexander Litvinenko's accusation has nothing to do with the poisoning. This is an article on his poisoning, not on Alexander Litvinenko and his accusations. It is just listing his accusations against the Russian government, essentially repeating the arguments of the Russian government involvement theory, which is against WP:NPOV because there were several theories. I left the Litvinenko's deathbed allegations about the misdeeds of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB) and his public accusations that the Russian government was behind his unusual malady resulted in worldwide media coverage. which summarizes it sufficiently and with NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that segment "Litvinenko's deathbed allegations about the misdeeds of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB)..." is important and should stay there. But what exactly "misdeed allegations"? This should be explained. Perhaps his allegations should be described in a separate section and only briefly mentioned in the Introduction (as they actually were), but they must be described. Otherwise, it is unclear what we are talking about.Biophys (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That single sentence is sufficient, it says that he made claims about the FSB and about the government, these allegations can be described in the body of the article. The subsequent sentences detailing his allegations have nothing to do with the poisoning. Either you remove it all or you keep it all, you can't have it how you like and keep the parts that are favourable to you and remove the parts that are not.--Miyokan (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction serves only to briefly summarize main content of an article. We have a separate section that describes everything about extradition of Lugovoy. We should not duplicate this material in Introduction, although we can briefly mention it. This is even not about Litvinenko, but about Lugovoy. As about claims by Litvinenko himself, they are more relevant to subject of this article, and we only briefly mention them in Introduction and provide additional information in footnotes. Biophys (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Introduction serves only to briefly summarize main content of an article. The loads of information about Litvinenko's accusations in the lead has nothing to do with poisoning, although we can briefly mention it.--Miyokan (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As current version properly tells, "Litvinenko's deathbed allegations about the misdeeds of the Federal Security Service of Russia (FSB) and his public accusations that the Russian government was behind his unusual malady resulted in worldwide media coverage.". So, this is a matter of notability. The poisoning is notable in part because of Litvinenko allegations. He blames Putin of crimes, and he is allegedly poisoned on the order from Putin (per sources). Hence the allegations by Litvinenko may be directly related to his murder. That is what sources tell, not me.Biophys (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is just the Russian government involvement theory and can easily be summed up in one sentence with the details going into the 'Theories' section. Simarly, Lugovoi said that British intelligence agents of being behind the killing, and claimed MI6 had tried to recruit him to spy on Russia, and the Daily Mail reported that he was working for MI6. That is what sources tell, not me.--Miyokan (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You said: "Either you remove it all or you keep it all". O'K, let's remove it all to make Introduction more readable and leave only bare facts and only about Litvinenko himself amd his poisoning, rather than anything else.Biophys (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I deleted the following segment:

"However, Article 63 of the Russian constitution is about foreign citizens or people without citizenship (it says that extradition of such people is governed by federal law or international treaty), not Russian citizens, as Andrei Lugovoi is, and therefore does not apply to them. Article 61 explicity forbids Russian citizens from being extradited. Article 15 applies only to legislation, not the Constitution - the precedence of international treaties applies only to legislation, not the Constitution. Furthermore, when the Russian Federation ratified the European Convention on Extradition, it entered a declaration concerning Article 6 in these terms: “The Russian Federation declares that in accordance with Article 61 (part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a citizen of the Russian Federation may not be extradited to another state.” Hence Russia cannot extradite Andrei Lugovoy.[10] [11]"

This is an original reserach of a primary source (Russian law) by a wikipedian. He cites primary sources and then makes his own conclusion: "Hence Russia cannot extradite Andrei Lugovoy". No, it can, as Vladimir Putin said. Instead, there is a cited opinion of a Professor, legal expert. Please do not remove it again.Biophys (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology section

