Hacker News Reader

Comment by scottie_m | Hacker News Reader

I want to be clear that I don’t know if chemical weapons are being used in Syria, although the evidence for the use of Chlorine in barrel bombs is strong. I’ll be honest and say that I haven’t seen good evidence of organophosphate poisonings, but I’m just some guy so who knows.

What I do know for sure however, is that this blog is utter bunk.

The Belgian customs found that without having requested the appropriate export licenses three Flemish companies have exported 96 tonnes of isopropanol in a concentration of 95% or higher to Syria since sanctions came into force in September 2013.

That’s rubbing alcohol! That’s not evidence of sarin manufacture, it’s not a “precursor” it’s rubbing alcohol in typical concentrations for goddamned Purell. Can you use it as part of a process to make sarin? Sure, but it’s not a critical ingredient, it’s not what any honest person would consider a precursor, it’s just a solvent. It also antimocrobial and antiseptic, and you know... rubbing alcohol.

View on HN

I agree with you in principle (that it's likely this is for use as rubbing alcohol, not as an industrial precursor), but in theory, there is still something going on here.

Number one, they are able to track the volume and destinations of the trade. It would be weird to see a large fluctuation in exports-- why would Syrian consumers suddenly begin demanding or abandoning their use of rubbing alcohol? Demand is most likely constant.

Number two, the Belgians have already arrested and are criminally prosecuting the company executives who did not obtain the proper export license. Is this "bureaucratic heavy-handedness" (certainly possible), or do they have evidence that the chemical in question was delivered in such a large quantity that it is "fishy"?

According to the United Nations, Syria imported 1,916,504 kilograms of "Propyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol" in 2010, 1,705,420 kilograms in 2009, 926,139 kilograms in 2008, and so on...

...To quote another here.

Isopropyl alcohol is not an organophosphate precursor.

https://cyber.sci-hub.hk/MTAuMTAwMi9zbGN0LjIwMTcwMjc2Mw==/qu...

Precursors of CW agents are chemicals which have relatively small molecules, that may be used for the synthesis of other toxic products such as organophosphorous pesticides.[1,2] Direct precursors of nerve agents are those chemicals that can be converted to nerve agents in one or two synthetic steps, and are those under strict surveillance by OPCW. Industrial com- pounds such as organophosphates (pesticides mainly), phos- gene, chlorine, and cyanide are precursors that are not difficult to obtain.[3] On the other side, synthesis of methylphosphono- fluoridates (G-agents) and V-agents is not direct because of the absence of a large-scale commercial source of the key organo- phosphorous precursors: methylphosphonyl dichloride (Me- POCl2) and methylphosphonyl difluoride (MePOF2). However, impure nerve agent could be easily synthesized, as it was in the case of terrorist attacks in Tokyo subway in Japan in 1995.

Precursors for sarin, tabun, and G-series agents are sources of fluorine, usually bifluorides. Ammonium or Sodium bifluoride for example, is absolutely a precursor (although it has some non-essential, legitimate industrial uses) For sarin, you must have a source of fluorine atoms, so it can be sensible to control export of bifluoride compounds. While alcohol is used, it’s like trying to control the production of beer by interdicting water instead of malted barley. While malted barley has many uses, it’s not essential and its major use is fermentation. Water meanwhile, is essential and ubiquitous.

The key precursors for organophosphates involve the donated fluorine; no fluorination, no organophosphate weapons. As a bonus the fluorine compounds used are dangerous, and imported/exported in much smaller quantities than alcohol. Without bifluorides, you can still have industry, medicine, etc. Without isopropyl you can’t even have hand sanitizer.

Blackbagboys: Oh for sure, it’s hard to imagine why there would be high demand for the most common disinfectant in a war zone. That’s incredibly suspicious, and clearly points to the production of sarin. (/s)

Come on, this blog isn’t talking about anything reasonable, it’s calling rubbing alcohol a CW precursor.

1.9 million kilograms is only ~2100 tons. I think it is perfectly reasonable to look into why a handful of suppliers are exporting ~5% of Syria's annual pre-war demand to an active war zone without bothering to follow the proper licensing procedures.

