Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Compound Quickly Disables Chemical Weapons

Posted by Soulskill on from the breaking-things-that-break-people dept.

sciencehabit writes: In 2013, the Syrian military allegedly launched sarin gas rockets into a rebel-held town, killing hundreds. After diplomats brokered a deal to eradicate the weapons, international organizations began the dangerous job of destroying them. One roadblock to chemical weapons disposal is that heat and humidity quickly break down enzymes that can disable the deadly chemicals. Now, researchers have developed a highly stable compound that can inactivate nerve agents like sarin in a matter of minutes.

52 comments

  1. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now just make it affordable, mass-producible, and distribute it globally. no biggie...

    1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even afford to buy a website for 395 USD you suckers.

    2. Re:Great... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it could be distributed globally. I mean like an epi pen or even in a sensor in a subway that would automatically use the stuff if sarin or some other chemical gas is detected.

    3. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meh, let em die

    4. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meh, let em die

      Spoken like an AC.

    5. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meh, let em die

      Spoken like an AC.

      Spoken like an AC.

    6. Re:Great... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it could be distributed globally. I mean like an epi pen or even in a sensor in a subway that would automatically use the stuff if sarin or some other chemical gas is detected.

      Yes, this should be a top priority, along with installing a titanium shield on everyone's house, just in case they are hit by a meteor. We can fund these programs by reducing spending on silly frivolities like vaccinations, nutrition, and literacy.

    7. Re:Great... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      The destruction of a chemical weapon is rather trivial, when you can conveniantly dunk the toxin in a vat of acid, or base, or solvent or whatever. Dioxins burn really well, for example.

      The sticky bit is stopping it from entering people via their skin or lungs, eyes, etc. when the toxin is already dispersed.

      In short, this wonderful new compound is utterly useless.

      --
      I come here for the love
    8. Re:Great... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know abut a top priority or taking funds from other programs but I think it is reasonable to have some level of protection should this turn out to be cheap and easily administered. We already have chemical sensors in subways after the Tokyo incident, we also already have fire suppression systems. The chemical sensors were in the works ever since the subway in Tokyo in 1995 and rushed into service after 9/11. It's been expanding ever since.

      It's not like it would be a major retrofit or some sort of extensive project to have something like this neutralizing agent around so it could be deployed should a sensor go off. It's likely to be brought in or something similar to it after an evacuation if a sensor goes off anyways. If it's cheap and easily deplorable, what is the harm?

    9. Re:Great... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      OR...a titanium dioxide shield on your house, to raise its albedo and counteract your family's carbon footprint:

      http://www.homedepot.com/p/BEH...

    10. Re:Great... by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      The destruction of a chemical weapon is rather trivial, when you can conveniantly dunk the toxin in a vat of acid, or base, or solvent or whatever. Dioxins burn really well, for example.

      Maybe, but spraying acid everywhere is not really a viable decontamination strategy. This catalyst is not for destroying stockpiles, but for helping with decontamination. Previously they were using an enzyme that is hard to deploy, and they've replaced that enzyme with an engineered catalyst that does the same chemistry, albeit less efficiently. Hopefully it will get better with further refinement.

    11. Re:Great... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      This catalyst is for destroying stockpiles, but for helping with decontamination. Previously they were using an enzyme that is hard to deploy, and they've replaced that enzyme with an engineered catalyst that does the same chemistry, albeit less efficiently.

      So, they already had a way. But it was "hard". And now they have another way but it is "less efficient" (i.e. probably costs more). How is any of this news?

      --
      I come here for the love
    12. Re:Great... by DamonHD · · Score: 2

      Because it is *new* and promising and interesting. No one claimed *perfect*.

      It's a common lament on /. but if you don't want to hear about stuff until it's on the shelves in your local store stop wasting time reading /. and other information outlets, else stop whining when you get an early heads up.

      Really.

      Tell me what potential life-saving breakthrough *you* made today, please.

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    13. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's cheap and easily deplorable

      If it is, then the politicians will make sure to deploy it as quickly as possible.

    14. Re:Great... by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it could be distributed globally. I mean like an epi pen or even in a sensor in a subway that would automatically use the stuff if sarin or some other chemical gas is detected.

      Yes, this should be a top priority, along with installing a titanium shield on everyone's house, just in case they are hit by a meteor. We can fund these programs by reducing spending on silly frivolities like vaccinations, nutrition, and literacy.

      Or you could spend less on the gas masks you have currently in all major subway stations, such as in Seoul. Not everyone of us lives as far from the enemy as you do.

    15. Re:Great... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      There is nothing "potentially life-saving" about "clean up on aisle two".

      --
      I come here for the love
    16. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meh, let em die

      Spoken like an AC.

      Spoken like an AC.

      Spoken like an AC.

    17. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @ Some Dumb Ass... ...I don't know abut (sic) a top priority or taking funds from other programs but I think it is reasonable to have some level of protection should this turn out to be cheap and easily administered........ If it's cheap and easily deplorable (sic), what is the harm?...

      On the assumption that you really are suggesting this because you are terminally dumb, I will waste 2 minutes of my life enlightening you.

      1 - there are an infinite number of very unlikely problems which could be avoided by a simple low-cost countermeasure
      2 - infinity times 'low-cost' equals high-cost
      3 - That's why we have risk analysis...

    18. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you have to supply one or more pens to everyone in the world, fourteen minutes prior to the attack, they have to administer the compound, at thirteen minutes the disrupter breaks the blood liquid stage, poisions the blood system, you drownd in the fluids in your airway. So the attack is called off because all the victims are already dead...

    19. Re:Great... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Someone slips on a clear liquid, whangs their head on the store shelf on the way down, then has their head impact the nice hard floor. Person dies.

