RugbyRebels

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:You are nearly right. We are talking about an unknown nerve agent at the time the victims were discovered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17288500

"As a result, it is important that an oxime is administered as soon after soman exposure as possible so that some reactivation of AChE occurs before all the enzyme becomes aged."

Soman (A known agent) being the presumed worst case, it is entirely appropriate that Porton Down, when appropriately consulted, simply advised the administration of an oxime.

It is a question of efficacy, and for the efficacy we've seen, it would need to be specific and rapidly administered before the agent bound to AChE ages...

Aging refers to the dealkylation of the cholinesterase, not the nerve agent.

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:You are nearly right. We are talking about an unknown nerve agent at the time the victims were discovered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17288500

"As a result, it is important that an oxime is administered as soon after soman exposure as possible so that some reactivation of AChE occurs before all the enzyme becomes aged."

Soman (A known agent) being the presumed worst case, it is entirely appropriate that Porton Down, when appropriately consulted, simply advised the administration of an oxime.

It is a question of efficacy, and for the efficacy we've seen, it would need to be specific and rapidly administered before the agent bound to AChE ages...

Aging refers to the dealkylation of the cholinesterase, not the nerve agent.


Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 9.56.45 AM.png

Thanks! Always appreciate understanding things better.

Although it does look from your picture that the alkyl group you mention (in regard to the dealkylation process) belongs to the soman molecule in your example... I guess it's a semantic point - when I said the "agent bound to AChE" ages I should have should have said when the "agent-phosphonylated-AChE ages"...

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Why should it? PD doing the job it is supposed to do is proof that the UK govt are lying? This is the very opposite of objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

How many times do I have to repeat myself??!

UK government said only Russia can produce it.
You've just agreed that PD has a capacity to produce Novichoks.

Therefore, the gov statement is clearly false - i.e. a lie...

There is of course other evidence to go along side the scientific analysis.

You won't of course believe that. But consider this. Would the German government, plus all the others, have been so critical of Russia to the point of actually taking some action, on the basis of a scientific analysis that was still underway? A number of sources have alluded to further information, probably Secret, that would have been shared. A scientist stating that his people can't 100% conclude that it was manufactured in Russia won't change the bigger picture. The fact that advanced nations could manufacture the same chemical weapon isn't revelatory; it doesn't mean that they did.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Why should it? PD doing the job it is supposed to do is proof that the UK govt are lying? This is the very opposite of objective.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

How many times do I have to repeat myself??!

UK government said only Russia can produce it.
You've just agreed that PD has a capacity to produce Novichoks.

Therefore, the gov statement is clearly false - i.e. a lie...

There is of course other evidence to go along side the scientific analysis.

You won't of course believe that. But consider this. Would the German government, plus all the others, have been so critical of Russia to the point of actually taking some action, on the basis of a scientific analysis that was still underway? A number of sources have alluded to further information, probably Secret, that would have been shared. A scientist stating that his people can't 100% conclude that it was manufactured in Russia won't change the bigger picture. The fact that advanced nations could manufacture the same chemical weapon isn't revelatory; it doesn't mean that they did.

No, it doesn't mean they did. It does mean that the government narrative about only Russia being able to produce it is false. If I feel like I'm being lied to, I tend to stop believing what someone is telling me. That goes for people as it goes for the government.

Zhivago wrote:


No, it doesn't mean they did. It does mean that the government narrative about only Russia being able to produce it is false. If I feel like I'm being lied to, I tend to stop believing what someone is telling me. That goes for people as it goes for the government.

Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:


No, it doesn't mean they did. It does mean that the government narrative about only Russia being able to produce it is false. If I feel like I'm being lied to, I tend to stop believing what someone is telling me. That goes for people as it goes for the government.

Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

1:47
http://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-accu ... a-43251856
"so uh... it's a Russian-only nerve agent"

That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:


No, it doesn't mean they did. It does mean that the government narrative about only Russia being able to produce it is false. If I feel like I'm being lied to, I tend to stop believing what someone is telling me. That goes for people as it goes for the government.

Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

1:47
http://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-accu ... a-43251856
"so uh... it's a Russian-only nerve agent"

That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?

Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.

Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.

In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.

If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
It is a question of efficacy, and for the efficacy we've seen, it would need to be specific and rapidly administered before the agent bound to AChE ages...

Aging refers to the dealkylation of the cholinesterase, not the nerve agent.


Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 9.56.45 AM.png

Thanks! Always appreciate understanding things better.

Although it does look from your picture that the alkyl group you mention (in regard to the dealkylation process) belongs to the soman molecule in your example... I guess it's a semantic point - when I said the "agent bound to AChE" ages I should have should have said when the "agent-phosphonylated-AChE ages"...

