CBRN tracer gas trials in the Marylebone area of London - why the secrecy if the gas really is "non-toxic" ?
Since the Home Office has such an untrustworthy record on spinning scientific statistics, we fear that they are hiding something with their weasel worded statement issued by Home Office Minister Tony "not fit for purpose" McNulty to Parliament about Westminster Tracer Trials:
[...]The trials will involve the release of small amounts of non-toxic, odourless gases in the Marylebone area of Westminster starting from 20th May 2007. The trials will run for a four to six week period during which time information leaflets will be available to the public. The tracer trials will pose no adverse effect on public health or on the daily routine in the Marylebone area of Westminster.
Why not publish the scientific experimental details of exactly what these allegedly "non-toxic" substances are and the actual quantities which are to be released into the atmosphere ?
Why not let the public, many of whom know at least as much about the potential health risks as any Home Office civil servant or NuLabour politician, decide for themselves ?
UPDATE: see the results of our "Home Office EIR request - internal review and disclosure re Westminster Tracer Gas Trials" (after an Internal review) - they were originally planning to use the most potent Greenhouse Gas - Sulphur Hexafluoride, but eventually decided not to.
Presumably, the chosen gases need to be heavier than air, in order to simulate possible nerve gases or other similar chemical weapons like mustard gas ?
Note that the carefully chosen weasel words do not say inert gases, which we would have no problem with, such as the noble gases Argon, Xenon or Krypton,
They do not even say that they might be using relatively chemically inert gases like the chlorofluorocarbons such as Freon which are used in computer room fire suppressant systems or refrigerators, which have virtually no effect on human health at ground level, and which are powerful "greenhouse gases" and destroy the ozone layer once they get into strong ultraviolet sunlight in the upper atmosphere. Presumably CFCs may not be "politically correct" for the Home Office spin doctors, even if only small amounts are to be used in these experiments.
The exact meaning of"small amounts" of gas is unclear for a large scale trial outdoors covering several square kilometres of urban environment - it would take several tonnes of an inert gas to spread detectably over the whole of Marylebone.
Perhaps the Home Office is actually planning to release radioactively labelled tracer gases, which would certainly be easier to detect in "small amounts"
There are two possible sorts of radioactively labelled tracer gases:
- Those which are detectable with radiation sensors because they actively emit alpha, beta or gamma radiation - equivalent to the short lived radio active tracers used in medical studies of patients' blood and lymphatic flows. Potentially such tracers could be detected in near real time using the sort of equipment being developed for Project Cyclamen which is meant to detect illicit radioactive material, but which risks falsely alarms from genuine medical uses of radioactivity.
- Tracer gases which have had their naturally occurring isotope ratios altered artificially, so that they can be differentiated from natural samples - akin to Carbon 14 archaeological dating mass spectroscopy methods, which involve lots more laboratory time and are therefore much more expensive.
Are these trials really only using gases or are they secretly also testing aerosols, which would be of far more relevance to biological weapons ? Such tests with allegedly harmless bacteria have been conducted in the USA in the past.
Are these studies, which are presumably to help validate some sort of computer model, to be conducted at room temperature, or are they attempting to simulate a hot air convection plume caused by a fire e.g. Dhiren Barot's impractical "dirty bomb" ideas inspired by a lorry load of burning plastic domestic slightly radioactive smoke detectors ?
Similar tracer trials, led by the Department for Transport were undertaken on 25th March and 1st April 2007 as part of a study looking at air movement within the London Underground environment.
Why were these Tube tracer gas trials kept secret, if there is nothing to hide ?
Were these Tube tracer gas trials done using the same "small amounts of non-toxic, odourless gases " or with something different ?
Are these trials actually being prompted by lobbying from the Military Industrial complex, to field test, at public expense, or, under the cover of Home Office secrecy, without getting informed consent from the public, their latest detection equipment which they are trying to sell to the Government e.g. Photo Ionization Detectors
Are these trials a result of lobbying by the Security & Resilience Industry Suppliers Council , which was mentioned by John Reid when he announced the "smoke and mirrors" re-organisation of the Home Office at the end of March ?
PJC Journal also has some comments on this "tracer gas trial".
Comments
This seems familiar...
*rummage* Aha!
Depends what you mean by 'secret'. The tests were 'announced' (yes, quite) on 15/3/07 in a parliamentary written statement by Douglas Alexander (part quoted below).
There does seems to have been zero publicity though. Even if it is listed as 'harmless', sulphur hexafluoride just doesn't *sound* terribly friendly...