Ehh, what is up with these chronology of events sections? First off it is way too long, second, I am noticing somewhat of a trend how these sections are used for POV pushing of a certain conspiracy theory. Just glancing over it 3/4 of the info is irrelevant and is mostly used to show how Putin/Russian Government are linked to the poisoning (ie by including dates about Putin and other government related events). The theory of the involvement of the Russian government is far from fact as it has not been proven, so it is a pure speculation. I have said this before in another article,but the purpose of the section is to have a time line of the actual events that happened, and it is NOT to prove your theory of how/why the events happened. So I tagged it as POV for now,but we should go through each of the events and throw out anything not related to the poisoning. Let me know what you think.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology does not include any statements like "he was poisoned by Putin". All chronology events are related to (a) Litvinenko himself, or (b) his writings and claims, or (c) to different theories of his death, or (d) it provides some background information. If something is not connected, please tell exactly what it is.Biophys (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

Article reads "Alexander Litvinenko was a former lieutenant colonel of Russian Federal Security Service... Main suspect of the case, a former KGB officer Andrei Lugovoy ". As far as I know and care, they worked for the same organization. Should not it be clear from the lead or would such clarity destroy saintly picture of "former lieutenant colonel of Russian Federal Security Service" (who has patience to read it?) killed by wile "former KGB officer"? RJ CG (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Litvinenko is usually regarded as someone who worked in FSB, although he also worked in the KGB earlier. Lugovoy denied working for the FSB (hence, the KGB which he did not deny).Biophys (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"regarded as someone who worked in FSB" by Berezovsky's spin doctors you mean? They started and ended to work for the same employer roughly in the same time, so should not we use the same name for the same organization in both cases? RJ CG (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide any source that Lugovoy worked in FSB.Biophys (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Limarev

I think Limarev is very much relevant here (the segment about him just was deleted). Article from Russian WP tells:

Как заявил жившущий во Франции Евгений Лимарев, по некоторым утверждениям входящий в окружение Бориса Березовского (в 1988—1991 работал переводчиком и преподавал иностранные языки в учебном центре ПГУ СССР, затем занимался бизнесом[85][86], по его предположению, организаторами убийства Литвиненко выступали российские силовики, а заказчиком — министр обороны (впоследствии вице-премьер) Сергей Иванов.[87] Он также заявлял о том, что «в последнее время» у Литвиненко возникли разногласия с Березовским и в связи с этим спецслужбы Великобритании предупреждали Литвиненко о существующей опасности для его жизни.[86]

Согласно историку разведки Борису Володарскому, проживающему в Лондоне, Евгений Лимарев вошёл в доверие к Литвиненко и Скарамелле, сотрудничая с российскими спецслужбами. Лимарев поставлял сфабрикованную информацию о КГБ и ФСБ не подозревавшему того Скарамелле, участвовавшему в итальянской «комиссии Митрохина». Электронное сообщение, которое Лимарев направил Скарамелле, оказалось провокационной наводкой на «спецназовцев» в Неаполе и фонд ветеранов дипломатической службы и разведки России «Честь и достоинство». По сведениям Володарского, официальное обвинение Скарамелле, по которому его позже задержали, — клевета на проживающего в Италии бывшего капитана КГБ Александра Талика.[88]

Бывший помощник Председателя правительства РФ, директор Института глобализации Михаил Делягин в интервью сайту Kasparov.ru назвал правдоподобной версию Лимарева о том, что организатором убийства Литвиненко является Иванов, однако подчеркнул, что он не мог выступить его заказчиком: «есть решения, которые носят политический характер, это не уровень Иванова, а гораздо более высокий (…)Иванов мог только выйти с предложением, но не мог дать окончательное добро» — считает М.Делягин.[23].

Supporting links: [12],[13], [14], [15], [16] [17] and this [18] Biophys (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't sound particularly relevant to what I removed. He was reported missing, then he was reported as being fine. What event is he related to regarding Litvinenkos poisoning? I mean yeah his name comes up a lot, but do you just want to write a bunch of stuff about how he might have been connected in subtle ways? The actual event of him going missing is moot, which is what I removed. Krawndawg (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, he is not missing.Biophys (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was actually about to suggest we remove that section altogether. The only "possibly related event" left specifically says that the shooting is not thought to be related to Litvinenkos poisoning, something that was originally omitted from this article for some strange reason! Krawndawg (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Most sources suggest this man was shot for commenting about Litvinenko. There are other events claimed to be related, such as poisoning of Gaidar. So, this section should be expanded.Biophys (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give me an hour to finish the editing? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, didn't mean to step your toes. Krawndawg (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But you just did: [19]!Biophys (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

