rickjump1 0 #76 December 1, 2005 I took twisting arms to be a metaphor for hooking electrodes up to people's genitals. I haven't actually heard about any specific instances of the former, but the latter has been documented by our own gov't. Quote I didn't take it as a metaphor. You did. I don't give a shit about college hazing. I care that our vice president has been spending inoridinate amounts of time lobbying to keep torture by agents of out gov't from being criminalized. That's an atrocity in and of itself. Quote If enough American citizens find this repulsive, maybe it can be stopped before the next election. And I'm of the opinion that when the CIA keeps classified prisons in eastern european countries and the vp lobbies to keep it legal for the CIA to torture people, that there's a pretty good chance a little more is going on than literal arm twisting. Am I one of the few that can add one to one and get two? Quote Same as above. Once again, this is OUR government at work. The press has informed the public about these prisons now it's time for the public to complain. I'm sorry that I don't consider humans who don't happen to be Americans to be less human than humans that are Americans. I thought this country was based on basic human rights that are inalienable. Not basic American rights...basic human rights. They apply to everyone, or you aren't honoring the foundation of our nation's existence.Quote I find humans that blow themselves up to kill innocent women and children less than human. I find humans that will cut off the heads of their captives and video it for the world to see less than human. Do these "less-than-human-scumbags" deserve what our founding fathers had in mind? It's hard to say yes, but you are right. They do deserve basic human rights.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #77 December 1, 2005 QuoteTNT is a chemical too, I suppose that makes TNT a chemical weapon according to you. Did you even bother reading my post? Clean the ice cream off your hands and go read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #78 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteTNT is a chemical too, I suppose that makes TNT a chemical weapon according to you. Did you even bother reading my post? Clean the ice cream off your hands and go read it. You just won coolass-motherfucker-of-the-day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites markd_nscr986 0 #79 December 1, 2005 Damn........... The "web police" have it blocked from my viewingMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rickjump1 0 #80 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo problem...just so we're clear, you're one of those defending the torturing fuckers on our side. You don't see a problem with Pakistanis twisting arms of some people, but if pakistanis start twisting the arms of Americans, then it's bad. US soldiers aren't innocent people. They're active combatants. So it's ok for the enemy to torture them for info? I don't think it is. You are the one justifying when torture is ok.It's a little different for our guys. They fight to the death because they know if they are captured, they will loose their heads among other things. In contrast, the bad guys can simply raise their hands and it's over. What's the fuss over twisting arms? He didn't say breaking arms. Hell, they twisted my arms during escape and evasion training. If everything was on a college hazing level (my guess some of it is), people would still be screaming about American atrocities toward these pieces of shit. But you fail to understand you are talking about a society that thinks spanking is child abuse and simply touching someone is assault. No kidding. This could apply to us and them.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skyrad 0 #81 December 1, 2005 Interesting that the bodies were burn but the clothing was not????When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #82 December 1, 2005 Do you expect us to believe that lead and all the different types of explosives used by the military are not poisonous? What's all this stuff about green bullets and bombs under development, and tell me what it has to do with chemical weapons. Shed some light on the subject if you know so much.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #83 December 1, 2005 note: I posted this a minute ago but had the wrong quote in here, so I deleted that one & posted this instead. On this website I found this text about WP used as a weapon Quote White Phosphorus (WP) - Incendiary WP is a colorless to yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military is highly energetic (active) and ignites once it is exposed to oxygen. White phosphorus is a pyrophoric material, that is, it is spontaneously flammable). When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen. Up to 15 percent of the WP remains within the charred wedge and can reignite if the felt is crushed and the unburned WP is exposed to the atmosphere. White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing. Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus. If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air. Some nations recommend washing the skin with a 0.5-2.0% copper sulphate solution or a copper sulphate impregnated pad. Wounds may be rinsed with a 0.1%-0.2% copper sulphate solution, if available. Dark coloured deposits may be removed with forceps. Prevent prolonged contact of any copper sulphate preparations with the tissues by prompt, copious flushing with water or saline, as there is a definite danger of copper poisoning. It may be necessary to repeat the first aid measures to completely remove all phosphorus. White Phosphorus (WP) - Smoke White Phosphorus (WP) creates a smoke screen as it burns. Phosphorus smokes are generated by a variety of munitions. Some of these munitions such as the M825 (155-mm round) may, on explosion, distribute particles of incompletely oxidized white phosphorus. Smokes obscure vision and are used to hide troops, equipment, and areas from detection. Smoke screens are essential for movement in city fighting. In the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round. White Phosphorus and Red Phosphorus burn to produce a hygroscopic smoke containing phosphoric acids. Red phosphorus (RP) is not nearly as reactive as white phosphorus. It reacts slowly with atmospheric moisture and the smoke does not produce thermal injury, hence the smoke is less toxic. The extinction for these smokes is primarily due to scattering in the visible and absorption in the infrared (IR). These smokes are composed of spherical liquid particles that grow with relative humidity to an equilibrium size by absorbing ambient moisture that depends on the ambient relative humidity. The mass extinction varies significantly with relative humidity. The White Phosphorus flame produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries. Most smokes are not hazardous in concentrations which are useful for obscuring purposes. However, any smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough. Medical personnel should be prepared to treat potential reactions to military smokes once such smokes have been introduced to the battlefield. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations for extended periods (particularly if near the source of emission) may cause illness or even death. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations. At room temperature, white phosphorus is somewhat volatile and may produce a toxic inhalational injury. In moist air, the phosphorus pentoxide produces phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries. Irritation of the eyes and irritation of the mucous membranes are the most commonly seen injuries. These complaints remit spontaneously with the soldier's removal from the exposure site. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur, which renders gas mask adjustment difficult. There are no reported deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. Generally, treatment of WP smoke irritation is unnecessary. Spontaneous recovery is rapid. White phosphorus fume can cause severe eye irritation with blepharospasm, photophobia, and lacrimation. Irritation of the eyes and irritation of the mucous membranes are the most commonly seen injuries. These complaints remit spontaneously with the soldier's removal from the exposure site. The WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur, which renders gas mask adjustment difficult. There are no reported deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. So tell us now why this is comparable to the lethality & permanent effects of mustard gas and phosgene. Or tell us why this text is wrong. Or just toss some more insults at me.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #84 December 1, 2005 QuoteWilly Pete is a hotly (heh) debated topic. In SEA, it was used for signaling, because it generates huge amounts of pure white smoke. However, because it burns really hot, it can be used against soft targets (e.g., buildings, people). The reason it's debated is because White Phosphorus is a chemical, so that technically makes munitions that contain Willy Pete "chemical weapons", even though it is more properly classed as an incendiary. And yes, WP burns are nasty. mh . The "pure white smoke" is phosphorus pentoxide P2O5. Dissolved in the water of your mucous membranes (eyes, lungs) it makes phosphoric acid. P2O5 + 3H20 --> 2H3PO4 Phosphoric acid is a very strong acid, very similar in effect on the membranes to hydrochloric acid (what you get from phosgene and chlorine when they contact the mucous membranes). Chlorine and phosgene are, of course, undoubtedly chemical weapons, having been used specifically for that purpose in WW1. Being gases, chlorine and phosgene are likely to penetrate better, and are less visible, but the principle is the same. So, breath in that pure white smoke and your lungs and throat start to dissolve. Looks like and walks like a duck, IMO.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #85 December 1, 2005 And then there's the CDC Toxicological Profile which says Quote White phosphorus smoke is generated by burning white phosphorus. The U.S. Army uses white phosphorus smoke as a smoke/obscurant for training and testing activities. The smoke generated from burning white phosphorus consists primarily of oxidation and hydrolysis products of phosphorus, including phosphorus pentoxide and phosphorus trioxide. The moisture in the air reacts with these phosphorus oxides to produce a dynamic mixture of polyphosphoric acids that eventually transform into orthophosphoric acid, pyrophosphoric acid, and orthophosphorus acid. Wind-tunnel tests in which white phosphorus was burned and oxygen was non-limiting produced an average aerosol mass concentration between 2,500 and 3,000 mg/m3, with the major components being polyphosphates, phosphine, and elemental phosphorus (Van Voris et al. 1987). It should be stressed that while residual-coated white phosphorus is very biologically toxic, there are somewhat stable combustion intermediates (linear and cyclic polyphosphates) that can be persistent under low oxygen conditions and may be toxic to biological organisms. The PDF linked off of that page goes into detail on the limited studies that have been done on WP exposure. After I read it I got a tentative and mixed picture--that WP is not likely to be particularly evil in military applications, but that the stuff is pretty noxious overall. Tho I'm neither a chemist nor a toxicologist. I'll keep reading this stuff.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Enrique 0 #86 December 1, 2005 Quote"Get over It it's War" I am pretty sure your children will understand if they are born with some kind of hereditary disease or defect resulting from some chemical you inhaled during one of your tours of duty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Enrique 0 #87 December 1, 2005 QuoteIf you take away blind patriotism, you will be able to judge the actions for what they are, not for who commits them. There is a constant double standards and "do what i say not what i do" going on in your country that it is amazing there is so many people that don´see it. Kudos to you for saving lives, and i am sure most of the U.S army are decent people that are trying to do their best. I am sure as well that most of the Irakis are innocent decent people but that doesn´t stop the U.S army from increasing everyday the number of "collateral damage" because the few bad apples there is in Irak. The U.S has also bad apples, but somehow their bad apples are worst than your bad apples. Here we have again another case of blind patriotism and double standards. AMEN! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Enrique 0 #88 December 1, 2005 QuoteThe "pure white smoke" is phosphorus pentoxide P2O5. Dissolved in the water of your mucous membranes (eyes, lungs) it makes phosphoric acid. P2O5 + 3H20 --> 2H3PO4 Phosphoric acid is a very strong acid, very similar in effect on the membranes to hydrochloric acid (what you get from phosgene and chlorine when they contact the mucous membranes). Chlorine and phosgene are, of course, undoubtedly chemical weapons, having been used specifically for that purpose in WW1. Being gases, chlorine and phosgene are likely to penetrate better, and are less visible, but the principle is the same. High school flashback!!! Man, you sounded just like my teacher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #89 December 1, 2005 And further down that PDF from the CDC there's this bit about dermal exposure to WP Quote Information that was located regarding the contribution of white phosphorus to death after acute white phosphorus-induced burns suggests a possible difference between humans and animal models. A high rate of mortality (l2/27) in humans occurred following accidental explosions from ignited white phosphorus in munitions factories (Walker et al. 1947). The workers that died had third-degree burns over ≈35-90% of their body surface. Those surviving had burns over ≤19% of the body surface. The authors noted that these burn cases followed a course that was “indistinguishable” from that of nonphosphorus related third-degree burns. The contribution of white phosphorus to the increased mortality is not known. In animal studies using experimental white phosphorus burns, there is evidence that phosphorus compounds remaining in the burn site may contribute to the increased mortality. Experimental burns with white phosphorus have resulted in abnormal EKGs in rabbits (Bowen et al. 1971) and extensive renal and hepatic damages in rats (Ben-Hur et al. 1972; Ben-Hur and Appelbaum 1973). Increased mortality