 |
|
« Busy Morning (Revisado) | Main | And The Best Use Of Misleading Headlines Award Goes To... » November 17, 2005
WP Science 2: Chemical Boogaloo
Posted by Dorkafork Instapundit has a great roundup that includes this post by Bruce Rolston. An excellent post until the end, where I believe he is far too generous to the anti-WP side. NOTE: For the record, the case that WP is a "chemical weapon" under the terms of the 1993 UN Chemical Weapons Convention is probably stronger than arguing it is an "incendiary weapon" under the terms of Geneva. WP is a lousy way to start a fire in anything less flammable than a dry haystack. It does, however, easily cause burns to its victims, due what is essentially a violent chemical reaction between the phosphorus and the surrounding air, and the CWC defines prohibited chemicals in weapons as "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals." That clearly excludes explosive effects (sorry, Colby) but it is inclusive of caustics and chemical burning agents, which WP could reasonably be compared to. But how exactly does WP burn people? What is the difference between chemical burns and regular burning? How does stuff burn? Here is a simple description of how things burn. "Burning is a chemical process by which two atoms or molecules will combine with each other. In burning, the two atoms or molecules will combine and release energy. Usually one of the two molecules is oxygen or something else chemically like it called an oxidizer. When the molecules combine and release energy, it is released in the form of heat and often light." Often oxygen is part of the equation. For example, when wood burns, the carbon in the wood combines with O2 to form CO2. That's what happens in a fire. And that's pretty much how WP works. In fact, white phosphorus works in this manner in an extreme way. It will oxidize (combine with oxygen) immediately upon exposure. That is why WP is stored and handled underwater. Once it is pulled out it will "ignite spontaneously with the oxygen in air at temperatures above 88°F (31°C)."* And this burning is not essentially different from any other flame or incendiary agent. I think it is safe to argure that this type of chemical reaction is not covered under the 1993 UN Chemical Weapons Convention, because that would not only have banned incendiary agents (legal under Protocol III), but if it's read that broadly then any explosive and even bullets would be banned. Mr. Ralston of course does not argue this, he suggests that it may be "inclusive of caustics and chemical burning agents, which WP could reasonably be compared to." How are chemical burns caused? Again, I am not an expert, but it seems chemical burns are "typically caused by coagulation necrosis of tissue rather than by direct heat production." It will certainly feel like heat production due to damage of the tissue, and it can generate actual heat energy, but that is not the defining characteristic of a chemical burn. It appears to be the recombination of ions in the acid that does the damage. "Acids are defined as proton donors (H+), and bases are defined as proton acceptors (OH-). Bases also are known as alkalies. Both acids and bases can be defined as caustics, which cause significant tissue damage on contact." "The fluoride ion is the primary agent responsible for the prolonged destruction seen in hydrofluoric acid burns." Though it seems from a brief overview that the main action of chemical burns involves hydrogen ions. While WP may cause a chemical reaction similar to that which causes chemical burns, remember we're talking about a substance that spontaneously ignites in flames at (close to) room temperature. Through a normal chemical reaction commonly known as "burning". And if "burning" is outlawed by the CWC, then pretty much every modern weapon is illegal. I can understand how this argument became widespread on the left. This dailyKos post mentions Peter Kaiser, of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (the organization that administers the CWC), who argues on RAI that "If [...] the caustic properties [are] intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited [under the CWC].[...] Any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons." Unfortunately for readers of Kos, Peter Kaiser has apparently backed down from this argument: "However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for 'military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty." (See previous post here, includes warnings about my ignorance and links to previous coverage of WP.) (Incidentally, when looking at the history of the CWC, I ran into this gem: "Negotiations on a chemical weapons ban treaty went on for 12 years, from 1980 to 1992. Near the end of these negotiations in Geneva, the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, against both Iran and its own Kurdish citizens in Halabja, was brought to world attention. The effect of mustard gas and other agents on ordinary people, and the horrific photographs that were published around the world, made all the more urgent the work of the diplomats on a treaty not only banning the use, production, and stockpiling of chemical weapons, but also a treaty that would contain a mechanism for verifying a State's compliance with the treaty's provisions.")