...Which is why I said I didn't mean to.Krawndawg (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I finished for now.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Polonium production

I removed the following segment:

This was disputed in a New York Sun article written by Edward Jay Epstein in March 2008, who says the claims are "at best speculation". According to Epstein, neither Russia nor any other country in the world admitted manufacturing any Polonium-210 at all in 2006. Epstein says: "Polonium-210 production is a closely guarded secret, and the quantity produced in Russia or in any other country is unknown." He asserts that "the Polonium-210 found in London could also have come from stockpiles in many countries, including America". Mr Epstein refers to the IAEA's Illicit Trafficking Data Base mentioning 14 incidents of missing industrial Polonium-210 since 2004.

The claims about "closely guarded secrets" is nonsense. Russian government never denied production of polonium and openly sells it on the market. See these Russian sources: [20] [21]

N. B. Borisov, L. A. Il'in, U. Ya. Margulis, et al.,Radiation Safety in Working with Polonium-210 [in Russian], Énergoatomizdat, Moscow (1980).

5. Z. V. Ershova and A. G. Volgin, Polonium and Its Application [in Russian], Atomizdat, Moscow (1974)., and so on.

Also, "14 Illegal trafficing incidents" are about "the theft, loss, or disposal of static eliminators and air ionizers containing sealed Po-210 sources". This has nothing to do with amounts of polonium used to poison Litvinenko.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Biophys (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're basing your removal of said paragraph on original research. WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- readers' ability to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not editors' beliefs about whether material is true."

Unless you can convince me that the new york sun is an unreliable source, it stays. Krawndawg (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This absurd statement contradicts a lot of other sources, not someones beliefs.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a continous market for Po-210, and with a half life of 138 days, 86% of the inventory would disappear in a year. Paul Studier (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- readers' ability to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not editors' beliefs about whether material is true."

If you wish to get a third opinion or otherwise solve your problem by means other than edit warring, please feel free to do so. Otherwise please stop removing valid sourced additions from the article. There is no wiki policy that says you're allowed to remove reliably sourced information from an article because you believe it's wrong. All of the claims and opinions are clearly attributed to the person who wrote the article for anyone to see and decide for themselves whether or not it's factually correct. Further, you seem to be in violation of WP:OWN and WP:OR. Krawndawg (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this contradicts a lot of sources, and I have provided these sources (see above). This has nothing to do with my opinion. If he claimed that Coca Cola trading was a "closely guarded secret" would you also include this? The polonium openly produced by Russia is just that kind of commodity. What I deleted is not a "minority view" but simply nonsense. We do not need such garbage in WP. This garbage is well below WP threshold per sources. Biophys (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth -- readers' ability to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not editors' beliefs about whether material is true." Get it through your head. You are directly violating one of wikipedias core policies. Any further attempts to remove this content and I will bring it to the attention of an admin. Krawndawg (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give me a direct quote from one of those two articles that supports the sentence "Russian state openly acknowledged the production and trade of polonium in framework of international Nuclear non-proliferation agreements"? I read through the globalsecurity link and it did not support that claim, and the other link is quite long and a search of the words "openly" and "acknowledge" (and synonyms to those words) do not show up with anything. Thanks Krawndawg (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One more source questioning official British version and linking it to ultimate source. And I can't praise British investigative journalism highly enough. It didn't took them even two years to figure out that ALL key figures in black PR campaign are on Berezovsky's payroll. Would current generation of Wikipedians live long enough to see incredible investigation linking Litvinenko case to other propaganda wars? RJ CG (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a separate article about assassination theories. One can place it there.Biophys (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it to that article as well. Sorry but you are displaying WP:OWN again. You don't own this article. Please stop removing sourced, important content (yet again) because it goes against your personal point of view. Krawndawg (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research. Recent secondary sources, please.

The following text has been included.

