No, The British Government Did Not Sell Chemical Weapons to Syria

By: Myles Power Edited by: Peter

On 21st August 2013, the nerve agent Sarin was used during the Syrian civil war. Hundreds were killed in the attacks - all of which took place over a short span of time in the disputed areas of the Ghouta suburbs of the Markaz Rif Dimashq district. This was the first time that chemical weapons had been used in the twenty first century and goaded attention from the worldwide community. The United Nations investigated the attacks over three weeks and confirmed that Sarin had been used. Since the attack, the media coverage here in the UK went into overdrive with every reporter looking for the next big scoop. On September 7th, the Mail Online published an article called 'Britain sent poison gas chemicals to Assad: Proof that the UK delivered Sarin agent to Syrian regime for SIX years'. The article claimed that British companies have sold chemicals to Syria, and one of them could have been used to produce the deadly nerve agent. The chemical in question is sodium fluoride, which has many uses, including the synthesis of Sarin. I feel that before I go into detail about this article and talk about the chemistry, it's important to talk about Sarin gas.

Syria British government chemical weapons

Sarin is a colourless and odourless compound and a potent nerve agent. It works by preventing your muscles from switching off usually causing death from asphyxia due to the inability to control the muscles required for breathing. It does this by inhibiting an enzyme called Acetylcholinesterase from hydrolysing the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Acetylcholine in humans is used at the neuromuscular junction where signals are transmitted via synapses between neurones from the central nervous systems to muscle fibres. When acetylicholine is relesed into the synapse to signal muscle movement it binds to a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor which depolarises the muscle fibre, causing a cascade that eventual results in muscle contraction. Acetylcoline is then degraded by acetylcholinesterase, allowing the muscle to relax. With acetylcholinesterase being inhibited by Sarin, acetylcholine is allowed to build up and continues to act on the muscle fibre - preventing control and causing them to be continually contracted. Sarin can be synthesised using dimethyl methylphosphonate, phosphorus trichloride, iso propanol and sodium fluoride. This however is not the only way to synthesise the nerve agent, as one of its precursors (methylphosphonyl difluoride) can be synthesised using hydrogen fluoride. This is where the Mail Online article falls at the first hurdle. We don't know if the Sarin used in the August attacks was synthesised using sodium fluoride or hydrogen fluoride or by any other chemicals.

Sarin Molecule

As the Mail Online article correctly says that sodium fluoride has a “multitude of benign uses, such as toothpaste” – which begs the question if it does have a multitude of benign uses, why are they specifically going after this chemical? Why did the author (Mark Nicol) not ask where the iso-propanol came from? Because it too is used in the synthesis of Sarin and it also has a multitude of benign uses.

Sodium Fluoride has a large array of uses and there are reasons for why a company or country would want to import large quantities. The most common example of its use is in water fluorination. Sodium fluoride is added to the water source to enhance the strength of the teeth of the people drinking it by the formation of fluorapatite. If, however, Mark uncovered that a UK company was sending large quantities of dimethyl methylphosphonate (a schedule 2 chemical with very few applications other than the synthesis of chemical weapons), he would have a point and concerns raised in the ‘comments’ section of the article would be justified. But he hasn’t, he instead has twisted a story about the sale of a widely used chemical into one about the UK government helping the Syrian government synthesise a nerve agent to use on its own citizens.