      Or, a parent slips on the unseen liquid and falls on their three year old walking next to them, snapping the kids neck and crushing them under the falling weight.

      Yes, clean up in aisle two can be potentially life saving.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    20. Re:Great... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Nice troll.

      The clean up we are actually talking about would be measured in micrograms.

      --
      I come here for the love
    21. Re:Great... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      1 - there are an infinite number of very unlikely problems which could be avoided by a simple low-cost countermeasure

      And yet we already have the chemical sensors in place and more being installed. But lets ignore all that for some stupid reason that amounts to you basically thinking you know it all and sit on our hands when something could be cheap and easily integrated into existing systems and possibly save lives or lowers suffering from effects. But hey, you know it all right?

      2 - infinity times 'low-cost' equals high-cost

      And low costs equals low costs. Did you see the word "if" in my statement or did you blind yourself jerking your knee so hard trying to reply that you know it all? Perhaps if a dispersal system was implemented, you wouldn't need to get raped as much when going to the airport or accosted so much in the subways. Perhaps you enjoy that jack booted security and don't want to lose it.

  2. Response from the maker community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone experimented with sarin gas or other such compounds? Would like some insight, any makers out there?

    1. Re:Response from the maker community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about asking frequent maker Rich Olson?

    2. Re:Response from the maker community? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather ask a frequent contributor: Bennett Haselton

  3. I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how deadly is this stable deadly nerve gas disposal compound?

  4. News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or News about sarin gas?

  5. Kill it with Fire! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The destruction of intact chemical weapons is not very hard, you just need a hot incinerator. It's a little more complicated than that, but there are incinerators that are made to do this (IIRC one was deployed to Syria on a ship a few years ago to do this).

    But, if what they are really talking about is decontamination of areas where these weapons were deployed, that is a much harder problem. You can't just rinse this stuff off because that just moves the problem. You have to got to chemically break down the chemical. If you have lots of masony and textiles contaminated, forget it, you'll need to kill that with fire too.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Kill it with Fire! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only way to be certain is to nuke it from orbit.

    2. Re: Kill it with Fire! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Syrian chemicals were diluted and dumped at sea.

    3. Re: Kill it with Fire! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sea is also a very corrosive environment. That helps immensely.

    4. Re:Kill it with Fire! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a good article on the shipboard systems last year:

      http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/05/syrian-chemical-weapons-feature

  6. Wasn't it the so-called rebels ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who were actually the ones using those chemical weapons?
    And wasn't it ISIS using the chemical weapons in Iraq?
    And still there are people thinking that the Syrian army are the only bad guys?

    1. Re:Wasn't it the so-called rebels ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you point out any "good guys" in the entire ME region? The killing and atrocities continue non-stop with no end in sight. And blaming the US or Israel for all the problems has never and will never solve any of the ongoing conflicts. While the UN is wasting all it's time and money in Gaza there are millions of innocent, non-missile firing, non-supporter of any terrorist group people who have been forced to leave their homes and all there meager possessions behind just to get away from the various head choppers running loose in Syria and Iraq. Right now it looks like the only solution is to let the fighting continue until there is no one else to kill.

    2. Re:Wasn't it the so-called rebels ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're white, privileged, and male - you can't be a good guy.

      Duh, don't you watch CNN?

  7. Government researchers hate her by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    This one weird trick, discovered by a housewife, breaks down sarin gas in just minutes a day!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Government researchers hate her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurry! Act now and get NOT ONE, but TWO Chemical Weapon Disablers! But WAIT!!! THAT'S NOT ALL! Call within the next 15 seconds and receive your very own Canary! Your personal Canary will HELP YOU detect Chemical Weapons before you do! When your Canary suddenly spasms and dies, you know there is a Chemical Weapon close by and still have time to act!

      Call now! Operators are standing by! Or at least they were. They... um... huh? They're dead? Chemical terrorist attack? RUN!

  8. Corbomite device works just as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poker, not Chess...

  9. Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a dick.

  10. Who used sarin? by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Summary says: "Syrian military allegedly launched sarin gas rockets".

    It is not that obvious who used chemical weapons. We have evidence rebells used sarin

    1. Re:Who used sarin? by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      You know that immediately blaming 'jews' instead of an actual unified organization for something makes you look like a tinfoil-hat-wearing lunatic, right?

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    2. Re:Who used sarin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it probably was not Syrian military:

      http://rt.com/news/study-challenges-syria-chemical-attack-681/

  11. But can it deal with farts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez even Aum Shinrikyo has stopped using sarin.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo ...but I've perfected some really deadly farts.
    At least that's what the SO says.

  12. reading must be very difficult for you by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    considering how one of the reasons is in the article description.

  13. Other applications? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    Can this technology be used on farts and BO? If so it could actually contribute more to world peace than neutralising Sarin Gas ever would.

    1. Re:Other applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, it's like you were born this morning.

      Can this technology be used on farts

      Shreddies flatulence filtering underwear features a ‘Zorflex’ activated carbon back panel that absorbs all flatulence odours. Due to its highly porous nature, the odour vapours become trapped and neutralised by the cloth, which is then reactivated by simply washing the garment.

      and BO?

      Old Spice has 75 years of experience helping guys improve their mansmells with deodorant, antiperspirant and fragrances.

      Please do try to get out of your Mom's basement more often.

  14. Any oxidizer should do ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    Hydrogen peroxide, sodium hypochlorite, etc ...

  15. Bullshit by Wdi · · Score: 1

    The first and crucial step was high-temperature hydrolysis with sodium hydroxide. The remaining soup is harmless enough to be dumped.