"There exists a wrong opinion that a freelance killer would not be able to obtain polonium legally from commercially available products in the amounts used for Litvinenko poisoning, because more than microscopic amounts of polonium can only be produced in state-controlled nuclear reactors... However, many commercial products contain polonium in potentially lethal amounts (see commercial products containing polonium for detail). The National Regulatory Commission informs that there were registered at least 8 cases in the USA during 2006 when potentially lethal polonium sources were lost or stolen.[33]. Losses of intense polonium sources were also registered in the UK [34], [35]. Polonium-210 had been first separated chemically from natural minerals in 1898 by Marie and Pierre Curie[36], 44 years before the first nuclear reactor was constructed."

Cited sources (such as 33-35) were published before the death of Litvinenko. All this chapter is WP:SYN by a wikipedian. Please provide any recent secondary source by an expert which disputes an assertion that Litvinenko was poisoned by such amount of polonium that could only be received from state-controlled reactors. All recent scholarly sources (cited in the article) tell precisely the opposite.Biophys (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nuclear experts insist that only a state would have the resources necessary to produce the polonium-210 used in the killing." [22].Biophys (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This report from the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom states: "The Russian security organs knew where Litvinenko lived. Before he died, Litvinenko said that he was monitored by Anatoliy Kirov, First Secretary of the Russian embassy in London.37 This was not of any particular importance. Litvinenko’s security awareness was only skin deep. He accepted invitations for conferences abroad where he took no security precautions, mingled freely with the wealthy Russian community in the UK and received journalists at home. He also flooded them with emails containing his increasingly outlandish conspiracy theories. If the Russian state intelligence or security organs wanted to get him, they could have done it a long time ago. They would have no difficulties luring him to a conference in a country less efficient and less concerned than the UK. Polonium, or any other lethal substance, would have been brought in a safe container, in diplomatic baggage. Those handling the substance would not have been exposed to radiation. If the perpetrators of the murder really wanted to confuse the investigators, they would have the means to put Polonium 210 on airlines in several places around the world, not only several British Airways flights. The argument that only the Russian state organs could have had access to the substance is also incorrect. It has been available outside Russia, and for years Chechen fighters were able to buy sophisticated weapons and equipment in Russia. It is only a matter of contacts and money." --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So, it flatly tells: "The argument that only the Russian state organs could have had access to the substance is also incorrect. It has been available outside Russia" without providing any specifics. Of course, it was sold to US (outside Russia). That can be mentioned.Biophys (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Polonium 210 is surprisingly common. It is used by industry in devices that eliminate static electricity, in low-powered brushes used to ionize the air next to photographic film so dust can be swept off easily, and in quite large machines placed end-to-end across a web of fabric moving over rollers in a textile mill. It is even used to control dust in clean rooms where computer chips and hard drives are made...

We must make it far less easy for them to acquiring polonium in deadly amounts. Polonium sources with about 10 percent of a lethal dose are readily available — even in a product sold on Amazon.com. Only modest restraints inhibit purchase of significantly larger amounts of polonium: as of next year, anyone purchasing more than 16 curies of polonium 210 — enough to make up 5,000 lethal doses — must register it with a tracking system run by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But this is vastly too high — almost no purchases on that scale are made by any industry."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/opinion/19zimmerman.html . The author of the article (published after the death of Litvinenko) is a nuclear physicist. As you can see, he "disputes an assertion that Litvinenko was poisoned by such amount of polonium that could only be received from state-controlled reactors". --V1adis1av (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

So, where this source tells that 3 gigabecquerels of radioactivity received by Litvinenko could come not from state-controlled reactors? It only tells that Po is surprisingly common, which is fine to note, but this is hardly relevant to poisoning of Litvinenko. Some other poisons are also common. On the other hand, book Death of a Dissident tells explicitly (page 336) that:

"to obtain this amount of polonium from the end product available on the market, one would have to purchase hundreds of recently manufactured static-electricity devices and develop a technology for extracting, concentrating, and handling polonium, which would be virtually impossible for an amateur freelancer"

Your source tells precisely nothing about this.Biophys (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Your source is a book written by a dance teacher and a microbiologist; my source is an article written by a nuclear safety expert. With all respect to the book's authors, it is not a reliable source in nuclear issues.

