I notice that the OPCW summary is scrupulous in not mentioning the R-word. It also does not mention the N-word, perhaps because to do so seems like a covert nod in the direction of Russia.The actual scientific name for the substance, whilst not likely to offend, would relate to the structure, which must be kept under wraps.
So a coy statement is given saying, in essence, we get the toxic chemical to be what they get it to be, without saying, or providing a reference to, what that is. Maybe a new politically correct Esperanto-esque colloquial name for the substance is required so it can be mentioned explicitly in polite company without appearing to implicate anyone.
I am also struck by the tautology of, ‘…the toxic chemical was of high purity. The latter is concluded from the almost complete absence of impurities.’ I might be reading too much into it but I did wonder if the explicit mentioning of there being a lack of impurities was a way of letting it be known that it would be impossible to pin down the origin of the material through its impurity profile, even with reference samples available.
The summary also says
‘The results of analysis of the environmental samples conducted by OPCW designated laboratories demonstrate the presence of this toxic chemical in the samples.’
Thus, while the presence of the active agent is confirmed, we are not told if any excipients were found in the environmental samples.
There are some who remain sceptical about the nature of the event in Salisbury because of the curious delay between exposure and the onset of symptoms, given the toxicity of the agent involved. I think the hoi polloi could cope with some kind of explanation of this, should the authorities have an understanding of it themselves. There would be no need to go into specifics, but it would be enlightening to know if there was evidence in the environmental samples of the nerve agent having been formulated in a sustained release medium.
Admittedly, even if such a delivery system were identified, it would only explain a gradual build up of the agent in the body and onset of symptoms, not the apparently-coordinated abrupt collapse of both Skripals.
As it happens, I’m now wondering if the Skripals might have bought a takeaway coffee from the Greggs near the bench, the heat from which hiked up the absorption rate of the nerve agent on their hands to catastrophic effect.
(If the cognoscenti don’t want plebs like me to fill up the information vacuum with outlandish speculations, they need to provide more facts!)