All right, everyone. My official position is that I don’t give one good goddamn about the issue at hand but I DO care about the insults being tossed about by both sides.
All - and I mean all - will cool it with the personal comments right away or the warnings will fly with grace and dignity. Is that clear?
I could care less about “you as a poster”.
I can’t help but notice in your effort to make everything about you, you’ve somehow managed to entirely fail to address the issue. If, as you claim, you were just arguing from a devil’s advocate position, what sense would it possibly make for Israel to threaten the scientists to come up with a negative result if he had died of natural causes? None. The only reason you want proof that Israel didn’t threaten these scientists to come up with their conclusions, as absurd as such a demand is, is because you have already decided Arafat was in fact poisoned, and was in fact poisoned by the Israelis. Attempting to ret-con this as anything else is transparently obvious.
In the thread above, I speculated about the possible reasons the Russians could have to fudge up a false-negative result.
It is, however, difficult to come up with convincing reasons why both the French and the Russians would want to fudge up a false-negative result.
The simple explaination is that some of the results are simply incorrect; given two teams have come up negative and one a qualified positive, the odds are that it is the positive that is incorrect. It will be interesting, if and when the French and Russians release their results, to compare them.
However we view the medicolegal findings and implications of this affair, it behooves us to eschew scurrilous contumely.
Wow, new word for me. Thanks.
To be accurate - the news accountsof those who have read the French report do not state that the report shows much different data than the Swiss report does. The difference is in the interpretation of the data. The French analysis is, according to these multiple sources, that radon from around the site is the highly probable cause of the measurements. The Swiss team believes that such is unlikely. News reports also note that the Swiss team was funded, in large part, by Arafat’s widow and the PA. The news accounts of the Russian report (only questoned by Honesty, not by the PA, Arafat’s widow, or Al Jazeera who have claimed to have had access to it) are that they are the only ones who did not measure similar amounts of polonium. The Swiss group stands by their analysis.
Again I find the Swiss analysis to be highly contrived. The lack of a clear established diagnosed cause of Arafat’s enterocolitis (and everything else has a clear chain of causality medically from that point) is, in their mind, evidence that polonium was the cause. Seems similar to the argument that says that magic must be the cause of anything I do not aready have an explanation for. And again, the hand-waving away the lack of any bone marrow suppression when they interpret their findings as showing that there had been large amounts of pololium in Arafat’s bones during his illness is inexcusably sloppy thinking pushed into place to defend a preferred conclusion.
Nevertheless we apparently (well those of us who are not thinking that the Swiss and Al Jazeera and others are all possibly lying about these reports) have two teams of experts who conclude that polonium poisoning is highly unlikely (“unsubstantiated” in one team’s reported words and to the degree of being willing to state “ruled out” by the other apparently) and one team, funded by his widow and the PA, that says “our data lean more towards the thesis of poisoning than in the opposite direction.” So two “no” and one 51% or greater probability in the mind of those funded by those who wanted that answer.
It will be interesting to see if the French continue to pursue this as an alleged murder investigation from here forward.
The crux of the Swiss team’s argument against the French interpretation btw seems to be that they measure less Po210 in the soil farther from the coffin than in soil next to the body. Their implicit assumption is that radon gas would be evenly distributed in the soil and in the coffin over time, thus that difference, to their way of thinking, is evidence that radon is not the cause, therefore polonium from the body must be. The problem with that line of thinking is that radon gas would not be evenly distributed within a soil substrate and in an air-filled pocket underground within the substrate. That’s the problem with basements and radon: a poorly ventilated underground space acts as a trap for radon gas allowing it to build up. You will measure more O2 and CO2 molecules in a unit volume of the air inside a coffin than in the same unit volume of dirt aound the coffin. And you will measure more radon gas molecules inside a volume of air within closed underground coffin than in the same volume of dirt two feet away. The effects of radon should be expected to be greatest close to where the greatest volume of space for trapped gas exists and drop off from there. The process of radon gas build-up in a coffin is likely very similar to that within a basement but with even less ventilation:
Or to quote from a more academic source:
Now if they had taken dirt from next to another body nearby in the graveyard that had been buried in at least a similar coffin and similar dirt, then maybe they would have something like a control. What they likely would see is that the *typical *gravesite in an area that has radon producing soil has highest levels of radon induced Po and Pb210 closest to the coffin and less in dirt farther away from that underground gas containing structure.
