very nifty
Vodpod videos no longer available.
22 Thursday Oct 2009
very nifty
Vodpod videos no longer available.
22 Thursday Oct 2009
Posted Air Quality, Alternative Energy, Alternative Fuels, Creating Solutions for America, cricketdiane, Energy Solutions, Engineering, Extreme Engineering, Freedom of Thought, Hybrid Vehicles, innovation, Inventing Solutions For America, invention, inventiveness, Physics of Change, Solutions, Thoughts, Twenty-first Century, Uncategorized, Workable Solutions, XI-1
inTags
Alternative Energy, alternative fuel, cricketdiane, Extreme Engineering, Eye of Enlightenment, Hybrid Vehicles, Inventions, nifty stuff, Solutions
Embedded video from <a href=”http://www.cnn.com/video” mce_href=”http://www.cnn.com/video”>CNN Video</a>
***
***
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/10/21/vo.tokyo.motor.show.monocycle.cnn
Honda debuts a one-wheel personal mobility device at the Tokyo Motor Show.
***
12 Monday Oct 2009
Tags
Chicago, Chicago schools, Civil Rights, conspiracy, corruption, cricketdiane, Human Rights, injustice, life in the United States, police brutality, US government policy, US history
UPDATE (at bottom): Cop who assaulted teen now in jail on rape charge; shot ex-wife’s new husband 24 times in ‘self defense’
For the offense of not having his shirt tucked in, 15-year-old special needs student Marshawn Pitts was slammed into a wall of lockers and pounded repeatedly in the face by a police officer who broke the boy’s nose and bloodied his mouth.
The Dolton, Illinois teen told a local CBS affiliate that the officer was cursing at him as he complied with the order to tuck in his shirt. Then, “it was just like, boom!” he said.
The assault, which took place in May, was recorded on a security camera at the Chicago suburb’s Academy for Learning.
“The academy is a high school for special-needs students who are emotionally disturbed or struggle with behavioral disorders,” noted Chicago Breaking News. “Marshawn was a student there because he suffered brain injuries when he was hit by a car years ago, [family attorney Edward] Manzke said.”
During the recording, the officer stoops down and places a cup of coffee on the floor, then threw the teen into the lockers before pummeling him and pinning him to the floor in a maneuver known as the “face-down take-down.”
“Zena Naiditch of Equip for Equality, a legal advocacy group that fights for the rights of people with disabilities, looked at the video and said the type of physical restraint used by the officer has killed students,” CBS News reported.
Naiditch added that the hold can be lethal because those trapped by it are left unable to breathe. CBS noted that seven states currently prohibit officers from using the “face-down take-down.”
The officer has not been identified, but due to the filmed evidence of the assault he has been terminated from the force.
Manzke told WBBM News Radio 780 that Marshawn has since transferred to a new school and the family is planning to file a lawsuit.
This video is from CBS 2 in Chicago, broadcast Oct. 7, 2009.
UPDATE: Cop who assaulted teen now in jail on rape charge; shot ex-wife’s new husband 24 times in ‘self defense’
The officer who brutally beat special needs student Marshawn Pitts has been identified as 38-year-old Christopher Lloyd, according to Chicago Breaking News, which spoke to Lloyd’s father.
The news agency reported that Lloyd is currently in jail after being charged with the rape of a woman he knew and is facing a 20-year sentence should he be convicted.
The Chicago Tribune-backed service adds: “A lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, Nicole McKinney, last summer alleges he gunned down her new husband Cornel McKinney in front of their children outside their home on the 6100 block of South Langley Avenue on Feb. 17, 2008.”
An autopsy revealed Lloyd shot the man 24 times, the agency found. He was not jailed at the time as Chicago police accepted his explanation that the killing was in self-defense.
Lloyd also reportedly told his father that the boy he was filmed assaulting had a history of behavioral problems and had cursed at him when told to tuck in his shirt.
Image sample credit: CBS News.
[from – ]
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/camera-catches-cop-assault-of-15-year-old-special-needs-student/
***
My Note –
If the Chicago authorities had not let this police officer get away with shooting somebody 24 times which was violent brutality and MURDER – the rest of the damage he has done, wouldn’t have been done.
And, since when does anything someone might say, excuse brutality, violence, physical assault or murder by police or anybody else. What kind of model of behavior is that? It is against the law by anyone’s standards and is nothing but sadistic and criminal behavior and the law should apply to police officers when they engage in criminal brutality against us.
When the police officers act no differently than the most evil and sadistic of criminals, they are no longer serving the public good.
– cricketdiane
***
12 Monday Oct 2009
Tags
chemical warfare, Civil Rights, conspiracy and corruption, cricketdiane, EPA superfund sites, Human Rights, International Concerns, US government policy, US history, US human rights violations, Washington DC
Strange Conspiracy in a Land of Freedom, Honor and Integrity 4 – Washington and what human rights and civil rights are? Have our leaders ever had integrity, decency and honor?
***
Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
P2OG stands for Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, a U.S. intelligence agency that would employ black world (black operations) tactics.
Contents
* 1 General information
* 2 See also
* 3 References
* 4 External links
General information
The Defense Science Board (DSB) conducted a 2002 DSB Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism. [1] Excerpts from that study, dated August 16, 2002, recommend the creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception.[2] For example, the Pentagon and CIA would work together to increase human intelligence (HUMINT), forward/operational presence and to deploy new clandestine technical capabilities.[3] Concerning the tactics P2OG would use,
Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at stimulating reactions among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction—that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to quick-response attacks by U.S. forces.
Such tactics would hold states/sub-state actors accountable and signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk , the briefing paper declares.[2]
See also
Operation Northwoods
References
1. ^ Defense Science Board, DSB Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism, U.S. Department of Defense, Final Outbrief, August 16, 2002; 78 pages (in PowerPoint format). Text of the document in HTML format. Here is a 30-page excerpt from the foregoing (in PowerPoint format). This is the publicly published U.S. government document which proposes P2OG.
2. ^ a b William M. Arkin, The Secret War: Frustrated by intelligence failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its ‘black world’ of covert operations, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2002. Also available here.
3. ^ David Isenberg, ‘P2OG’ allows Pentagon to fight dirty, Asia Times, November 5, 2002.
External links
* Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Project on Government Secrecy, DOD Examines ‘Preemptive’ Intelligence Operations, Secrecy News, Vol. 2002, Issue No. 107, October 28, 2002.
* Chris Floyd, Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks, CounterPunch, November 1, 2002. Also appeared in Moscow Times, November 1, 2002, pg. XXIV; St. Petersburg Times, November 5, 2002; and under the title Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism, Collected Writings: Past Articles by Chris Floyd, April 15, 2005. This article was chosen number four in Project Censored’s Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003, (#4) Rumsfeld’s Plan to Provoke Terrorists.
* Seymour M. Hersh, The Coming Wars: What the Pentagon can now do in secret, The New Yorker, January 24, 2005 edition. Referenced by the below Chris Floyd article.
* Chris Floyd, Global Eye, Moscow Times, January 21, 2005, Issue 3089, pg. 112; also appeared as Darkness Visible: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism is Now in Operation, Collected Writings: Past Articles by Chris Floyd, April 15, 2005.
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group
Categories: Espionage | Official documents of the United States | United States intelligence agencies | United States intelligence operations | 2002 works | Counter-terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group
***
***
(They’ve been finding these WWI munitions, arsenic, lewisite and other chemical weapons components on Washington, D.C.’s American University campus and the surrounding neighborhood since 1993, including some Lewisite and buried lab contents recently in September and October of 2009. The area is still filled with arsenic from the WWI chemical weapons lab and test firing compound that were originally in the area. – my note)
Washington D.C. Chemical Munitions
EPA ID# DCD983971136
NPL Status: Not on NPL
50th and Massachusettes
Washington, DC 20015
District of Columbia
Contacts
Remedial Project Manager
Steven Hirsh
215-814-3352
hirsh.steven@epa.gov
Community Involvement Coordinator
William Hudson
215-814-5532
hudson.william@epa.gov
You will need the free Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more.
Current Site Information
Site Actions
ATSDR’s Health Consultation September 2005 (PDF) (138 pp, 980K)
* Figure 1 (PDF) (1 p, 538K)
* Figure 2 (PDF) (1 p, 895K)
* Figure 3 (PDF) (1p, 147K)
* Figure 4 (PDF) (1 p, 905K)
* Brochure (PDF) (5 pp, 246K)
ATSDR’s Health Consultation February 2005 (PDF) (74 pp, 233K)
* Figure 1 (PDF) (2 pp, 534K)
* Figure 2 (PDF) (1 p, 895K)
* Figure 3 (PDF) (1 p, 147K)
* Figure 4 (PDF) (1 p, 905K)
* Appendices A – G (PDF) (84 pp, 480K)
ATSDR’s Health Consultation December 2003
ATSDR’s Health Consultation June 2003
ATSDR’s Health Consultation March 2001
Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Superfund |EPA Home | EPA Superfund Homepage
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/DCD983971136/index.htm
**
Washington, D.C. Army Chemical Munitions (Spring Valley)
Current Site Information
EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic)
Delaware
New Castle County
2 miles southwest of the City of New Castle
EPA ID# DCD983971136
1st Congressional District
Last Update: January 2009
Other Names
Spring Valley
Current Site Status
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provides minutes of the latest partnering, Remediation Advisory Board (RAB) and community meetings on their web site accessible on the website link below. The Army Corps also routinely updates this website with project progress reports and notifications of future meetings and events. The Restoration Advisory Board (the local community group) meetings are held on the second Tuesday of each month (except December and August) and are open to the public with public comment solicited at the end of each session.
The USACE completed excavation of a a munitions pit on a residential property adjacent to, and owned by the American University. USACE is completing test trenching and arsenic contaminated soil removal at this and the adjoining property. All work at these two properties is expected to be complete in the fall of 2009. USACE is planning for destruction of recovered chemical and conventional munitions.
The USACE has sampled approximately 1,500 for arsenic to date. Twenty seven additional properties were added to the site in 2006 based on a review of real estate records. Sampling of these properties and land owned by the District within the site is complete. EPA and the District Department of Environment are issuing comfort letters to property owners where sampling and any required remediation has been completed. USACE is attempting to gain access to all properties not previously sampled (approximately 10), and 5 properties where sampling revealed arsenic above 20ppm, the site cleanup goal.
In September of 2005 ATSDR issued a Health Consultation for the Spring Valley Site. ATSDR recommended additional sampling of soil, groundwater and air in specific locations within the Spring Valley Site. The DC Council approved funding for a health study and a contract was awarded to Johns Hopkins for that study, and a report was released in 2007. The report concludes that the health of Spring Valley residents is good; better than National averages and consistent with a reference community with similar demographics. Additional DC funding may be allocated for follow-on work in FY’2010.
In late 2003 perchlorate was discovered in groundwater at the site. A groundwater study is underway. Thirty nine monitoring wells have been installed near the Dalecarlia reservoir, adjacent to waste and munition disposal sites in the Spring Valley neighborhood and in other selected locations. Groundwater sampling data collected between 2005 and 2007 has identified two locations in the site where groundwater is contaminated with perchlorate, and one location where groundwater is contaminated with arsenic at elevated levels. The groundwater study continues in 2009 and 2010 with installation of additional monitoring wells including four deep wells and another round of well and surface water sampling.
District Of Columbia Council held a Public Roundtable in May 2009 to discuss issues at the site. EPA testified at the Roundtable. In June of 2009 the Congressional ‘COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia’ held a hearing on the site. Members of the public, Army, EPA, District Department of Environment, GAO, and American University provided testimony and answered questions.
RAB meetings over the past year have focused the arsenic clean-up; disposal of recovered munitions, chemical sampling other than arsenic, completing site work and pursuit of additional funding to accelerate the cleanup. For more detailed information and updates on RAB issues, public meetings, and background, please access USACE’s web site by clicking on the Spring Valley internet site below:
The Army maintains a Spring Valley internet site.
Site Description
Spring Valley is located in the Northwest section of the District of Columbia, including the American University. During WWI this area was known as the American University Experimental Station and Camp Leach, a 660-acre facility used as a research and test center for chemical weapons. The experimental station and chemical laboratories were located on American University property.
In January, 1993 a contractor who was digging a utility trench unearthed World War I munitions in the Spring Valley area of the District of Columbia. During further investigations, munitions were discovered in pits located on the Korean Ambassador property, adjacent to American University and additional pits were also found on the adjacent residential property. The pit excavation and other work at the Korean property has been completed. An additional pit on the adjacent residence found numerous additional munitions and the work has not been completed yet. That work began in 2007 and was completed in 2009.
Arsenic-contaminated soil has been removed from the Child Development Center play area on American University. Soil removal actions have been completed on several American University Lots and at approximately 90 residential properties. Approximately 50 residential properties still require soil removal. All soil removal at residential properties should be complete in 2009. Soil remediation at Federal and District owned property is scheduled for 2010.
The site-wide soil cleanup standard for arsenic has been finalized at 20 ppm by EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the DC Health Department. The Mayor’s Science Advisory Panel has approved this standard. The arsenic contamination is the result of chemical warfare research carried out at the American University Experimental Station during WWI.
The Army Corps of Engineers budget for this site is approximately $11 million dollars per year. Site work is expected to continue thru 2011.
The USACE has completed excavation of lab waste and debris in an area near the boundary of the American University known as Lot 18. Numerous empty (scrap) munition and several intact bottles were removed from the site. One of the bottles was found to contain a small amount of Lewisite, a blister agent used at the site; a second bottle was found to contain mustard gas. Other chemical agent degradation products have been found in sealed containers. The USACE began excavation of additional lab debris in an adjacent area of the American University in 2008 and will complete the action in 2009.
The USACE intends to destroy recovered munitions currently stored at the site in 2009.
Site Responsibility
USACE is the lead agency at this site.
NPL Listing History
Not listed on the NPL.
Threats and Contaminants
The primary threats at the site are buried munitions and elevated arsenic in site soils and threats posed by buried munitions and lab waste.
Contaminant descriptions and risk factors are available from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the CDC.
Cleanup Progress
The pit excavation and other work at the Korean property has been completed. An additional pit on the adjacent residence is currently being addressed. Arsenic contaminated soil has been removed from the Child Development Center play area on American University. Soil removal actions on several American University Lots and at approximately 70 homes have been completed. The site-wide soil cleanup standard for arsenic has been finalized at 20 parts per million (ppm) by EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington DC Health Department. The Mayor’s Science Advisory Panel has approved this standard. The American University intramural fields have been returned to the University and are back in use and the University is preparing to reoccupy the Child Development Center. To date the Army Corps of Engineers has spent over $160 million on investigation and removal work. Also see the Spring Valley web address above.
Contacts
Contact Us
Administrative Record Locations
Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Superfund |EPA Home | EPA Superfund Homepage
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/DCD983971136.htm
***
200px-South_Korean_Ambassador_House_DC.JPG
South Korean embassy residence on Glenbrook Road
Map of Washington, D.C., with Spring Valley in red.
180px-Map_spring_valley.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Valley,_Washington,_D.C.
***
490px-Map_spring_valley.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_spring_valley.jpg
Hazardous Waste and History Mix On D.C. Tour
Kent Slowinski leads a tour of the Spring Valley World War I munitions site in Northwest Washington, which the Army Corps of Engineers has been working for years to clean up. (By Katherine Frey — The Washington Post)
A groundwater monitoring well registers high levels of perchlorate. (Katherine Frey – The Washington Post)
Visitors on a WalkingTownDC tour of Spring Valley hear how, 90 years after scientists ended their experiments, remnants of toxic munitions remain. It’s terrifying, says Chris Cottrell, 22, a senior at American University. (Photos By Katherine Frey — The Washington Post)
By Yamiche Alcindor
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 21, 2009
The manicured lawns and beautiful brick homes that line the streets of Spring Valley look like those in most affluent District neighborhoods.
This Story
*
Hazardous Waste and History Mix On D.C. Tour
*
SPRING VALLEY: Norton Tries to Reassure Residents Over Chemical Weapons Cleanup
*
More Questions on Buried Munitions
*
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENT STATION: Vial Used for Chemical Agent Mustard Is Uncovered
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story
But the area looked much different during World War I, when the Army was using it as a testing ground for chemical weapons.
On Sunday, visitors on a tour of the neighborhood heard how, 90 years after scientists ended their experiments, the remnants of toxic munitions remain.
The purpose of the tour is to encourage more historical research, investigation and cleanup here, said Kent Slowinski, who led more than a dozen people on the walk. We want to raise awareness in both Spring Valley and nationwide.
He and Allen Hengst co-founded Environmental Health Group: Spring Valley, a group that advocates for more research into the locations and health effects of the chemicals.
The one-mile walk was part of more than 120 free WalkingTownDC tours, presented by Cultural Tourism DC, that took place across the District over the weekend.
During World War I, 661 acres of forested land around the American University campus were used for Army tests. The range became known as the American University Experiment Station.
In 1993, a construction crew’s discovery of an artillery round triggered an evacuation and cleanup of the area. Experts have since been scouring the neighborhood for buried munitions and chemicals. Workers have found several toxins, such as arsine, a vomiting agent called DA or Clark 1 and liquid mustard, a type of blistering agent.
ad_icon
Slowinski, a landscape architect who grew up in Spring Valley, became interested in 1996 when a stonemason with whom he was working found munitions at a home in Spring Valley. For two hours Sunday, Slowinski, who has given several tours of the area, pointed to various campus buildings and houses where hundreds of chemical munitions might be buried. He began at the university’s Ohio McKinley Hall, the birthplace of the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service. He pointed to trees, football fields and green patches around the university and neighborhood where he believes munitions still lie.
Slowinski also talked about homeowners whose health problems might be linked to the neighborhood’s past.
It’s terrifying, said Chris Cottrell, 22, a senior at American University who took the tour. There are dangerous munitions buried on campus, and I don’t think most students even know about it. This is like the first thing the university should tell students about.
Aaron Lloyd, 38, grew up in Spring Valley. Less than a decade ago, his stepfather found munitions buried in the back yard of the home where Lloyd grew up and where his mother had kept a garden. It’s very disturbing, he said. Someone had to have known about these chemical weapons before 1993.
Nan Wells, an advisory neighborhood commissioner from Spring Valley, said she hopes that the tour will help engage the public. We need follow-up studies to know the health effects, she said during the tour. She also hopes that the Army Corps of Engineers, which along with the D.C. Department of the Environment is overseeing the cleanup and destruction of the munitions, will continue to fund the project.
For fiscal 2010, the corps has allotted $11 million to the cleanup effort. The number drops to $3 million in fiscal 2011 and $500,000 the following fiscal year.
Nazzarena Labo, 36, a epidemiologist, said more research needs to be done before health effects from the munitions can be determined. It’s very hard to go from anecdotal evidence to causation, she said. People shouldn’t be scared or anxious. But they should be concerned.
Slowinski ended the tour at 4825 Glenbrook Rd., a vacant house where cleanup workers found a laboratory vial last month that tested positive for the World War I blistering agent mustard. The home’s owner had a brain tumor and eventually moved away, Slowinski said.
American University has since bought the house, where cleanup continues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092001961.html
A groundwater monitoring well registers high levels of perchlorate. (Katherine Frey – The Washington Post)
Visitors on a WalkingTownDC tour of Spring Valley hear how, 90 years after scientists ended their experiments, remnants of toxic munitions remain. It’s terrifying, says Chris Cottrell, 22, a senior at American University. (Photos By Katherine Frey — The Washington Post)
**
More Questions on Buried Munitions
Friday, August 14, 2009; 8:53 AM
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said Thursday that she plans to host a community meeting next month at which residents of the District’s Spring Valley neighborhood can question ^ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Col. David E. Anderson about the latest discovery of buried World War I chemical munitions in the area.
This Story
*
Hazardous Waste and History Mix On D.C. Tour
*
SPRING VALLEY: Norton Tries to Reassure Residents Over Chemical Weapons Cleanup
*
More Questions on Buried Munitions
*
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENT STATION: Vial Used for Chemical Agent Mustard Is Uncovered
On Aug.4, the engineer corps found a glass vial containing traces of the blistering agent mustard during ^ what was thought to be the closing stages of an excavation in the back yard of a vacant house on Glenbrook Road. The corps has been searching on and off for 16 years for munitions buried at what was once a military weapons test site and had been winding down ^ the part of the project the search at the house.
ad_icon
The discovery of the mustard, two feet below the surface, has halted excavation and rekindled residents’ fears of what might still lie undiscovered. Norton said she would set a date for the meeting later, and plans to visit the site one day next week.
Michael E. Ruane
**
SPRING VALLEY
Norton Tries to Reassure Residents Over Chemical Weapons Cleanup
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) speaks at a site where trace amounts of mustard agent were found. (By Michael Ruane — The Washington Post)
By Michael E. Ruane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton toured World War I munitions burial sites in Northwest Washington on Wednesday and sought to reassure the public that the Army Corps of Engineers would continue its search for such materials for as long as it takes.
This Story
*
Hazardous Waste and History Mix On D.C. Tour
*
SPRING VALLEY: Norton Tries to Reassure Residents Over Chemical Weapons Cleanup
*
More Questions on Buried Munitions
*
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENT STATION: Vial Used for Chemical Agent Mustard Is Uncovered
Norton (D-D.C.) was given a status report by the corps, which has been directing the $170 million, 16-year cleanup of the munitions that are buried in scattered sites in the District’s Spring Valley neighborhood.
This month, workers were surprised when they found a flask containing residue of the blistering agent mustard buried in the yard of a vacant house in the 4800 block of Glenbrook Road NW. Officials said they had thought cleanup at that site was almost finished.
Work there has been halted but will resume soon, Norton said as she stood across the street Wednesday morning.
Meanwhile, corps officials said they plan to search with metal detectors in the Dalecarlia woods, along Dalecarlia Parkway, in an area that was once a mortar firing range.
Norton said she has asked the corps to reveal all of the substances that have been found in the area, something the corps has not publicly done.
American University, in what was then a remote part of Washington, served as an experimental site for chemical warfare during World War I.
That was then, Norton said. Our concern now is not to rewrite history but to keep the corps digging until all concerned, including the Congress of the United States, is satisfied that it’s all done.
Our position is that the corps must remain until there is an objective all-clear here, she added. Nobody need move out of this beautiful neighborhood. It really isn’t fair to alarm people. . . . There is no indication that the neighborhood is unsafe.
There are 1,632 suspect properties in the area, she said. Ninety-eight percent of them have been sampled. About 140 have required cleanup of some kind.
Norton said she has been told that the air in the area is safe, and so is the water.
Some residents remain critical of the corps’ work. Give me a backhoe and ground-penetrating radar, and I guarantee I’ll find stuff that they missed, said Kent Slowinski, who said he grew up in the neighborhood.
Others said they are satisfied. I think that the Army corps has done a fairly comprehensive, conscientious job, said Jeff Stern, who has lived around the corner for 20 years. I’m pretty comfortable that they’re going to clean it up, and we’re all going to move on.
***
Last winter, on the slopes below the Point, a herd of deer, too many to be counted, was grazing, a remnant of the porous boundary between the city and the natural world that made the site so attractive to the founders of St. E’s in the 1850s. The campus was empty, its curving streets — which once invited patients to wander among the trees and grass — quiet. On Wednesday they were full of the usual talismans of the new security society: black Chevy Tahoes with tinted windows, large vans with no markings, men with earpieces and short cropped hair.
Even the promises of public access were beginning to morph slowly into the bland language of the bureaucratic wormhole. During the approval process, there had been talk of public access not just to the Point, but to a theater on the campus and an old Civil War cemetery. There was the sense that Hitchcock Hall, which still has the solid bones of a lovely public theater in it, might someday host community gatherings, public lectures, concerts and films. All with DHS approval, of course.
Norton spoke Wednesday as if that were all still true. She hailed a new day, the first time in memory that residents and visitors will be able to visit the Point, the most panoramic view of the city.
But GSA officials were already muddying up that clear vision. GSA has been working very closely with DHS and the community to ensure that the operational and security needs of DHS are maintained while allowing public access to the St. Elizabeths campus, read a GSA statement, released after officials were pressed on comments that seemed to contradict Norton’s sanguine view of wider public access.
ad_icon
The most reasonable view of the plan for St. E’s is a mix of resignation, sadness, skepticism and anger. Resignation, because the pragmatists are probably right, especially in the current economy. Sadness, because the advocates for a better use are certainly right: This will be a fortress with forbidding walls, occupied by commuters who drive in and out and very likely never leave the compound during the work day. Skepticism because it’s impossible to know how seriously anyone pursued other options for the site.
And anger because early design drawings for the first big new building on the campus, a Coast Guard facility — 1.18 million square feet of bland boxiness that looks as if it was found on a World War II-era drafting board — are so desultory. It is supposed to be energy efficient, and it will stretch down the side of a hill on the edge of the campus, thus preserving some of the historic feel of the old landscape. But the design, by Will + Perkins, is ugly.
The best response to the project is vigilance. To be blunt, the promises of public access are probably hollow, perhaps even disingenuous. Even if they were made sincerely, all it will take is for someone in the bureaucracy to utter the magic words national security to deny access to the campus, at first on an occasional basis, and eventually forever. Within a few years, no one will even remember the Point, and St. E’s will sit high and impregnable on its hill, bristling with security and black cars and open to nobody but its employees.
Even the promise to rehabilitate the 52 historic structures must be watched very closely. Can we believe it? What will happen if it turns out to be even more expensive than anticipated to return them to life? Security has become the trump card that transcends all other values. We need to spend our money on more important things . . . .
St. E’s reached the point of Wednesday’s groundbreaking relatively quickly for a project of this size, and the process revealed the usual fault lines between idealists and the get-‘er-done crowd, between preservationists and local community leaders hungry for economic revitalization. Marion Barry probably didn’t mean to raise the specter of race, but perhaps that was involved too, in the usual subterranean fashion that it operates in Washington politics.
This is where an architectural obituary ends with a bland statement of it remains to be seen . . . But St. E’s deserves better than that. So here’s a test, to be taken 10 or 15 years from now.
Does anyone walk outside its gates to eat lunch? Have property values risen near the site? Do the same people live there? Did GSA in fact save and repair all 52 buildings as planned? Has there ever been an open performance in the old theater? Is the Civil War cemetery on anyone’s tourist map? Do people gather at sunset on the Point and watch the light fade over the city? If you say Ezra Pound to anyone leaving the central building, is there a glimmer of recognition?
Or have all the intangibles of cultural landscape been lost?
***
Weaponry: Lewisite — America’s World War I Chemical Weapon
| MHQ | 2 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
hide
Google Search Results
You arrived here after searching for the following phrases:
* World
* War
* I
* chemical
* weapons
* research
Click a phrase to jump to the first occurrence, or return to the search results.
In 1903 a young priest working on his doctoral degree at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., was studying the reaction of the gas acetylene and arsenic trichloride in the presence of aluminum chloride. When these compounds were mixed, the flask turned black, and after the mixture was poured into water, a black, gummy mass formed that had a penetrating odor and caused the priest to become seriously ill. He was hospitalized for several days while recovering from the toxic effects of the compound and decided to postpone indefinitely any further investigations of it. However, the priest, Father Julius Arthur Nieuwland, described the reaction in his 1904 dissertation. The toxic substance later became known as lewisite, one of the most deadly poison gases developed until well after World War I. Produced by the United States during the latter part of that war, it had also been independently discovered, although not manufactured, in Germany. During World War II, the United States, Great Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan produced lewisite. Since that time other countries have manufactured the compound, including Iraq, North Korea, and perhaps Libya.
In the early evening of April 22, 1915, the first lethal poison gas attack of World War I occurred at Ypres, Belgium. German troops discharged approximately 160 tons of chlorine gas that slowly crept toward the Allied trenches with the aid of a gentle wind. French and Algerian soldiers first noticed two strange yellow clouds approaching, and soon men began to choke, cough, suffocate, and retreat in horror. Smoke and fumes made their panic worse because they could not see around them. Some soldiers buried their faces in the dirt, hoping to protect themselves from the unknown killer. A few officers who were educated in chemistry realized the value of urinating on a cloth and breathing through it to crystallize and neutralize the chlorine, and they instructed others to do so.
The unprecedented attack killed more than 5,000 men and injured 15,000 others. There were between 880,000 and 1,297,000 gas casualties during World War I, and gas warfare may have caused more than 26,000 deaths. American casualties from poison gas totaled almost 72,000, and of these more than 1,200 died. The Central Powers and then the Allies attacked with the weapon even though two separate prewar international conferences had banned the use of weapons and projectiles intended to diffuse asphyxiating, deleterious, or poisonous gases.
The United States did not declare war on Germany until April 2, 1917, but by then it had already begun research into chemical gases. The Bureau of Mines first conducted chemical warfare research early in 1917, under the direction of Van H. Manning. Founded in 1910 to investigate poisonous and asphyxiating gases in mines, the bureau offered its services to the Military Committee of the National Research Council (NRC) on February 8, 1917. On April 3, the committee formed the Subcommittee on Noxious Gases, composed of army and navy officers and members of the Chemical Committee of the NRC, and Manning was appointed as its chairman. George A. Burrell, who worked for the Bureau of Mines, became the director of research on war gases on April 7 and immediately began working on a suitable gas mask for American soldiers.
The need for more chemists quickly arose, and in May the Bureau of Mines was authorized to accept help from laboratories at twenty-one universities, three companies, and three government agencies. Furthermore, in July 1917 a central laboratory was established at American University in Washington, D.C. The weapons development and testing facility would become known as the American University Experimental Station. The War Department began suggesting in September 1917 that the labs at American be militarized, and ten months later, in June 1918, President Woodrow Wilson agreed, transferring the extensive work at the university to a newly formed army subdivision, the Chemical Warfare Service. Eventually, more than 10 percent of all the chemists in the United States became directly involved with chemical warfare research during World War I.
One of them was Winford Lee Lewis, who left Northwestern University in 1918, where he was an associate professor of chemistry, to become the director of the Offensive Branch of the newly formed Chemical Warfare Service unit at Catholic University. This unit, called Organic Unit No. 3, was given the task of developing and producing novel gases, especially compounds containing arsenic. In April 1918, following the suggestion of the Rev. John Griffin, who had been Julius Nieuwland’s chemistry adviser at Catholic, Lewis reviewed the priest’s dissertation and read about his experiments with arsenic trichloride. He further investigated and perfected its reaction with acetylene, with aluminum trichloride acting as a catalyst.
Lewis wrote that the resulting compound ‘…took on a nauseating odor and [caused] marked irritation effect to the mucous surfaces. The headache resulting persists several hours and the material seems to be quite toxic.’ The perfected product was named after him, christened lewisite. The government eventually ordered Lewis to stop working on the compound at Catholic University, under the pretext that it was ineffective. They did this, however, in order to trick German spies into believing that Lewis’ work had not been productive. In truth, other researchers continued evaluating and perfecting lewisite at nearby American University.
Lewis believed in gas warfare and defended its use throughout his life, saying that it would make wars more humane because it would shorten them and innocent civilians would suffer less. He also believed that ‘Providence’ would intervene and give the most advanced people the best gas. Lewis furthermore characterized the horrors of gas warfare as exaggerations and insisted that chemical battles are the most efficient and economical of all fights.
Nieuwland, who became a renowned professor of chemistry at the University of Notre Dame, held similar beliefs. When questioned in 1936 about his discovery of lewisite, he asserted that poison gas rendered warfare more humane:
By the introduction of gas and other modern instruments of warfare, a progressively small percentage of combatants have been killed. In biblical times, thousands of men met in the middle of a plain and slashed one another until only a few were left standing. Today, the primary aim is not to kill but to incapacitate. And poison gas is an ideal method of achieving that aim. If a man goes to a hospital suffering from gas, he is as useless as if he were dead and to care for him, several other persons must be kept out of the battle lines. The chances are that ultimately the victim will recover.
Lewisite, the chemical formula of which is C2H2AsCl3, was given the code names ‘Methyl’ and ‘G-34? during World War I. Perhaps its most enduring pseudonym is ‘Dew of Death.’ General Amos Fries, commander of the American Expeditionary Forces’ Gas Service and later director of the Chemical Warfare Service, so named it because there were plans to spray lewisite over the enemy from airplanes, and the gas was thought to be so deadly that ten planes armed with it could eliminate every trace of life in Berlin.
After the war, many newspaper articles sensationalized lewisite, attaching properties to it that the poison gas did not have. The Cleveland Plain Dealer on June 15, 1919, reported that lewisite was seventy-two times more powerful than mustard gas, considered the king of war gases at that time, and that a single drop on the back of a hand was fatal. Also, on February 26, 1923, the San Francisco Journal stated that lewisite would sterilize the ground so that ‘nothing will grow upon it for at least two years and perhaps longer’ and that one drop of it on living flesh caused ‘mortification.’
Lewisite is primarily a vesicant (causing blisters). It secondarily irritates the lungs and is a systemic poison. Upon contact with the skin, it causes large, painful, fluid-filled blisters, especially on the extremities, back, and scrotum. It also acts as a toxic lung irritant by causing swelling, inflammation, and destruction of the lining of the airways. The lining may subsequently slough off and form an obstruction in the airway, making it difficult to breathe. It is a systemic poison because absorption of arsenic through the skin causes pulmonary swelling, diarrhea, restlessness, weakness, below-normal temperature, and low blood pressure. A victim feels its effects immediately.
Lewisite can be delivered as a vapor, an aerosol, or a liquid and is believed to be most damaging in low-temperature, low-humidity, and dry nonalkaline conditions. It can be fatal in as little as ten minutes when inhaled in high concentrations. Lewisite is also persistent, lasting up to six to eight hours in sunny weather and even longer in cold, dry climates. The poison vapor is about seven times heavier than air and will therefore hover along the ground and enter caves, trenches, and sewers.
Mustard gas, like lewisite, is a vesicant. The two chemicals have many of the same characteristics, but there are also important distinctions. Mustard agents can be composed of sulfur- or nitrogen-based compounds, whereas lewisite is composed of arsenic. Sulfur mustard was the compound used extensively during World War I, first by the Germans and later by the Allies. Similar to lewisite, it is effective as a liquid, vapor, or aerosol, but in contrast to lewisite, its effects are delayed for up to a few hours. They will both form large blisters on the skin, but mustard lesions take about two to three times as long to heal. Whereas lewisite has a lower freezing temperature than mustard agents, both compounds can persist for days, even months under certain conditions. Mustard gas accounted for almost 40 percent of the total gas casualties in World War I.
After lewisite’s transfer to the American University Experimental Station, Captain James Bryant Conant was ordered to find a method to manufacture it in large quantities. Formerly an instructor of chemistry at Harvard University, Conant directed the Organic Research Unit No. 1 of the Offense Research Section at American.
Pages: 1 2
Weaponry: Lewisite — America’s World War I Chemical Weapon
| MHQ | 2 comments |
The lewisite work at the Experimental Station was dangerous. A huge tub of soapsuds had to be readily available for soldiers to plunge into if gas from leaking pipes or vats of boiling chemicals contaminated them. Soldier-chemists tested human volunteers and animals to determine the effectiveness of the compound. George Temple, the head of the station’s motor maintenance department, repeatedly volunteered to be burned by poisonous gases. When a sample of lewisite was placed on his forearm, it caused redness, swelling, and huge silver-colored blisters that took eight weeks to heal.
One morning in August 1918 an explosion caused by a faulty timer on a bomb sent lewisite gas across a field and toward the homes of residents near the American University campus, including that of former senator Nathan B. Scott. Scott, his wife, and his sister-in-law were gassed while sitting on their porch. Not long after the accident, the lewisite work at the university ceased and the Chemical Warfare Service ordered production moved to a secret plant twenty miles east of Cleveland, in Willoughby, Ohio.
The Willoughby plant was located on the site of the former Ben-Hur Motor Company. Soldiers first arrived at the site at the end of July 1918 and found that, although the office building was mostly completed, the plant floor had never been graded. A plumbing system had been installed, but there were no working sewer or water lines in the facility. The pipes had frozen over the previous winter, so the system had to be removed and totally redone. The electrical wiring was only partially complete and had been installed haphazardly, so it had to be removed and reinstalled.
Finding contractors to remodel the plant was difficult. Most of the nearest ones were located in Cleveland, and transportation, food, and housing for construction workers had to be arranged. Further, the workmen wanted to be reimbursed for the cost and time of traveling. Fortunately, Willoughby contractors were eventually found and hired, but only after appealing to the town’s mayor. The workers took from July 28 to mid-August to remodel the factory. Security was tight. A barbed-wire fence was erected around the facility, and guards maintained a twenty-four-hour watch. Klaxon horns and an alarm system were also installed to warn of the presence of intruders. Eventually the site included four barracks to house the twenty-two officers and 542 soldiers working at the facility, a mess hall, and a forty-eight-bed hospital (neither of the two deaths that occurred at the plant was from the effects of lewisite).
The soldiers working there initially were not allowed to leave the grounds except for meals, and all their mail went through a post office box, No. 426, in Cleveland, without any mention of Willoughby. On August 10, Maj. Gen. William L. Sibert, director of the Chemical Warfare Service, visited the Willoughby plant and told the soldiers that as long as they maintained secrecy about the plant, the army would allow them to enter the town of Willoughby, but they were still not permitted to go to Cleveland due to the fear of espionage.
Each of the soldiers at the facility was issued a gas mask that had to be kept nearby or worn in the alert position at all times. Many of the men worked to the point of complete exhaustion, trying to make the plant operational as soon as possible because the government had ordered three thousand tons of lewisite to be ready for a planned spring 1919 offensive against the Germans.
In September 1918, the War Department realized that, in order to satisfy all its planned uses for lewisite, production had to be doubled. That entailed a large expansion at Willoughby. New equipment was ordered, and the plant layout changed to make room for it. Amazingly, by November, just five months after construction started, the plant had begun full production of ten tons of lewisite per day.
On November 11, however, the war suddenly ended. Early in December, the men began dismantling, inventorying, and disposing of the plant’s equipment and materials. By March 1919, all of the plant’s soldiers were gone.
From the time the soldiers had arrived in Willoughby until the day they left, the town’s government, Red Cross, and residents were all extremely helpful and friendly. They often hosted receptions and gatherings for the soldiers, provided pies for their Thanksgiving dinner, and even donated a grand piano to the boys. When townspeople asked the soldiers what they were doing at the Willoughby plant, the soldiers responded that they were working on a formula for rubber, which explained the strong odors that the plant emitted.
According to Nate A. Simpson, one of the soldiers assigned to the plant, the army did not reassign a single soldier from the top-secret facility until the war was over. The plant became known as the ‘mousetrap’ because once you were there, you knew you were not going to leave until the war was over.
There are different stories pertaining to what happened to the gas produced at Willoughby after the armistice was signed. Some say the plant never produced chemicals, but in 1957 workmen dug up several laboratory bottles containing lewisite on the grounds of the old facility. Others suggested that the army hauled between a few tons and 150 tons of lewisite to the Atlantic Ocean by train in big steel casks that were under guard. There the material was carefully transferred onto barges and dumped at sea. Another account suggests that 150 tons of lewisite was en route to Europe when the war ended, and the ship transporting it was subsequently sunk rather than be allowed to return the deadly chemical to the United States.
Two British scientists, Stanley Green and Thomas Price, published the formula for lewisite in The Journal of the Chemical Society in 1921. According to General Fries in his book Chemical Warfare, the formula’s publication was unfortunate because the highly secret compound became known throughout the world, perhaps allowing Japan and Germany to learn about it and develop manufacturing techniques.
Until 1943 lewisite was thought to be equal to or better than mustard gas. However, U.S. Army tests done during World War II on lewisite found that unless the human subjects were defenseless or unconscious, they immediately felt the pain of exposure and would leave the area and protect themselves. Because mustard does not cause immediate effects, soldiers were more likely to be exposed for longer periods. Army testers also found that it was very difficult to get effective concentrations of lewisite vapor. Furthermore, the development of British anti-lewisite, which can prevent burns caused by lewisite and reverse its systemic effects, was believed to reduce the combat effectiveness of the chemical weapon. For those reasons, the U.S. military has not considered lewisite an effective chemical agent since World War II.
Other countries apparently did not agree with this evaluation. For example, the Soviet Union produced huge quantities of the material, disposing of approximately twenty thousand tons of it in the Arctic Sea during the late 1940s and ’50s. More recently, a plant specifically designed to incinerate lewisite and mustard gas has become operational at Gorny, Russia.
Although chemical weapons were not used in major combat during World War II, the Japanese used lewisite and mustard gas in China during most of the war years. In one horrible experiment, prisoners were forced to drink ‘crude water,’ which was a liquid form of lewisite or mustard gas. In addition, more than thirty-five hundred Chinese died in October 1941 at Ichange in the Yangtze Valley after a suspected lewisite attack. Lewisite artillery shells were found on New Guinea, indicating that the Japanese had planned to use the agent against Allied forces. Germany also conducted lewisite experiments on concentration camp inmates.
From 1940 to ‘43, the United States produced lewisite at a small pilot plant at Edgewood Arsenal and then later at Huntsville, Pine Bluff, and Rocky Mountain arsenals. About twenty thousand tons of the agent had been produced before the plants were shut down. Along with disposing of the enemy stockpiles, the United States also dumped most of its own lewisite into the Atlantic and Pacific oceans after the war. One of the 1948 dumping operations was referred to as Operation Geranium because lewisite has a geraniumlike odor.
More recently, Iraq allegedly used lewisite and a mustard gas-lewisite mixture against Iran in the 1980s. The deadly chemical was detected in three separate 1991 instances during the Persian Gulf War, and at least one Iraqi prisoner of war claimed in February 1991 that Iraq had lewisite-filled munitions in its inventory.
A 1999 article in Environmental Health Perspectives reported that lewisite is still produced in very limited quantities in the United States (presumably just for military preparations) and the country’s remaining stockpile is stored at Desert Chemical Depot in Utah. And recently in Washington, D.C., lewisite and mustard agents, hastily buried and forgotten when the American University Experimental Station closed down, have been discovered in the ground, requiring a hazardous waste cleanup operation by the army’s Corps of Engineers.
Lewisite, the major American contribution to chemical weapons development during World War I, has had an amazing history, from its inadvertent discovery by a priest in 1903 to its presence a hundred years later in the arsenals of some countries. Most notably, North Korea has an estimated twenty-five hundred to five thousand tons stockpiled. Whether lewisite will eventually be used in combat situations or as a terrorist weapon — and, if so, how effective it would be — remains to be determined.
This article was written by Joel A. Vilensky and Pandy R. Sinish and originally published in the Spring 2005 edition of MHQ. Joel A. Vilensky and Pandy R. Sinish are the authors of Dew of Death: The Story of Lewisite, America’s World War I Weapon of Mass Destruction.
For more great articles, subscribe to MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History today
Subscribe Today
Subscribe to MHQ magazine
* Did you enjoy our article?
* Read more in MHQ magazine
* Subscribe online and save
Pages: 1 2
http://www.historynet.com/weaponry-lewisite-americas-world-war-i-chemical-weapon.htm
***
missile__1253425435_1849.gif
Made in Mass., bomb stirs global debate
Textron seeks to quash cluster munitions pact
By Bryan Bender
Globe Staff / September 20, 2009
WASHINGTON – The Sensor Fuzed Weapon is a marvel of military technology, says its maker, Textron Defense Systems. An advanced “cluster bomb,’’ it is designed to spray 40 individual projectiles of molten copper, destroying enemy tanks across a 30-acre swath of battlefield.
But the bomb – which is made at a Textron facility in the Boston suburb of Wilmington – violates terms of a landmark international treaty limiting cluster bombs to 10 bomblets or less. The pending treaty, signed by 98 nations last year in Oslo, has been sought for decades by human rights groups, which say that cluster bombs kill indiscriminately and leave behind duds that kill or maim unsuspecting civilians.
Now Textron, with the support of the Pentagon and the State Department, is mounting a campaign to derail the cluster-bomb treaty and write a new set of rules under the United Nations that would make it easier to sell its weapon around the world.
Textron’s primary argument for scrapping the treaty is that 99 percent of the bomblets released by the Sensor Fuzed Weapon will explode in combat, leaving only a tiny amount of unexploded ordinance that could be picked up by a child or hit by a farmer’s plow. Textron calls this capability “clean battlefield operation.’’
“It really is an extremely sophisticated weapon,’’ said Mark D. Rafferty, vice president of business development for Textron Defense Systems, which employs about 1,000 people at its Wilmington plant. Rafferty stood in front of a full-scale mock-up of the bomb, a 6-foot-long cylinder with tail fins, at an arms show in Washington, D.C., last week.
“Knowing that we are in no way, shape or form contributing to [civilian suffering] is really a very satisfying place to be,’’ he said.
The United States is among several major powers including Russia, China, and Israel that have refused to sign the Oslo treaty.
The US Air Force has purchased 4,600 of the new weapons, at a cost of several billion dollars. Textron has also sold them to Turkey, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. And it is in the final stages of reaching a deal with India for 510 of the weapons at an estimated cost of $375 million.
Textron wants the international community to rewrite the treaty to allow weapons with large numbers of bomblets, if they can be shown to avoid the potential for civilian casualties from unexploded components.
The initiative has outraged many arms control advocates, however, who secured signatures from Britain, France, and 96 other countries at last year’s Oslo negotiations. The treaty needs to be ratified by 30 countries to take effect; so far, 17 of them have done so.
“It’s a disgraceful attempt to throw mud at the most important achievement in humanitarian affairs and disarmament in the last decade,’’ said Thomas Nash, coordinator of the London-based Cluster Munition Coalition, a network of 400 nongovernmental organizations from about 90 countries.
Page 2 of 3 —
Textron Defense Systems is a division of the Providence-based conglomerate Textron Inc., which makes products as diverse as helicopters and passenger planes and defense and intelligence systems. It had annual revenue of more than $14 billion in 2008. The Wilmington facility makes a variety of air-launched munitions, as well as both air and ground surveillance systems.
As part of its public relations push, Textron has established a new website, dontbanthesolution.com, replete with expert testimony and computer-generated battle scenes to demonstrate its weapon’s pinpoint accuracy and fail-safe design. Textron Systems chief executive Frank Tempesta, has penned an oped in a leading international trade magazine contending that the proposed treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, will do more harm than good by leading militaries to use more powerful, and less accurate, weapons to achieve the same effect. And the company has dispatched officials to foreign capitals and the conference rooms of skeptical human rights groups to make their case.
Dropped from a high-flying aircraft, the Textron weapon releases 10 canisters that parachute downward, scanning for the enemy with a built-in sensor. When they reach an optimum altitude, the canisters, spinning at high speed, release four separate bomblets, or “skeets,’’ each with its own rocket motor and targeting system.
Each skeet has a 2.2-kilogram warhead, sufficient to pierce and disable a 70-ton tank, and weighs a little less than 4 kilograms including its motor and electronics.
Just two of the weapons, released from a B-52 bomber, destroyed 24 Iraqi tanks in 2003.
If they don’t find a target, the company says, the 40 bomblets are designed to self-destruct. For example, if the skeet reaches a height of 50 feet without homing in on the heat from a tank or armored vehicle, it will explode in midair. And once armed, the projectile is only capable of exploding for eight seconds before it disarms. As a third safety mechanism, any unexploded skeets lying on the ground will disarm after two minutes.
The Pentagon has certified in testing that the Sensor Fuzed Weapon leaves unexploded bomblets only 1 percent of the time or less. That is a standard that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has stipulated all cluster munitions must meet by 2018.
Arms control advocates remain unconvinced, however.
“They think technology is the answer,’’ said Nash, the Cluster Munition Coalition coordinator. His group contends that Textron’s claims of accuracy and reliability have historically been overstated.
“It is not reasonable to base your policy on the continued failure of weapons manufacturers to make reliable weapons,’’ he said. “They make money from selling weapons, and I think that compromises to a certain extent the credibility of their humanitarian analysis.’’
Other experts, including supporters of the Oslo treaty, acknowledge that Textron has made significant breakthroughs to minimize harm to civilians. Ove Dullum, chief scientist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, said in an interview that based on tests he considers the Sensor Fuzed Weapon a minimal risk to civilians.Continued…
Page 3 of 3 —
Still, he says that may not hold true under battle conditions.
Graphic
How an SFW works
“My experience . . . is that even if carefully conducted tests of ammunition show a very low dud rate, that will not represent the dud rate in war,’’ he said, citing the aging of munitions, environmental impact, and the handling of the weapons in a real war environment.
Moreover, even if the weapon can achieve the level of reliability advertised, it is still highly dangerous for civilians on the battlefield, said Jeff Abramson, deputy director of the Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. He said that, depending on how many are used in a future conflict, a 1 percent dud rate could still affect many innocent bystanders.
“If you have 1 percent of 10,000 submunitions, that is 100 left that could possibly explode in the future,’’ he said.
Textron and the US military say that, without the ability to use cluster bombs with 40 bomblets, military forces will inevitably use greater numbers of traditional bombs. That, Gates concluded in a policy memorandum last year, “could result, in some cases, in unacceptable collateral damage and explosive remnants of war.’’
Nations that do not sign the treaty could have trouble selling their weapons. Cluster bombs made by Diehl and Rheinmetall in Germany and by Bofors Defence and GIAT Industries in France meet the requirements of the treaty, with two bomblets contained in each. They would be expected to pick up market share at Textron’s expense if the treaty is ratified as written.
Also, nations that ratify the treaty may place restrictions on cooperating with any military that doesn’t abide by it.
UN negotiations to craft a new agreement are at a standstill. “There is still a wide divergence,’’ said a US defense official involved in the talks who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to do so. Another meeting is scheduled in Geneva in November.
But a State Department spokesman, Jason Greer, argued that a new treaty that takes into account the potential to reduce civilian casualties would be an improvement over the Oslo pact, which merely sets standards for bomblets and their size.
The US government also argues that the current treaty will have little effect if the holdouts – which have the largest militaries and explosive stockpiles – refuse to participate. A new treaty, said Greer, would probably include “more of the countries that actually produce cluster munitions.’’
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com
***
***
EODT Named to Top 200 Government Contractors List
EOD Technology, Inc. logo. (PRNewsFoto/EOD Technology, Inc.)
LENOIR CITY, TN UNITED STATES
LENOIR CITY, Tenn., Sept. 22 /PRNewswire/ — EOD Technology, Inc. (EODT), a global provider of professional support services to a broad range of Federal markets, was ranked as one of the most successful defense and government contractors by Government Executive Magazine in August of 2009.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20061218/EODTLOGO)
Specializing in security, critical mission support, munitions response and stabilization and reconstruction operations, EODT ranked 86th on the list of the Top 100 Defense Contractors with more than $406M in business in 2008. Overall, EODT ranked 118th on the list of Top Government Contractors.
We’re pleased to be included on this list alongside other well-respected companies, said Matt Kaye, President and Chief Executive Officer of EODT. It’s a testament to the hard work of our employee-owners, leveraging our critical skills and technology, and our commitment to our customers’ mission success.
EOD Technology, Inc. is headquartered in Lenoir City, TN, with offices in Huntsville, AL; Tucson, AZ; Washington, D.C.; Baghdad, Iraq; Kabul, Afghanistan; Lagos, Nigeria; Pretoria, South Africa, and San Jose, Costa Rica. The employee-owned, ISO 9001:2000-registered company is an industry leader for integrated Munitions Response, Security, Critical Mission Support, and Stabilization and Reconstruction operations worldwide.
