Phosphorous in Fallujah (video)

[mr2mk1g 10]

I can't answer for what other people wrote. I was merely expressing exasperation that people were still persisting with the same retarded arguments after I tried to clear the situation up with my first post to this second thread on the issue in the last couple of weeks.

Quote

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.

Remember it doesn't need to be lethal for it to be covered by the treaty to which our countries subscribe – just cause harm or incapacitate through a chemical process. If you can't see that inhaling a cloud of acid is going to produce harm or incapacitate you while you cough up your guts (as that's all that is required) then there's really little point continuing the discussion.

The facts we've cited above are enough for me to agree that there are reasons why the international community might wish to looked into the issue. At the end of the day though, I can't express any opinion above and beyond that. I simply can't comment on whether or not the risk of chemical injuries amounts to being sufficient for this weapon to be considered a "chemical weapon". All I've tried to do here is clarify the arguments for people and acknowledge that there are questions to be asked.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

So, breath in that pure white smoke and your lungs and throat start to dissolve.

Key words: PURE and START

Don't sparklers and many other fireworks (especially legal ones) contain WP? Why do we see children holding these sparklers that emit such deadly fumes?

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[billvon 3,108]

>Don't sparklers and many other fireworks (especially legal ones) contain WP?

I know children who regularly put a chlorine-containing compound on their FOOD! This is the same chlorine used to kill thousands of men in World War 1. Amazing what some parents let their kids do.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Why do we see children holding these sparklers that emit such deadly fumes?

I think it's lost on some people that it's the concentration and amount of a substance that makes it toxic. Nearly all substances can be toxic if the right concentration and conditions of exposure can be found. This includes our absolute necessities such as air and water at room temperature and pressure--hyperventilation, drowning and hyponatremia. And it includes lead in bullets as well as WP smoke.

Toxic isn't a black/white scenario, its a sliding scale. WP smoke and lead are definitely further toward the nasty end than the worst things I'd like to keep in my living room, but I don't think exposure to either is equivalent to mustard gas or drinking/breathing concentrated acid.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

but I don't think exposure to either is equivalent to... breathing concentrated acid.

um... yes it is - that is exactly what you do if you breath in WP smoke. By definition you inhale a concentrated acid. Equally, acid by definition is harmful - it doesn't matter how much you come into contact with, ANY acid touching you will have harmful effects.

Contrast that with air or water as you use in your example which do not have harmful effects in small amounts, only large amounts. That there is is a big difference.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

ANY acid touching you will have harmful effects.

Although I agree with the spirit of your post, this bit is wrong. What makes something an acid is its pH, so there's a huge variety of acids out there, both by compound and how far it is away from neutral on the pH scale.

Many of these we may find on our skin right now. We can take a swim in others. Hell, I used to screw with people (notice a trend here?) in high school by pouring a bit of moderately high-molarity hydrochloric acid into my bare hand, then dropping bits of magnesium ribbon in, watching it fizz away.

Different acids react differently with different compounds/elements. I'm not gonna get into valence shells and other geeky nasties here, but just take my word for it. You can trust me.

• Quote

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

um... yes it is - that is exactly what you do if you breath in WP smoke. By definition you inhale a concentrated acid.

That's not what the CDC found. Their remarks we more consistent with a dilute acid, in my non-professional opinion. It all depends on the concentration of the smoke. They found that it's physically possible to saturate the air with a concentration that would probably be toxic.

The only study we have on acute inhalation in humans shows what appears to be a fairly high concentration of gas in the air (and I may be wrong about this), much higher than the concentration by mass of the gases used in WWI and resulting in only minor effects on the subjects.

What's your reference?

edited for a minor clarification.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,108]

>it doesn't matter how much you come into contact with, ANY acid
>touching you will have harmful effects.

I assume you're kidding here. Acetic acid and ascorbic acid are big parts of some sorts of food. (vinegar and vitamin C.) Phosphoric acid is considerably more dangerous, and is used in food products (like soda) in minute amounts only. Hydrochloric and hydroflouric acid are a different story completely.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

That's not what the CDC found. Their remarks we more consistent with a dilute acid, in my non-professional opinion. It all depends on the concentration of the smoke.

And, likewise, the ambient humidity. Then we can throw in air movement, and temperature, and perhaps another few factors.

From my own experience, I can't be certain, but I don't think the smoke is going to have long-term effect in an outdoor scenario, unless you're close enough to be melted down by the shit anyway. In urban environments, however, there are enclosed rooms. With families huddling together from the onslaught. And I'm sooooooo not down with that.

That's not even mentioning potential "chemical burn" effects on combatants, against which I stand firmly, as well.

