5 ms·
Because many people unfortunately don't bother to read articles and merely check comments, the relevant section: "HC is a highly regulated toxin, labeled as a
by istorical 6y ago
Because many people unfortunately don't bother to read articles and merely check comments, the relevant section:
"HC is a highly regulated toxin, labeled as a “likely carcinogen” and skin irritant by the Environmental Protection Agency. Eye masks and gloves are recommended for people who handle the chemical. Defense Technologies, an imprint of Pennsylvania-based security equipment manufacturer Safariland, markets the HC canisters as “military-style” smokers, even though the U.S. military actually stopped using HC in grenades in the 1990s due to its extreme toxicity.
Activists are more concerned about the chemicals that leave the canister than those packed inside it. Firing an HC grenade triggers a two-stage reaction in which the chlorine in HC rapidly combines with metallic zinc, resulting in zinc chloride, a toxic metal fume that appears as a greenish-white smoke. “It’s a chemical reaction in a can,” says Simonis. “The zinc chloride is an intentional product of the grenade’s design.” The Material Safety Data Sheet supplied by Safariland, however, doesn’t mention zinc chloride at all.
Gaseous zinc chloride, also known as hexite, is more than an alternative type of tear gas. Because it contains the super-hot gaseous forms of both chloride ions and zinc, a heavy metal, hexite plumes are highly mobile and extremely dangerous to most forms of life. The chloride ions increase the uptake of zinc particles by exposed cells on the skin or mucous membranes. Zinc can accumulate in tissues and organs, then mobilize later and cause a new set of symptoms. The most striking effects of zinc chloride toxicity in the street — vomiting, burning skin, coughing — are only the first onslaught of a chronic, unpredictable respiratory condition that can cause severe liver damage, fatigue, weight loss, and anorexia, in addition to difficulty breathing.
Zinc toxicity sharply contrasts with the effects of tear gas, which tend to be excruciating but short-lived, with dangerous exceptions. “[Conventional tear gas] causes pain through a specific mechanism,” says B. Zane Horowitz, PhD, an emergency toxicologist in the Portland area and author of a recent op-ed decrying the city’s use of tear gas on protesters in the journal Toxicology Communications. Tear gas shorts the nervous system’s pain response, essentially creating the experience of pain without doing lasting damage — most of the time. Still, says Horowitz, “There’s no reason to have pain inflicted on you if you haven’t done anything wrong.”
Seems like some war crime style agent orange kinda stuff to me. Why not just spray asbestos into the air instead.
- claudeganon 6y agoUsing chemical weapons is already a war crime, so governments just decided that the chemical weapons they use on their own people are not chemical weapons. Tear Gas was the first chemical weapon used in World War I: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3103718?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3103718?seq=1
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe classification of war crimes just doesn't have much to do with what's needed in the context of domestic policing. Hollow-point bullets are the canonical example; they're illegal in war but required for police, because the fully jacketed bullets used in war are much more likely to hurt bystanders.
- solidsnack9000 6y agoThe laws of war don't apply outside of war. The military can't use tear gas on the battlefield; military police can use tear gas against rioting soldiers and sailors. Soldiers can't use hollow point bullets even in those calibers, like 7.62x51mm, where that is by far the most common type of bullet used by civilians because of its effectiveness in hunting; but police use hollow point bullets all the time, in part because they are more effective against unarmored targets (though less effective against armored ones) and in part because they are much less likely to pass through a wall and strike someone the officer can't see. These differences are not due to governments deciding that tear gas is not a chemical weapon or that hollow point bullets are not hollow point bullets, but rather because the laws of war apply in war and not elsewhere. If you were serious about the war crimes thing, you'd have to acknowledge the Antifa and BLM committed war crimes by not having uniforms and clear insignia and by not distinguishing between civilians and non-civilian property when destroying things during their raids. There is no such thing as a body of law that applies to only one side. Talking about war crimes in this context really is disinformation: it confuses what those laws are about as well as the difference between international and domestic jurisdiction.
- falcolas 6y agoHow ironic that we hold government combatants to higher standards of morality when fighting foreigners than their own citizens.