Government Executive Magazine is a biweekly business magazine serving senior executives and managers in the federal government’s various departments and agencies. It covers the business of the federal government while serving the individuals who manage those departments and agencies.
For a full listing of http://www.govexec.com/features/0809-15/0809-15s3s1.htm.
For more information on EODT, please visit http://www.eodt.com
SOURCE EOD Technology, Inc.
***
Top 100 Defense Contractors
Government Executive August 15, 2009
Total Purchases: $377,545,789,635
Rank Parent Company Total DoD Air Force Army Navy
1 Lockheed Martin Corp. $30,051,930,697 $13,402,513,986 $4,673,579,372 $9,994,571,537
2 Northrop Grumman Corp. 23,493,816,066 5,479,989,076 6,716,656,907 10,105,473,396
3 Boeing Co. 23,337,676,385 7,794,047,338 5,731,974,349 7,748,677,940
4 BAE Systems 16,280,496,923 828,059,801 10,089,734,594 4,804,129,315
5 General Dynamics Corp. 14,438,355,290 1,214,774,012 6,405,315,050 6,483,123,733
6 Raytheon Co. 14,219,207,207 2,253,498,433 5,355,002,065 5,065,679,797
7 United Technologies Corp. 8,300,866,917 1,523,796,618 4,688,709,458 1,815,768,432
8 L-3 Communications Holdings 6,708,092,019 2,351,444,344 2,609,680,934 1,002,989,257
9 KBR Inc. 5,997,147,425 0 5,967,705,203 21,562,825
10 Navistar International Corp. 4,755,920,575 0 1,050,487,191 3,661,537,716
11 ITT Corp. 4,361,701,072 792,240,270 2,216,449,782 1,171,466,504
12 Textron Inc. 4,229,341,007 82,694,889 1,877,358,208 2,118,188,994
13 SAIC 3,880,995,968 554,684,641 1,426,224,359 952,845,596
14 General Electric Co. 3,575,099,286 861,623,778 693,192,932 1,554,292,506
15 Computer Sciences Corp. 3,460,070,189 1,051,526,975 1,297,668,833 632,433,336
16 Carlyle Group 3,000,639,282 926,994,813 1,489,905,528 431,919,072
17 Humana Inc. 2,952,008,623 12,773,329 13,847,565 0
18 URS Corp. 2,554,214,043 678,565,777 1,511,131,563 340,533,854
19 Health Net Inc. 2,438,349,117 0 7,738,759 0
20 Triwest Healthcare Alliance Co. 2,366,975,634 3,374,709 3,337,141 0
21 Renco Corp. 2,357,606,472 0 2,246,977,265 882,547
22 MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. 2,357,595,977 0 2,246,966,770 882,547
23 Finmeccanica Group 2,287,550,122 345,506,669 1,676,254,285 166,167,303
24 Public Warehousing Co. KSC 2,150,460,246 0 112,874,687 389,839
25 Hewlett-Packard Co. 1,936,483,484 121,716,498 126,362,722 1,500,647,274
26 Alliant Techsystems Inc. 1,928,045,694 158,596,859 1,545,629,367 214,725,180
27 Bechtel Group Inc. 1,909,722,670 0 362,461,903 1,444,569,802
28 Oshkosh Truck Corp. 1,863,726,822 2,855,688 1,139,848,061 594,806,836
29 Harris Corp. 1,841,470,263 352,496,050 700,433,176 562,796,290
30 BP PLC 1,733,031,788 0 12,479,006 1,335,395
31 Honeywell Inc. 1,722,292,898 422,553,331 917,429,432 226,105,722
32 Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 1,712,005,958 140,491 87,944 25,050
33 Hensel Phelps Construction Co. 1,385,774,293 0 1,018,601,994 194,751,134
34 Force Protection Inc. 1,360,427,189 0 26,597,104 1,260,999,475
35 CACI International Inc. 1,324,237,903 30,197,348 855,709,364 360,343,915
36 AmerisourceBergen Corp. 1,298,059,841 83,165 260,875 308,840
37 Rockwell Collins 1,290,859,084 773,085,946 126,795,606 311,722,654
38 Shaw Group Inc. 1,162,267,243 58,373,675 1,026,977,507 71,565,167
39 Veritas Capital Inc. 1,088,769,197 32,061,649 886,391,895 50,837,576
40 General Motors Corp. 1,076,904,574 382,648 1,070,195,213 1,535,050
41 General Atomics Technology Corp. 1,074,419,407 579,075,188 356,240,344 122,811,088
42 Red Star Enterprises Ltd. 1,069,266,941 0 0 0
43 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 1,061,047,715 417,139,704 474,687,169 85,603,024
44 Valero Energy Corp. 1,043,869,551 0 73,781 0
45 Bahrain National Oil Co. 1,017,687,603 0 0 27,711
46 Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. 918,256,500 0 0 0
47 VSE Corp. 910,970,473 1,056,359 770,453,773 139,410,182
48 McKesson Corp. 903,799,326 33,821 3,410,799 165,198
49 Hawker Beechcraft Corp. 873,897,910 823,896,324 150,034 49,663,703
50 Cardinal Health Inc. 856,333,988 1,840,754 5,512,460 3,853,811
Rank Parent Company Total DoD Air Force Army Navy
51 Dell Computer Corp. $853,009,785 $163,188,072 $446,435,698 $137,002,507
52 Exxon Mobil Corp. 836,548,150 0 75,400 0
53 Aerospace Corp. 768,870,625 768,870,624 0 0
54 MITRE Corp. 753,883,279 315,806,923 438,076,355 0
55 Government of Canada 744,892,235 82,814,809 581,150,504 46,126,090
56 Johns Hopkins University 737,152,343 25,557,031 15,509,329 439,160,972
57 Motor Oil Hellas 724,853,533 0 0 0
58 Cerberus Capital Management LLC 699,109,260 272,059,710 321,739,234 101,642,955
59 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 690,979,858 674,214,136 12,723,729 1,766,348
60 ManTech International Corp. 655,579,972 39,750,939 468,587,925 98,302,417
61 Supreme Foodservice AG 647,167,103 0 16,824 0
62 Afognak Native Corp. 625,338,159 33,423,988 380,906,675 209,173,786
63 CH2M Hill Companies Ltd. 590,556,845 272,852,190 233,347,979 84,304,529
64 Rolls Royce PLC 575,055,274 146,721,853 34,043,302 314,030,420
65 Chugach Alaska Corp. 571,049,687 218,447,009 229,500,924 116,923,859
66 Qinetiq Ltd. 544,400,680 22,884,216 295,907,687 156,542,210
67 AECOM Technology Corp. 542,021,197 8,898,669 512,354,481 20,824,644
68 Kongsberg Gruppen ASA 533,417,559 0 519,926,428 7,506,433
69 Clark Enterprises 528,766,858 0 347,436,052 181,330,806
70 Serco Group PLC 523,436,321 117,542,491 250,349,830 154,853,577
71 FLIR Systems Inc. 507,944,847 2,573,732 381,111,835 112,829,953
72 Battelle Memorial Institute 507,253,506 209,188,912 229,049,887 55,835,539
73 Goodrich Corp. 488,566,461 142,087,471 201,966,041 60,550,693
74 Thales Group 475,384,785 24,028,412 182,573,107 206,505,951
75 Tetra Tech Inc. 472,960,770 79,441,485 216,306,216 143,792,111
76 Walsh Group Ltd. 457,810,954 0 381,642,295 76,168,658
77 Balfour Beatty PLC 457,806,604 0 278,568,912 179,237,691
78 Caddell Construction Co. 457,368,091 0 343,711,022 113,657,069
79 International Oil Trading Co. LLC 456,802,653 0 0 0
80 IBM Corp. 438,442,797 32,868,218 139,590,963 135,836,638
81 Perini Corp. 436,363,793 51,409,576 384,954,216 0
82 Atlantic Diving Supply Inc. 435,784,112 10,085,160 190,810,107 11,073,010
83 Fluor Corp. 430,878,065 18,128,045 370,364,360 42,385,659
84 Sierra Nevada Corp. 429,752,561 251,287,811 150,015,314 28,433,902
85 Ceradyne Inc. 417,616,849 0 334,254,377 6,998,076
86 EOD Technology Inc. 406,322,993 0 395,983,226 10,339,766
87 Syracuse Research Corp. 403,733,239 39,350,693 357,559,755 6,822,790
88 Government of Germany 403,511,351 0 403,511,351 0
89 NANA Regional Corp. Inc. 395,526,436 69,496,405 205,891,169 40,818,802
90 Peter Kiewit Sons Inc. 388,739,591 0 340,275,640 48,463,950
91 M.A. Mortenson Cos. 379,601,040 0 353,277,196 26,323,843
92 Environmental Chemical Corp. 372,745,944 211,092,012 145,243,918 16,410,013
93 AT&T Inc. 371,277,191 29,467,353 137,598,235 58,063,591
94 Kraft Foods Inc. 367,840,952 0 0 0
95 Daimler AG 366,016,800 912,666 345,360,235 14,140,454
96 Owens & Minor Inc. 365,861,498 0 0 0
97 Parsons Corp. 356,746,280 27,084,791 296,981,887 30,601,531
98 Cubic Corp. 354,715,998 63,585,514 226,409,732 58,450,192
99 ChevronTexaco Corp. 349,576,353 0 4,268,538 653,480
100 McCann-Erickson Worldwide Inc. 348,696,704 0 348,696,703 0
Rank Parent Company Total DoD Air Force Army Navy
http://www.govexec.com/features/0809-15/0809-15s3s1.htm
***
CAC Home >CGSC Home > CARL > RESOURCES > CSI > HELLER center logo
Leavenworth
Papers No.10
Chemical Warfare in World War I:
The American Experience, 1917 – 1918
MAJ(P) Charles E. Heller, USAR
Combat Studies Institute
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
September 1984
Leaveanworth Papers are published by the Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-6900. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not neccessarily those of the Department of Defnse or any element thereof. Leavenworth Papers are available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Leavenworth Papers US ISSN 0195 3451
FOREWORD
This Leavenworth Paper chronicles the introduction of chemical agents in World War I, the U.S. Army’s tentative preparations for gas warfare prior to and after American entry into the war, and the AEF experience with gas on the Western Front.
Chemical warfare affected tactics and almost changed the outcome of World War I. The overwhelming success of the first use of gas caught both sides by suprise. Fortunately, the pace of hostilities permitted the Allies to develop a suitable defense to German gas attacks and eventually to field a considerable offensive chemical capability. Nonetheless, from the introduction of chemical warfare in early 1915 until Armistice Day in November, 1918, the Allies were usually one step behind their German counterparts in the development of gas doctrine and the employment of gas tactics and procedures.
In his final report to Congress on World War I, General John J. Pershing expressed the sentiment of contemporary senior officers when he said, Whether or not gas will be employed in future wars is a matter of conjecture, but the effect is so deadly to the unprepared that we can never afford to neglect the question. General Pershing was the last American field commander actually to confront chemical agents on the battlefield. Today, in light of a significant Soviet chemical threat and solid evidence of chemical warfare in Southeast and Southwest Asia, it is by no means certain he will retain that distinction.
Over 50 percent of the Total Army’s Chemical Corps assets are located within the United States Army Reserve. The Leavenworth Paper was prepared by the USAR Staff Officer serving with the Combat Studies Institute, USACGSC, after a number of request from USAR Chemical Corps officers for a historical study on the nature of chemical warfare in World War I. In fulfilling the needs of the USAR, this Leavenworth Paper also meets the needs of the Total Army in its preparations to fight, if necessary, on a battlefield where chemical agents might be employed.
CARL E. VUONO
Lieutenant General, USA
Commandant
Director
COL Louis D. F. Frashe
John F. Morrison Professor of Military History
Dr. Bruce W. Menning
Curriculum Supervisor
LTC(P) Michael T. Chase
Operations Officer
LTC Patrick H. Gorman
CAC Historical Office
Dr. John W. Partin, CAC Historian
Dr. William G. Roberson, Deputy CAC Historian
Director, Fort Leavenworth Museum
Dr. John P. Langellier
Research Committee
LTC Gary L. Bounds, Chief
LTC Gary H. Wade
Maj (P) Charles E. Heller, USAR
Maj Scott McMichael Dr. Robert H. Berlin
Dr. George Gawrych
Dr. Gary Bjorge
Teaching Committee
LTC John A. Hixson, Chief
LTC George L. Tupa
Maj(P) David R. Durr
Maj(P) Roy R. Stephenson
Maj Roger Cirillo Dr. Robert E. Baumann
Dr. Jerold E. Brown
Dr. Christopher R. Gabel
Dr. Joseph Glatthaar
SFC Robert R. Cordell
Military History Education Committee
LTC Michael E. Hall, Chief
Maj George J. Mordica, II
CPT (P) Don M. Prewitt, ARNG Dr. Jack J. Gifford
Dr. Larry Roberts
Historical Services Committee
Dr. Lawerence A. Yates, Chief
Elizabeth R. Snoke, Librarian
Marilyn A. Edwards, Editor
Donald Gilmore, Editor
Carolyn Brendsel, Editor
Staff
SFC Danny G. Carlson
Clara L. Rhoades
Sharon E. Torres SP5 Patricia Clowers
Cynthia L. Teare
Carolyn D. Conway
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Heller, Charles E., 1943 –
Chemical warfare in World War I.
(Leavenworth Papers, ISSN 0195-3451; no. 10)
September 1984
Bibliography: p
1. World War, 1914 – 1918 — Chemical warfare.
2. World War, 1914 – 1918 — United States.
3. Chemical warfare — United States — History — 20th century. I. Title II series.
UG447.H39 1985 940.4’144 84-28527
Contents
Illustrations
Tables
Introduction
1. The Introduction of Gas Warfare in World War I
2. The Europeans Face Chemicals on the Battlefield, 1915-1918
3. The U.S. Army’s Response to Chemical Warfare, 1915 – 1917
4. The AEF Organizes for Chemical Warfare
5. The Quick and the Dead : The AEF on the Chemical Battlefield
6. We Can Never Afford to Neglect the Question
Notes
Bibliography
Illustrations
Maps
1. The stabilized Western Front, 1915
2. Ypres sector in Belgium, 22 April-24 May 1915
3. Varicolored zones of German gas fired in support of a crossing of the Dvina River before Riga, Eastern Front, 1 September 1917 German gas shell bombardment of Armentières
4. German gas shell bombardment of Armentières on 9 April 1918
5. The German spring offensives of 1918 were heavily supported by a variety of gases
Figures
1. Side view of gas cylinder emplacement
2. Organization of the Gas Service, AEF, 1917
3. U.S. Gas Regiment, company organization, 1917
4. Entrance, gas-proof dugout
Tables
1. Summary of markings for chemical shell and properties of most common gases
2. Hospitalized casualties
Introduction
The combat experience of World War I provided the U.S. Army with its first significant exposure to chemical warfare. The purpose of this paper is to show how the Army prepared for this kind of warfare and how soldiers in the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), from generals to doughboys, adapted or failed to adapt to fighting a war in which chemical weapons played a prominent role. Because no one AEF division experienced every facet of gas warfare, the study will examine information pertaining to many units in order to give a more complete picture of the phenomenon.
In World War I terms, chemical warfare included not only gas, but liquid flammable material, thermite, and smoke (all of which are relevant to the modern battlefield). This study will deal only with what participants referred to as chemicals … gases, or war gases. These included real gases such as phosgene and chlorine, and also weapons that, while referred to as gases, were in fact vaporized liquids (mustard gas, for example) or finely ground solids. In this study the terms chemical agent and gas will be used interchangeably. Smoke will be discussed, but only as a ruse for gas; liquid flame and thermite will not be covered. Because most of the U.S. experience was on the Western Front, that theater of the war will receive detailed treatment.
Despite technological advances in chemical warfare since 1918, many lessons learned on the battlefields of World War I are valid for study today, if only because America’s principal antagonist in world affairs, the Soviet Union, appears to be quite willing to employ chemical agents on today’s battlefield. During the decade of the 1970s persistent accounts of the use of chemical agents by the Russians and their clients caused the U.S. government to pay closer attention to the problem of chemical warfare. Soviet offensive equipment captured by the Israelis in the 1973 October War contained filtration systems for survival on a chemical or biological battlefield. Reports from Laos about Vietnamese using a chemical agent called Yellow Rain on mountain tribesmen prompted a policy review by U.S. government officials. In December, 1979, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, with subsequent reports from Afghan refugees that the invaders were using gas during combat operations, again forced the U.S. Army to reassess its chemical warfare doctrine.1
U.S. intelligence estimates indicate that the Russians have between 70,000 and 100,000 chemical warfare troops. Every Soviet line regiment has a Chemical Defense Company. Present Soviet chemical delivery systems include artillery, mortars, multiple rocket launchers, bombs, air spray, and land mines. The blood, blister, and nerve agents in the Russian chemical arsenal include mustard gas (a blister agent) and phosgene (a lung injurant) two of the most effective agents used in World War I.2
There is an abundance of material available for a study of gas warfare during World War 1. Sources include unit reports, the published and unpublished diaries of participants, books written by chemical officers during the interwar period, and a number of secondary historical works of more recent origin. Also, I conducted several interviews with veterans of the First World War to obtain as accurate a picture as possible of what it was like for an AEF doughboy to train for, and to live, work, and fight in, a chemical environment. During the war the newly created Chemical Warfare Service (CWS)* did its best to record its activities and report on the use of chemicals. I relied extensively on these records.
A number of agencies provided a great deal of assistance to me in the preparation of this paper, and I would like to acknowledge the staffs of the following institutions: the Technical Library, Chemical Systems Laboratory, Edgewood Area, Aberdeen Proving Ground;, U.S. Army Chemical Center and School, Fort McClellan, Alabama; National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; and Combined Arms Research Library, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. I especially want to thank members of the 1st Gas Regiment Association for graciously consenting to be interviewed, and Lt. Col. Charles M. Wurm, Chemical Corps, CACDA, Fort Leavenworth, for providing me with a great amount of technical information and advice.
Major(P) Charles Heller, USAR
Combat Studies Institute
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
*The forerunner of the CWS was the Gas Service, set up under AEF General Order 31, 3 September 1917. On 11 May 1918, when the CWS was established as a branch of the National Army, the Gas Service became the Overseas Division, CWS.
The Introduction of Gas
Warfare in World War I
Chapter 1
Of all the weapons employed in World War I, none stimulated public revulsion more than poison gas. The abhorrence of chemical warfare lingered long after the Armistice of 11 November 1918. Gas victims continually reminded the general public of the effect of chemical weapons, as illustrated by the often repeated story of a veteran’s coughing fit being explained by a tap on the chest and an apologetic, Gas you know.
The employment of chemical agents in war, however, did not begin with World War I. The earliest recorded incident occurred in the fifth century B.C. during one of a series of wars between Athens and Sparta.*1 Over the centuries that followed, combatants on several occasions engaged in rudimentary forms of chemical warfare on the battlefield. If by the end of the nineteenth century the use of poison gas was still by far the exception and not the rule in war, there were in all the great powers a number of men who foresaw its widespread use should a general conflagration engulf Europe.2
*Spartan forces besieging an Athenian city placed a lighted mixture of wood, pitch, and sulfur under the walls. The Spartans hoped the fumes would incapacitate the Athenians so that they would not be able to resist the assault that followed.
A concern with poison gas manifested itself at the Hague Conference of 1899. One of the agenda items dealt with prohibiting the use of shells filled with asphyxiating gas. The proposed ban** eventually passed with one dissenting vote, that of the American representative, Naval Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, who declared that it was illogical and not demonstrably humane to be tender about asphyxiating men with gas, when all were prepared to admit that it was allowable to blow the bottom out of an ironclad at midnight, throwing four or five hundred men into the sea, to be choked by water, with scarcely the remotest chance of escape. Secretary of State John Hay, in his instructions to Mahan, argued that the inventiveness of Americans should not be restricted in the development of new weapons. For Hay it made no sense for the United States to deprive itself of the ability to use, at some later date, a weapon that might prove to be more humane and effective than anything then present in the American arsenal. 3
**The declaration stated, The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gasses.
The Hague Conference declaration did not prevent some nations from discussing the use of chemical weapons, and at least one country, France, experimented publicly with gas. The French Army tested a grenade filled with ethyl bromoacetate, a nontoxic tear, or lachrymatory, agent developed for use in the suppression of small-arms fire from the concrete casements then prevalent in the permanent fortifications that dotted Western Europe. In 1912, French police used 26-mm grenades filled with this agent to capture a notorious gang of Parisian bank robbers. The Germans, unlike the French, did not experiment with chemical agents for military use as such, but at the outbreak of World War I, Germany’s highly advanced dye industry gave it a sophisticated technological base from which to develop weapons of this nature.4
When war erupted in August, 1914, everyone from private citizens to the leaders of the belligerent countries shared a common belief that the economies of the European nations would neither survive nor support a lengthy war. As a result, the war plans of two key protagonists, Germany and France, called for a quick, decisive offensive against one another. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany assured his troops that they would be home before the leaves fall. It was not to be. By the end of 1914, the armies on the Western Front were locked in a deadly form of trench warfare (Map 1),* sustained by the very industrialized economies that, because of their complexity and interdependency, had been thought unable to withstand a long war.5
*One of the misconceptions surrounding World War I is that there existed a continuous, parallel belt of trenches stretching from the English Channel in the north to the Swiss border in the south. In fact, in some sectors along the 470-mile Western Front, soldiers occupied shell holes; in other areas, the terrain caused troops to be dispersed in fortified garrisons or strong points. Some trenches, as in the British sector of Flanders, were actually sandbagged parapets rising from marshy lands, where digging any deeper than a foot or two would have brought water to the surface. There was one factor, however, that was constant along the entire front. Whether in trenches, shell holes, or strongpoints, daily life offered little more than dull routine and boredom for the men of both sides as they waited for their respective high commands to decide their fate.
Unwilling to accept the indecisiveness of trench warfare, army staffs on both sides pondered ways to break the deadlock and return to open or maneuver warfare. Alternatives were proposed, some strategic, others tactical. The British, for example, sought a strategic solution by a seaborne assault against Turkey, an ally of Germany. This attack at Gallipoli in 1915 sought to open the Dardanelles as the first step toward linking up with. Russia and forcing Turkey out of the war. For a variety of reasons, the plan failed, and the deadlock on the Western Front continued.
As their attack at Gallipoli tottered to defeat, the British looked to the application of tactical innovation at Neuve-Chapelle to break the stalemate. On 10 March 1915 British artillery, instead of firing a lengthy bombardment prior to an attack, as doctrine dictated, let loose a brief but intense barrage on a relatively narrow German trench frontage. The fire was then shifted to the German rear in order to create a lethal steel curtain that would block reinforcements. To the surprise of everyone, the British infantry quickly overran the German forward positions. The attack failed, though, primarily because the high command, viewing it as an experiment, did not have sufficient reserves available to exploit a breakthrough.
To View: The stabilized Western Front, 1915
Germany also searched for ways to break the deadlock and decided on a solution involving gas. Early in the war the Germans kept a wary eye out for indications that the French were using their 26-mm gas grenades. Apparently, in August, 1914, France did use this chemical weapon, but in open areas where the gas quickly dispersed with no noticeable effect on the enemy. The French soon discarded the grenades as worthless. At this same time, stories were appearing in Allied newspapers about a new French liquid explosive, turpinite. While claiming that this substance gave off lethal fumes, the articles failed to explain that the gas reached a deadly concentration only in confined spaces. Still, the Germans were apprehensive and became alarmed by the deaths of a number of soldiers asphyxiated during a French bombardment, even though a medical team rushed to the scene concluded that the men died not from poison gas, but from inhaling carbon monoxide fumes while huddled in their dugout.6
In any event such newspaper stories and front-line experiences may have spurred the development of war gases by German scientists. Contributing to that effort, chemistry professor Walter Nernst suggested partially replacing the TNT in a 105-mm shrapnel shell with dianisidine chlorosulphonate, an agent known to cause irritation of the mucous membrane. The new filling would serve two purposes: it would conserve TNT and act as a chemical weapon. The German High Command accepted this new weapon, although it is uncertain which of the two purposes it initially considered more important. On 27 October 1914, 3,000 of these shells fell on British troops near Neuve-Chapelle. The soldiers suffered no ill effects and never suspected they were under chemical attack. The Germans continued to experiment with gas because they were convinced the idea had merit and because intelligence sources could not determine what effect the shells had had at Neuve-Chapelle. This lack of information on the effects of gas attacks was a common occurrence throughout the war.7
The Neuve-Chapelle experiment increased the German High Command’s interest in gas warfare. The German General Staff asked the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry in Berlin to investigate the possibility of using a more effective agent. The only guideline provided by the military was that the Hague declaration of 1899, banning projectiles used exclusively for delivering poison gases, had to be circumvented. Adhering to the letter if not the spirit of the ban, the Germans devised a gas shell that also contained an explosive charge for producing a shrapnel effect. The Professor von Tappan who designed the shell also solved two technical problems related to emplacing chemicals in an artillery projectile. First, he stabilized the liquid within a shell casing in order to reduce its tumbling in flight, thereby increasing the shell’s accuracy and range. Second, to ensure that two extremely reactive chemical substances did not accidently combine in the shell casing, von Tappan developed a special shell, designated the T-shell by the German Army in his honor. The T-shell was a standard 15-cm howitzer round that contained seven pounds of xylyl bromide and a burster charge for a splinter effect. A lead lining prevented contact between the burster charge and the chemical payload.8
The German High Command decided to use the first T-shells on the Eastern Front. On 31 January 1915, over 18,000 shells were fired at Russian positions at Bolimov. German officers, confident that their new weapon would neutralize the enemy positions, were surprised when their attack was repulsed with severe casualties. The shelling had had little or no effect on the Russians because cold temperatures had prevented vaporization of the xylyl bromide.9
To find a more effective means of employing gas on the battlefield, the German High Command turned to an assistant of von Tappan, Professor Fritz Haber. Haber, a reservist, had shown marked enthusiasm for the potential value of chemicals as weapons. Believing that T-shells did not provide a high enough concentration of chemicals to produce enemy casualties, he suggested the use of large commercial gas cylinders as a delivery system. Cylinders could deliver large amounts of gas and, like the T-shell, did not technically violate the Hague ban on projectiles. Haber also recommended the use of chlorine as an agent because it was commercially produced and readily available in large quantities. Chlorine also satisfied the requirements for military application: it was lethal immediately effective, nonpersistent, and volatile. It was also dense enough to resist dilution in a moderate wind.10
Haber’s gas cylinder project received the approval of the Chief of the German General Staff, General Erich von Falkenhayn, who had the professor appointed Head of the Chemical Warfare Department in the Prussian Ministry of War. The high command selected the front of the Fourth Army facing the French salient at Ypres as the location for an experimental attack. Pioneer Regiment 35 was designated to conduct the gas attack. Haber, assigned as a chemico-technical advisor, assisted Colonel Peterson, the regimental commander, and instructed the troops on the emplacement and use of gas cylinders. By 10 March 1915 the Regiment, with the assistance of infantry labor, had emplaced 1,600 large and 4,130 small cylinders containing a total of 168 tons of chlorine. Then, for one month, the Pioneer troops sat and waited for the winds to shift westerly toward the enemy trenches in the Ypres salient. Only then could they safely unleash the chemicals by opening the cylinder valves.11
Late in the afternoon of 22 April 1915, a setting sun cast long shadows over the battle-scarred terrain around the medieval Belgium city of Ypres. In the distance the faint sound of large-caliber guns could be heard. Birds fluttered and swooped, seeking places to roost on the practically treeless landscape. Suddenly, at 1724, three flares rose from an observation balloon over the German lines and burst against the darkening eastern sky. German artillery commenced a fierce bombardment that landed to the rear of the French and British lines in the Ypres sector. Then, at 1800, an eerie silence fell over the area.
To View: German Pioneer troops opening cylinders for a gas attack, 1916.
Peering across the battlefield, men of two French divisions, the 87th Territorial and the 45th Algerian, saw blue-white wisps of haze rising from the German trenches. The haze swirled about, gathered in a cloud that slowly turned yellow-green and began to drift across the terrain at a height of up to six feet. As the cioud drifted, it settled into every depression in the landscape. Finally, the gentle north .northeasterly wind brought it spilling into the French trenches, silently enveloping the occupants in a misty, deadly embrace.
To the north and southwest of the now mist-enshruded French positions, British and Canadian troops looked into the haze and, to their amazement, saw soldiers, many without weapons, emerge from the cloud, running wildly, and in confusion toward positions to the rear. Terror-stricken Algerians ran by the startled Dominion troops, coughing And clutching their throats. Moments later French soldiers staggered by, blinded, coughing, chests heaving, faces an ugly purple color, lips speechless with agony. One by one, the guns of the French artillery batteries in the sector stoppedfiring, and the two French divisions collapsed. The Ypres front now had a gap over four-miles wide containing hundreds of men in a comatose or dying condition. After half an hour, German troops, equipped with cotton wadding tied over their faces-a primitive form of protective mask-cautiously advanced into the breech created by the discharge of chlorine gas.
To View: Ypres sector in Belgium, 22 April-24 May 1915
Following the initial shock and surprise, Allied commanders began to bring forward reserve troops and to move units from the left and right flank into the gap. The Germans advanced four and one-half miles – until they encountered the ragged edge of a hurriedly organized defensive line (Map 2). The First Canadian Division and assorted French troops manned the line in scattered, hastily prepared positions 1,000 to 3,000 yards apart. This improvised defense, together with the fact that the Germans had lost some of their combat edge during the month-long wait for favorable winds, finally slowed and then halted the attack. As for the German troops who reached their initial objective, they had only the most primitive protective equipment. When they saw the havoc their own gas had wrought, they had no wish to proceed any farther that night.
Two days later, during which time the British and French brought reinforcements into the area, the Germans discharged more gas. Although they did so again four more times throughout May, the element of surprise had been lost. The British and French troops were now equipped with their own primitive masks, and although the defenders suffered severe losses (over 5,900 casualties-nearly double the number of casualties for the attackers), the Germans could gain no more than a few hundred yards beyond the forward limit of their first attack. The German High Command, surprised as its opponents at the success of the new weapon, had no reserves to exploit a possible success. Thus, one of the war’s greatest tactical surprises was dissipated on what amounted to an experimental attack with limited objectives.12
To View: German medics, wearing an early mask, giving oxygen to gas victim, 1915. British, French, and Russian prototype masks were similar in design.
With the battle front at Ypres now stabilized, the British and French had to decide whether or not retaliate in kind. Faced with the Germans’ obvious technological advantage, the Allies at first hesitated to retaliate for fear of inviting the expansion of gas warfare. But when, the British Expeditionary Force commander reported that a lack of an offensive gas capability would seriously impair the morale of his troops, the British cabinet gave its approval to use chemical agents. The French government soon followed suit for basically the same reason.13
On 24 September 1915, at 0550 near Loos, Belgium, the British launched the Allies’ first attack supported by gas. It had taken them five frantic months to reach a point at which a large-scale gas attack was feasible. During that period, several Special Companies of Royal Engineers had been trained in the emplacement and discharge of gas cylinders. Unlike the Germans, the British decided to conduct their gas attack on a wide frontage. This necessitated the deployment of the cylinders clustered in batteries along the front rather than spaced far apart in one continuous line. To accomplish this, the British constructed galleries in front of the first-line trenches and positioned in them 5,500 cylinders containing 150 tons of chlorine.* The frontage was too wide to saturate all of it with gas, so the British decided to utilize smoke candles to simulate gas in those areas where the agent could not be used. By alternating the discharges of gas and smoke, the gas attack could be prolonged over forty minutes. This planned smoke screen was the first used during the war.
*This forward placement was made to protect the cylinders from German artillery, which was zeroed in on the first line of trenches to the rear of the galleries.
Fortune did not favor this first British gas attack. During the evening prior to the attack, the winds died. The following morning the British commander, Gen. Sir Douglas Haig, made a controversial decision to proceed with the attack despite uncertainty as to whether or not the slight breeze that rose in the morning would continue to blow toward the German lines. On the right flank, the gentle winds brought the gas and smoke mixture into the German trench system. There, the mild wind worked to the British advantage, for the cloud lingered and did not dissipate. On the left flank, however, not only did the winds fail, but in several positions the gas wafted back into the British trenches, engulfing the troops waiting to attack.
The Germans were taken by surprise. Their troops had little awareness of the danger posed by gas and were not sufficiently trained in defensive measures. The war diary of the German Sixth Army, the unit that bore the brunt of the attack, described the results. The gas in some instances caused little but momentary confusion, while in other cases entire units lost their ability to resist the follow-up British infantry attack. The German mask, which was essentially the same one used at Ypres, broke down as the gas lingered. The chlorine also caused rifles, machine guns, and even artillery breechblocks to jam. The most effective result of the gas was that it rendered German officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) incapable of shouting commands loud enough to be heard through their masks. The dense clouds of smoke and gas also shrouded positions and precluded officers and NCOs from leading by example.14
In spite of some British gains, the attack fell short of the desired results for three reasons. The first was the decision to proceed with the attack despite the unfavorable wind conditions. Second, the British artillery was hampered in providing support because it lacked sufficient shells. Third, there were no reserve divisions to exploit a breakthrough. In his report, the British Commander-in-Chief, Sir John French, acknowledged that, although the attack failed to penetrate the German lines, the gas attack met with marked success, and produced a demoralizing effect in some of its opposing units. More important, the major belligerents had accepted and expanded the use of chemicals as weapons of war.15
The ensuing chemical war proved to be one of experimentation with gases and with defensive add offensive equipment. As tactical doctrine and training evolved to reflect technological changes, the availability of gases and the imagination of commanders became the only limits to the employment of this new weapon.
The Europeans Face
Chemicals on the Battlefield,
1915-1918
Chapter 2
During World War I chemists on both sides investigated over 3,000 chemical substances for potential use as weapons. Of these, only thirty agents were used in combat, and only about a dozen achieved the desired military results (Table 1). Most armies grouped war gases according to their physiological effects, that is their effects on the human body.1
One category, lachrymators, was composed of tear gases such as xylyl bromide, an agent that primarily affected the eyes but in large concentrations could also damage the respiratory system. Asphyxiators, such as phosgene, chloropicrin, and chlorine, were in another category. These gases caused fluid to enter the lungs, thereby preventing oxygen from reaching the blood. Toxic gases, yet another category, passed through the lungs to the blood, preventing the circulation and release of oxygen throughout the body. Hydrogen cyanide ( Vincennite to the French) was one of the least effective toxic agents. Sternutators, such as diphenylchlorarsine, were a type of respiratory irritant composed of a very fine dust that caused sneezing, nausea, and vomiting. Some sternutators were systemic poisons that had a delayed toxic effect on the body. The final category held the greatest casualty producer-a vesicant or blister agent that, because of its peculiar odor, the British and later the Americans commonly referred to as mustard gas. *2
*The Germans referred to it as Yellow Cross because of the shell marking, and the French called it Yperite, in recognition of the location where it was first used.
In 1917 the Germans first used mustard against the Allies at Ypres. This was the only persistent agent used during World War I and had effects similar to those produced by a combination of lachrymatory, asphyxiator, and systemic poisons. Although called mustard gas, this chemical was not a gas, but rather a volatile liquid that, several hours after contact with the skin, would cause severe bums and blisters. The introduction of Yellow Cross caught the Allies completely by surprise. During the first attack, British infantry saw the gas shells explode, but were unable to see, smell or taste any agent, nor feel any immediate effects. The soldiers concluded that the Germans were trying to trick them and did not put on their masks. After several hours, to the consternation of officers and medics, the troops began to complain of pain in their eyes, throats, and lungs. Later, blisters appeared on the exposed skin of the British soldiers. The German use of Yellow Cross caused British gas casualties, which had been declining, to increase markedly. Because of its ability to produce large numbers of casualties, mustard was soon being referred to as the King of the war gases.3
TO VIEW: 1. Side view of gas cylinder emplacement
The major combatants realized that the employment of gas called for specially trained troops and, accordingly, formed offensive gas units. Because of the need to emplace gas cylinders, pioneer or engineer troops usually provided the cadre of these special units. The Germans converted two pioneer regiments, the 35th and 36th, into gas units consisting of three battalions each. The regiments would deploy by companies, according to the size of the front of the attack. In addition to these units, the Germans organized a gas mortar (Minenwerfen) battalion. The Austro-Hungarians followed the German model and created their own special gas units.4
As early as July, 1915, the French and British organized gas companies called Special by the British and Z for gaz (gas) by the French; both employed engineer troops as cadre. By 1917 the British had expanded their original four companies to twenty-one and had organized them as a Special Brigade. The French eventually created the 31st, 32nd, and 33rd gas battalions composed of three companies each. The Russians organized gas units and called them Gas Detachments of the Chemical Department, with one detachment assigned to each Russian Army, a total of thirteen.5
In addition to developing gas units and chemical agents, a constant search continued for efficient delivery systems. The cylinders used in the first gas attack at Ypres in 1915 were the major component of a cumbersome, immobile system, It usually took several days of intensive labor,* with infantry providing most of the muscle, to emplace the cylinders for a cloud attack (Figure 1). One can gain an indication of the difficulty of the task by noting that as many as 12,000 cylinders, each weighing over 100 pounds, were sometimes needed for a single operation. Once emplaced, the cylinders were dangerously exposed to enemy high explosive shells and easily damaged, Cylinder discharges always depended on favorable weather conditions.
*The time it took to install individual cylinders varied according to the terrain, weather, available manpower, and enemy harassing fire.
TO VIEW: 1. Summary of markings for chemical shell and properties of most common gases
Despite these problems, the British relied on cylinders as a delivery method until the end of the war. They normally used seven to eight cylinders in a section, six sections to a Special Brigade company. Sixteen companies could produce a gas wave or cloud that covered a 24,000-meter front. Several factors influenced the British decision to continue using cylinders. First, the prevailing winds favored Allied gas clouds. Second, the British suffered from a chronic shortage of shells and were reluctant to convert the production of high explosive shells to the production of gas shells. Third, British intelligence reports indicated a dense cloud attack was effective in producing mass casualties. On 26 October 1917, Brig. Gen. Charles H. Foulkes, Commander of the British Special Brigade, reviewed intelligence reports indicating that British cloud attacks created significant German casualties as far back as thirty kilometers from, the front-line trenchm Foulkes proposed that the Special Brigade use what he termed retired cylinder attacks, in which. a large number of cylinders would be emplaced behind British lines rather than in the front lines or forward of the trenches. Because the Special Brigade companies could assemble a greater number of cylinders in a relatively small area without the interference of enemy small arms or shell fire, this method allowed for a significantly greater concentration of gas released at one point.6
The British improved this tactic by conducting what they called beam attacks. These attacks called for placing numerous cylinders on narrowgauge tram cars that troops pushed forward to positions just behind the front trenches. After the cylinders were opened, the resulting gas concentration became so dense that friendly troops had to be evacuated from the path of the gas beam. On 24 May 1918 the British launched their first beam attack. This and similiar attacks, General Foulkes claimed, caused the Germans considerable anxiety, for they could not determine how and where the dense clouds originated. The beam attacks were especially deadly when launched from six or more separate railheads and when the individual clouds merged behind German lines. Prisoners taken from the German 9th Uhlan Regiment reported that one such attack caused 500 casualties in the neighboring 1st Landwehr Regiment, which, as a. result of the attack, had to be withdrawn from the line. According to the British, the effectiveness of the improved cloud attacks, with their increased density, continued to frustrate the German Army.7
The Germans, for their part, arranged their cylinders so that twenty formed a battery. Fifty such batteries were required to saturate one kilometer of front line with gas. The lack of favorable prevailing winds, however, soon forced the Germans to abandon the cloud attack. On 8 August 1916, they launched their last cylinder attack at Wieltje, near the scene of the first discharge at Ypres.8
To View: Narrow gauge tram gondola with gas cylinders.
Because the prevailing winds in Western Europe blew from west to east, the German Army began to place increasing reliance on gas-filled shells that detonated beyond Allied lines and whose contents could then drift back over enemy trenches. Gas shells could be fired. from standard artillery pieces with no extensive adaptation for gas employment. Although weather conditions still remained a factor, no longer did the Germans have to wait for the wind to change to a westerly direction. Now artillery could fire upward of the target, saturating it with gas and achieving the same effect as cylinders. Shells also offered an element of surprise not available with cloud attacks. Finally, gas shells proved more advantageous than high explosive rounds because the former did not have to score direct hits on a target to neutralize it. To avoid confusion and to aid artillerymen, the Germans developed a coded system of colored crosses to identify shells containing chemical agents.
The Germans were further encouraged to use gas shells by the results of an attack staged on the night of 22-23 June 1916. About 110,000 shells containing the lung irritant Green Cross fell on French forces near the fortress of Verdun. German batteries adjacent to this sector added thousands of rounds of a lachrymatory gas. The gas attack, according to French sources, had its greatest effect on French artillerymen and reserves in the rear areas, causing over 1,600 casualties. German staff officers, impressed with the results, talked of creating special gas batteries controlled by special gas staffs. In the interest of flexibility, however, the high command decided that all artillery units should fire gas shells. By the war’s end, gas shells comprised 50 percent of a German artillery battery’s basic.9
The British and,French also developed gas shells with unique color codes. The French Army used these shells almost as extensively as the Germans and fired the first phosgene-filled artillery shells on 22 February 1916 at Verdun. The French also experimented with an extremely small bursting charge in order to increase the gas payload. This French innovation allowed a stable, dense cloud to form. Although the French increased the chemical payload, they erred by adding comparatively harmless (smoke producers), such as stannic chloride, thus reducing the toxic capacity of their phosgene shells by 30 to 40 percent.10
The French committed another technical error in the gas war. The hydrocyanic acid (hydrogen cyanide) used in their Vincennite shell (named for the production location) was too volatile and filled only half of the shell’s capacity. Unless an extremely high concentration could be built up, there were no harmful effects. All the belligerents considered the Vincennite fill practically worthless. The French, for some reason, refused to accept this conclusion and manufactured over four million shells that, when fired, caused relatively few casualties.11
To View: British artillery firing and recieving gas shells, ca. 1916.
The British faced a constant artillery shell production shortage and supplemented their use of gas cylinders with the 4-inch Stokes mortar, introduced in July, 1916, at the Battle of the Somme, The weapon, designed specifically to fire gas and thermite shells, had a payload three times as large (six to nine pounds) as could be fired from the standard 3-inch mortar. A range of only 800 to 1,000 meters meant that effective delivery required emplacement in the front-line trenches. Members of the Special Brigade also experimented with a homemade contraption similar to a trench mortar.
To View: A 4-inch Stokes mortar used by British and American gas troops.
Early in 1917 Capt. William H. Livens, a British officer, developed a device made from ordinary steel containers. This makeshift mortar fired oil drums packed with oil-soaked cotton waste. Captain Livens also began to experiment with firing large gas-filled shells from his homemade trench mortar. This resulted in a new delivery system known as the Livens projector. In its final form the projector consisted of a drawn steel cylinder eight inches in diameter, one and one-fourth inch thick, that came in two sizes-two feet nine inches or four feet long. Rounded at one end, the cylinders had a base plate that looked like a Mexican sombrero. The projectors were buried in a trench cut at a forty-five degree angle for maximum range. Originally buried to the muzzle, this depth was later found to be unnecessary, and the projectors were thereafter emplaced only deep enough to steady them for firing. The shells used with the projectors carried a payload of thirty to forty pounds of chemical agent and had a range, depending on the length of the barrel, of either 1,200 or 1,900 meters. The British first used this delivery system for what they called gas shoots at Arras on 4 April 1917. The Germans reported that the density of the gas delivered by this method equaled that of a gas cloud. Captured German documents claimed that the Livens projector was a deadly weapon because it not only developed a dense concentration of gas similiar to the one created by cylinders, but like artillery, its impact came as a surprise. During the war the British fired ever 300 ga’s projector shoots. On 31 March 1918 the largest of these operations took place at Lens, with the firing of 3,728 of the devices.12
Increased casualties resulting from British gas projector attacks prompted the Germans to develop a similar weapon. Time constraints and the lack of industrial capacity for increased steel production forced them to retool their obsolete 18-cm heavy mortars. These tubes coul& fire a projectile containing three to four gallons of a chemical agent. In December, 1917, the Germans launched their first projector attack on the Western Front. In August, 1918, they introduced a rifled projector, 16-cm in diameter, that increased the range of the device to 3,500 meters. The shells contained thirteen pounds of chemical agent and five and one-half pounds of pumice. The pumice kept the chemical agent from. being flung into the air upon explosion. It also made the agent, usually phosgene, more persistent. In one instance, the gas reportedly lingered for one and one-half hours. Yet, impressive as were these results, the Germans, despite their efforts, continued to lag behind the British in the tactical use of this delivery system.13
Initially, the tactical employment of chemical weapons varied to some degree between the Allies and the Central Powers; however, these variations became less noticeable during the latter stages of the war. By November, 1918, the protagonists were using similiar delivery systems and chemical agents.
To View: Livens projector emplacement, 1918, used by British, French, and Americans.
From 1915 to 1918 the Germans held the initiative in most areas of gas warfare. They did this through the introduction of new agents that allowed them to direct more systematic thought to the question of how the employment of gas might alter a tactical situation. They were, for example, the first to use gas as an adjunct to maneuver in support of an infantry attack. The Allies struggled to keep up with such offensive doctrine, but they had to contend first with the development of effective defensive measures to counter German initiatives. Only after developing countermeasures could the Allies then plan their use of a new chemical agent or a new delivery system. This lag was evident in the case of the two most effective agents used in World War I, phosgene and mustard gas. The Germans introduced phosgene six months before the Allies were able to employ it and mustard a year ahead of their foe. The Allies had to adopt immediate defensive measures, such as effective mask filters and protective suits, before they could turn to the development of tactical doctrine. As far as the tactical employment of gas was concerned, wrote Lt. Col. Pascal Lucas, a French officer, it took us a long time to realize that the neutralization of personnel [by gas] could supplement the always incomplete destruction of defensive organizations by high explosives.14
British gas doctrine, when circumstances did permit its development, was driven in part by a shortage of artillery shells that prohibited the British Army from mounting an artillery gas attack until the summer of 1916. In the meantime, the British, as noted, convinced themselves that chemicals released from cylinders or projectors could most effectively be used to obtain the highest possible concentration of an agent in a specific area. The consequences of this doctrine were twofold: it prevented the British from employing gas to support mobile or open warfare, and it limited the. use of chemical agents primarily to the more restricted roles of attrition and harassment.
In the case of harassment, the British High Command, relying on intelligence reports, would indicate for one reason or another what German units it wished the Special Brigade to weaken or demoralize. German divisions recently transferred from the Eastern Front were prime targets because of their ignorance of defensive measures for gas warfare. The British sought out units that they expected to be transferred to the main battle fronts, i.e., Somme or Ypres, and tried to weaken them physically and psychologically before they deployed. On at least one occasion, a gas operation was postponed to await the arrival of a particular division. Once a German unit became a target for a gas attack, the Special Brigade made a point of following that unit around the front. The 1st Bavarian Regiment, for instance, was gassed fifteen times; the 1st Guards Regiment twelve times in six months; the 10th Bavarian Regiment ten times in five months, and the 9th Bavarian Regiment fourteen times from 28 June 1916 to 1 August 1917. The effects could be devastating to the morale of the gassed units and those units around them. A captured German diary recorded, We have again had many casualties through gas poisoning. I can’t think of anything worse; wherever one goes, one must take one’s gas mask with one, and it will soon be more necessary than a rifle. Things are dreadful here. 15
The British ultimately developed tactical doctrine for the use of gas shells. This doctrine set three methods for inflicting enemy gas casualties. The first and most favored method was by a surprise gas attack, in which British gunners attempted to establish the greatest concentration of gas in a target area by firing a lavish expenditure of ammunition at an extremely rapid rate. After one or two minutes of shelling, enemy soldiers who had not put on protective masks would be incapacitated by the dense gas; the remainder would be masked, rendering further bombardment uneconomical and unnecessary. The second method for using gas shells tried to exhaust the enemy by desultory fire over a period of many hours. In most instances, the British believed this attrition. method not worth the effort, because few casualties were produced. The third method was an attempt to penetrate the enemy’s gas masks with new agents such as chloropicrin, which when fired in a high concentration in a specific area, seeped into the masks and created intolerable eye irritation, coughing, vomiting, and inflammation of the respiratory tract. Enemy soldiers forced to remove their fouled masks were then subjected to a shelling with lethal phosgene.16
The Germans attempted to make the enemy trenches no less dreadful than their own. Having the technological advantage that gave them the ability to introduce new gases before the Allies, the Germans devoted much thought to the tactical employment of chemical weapons, and in this respect, they reached a high degree of sophistication. After abandoning cloud attacks, the Germans increased their use of gas shells. They discovered on the Eastern Front that tear gas was extremely effective in neutralizing Russian artillery. Even a few rounds would incapacitate a gun crew or, having forced it to mask, prevent it from delivering accurate fire. On the Western Front in 1916, the Germans fired some 2,000 tear gas shells at an extensive French trench system near Verdun. This massive surprise bombardment resulted in the capture of 2,400 Frenchmen who, after being temporarily blinded by the tear gas, were surrounded by German troops wearing goggles, but no masks.17
The Germans introduced other agents to the battlefield for specific tactical purposes. In May, 1916, they fired their Green Cross shell filled with diphosgene, a lung irritant. Later, as an indication of the increased sophistication of gas shells, they subdivided the Green Cross shell fill, first by a mix of 75 percent phosgene and 25 percent diphosgene, which was labled Green Cross 1. Then, in July, 1917, four different percentages of phosgene, diphosgene, and diphenylchlorosine called Green Cross 2, A, B, and C, respectively, were introduced. These were followed shortly by Blue Cross and Yellow Cross shells. The former shell was filled with an arsenic compound of finely separated dust. In field trials, this agent proved extremely effective in the penetration of all mask filters in existence. The need to encase the compound in a glass-lined shell, however, reduced its effectiveness, as the heat of the explosion failed to cause vaporization, and the force of the explosion caused only mechanical pulverization. The recipients, the French and British, considered Blue Cross a failure and not worth the effort. The introduction of Yellow Cross (mustard gas), however, again gave the Germans the initiative in chemical warfare, which they held to the end of the war. By increasing the explosive charge in the shell, the Germans further extended the area contaminated by this blister producing agent. This shell was marked by a double (Lorraine) cross.18
The Germans found gas persisted even longer when an agent and a small amount of high explosives were placed in one shell. The effect of the high explosive, when used in the proper amount, was to spread the agent over a wider area and keep it airborne longer. With this knowledge, the Germans changed their gas doctrine from attacking a, particular target to gassing large areas for extended periods of time. German staff officers began to plan operations that called for gas barriers and gas pockets.
German tactical doctrine for the use of artillery gas shells offered a variety of possibilities. For the offense, it called for surprise and the concentration of as much gas as possible through the sudden and rapid placement of shells on a target area. Cloud concentration tactics imitated surprise tactics, but with an increase in the number of shells and an expansion of the size of a target area. Another offensive tactic was the use of gas shells that contained a high explosive charge and shrapnel. These shells, used exclusively by the Germans, had an effect so devastating that the efficacy of a high explosive shrapnel [gas] shell bombardment was always increased. Once introduced, the Germans always added a percentage of these shells to any high explosive or shrapnel bombardment. The high explosive-gas shell was used extensively in German rolling barrages to support advancing infantry during the spring offenses of 1918. These shells were also used to neutralize known enemy artillery batteries and machine gun nests, thus allowing German infantry to bypass Allied strong points.19
The key figure in the expansion of German gas shell tactical doctrine was Lt. Col. Georg Bruchniffiler, known as Durchbruck (Breakthrough) and considered an artillery genius because of his success on the battlefield. While on the Eastern Front, Bruchmiiller, a great believer in the efficiency of gas shells, developed a highly sophisticated system of gas artillery fire. His tactical ideas were incorporated in the December, 1917, edition of the German manual for employment of gas shells.20 Bruchmiiller’s system created Gas Squares, which were areas known to hold enemy batteries or concentrations of enemy troops. These locations would be saturated by surprise gas shell fire, and the lethal concentration would be renewed by subsequent periodic fire. Bruchmiiler’s artillery tactics achieved surprise through a predicted-fire method that eliminated the usual ranging of the target by one gun of a battery. Bruchmiiller formulated advanced firing data and tables based on meteorological variables such as wind, air temperature, and barometric pressure.21
*Infantry troops seeking shelter from. the high explosive bombardment were often forced into locations such as shell holes, where the gas settled. Furthermore, the concussion often stripped a mask off a soldier’s face, exposing him to gas poisoning. More important, this tactic made Allied soldiers mask everytime they were subjected to artillery fire.
To View: British soldiers blinded by mustard gas at an advance aid station near Béthune during the German Lys spring offensives, 9 – 29 April 1918.
When Blue Cross and Yellow Cross shells became available, Bruchmiiller devised Buntkreuz (colored cross) tactics. One of the most successful uses of this new doctrine came on the Eastern Front, in the German crossing of the Dvina River before Riga (Map 3). On 1 September 1917 a two-hour preliminary bombardment of the Russian batteries created varicolored zones, as combinations of Blue Cross and Green Cross were used both during bombardment and then during three hours of firing for effect. For the preliminary gas fire, each German battery had a set of firing sequences every twelve minutes to counter Russian batteries, which first maintained a desultory fire and then fell silent. According to German estimates, more than 116,400 gas shells were fired, which caused at least a thousand Russian casualties, mainly because of the ineffectual respirators issued to Russian troops. The figure might have been higher had not the Russians fled. German infantry reached the opposite bank to find that the Russian artillery crews had abandoned their guns in great haste, resembling flight. The Russian infantry, which lacked effective personal protection against chemical agents, had followed suit.22
*Zones containing either Blue, Green, or Yellow Cross gas shells or combinations of all three.
TO VIEW: Varicolored zones of German gas fired in support of a crossing of the Dvina River before Riga, Eastern Front, 1 September 1917
Persistent agent fire was used tactically by the Germans on both the offense and the defense. Surprise, though desirable, was not necessary for persistent agents. Yellow Cross allowed an area to be cleared of, or rendered inaccessible to, the enemy. Fire continued for several hours, and the contamination could be renewed each day thereafter, if so desired. The areas gassed were called Yellow Zones of Defense. In April, 1918, the Germans shelled the city of Armentieres with mustard gas (Map 4). The bombardment was so heavy that witnesses claimed liquid mustard gas ran in the streets. Naturally, the British evacuated the locale; the contamination, however, prevented the Germans from entering the city for two weeks. In the spring offensives of 1918 (Map 5), the Germans created mustard gas zones to protect the flanks of advancing infantry, to neutralize enemy strong points, to deny the enemy key terrain, to block supply routes, and to render enemy artillery batteries ineffective. Even in open warfare, a German officer wrote, the troops soon were asking for gas supporting fire. 23
To View: Various types of gas masks used in World War I.
Mustard gas caused considerable consternation among the Allies. We were outdistanced … a French officer noted, the German lead on us in this respect … was a source of real inquietude, for the units that were exposed suffered considerably and the struggle against Yperite seemed most deceptive of solution. The Allies eventually responded in kind, but not until June, 1918, a full year after the Germans introduced the ultimate agent of World War I, did the French use Yperite, and it took the British until 26 September 1918 to retaliate with mustard. So desperate were the French to obtain the agent that British officers reported teams of French soldiers draining unexploded German Yellow Cross shells in order to reuse the gas.24
TO VIEW: 4. German gas shell bombardment of Armentières on 9 April 1918
TO VIEW: 5. The German spring offensives of 1918 were heavily supported by a variety of gases
Personal protection was always a problem, one neither side ever really solved in World War I. The German High Command, prior to the first attack at Ypres, made no effort to develop an efficient gas mask. Attacking German soldiers had small protective bags of mull or hemp that were soaked in a sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) solution and then tied over the mouth and nose. Not until the closing months of 1915 did the German army begin to issue a self-contained respirator. The mask had a treated leather facepiece (because of the shortage of rubber, only officer facepieces were constructed of this material, which was more efficient than leather and easier to maintain) and eyepieces of an outer glass lens and a celluloid inner lens. The first German mask had a significant drawback: the filter had to be screwed on to the facepiece each time the mask was used, which meant that more time was required to mask during a gas attack. Later, this problem was remedied by a single construction model with a replaceable filter element.25
To View: German artillerymen wearing the single-piece gas mask, early 1917.
The French, British, and Russians did not coordinate their research and development of gas defenses. Although they passed information and some equipment to each other, they worked independently for the most part on their own protective masks.* In England, shortly after the first gas attack in April, 1915, housewives were asked by the high command to produce what became popularly known as the Black Veil Respirator-black veiling held a pad of cotton waste soaked in a chemical solution over the nose and mouth. These makeshift masks reached the British trenches in early May. When, in the latter part of 1915, the Germans began to use tear gas, the British countered with a flour sack type mask made of flannel, called the Hypo or H-Helmet after the chemical in which it was soaked, calcium hypochlorite. This mask offered protection to the eyes as well as to the respiratory system. One British officer described it as a smoke helmet, a greasy grey-felt bag with a tale window certainly ineffective against gas. This H-Helmet contained two celluloid eyepieces, but no apparatus to expel the carbon dioxide that built up in the mask.26
*This go-it-alone attitude, created perhaps by national pride, prevailed for most of the war in many areas besides chemical warfare. In fact, it was not until the German spring 1918 offensives that a Supreme Command came into existence to direct and coordinate the operations of the Allied armies.
To View: British machine gun crew with PH-Helmets (note exhaust valve) firing during a German gas attack, Oise Sector, Marne, France, 1916.
In the fall of 1915 British intelligence learned of Germany’s intention to use a new gas, phosgene, a delayed-action choking agent, The Russians had also learned that the Germans intended to employ phosgene and advised the British that a solution of phenate-hexamine was effective in blocking the agent. As a result, the British soaked their H-Helmet in the Russian solution and added an outlet valve to reduce the carbon dioxide buildup inside the mask. The British Army called the new device the PH-Helmet. The troops called it a. goggle-eyed booger with a tit. 27
To View: French soldiers with M-2 masks advance through a gas cloud.
Although the PH-Helmet successfully blocked phosgene, it had serious drawbacks: it was hot, stuffy, and emitted an unpleasant odor; it also offered little protection against dense concentrations of lachrymatory agents. To counteract both phosgene and the lachrymating agents, the British in early 1916 took an entirely different approach to protective masks by developing a two-piece device called the Large Box or Tar Box Respirator. A canister worn on the back contained neutralizing chemicals and attached by a rubber hose to a facepiece covering the chin, mouth, and nose. The wearer endured an uncomfortable noseclip and a mouthpiece similar to an athlete’s rubber tooth protector. Goggles protected the eyes. The advantage of the mask rested in the use of a large filter. However, this also caused difficulties because the canister was too large and clumsy to be carried for extended distances over prolonged periods. This kind of mask reached its final stage of development with the introduction of the Small Box Respirator (SBR), which employed a smaller filter worn on the chest and a single construction facepiece. The details of the SBR became very familiar to men of the American Expeditionary Forces.28
The French wrote a different chapter to the development of the gas mask. After using the same primitive masks as the British, they set out to develop a mask that was both effective and comfortable to wear – two criteria that were, and still are, essential for the successful design of protective devices. The first significant French protective device, the M-2 mask, was similar in design to the British H-Helmet, except it did not cover the entire head, but took the form of a snout similar to a feedbag for a horse. Its filtration ability was limited, so French doctrine called for troops to be rotated after several hours of exposure to any gas.29 In 1917 the French introduced the ARS (Appareil Respiratoire Speécial) mask. In appearance it resembled German protective equipment. The rubber facepiece had a waxed or oiled linen lining. Inhaled air passed in front of the eyepieces to prevent clouding. A canister attached to the facepiece could not be removed.
In September, 1917, these French masks were followed by another, the Tissot, which became one of the most effective masks of the war. As one postwar American observer noted, the French deserve great credit for the introduction of this defensive piece of equipment. In design, the Tissot was similar to the British Small Box Respirator except that the former’s filter canister was carried on the soldier’s back, not chest. This meant that infantrymen could carry only the Tissot and no other equipment. It covered the entire face, but without the uncomfortable nose clip and mouthpiece. The design allowed air to enter the mouth across the eyepieces, thus removing the normal phenomenon of condensation. The circulation of fresh air also diluted any lachrymatory gases that might enter the mask. Finally, the entire facepiece was of thin rubber. The French thought the filter location, the same as for the Large Tar Box Respirator, clumsy and difficult to adjust and, therefore, judged it unsuitable for infantry. Troops, such as artillery gun crews and stretcher bearers, who were not loaded with personal equipment and who had to continue to fight or function during a gas attack, did receive the mask. These soldiers found, in addition to comfort, that one could breathe easier and that the filtration system was superior to the ARS and M-2 mask.30
Unlike the British and French, the Russians devoted few resources to the development of chemical protective equipment. Consequently, they suffered the greatest number of chemically inflicted casualties in World War I. On 2 May 1915, not quite a month after the second Battle of Ypres during which French Colonial and Territorial troops collapsed under the first German gas attack, the Russians were subjected to a similar experience. German pioneer troops directed by Fritz Haber released 263 tons of chlorine gas from 12,000 cylinders against Russian troops at Bolimov. The first cylinder attack on the Eastern Front killed 6,000 Russian soldiers. Two more gas cloud attacks were made on the same position, and upward of 25,000 Russian casualties resulted. According to German sources, in June, 1915, at Bzura, two Russian regiments, the 55th and 56th Siberian, suffered approximately 9,000 gas casualties, or about 90 percent of their total strength. On 7 September 1916 a German cloud attack killed 600 Russian officers and men. The following month Transbaikal Cossacks suffered 4,000 casualties. A gas attack in 1917 cost the Russians 12 officers, 1,089 men killed, and 53 officers, 7,738 men incapacitated. Despite these casualties, the Tzarist Army developed only one mask in addition to the basic chemical-soaked gauze respirator. The fabric facepiece of this mask covered the head and attached directly to a canister containing a charcoal filter. It looked similar to the bill on a duck. Although the mask had no noseclip or mouthpiece, soldiers still found it extremely uncomfortable because the weight of the filter placed a great strain on the muscles of the neck. To make matters worse, the filter of this mask was of questionable effectiveness. By 1917 different types of British and French masks were being sent to Russia and used, to some limited extent, by Russian troops.31
By the summer of 1917, when U.S. troops began to arrive at French ports, chemical warfare had become commonplace and, in practice, had reached a high degree of sophistication compared to the first significant gas attack at Ypres a little over two years earlier. By July the most effective chemical agent of the war, mustard or Yellow Cross, had made its appearance. Gas shells now might contain two or even three different agents. All of the delivery systems for chemical war were in operation and efforts were being made by the combatants to improve on these weapons. The British had, for example, devised electronically detonated cylinders on tram cars for beam attacks. Also, the British had finally begun to overcome their shell production problems and had used gas shells in large quantities at the Battle of Arras in April, 1917.
Tactical doctrine for chemical warfare had reached a high level of sophistication, especially in artillery employment. In this area, the Germans, thanks to Lt. Col. Georg Bruchmüller, led the way. German artillery firing instructions became increasingly complex in regard to the selection of the gas or combination of gases to be used in a variety of tactical situations.
Given the advantage of viewing the development of chemical warfare from afar, the United States Army, upon entering the war, should have been in a position to operate in a chemical environment without repeating the costly experiences of the French, British, and Germans. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case.
The U.S. Army’s Response
to Chemical Warfare,
1915-1917
Chapter 3
Most of the information Americans received concerning the war and chemical warfare in Europe came from the news media. Because the Royal Navy had cut the German trans-Atlantic cable early in the war, almost all news from the Continent flowed through British and French censors.
According to one author of a study on chemical warfare, Frederick Brown, Allied control of chemical warfare information to the United States can be divided into four distinct phases. During the first phase the Germans were portrayed as violators of the Hague Convention. Reports indicated that the German Army had introduced a barbaric and inhumane weapon. This line, of course, was geared to gaining,support and perhaps intervention by the United States on the side of the Allies in the European war. When the French and British decided to retaliate with gas, the message changed, with Allied releases indicating that the German’s first use of gas justified retaliation and the reluctant employment of similiar weapons by the Allies. A note of righteous indignation pervaded these reports, although the reports were toned down considerably when discussing the effects of gas. In the third stage, which occurred during the spring and summer of 1917, there was a total news blackout on information concerning the gas war. Assistant Secretary of War Benedict Crowell speculated on the cause. He acknowledged an increased use of chemical agents on both sides and believed the Allies feared and perhaps with reason that a picture of gas warfare, if presented to the Americans, would result in a unreasonable dread of gases on the part of the American nation and its soldiers. The fourth and final phase, which came after U.S. entry into the war, was ushered in with a burst of information with virtually no censorship. The use of chemicals in this phase was depicted as a triumph of Allied technology, an example of good overcoming evil.1
Restricted Allied propaganda during the first three phases mentioned above impeded U.S. preparedness in chemical warfare in two ways. First, it gave U.S. officers the impression that the belligerents were making minimal use of gas and that chemical weapons, when employed, had little or no impact on the battlefield. Second, it created the perception among Army officers that chemical warfare, introduced by the barbaric Hun, was inhuman and somehow sullied the honor of the professional soldier.2
There were other reasons for the military’s lack of appreciation of this new weapon. President Wilson’s efforts to maintain strict neutrality during the first two years of the war hampered the Army’s planning for defense. When, at one point, Wilson discovered that the General Staffs War College Division had prepared contingency plans for a war with Germany, he reprimanded Secretary of War Lindley Garrison. When the Army did tackle the problem of preparedness, chemical warfare, because it was an unfamiliar subject to most planners, received little attention. Other matters seemed more pressing. There were, for example, significant shortages of all kinds of war materiel. In 1915, the U.S. Army had only twenty-one aircraft, as compared to Britain’s 250 and France’s 500. The United States had fewer than 700 3inch guns, while the French alone had 4,800 of a similar caliber prior to the outbreak of war. Based on Western Front usage, the U.S. Army had only a two-day supply of artillery shells. Similarly, four days of trench warfare would exhaust the U.S. inventory of small arms ammunition. In the assignment of priorities to overcome these and other deficiencies, chemical warfare came nowhere near the top of the list.3
During the summer of 1915, the U.S. Army War College published studies on the impact of the war on each belligerent’s industrial base. In this report, the implications of chemical weapons and gas warfare received no notice. In November, 1915, two months after the British retaliated with gas at the Battle of Loos, the War College published a supplement to the earlier studies. This report included a survey of developments in weapons, equipment, and force structuring, but interestingly, still did not mention gas warfare.
Even the preparedness movement and the passage of the 1916 National Defense Act did nothing to spur an American assessment of the chemical war being waged in Europe. In fact, during Congressional hearings over preparedness for national defense, poison gas was mentioned only once when Col. Charles G. Treat of the U.S. Army’s General Staff testified on the subject of changing artillery doctrine in Europe. Following a discussion of shrapnel shells, one Senator asked Treat, Are they still using the poisonous gas over there, Colonel? Treat replied, The papers say so, but we have not had any actual reports from our observers that they are using them. In November, 1916, the same month that Treat testified, the War Department’s Board of Ordnance and Fortifications noted that certain practices with poison gas in the European war made necessary the procurement of appropriate defensive equipment, such as gas masks for the Army. The board observed that no branch of the U.S. Army then handled anything remotely connected with chemical warfare.4
The board, in its final report, recommended that responsibility for the design, but not the supply, of gas masks be given to the Army’s Medical Department. In reviewing the records of the board, the Adjutant General sent extracts of the comments that pertained to gas defense equipment to the Surgeon General, who concurred with the board’s findings. The Chief of Staff also concurred, after which the Secretary of War gave the Surgeon General responsibility for the development and design of gas masks. No decision was made as to which branch of the Army would supply troops with protective gas equipment.5
The Surgeon General had detailed a number of medical officers to serve as observers with the French and British armies. Reports on the medical aspects of the European conflict, including the diagnosis and treatment of gas victims, were received by the Surgeon General from 1916 on. Unfortunately, for unexplained reasons, the Surgeon General took no action to initiate the development of protective gas devices. The Adjutant General, for his part, shelved the entire matter. Thus, on the eve of American intervention, the Army acted as if it had barely heard of chemical warfare.6
The Secretary of War’s Annual Report for 1917 reflected this neglect. The report pompously declared that the councils of prudence and forethought should prepare the Army to surprise the enemy rather than lag defensively behind the surprises which he prepares for us. The Secretary went on to acknowledge the tremendous impact of science on the war in Europe and referred specifically to the introduction of the airplane and the submarine. As for chemicals, he merely noted that there were other scientific novelties that had surfaced in the European conflict.7
In February, 1917, the question the scientific novelty called poison gas was finally raised by an anxious Quartermaster General who pointedly asked the Adjutant General exactly which bureau of the War Department would furnish the Army with gas masks if the need arose. The question prompted the Adjutant General to initiate correspondence with the’Chief of Ordnance, the Quartermaster General, and the Surgeon General to decide on the responsibility for gas mask production. At the time of the correspondence, the Surgeon General had yet to begin a program of gas mask development.8
That same month the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Mines took the first positive steps toward preparing the Army for chemical warfare. The director, Van H. Manning, displayed a great deal more vision and foresight than did his military colleagues in Washington. At a bureau meeting, Manning asked his department chiefs what they could do to be useful if the nation should become involved in the European war. Since its founding in 1908, the bureau had investigated poison gases found in mines, conducted research on breathing devices, and examined ways to treat miners who had succumbed to noxious fumes. Obviously, this work had a direct application to chemical warfare. The day following the meeting, the Secretary of the Interior authorized Manning to contact another civilian organization,. the Military Committee of the National Research Council. In a letter to C. D. Walcott, the chairman of the committee, Manning pointed out that the bureau could adapt for military application a self-contained breathing apparatus then in use for mine rescues. Also, the bureau had a test chamber at the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, experimental station that could be used to conduct tests on military gas masks then in use by the Europeans. The bureau hoped that the information obtained from this research could be given to the Army, allowing it to adopt the best gas mask, should the need arise.9
Upon receipt of this letter, Walcott arranged a meeting between representatives of the General Staffs War College Division and the Bureau of Mines. The meeting proved productive: at the end of February, 1917, the War Department accepted the bureau’s offer of assistance and agreed to furnish the support, exclusive of funding, necessary to move the work along. Still, no immediate action. was taken by either the Army or the Bureau of Mines to begin a defensive gas equipment research program.
On 6 April 1917, when the U.S. declared war on Germany, the Army not only lacked defensive equipment for chemical warfare, but also had no concrete plans to develop or manufacture gas masks or any other defensive equipment. Even if gas masks had been available, the Army would have had no idea how to conduct defensive gas training. Moreover, no one in the nation seemed to have any practical knowledge concerning offensive chemical warfare equipment or the doctrine then used by the Allies and the Germans for its employment.
Even after the declaration of war by Congress and the decision to ship an American division overseas, preparations for chemical warfare lacked a sense of urgency. The same day war was declared, the Council of National Defense formed a Committee on Noxious Gases. The group met in Washington and immediately adjourned to study British and French gas warfare literature. At later meetings the committee established definite guidelines for Bureau of Mines research to follow in the development of masks. Only then did the chemists at the bureau’s Pittsburgh experimental station begin in earnest to develop an American gas mask. The committee also recommended that gas mask production be kept separate and distinct from research.10
In May, 1917, the General Staff awoke to the fact that the division requested by the French and British as a token force might well be in combat in a matter of months without any defensive gas equipment L. P. Williamson, liaison officer between the Bureau of Mines and the War Department, received a directive from the General Staff telling him to seek the bureau’s assistance in the manufacture of 25,000 gas masks. George A. Burrell,* a civilian chemist in the bureau’s Research Laboratory, readily and willingly accepted the task, but not, as he later noted, fully appreciating all the conditions which a war mask had to encounter. Burrell should not have been so hard on himself. No one in the United States really understood or even knew much about the employment of chemical defensive equipment on the battlefield.11
*Burrell was made a colonel in the Corps of Engineers and later served in the Chemical Warfare Service Research Division.
Working day and night, employees of four different civilian companies fabricated 20,088 masks and filters, using a British Small Box Respirator (SBR) as a model. The masks were shipped overseas to be examined and tested by British experts. They were quickly rejected. The British cabled back that the masks were unacceptable for combat because the mouthpiece was too large and stiff. They also found the rubberized cloth facepiece did not filter out the agent chloropicrin, which was then being used by the Germans in increasing quantities. The filter, which was worn on the chest in a container, had soda-lime granules that were too soft. With repeated jolting, the granules would clog the canister and increase resistance to breathing.
While this was going on, the acting Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. Tasker Bliss, after a lengthy round of memoranda initiated by the Adjutant General, informed the Surgeon General on 16 May 1917 that, in addition to research and development, the Medical Department would be responsible for supplying the U.S. Army with gas masks and other defensive equipment. During the next fiscal year the Medical Department would be responsible for supplying 1,000,000 gas masks, 8,500 decontamination sprayers for use in trench warfare, and 1,000 oxygen resuscitators for the treatment of chemical casualties. Unfortunately, neither the Chief of Staff nor the Surgeon General created an office to procure the equipment. The Surgeon General did, however, assign an officer to the National Research Council’s Committee on Noxious Gases.12
The Committee on Noxious Gases soon met with representatives from the Army and Navy and with members of a French scientific mission. After several sessions, the committee sent a memorandum to the Secretary of War on 2 July 1917, informing him that it had worked out a partial organization plan for a gas service. Unfortunately, the use of the term gas service was misleading, because what the committee recommended turned out to be a cumbersome decentralized system for preparing the Army for chemical warfare. The offensive aspects of gas warfare, the committee explained, should be handled by the Ordnance Department, the defensive measures by the Medical Department. The Bureau of Mines would continue to direct research, and the Corps of Engineers would receive responsibility for handling all chemical warfare material on the battlefield. The General Staff immediately put this decentralized system into effect.13
On 24 July 1917 the Chief of Staff ordered the Medical Department to provide nine officers as instructors for a Gas Defense School to be organized at the Infantry School of Musketry, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. As a result of this order, the Medical Department received the additional responsibility for the conduct of defensive gas training. Medical officers with absolutely no experience in gas warfare were now expected to train other medical officers for duty as instructors for an Army that would eventually be expanded to over three million men.14
After an interminable delay, the Surgeon General on 31 August 1917 finally created a Gas Defense Service composed of three sections: Field Supply, Overseas Repair, and Training. He placed a Medical Corps officer in command and filled his staff with members of the Medical Department’s Sanitary Corps.* The officers had no chemical warfare doctrine to guide them. Only two War Department publications existed in the United States to assist these gas officers: a hurriedly compiled Notes on Gas as a Weapon in Modern War and a Memorandum on Gas Poisoning in Warfare. Both publications appear to have borrowed extensively from French and British gas warfare doctrine, some of it outdated.15
*The Sanitary Corps is equivalent to today’s Medical Service Corps.
The creation of a Training Section, even with its limited expertise, came none too soon. In September, 1917, draftees, volunteers, and National Guardsmen began to arrive at the thirty-six training cantonments scattered across the country. Sanitary Corps and division medical officers, with only several thousand masks at their disposal (including the 20,088 rejected by the British), faced the overwhelming task of training hundreds of thousands of troops in gas warfare and gas defense. Shortages of equipment, manuals, and knowledge were not the only problems facing the new gas officers. Gas was such a new weapon that division commanders and their staff officers were unwilling to give up training time for chemical defense at the expense of more traditional military skills such as close order drill and marksmanship. It was a wonder that any defensive training in gas warfare took place. Many times it did not. Initially, there were at best one or two hours of gas defense lectures, sometimes accompanied by a demonstration of how to wear the gas mask.16
The lack of knowledge and experience with gas bred ignorance and superstition among recruits and veterans alike. Rumors swept through the camps that Germany had a gas that would make [soldiers’] eyes drop out of their sockets or their fingers and toes drop off. To the unsophisticated youths who filled the training camps, gas was mysterious enough, but add to it the word chemical, and it became hopelessly beyond … their conception. Gas was such an intangible thing, a division commander noted, that a level of understanding adequate to guard against the dangers it posed was difficult to reach. Reaching such a level continued to be a hopeless task because no coherent U.S. gas warfare doctrine existed. As a consequence, a majority of World War I doughboys found themselves in a chemical combat environment with only a minimal amount of defensive gas training and with no idea of what this training really meant. 17
Confronted with this unfortunate situation, the War College of the General Staff examined the evolving gas defense program in the fall of 1917. Defensive training in gas warfare – regardless of how rudimentary – had to be given to men going to Europe. Ypres had proved what chemical warfare could do to unprepared soldiers. Severe casualties and battlefield defeat might well occur if immediate steps were not taken to train men in the defensive aspects of chemical warfare. As a result, the War College requested and received a British gas officer and a gas NCO for each of the thirty-six training cantonments.
*The British Special Brigade of the Royal Engineers was an offensive gas unit. (See Chapter 2.)
In late October, 1917, the British gas experts arrived in the United States. Their activities were coordinated and directed by Maj. S.J.M. Auld, Special Brigade, Royal Engineers.* Auld quickly made his presence felt. Impressed by the British gas officer’s knowledge and practical experience, the War College and the Field Training Section asked him to prepare a working textbook on gas in order to fill the U.S. Army’s doctrinal void in chemical warfare. Working with Sanitary Corps Capt. James H. Walton, Auld wrote four pamphlets that were later combined as Adjutant General Document 705, Gas Warfare. They were initially published individually in the following order:
Part Three: Methods of Training in Defensive Methods
Part Two: Methods of Defense Against Attack
Part One: German Methods of Offense
Part Four: The Offensive in Gas Warfare -Cloud and Projector
*Later, in October, 1918, the Army Gas School was moved to Camp Kendrick, adjacent to Lakehurst, New Jersey, the proving ground for the new Chemical Warfare Service established on 11 May 1918.
Thus, British gas warfare doctrine edited by the War College Division of the General Staff became U.S. Army doctrine.18
Auld strongly influenced the organization of the U.S. Army for chemical warfare in one other way. When he and other British officers discovered that the General Staff had placed defensive training under the Medical Department, they were appalled. The British officers insisted that gas defense was purely a military affair ; in their opinion, proper defensive measures were largely a question of discipline. Based on the experience of the British Army, such procedures were so closely connected with the soldier’s fighting activities that preparation for chemical warfare could not be carried out by a noncombat branch of the’Army. The British were so emphatic that, in January, 1918, by order of the General Staff, the Field Training Section of the Sanitary Corps passed to the Corps of Engineers.19
Major Auld also suggested the establishment of a Central Army Gas School to train Divisional, Brigade and Regimental Gas officers and other personnel whom it might be desirable to educate in Gas Warfare. This idea was already under consideration by the General Staff. The result was the establishment of an Army Gas School at Camp A. A. Humphreys, Virginia,* where in May, 1918, two initial courses began. The first, a four-day course for officers and noncommissioned officers, provided general information on gas warfare. The second, a twelve-day course, was for Chief Gas Officers who would be assigned to division and higher echelon staffs. Although there were similarities between the two courses, the Chief Gas Officers’ instruction went into greater detail on most matters. The shortage of trained gas officers in the AEF prevented students from being held for longer periods of field training on subjects such as gas detection, construction of gas-proof dugouts, and the proper wearing of respirators.20
**In January, 1918, the General Staff placed the Sanitary Corps’ Field Training Section under the Corps of Engineers.
To View: Recruits undergoing a simulated gas attack at a National Army Camp, 1918.
Auld assisted in training the first U.S. gas officers, forty-five first lieutenants, all chemists, who were assigned to the Field Training Section of the Sanitary Corps.** The instruction took place at the American University in Washington, DC. In January, 1918, after three months of training in gas warfare and general military subjects, thirty-three of the forty-five officers, together with their British instructors, departed for duty at division training camps. The other twelve went directly to France. Unfortunately, by January, 1918, six of the thirty U.S. divisions destined to see combat in France had either left the States or had completed training. The men in these units had received no chemical warfare training before embarking for Europe. As for the divisions that did receive some training before shipping overseas, their division gas officers were afterwards assigned to the 473d Engineer Regiment, a stateside administrative holding unit. Thus, the first trained gas officers did not deploy with the men they had trained. Although necessary for the training of subsequent divisions, this decision had, in the words of one gas officer, a discouraging effect upon the men and upon gas training and discipline in general in the unit deployed overseas. The confidence of the embarking troops was hardly bolstered when the experts on chemical warfare stayed home.
As the war progressed, the training in the division camps improved. In January, 1918, the 29th Division’s gas training at Camp McClellan consisted of a brief lecture and gas mask drill for one hour daily, five days a week, under the close supervision of British instructors. This compared favorably to the weekly one-hour anti-gas instruction in October, 1917. As training became more sophisticated, men underwent tests at the end of their division’s training cycle. They masked and entered a chamber filled with chlorine gas. Next, they went through a chamber filled with a tear agent, where they unmasked. Although by the summer of 1918, recruits received standardized chemical warfare training, reports filed by division gas officers in Europe indicated the key to successful preparation had yet to be found. Still more training was needed, and it had to be integrated with other subjects.21
In the summer of 1918, with news reaching America of Germany’s increased use of gas, an Army regulation was promulgated, requiring every doughboy who left the country to have a certificate indicating he had completed gas training. No other military skill required such validation. Unfortunately, the requirement was usually ignored, and most men continued to arrive in France without the benefit of adequate instruction in gas defense. Gas officers realized that sufficient time for training in the camps did not exist. To make up for the deficiency, units attempted to use the time aboard transports for defensive gas training. The 80th Division, for example, ordered that shipboard activities would include physical training, manual of arms, guard duty, and anti-gas instruction. 22
Although the U.S. Army’s first efforts in chemical warfare were directed toward anti-gas or defensive measures, the development of the means to retaliate in kind soon followed. On 15 August 1917,, with the approval of the General Staff in Washington, AEF General Order 108 authorized the organization of special and technical engineer troops that would be assigned to each army as a Gas and Flame Regiment.* The War Department ordered recruits for the newly formed 30th Engineers to report to the American University campus in Washington, DC, where they were transformed into the 1st Gas Regiment. Unfortunately, with no one to instruct them in offensive or even defensive gas warfare, the only training the first companies of the gas regiment received in the United States involved close order drill. The unit underwent no special training in gas warfare. Beginning in December, 1917, the companies of the 1st Gas Regiment left the United States without gas masks.23
* Flame disappeared from the name and from use when GHQ, AEF, decided that the primitive flamethrowers used by the British and the French were more dangerous to the operator than to the enemy.
To View: Recruits at Camp Kearney, California, using British Ayrton or trench fans to clear gas, 1918.
The gas mask problem continued to plague the Army as a whole. An effective American mask was eventually developed using the British Small Box Respirator as a model. However, production of American gas masks peaked just one month prior to the end of the war. Late delivery and the initial small number of masks produced were offset only by the AEF’s decision to purchase several million British and French gas masks.24
The same unpreparedness and production lag applied to offensive chemical weapons. The Army attempted to contract out the production of war gases to a number of civilian chemical companies, but these firms objected immediately to the contracts because of the inherent dangers in the production of large quantities of war gases and because the demand for the product would not extend beyond the conflict. Besides that, the firms had already overcommitted their plants and personnel for the production of other war-related chemical products.25
The Army thus found itself with no alternative but to construct its own production facilities. In December, 1917, construction of plants to produce chemical agents began at Gunpowder Neck, Maryland. By the summer of 1918, the Edgewood Arsenal there had plants in operation producing phosgene, chloropicrin, mustard, chlorine, and sulfur trichloride. The arsenal also had a capability for filling artillery shells, although most of the agents produced were shipped overseas to the Allies in fifty-five gallon drums. Because of insufficient time, not one single gas shell manufactured at the arsenal ever reached an American artillery piece in France. When production of chemicals finally peaked one month prior to the Armistice, the plants had to stop production for lack of shell casings. artillery units and special gas troops fired American produced war gas, but in French and British shells.26
As the emphasis on chemical warfare increased, there arose a need to coordinate the various agencies assigned responsibility for gas warfare. Accordingly, on 28 June 1918 President Wilson, using the authority given to him by the Overman Act,* ordered the establishment of the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) as a separate branch of the National Army. Immediately, all activities pertaining to chemical warfare were placed under Maj. Gen. William L. Sibert, formerly Commanding General of the First Infantry Division. The creation of a branch of the Army dedicated to chemical warfare was significant because it acknowledged, albeit belatedly, the tremendous impact the new weapon was having on the AEF The CWS, with the concurrence of the General Staff, established ten subordinate divisions:
Administration Proving
Research Medical
Gas Offense Training
Gas Offense
(Edgewood Arsenal) Overseas
(Gas Service, AEF)
Development 1st Gas Regiment
*The Overman Act of 20 May 1917 gave the president the authority to re organize executive agencies during the war emergency.
With the exception of the Overseas Division and the 1st Gas Regiment, the division chiefs were located in Washington, DC, and the operations of their divisions were scattered throughout the United States. The Administration Division facilitated routine matters and coordinated the activities of the other CWS divisions. A Research Division, as the name implied, handled all basic research, from the discovery of new chemicals to the development of protective masks and offensive equipment. Another division, Gas Defense, conducted research, but primarily administered the manufacturing, testing, and inspecting of gas masks for men and animals. This division also had the responsibility for manufacturing gas-proof dugout blankets, protective suits and gloves, antigas ointment, and gas warning signals. The Gas Defense Division administered Edgewood Arsenal. A Development Division experimented with charcoal suitable for gas mask filters, a manufacturing process for mustard, and a means of producing casings and adapters for 75-min shells of similar design to the French glass-lined gas projectiles. A Proving Division tested prototype gas shells before production and spottested shells prior to shipment overseas. The Medical Division coordinated work on the therapy, pharmacology, physiology, and pathology of war gases on the body. This division’s primary emphasis was on the prevention and treatment of casualties from mustard gas.28
The agency that had its most direct impact on the AEF was the Chemical Warfare Service’s Training Division. The division’s responsibilities included the organization and training of gas troops, the training of casual detachments for overseas duty, the maintenance of a Chemical Warfare Training Camp detachment, and the procurement and training of chemical officers for overseas duty. In recognition of the division’s importance, the Assistant Director of the Chemical Warfare Service, Brig. Gen. H. C. Newcomer, assumed operational command. This was the only division, other than Administration, headed by a general officer.
The structure of the CWS in the United States was determined by the personnel and equipment requirements of the AEF. Stateside training and preparations for chemical warfare had to be curtailed in order to rush American troops to France. Initially, expertise in chemical warfare was lacking. As a consequence, combat divisions deployed without proper training, equipment, and leadership. Until late 1917, there was no chemical warfare doctrine to rely upon. Nevertheless, American troops had to fight on a chemical battlefield against an opponent highly skilled in the use of chemicals in combat. Out of necessity it fell to the Overseas Division, CWS, to bear the brunt of the responsibility for preparing American soldiers for chemical warfare.
The majority of the thirty AEF divisions to see combat in World War I entered the line during and after the five German spring offensives of 1918. These offensives saw chemical warfare at the highest level since its introduction three years before. Regardless of the emphasis eventually placed on gas warfare by GHQ, AEF, and the Army General Staff, new doctrine’for gas weapons could not be fully absorbed or mastered by the inexperienced Americans. Prewar neglect of gas warfare equipment and accompanying doctrine had a significant impact on the ability of the AEF to defend against, and to successfully employ, chemical agents in World War I.
The AEF Organizes for
Chemical Warfare
Chapter 4
On 13 June 1917, while the General Staff in the United States struggled to organize, man, and equip an army, General John J. Pershing, Commander of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), arrived in France with a staff of fifty-three officers and 146 enlisted men. After a continuous round of official visits and ceremonies, Pershing and his staff settled into temporary headquarters in Paris. Two weeks later the first American troops arrived in France. General Order 8, published on 5 July 1917, established the organization of the AEF General Headquarters (GHQ). This order also created on paper the GHQ position of Chief of the Gas Service, whose responsibilities included procurement of gas personnel and supplies, the conduct of the entire Gas and Flame Service both offense and defense, the supervision of training for gas officers and troops, and experimentation with new gases, delivery systems, and protective devices.1
Ordering the creation of a Gas Service was a simple matter. The actual organizing of a new branch of the Army, however, would take a tremendous amount of effort and time. Time was precious. By mid-July, over 12,000 doughboys were within thirty miles of the front, all without gas masks or training in chemical warfare. Yet, because of more pressing problems,* it was not until 17 August 1917 that General Pershing sent a cable to Washington requesting the organization of a Gas Service and the authority to appoint Lt. Col. Amos A. Fries, Corps of Engineers, as its chief.
Lieutenant Colonel Fries had arrived in France three days earlier. As an engineer officer he was assigned responsibility for organizing a road network to support the AEF Services of Supply (SOS). Several days later Col. Hugh A. Drum and Col. Alvin B. Barber of the GHQ, AEF, approached Fries. As Fries recalled after the war, the staff officers asked what I should think if my orders were changed so as to make me Chief of the newly proposed gas service. Given overnight to decide, Fries accepted. On 22 August 1917 he began to build an organization based on information Barber and Drum had compiled about the British Special Brigade and French Z units. In addition, the staff officers gave Fries a draft of a proposed General Order 31 that would establish a Gas Service.2
*In addition to commanding an army in a combat zone, Pershing was faced with the same problems that the General Staff in Washington had-the officering, billeting, feeding, equipping, and training of a vast army of raw recruits.
General Order 31 assigned the Gas Service responsibility for both offensive and defensive operations, including the organization of gas personnel, gas warfare supplies, and gas warfare training in the AEF. Appended to the order was a draft chart of the Gas Service Organization. In reviewing the chart with Fries, Pershing noted that the offensive arm included Stokes mortar companies. This prompted him to ask why existing trench mortar companies could not be utilized to fire gas rounds. Barber and Drum, who were also present, explained that gas operations were too technical and dangerous for untrained personnel to conduct and, therefore, required special troops. They also told Pershing that in the British Army the Special Brigade used 4-inch Stokes mortars.3
Acting on Pershing’s instructions, Fries, with Colonel Church and Captain Boothby of the Medical Department, visited the British Special Brigade headquarters at St.Omer. Church had served as an observer with the French Army for a year and a half and, during that time, had collected information on chemical warfare defense. Boothby did the same while observing British chemical warfare procedures and also took a course at the British defense school. At St. Omer the medical officers discussed British defensive gas doctrine, while Fries obtained information on the offensive aspects of chemical warfare. Fries elicited information on gases in use, special troops, chemical ammunition, and delivery systems. He also visited the large chemical material depot for the British Fifth Army.
After returning to AEF headquarters, the three officers reviewed both the draft General Order and the organizational chart. They modified the original proposals to provide general rather than specific guidelines, anticipating that only actual combat experience would glean the information necessary to build a truly effective organization. Fries criticized the British system that divided responsibility for offensive and defensive gas warfare. Paradoxically, the British liaison officer in the United States, Maj. S. M. J. Auld, warned the Americans against just such a practice. Thus, the AEF Gas Service made it the responsibility of all gas officers to be knowledgeable in both areas, a point driven home in subsequent general orders detailing the duties of army, corps, and division gas officers. On 3 September 1917, almost five months after the United States entered the war, the final version of General Order 31 was published (Figure 2).4
Not until 27 May 1918, as U.S. divisions were coming on-line in increasing numbers and experiencing heavy gas casualties, did GHQ, AEF, issue General Order 79 for the establishment of unit gas officers. Only then did Fries have the authority to appoint chief gas officers for armies and corps and gas officers and assistants for divisions. Until this time, division commanders had been appointing gas officers as they saw fit. Under the new arrangements, chief gas officers of armies and corps and division gas officers would be staff officers responsible to the commander. Parallel reporting procedures were established in order to ensure that accurate information reached the proper authorities. In addition to reports through official channels, the order authorized these officers to send required reports directly to the Chief of the Gas Service. The Chief, with GHQ approval, could also order these unit staff officers to attend meetings necessary for the coordination of defensive gas measures.
TO VIEW: 2. Organization of the Gas Service, AEF, 1917
The division and higher echelon gas officers had specific duties assigned. By direction of their commanding officers, they were to instruct and supervise the gas officers and NCOs within their command, supervise all defensive training and drill, collect enemy chemical warfare material for submission to AEF laboratories, inspect defensive measures, and advise the commander and staff regarding all aspects of chemical warfare. The division gas officer had the responsibility of reporting to the commander all gas casualties and actions taken to prevent recurrences. The division commander forwarded this report, together with a list of the actions he had taken to correct the deficiencies, to the Chief of the Gas Service.
Regimental and battalion commanders assigned duties to their gas officers. At this level, gas officer and gas NCO responsibilities were considered additional, not primary duties. A gas officer and NCO assistant were required for regiment, battalion, and separate units, and two NCOs were appointed for each company. Selected on the basis of undefined special qualifications, the men were trained at the AEF Gas Defense School or corps gas schools. Among their duties, they supervised training in the use of gas masks, gas proof shelters, alarm systems, and related defensive measures. When the division entered combat, the gas NCOs were required to inspect all defensive equipment and antigas procedures at least twice a week. They reported weather, terrain conditions, all new enemy gas tactics and material, and any noted deficiencies. This information was reported officially to the company commander and informally to the battalion commander.
General Order 79 established an AEF Gas Defense School with a course of instruction adequate for the training in gas defense of gas officers and noncommissioned officers. The school director received specific instructions, to coordinate his activities with those of officers engaged in offensive gas instruction and with those at the AEF’s new chemical experimental station at Hanlon Field near Chaumont. Instructors at the Gas Defense School kept abreast of the latest changes in gas warfare by personally reviewing files of Allied and American gas officer reports and by reading translated copies of captured German and Austrian documents.
General Order 79 dealt primarily with the Gas Corps* and the training of its officers, but it also called the attention of all ranks to the increasing importance of gas warfare. Although the Gas Corps would do every thing that was possible to prepare individuals and units to avoid casualties from gas, the ultimate responsibility for defense against gas, the order concluded, devolves upon commanding officers who must provide for the training of their men and the maintenance of gas discipline. In order to maintain gas discipline and provide adequate training, the order urged commanders to cooperate with Gas Corps officers.5
*Gas Service and Gas Corps were terms used interchangeably in the AEF.
The extensive use of gas by the Germans in their spring 1918 offensives caused the AEF General Staff to expand the duties of gas officers. As of 2 July 1918, gas officers were to be consulted and their technical knowledge utilized in the preparation of all plans involving the extensive use of gas, whether by artillery or other means. Thus, the duties and responsibilities of gas officers grew with the increasing awareness of the impact chemical agents were having on the offensive and defensive capabilities of AEF units. Fries, however, faced a chronic problem of locating competent men to serve in a branch of service that lacked precedent and had an unknown future. was further complicated by an Armywide shortage of personnel. The Corps of Engineers, originally the primary source of gas officers, became reluctant, as its own demand for officers grew, to have men reassigned to another branch.6
The AEF Gas Service had other problems with which to contend. There was, for example, a severe shortage of gas warfare supplies. The lack of protective masks for members of the AEF caused the greatest concern. On 2 August 1917, GHQ, AEF decided to utilize the British Small Box Respirator (SBR) as its primary mask and the French M-2 mask* as an emergency protective device.7
The SBR consisted of a canister-type filter of absorbent charcoal with alternating layers of oxidized soda lime granules. A flexible rubber tube connected the canister to a rubberized facepiece that was held to the face by elastic bands in order to provide an airtight fit. Inside the facepiece was a rubber nose clip. A hard rubber mouthpiece that the wearer grasped by his teeth was connected to the flexible hose attached to the filtration canister. A soldier exhaled air through a rubber flutter valve at the front of the mask. The wearer viewed the world through two lenses made of celluloid or specially prepared glass. Each soldier had a tube of antidimming or defogging paste that could be used to prevent condensation from forming on the lenses. Lacking an American mask, the AEF placed an initial order for 600,000 SBRs and 100,000 French M-2 masks. Additional orders followed, as it would take the United States a year from its entry into the war to begin providing its troops in the field with an acceptable American-made version of the SBR.8
The shortage of respirators notwithstanding, no individual could enter the combat zone unless equipped with a mask. Commanders and staff officers went to considerable lengths to ensure that all members of their units had respirators. In late December, 1917, the newly arrived 42nd Rainbow Division was moved by rail to a training site in France. On the train were masks for the unit, which the division’s Chief of Staff planned to issue on its arrival. The 1st Division, however, was due to go on the line shortly and submitted an urgent request for respirators. The Chief of the Gas Service responded by ordering the 42nd’s Chief of Staff to transfer his masks to the 1st Division. To circumvent the order, the 42nd’s Chief of Staff immediately stopped the train and ordered the masks issued to his men. He then reported to Fries that it was impossible to comply with the order because the masks had already been issued.9
*Because of its poor filtration capability and flimsy construction, the M-2 mask was later banned for use in the alert zone for everyone except men with head wounds who could not wear the SBR, men who were unconscious and could not grasp the mouthpiece, and black soldiers who could not wear the nose clips of the SBR.
Several thousand men of the 1st Division lacked masks, and its 1st Brigade was scheduled to move to the front line in January.* Fries finally obtained a priority of shipment and detailed several gas officers to accompany the masks from Le Havre, the major British supply base, to ensure their safe delivery to the 1st Division. Despite these precautions, one carload of 4,000 masks disappeared in transit. Fries finally had to order the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Division to turn in their SBRs. These were cleaned and reissued to the Division’s 1st Brigade. This episode was not an isolated one.10
Gas equipment and supplies in the United States and France were initially the responsibility of the nearest related branch of the Army. The AEF Gas Service found this procedure exceedingly embarrassing, cumbersome and inefficient. Despite initial resistance, the General Staff in Washington approved AEF requisition submitted on 10 September 1917 for 50,000 cylinders, 50,000 Livens projector shells, and a large quantity of Stokes mortars and ammunition. None of these weapons or ammunition reached the AEF in time to be used in combat. To avoid duplication of effort and to save time, Fries, in February, 1918, received permission to make direct purchases of equipment from the Allies. At that time almost all of the gas warfare material used by the AEF came from the British. Not until April, 1918, did any material manufactured in the United States begin to reach the AEF. As noted in the preceding chapter, a number of war gases were manufactured in the United States during the war, and more than 3,600 tons of these did reach the French and British.11
Because of a shortage of artillery pieces, artillery units of the AEF were equipped primarily with the French 75-mm light field gun, the 155-mm medium howitzer, and the 240-mm heavy howitzer, as well as with British 8-inch and 9.2-inch heavy howitzers. The U.S. Army also adopted, with minor modifications, the French gas shell. The AEF Services of Supply purchased French shells and painted them according to an American color code.**12
Originally, the SOS defensive gas equipment fell into Class I with clothing, leather goods, and optical instruments. In February, 1918, when the Gas Service was given authority to requisition its own supplies, all items of gas warfare equipment were placed into a new category, Class V. In September, 1918, the Army created four subclasses within the general Class V classification. Subclass A material included offensive gas supplies, such as gas shells and grenades, that were not used by gas troops but by the combat arms. Subclass B material included those gas supplies issued exclusively to gas troops. Subclass C supplies encompassed aviation, smoke, and incendiary material. Subclass D items included all defensive gas material. The Ordnance Corps transported and issued subclasses A and C, while the Gas Service did the same for B and D items. The Gas Service distributed all anti-gas supplies. Fries ordered a 10 percent reserve of all equipment at the division gas dumps, and each company or regiment maintained a 5 percent reserve supply. The division gas officer issued the required masks to the regimental supply officers, who distributed them to battalions. Gas officers also issued gas alarm devices, Strombo horns, Klaxon horns, and gongs directly to company commanders in each sector. Later, army and corps gas officers were given similar responsibility for the issue of gas supplies to corps artillerymen and all rear echelon troops.13
*Only one-half of the 1st Division was needed to relieve a French division (French divisions were one-half the size of the comparable American unit). The balance of the 1st Division remained in training.
**They were distinguished by a gray body lettered Special Gas. A strip colored either white or red or both circled the shell. Nonpersistent gas had only red, semipersistent gas combined red and white. The number of stripes indicated the relative persistency, the least persistent having fewer stripes.