Your claim about fluorine being essential for organophosphate nerve agents is incorrect. The original nerve agent, tabun, contains no fluorine at all for example. Neither do VX, parathion, or paraoxon.

The mechanism behind organophosphate poisoning lies entirely in the phosphate part of the molecule. Among the enzymes present in the human body are a large class known as serine hydrolases. These enzymes hydrolyze chemical bonds in a wide variety of compounds (such as sugars, proteins, and lipids), and their function critically depends on a nucleophillic serine amino acid in the enzyme's structure. This serine attacks the bond to be hydrolyzed, freeing one half of the victim molecule and leaving the other half attached to the enzyme. Then water comes in and breaks the bond between the serine and the second half to restore the enzyme and in sum hydrolyze the original bond.

Organophosphate nerve agents act by entering the active site of a serine hydrolase. They are attacked by the active site serine to release a counterion (which depends on the specific nerve agent) and a phosphate ester of the enzyme. However, this enzyme ester can only be hydrolyzed extremely slowly-- the enzyme cannot be restored to its original form, and the entire enzyme is nonfunctional.

Now, the released counterion could be many things (it just needs to be something that will leave if pushed out by the hydrolase serine). On the other hand, it should not be too eager to leave like something like chlorine would be: if it was the potential nerve agent would be attacked by things like water before getting to the hydrolase, wasting the agent. Thus, a balance needs to be struck between something easy to displace but not too easy to displace. This gives the classic functional groups present in most nerve agents and organophosphate pesticides: fluoride, cyanide, thiols, and phenolates.

By the way, fluorides and fluoride minerals are virtually impossible to regulate trade in: they have a large variety of legitimate uses from toothpaste to aluminum production, and fluorspar is a fairly common mineral in the world. What is usually regulated instead are the phosphorus precursors such as phosphorus trichloride and red phosphorus as well as some chlorinating agents like thionyl chloride.

Just for your information, the mechanism of organophosphate nerve agent toxicity does not involve serine hydrolyases. It involves acetylcholinesterase.

https://chemm.nlm.nih.gov/nerveagents.htm

...which is a serine hydrolase.

I stand corrected... I was thinking of serine hydrolyases more generally, most of which are not significantly affected by organophosphate neurotoxins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serine_hydrolase

No, pretty much all serine hydrolases are affected by organophosphates (assuming they can reach the active site). For example, the compounds IDFP[0] and MAFP[1] can both be used to inhibit serine hydrolase activity in vitro. Diisopropyl fluorophosphate can also be used, although that one actually is pretty much a nerve agent (it's volatile).

The only reason the wholesale disruption of hydrolases is not the thing that kills you with nerve agents is that acetylcholinesterase is particularly susceptible to organophosphates (wide open active site) and essential to nerve signal conduction. Thus although sarin (for example) will wreck most hydrolases in your body, this won't really matter when you'll be dead in a few minutes from your nervous system being unable to tell your lungs to breathe.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDFP

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methoxy_arachidonyl_fluorophos...

"The dose makes the poison". It would be too broad to claim that all serine hydrolyases are susceptible to all organophosphate compounds.

For example many pesticides are organophosphates, yet have little effect on humans.

Sarin does, and the article is talking about sarin. Either way I’m sure you’d agree that isopropanol isn’t a precursor to sarin, yes? You’d also probably admit that you’re not getting methylphosphonyldifluoride from fucking toothpaste. Lecture about the mechanisms of organophosphates on AChE aside.

> why would Syrian consumers suddenly begin demanding or abandoning their use of rubbing alcohol?

I would imagine getting bombed would increase demand for basic first aid kit componenents.

> It would be weird to see a large fluctuation in exports-- why would Syrian consumers suddenly begin demanding or abandoning their use of rubbing alcohol? Demand is most likely constant.

Did you account for the effect of trade sanctions on fluctuations of imports / exports?

I’m no world leader, but if I was subjected to trade sanctions and international scrutiny I’d get critical health supplies in large enough quantities in case they also stop trading those with me in the future.

Good to be sceptical of Bellingcat.

Information on funding: https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/879036821954539520

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh responded to attacks by Bellingcat here: https://www.alternet.org/media/seymour-hersh-syria-bombshell

Not really. If you work in the NGO space closely you'll know that Bellingcats funders are pretty much run of the mill ones.

Also, I'm a big Seymour Hersh fan but unfortunately he got made to look foolish with that article. Lots of what he said was implausible from the start and his major thesis have been globally dubunked. I suspect he was for once fed some bad sources.

Happen to have any links on Seymour Hersh being "made to look foolish" with his article?

Robert Fisk, also a highly respected journalist, was the first Western journalist to visit Douma after the recent bombing. His report casts doubt on the claims about what happened in Syria that led to the UK, US, and France to bomb without waiting for evidence. See https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-g...

There's some footage[1] from One America News Network, which I gather is some kind of sub-Fox News outfit, of their reporter interviewing doctors at the same hospital Fisk writes about. They seem to tell pretty much the same story: on the day of the purported attack people were treated for dust inhalation, no-one died, a bunch of people suddenly appeared in the hospital shouting "chemical attack!" and spraying people with water, while filming themselves. Hospital staff joined in spraying water (as you would do) but no one exhibited symptoms of actual chemical weapons use.

I've read reports that doctors who spoke to the press had been intimidated and threatened if they verified the attack story[2]. The people in the video don't look intimidated to me, but I'm no expert.

I'm personally on the fence on this one, and haven't read in-depth either. But it's mighty strange to me seeing Fisk and a conservative cable news network on the same page on a mid-East controversy!

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9w8j-avq_0

2: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/17/syria-crisis-m...

From your second link:

> Medics and survivors who have remained in Douma, and others who have fled for northern Syria, ridiculed competing claims that the attack either did not take place, or did not use gas.

This was a topic in the Belgian news a couple of days ago. The issue is not as much whether the isopropanol will be used for chemical warfare, nor if it should be regarded dangerous or if it is on a list with restricted substances, but more that these companies would/should have known that exporting it to Syria is a big risk given the current context. It was more of a moral question rather than a 'scientific' one.

Tons of isopropanol were destroyed in Syria by UN workers when trying to destroy all chemical weapons and precursors.*

*https://www.armscontrol.org/files/Panel2.1_Anelli_TuckerConf...

Tons of isopropanol's brother, ethanol, are destroyed worldwide simply trying to cope with these warmongering propagandists.

> but more that these companies would/should have known that exporting it to Syria is a big risk given the current context.

The flip side is sending antiseptics such as isopropanol to a war torn country is akin to humanitarian aid.

Also who needs a gazillion liters of isopropanol when a kilogram of sarin (which takes at most ~10L of isopropanol to make) is all you need to kill... well, everybody you would want to kill?

Isopropanol is hardly the limiting reagent in this route, nor is it hard to produce by myriad ways.

Hell, even thionyl chloride (still tons of legit uses) is more of a red flag than IPrOH.

Something is definitely a bit goofy about this blog. Not saying attacks didn't happen, it's just that, from a chemical production point of view, iPrOH is a really odd choice to look at.

It is not just a solvent. You can use ethanol in hand sanitizer, but isopropanol is what you need for sarin. That's why it's on the precursor lists, but at a low level in recognition of its industrial uses.

It’s one thing you can use, especially if you’re a fan of Dexter, but back in the real world we already control the actual precursor Methylphosphonyl difluoride. If you take sodium cyanide and drop it into H2SO4 and water, you get poison gas. If you want to stop that, control the production and export of cyanide, not the water or sulphuric acid!

Isopropyl alcohol is not a chemical weapon precursor, just like water isn’t a cyanide gas precursor.

Here is the CWC Schedule II: https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/annexes/ann.... Notice an alcohol appears on the list, while organophosphates appear on Schedule I. Both are controlled.

“An alcohol”

Is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Ethanol is an alcohol, enjoy a lovely drink. Methanol is an alcohol, try not to to drink it. Alcohol is an incredibly broad family and the scheduled substance (Pinacolyl alcohol: 3,3-Dimethylbutan-2-ol) is not isopropyl alcohol. It’s not even close. It’s also not a precursor to sarin, but soman.

