Talk:Alleged Chemical Attack, August 21, 2013/U.N. Investigator Response

This is an area to watch closely, and maybe worth some discussion and thought. It's thorny stuff. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Starting Thoughts
Obviously, the U.N. chemical weapons inspection team had just arrived not two days before this to start a two-week mission. They were based in a Damascus hotel less than 5 km away from one activist who said "I think the regime doesn’t care that the UN inspectors are less than 5 kilometres away. On the contrary, by carrying out these bombings despite the observers’ presence, they’re sending a crystal-clear message to the international community." (exact alleged message unspecified) Similarly, CNN reported this taunt:
 * "The inspectors will not come," said a resident who didn't want his real name used. "If they wanted to come, they would have come a long time ago. The Assad regime determines where the inspectors go, and they will not let them go there. There is already a siege around Eastern Ghouta from the Assad regime." --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

From a Washington Post report:
 * ''Ake Sellstrom, the Swedish scientist who heads the U.N. inspection team in Syria, told the Swedish media that he had seen only the television images of the alleged attacks. "But the high number of wounded and dead they are speaking about sounds suspicious,” Sellström told Swedish news agency TT, via telephone from Damascus. “It sounds like something one should take a look at.”

And of course, Western powers are demanding exactly that the "inspectors," as activists keep calling them, be allowed to cruise over there and somehow find out if CW were used, but carefully not decide by whom. The pull of events sucking Sellstrom's team into the (rebel-infested false-flag free-fire) zone is immense. They are being played up as heroes - inspirational non-Muslim ones! - who would be immensely mourned if they did show up and see the truth, only to be gassed by "the regime" before they escaped with the truth. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a possible plot, however likely, that might be part of why Damascus won't let them go. As Fabius said, Assad would be caught "with his hand in the till" and NATO bombing would be the most logical next step. So to avert that, maybe Damascus will have to let them go to ... Arbin to Zamalka, what, 8-9 places? By the time it's done, two weeks will be long passed. Or they will get gassed too on the third stop, and "Assad" will be caught hiding the truth, and thus, same next logical step. Or, Syria promises to let them go, once the surrounding countryside is cleared again, which will take way more than three weeks. In case any witnesses in Khan al-Assal remain alive, no one will come talk to them.--Caustic Logic (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mandate
The Investigators (not inspectors) had first been requested by the Syrian government, on March 20 to document the previous day's alleged chemical attack by rebels against soldiers and civilians in the Shi'ite Aleppo suburb of Khan al-Assal. Their request was complicated and delayed (see Talk:Alleged chemical attack, March 19, 2013, until Syria was able to negotiate a compromise on scope and methods in July, after which rebels conquered Khan al-Assal in a massive push, and proceded to massacre soldiers and civilians, perhaps witnesses. The investigators were given a two-week mandate to investigate three areas: - Khan al-Assal (alleged rebel strike) - An unspecified (?) area in Homs (alleged government strike) - The Damascus suburb of Adra (alleged government strike)

One important and often-noted limit on the team's mandate: they were to discern whether chemical weapons were used, presumably what the chemical was and possibly how it was delivered, but expressly NOT who on which side of the war deployed the weaponry. (more - sources, details, given reasons - later) This might prevent them from forming a coherent explanation for at least the Aleppo attack, if the rebels in fact did it. It would of course also prevent them blaming the government outright, but that- and not the former- can easily be done after the fact by political leaders, referencing the report and - if necessary - twisting it. Even in Khan al-Assal "the regime" could be blamed, solong as the investigative report doesn't explicitly say otherwise. --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This limitation was carried over to the Ghouta attacks, which became the sole focus of the team. A Reuters report mentioned that "the U.N. inspectors' [sic] mandate dictates they will only seek to determine whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. Western diplomats said that limitation undermined the usefulness of the inspectors' findings." In fact, that might have been exactly the idea. --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Many sources say that Sellstrom's team arrived on the day before the August 21 attacks, and I've been saying less than two days before, thinking it was the 19th. But in fact they arrived on Sunday, August 18 (AFP Aug 18 NYT Aug 18). Anyway, at the very start of their fourth day - with the team still in the hotel in Damascus and no investigations started yet - someone distracted them with chemical massacres in about a dozen rebel-held areas right around Damascus. This became their primary focus, and even that was only partially investigated. By the time The Team Leaves Syria|they left Syria late on August 30, it had been about 12 days. So in fact, the team's time mandate wound up nearly fulfilled, but coincidentally occupied totally with the unscheduled investigations and ending with "sorry, best be off now. Bombing is expected any time. Pleasure workin' with ya, hope to visit again sometime." --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Rebel Orders From Aleppo

