mmm@uunet.UU.NET (08/19/90)
From: <ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.UU.NET> An earlier posting was mostly correct about how nerve gas works, but could use a little elaboration. Acetylcholine is used in some nerve-nerve synapses however its main feature w.r.t. nerve gas is that it is the signal used in neuromuscular junctions. The earlier poster was quite correct that the mechanism of death is asphyxiation. Acetylcholine is the "on" signal. Lacking a continuous assertion of the on signal, an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase cleaves this molecule into choline and acetic acid, which are re-absorbed by the nerve ending. Hardware types can think of acetylcholinesterase as "passive pull-down" of the on-signal. The experience of being hit with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor is quite painful. Most skeletal muscles are paired, i.e. for each muscle there is an opposing muscle. When both muscles contract, you get muscle tearing and perhaps even bones breaking. (Well, if you inject this stuff into a frog, you get bones breaking -- but a frog has thin bones; I don't about humans; I've never injected a human :-) However, nerve agents are regarded (by those familiar with their effects) as very humane weapons. For a given degree of incapacitation, nerve agents cause far fewer deaths than conventional weapons. Among the wounded, a far greater number make a complete recovery. And, among people who survive a nerve gas attack, very few retain any memory of the experience. (This brings up an interesting ethical question -- does suffering really occur if the sufferer doesn't remember it?) Contrast this with conventional munitions. To be effective, they must expose the victim to an extreme concussion, or a severe wound. Either event is much more likely to cause death or permanent disability. Nuclear weapons are even worse -- a dose of prompt neutrons sufficient to incapacitate is lethal. A good book on the subject is TOMORROW'S WEAPONS. I forget the other details, like the author's name. It was published about 20 years ago. The author was the former head of DoD's chemical weapons program, so the book is heavily slanted toward that subject. BTW, common organophosphorus insecticides are just like nerve gas, except they have bulky side groups attached to reduce their toxicity toward higher animals. Insects perform a lot of their respiration through their skin (exoskeleton, actually), so these bulky molecules retain their pesticidal properties. Now if a person were to take some common insecticide like --------- and perform a -------------- reaction, to remove the side groups, you might get something interesting. Perfect for the amateur terrorist who buys all of his supplies at the local Safeway :-)
osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) (08/22/90)
From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) Can someone here state how the nerve gas antidote injection works? I've spent quite a bit of time working in and around hospital environments in the past, and I know that if you just "stick the needle in your arm" (or thigh, hip, or wherever), also known as an IM (intramuscular injection), it takes at least 30-45 minutes to begin taking effect, as the drug must be absorbed by the muscle tissue, then the circulatory system, etc. To work "instantly," as it *seems* would be necessary to counteract a nerve gast that kills in a few minutes, the injection would *have* to be IV (intraveinous, i.e., injected directly into a vein, as in the inside of the elbow). I can't see a soldier on a battlefield giving himself an IV, but it's been my experience that even an orally administrated medication (in liquid form) takes effect much faster than an IM injection. Ron Morgan osmigo@emx.utexas.edu
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (08/24/90)
From: Jack Campin <jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk> > However, nerve agents are regarded (by those familiar with their effects) > as very humane weapons. For a given degree of incapacitation, nerve > agents cause far fewer deaths than conventional weapons. Among the > wounded, a far greater number make a complete recovery. Not sure I believe this. A fair number of workers at Porton Down were accidentally exposed to nerve gases - many of them still have uncontrollable muscle spasms or visual problems years later. (They had an additional problem that under the Official Secrets Act they were not able to tell their own doctors that they had been exposed, so treatment could only be symptomatic). Where does the evidence of long-term innocuousness come from? Dugway? Nazi experiment victims? -- Jack Campin Computing Science Department, Glasgow University, 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland 041 339 8855 x6044 work 041 556 1878 home JANET: jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk BANG!net: via mcsun and ukc FAX: 041 330 4913 INTERNET: via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
sxdjt@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (TABOR DEAN J) (08/28/90)
From: sxdjt@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (TABOR DEAN J) In article <1990Aug22.025219.15961@cbnews.att.com>, ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) writes... > > >From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) > >Can someone here state how the nerve gas antidote injection works? I've spent >quite a bit of time working in and around hospital environments in the past, >and I know that if you just "stick the needle in your arm" (or thigh, hip, or >wherever), also known as an IM (intramuscular injection), it takes at least >30-45 minutes to begin taking effect, as the drug must be absorbed by the Atropine/ephinephrine have a quick absorption rate, even with an IM injection. As for why IV administration isn't used, imagine this: Someone is shooting at you, you have been exposed to poison gas, you are in a less-than-hospitable environment, and you have this *big* needle in your hand. Would YOU want to try and get a vein with that? Not I. *-------(-:-S-t-a-n-d-a-r-d---D-i-s-c-l-a-i-m-e-r---A-p-p-l-i-e-s-:-)-------* |Dean J. Tabor EMT-III | University of Alaska Computer Network - Operations | |SXDJT@ALASKA.bitnet | Fairbanks, AK USA (no, I don't live in an igloo)| |=+=+=+=+=+=-It's not how fast you go, it's how well you go fast-=+=+=+=+=+=| *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (08/28/90)