Notice that isopropanol isn’t scheduled at all, so I feel justified in asking if you were just confused or trying to be sneaky?

Oh and by the way, most alcohol hand sanitizers are 70% isopropyl alcohol, not ethanol.

I was confused. Apparently Belgium saw fit to restrict the export.

This was my first thought as well. There are plenty of other legitimate uses for what amounts to rubbing alcohol. Especially when a war is on...

It's needed for binary sarin. This info is readily available.

Please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898970

It is not the choke-point in that reaction either, while DF is. It also requires a trivial amount of easily produced or smuggled rubbing alcohol to make enough sarin to kill everyone in Syria. Isopropyl alone gets you nothing, and is easy to store and move around. Meanwhile...

Methylphosphonyl difluoride is both reactive and corrosive. It is absorbed through skin and causes burns and mild nerve agent symptoms. It reacts with water producing HF fumes and methylphosphonic acid as a result. It is also capable of corroding glass. It has a boiling point of only 55.4 °C at normal atmospheric pressure, and thus a fairly high vapor pressure at room temperature.

There’s a reason that Methylphosphonyl difluoride is class 1 controlled chemical weapons precursor, and you can buy rubbing alcohol anywhere.

It’s very clear that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and the evidence is overwhelming that the Syrian government was behind the vast majority of the attacks.

I know of at least one tech company that compiles photos of the attacks, geo and time stamped, and the photos are beyond disturbing.

No, it's not "very clear" as the "intelligence" is 100% Twitter-based and zero actual autopsy has taken place, as no one actually died that day. Or so say the hospital staff.

Not sure which of the 70+ documented attacks you are referring to. And the White Helmets would disagree, and are less subject to Syrian governmental “persuasion” than doctors.

There is a reason Assad’s government blocked inspectors from examining the latest claimed attack.

"The White Helmets" -- there's your problem.

> There is a reason Assad’s government blocked inspectors from examining the latest claimed attack.

That did not happen.

>> That did not happen.

Counterpoint: It did happen. Only the country currently propping up the regime's genocidaires with all-out military support is claiming it was unspecified 'militants' who blocked the inspectors.

> Only the country currently propping up the regime's genocidaires with all-out military support is claiming it was unspecified 'militants' who blocked the inspectors.

Actually, it's UN personnel that blocked the inspection from happening because it was them who came under attack and thus declared the situation too dangerous for the inspection team [0]. Neither Syria nor Russia had anything to do with preventing that inspection from happening.

[0] https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/M-59/en/ecm59dg02_e_....

> That did not happen.

Is the Washington Post & OPCW lying?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chemical-weapons-coveru...

I assume you believe that since you also apparently believe Russian and Syrian claims that a volunteer search and rescue organization that's helped thousands of people is really made up of terrorists generating false flag stories. And by the downvotes you aren't the only one.

Though I also see you don't have any response to the fact that over 70 chemical weapon attacks have been reported.

As I said in my first post, the evidence for chlorine being added to barrel bombs is strong, and that’s certainly a chemical weapon. I haven’t seen any good evidence of nerve agents used though, which are another class of chemical weapon, and what relates to this blog.

I would also point out that this whole chemical weapons debate is an emotional dog whistle. Somehow we accept dropping 1000lb barrel bombs loaded with shrapnel on civilians, but the addition of chlorine makes it inhumane? Come on, it’s mass slaughter in Syria, and chemicals doing the bulk of the damage are high explosives and incendiaries.

Let’s be honest with ourselves and each other, and accept that we either care about this, or don’t. Don’t buy into narratives that somehow it only matters when gas is involved. The important considerations have to do with the degree of killing (which is huge) and what we feel we can do about it at an acceptable cost (very little). We should be honest about why we’re hysterical about Syria (Russia) and almost totally ignoring Yemen (Saudi Arabia).

> Is the Washington Post & OPCW lying?

No. They say "On Thursday, the United States said it had credible information to suggest that Syria and Russia were working to delay the OPCW mission..."