 * An "operations room" in Khan Al-Assal has issued a statement demanding that the Investigators first go to Ghouta, or else they won't get access to Khan Al-Assal. The Russians say Syria is ready for "maximum" cooperation. Maybe your first suspicion among the line of "dead investigators are bad for Damascus" was spot on. --CE (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Fascinating twist there. They are really being pushed, geographically, to this spot(s), in a palpable way that's ominous. Also, distracting from Aleppo is central, and this helps show that. Statement should continue: "if you go to Gouta first - ALL sites and there are five more we forgot to mention - and get here, alive, we promise to cooperate fully, and that if anyone gasses you here, it will be the regime, not us." --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Investigating Ghouta
By the 25th, almost one week into their two-week mandate (possibly will be extended), it was announced the team would go to the sites of the recent attacks.
 * New York, 25 August 2013 - Statement Attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria
 * On 24 and 25 August, the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Angela Kane met with senior officials of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic. The purpose of her visit was to seek cooperation of the Government in facilitating an expeditious investigation of the incident in the Ghouta area on 21 August involving the alleged use of chemical weapons.


 * The Secretary-General has instructed the Mission under Dr. Sellström, currently in Damascus, to focus its attention on ascertaining the facts of the 21 August incident as its highest priority. The Mission is preparing to conduct on-site fact-finding activities, starting tomorrow, Monday, 26 August.


 * The Secretary-General notes the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic affirmed that it will provide the necessary cooperation, including the observance of the cessation of hostilities at the locations related to the incident. ... The Secretary-General would like to reiterate that all relevant parties equally share the responsibility of cooperating in urgently generating a safe environment for the Mission to do its job efficiently and providing all necessary information.

Shot by Snipers
So they drive over there - just where I'll have to see. First thing, unidentified snipers shoot at the lead vehicle several times, forcing them to give up and go back. Clearly the regime trying to stall them, right? No one dead yet. Gassing won't work outside a basement prison, I decided, so shooting or other hard hits will have to do it if they want to have the regime off these guys. Maybe another try tomorrow. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * They should just visit the Special Forces Headquarters parking lot. See who's firing the rockets? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not safe. That's where the snipers were shooting from. ;) --Caustic Logic (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

They were entering the southwest outlier site Moadamiya when shot at. They managed to investigate there anyway, talking to people in a rebel-run hospital. Samples were collected showing a "chemical substance," the U.N. said after deciding it was not some ... other ... kind of substance. They continue to investigate, there are videos and reports, not collected here yet. At left, one of their members collects soil, it seems, from the site of a rocket strike in the Zamalka area. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to come back to this issue of where the shooting happened. I see quiet contention, with two versions and possible significance. U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, told reporters the snipers had hit the lead first vehicle "in its tires and its front window," and so "it was not able to travel farther." But that's not what I meant. Where on the map. State TV (SANA?) is said to have said "Members of the United Nations team... came under fire from armed terrorist groups as they entered the Moadamiyet al-Sham area" but the U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said it happened later in the day, while heading east to Ghouta. (sources around...) There seems to be plenty evidence of a visit everyone says is to M. al-Sham, so on the face of it, state TV was wrong and it was the second visit to rebel-held East Ghouta the unknown snipers briefly barred the team from. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it was on the first visit to Moadamiyeh, on the 26th, and pretty early in the day. I know for sure because I kind of predicted it on the forum and when I checked back, it had happened (won't win me a million, though). It seems they used the next day for further negotiations and "safety guarantees" before they finally went to eastern Ghouta on the 28th and 29th. There's a bit of the planning described in the Sellström report, but not as much as I had hoped for. --CE (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's all same-day, Aug.26. They (U.N.) say the shooting stopped the visit and made them turn back, they got M al-Sham, and turned back from a trip east to east Ghouta. So maybe that was the first attempted visit that was cut short, after which they went southwest for the first actual visit. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Rest
(should be a big section someday) --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Response: "Too Late"
The U.S. response is interesting. Citing Los Angeles Times: U.S. dismisses Syria's inspection offer as 'too late':
 * The Obama administration dismissed Syria's offer to allow inspectors access to the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack as having come "too late" and declared there was "very little doubt" the government had used poison gas against civilians...

or in essence, it's too late for facts to disrupt this total certainty. Who knew it had a gestation period less than five days? Now we can never go back, no matter what the facts say. There is and can be no real doubt. Ever, again. Clearly, there is theatrics to the "tioo late" blustering. It makes little to no factual sense, but has an emotional impact, a big threatening shout at an insane pitch, designed to shake Syrians into defection and disarray. Problem is, it's been done incessantly at so many volume levels, even this - loudest yet though it is - they might remain immune.

So is actual full-on conflict on the way? I think the signs say no. Consider:
 * a senior administration official, in a written statement given to reporters on condition of anonymity, brushed aside the Syrian offer...

Is that deniability? Could be, if needed. More hedging even now? Especially now?
 * Despite the assertion of "little doubt," the administration has not presented any evidence of its own that the Syrian government carried out such an attack, instead citing public reports made by others.

They don't have John Kerry holding up a report and a vial of powder at the U.N., claiming the hardest proof ever the regime dunnit. So far it seems more "it's worth another try" at threats, than a real drive to war. I hope I'm right on that. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

On to the logic of the dismissal: It won't hold up.
 * "If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the U.N. — five days ago," the official said. By now, the government has had many opportunities to destroy evidence, including by shelling the areas, the official noted.

Five days of shelling renders a site worthless? Why didn't anyone mention that when they were insisting Syria grant access to a dozen or more sites of alleged attacks dating back sometimes to December? One of those - Homs, Dec. 23 - was on the investigators' itinerary at the moment this major distraction blew up all around them just a few days ago. When was that going to be cancelled for being months too late? The government was still hoping to have Khan al-Assal looked at, five months after they first asked for this investigation. But the U.S. gets all snippy when it takes five days, in the middle of a war zone full of ... problems. Perhaps they're afraid that, after all the bluster about how they'd better get over there, there will be no clues implicating the regime. But they were there a few days ago, everyone's pretty sure, and they're already so convinced that actual gathered facts would just be anti-climactic and a buzzkill. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Reals, CBS News foreign editor, wrote a critical and thoughtful piece: "Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where's the evidence?" In it, he mentioned these older attacks, where "the remnants of any CW used have had five months to degrade, but the weapons experts still wanted to go and collect samples." As shown, these sites in fact date back eight months. Addressing the alleged credibility-destroying delay, Reals wrote:
 * There is also the fundamental claim that Assad's government delayed the inspectors' visit to Ghouta. They have now visited the suburbs on three separate days, and on Tuesday, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem countered the accusations of a deliberate delay, saying his government only received the request from U.N. disarmament chief Angela Kane to visit the area on Saturday.
 * "Miss Kane came on Saturday, on Sunday we agreed and on Monday, they (the U.N. inspectors) went to Moadamiyeh (a town in Ghouta). We did not argue about the sites they wanted to visit. We agreed straight away," said Muallem. "How could we be accused of causing a delay?"
 * How can you be accused? With words, seeking to paint pictures of guilty conscience trying to stall justice. At five days they had to call it "too late", because no more delay was available by then to complain about. Pathetic. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Team Leaves Syria
As threats of a United States military strike, unilateral or otherwise, continued, the U.N. team was pulled out of Syria altogether.
 * AFP via Raw Story, Aug. 29:
 * As the five permanent members of the security council held a second emergency meeting on Syria in two days on Thursday evening, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, instructed the 20-strong inspection team in Damascus to leave on Saturday, a day ahead of schedule. Ban also announced that the team would report to him immediately on departure, raising the possibility that the UN could issue an interim report on the 21 August chemical attacks that left hundreds of people dead.


 * Friday, August 30: U.N. investigators to exit Syria, chemical probe may take weeks
 * U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said the inspectors would be leaving Syria on Saturday but would return later to investigate several other alleged poison gas attacks that have taken place in Syria during the country's 2-1/2-year civil war.

Sure they'll be back, and a million people will be gassed then. They didn't even touch the stuff they came for - months-old alleged attacks in Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. Oddly, they were completely distracted by the new surprise mass attacks around Damascus,. The article notes that this work was done but results would take weeks and the U.S. was intent to act as soon as it liked. --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * August 30 (later): U.N. chemical inspection team leaves Syria; region braces for attack
 * A United Nations chemical inspection team left Syria on Saturday as U.S. officials were said to be preparing a retaliatory strike against the Syrian government for its alleged use of poison gas.
 * Various news agencies reported that a convoy carrying the U.N. contingent had left its hotel in Damascus early Saturday and later crossed the border into neighboring Lebanon.
 * Reports have suggested that the White House preferred to wait until the U.N. contingent had departed Syria before launching any assault.

In essence, it seems like they were chased out by the U.S., with the ridiculous "too late" claims, with a threat of force against the area they were in. Didn't this happen in Iraq too? Just as they were on the verge of continuing to find no WMDs, the inspectors were chased out by a convinced United States breaking the info stalemate with bombs or threats of them? --Caustic Logic (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you asking a question? Hitler left no paper trail of the Holocaust (at least not one that would connect him to the crime). Modern war criminals need a paper trail. This is called plausible denial. They need a layer of yes-men and dodgy dossiers around them to make believe that they are acting morally. Finding the truth is never the aim of investigations. They exist only to give credibility to the alternate false reality. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A hypothetical that got a tangential answer. But I checked back and yes, the U.S. said get out, the UN called them out, the (British?) insurance company insuring their helicopters pulled coverage, and they left, as the threat of verifying no WMDs was averted. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You should add that to my write-up on the main page. --CE (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure which spot. source, however. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, sorry, you were talking about Iraq. I heard that the Syria team was kind of directly harassed to leave as well, thought you were referring to this. --CE (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Speculation

 * Exclusive: U.N. Report Will Point to Assad Regime in Massive Chemical Attack – Colum Lynch, Foreign Policy, September 11, 2013
 * ''U.N. inspectors have collected a "wealth" of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.


 * ''The inspection team, which is expected on Monday to present U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon with a highly anticipated report on a suspected Aug. 21 nerve agent attack in the suburbs of Damascus, will not directly accuse the Syrian regime of gassing its own people, according to three U.N.-based diplomats familiar with the investigation. But it will provide a strong circumstantial case -- based on an examination of spent rocket casings, ammunition, and laboratory tests of soil, blood, and urine samples -- that points strongly in the direction of Syrian government culpability.


 * UN report will confirm Syria chemical weapons use –AFP, Friday 13 Sep 2013
 * ''UN experts will confirm in a report to be released next week that chemical weapons were used in an attack near Damascus, UN leader Ban Ki-moon predicted Friday.


 * ''"I believe the report will be an overwhelming report that the chemical weapons was used," said Ban who also launched a new outspoken attack on Syria's President Bashar al-Assad.


 * ''Ban also gave a UN estimate that 1,400 people were killed in an August 21 attack which led to western threats of a military strike on Assad's forces.

