First.....where are the documents which certify those findings? Which lab is the one which performed the tests. Which forensic pathologist is certifying this finding which will drive the USA to war?
Now....I have an even greater concern. My background is in General/Trauma surgery....not pathology. So up front I am not holding myself out as an expert. But we did take forensics in medical school. Nails and hair are commonly examined in cases of suspected poisonings. Most of those poisonings are of a chronic nature.....not an acute nature. That is to say, if someone is poisoned over a period of weeks or months with, say arsenic, this will show up in the hair and nails. If, however someone is poisoned acutely with cyanide the person will be dead in minutes or hours. No finding of toxicity will be found in the hair or nails. There is simply not enough time to incorporate for the toxic agent to be incorported into the hair follicle/shaft or nail or nail matrix and show up on a lab finding. If someone is poisoned with SARAN gas they are usually dead within minutes or hours (not all-depending on the dose received). But that is not what Kerry said. The cells of the nail matrix must take up and incorporate the toxin in the shaft of the hair. Now,....think how much does your hair grow in 2 hours. That is where the poison might show up, but that is very dubious.
I think Kerry lied to Chris Wallace this morning when he said there was laboratory findings of signatures of SARAN in the nails. The people were dead prior to it being able to 'grow in' the shaft of the hair or nail matrix.
I would like to hear from a forensic pathologist as to whether my explanation is reasonable.
I have no experience in medical work but learned in the service, that a nerve gas on a man’s skin, without inhalation, can quickly poison and kill him (if that’s of any assistance). Would it permeate hair and fingernails as with skin? I don’t know. Would it be present on hair and fingernails?
From long experience, we know that this administration is prone to fabricating evidence. And, yes, out-and-out lying.
From the outset, we should operate on the premise that they are, in fact, lying. It is up to Kerry, Obama, Rice, et al to prove otherwise.
They simply aren't trustworthy. Sad...but true.
I was not a Chemical Officer, but I think you are correct. My training was that nerve agents killed quickly. One of the questions during our Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) training was, “If I was exposed to a nerve agent, would I have time to draw my pistol and blow my brains out?” Our Instructor said that it would be close. I suppose it would depend on the dose you receive. I think it would take a large dose of chemical agent to kill 1500 people. The agent weakens as it spreads. Killing people in a city could be somewhat difficult. A vapor would dissipate quickly. A liquid would have a hard time penetrating roofs and walls. There is also problems with the dispersal method. You can shoot it on artillery or missiles. You can spray it from an aircraft. I don’t recall ever being told to take hair or nail clippings after an attack. I believe we mostly swabbed stuff. There are Chemical Officers who know a lot more about this stuff, but I think you are correct. We were trained that chemical weapons were used to make it harder to fight because you had to put on the chemical gear. It was more of a nuisance than a killer to trained and properly equipped troops.