What a novichok attack on Heathrow Airport would look like

Exclusive: Experts say thousands could come into contact with deadly nerve agent if it was used at airport or in terror attack. 'The effect would be massive'

If the response to the attack does not come quick enough, contaminated passengers could have travelled to destinations worldwide, furthering the spread of the deadly nerve agent (Getty)

Nearly 2,500 people could come into contact with the deadly nerve agent novichok if it were used to attack someone at Heathrow Airport, industry experts have warned.

Bruhn NewTech, a technology company that develops software aimed at increasing protection against airborne threats or attacks, looked at what would happen if the assassination attempt on former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter was scaled up to an attack on a target on their way to catch a flight from Heathrow terminal five.

Heathrow is considered to be particularly vulnerable because it is the second busiest airport in the world, by international passenger traffic, and could facilitate the rapid spread of contamination from a chemical weapons attack if the incident was not identified and contained quickly enough.

An attack at the airport “would be catastrophic”, Dr Simon Bennett, director of the Civil Safety and Security Unit at the University of Leicester, told The Independent. Dr Bennett, who specialises in aviation security, said Heathrow was a “prime site” for such an attack due to its status as a totem, similar to Westminster, the London underground or the UK’s railway stations.

Commenting on the company’s scenario, Dr Bennett said the contamination trail would be “very extensive” and could lead to the closure of the entire terminal, “not just for days but potentially for weeks”. He described novichok, which is thought to have been smuggled into Britain through an airport in a “discreet” container, as “so pernicious and so persistent”.

He added: “These weapons, potentially in the hands of wrongdoers, are very effective, not only in terms of killing and injuring but in terms of terrorising and causing real long-term economic damage.”

Bruhn NewTech, which sells chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear information management software, said if a chemical attack were to take place at Heathrow, around 900 people would need to be hospitalised and more than 9,000 people would be asked to disinfect their belongings, such as clothing and jewellery.

The technology company said their calculations were conservative, as they do not include employees at the airport, do not take into account the potential that novichok could spread to other terminals, or the potential spread of the nerve agent to other countries if contaminated passengers were able to reach other airports before authorities were able to contain the incident.

During the attack on Mr Skripal and his daughter they came into contact with novichok on the morning of 3 March, before travelling by car to the Maltings shopping centre in Salisbury.

They then went to the Bishops Mill Pub in the town centre and dined at the nearby Zizzi. The emergency services were called around 4.15pm when the pair were discovered unconscious on a bench in the centre of Salisbury. Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who had been sent to the Skripals’ house, also fell ill after attending the scene.

Four months later, and after the Skripals and the detective had been discharged from hospital, two members of the public were poisoned by the same sort of nerve agent eight miles away in Amesbury. Dawn Sturgess, a mother of three, died eight days after she sprayed an “oily” substance she believed to be perfume on her wrists, while her partner, Charlie Rowley, recovered and was later discharged from hospital.

By looking at the timeline of the poisoning in Salisbury, Bruhn NewTech estimated what would happen if a similar attack took place on a victim travelling to Heathrow before passing through airport security, going to a pub and restaurant and then being found unconscious in terminal five, the airport’s busiest terminal.

“The effect would be massive,” Erik Juel Ellinghaus, director of the company, told The Independent. He said it could also be fatal if a large quantity of the agent was used on the target, or if it was part of a terror attack aimed at causing mass casualties.

Mr Juel Ellinghaus said the spread of contamination would start “immediately” and continue “as long as anyone touches the oily, colourless substance and transfers it by touching someone or something. The realisation that something is wrong could be hours after the event started.”

By then, thousands could have come into contact with the nerve agent and spread it further before succumbing to its effects.

He said the response would depend “on how quickly the situation is determined to even be a chemical attack. Closing down the terminal completely and decontaminating everyone would be an option if the target gets ill soon after the attack. But if the effect is delayed it will be too late to contain the situation.”

The nerve agent could even be spread to other countries if contaminated passengers catch their flights before a major incident is declared. “This can only be prevented if the target falls ill within a short time and the medical staff react very quickly, realising that this is not an ordinary illness, and take steps to quarantine the airport. If the effect is delayed, the contaminated passengers will obviously have travelled to their destinations worldwide,” Mr Juel Ellinghaus cautioned.

In some scenarios, containing an attack by a chemical such as novichok would be “virtually impossible”, he said. “Since the first indication of the attack can be many hours after the event, containment would involve tracing the steps of every passenger that could have been contaminated and sealing off the areas all these people could have touched.”

Authorities would then need to go through the areas with detection equipment and decontaminate them if required.

One worst-case scenario would be a botched attempt to use a nerve agent, Mr Juel Ellinghaus said, giving the example of a target wearing gloves, who would continue to touch and contaminate objects before falling ill hours later.

Another would be “a terrorist attack that is actually aiming at creating mass casualties”, such as the sarin attack on the Tokyo underground by members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult, which killed 13 people and injured more than 1,000.

“If we are considering novichok, the worst case would be the deliberate placement of the agent in places that many people touch – or in something that many people apply to their skin,” Mr Juel Ellinghaus said.

“The history of terrorism shows us that the locations with the highest number of people are the main targets. So, as I see it, some of the main potential targets are football stadiums, concert arenas, museums, cruise ships and of course other airports such as Gatwick.”

He added: “Similar threats from terrorists are not just chemical, but also biological or radiological. Some examples are the recent events in France and Germany where terrorist plots involving homemade ricin was uncovered and fortunately stopped by police.”

Mr Juel Ellinghaus said he is concerned not enough preparation has been done to effectively combat the threat of terrorism with chemical weapons.

“There is a wide range of elements that need to be put in place to protect effectively against chemical agents,” he said. He added that authorities in the UK should invest in precautions such as detectors and software which would allow them to manage an attack as it unfolded, by identifying the area under threat and evacuating areas without sending them through the hazardous area.

“Basically, it is similar to the installation of fire alarms. Even with these alarms in place there is still a risk that people will die in fires, but their installation does allow us to protect as many people as we can. And that is exactly what we are trying to do. Protect as many people as possible.”

Dr Bennett, the security expert specialising in aviation, said he would encourage the government to spend their funds on the intelligence and security services. “The best defence is a well funded intelligence service,” he said. “Prevention is much more effective; it is much safer than cure or even mitigation.”

A spokesperson for Heathrow Airport said: “Heathrow and the UK have some of the most robust aviation security processes in the world. We work with the authorities to keep these under constant review, ensuring we remain vigilant to changing threats.”