It is very dangerous to say chemical weapons were used. They should stick to saying chemical agents or weapons grade chemical agents were used. The UN should not speak about weapons unless they can identify the delivery system with 100% certainty. Is that just found sarin, then just as likely it could have been planted. If this was a false flag attack, it was done by a huge conspiracy with almost unlimited resources. The UN chemical experts just are not qualified to deal with it. They assume that people ("activists") are telling them the truth, when they should assume that everyone is lying to them. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Petri. I was about to bring a link to Lynch's article. It made me want to puke on Robert Menendez. Whether the official or the actual UN team is to blame, this is a horrible picture. They were "happy" with the amount of stuff they could point at "the regime" without explicitly pointing at them. A "nerve agent," can't tell which one, but from the finer points of that blank spot, you can see "the author." Very regimey characteristics, some Shia DNA, speaks Persian with a Russian accent, etc. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems possible this isn't even based on their work at all, but a way for some unnamed official to alert the inspectors what they're expected to find or say. You can say otherwise and get us grumpy with you for showing us wrong, or you can find a way to mumble something that sounds a bit like this. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Syria 'chemical weapons' crisis: LIVE UPDATES
 * Friday, September 13
 * ''17:35 GMT: Speaking by phone to AP from the Netherlands the head of the UN chemical weapons inspection team says he has completed his report on Syria and will deliver it to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon over the weekend.


 * ''"It’s done, but when to present it is up to the Secretary General," he said.


 * Preempting The Next Round of Lies Against Syria – Tony Cartalucci, September 14, 2013
 * What the UN report on Syria will say & what the liars in the West will claim it says.
 * ''Relying entirely on the momentum of its massive media networks and their ability to "will" reality into any shape they please, headlines such as "United Nations' Syria chemical weapons report "overwhelming," shamelessly attempt to link two out of context statements by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon regarding the Syria government's "crimes against humanity" and the confirmed use of chemical weapons in Damascus Syria, to place in the mind of readers assigned blame for the attacks.

Analysis of findings
The report was released on September 16, 2013. The pdf is here (3.5 MB).

At the beginning of the PDF we have three pages of Ban-Ki Moon intro and Sellström transmittal letter before the report starts. I suggest we use the page numbers of the PDF as reference, which will be three higher than printed on the report (but not the appendices) pages. --CE (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

At the moment the UN report is impossible to evaluate because no details are given of the lab tests on blood and urine samples. The environmental samples would have been easy to fake for insurgents with access to small quantities of "kitchen sarin". The blood samples would be more difficult to fake convincingly: in genuine victims examined at 7 days we'd expect to see that sarin metabolites are not detectable, that cholinesterase activity is markedly reduced and that (with a clever technique that splits sarin from its binding site), sarin could be identified as the molecule causing this reduced cholinesterase activity. In faked samples, cholinesterase activity would also be reduced (ex vivo effect) but sarin breakdown products would be present at unfeasibly high concentrations for 7 days post-exposure.

Let's hope that over the next few days people like Dan Kaszeta and academics who are working in this field will publicly demand more information from Sellstrom. --pmr9 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Symptoms and clinical signs
Why did so few patients report diarrhoea or have miosis? Eye inflammation is not a feature of sarin exposure. --Pmr9 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan Kaszeta has put some comments on the report on his website (http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/D-Kaszeta-Comments-on-UN-Report.pdf). He notes that the history and signs are not consistent with what is known for sarin exposure. Miosis should have been detectable in severely affected patients even at 7 days. Patients reported having had convulsions without having had other symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhoea. 78% of patients reported loss of consciousness, which would usually be a terminal event in sarin poisoning. He asks "Is it possible that we are looking at exposure to multiple causes of injury? Were some of the examined victims exposed to other things in addition to Sarin?" --Pmr9 (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Blood samples
The UN report states that "All biomedical samples were collected by local medical professionals under supervision of UN inspectors", but "the the assistance of local doctors and nurses ... reduced the time spent for collecting and labelling samples individually". In other words, there wasn't one on one supervision of the collection of blood samples.