From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie In article <1990Aug18.182811.24916@cbnews.att.com>, ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@uunet.UU.NET writes: > However, nerve agents are regarded (by those familiar with their effects) > as very humane weapons. For a given degree of incapacitation, nerve agents > cause far fewer deaths than conventional weapons. Among the wounded, a far > greater number make a complete recovery. And, among people who survive a As far as I know it's the other way round: the reason nerve gases and other chemical weapons are banned by international treaty is that while they cause fewer deaths than conventional weapons, if you get hit by nerve gas you don't completely recover. Some of the damage to the nervous system is permanent. Even if you don't spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair (or a lunatic asylum - they can affect the brain as well as the motor nerves), you get your health permanently damaged. This certainly happens to people who get exposed to enough pesticide to get sick but not die. "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/31/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie >> However, nerve agents are regarded (by those familiar with their effects) >> as very humane weapons. For a given degree of incapacitation, nerve agents >> cause far fewer deaths than conventional weapons. Among the wounded, a far >> greater number make a complete recovery... >As far as I know it's the other way round: the reason nerve gases and other >chemical weapons are banned by international treaty is that while they cause >fewer deaths than conventional weapons, if you get hit by nerve gas you don't >completely recover... Which weapons are banned by international treaty and which aren't is almost totally capricious, based more on psychological issues than on considerations of humaneness. Napalm and white phosphorus, when used as antipersonnel weapons, are really ugly to get hit with, and no attempt has ever been made to ban them. Actually, there is one discernible trend: the weapons that get banned are the ones that are generally agreed to be nearly useless, or to add very little to an already-effective weapon which is not banned. I think what we have here is a confusion of old and new chemical weapons. *Historically*, in pre-nerve-gas days, it was indeed true that chemical weapons very seldom killed or permanently injured soldiers. (The tales you see about people blinded by gas in WWI are basically propaganda; the actual numbers say that there were only a handful of permanent blindings due to gas, a drop in the bucket compared to the number of men blinded by shell splinters and bullets.) Almost all WWI gas casualties recovered completely. Whether this would also apply to nerve agents is much less clear. There has been little serious use of them in warfare, and little information about the cases that have occurred. Pesticide experience is not very encouraging, however. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
sporay@adm.brl.mil (/usr/brl/bin/Pnews: /usr/bin/ypmatch: cannot execute) (09/18/90)
From: "/usr/brl/bin/Pnews: /usr/bin/ypmatch: cannot execute" <sporay@adm.brl.mil> >>>*Historically*, in pre-nerve-gas days, it was indeed true that chemical >>>weapons very seldom killed or permanently injured soldiers. >> >>Yes, during WW1 fewer chemical casualties were killed then injured, that >>holds true for just about any weapon. >I checked Ian Hogg's book "Gas" for the numbers. 7% of gas casualties >died; 12% had some degree of permanent disability. These numbers aren't >quite as low as I misremembered them, but they are still well below the >corresponding ones for any other major weapon. Take into consideration that during WW1 chemical weapons were not used on every battlefield like <other major weapon>s, thats why the percentages are lower. Did you think that for every HE round fired there was a compli- entary H-series or CG round that followed. On those battlefields where first generation chemical weapons were used they were effective, despite the inefficiency in which they were deliveried. "Out of 224,089 A.E.F. soldiers recorded as having been admitted to hospital for all purposes, 70,552 were suffering from gas alone and a number of others were suffering from bullet or shell wounds and gas. In addition there were nearly 1,000 U.S. Marine gas casualties listed separately." This means that over 30% of the wounds received by American troops were attributed to chemical weapons. >>One reason why casualties weren't >>higher was because the means of delivery was primative compared to the >>modern battle field. In the beginning of WW1 they used gas cylinders and >>piped it over trench walls with the wind blowing toward the enemy, today >>chemicals agents are delivered by aircraft spray, bomblets, artillery, >>missiles, and mortars. Back then you could run from a chemical cloud... >Only if by "back then" you mean *early* in WW1. Most of the methods you >mention were in use by 1918. Gas cylinders were very quickly recognized >as a very inefficient method of attack; artillery and mortars replaced >them. You couldn't run from those. The first battle at Ypres, France took place in 1915 so that is <*early*>. "By early summer 1917 both sides had cylinders and shells and a chemical warfare stalemate had been reached; then the Germans used mustard gas for the first time. It took the Allies months to catch up, but they did in the end." Gas cylinders were used to the end of the war and were not replaced, artillery and mortar chemical rounds were just added to the inventory of new weapons, the same was true for the flamethrower it didn't replace the trench lighter. One of the largest gas cylinder attacks took place late in the war "5,000 cylinders had been discharged and reports said the gas had travelled up to eight miles behind the enemy lines, causing more than 4,000 casualties." >>>(The tales you see about people blinded by gas in WWI are basically >>>propaganda... >>Lewisite (blister agent) was ready for use before the end of WW1 but >>did not go into service... [it blinded] >Nobody is disputing that later gases were worse than the ones used in WW1. "Under the terms of the Armistice Treaty the Germans were obliged to reveal the secrets of the manufacture of all their war gases and it was learned that they too had experimented with a form of Lewisite, the Germans had once again, used the Russian front for their experiments." reference Moore, William, Gas Attack, Hippocrene Books, 1987 ************************************************** sporay@brl.mil
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/20/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry |From: "" <sporay@adm.brl.mil> |>I checked Ian Hogg's book "Gas" for the numbers. 7% of gas casualties |>died; 12% had some degree of permanent disability. These numbers aren't |>quite as low as I misremembered them, but they are still well below the |>corresponding ones for any other major weapon. | |Take into consideration that during WW1 chemical weapons were not used on |every battlefield like <other major weapon>s, thats why the percentages |are lower... Please read what I wrote! Those are percentages of total *gas* casualties, not percentages of total casualties. -- TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry