Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE NERVE AGENT used to poison a former Russian spy and his daughter in the English town of Salisbury last month was delivered “in a liquid form,” Britain’s environmental department has said.
AFP reports that Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) announced today that the home of Sergei Skripal was targeted with a “very small amount” of nerve agent when he and his daughter Yulia were poisoned on 4 March.
Yulia has been discharged from hospital while Sergei Skripal, 66, remains in hospital, though he is no longer in a critical condition.
Work to decontaminate sites in Salisbury affected by the nerve agent begins today, but the process will take months and involve around 190 specialist military personnel from the Army and RAF.
These locations include part of the Maltings shopping centre where the two collapsed, the Zizzi restaurant and Mill pub where they visited that day, and the family home on the outskirts of the city. The home of the police officer injured in the incident, Nick Bailey, also needs to be decontaminated.
These sites will remain secured until the work undertaken is reviewed and approved by the government. This work will involve testing and removing items that may have been contaminated, and chemical cleaning. Public Health England reaffirmed that the risk to the general public is low.
Defra’s chief scientific adviser, Ian Boyd, said that the “number one priority is making these sites safe for the public, so they can be returned to use for the people of Salisbury”.
Meticulous work is required and we expect it will be a number of months before all sites are fully reopened.
Today, a small cordoned area of London Road cemetery was the first area to be reopened to the public. Extensive investigations and testing established that the grave of Skripal’s wife Luidmila was not contaminated, Defra said.
The cleanup comes in addition to the announcement of £2.5 million (€2.8 million) to support businesses and tourism in Salisbury, as well as unexpected costs that arise as a result of the recovery efforts.
The police previously believed that the pair had been poisoned at the front door of Skripal’s home. Police said that the highest concentration of the nerve agent was found here.
Russia has denied the UK’s claims that it was behind the attack. Last week, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said it had confirmed the UK’s findings that the nerve agent originally came from Russia.
With reporting from © – AFP, 2018
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The Journal regurgitates the AFP’s line that “Last week, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said it had confirmed the UK’s findings that the nerve agent originally came from Russia.” It’s a pity that they didn’t actually spend all of 3 minutes going to the OPCW and actually reading the report https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-issues-report-on-technical-assistance-requested-by-the-united-kingdom/
The relevant text is “… the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury…”.
It confirms that it was Novichok but says NOTHING about where it came from! Seriously, could someone tell me where I can get one of these Mickey Mouse journalist qualifications because I think that it would look good on my CV.
The OPCW has revealed itself as dissembler. Ref last week’s report that a Swiss state lab had determined chemical was nit Novichoc, but a western agent named BZ for short.
@PV Nevin: You know the Swiss lab came out and said the Russians were misrepresenting their work, and that they agree with the OPCW report?
@PV Nevin: In fact, I’ve just read an interview (translated from German) with Stefan Mogl, Head of Chemistry at the Swiss Spiez lab and former member of the OPCW JIM leadership panel on Syria, and not only does he agree that Novichok was used in the attack, but he explains why the Skripals’ recovery was plausible and why he thinks a state actor was behind the attack.
“I have no doubt that the lab measured correctly and that it really is Nowitschok” (Mogl)
“According to the head of the Porton Down lab, Nowitschok’s production is so demanding that you have to assume a state actor behind it. Mogl shares this view.”
Link here: https://www.nzz.ch/international/kein-zweifel-am-nowitschok-resultat-ld.1374775 [Google Translate or deepl.com for tranlsation]
I recommend everyone reads this, it puts to bed the notion that the Spiez lab disagree with the OPCW report in any way. It has been independently confirmed that the agent was Novichok. The origin is an open question and isn’t a question chemistry can answer in this case.
@ihcalaM: Errrr…………Liar, Liar pants on fire – THIS is Directly from that article you have linked to, and are imploring everyone to read…….
Can the exact provenance be determined by checking the substance used? Mogl makes it clear that this is not possible at today’s level of knowledge. In this respect, too, is the excitement about the statements of the boss of Porton Down, who had stated on Tuesday that his institute could not prove that the substance originated in Russia. According to Mogl, such a finding had never been expected either: Little is known about the method of preparation of the Nowitschok poisons, so that no conclusions can be drawn about the country of origin or even the responsible laboratory. This distinguishes this case from that in Syria, where it could be determined that the sarin used in Khan Sheikhun most probably came from Syrian army stocks due to contamination in the investigated warfare agents and by means of comparative samples.
Do you even bother to read through things before linking them Open Borders??
@PV Nevin:
You fell for the fake news – the lab in question already mythbusted that lie.
@Pearse Mc Mullen: Pearse, just asking, did you read any of my comment?
I said “The origin is an open question and isn’t a question chemistry can answer in this case.”
Where did I claim Mogl said the origin could be determined? I said he was busting the myth that their lab say it wasn’t Novichok – which he did – and that he finds the Novichok attack plausible, which he does.
Just read my comments next time Pearse. Slowly, if it helps.
@ihcalaM: Ha ha Pearse.
@ihcalaM: @ihcalaM: that press article you link is from the 4th April , quite some days before the Russian Swiss lab report claims re BZ and is in fact also previous to the OPCW report ( 12 April ) .
Could you link the interview where the scientist from the Spiez lab says he was misrepresented , thank you , I’d like to read it .
@Isabel Oliveira:
It’s on the lab’s twitter feed, but summarised here:
https://uawire.org/swiss-laboratory-responded-to-lavrov-s-claims
The Kremlin’s policy of “deny, distort, deflect” is exposed yet again.
@Isabel Oliveira: The official Speiz lab twitter account announced on April 14th that the contents of the article I linked are representative of their position on the case, and they encouraged people to read it.
Tweet here:
https://twitter.com/SpiezLab/status/985208203943260161
In that article, the head of the Spiez lab clearly states that they agree with the OPCW conclusion that Novichok was used. The lab has said they agree Novichok was used on Twitter, too, and say that the OPCW findings can be trusted – which means the Russian claim that they were contradicting the OPCW is a misrepresentation.
They depend on the old adage that “a lie has travelled half way round the world before the truth gets out of bed”.
Judging by some of the Journal’s commenters they’re right about that at least.
@Walt Jabsco: thank you for the link .
@Isabel Oliveira:
You’re welcome
@ihcalaM: thank you .
Re press article , They could not be denying the Russian claims as these had not been made yet . Nor could they be corroborating the OPCW report as this had also not been issued yet , and it wasn’t for another week .
Re twitter, where they quote the article my interpretation was different.
“Only OPCW can comment this assertion. But we can repeat what we stated 10 days ago: We have no doubt that Porton Down has identified Novichock. PD – like Spiez – is a designated lab of the OPCW. The standards in verification are so rigid that one can trust the findings”
They confirm that Porton down identified Novishok but they don’t confirm Spiez did or not. They also neither confirm nor deny finding BZ.
different interpretations. We must wait for OPCW clarification.
@Isabel Oliveira: Actually the Russian foreign minister, Lavrov, in his statement claimed that the Swiss lab had identified a high concentration of A-234 (a Novichok) along with the supposed BZ identification.
The claim, I think, is that the lab identified trace amounts of BZ along with “high concentrations” of A-234.
But you are right in a way that the OPCW need to clear up this mess, they are expected to do so tomorrow according to Spiez lab. The lab clearly feel like Lavrov’s “pronouncement” isn’t something they can endorse.
@ihcalaM: yes I read that as well . You’re correct , OPCW do need to clarify this mess tomorrow . All this secrecy and uncompromising language in reports don’t do clarity any favours . They can name the substances Identified in the public report rather than feeding more confusion.
otherwise we shall all reconvene in the comment box linking and counter linking eh eh . Crazy days we live in .
@ihcalaM:
The OPCW are careful in choice of words. They stated they confirm identity of chemical as claimed by British govt. British state, Porton Down, said chemical was ‘like Nivichok’. The OPCW have not at all acted as a rigorously neutral party.
@ihcalaM: Still waiting for the link to your assertion that “the Swiss lab came out and said the Russians were misrepresenting their work”. The link you provided quoted the lab saying “as a designated Lab of the OPCW we cannot independently comment on this”
@PV Nevin:
Where exactly have the OPCW compromised their neutrality?
Just because their statement contradicts your beliefs doesn’t mean they’re biased.
@JimmyMc:
They reiterated their statement of ten days ago – find it and read it.
@Walt Jabsco: which preceded the Russian statement, and the OPCW report.
@JimmyMc:
Well spotted, but so what? Just find it and read it.
@Walt Jabsco: if you fail to see the significance of the date of the statements then there’s little point trying to explain it to you
@JimmyMc:
What part of “we reiterate what was in our previous statement” are you struggling to understand?