in these studies was attributed to the systemic effects of white phosphorus or phosphorus compounds, rather than to the toxicity of the burn. White phosphorus is probably absorbed to a much greater degree from severe burns than from normal dermal exposure. and this bit about inhalation exposure Quote White Phosphorus Smoke. No deaths were reported in humans inhaling white phosphorus smoke at concentrations as high as 592 mg phosphorus pentoxide equivalents/m3 (817 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for 3.5 minutes or 514 mg pentoxide equivalents/m3 (709 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for 15 minutes (White and Armstrong 1935). In animals exposed to white phosphorus smoke, deaths have been observed following acute- and intermediate-duration inhalation exposure or acute oral exposure. The lowest lethal concentrations identified in animals exposed once to white phosphorus smoke are 1,943 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3 for rats Brown et al. 1980), 310 mg phosphorus pentoxide equivalents/m3 (428 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for mice (White and Armstrong 1935), 677 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3 for guinea pigs (Brown et al. 1980), and 6,230 mg phosphorus pentoxide equivalents/m3 (8,599 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for goats (White and Armstrong 1935). Similar lethal concentrations (1,742 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) were observed in rats exposed to white phosphorus smoke 15 minutes/day, 5 days/week, for 6-13 weeks (Brown et al. 1981; Starke et al. 1982). For the most part, the cause of death was not determined. An exception is the mouse acute exposure study. A thick mucous discharge was observed in the nares of dying mice. This discharge plugged the nares, and the mice died of asphyxiation (White and Armstrong 1935). For the other species tested, the most prominent nonlethal effect was moderate-to-severe respiratory tract irritation. It is possible that the respiratory tract damage was severe enough to be life- threatening. Based on this information on deaths in animals, it is likely that exposure to high concentrations of white phosphorus smoke would be fatal to humans. Interesting.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #90 December 1, 2005 so nathaniel...riddle me this...why did the Pentagon a while back make a big stink about Saddam using WP as a chemical weapon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #91 December 1, 2005 Quote so nathaniel...riddle me this...why did the Pentagon a while back make a big stink about Saddam using WP as a chemical weapon? I'd say because they were looking for excuses to start a war. They also touted mobile homes as chemical weapons factories. I think in retrospect a lot of the stuff they came up with was specious. Although after reading some of the CDC stuff I'm increasingly of the mindset that WP could be used as a poison, for instance if it was used to contaminate food, or if it could be delivered to people continuously over a long time like an occupational exposure instead of as an incendiary with an acute exposure among victims. I don't consider lead in bullets to be a chemical weapon, but I'm sure we can think of ways to use lead in bullets in contravention to the CWC. So it depends on how Saddam planned to use it as far as whether stockpiling it could be evil. It's certainly a dual-use chemical with the primary industrial and military uses being other than chemical weapons. So I'd say now it depends on how the US uses it if it's to be considered illegal today.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #92 December 1, 2005 White Phosphurus was used extensively in fighting the Vietnam War. It was delivered from aircraft, to artillery, to mortar rounds, and even came in hand thrown grenades. I agree it's awful stuff, but is it really any worse than some of the other weapons that our country is using. Flame throwers were used on the Japanese and Germans in World War II. Napalm is another really scary weapon used in Vietnam. I wonder if it too is used in Iraq. If you really took a look at some of our other weaponry used to deliver death to thousands, I really wonder if "Wiley Pete" or "Wooly Peter" is any worse. I'm not saying this is right, only that we have a lot of other scary shit in our arsenal. Some of it isclassified and probably being used. I had some secret classes (in the 70's) on this subject. I'd sure hate to be on the receiving end of any of it.....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #93 December 2, 2005 AFAIK, napalm hasn't been used in Iraq since the Gulf War. At that time, it was dropped from aircraft to set fire to oil trenches and other obstacles. It wasn't used against bunkers, etc., but I believe that these restrictions were largely due to the political nature of the weapon and its association with Vietnam. I have no reason to believe that those restrictions have changed. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #94 December 2, 2005 QuoteDo you expect us to believe that lead and all the different types of explosives used by the military are not poisonous? What's all this stuff about green bullets and bombs under development, and tell me what it has to do with chemical weapons With this quote and your one about how TNT is a chemical thus must also be considered a chemical weapon by some people standards you are completely missing the point. TNT may be toxic with long exposure but it kills you by blowing you up. You don't die of TNT poisoning. Bullets may be made of lead but you are killed because they blow a hole in you. You don't die of lead poisoning. These principals apply to WP. It kills you generally by burning you to death in a thermic reaction. Since this is thermic, (fire) it is legal. It can also kill you buy burning you in a chemical way though and that’' where the arguments start. WP is highly hygroscopic meaning it will readily combine with any water particles. This means the moment you introduce it into the air it will combine with the water particles which are present in all air and form phosphoric acid. If it lands on your eye, it forms phosphoric acid with the moisture in your eye. If you inhale it, it combines with water molecules on the surface of the inside of your lungs and forms phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid does not blow you up. It does not burn you by catching fire. It does not punch a big hole in your side. What phosphoric acid does do is produce chemical burns. Producing chemical burns in people is banned by treaties to which the US has subscribed. That is why some people have a problem with WP. It produces chemical burns when you fire it at people. Those chemical burns are generally in the subject's respiratory system causing death as you yourself prove in all your quotes from the CDC. The Pentagon has admitted US troops have fired it at people. Those who complain about WP are not doing so because it is a chemical and thus bad. They are not worried about it because it is toxic if you eat it. They are worried about it because they know that when you fire it at people you can cause them chemical burns. Do you understand the difference now? As I note in my first post however – I don't know if this means WP is illegal – many of the people subjected to