Another branch heavily involved in chemical warfare was the Army’s Medical Department. The General Staff anticipated that medical officers would require some knowledge of the actual symptoms brought on by chemical agents and the various methods of treatment for gas poisoning. Consequently, in May, 1917, the War Department issued a Memorandum on Gas Poisoning in Warfare with Notes on Its Pathology and Treatment, based on British sources. Still, despite this assistance from Washington, most of the planning and organization for the treatment of gas casualties was done by the AEF in France.14
Maj. J. R. Church, Medical Department, was the first Medical Director of the Gas Service in France. While on the General Staff, he had assisted in the initial planning for an AEF Gas Service. As Medical Director he devoted most of his time to organizational matters. The increase in gas casualties, however, resulted in a personnel change in the position, with Lt. Col. Harry L. Gilchrist, M.D., the former commander of Number 9, General Hospital, replacing Church. Gilchrist prepared for his new assignment by attending the British Gas School at Rouen, France.15
When Gilchrist reported for duty as Medical Director, he found no records or guidelines detailing the responsibilities of his position. His first priority, and one agreed to by Fries, was to launch a gas instruction campaign directed specifically at AEF medical officers. On 9 February 1918, Gilchrist published a pamphlet, Symptomology, Pathology and General Treatment of Gas Cases, which provided medical officers basic information on the treatment of chemical casualties. Following this publication, the Medical Director’s office issued a constant stream of bulletins aimed at keeping AEF medical officers up-to-date on the latest medical developments in gas warfare. Gilchrist visited most AEF divisions and hospitals, where he lectured to officers and men on chemical warfare from a medical point of view, emphasizing prevention and treatment of gas casualties.16
As the chemical war escalated with the introduction of mustard gas, the Medical Director’s responsibilities and, indeed, his department’s tasks became increasingly crucial to the AER Gilchrist inspected troops at the front and visited medical personnel in hospitals, hospital trains, and other locations. He also served as the liaison officer between the Gas Service and the Medical Department, advising both the AEF’s Chief of the Gas Service and the Chief Surgeon on gas-related medical matters. In addition to these general duties, he collected all medical information relating to gas warfare and relayed it to the AEF’s Chief Surgeon. Gilchrist focused his attention on such matters as new treatment for gas casualties and combating-the effects of the enemy gases not only from a therapeutic, but also from a prophylactic point of view. To obtain information, he visited the sites of battles where large numbers of gas casualties had occurred.17
Because armies and corps of the AEF were formed after the arrival of a number of divisions, the medical structure to treat gas casualties evolved first within the division. On 1 March 1918, the 42nd Division became the second American division to occupy a sector on the Western Front. Although initially the division had few gas casualties, the medical officers prepared for a large influx of gas victims. All four of the division’s field hospitals were set up to accept gas victims, and orders were given that a total of 500 beds be put aside for such cases. On 20 March the Germans launched an artillery bombardment of mustard and high explosive shells that hit the 42nd Division’s 165th Infantry at 1730 hours. In the space of a few minutes, the mustard caused 270 casualties, including one death. The first-aid station through which the casualties passed also received a drenching with. gas, so medical personnel wore masks as they treated the patients.18
As a result of this attack and others that followed, the 42nd Division took several steps to improve the treatment of gas casualties. These later became standard for AEF divisions in the line. The first measure was to dedicate one of the four division field hospitals to gas cases. The position of division Gas Medical Officer was also created. Memorandum 148, HQ, 42nd Division, published on 23 April 1918, listed the duties of this officer as the instruction of medical personnel in gas defense; the supervision of gas protection of medical dugouts, aid stations, and field hospitals; the early diagnosis of symptoms; and the treatment of all types of gas casualties.19
The AEF adopted the 42nd Division’s practices when it instituted the position of division Gas Medical Officer in AEF General Order 144, dated 29 August 1918. GHQ took this measure in the face of mounting gas casualties and a high incident of gas malingering. As a consequence, in addition to the duties indicated in the 42nd Division’s memorandum, the AEF order added duties such as the instruction of all division personnel on the early symptoms and treatments of gas poisoning and the instruction of line officers in practical medical matters connected with gas warfare. The orders stated that any officers selected must be live, wide-awake, energetic men, and must show a keen appreciation of the work. By the first week in October, 1918, each AEF division had a Gas Medical Officer. These men were sent to the School of Pharmacy’s School of Gas (Ecole de Gaz) at the University of Paris for a four-day course to prepare them for their division duties.20
Beyond the division field hospitals, each army established its own gas hospitals.* The first such installation began operation on 29 August 1918. Army-level hospital personnel were casuals, or officers and men loaned from base or evacuation hospitals or anywhere else medical personnel could be found. To meet the demands of the Meuse-Argonne offensive, the Chief Surgeon, AEF, in September, l918, established five gas hospitals with a total of 1,650 beds. Colonel Gilchrist suggested three mobile 1,500-bed gas hospitals be established, one for each U.S. corps. This plan, however, was never implemented because of insufficient personnel. Another plan called for the creation of two emergency gas teams to be assigned to each base hospital. Their mission was to relieve the strain that sudden gas attacks put on division field hospitals*. The GHQ, AEF, organized several emergency gas teams, each consisting of a medical officer, two nurses, and two orderlies. The Chief Surgeon of the 1st U.S. Army, Col. A. N. Stark, however, objected to these teams on the grounds that base hospitals were too far removed from the fighting. He also believed that the division field hospitals set aside forgassed soldiers were effective and needed no further assistance. HeedingStark’s objections, the Chief Surgeon disbanded the teams.21
Another problem with which Fries and his staff had to contend was training in gas defense. When the 1st Division arrived in France, Pershing thought it best to have the Americans train by serving with a French divi sion. This proved to be unsatisfactory because the training varied from unit to unit within the French division. When the Training Section of the AEF’s GHQ became operational, it prepared a standardized division training schedule. Initially, the period of time a division spent preparing to enter the line was supposed to be three months.** Only two days of the schedule were allocated to Gas Service instructors. Later, as the demand for combat units increased, the gas instruction decreased to a mere six hours. This was vigorously protested by the Gas Service. In the spring of 1918, when the German offensives required a shortening of the division training cycle to bring new units on line, gas instruction was cut further.22
Formal defensive training was supplemented by wearing the masks during other training activities. Pvt. Norman A. Dunham of the 40th Division remembered wearing the SBR and full pack during two and three hour marches. He thought the mask the worst thing a soldier has to contend with and the most torturous thing a person can wear. Lt. Edgar D. Gilman remarked that when he wore the mask he found that it was not only disagreeable, painful, and smothering, but also that his saliva flowed profusely from his mouth, through the flutter valves, and down the front of his shirt. Personal protection was survival on the battlefield,however, and command emphasis had to be placed on defensive gas training, to include the wearing of the mask.23
*Corps hospitals were not considered because a corps was organized exclusively for tactical purposes.
**The 1st Division was retrained at Gondrecourt and was the only AEF Division to complete the AEF’s three-month-long training schedule.
It became obvious to GHQ, AEF that many commanders were not supporting the training activities of their gas officers and NCOs. To remedy this problem, officers in brigades that were rotated off the line received a comprehensive lecture course on gas defensive measures. However, continued reports of over 25 percent gas casualties indicated to General Staff that, after basic training, comparatively little was to be gained by instructing individuals in units on the line. The consensus among gas officers was that training had to instill an interest and awareness of gas defensive measures throughout an entire unit to give the best results in combat. Gas officers also believed more realistic training was needed. One result of this conviction was that artillery batteries, when they trained, received a minimum of three surprise gas attacks as part of the training schedule. To test the alertness of sentries and to correct such carelessness as leaving masks out of reach, attacks were often scheduled at night, while the troops were sleeping at their position. Men firing on the ranges were subjected to simulated surprise gas attacks in order to familiarize them with laying artillery pieces during an attack and to acquaint them with the difficulty of transmitting firing data while masked. During night marches, men were subjected to gas attacks as a means of teaching them to overcome confusion.
During the first year of American participation in the war, men arriving as individual replacements had little or no formal instruction in defensive measures until they reached their units in the forward areas. In the summer of 1918, the Army acted to rectify this haphazard method. Training stations were established at the AEF debarkation ports of Brest and St. Nazaire. Each center had five Gas Service instructors: one officer and four NCOS. Three enlisted men acted as gas mask fitters and helpers. When troops arrived at the stations, they marched single file into a warehouse to be fitted and issued. masks. After an inspection, the troops moved to a large lecture hall where instructors did everything possible to impress on the men the importance of defensive gas measures. To complete the training, seventy-five to 100 men at a time entered a gas chamber filled with a tear agent for five to ten minutes. At peak times more than 2,000 men a day were put through this initiation into gas warfare.
In Army rear areas, depot divisions,* such as the one at La Querche, handled three categories of personnel: newly arrived line replacements, special units such as engineer troops, and casuals who were recently released from hospitals and scheduled to rejoin their units. During the normal three-week course, the replacements received a minimum of eighteen hours of gas defense training. Their training consisted of lectures, mask drills, games with the mask worn, and firing weapons while wearing the The troops also went through simulated tactical operations, with the instructors lighting smoke candles and throwing tear gas grenades to provide added realism.
*The AEF suffered so many casualties that some divisions were broken up, their men used as replacements, and their cadre used to train arriving personnel.
Special troops such as pioneer infantry, engineer, and medical service units first received basic infantry training and then were given three days’ intensive instruction in gas defense. During the three days, the men practiced their specialty while wearing masks. For example, medics with SBRs in place applied bandages and carried stretchers through woods and over rough terrain. Engineers constructed roads and pioneer troops dug ditches while wearing masks. After duty hours, trainees played baseball in their SBRs.
To View: Sanitary Detachmant, 121st Maching Gun BAttalion, wearing the SBR while playing baseball, 2 June 1918.
Hospital convalescents, the last category of men run through the divisions, numbered anywhere from a handful to 2,000 a day. These men were reequipped with masks, and those with prior gas training – Class A men – were excused from formal instruction until August, 1918, when the mounting number of mustard gas casualties compelled the Gas Service staff to give all personnel short classes on ways to avoid being contaminated by this persistent agent.
The increased German employment of chemical agents-especially mustard gas – for counterbattery fire forced American artillery training camps to place special emphasis on defensive gas instruction. During a gas attack, a poorly trained artillery man would be totally incapable of serving his weapon or delivering accurate fire. Initially, artillery officers and NCOs attended a week-long course of lectures, drills, and practical exercises. Later NCOs received an additional week of training. If the artillerymen failed to score 70 percent or better on the final examination, they had to repeat the course. Just before returning to the front, the graduates had to visit.a base hospital to see gas casualties. The experience, according to instructors, furnished a great stimulus to general gas training. Still, despite these efforts to train every doughboy arriving in France, many received no training in gas warfare because of the pressing need for troops,on the front lines.24
In conjunction with the emphasis on gas defensive training, the AEF paid increasing attention to the offensive gas capabilities of the American Army in France. On 10 January 1918 the first two companies of the 1st Gas Regiment (30th Engineers) arrived in France (Figure 3). The companies reported to the British Special Brigade training area at Helfaut, where Brigadier General Foulkes personally directed the training of the unit. Eventually, four of the six companies of the regiment passed through Helfaut.
TO VIEW: 3. U.S. Gas Regiment, company organization, 1917
The training of the 1st Gas Regiment in offensive gas operations began in February, 1918, and employed the delivery systems used by the British. The American troops spent five days learning to use Livens projectors, seven days for Stokes mortars, and two days for cylinder operations. The men first attended classes and then conducted practical field exercises in which they applied their newly acquired knowledge. Projector operations called for the emplacement of the guns at night and their detonation the following day. Stokes mortar drill required the men to conduct rapid fire with gas rounds, thermite, and smoke, both day and night. Officers of the regiment opened cylinders of chlorine, and the men walked through the gas cloud to instill confidence in their training and equipment. The American officers were then detailed to a sector of the British front and assigned to Special Brigade companies, where they observed projector, mortar, and cylinder operations. The overall result was that these men better understood offensive gas operations and could assist in training the other companies of the American Gas Regiment.25
On 6 June 1918 these trained officers and men held a practice shoot for the AEF General Staff at Hanlon Field, the home of the AEF’s Gas School and experimental station in France. Twelve Stokes mortars and 100 Livens projectors were fired. On 22 June, after several more exercises, companies of the 1st Gas Regiment moved to the U.S. sector to conduct offensive gas operations.
Artillery was the other branch of the Army capable of conducting offensive gas operations. In the first gas warfare manuals prepared by the U.S. Army War College, artillery employment was not included because of the continual changes in gas tactical doctrine* on the Western Front. Therefore, almost all artillery training in gas warfare was conducted in France, where the AEF adopted British and French doctrine for gas shell fire. The U.S. 1st Army, for example, published its own Provisional Instruction for Artillery Officers on the Use of Gas Shell, based on French field manuals. At artillery camps, gas officers lectured on the problems involved in the use of gas shells, but no evidence exists to indicate that gas shells were ever fired in training. Yet, by 1 November 1918, 20 percent of all shells delivered to the AEF were gas filled, and a 25 percent ratio was planned for 1919.26
No other preparations or plans were instituted in AEF rear areas to prepare and sustain the American armies in chemical warfare. The burden of the gas war fell to the combat divisions of the AEF. How well they fought and how well they adapted to this new experience is the subject of the next chapter.
*Firing with gas shells was such a new experience that the opposing armies changed their doctrine on a regular basis seeking the most effective means of employment.
The Quick and the Dead :
The AEF on the
Chemical Battlefield
Chapter 5
Between 18 and 21 January 1918, units of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division relieved the French 1st Moroccan Division manning the front lines in the Ansauville sector. In doing so, the Big Red One became the first American division to occupy a portion of the Western Front. The movement of American troops into the lines was uneventful except for one incident, As we take our positions in the trenches, Maj. Gen. Robert Bullard, the division commander, noted, from the French position on our right some two hundred gas casualties are evacuated-our first object lesson. 1
This grim object lesson reinforced French warnings that the Ansauville sector was a highly active gas front with both sides constantly employing large amounts of chemical agents. The German use of Yellow Cross especially concerned the French. The XXII Corps commander, prior to the arrival of the ist Division, had his troops post in every dugout instructions in English on the correct procedures to follow during and after a Yellow Cross attack. The French warning advised the Americans to mask when the first gas shell exploded and remain masked for four hours following a gas bombardment. The instructions also called for anyone in a gassed area to beat and shake his clothing prior to entering a dugout and to use soapy water to decontaminate skin exposed to mustard. Further instructions from the French corps commander followed, emphasizing the gas-proofing of dugouts and the maintenance of gas mask discipline.2
Based on the 1st Division’s experience over the previous months, these instructions should not have been necessary. Although the unit arrived overseas without the slightest bit of gas training, it received in France the most complete chemical warfare preparation of any AEF division during the war. Gas training pamphlets, directives, and orders were showered on the 1st Division by an anxious and apprehensive GHQ, AEF. The 1st Division became the only American division to undergo the complete GHQ, AEF, training schedule, which included defensive and offensive gas training.*
*Even with this extensive training, the mistakes made by the soldiers of this division during chemical warfare were the very same repeated over and over by other, less prepared AEF divisions. In the Ansauville and the Montdidier sectors, the Big Red One suffered more casualties from gas than from small arms or artillery shell fire.
To View: Big Nims, 366th Infantry, 92nd Division, inspecting his mask (note mouthpiece), 8 August 1918.
Instruction in chemical warfare began for the 1st Division in December with nine hours devoted to defensive training. Proper masking was a key element of this training. With troops in the practice trenches, instructors sounded gas alarms and lit smoke pots to simulate gas clouds, thereby increasing the troops’ skill in putting on and wearing the gas masks. During the drill, gas instructors reminded their students that in case of gas attack, there are only two classes of soldiers, the quick and the dead. 3
The British had decided for reasons now obscure that SBR masking should take no longer than six seconds, to be accomplished in five steps. In step one, the doughboy had to hold his breath,* knock off his headgear, grip his rifle between the legs, and reach into the case on his chest to grasp the mask by the breathing joint and nose clip. At step two, the soldier thrust his chin out, held the mask in front of the face with both thumbs inside and under the elastic headband. In step three, the chin was placed into the facepiece while the headband was pulled over the head to secure the mask. Next, at step four, the soldier grasped the mouthpiece with his teeth. The last step, five, required the soldier to reach through the facepiece to secure the nose clip and then run his hands around the mask to ensure a snug fit. Division gas officers complained that when it came to defensive gas training, many commanders were satisfied when their men simply achieved the six-second requirement. Proper adjustment, the gas officers believed., was more important than speed.4
*Officers realized that, when exposed to German gas in combat, men instinctively took a deep breath. In so doing, they unintentionally inhaled the poisonous air. Later, the AEF corrected the drill by instructing the doughboy to stop breathing when the gas alarm sounded.
When finally issued, each mask came with a small log book tied to the canvas case. Soldiers received instructions to record the length of time they wore the mask, both for drill and in combat. They were also required to identify each type of gas encountered. The purpose of this log was to ensure that the filter in the canister was replaced at the proper intervaL Filters for an SBR had a life of fifty to 100 hours of exposure, depending on the chemical agents. As might be expected, the log system did not work. As one gas officer remarked, any man who in the hell of battle can keep such a record completely should be at once awarded a Distinguished Service Medal. Gas officers in some divisions came up with an alternative: they painted the number of the month of issue on the case. If and when filters became available, the officers replaced them based on their own estimate of exposure time. There were three types of AEF filter canisters. Those painted black were for training only and offered no protection against smoke or gas. Canisters colored yellow protected against smoke, offered greater gas protection, and had a high resistance to breathing. The green canister offered protection against smoke, had sufficient gas protection, and had a low resistance to breathing.5
To View: Men of the 366th Infantry, 92nd Division, during an inspection of their American SBRs at Ainville, Vosges, France, 8 August 1918.
While the British SBR was initially worn by the 1st and other divisions, the American version was in ready supply by the late summer of 1918. The American mask had both advantages and disadvantages. Although its fuller facepiece permitted easy cleaning of the eyepieces, these eyepieces had a tendency to fall out; also, the larger facepiece with an increase in dead space made it more difficult to clear. The larger canister gave greater protection, but was heavier and clumsy.6
To View: Medics place an M-2 mask on a head-wound casualty, 137th Ambulance Company, 31 August 1918.
There is no question but that the SBR, whether British or American, was extremely uncomfortable. General Bullard admitted that he could never fulfill the qualification of a successful wearer because as much as he tried he could not wear the mask longer than three minutes without feeling smothered. Since the SBR was difficult to wear, division gas officers reported troops would change from the SBR to the more comfortable M-2 in the midst of a gas attack, in the process inhaling the poisonous air. The M-2 did not offer the filtration protection of the SBR. Its flimsy construction and susceptibility to water damage also reduced. its effectiveness, as did the fact that it did not block mustard gas. The widespread problem with the M-2 prompted AEF, GHQ General Order 78 on 25 May 1918. This order forbid anyone who entered the alert zone* to use the M-2. As noted previously it was retained and attached to stretchers for men with head wounds or for those unable to grasp the mouthpiece. Labor troops in rear areas were authorized to wear the M-2.7
A number of U.S. officers apparently procured, on their own, another French mask, the ARS (described earlier). This created morale problems since it gave American enlisted men the impression that our protective equipment is defective. A Gas Service report demanded that these officers be taught that only the material issued by the Gas Service was authorized for use, and that they had no authority to secure equipment from the French.8
Another mask, the Tissot, was officially procured from the French, although it was for issue only in small numbers to artillerymen, Signal Corps troops, and front-line medical units whose personnel had to be active during gas attacks. Not only did this mask’s filter offer less resistance to breathing and have the same quality filtration of the American SBR, but the problem of fogged vision associated with the SBR did not exist. The Tissot design allowed air to flow between the two lenses of each eyepiece, eliminating condensation. Most important, the Tissot design did away with a nose clip and mouthpiece, making it a comfortable yet safe mask.9 Unfortunately, as noted earlier, the filter location on the back, together with the flimsy rubber facepiece, made it unsuitable for infantry.
If soldiers wearing gas masks in defensive positions experienced a variety of problems, they encountered even more difficulties when they shifted to the offensive. The standard issue American or British SBR made normal breathing difficult, it made obtaining sufficient oxygen during heavy exertion, such as in infantry attacks across No Man’s Land, impossible. Additionally, exertion caused perspiration to form on the lens, limiting vision even more than what was normal.*
Standing Orders for Defense Against Gas published in November, 1911, stated that within two mile& of the front lines and within areas specially exposed to gas shelling, the gas mask case would be carried in the alert position, which was on the chest.
To View: Lt. William T. Powers, Pvt. Walter Miesley, Operator, and Pvt Tichard Pereyer, Recorder, wearing the Tissot mask while receiving instructions from a forward observer, 30 October 1918.
At Ville Savoye, for example, Pvt. Moses King, 305th Infantry, 77th Division, had difficulty seeing through his mask and received an order from his company commander – whose own vision was obscured – to remove his facepiece, but to keep the nose clip and mouthpiece in place. This pernicious habit, the Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, AEF, noted in September 1918, has been the cause of many casualties ; the practice has been condemned at every opportunity. Despite the condemnation, the practice never ceased, and the increased use of mustard gas by the Germans resulted in a significant number of Allied casualties suffering from eye damage.10
As a consequence of these and other problems, standing orders did not call for troops to mask during the attack. Doughboys did, however, wear the mask on the chest in the alert position with the helmet chin strap on the tip of the chin, rather than under it, to facilitate quick placement of the mask if gas were encountered.11
* Anti-dimming (defogging) paste was issued with the mask, but according to soldiers who used it, it distorted the vision of the mask wearer.
In addition to the problems associated with gas masks, the persistency of chemical agents combined with the methods of AEF commanders to produce a significant number of gas casualties. Under normal attacking conditions, an area in which phosgene was used would clear in ten minutes. Diphosgene would take longer to dispel, perhaps fifteen to twenty minutes. Mustard gas would linger for several days. A problem arose, however, when AEF commanders intent on taking an objective regardless of the cost often launched an attack before a gassed area had cleared. The reason for this disregard lay in the fact that the AEF, from General Pershing down to division commanders, never hesitated to relieve an officer considered lacking in an aggressive spirit.
Of the chemical agents employed by the Germans against the Allies, mustard gas was responsible for 39 percent of AEF gas casualties. Once mustard gas made contact with the skin, it destroyed tissue as long as it remained, doing damage several hours before the first symptoms appeared. To combat this persistent blister agent, the Gas Service made available to line units an ointment called Sag paste* to protect exposed flesh. Sag paste came in a 3.5-cm by 16-cm collapsible tube and became a standard-issue item for the prevention and treatment of mustard burns. According to one veteran, it looked like and had the consistency of carbolated vaseline. Doughboys who entered a mustard-contaminated area or who anticipated a shelling of Yellow Cross smeared their bodies with the ointment. It proved very effective, a medic in the 35th Division noted, if used in time. However, it was uncomfortable because it caked when the men perspired and rubbed off on clothing when a soldier engaged in any physical activity. The paste also presented a danger: if not removed after exposure to gas it eventually absorbed the mustard agent without neutralizing it, which meant that the agent ultimately came into contact with the skin. There were other uses for the paste: medics, for example, found it to be effective in soothing mustard burns by blocking the oxygen to the contaminated area. Enterprising men in the trenches found it extremely effective in exterminating cooties, the doughboy slang for body lice.12
The Defense Division, CWS, sought other ways besides masks and Sag paste to protect troops from mustard gas. The division designed and had manufactured a protective suit for artillery gun crews, medics, and decontaminating teams. The suit consisted of cotton sheeting impregnated with linseed or vegetable drying oil. The coveralls had elastic ties at the ankles and wrists. A zipper down the center from neck to crotch provided an airtight fit. The hood was worn under the headgear. Mittens had been provided prior to the development of the suit and were highly valuable … but somewhat stiff and clumsy. ** Special boots were also provided to complete the uniform. Unfortunately, the suit trapped body heat and moisture so it could rarely be worn longer than fifteen to thirty minutes. A gas officer reported men tearing off the suit while working in an area reeking with mustard gas because they couldn’t stand the discomfort any longer. 13
*I was unable to identify the source of the term Sag. Lt. Col. Charles M. Wurm, CACDA,Ft. Leavenworth, suggested Salve, Antigas.
Gloves were not available until the end of the war.
To View: Pvt. John Sloan, 6th Infantry Medical Attachment, in an Anti-Gas Suit, Croix de Charemont, France, 20 August 1918. This protective uniform was worn by medical personnel and artillery gun crews.
The effects of mustard gas could be lessened or even avoided by removing it with hot soapy water shortly after exposure. To this end, GHQ, AEF, on 29 August 1918, ordered the Medical Department to activate a number of mobile degassing units. Each division in the line of battle would have two such units attached, commanded by a Sanitary Corps captain or first lieutenant. To each eleven-man unit a specially trained medical gas officer would be detailed from the supported division, This individual’s duties included the supervision of the unit’s operation, instruction of the medical personnel on the treatment of gas casualties, and responsibility for the maintenance of the proper equipment for the treatment of gas casualties at the battalion advance aid station. The degassing units remained in the division rear. When a unit became contaminated and could be withdrawn from the line, the degassing station rushed to treat the men as close to the front as possible. The units equipment consisted of a five-ton tank truck with a 1,200 gallon capacity and an instantaneous heater mounted on the rear of the vehicle to provide hot water. The heated water flowed to portable shower baths similar to modern field showers. Another vehicle carried fuel, underwear, uniforms, and medical supplies. These supplies included bicarbonate of soda to Rush the patient’s eyes, ears, mouth, and nasal passages. Unfortunately for the thousands of mustard casualties, very few degassing units saw service, as evidenced by the late date of the order creating them.*14
To View: Degassing Station tank truck with heater mounted in the rear, Mobile Degassing Unit #1, Services of Supply, Tours, France, 21 July 1918.
*When the Armistice took effect, the few units that had reached the field were turned over to the Quartermaster Corps for delousing troops returning home.
While methods were being sought to degas men, efforts were also undertaken to decontaminate the ground they held in the static trench warfare. General orders created decontamination squads at regiment and battalion level. These units decontaminated shell holes with lime and new earth, buried gas shell duds, reported to gas officers the location of dud shells that could not be buried, and removed contaminated equipment and clothing in special oiled bags. Each man in the squad was issued a new SBR, a reserve M-2 mask, a suit of protective coveralls, and two pairs of oiled mittens. The decontamination equipment consisted of shovels, buckets, and long-handled tongs for handling dud mustard shells.
To View: A squad preparing to decontaminate a gas shell hole, 4 December 1918.
In the trenches, mustard gas and other agents were counteracted in a variety of ways. During a gas attack, standing orders called for as little moving about and talking as possible, because gas poisoning was sometimes intensified by exertion. Once an attack ceased, trenches were cleared of low lying gas. One method required the use of an Ayrton or trench fan. This device consisted of a two-foot-long handle attached to a rigid piece of canvas hinged to a fifteen-inch section that moved in one direction. In effect the fan was used like a shovel, with the moveable flap creating an upward air current, thus removing the gas. Americans adopted these fans as called for by British defensive gas doctrine. Unfortunately, the fans, according to British General Foulkes, were worse than worthless. Not only did they not remove the vapor, but the exertion of masked users led to exhaustion and increased susceptibility to gassing.* The fans were eventually discarded and burned to create an updraft, soon recognized as a better method of clearing trenches and dugouts of gas.15
To View: Men detailed to use Ayrton or British trench fans after gas attack, 1918.
Another method of decontamination used in the trenches consisted of placing boxes of chloride of lime outside of dugouts. Prior to entering, men stepped in the substance, neutralizing any mustard agent clinging to the shoes. The Vermoral sprayer, which was a hand-pumped fire extinguisher filled with a sodium thiosulfate solution, could neutralize chlorine, but little else. The sprayers were used, however, to moisten the blankets at the entrances of the gas-proof dugouts.16
The prolongation of German gas attacks, the increased quantity of chemical agents fired in an attack, the extensive use of the persistent agent mustard, plus the fact that 80 percent to 90 percent of all gas attacks experienced by the AEF took place during the hours of darkness, made the construction of gas-proof dugouts essential for survival in the trenches (Figure 4). Basically, the gas-proofing of dugouts required a wood frame entrance and a snug fitting blanket, usually soaked with glycerine and kept damp with a diluted solution of sodium thiosulfate. If space allowed, complete protection could, be obtained by hanging two blankets over the entrance in such a way as to leave an air space between the two. Such measures made it difficult for men in front-line trenches to get out of a dugout rapidly in the event of an infantry attack, and for this reason early U.S. manuals advised against protection of front-line dugouts. But this advice was generally ignored because of the need to have a gas-free environment in which to sleep and occasionally remove the SBR. The same Army manual stated that Medical aid-posts and advanced dressing stations; Company, Regiment, and Brigade Headquarters; at least one dugout per battery position; Signal Shelters and any other place where work has to be carried out during a gas attack should always be protected. 17
*Apparently the, British Army first rejected the fan, an, invention of Mrs. Ayrton, the wife of a distinguished physicist, but political pressure forced them to procure 100,000. The AEF Gas Service, unaware of the circumstances and not thinking to ask, ordered 50,000.
TO VIEW: 4. Entrance, gas-proof dugout
Oftentimes, casualties occurred when a gas shell or projector shell fell at the entrance of a dugout and the force of the explosion threw open the blankets and drove the gas inside. On 27 May 1918, at the beginning of one of the German 1918 spring offensives, a concentration of 983 phosgene projector bombs caught doughboys of the 168th Infantry, 42nd Division, asleep in dugouts on the side of a ravine. The Germans, in order to keep the U.S. troops pinned in the gassed position, shelled the area in the rear of the ravine for an hour with shrapnel and Yellow Cross. The division G-3 reported one soldier killed and six wounded by shrapnel, 236 gassed, and thirty-seven gas deaths resulting from the attack.18
It was the duty of the gas sentry to sound the warning of a gas attack to the other troops. Usually the sentry received general instructions to alert his unit as soon as he heard the hissing sound of gas leaving cylinders, saw a cloud moving along the ground, observed a distant flash, heard a muffled explosion of projectors, saw a shell burst with a small pop, or sniffed a suspicious odor. In addition to shouting, Gas he would, after masking, sound a mechanical alarm. Such alarms ranged from air horns, known as Strombos,* to metal shell casings, steel triangles, or even church bells. When, in the fall of 1918, the AEF went on the offensive, the Gas Service decided that Klaxon horns and European police rattles produced the most audible warning of gas to troops on the move.19
To View: Pvt. Demetry Melonisk, 315th Field Hospital, 304th Sanitary Train, 79th Division, carrying a chruch bell used to give gas alarms, 17 October 1918.
*Strombos horns carried for a great distance and were initially used for cloud attacks that occurred over a wide frontage. Later in the war, when attacks became more localized with projectiles and shells, the Strombos were phased out and replaced with alarms whose sound did not carry as far.
Whether on the move in open warfare or manning the trenches in static warfare, the most critical individuals in chemical combat were the unit gas officers. On 27 May 1918, AEF General Order 79 formalized and standardized defensive duties for gas officers, the positions having been created by individual divisions on their own initiative after arrival in France. Two months later, General Order 107 expanded the functions of gas officers: in addition to their previous duties, they would be advisers whose technical knowledge would be solicited in the preparations of all plans involving the extensive use of gas, whether by artillery or by other means. Despite the order, staff officers too often told gas officers that their advice for offensive planning was not required and that they should concern themselves only with defensive duties. The success of division gas officers in integrating plans for the use of gas in offensive operations eventually depended on, in the words of the Gas Service’s Chief, their ability to go out and sell gas to the army. Despite such promotional efforts, resistance by staff officers continued. During the Meuse-Argonne campaign in the fall of 1918, an unidentified division gas officer reportedly recommended to a division operations officer (G-3) that gas be used during a particular phase of the engagement. The staff officer replied that he would employ the artillery firing gas shells only if the gas officer stated in writing that the gas would not cause a single American casualty. This request was unrealistic in that a thorough staff planner in World War I usually included an allowance for casualties due to a friendly barrage. Another objection raised to the use of gas was that commanders feared its employment would subject their men to unnecessary retaliatory gas attacks.20
Even if a division commander and his staff were reluctant to employ chemicals, they could not afford to be careless about the protection of their troops from chemical agents. A unit’s effectiveness depended on proper gas defensive measures. GHQ, AEF, delegated significant responsibility for gas defense to division, regiment, battalion, and company gas officers and NCOs. These dedicated and harried men attempted to insure that their respective organizations could cope with gas attacks while sustaining minimal casualties. Once in the trenches, exposed to a chemical warfare environment, most commanders soon realized the need for competent gas officers. After selection and training, gas officers had to prove themselves to the commander, staff, and the troops in the trenches. The most effective way to gain the respect and confidence of the troops, one gas officer discovered, was to join a unit under an attack. This practice offered a number of advantages. First, the gas officer learned the immediate effects of a gas attack and what individuals endured during such an attack. He could suggest corrections and give guidance during the attack, as opposed to afterwards, when men were already casualties. The confidence of the men in the gas officer’s instruction grew when they observed him take what they did. Infantry officers proved more willing to accept the advice of such a gas officer because they knew he spoke from actual and not book knowledge.
*No figures for the AEF are available, but the French concluded that 75,000 or 1.5 percent of all their casualties were due to arnicicide (casualties caused by friendly fire).
This knowledge afforded the gas officer the credibility to obtain a hearing and accomplish results when he called to the attention of unit officers and staff both good results of proper gas discipline and the bad results of bad discipline. 21
While division gas officers worked with the staff, the regimental and battalion gas officers had the greatest impact on the doughboys, At these lower echelons, gas officers assumed a variety of responsibilities that ranged from instruction to inspection of defensive equipment and selection of alternate positions during an attack. It fell to these officers to assure that gas alarms were installed, gas sentries posted, gas alert signs displayed, and dugouts selected for gas-proofing, In addition these officers took wind readings twice a day.* When required, gas officers became bomb disposal experts who located and removed all unexploded enemy gas shells. As the Table of Organization for AEF units, did not include gas officers, General Order 79 of 27 May 1918, which ordered the appointment of gas officers down to battalion level, caused some grumbling in recently arrived divisions. Plagued by a shortage of line officers, commanders assigned men to gas duties grudgingly., When the need arose, the men chosen were subjected to double duty as infantry officers.22
With the absence of sophisticated detection and warning systems, one of the most important functions of a gas officer became the determination of when to give the order to mask and when to unmask. At gas schools, trainees were taught to taste gas, sniffing just enough air to identify a chemical agent by its own peculiar odor. They had to know the persistency and the properties of each gas and then be able to determine how soon after an attack the air would clear. Most of the officers became very proficient at identification. At times, though, some gas officers were too conscientious in tasting for gas and became casualties themselves.23
When night settled in, gas officers in the trenches slept fitfully, waiting for the cry of Gas One such officer described an evening that was shattered, after the troops had gone to sleep, by the sound of artillery followed by gas alarms. Everyone, he recalled, came out of their holes with masks in place, the fine fruit of constant training. The officer lifted his mask, sniffed, and determined the fumes to be from high explosive shells. After taking his mask off, the gas officer gave the all clear and the men unmasked. Toward dawn the men again awoke to the sound of gas alarms and cries of Gas This time the officer raised his mask and detected the mild pungent breath of a chemical agent. He masked and told the others to do the same. A gas shell exploded upwind with a light pop and puff of vapor. After the shells ceased dropping he checked up and down the line for casualties and found none. Several minutes passed, and he took another taste only to detect a lingering odor. Five minutes later a light wind drove the gas away, and the all-clear sounded.24
*Early in the American involvement, AEF and War Department manuals listed cloud attacks as the primary delivery system of the Germans; when the wind blew from the east, therefore, troops went on a gas alert.
The Americans were not always so fortunate in responding to gas attacks. On 26 February 1918, at 1330 in the Ansauville sector, men of the 1st Division received the first German projector attack directed against U.S. forces. The estimated 150 to 250 bombs contained phosgene and chloropicrin. Conditions were ideal for such an attack: the heavy evening air kept the gas low to the ground, and what wind there was soon became calm. The bombs fell over a 600-meter front, where heavy underbrush held the gas in place. Of the 225 men exposed, 33 percent (eighty-five men) became casualties. Two men died soon after the attack, and six soldiers succumbed after they reached the division field hospital.
Col. Campbell King, 1st Division Chief of Staff, believed that there were several causes for the casualties. The sudden attack caught men unprepared on sentry duty or in their dugouts; they did not have adequate warning to adjust their masks or lower the gas curtains. After the attack, men removed their masks on their own initLtive, or changed to the M-2, although the gas lingered in a dangerous concentration. Furthermore, the unmasked doughboys remained or worked in the dugouts and in low places in the woods, where gas stagnated. A captain who witnessed the attack amplified the Chief of Staffs observation. He reiterated that the premature removal of the mask, a breach of discipline, caused casualties and that the men failed to mask in time and to lower the gas-proof curtains. At the same time, the soldiers neglected to put out fires in the dugouts, thereby drawing gas from the trenches into the sealed shelters. Men who were only slightly gassed exerted themselves, contrary to standing orders, thus complicating their symptoms. The captain attributed the donning of the M-2 to the discomfort involved in wearing the SBR. A field hospital report mentioned that one man had had his mask disarranged in. an attempt to force a mask on a comrade who had gone berserk and torn off his own mask.25
In another commonplace incident, an entire platoon of infantry in the 28th Division became gas casualties before they reached the front. While moving forward one night toward Châuteau Thierry, the men stopped to rest in shallow shell holes near the road. A recent rain had diluted the usual smell of mustard, and no one advised the green troops that the holes were craters from Yellow Cross shells. Unwittingly, they slept through the night in fresh mustard contamination. The following morning the men awoke with backs and buttocks so badly burned that the skin appeared to be flayed. The battalion gas officer could only try to relieve their agony with generous applications of Sag paste. That same day the 28th Division’s gas officer noted his dwindling supplies of paste and masks. Since German gas seemed to be coming over in increasing quantities with the resulting casualties, he ordered. one of the battalion gas officers back to the SOS depot at Gievres on a foraging expedition to secure antigas supplies for the division.26
There were times when division, regimental, and battalion gas officers, in their more zealous attempts to prevent gas casualties, ran afoul of line officers. A battalion commander in the 23d Infantry, 2d Division, complained to his superior that the requests, orders, and reports required by the regimental gas officer were absurd, ludicrous, and, in many cases, impossible to carry out. For instance, the gas officer had ordered that all men within 1,200 yards of the front line must sleep in gas-proof dugouts with sentry posted over each. If this order were respected, the commander complained, no one in the unit would get any rest because the facilities for compliance did not exist. Another directive informed the infantry officer that men exposed to mustard should take a warm bath and change uniforms. To this he replied, with frustration, We don’t get enough water to wash regularly. The battalion commander closed his letter by explaining how tired he was of receiving directives doped out of a book. Staff officers, he believed, must become more aware of the conditions at the front.27
To View: Infantrymen of the 28th Division masking during a gas attack, 23 August 1918.
Likewise a division commander complained that new gas officers were almost hysterical in their attempts to educate the troops in gas defense. Knowledge and real efficient training, he observed, came after hard experience and the hysteria of gas officers passed. When the 1st Division suffered 800 gas casualties at Villers-Tournelle, General Bullard complained of a report filed by a GHQ gas officer who, he believed, spoke without knowledge or consideration in a tone of superior criticism that comes from abstract study. After Bullard complained, the officer’s superiors ordered all gas officers to abstain from such criticism. Fortunately, incidents such as these were the exception rather than the rule, and line officers eventually realized that the gas officers were there to help them, not to harass them.28
Still, the job of gas officer continued to be a demanding one, especially in regard to defensive training for replacements. The square World War I division had a Table of Organization strength of approximately 28,000 officers and men. In this war of attrition with high casualties (referred to as wastage ), these large square divisions had a constant flow of new men into the ranks. The 1st Division, for example, after 223 days in the line, received over 30,000 replacements, The 2nd Division’s statistics were even more striking: following 139 days in the trenches, it took in over 35,000 new men. Six other divisions received over half their strength in replacements, and another five received over a third. The rapid mobilization and rush to send men overseas led to a situation in which men had little overall training. The 42nd Division, after some time in the trenches, withdrew to train for the St. Mihiel offensive. During this time the division received replacements, cannon fodder if there ever was any. One, company obtained forty-three new men of whom one man had had but one week of training; four had had two weeks; twenty had had three weeks; six had had four weeks ; and the balance had had between one and three months. Gas officers were therefore faced with a continual personnel training problem, having to instill a proper respect for gas defense in green officers and men.29
Protecting officers and men of the AEF required more than training. Contamination of food, water, tobacco, and equipment by chemical agents emerged as a significant problem for gas officers. On an interim basis the Gas Service issued tar paper and oil cloth to cover food and tobacco. Water contamination was always a problem, because the scarcity of water often compelled men like a 79th Division doughboy at Montfaucon to risk drinking from a suspicious source. Driven by thirst, this American ignored the warning of French soldiers and drank stagnant water from a shell hole. He later suffered chest pains from the gas contaminated water. After being evacuated he eventually returned to his unit, but only after twenty-three days in a base hospital. No one ever devised an effective means to stop troops from drinking contaminated water. Late in the war, the Quartermaster Corps packaged foodstuffs destined for France in gas-proof, airtight trench ration containers.
As for equipment, the corrosive properties of most war gases created problems of contaminated artillery shells not being able to be chambered, breechblocks jamming, gun surfaces rusting, and contaminated small arms cartridges not chambering properly. AEF regulations required weapons and shells be cleaned with oil immediately after a gas attack, but the metal continued to corrode unless small arms were disassembled and boiled in a solution of sodium bicarbonate and water. The difficulty of applying decontamination method in the trenches, not to mention in No Man’s Land during a prolonged assatilt lasting several days, can be well imagined, Protection of animals was also a problem, and they, too, were fitted with protective masks.30
*The term square comes from the fact that the division had four infantry regiments.
To View: The use of chemical agents created problems not only for the combat arms but also for the Services of Supply, the logistical tail of the AEF. Here mules and men are masked for a drill, November, 1918.
When doughboys went over the top, they, their commanders, and their gas officers alike faced increased challenges and many difficulties not met with in trench warfare. At times, good gas discipline had little or no impact on casualties in the maelstrom of battle. The reports of gas officers constantly referred to gas casualties caused by men being knocked down, or shocked and stunned by German high explosive shell fire. The concussion of the exploding shells slowed the men’s reaction or worse, knocked them unconscious, and they never had a chance to put their mask on. Many times the blast tore off a mask or flying shrapnel cut the facepiece or damaged the hose from the filter to the mouthpiece. The extensive use of gas both at day and night often meant prolonged use of the mask. Lt. Robert A. Hall, for example, blamed a significant number of the 1st Division’s gas casualties at Villers-Toumelle on the fact that after seventeen to eighteen hours of good gas discipline wearing the SBR, perspiration impregnated with gas seeped under the elastic head band. Perspiration also caused the nose clip to slip, and as a result, men inhaled poisonous vapor or had their eyes affected and, as a consequence, became gas casualties.31
Troops caught in the open by enemy gunners often sought cover in shell holes, ravines, and patches of wood, the very places where gas lingered the longest. Even if men maintained strict gas discipline, casualties were inevitable when the enemy concentration of gas shells became too dense. From 0600, 12 October to 1600, 13 October 1918, the 114th Infantry, 29th Division, attacked German positions at Bois Ormout. The Germans fired an estimated 2,000 gas shells at the regiment in bursts of about 300. Yellow, Green, and Blue Cross 77-mm and 105-mm shells landed around the 1,500 men of the 114th Infantry while they deployed in ravines, shell holes, and wooded areas. As a consequence, 500 men became gas casualties, mostly with lung injuries. The commander requested permission to evacuate the contaminated area. The French 66th Regiment commander, who had operational control of the attack, told him to remain in place. The Frenchman believed the withdrawal of the regiment was not tactically sound, for the Germans would counterattack if they detected any sign of an Allied retreat. Maj. James H. Walton, the division gas officer, remarked that this incident, in which high gas casualties were inflicted despite good gas discipline, was one of the best examples of the deadly effects of gas shell he had seen in combat.32
Combat decisions that had little reference to gas warfare often resulted in incurring or aggravating gas casualties. For example, although AEF tactical doctrine called for the preselection of alternate positions, many requests to relocate infantry units during combat were denied even though the tactical situation and the enemy’s use of chemical agents called for relocation. In the determination to show the AEF’s battle prowess, many of its senior commanders were loath to give up an inch of occupied or captured ground. In one such case, on 15 July 1918, the commander of the 30th Infantry, 3d Division, filed a graphic report of the unit’s plight after repelling a German attempt to cross the Marne. His men, after being shelled with various chemicals for ten hours, were absolutely worn out. They had not had even a drink of water during that time. The shells landing in their sector contained mustard, chloropicrin, and chocolate (diphosgene has the odor of candy) gases. If the men remained in their contaminated uniforms, he noted, they were certain to become gas casualties, because the mustard gas would eventually reach their flesh. It was absolutely impossible to feed the regiment. because the rations had been contaminated by the gas. He reported to division that they are still there in the line and they will hold the line, but they ought to be relieved…. They were not.* Such decisions exhibited a crucial lack of understanding of the nature of gas warfare.33
Like the infantry, AEF artillerymen and animals suffered under the fury of German gas shell bombardments. While nonpersistent gas caused artillerymen problems in their attempt to deliver accurate fire, mustard yellow cross gas, remarked a cannoneer with the 91st Division, seems to be about the only Boche weapon of which the men are really afraid. Efforts were made to displace batteries subjected to counterbattery gas attacks, but this was difficult and time consuming. To assist the artillerymen who had to remain in a gassed area, the French Tissot mask was issued when available. As previously noted, not only did this mask’s filter offer less resistance to breathing, but the problem of fogged vision associated with the SBR did not exist. Most important, without a nose clip and mouthpiece it was a very comfortable mask to wear. In addition to the Tissot mask, gas gloves made of oil cloth were issued together with impervious clothing. However, because the antigas suits were not ventilated, men would tear them off in warm weather even while working in an area reeking with. mustard. As an alternative to the protective coveralls, artillerymen used Sag paste. Many artillerymen shaved off all their body hair prior to an application of the ointment. Every man in the firing battery, noted a gunner, is now denuded of hair on top of his poll, under his arm pits, between his legs, and his underwear is soldered to him with ‘sag paste.’ 34
*Gas casualties for the 30th Infantry during the period 14-20 July 1918 totaled 202 out of a total of 600 for the 3rd Division. (Spencer, Gas Attacks, Part 1, p. 123.)
To View: A horse and cannoneer masked during a gas attack, 1918.
The German use of chemical agents during World War I also placed a tremendous burden on a noncombat branch, the AEF Medical Department. Initially, no actions were taken at division level to provide medics with special expertise in the treatment of chemical casualties. As a result, division medical personnel were unprepared initially to handle the influx of gas victims. In the confusion of organizing and placing an American army in combat, it took GHQ, AEF, until October, 1918, to establish a uniform procedure to handle casualties.
To View: Battery A, 108th Field Artillery, receiving and firing gas counterbattery, 3 October 1918.
The 42d Division, the second most experienced American combat division of the AEF, appointed a gas medical officer a position that eventually all divisions of the AEF were ordered to establish. The 42d’s decision to appoint a gas medical officer came in the wake of several disastrous contacts with chemical agents in the division’s early combat. One such incident occurred on the evening of 20 March 1917, when approximately 400 German mustard rounds and 7,000 high explosive and shrapnel shells landed on a position manned by the division’s 165th Infantry. The weather conditions were excellent for the persistent mustard agent. It had rained earlier, and there was no breeze to dissipate the gas as it hung in the air. At midnight, men began to suffer the delayed effects of the gas. Company K lost two-thirds of its effectives. A week later Lt. Col. H. L. Gilchrist, Medical Director of the AEF, reported observing at a base hospital 417 gas casualties from the 165th Infantry.35
As the intensity of fighting increased, so did the number of men who claimed they were gassed, further burdening the Medical Department. Many shell-shocked soldiers or men who suffered from exhaustion and hunger believed themselves to be victims of gas poisoning. Others panicked after smelling shell fumes and reported themselves gassed. Then there were the shirkers who feigned being gassed. The symptomology of gas poisoning is so complex, observed Maj. William V. Sommervell, 3d Division Gas Officer, and at the same time so indefinite that anyone who claimed to be gassed was immediately sent to the rear.36
To View: Lts. Lautell Lugar and William A. Howell, Medical Corps, attending wounded to the rear of the first trench line during a gas attack, 27 October 1918.
As a consequence GHQ, AEF, expanded the number of medical personnel available to diagnose gas victims and weed out malingerers. At the hospital to the rear, division medical personnel devised several traps to detect suspected malingerers. One trap involved offering the gas casualty a large meal. Men on the front line were always hungry; they rarely had enough to eat. But a gas victim’s symptoms would include a loss of appetite, so anyone who devoured the food found himself promptly returned to the line. Medical personnel also offered suspected malingerers a cigarette laced with diphosgene. If the soldier gagged he was feigning gas poisoning. Some idea of the magnitude of the problem may be derived from one division field hospital commander’s establishment, of a board to review the 251 gas cases in his wards. The board’s report indicated that only ninety of the men actually suffered from gas poisoning. The problem, though, was never satisfactorily resolved in the AEF.37
The Medical Department processed gas casualties in combat divisions, using procedures similar to those used for sick and wounded. Medics at the battalion aid stations did what they could for the gas wounded. This consisted of plastering Sag paste on mustard burns, often having to cut a uniform open to expose the swollen flesh. A wet compress applied over the eyes eased the pain of those blinded. Men who inhaled mustard gas could only be comforted with. words, for no treatment could ease their pain. Medics could do nothing but try to put [the] mask back on and get them to a Field Hospital. From the battalion aid station, men moved to the Ambulance Head, the closest point to the line safely out of reach of German artillery fire. When possible, all gas casualties rode to avoid exertion. Men blinded by chemical agents were usually led to the ambulance head by comrades who could see, although in some instances, large numbers of blinded soldiers groped their way to the rear by holding on to a cord set up by the medics.38
To View: Gas casualties from the 2nd Battalion, 326th Infantry, 82nd Division, waiting for evacualtion, Argonne Forest, Ardennes, France, 11 October 1918.
When possible, division field hospitals were located in the same general area, with one hospital designated to handle gas victims. At this hospital the division medical officer supervised triage. Soldiers were placed into one of the following categories: fit for duty, immediate return to unit; fit for duty in twenty-four hours, return to unit; severely gassed, evacuate to an Army hospital. Exhausted men who complained of gas symptoms but who showed no outward signs of having been gassed were held in the division rear for rest, food, and observation. If medics verified their claims to gas poisoning, they too were evacuated.39
To View: Loading 89th Division gas patients at a field hospital north of Royaumeix (St. Mihiel Sector), 8 August 1918, for removal to a base hospital in Toul. Stretcher bearers wear makeshift burlap mittens to protect hands from gas-infected clothing of victims.