[mr2mk1g 10]

You keep repeating the stuff which is the very reason why WP may end up classified as a "chemical weapon". Remember, under the treaty it only needs to cause harm or temporarily incapacitate to be termed a chemical weapon.

The minor effects you keep talking about are inflammation of the eyes and lungs etc. That is all WWI gasses were often required to do, (yes they also ended up killing people too, especially the later worse gasses employed); the primary goal was often simply to temporarily incapacitate the enemy so we could take their trenches. That's why there's the "temporarily incapacitate" clause in the treaty.

This is what I've been saying right from my very first post on the topic a couple of weeks ago. Whether or not WP is a chemical weapon actually hangs on a great big huge technicality.

The technical point of whether or not the subject is incapacitated enough for them to fall within the heading of being "temporarily incapacitated" under the treaty palls in comparison to the harm the thermic properties the weapon exhibits.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

So, breath in that pure white smoke and your lungs and throat start to dissolve.

Key words: PURE and START

Don't sparklers and many other fireworks (especially legal ones) contain WP? Why do we see children holding these sparklers that emit such deadly fumes?


Jeff

Sparklers do NOT contain WP. Some fireworks contain RED phosphorus, which is not anything like as nasty or dangerous as WP.

Typically sparklers contain an oxidizer such as a nitrate or a perchlorate, a binder, such as starch and sulfur, and a metal powder, typically aluminum, that makes the "sparks".

I don't believe WP is found in any consumer products at all.

Why are you apologizing for the inexcusable?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I don't believe WP is found in any consumer products at all.

I believe it's used in certain types of pest traps as a poison, and was used in old types of matches

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

I don't believe WP is found in any consumer products at all.

I believe it's used in certain types of pest traps as a poison, and was used in old types of matches

Matches haven't used WP since around 1845, too dangerous (they caught fire spontaneously and people got bone diseases from the toxic effect). Mostly they're antimony compounds and chlorates, with RP on the striking surface.

I haven't seen any in rat poison either, most are based on compounds that cause internal bleeding, like warfarin and some enzymes (I just got some on account of a mouse infestation in my GF's house's crawl space, and read the labels with interest).

In fact the CDC explicitly states that WP is no longer used in fireworks or rodenticides.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

You keep repeating the stuff which is the very reason why WP may end up classified as a "chemical weapon". Remember, under the treaty it only needs to cause harm or temporarily incapacitate to be termed a chemical weapon.

Well, it's been used as a weapon for decades, I conclude that its proposed reclassification is not due to the novelty of its employment or effects.

Do you suppose they'd ban its advantageous use as a smoke screen if it were used on allies instead of enemies? Or is this never done at all -- you can tell I'm not in the military.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Sparklers do NOT contain WP. Some fireworks contain RED phosphorus, which is not anything like as nasty or dangerous as WP.

This site says that red phosphorous produces white phosphorous by condensation after burning. I suppose that's a good reason not to burn sparklers indoors. Tho it's probably not nearly in the original concentrations of the red phosphorous after burning and condensation.

edit to add: actually that site and several others I've come across indicate that red phosphorous and WP are just allotropes and produce the same P2O5 when burning (which then chemically converts to H3PO4), and that the advantage of the red stuff is primary its stability as a solid. Which makes me wonder about the safety of red phosphorous smoke in relation to WP.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Well, it's been used as a weapon for decades, I conclude that its proposed reclassification is not due to the novelty of its employment or effects.

Maybe, could also be because the convention that keeps getting cited only came into force in 1997.

Quote

Do you suppose they'd ban its advantageous use as a smoke screen if it were used on allies instead of enemies? Or is this never done at all -- you can tell I'm not in the military.

I Dunno. As I posted a few pages back, the Pentagon concluded in its 1995 report entitled "Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical Weapons by Iraq" that Iraq was using it illegally as a chemical weapon when it fired WP at "rebel forces".

I guess they've now changed thier mind.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Maybe, could also be because the convention that keeps getting cited only came into force in 1997.

Aha!

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

You keep repeating the stuff which is the very reason why WP may end up classified as a "chemical weapon". Remember, under the treaty it only needs to cause harm or temporarily incapacitate to be termed a chemical weapon.

Well, it's been used as a weapon for decades, I conclude that its proposed reclassification is not due to the novelty of its employment or effects.

Do you suppose they'd ban its advantageous use as a smoke screen if it were used on allies instead of enemies? Or is this never done at all -- you can tell I'm not in the military.