2. Buying hundreds of Po-containing devices cannot be a big problem for a potential nuclear terrorist in any case. In other article by Acton, Rogers, and Zimmerman, they write: "A Briton, Dhiren Barot, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2006 for planning to build a dirty bomb out of some 10,000 smoke detectors, each of which contains a small radioactive source, for use in London." 10,000 is two orders of magnitude more then hundreds.

3. Actually, no need to buy small devices. Zimmerman says about 16 Ci of Po-210 (that's 200 times more than 3 GBq) one may get without a strict state control. There are air ionizers with sources of as much as 7.4 GBq on the market (2.5 times the dose Litvinenko was killed by). They can be bought by anybody under "modest restraints" (see http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1717/nureg-1717.pdf , page 4-5; there are estimations on the page 4-7 that ~10000 of 7.4GBq air ionizers are produced and distributed annually in the US market).

4. The quoted articles by Zimmerman et al. clearly say about danger of illicit use of Po-containing devices by a group of nuclear terrorists. Just due to this Zimmerman propose to restrict the availability of such devices.

5.Other theories suggest that the polonium that killed Litvinenko might have been obtained from an officially tracked commercial supply after it reached its final customer. Polonium is commonly used in static eliminators in printing plants, photography labs and textile mills. In these applications, it is bound in extremely small quantities with other metals. Extracting the substance from the molds in which these mixtures are made would be difficult because "polonium science is quite complicated," Priest said. But with qualified scientists and the right lab conditions, it is possible. "I can see how they could be used to brew up a dose to kill one person," said Peter D. Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist and professor of science and security at King's College London. "It would require very delicate lab work."([23])

6. So, I provided you the recent secondary sources by experts which claim that the amount of polonium Litvinenko was poisoned by could be received from non-state-controlled supply. These opinions should be reflected in the article. --V1adis1av (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Goldfard is a specialist (with a PhD degree) on the radiation damage (he worked in the nuclear physics Kurchatov institute to study DNA damage). So, this source is good. The key segment you cited tells the following: "Other theories suggest that...". Right. That is where this information belongs: Litvinenko assassination theories. You are very welcome to place it there.Biophys (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have checked by Scopus all 67 scientific works by A.D.Goldfarb (since his first paper in 1972) and was not able to find in the abstracts any word about radiation. He worked in the Kurchatov Institute but it's a big organization and a lot of scientists working there who aren't experts in radiation. His PhD thesis, AFAIK, was not related to radiation damage. Due to this, his book cannot be a reliable source of information on nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry.

A good idea concerning the Litvinenko assassination theories, but now we talk about correction of this article. I don't like the following phrases: 1)"A freelance killer would not be able to obtain polonium legally from commercially available products in the amounts used for Litvinenko poisoning, because more than microscopic amounts of polonium can only be produced in state-controlled nuclear reactors. [31][32]" 2)"This of course does not exclude the possibility that the polonium that killed Litvinenko was imported by a licensed commercial distributor, but no one—including the Russian government—has proposed that this is likely." As you see, there exist serious opinions contradicted the 1st claim and their existing itself disproves the 2nd one. The references are not reliable sources: [31] -- the book by Goldfarb, [32] -- the article by Pavel Felgenhauer, ex-biologist, currently a military reviewer, columnist-freelancer. The current view of the chapter seems biased in favour of the (as for me, very doubtful) theory that only state-employed assassins could have lethal amount of Po-210. No other theories are not mentioned. And, just by the way, Po-210 is not a synthetic element -- it is a naturally occurring isotope. --V1adis1av (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He studied reparation of the DNA damaged by vaious factors including radiation (hence the Kurcahtov institute; something was possibly classified). Main point: the predominant theory is that Litvinenko was poisioned by state actors. We have two different articles: John F. Kennedy assassination and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Same is here.Biophys (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of a Dissident in some ways could be regarded as a WP:PRIMARY source, as its authors are closely related to the subject matter; it is evident they are presenting a particular bias in the book, as you have noted they did not mention the "paedophile claims against Putin", even though we have reliable sources which state that he did make these claims; that book may be used as a source of information, but it can not be regarded as the only and ultimate source for information in the article, or used for the exclusion of information thereof. If there are sources which contradict each other, WP:NPOV dictates that we present these views within in the article, i.e. Source A says "this", whilst Source B says "that". In the formulation of prose, there can't be WP:OR so we state what the reliable sources state in our own words, we don't present one POV as being wrong or right, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and most of all WP is a collaborative effort; and this goes for all editors. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspects, etc

