August 23, 2013

expert reaction to alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria

Syrian opposition activists claimed the military used chemical weapons in Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus, killing hundreds.

Dr David Kinnison, chemical health and safety advisor, University of Southampton, & former UN weapons inspector, said:

“Chemical analysis of environmental and human samples would indicate what chemical agent had been released and what the casualties had been exposed to. Chemical monitoring (using sensors specific for chemical agents) on site would also help determine what type of agent had been released. To be sure that a chemical weapon had been deployed would require further analysis with all available incident information assessed. The UN inspectors should have the necessary resources and facilities to establish if a chemical weapon has been deployed.

“Video footage will provide some information, such as demonstrating casualties’ symptoms. It can suggest what type of chemical the casualty may have been exposed to. But footage is also limited and to detect if a chemical agent has been deployed does require investigation on the ground (monitoring and sampling).

“Chemical monitoring employed on the ground, which is generally immediate, would provide an indication of the type of agent that had been employed and in some cases an approximate amount. Many armed forces employ such systems to alert their troops to potential chemical attack.

“Sampling and chemical analysis can take much longer (possibly days), especially if the analytical laboratory is remote from the sampling site. However, it may provide information to identify the parent chemical or its degradation products and/or metabolites. It is possible that there is still time for this to happen but the sooner UN inspectors can investigate the better.”

Prof Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology, University of Leeds, said:

“I have more videos to look at. What I have seen is the most compelling evidence so far. I am struck by the appearance of the victims and the absence of any signs of trauma. This suggests some powerful asphyxiant. What it is has yet to be established. It is not some incapacitating agent, as we currently understand the term. If the videos are genuine, and they would have to have been expertly faked, this looks like a lethal agent (or chemical) which has killed a proportion of those exposed.

“Until we have a fuller picture of where and how people were exposed, and procedures followed to deal with victims, much will remain unanswered.

“Many of the victims have individual signs suggestive of exposure to an organophosphate agent. Pinpoint pupils are certainly one of the signs but should not be used to rule out exposure. When people are afraid their pupils dilate and this may be the initial appearance.

“Nasal and lung secretions are very evident in many of the victims and these are just some of the signs consistent with organophosphate exposure. Nerve agents are toxic organophosphate compounds.

“The timing of the events raises many questions. But for me the most important issue is that the UN team currently in Syria be given immediate access to the victims and the sites where attacks are said to have occurred. This is the chance to get uncontested evidence. Countries must call for the team to have immediate access.”

Prof Hay has investigated a number of real and alleged chemical warfare incidents since 1988.