The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
Chapter 2: Introduction to the scientific evidence
6.6 I have referred above to the discovery of traces of polonium 210 in Mr Litvinenko’s
urine shortly before he died, and the subsequent tests that were carried out on his
body after his death, which indicated that he had died as a result of ingesting polonium
some weeks before his death.
6.7 This Part of the Report is concerned with a different series of tests – tests that were
conducted not on Mr Litvinenko’s body, but at a series of locations. Some were
associated with Mr Litvinenko, others with Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun. Some of the
most significant results were found at locations associated with all three.
6.8 The monitoring of the scenes for contamination was a highly complex task. As various
sites were identified as having been contaminated in the days and weeks following
Mr Litvinenko’s death – hotel rooms, restaurants, aircraft, offices – the police were
faced with competing requirements, on the one hand to clean up the sites in the
interests of public safety, but, on the other hand, to obtain forensic evidence of the
contamination for the purposes of their investigation. Detective Inspector (DI) Mascall
said that the task that faced the police and the forensic scientists in this respect was
unprecedented, certainly in the United Kingdom (UK). In the course of his evidence
he explained the system of sequential testing that was adopted involving the police,
scientists from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and scientists from the
Health Protection Agency (HPA). 2
6.9 Witness A1 was one of the principal scientific experts who gave evidence to the
Inquiry. She is an expert in nuclear physics who spent 34 years working for the AWE in
Aldermaston; she now works for another nuclear establishment in the UK. Of particular
relevance to the Inquiry, A1 recently held the post of Manager of Nuclear Forensics at
AWE. As will become apparent, A1 provided detailed and lengthy written evidence for
the Inquiry (including the ‘contamination schedule’ to which I refer below), and also
attended to give oral evidence on two occasions. I am most grateful for the assistance
that A1 has provided to the Inquiry. 3
6.10 A1 gave evidence as to the means by which the testing was undertaken. Tests in the
field were conducted using alpha detectors. This equipment had the advantage of
being portable and was capable of detecting the presence and, where present, the
approximate strength of alpha radiation. Where significant findings were made, swabs
were taken with filter papers, which were then sent to the laboratory to be analysed
using more sophisticated spectrometry equipment. 4
6.11 The first and most basic question was whether the alpha radiation found at the various
scenes had indeed been caused by contamination with polonium 210, as opposed
to any other radionuclide (for example, uranium 232, which has an alpha output
indistinguishable from that of polonium 210). A1 stated that in the light of laboratory
tests using both alpha and gamma spectrometry, she was absolutely confident in
the conclusion that the alpha radiation discovered at the multiple scenes had been
caused by polonium 210. 5
2
Mascall 9/68-70
3
A fuller description of A1’s CV is at 2/101-104
4
A1 2/114
5
A1 2/114-115
110