Blood and urine samples were collected 5 days after the alleged incident in Moadamiyah and 7 days after the incident in Zamalka. The tests done on these samples are not stated: the results are just given as "positive" or "negative" for "Sarin and Sarin signatures" with no quantitation. In the environmental samples it looks as if mass spectrometry was used to measure sarin breakdown products, mainly isopropyl methylphosponate (IMPA and diisopropyl methylphosphonate (DIMP) and other "interesting chemicals"  As measurement of sarin metabolites is the only test that can be used in both blood and urine, I'm assuming that this was what the labs did and the comments below are based on this.

In animal studies the metabolites IMPA and DIMP have a half-life of about 45 minutes in plasma (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18269798) (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp119.pdf). Studies in human victims of the 1995 Tokyo sarin attack are consistent with this: plasma levels fell by half between 1.5 h and 2.5 h (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9851684). The urinary half-life of sarin metabolites in rats is estimated as 3.7 hours, and elimination is complete by 2 days (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9953&page=177). For biomarkers of sarin exposure several days after exposure, measuring inhibition of blood cholinesterases is more useful than measuring sarin metabolites (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11064&page=28). In the Tokyo attack, this was detectable 3 weeks after exposure in individuals who had been symptomatic.

The UN report doesn't explain how (assuming that their test were based on sarin metabolites) these metabolites could have been detectable in plasma 5 to 7 days after exposure given their plasma half-life of 1 hour or less. Concentrations are not reported and the detection limit of the assay is not given. It would be usual for the lab to report this information. At the very least, we should be able to assess whether the measured levels are within the range compatible with recovery.

Possible explanations:

(1) More than 90% of the individuals studied had been exposed to sarin within the last two days, perhaps from contaminated clothes or skin, but this exposure did not cause symptoms.

(2) there was deliberate contamination of the blood and urine collection bottles (all hair samples were negative).

Pmr9 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC) minor edits 18 September 20:13 UTC


 * Pmr9, thanks and welcome! That's fascinating stuff. I'm behind here and haven't looked into any of that, so ... I've been hearing the signs can be seen for up to six weeks, must be by the second method, "measuring inhibition of blood cholinesterases." But they used the first method even though it was days too late to turn up valid samples? I wonder why they would choose to even do that. If what you found is true, someone really needs to clarify and explain that to the world, that the investigators confirmed contamination or poisoning well after the alleged gas attack, and essentially proved a rebel frame-up. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: I think most of this should be moved eventually to a spot that doesn't exist yet. But this science is fascinating. I'm not real good with it, but ... Pmr9, I'm curious, is this something you know much about, just googling around, or somewhere between? Just googling around, I find hard-to-parse, jargon-laden sentences that seem to bear out what you're is saying. The abstract in the Tokyo attack doesn't mention hours, and I couldn't see where to read any further. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This PDF report about US military experiments that intentionally poisoned naval personnel with Sarin (p 7) says the slower metabolizing (-)-isomer of Sarin (the more harmful, they think) has a half-life of "several hours." From there one metabolite is DIMP, which the body rapidly turns to IMPA, and this is what turns up in the plasma of the Japan victims. If I follow... this means after that time, levels would be about half, the rest turned to DIMP and whatever else. The rest breaks dow, IIRC half the remaining half in the next x hours, half the remaining quarter in the next half-life, until basically zero. If we take a 5 hour half-life, It'll be to about 1/32 of the original amount within 24 hours, 1/256 in two days, probably undetectable after three, a fraction I shan't compute. But the last of the following processes might continue churning on a lower and lower level for ... a few more hours pas that, maybe? So what would they be seeing five and seven days after? Or alternately, what do we have wrong? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp119-c2.pdf (apparently related to a report above and possibly relevant, a gender difference in metabolism rates, in some species anyway):
 * A sex difference in the rate of conversion of DIMP to its primary metabolite was observed after intravenous administration of 14C-DIMP in rats (Bucci et al. 1992). The males appeared to convert DIMP to IMPA more actively than the females. The apparent plasma elimination half-life of DIMP was about 45 minutes in males and up to 250 minutes in females. Both the rate and total excretion of the administered dose in urine were also higher in male rats. However, this sex difference was not observed for orally-administered DIMP in minks (Bucci et al. 1992; Weiss et al. 1994).
 * By the way, just to be more sure, I think someone should try this on several varieties of rabbits, with a large pool of subjects from each, for greater statistical depth. Then also gophers, horses, and dolphins. You never know. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't come across the report on Project SHAD, and didn't realize there are two isomers of sarin with different half-lives. It looks as if this wasn't reported for sarin until 2000 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X00990604), so earlier studies didn't take it into account. Without special measures to separate the (-) isomer, sarin would be a 50/50 mixture of the two isomers. In the study by Spruit (2000) (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 169, 249 –254) the half-life of the slowly-eliminated (-) isomer in guinea-pigs is estimated as 58 minutes. The Project SHAD report states "Animal studies indicate that (-)-sarin is rapidly distributed throughout the body, within minutes, but eliminated very slowly with a half-life of several hours." No reference is given for the "several hours", and I can't find any other study than that by Spruit (2000). So we still have a working estimate for the total half-life of sarin and its metabolites in plasma as less than 2 hours, roughly consistent with values on the 3 individuals in Tokyo for whom blood samples were taken at 2 time points. We also have studies in both rats and Tokyo humans that indicate that sarin metabolites are not detectable in urine beyond 2 days after exposure. To illustrate what this means, assume an exponential decay curve with half-life of 4.8 hours. Plasma levels will fall 1000 fold in 2 days, and by a factor of one billion in six days. There has to be some other explanation for how these metabolites could be detected seven days after exposure. At the very least, one would have expected Sellstrom to comment on this remarkable finding. One possibility is that home-made sarin could contain some by-product that is stable and only slowly metabolized to IMPA and DIMP.

Disclaimer: my research is on metabolic biomarkers of disease risk in humans. I don't know anything about sarin beyond what I've read, and I have no experience of administering it to small furry animals. --pmr9 18 September 2013 14:20 UTC
 * "We also have studies in both rats and Tokyo humans that indicate that sarin metabolites are not detectable in urine beyond 2 days after exposure." This. I think. Augh, I need to just look closer t the report. Damn its non word-searchability. Sorry, I'll have more to say later. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On the disclaimer, not necessary, but thanks. :D --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hair samples
As Pmr9 notes above, all hair samples were tested negative for Sarin (page 18). On page 16 we learn that there have been three hair samples, two from Moadamiyah and one from Zamalka. In the tables in the Appendix, what I can find are four hair samples, tested negative, and resulting from August 25 (page 37). Apparently those are control samples, maybe from the team. --CE (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * odd, they mention the three hair samples being negative, but those don't seem to appear in the charts. As you say, there are four hairs listed, apparently controls, taken before any field visit. Blood (plasma) and urine samples are listed in the later charts subject-by-subject, but perhaps just because it would be such an un-used column, hair isn't there. As for the negative, may not mean much. I looked into it. This hair site says normal growth rate is 1.25 cm per month. That would be about 0.25 cm in the app. 6-day span involved. Not much. this commercial site sells drug testing services, and they say drugs will appear after the hair has enough time to grow out: 7-10 days. At five and seven days, nothing should be expected to show up, even if they were poisoned. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but shouldn't the hair be contaminated in the first place? Wasn't that even an argument of one of the experts saying it might not be Sarin, that the people treating the victims without proper protection would get affected themselves because the stuff concentrates in hair and clothes? Well, I don't know. Just an observation. I think we can at least conclude that the charts aren't complete. --CE (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Contaminated like everything but washed, etc. It's the biological indicators you get from the hair tissue that last. I think that's why they do it. Best for things over the last months and years, but not so good for earlier this week. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)