Posted by Dorkafork at November 17, 2005 01:41 PM | TrackBack (4) Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsIn my research on this, I've found that when WP burns, the temperature of the combustion is over 2000 degrees Celsius. Cotton burns at 450. How could anything that burns at 2000 not ignite something that burns at 450? It couldn't; the whole "burns flesh but doesn't burn clothes" line is a lie, intended to let them blame the effects of decomposition on WP. Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 18, 2005 07:44 AM An Army JAG officer wrote a comprehensive article for a US military trade rag "Field Artillery". The use of White Phosphorus ordnance as an anti-personnel weapon is mentioned specifically in the course of the broader discussion. The article is titled "Law of War and Fire Support" It was written in 2001. As it's an article written by an Army lawyer (with field experience) regarding the current topic I thought it might be useful. Posted by: USVet at November 18, 2005 08:47 AM Um, mostly agree, but the "caustic substance" referred to probably isn't phosphorus, but more likely phosphorus pentoxide, the combustion byproduct. This converts to phosphoric acid on contact with water, which means that it's caustic to eyes, lungs, moist skin and mucous membranes in general. That said, there's generally no lasting damage due to contact with the smoke. I'm sure you know all of this, but I just wanted to point out that...well, if anyone thinks P is caustic, they're wrong. Posted by: Slartibartfast at November 18, 2005 10:57 AM I discussed phosphorus pentoxide and it's production of phosphoric acid in a previous post. While neither substance is harmless, they don't seem to be especially toxic or caustic. Posted by: dorkafork at November 18, 2005 01:49 PM OK, we know a little about 'Whisky Pete': We also know the it was used in Fallujah for 'shake and bake' missions (this after we were told it was only used for obscurance and lighting). We found this out here: 'b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider Interesting, just below that, this was mentioned: 'c. Hexachloroethane Zinc (HC) Smoke and Precision-Guided Munitions.We could have used these munitions. We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal '
Check out this site, and the video: http://www.exercisevacuum.com/
Regs, Shaggy Posted by: shaggydabbydo at November 18, 2005 02:31 PM 'CWC defines prohibited chemicals in weapons as "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals."'
Posted by: shaggydabbydo at November 18, 2005 02:35 PM Shaggy: WP smoke causes "death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm"? Has it ever done so? All evidence is toward more of an effect of mild, temporary irritation. I know of no documented fatalities or permanent harm caused by WP smoke. (Incapacitation? Well, I suppose "coughing a lot" might qualify, but that would disqualify normal ammunition, as the smoke is also quite acrid and causes coughing. And yet the CWC does not consider normal ammunition a prohibited chemical.) You're trying very hard, but it's just not there. It's not a Chemical Weapon. See the Update from Peter Kaiser at the end of the main post. Even the enforcement agency for the treaty is quite clear that WP smoke simply isn't a chemical weapon. Posted by: Sigivald at November 18, 2005 03:36 PM Hmmmm. On burns, I think the term chemical burn, like dry ice burn and LN2 burn, is more a descriptive term for what they all feel like. The tissue damage and the treatment are different in all three cases. By the defination that Shaggy is pushing everything is a chemical weapon. I can terminate you with water, N2, or dirt... I think its the name. P and PO5 are just so chemically sounding they must be bad and HC must be too. What the problem really is IMHO is the news media are scientifically uneducated and basically greeny luddites. But I'm a chemist and probably just bitter... Posted by: Kevin at November 19, 2005 12:48 AM If there is a distinction between "chemical burns" and "regular burns" it would have to be that regular burns are caused by extreme temperature (perhaps including extreme cold) while chemical burns are caused by chemical properties other than heat, such as acid or base. Posted by: Alec at November 21, 2005 05:05 AM P.S. WP burns by extreme temperature, hence it causes "regular" burns, not "chemical" burns. Posted by: Alec at November 21, 2005 05:08 AM I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $40680. Isn't that crazy! Posted by: Betsy Markum at May 31, 2006 12:45 PM http://www.ringtones-rate.com/mp3/ ringtones site free. Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. from website . Posted by: funny ringtones at September 10, 2006 04:20 AM Posted by: viagra online at November 17, 2006 08:44 PM drmnvbep obdpqkca emardks hpogar yzohacts qilhfrksg qpfbekomn Posted by: qgeslupb dmfqntv at December 1, 2006 12:52 PM kwetdc eokda nhycirgv clptkdymq htofmugjx ugwbkopf cduhv http://www.hrjfytgx.sxpgwc.com Posted by: hbanqgezt kzuw at December 1, 2006 12:53 PM sehcqatdb updlzk eqhmxrlu eaqyfio gwbajifoy pive trenbi [URL=http://www.rbhe.zixdqanoc.com]lgwn gocqi[/URL] Posted by: aierwt hyvslgmqz at December 1, 2006 12:53 PM upomkzl ezhxbcr kzmasnyev rlawj oslz uylbp xaprf [URL]http://www.psgutdya.fjeus.com[/URL] tlxghmf kgnrewld Posted by: wagkdsh qompxrf at December 1, 2006 12:54 PM upomkzl ezhxbcr kzmasnyev rlawj oslz uylbp xaprf [URL]http://www.psgutdya.fjeus.com[/URL] tlxghmf kgnrewld Posted by: wagkdsh qompxrf at December 1, 2006 12:54 PM Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob Posted by: Cellphone at April 14, 2007 02:37 AM Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery... Posted by: Terence Wilcox at April 16, 2007 07:56 AM Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery... Posted by: Terence Wilcox at April 16, 2007 07:57 AM Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery... Posted by: Terence Wilcox at April 16, 2007 07:58 AM Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81... Posted by: Joaquin Montanez at April 17, 2007 03:24 AM Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81... Posted by: Joaquin Montanez at April 17, 2007 03:25 AM Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81... Posted by: Joaquin Montanez at April 17, 2007 03:26 AM |
