Written question asked by Countess of Mar (Crossbench), in the House of Lords. It was due for an answer on Wednesday, 26 October 1994. It was answered by Lord Henley (Conservative) on Wednesday, 26 October 1994 on behalf of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

---

Henley, Lord

Question

In view of the pronouncement of Dr Graham Pearson of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (557 c78-9WA, 26 July 1994) that, although NAIADs (Nerve Agent Immobilised Enzyme Alarm and Detector), "like all other chemical warfare agent detectors, can respond to substances other than chemical warfare agents, it is important to recognise that these other substances are very unlikely to be present on the battlefield in concentrations sufficient to produce an alarm", why troops were told that the alarms which sounded on the night of 20/21 Jan 1991 during Operation Granby were activated by aircraft fumes, when NAIAD alarms and two RVD (Residual Vapour Detector) tests confirmed the presence of the toxic chemicals NAIADs are designed to detect. - Text of letter from Graham Pearson of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

---

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

558 c38-9WA

Session

1993-94

Subjects

Armed forces Chemical and biological warfare Armed conflict Chemical weapons Deployment Biological weapons Defence equipment Health hazards Iraq-Kuwait conflict Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment