Skip to main content
De Facto

Ricin and The Fear of Terrorism

I'm rather wondering if the media have 'Lost the plot' today.

The calming message is of course "If you think you have Ricin poisoning" - which has no known antidote - "contact NHS Direct or your GP for advice".

Advice on what? Funeral arrangements? And then, if you live in London SW19, it will take on average seven days to see your Doctor anyway, so a relatively pointless exercise for the unfortunate victim in such circumstances.

Worse still is that the media appear to be ducking the delivery mechanism issue for the poison. Yes Ricin can be inhaled or swallowed or smeared on a victim's door handle but the most worrying terrorist option also includes the water supply, which you may be happy to know, can resist the Ricin toxin but only if it is chlorinated to 10 ppm.



So, we are told on the BBC, "A gram of Ricin can theoretically kill 30,000 people" and it's only logical to think of the broader terrorist or Al Qaeda application and its delivery mechanism, other than as an unusual assassination weapon, as witnessed in the case of Georgi Markhov and the umbrella gun.

There's more than enough material on the Internet to help any amateur chemist distill Ricin from the husks of castor oil seeds and it's much safer to handle than the Smallpox virus or plague bacillus; the latter of course being available on mail order over the Web, as was demonstrated in the States two years ago.

My own guess is that the water supply is the simplest target of opportunity for Ricin, which is perhaps why nobody is asking the question on television but then, you'd need a truck load of Castor beans from your local supermarket, otherwise the result of too great a dilution of the chemical would involve a chronic laxative effect on the victims, not quite perhaps what the terrorists had in mind but very messy!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…