View Full Version : Yuschenko Poisoned

km gresham
12-08-2004, 07:46 AM
This is scary. Barbaric and sinister. Someone was very serious that this man not be elected. It has shades of the old KGB, I think.

Yuschenko Poisoning Confirmed
Times On Line ^ | December 8, 2004 | Jeremy Page

MEDICAL experts have confirmed that Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s opposition leader, was poisoned in an attempt on his life during election campaigning, the doctor who supervised his treatment at an Austrian clinic said yesterday.

Doctors at Vienna’s exclusive Rudolfinerhaus clinic are within days of identifying the substance that left Mr Yushchenko’s face disfigured with cysts and lesions, Nikolai Korpan told The Times in a telephone interview.

Specialists in Britain, the United States and France had helped to establish that it was a biological agent, a chemical agent or, most likely, a rare poison that struck him down in the run-up to the presidential election, he said. Doctors needed to examine Mr Yushchenko again at the clinic in Vienna to confirm their diagnosis but were in no doubt that the substance was administered deliberately, he said.


12-08-2004, 07:51 AM
This has been a rumor for several weeks. I note the article did not say exactly what the poison/chemical was, hence, I am not ready to take it as fact until someone states exactly what the agent was...
Confirming that he has been poisoned and yet, unable to confirm the poison sounds a bit like a lead for future articles to keep everyone stirred up in the Ukraine and elsewhere.

km gresham
12-08-2004, 07:53 AM
If you read the link, I believe they suspect dioxin. And the pictures are startling.

[ 12-08-2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

12-08-2004, 07:55 AM
is that a WMD?

12-08-2004, 07:55 AM
Sorry...did not read the link as I thought the C&P covered the basics.
I would think that Dioxin being a well known poison would be easy to test for though.
Will read the link.

km gresham
12-08-2004, 07:56 AM
Lee, I found this on the Dioxin home page and googled a few more sites. This seems to be a very nasty chemical.

What is dioxin?
Dioxins and furans are some of the most toxic chemicals known to science. A draft report released for public comment in September 1994 by the US Environmental Protection Agency clearly describes dioxin as a serious public health threat. The public health impact of dioxin may rival the impact that DDT had on public health in the 1960's. According to the EPA report, not only does there appear to be no "safe" level of exposure to dioxin, but levels of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals have been found in the general US population that are "at or near levels associated with adverse health effects." .

[ 12-08-2004, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

12-08-2004, 08:18 AM
We saw something regarding him on national news the other night, may have been PBS. His face and skin were disfigured and mottled, as if he'd been burned. They think that he either ingested or breathed the poison. He was a nice looking man before, but his skin is awful now.

km gresham
12-08-2004, 08:40 AM
From all indications, he's lucky to be alive, and someone intended otherwise.

Bruce Hooke
12-08-2004, 08:55 AM
Sadly, I know more about dioxin than I would like too. A river near me has what are considered to be very high levels of dioxin contamination in one section. So, I now have a supefund site a few miles from my house and we are having to organize to try to make sure the cleanup is done right. I was told last night that this cleanup could be more expensive than the GE PCB cleanup in the Hudson River.

Anyway, to get back to Yuschenko's case, it is not surprising to me that they would have a hard time tracking down that dioxin had been used to poison him, if in fact it was. In river sediments a dioxin level of 4 parts per BILLION is consider very high. Since such tiny levels of dioxin are consider hazardous it is very tricky and expensive to test for hazardous levels of dioxin. Testing one sample for dioxin costs $1000. Testing the same sample for mercury costs $50.

I am glad Yuschenko survived, but given dioxin's long term affects I would not predict that he will live a long life, if he was in fact poisoned with dioxin.

12-08-2004, 09:05 AM
As far as the expense, I would not think $1,000.00 would be an issue here...This guy is not someone off the street...he is a political figure and no expense would be spared to find the cause...even at a $1,000.00 per test.

km gresham
12-08-2004, 09:10 AM
The bigger question to me isn't what, but who. Who or what organization was behind this?

Bruce Hooke
12-08-2004, 09:10 AM
Uncas, I was not suggesting that the cost would be an issue. My point was that it is very hard, complicated and slow to test for dioxin, so it is not surprising that it would take a while to track down that dioxin was the poison, especially because it is probably very rare that people ingest significant quantities of it so the short-term affects may not be that well known and it might well be far down the list of possible poisons that would be considered as a possiblity and thus tested for. Also, there are many, many forms of dioxin and I am not sure if one test can be used to find all of them.