If you’ve actually read it and have basic comprehension skills it’s pretty obvious that it’s perfectly relevant to the current situation.
@JimmyMc: The lab pointed all interested parties to that article as it was representative of their official position, even over a week later.
The positions outlined by the head of the Spiez lab, which were still backed by the lab after Lavrov’s assertions, make it pretty evident that the Russians weren’t being honest with their interpretation.
Russian state media were portraying a conflict between OPCW results and Spiez results, when the latter are adamant they agree with the OPCW report. Now, even if the Spiez lab didn’t *explicitly* say they were misrepresented (wouldn’t be diplomatic), they’ve demonstrated it.
They know this because they personally delivered it …
I had some langers say that the felay in the reaction to the toxin was down to it being in powder form. Someone please explain how this deadly toxin took 3 hours to incapacitate its victims and how non of the staff in the restaurant or pub were impacted. The swiss laboratory found this was not a russian produced toxin. The wgole thing stinks of false flag.
@Cal Mooney: “Someone please explain how this deadly toxin took 3 hours to incapacitate its victims”
I’ll leave that explanation, amazingly, to the head of the Swiss lab you’re talking about, Stefan Mogl.
From the interview: “For Mogl, however, this does not sound implausible. First, the toxicity depends on the dose and, secondly, the effect on absorption through the skin in a peripheral site such as a hand may have been delayed. Third, the expert assumes that Nowitschok, like the nerve agents sarin or VX, acts as a so-called acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. This means that it blocks the enzyme responsible for breaking down an important messenger substance in nerve cells, thereby disrupting the transmission of nerve signals. The corresponding symptoms may also appear only after some time.”
https://www.nzz.ch/international/kein-zweifel-am-nowitschok-resultat-ld.1374775
“The swiss laboratory found this was not a russian produced toxin.”
Stop reading RT for your news, they don’t check their facts. The lab have come out and said this is totally false – they agree it was Novichok. See my link.
@Cal Mooney:
So do you admit that your “food poisoning or Weil’s disease” narrative was complete bullshit?
@Walt Jabsco: Cal never admits he is wrong. He will do as he usually does and ignore your question.
@Mick Jordan:
That’s a given. Got to hand it to him for having the brass neck to keep turning up after his lies are repeatedly exposed though, for example:
“The press named Novichok within 2 hours of the attack”
“There was no nerve agent – they suffered from food poisoning or Weil’s Disease”
“The independent ‘Swedish’ lab said the nerve agent used could only have originated in the UK”
etc. etc. etc…..
He’s the Journal’s resident bullshitter-in-chief.
@Cal Mooney: I believe you .I do I do honestly sure why wouldn’t I
@ihcalaM: ‘Stop reading RT for your news, they don’t check their facts. The lab have come out and said this is totally false – they agree it was Novichok. See my link.’
But did they say it was russian produced?
@Father Hody Commody: No. They – and Porton Down – have said that current chemistry can’t answer that question. The OPCW report didn’t mention the origin either, for this reason.
@Father Hody Commody:
(By the way, it’s still a lie to say the Swiss lab “confirmed it wasn’t Russian produced”. They can’t determine the origin either way, that’s the point)
@Cal Mooney: bbc are now reporting it was in liquid form
@Gerard Smith:
Whatever about going straight to the comments section without reading the article, you could have at least read the headline!
I had no idea there were so many experts in illicit nerve agents among The Journal’s ilite readership
@Neal Ireland Hello.: ‘were’? Strong stuff that
@Neal Ireland Hello.: It’s not hard to read published reports by certified labs. That’s if you can read that is.
The most blizzard aspect of this investigation was what happened to the 2 hamsters and cat, all dying from neglect as apparently the police protecting the house never noticed them in the house. If the chemical agent was used in the house the pets should also be contiminated, if as was suggested the door handles were smeared with the toxic nerve agent anyone handingling or stroking the pets would pass it on, in fact the cat should be downright radioactive. But somehow the pets died from neglect due to being ignored by the guys in the space suits. Can you believe it.?
@Charles Williams:
It’s precisely because they feared the pets might be contaminated that they couldn’t risk letting them out of the house or letting anyone in to feed them.
A bit cruel perhaps but hardly a mystery.