its chemical burns will also be on fire anyway. It's a question the international community will answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #95 December 2, 2005 Quote That is why some people have a problem with WP. It produces chemical burns when you fire it at people. Those chemical burns are generally in the subject's respiratory system causing death as you yourself prove in all your quotes from the CDC. The devil, of course, is in the details. I think the precise toxic effect is far from clear from the CDC profiles. But I detect a bit of a contrast between the profile of Sulphur Mustard, which states Quote As summarized by NRC (1997), the Army's Chemical Defense Equipment Process Action Team (CDEPAT) estimated a lethal concentration-time product (LCt50) for humans of 900 mg-minute/m^3 for 2-10 minute exposures. In the absence of better data, the CDEPAT derived this value by averaging toxicity data from several animal species. and Quote Deaths, which occurred in 1-3% of the soldiers exposed during World War I, were largely due to secondary respiratory infections (Uhrig 1962). Battlefield air concentrations of sulfur mustard vapor during attacks in World War I were estimated in the range 19-33 mg/m^3 (Solberg et al. 1997). and the information put forth about WP, which includes studies of humans in 1935 that produced only minor effects at concentrations of 500-600 mg / m^3 in exposures of 3 - 15 minutes. The question to me is not whether it could be toxic at any arbitrarily high concentration (which it probably can, according to the CDC) but whether the concentration it reaches in the method of employment is likely to be toxic. Right now I don't think there's any definitive scientific evidence either way, but I think the scant scientific evidence we have and the available empirical evidence suggests that it is not. Do you have another source of information that would show differently? Or shall we engage in more armchair chemistry? A little bit of evidence is all it would take to change my mind.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #96 December 2, 2005 QuoteA little bit of evidence is all it would take to change my mind. Are there any areas in which you err on the side of caution, or are you the guy who builds bridges with I-beams until one resonates and falls down? I praise your fact checking, and it may be that there isn't enough information out there to determine with certainty what the effects are at various concentrations. But I can tell you that I've inadvertently taken a couple of breaths of WP smoke, and I'd much rather do grass drills in a room full of CS than breathe that shit again. And I've seen and spoken with survivors of WP burns, and it's not at all along the lines of what you would expect from conventional weaponry. If that's armchair chemistry to you, then so be it. It's enough for me to take a conservative approach with this stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #97 December 2, 2005 EXACTLY This is one of the things I have been saying all along - since a thread on this subject a couple of weeks ago. The real argument about WP resolves around technicalities involving whether or not the chemical injuries which WP can cause when fired at people really matter in the grand scheme of things. The argument is not that all weapons are made up of a series of chemicals thus its silly to say WP is a chemical weapon simply because it is also made of chemicals as you rhetorically argued in your first post here. It is not even about whether or not WP can cause chemically induced injuries on the people you fire it at – it can; you yourself post the studies that proves that and it's very simple science that WP readily turns into phosphoric acid which will irreprably damage the lungs if inhaled. Remember the treaties to which the US and Britain are subscribed don't require that a chemical kill for it to be a chemical weapon – just cause harm. Phosphoric acid can do both. The argument is simply around whether in the scale of things that actually matters. The risk is there – it's just whether or not that risk is great enough to cause these weapons to be classified as a chemical weapon or not when taken in conjunction with its primary use (when fired at troops) as an incendiary weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #98 December 2, 2005 Quote[ I've seen and spoken with survivors of WP burns, . I recall watching a video of one of our own troops who was horribly burned by White Phosphorus. This guy looked like a monster. His entire head looked like something out of a horror movie. His ears, nose, hair, etc. were replaced by a mass of shriveled skin. His right arm was gone and his entire body was burned terrribly. Yet, this man was one of the most inspiring people I've ever listened to. He was assigned to a gun boat during the Vietnam conflict as a young man, (shortly after being married). They were given a mission to deliver some Navy Seals way upriver in hostile territory. He said these Seals were bad ass dudes who spent their time sharpening knives and checking weapons, etc., on their trip upriver. Days later, they ended up in a terrible firefight with the NVA. He said, he was in the process of throwing a White Phosphurus grenade when a bullet hit it. Everyone thought he was dead because noone could have survived that, and he looked like a burned corpse. He was conscious when they piled him with the other bodies. Then someone noticed he was still alive. Twenty years ago he worked as an inspirational speaker. His wife stayed with him through all those years. Truly a remarkable person! I hope he's still with us.....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #99 December 2, 2005 Quote The argument is not that all weapons are made up of a series of chemicals thus its silly to say WP is a chemical weapon simply because it is also made of chemicals as you rhetorically argued in your first post here. Perhaps then I misread markharju when he wrote Quote The reason it's debated is because White Phosphorus is a chemical, so that technically makes munitions that contain Willy Pete "chemical weapons", even though it is more properly classed as an incendiary. Or perhaps I didn't Quote It is not even about whether or not WP can cause chemically induced injuries on the people you fire it at - it can; you yourself post the studies that proves that and it's very simple science that WP readily turns into phosphoric acid which will irreprably damage the lungs if inhaled. That's not the whole picture that I picked up from the CDC profiles. Maybe you should go read them yourself. It's definitely their conclusion that a high enough concentration of WP will kill, but that's a far mark from saying that WP smoke in Vietnam o Fallujah is toxic. I didn't pick up that the subjects in the 1935 study suffered permanent effects, and the CDC report on WP says that no long-term studies of acute exposure could be found.