No one is lying and nevertheless this article is no more than those photos with people with masks (possibly oxygen masks). All that was said that US claims that it have some evidence to suggest. There are nothing was said that OPCW claims the same and WP itself doesn't claim anything about Syria.

There was nothing said that those "credible information" is not the one that we do not have, maybe it is just a common sense: if Syria claims control over the area, that any delays for OPCW are from government?

All the article is just random informational noise saying nothing. All the US claims was predictable a priory, article adds nothing to those predictions. It means zero information.

To find truth you should read carefully even when you read scientific article which is written in a way to be plain. But when you read media-news, you need to be very careful and to read every word.

Here's the actual take by the OPCW on what happened in Douma to prevent their FFM because your WaPo article doesn't have anything official by OPCW: https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/M-59/en/ecm59dg02_e_....

"The United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) has made the necessary arrangements with the Syrian authorities to escort the team to a certain point and then for the escort to be taken over by the Russian Military Police. However, the UNDSS preferred to first conduct a reconnaissance visit to the sites, which took place yesterday. FFM team members did not participate in this visit.

On arrival at Site 1, a large crowd gathered and the advice provided by the UNDSS was that the reconnaissance team should withdraw.

At Site 2, the team came under small arms fire and an explosive was detonated. The reconnaissance team returned to Damascus."

The decision to delay the FFM team's visit wasn't made by Syrian or Russian authorities, but by the UN personnel tasked with protecting said FFM team. On Saturday they did finally conduct their FFM and took samples, so there's that.

The OPCW reports on Syria's chemical weapon efforts can be found at the link below. Syria has been making and deploying chemical weapons for quite a while.

https://www.opcw.org/special-sections/syria/

> Syria has been making and deploying chemical weapons for quite a while.

That was also quite a while ago, they've been cooperating with OPCW on destroying all their stocks and production facilities for these last years, as evident by the OPCW progress reports.

I just can't see any scenario where using these kinda of weapons would be advantageous for the Syrian government, at least in the current situation. At this point, the war in Syria is pretty much decided, what's happening right now is mostly clean-up.

The US just declared to get out of there, Trump set up another "red line" and then the Syrian government just decides "Hey, let's do this thing that gives them justification to keep intervening and cross that red line before the paint dries!", it just doesn't add up, they gain nothing from this.

> and the evidence is overwhelming that the Syrian government was behind the vast majority of the attacks.

What evidence might that be?

Claims in the newspaper and on TV I suspect, which most people seem to consider evidence nowadays.

^ this is why we should never trust news/current-affairs site that disables its comments section

There's more than enough forums to debunk weird/bad articles, starting with Twitter. Comments section tend to be filled with anonymous trolls fulls of conspiracy theories, I would prefer to see a rebunk from someone that has some kind of reputation within the field.

And sometimes a simple, straight-forward comment is all it takes to stop the propaganda effort dead in its tracks (hence why many such articles have the comment section mysteriously disabled, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-he... ). Leaving it to readers to go out and actively vet the information on some other 'forum' just allows the propaganda to spread further than it otherwise would.

A voice of reason can quickly be overshadowed by a wave of ignorance. The comments sections on most of the news articles I've seen, when they're up, are usually divisive noisy trolls.

Negligible price to pay.

But it outweighs the benefits if the noise level is so high that the one or two sane comments don't even get seen.

Straightforward, easily verified observations have a habit of rising to the top. Longwinded tirades about MK Ultra are easy to skip.

Let the comments speak for themselves. Don't hide them behind a barrier. Freedom of expression is more important than protecting people from reading mean ideas about their favorite politician etc.

You have the freedom to go on Twitter and write mean things about someone's favorite politician.

And news sites have the freedom to remove unwanted noise and divisive trolling from their articles.

> And news sites have the freedom to remove unwanted noise and divisive trolling from their articles.

Sure they have, but if you actually consider media the "fourth branch of government" then wouldn't it be more desirable to let people have public discourse and debate, after all, that's supposed to be its role?

Print media at least has reader's letters, what's the modern equivalent of digital media? Comments! They allow even more people to participate in the discourse. Disable the comments and what's left? Pretty much nothing but articles quoting random noise from Twitter, which isn't something everybody can or wants to participate in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com