D
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
Canuck 36
Guest
The link seems to support my initial question:
Seems as though more study is needed, but basically it's not something most would choose to be exposed to.
How can white phosphorus affect my health?
Little information is available about the health effects that may be caused by white phosphorus. Most of what is known about the effects of breathing white phosphorus is from studies of workers. Most of what is known about the effects of eating white phosphorus is from reports of people eating rat poison or fireworks that contained it.
Breathing white phosphorus for short periods may cause coughing and irritation of the throat and lungs. Breathing white phosphorus for long periods may cause a condition known as "phossy jaw" which involves poor wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jaw bone.
Eating or drinking small amounts of white phosphorus may cause liver, heart, or kidney damage, vomiting, stomach cramps, drowsiness, or death. We do not know what the effects are from eating or drinking very small amounts of white phosphorus-containing substances over long periods of time. Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage.
We do not know whether or not white phosphorus can affect the ability to have children or cause birth defects in people.
Seems as though more study is needed, but basically it's not something most would choose to be exposed to.
B
bizorky
Guest
Not to be pedantic, but...
Explosives are essentially all chemical weapons. I was being facetious with my comment about gasoline.
I guess the insurgent who choose to use explosives to purposefully kill hundreds of civilians in Iraq could be argued as using chemical weapons against civilians.
Explosives are essentially all chemical weapons. I was being facetious with my comment about gasoline.
I guess the insurgent who choose to use explosives to purposefully kill hundreds of civilians in Iraq could be argued as using chemical weapons against civilians.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
I guess the insurgent who choose to use explosives to purposefully kill hundreds of civilians in Iraq could be argued as using chemical weapons against civilians.
an explosion is death by rapid expansion of energy.
white phosphorus is death by a corrosive chemical reaction when it comes in contact with skin.
neither is a better way to die but eliminating the use of one at a time is better than leaving all these deadly options available.
in war, there tends to be a "what you do on to us will be done on to you" mentality. the reason why torture, chemical agents, etc shouldn't be used is because when the other side gets the chance, they'll get even.
       
B
bizorky
Guest
an explosion is death by rapid expansion of energy.
Uh, an explosion is caused by a chemical reaction (unless it's nuclear). You can't "expand" energy; you can release it. There are a variety of types of chemical reactions that can do this. I can dig up a few household cleaners that can bring about a nice chemical reaction, some of which can even cause death.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
white phosphorus is death by a corrosive chemical reaction when it comes in contact with skin.
I believe it's more of a burning reaction. It's exothermic, not oxidizing like acid.
neither is a better way to die but eliminating the use of one at a time is better than leaving all these deadly options available.
I have to disagree with you on that. I think an explosion is a much better way to go. Over very fast, and possibly painless. Being burnt to death by WP just doesn't seem to have an upside.
I don't see much of a point in eliminating WP, beyond what's already been done. Something else much worse will inevitably be used (FAE/thermobarics?).
in war, there tends to be a "what you do on to us will be done on to you" mentality.
No. That's whats known as "mirror-imaging", and doesn't work. Each side will do what it feels it needs to do, and if it feels that the advantages of a certain action outweigh the disadvantages, they'll do it. That's regardless of which side did it first.
the reason why torture, chemical agents, etc shouldn't be used is because when the other side gets the chance, they'll get even.
Totally untrue. Torture shouldn't be used because it's unreliable, just like chemical weapons. Whether the other side uses them or not doesn't really matter in most cases. Your logic would justify beheading insurgents because they did it first.
Kevin
D
dan e 1980
Guest
bad wording on my part. rapid release of energy expanding (directed) outwards.
yes, it still doesn't make it a chemical weapon because it's not the chemical reaction that does the end damage, it's the burst of energy, projectiles and heat that kill. the chemical reaction in an explosive just starts the process while the reaction of white phosphourus on the skin is the process.
Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.
Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force. The offensive use of living organisms (such as anthrax) is considered to be biological warfare rather than chemical warfare. However, the use in war of toxic products produced by living organisms (e.g., toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, or saxitoxin) is considered as chemical warfare under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion).
Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations, and their production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.
here are a variety of types of chemical reactions that can do this.
yes, it still doesn't make it a chemical weapon because it's not the chemical reaction that does the end damage, it's the burst of energy, projectiles and heat that kill. the chemical reaction in an explosive just starts the process while the reaction of white phosphourus on the skin is the process.
Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations) using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or incapacitate the enemy.
Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force. The offensive use of living organisms (such as anthrax) is considered to be biological warfare rather than chemical warfare. However, the use in war of toxic products produced by living organisms (e.g., toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, or saxitoxin) is considered as chemical warfare under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion).
Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations, and their production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.
B
bizorky
Guest
White Phosphorous has nothing in common with anthrax or ricin. It is not a weapon of mass destruction like a biological agent. It falls more into the category of an explosive and has military uses beyond the use as a weapon.
It is very important that the distinction between "conventional" weapons and WMD be understood. It would be very wrong to confuse the two. Many biological and chemical agents would not employ explosives for disbursment, so this already provides one key distinction between the two types of weapons.
When it comes to real chemical weapons, it most definitely is the chemical reaction that does the damage. That is the whole point of this class of weaponry. The damage from White Phosphorous is through burning, which is as old as the hills in human conflict.
It is very important that the distinction between "conventional" weapons and WMD be understood. It would be very wrong to confuse the two. Many biological and chemical agents would not employ explosives for disbursment, so this already provides one key distinction between the two types of weapons.
When it comes to real chemical weapons, it most definitely is the chemical reaction that does the damage. That is the whole point of this class of weaponry. The damage from White Phosphorous is through burning, which is as old as the hills in human conflict.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
It's quite clear that WP is not a chemical weapon.
Thermic reactions fit under the General Purpose Criterion.
Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion).
Thermic reactions fit under the General Purpose Criterion.
B
bizorky
Guest
Canuck,
There is a bit of a difference between White Phosphorous and phosphorous. Phosphorous is a mineral and helpful in strengthening bones and teeth. You can buy it as a supplement at your local pharmacy.
There is a bit of a difference between White Phosphorous and phosphorous. Phosphorous is a mineral and helpful in strengthening bones and teeth. You can buy it as a supplement at your local pharmacy.
G
ganjavih
Guest
It's quite clear that WP is not a chemical weapon
It's not "quite clear", it's a controversial issue.
C
Canuck 36
Guest
I realize bizorky, I should have been clearer in my comments differing between the two.
B
bizorky
Guest
^Then again, just imagine a battlefield where the munitions would be vitamin and mineral supplements.
D
dan e 1980
Guest
they may list WP as an incendiary weapon but it still acts and has the effects of a chemical weapon.
it's just like saying that those guys in iraq that strap bombs on their chest and kill a bunch of innocent people aren't terrorists but rather "insurgents". do you know why they are insurgents? because if they were called terrorists, how would it look that america brought terrorism to a nation where terrorism didn't even exist before. i bet journalists aren't even allowed to call them terrorists!! how fu<ked up is that!!
things are named in a specific way because certain words offer you protections.
for example, you can't call someone at camp X-ray a prisoner of war because there would have to be a whole legal procedure followed. instead they're call detainees.
Arms control status
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.
but hey, the states never signed the paper so it was ok to use the "incendiary weapon" in populated areas.
it's just like saying that those guys in iraq that strap bombs on their chest and kill a bunch of innocent people aren't terrorists but rather "insurgents". do you know why they are insurgents? because if they were called terrorists, how would it look that america brought terrorism to a nation where terrorism didn't even exist before. i bet journalists aren't even allowed to call them terrorists!! how fu<ked up is that!!
things are named in a specific way because certain words offer you protections.
for example, you can't call someone at camp X-ray a prisoner of war because there would have to be a whole legal procedure followed. instead they're call detainees.
Arms control status
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.
but hey, the states never signed the paper so it was ok to use the "incendiary weapon" in populated areas.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
It's not "quite clear", it's a controversial issue.
Not among the appropriate authorities. The OPCW is THE authority on the Chemical Weapons Convention, and they've said that WP isn't a chemical weapon in this application.
they may list WP as an incendiary weapon but it still acts and has the effects of a chemical weapon.
It's only a chemical weapon if used for it's toxic properties. In this case, it's not.
for example, you can't call someone at camp X-ray a prisoner of war because there would have to be a whole legal procedure followed. instead they're call detainees.
Actually, they're called "illegal combatants". They aren't covered by the Geneva or Hague conventions because they didn't follow the Rules of Land Warfare, and therefore aren't entitled to the protections of the Geneva/Hague conventions. The traditional method of dealing with them was a quick firing squad, but the Americans insist on due process.
Use of white phosphorus is not specifically banned by any treaty, however the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian populations or by air attack against military forces that are located within concentrations of civilians. [2] The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed protocol III.
How about quoting the entire Protocol III, including the parts that don't support your case?