Why are Scaramella, Berezovsky, etc not listed under suspects? Litvinenko at first accused Scaramella of poisoning him. Berezovsky, as reported widely in the press, had much reason for offing Litvinenko. There are other suspects as well, but these are not mentioned anywhere. Or is it, that we are trying to build an inherrently POV article in which we are trying to make out that Putin the Baby Eater is guilty of killing Litvinenko? That is one reason for calling into the neutrality of the article. Another reason is the over-dependence of pertinent information being sourced to Goldfarb and Litvinenko's book - anyone can pay and get a book published, and I am sure it makes for great kookery reading - but others have called into question key facts in the book and the entire case. There is much neutralising in this article to be done because one can pretend that it is even close to NPOV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

By whom are they suspected? By you and several freaks? Who cares? You seem to cite WP:BLP only when it suits your agenda. Colchicum (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I will provide a whole heap of articles for people's information, and will do so as I go thru my Zotero archives. As to WP:BLP, where have I mentioned BLP anywhere here? And I don't cite it only when it suits my agenda, I cite it when I come across it and when there is a breach of BLP (Putin is a paedophile anyone?!?). Seems to me that some people aren't too happy that I am here, and I will be pushing such issues now and in the future; the days of nuttery reigning supreme are numbered. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the official British investigation nuttery? I don't think so. Unlike the guy you have cited (who sincerely confesses that he doesn't know much about the case) and the Russian telepathic "investigators", they have access to the crime scene at the very least. Other theories shouldn't be given undue weight. Colchicum (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Those are Fringe Theories Russavia. Grey Fox (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

They aren't fringe theories, they are theories which have been presented by much of the Russian press and the government itself. We have to provide all POV as per WP:NPOV, not just the POV of the British government, or the British press. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If they are presented by the Russian government then they should be mentioned under government responses somewhere, but as a notable fringe theory. Grey Fox (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko murder suspect says traitors should 'be exterminated'

Telegraph.co.uk Grey Fox (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Po-210 concentration in the body of Litvinenko

This paragraph is only about wether Litvinenkos grave should be sealed for twenty or so years. The few sentences that are noteworthy (e.g. The symptoms seen in Litvinenko appeared consistent with an administered activity of approximately 2 GBq (50 mCi) which corresponds to about 10 micrograms of 210Po. That is 200 times the median lethal dose of around 238 μCi or 50 nanograms in the case of ingestion[16]. should be moved to "the Poisoning" The calculations thereafter belongs in the talk pages at best (i understand why you should not cremate his body, but why is it so dangerous to open the coffin if the radiation cant even penetrate ordinary paper?) Erikhansson1 (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a mistake in this section I think. The unit was millicurie (mCi) at first but became megacurie (MCi) in the following paragraph. This is a typical typo and it has raised the concentration 10¹² times. 58.41.104.222 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The lethal dose of 50ng seems very unlikely. If Litvinenko would really have absorbed 200 times the LD50, he would have died within days, not weeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_sickness#More_than_50_Sv_.28.3E5.2C000_rem.29

Furthermore, when looking at the source of the 50ng figure and scrolling down a bit further, a second number pops up: 0.89 micrograms. If that is the right figure, Litvinenko actually absorbed 10 times the LD50, which would be much more in line with his symptoms and survival time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_sickness#10.E2.80.9350_Sv_.281.2C000.E2.80.935.2C000_rem.29

http://www.3rd1000.com/elements/Polonium.htm#Acute%20Effects OneAhead (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotation source.

In the "Death and last statement", there's a quotation with an incorrect source (note #5). Does anyone know the true source of this quotation, in order to reference it properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.56.207 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Current situation

The section lists the most recent development as belonging to 2008. It is 2010. Can this section be updated? Has the case been sent to court, or closed, at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.0.27 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is he not listed as one of the journalists who were killed?

Unlike many of the people listed under List of journalists killed in Russia, Alexander Litvinenko is actually a pretty clear case of murder and the evidence against Russian authorities is pretty good. Yet he is not listed as one of the journalists who died. He is one of the people responsible for bringing to the attention of the general public the fact that many journalists have died under mysterious circumstances after criticizing Putin, but he is not listed. Maybe he did not die in Russia, but we have no other article for these journalists. As things are, unless you remember the radioactive element involved in the poisoning or his name, you will NEVER find this article on Wikipedia, and I think that is a shame. If I recall correctly, there were others who were killed in other countries with similar circumstances and allegations, and I guess we have no article for that if we are limiting our scope to only those who died in Russia, and not in the former Soviet republics or in other countries, for instance those in Europe. This is far from a fringe conspiracy theory, as it is the official position of the authorities and governments involved and legal action was even taken in this case, as noted in the article. Of course since we are limited to journalists, other poisonings like that of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko have no place, but he's not a journalist, so that can't be helped. I'm sure some will say that widening the scope only makes the article longer and where is the end, but I think at the very least the journalists killed directly after criticizing Putin is notable, and since they aren't listed in Putin's article (and they should not be; at best we should have a link there), they should live somewhere in Wikipedia. I also think it is sad that the plight of journalists is not anywhere in the articles for Vladimir Putin, or even under Criticism of Vladimir Putin. I know that many editors feel that quite apart from the disdain some feel for criticism sections in general there is a problem in putting too much in there, usually with the reason given is concern that it might violate WP:BLP. But given what is in there already, that this criticism is definitely notable, and further that the accusation has been made that the number of journalists killed increased dramatically under Putin (which is borne out by that article), I think it should be there, too. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? Most likely because he never was a journalist. Working for a state or terrorist propaganda organ does not a journalist make. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What propaganda organ is he supposed to have been a part of? Where was he ever accused of being a terrorist? What state is he supposed to have been working for in this propaganda against Putin? None of this is in the article, even as an accusation, although I would not be surprised if some accused him of that since even in the US people who are thought to be "sympathizers" get accused in media of such things, and I would not be opposed to including such material as long as we have reliable sources for it. Western media sources consistently called him a journalist and he obviously was writing about news. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What propaganda organ? Chechenpress. The article Alexander Litvinenko does not mention he ever wrote for anyone else. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay I think that is a valid argument. I would say though that organizations like Al Jazeera come to mind, and I doubt that people who worked for Pravda were not recognized as journalists. I do wonder whether there are many news organizations who report on the Chechen Seperatist point of view, regardless of how we might feel about them. In the US, places like the New York Times and Fox News are accused of being propaganda and not journalism, and if anyone said about Bush what he said about Putin people would give them a similar criticism (as they do in fact). They wouldn't normally expect to be poisoned, but the 2001 anthrax attacks do come to mind as well. In any case unless your argument is met with facts, and certainly without consensus, it should probably hold. I will refrain from editing the article in this way until such standards are met; thank you for answering my question in good faith and so civilly. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Post mortem and burial

Litvinenko's post mortem examination and burial are discussed briefly in the article, but I seem to remember news reporting at the time saying, plausibly I suppose, that the post mortem was a tricky business because of the risk to those carrying it out, and also that he was buried in a carefully sealed lead coffin, unless this was some kind of tabloid exaggeration. I seem to remember the Health Protection Agency being involved, and his body not being released for burial for some time, while they had a good think about the public health challenges posed by the case. If anyone knows anything more about this and can find some sources, it would be good to have it in the article. Thanks. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Murder is not likely

The entire premise of this article seems unlikely. Polonium is exceptionally rare and very expense to produce. Why would a nation in the midst of economic collapse use 4-5 million dollars worth of a rare element to murder someone? A bullet or knife is cheaper and very reliable.

A more likely explanation is they were smuggling the polonium out to one of the several organizations that hold missing Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Those weapons use polonium triggers. The polonium in these would have decayed decades ago and therefore be useless. This sounds like a botched mule operation.