@Charles Williams: these toxins are in 2 parts. part one was at the house on the door handle
part two was at cafe the 2 toxins then react.
so anyone at the house but not the cafe is fine and same for the police who first found them. he only got sick after he visited the house
@Charles Williams: The front door handle on the outside was. I dont think any poison was found inside the house
And would you leave your house to go to the pub but as soon as you closed the front door, open It again just to go back in to handle your pets then go back out to the pub?
@Walt Jabsco: Walt, are you suggesting the space men in suits seen all around Salsbury couldn’t feed 2 hamsters and a cat.?
@Mick Jordan: Mick, for all we know they could have been in and out of the house 40 times that morning to thr car, garden, rubbish bins, letting in and out the cat etc.
@Charles Williams:All lies on top of more lies
@Charles Williams:
I think they probably had other priorities….
Stop the lies…
So not a gel put on the front door….Was it a aerosol can then….A gift perhaps the daughter brought to her dad from good friend in Moscow….She had just returned from Moscow….
Do I have to come down of the cross again thomas to get you to believe ,the Russians done it just ask the journal commenter’s well some of them
https://youtu.be/J4utEI2EU64
Who knows?
Bullshit bullshit and more bullshit!!
@Conor Murtagh: no chemical
@FlopFlipU:
The independent OPCW (trusted by Russia) disagree.
Why were they not just shot or the brake lines cut or any other way to kill someone. Seems russia wants everyone to know it was them so why not come out and say yes it was us what you going to do ?
@David Cullen: Why was Litvinenko killed with Polonium? Why was Alex Perepilichny poisoned using Gelsemium a poison only found in a rare orchid that only grows in the Himalayas? Why was Badari Patarkatsishvili poisoned? What had they all in common. They opposed Putin.
@Mick Jordan: Rare Orchid that only grows in the Himalayas….
The Himalayas, That form a mountain range in Asia separating the plains of the Indian subcontinent from the Tibetan Plateau
Those Himalayas?
The Himalayas that are spread across five countries: Nepal, India, Bhutan, China and Pakistan?
How the hell did you work that into your Theories about Russia and Putin is beyond me.
LMFAO!
@Mick Jordan: Also , about Alex Perepilichny –
On 10 November 2012, Perepilichny travelled back to the UK from a three-day trip to Paris. After arriving home, he went out to jog in St George’s Hill, and was found dead on the road by a neighbour.[5] A video of his corpse was widely circulated online in the aftermath of his death.[6]
Perepilichny had no reported health issues when he collapsed. Two autopsies proved inconclusive, as did advanced toxicology tests. Two years after his death, one of Perepilichny’s life insurance companys, Legal & General, ordered tests that detected a toxin from a Chinese flowering plant Gelsemium in his stomach; the plant is nicknamed “heartbreak grass” because its leaves trigger cardiac arrest if ingested. Mr Perepilichnyy’s other insurers have not raised any objections or requested access to the inquest. [3][7]
Fiona Barton, the lawyer for Surrey Police, has continued to maintain that “No identifiable toxin was found and that remains the case”, she said
Bang goes your theory again.
@Pearse Mc Mullen: And Russians don’t travel? They don’t have Embassies in India, Nepal,China or Pakistan? The autopsy found the poison in his system. And we know he dropped dead jogging in a Park in London and he was never known to visit the Himalayas. So maybe you could explain how a Russian dissident drops dead from a rare poison when thousands of miles away from the source?
@Pearse Mc Mullen: So you agree the poison was found in his stomach. Yet you try dismiss it.
@Mick Jordan: jaysus Mick, will ya not just shut it for once. You and your regulars come onto tjese articles that involve russia and spout the same old proven untrue rubbish and make it sound like fact. You argued non stop on how britain doesnt use russian gas and even when i sent you the british energy page link to prove it, you still argued. When i told you the british PM said she was going to reduce dependance, yiu said she was mistaken.
@Pearse Mc Mullen:
From your link:
“Surrey Police have said there was no evidence for this but an earlier pre-inquest hearing was told traces of a rare and deadly poison from the gelsemium plant had been found in his stomach.”
There – fixed that for you.
Can’t imagine how you missed the second part….
@Cal Mooney:
Pot, kettle! :-D
@David Cullen: I suppose Putin seen the US and EU/UK as a pair of basket cases during the last year or so (which they were). He could be sending a message to any Russian ex pats or anyone else inside or outside Russia who might think about harming his rule. Took the calculated risk that May and Trump would dither about until the next emergency would take over the narrative.
@Cal Mooney: you’re a bit of a spouter yourself Cal
have your say