The first of Syria’s chemical weapons have left the country, and are en route to their destruction. Piled aboard a Danish ship, they’re headed to Italy, where they will meet a U.S. Navy ship outfitted with equipment to destroy the weapons. How much of the Syrian stockpile has been removed remains unknown.
But what’s clear is this: Destroying chemical weapons is really simple. (In terms of the chemistry required — not logistics. The weapons transporters, after all, are moving highly deadly agents through a war-torn country.)
The most commonplace of chemicals, water, can destroy the weapons, in what is called a hydrolysis reaction. If you took high-school chemistry, you have conducted a hydrolysis reaction (come on, you remember, right?). Hydrolysis works like this: When water — either acidic or basic — is mixed with certain chemicals, the water will act as a knife, slicing those chemical in half. In the case of chemical weapons such as sarin gas and VX, they are broken down into simpler units without such violently toxic effects.
As National Journal‘s Sara Sorcher reported in December, the U.S. military has a mobile hydrolyzer that it will employ on the ship. This is what it looks like.
The military boasts that this machine is 99.9 percent effective at neutralizing chemical weapons.
But what’s amazing is that the chemicals it uses to prime the water for chemical destruction are ones you can find at home.
“Water, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) [also known as lye] and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) [bleach] are required for neutralization of chemical warfare material and decontamination of system components,” the Army’s press materials state. The waste that results, which still might contain some nasty chemicals, can then be stored for later disposal. Officials told Sorcher in December that the waste will not be dumped into the ocean.
The simplicity of the system doesn’t mean you should try this at home. Much of the engineering complexity in the hydrolyzer serves to protect the technicians who use it from the untreated chemicals.
(CDC)The United States is good at destroying chemical weapons. We, after all, also signed the Geneva chemical-weapons treaty and destroyed our own stockpile. This flowchart from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention summarizes the process well. Click to make it bigger.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."