Beats me. Why would Germany, a very logical nation, initiate gas warfare on the western front in 1915 when the prevailing winds in northwest Europe are from the west? No understanding the military mind, is there?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wesclimb 0]

I think the point most of you are missing is that Saddam used them against civilians. During the operations in Fallujah all civilian were moved out of the city (Operation Fantum Fury)! If you look at the pictures all the bodies are wearing military clothing and load bearing vests. It also appears they had been dead for a while and that they had already begun to rot. I spent 8 month in Fallujah and I can tell you dead bodies are a common sight and that we had to kill allot of dogs that were feeding on said bodies.

It looks like to me that the launching of the WP is being used to lay down smoke to screen the movement of a large force. WP is not a very effective anti-personnel weapon in an urban environment because the Muj were in hardened structures and WP doesn't really burn thru concrete that well.

I don't know in my time over there we never used WP as a anti-personnel weapon and we certainly never used it in area's with allot of civilians. But hell what do I know it seems like you guys have all the answers seeing that most of you couldn't find Iraq on a map to save your life.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

But hell what do I know it seems like you guys have all the answers seeing that most of you couldn't find Iraq on a map to save your life.

1. The "they did it first" defense is all worn out, try another.

2. Since you replied to my post, I most certainly can find Iraq on an unlabelled map.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wesclimb 0]

Didn't say anything about first. What I said is they used them against civilian's. We used them against military targets. What I also said is that those bodies didn't die from WP. I really think what that video shows is some one laying down smoke to mask a movement of troop's. Like I said WP does not make a very good weapon against people in hardened structures because concrete does not burn. Now against a enemy in the Jungle probable a much better weapon.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Should local law enforcement have the personal discretion to kick you around a bit? Why or why not?

If I act up, then yeah. If they have a reason, then yeah, they can kick my ass. If it's completely baseless and for no reason other than to just do it, then that's wrong (same applies to soldiers).

Quote

Bad analogy. In those cases, all the parties involved can defend themselves.

So they guy who's had 10 shots a couple pitchers of beer equally can defend himself against you who's had a few beers? Yeah, I know where I'll put my money.

Quote

What would you call it, then, if someone in a bar got his buddies, strapped you into a chair with leather belts, then started going to town on you?

That is not a bar fight.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

Should local law enforcement have the personal discretion to kick you around a bit? Why or why not?

If I act up, then yeah. If they have a reason, then yeah, they can kick my ass. If it's completely baseless and for no reason other than to just do it, then that's wrong (same applies to soldiers).

I didn't ask about reason; I just said at their discretion.

Here, I'll give you a more specific question: Should law enforcement be able to, in the situation in which you've been arrested for matching the description in a hit-and-run, kick you around a bit until you confess you did it? Why or why not?

Quote

Quote

Bad analogy. In those cases, all the parties involved can defend themselves.

So they guy who's had 10 shots a couple pitchers of beer equally can defend himself against you who's had a few beers? Yeah, I know where I'll put my money.

Straw. Man.

Ever seen a bar fight first hand? I can tell you that most patrons in most bars I've been to (of which there are many, especially taking into account that I don't drink at all) are nowhere near that hammered. And none of the bar fights which I've witnessed (same disclaimer goes) have involved someone that trashed. It's usually a few hits that quickly turns into a grapple, takedown, then rolling about bloodying each other until it gets broken up.

A bit different than a detainee restrained in a chair, hmm?

Quote

Quote

What would you call it, then, if someone in a bar got his buddies, strapped you into a chair with leather belts, then started going to town on you?

That is not a bar fight.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHH!

[gemini 0]

WP has a distinctive flowering pattern when it explodes unlike a smoke shell. The thing most of you are missing is that whenever you are caught under WP or airburst HE rounds you usually die. The difference is that WP will usually roust you out of your hiding place while steel makes you hunker down into your helmet.

Raining down particles of WP or very hot pieces of steel is gona' kill you or hurt you badly in a similar fashion.

What differentiates WP from a true chemical weapon is that after the initial burst and burn it is over while the chemical weapon may hang in the air or in low spots and continue to kill anything that wanders innocently into the area.

In almost all cases WP is not used as a primary weapon. It is a marker that can be delivered by an airborne spotter, an air to ground attack aircraft, or artillery to mark the enemy target area so that the fast movers (jets and high altitude bombers) will have a very visable target. If the goal is to be accurate and minimize non-combatant injuries in a poorly defined target area, use of WP is sometimes called necessary.

Most of you won't agree, but napalm is not considered a chemical weapon by the GC either. Or what about an airburst fuel bomb? Closest thing you can get to a nuclear blast without fisson or fusion.

Blue skies,

Jim

[billvon 3,108]

>Most of you won't agree, but napalm is not considered a
>chemical weapon by the GC either.

That's fine. We should stop calling it that when other people use it, then.