I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
Out of interest, do you have a link to someone saying that only russia is able to produce it? I've seen plenty of people say that russia is the only country that actively produces it for use as a nerve agent, but cant recall anyone saying that no one else was able to produce it.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

1:47
http://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-accu ... a-43251856
"so uh... it's a Russian-only nerve agent"

That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?

Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.

Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.

In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.

If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?

""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London."
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian

Zhivago wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:

Aging refers to the dealkylation of the cholinesterase, not the nerve agent.


Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 9.56.45 AM.png

Thanks! Always appreciate understanding things better.

Although it does look from your picture that the alkyl group you mention (in regard to the dealkylation process) belongs to the soman molecule in your example... I guess it's a semantic point - when I said the "agent bound to AChE" ages I should have should have said when the "agent-phosphonylated-AChE ages"...

I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.

That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
1:47
http://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-accu ... a-43251856
"so uh... it's a Russian-only nerve agent"

That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?

Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.

Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.

In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.

If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?

""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London."
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian

No, you were expressly and explicitly talking about the uk government

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Thanks! Always appreciate understanding things better.

Although it does look from your picture that the alkyl group you mention (in regard to the dealkylation process) belongs to the soman molecule in your example... I guess it's a semantic point - when I said the "agent bound to AChE" ages I should have should have said when the "agent-phosphonylated-AChE ages"...

I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.

That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.

A fair point.

It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.

That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.

A fair point.

It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?

Bind this

That's you at Eden park bro. You've just eaten a pie.

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I would like to add a further point after some more research... so agents such as A-232 are supposedly more deadly than any others, e.g. soman... I have found some data regarding the rate of aging of soman-bound-AChE... and it's only 13% reactivation at time zero, and 0% at 50mins. So a full recovery would be remarkably strange... in fact it does not make sense.

That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.

A fair point.

It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?

It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.

So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.

If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.

That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
1:47
http://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-accu ... a-43251856
"so uh... it's a Russian-only nerve agent"

That was the narrative, I'm not gonna write a study for you of all the instances... are you seriously telling me that it wasn't the message coming from the gov?

Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.

Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.

In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.

If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?

""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London."
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian

Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:Jesus frickin wept, the last umpteen posts have been because you have misunderstood what's been said.

Let me make it simple. If someone were to say that only Ford makes a car called the Mustang, that isn't the same as saying only Ford is capable of producing the Mustang. You see? Not the same meaning; anyone is capable of putting the bits of metal together that make a Mustang, but Ford are the only one who actually do that.

In the same way, calling novichok a russian only nerve agent isnt the same as saying no one else is capable of making it, russia doesnt have a monopoly on chemical knowldge, and if russia is making these compounds for use as a nerve agent then its kinda imperative that the relevant scientists in other countries also make them so they can understand how to defeat them. Calling it a russia only nerve agent IS NOT the same as saying no one else can or has made it. It just isnt. Arguing that it is just illuminates your own absence of understanding.

If you cant even understand the basics of the english language being used, how do you expect anyone to treat you seriously?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?

""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London."
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian

Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?

As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.

That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.

At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.

I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?

""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London."
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian

Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?

As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.

That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.

At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.

I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.

No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.

All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.

Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.

So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

morepork wrote:

That is only if assuming the route of administration distributes the agent sufficiently to bind to a threshold level of all available cholinesterase and that blocking agents were not taken prior to exposure.

A fair point.

It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?

It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.

So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.

If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.

That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.

Still enough to incapacitate though, but you're right about the slow rate of incapacitation. Certainly indicates either a botched job or purposely sub lethal.

That is assuming that it was indeed on the door though... just another thing we've been told and can't know for sure.

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?

As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.

That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.

At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.

I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.

No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.

All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.

Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.

So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So now you don't accept that it could have come from elsewhere? you're all over the place.

Given that a few posts ago you were claiming that there is no antidote, you aren't exactly arguing from a position of credibility.

Lack of verifiable facts means doubt. You're all the ones believing stuff you have to believe as an act of faith.... Not me.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
A fair point.

It was sufficient to incapacitate though, doesn't that indicate a rather high amount of AChE bound by the agent?

It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.

So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.

If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.

That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.

Still enough to incapacitate though, but you're right about the slow rate of incapacitation. Certainly indicates either a botched job or purposely sub lethal.

That is assuming that it was indeed on the door though... just another thing we've been told.

The door handle report is consistent with the injuries sustained by the police office who visited the house, obviously several hours later when it had degraded still further.

I'd label this as a botch job (maybe the victim was supposed to touch the handle earlier than actually happened). If someone wanted to send a message that was sub lethal, there are other ways of doing that - this could easily have killed the victim and other people if it had been touched and spread earlier.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
We're talking about the whole media narrative. You want another example?