Division gas hospitals had to be located near a source of water because persistent and even nonpersistent agents clung to clothing, hair, and skin. After admission to a hospital, doughboys stripped off all their clothing and showered. Those casualties with serious symptoms were bathed while still on their stretchers. The bath house of the 2d Division gas hospital had a portable heater and six shower heads. When a doughboy left the showers, medics sprayed his eyes, nose, and throat with bicarbonate of soda. Depending on the diagnosis, the patient might be given a special treatment. of alkaline, oxygen, and, if necessary, venesection (bleeding) to counteract the effects of inhaled gas. For those soldiers who had eaten food or drunk water contaminated by gas, doctors prescribed olive or castor oil to coat the irritated stomach linings. When treatment failed to allow free breathing, or when the patient developed additional symptoms, medics immediately evacuated him to a base gas hospital. By November, 1918, the Medical. Department was well on its way to developing procedures to handle gas Victims.40
If American defensive doctrine and procedures for dealing with gas warfare were rudimentary or nonexistent to begin with and evolved during the war, the same was true of offensive gas doctrine and procedures. The American Army’s Artillery Corps had not determined its own doctrine for gas warfare prior to entering combat. Instead, U.S. artillerymen borrowed from both the French and British, as well as from the Germans. The first U.S. field manual for the use of chemical artillery shells was a translation of a current French manual. The AEF, emulating the French, classified chemical shell fire into two types of bombardment. The first type, destructive fire, consisted of two minutes of rapid fire with rounds landing in close proximity, so as to create a dense gas cloud that, given surprise, could inflict heavy casualties. The second type, a neutralizing bombardment, was fired over a longer period and was used to lower the enemy’s physical resistance and morale. It also interfered with the enemy’s activities by forcing him to wear a mask for extended periods of time. Mustard gas best accomplished neutralization according to the AEF field manuals.41
AEF manuals identified several kinds of missions that utilized surprise or neutralizing bombardment. For purpose of harassment, a neutralizing fire was used to exhaust and hinder the movement of enemy personnel. Interdiction fire was a kind of neutralizing fire that rendered positions untenable. Barrages in support of an infantry attack were to consist of 25 percent gas, or one gun per battery. The balance of high explosive fire disrupted enemy reinforcements and prevented counterattacks. AEF manuals duplicated German doctrine by ordering the inclusion of gas in all barrages; this would, it was hoped, deceive the enemy into believing a great concentration of gas was being fired at all times and cause him to mask frequently, thus wearing him down physically and mentally and limiting his ability to defend his position.42
Artillery counterbattery fire with gas came to be an extremely effective tactic. Before gas shells came into use, the attempt to neutralize enemy batteries on the Western Front required large amounts of high explosive shell. Regardless of the length of time or the number of rounds fired, complete destruction of the enemy’s batteries was never accomplished. Between 1914 and 1916 the average length of time required for artillery counterbattery fire to be effective was estimated at over six days. By 1917, gas made it possible to neutralize a known artillery battery in as little as fifteen minutes. Effective counterbattery fire over a wide front could neutralize enemy artillery in only two to four hours. By the spring of 1918, artillery commanders called for gas shells constantly, and the number of rounds fired was limited only by the availability of such shells.43
Of special demand was mustard, the agent that had become the king of the chemical war. The effect of mustard shells was so striking that there was a constant unfilled demand for them. One division commander remarked that when his cannoneers were at last issued the agent their morale soared. The arrival of mustard from French gas ammunition points in July, 1918, caused a great jubilee among AEF division artillerymen. That same month, on 2 July 1918, AEF General Order 107 allowed division gas officers to take an active role in the preparation of all plans involving the extensive use of gas by artillery and special gas troopS.44
AEF tactical employment of mustard and other chemical agents improved somewhat as artillerymen became more experienced. If, for instance, the exact location of an enemy battery in a wooded area was unknown, an AEF battery would shell the access roads with mustard, rather than waste limited gas shells by dowsing the entire woods. The artillerymen would then fire high explosive shells to damage the access roads and make it difficult for resupply trains trying to reach the battery to avoid contamination. The enemy battery would soon have to move. This tactic was also used to block reinforcements passing through defiles or over bridges. It proved to be an extremely efficient and economical method of counterbattery fire.45
Unfortunately, many senior U.S. Army officers remained oblivious to the potential use of chemicals by artillery or special gastroops in the offense. When it came time for the AEF to launch its first major offensives at St. Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne, the use of gas was minimal. In preparing for the Meuse-Argonne campaign, for example, the U.S. First Army Headquarters studied the spring offensives of 1918, where the Germans literally smothered the Allies with hundreds of thousands of gas shells in a relatively short space of time. To its credit, First Army HQ disseminated this information to its units and, in field orders during the campaign, urged subordinate corps and divisions to use gas. Gas was made available by the French to the Americans in a sufficient quantity to neutralize enemy batteries, strong points, and installations, and to produce casualties. The final decision to utilize gas, however, rested with the corps and division commanders. With little or no doctrine, training, or experience they were reluctant to employ gas. The offensive use of chemical weapons, according to one First Army general, does not seem to be understood. Army-level operational planning for the campaign included extensive use of gas, but its use by corps and divisions was halting. While the First Army’s divisions did gain some confidence in the use of gas towards the end of the campaign, they never really mastered its employment.46
After training with the British Special Brigade, the other gas offensive arm of the AEF, the 1st Gas Regiment, went into action on 22 May 1918. The Ist Battalion, 1st Gas Regiment, which consisted of Companies A and B, reported for duty attached to the 26th Division. On 18 June, Company B, temporarily attached to the XXXII French Corps, conducted the regiment’s first independent operation. At 2230, seven hundred 8-inch Livens projectors, emplaced the night before and loaded with sixty-pound drums of phosgene, were fired at two targets located 1,500 meters away. The first target was a company of infantry with one Minenwerfer (mortar) company and the second a reserve battalion of infantry. Artillery fired shrapnel and high explosive shells in conjunction with the projector attack. A month later prisoners revealed that this attack caused at least fifty casualties, including ten enemy deaths.47
The AEF tactical doctrine for the employment of special gas troops cited the advantages of using gas in terms of accuracy, the extended casualty producing area, and. lasting results. The doctrine noted the effectiveness of gas for the elimination of well-entrenched targets that high explosive fire could not destroy. The amount and type of chemical agent employed depended on the tactical situation, as well as wind and terrain features. Projectors, the primary weapon of U.S. gas troops, provided the means for producing casualties and demoralization second to none. When used aggressively, Livens projectors could keep enemy forces off balance; when employed on a quiet front, they could lessen considerably the likelihood of that front being used as a place to rest battle weary troops.48
In the offense, special gas troops could be utilized, according to AEF manuals, in five tactical situations. In the first, they would precede an offensive operation, keeping enemy positions in a gas environment until attacking troops arrived. This tactic would cause casualties and demoralize and reduce the fighting efficiency and morale of the enemy. Second, gas employed by special troops could eliminate machine gun nests just prior to an attack. AEF 4-inch Stokes mortars offered the best means of eliminating a machine gun position: two to ten Stokes mortars firing phosgene could form a localized concentration, either creating casualties or forcing the masking or the abandonment of the gun. Third, gas was ideal for sustained operations. Each night, gas could be placed on enemy machine gun nests, strongpoints, and troop concentrations, thereby weakening future resistance. Fourth, after friendly forces had taken an objective, reorganized, and consolidated their positions, gas employment acted as a temporary check or block to potential enemy counterattack formations. Fifth, the doctrine stipulated that in a stabilized situation frequent surprise fire with projectors could create the high concentrations of gas on suitable enemy targets from one end of the line to the other needed to harass enemy troops. In addition, local concentrations of gas, fired from Stokes mortars on machine gun nests, mortar positions, strongpoints, trench intersections, and other sensitive points further reduced enemy morale and strength.49
In the brief time it was deployed, the 1st Gas Regiment never matched the sophistication of the British Special Brigade. With the return to open warfare, the 1st Gas Regiment made superhuman efforts to meet AEF needs and moved their Stokes mortars with advancing infantry rather than remain in the trenches, as the British did. The regiment mortar men became very proficient in using thermite shells against machine gun positions and in covering advancing infantry with smoke. The regiment did not, however, employ gas during the attack as extensively as it did thermite and smoke. Gas was used, though, in conjunction with smoke, in order to cause enemy troops to expect gas whenever they received smoke. This tactic forced the enemy to mask, further limiting his vision.
Many commanders resisted the employment of special gas troops. The use of gas was new to American commanders, so it came as no surprise to officers of the Gas Regiment that trouble occasionally arose with the unit they were to support. The 1st Gas Regiment company commanders, lieutenants and captains attached to infantry divisions, tried as best they could to explain what results gas would achieve. During the Saint Mihiel operation in the fall of 1918, infantry officers quickly took advantage of the close support furnished by the Gas Regiment, whose mortar crews knocked out German machine gun nests with thermite and created smoke to screen the U.S. infantry. Still, the infantry appeared reluctant to use gas consistently. When the American First Army launched its first attack, the 1st Gas Regiment did not support the offensive with gas.
During the Meuse-Argonne offensive, the 1st Gas Regiment did support Anierican troops with gas. Company E, 1st Gas Regiment, attached to the 28th Infantry Division, bombarded enemy hilltop positions with Stokes mortar rounds of smoke, thermite, and deceptive gas. Covered by this suppressive fire, doughboys executed a flanking movement and took the hill with very little difficulty. On 2 October 1918, Company F, while in support of the 33d Infantry Division, received authorization to fire fifty-six projectors loaded with phosgene bombs at German units near Bois La Ville. Results of the gas mission were unknown. Soon after, however, German artillery retaliated by firing a number of Yellow Cross rounds at the 33d Infantry Division. As a result, the infantry regiment being supported by the gas company refused to allow it to fire its scheduled second projector attack. The official history of the Gas Regiment indignantly reported that American troops near Bois La Ville constituted a normal mustard target for German gunners and that, irrespective of our gas operations, the locale normally experienced such attacks.50
Company F fired one of the largest American gas bombardments of the Meuse-Argonne campaign in support of the French XVII Corps. The men of Company F installed 230 Livens projectors in two nights. To assist in the operation, 100 French soldiers with forty-seven horses pulled narrowgauge rail cars containing projectors and shells to the front. At exactly 0330 on 16 October 1918, drums of phosgene, fired in a dense fog and rain, fell on a known enemy troop position. Corps artillery fired high explosive shells in conjunction with the attack.51
As the Meuse-Argonne operation continued infantry commanders gained confidence in the effectiveness of chemicals and increasingly called upon gas troops to exercise their skills. By the latter stages of the offensive, some division commanders actively sought out gas company commanders to support their operations. The 2d Division staff consulted the supporting gas company in planning an attack and, as a result, projectors were used for the first time preceding a significant American advance. The results confirmed the claims of the gas unit in that a large number of enemy troops became casualties; the gas cloud itself had a demoralizing effect on other German troops as the wind pushed it to the enemy rear.52
The initial hesitancy by the AEF to employ gas was judged understandable by an officer of the 1st Gas Regiment. The American Army was unprepared to engage in gas warfare when President Wilson committed it to battle. As a result, the use of chemical weapons and the defense against them became a deadly learning process for all branches of the Army under the stress of battle. Many commanders were simply unwilling to employ a weapon with which they had had no prior experience and which, if used, could invite German retaliation in kind. For those commanders who did allow the use of gas, some became enthusiastic supporters of offensive gas operations; some did not. The American experience with the offensive use of gas remained uneven to the end of the war.53
We Can Never Afford to
Neglect the Question
Chapter 6
General John J. Pershing, in his Final Report, made specific reference to three weapons introduced in World War I and the impact each had on the conduct of the war. The three weapons Pershing listed were the tank, aircraft, and poison gas. Only one, gas, caused him to reflect on its use in any future war. He declared, Whether or not gas will be employed in future wars is a matter of conjecture, but the effect is so deadly to the unprepared that we can never afford to neglect the question. Pershing, with the experience of the war behind him, pointed out that gas was a significant weapon, but not as a producer of battle deaths.1
The AEF suffered 34,249 immediate deaths on the battlefield. Of these, an estimated 200 were caused by gas.* The number of men wounded and evacuated to medical facilities numbered 224,089. Medical Department reports indicate 70,552 of these hospital patients suffered from gas wounds. Of these gas victims, 1,221 died in AEF hospital wards. When, looking at the total figures, 27.3 percent of all AEF casualties, dead and wounded, were caused by gas. With respect to the burden gas casualties placed on medical facilities, not to mention the replacement system, a significant 31.4 percent of all AEF wounded were treated in hospitals for gas wounds (Table 2).2
Gas in World War I did not have to cause large numbers of casualties to be an effective and versatile weapon. Gas warfare placed additional strain on every aspect of combat. According to British Maj. Gen. Charles H. Foulkes, Commander of the Special Brigade, the appearance of gas on the battlefield … changed. the whole character of warfare. In World War I, gas was everywhere, in clothing, food, and water. It corroded human skin, internal organs, and even steel weapons. The smell of gas hung in the air, and the chemical environment became a reality of everyday life. Not only did men have to train constantly, but an entire logistical network had to be established for offensive and defensive gas equipment. A new branch of the U.S. Army came into existence, and new units, such as decontamination squads, mobile degassing units, and special gas troops, were created. These organizations, in turn, took manpower away from the combat arms, as combat arms officers became gas officers in divisions, regiments, and battalions. Also, the impact of gas on the Medical Department posed tremendous problems in the treatment of casualties. The number of gas wounded became so great that one field hospital out of four per division was dedicated to the treatment of gas victims.3
*This is a rough and perhaps low estimate. It was always difficult to determine the cause of death when shell-torn bodies were interred by Quartermaster troops.
TO VIEW: 2. Hospitalized casualties
Despite the pervasive impact of chemical agents on the battlefield, commanders and staffs had difficulty adjusting their thinking and planning in such a way as to make effective use of these new weapons – weapons totally different from anything they had ever been trained to use. Not only did commanders and staffs have difficulty determining how they would employ the new weapon to their tactical advantage, but they also had to consider the effects of enemy gas on their own troops. By entering the conflict without preparation for chemical warfare, AEF commanders never fully comprehended the potential of gas on the battlefield.
The experience of the United States Army before and during World War I suggests several shortcomings in the military’s preparation for, and later employment of, chemical warfare. Prior to American entry into the war, the War Department and General Staff virtually ignored the deployment of chemical weapons in Europe and did, little or nothing to prepare the Army to fight and survive in a chemical environment. This pervasive neglect had an adverse impact on the capability of the AEF to fight effectively on a chemical battlefield. American troops entering front-line trenches were usually poorly trained and ill equipped to engage in gas warfare.
Proper defensive equipment is a minimal requirement for the successful engagement of forces in chemical warfare. The indispensable item for the World War I doughboy was his protective mask. Besides the filtration of all harmful agents, the mask had to fulfill a number of other requirements to be efficient. It had to be comfortable and allow for freedom of movement, full vision, easy breathing, communication, and durability. The American failure to develop a mask that could meet these requirements limited the combat effectiveness of the soldiers of the AEF. The decision to purchase the British SBR and, later, to manufacture an American version of it rather than to adopt and modify the more efficient and comfortable French Tissot was a serious error in judgment brought about by a lack of foresight and preparation.
The prewar failure to develop and experiment with new gases was also a serious shortcoming. If attention had been paid to the rapidly changing technology of chemical warfare, the United States, with its untapped industrial capacity, might have been able to overcome the German advantage. American technology might have produced the king of war gases, the persistent mustard agent, in a timely fashion. Instead, the Germans introduced this agent a year before the Allies.
After entry into the conflict, the United States geared up for production of war gases currently in use. Eventually mustard and other agents were shipped from the United States, but only in fifty-five-gallon containers. Production of chemical shells, based on French designs, was belatedly undertaken, and not a single American gas shell ever left the muzzle of an AEF artillery piece in combat. The unfortunate shortage of gas shells restricted the AEF’s capability to retaliate in kind against the Germans; this, in turn, had a demoralizing effect on troops whose own positions had been liberally drenched with gas from German shells.
The AEF never found the key to effective education and training for the offensive and defensive aspects of chemical warfare. A significant advantage could have been obtained if both offensive and defensive training had been integrated into all aspects of instruction. Once a soldier understood the overall nature of gas warfare and acquired confidence in his equipment and gas officers, he more easily accepted and adjusted to chemicals in actual combat. Unfortunately, U.S. training in chemical warfare never reached the sophistication needed to achieve the desired results. Equipment shortages and the lack of trained, instructors hampered the AEF’s preparation to engage in chemical warfare. The Army suffered needless casualties as a consequence.
Good gas discipline was also essential to the conduct of chemical warfare. Very few soldiers reached the level of the 1st Infantry Division doughboy who, when asked by a staff officer if the gas alarm signified a drill, replied through his mask in muffled tones, Put on your mask, put on your mask, you damn fool and don’t ask questions. Here, said the division commander who learned of the incident, was the real thing in discipline. Discipline and training were required if men were to be expected to remain in a contaminated area. The soldier’s determination to fight on would certainly have been enhanced if he had had faith in his equipment and the knowledge that provisions had been made for the decontamination of himself and his gear.4
Had the U.S. Army’s leaders, prior to America’s entry into the war, prepared themselves intellectually by studying German gas doctrine or by reviewing observer reports, gas officers would not have had to overcome such strong resistance to the tactical employment of chemicals. Because the U.S. Army failed to develop gas warfare doctrine, the average AEF officer never really understood the potential value of chemicals. Nor could he put aside his preconceived, if perhaps erroneous notion, that chemicals were unusually inhumane weapons whose development should not be pursued. For America the real inhumanity of chemical warfare in World War I lay in the blindness of U.S. civilian and military leaders who, having ignored the real and present threat posed by gas, deployed the doughboys of the AEF to fight unprepared in a chemical environment. Ignorance, shortsightedness, and unpreparedness extracted a high toll at the front, a toll that the United States with its intellectual and technological resources should not have had to pay.
Notes
Introduction
1. Wayne Biddle, Restocking the Chemical Arsenal, New York Times Magazine, 24 May 1981:36.
2. Poisoning the Battlefield, Time Magazine, 10 March 1980:28.
Chapter 1
1. Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West, Chemical Warfare (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1921), 1.
2. Ibid., 2-4; Alden H. Waitt, Gas Warfare, The Chemical Weapon, Its Use and Protection Against It (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1942), 7-11.
3. Waitt, Gas Warfare, 12-13.
4. Ian V. Hogg, Gas, Ballantines Illustrated History of the Violent Century: Weapons Book no. 43, edited by Barrie Pitt (New York: Ballantine Books, 1975), 10-11; Army and Navy Journal, 8 May 1915:1141.
5. Barbara W. Tuchman, The Guns of August (New York: MacMillan, 1962), 119.
6. Rudolf Hanslian, The German Gas Attack at Ypres on April 22, 1915 (Berlin: Verlag Gasschutz and Luftschutz, 1934), 6, translated by the Military Intelligence Division, U.S. Army War College; Charles H. Foulkes, Gas The Story of the Special Brigade (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1936), 24; Ulrich M61ler-Kiel, Die Chemische Waffe im, Weltkrieg and jetzt [The chemical weapon during the war and now] (Berlin: Verlag Chemie, 1932), 16, translated by the Military Intelligence Division, U.S. Army War College; H. C. Peterson, Propaganda for War (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1939), 63; Hogg, Gas, 19.
7. Foulkes, Gas , 25; Victor Lefebure, The Riddle the Rhine: Chemical Strategy in Peace and War (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1923), 40; Hogg, Gas, 20-23; Curt Wachtel, Chemical Warfare (Brooklyn, NY: Chemical Publishing Co., 1941), 66.
8. Hogg, Gas, 23.
9. Augustin Mitchell Prentiss, Chemicals in War: A Treatise on Chemical Warfare (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1937), 435-36.
10. Hanslian, Ypres, 6-7; Hogg, Gas, 24; Wachtel, Chemical Warfare, 64.
11. Hanslian, Ypres, 10-12.
12. The description of the first gas attack is taken from the following sources: Hanslian, Ypres; Owen Spencer Watkins, unidentified article in The Methodist Recorder (Great Britain) quoted in The Literary Digest, 4 September 1915:483-86; and Basil Henry Liddell Hart, The Real War, 1914-1918 (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1930), 175-85.
13. Foulkes, Gas , 19-20.
14. The description of the British gas attack at Loos is taken from Ibid., 66-84; and Hart, The Real War, 186-98.
15. Foulkes, Gas , 84.
Chapter 2
1. Miiller-Kiel, Chemische Waffe, 49.
2. Hogg, Gas, 11-14.
3. Rudolf Hanslian, Der Chemische Krieg [The chemical war] (Berlin: E.S. Mittler & Sohn, 1927), 64, translated by the U.S. Army War College; Foulkes, Gas , 263-64.
4. Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 4.
5. Great Britain, Army, Report on the Activities of the Special Brigade, with chart on Expansion of the Special Brigade, 19 December 1918, in possession of the author; France, Armée, Armées du Nord et du Nordest, Instruction relative a l’Organization et a emploi des Unités speciales, dites, Unités Z [Instruction relative to the organization and. use of special units, called Units Z], 23 January 1918, partial translation by Dr. Robert. M. Epstein, Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command. and General Staff College, 1982; Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 4. There were thirteen Russian field armies at the time that country left the war.
6. Foulkes, Gas , 242-43.
7. Samuel James Manson Auld, Chemical Warfare, Chemical Warfare, 15 March 1922:1224, reprint of a lecture published in the Royal Engineers Journal (Great Britain) of February 1922; Foulkes, Gas , 293.
8. Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 4-5; Foulkes, Gas , 94-95, 305.
9. Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 48-49.
10. Prentiss, Chemicals in War, 440-45.
11. Ibid.
12. Foulkes, Gas , 167, 169; Lefebure, Riddle, 62.
13. Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 107.
14. Hogg, Gas, 48-49; Pascal Lucas, The Evolution of Tactical Ideas in France and Germany during the War of 1914-1918 (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1923), 34, translated by P. V. Kieffer, U.S. Army, in 1925.
15. Foulkes, Gas , 145, 238 n. 145, 1.91; Donald Wilson, former Major, Special Brigade, Royal Engineers, interview with author, Fort McClellan, AL, 28 October 1981.
16. Foulkes, Gas , 197-98.
17. Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 45.
18. Prentiss, Chemicals, 458.
19. Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 61.
20. Hogg, Gas, 119-20.
21. Hanslian, Chemische Krieg, 58.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 63, 67-68; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 176.
24. Lucas, Tactical Ideas, 127.
25. Ibid., 22; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 205-6.
26. Robert Graves, Goodbye to All That (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957, c1929), 95; Prentiss, Chemicals, 536.
27. Graves, Goodbye, 198.
28. Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 197-98.
29. Prentiss, Chemicals, 539.
30. Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 202.
31. Foulkes, Gas , 312-13; U.S. War Department,Gas Warfare, pt. 1, German Methods of Offense, Document no. 705 (Washington, DC: U.S. Army War College/U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918), 19, hereafter cited as War Department, Gas Warfare, etc.; Prentiss, Chemicals, 540.
Chapter 3
1. Frederick Brown, Chemical Warfare, A Study in Restraints (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968), 15-17, 1 confirmed Brown’s analysis of the propaganda war by examining prewar issues of the Army-Navy Journal,The Literary Digest, and the New York Times. I also looked at Harold D. Lasswell, Propaganda in the World War (New York: Peter Smith, 1938), and Peterson, Propaganda for War. Frederick Palmer, an astute wartime observer, gives an excellent overview of the effect Allied propaganda had on Americans in Newton D. Baker, America at War, 2 vols. (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1931), 1:36-39. See also Benedict Crowell, America’s Munitions, 1917-1918 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919), 410.
2. Brown, Chemical Warfare, 40-41. Brown cites Chief of Staff Peyton C. March’s comments that the use of gas reduces civilization to savagery. From memoirs of World War I officers, especially those who served in the Chemical Warfare Service, it is apparent that this belief was widespread.
3. William A. Ganoe, The History the United States Army, rev. ed. (Ashton, MD: Eric Lundberg, 1964), 452; Brown, Chemical Warfare, 21n.
4. U.S. Senate, Committee on Military Affairs, Preparedness for National Defense, 64th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1916), 483; Wilder D. Bancroft,et al., Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare, The Medical Department of the United StatesArmy in the World War, vol. 14 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1926), 27.
5. Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 27.
6. Ibid. In Chemical Warfare, Brown cites two reports, but these were filed after the U.S. declaration of war.
7. U.S. War Department, Annual Report, 1917, vol. 1, The Secretary of War, et al. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918), 42.
8. Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects,27.
9. Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 32.
10. Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 28.
11. Crowell, America’s Munitions, 413; G. A. Burrell, The First Twenty Thousand, Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2 (1919), 93, quoted in Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 43.
12. Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 28.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., 30-31.
15. Ibid.; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 34.
16. Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, to Chief of Staff, A. E. F., 16 October 1918, Subj: Gas Training in [thel United States, reprinted in U.S. Army, Chemical Warfare Service, Defense Division, Report on the Operations of the Defense Division, Chemical Warfare Service, Submitted to the Chief of Chemical Warfare Service in accordance with S. O. 31, December 1918, DTIC AD-498438, hereafter cited as Report … Defense Division.
17. Edgar Dow Gilman, Chemical Warfare. Lectures Delivered to the Reserve Officer Training Corps, University of Cincinnati: Gas Projector Attacks, Chemical Warfare 8 (15 July 1922):14; Robert Lee Bullard, Personalities and Reminiscences of the War (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1925), 193.
18.Samuel James Manson Auld, A General Record of the American Chemical Warfare Service and the Relations Therewith of the British Gas Mission, 5 sect., 2:4, in the author’s possession.
19.Ibid., 2:3.
20. Ibid., 1:3-5; Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, A. E. F., to all gas officers, 28 September 1918, Subj: Gas Defense Training, 35th Division Gas Officer File, Record Group 120, National Archives, Washington, DC.
21. Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 66; Division Gas Officer, 29th Division, to Deputy Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, 13 January 1918, uncataloged Division Gas Officer Reports, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA, hereafter cited as MHI; Baron Munchausen [pseud], History of the 318th Field Hospital, World War I project, MHI.
22. Gilman, Lectures, 16; Memorandum no. 65, HQ, 80th Division, Camp Lee, VA, 14 May 1918, uncataloged Division Gas Officer Reports, MHI.
23. General Order no. 108, 15 August 1917, cited in U.S. Army, A. E. F., 1917-1919, History of the Chemical Warfare Service, American Expeditionary Forces, First Gas Regiment, 14 pts. in 1 vol. (Bound typescript; Fort Leavenworth, KS: General Service School, n.d.),pt. 1, hereafter cited as A. E. F., History West, Chemical Warfare, 42-44. lst Gas Regiment ; Ibid., 1:1, 4; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 42 -44.
24. Crowell, America’s Munitions, 418-28; Lt. Col. Amos A. Fries to Director of the Chemical Warfare Service, 19 March 1919, Subj: History of Chemical Warfare Service in France, uncataloged manuscript, MHI, 5, 24, 27-29.
25. Crowell, America’s Munitions, 397; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 53.
26. E. Alexander Powell, The Army Behind the Army (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919), 125; Crowell, America’s Munitions, 397-408.
27. Prentiss, Chemicals, 81-82.
28. Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 60-70.
Chapter 4
1. U.S. Department of the Army, Historical Division, United States Army in the World War, 1917-1919, vol. 16, General Orders, G. H. Q., A. E .F., G. O. no. 8, 5 July 1917, Organization, of Headquarters, American Expeditionary Forces, Table 4, Technical and Administration Services (Gas Service) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1948), 23, hereafter cited as General Orders, A. E. F.
2. Fries, History, 2.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 3; General Orders, A.K F., G.0. no. 31, 3 September 1917, 67-68.
5.General Orders, A.E.F., G.O. no. 79, 27 May 1918, 327-29.
6. Ibid., G.O. no. 107, 2 July 1918, 370.
7. Fries, History, 5.
8. War Department, Gas Warfare, pt. 2, Methods of Defense Against Gas Attacks, 14-18; Fries, History, 11, 24, 27; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 50-51.
9. Fries, History, 28-29.
10. Ibid., 29.
11. Ibid., 8-9; Crowell, America’s Munitions, 406-9; Powell, The Army, 125; Prentiss, Chemicals, 481.
12. Prentiss, Chemicals, 462.
13. General Orders, A.E.F., G.0. no. 53, 3 November 1917, 100.
14. U.S. War Department, Memorandum on Gas Poisoning in Warfare with Notes on Its Pathology and Treatment (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917); Fries, History, 9-10.
15.U.S. Army, Chemical Warfare Service, Medical Director, History of Chemical Warfare Service, American Expeditionary Forces, Medical Director (N.p., 1918), 1, DTIC AD-494989, hereafter cited as History … Medical Director ; Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 59.
16. History . Medical Director, 2-3.
17. Ibid.
18. E. W. Spencer, The History of Gas Attacks upon the American Expeditionary Forces During the World War, 4 pts (Bound typescript; Edgewood Arsenal, MD: Chemical Warfare Service, U.S. War Department, 15 February 1928), 3:403-4; J. W. Grissinger, Medical Field Service in France (Washington, DC: The Association of Military Surgeons, 1928), 28-29, reprinted from The Military Surgeon 61-63 (1927-1928).
19. Grissinger, Medical Field Service, 41.
20. General Orders, A.E.F., G.O. no. 144, 29 August 1918, 429-32; Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 60, 838.
21. Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 45, 49.
22. Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 86; Gilman, Lectures, 14.
23. Norman A. Dunham, The War As I Saw It, 3 vols., manuscript, World War I project, MHI, 1:166, 168; Gilman, Lectures, 14.
24. U.S. Army, Chemical Warfare Service, European Division, Training Activities of the Chemical Warfare Service (N.p., 1919). Unless otherwise indicated all of the information pertaining to defensive gas training is from this unnumbered publication.
25. History 1st Gas Regiment, 1:5-7, 2:9-10
26. Auld, General Record, 2:5; U.S. Army, A. E. F., 1917-1919, ist Army, Provisional Instructions for Artillery Officers on the Use of Gas Shell (N.p.: Base Printing Plant, 29th Engineers, 1918); U.S. Army, A.E.F., 1917-1919, Gas Manual, pt. 2, Use of Gas by the Artillery (France, March 1919), hereafter cited as Gas Manual, pt, 2; U.S. Army, Chemical Warfare Service, History of the Chemical Warfare Service, American Expeditionary Forces (N.p., 1918), 43, DTIC AD-495051.
Chapter 5
1. Bullard, Personalities, 136.
2. Rexmond C. Cochrane, The 1st Division at Ansauville, January-April 1918, U.S. Army Chemical Corps Historical Studies; Gas Warfare in World War I, Study no. 9 (Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Officer, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1958), 12-13.
3. Ibid., 5; U.S. Army, 16th Infantry Regiment, The Story of the 16th Infantry in France, typescript, World War I project, MHI, 8.
4. War Department, Gas Warfare, pt.3, Methods of Training in Defensive Measures, 26-28.
5. Amos A. Fries, -Gas in Defense-, in -Gas in Attack- and -Gas in Defense- (Fort Leavenworth,KS: The General Service Schools Press, n.d.), 17-18, reprinted from the National Service Magazine, June-July 1919; Report … Defense Division, 12.
6. Report Defense Division, 14.
7. Bullard Personalities, 159; Report … Defense Division, 14.
8. U.S. Army, A.E.F., Office of the Chief of Gas Service, Semi-monthly Report to Director of Gas Service, U.S., on Activities and Needs of the Gas Service, A. E. F., 15 May 1918, 2, DTIC AD-498800.
9. Report. Defense Division, 1.4.
10. Dorothy Kneeland Clark, Effectiveness of Chemical Weapons in World War I, Staff paper ORO-SP-88 (Bethesda, MD: Tactics Division, Operations Research Office, Johns Hopkins University, 1959), 75; U.S. Army, A. E. F., 1917-1919, Defensive Measures Against Gas Attack, No. 253 revised (France, November 1917), 8, hereafter cited as Defensive Measures.
11. Moses King, Diary of Moses King, Company I, 305th Infantry, U.S.N.A., n.d., World War I project, MHI; Chief, CWS, to all gas officers, 28 September 1918, RG 120, National Archives.
12. Harry L. Gilchrist, A Comparative Study of World War Casualties From Gas and Other Weapons (Edgewood Arsenal, MD: Chemical Warfare School, 1928), 21; Report … Defense Division, 16; Clarence M. Wood, former medic, 140th,Ambulance Company, 35th Division, letter to the author, 19 October 1981; Prentiss, Chemicals in War, 565.
13. Prentiss, Chemicals in War, 564-65; Report… Defense Division ; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 272-74; Waitt, Gas Warfare,195.
14. General Orders, A. E. F. G. 0. no, 144, 29 August 1918, 432; Fries, -Gas in Defense-, 15-16.
15. Foulkes, Gas , 101-2.
16. Fries -Gas in Defense-, 14; War Department, Gas Warfare, 2:14.
17. Fries -Gas in Defense-, 11; War Department, Gas Warfare, 2:31.
18. Rexmond C. Cochrane, The 42nd Division Before Landres-et-St-Georges, October 1918, U.S.Army Chemical Corps Historical Studies: Gas Warfare in World War I, Study no. 17 (Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Office, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1960), 13-15.
19. Fries, -Gas in Defense-, 9-10.
20. General Orders, A. E. F., G. O. no. 107, 2 July 1918, 370; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 89-91; Charles R. Shrader, Amicicide: The Problem of Friendly Fire in Modern War, Research Survey no. 1 (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1982), xii, 2.
21. U.S. Army, 26th Division, Gas Officer, Report of Growth, Organization and Accomplishments of the Division Gas Officer, With Suggested Duties of Officers, 25 November 1918, Record Group 120, National Archives, Washing-ton, DC.
22. Ibid.
23. Harold Reigelman, A Chemical Officer at the Front, Chemical Warfare Bulletin 23 (April 1937):42.
24. Ibid., 54.
25. Spencer, Gas Attacks, pt. 1, First Division, 8-13.
26. Reigelman, At the Front, 51.
27. Laurence Stallings, The Doughboys (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), 100-1.
28. Bullard, Personalities, 193.
29. Stallings, The Doughboys, 377; quotation in D. Clayton James, The Years of MacArthur,vol. 1, 1880-1941 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970), 197.
30. Andrew Kaehik, Diary [of service with the 314th Infantry, 79th Infantry Division], 29 September 1918, World War I project, MHI; George F. Unmacht, The Effects of Chemical Agents on Quartermaster Supplies, The Quartermaster Review 14 (November-December 1934):54; Fries, -Gas in Defense-, 16; Defensive Measures, 12.
31. Division Gas Officer, 32d Division to Commanding General 32d Division, Monthly Report, ii.d., Record Group 120, National Archives, Washington, DC; Spencer, Gas Attacks, pt. 1, 1st Division, 9; Regimental Gas Officer, 18th Infantry, to Commanding Officer, 5 May 1918, quoted in Rexmond C. Cochrane, The 1st Division at Cantigny, May 1918, U.S. Army Chemical Corps Historical Studies: Gas Warfare in World War 1, Study no. 11 (Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Office, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1958), 19-20; Report … Defense Division, 10, 14; General Orders, A.E.F., G.O. no. 78, 25 May 1918.
33. Clark, Effectiveness, 75; Division Gas Officer, 29th Division, to Chief Gas Officer, 1st Army, Report on Recent Operations, 20 November 1918, Record Group 120, National Archives, Washington, DC; Willard Newton, Over There for Uncle Sam: A Daily Diary of World War One, n. d., 95, World War I project, MHI; Division Gas Officer, 29th Division to Chief Gas Officer, 1st Army, A. E. F, Report on Recent Operations, 20 October 1918, uncataloged Division Gas Officer Files, MHI.
33. Clark, Effectiveness, 73-74.
34. Karl Edwin Harriman, The Cannoneers Have Hairy Ears (New York: J. H. Sear, 1927), 50, 176; Waitt, Gas Warfare, 195.
35. Cochrane, The 42d Division, 9.
36. History … Medical Director, 17; Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 65.
37. History … Medical Director, 17, Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 65.
38. Wood letter.
39. Grissinger, Medical Field Service, 71.
40. Medical Director, Gas Service, to Chief of Gas Service, A. E. F., 1 July 1918, Subj: Report of Second Serious Gas Attack in 2d Division, reprinted in Bancroft, et al., Medical Aspects, 71-73.
41. Gas Manual, 2:12-13.
42. Ibid., 12.
43. Conrad H. Lanza, Counterbattery, Chemical Warfare Bulletin 23 (July 1937):89-91; Lucas, Tactical Ideas, 57.
44. Bullard, Personalities, 193-94; General Orders, A. E. F., G. O. no. 107, 2 July 1918, 370.
45. Lanza, Counterbattery, 92.
46. Rexmond C. Cochrane, The Use of Gas in the Meuse-Argonne Campaign, September – November 1918, U.S. Army Chemical Corps Historical Studies: Gas Warfare in World War I, Study no. 10 (Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Office, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1958), 89; History 1st Gas Regiment, pt. 3., sect. 6, 1-35-; Fries and West, Chemical Warfare, 90.
47. History 1st Gas Regiment, 1:1.
48. Ibid., 4:1, 3; pt. 3, sect. 4:8.
49. Ibid., 4:1-2.
50. Ibid., 4:3.
51. James Thayer Addison, The Story of the First Gas Regiment (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1919), 149-50; History 1st Gas Regiment, pt. 3, sect. 4:8.
52. History … 1st Gas Regiment, pt. 3, sect. 5:14.
53. Addison, First Gas Regiment, 150.
Chapter 6
1. John J. Pershing, Final Report of General John J. Pershing, Commander-in-Chief American Expeditionary Forces (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1920), 77.
2. In researching gas casualty statistics, I found minor discrepancies and a variety of reporting methods. The studies I examined included Albert G. Love, Statistics, pt. 2, Medical and Casualty Statistics, The Medical Departanent of the United States Army in the World Way, vol. 15 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1925); Albert G. Love, War Casualties, Army Medical Bulletin no. 24 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Medical Field Service School, 1931); and Harry L. Gilchrist, A Comparative Study of World War Casualties From Gas and Other Weapons (Edgewood Arsenal, MD: Chemical Warfare School, 1928). I found that the latter had the clearest format and figures that were substantiated by the other studies. The figures do not include casualties in the Marine Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.
3. Foulkes, Gas , 345.
4. Bullard, Personalities, 161.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Unpublished
Auld, Samuel James Manson. A General Record of the American Chemical Warfare Service and the Relations Therewith of the British Gas Mission. 5 sect. In the author’s possession.
Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, A. E. F., to all gas officers, 28 September 1918, Subj: Gas Defense Training. 35th Division Gas Officer Files, Record Group 120, National Archives, Washington., DC.
Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, to Chief of Staff, A.E.F., 16 October 1918, Subj: Gas Training in [the] United States. Reprinted in U.S. Army, Chemical Warfare Service, Defense Division, Report on the Operations of the Defense Division, Chemical Warfare Service. Submitted to the Chief of Chemical Warfare Service in accordance with S. O. 31, December 1918. DTIC AD-498438.
Division Gas Officer, 29th Division, to Chief Gas Officer, 1st Army. Report on Recent Operations. 20 November 1918. Record Group 120, National Archives, Washington, DC.
Division Gas Officer, 29th Division, to Chief Gas Officer, 1st Army, A.E.F. Report on Recent Operations. 20 October 1918. Uncataloged Division Gas Officer Files, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Division Gas Officer, 29th Division, to Deputy Chief, Chemical Warfare Service, 13 January 1918. Uncataloged Division Gas Officer Reports, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Division Gas Officer, 32d Division, to Commanding General, 32d Division. Monthly Report. N.d. Record Group National Archives, Washington, DC.
Dunham, Norman A. The War as I Saw It. 3 vols. Manuscript. World War I project, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Fries, Amos A., Lt. Col., to Director of the Chemical Warfare Service, 19 March 1919, Subj: History of Chemical Warfare Service in France. Uncataloged manuscript. U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Kachik, Andrew. Diary [of service with the 314th Regiment, 79th Infantry Division]. World War I project, U.S. Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
King, Moses. Diary of Moses King, Company I, 305th Infantry, U.S.N.A. N.d. World War I project, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Memorandum no. 65, HQ, 80th Division, Camp Lee, VA, 14 May 1918. Uncataloged Division Gas Officer Reports, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Munchausen, Baron [pseud.]. History of the 318th Field Hospital. World War I project, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Newton, Willard. Over There for Uncle Sam: A Daily Diary of World War One. World War I project, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Spencer, E. W. The History of Gas Attacks upon the American Expeditionary Forces During the World War. 4 pts. Bound typescript. Edgewood Arsenal, MD: Chemical Warfare Service, U.S. War Department, 15 February 1928.
U.S. Army. A. E. F., 1917-1919. 1st Gas Regiment. History of the Chemical Warfare Service, American Expeditionary Forces, 1st Gas Regiment. 14 pts. in 1 vol. Bound typescript. Fort Leavenworth, KS: General Service School, n.d.
—–. Office of the Chief of Gas Service. Semi-monthly Report to Director of Gas Service, U.S., on Activities and Needs of the Gas Service, A. E. F. 15 May 1918. DTIC AD-498800.
U.S. Army. Chemical Warfare Service. History of the Chemical Warfare Service, American Expeditionary Forces. N.p., 1918.
—–. Defense Division. Report on the Operations of the Defense Division, Chemical Warfare Service. Submitted to the Chief of Chemical Warfare Service in accordance with S. O. 31, December 1918. DTIC AD-498438.
—–. European Division. Training Activities of the Chemical Warfare Service. N.p., 1919.
—–. Medical Director. History of Chemical Warfare Service, American Expeditionary Forces, Medical Director. N.p., 1918. DTIC AD-494989.
U.S. Army. 26th Division. Gas Officer. Report of Growth, Organization and Accomplishments of the Division Gas Office, with Suggested Duties of Officers. 25 November 1918. Record Group Washington, DC.
National Archives, U.S. Army. 16th Infantry Regiment. The Story of the 16th Infantry in France. Typescript. World War I project, U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA.
Wilson, Donald, former Major, Special Brigade, Royal Engineers. Interview with author. Fort McClellan, AL, 28 October 1981.
Wood, Clarence M., former medic, 140th Ambulance Co., 35th Division. Letter to author. 19 October 1981. In the author’s possession.
Published
Addison, James Thayer. The Story of the First Gas Regiment. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1919.
Army and Navy Journal, 8 May 1915:1141.
Auld, Samuel James Manson. Chemical Warfare. Chemical Warfare, 15 March 1922:12-24. Reprint of a lecture published in the Royal Engineers Journal (Great Britain) of February 1922.
Bullard, Robert Lee. Personalities and Reminiscences of the War. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1925.
Burrell, G. A. The First Twenty Thousand. Journal of Industrial Engineering 2 (1919). Quotation in Amos A. Fries and Clarence J. West, Chemical Warfare. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1921.
Crowell, Benedict. America’s Munitions, 1917-1918. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919.
Foulkes, Charles H. Gas The Story of the Special Brigade. Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1936.
France. Armée. Armées du Nord et du Nordest. Instruction relative a l’Organization et a emploi des Unités spéciales, dites, Unités Z [Instruction relative to the arganization and use of special units, called Units Z]. 23 January 1918. Partial translation by Dr. Robert M. Epstein, Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1982.
Fries, Amos A. -Gas in Defense-. In -Gas in Attack- and -Gas in Defense-. Fort Leavenworth, KS?: The General Service Schools, n.d.? Reprinted from the National Service Magazine, June-July 1919.
Fries, Amos A., and Clarence J. West. Chemical Warfare. New York: McGrawHill, 1921.
Gilman, Edgar Dow. Chemical Warfare. Lectures Delivered to the Reserve Officer Training Corps, University of Cincinnati: Gas Projector Attacks. Chemical Warfare 8 (15 July 1922):11-16.
Graves, Robert. Goodbye to All That. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957, c1929.
Great Britain. Army. Report on the Activities of the Special Brigade. With chart on Expansion of the Special Brigade. 19 December 1918. In the author’s possession.
Grissinger, J. W. Medical Field Service in France. Washington, DC: The Association of Military Surgeons, 1928.
Harriman, Karl Edwin. The Cannoneers Have Hairy Ears. New York: J. H. Sear, 1927.
Lucas, Pascal. The Evolution of Tactical Ideas in France and Germany During the War of 1914-1918. Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1923. Translated by P. V. Kieffer, U.S. Army, in 1925.
Pershing, John J. Final Report of General John J. Pershing, Commanderin-Chief American Expeditionary Forces. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1920.
Reigelman, Harold. A Chemical Officer at the Front. Chemical Warfare Bulletin 23 (April, July, and October 1937):42-55, 106-16, 151-63. Reprinted from War Notes a Casual, publication information unknown.
U.S. Army. A.E.F., 1917-1919. Defensive Measures Against Gas Attack. No. 253, revised. France, November 1917.
—–. Gas Manual. Pt. 2. Use of Gas by the Artillery. France, March 1919.
—–. 1st Army. Provisional Instructions for Artillery Officers on the Use of Gas Shell. N.p. Base Printing Plant, 29th Engineers, 1918.
U.S. Department of the Army. Historical Division. United States Army in the World War, 1917-1919. Vol. 16. General Orders, G.H.Q., A.E.F. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1948.
U.S. Senate. Committee on Military Affairs. Preparedness for National Defense. 64th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1916.
U.S. War Department. Annual Report, 1917. Vol. 1. The Secretary of War, et al. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918.
—–. Gas Warfare. Pt. 1. German Methods of Offense. Pt. 2. Methods of Defense Against Gas Attacks. Pt. 3. Methods of Training in Defensive Measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Army War College/U.S. Government Printing Office, 1918.
—–. Memorandum on Gas Poisoning in Warfare with Notes on Its Pathology and Treatment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1917.
Watkins., Owen Spencer. Unidentified article in The Methodist Recorder (Great Britain) quoted in The Literary Digest, 4 September 1915:483-86.
Other Works
Bancroft, Wilder D., et al. Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare. The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, vol. 14. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1926.
Biddle, Wayne. Restocking the Chemical Arsenal. New York Times Magazine, 24 May 1981.
Brown, Frederick. Chemical Warfare, a Study in Restraints. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.
Clark, Dorothy Kneeland. Effectiveness of Chemical Weapons in World War I. Staff paper ORO-SP-88. Bethesda, MD: Tactics Division, Operations Research Office, Johns Hopkins University, 1959. DTIC AD-233081.
Cochrane, Rexmond C. The 1st Division at Ansauville, January-April 1918. U.S. Army Chemical Corps Historical Studies: Gas Warfare in World War I, Study no. 9. Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Office, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1958.
—–. The 1st Division at Cantigny, May 1918. U.S. Army Chemical Corps ,,Historical Studies: Gas Warfare in World War I, Study no. 11. Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Office, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1958.
—–. The 42nd Division Before Landres-et-St. Georges, October 1918. U.S. Army Chemical Corps Historical Studies: Gas Warfare in World War I, Study no. 17. Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Office, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1960.
—–. The Use of Gas in the Meuse-Argonne Campaign, September – November 1918. U.S. Army Chemical Corps Historical Studies: Gas Warfare in World War I, Study no. 10. Army Chemical Center, MD: Historical Office, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 1958.
Ganoe, William A. The History of the United States Army. Rev. ed. Ashton, MD: Eric Lundberg, 1964.
Gilchrist, Harry L., Col. A Comparative Study of World War Casualties from Gas and Other Weapons. Edgewood Arsenal, MD: Chemical Warfare School, 1928.
Hanslian, Rudolf. Der Chemische Krieg [The chemical war]. Berlin: E. S. Mittler & Sohn, 1927. Translated by the U.S. Army War College.
—–. The German Gas Attack at Ypres on April 22, 1915. Berlin: Verlag Gasschutz and Luftschutz, 1934. Translated by the Military Intelligence Division, U.S. Army War College.
Hogg, Ian V. Gas. Ballantine’s Illustrated History of the Violent Century: Weapons Book no. 43, edited by Barrie Pitt. New York: Ballantine Books, 1975.
James, D. Clayton. The Years of MacArthur. Vol. 1. 1880-1941. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970.
Lanza, Conrad H. Counterbattery. Chemical Warfare Bulletin 23 (July 1937):87-94.
Lasswell, Harold D. Propaganda in the World War. New York: Peter Smith, 1938.
Lefebure, Victor. Riddle of the Rhine: Chemical Strategy in Peace and War. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1923.
Liddell Hart, Basil Henry. The Real War, 1914-1918. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1930.
Love, Albert G., Maj. Statistics.Pt. 2. Medical and Casualty Statistics. The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, vol. 15. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1925.
—–. War Casualties. Army Medical Bulletin no. 24. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Medical Field Service School, 1931.
Müller-Kiel, Ulrich. Die Chemische Waffe im Weltkrieg und Jetzt [The chemical weapon in the World. War and now]. Berlin: Verlag Chemie, 1932. Translated by the Military Intelligence Division, U.S. Army War College.
Palmer, Frederick. Newton D. Baker, America at War. 2 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1931.
Peterson, H. C. Propaganda for War. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1939.
Poisoning the Battlefield. Time Magazine, 10 March 1980:28.
Powell, E. Alexander. The Army Behind the Army. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1919.
Prentiss, Augustin Mitchell. Chemicals in War: A Treatise on Chemical Warfare. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1937.
Shrader, Charles R. Amicicide: The Problem of Friendly Fire in Modern War. Research Survey no. 1. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1982.
Stallings, Laurence. The Doughboys. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.
Tuchman, Barbara W. The Guns of August. New York: Macmillan, 1962.
Unmacht, George F. The Effects of Chemical Agents on Quartermaster Supplies. The Quartermaster Review 14 (November-December 1934):53-55.
Wachtel, Curt. Chemical Warfare. Brooklyn, NY: Chemical Publishing Co., 1941.
Waitt, Alden H. Gas Warfare: The Chemical Weapon, Its Use and Protection Against It. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1942.
LEAVENWORTH PAPERS
1 . The Evolution of U.S, Army Tactical Doctrine, 1946-76, by Major Robert A. Doughty
2. Nomonhan: Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat, 1939, by Dr. Edward J. Drea
3. Not War But Like War : The American Intervention in Lebanon, by Dr.Roger J. Spiller
4. The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War, by Captain Timothy T. Lupfer
5. Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies, by Dr. Allen F. Chew
6. Soviet Night Operations, by Major Claude R. Sasso
7. August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, by Lieutenant Colonel David M. Glantz
8. August Storm: Soviet Tactical and Operational Combat in Manchuria, 1945, by Lieutenant Colonel David M. Glantz
9. Defending the Driniumor: Covering Force Operations in New Guinea, 1944, by Dr. Edward J. Drea
10. Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience, 1917-1918 by Major Charles E. Heller, USAR
STUDIES IN PROGRESS
Soviet Airborne Forces
*
Rapid Deployment Logistics, Lebanon, 1958
*
Special Units: Rangers in World War 11
*
Counterattack on the Naktong: Light Infantry Operations in Korea, 1950
*
Armored Combat in World War 11: Arracourt
*
Stand Fast: German Defensive Doctrine in World War il
*
Combined Arms Doctrine in the 20th Century
*
Operations of Large Formations: The Corps
*
Tactics and Doctrine in Imperial Russia
*
U.S. Intervention in the Dominican Republic, 1965
TO VIEW: MAJ (P) Charles E. Heller
Major(P) Charles E. Heller, USAR, is currently on an AGR tour at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College as the Combat Studies Institute’s USAR Staff Officer. He has served on active duty with the 8th Infantry Division and in a variety of USAR assignments, including a MOBDES position with the U.S. Army Center of Military History. He has an M.A. in history from the University of Massachusetts and has recently completed all his degree requirements for a Ph.D. at the same institution. He has published a number of articles on a variety of military history topics.
COMBAT STUDIES INSTITUTE
Mission
The Combat Studies Institute was established on 18 June 1979 as a separate, department level activity within the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, for the purpose of accomplishing the following missions:
1. Conduct research on historical topics pertinent to the current doctrinal and educational concerns of the Army and publish and distribute the results of such research in a variety of formats to the Active Army and Reserve components.
2. Prepare and present instruction in military history at CGSC and assist other CGSC departments in integrating applicable military history materials into their instruction.
3. Serve as the TRADOC executive agent for the development and coordination of an integrated, progressive program of military history instruction in the TRADOC service school system.
4. Direct the CAC Historical Program.
5. Supervise the Fort Leavenworth Museum.
TO VIEW: Back Cover Synopsis
Return to CGSC/CSI Publications page
Required Links: USA.Gov | Army Homepage | TRADOC
Army Links: Army Recruiting Command| Warrant Officer Recruiting | Go Army |AKO| Army ROTC
About Our Site: Privacy and Security Notice | Accessibility Help and Information | External Link Disclaimer
Contact the webmaster
Contact Webmaster
Questions about Fort Leavenworth? Contact Public Affairs Office | Fort Leavenworth Homepage
This is an official U.S. Army site.
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp
***
The Army thus found itself with no alternative but to construct its own production facilities. In December, 1917, construction of plants to produce chemical agents began at Gunpowder Neck, Maryland. By the summer of 1918, the Edgewood Arsenal there had plants in operation producing phosgene, chloropicrin, mustard, chlorine, and sulfur trichloride. The arsenal also had a capability for filling artillery shells, although most of the agents produced were shipped overseas to the Allies in fifty-five gallon drums. Because of insufficient time, not one single gas shell manufactured at the arsenal ever reached an American artillery piece in France. When production of chemicals finally peaked one month prior to the Armistice, the plants had to stop production for lack of shell casings. artillery units and special gas troops fired American produced war gas, but in French and British shells.26
(From site above)
***
Chemical warfare
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Chemical warfare (disambiguation).
