|
Post by laurel on Jul 2, 2008 15:13:06 GMT -4
An Iranian ambassador named Abolfazi Zohrevand is saying that Americans tried to kill Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with "x-rays" while he was in Italy. He says they rigged the metal detector at Ahmadinejad's temporary residence to give off excessive radiation but the plot was foiled because they discovered the high radiation levels and had Ahmadinejad stay somewhere else. Ahmadinejad was only going to stay in that residence for three days. The ambassador gave some numbers but he didn't say what units of measurement he was using. He said that the regular radiation level of such equipment in Italy was “300” but on this machine it had reached “800”.
Isn't this a really inefficient way to assassinate someone? Could the amount of radiation needed to kill someone immediately even be produced by modifying a metal detector? Or was it just supposed to be enough radiation to maybe make him sick in the future? Because again if they were trying to kill him that seems really inefficient. I thought machines like this give off very low levels of radiation. I'm just confused by this story; it sounds silly to me but I'm not an expert on radiation so I thought maybe someone here could clarify it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 2, 2008 15:28:37 GMT -4
Aren't the signs of radiation sickness kinda obvious, too?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 2, 2008 15:47:38 GMT -4
What units are they using? Is 800 deadly and 300 perfectly safe? If they had him walk through at 3/8ths normal speed wouldn't they be giving him the same dose without having to modify the machine first?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 2, 2008 16:17:44 GMT -4
This is even stupider than it looks at first glance. A walk-through metal detector uses magnetism, not X-rays.
The familiar scanner uses X-rays, but would only be dangerous if the targeted individual was shoved through along with the purses and briefcases. And even then, "dangerous" just means "exceeding standard safety levels", it doesn't mean "immediately dangerous to life or health".
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jul 3, 2008 8:41:38 GMT -4
An Iranian ambassador named Abolfazi Zohrevand is saying that Americans tried to kill Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with "x-rays" while he was in Italy. Isn't this a really inefficient way to assassinate someone? Must have been the same guys who needed 30 years to find and whack Bill Kaysing...
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jul 3, 2008 10:51:35 GMT -4
Why bother?
The Iranian presidency isn't a particular powerful office. And Ahmadinejad not likely to be re-elected.
He is more of an embarrassment for Iran then an asset.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 3, 2008 11:58:27 GMT -4
Thought metal detectors were based on induction and your hand luggage gets the glow in the dark treatment? Either way, good cup of russian tea. That is the way it would seem? But why would they be carrying xray detectors or is it part of the normal stuff diplomats carry to check for bugs??
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jul 18, 2008 18:39:37 GMT -4
I suppose that there could have been an x-ray scanner but it would be highly unusual for it to be used on people. However let's say there was and let's ignore the idiocy of non-identifiable units. One could send a dose of x-rays at a person that would give them an increased probability of developing leukemia or multiple myeloma in the future. Probably long after M.A. has left public office. OR One could deliver a much higher dose and garauntee that he get sick shortly. Biggest problem with that is how you keep it from also affecting people nearby. Then there is hiding the klystron noise and the power required for the machine. It would be noticible that there is a 400 amp, 480 volt service running a simple metal detector OR You might even be able to fry him in his own body fat but that just might be even more suspicious. That said the person reporting this says that the unnamed units of a metal detector in Italy are 300 which implies that we are indeed talking about a metal detector. IIRC airport metal detectors generate a feild in the range of 80 gauss. Is there another unit of magnetism that would have this at 300? What about the comparison between the magnetic feild produced by a metal detector and that produced by an MRI scan? An MRI is a lot greater, it can kill if you forget to tell the operator that you have, for eg. a metal pin in your spine. However, I have had an MRI and I felt no effect at all. I would suppose that it would also be possible to generate a mag feild such that it would interfere with life processes but anyone within half a mile would probably feel the change in their pockets tugging at them. ;D
|
|
vq
Earth
What time is it again?
Posts: 129
|
Post by vq on Aug 20, 2008 0:24:22 GMT -4
The familiar scanner uses X-rays, but would only be dangerous if the targeted individual was shoved through along with the purses and briefcases. And even then, "dangerous" just means "exceeding standard safety levels", it doesn't mean "immediately dangerous to life or health". This actually could be a pretty cool Bond-movie-style offing of the failed underling bad guy. Stuff him in the baggage scanner, lock the door, and make a witty quip as you walk away.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Aug 20, 2008 18:27:10 GMT -4
"He seems a bit hot under the collar."
"He's catching a wave."
"Set phasers to 'kill'."
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 21, 2008 0:15:45 GMT -4
Give the guy a lot of iron implants, then put him in a high magnetic field.
Or better yet, a lot of piercings, and put him in a room of Van de Graaff generators.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 14, 2008 7:59:50 GMT -4
That was used in a horror/detective story published in I think the 40's. Title was "The Bell." Man invites a friend (the author substitute) to visit him at his country home, and makes a big point of showing off the new electric door bell. Then he explains how he was hurt, nearly ruined, by the illegal actions of another man. Who, it reveals, is at this moment in a room under the house, under a large electromagnet wired to that doorbell...and has had a nice diet of fish-hooks.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 14, 2008 12:33:05 GMT -4
I'd think the fish hooks alone would do him in.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Sept 14, 2008 13:39:18 GMT -4
How about lacing his food with Strontium 90? It is radioactive, and since strontium replaces calcium in bones, it would stay with him for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 14, 2008 16:41:34 GMT -4
How about lacing his food with Strontium 90? It is radioactive, and since strontium replaces calcium in bones, it would stay with him for a while. Sound idea. Contains more science than any other conspiracy theory I've seen.
|
|