12-08-2004, 09:20 AM
Uncas,,think of the WMD anthrax that hit us after 9/11. No one knows where it came from. So with this WMD dioxin it's just as likely to be unknown.
Ditto the WMD in Iraq. When there are WMD and TERRORISTS ready to infect the body we must be vigilant, protect the borders.

Amazing isn't it? The fear. The known unknown.

Exactly Karen,,who did it? maybe ETA, maybe al qeda, the IRA,,deadenders in Mosul?,we went into Iraq for WMD and Al Qeda so maybe Russia should invade Ukraine because of evidence of WMD.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it. Yuschenko is one person,,he's in the Ukraine. But little details like HOW a chemical is disseminated determines it's effectiveness as a WMD,,just as a box cutter gaining entry to a 757 turns it into a WMD.

yeah,yeah,yeah, so I get stuck on things. But if someone said "eat your vegetables" and you thought french fries sufficed it might make one wonder if you knew what a vegetable was.

ok,,back to WMD,,scary aren't they?

that's why they were presented as the reason to go to war,,,"it's what we could agree on..." to scare the populace who knows less about the middle east than GW into acquiescence.

"aluminum tubes indicate plans to build a centrifuge!"--total and absolute bs.

"UAV ready to spread wmd to England!"--total bs. Air Force intel de-bunked it.

"mobile bio labs!",,with drawings of their proposed configuration no less--total bs,,and for entertainment value David Hatfil was commissioned to build one for training purposes. Google Hatfill, David Kay

yep,,where are those WMD?

[ 12-08-2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

km gresham
12-08-2004, 09:41 AM
If such a tiny amount of dioxin can do such damage, isn't it conceivable that Saddam had enough chemical and biological agents to wreak havoc, yet they're still nearly impossible to find in a country?

We know from his attacks on the Kurds that he had such weapons at that time and he used them.

Keith Wilson
12-08-2004, 09:46 AM
What does Ukraine have to do with WMD in Iraq? :confused: If you want to argue about that again, start another thread.

The current (soon to be previous, I hope) government of Ukraine has deep roots back to the bad old Soviet days. Qui bono? I certainly woudn't put it past them; in fact, I think it's quite likely.

[ 12-08-2004, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

km gresham
12-08-2004, 09:50 AM
It has shades of that kind of thing, Keith. That's why it'll be interesting to learn who was behind something so vile. If we ever do.

12-08-2004, 09:51 AM
Hey Karen, maybe you've hit on something.

Maybe multinational chemical companies are all linked to Saddam, and the dioxins and other nasties in leaking toxic waste dumps and river sediments all over the world are in fact already deployed WMDs.

Ergo, the WMDs exist, have already been launched, and the Iraq war was justified after all. We were just looking for the wrong toxins, in the wrong country.

Yea, somebody get this idea to Limbaugh ...


12-08-2004, 10:05 AM
Keith,,absolutely f******* very little except symbols on a computer screen.

But if it gets folks excited then damn it must be dangerous. Real dangerous.

in the beginning was the word.

this'll be my last on this thread concerning wmd

Karen,,,do you get the idea? You, and most of the American public toss "WMD" around as though it is one thing,,or anything. It's as though the president said all vehicles will be called cars,,,from mopeds to 18wheelers.

"it's what we could agree on.." Karen,,if GW's handlers have to agree on what the threat is like deciding what's for dinner then you're getting a clue what the Battle of Perceptions is about.

martin schulz
12-08-2004, 10:20 AM
Dioxin is nothing new here. There have been a couple of intoxications of the soil beneeth garbage dumbs.

But it seems that in the US Dioxin is also an issue (I am just surprised that some of you were so uninformed about that stuff)

Dioxins and furans are some of the most toxic chemicals known to science. According to the EPA report, not only does there appear to be no "safe" level of exposure to dioxin, but levels of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals have been found in the general US population that are "at or near levels associated with adverse health effects." .

Dioxin is a general term that describes a group of hundreds of chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment. The most toxic compound is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD. The toxicity of other dioxins and chemicals like PCBs that act like dioxin are measured in relation to TCDD. Dioxin is formed as an unintentional by-product of many industrial processes involving chlorine such as waste incineration, chemical and pesticide manufacturing and pulp and paper bleaching. Dioxin was the primary toxic component of Agent Orange, was found at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY and was the basis for evacuations at Times Beach, MO and Seveso, Italy.

Dioxin is formed by burning chlorine-based chemical compounds with hydrocarbons. The major source of dioxin in the environment comes from waste-burning incinerators of various sorts and also from backyard burn-barrels. Dioxin pollution is also affiliated with paper mills which use chlorine bleaching in their process and with the production of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) plastics and with the production of certain chlorinated chemicals (like many pesticides).