Mergefrom.svg
It has been suggested that Timeline of chemical warfare be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
WMD-chemical.svg
This article forms part of the series
Chemical agents
Lethal agents
Blood agents
Cyanogen chloride (CK)
Hydrogen cyanide (AC)
Blister agents
Ethyldichloroarsine (ED)
Methyldichloroarsine (MD)
Phenyldichloroarsine (PD)
Lewisite (L)
Sulfur mustard gas (HD, H, HT, HL, HQ)
Nitrogen mustard gas (HN1, HN2, HN3)
Nerve agents
G-Agents
Tabun (GA), Sarin (GB)
Soman (GD), Cyclosarin (GF)
GV
V-Agents
EA-3148, VE, VG, VM, VR, VX
Novichok agents
Pulmonary agents
Chlorine
Chloropicrin (PS)
Phosgene (CG)
Diphosgene (DP)
Incapacitating agents
Agent 15 (BZ)
EA-3167
Kolokol-1
Riot control agents
Pepper spray (OC)
CS gas
CN gas (mace)
CR gas
This box: view • talk • edit
Weapons of
mass destruction
WMD world map
By type
Biological
Chemical
Nuclear
Radiological
By country
Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
PR China
France
Germany
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel Japan
Netherlands
North Korea
Pakistan
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Sweden
Syria
Taiwan (ROC)
United Kingdom
United States
List of treaties
v • d • e
Chemical warfare (CW) involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances as weapons to kill, injure, or incapacitate an enemy.
This type of warfare is distinct from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to their explosive force.
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. The offensive use of living organisms or their toxic products is not considered chemical warfare but biological warfare.
Contents
* 1 Definition
* 2 Technology
o 2.1 Chemical warfare agents
+ 2.1.1 Persistency
+ 2.1.2 Classes
+ 2.1.3 Designations
o 2.2 Delivery
+ 2.2.1 Dispersion
+ 2.2.2 Thermal dissemination
+ 2.2.3 Aerodynamic dissemination
o 2.3 Protection against chemical warfare
+ 2.3.1 Decontamination
* 3 Sociopolitical climate
o 3.1 Efforts to eradicate chemical weapons
o 3.2 Chemical weapon proliferation
* 4 History
o 4.1 Ancient to medieval times
+ 4.1.1 Textual and Literary Evidence
+ 4.1.2 Archaeological Evidence
o 4.2 Rediscovery
o 4.3 World War I
o 4.4 Interwar years
o 4.5 World War II
o 4.6 North Yemen Civil War
o 4.7 Cold War
+ 4.7.1 Developments by the Western governments
+ 4.7.2 United States Senate Report
+ 4.7.3 Developments by the Soviet government
o 4.8 Iran–Iraq War
o 4.9 Falklands War
o 4.10 Terrorism
* 5 See also
* 6 Notes
* 7 References
* 8 Further reading
* 9 External links
Definition
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 biological warfare rather than chemical warfare; however, the use of nonliving toxic products produced by living organisms (e.g. toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, and saxitoxin) is considered chemical warfare under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition known as the General Purpose Criterion).[1]
About 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as chemical warfare agents during the 20th century. 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.
Under the Convention, chemicals that are toxic enough to be used as chemical weapons, or that may be used to manufacture such chemicals, are divided into three groups according to their purpose and treatment:
* Schedule 1 – Have few, if any, legitimate uses. These may only be produced or used for research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes (i.e. testing of chemical weapons sensors and protective clothing). Examples include nerve agents, ricin, lewisite and mustard gas. Any production over 100 g must be notified to the OPCW and a country can have a stockpile of no more than one tonne of these chemicals.
* Schedule 2 – Have no large-scale industrial uses, but may have legitimate small-scale uses. Examples include dimethyl methylphosphonate, a precursor to sarin but which is also used as a flame retardant and Thiodiglycol which is a precursor chemical used in the manufacture of mustard gas but is also widely used as a solvent in inks.
* Schedule 3 – Have legitimate large-scale industrial uses. Examples include phosgene and chloropicrin. Both have been used as chemical weapons but phosgene is an important precursor in the manufacture of plastics and chloropicrin is used as a fumigant. The OPCW must be notified of, and may inspect, any plant producing more than 30 tonnes per year.
Technology
Chemical warfare technology timeline Agents Dissemination Protection Detection
1900s Chlorine
Chloropicrin
Phosgene
Mustard gas Wind dispersal Gas masks, urinated-on gauze Smell
1910s Lewisite Chemical shells Gas mask
Rosin oil clothing
1920s Projectiles w/ central bursters CC-2 clothing
1930s G-series nerve agents Aircraft bombs Blister agent detectors
Color change paper
1940s Missile warheads
Spray tanks Protective ointment (mustard)
Collective protection
Gas mask w/ Whetlerite
1950s
1960s V-series nerve agents Aerodynamic Gas mask w/ water supply Nerve gas alarm
1970s
1980s Binary munitions Improved gas masks
(protection, fit, comfort) Laser detection
1990s Novichok nerve agents
A Swedish Army soldier wearing a chemical agent protective suit (C-vätskeskydd) and his protection mask (skyddsmask 90).
Although crude chemical warfare has been employed in many parts of the world for thousands of years,[2] modern chemical warfare began during World War I – see Poison gas in World War I.
Initially, only well-known commercially available chemicals and their variants were used. These included chlorine and phosgene gas. The methods used to disperse these agents during battle were relatively unrefined and inefficient. Even so, casualties could be heavy, due to the mainly static troop positions which were characteristic features of trench warfare.
Germany, the first side to employ chemical warfare on the battlefield,[3] simply opened canisters of chlorine upwind of the opposing side and let the prevailing winds do the dissemination. Soon after, the French modified artillery munitions to contain phosgene – a much more effective method that became the principal means of delivery.[4]
Since the development of modern chemical warfare in World War I, nations have pursued research and development on chemical weapons that falls into four major categories: new and more deadly agents; more efficient methods of delivering agents to the target (dissemination); more reliable means of defense against chemical weapons; and more sensitive and accurate means of detecting chemical agents.
Chemical warfare agents
See also: List of chemical warfare agents
A chemical used in warfare is called a chemical warfare agent (CWA). About 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as chemical warfare agents during the 20th century and the 21st century. These agents may be in liquid, gas or solid form. Liquid agents are generally designed to evaporate quickly; such liquids are said to be volatile or have a high vapor pressure. Many chemical agents are made volatile so they can be dispersed over a large region quickly.
The earliest target of chemical warfare agent research was not toxicity, but development of agents that can affect a target through the skin and clothing, rendering protective gas masks useless. In July 1917, the Germans employed mustard gas. Mustard gas easily penetrates leather and fabric to inflict painful burns on the skin.
Chemical warfare agents are divided into lethal and incapacitating categories. A substance is classified as incapacitating if less than 1/100 of the lethal dose causes incapacitation, e.g., through nausea or visual problems. The distinction between lethal and incapacitating substances is not fixed, but relies on a statistical average called the LD50.
Persistency
One way to classify chemical warfare agents is according to their persistency, a measure of the length of time that a chemical agent remains effective after dissemination. Chemical agents are classified as persistent or nonpersistent.
Agents classified as nonpersistent lose effectiveness after only a few minutes or hours. Purely gaseous agents such as chlorine are nonpersistent, as are highly volatile agents such as sarin and most other nerve agents. Tactically, nonpersistent agents are very useful against targets that are to be taken over and controlled very quickly.
Apart from the agent used, the delivery mode is very important. To achieve a nonpersistent deployment, the agent is dispersed into very small droplets comparable with the mist produced by an aerosol can. In this form not only the gaseous part of the agent (around 50%) but also the fine aerosol can be inhaled or taken up by the skin.
Modern doctrine requires very high concentrations almost instantly in order to be effective (one breath should contain a lethal dose of the agent). To achieve this, the primary weapons used would be rocket artillery or bombs and large ballistic missiles with cluster warheads. The contamination in the target area is only low or not existent and after four hours sarin or similar agents are not detectable anymore.
By contrast, persistent agents tend to remain in the environment for as long as several weeks, complicating decontamination. Defense against persistent agents requires shielding for extended periods of time. Non-volatile liquid agents, such as blister agents and the oily VX nerve agent, do not easily evaporate into a gas, and therefore present primarily a contact hazard.
The droplet size used for persistent delivery goes up to 1 mm increasing the falling speed and therefore about 80% of the deployed agent reaches the ground, resulting in heavy contamination. This implies, that persistent deployment does not aim at annihilating the enemy but to constrain him.
Possible targets include enemy flank positions (averting possible counter attacks), artillery regiments, commando posts or supply lines. Possible weapons to be used are wide spread, because the fast delivery of high amounts is not a critical factor.
A special form of persistent agents are thickened agents. These comprise a common agent mixed with thickeners to provide gelatinous, sticky agents. Primary targets for this kind of use include airfields, due to the increased persistency and difficulty of decontaminating affected areas.
Classes
Chemical weapons are inert agents that come in four categories: choking, blister, blood and nerve.[5] The agents are organized into several categories according to the manner in which they affect the human body. The names and number of categories varies slightly from source to source, but in general, types of chemical warfare agents are as follows:
Classes of chemical weapon agents Class of agent Agent Names Mode of Action Signs and Symptoms Rate of action Persistency
Nerve
* Cyclosarin (GF)
* Sarin (GB)
* Soman (GD)
* Tabun (GA)
* VX
* VR
* Some insecticides
* Novichok agents
Inactivates enzyme acetylcholinesterase, preventing the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the victim’s synapses and causing both muscarinic and nicotinic effects
* Miosis (pinpoint pupils)
* Blurred/dim vision
* Headache
* Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
* Copious secretions/sweating
* Muscle twitching/fasciculations
* Dyspnea
* Seizures
* Loss of consciousness
* Vapors: seconds to minutes;
* Skin: 2 to 18 hours
VX is persistent and a contact hazard; other agents are non-persistent and present mostly inhalation hazards.
Asphyxiant/Blood
* Most Arsines
* Cyanogen chloride
* Hydrogen cyanide
* Arsine: Causes intravascular hemolysis that may lead to renal failure.
* Cyanogen chloride/hydrogen cyanide: Cyanide directly prevents cells from using oxygen. The cells then uses anaerobic respiration, creating excess lactic acid and metabolic acidosis.
* Possible cherry-red skin
* Possible cyanosis
* Confusion
* Nausea
* Patients may gasp for air
* Seizures prior to death
* Metabolic acidosis
Immediate onset Non-persistent and an inhalation hazard.
Vesicant/Blister
* Sulfur mustard (HD, H)
* Nitrogen mustard (HN-1, HN-2, HN-3)
* Lewisite (L)
* Phosgene oxime (CX)
Agents are acid-forming compounds that damages skin and respiratory system, resulting burns and respiratory problems.
* Severe skin, eye and mucosal pain and irritation
* Skin erythema with large fluid blisters that heal slowly and may become infected
* Tearing, conjunctivitis, corneal damage
* Mild respiratory distress to marked airway damage
* Mustards: Vapors: 4 to 6 hours, eyes and lungs affected more rapidly; Skin: 2 to 48 hours
* Lewisite: Immediate
Persistent and a contact hazard.
Choking/Pulmonary
* Chlorine
* Hydrogen chloride
* Nitrogen oxides
* Phosgene
Similar mechanism to blister agents in that the compounds are acids or acid-forming, but action is more pronounced in respiratory system, flooding it and resulting in suffocation; survivors often suffer chronic breathing problems.
* Airway irritation
* Eye and skin irritation
* Dyspnea, cough
* Sore throat
* Chest tightness
* Wheezing
* Bronchospasm
Immediate to 3 hours Non-persistent and an inhalation hazard.
Lachrymatory agent
* Tear gas
* Pepper spray
Causes severe stinging of the eyes and temporary blindness. Powerful eye irritation Immediate Non-persistent and an inhalation hazard.
Incapacitating
* Agent 15 (BZ)
Causes atropine-like inhibition of acetylcholine in subject. Causes peripheral nervous system effects that are the opposite of those seen in nerve agent poisoning.
* May appear as mass drug intoxication with erratic behaviors, shared realistic and distinct hallucinations, disrobing and confusion
* Hyperthermia
* Ataxia (lack of coordination)
* Mydriasis (dilated pupils)
* Dry mouth and skin
* Inhaled: 30 minutes to 20 hours;
* Skin: Up to 36 hours after skin exposure to BZ. Duration is typically 72 to 96 hours.
Extremely persistent in soil and water and on most surfaces; contact hazard.
Cytotoxic proteins
Non-living biological proteins, such as:
* Ricin
* Abrin
Inhibit protein synthesis
* Latent period of 4-8 hours, followed by flu-like signs and symptoms
* Progress within 18-24 hours to:
o Inhalation: nausea, cough, dyspnea, pulmonary edema
o Ingestion: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage with emesis and bloody diarrhea; eventual liver and kidney failure.
4-24 hours; see symptoms. Exposure by inhalation or injection causes more pronounced signs and symptoms than exposure by ingestion Slight; agents degrade quickly in environment
There are other chemicals used militarily that are not scheduled by the Chemical Weapons Convention, and thus are not controlled under the CWC treaties. These include:
* Defoliants that destroy vegetation, but are not immediately toxic to human beings. Some batches of Agent Orange, for instance, used by the United States in Vietnam, contained dioxins as manufacturing impurities. Dioxins, rather than Agent Orange itself, have long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading to serious birth deformities.
* Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by the United States in Vietnam, or dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire or explosive force, and not direct chemical action.
* Viruses, bacteria, or other organisms. Their use is classified as biological warfare. Toxins produced by living organisms are considered chemical weapons, although the boundary is blurry. Toxins are covered by the Biological Weapons Convention.
Designations
For more details on this topic, see chemical weapon designation.
Most chemical weapons are assigned a one- to three-letter NATO weapon designation in addition to, or in place of, a common name. Binary munitions, in which precursors for chemical warfare agents are automatically mixed in shell to produce the agent just prior to its use, are indicated by a -2 following the agent’s designation (for example, GB-2 and VX-2).
Some examples are given below:
Blood agents: Vesicants:
* Cyanogen chloride: CK
* Hydrogen cyanide: AC
* Lewisite: L
* Sulfur mustard: H, HD, HS, HT
Pulmonary agents: Incapacitating agents:
* Phosgene: CG
* Quinuclidinyl benzilate: BZ
Lachrymatory agents: Nerve agents:
* Pepper spray: OC
* Tear gas: CN, CS, CR
* Sarin: GB
* VE, VG, VM, VX
Delivery
The most important factor in the effectiveness of chemical weapons is the efficiency of its delivery, or dissemination, to a target. The most common techniques include munitions (such as bombs, projectiles, warheads) that allow dissemination at a distance and spray tanks which disseminate from low-flying aircraft. Developments in the techniques of filling and storage of munitions have also been important.
Although there have been many advances in chemical weapon delivery since World War I, it is still difficult to achieve effective dispersion. The dissemination is highly dependent on atmospheric conditions because many chemical agents act in gaseous form. Thus, weather observations and forecasting are essential to optimize weapon delivery and reduce the risk of injuring friendly forces.
Dispersion
Dispersion of chlorine in World War I
Dispersion is placing the chemical agent upon or adjacent to a target immediately before dissemination, so that the material is most efficiently used. Dispersion is the simplest technique of delivering an agent to its target. The most common techniques are munitions, bombs, projectiles, spray tanks and warheads.
World War I saw the earliest implementation of this technique. The actual first chemical ammunition was the French 26 mm cartouche suffocante rifle grenade, fired from a flare carbine. It contained 35g of the tear-producer ethylbromacetate, and was used in autumn 1914 – with little effect on the Germans.
The Germans on the other hand tried to increase the effect of 10.5 cm shrapnel shells by adding an irritant – dianisidine chlorosulphonate. Its use went unnoticed by the British when it was used against them at Neuve Chapelle in October 1914. Hans Tappen, a chemist in the Heavy Artillery Department of the War Ministry, suggested to his brother, the Chief of the Operations Branch at German General Headquarters, the use of the tear-gases benzyl bromide or xylyl bromide.
Shells were tested successfully at the Wahn artillery range near Cologne on 9 January, 1915, and an order was placed for 15 cm howitzer shells, designated ‘T-shells’ after Tappen. A shortage of shells limited the first use against the Russians at Bolimów on 31 January, 1915; the liquid failed to vaporize in the cold weather, and again the experiment went unnoticed by the Allies.
The first effective use were when the German forces at the Second Battle of Ypres simply opened cylinders of chlorine and allowed the wind to carry the gas across enemy lines. While simple, this technique had numerous disadvantages. Moving large numbers of heavy gas cylinders to the front-line positions from where the gas would be released was a lengthy and difficult logistical task.
Stockpiles of cylinders had to be stored at the front line, posing a great risk if hit by artillery shells. Gas delivery depended greatly on wind speed and direction. If the wind was fickle, as at Loos, the gas could blow back, causing friendly casualties.
Gas clouds gave plenty of warning, allowing the enemy time to protect themselves, though many soldiers found the sight of a creeping gas cloud unnerving. This made the gas doubly effective, as, in addition to damaging the enemy physically, it also had a psychological effect on the intended victims.
Another disadvantage was that gas clouds had limited penetration, capable only of affecting the front-line trenches before dissipating. Although it produced limited results in World War I, this technique shows how simple chemical weapon dissemination can be.
Shortly after this open canister dissemination, French forces developed a technique for delivery of phosgene in a non-explosive artillery shell. This technique overcame many of the risks of dealing with gas in cylinders. First, gas shells were independent of the wind and increased the effective range of gas, making any target within reach of guns vulnerable. Second, gas shells could be delivered without warning, especially the clear, nearly odorless phosgene – there are numerous accounts of gas shells, landing with a plop rather than exploding, being initially dismissed as dud high explosive or shrapnel shells, giving the gas time to work before the soldiers were alerted and took precautions.
The major drawback of artillery delivery was the difficulty of achieving a killing concentration. Each shell had a small gas payload and an area would have to be subjected to saturation bombardment to produce a cloud to match cylinder delivery. A British solution to the problem was the Livens Projector. This was effectively a large-bore mortar, dug into the ground that used the gas cylinders themselves as projectiles – firing a 14 kg cylinder up to 1500 m. This combined the gas volume of cylinders with the range of artillery.
Over the years, there were some refinements in this technique. In the 1950s and early 1960s, chemical artillery rockets and cluster bombs contained a multitude of submunitions, so that a large number of small clouds of the chemical agent would form directly on the target.
Thermal dissemination
An American-made MC-1 gas bomb
Thermal dissemination is the use of explosives or pyrotechnics to deliver chemical agents. This technique, developed in the 1920s, was a major improvement over earlier dispersal techniques, in that it allowed significant quantities of an agent to be disseminated over a considerable distance. Thermal dissemination remains the principal method of disseminating chemical agents today.
Most thermal dissemination devices consist of a bomb or projectile shell that contains a chemical agent and a central burster charge; when the burster detonates, the agent is expelled laterally.
Thermal dissemination devices, though common, are not particularly efficient. First, a percentage of the agent is lost by incineration in the initial blast and by being forced onto the ground. Second, the sizes of the particles vary greatly because explosive dissemination produces a mixture of liquid droplets of variable and difficult to control sizes.
The efficacy of thermal detonation is greatly limited by the flammability of some agents. For flammable aerosols, the cloud is sometimes totally or partially ignited by the disseminating explosion in a phenomenon called flashing. Explosively disseminated VX will ignite roughly one third of the time. Despite a great deal of study, flashing is still not fully understood, and a solution to the problem would be a major technological advance.
Despite the limitations of central bursters, most nations use this method in the early stages of chemical weapon development, in part because standard munitions can be adapted to carry the agents.
Soviet chemical weapons canisters from a stockpile in Albania
Aerodynamic dissemination
Aerodynamic dissemination is the non-explosive delivery of a chemical agent from an aircraft, allowing aerodynamic stress to disseminate the agent. This technique is the most recent major development in chemical agent dissemination, originating in the mid-1960s.
This technique eliminates many of the limitations of thermal dissemination by eliminating the flashing effect and theoretically allowing precise control of particle size. In actuality, the altitude of dissemination, wind direction and velocity, and the direction and velocity of the aircraft greatly influence particle size. There are other drawbacks as well; ideal deployment requires precise knowledge of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics, and because the agent must usually be dispersed within the boundary layer (less than 200–300 ft above the ground), it puts pilots at risk.
Significant research is still being applied toward this technique. For example, by modifying the properties of the liquid, its breakup when subjected to aerodynamic stress can be controlled and an idealized particle distribution achieved, even at supersonic speed. Additionally, advances in fluid dynamics, computer modeling, and weather forecasting allow an ideal direction, speed, and altitude to be calculated, such that warfare agent of a predetermined particle size can predictably and reliably hit a target.
Protection against chemical warfare
Ideal protection begins with nonproliferation treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, and detecting, very early, the signatures of someone building a chemical weapons capability. These include a wide range of intelligence disciplines, such as economic analysis of exports of dual-use chemicals and equipment, human intelligence (HUMINT) such as diplomatic, refugee, and agent reports; photography from satellites, aircraft and drones (IMINT); examination of captured equipment (TECHINT); communications intercepts (COMINT); and detection of chemical manufacturing and chemical agents themselves (MASINT).
If all the preventive measures fail and there is a clear and present danger, then there is a need for detection of chemical attacks,[6] collective protection,[7][8][9] and decontamination. Since industrial accidents can cause dangerous chemical releases (e.g., the Bhopal disaster), these activities are things that civilian, as well as military, organizations must be prepared to carry out. In civilian situations in developed countries, these are duties of HAZMAT organizations, which most commonly are part of fire departments.
Detection has been referred to above, as a technical MASINT discipline; specific military procedures, which are usually the model for civilian procedures, depend on the equipment, expertise, and personnel available. When chemical agents are detected, an alarm needs to sound, with specific warnings over emergency broadcasts and the like. There may be a warning to expect an attack.
If, for example, the captain of a US Navy ship believes there is a serious threat of chemical, biological, or radiological attack, the crew may be ordered to set Circle William, which means closing all openings to outside air, running breathing air through filters, and possibly starting a system that continually washes down the exterior surfaces. Civilian authorities dealing with an attack or a toxic chemical accident will invoke the Incident Command System, or local equivalent, to coordinate defensive measures.[9]
Individual protection starts with a gas mask and, depending on the nature of the threat, through various levels of protective clothing up to a complete chemical-resistant suit with a self-contained air supply. The US military defines various levels of MOPP (mission-oriented protective posture) from mask to full chemical resistant suits; Hazmat suits are the civilian equivalent, but go farther to include a fully independent air supply, rather than the filters of a gas mask.
Collective protection allows continued functioning of groups of people in buildings or shelters, the latter which may be fixed, mobile, or improvised. With ordinary buildings, this may be as basic as plastic sheeting and tape, although if the protection needs to be continued for any appreciable length of time, there will need to be an air supply, typically a scaled-up version of a gas mask.[8][9]
Members of the Ukrainian Army’s 19th Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Battalion practice decontamination drill, at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait
Decontamination
Decontamination varies with the particular chemical agent used. Some nonpersistent agents, such as most pulmonary agents such as chlorine and phosgene, blood gases, and nonpersistent nerve gases (e.g., GB) will dissipate from open areas, although powerful exhaust fans may be needed to clear out building where they have accumulated.
In some cases, it might be necessary to neutralize them chemically, as with ammonia as a neutralizer for hydrogen cyanide or chlorine. Riot control agents such as CS will dissipate in an open area, but things contaminated with CS powder need to be aired out, washed by people wearing protective gear, or safely discarded.
Mass decontamination is a less common requirement for people than equipment, since people may be immediately affected and treatment is the action required. It is a requirement when people have been contaminated with persistent agents. Treatment and decontamination may need to be simultaneous, with the medical personnel protecting themselves so they can function.[10]
There may need to be immediate intervention to prevent death, such as injection of atropine for nerve agents. Decontamination is especially important for people contaminated with persistent agents; many of the fatalities after the explosion of a WWII US ammunition ship carrying mustard gas, in the harbor of Bari, Italy, after a German bombing on 2 December 1943, came when rescue workers, not knowing of the contamination, bundled cold, wet seamen in tight-fitting blankets.
For decontaminating equipment and buildings exposed to persistent agents, such as blister agents, VX or other agents made persistent by mixing with a thickener, special equipment and materials might be needed. Some type of neutralizing agent will be needed; e.g. in the form of a spraying device with neutralizing agents such as Chlorine, Fichlor, strong alkaline solutions or enzymes . In other cases, a specific chemical decontaminant will be required.[9]
Sociopolitical climate
ARMIS BELLUM NON VENENIS GERITUR
War is fought with weapons, not with poisons
The study of chemicals and their military uses was widespread in China and India. The use of toxic materials has historically been viewed with mixed emotions and moral qualms in the West. The practical and ethical problems surrounding poison warfare appeared in ancient Greek myths about Hercules’ invention of poison arrows and Odysseus’s use of toxic projectiles. There are many instances of the use of chemical weapons in battles documented in Greek and Roman historical texts; the earliest example was the deliberate poisoning of Kirrha’s water supply with hellebore in the First Sacred War, Greece, about 590 BC.[11]
One of the earliest reactions to the use of chemical agents was from Rome. Struggling to defend themselves from the Roman legions, Germanic tribes poisoned the wells of their enemies, with Roman jurists having been recorded as declaring armis bella non venenis geri , meaning war is fought with weapons, not with poisons. Yet the Romans themselves resorted to poisoning wells of besieged cities in Anatolia in the second century BC.[12]
Before 1915 the use of poisonous chemicals in battle was typically the result of local initiative, and not the result of an active government chemical weapons program. There are many reports of the isolated use of chemical agents in individual battles or sieges, but there was no true tradition of their use outside of incendiaries and smoke. Despite this tendency, there have been several attempts to initiate large-scale implementation of poison gas in several wars, but with the notable exception of World War I, the responsible authorities generally rejected the proposals for ethical reasons.
For example, in 1854 Lyon Playfair, a British chemist, proposed using a cyanide-filled artillery shell against enemy ships during the Crimean War. The British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal as as bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy.
Efforts to eradicate chemical weapons
See also: List of chemical arms control agreements
Nation CW Possession Signed CWC Ratified CWC
Albania Known January 14, 1993 May 11, 1994
Burma (Myanmar) Possible January 13, 1993 No
the People’s Republic of China Probable January 13, 1993 April 4, 1997
Egypt Probable No No
France Probable January 13, 1993 March 2, 1995
India Known January 14, 1993 September 3, 1996
Iran Known January 13, 1993 November 3, 1997
Israel Probable January 13, 1993 No
Japan Probable January 13, 1993 September 15, 1995
Libya Known No January 6, 2004
(acceded)
North Korea Known No No
Pakistan Probable January 13, 1993 October 28, 1997
Russia Known January 13, 1993 November 5, 1997
Serbia
and Montenegro Probable No April 20, 2000
(acceded)
Sudan Possible No May 24, 1999
(acceded)
Syria Known No No
Taiwan Possible n/a n/a
United States Known January 13, 1993 April 25, 1997
Vietnam Probable January 13, 1993 September 30, 1998
* August 27, 1874: The Brussels Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War is signed, specifically forbidding the employment of poison or poisoned weapons.
* September 4, 1900: The Hague Conference, which includes a declaration banning the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases, enters into force.
* February 6, 1922: After World War I, the Washington Arms Conference Treaty prohibited the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases. It was signed by the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy, but France objected to other provisions in the treaty and it never went into effect.
* September 7, 1929: The Geneva Protocol enters into force, prohibiting the use of poison gas.
Chemical weapon proliferation
Main article: Chemical weapon proliferation
Despite numerous efforts to reduce or eliminate them, some nations continue to research and/or stockpile chemical warfare agents. To the right is a summary of the nations that have either declared weapon stockpiles or are suspected of secretly stockpiling or possessing CW research programs. Notable examples include United States and Russia.
US Vice President Dick Cheney opposed the signing ratification of a treaty banning the use chemical weapons, a recently unearthed letter shows. In a letter dated April 8, 1997, then Halliburton-CEO Cheney told Sen. Jesse Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that it would be a mistake for America to join the Convention. Those nations most likely to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention are not likely to ever constitute a military threat to the United States. The governments we should be concerned about are likely to cheat on the CWC, even if they do participate, reads the letter,[13] published by the Federation of American Scientists.
The CWC was ratified by the Senate that same month. Since then, Albania, Libya, Russia, the United States, and India have declared over 71,000 metric tons of chemical weapon stockpiles, and destroyed about a third of them. Under the terms of the agreement, the United States and Russia are supposed to eliminate the rest of their supplies of chemical weapons by 2012. But that looks unlikely – the U.S. government estimates remaining stocks will be destroyed by 2017.
History
Warfare
Ramses II at Kadesh.jpgGustavus Adolphus at the Battle at Breitenfeld.jpgM1A1 abrams front.jpg
Military history
Eras
Prehistoric
Ancient
Medieval
Gunpowder
Industrial
Modern
Battlespace
Air
Information
Land
Sea
Space
Weapons
Armor
Artillery
Biological
Cavalry
Chemical
Electronic
Infantry
Nuclear
Psychological
Tactics
Attrition warfare
Guerrilla warfare
Maneuver warfare
Siege
Total war
Trench warfare
Conventional warfare
Unconventional warfare
Asymmetric warfare
Counter-insurgency
Network-centric warfare
Strategy
Economic
Grand
Operational
Organization
Ranks
Command and control
Staff
Intelligence
Education and training
Logistics
Technology and equipment
Materiel
Supply chain management
Lists
Battles
Commanders
Operations
Sieges
Writers
Wars
War crimes
Weapons
Portal
Ancient to medieval times
Chemical weapons have been used for millennia in the form of poisoned spears and arrows, but evidence can be found for the existence of more advanced forms of chemical weapons in ancient and classical times.
A good example of early chemical warfare was the late Stone Age (10 000 BC) hunter-gatherer societies in Southern Africa, known as the San. They used poisoned arrows, tipping the wood, bone and stone tips of their arrows with poisons obtained from their natural environment. These poisons were mainly derived from scorpion or snake venom, but it is believed that some poisonous plants were also utilized. The arrow was fired into the target of choice, usually an antelope (the favourite being an eland), with the hunter then tracking the doomed animal until the poison caused its collapse.
Ancient Greek myths about Hercules poisoning his arrows with the venom of the Hydra Monster are the earliest references to toxic weapons in western literature. Homer’s epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, allude to poisoned arrows used by both sides in the legendary Trojan War (Bronze Age Greece).[12]
Textual and Literary Evidence
Some of the earliest surviving references to toxic warfare are may appear in the Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. [14]
The Laws of Manu, a Hindu treatise on statecraft (ca 400 BC) forbids the use of poison and fire arrows, but advises poisoning food and water. Kautilya’s Arthashastra, a statecraft manual of the same era, contains hundreds of recipes for creating poison weapons, toxic smokes, and other chemical weapons. Ancient Greek historians recount that Alexander the Great encountered poison arrows and fire incendiaries in what is now Pakistan in the fourth century BC.[12]
Sun Tzu’s Art of War (ca 500 BC) advises the use of fire weapons. In the 4th century BC, writings of the Mohist sect in China describe the use of bellows to pump smoke from burning balls of mustard and other toxic vegetables into tunnels being dug by a besieging army. Even older Chinese writings dating back to about 1000 BC contain hundreds of recipes for the production of poisonous or irritating smokes for use in war along with numerous accounts of their use. From these accounts we know of the arsenic-containing soul-hunting fog , and the use of finely divided lime dispersed into the air to suppress a peasant revolt in AD 178.
The earliest recorded use of gas warfare in the West dates back to the 5th century BC, during the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Spartan forces besieging an Athenian city placed a lighted mixture of wood, pitch, and sulfur under the walls hoping that the noxious smoke would incapacitate the Athenians, so that they would not be able to resist the assault that followed. Sparta wasn’t alone in its use of unconventional tactics during these wars: Solon of Athens is said to have used hellebore roots to poison the water in an aqueduct leading from the Pleistrus River around 590 BC during the siege of Kirrha.[12]
Chemical weapons were known and used in ancient and medieval China. Polish chronicler Jan D?ugosz mentions usage of poisonous gas by the Mongol army in 1241 in the Battle of Legnica.
Historian and philosopher David Hume, in his history of England, recounts how during early in the reign of Henry III (r.1216 – 1272) the English Navy destroyed an invading French fleet, by blinding the enemy fleet with quicklime, the old name for calcium oxide. D’Albiney employed a stratagem against them, which is said to have contributed to the victory: Having gained the wind of the French, he came down upon them with violence; and throwing in their faces a great quantity of quicklime, which he purposely carried on board, he so blinded them, that they were disabled from defending themselves.[15]
Archaeological Evidence
There is archaeological evidence that the Sasanians deployed chemical weapons against the Roman army in 3rd century AD/CE. Research carried out on the collapsed tunnels at Dura-Europos in Syria suggests that the Iranians used bitumen and sulphur crystals to get it burning. When ignited, the materials gave off dense clouds of choking gases which killed 20 Roman soldiers in the matter of 2 minutes.[16]
Rediscovery
During the Renaissance, people again considered using chemical warfare. One of the earliest such references is from Leonardo da Vinci, who proposed a powder of sulfide of arsenic and verdigris in the 15th century:
throw poison in the form of powder upon galleys. Chalk, fine sulfide of arsenic, and powdered verdegris may be thrown among enemy ships by means of small mangonels, and all those who, as they breathe, inhale the powder into their lungs will become asphyxiated.
It is unknown whether this powder was ever actually used.
Earlier, in the 13th century, of Henry III the English Navy destroyed an invading French fleet, by blinding the enemy fleet with quicklime, the old name for calcium oxide. (See Calcium oxide#use as a weapon) In the 17th century during sieges, armies attempted to start fires by launching incendiary shells filled with sulphur, tallow, rosin, turpentine, saltpeter, and/or antimony. Even when fires were not started, the resulting smoke and fumes provided a considerable distraction. Although their primary function was never abandoned, a variety of fills for shells were developed to maximize the effects of the smoke.
In 1672, during his siege of the city of Groningen, Christoph Bernhard van Galen, the Bishop of Münster, employed several different explosive and incendiary devices, some of which had a fill that included belladonna, intended to produce toxic fumes. Just three years later, August 27, 1675, the French and the Germans concluded the Strasbourg Agreement, which included an article banning the use of perfidious and odious toxic devices.
In 1854, Lyon Playfair, a British chemist, proposed a cacodyl cyanide artillery shell for use against enemy ships as way to solve the stalemate during the siege of Sevastopol. The proposal was backed by Admiral Thomas Cochrane of the Royal Navy. It was considered by the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, but the British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal as as bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy. Playfair’s response was used to justify chemical warfare into the next century:
There was no sense in this objection. It is considered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill shells with molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and produced the most frightful modes of death. Why a poisonous vapor which would kill men without suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least suffering the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting national rights. No doubt in time chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering of combatants, and even of criminals condemned to death.
Later, during the American Civil War, New York school teacher John Doughty proposed the offensive use of chlorine gas, delivered by filling a 10 inch (254 millimeter) artillery shell with 2 to 3 quarts (2 to 3 liters) of liquid chlorine, which could produce many cubic feet (a few cubic meters) of chlorine gas. Doughty’s plan was apparently never acted on, as it was probably presented to Brigadier General James Wolfe Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, who was described as being congenitally immune to new ideas.
A general concern over the use of poison gas manifested itself in 1899 at the Hague Conference with a proposal prohibiting shells filled with asphyxiating gas. The proposal was passed, despite a single dissenting vote from the United States. The American representative, Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, justified voting against the measure on the grounds that the inventiveness of Americans should not be restricted in the development of new weapons.
World War I
Aerial photograph of a German gas attack on Russian forces circa 1916
A Canadian soldier with mustard gas burns, ca. 1917–1918.
Main article: Poison gas in World War I
The Hague Declaration of 1899 and the Hague Convention of 1907 forbade the use of poison or poisonous weapons in warfare, yet more than 124,000 tons of gas were produced by the end of World War I. The French were the first to use chemical weapons during the First World War, using tear gas.
The German’s first use of chemical weapons were shells containing xylyl bromide that were fired at the Russians near the town of Bolimów, Poland in January 1915.[17] The first full-scale deployment of chemical warfare agents was during World War I, originating in the Second Battle of Ypres, April 22, 1915, when the Germans attacked French, Canadian and Algerian troops with chlorine gas. Deaths were light, though casualties relatively heavy.
A total 50,965 tons of pulmonary, lachrymatory, and vesicant agents were deployed by both sides of the conflict, including chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas. Official figures declare about 1,176,500 non-fatal casualties and 85,000 fatalities directly caused by chemical warfare agents during the course of the war.[18]
To this day unexploded WWI-era chemical ammunition is still frequently uncovered when the ground is dug in former battle or depot areas and continues to pose a threat to the civilian population in Belgium and France and less commonly in other countries. The French and Belgian governments have had to launch special programs for treating discovered ammunition.
After the war, most of the unused German chemical warfare agents were dumped into the Baltic Sea, a common disposal method among all the participants in several bodies of water. Over time, the salt water causes the shell casings to corrode, and mustard gas occasionally leaks from these containers and washes onto shore as a wax-like solid resembling ambergris. Even in this solidified form, the agent is active enough to cause severe contact burns to anybody coming into contact with it.[citation needed]
Interwar years
After World War I chemical agents were occasionally used to subdue populations and suppress rebellion.
Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917, the Ottoman government collapsed completely, and the former empire was divided amongst the victorious powers in the Treaty of Sèvres. The British occupied Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) and established a colonial government.
In 1920, the Arab and Kurdish people of Mesopotamia revolted against the British occupation, which cost the British dearly. As the Mesopotamian resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures. Much speculation was made about aerial bombardment of major cities with gas in Mesopotamia, with Winston Churchill, then-Secretary of State at the British War Office, arguing in favor of it.[19] In the 1920s generals reported that poison had never won a battle. The soldiers said they hated it and hated the gas masks. Only the chemists spoke out to say it was a good weapon.
In 1925, sixteen of the world’s major nations signed the Geneva Protocol, thereby pledging never to use gas in warfare again. Notably, in the United States, the Protocol languished in the Senate until 1975, when it was finally ratified.
The Bolsheviks also employed poison gas in 1921 during the Tambov Rebellion. An order signed by military commanders Tukhachevsky and Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko stipulated: The forests where the bandits are hiding are to be cleared by the use of poison gas. This must be carefully calculated, so that the layer of gas penetrates the forests and kills everyone hiding there. [20]
During the Rif War in Spanish Morocco in 1921–1927, combined Spanish and French forces dropped mustard gas bombs in an attempt to put down the Berber rebellion. (See also: Chemical weapons in the Rif War)
In 1935, Fascist Italy used mustard gas during the invasion of Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Ignoring the Geneva Protocol, which it signed seven years earlier, the Italian military dropped mustard gas in bombs, sprayed it from airplanes, and spread it in powdered form on the ground. 150,000 chemical casualties were reported, mostly from mustard gas.
World War II
The chemical structure of Sarin nerve gas, developed in Germany (1939)
Despite article 171 of the Versailles Peace Treaty, article V of the Treaty in Relation to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare [3] and a resolution adopted against Japan by the League of nations on 14 May 1938, the Imperial Japanese Army frequently used chemical weapons. Because of fear of retaliation however, those weapons were never used against Westerners, but against other Asians judged inferior by the imperial propaganda.
According to historians Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Seiya Matsuno, the chemical weapons were authorized by specific orders given by Emperor Showa himself, transmitted by the chief of staff of the army. For example, the Emperor authorized the use of toxic gas on 375 separate occasions during the battle of Wuhan from August to October 1938.[21]
They were also profusely used during the invasion of Changde. Those orders were transmitted either by prince Kotohito Kan’in or general Hajime Sugiyama.[22]
The Imperial Japanese Army used mustard gas and the recently-developed blister agent Lewisite against Chinese troops and guerrillas. Experiments involving chemical weapons were conducted on live prisoners (Unit 731 and Unit 516). The Japanese also carried chemical weapons as they swept through Southeast Asia towards Australia.
Some of these items were captured and analyzed by the Allies. Greatly concerned, Australia covertly imported 1,000,000 chemical weapons from the United Kingdom from 1942 onwards[23] [4][24] [5][6].[25][26][27]
Shortly after the end of World War I, Germany’s General Staff enthusiastically pursued a recapture of their preeminent position in chemical warfare. In 1923, Hans von Seeckt pointed the way, by suggesting that German poison gas research move in the direction of delivery by aircraft in support of mobile warfare. Also in 1923, at the behest of the German army, poison gas expert Dr. Hugo Stolzenberg negotiated with the USSR to built a huge chemical weapons plant at Trotsk, on the Volga river.
Collaboration between Germany and the USSR in poison gas continued on and off through the 1920s. In 1924, German officers debated the use of poison gas versus non-lethal chemical weapons against civilians. Even before World War II, chemical warfare was revolutionized by Nazi Germany’s discovery of the nerve agents tabun (in 1937) and sarin (in 1939) by Gerhard Schrader, a chemist of IG Farben.
IG Farben was Germany’s premier poison gas manufacturer during World War I, so the weaponization of these agents can not be considered accidental.[28] Both were turned over to the German Army Weapons Office prior to the outbreak of the war.
The nerve agent soman was later discovered by Nobel Prize laureate Richard Kuhn and his collaborator Konrad Henkel at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg in spring of 1944.[29][30] The Nazis developed and manufactured large quantities of several agents, but chemical warfare was not extensively used by either side. Chemical troops were set up (in Germany since 1934) and delivery technology was actively developed.
Recovered Nazi documents suggest that German intelligence incorrectly thought that the Allies also knew of these compounds, interpreting their lack of mention in the Allies’ scientific journals as evidence that information about them was being suppressed. Germany ultimately decided not to use the new nerve agents, fearing a potentially devastating Allied retaliatory nerve agent deployment. Fisk, Robert (December 30, 2000). Poison gas from Germany . Independent. http://www.zmag.org/hussein.htm.
William L. Shirer, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, writes that the British high command considered the use of chemical weapons as a last-ditch defensive measure in the event of a Nazi invasion of Britain.
On the night of December 2, 1943, German Ju 88 bombers attacked the port of Bari in Southern Italy, sinking several American ships – among them SS John Harvey, which was carrying mustard gas intended for use in retaliation by the Allies if German forces initiated gas warfare. The presence of the gas was highly classified, and authorities ashore had no knowledge of it – which increased the number of fatalities, since physicians, who had no idea that they were dealing with the effects of mustard gas, prescribed treatment improper for those suffering from exposure and immersion.
The whole affair was kept secret at the time and for many years after the war (in the opinion of some, there was a deliberate and systematic cover-up). According to the U.S. military account, Sixty-nine deaths were attributed in whole or in part to the mustard gas, most of them American merchant seamen [31] out of 628 mustard gas military casualties.[32] The large number of civilian casualties among the Italian population were not recorded. Part of the confusion and controversy derives from the fact that the German attack was highly destructive and lethal in itself, also apart from the accidental additional effects of the gas (it was nicknamed The Little Pearl Harbor ), and attribution of the causes of death between the gas and other causes is far from easy.[33][34]
Rick Atkinson, in his book The Day of Battle, describes the intelligence that prompted Allied leaders to deploy mustard gas to Italy. This included Italian intelligence that Adolf Hitler had threatened to use gas against Italy if the state changed sides, and prisoner of war interrogations suggesting that preparations were being made to use a new, egregiously potent gas if the war turned decisively against Germany. Atkinson concludes that No commander in 1943 could be cavalier about a manifest threat by Germany to use gas.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the senior Islamic religious authority of the Palestinian Arabs and ally of Adolf Hitler was accused of sponsoring an unsuccessful chemical warfare assault on the Jewish community in Tel-Aviv during 1944 by The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. Allegations suggest that five parachutists were supplied with maps of Tel Aviv, canisters of a German–manufactured fine white powder, and instructions from the Mufti to dump chemicals into the Tel Aviv water system. District police commander Fayiz Bey Idrissi later recalled, The laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people, and there were at least ten containers. [35]
North Yemen Civil War
The first attack took place on June 8, 1963 against Kawma, a village of about 100 inhabitants in northern Yemen, killing about seven people and damaging the eyes and lungs of twenty-five others. This incident is considered to have been experimental, and the bombs were described as home-made, amateurish and relatively ineffective . The Egyptian authorities suggested that the reported incidents were probably caused by napalm, not gas. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Golda Meir, suggested in an interview that Nasser would not hesitate to use gas against Israel as well.
There were no reports of gas during 1964, and only a few were reported in 1965. The reports grew more frequent in late 1966. On December 11, 1966, fifteen gas bombs killed two people and injured thirty-five. On January 5, 1967, the biggest gas attack came against the village of Kitaf, causing 270 casualties, including 140 fatalities. The target may have been Prince Hassan bin Yahya, who had installed his headquarters nearby. The Egyptian government denied using poison gas, and alleged that Britain and the US were using the reports as psychological warfare against Egypt. On February 12, 1967, it said it would welcome a UN investigation. On March 1, U Thant said he was powerless to deal with the matter.
On May 10, the twin villages of Gahar and Gadafa in Wadi Hirran, where Prince Mohamed bin Mohsin was in command, were gas bombed, killing at least seventy-five. The Red Cross was alerted and on June 2, it issued a statement in Geneva expressing concern. The Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Berne made a statement, based on a Red Cross report, that the gas was likely to have been halogenous derivatives – phosgene, mustard gas, lewisite, chloride or cyanogen bromide.
The gas attacks stopped for three weeks after the Six-Day War of June, but resumed on July, against all parts of royalist Yemen. Casualty estimates vary, and an assumption, considered conservative, is that the mustard and phosgene-filled aerial bombs caused approximately 1,500 fatalities and 1,500 injuries.
Cold War
After World War II, the Allies recovered German artillery shells containing the three German nerve agents of the day (tabun, sarin, and soman), prompting further research into nerve agents by all of the former Allies. Although the threat of global thermonuclear war was foremost in the minds of most during the Cold War, both the Soviet and Western governments put enormous resources into developing chemical and biological weapons.
[edit] Developments by the Western governments
In 1952, researchers in Porton Down, England, invented the VX nerve agent but soon abandoned the project. In 1958 the British government traded their VX technology with the United States in exchange for information on thermonuclear weapons; by 1961 the U.S. was producing large amounts of VX and performing its own nerve agent research. This research produced at least three more agents; the four agents (VE, VG, VM, VX) are collectively known as the V-Series class of nerve agents.
Also in 1952 the U.S. Army patented a process for the Preparation of Toxic Ricin , publishing a method of producing this powerful toxin.
During the 1960s, the U.S. explored the use of anticholinergic deleriant incapacitating agents. One of these agents, assigned the weapon designation BZ, was allegedly used experimentally in the Vietnam War. These allegations inspired the 1990 fictional film Jacob’s Ladder.
In 1961 and 62 the Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy vegetation and food crops in South Vietnam. Between 1961 and 1967 the US Air Force sprayed 12 million US gallons of concentrated herbicides, mainly Agent Orange (containing dioxin as an impurity in the manufacturing process) over 6 million acres (24,000 km²) of foliage and trees, affecting an estimated 13% of South Vietnam’s land. In 1965, 42% of all herbicides were sprayed over food crops. Besides destroying vegetation used as cover by the NLF and destroying food crops the herbicide was used to drive civilians into RVN-controlled areas.[36]
In 1997, an article published by the Wall Street Journal reported that up to half a million children were born with dioxin related deformities, and that the birth defects in South Vietnam were fourfold those in the North. The use of Agent Orange may have been contrary to international rules of war at the time. It is also of note that the most likely victims of such an assault would be small children. A 1967 study by the Agronomy Section of the Japanese Science Council concluded that 3.8 million acres (15,000 km²) of land had been destroyed, killing 1000 peasants and 13,000 livestock.
Between 1967 and 1968, the U.S. decided to dispose of obsolete chemical weapons in an operation called Operation CHASE, which stood for cut holes and sink ’em. Several shiploads of chemical and conventional weapons were put aboard old Liberty ships and sunk at sea.
In 1969, 23 U.S. servicemen and one U.S. civilian stationed in Okinawa, Japan, were exposed to low levels of the nerve agent sarin while repainting the depots’ buildings. The weapons had been kept secret from Japan, sparking a furor in that country and an international incident. These munitions were moved in 1971 to Johnston Atoll under Operation Red Hat.
George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev signing the bilateral treaty on 1990-06-01
A UN working group began work on chemical disarmament in 1980. On April 4, 1984, U.S. President Ronald Reagan called for an international ban on chemical weapons. U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed a bilateral treaty on June 1, 1990, to end chemical weapon production and start destroying each of their nation’s stockpiles. The multilateral Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was signed in 1993 and entered into force (EIF) in 1997.
In December, 2001, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, NIOSH, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), along with the U.S. Army Research, Development Engineering Command Edgewood Chemical/Biological Center (ECBC), and the U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published the first of six technical performance standards and test procedures designed to evaluate and certify respirators intended for use by civilian emergency responders to a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon release, detonation, or terrorism incident. To date NIOSH/NPPTL has published six new respirator performance standards based on a tiered approach that relies on traditional industrial respirator certification policy, next generation emergency response respirator performance requirements, and special live chemical warfare agent testing requirements of the classes of respirators identified to offer respiratory protection against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agent inhalation hazards. These CBRN respirators are commonly known as open-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (CBRN SCBA), air-purifying respirator (CBRN APR), air-purifying escape respirator (CBRN APER), self-contained escape respirator (CBRN SCER) and loose or tight fitting powered air-purifying respirators (CBRN PAPR). Current NIOSH-approved/certified CBRN respirator concept standards and test procedures can be found at the webpage: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/standardsdev/cbrn/
United States Senate Report
A 1994 United States Senate Report, entitled Is military research hazardous to veterans health? Lessons spanning a half century, [37] detailed the United States Department of Defense’s practice of experimenting on animal and human subjects, often without their knowledge or consent. This included:
* Approximately 60,000 [US] military personnel were used as human subjects in the 1940s to test the chemical agents mustard gas and lewisite. Mustard section,[37]
* Between the 1950s through the 1970s, at least 2,200 military personnel were subjected to various biological agents, referred to as Operation Whitecoat. Unlike most of the studies discussed in this report, Operation Whitecoat was truly voluntary. Seventh section,[37]
* Between 1951 and 1969, Dugway Proving Ground was the site of testing for various chemical and biological agents, including an open air aerodynamic dissemination test in 1968 that accidentally killed, on neighboring farms, approximately 6,400 sheep by an unspecified nerve agent. Dugway section,[37]
Developments by the Soviet government
Due to the secrecy of the Soviet Union’s government, very little information was available about the direction and progress of the Soviet chemical weapons until relatively recently. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian chemist Vil Mirzayanov published articles revealing illegal chemical weapons experimentation in Russia.
In 1993, Mirzayanov was imprisoned and fired from his job at the State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology, where he had worked for 26 years. In March 1994, after a major campaign by U.S. scientists on his behalf, Mirzayanov was released.[38]
Among the information related by Vil Mirzayanov was the direction of Soviet research into the development of even more toxic nerve agents, which saw most of its success during the mid-1980s. Several highly toxic agents were developed during this period; the only unclassified information regarding these agents is that they are known in the open literature only as Foliant agents (named after the program under which they were developed) and by various code designations, such as A-230 and A-232.[39]
According to Mirzayanov, the Soviets also developed weapons that were safer to handle, leading to the development of the binary weapons, in which precursors for the nerve agents are mixed in a munition to produce the agent just prior to its use. Because the precursors are generally significantly less hazardous than the agents themselves, this technique makes handling and transporting the munitions a great deal simpler.