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #100 December 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteI've seen and spoken with survivors of WP burns, . I recall watching a video of one of our own troops who was horribly burned by White Phosphorus. Sounds like Dave Roever; I saw a video of one of his presentations whilst in high school. Here's a brief article I found via Google regarding his speaking to troops last year. Good to see he's still around and on the circuit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 4 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mr2mk1g 10 #77 December 1, 2005 QuoteTNT is a chemical too, I suppose that makes TNT a chemical weapon according to you. Did you even bother reading my post? Clean the ice cream off your hands and go read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #78 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteTNT is a chemical too, I suppose that makes TNT a chemical weapon according to you. Did you even bother reading my post? Clean the ice cream off your hands and go read it. You just won coolass-motherfucker-of-the-day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #79 December 1, 2005 Damn........... The "web police" have it blocked from my viewingMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #80 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo problem...just so we're clear, you're one of those defending the torturing fuckers on our side. You don't see a problem with Pakistanis twisting arms of some people, but if pakistanis start twisting the arms of Americans, then it's bad. US soldiers aren't innocent people. They're active combatants. So it's ok for the enemy to torture them for info? I don't think it is. You are the one justifying when torture is ok.It's a little different for our guys. They fight to the death because they know if they are captured, they will loose their heads among other things. In contrast, the bad guys can simply raise their hands and it's over. What's the fuss over twisting arms? He didn't say breaking arms. Hell, they twisted my arms during escape and evasion training. If everything was on a college hazing level (my guess some of it is), people would still be screaming about American atrocities toward these pieces of shit. But you fail to understand you are talking about a society that thinks spanking is child abuse and simply touching someone is assault. No kidding. This could apply to us and them.Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #81 December 1, 2005 Interesting that the bodies were burn but the clothing was not????When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #82 December 1, 2005 Do you expect us to believe that lead and all the different types of explosives used by the military are not poisonous? What's all this stuff about green bullets and bombs under development, and tell me what it has to do with chemical weapons. Shed some light on the subject if you know so much.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #83 December 1, 2005 note: I posted this a minute ago but had the wrong quote in here, so I deleted that one & posted this instead. On this website I found this text about WP used as a weapon Quote White Phosphorus (WP) - Incendiary WP is a colorless to yellow translucent wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. The form used by the military is highly energetic (active) and ignites once it is exposed to oxygen. White phosphorus is a pyrophoric material, that is, it is spontaneously flammable). When exposed to air, it spontaneously ignites and is oxidized rapidly to phosphorus pentoxide. Such heat is produced by this reaction that the element bursts into a yellow flame and produces a dense white smoke. Phosphorus also becomes luminous in the dark, and this property is conveyed to "tracer bullets." This chemical reaction continues until either all the material is consumed or the element is deprived of oxygen. Up to 15 percent of the WP remains within the charred wedge and can reignite if the felt is crushed and the unburned WP is exposed to the atmosphere. White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing. Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus. If burning particles of WP strike and stick to the clothing, take off the contaminated clothing quickly before the WP burns through to the skin. Remove quickly all clothing affected by phosphorus to prevent phosphorus burning through to skin. If this is impossible, plunge skin or clothing affected by phosphorus in cold water or moisten strongly to extinguish or prevent fire. Then immediately remove affected clothing and rinse affected skin areas with cold sodium bicarbonate solution or with cold water. Moisten skin and remove visible phosphorus (preferably under water) with squared object (knife-back etc.) or tweezers. Do not touch phosphorus with fingers! Throw removed phosphorus or clothing affected by phosphorus into water or allow to bum in suitable location. Cover phosphorus burns with moist dressing and keep moist to prevent renewed inflammation. It is neccessary to dress white phosphorus-injured patients with saline-soaked dressings to prevent reignition of the phosphorus by contact with the air. Some nations recommend washing the skin with a 0.5-2.0% copper sulphate solution or a copper sulphate impregnated pad. Wounds may be rinsed with a 0.1%-0.2% copper sulphate solution, if available. Dark coloured deposits may be removed with forceps. Prevent prolonged contact of any copper sulphate preparations with the tissues by prompt, copious flushing with water or saline, as there is a definite danger of copper poisoning. It may be necessary to repeat the first aid measures to completely remove all phosphorus. White Phosphorus (WP) - Smoke White Phosphorus (WP) creates a smoke screen as it burns. Phosphorus smokes are generated by a variety of munitions. Some of these munitions such as the M825 (155-mm round) may, on explosion, distribute particles of incompletely oxidized white phosphorus. Smokes obscure vision and are used to hide troops, equipment, and areas from detection. Smoke screens are essential for movement in city fighting. In the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round. White Phosphorus and Red Phosphorus burn to produce a hygroscopic smoke containing phosphoric acids. Red phosphorus (RP) is not nearly as reactive as white phosphorus. It reacts slowly with atmospheric moisture and the smoke does not produce thermal injury, hence the smoke is less toxic. The extinction for these smokes is primarily due to scattering in the visible and absorption in the infrared (IR). These smokes are composed of spherical liquid particles that grow with relative humidity to an equilibrium size by absorbing ambient moisture that depends on the ambient relative humidity. The mass extinction varies significantly with relative humidity. The White Phosphorus flame produces a hot, dense white smoke composed of particles of phosphorus pentoxide, which are converted by moist air into phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries. Most smokes are not hazardous in concentrations which are useful for obscuring purposes. However, any smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough. Medical personnel should be prepared to treat potential reactions to military smokes once such smokes have been introduced to the battlefield. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations for extended periods (particularly if near the source of emission) may cause illness or even death. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations. At room temperature, white phosphorus is somewhat volatile and may produce a toxic inhalational injury. In moist air, the phosphorus pentoxide produces phosphoric acid. This acid, depending on concentration and duration of exposure, may produce a variety of topically irritative injuries. Irritation of the eyes and irritation of the mucous membranes are the most commonly seen injuries. These complaints remit spontaneously with the soldier's removal from the exposure site. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur, which renders gas mask adjustment difficult. There are no reported deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. Generally, treatment of WP smoke irritation is unnecessary. Spontaneous recovery is rapid. White phosphorus fume can cause severe eye irritation with blepharospasm, photophobia, and lacrimation. Irritation of the eyes and irritation of the mucous membranes are the most commonly seen injuries. These complaints remit spontaneously with the soldier's removal from the exposure site. The WP smoke irritates the eyes and nose in moderate concentrations. With intense exposures, a very explosive cough may occur, which renders gas mask adjustment difficult. There are no reported deaths resulting from exposure to phosphorus smokes. So tell us now why this is comparable to the lethality & permanent effects of mustard gas and phosgene. Or tell us why this text is wrong. Or just toss some more insults at me.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #84 December 1, 2005 QuoteWilly Pete is a hotly (heh) debated topic. In SEA, it was used for signaling, because it generates huge amounts of pure white smoke. However, because it burns really hot, it can be used against soft targets (e.g., buildings, people). The reason it's debated is because White Phosphorus is a chemical, so that technically makes munitions that contain Willy Pete "chemical weapons", even though it is more properly classed as an incendiary. And yes, WP burns are nasty. mh . The "pure white smoke" is phosphorus pentoxide P2O5. Dissolved in the water of your mucous membranes (eyes, lungs) it makes phosphoric acid. P2O5 + 3H20 --> 2H3PO4 Phosphoric acid is a very strong acid, very similar in effect on the membranes to hydrochloric acid (what you get from phosgene and chlorine when they contact the mucous membranes). Chlorine and phosgene are, of course, undoubtedly chemical weapons, having been used specifically for that purpose in WW1. Being gases, chlorine and phosgene are likely to penetrate better, and are less visible, but the principle is the same. So, breath in that pure white smoke and your lungs and throat start to dissolve. Looks like and walks like a duck, IMO.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #85 December 1, 2005 And then there's the CDC Toxicological Profile which says Quote White phosphorus smoke is generated by burning white phosphorus. The U.S. Army uses white phosphorus smoke as a smoke/obscurant for training and testing activities. The smoke generated from burning white phosphorus consists primarily of oxidation and hydrolysis products of phosphorus, including phosphorus pentoxide and phosphorus trioxide. The moisture in the air reacts with these phosphorus oxides to produce a dynamic mixture of polyphosphoric acids that eventually transform into orthophosphoric acid, pyrophosphoric acid, and orthophosphorus acid. Wind-tunnel tests in which white phosphorus was burned and oxygen was non-limiting produced an average aerosol mass concentration between 2,500 and 3,000 mg/m3, with the major components being polyphosphates, phosphine, and elemental phosphorus (Van Voris et al. 1987). It should be stressed that while residual-coated white phosphorus is very biologically toxic, there are somewhat stable combustion intermediates (linear and cyclic polyphosphates) that can be persistent under low oxygen conditions and may be toxic to biological organisms. The PDF linked off of that page goes into detail on the limited studies that have been done on WP exposure. After I read it I got a tentative and mixed picture--that WP is not likely to be particularly evil in military applications, but that the stuff is pretty noxious overall. Tho I'm neither a chemist nor a toxicologist. I'll keep reading this stuff.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #86 December 1, 2005 Quote"Get over It it's War" I am pretty sure your children will understand if they are born with some kind of hereditary disease or defect resulting from some chemical you inhaled during one of your tours of duty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #87 December 1, 2005 QuoteIf you take away blind patriotism, you will be able to judge the actions for what they are, not for who commits them. There is a constant double standards and "do what i say not what i do" going on in your country that it is amazing there is so many people that don´see it. Kudos to you for saving lives, and i am sure most of the U.S army are decent people that are trying to do their best. I am sure as well that most of the Irakis are innocent decent people but that doesn´t stop the U.S army from increasing everyday the number of "collateral damage" because the few bad apples there is in Irak. The U.S has also bad apples, but somehow their bad apples are worst than your bad apples. Here we have again another case of blind patriotism and double standards. AMEN! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #88 December 1, 2005 QuoteThe "pure white smoke" is phosphorus pentoxide P2O5. Dissolved in the water of your mucous membranes (eyes, lungs) it makes phosphoric acid. P2O5 + 3H20 --> 2H3PO4 Phosphoric acid is a very strong acid, very similar in effect on the membranes to hydrochloric acid (what you get from phosgene and chlorine when they contact the mucous membranes). Chlorine and phosgene are, of course, undoubtedly chemical weapons, having been used specifically for that purpose in WW1. Being gases, chlorine and phosgene are likely to penetrate better, and are less visible, but the principle is the same. High school flashback!!! Man, you sounded just like my teacher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #89 December 1, 2005 And further down that PDF from the CDC there's this bit about dermal exposure to WP Quote Information that was located regarding the contribution of white phosphorus to death after acute white phosphorus-induced burns suggests a possible difference between humans and animal models. A high rate of mortality (l2/27) in humans occurred following accidental explosions from ignited white phosphorus in munitions factories (Walker et al. 1947). The workers that died had third-degree burns over ≈35-90% of their body surface. Those surviving had burns over ≤19% of the body surface. The authors noted that these burn cases followed a course that was “indistinguishable” from that of nonphosphorus related third-degree burns. The contribution of white phosphorus to the increased mortality is not known. In animal studies using experimental white phosphorus burns, there is evidence that phosphorus compounds remaining in the burn site may contribute to the increased mortality. Experimental burns with white phosphorus have resulted in abnormal EKGs in rabbits (Bowen et al. 1971) and extensive renal and hepatic damages in rats (Ben-Hur et al. 1972; Ben-Hur and Appelbaum 1973). Increased mortality in these studies was attributed to the systemic effects of white phosphorus or phosphorus compounds, rather than