Are Syrian shells raining biological agents down on Lebanese?

Lebanese living along the Syrian border are reporting rashes and other ailments. They suspect Syrian biological weapons are to blame, although weapons experts say that is unlikely.

Roula Naeimeh/Reuters
A man walks past a damaged shop in the border town of Wadi Khaled after mortars from Syrian forces hit villages in northern Lebanon in July.

Residents in Nourat al-Tahta and other villages under routine Syrian shellfire are complaining of unexplained symptoms may indicate artillery shells have been filled with a biological agent, but weapons experts discount the panicky assumptions.

Nazir Shrayteh, a doctor from the nearby village of Dousi, says he has received an unusually large number of patients from villages under shellfire in recent months complaining of rashes and diarrhea.

“Since May we have been getting these skin problems,” he says. “I don’t know what it is, but I feel something odd is going on.”

Still, biological weapons experts say that the chances are remote that biological agents in Syrian artillery shells are the cause of the ailments. Although T-2 mycotoxins, a chemical produced by certain fungi and used as a biological weapon, are said to cause both symptoms, they are extremely toxic and potentially fatal, says Kelsey Gregg, a former biosecurity specialist with the Federation of American Scientists.

“Even at low doses, there would likely be different symptoms from an aerosol, including eye and respiratory problems,” she says.

Furthermore, the ad hoc pattern of Syrian shellfire does not suggest a determined attempt to deliver biological agents. Ms. Gregg suspects the blame lies with poor sanitary conditions due to the stressful, overcrowded and abnormal circumstances in which the local residents and Syrian refugees are living.

The Nourat al-Tahta residents' case bears some similarity to a recent incident in Afghanistan, when a group of schoolgirls showing symptoms of poisoning raised fears that the Taliban was poisoning the drinking water supplies at several schools. The World Health Organization dismissed the symptoms as more likely a form of mass hysteria – something that has happened many times in history, the Monitor reported.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.