[ 12-08-2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: martin schulz ]

Keith Wilson
12-08-2004, 10:31 AM
Dioxins would be a good choice for a political assassination. Very little is needed, it’s hard to detect, and it occurs sometimes in the environment so it’s very difficult to prove it was deliberate, and it’s always deniable. Fortunately, he lived.

km gresham
12-08-2004, 11:02 AM
Perhaps unfortunately for those who attacked him.

Bruce Hooke
12-08-2004, 01:25 PM
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD is what we have here in my neighborhood. :( :( :( It came from a chemical company that among other things used to clean "empty" chemical barrels, and failed to properly dispose of the resulting waste.

I doubt they will ever find the person who poisoned Yuschenko, but one advantage of dioxin in this case (for those trying to track down the culprit) is that the many different forms it takes may make it easier to narrow down the possible original sources for the dioxin. I don't think dioxin is real easy to get your hands on.

Of course calling something like dioxin a WMD is completely preposterous, because if dioxin is a WMD then so are most of the chemicals and paints made by our major chemical companies, some of which end up on the shelves of your local hardware store. That is unless you include in the list of WMD's substances that cause substantial harm to the environment or the could cause harm to human health. If you do then many of our major industries are big-time producers of WMD's...

km gresham
12-08-2004, 01:38 PM
Couldn't it become a weapon if used intentionally in the amounts and circumstances required to do great harm? It certainly was a weapon used against Yuschenko.

How quickly does this poisoning act? That knowledge could help to pin down the likely time and circumstances surrounding the poisoning.

If indeed it was dioxin. That is still just a theory at this point.

[ 12-08-2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

Bruce Hooke
12-08-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by km gresham:
Couldn't it become a weapon if used intentionally in the amounts and circumstances required to do great harm? It certainly was a weapon used against Yuschenko.Of course it could became a weapon, as indeed it did. The point is that the same could be true of a million or so other industrial chemicals, many of which are readily available in the US as well as most other industrialized countries.

12-08-2004, 01:59 PM
Thank you Bruce,,

km gresham
12-08-2004, 02:02 PM
Yes. And if someone determined to use them for ill, it could be declared that they are innocent agents or byproducts, they could easily be concealed and used for destructive purposes. I think it all comes down to who has what and their intentions and actions.

We have guns. We don't use them against innocent people and we don't intend to do so. Other people have guns for the specific intent of killing innocent people.

I think what we are seeking in post-Saddam Iraq may well be something that in some hands is carefully controlled and does no harm, but in the wrong hands is devastating.

12-08-2004, 03:32 PM
Not to pop anyone's pet conspiracy theory, but some of you are assuming facts not in evidence! Eastern Europe, thanks in large part to the Soviets, has large areas that are badly contaminated. It could be possible that he went somewhere and got exposed rather than a human agent exposing him to the chemical or whatever it is/was.

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. ;)

12-08-2004, 03:40 PM

I acknowledge responsibility. It was my tongue-in-cheek posting that started us down this road.

I still think, though, that somebody ought to give the idea to Limbaugh. Would make a great rant!

Bruce Hooke
12-08-2004, 03:46 PM

There are millions of things that in the wrong hands can do great harm if someone where to eat them or otherwise come into direct contact with them. Fortunately, it would be pretty hard to create mass destruction and casualties with most of them because of the problem of how to get people to eat or touch them in large enough quantities to do them immediate harm.

Are you suggesting that any chemical hazardous to human health that we find in Iraq in a questionable location should be called a WMD?

If we are going to try to rid Iraq of every known hazardous chemical and substance we will need to basically take the country back to a such primitive conditions that most of the people there would never be able to survive. If we simply want to secure all of the hazardous substances there then we will either need a LOT more boots on the ground or a lot more cooperation from the Iraqi people than we have now.

Bruce Hooke
12-08-2004, 03:53 PM

While this is a possiblity that we should keep in mind it seems kind of unlikely to me that he could have come into direct contact with enough dioxin to cause such an apparently immediate reaction, without knowing about the contact. After all, simply walking around a contaminated site would be unlikely to cause the problems he is having, unless he sat down and ate some of the dirt. Lower level contact through things like public water supplies or food would presumably have affected a large number of people...

km gresham
12-08-2004, 08:03 PM
Meer, would he have gone to one of those places alone? I don't think so. Then the other people with him would be afflicted as he is. That particular theory doesn't hold water.