to the toxicity of the burn. White phosphorus is probably absorbed to a much greater degree from severe burns than from normal dermal exposure. and this bit about inhalation exposure Quote White Phosphorus Smoke. No deaths were reported in humans inhaling white phosphorus smoke at concentrations as high as 592 mg phosphorus pentoxide equivalents/m3 (817 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for 3.5 minutes or 514 mg pentoxide equivalents/m3 (709 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for 15 minutes (White and Armstrong 1935). In animals exposed to white phosphorus smoke, deaths have been observed following acute- and intermediate-duration inhalation exposure or acute oral exposure. The lowest lethal concentrations identified in animals exposed once to white phosphorus smoke are 1,943 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3 for rats Brown et al. 1980), 310 mg phosphorus pentoxide equivalents/m3 (428 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for mice (White and Armstrong 1935), 677 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3 for guinea pigs (Brown et al. 1980), and 6,230 mg phosphorus pentoxide equivalents/m3 (8,599 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) for goats (White and Armstrong 1935). Similar lethal concentrations (1,742 mg orthophosphoric acid equivalents/m3) were observed in rats exposed to white phosphorus smoke 15 minutes/day, 5 days/week, for 6-13 weeks (Brown et al. 1981; Starke et al. 1982). For the most part, the cause of death was not determined. An exception is the mouse acute exposure study. A thick mucous discharge was observed in the nares of dying mice. This discharge plugged the nares, and the mice died of asphyxiation (White and Armstrong 1935). For the other species tested, the most prominent nonlethal effect was moderate-to-severe respiratory tract irritation. It is possible that the respiratory tract damage was severe enough to be life- threatening. Based on this information on deaths in animals, it is likely that exposure to high concentrations of white phosphorus smoke would be fatal to humans. Interesting.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #90 December 1, 2005 so nathaniel...riddle me this...why did the Pentagon a while back make a big stink about Saddam using WP as a chemical weapon? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #91 December 1, 2005 Quote so nathaniel...riddle me this...why did the Pentagon a while back make a big stink about Saddam using WP as a chemical weapon? I'd say because they were looking for excuses to start a war. They also touted mobile homes as chemical weapons factories. I think in retrospect a lot of the stuff they came up with was specious. Although after reading some of the CDC stuff I'm increasingly of the mindset that WP could be used as a poison, for instance if it was used to contaminate food, or if it could be delivered to people continuously over a long time like an occupational exposure instead of as an incendiary with an acute exposure among victims. I don't consider lead in bullets to be a chemical weapon, but I'm sure we can think of ways to use lead in bullets in contravention to the CWC. So it depends on how Saddam planned to use it as far as whether stockpiling it could be evil. It's certainly a dual-use chemical with the primary industrial and military uses being other than chemical weapons. So I'd say now it depends on how the US uses it if it's to be considered illegal today.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #92 December 1, 2005 White Phosphurus was used extensively in fighting the Vietnam War. It was delivered from aircraft, to artillery, to mortar rounds, and even came in hand thrown grenades. I agree it's awful stuff, but is it really any worse than some of the other weapons that our country is using. Flame throwers were used on the Japanese and Germans in World War II. Napalm is another really scary weapon used in Vietnam. I wonder if it too is used in Iraq. If you really took a look at some of our other weaponry used to deliver death to thousands, I really wonder if "Wiley Pete" or "Wooly Peter" is any worse. I'm not saying this is right, only that we have a lot of other scary shit in our arsenal. Some of it isclassified and probably being used. I had some secret classes (in the 70's) on this subject. I'd sure hate to be on the receiving end of any of it.....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #93 December 2, 2005 AFAIK, napalm hasn't been used in Iraq since the Gulf War. At that time, it was dropped from aircraft to set fire to oil trenches and other obstacles. It wasn't used against bunkers, etc., but I believe that these restrictions were largely due to the political nature of the weapon and its association with Vietnam. I have no reason to believe that those restrictions have changed. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #94 December 2, 2005 QuoteDo you expect us to believe that lead and all the different types of explosives used by the military are not poisonous? What's all this stuff about green bullets and bombs under development, and tell me what it has to do with chemical weapons With this quote and your one about how TNT is a chemical thus must also be considered a chemical weapon by some people standards you are completely missing the point. TNT may be toxic with long exposure but it kills you by blowing you up. You don't die of TNT poisoning. Bullets may be made of lead but you are killed because they blow a hole in you. You don't die of lead poisoning. These principals apply to WP. It kills you generally by burning you to death in a thermic reaction. Since this is thermic, (fire) it is legal. It can also kill you buy burning you in a chemical way though and that’' where the arguments start. WP is highly hygroscopic meaning it will readily combine with any water particles. This means the moment you introduce it into the air it will combine with the water particles which are present in all air and form phosphoric acid. If it lands on your eye, it forms phosphoric acid with the moisture in your eye. If you inhale it, it combines with water molecules on the surface of the inside of your lungs and forms phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid does not blow you up. It does not burn you by catching fire. It does not punch a big hole in your side. What phosphoric acid does do is produce chemical burns. Producing chemical burns in people is banned by treaties to which the US has subscribed. That is why some people have a problem with WP. It produces chemical burns when you fire it at people. Those chemical burns are generally in the subject's respiratory system causing death as you yourself prove in all your quotes from the CDC. The Pentagon has admitted US troops have fired it at people. Those who complain about WP are not doing so because it is a chemical and thus bad. They are not worried about it because it is toxic if you eat it. They are worried about it because they know that when you fire it at people you can cause them chemical burns. Do you understand the difference now? As I note in my first post however – I don't know if this means WP is illegal – many of the people subjected to its chemical burns will also be on fire anyway. It's a question the international community will answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #95 December 2, 2005 Quote That is why some people have a problem with WP. It produces chemical burns when you fire it at people. Those chemical burns are generally in the subject's respiratory system causing death as you yourself prove in all your quotes from the CDC. The devil, of course, is in the details. I think the precise toxic effect is far from clear from the CDC profiles. But I detect a bit of a contrast between the profile of Sulphur Mustard, which states Quote As summarized by NRC (1997), the Army's Chemical Defense Equipment Process Action Team (CDEPAT) estimated a lethal concentration-time product (LCt50) for humans of 900 mg-minute/m^3 for 2-10 minute exposures. In the absence of better data, the CDEPAT derived this value by averaging toxicity data from several animal species. and Quote Deaths, which occurred in 1-3% of the soldiers exposed during World War I, were largely due to secondary respiratory infections (Uhrig 1962). Battlefield air concentrations of sulfur mustard vapor during attacks in World War I were estimated in the range 19-33 mg/m^3 (Solberg et al. 1997). and the information put forth about WP, which includes studies of humans in 1935 that produced only minor effects at concentrations of 500-600 mg / m^3 in exposures of 3 - 15 minutes. The question to me is not whether it could be toxic at any arbitrarily high concentration (which it probably can, according to the CDC) but whether the concentration it reaches in the method of employment is likely to be toxic. Right now I don't think there's any definitive scientific evidence either way, but I think the scant scientific evidence we have and the available empirical evidence suggests that it is not. Do you have another source of information that would show differently? Or shall we engage in more armchair chemistry? A little bit of evidence is all it would take to change my mind.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #96 December 2, 2005 QuoteA little bit of evidence is all it would take to change my mind. Are there any areas in which you err on the side of caution, or are you the guy who builds bridges with I-beams until one resonates and falls down? I praise your fact checking, and it may be that there isn't enough information out there to determine with certainty what the effects are at various concentrations. But I can tell you that I've inadvertently taken a couple of breaths of WP smoke, and I'd much rather do grass drills in a room full of CS than breathe that shit again. And I've seen and spoken with survivors of WP burns, and it's not at all along the lines of what you would expect from conventional weaponry. If that's armchair chemistry to you, then so be it. It's enough for me to take a conservative approach with this stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #97 December 2, 2005 EXACTLY This is one of the things I have been saying all along - since a thread on this subject a couple of weeks ago. The real argument about WP resolves around technicalities involving whether or not the chemical injuries which WP can cause when fired at people really matter in the grand scheme of things. The argument is not that all weapons are made up of a series of chemicals thus its silly to say WP is a chemical weapon simply because it is also made of chemicals as you rhetorically argued in your first post here. It is not even about whether or not WP can cause chemically induced injuries on the people you fire it at – it can; you yourself post the studies that proves that and it's very simple science that WP readily turns into phosphoric acid which will irreprably damage the lungs if inhaled. Remember the treaties to which the US and Britain are subscribed don't require that a chemical kill for it to be a chemical weapon – just cause harm. Phosphoric acid can do both. The argument is simply around whether in the scale of things that actually matters. The risk is there – it's just whether or not that risk is great enough to cause these weapons to be classified as a chemical weapon or not when taken in conjunction with its primary use (when fired at troops) as an incendiary weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #98 December 2, 2005 Quote[ I've seen and spoken with survivors of WP burns, . I recall watching a video of one of our own troops who was horribly burned by White Phosphorus. This guy looked like a monster. His entire head looked like something out of a horror movie. His ears, nose, hair, etc. were replaced by a mass of shriveled skin. His right arm was gone and his entire body was burned terrribly. Yet, this man was one of the most inspiring people I've ever listened to. He was assigned to a gun boat during the Vietnam conflict as a young man, (shortly after being married). They were given a mission to deliver some Navy Seals way upriver in hostile territory. He said these Seals were bad ass dudes who spent their time sharpening knives and checking weapons, etc., on their trip upriver. Days later, they ended up in a terrible firefight with the NVA. He said, he was in the process of throwing a White Phosphurus grenade when a bullet hit it. Everyone thought he was dead because noone could have survived that, and he looked like a burned corpse. He was conscious when they piled him with the other bodies. Then someone noticed he was still alive. Twenty years ago he worked as an inspirational speaker. His wife stayed with him through all those years. Truly a remarkable person! I hope he's still with us.....Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #99 December 2, 2005 Quote The argument is not that all weapons are made up of a series of chemicals thus its silly to say WP is a chemical weapon simply because it is also made of chemicals as you rhetorically argued in your first post here. Perhaps then I misread markharju when he wrote Quote The reason it's debated is because White Phosphorus is a chemical, so that technically makes munitions that contain Willy Pete "chemical weapons", even though it is more properly classed as an incendiary. Or perhaps I didn't Quote It is not even about whether or not WP can cause chemically induced injuries on the people you fire it at - it can; you yourself post the studies that proves that and it's very simple science that WP readily turns into phosphoric acid which will irreprably damage the lungs if inhaled. That's not the whole picture that I picked up from the CDC profiles. Maybe you should go read them yourself. It's definitely their conclusion that a high enough concentration of WP will kill, but that's a far mark from saying that WP smoke in Vietnam o Fallujah is toxic. I didn't pick up that the subjects in the 1935 study suffered permanent effects, and the CDC report on WP says that no long-term studies of acute exposure could be found.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #100 December 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteI've seen and spoken with survivors of WP burns, . I recall watching a video of one of our own troops who was horribly burned by White Phosphorus. Sounds like Dave Roever; I saw a video of one of his presentations whilst in high school. Here's a brief article I found via Google regarding his speaking to troops last year. Good to see he's still around and on the circuit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