To get an idea of Marks (lack of) scientific understanding, we simply have to look at the picture he published in his article with the caption ‘How the British chemicals aid Assad’. The first part wrong with it is where it says sodium fluoride has the chemical symbol NaF. This might sound like nitpicking, but thats not a symbol – it’s sodium fluoride’s formula. The second part which is hilariously incorrect is where Mark tries to talk about the synthesis of Sarin. He says that fluoride (I think he means sodium fluoride) is added to other chemicals and combined with dimethyl methylphosphonate. He then goes on to say that it is also combined with “phosphorus, alcohol, carbon, hydrogen and oxygen to make sarin”. Such an over simplified and incorrect explanation of the synthesis of Sarin can only come from someone with no understanding of organic synthesis or chemistry in any way. It can only come from someone who should not be writing a sensitive piece about the precursors to a deadly nerve agent used the month before. Mark also included a picture of an oil drum with the old radioactive and toxic warning symbols on the side. These symbols mean something Mark!!! Sarin is not radioactive and you should not be implying that it is. You are either intentionally lying to your audience, or you do not know the meanings of these symbols, and therefore should not be using them.
Mark Nicol
In conclusion the Mail Online has once again shown how intellectually bankrupt they are and how they are willing to spin a story to ludicrous extremes. Did the British government sell chemical weapons to Syria? No, we sold a chemical that can be used in its synthesis but has a wide range of other legitimate uses. If we are going to accuse the British government of selling chemicals that can be used to produce potentially dangerous compounds, why stop there? Why not attack manufacturers of ammonium chloride because it is used in the synthesis of heroin? Or the producers of toluene because its the pre-cursor of trinitrotoluene (TNT).

The one thing this article has brought to my attention is why we need scientifically literate people to report on scientific issues and not people like Mark Nicol who don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

Advertisements
About Myles Power (544 Articles)
My name is Myles Power, and I run the educational YouTube channel, powerm1985. I spend what little free time I have sharing my love of SCIENCE! through home experiments, visiting sites of scientific interest, and angrily ranting at pseudoscience proponents. I am also one of the founding members of the podcast 'The League of Nerds' - which I co-host with James from 'The History of Infection'.

12 Comments on No, The British Government Did Not Sell Chemical Weapons to Syria

  1. Additionally, the export license granted to the company that was selling the NaF to Syria was cancelled at the onset of the civil war. Just in case the Syrians did want to use it for nefarious purposes.

    Like

  2. Huh, strange that this merits a newspaper article at all. The UK already sells plenty of conventional weapons to countries with less-than-stellar human rights records. Selling a widely used & fairly harmless salt is hardly anything to take note of.
    I wonder where the terrorists got their chemical weapons from though. They certainly wouldn’t have the infrastructure to manufacture them, so they must have bought them from somewhere.
    But enough of the politics; it’s the Daily Mail. They don’t “do” science.
    Celebrity waistlines, yes. Science… no.

    (Also if you’re bothered there’s a bit of a cock-up in the first line of the second paragraph: “an stream potent nerve agent”).

    Like

  3. This is just a grand conspiracy by the British Government to ensure the Syrian populations teeth to decay thus leading to the destruction of the Syrian country.

    (About as scientific and factually correct as the claim in the Mail’s article)

    Like

  4. You’re surprised the Mail is presenting poor science?

    Like

  5. Interesting article as always. I started by thinking you were being a bit too critical of the reporters technical competence but as you went on, and showed their ludicrous pictograms, and reminding myself the was a Mail news-rag, I came to agree with you completely.

    One technical question I wonder if you could answer Myles; Would their be detectable residues of (for example) Sodium Flouride if that were used in the manufacture of the Sarin used in the attacks? Are residues like this something the international inspectors would be looking for?

    Like

  6. We are a bunch of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community.

    Your site provided us with valuable information to work on. You’ve performed a formidable process and our entire group shall be grateful to you.

    Like

  7. I have a chemistry degree and may have accidentally said symbol the odd time instead of formula like he did, unforgivable really, however generally speaking the whole concept of expecting people with journalism qualifications to understand the basics of chemical warfare is a big ask. To be fair even with some education in chemistry i would need a lot of research just to know whats what, i don’t think a journo would know shit from clay no matter how long they googled it or went to the library, especially when their articles have weekly or even daily time limits.

    Like

  8. I’m not certain where Syria got the chemicals but Al Jazeera is reporting that the UK has agreed to destroy 200 Tonnes of chemical weapons?

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/uk-destroy-more-syria-chemical-weapons-201479105236105391.html

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s