Just another example of why we need never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
Again, radon collects in air filled low spaces. Like basements. And coffins.
Yeah, I got ground scurrils in my back yard, and the horses are always in danger of having their behooves fall into the holes.
Makes sense.
The lack of a proper control strikes me as a glaring weaknesses in the Swiss analysis.
Of course, finding similar polonium levels in bodies buried near Arafat’s would probably lead to charges that the Israelis poisoned them all. :rolleyes:
Finding bodies buried near Arafat would be incredibly impressive and require at least a transdimensional gateway to a parallel universe. I think the Swiss approach to sample the environs of Arafat’s tomb showed better experimental design, whereas the French study left the question of normal versus abnormal polonium contamination up in the air. Maybe more information will come out and put this all to rest.
(underlining mine)
I concur with this.
DSeid, thank you bringing this up for discussion.
This news is surprising because, frankly, I anticipated the French to find no polonium compared to controls. The fact that French are Swiss do not significantly differ is unsatisfying because it sidesteps the discussion of the positive polonium values, and, instead, unduly focuses the discussion on the interpretation. The French are muddying the waters because they released a press release on the interpretation of the data rather than the data itself. The French scientists should have said “We found positive polonium values in Mr. Arafat belongings *but *differ on his cause of death” rather than an unhelpful press release about him not being poisoned at all. In any case, I look forward to looking at their data.
The Swiss study took on its main hole (i.e. the lack of myelosuppression) in their paper. Seperately, in addition to their points, I think it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to know the varied biological effects of a rare element that was first discovered a little over 100 years ago. Just because a patient doesn’t have every single symptom listed on the Wikipedia page doesn’t mean they weren’t infected*. Therefore, I see no reason why Mr. Arafat have to had every single known symptom of polonium poisoning. Moreover, since the French and the Swiss and now confirmed that Mr. Arafat’s belongings were contaminated, the picture is becoming clearer on his cause of death.
*Let’s say you have two children diagnosed with chickenpox. If one child with chickenpox has fatigue and sleeps and the other child has no little change in energy levels,do we now assume the latter did not have chickenpox because “fatigue” is listed as a symptom for chickenpox?
They wouldn’t say it because that is not what they found. They don’t just “differ on his cause of death”. They also differ on the reason for the polonium find.
By the way, Honesty, here is the full Russian report: Russian forensic report on Arafat’s death | Investigative News | Al Jazeera Both in English and in Russian.
No idea what this is supposed to mean.
“Near” is a relative term, but there are certainly cemeteries in Ramallah not that far from Arafat’s burial site. One could also test soil samples from around the area in an effort to find controls.
This is a good illustration of the dangers of ascribing a diagnosis to a vague or nonspecific set of symptoms.
Fatigue and sleepiness are very nonspecific indicators that may or may not go along with infection, neoplasia, drug reactions and a host of other situations including simply overexerting onself. One would never make a unequivocal diagnosis of chickenpox without specific findings (i.e. positive lab tests from skin scrapings, serologic confirmation).
Going further with the chickenpox analogy - how likely would it be for the disease to have occurred in someone who never developed a skin rash (a characteristic finding in chickenpox), but who had a PCR test interpreted by one lab as positive for chickenpox, while two other labs interpreted the test as negative? In such an instance, I highly doubt there’d be an epidemiologic consensus that the case was likely to be chickenpox, never mind the type of slam-dunk diagnosis that enthusiasts are proclaiming in Arafat’s case.
There is no possible way to have had large amounts of polonium in the long bones and not had myelosupression. It really is as Jackmanni put it, calling something chickenpox without any of the rash. And yes it is theoretically possible to be infected with the virus and have no apparent rash but the lack of rash would raise the bar of oter proof very very high. Their handwave was to say:
Yet their report documents the marrow biopsies showing that their was no marrow hypocellularity present and their conclusion is primarily based on apparent large amounts of polonium in his bones.
I certainly cannot claim that what they describe could not occur with polonium toxicity - hypothetically it is not impossible that someone could have a hypocellular marrow and not have as much impact or that polonium in some particular case could not go to bone and thus not have as significant myelosuppression. Hasn’t occurred in the animal studies but it is not impossible. No evidence that is has ever occurred or could but sure they can say that it is not impossible hypothetically. But by their evidence we know that such could occur that neither was the case here, in this particular case. Their explanation is just plain silly and is only consistent with desperately clinging to a preferred hypothesis. It is also extremely silly for them to claim some very precise knowledge about how polonium is handled in the body (which they do) as the basis of drawing a conclusion of what levels they think were present in a past time, and then handwave away an inconsistency with the explanation that we just don’t know much about how polonium behaves.
Step back a second. Some unnamed person dies. You are whatever board that has been given the case to decide if there should be further investigated as a murder, now years later. Your experts tell you there was no murder here. The team hired by the widow of the deceased (who had refused an initial autopsy) and a party that had stated previously they believe a murder was committed says that they think they have “moderate” support that there was a murder … “more … than in the opposite direction.” That’s it. The deceased’s death process was inconsistent with what has previously been described as how the weapon alleged kills people.
There is not any investigative board in the world that would not put on a small show of continued process for the family while concluding that there is insufficient cause to proceed any further with any investigation regarding an alleged murder.
You should read your cite. 
The great thing about this is that data is here, you can’t hide from it now. I urge you to turn page 12, the Russian scientists did three independent readings (1.4, 1.2, 1.1 mEq) on a skull fragment. These are very high values. To keep this perspective, 1 mEq of radioactivity is equivalent to 1 microgram of polonium chloride. I am still wondering where the appendix is; where are the values of polonium from Mr. Arafat’s clothing? I see nothing of that here, though, to be clear, if found a piece of skull to be radioactive, it’s likely his clothing was too. Time will tell.
These are good points, Jackmannii, however, keep in mind that the core symptoms for radiation poisoning *are *non-specific. Nausea, dizziness, vomiting, and headache. Related to this, did you hear about the men who were caught stealing radioactive cesium? Well, this is justbreaking news, but they’ve admitted into the hospital with dizziness and vomiting. Would you care to wager that these people are having radiation sickness? Or would you assume they have HIV? Influenza? IBS? CFS? Gastroenteritis? Or, heck, food poisoning?
High as in (from that page 12) “… it has been impossible to come to a decisive conclusion regarding the presence of the radioactive background in the provided samples”? Or “the obtained result does not constitute unambiguous evidence of the presence of 210Po in the system of the subject under examination”?
I beg to differ. I quote: “it has been impossible to come to a decisive conclusion regarding the presence of the radioactive background in the provided samples”. Does that say “the sample was radioactive” to you?
I was having fun with saying how unlikely it is there is any better control than taking samples from within his tomb encased in a mausoleum. I doubt most of the bodies in the area are even buried in caskets. No radon is building up in these places. Where there could be radon building up is in the tomb. After all they had to drill through concrete to get to his grave. Despite this no bizarre radon readings. The Swiss did a good job in recognizing this potential alternative explanation and collected data to address it. They did a good job.
I think it’s worth recognizing that among the three research teams, its the Swiss that have conformed the most with what we expect from scientists.
I am still open-minded to this all being a misinterpretation of data. In the end, if it turns out that there is a reasonable, natural explanation for the polonium readings, then I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t accept it.
By the way, anyone want to comment on why they buried Arafat with his toothbrush and dirty underwear? I mean, didn’t they find polonium on those items as well?
The “handwave” is also puzzling in that they appear to be claiming that elderly people are less susceptible to bone marrow suppression because they have a smaller population of blood cell precursors than the younger set. On the contrary, it is generally acknowledged that the elderly are at greater risk of bone marrow suppression from a variety of circumstances (including radiation and other forms of cancer therapy, as well as from metastatic cancer invading bone), because they have less marrow reserve than younger people.
So if anything, an old man like Arafat with multiple co-morbidities would have been likely to show a more dramatic drop in blood counts than a younger person exposed to radiation, instead of what actually transpired (non-depressed blood counts).