"[...] Following consultation with London Underground, St. John's Wood station has been chosen as an appropriate location for the research, with studies commencing in March. Two dates, Sunday March 25 and Sunday April 1, have been identified for the airflow studies. The station will remain open as normal and train services at the station will not be affected. Passengers will not be required to take part and there are no associated health and safety risks.
As is routine in airflow studies, small amounts of sulphur hexafluoride will be used to help monitor the movement of air within the station during operational hours. Sulphur hexafluoride is a non-toxic, odourless gas typically used in tennis balls and for monitoring ventilation systems in buildings. [...]"
Posted by: Doctor_Wibble | May 19, 2007 1:06 PM
@ Doctor_Wibble - the tracer gas which may be suitable for indoor air flow studies, is not necessarily suitable for outdoors, over a large area.
How many tonnes of sulphur hexafluoride are going to be required to "contaminate" or cover several square kilometres of Marylebone/Westminster in the open air ?
According to this WikiPedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride
Posted by: wtwu | May 19, 2007 5:05 PM
Good point about indoors-v-outdoors - though maybe they are trying to get a feel for how they should respond if someone drops one of those 'one drip and you die' type bio/chem agents so it might actually be appropriate (or not - I'd hardly claim expertise on this subject).
As regards quantity, I think it would only be a couple of kg needed if you're detecting at 40ppb over 1 square km, notwithstanding any assumptions (and perhaps duff calculations, you never know).
Posted by: Doctor_Wibble | May 20, 2007 12:59 AM
@ Doctor_Wibble - the weather outdoors must have a massive effect on such experiments, so they are likely to have to repeat the experiments several times.
There will also be vast differences between releasing the tracer gas (or a real chemical weapon or biological aerosol) from the top of a tall building versus from ground level, or from a stationary point versus a moving vehicle, or in a quiet area away from traffic versus a a busy street etc. all of which, have, presumably been simulated in chemical warfare experiments over the years in general terms.
Once the initial"contamination" has reached the sensors or sampling points, it will no longer be possible to rely on the lower limit of sensitivity of detection, they will have to be looking for noticeable peaks over time, in order to distinguish a new experimental run, from the heavier than air background "contamination" still lingering from previous ones. Therefore they are going to have to release orders of magnitude more tracer gas than the absolute minimum which could be detected on a single run, if all of the sensors were known to be working ok first time etc.
Are they attempting to develop an airflow computer model specifically for the urban topography of Marylebone ?
If so, then the reported 20 monitoring stations are only going to give a very crude picture.
McNulty's statement also mentions "gases" plural, which implies that sulphur hexafluoride is not the only candidate.
All this idle speculation should be unnecessary - they should have published their experimental design and an environmental impact assessment.
Perhaps a Request, not under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but rather under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 may be worth a try.
Posted by: wtwu | May 20, 2007 9:06 AM
According to the Environmental Information Regulations, the Home Office should have proactively published the basic environmental information already.
To assist them in their public duty here is an Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request regarding the Westminster Tracer Gas Trials
Will the new, re-organised Home Office, obstruct this request for information, in their usual "Yes, Minister" manner ?
Posted by: wtwu | May 20, 2007 11:42 AM
Just to clarify I did mean (as you surmise) a couple of kg *per test*. And in spite of the 'greenhouse' factor, there would no doubt be a claim that it is a zero-carbon activity...
It may be that they are trying to validate an existing computer model which in all probability wouldn't adequately cover airflow changes generated by weather, traffic, building ventilation/cooling systems etc.
TBH I don't think an information request would get much in response beyond "this is a matter of national security and it/they is/are non-toxic anyway so ner". But yes, something at least halfway informative should have been published.
Posted by: Doctor_Wibble | May 20, 2007 1:09 PM
@ Doctor_Wibble - Part of the new, revised CONTEST strategy for Counter Terrorism should be a far better "hearts and minds" campaign, an area where the Home Office has been an utter failure, having managed even to annoy the "community leaders" with which Labour Ministers etc. "engaged" with initially after the July 2005 attacks.
By not being fully open and transparent about this CBRN defence experiment, (which could, of course be used for offense as well) the Home Office just fuels conspiracy theories and adds to the counter productive "Climate of Fear" in the media.
Even "national security" related requests under the Environment Information Regulations are not totally exempt and require a public interest test if they are denied.
There really should be no problem, if they truly have "nothing to hide".
Posted by: wtwu | May 20, 2007 1:29 PM
See the results of our "Home Office EIR request - internal review and disclosure re Westminster Tracer Gas Trials" (after an Internal review) - they were originally planning to use the most potent Greenhouse Gas - Sulphur Hexafluoride, but eventually decided not to.
Posted by: wtwu | July 18, 2007 10:30 PM