""As far as I know, I don't know anybody who knows how to make it except these guys in Russia," says Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security in London."
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ly-russian

Is Dan in government or is that a private opinion?

As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.

That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.

At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.

I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.

Corbyn hasn't been shown the most sensitive intelligence because he can't be trusted. That particular gem was in the media a long time ago.

But your media piece, which I quoted wasn't from a government source. That was the point being made.

I raise the logical point again that would the governments of Germany France etc have gone along with May if the overall proof wasn't strong? They may have expressed sympathy but wouldn't have expelled diplomats or risked Russian retribution. If the British government had been selective with the truth over the scientific evidence, Im sure their own scientific advisors would have been able to have their say - they spent long enough considering the response after all.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
It depends on factors such as time and environment. Chemicals delivered directly from a warhead, for example, will be very potent and will incapacity/kill quickly. Most chemical weapons don't do well when left outdoors for a prolonged period, so their lethality will degrade. However, if chemicals are present on objects with less exposure (the underside of a door handle for example) then hey will last longer, but the quantities may be limited.

So the effects on the victim will depend on the amount of chemicals, how long its been exposed, the amount that is contacted by the skin. Investigators found trace elements in a number of places through Salisbury, but given that no one else has been reported ill they would be trace amounts consistent with it being spread from the hand of a victim.

If the chemical was administered by a small amount placed on the door handle, then its likely that by the time the victims had contact it had degraded to a point where it was no longer instantaneously lethal. Which would explain why they were able to function for an hour to 90 minutes before collapsing.

That would be consistent with training provided to military personnel on CBRN issues where specific warnings are given if a chemical agent is suspected that areas of the ground which are less exposed may still be more contaminated than other areas.

Still enough to incapacitate though, but you're right about the slow rate of incapacitation. Certainly indicates either a botched job or purposely sub lethal.

That is assuming that it was indeed on the door though... just another thing we've been told.

The door handle report is consistent with the injuries sustained by the police office who visited the house, obviously several hours later when it had degraded still further.

I'd label this as a botch job (maybe the victim was supposed to touch the handle earlier than actually happened). If someone wanted to send a message that was sub lethal, there are other ways of doing that - this could easily have killed the victim and other people if it had been touched and spread earlier.

If it's a botched job, doesn't that raise the possibility of it being a non-state actor? Perhaps on the behest of a Russian mafia type oligarch or so?

In which case, shouldn't we be working with the Russian government? Would also explain why they are so indignant...

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
As long as you guys now accept that it could have come from another country, then that's all that really matters.

That means that the key reasoning lies not with the fact that The USSR developed Novichoks, but that thry have the motive and history of carrying out 'wet work'.

At least with Litvenenko we identified the culprits. That was the right approach. We should be doing the same again, otherwise we risk undermining our credibility.

I dont know what other intelligence we have, but clearly we need to do better in terms of persuading ppl that we know for sure. It would be useful to show Corbyn the intelligence, so we are united as a country in the conclusions. That the gov did not do so, indicates to me that the secret evidence is not super strong.

No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.

All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.

Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.

So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So now you don't accept that it could have come from elsewhere? you're all over the place.

Given that a few posts ago you were claiming that there is no antidote, you aren't exactly arguing from a position of credibility.

Lack of verifiable facts means doubt. You're all the ones believing stuff you have to believe as an act of faith.... Not me.

A few posts ago I was quoting the chemist who made it as he said there was no antidote. I of course didnt realize that an embarrasingly wrong keyboard warrior like you would know the chemsitry better than the chemist who made it.

So, from your continual misdirection I take it you actually dont have any objective facts at all.

Its like you never left.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:No one apart from you accepts that. You're using what must at this point be a deliberate obfuscation of basic english to invent a line of argument that has absolutely no coherence or credibility.

All done after patting yourself on the back for your objective analysis of facts.

Oh and then you've moved your goalposts to disingenuously try and hold the uk govt to account for what you have then admitted is a media narrative, not a govt one.

So we're really back to square one, do you actually have any objective facts about *any* of this, or are you happy to keep plugging a line that does nothing but illuminate your ignorance?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

So now you don't accept that it could have come from elsewhere? you're all over the place.

Given that a few posts ago you were claiming that there is no antidote, you aren't exactly arguing from a position of credibility.

Lack of verifiable facts means doubt. You're all the ones believing stuff you have to believe as an act of faith.... Not me.

A few posts ago I was quoting the chemist who made it as he said there was no antidote. I of course didnt realize that an embarrasingly wrong keyboard warrior like you would know the chemsitry better than the chemist who made it.

So, from your continual misdirection I take it you actually dont have any objective facts at all.

Its like you never left.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Doesn't matter who you quoted, it's clear you were wrong.