Additionally, precursors to the agents are usually much easier to stabilize than the agents themselves, so this technique also made it possible to increase the shelf life of the agents a great deal. During the 1980s and 1990s, binary versions of several Soviet agents were developed and are designated as Novichok agents (after the Russian word for newcomer ).[40] Together with Lev Fedorov, he told the secret Novichok story exposed in the newspaper Moscow News.[41]
Iran–Iraq War
Victims of Iraq’s poison gas attack in civil area during Iran–Iraq War
Chemical weapons employed by Saddam Hussein killed and injured numerous Iranians, and even Iraqis. According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France and China.[42]
The Iran–Iraq War began in 1980 when Iraq attacked Iran. Early in the conflict, Iraq began to employ mustard gas and tabun delivered by bombs dropped from airplanes; approximately 5% of all Iranian casualties are directly attributable to the use of these agents.[citation needed]
About 100,000 Iranian soldiers were victims of Iraq’s chemical attacks. Many were hit by mustard gas. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 80,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.[43][44][45]
Iraq also targeted Iranian civilians with chemical weapons. Many thousands were killed in attacks on populations in villages and towns, as well as front-line hospitals. Many still suffer from the severe effects.
Despite the removal of Saddam and his regime by Coalition forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western companies based in the Netherlands, West Germany, France, and the U.S. that helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place, and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.[46]
Main article: Halabja poison gas attack
Shortly before war ended in 1988, the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja was exposed to multiple chemical agents, killing about 5,000 of the town’s 50,000 residents [47]. After the incident, traces of mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX were discovered.
During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Coalition forces began a ground war in Iraq. Despite the fact that they did possess chemical weapons, Iraq did not use any chemical agents against coalition forces. The commander of the Allied Forces, Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, suggested this may have been due to Iraqi fear of retaliation with nuclear weapons.[citation needed]
Falklands War
Technically, the reported employment of tear gas by Argentine forces during the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands constitutes chemical warfare.[48] However, the tear gas grenades were employed as nonlethal weapons to avoid British casualties. The British claim that more lethal, but legally-justifiable as they are not considered chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention, white phosphorus grenades were used.[49] The barrack buildings the weapons were used on proved to be deserted in any case.
Terrorism
For many terrorist organizations, chemical weapons might be considered an ideal choice for a mode of attack, if they are available: they are cheap, relatively accessible, and easy to transport. A skilled chemist can readily synthesize most chemical agents if the precursors are available.
The earliest successful use of chemical agents in a non-combat setting was in 1946, motivated by a desire to obtain revenge on Germans for the Holocaust. Three members of a Jewish group calling themselves Dahm Y’Israel Nokeam ( Avenging Israel’s Blood ) hid in a bakery in the Stalag 13 prison camp near Nuremberg, Germany, where several thousand SS troops were being detained. The three applied an arsenic-containing mixture to loaves of bread, sickening more than 2,000 prisoners, of whom more than 200 required hospitalization.
In July 1974, a group calling themselves the Aliens of America successfully firebombed the houses of a judge, two police commissioners, and one of the commissioner’s cars, burned down two apartment buildings, and bombed the Pan Am Terminal at Los Angeles International Airport, killing three people and injuring eight. The organization, which turned out to be a single resident alien named Muharem Kurbegovic, claimed to have developed and possessed a supply of sarin, as well as 4 unique nerve agents named AA1, AA2, AA3, and AA4S. Although no agents were found at the time he was arrested in August 1974, he had reportedly acquired all but one of the ingredients required to produce a nerve agent. A search of his apartment turned up a variety of materials, including precursors for phosgene and a drum containing 25 pounds of sodium cyanide.[50]
The first successful use of chemical agents by terrorists against a general civilian population was on March 20, 1995. Aum Shinrikyo, an apocalyptic group based in Japan that believed it necessary to destroy the planet, released sarin into the Tokyo subway system killing 12 and injuring over 5,000. The group had attempted biological and chemical attacks on at least 10 prior occasions, but managed to affect only cult members. The group did manage to successfully release sarin outside an apartment building in Matsumoto in June 1994; this use was directed at a few specific individuals living in the building and was not an attack on the general population.
On 29 December, 1999, four days after Russian forces began assault of Grozny, Chechen terrorists exploded two chlor tanks in town. Because of the wind conditions, no Russian soldiers were injured.[51]
In 2001, after carrying out the attacks in New York City on September 11, the organization Al Qaeda announced that they were attempting to acquire radiological, biological and chemical weapons. This threat was lent a great deal of credibility when a large archive of videotapes was obtained by the cable television network CNN in August 2002 showing, among other things, the killing of three dogs by an apparent nerve agent.[52]
On October 26, 2002, Russian special forces used a chemical agent (presumably KOLOKOL-1, an aerosolized fentanyl derivative), as a precursor to an assault on Chechen terrorists, ending the Moscow theater hostage crisis. All 42 of the terrorists and 120 of the hostages were killed during the raid; all but one hostage, who was killed, died from the effects of the agent.
In early 2007 multiple terrorist bombings have been reported in Iraq using chlorine gas. These attacks have wounded or sickened more than 350 people. Reportedly the bombers are affiliated with Al-Qaeda in Iraq[53] and have used bombs of various sizes up to chlorine tanker trucks.[54] United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attacks as, clearly intended to cause panic and instability in the country. [55]
See also
* Wikimedia Commons logo Media related to Chemical warfare at Wikimedia Commons
* Area denial weapons
* Biological warfare
* Chemical Ali
* Chemical Weapons Convention
* Exotic pollution
* List of chemical warfare agents
* List of highly toxic gases
* Psychochemical weapon
* Saint Julien Memorial
* Sardasht (A town attacked with chemical weapons during the Iran–Iraq War.)
* Stink bomb
* USAMRICD
* Weapons of mass destruction
* Zyklon B
* Ronald Maddison
Notes
1. ^ Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. Chemical Weapons Convention States Parties and Signatories. http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/71827.htm.
2. ^ Syed, Tanya (2009-01-19). Ancient Persians ‘gassed Romans’ . BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7837826.stm. Retrieved 2009-02-21.
3. ^ Irwin, Will (22 April 1915), The Use of Poison Gas , New York Tribune, http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1915/chlorgas.html
4. ^ Johnson, Jeffrey Allan (1990), The Kaiser’s Chemists: Science and Modernization in Imperial Germany, University of North Carolina Press
5. ^ Gray, Colin. (2007). Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare. Page 269. Phoenix. ISBN 0304367346.
6. ^ Griffin Davis (May 24, 2006), CBRNE – Chemical Detection Equipment , EMedicine, http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/TOPIC924.HTM, retrieved 2007-10-22
7. ^ US Department of Defense (2 June 2003) (PDF), Multiservice Tactics, Techniques, and Procedure for NBC Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Protection (FM 3-11.4 / MCWP 3-37.2 / NTTP 3-11.27 / AFTTP(I) 3-2.46), FM 3-11.4, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-11-4/fm3-11-4.pdf, retrieved 2007-10-22
8. ^ a b Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002-09-12), Protecting Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biologic, or Radiologic Attacks, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/441190, retrieved 2007-10-22
9. ^ a b c d US Department of Defense (29 September 2000) (PDF), Multiservice Tactics, Techniques, and Procedure for NBC Defense of Theater Fixed Sites, Ports, and Airfields (FM 3-11.34/MCRP 3-37.5/NWP 3-11.23/AFTTP(I) 3-2.33), http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/3-11-34/fixedsites.pdf, retrieved 2007-10-22
10. ^ Ciottone, Gregory R; Arnold, Jeffrey L (January 4, 2007), CBRNE – Chemical Warfare Agents , EMedicine, http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/TOPIC852.HTM, retrieved 2007-10-22
11. ^ Adrienne Mayor, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World Overlook-Duckworth, 2003, rev ed with new Introduction 2008
12. ^ a b c d Mayor 2003
13. ^ In Surprise Testimony Cheney Renews Opposition to CWC. United States Senate. 1997-04-08. http://www.fas.org/cw/cwc_archive/cheneyletter_4-8-97.pdf. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
14. ^ ed. by M. Bothe …; Michael Bothe, Natalino Ronzitti, Allan Rosas (1998). The New Chemical Weapons Convention – Implementation and Prospects. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 17. ISBN 9041110992.
15. ^ David Hume, History of England, Volume II.
16. ^ Science Daily, dated January 19, 2009[1].
17. ^ The First World War (a Channel 4 documentary based on the book by Hew Strachan)
18. ^ Heller, Charles E. (September 1984), Chemical Warfare in World War I: The American Experience, 1917–1918, US Army Command and General Staff College, http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Heller/HELLER.asp
19. ^ [2], Libcom 1804-2003: History of Iraq
20. ^ Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7
21. ^ Y. Yoshimi and S. Matsuno, Dokugasusen Kankei Shiryô II, Kaisetsu, Jugonen Sensô Gokuhi Shiryoshu, 1997, p.27-29
22. ^ Yoshimi and Matsuno, idem, Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, 2001, p.360-364
23. ^ Australian Military History Publications (Army History Unit), Chemical Warfare in Australia, http://www.mustardgas.org/
24. ^ Walker, Frank (January 20, 2008). Deadly chemicals hidden in war cache . smh.com.au. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/deadly-chemicals-hidden-in-war-cache/2008/01/19/1200620272396.html. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
25. ^ Madigan, Damien (2008-02-27). Author lifts lid on chemical wartime history . Blue Mountains Gazette. http://bluemountains.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/author-lifts-lid-on-chemical-wartime-history/1191452.html. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
26. ^ Base’s phantom war reveals its secrets . Lithgow Mercury. 2008-08-07. http://lithgow.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/bases-phantom-war-reveals-its-secrets/1237570.aspx. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
27. ^ Ashworth, Len (2008-09-09). Chemical warfare left its legacy . Lithgow Mercury. http://lithgow.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/chemical-warfare-left-its-legacy/1266856.aspx. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
28. ^ Corum, James S., The Roots of Blitzkrieg, University Press of Kansas, USA, 1992, pp.106-107.
29. ^ Schmaltz, Florian (2005), Kampfstoff-Forschung im Nationalsozialismus Zur Kooperation von Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten, Militär und Industrie , Wallstein Verlag
30. ^ Schmaltz, Florian (2006), Neurosciences and Research on Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction in Nazi Germany , Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 15: 186–209, doi:10.1080/09647040600658229
31. ^ US Naval Historical Center, Naval Armed Guard Service: Tragedy at Bari, Italy on 2 December 1943, http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-4.htm
32. ^ Niderost, Eric (Full text), World War II: German Raid on Bari, HistoryNet.com, http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-german-raid-on-bari.htm
33. ^ Infield, Glenn B. Infield. Disaster at Bari.
34. ^ Reminick, Gerald. Nightmare in Bari: The World War II Liberty Ship Poison Gas Disaster and Coverup.
35. ^ Korn, Benyamin, Arab Chemical Warfare Against Jews–in 1944 , The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-03-chemical.php
36. ^ Anatomy of a War by Gabriel Kolko, ISBN 1-56584-218-9 pages 144-145
37. ^ a b c d Staff, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, US Senate (December 8, 1994), Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans’ Health? Lessons spanning half a century, 103d Congress, 2d Session – COMMITTEE PRINT – S. Prt. 103-97, http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm
38. ^ Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia – Past, Present, and Future, 1994. ISBN 0-374-18104-7 (see pages 325–328)
39. ^ Fedorov, Lev (27 July 1994), Chemical Weapons in Russia: History, Ecology, Politics, Center of Ecological Policy of Russia, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/jptac008_l94001.htm
40. ^ Birstein, Vadim J. (2004), The Perversion Of Knowledge: The True Story of Soviet Science, Westview Press, ISBN 0-813-34280-5
41. ^ Federov, Lev; Mirzayanov, Vil (1992), A Poisoned Policy , Moscow News (weekly No. 39)
42. ^ Lafayette, Lev (July 26, 2002). Who armed Saddam? . World History Archives. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html.
43. ^ Fassihi, Farnaz (October 27, 2002), In Iran, grim reminders of Saddam’s arsenal , New Jersey Star Ledger, http://www.nj.com/specialprojects/index.ssf?/specialprojects/mideaststories/me1209.html
44. ^ Hughes, Paul, It’s like a knife stabbing into me , The Star (South Africa), http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=39470
45. ^ Sciolino, Elaine (February 13, 2003), Iraq Chemical Arms Condemned, but West Once Looked the Other Way , New York Times, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0213-05.htm
46. ^ Timmerman, Kenneth R. (1991). Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-59305-0.
47. ^ Death Clouds: Saddam Hussein’s Chemical War Against the Kurds
48. ^ The Argentine Fight for The Falklands, Lieutenant-Commander Sanchez-Sabarots
49. ^ Falkland Islanders at war, Bound, Graham, Pen and Sword Books Limited, ISBN 1 84415 429 7.
50. ^ T Is for Terror: A mad bomber who stalked Los Angeles in the ’70s could be the poster boy for the kind of terrorist the FBI fears today , Newsweek Web Exclusive, 9 July 2003, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3070093
51. ^ ?????? ????. ?????? ? ????????? ????? XX ????: ? ??????? ??????? ????????????. ????? 5: ????????? ????. ?.: ????, 2002
52. ^ Robertson, Nic (August 19, 2002), Disturbing scenes of death show capability with chemical gas , Cable News Network, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.chemical/
53. ^ Multi-National Force Iraq, Combined Press Information Center (20 April 2007), Chlorine Tanks Destroyed, Terrorists Killed in Raids, Press Release A070420a, http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11530&Itemid=128
54. ^ Multi-National Force Iraq, Combined Press Information Center (6 April 2007), Suicide Vehicle Detonates outside Police Checkpoint, Press Release 20070406-34, http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11185&Itemid=128
55. ^ Ban, Ki-Moon (19 March 2007), Secretary-General Condemns Chlorine Attack in Iraq , United Nations Radio, http://www.un.org/radio/6542.asp
References
* CBWInfo.com (2001). A Brief History of Chemical and Biological Weapons: Ancient Times to the 19th Century. Retrieved Nov. 24, 2004.
* Chomsky, Noam (Mar. 4, 2001). Prospects for Peace in the Middle East, page 2. Lecture.
* Cordette, Jessica, MPH(c) (2003). Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction. Retrieved Nov. 29, 2004.
* Croddy, Eric (2001). Chemical and Biological Warfare. Copernicus. ISBN 0-387-95076-1.
* Smart, Jeffery K., M.A. (1997). History of Biological and Chemical Warfare. Retrieved Nov. 24, 2004.
* United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session. (May 25, 1994). The Riegle Report. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2004.
* Gerard J Fitzgerald. American Journal of Public Health. Washington: Apr 2008. Vol. 98, Iss. 4; p. 611
Further reading
* Leo P. Brophy and George J. B. Fisher; The Chemical Warfare Service: Organizing for War Office of the Chief of Military History, 1959; L. P. Brophy, W. D. Miles and C. C. Cochrane, The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field (1959); and B. E. Kleber and D. Birdsell, The Chemical Warfare Service in Combat (1966). official US history;
* Gordon M. Burck and Charles C. Flowerree; International Handbook on Chemical Weapons Proliferation 1991
* L. F. Haber. The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World War Oxford University Press: 1986
* James W. Hammond Jr.; Poison Gas: The Myths Versus Reality Greenwood Press, 1999
* Jiri Janata, Role of Analytical Chemistry in Defense Strategies Against Chemical and Biological Attack, Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry, 2009
* Benoit Morel and Kyle Olson; Shadows and Substance: The Chemical Weapons Convention Westview Press, 1993
* Adrienne Mayor, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World Overlook-Duckworth, 2003, rev ed with new Introduction 2008
* Geoff Plunkett, Chemical Warfare in Australia, Australian Military History Publications, 2007
* Jonathan B. Tucker. Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda (2006)
External links
* ATSDR Case Studies in Environmental Medicine: Cholinesterase Inhibitors, Including Insecticides and Chemical Warfare Nerve Agents U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
* Russian Biological and Chemical Weapons, about the danger posed by non-state weapons transfers
* Gaddum Papers at the Royal Society
* Chemical Weapons stored in the United States
* [7] The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons OPCW
* [8] Chemical Warfare in Australia
* Classes of Chemical Agents U.S. National Library of Medicine
* Chemical warfare agent potency, logistics, human damage, dispersal, protection and types of agents (bomb-shelter.net)
* ‘War of Nerves’: A History of Chemical Weapons (interview with Jonathan Tucker from National Public Radio Talk of the Nation program, May 8, 2006
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare
Categories: Chemical warfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare
***
Project MKULTRA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MKULTRA redirects here. For other uses, see MKULTRA (disambiguation).
Declassified MKULTRA documents
Project MK-ULTRA, or MKULTRA, was the code name for a covert CIA mind-control and chemical interrogation research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. The program began in the early 1950s, continuing at least through the late 1960s, and it used United States citizens as its test subjects.[1][2][3] The published evidence indicates that Project MK-ULTRA involved the surreptitious use of many types of drugs, as well as other methods, to manipulate individual mental states and to alter brain function.
Project MK-ULTRA was first brought to wide public attention in 1975 by the U.S. Congress, through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MK-ULTRA files destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms’ destruction order.[4]
Although the CIA insists that MK-ULTRA-type experiments have been abandoned, 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti has stated in various interviews that the CIA routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MK-ULTRA was abandoned a cover story. [5][6]
On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said:
The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an extensive testing and experimentation program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign. Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to unwitting subjects in social situations. At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers.[7]
To this day most specific information regarding Project MKULTRA remains highly classified.
Contents
* 1 Title and origins
* 2 Goals
* 3 Budget
* 4 Experiments
o 4.1 Drugs
+ 4.1.1 LSD
+ 4.1.2 Other drugs
o 4.2 Hypnosis
o 4.3 Canadian experiments
* 5 Revelation
* 6 U.S. General Accounting Office Report
* 7 Deaths
* 8 Legal issues involving informed consent
* 9 Extent of participation
* 10 Notable subjects
* 11 Conspiracy theories
* 12 Popular culture
* 13 See also
* 14 Footnotes
* 15 Further reading
* 16 External links
Title and origins
Dr. Sidney Gottlieb approved of an MKULTRA subproject on LSD in this June 9, 1953 letter.
The project’s intentionally oblique CIA cryptonym is made up of the digraph MK, meaning that the project was sponsored by the agency’s Technical Services Division, followed by the word ULTRA (which had previously been used to designate the most secret classification of World War II intelligence). Other related cryptonyms include MK-NAOMI and MK-DELTA.
A precursor of the MK-ULTRA program began in 1945 when the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency was established and given direct responsibility for Operation Paperclip. Operation Paperclip was a program to recruit former Nazi scientists. Some of these scientists studied torture and brainwashing, and several had just been identified and prosecuted as war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials.[8][9]
Several secret U.S. government projects grew out of Operation Paperclip. These projects included Project CHATTER (established 1947), and Project BLUEBIRD (established 1950), which was later renamed to Project ARTICHOKE in 1951. Their purpose was to study mind-control, interrogation, behavior modification and related topics.
Headed by Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the MK-ULTRA project was started on the order of CIA director Allen Dulles on April 13, 1953,[10] largely in response to Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind-control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea.[11] The CIA wanted to use similar methods on their own captives. The CIA was also interested in being able to manipulate foreign leaders with such techniques,[12] and would later invent several schemes to drug Fidel Castro.
Experiments were often conducted without the subjects’ knowledge or consent.[13] In some cases, academic researchers being funded through grants from CIA front organizations were unaware that their work was being used for these purposes.[14]
In 1964, the project was renamed MK-SEARCH. The project attempted to produce a perfect truth drug for use in interrogating suspected Soviet spies during the Cold War, and generally to explore any other possibilities of mind control.
Another MK-ULTRA effort, Subproject 54, was the Navy’s top secret Perfect Concussion program, which used sub-aural frequency blasts to erase memory.[15]
Because most MK-ULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by order of then CIA Director Richard Helms, it has been difficult, if not impossible, for investigators to gain a complete understanding of the more than 150 individually funded research sub-projects sponsored by MK-ULTRA and related CIA programs.[16]
Goals
The Agency poured millions of dollars into studies probing dozens of methods of influencing and controlling the mind. One 1955 MK-ULTRA document gives an indication of the size and range of the effort; this document refers to the study of an assortment of mind-altering substances described as follows:[17]
1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called brain-washing .
8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
11. Substances which will produce pure euphoria with no subsequent let-down.
12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.
Historians have asserted that creating a Manchurian Candidate subject through mind control techniques was a goal of MK-ULTRA and related CIA projects.[18]
Budget
A secretive arrangement granted the MK-ULTRA program a percentage of the CIA budget. The MK-ULTRA director was granted six percent of the CIA operating budget in 1953, without oversight or accounting.[19] An estimated US$10m or more was spent[20].
Experiments
CIA documents suggest that chemical, biological and radiological means were investigated for the purpose of mind control as part of MK-ULTRA.[21]
Drugs
LSD
Early efforts focused on LSD, which later came to dominate many of MK-ULTRA’s programs.
Experiments included administering LSD to CIA employees, military personnel, doctors, other government agents, prostitutes, mentally ill patients, and members of the general public in order to study their reactions. LSD and other drugs were usually administered without the subject’s knowledge or informed consent, a violation of the Nuremberg Code that the U.S. agreed to follow after World War II.
Efforts to recruit subjects were often illegal, even discounting the fact that drugs were being administered (though actual use of LSD, for example, was legal in the United States until October 6, 1966). In Operation Midnight Climax, the CIA set up several brothels to obtain a selection of men who would be too embarrassed to talk about the events. The men were dosed with LSD, the brothels were equipped with one-way mirrors, and the sessions were filmed for later viewing and study.[22]
Some subjects’ participation was consensual, and in many of these cases, the subjects appeared to be singled out for even more extreme experiments. In one case, volunteers were given LSD for 77 consecutive days.[23]
LSD was eventually dismissed by MK-ULTRA’s researchers as too unpredictable in its results.[1] Although useful information was sometimes obtained through questioning subjects on LSD, not uncommonly the most marked effect would be the subject’s absolute and utter certainty that they were able to withstand any form of interrogation attempt, even physical torture.
Other drugs
Another technique investigated was connecting a barbiturate IV into one arm and an amphetamine IV into the other.[24] The barbiturates were released into the subject first, and as soon as the subject began to fall asleep, the amphetamines were released. The subject would begin babbling incoherently at this point, and it was sometimes possible to ask questions and get useful answers.
Other experiments involved heroin, morphine, temazepam (used under code name MK-SEARCH), mescaline, psilocybin, scopolamine, marijuana, alcohol, sodium pentothal,[25] and ergine (in Subproject 22).
Hypnosis
Declassified MK-ULTRA documents indicate hypnosis was studied in the early 1950s. Experimental goals included: the creation of hypnotically induced anxieties, hypnotically increasing ability to learn and recall complex written matter, studying hypnosis and polygraph examinations, hypnotically increasing ability to observe and recall complex arrangements of physical objects, and studying relationship of personality to susceptibility to hypnosis. [26]
Canadian experiments
The experiments were exported to Canada when the CIA recruited Scottish physician Donald Ewen Cameron, creator of the psychic driving concept, which the CIA found particularly interesting. Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany, New York to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of McGill University and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKULTRA experiments there. In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power. His driving experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements. His experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanently from his actions.[27] His treatments resulted in victims’ incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents.[28] His work was inspired and paralleled by the British psychiatrist Dr William Sargant at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, and Belmont Hospital, Surrey, who was also involved in the Intelligence Services and who experimented extensively on his patients without their consent, causing similar long-term damage.[29] Dr. Cameron and Dr. Sargant are the only two identified Canadian experimenters, but the MKULTRA file makes reference to many other unnamed physicians who were recruited by the CIA.[citation needed]
It was during this era that Cameron became known worldwide as the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association as well as president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations. Cameron had also been a member of the Nuremberg medical tribunal in 1946-47.[30]
Revelation
In 1973, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MK-ULTRA files destroyed. Pursuant to this order, most CIA documents regarding the project were destroyed, making a full investigation of MK-ULTRA impossible.
In December 1974, The New York Times reported that the CIA had conducted illegal domestic activities, including experiments on U.S. citizens, during the 1960s. That report prompted investigations by the U.S. Congress, in the form of the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission that looked into domestic activities of the CIA, the FBI, and intelligence-related agencies of the military.
In the summer of 1975, congressional Church Committee reports and the presidential Rockefeller Commission report revealed to the public for the first time that the CIA and the Department of Defense had conducted experiments on both unwitting and cognizant human subjects as part of an extensive program to influence and control human behavior through the use of psychoactive drugs such as LSD and mescaline and other chemical, biological, and psychological means. They also revealed that at least one subject had died after administration of LSD. Much of what the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission learned about MKULTRA was contained in a report, prepared by the Inspector General’s office in 1963, that had survived the destruction of records ordered in 1973.[31] However, it contained little detail.
The congressional committee investigating the CIA research, chaired by Senator Frank Church, concluded that [p]rior consent was obviously not obtained from any of the subjects . The committee noted that the experiments sponsored by these researchers … call into question the decision by the agencies not to fix guidelines for experiments.
Following the recommendations of the Church Committee, President Gerald Ford in 1976 issued the first Executive Order on Intelligence Activities which, among other things, prohibited experimentation with drugs on human subjects, except with the informed consent, in writing and witnessed by a disinterested party, of each such human subject and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Commission. Subsequent orders by Presidents Carter and Reagan expanded the directive to apply to any human experimentation.
On the heels of the revelations about CIA experiments, similar stories surfaced regarding U.S. Army experiments. In 1975 the Secretary of the Army instructed the Army Inspector General to conduct an investigation. Among the findings of the Inspector General was the existence of a 1953 memorandum penned by then Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson. Documents show that the CIA participated in at least two of Department of Defense committees during 1952. These committee findings led to the issuance of the Wilson Memo, which mandated—in accord with Nuremberg Code protocols—that only volunteers be used for experimental operations conducted in the U.S. armed forces. In response to the Inspector General’s investigation, the Wilson Memo was declassified in August 1975.
With regard to drug testing within the Army, the Inspector General found that the evidence clearly reflected that every possible medical consideration was observed by the professional investigators at the Medical Research Laboratories. However the Inspector General also found that the mandated requirements of Wilson’s 1953 memorandum had been only partially adhered to; he concluded that the volunteers were not fully informed, as required, prior to their participation; and the methods of procuring their services, in many cases, appeared not to have been in accord with the intent of Department of the Army policies governing use of volunteers in research.
Other branches of the U.S. armed forces, the Air Force for example, were found not to have adhered to Wilson Memo stipulations regarding voluntary drug testing.
In 1977, during a hearing held by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to look further into MKULTRA, Admiral Stansfield Turner, then Director of Central Intelligence, revealed that the CIA had found a set of records, consisting of about 20,000 pages,[32] that had survived the 1973 destruction orders, due to having been stored at a records center not usually used for such documents.[31] These files dealt with the financing of MKULTRA projects, and as such contained few details of those projects, but much more was learned from them than from the Inspector General’s 1963 report.
In Canada, the issue took much longer to surface, becoming widely known in 1984 on a CBC news show, The Fifth Estate. It was learned that not only had the CIA funded Dr. Cameron’s efforts, but perhaps even more shockingly, the Canadian government was fully aware of this, and had later provided another $500,000 in funding to continue the experiments. This revelation largely derailed efforts by the victims to sue the CIA as their U.S. counterparts had, and the Canadian government eventually settled out of court for $100,000 to each of the 127 victims. None of Dr. Cameron’s personal records of his involvement with MKULTRA survive, since his family destroyed them after his death from a heart attack while mountain climbing in 1967.[33]
U.S. General Accounting Office Report
The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report on September 28, 1994, which stated that between 1940 and 1974, DOD and other national security agencies studied thousands of human subjects in tests and experiments involving hazardous substances.
The quote from the study:
… Working with the CIA, the Department of Defense gave hallucinogenic drugs to thousands of volunteer soldiers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In addition to LSD, the Army also tested quinuclidinyl benzilate, a hallucinogen code-named BZ. (Note 37) Many of these tests were conducted under the so-called MKULTRA program, established to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing techniques. Between 1953 and 1964, the program consisted of 149 projects involving drug testing and other studies on unwitting human subjects…[34]
Deaths
Harold Blauer, a professional tennis player in New York City, died as a result of a secret Army experiment involving MDA.[35]
Frank Olson, a United States Army biochemist and biological weapons researcher, was given LSD without his knowledge or consent in 1953 as part of a CIA experiment, and died under suspicious circumstances (initially labeled suicide) a week later following a severe psychotic episode. A CIA doctor assigned to monitor Olson’s recovery claimed to be asleep in another bed in a New York City hotel room when Olson jumped through the window to fall ten stories to his death.[36]
Olson’s son disputes this version of events, and maintains that his father was murdered due to the belief that he was going to divulge his knowledge of the top-secret interrogation program code-named Project ARTICHOKE.[37] Frank Olson’s body was exhumed in 1994, and cranial injuries indicated Olson had been knocked unconscious before exiting the window.[38]
The CIA’s own internal investigation, by contrast, claimed Gottlieb had conducted the experiment with Olson’s prior knowledge, although neither Olson nor the other men taking part in the experiment were informed as to the exact nature of the drug until some 20 minutes after its ingestion. The report further suggested that Gottlieb was nonetheless due a reprimand, as he had failed to take into account Olsen’s already-diagnosed suicidal tendencies, which might well have been exacerbated by the LSD.[36]
Legal issues involving informed consent
The revelations about the CIA and the Army prompted a number of subjects or their survivors to file lawsuits against the federal government for conducting illegal experiments. Although the government aggressively, and sometimes successfully, sought to avoid legal liability, several plaintiffs did receive compensation through court order, out-of-court settlement, or acts of Congress. Frank Olson’s family received $750,000 by a special act of Congress, and both President Ford and CIA director William Colby met with Olson’s family to publicly apologize.
Previously, the CIA and the Army had actively and successfully sought to withhold incriminating information, even as they secretly provided compensation to the families. One subject of Army drug experimentation, James Stanley, an Army sergeant, brought an important, albeit unsuccessful, suit. The government argued that Stanley was barred from suing under a legal doctrine—known as the Feres doctrine, after a 1950 Supreme Court case, Feres v. United States—that prohibits members of the Armed Forces from suing the government for any harms that were inflicted incident to service.
In 1987, the Supreme Court affirmed this defense in a 5–4 decision that dismissed Stanley’s case.[39] The majority argued that a test for liability that depends on the extent to which particular suits would call into question military discipline and decision making would itself require judicial inquiry into, and hence intrusion upon, military matters. In dissent, Justice William Brennan argued that the need to preserve military discipline should not protect the government from liability and punishment for serious violations of constitutional rights:
The medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable. The United States Military Tribunal established the Nuremberg Code as a standard against which to judge German scientists who experimented with human subjects… . [I]n defiance of this principle, military intelligence officials … began surreptitiously testing chemical and biological materials, including LSD.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing a separate dissent, stated:
No judicially crafted rule should insulate from liability the involuntary and unknowing human experimentation alleged to have occurred in this case. Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of Nazi officials who experimented with human subjects during the Second World War, and the standards that the Nuremberg Military Tribunals developed to judge the behavior of the defendants stated that the ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential … to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.’ If this principle is violated, the very least that society can do is to see that the victims are compensated, as best they can be, by the perpetrators.
This is the only Supreme Court case to address the application of the Nuremberg Code to experimentation sponsored by the U.S. government. And while the suit was unsuccessful, dissenting opinions put the Army—and by association the entire government—on notice that use of individuals without their consent is unacceptable. The limited application of the Nuremberg Code in U.S. courts does not detract from the power of the principles it espouses, especially in light of stories of failure to follow these principles that appeared in the media and professional literature during the 1960s and 1970s and the policies eventually adopted in the mid-1970s.
In another law suit, Wayne Ritchie, a former United States Marshall, alleged the CIA laced his food or drink with LSD at a 1957 Christmas party. While the government admitted it was, at that time, drugging people without their consent, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel found Ritchie could not prove he was one of the victims of MKULTRA and dismissed the case in 2007.[40]
Extent of participation
Forty-four American colleges or universities, 15 research foundations or chemical or pharmaceutical companies and the like including Sandoz (currently Novartis) and Eli Lilly & Co., 12 hospitals or clinics (in addition to those associated with universities), and 3 prisons are known to have participated in MKULTRA.[41][42]
Notable subjects
A considerable amount of credible circumstantial evidence suggests that Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, participated in CIA-sponsored MK-ULTRA experiments conducted at Harvard University from the fall of 1959 through the spring of 1962. During World War II, Henry Murray, the lead researcher in the Harvard experiments, served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was a forerunner of the CIA. Murray applied for a grant funded by the United States Navy, and his Harvard stress experiments strongly resembled those run by the OSS.[43] Beginning at the age of sixteen, Kaczynski participated along with twenty-one other undergraduate students in the Harvard experiments, which have been described as disturbing and ethically indefensible. [43][44]
Merry Prankster Ken Kesey, author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, volunteered for MK-ULTRA experiments while he was a student at Stanford University. Kesey’s ingestion of LSD during these experiments led directly to his widespread promotion of the drug and the subsequent development of hippie culture.[45]
Candy Jones, American fashion model and radio host, claimed to have been a victim of mind control in the ’60s.[46]
Infamous Irish mob boss James Whitey Bulger volunteered for testing while in prison.[47]
Conspiracy theories
MK-ULTRA plays a part in many conspiracy theories given its nature and the destruction of most records.
Lawrence Teeter, attorney for convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan, believed Sirhan was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. Teeter linked the CIA’s MKULTRA program to mind control techniques that he claimed were used to control Sirhan.[48]
Jonestown, the Guyana location of the Jim Jones cult and Peoples Temple mass suicide, was thought to be a test site for MKULTRA medical and mind control experiments after the official end of the program. Congressman Leo Ryan, a known critic of the CIA, was assassinated after he personally visited Jonestown to investigate various reported irregularities.[49]
Popular culture
* MKULTRA is referenced in the plots of The Ambler Warning by Robert Ludlum, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe, Firestarter by Stephen King, Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, Just a Couple of Days by Tony Vigorito, The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon, The Telling of Lies by Timothy Findley; and The Watchmen by John Altman; the films The Bourne Ultimatum, Conspiracy Theory, The Good Shepherd, Jacob’s Ladder, and The Killing Room; the television series Angel, The West Wing. The Lone Gunmen, Numb3rs, Bones, Quincy M.E. and The X-Files; the games Conspiracy X and The Suffering: Prison is Hell; the character Deathstroke the Terminator in the Teen Titans by DC Comics.
* The bands mk Ultra, MK-ULTRA, and a side project of Frank Tovey took their names from these projects. MKULTRA is also referenced by such musical artists as Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Canibus, Exit Clov, Fatboy Slim, Green Magnet School, Immortal Technique, Manic Street Preachers, Muse, The Orb, Sirius Isness, Lustmord side project Terror Against Terror, Tokyo Police Club, and Unwound.
* MKULTRA also provides a name for a move by professional wrestler Sterling James Keenan.
See also
* Brainwashing
* CIA operations
* Human radiation experiments
* Louis Jolyon West
* Macy conferences
* Project MKDELTA
* Project MKNAOMI
* Operation Paperclip
* Sidney Gottlieb
* United States v. Stanley
* William Sargant
Footnotes
1. ^ Richelson, JT (ed.) (2001-09-10). Science, Technology and the CIA: A National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book . George Washington University. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/. Retrieved 2009-06-12.
2. ^ Chapter 3, part 4: Supreme Court Dissents Invoke the Nuremberg Code: CIA and DOD Human Subjects Research Scandals . Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_4.html. Retrieved 2005-08-24.
3. ^ The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign and Military Intelligence . Church Committee report, no. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.. Washington, D.C..: United States Congress. 1976. pp. 392. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book1/html/ChurchB1_0200b.htm.
4. ^ An Interview with Richard Helms . Central Intelligence Agency. 2007-05-08. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v44i4a07p_0021.htm. Retrieved 2008-03-16.
5. ^ Interview with Victor Marchetti . http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/marcheti.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
6. ^ Cannon, M (1992). Mind Control and the American Government . Lobster Magazine 23.
7. ^ Opening Remarks by Senator Ted Kennedy . U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, and Subcommittee On Health And Scientific Research of the Committee On Human Resources. 1977-08-03. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/Hearing01.htm.
8. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4443934.stm
9. ^ http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html
10. ^ Church Committee; p. 390 MKULTRA was approved by the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] on April 13, 1953
11. ^ Chapter 3, part 4: Supreme Court Dissents Invoke the Nuremberg Code: CIA and DOD Human Subjects Research Scandals . Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_4.html. Retrieved August 24 2005. MKULTRA, began in 1950 and was motivated largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean uses of mind-control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea.
12. ^ Church Committee; p. 391 A special procedure, designated MKDELTA, was established to govern the use of MKULTRA materials abroad. Such materials were used on a number of occasions.
13. ^ Church Committee; The congressional committee investigating the CIA research, chaired by Senator Frank Church, concluded that ‘[p]rior consent was obviously not obtained from any of the subjects.’
14. ^ Price, David (June 2007). Buying a Piece of Anthropology: Human Ecology and unwitting anthropological research for the CIA (PDF). Anthropology Today 23 (3): 3–13. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2007.00510.x. https://secure.wikileaks.org/w/images/AT-june07-Price-PT1.pdf. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
15. ^ http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1950/mkultra/Hearing05.htm, retrieved 25 April 2008
16. ^ Chapter 3, part 4: Supreme Court Dissents Invoke the Nuremberg Code: CIA and DOD Human Subjects Research Scandals . Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_4.html. Retrieved August 24 2005. (identical sentence) Because most of the MK-ULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 … MK-ULTRA and the related CIA programs.
17. ^ Senate MKULTRA Hearing: Appendix C–Documents Referring to Subprojects, (page 167, in PDF document page numbering). (pdf). Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Human Resources. August 3, 1977. http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~pellr/lansberry/mkultra.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
18. ^ Ranelagh, John (March 1988). The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA. Sceptre. pp. 208–210. ISBN 0-340-41230-5.
19. ^ Declassified
20. ^ Mind Control and the Secret State
21. ^ Declassified
22. ^ Marks, John (1979). The Search for the Manchurian Candidate. New York: Times Books. pp. 106–7. ISBN 0-8129-0773-6.
23. ^ NPR Fresh Air. June 28, 2007 and Tim Weiner, The Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA.
24. ^ Marks 1979: pp 40-42.
25. ^ Marks 1979: chapters 3 and 7.
26. ^ Declassified
27. ^ Marks 1979: pp 140-150.
28. ^ Turbide, Diane (1997-04-21). Dr. Cameron’s Casualties . http://www.ect.org/dr-camerons-casualties/. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
29. ^ Collins, Anne ([1988] 1998). In the Sleep Room: The Story of CIA Brainwashing Experiments in Canada. Toronto: Key Porter Books. pp. 39, 42–3, 133. ISBN 1550139320.
30. ^ Marks 1979: p 141.
31. ^ a b Prepared Statement of Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of Central Intelligence
32. ^ Government Mind Control Records of MKULTRA & Bluebird/Artichoke
33. ^ HistoryOnAir Podcast 98 – MKULTRA
34. ^ Quote from Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans Health? Lessons Spanning Half A Century , part F. HALLUCINOGENS 103rd Congress, 2nd Session-S. Prt. 103-97; Staff Report prepared for the committee on veterans’ affairs December 8, 1994 John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia, Chairman. Online copy provided by gulfweb.org, which describes itself as Serving the Gulf War Veteran Community Worldwide Since 1994 . (The same document is available from many other (unofficial) sites, which may or may not be independent.)
35. ^ Marks 1979: p 72n.
36. ^ a b Marks 1979: chapter 5.
37. ^ Olson, E (2002-08-22). Family Statement on the Murder of Frank Olson . http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Statements/FamilyStatement2002.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
38. ^ Ronson, Jon (2004). The Men Who Stare at Goats. Picador. ISBN 0-330-37548-2.
39. ^ United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)
40. ^ Ritchie v. United States of America: United States District Court, Northern District of California No. C 00-3940 MHP. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law Re: Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings (pdf). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/Ritchie.pdf. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
41. ^ Book Review: Search for the Manchurian Candidate by John Marks
42. ^ CIA Off Campus: Building the Movement Against Agency Recruitment and Research
43. ^ a b Chase, A (2000-06-01). Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber . The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 41-65. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/chase.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
44. ^ Cockburn, A; St Clair J (1999-10-18). CIA Shrinks and LSD . CounterPunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/ciashrinks.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
45. ^ Baker, Jeff (November 11, 2001). All times a great artist, Ken Kesey is dead at age 66 . The Oregonian: pp. A1.
46. ^ Bennett, C (2001-07-01). Candy Jones: How a leading American fashion model came to be experimented upon by the CIA mind control team . Fortean Times. http://www.forteantimes.com/features/profiles/497/candy_jones.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
47. ^ Bruno, A. James Whitey Bulger . truetv.com. http://www.trutv.com//library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/james_whitey_bulger/2.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
48. ^ Teeter, Lawrence. Interview with Sirhan’s attorney Lawrence Teeter . KPFA 94.1/Guns & Butter show. http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=8965&page=2&type=.
49. ^ Meier, M (1989). Was Jonestown a CIA Medical Experiment?: A Review of the Evidence. New York: Edwin Mellen. ISBN 0-8894-6013-2.
Further reading
* U.S. Congress: The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign and Military Intelligence (Church Committee report), report no. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1976), 394 . http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book1/contents.htm.
* U.S. Senate: Joint Hearing before The Select Committee on Intelligence and The Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. August 3 1977 . http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/index.htm.
External links
* Short documentary about MKULTRA and the Frank Olson incident
* The Most Dangerous Game Downloadable 8 minute documentary by independent filmmakers GNN
* GIF scans of declassified MKULTRA Project Documents
* Interview of Alfred McCoy on CIA mind control research
* U.S. Supreme Court CIA v. SIMS, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) 471 U.S. 159
* U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. STANLEY, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) 483 U.S. 669
v • d • e
United States chemical weapons program
Agents and chemicals
3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ) A Chlorine A Methylphosphonyl difluoride (DF) A Phosgene A QL A Sarin (GB) A Sulfur mustard (HD) A VX
Weapons
Bigeye bomb A M1 chemical mine A M104 155mm Cartridge A M110 155mm Cartridge A M121/A1 155mm Cartridge A M125 bomblet A M134 bomblet A M138 bomblet A M139 bomblet A M2 mortar A M23 chemical mine A M34 cluster bomb A M360 105mm Cartridge A M426 8-inch shell A M43 BZ cluster bomb A M44 generator cluster A M55 rocket A M60 105mm Cartridge A M687 155mm Cartridge A XM-736 8-inch projectile A MC-1 bomb A M47 bomb A Weteye bomb
Operations and testing
Dugway sheep incident A Edgewood Arsenal experiments A MKULTRA A Operation CHASE A Operation Geranium A Operation LAC A Operation Red Hat A Operation Steel Box A Operation Ranch Hand A Operation Top Hat A Project 112 A Project SHAD
Facilities
Anniston Army Depot A Anniston Chemical Activity A Blue Grass Army Depot A Deseret Chemical Depot A Edgewood Chemical Activity A Hawthorne Army Depot A Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System A Newport Chemical Depot A Pine Bluff Chemical Activity A Pueblo Chemical Depot A Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility A Umatilla Chemical Depot
Units and formations
1st Gas Regiment A U.S. Army Chemical Corps A Chemical mortar battalion
Equipment
Chemical Agent Identification Set A M93 Fox A MOPP A People sniffer
Related topics
Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory A Chlorine bombings in Iraq A Herbicidal warfare A List of topics A Poison gas in World War I A Tyler poison gas plot
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
Categories: Devices to alter consciousness | History of the United States government | Central Intelligence Agency operations | Psychedelic research | LSD | Medical research | Military history of the United States | Military psychiatry | Mind control | 1953 establishments | Secret government programs | Human experimentation in the United States | Investigations and hearings of the United States Congress | Code names
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
***
Operation WASHTUB
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Operation WASHTUB was a CIA-organized covert operation to plant a phony Soviet arms cache in Nicaragua to demonstrate Guatemalan ties to Moscow. It was part of the effort to overthrow the President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954.[1][2]
On February 19, 1954, the CIA planted a cache of Soviet-made arms on the Nicaraguan coast to be discovered weeks later by fishermen in the pay of Nicaraguan president Anastasio Somoza García. On May 7, 1954, President Somoza told reporters at a press conference that a Soviet submarine had been photographed, but that no prints or negatives were available. The story also involved Guatemalan assassination squads. The press and the public were skeptical and the story did not get much press. .[3]
Notes
1. ^ Ward, Matthew. Washington Unmakes Guatemala, 1954 Appendix A: Timeline of Events . Council on Hemispheric Affairs. http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/Matt%20Ward/MW_Appendix_A.htm.
2. ^ Piero Gleijeses, Nick. Secret History: The CIA’s Classified Account of Its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954. Page 57
3. ^ Piero, p. 57 referring to Gleijeses, Shattered Hope, p. 294
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_WASHTUB
Categories: Conflicts in 1954 | Central Intelligence Agency operations | False flag operations | History of Guatemala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_WASHTUB
***
Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
P2OG stands for Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, a U.S. intelligence agency that would employ black world (black operations) tactics.
Contents
* 1 General information
* 2 See also
* 3 References
* 4 External links
General information
The Defense Science Board (DSB) conducted a 2002 DSB Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism. [1] Excerpts from that study, dated August 16, 2002, recommend the creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception.[2] For example, the Pentagon and CIA would work together to increase human intelligence (HUMINT), forward/operational presence and to deploy new clandestine technical capabilities.[3] Concerning the tactics P2OG would use,
Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at stimulating reactions among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction—that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to quick-response attacks by U.S. forces.
Such tactics would hold states/sub-state actors accountable and signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk , the briefing paper declares.[2]
[edit] See also
Operation Northwoods
[edit] References
1. ^ Defense Science Board, DSB Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism, U.S. Department of Defense, Final Outbrief, August 16, 2002; 78 pages (in PowerPoint format). Text of the document in HTML format. Here is a 30-page excerpt from the foregoing (in PowerPoint format). This is the publicly published U.S. government document which proposes P2OG.
2. ^ a b William M. Arkin, The Secret War: Frustrated by intelligence failures, the Defense Department is dramatically expanding its ‘black world’ of covert operations, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2002. Also available here.
3. ^ David Isenberg, ‘P2OG’ allows Pentagon to fight dirty, Asia Times, November 5, 2002.
[edit] External links
* Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Project on Government Secrecy, DOD Examines ‘Preemptive’ Intelligence Operations, Secrecy News, Vol. 2002, Issue No. 107, October 28, 2002.
* Chris Floyd, Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks, CounterPunch, November 1, 2002. Also appeared in Moscow Times, November 1, 2002, pg. XXIV; St. Petersburg Times, November 5, 2002; and under the title Into the Dark: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism, Collected Writings: Past Articles by Chris Floyd, April 15, 2005. This article was chosen number four in Project Censored’s Censored 2004: The Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003, (#4) Rumsfeld’s Plan to Provoke Terrorists.
* Seymour M. Hersh, The Coming Wars: What the Pentagon can now do in secret, The New Yorker, January 24, 2005 edition. Referenced by the below Chris Floyd article.
* Chris Floyd, Global Eye, Moscow Times, January 21, 2005, Issue 3089, pg. 112; also appeared as Darkness Visible: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism is Now in Operation, Collected Writings: Past Articles by Chris Floyd, April 15, 2005.
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group
Categories: Espionage | Official documents of the United States | United States intelligence agencies | United States intelligence operations | 2002 works | Counter-terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proactive,_Preemptive_Operations_Group
***
Operation Gladio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Emblem of Gladio , Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind paramilitary organizations. The motto means In silence I preserve freedom .
Gladio (Italian for Gladius, a type of Roman short sword) is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO stay-behind operation in Italy after World War II, intended to continue anti-communist resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organisations, Operation Gladio is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organisations, sometimes called Super NATO .[1]
Operating in many NATO and even some neutral countries,[2] Gladio was first coordinated by the Clandestine Committee of the Western Union (CCWU), founded in 1948. After the creation of NATO in 1949, the CCWU was integrated into the Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC), founded in 1951 and overseen by the SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe), transferred to Belgium after France’s official withdrawal from NATO’s Military Committee in 1966 — which was not followed by the dissolution of the French stay-behind paramilitary movements.
The role of the CIA in sponsoring Gladio and the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to terrorist attacks perpetrated in Italy during the Years of Lead and other similar clandestine operations is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation. Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have had parliamentary inquiries into the matter.[3]
Contents
* 1 General stay-behind structure
o 1.1 European Parliament resolution concerning Gladio
* 2 Allegations
o 2.1 Gladio’s strategy of tension and internal subversion operations
* 3 Gladio operations in NATO countries
o 3.1 First discovered in Italy
+ 3.1.1 Giulio Andreotti’s October 24, 1990 revelations
+ 3.1.2 2000 Parliamentary report: a strategy of tension
+ 3.1.3 General Maletti’s testimony concerning alleged CIA involvement
+ 3.1.4 A quick chronology of Italy’s strategy of tension
+ 3.1.5 The DSSA, another Gladio?
o 3.2 Belgium
o 3.3 France
o 3.4 Denmark
o 3.5 Germany
+ 3.5.1 The 1980 Oktoberfest bomb blast
+ 3.5.2 CIA’s documents released in June 2006
+ 3.5.3 Norbert Juretzko’s 2004 revelations
o 3.6 Greece
o 3.7 The Netherlands
o 3.8 Norway
o 3.9 Portugal
o 3.10 Turkey
o 3.11 The United Kingdom
+ 3.11.1 General Serravalle’s revelations
+ 3.11.2 The Guardian’s November 1990 revelations concerning plans under Margaret Thatcher
* 4 Parallel stay-behind operations in non-NATO countries
o 4.1 Austria
o 4.2 Finland
o 4.3 Spain
o 4.4 Sweden
o 4.5 Switzerland
* 5 The Order of the Solar Temple mystery
* 6 FOIA requests and US State Department’s 2006 communiqué
* 7 Politicians on Gladio
* 8 Gladio in Fiction
* 9 References
* 10 Bibliography
* 11 Films
General stay-behind structure
Emblem of NATO’s stay-behind paramilitary organizations.
The command structure of stay-behind forces, as suggested in Field Manual 31-15: Operations Against Irregular Forces.
After World War II, the UK and the US decided to create stay-behind paramilitary organizations, with the official aim of countering a possible Soviet invasion through sabotage and guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines. Arms caches were hidden, escape routes prepared, and loyal members recruited: i.e. mainly hardline anticommunists, including many ex-Nazis or former fascists, whether in Italy or in other European countries. In Germany, for example, Gladio had as a central focus the Gehlen Org — also involved in ODESSA ratlines — named after Reinhard Gehlen who would become West Germany’s first head of intelligence, while the predominantly Italian P2 masonic lodge was composed of many members of the neofascist Italian Social Movement (MSI), including Licio Gelli. Its clandestine cells were to stay behind (hence the name) in enemy controlled territory and to act as resistance movements, conducting sabotage, guerrilla warfare and assassinations.
] . . . [
In 1991, a report by Swiss magistrate Pierre Cornu was released by the Swiss defence ministry. It said that P26 was without political or legal legitimacy , and described the group’s collaboration with British secret services as intense . Unknown to the Swiss government, British officials signed agreements with the organisation, called P26, to provide training in combat, communications, and sabotage. The latest agreement was signed in 1987… P26 cadres participated regularly in training exercises in Britain… British advisers — possibly from the SAS — visited secret training establishments in Switzerland. P26 was led by Efrem Cattelan, known to British intelligence.[75]
In a 2005 conference presenting Daniele Ganser’s research on Gladio, Hans Senn, General Chief of Staff of the Swiss Army between 1977 and 1980, explained how he was informed of the existence of a secret organisation in the middle of his term of office. According to him, it already became clear in 1980 in the wake of the Schilling/Bachmann affair that there was also a secret group in Switzerland. But former MP, Helmut Hubacher, President of the Social Democratic Party from 1975 to 1990, declared that although it had been known that special services existed within the army, as a politician he never at any time could have known that the secret army P26 was behind this. Hubacher pointed out that the President of the parliamentary investigation into P26 (PUK-EMD), the right-wing politician from Appenzell and member of the Council of States for that Canton, Carlo Schmid, had suffered like a dog during the commission’s investigations. Carlo Schmid declared to the press: I was schocked that something like that is at all possible, and said to the press he was glad to leave the conspirational atmosphere which had weighted upon him like a black shadow during the investigations.[89] Hubacher found it especially disturbing that, apart from its official mandate of organizing resistance in case of a Soviet invasion, P26 had also a mandate to become active should the left succeed in achieving a parliamentary majority.[86]
[edit] The Order of the Solar Temple mystery
Psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall has alleged[90] that the collective suicides allegedly committed by various Order of the Solar Temple (OST) members, in December 1995 in the Vercors region of France, were somehow related to Gladio. According to Jean-Marie Abgrall’s declarations to Le Point magazine and Nice Matin newspaper in February 2003, which he renewed in official justice documents, the Renewed Order of the Solar Temple cult ( Ordre Rénové du Temple – ORT[91]), ancestor of the OTS, had relations with Gladio networks. Abgrall also claimed that the AMORC, of which he had been a member, was also related to Foccart networks (Jacques Foccart was De Gaulle’s spindoctor for African affairs, and retained an important role long after him).
The theory of the mass suicide has been heavily contested by family of the victims Alain Vuarnet, René and Muguette Rostan, Willy and Giséla Schleimer and their lawyer, Alain Leclerc. According to a Reuters cable dated March 22, 2004 (19:03:46), the lawyer explained that he had two documents upholding the theory of a murder, the first one being Jean-Marie Abgrall’s juridical declaration above-mentioned. According to the lawyer, psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall reveals… that the Order of the Solar Temple, as the AMORC and the ORT, were created and controlled by French and foreign secret services . Those information weren’t given at the time of investigations; the lawyer thus asked that Dr. Abgrall be heard by the judge, according to a Reuters cable.
One document was a copy of an April 21, 1997 letter addressed by a lawyer office to a bank, concerning the distribution of 17 million French Francs (about 2.5 millions Euros) between various personalities and political parties, the OST and the Rosicrucian Order AMORC (Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis), an organization suspected of links with the OST. In his demand for more investigation, Dr. Leclerc wrote: If the document is true, it shows that the Order of the Solar Temple was in activity after the last March 22, 1997 massacre (the collective suicide of five adepts in Canada) and that the responsibles of this organization are still alive . However, the court refused further expertise: thus, it hasn’t been possible to verify the validity of this document.
A third document was sent by the French secret services (RG) to the judge, discrediting the family of the victims’ claims and demands for further investigations. If Jean-Marie Abgrall’s claims of relationship between the ORT (OST’s ancestor) and Gladio may seem far-fetched, Propaganda Due’s juridically proven involvement[citation needed] in Gladio’s strategy of tension inclines one to keep open various possibilities during investigations. Furthermore, connections between ORT founder Luc Jouret and far-right Belgian activist Jean Thiriart have been alleged by other sources; together, they had found in the 1970s a far-right party which was controlled by Belgium’s branch of Gladio. In any case, the mass suicides haven’t been clearly explained, let alone financial links concerning those various cults.[92][93][94]
FOIA requests and US State Department’s 2006 communiqué
Three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been filed to the CIA, which has rejected them with the Glomar response: The CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of records responsive to your request. One request was filed by the National Security Archive in 1991; another by the Italian Senate commission headed by Senator Giovanni Pellegrino in 1995 concerning Gladio and Aldo Moro’s murder; the last one in 1996, by Oliver Rathkolb, of Vienna university, for the Austrian government, concerning the secret stay-behind armies after a discovery of an arms-cache.[28]
Furthermore, the US State Department published a communiqué in January 2006 which, while confirming the existence of stay-behind armies, in general, and the presence of the Gladio stay-behind unit in Italy, in particular, with the purpose of aiding resistance in the event of Soviet aggression directed Westward, from the Warsaw Pact, dismissed claims of any United States ordered, supported, or authorized skullduggery by stay-behind units. In fact, it claims that, on the contrary, the accusations of US-sponsored false flag operations are rehashed former Soviet disinformation based on documents that the Soviets themselves forged; specifically the researchers are alleged to have been influenced by the Westmoreland Field Manual, whose forged nature was confirmed by former KGB operatives, following the end of the Cold War. The Soviet-authored forgery, disseminated in the 1970s, explicitly formulated the need for a strategy of tension involving violent attacks blamed on radical left-wing groups in order to convince allied governments of the need for counter-action. It also rejected a Communist Greek journalist’s allegations made in December 2005 (See above).[61]
Politicians on Gladio
Whilst the existence of a stay-behind organization such as Gladio was disputed, prior to its confirmation by Giulio Andreotti, with some skeptics describing it as a conspiracy theory, several high ranking politicians in NATO countries have made statements appearing to confirm the existence of something like what is described:
* Former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti ( Gladio had been necessary during the days of the Cold War but, that in view of the collapse of the East Bloc, Italy would suggest to NATO that the organisation was no longer necessary. )
* Former French minister of defense Jean-Pierre Chevènement ( a structure did exist, set up at the beginning of the 1950s, to enable communications with a government that might have fled abroad in the event of the country being occupied. ).
* Former Greek defence minister, Yannis Varvitsiotis ( local commandos and the CIA set up a branch of the network in 1955 to organise guerrilla resistance to any communist invader )
As noted above, the US has now acknowledged the existence of Operation Gladio.
Gladio in Fiction
A precise analogue of Operation Gladio was described in the 1949 fiction novel An Affair of State by Pat Frank.[95] In Frank’s version, U.S. State Dept officers recruit a stay-behind network in Hungary to fight an insurgency against the Soviet Union after the Soviet Union launches an attack on and captures Western Europe.
[edit] References
1. ^ Çelik, Serdar (February/March 1994). Turkey’s Killing Machine: The Contra-Guerrilla Force . Kurdistan Report 17. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/017.html. Retrieved 2008-09-20. quoting Bülent Ecevit from a newspaper interview (in Turkish). Milliyet. 1990-11-28. Özel Harp Dairesinin nerede bulundug(unu sordum ‘Amerikan Askerî Yard?m Heyetiyle ayn? binada’ yan?t?n? ald?m.
2. ^ Haberman, Clyde (1990-11-16). EVOLUTION IN EUROPE; Italy Discloses Its Web Of Cold War Guerrillas . New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5D61031F935A25752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink. Retrieved 2008-10-11. Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and Luxembourg have all acknowledged that they maintained Gladio-style networks to prepare guerrilla fighters to leap into action in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion. Many worked under the code name Stay Behind. Greece called its operation Red Sheepskin.
News reports in recent days assert that similar programs have also existed in Britain, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Turkey and Denmark, and even in neutral countries like Switzerland and Sweden.
3. ^ Belgian parliamentary report concerning the stay-behind network, named Enquête parlementaire sur l’existence en Belgique d’un réseau de renseignements clandestin international or Parlementair onderzoek met betrekking tot het bestaan in België van een clandestien internationaal inlichtingenetwerk pg. 17-22
4. ^ a b c d Vulliamy, Ed (1990-12-05). Secret agents, freemasons, fascists… and a top-level campaign of political ‘destabilisation’ . The Guardian. http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/vinciguerra.p2.etc_graun_5dec1990.html.
5. ^ Fitchett, Joseph. (1990-11-13) Paris Says it Joined NATO ‘Resistance’, International Herald Tribune
6. ^ Duraud, Bernard (2005-10-07). La critique – Récit d’un brigadiste (in French). L’Humanité. http://www.humanite.fr/2005-10-07_International_La-critique-Recit-d-un-brigadiste.
7. ^ a b c d e Ganser, Daniele. Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO’s Secret Stay-Behind ArmiesPDF (162 KB), Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, South Orange NJ, Winter/Spring 2005, Vol. 6, No. 1.
8. ^ O’Shaughnessy, Hugh. Gladio: Europe’s Secret Networks, The Observer, 18 November 1990.
9. ^ Gelli arrest is another chapter in Vatican bank scandal . American Atheists. 1998-09-16. http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican2.htm. Retrieved February 2006.
10. ^ See for ex. links between Italian neofascist terrorist Stefano delle Chiaie, whom was protected by the Italian SISMI, and the DINA; including assassination attempts on Bernardo Leighton, Carlos Altamirano, Andrés Pascal Allende (Salvador Allende’s nephew), etc. Delle Chiaie also worked with Argentine death-squad Triple A and Bolivian dictator Hugo Banzer. Las relaciones secretas entre Pinochet, Franco y la P2 , Conspiración para matar, Sergio Sorin, February 4, 1999
11. ^ Secret Cold-War Network Group Hid Arms, Belgian Member Says . Brussels: Reuters. 1990-11-13.
12. ^ Pedrick, Clare; Lardner, George Jr (1990-11-14). CIA Organized Secret Army in Western Europe . Washington Post. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/8457082.html?dids=8457082:8457082&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=NOV+14%2C+1990&author=Pedrick%2C+Clare%3B+Lardner%2C+George+Jr&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=CIA+Organized+Secret+Army+in+Western+Europe&pqatl=google. Retrieved 2008-07-31.
13. ^ Vulliamy, Ed (1990-08-03). Grieving Bologna looks back in anger on bombing . The Guardian.
14. ^ Patrice, Claude (1990-11-07). ITALIE : face aux interrogations de l’opinion M. Andreotti lève le voile sur le passé d’une structure armée parallèle patronnée par l’OTAN et la CIA (in French). Le Monde. http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/506729.html.
15. ^ a b Gardais, Pierre (1990-11-29). Le chef du gouvernement italien a dû reconnaître son existence (in French). L’Humanité. http://www.humanite.fr/1990-11-29_Articles_-Le-chef-du-gouvernement-italien-a-du-reconnaitre-son-existence. Retrieved 2008-08-21. Selon les cas, on excitait ou en empêchait le terrorisme d’extrême gauche ou d’extrême droite (English translation)
16. ^ a b Willan, Philip. Paolo Emilio Taviani , The Guardian, June 21, 2001. (Obituary.)
17. ^ a b Herman, Edward S (June 1991). Hiding Western Terror . Nation: 21–22.
18. ^ Barbera, Myriam. Gladio: et la France?, L’Humanité, November 10, 1990 (French).
19. ^ Caso Moro. Morire di Gladio (in Italian). La Voce della Campania. January 2005. http://www.lavocedellevoci.it/inchieste1.php?id=32.
20. ^ Gladio e caso Moro: Arconte su morte Ferraro, La Nuova Sardegna (Italian)
21. ^ a b Pallister, David. How M16 and SAS Join In, The Guardian, December 5, 1990
22. ^ Willan, Philip. US ‘supported anti-left terror in Italy’ , The Guardian, June 24, 2000.
23. ^ CIA knew, but didn’t stop bombings in Italy – report. CBC
24. ^ a b Willan, Philip. Terrorists ‘helped by CIA’ to stop rise of left in Italy, The Guardian, March 26, 2001.
25. ^ Protest marches as the Milan bomb outrage five go free . The Guardian. 1985-08-03.
26. ^ Neo-fascists Cleared of 1973 Bomb Attack for Second Time . ANSA. 2004-12-01.
27. ^ CIA rejects accusation of involvement in bombings in Italy . AFP. 2000-08-04.
28. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Chronology, Secret Warfare: Operation Gladio and NATO’s Stay-Behind Armies, ETH Zurich
29. ^ a b c Strage di Piazza Fontana spunta un agente USA . La Repubblica. 1998-02-11. http://www.repubblica.it/online/fatti/fontana/fontana/fontana.html. Retrieved 2006-02-02. (With original documents, including juridical sentences and the report of the Italian Commission on Terrorism (Italian)
30. ^ Richards, Charles (1990-12-01). Gladio is still opening wounds . The Independent: p. 12. http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/gladio.parliamentary.committee_indep_1dec1990.html. Retrieved 2008-07-30.
31. ^ a b Charles Richards & Simon Jones, Skeletons start emerging from Europe’s closet, The Independent, November 16, 1990, quoted in (Statewatch 1991).
32. ^ Agnew, Paddy. Report of NATO-sponsored secret army shocks Italy, The Irish Times, on November 15, 1990 pg. 8. Quoted by (Statewatch 1991).
33. ^ Willan, Philip. Moro’s ghost haunts political life , The Guardian, May 9, 2003.
34. ^ Vulliamy, Ed. The Guardian, January 16, 1991. Quoted by (Statewatch 1991).
35. ^ Translated from Bologna massacre Association of Victims Italian website Original page (Italian)
36. ^ Ganser, Daniele (2005-04-07). The Secret Side of International Relations: An approach to NATO’s stay-behind armies in Western Europe (PDF). Political Studies Association Annual Conference.
37. ^ Italy probes ‘parallel police’ . BBC News. July 1, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4640247.stm. Retrieved 2008-07-30.
38. ^ Philips, John (2005-07-05). Up to 200 Italian police ‘ran parallel anti-terror force’ . The Independent. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050705/ai_n14681859. Retrieved 2008-07-30.
39. ^ Selvatici, Franca (2005-07-02). Macché Gladio bis, le autorità sapevano Gaetano Saya si difende (in Italian). La Repubblica. http://www.repubblica.it/2005/g/sezioni/cronaca/polipala/nogladio/nogladio.html. (Google translation available)
40. ^ Ceccarelli, Filippo (2005-07-03). Gladio, P2, falangisti l’Italia che sogna il golpe (in Italian). La Repubblica. http://www.repubblica.it/2005/g/sezioni/cronaca/polipala/sognigolpe/sognigolpe.html.
41. ^ Imarisio, Marco (2005-07-03). Così reclutavano: «Facciamo un’altra Gladio» (in Italian). Corriere della Sera. http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2005/07_Luglio/02/imarisio.shtml.
42. ^ Official site of the Belgian Permanent Committee for the Control of Intelligence Services See history section in the Presentation part.
43. ^ Kwitny, Jonathan (1992-04-06). The C.I.A.’s Secret Armies in Europe . The Nation: pp. 446-447. http://www.thenation.com/archive/detail/9203303730. Quoted in Ganser’s Terrorism in Western Europe .
44. ^ Cogan, Charles (2007). ‘Stay-Behind’ in France: Much ado about nothing? . Journal of Strategic Studies 30 (6): 937–954. doi:10.1080/01402390701676493.
45. ^ Daeninckx, Didier. Du Temple Solaire au réseau Gladio, en passant par Politica Hermetica…, February 27, 2002.
46. ^ a b Colby, William. A Scandinavian Spy, Chapter 3. (Former CIA director ‘s memoirs.)
47. ^ a b Lee, Christopher. CIA Ties With Ex-Nazis Shown, Washington Post, June 7, 2006.
48. ^ Alleged Secret Organization . The Times. 1952-10-09.
49. ^ a b ‘Partisans’ in Germany . The Times. 1952-10-11.
50. ^ a b c d e Norton-Taylor, Richard and David Gow. Secret Italian Unit, The Guardian, November 17, 1990
51. ^ Ban In Hesse On Youth Union . The Times. 1953-01-10.
52. ^ Further Ban On Union Of German Youth . The Times. 1953-01-15.
53. ^ Police say suspect committed suicide . United Press International. 1981-11-01.
54. ^ a b c Why Israel’s capture of Eichmann caused panic at the CIA, The Guardian, June 8, 2006
55. ^ Opening of CIA Records under Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, May 8, 2002 NARA communique (English)
56. ^ Peter Murtagh, The Rape of Greece. The King, the Colonels, and the Resistance (London, Simon & Schuster, 1994), p.29, quoted by Daniele Ganser (2005), p.213
57. ^ Ganser (2005), pp.213-214 (his quote)
58. ^ Philip Agee and Louis Wolf, Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe (Secaucus: Lyle Stuart Inc., 1978), p.154 (quoted by Daniele Ganser (2005) p.216
59. ^ a b c d Richard Norton-Taylor, The Gladio File: did fear of communism throw West into the arms of terrorists? , in The Guardian, December 5, 1990
60. ^ NATO’s secret network ‘also operated in France’ , The Guardian, November 14, 1990, pg.6
61. ^ a b c Misinformation about Gladio/Stay Behind Networks Resurfaces . United States Department of State. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-127177.html.
62. ^ ‘MIVD verzwijgt wapenvondst in onderwereld’ . Nu.nl. 2007-09-09. http://www.nu.nl/news/1228111/13/%27MIVD_verzwijgt_wapenvondst_in_onderwereld%27.html. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
63. ^ GLADIO IN NEDERLAND . http://reporter.kro.nl/uitzendingen/2007/0909_gladio_in_nederland/intro.aspx. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
64. ^ Olav Riste (1999). The Norwegian Intelligence Service: 1945-1970. Routledge. ISBN 0714649007.
65. ^ Secret Anti-Communist Network Exposed in Norway in 1978 . Associated Press. 1990-11-14.
66. ^ (Ganser 2005, p. 119) Quotes Joao Paulo Guerra, Gladio actuou em Portugal , in O Jornal, 16 November 1990 and Stuart Christie, Stefano delle Chiaie, London, 1984, p.30.
67. ^ Turkone, Mumtaz’er (2008-07-05). Only a coup prevented? . Today’s Zaman. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=146630. Retrieved 2008-11-15. It was known that Turkey also had a similar organization but it was only the Turkish counter-guerilla group that rode out this purging process intact.
68. ^ Kilic, Ecevit (2008-04-28). I.talyan Gladiosu’nu çözen savc?: En etkili Gladio sizde (in Turkish). Sabah. http://arsiv.sabah.com.tr/2008/04/28/haber,B9DE249697B646F0939528BF8FA2BE4C.html. Retrieved 2008-11-15. Türkiye’nin ise ‘Özel Harp Dairesi’, halk aras?ndaki ad?yla ‘kontrgerilla.’ Yap?n?n iki unsuru vard?; askeri görevliler ve siviller. Sivillerden olus,an yap?n?n ad? ise ‘Ergenekon’. 1990’l? y?llar?n bas,?nda bat? ülkeleri, Gladio’nun faaliyetlerine son verdi. Sorumlular? yarg?land?. Türkiye hariç.
69. ^ Gölbas,? cephanesi I.talyan savc?y? hakl? ç?kard? (in Turkish). Zaman. 2009-01-09. http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=801635. Retrieved 2009-01-09.
70. ^ Üstel, Aziz (2008-07-14). Savc?, Ergenekon’u Kenan Evren’e sormal? as?l (in Turkish). Star Gazete. http://www.stargazete.com/gazete/yazar/savci-ergenekon-u-kenan-evren-e-sormali-asil-113287.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-21. Türkiye’deki gizli ordunun ad? kontr gerillad?r.
71. ^ David Lampe, The Last Ditch: Britain’s Resistance Plans against the Nazis Cassell 1968 ISBN 0304925195
72. ^ Dan van der Vat. Obituary: General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, Guardian. 15 March 2006
73. ^ Gerardo Serravalle, Gladio (Rome: Edizione Associate, ISBN 88-267-0145-8, 1991), p.78-79 (Italian)
74. ^ Belgian Parliamentary Commission of Enquiry into Gladio, quoted by Daniele Ganser (2005)
75. ^ a b Norton-Taylor, Richard. UK trained secret Swiss force in The Guardian, September 20, 1991, pg.7.
76. ^ Crimes of Montejurra (Good Google translation)
77. ^ Un informe oficial italiano implica en el crimen de Atocha al ‘ultra’ Cicuttini, relacionado con Gladio, El País, December 2, 1990 (Spanish)
78. ^ Suárez afirma que en su etapa de presidente nunca se habló de la red Gladio, El País, November 18, 1990 (Spanish)
79. ^ Calvo Sotelo asegura que España no fue informada, cuando entró en la OTAN, de la existencia de Gladio, El País, November 21, 1990 (Spanish)
80. ^ Italia vetó la entrada de España en Gladio, según un ex jefe del espionaje italiano, El País, November 17, 1990 (Spanish)
81. ^ Serra ordena indagar sobre la red Gladio en España, El País, November 16, 1990 (Spanish)
82. ^ La ‘red Gladio’ continúa operando, según el ex agente Alberto Volo, El País, August 19, 1991 (Spanish)
83. ^ El secretario de la OTAN elude precisar si España tuvo relación con la red Gladio, El País, November 24, 1990 (Spanish)
84. ^ Indicios de que la red Gladio utilizó una vieja estación de la NASA en Gran Canaria, El País, November 26, 1990 (Spanish)
85. ^ La red secreta de la OTAN operaba en España, según un ex agente belga, El País, November 14, 1990
86. ^ a b The Dark Side of the West, Conference Nato Secret Armies and P26, ETH Zurich, 2005. Published 10 February 2005. Retrieved February 7, 2007.
87. ^ Ganser, Daniele. The British Secret Service in Neutral Switzerland: An Unfinished Debate on NATO’s Cold War Stay-behind Armies , published by the Intelligence and National Security review, vol.20, nE4, December 2005, pp.553-580 ISSN 0268–4527 print 1743–9019 online.
88. ^ Major Hans von Dach, 1958. Der totale Widerstand…; Total Resistance reed. Paladin Press, 1992 ISBN 978-0873640213.
89. ^ Schwarzer Schatten (in German). Der Spiegel 50: 194b-200a. 1990-12-10. http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument/dokument.html?id=13502168&top=SPIEGEL. Retrieved 2008-10-28. [verification needed]
90. ^ p.14 quote from Libération concerning OST, Gladio and Jacques Foccart, on Survie NGO web site: La justice française n’a fait que combattre la pertinence des parties civiles au lieu de les soutenir dans la recherche de la vérité
91. ^ The Renewed Order of the Solar Temple (ORT — Ordre Rénové du Temple ) is listed as a cult composed of 50 to 500 French members by the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission of investigation of Cults activities (See here [1] for original report).
92. ^ Les familles des victimes veulent rouvrir l’instruction, Reuters, 2004-03-22 (French)
93. ^ Refus de rouvrir l’enquête, colère des familles , Reuters, 2004-03-25 (French)
94. ^ Declaration to the media of Alain Vuarnet, family of the OTS victims
95. ^ Pat Frank. An Affair of State. J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1949
Bibliography
* Statewatch (January 1991), Operation Gladio, http://www.thejohnfleming.com/gladio.html, retrieved 2008-07-30
* Secret Warfare : Operation Gladio and NATO’s Stay-Behind Armies. Edited by Daniele Ganser and Christian Nuenlist. 29 Nov 2004. Parallel History Project, ETH Zürich
* Ganser, Daniele (2005), NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe, Frank Cass Publishers, ISBN 0-7146-8500-3 (resume)
* Daniele Ganser, Les Armées Secrètes de l’OTAN, Gladio et Terrorisme en Europe de l’Ouest, ISBN 978-2-917112-00-7 éditions Demi-Lune, 2007. Same book as above, in French. (a quick resume in French)
* William Colby (former CIA director), Honorable Men (1978) extract
* David Hoffman, The Oklahoma City bombing and the Politics of Terror , 1998 (chapter 14 online on strategy of tension
* Giovanni Fasanella and Claudio Sestieri with Giovanni Pellegrino, Segreto di Stato. La verità da Gladio al caso Moro , Einaudi, 2000 (see civic website of Bologna) (Italian)
* Jan Willems, Gladio, 1991, EPO-Dossier, Bruxelles (ISBN 2-87262-051-6). (French)
* Jens Mecklenburg, Gladio. Die geheime terrororganisation der Nato, 1997, Elefanten Press Verlag GmbH, Berlin (ISBN 3-88520-612-9). (German)
* Leo A. Müller, Gladio. Das Erbe des kalten Krieges, 1991, RoRoRo-Taschenbuch Aktuell no 12993 (ISBN 3499 129930). (German)
* Jean-François Brozzu-Gentile, L’Affaire Gladio. Les réseaux secrets américains au cœur du terrorisme en Europe, 1994, Albin Michel, Paris (ISBN 2-226-06919-4). (French)
* Anna Laura Braghetti, Paola Tavella, Le Prisonnier. 55 jours avec Aldo Moro, 1999 (translated from Italian: Il Prigioniero), Éditions Denoël, Paris (ISBN 2207248887) (Italian)/(French)
* Regine Igel, Andreotti. Politik zwischen Geheimdienst und Mafia, 1997, Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung GmbH, Munich (ISBN 3776619511). (German)
* Arthur E. Rowse, Gladio: The Secret U.S. War to Subvert Italian Democracy in Covert Action #49, Summer of 1994.]
* Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), Staying Behind: NATO’s Terror Network in Fighting Talk #11, May 1995.
* François Vitrani, L’Italie, un Etat de ‘souveraineté limitée’ ? , in Le Monde diplomatique, December 1990. (French)
* Patrick Boucheron, L’affaire Sofri : un procès en sorcellerie? , in L’Histoire magazine, nE217 (January 1998) Concerning Carlo Ginzburg’s book The judge and the historian about Adriano Sofri (French)
* Les procès Andreotti en Italie ( The Andreotti trials in Italy ) by Philippe Foro, published by University of Toulouse II, Groupe de recherche sur l’histoire immédiate (Study group on immediate history). (French)
* Angelo Paratico Gli assassini del karma Robin editore, Roma, 2003.
Films
* Michele Placido, Romanzo Criminale (2005, concerning the strategy of tension and the Banda della Magliana)
* Renzo Martinelli, Five Moons Plaza at the Internet Movie Database (Piazza delle cinque lune) (2003)
* Allan Francovich, Gladio (1992), (aired on the BBC) – Watch Online
* Conspirator: The Story of Licio Gelli at the Internet Movie Database (2009)
v • d • e
Cold War
Participants NATO A Non-Aligned Movement A SEATO A Warsaw Pact
1940s
Yalta Conference A Operation Unthinkable A Potsdam Conference A Gouzenko Affair A Iran crisis of 1946 A Greek Civil War A Restatement of Policy on Germany A First Indochina War A Truman Doctrine A Marshall Plan A Czechoslovak coup d’état of 1948 A Tito–Stalin split A Berlin Blockade A Western betrayal A Iron Curtain A Eastern Bloc A Chinese Civil War (Second round)
1950s
Korean War A 1953 Iranian coup d’état A Uprising of 1953 in East Germany A 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état A Partition of Vietnam A First Taiwan Strait Crisis A Geneva Summit (1955) A Poznan’ 1956 protests A Hungarian Revolution of 1956 A Suez Crisis A Sputnik crisis A Second Taiwan Strait Crisis A Cuban Revolution A Kitchen Debate A Asian-African Conference A Bricker Amendment A McCarthyism A Operation Gladio A Hallstein Doctrine
1960s
Congo Crisis A Sino-Soviet split A 1960 U-2 incident A Bay of Pigs Invasion A Cuban Missile Crisis A Berlin Wall A Vietnam War A 1964 Brazilian coup d’état A U.S. invasion of the Dominican Republic A South African Border War A Transition to the New Order A Domino theory A ASEAN Declaration A Laotian Civil War A Greek military junta of 1967–1974 A Cultural Revolution A 1962 Sino-Indian War A Prague Spring A Goulash Communism A Sino-Soviet border conflict
1970s
Détente A Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty A Black September in Jordan A Cambodian Civil War A Ping Pong Diplomacy A Four Power Agreement on Berlin A 1972 Nixon visit to China A 1973 Chilean coup d’état A Yom Kippur War A Strategic Arms Limitation Talks A Angolan Civil War A Mozambican Civil War A Ogaden War A Cambodian-Vietnamese War A Sino-Vietnamese War A Iranian Revolution A Operation Condor A Bangladesh Liberation War A Korean Air Lines Flight 902
1980s
Soviet war in Afghanistan A Olympic boycotts A History of Solidarity A Contras A Central American Crisis A RYAN A Korean Air Lines Flight 007 A Able Archer 83 A Strategic Defense Initiative A Invasion of Grenada A Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 A Invasion of Panama A Fall of the Berlin Wall A Revolutions of 1989 A Glasnost A Perestroika
1990s
Breakup of Yugoslavia A Dissolution of the USSR A Dissolution of Czechoslovakia
See also
Soviet and Russian espionage in U.S. A Soviet Union–United States relations A NATO-Russia relations
Organizations
ASEAN A Central Intelligence Agency A Comecon A European Community A KGB A Stasi
Races
Arms race A Nuclear arms race A Space Race
Ideologies
Capitalism A Liberal democracy A Communism A Stalinism A Trotskyism A Maoism
Propaganda
Pravda A Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty A Red Scare A Voice of America A Voice of Russia
Foreign policy
Truman Doctrine A Marshall Plan A Containment A Eisenhower Doctrine A Domino theory A Kennedy Doctrine A Peaceful coexistence A Ostpolitik A Johnson Doctrine A Brezhnev Doctrine A Nixon Doctrine A Ulbricht Doctrine A Carter Doctrine A Reagan Doctrine A Rollback
Timeline of events A Portal A Category
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
Categories: Anti-communism | Central Intelligence Agency operations | Contemporary British history | Contemporary French history | Contemporary Italian history | History of modern Greece | History of Turkey | Operation Gladio | Military scandals | Military operations involving NATO | Stay-behind organizations | Warfare by type | Cold War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
Stay-behind.png
Emblem of NATO’s stay-behind paramilitary organizations.
300px-FM_31-15_figure_3.png
The command structure of stay-behind forces, as suggested in Field Manual 31-15: Operations Against Irregular Forces.
521px-FM_31-15_figure_3.png
Description FM 31-15 figure 3.png
English: U.S. Army Field Manual 31-15: Operations Against Irregular Forces Figure 3: Possible relationships in a cold war situation.
Date
May 1951(1951-05)
Source
Author
Headquarters, Department of the Army
Permission
Approved for public release. Distribution unlimited.
***
[Excerpt from Operation Gladio entry above – ]
In 1990, Colonel Herbert Alboth, a former commander of the Swiss secret stay-behind army P26 declared in a confidential letter to the Defence Department that he was willing to reveal the whole truth . He was later found in his house, stabbed with his own military bayonet. The detailed parliamentary report on the Swiss secret army was presented to the public on November 17, 1990.[28] According to The Guardian, P26 was backed by P27, a private foreign intelligence agency funded partly by the government, and by a special unit of Swiss army intelligence which had built up files on nearly 8,000 suspect persons including leftists , bill stickers , Jehovah’s witnesses , people with abnormal tendencies and anti-nuclear demonstrators. On November 14, the Swiss government hurriedly dissolved P26 — the head of which, it emerged, had been paid £100,000 a year. [59]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
***
Superfund Cleanup Sites –
US Environmental Protection Agency logo
1.
Where should we search?
* All EPA
* This Area
* Advanced Search
2.
What are you looking for?
* Learn the Issues
* Science & Technology
* Laws & Regulations
* About EPA
Contact Us
Region 2
Serving New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and Seven Tribal Nations.
* You are here: EPA Home
* Region 2
* Cleanup
* Site Lists
* New York Sites
New York Sites
Click on the headings to view sites by Name, County, City or Cleanup Type.
Site Name County City Cleanup Type
914th Airlift Wing – AFRC Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Action Anodizing Plating And Polishing Corp. Suffolk County Nassau/Suffolk Co. line NPL
Akzo Nobel Polymer Chemicals LLC Niagara County Burt RCRA
Alcoa Incorporated St. Lawrence County Massena RCRA
Aluminum Company Of America St. Lawrence County Grasse River NPL
American Thermostat Company Greene County South Cairo NPL
American Candle Company Ulster County Saugerties RCRA
Amphenol Aerospace Delaware County Sidney RCRA
Anchor Chemicals Nassau County Hicksville NPL
Applied Environmental Services Nassau County Glenwood Landing NPL
Arch Chemicals Incorporated Monroe County Rochester RCRA
Arkema, Inc. Livingston County Piffard RCRA
Batavia Landfill Genesee County Batavia NPL
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated Monroe County Rochester RCRA
Bec Trucking Broome County Vestal NPL
Bioclinical Laboratories Inc. Suffolk County Hamlet of Bohemia NPL
Black & Decker US Incorporated Monroe County Brockport RCRA
Brewster Well Field Putnam County Brewster NPL
Brookhaven National Laboratory usdoe Suffolk County Upton NPL
Buffalo Color Erie County Buffalo RCRA
Byron Barrel And Drum New York Genesee County Batavia NPL
C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump Madison County Eaton NPL
C W M Chemical Services Llc Niagara County Model City RCRA
Carroll And Dubies Sewage Disposal Orange County Port Jervis NPL
Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County Union Springs NPL
Cecos International Incorporated Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Cherokee Columbus Real Estate LLC Chenango County Bainbridge RCRA
Chevron Incorporated Dutchess County Glenham RCRA
Ciba Corporation Secure Landfill Warren County Queensbury RCRA
Ciba Geigy – Hercules Plant Site Warren County Queensbury RCRA
Circuitron Corporation Suffolk County Farmingdale NPL
Claremont Polychemical Nassau County Old Bethpage NPL
Clothier Disposal Oswego County Granby NPL
Colesville Municipal Landfill Broome County Colesville NPL
Computer Circuits Suffolk County Hauppauge NPL
Conklin Dumps Broome County Conklin NPL
Consolidated Iron And Metal Orange County Newburgh NPL
Cortese Landfill Sullivan County Tusten NPL
Crown Cleaners Of Watertown, Inc Jefferson County Village of Herrings NPL
Crumb Trailer Park Herkimer County West Winfield Removal
Diaz Chemical Corporation Orleans County Holley NPL
Dunkirk Acquisition Corporation Chautauqua County Dunkirk RCRA
Dupont Necco Park Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Durez Corporation Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Dyno Nobel Incorporated Ulster County Ulster Park RCRA
Eastman Kodak Company – Kodak Park Monroe County Rochester RCRA
Edmos Corporation Nassau County Glen Cove RCRA
Ellenville Scrap Iron And Metal Ulster County Ellenville NPL
Endicott Village Well Field Broome County Endicott NPL
Facet Enterprises Inc. Chemung County Elmira Heights NPL
Fairchild Republic Company Nassau County Farmingdale RCRA
FMC Corp. Dublin Rd. Landfill Orleans County Ridgeway and Shelby NPL
FMC Corp. Middleport Niagara County Middleport RCRA
Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Frontier Chemical Waste Process, Inc. – Pendleton Site Niagra County Pendelton RCRA
Frontier Chemical Waste Process, Inc. – Royal Avenue Facility
Nigara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Fulton Terminals Oswego County Fulton NPL
Fulton Ave. Nassau County Hempstead NPL
G.E.C. Alstrom Transportation Incorporated Steuben County Edison Drive Hornell RCRA
GCL Tie & Treating Inc. Delaware County Sidney NPL
GE Moreau Saratoga County South Glens Falls NPL
General Electric Company – CPP Fort Edward Washington County Fort Edward RCRA
General Electric Company – Hudson Falls Washington County Hudson Falls RCRA
General Electric – Auburn Plant Cayuga County Auburn NY RCRA
General Electric – River Road Schenectady County Schenectady RCRA
General Motors central Foundry Division St. Lawrence County Massena NPL
Genzale Plating Co. Nassau County Old Bethpage NPL
Goldisc Recordings Inc. Suffolk County Holbrook NPL
Gowanus Canal Kings County Brooklyn NPL
Griffiss Air Force Base Oneida County Rome NPL
Haviland Complex Dutchess County Town of Hyde Park NPL
Hertel Landfill Ulster County Plattekill NPL
Hiteman Leather Herkimer County West Winfield NPL
Hooker Chemical/ Ruco Polymer Corp. Nassau County Hicksville NPL
Hooker Chemical/ S-area Niagara County Niagara River NPL
Hooker – Hyde Park Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Hooker 102nd Street Niagara County East of Griffin Park in Niagara Falls NPL
Hopewell Precision Dutchess East Fishkill NPL
HQ 10th Mtn Division & Fort Drum Jefferson County Jones Street T4819 & Off North Memorial Drive P11 NY RCRA
Hudson Technologies Inc. Rockland County Hillburn NPL
Hudson River PCBs Washington County Hudson River New York from Hudson Falls to the Battery in New York City including Rensselaer Washington and Saratoga Counties. NPL
IBM Corporation – East Fishkill Dutches County Hopewell Junction RCRA
IBM Corporation – Endicott Broome County Endicott RCRA
IBM Corporation – Former Tioga County Owego RCRA
IBM Corporation – Kingston Ulster County Kingston RCRA
IBM Corporation – Poughkeepsie Dutches County Poughkeepsie RCRA
IBM Corporation – TJ Watson Research Center Yorktown Westchecter County Yorktown RCRA
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill Suffolk County Long Island NPL
Jackson Steel Nassau County Mineola/North Hempstead NPL
Jewett White Lead Company Richmond County Richmond Terrace Removal
Johnstown City Landfill Fulton County Johnstown City NPL
Jones Sanitation Dutchess County Hyde Park NPL
Jones Chemicals Inc. Livingston County Caledonia NPL
Katonah Municipal Well Westchester County Village of Katonah in the Town of Bedford NPL
Kenmark Textile Corp. Suffolk County Farmingdale NPL
Kentucky Avenue Well Field Chemung County Near Horseheads NPL
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC Richmond County Staten Island RCRA
Lawrence Aviation Industries Inc. Suffolk County Port Jefferson Station NPL
Lehigh Valley Railroad Derailment Site Genesee County Leroy NPL
Li Tungsten Corporation Nassau County Glen Cove NPL
Liberty Industrial Finishing Nassau County Farmingdale NPL
Little Valley Cattaraugus County Little Valley NPL
Lockheed Martin Corporation – Ocean Radar and Sensor Systems Onondaga County Liverpool RCRA
Love Canal Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Ludlow Sand & Gravel County Paris Oneida NPL
Mackenzie Chemical Works Suffolk County Central Islip NPL
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Saratoga County Malta and Stillwater NPL
Marathon Battery Corp. Putnam County Cold Spring NPL
Mattiace Petrochemical Co. Inc. Nassau County Glen Cove NPL
McKesson Envirosystems Onondaga County Syracuse RCRA
Mercury Refining Inc. Albany County Colonie NPL
Mercury Refining Company Inc. MERECOsa Albany County Albany RCRA
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Ulster County Marbletown NPL
Momentive Performance Materials Silicones, LLC Saratoga County Waterford RCRA
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Suffolk County Calverton RCRA
Nepera Chemical Plant Orange County Hamptonburgh NPL
Newtown Creek Kings County Brooklyn Study
Niagara County Refuse Niagara County Wheatfield NPL
Niagara Mohawk Power Co. saratoga Springs Saratoga County Saratoga Springs NPL
Niagara Mohawk Seventh North Onondaga County Syracuse RCRA
North Sea Municipal Landfill Suffolk County Southampton NPL
Northeast Environmental Services Madison County Lenox RCRA
Northrop Grumman Corporation – Bathpage Nassau County Bethpage RCRA
Occidental Chemical Corporation – Buffalo Avenue Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Old Bethpage Landfill Nassau County Oyster Bay NPL
Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated Groundwater Area Nassau County Garden City NPL
Olean Well Field Cattaraugus County Olean NPL
Olin Corporation Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Onondaga Lake Onondaga County City of Syracuse and Towns of Salina Geddes and Camilus NPL
Pasley Solvents & Chemicals Inc. Nassau County Hempstead NPL
Peter Cooper Cattaraugus County Gowanda NPL
Peter Cooper Markhams Cattaraugus County Dayton NPL
Pfohl Brothers Landfill Erie County Cheektowaga NPL
Philips Display Components Seneca County Seneca Falls RCRA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base Clinton County Plattsburgh NPL
Pollution Abatement Services Oswego County Granby NPL
Port Washington Landfill Nassau County North Hempstead NPL
Preferred Plating Corp. Suffolk County Babylon NPL
Pride Solvents & Chemical Company Incorporated Suffolk County West Babylon RCRA
Radium Chemical Company Inc. Queens County Woodside/Queen NPL
Ramapo Landfill Rockland County Hillburn NPL
Realco Incorporated Albany County Watervliet RCRA
Revere Smelting & Refining Corporation Of NJ Orange County Middletown RCRA
Reynolds Metals Company St. Lawrence County Massena NPL
Reynolds Metals Company St. Lawrence County Massena RCRA
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/pond Delaware County Richardson NPL
Robintech Inc./ National Pipe Co. Broome County Vestal NPL
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/dump Cortland County Cortland NPL
Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination Suffolk County Village of Sag Harbor NPL
Rutherford Acquisition Corporation Orange County Harriman RCRA
Sabic Innovative Plastics US LLC Albany County Selkirk RCRA
Safety-Kleen Corporation – Congers 2-118-01 Rockland County Congers RCRA
Sarney Farm Dutchess County Amenia NPL
Schenectady International Incorporated – Congress Street Schenectady County Schenectady RCRA
Schenectady International Incorporated – Rotterdam Junction Schenectady County Rotterdam Junction RCRA
Sealand Restoration Inc. St. Lawrence County Lisbon NPL
Seneca Army Depot Seneca County Romulus NPL
Shenandoah Road Ground Water Contamination Site Dutchess County East FishKill NPL
Sidney Landfill Delaware County Sidney NPL
Sinclair Refinery Allegany County Wellville NPL
Smithtown Ground Water Contamination Suffolk County Smithtown NPL
SMS Instruments Inc. Suffolk County Deer Park NPL
Solvent Savers Chenango County Lincklaen NPL
Solvents & Petroleum Service Incorporated Onondaga County Syracuse RCRA
Stanton Cleaners Area Ground Water Cont. Nassau County Town of Great Neck NPL
Star Anchors & Fasteners Orange County Mountainville RCRA
Stauffer Management Company Onondaga County Skaneateles Falls RCRA
Suffern Village Well Field Rockland County Suffern NPL
Syosset Landfill Nassau County Oyster Bay NPL
Tecumseh Redevelopment, Inc. Erie County Lackawanna RCRA
Textron Realty Operations Incorporated Niagara County Wheatfield RCRA
Tri-cities Barrel Broome County Adjacent to Old Route 7 in Fenton NPL
Triumvirate Environmental Incorporated. Queens County Astoria RCRA
Tronic Plating Co. Inc. Suffolk County Farmingdale NPL
USDOE Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Schenectady County Niskayuna RCRA
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 Broome County Vestal NPL
Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2 Broome County Vestal NPL
Volney Municipal Landfill Oswego County Volney NPL
Von Roll Isola USA Incorporated – Riverview Schenectady County Schenectady RCRA
Warwick Landfill Orange County Warwick NPL
Watervliet Arsenal Albany County Watrevliet RCRA
West Valley Demonstration Project USDOE Cattaraugus County West Valley RCRA
Western NY Nuclear Service Center Cattaraugus County Ashford RCRA
White Mop Wringer Montgomery County Fultonville RCRA
Wide Beach Development Erie County Brant NPL
Wyeth – Ayerst Laboratories Rockland County Pearl River RCRA
Xerox Corporation Monroe County Webster RCRA
York Oil Company Franklin County Next to the Town Hall and the Moira Town Highway Garage NPL
Back To Sites List
Last updated on Thursday, October 1st, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/region02/cleanup/sites/nytoc_sitename.htm
Jump to main content.
http://www.epa.gov/region02/cleanup/sites/nytoc_sitename.htm
***
fsusdoe.htm
USDOE – Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
EPA Identification Number: NY6890008992
Facility Location: 2401 River Road, Niskayuna, New York
Site Map
Facility Contact Name: J.H. Robillard, (518) 395-6366
EPA Contact Name: Michael Infurna, (212) 637-4177, infurna.michael@epa.gov
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Case Manager: Margaret Rogers, (518) 357-2353, morogers@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Last Updated: September 2005
Environmental Indicator Status:
Human Exposures Under Control [PDF 415.68 KB, 26 pp] has been verified.
Groundwater Contamination Under Control [PDF 814.28 KB, 20 pp] has been verified.
Site Description
The Knolls site is located at 2401 River Road in the Town of Niskayuna, Schenectady County, New York, on the south bank of the Mohawk River. Construction of the site began in 1948 and laboratory operations began in 1949. The site consists of 170 acres of land, extending 4,200 feet along the river. Most of the property is located on a bluff about 100 feet high with a steep slope dropping off to a low bench about 15 to 20 feet above the river.
The principal function of the site is research and development in the design and operation of naval nuclear propulsion engines. As a result of these activities, various types of hazardous and mixed wastes are generated. Mixed waste contains both hazardous waste and radioactive material. The majority of hazardous and mixed wastes are generated from laboratory operations and facility renovation activities.
Container storage areas are used for hazardous and mixed waste prior to shipment off-site to licensed/permitted treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The Knolls site may also accept mixed waste to consolidate wastes for shipment to out-of-state treatment facilities. There is no disposal of hazardous waste or mixed waste at the facility.
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation completed a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment preliminary review and a visual site inspection of this facility, and determined that investigations will be required at 31 of the identified solid waste management units (SWMUs) and four areas of concern (AOCs). Conditions have been included in the NYS hazardous waste permit to require Knolls to submit investigation work plans for all SWMUs and AOCs that require further corrective action activities.
Site Responsibility and Legal Instrument
The State is responsible for corrective action through issuance of a NYS Part 373 operating permit for storage of hazardous and mixed waste.
Permit Status
The NYS Part 373 operating permit, issued July 20, 1998, allows for hazardous and mixed waste storage in four areas. These areas are:
* The Building Q1 complex with an authorized capacity of 6,600 gallons;
* Two prefabricated modular additions located in the Building E11 truck bay with an authorized capacity of 1,320 gallons;
* Four floor vaults (numbered 2, 3, 5 & 6) with an authorized capacity of 3,520 gallons each; and
* Building M10 with an authorized capacity of 36,800 gallons.
The types of containers used for storage of hazardous waste include bottles, cans, jugs, drums and large volume boxes.
Potential Threats and Contaminants
The four potential exposure pathways for this site are surface water, groundwater, sediment and soil. Some potential receptors in the area are:
* Mohawk River users (via recreation and drinking water),
* Terrestrial and aquatic biota, and
* On and off-site employees and residents in the area.
Current effluent discharges to the Mohawk River are regulated under a permit issued by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation.
Knolls is also monitoring on-site stream and Mohawk River water quality. This surface water monitoring shows that there have been only occasional water quality exceedences for two non-hazardous compounds, both of which are attributable to natural conditions. Knoll’s groundwater monitoring network consists of 56 wells, of which 33 are currently monitored for chemical constituents.
Within the monitoring well system there have been elevated levels of phenols, in an isolated area, and volatile organic compounds in three areas of the site. Sediment sampling has been done in the on-site streams, which flow toward the Mohawk River. Detectable concentrations of contaminants were found in all sediments, but no appreciable difference between upstream and downstream concentrations are clear, with one exception (manganese, a non-hazardous metal) at Mid-line Stream.
Localized soil contamination, which can be traced to specific sources, has been discovered. Soil contamination includes polychlorinated biphenyls in two areas (one area of which has been remediated), heavy metals in two areas (one area of which has been remediated), and volatile organic compounds in a fifth area.
Cleanup Approach and Progress
Based upon available data, no imminent danger to human health or the environment has been identified. However, implementation of corrective action programs is required to control certain potential risks. The goal of these programs is to seek complete characterizations of, and final solutions for, environmental contamination that has been, or may yet be, identified. The on-going routine monitoring programs undertaken by Knolls, in addition to the corrective action programs, are designed to alert Knolls and the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation of any health or environmental risks.
Knolls has been required by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to supplement previously conducted geophysical/soil gas surveys to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of suspected waste deposition in certain areas of the site, as well as supplementing existing groundwater monitoring data. These surveys will be used as a basis for site visits to determine whether contaminant releases to the soils within the boundaries of the suspected waste deposition areas have occurred.
In other areas, site visits have been or will be used to either discover whether contaminant releases have occurred, or to confirm the removal of contaminated materials from soils. In the remaining areas, Knolls will be required to conduct a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation to determine the extent and concentration of already confirmed contamination, or to perform phased evaluations of in-ground portions (industrial sewers) of systems as part of a required work plan.
Site Repository
Copies of supporting technical documents and correspondence cited in this site fact sheet are available for public review at:
NYSDEC Region 4
1150 North Westcott Road
Schenectady, New York 12306-2014
Telephone (518) 357-2353 B Margaret Rogers
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) makes its public records available for a review under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
The Town of Niskayuna Public Library
2400 Nott Street East
Niskayuna, New York 12309
Telephone (518) 386-2249
http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/fsusdoe.htm
***
http://www.epa.gov/region02/cleanup/sites/
MVC-006F.JPG
Related Information
NPL Information
* All New Proposed NPL Sites
* NPL Site Status Information
* Locate NPL Sites in the United States
* NPL Site Listing Process
* NPL Headquarters
Brownfields Information
* Brownfields Basics
* Funding Information
* Project Fact Sheets
* Resource Directory [33pp, 1.65M]
RCRA Information
* RCRA Basics
* Regulations and Policy
* RCRA Hazardous Waste
***
New Jersey Sites
Click on the headings to view sites by Name, County, City or Cleanup Type.
Site Name County City Cleanup Type
A.O. Polymer Sussex County Sparta NPL
Abrachem Chemical Passaic County Clifton Removal
AGC Chemicals Americas Inc. Hudson County Bayonne RCRA
American Cyanamid Company Somerset County Bound Brook NPL
American Home Products Corporation Somerset County Bridgewater RCRA
American Standard Incorporated Mercer County Trenton RCRA
Aristech Chemical Corporation Union County Linden RCRA
Arsynco Incorporated Bergen County Carlstadt RCRA
Asbestos Dump Morris County Millington NPL
Atlantic Resources Middlesex County Edison Township Sayreville NPL
ATOFINA Chemicals Livingston Holmdel Township RCRA
Beachwood/ Berkeley Wells Ocean County Between the Garden State Parkway and Route 9 NPL
Beazer East Incorporated Essex County Port Newark RCRA
Berry’s Creek Bergen County Wood-Ridge Study
Bog Creek Farm Monmouth County Howell Township NPL
Brick Township Landfill Ocean County Brick Township NPL
Bridgeport Disposal LLC Gloucester County Bridgeport RCRA
Bridgeport Rental& Oil Services Gloucester County Logan Township NPL
Brook Industrial Park Somerset County Bound Brook NPL
Burnt Fly Bog Middlesex County Marlboro Township Monmouth County and NPL
Caldwell Trucking Co. Essex County Fairfield Township NPL
Chemical Control Union County Elizabeth NPL
Chemical Insecticide Corporation Middlesex County Edison Township NPL
Chemical Leaman Tank Lines Inc. Gloucester County Logan Township NPL
Chemsol Inc. Middlesex County Piscataway NPL
Chevron Chemical Company Middlesex County South Plainfield RCRA
Chevron Products Company – Division of Chevron USA Inc. Middlesex County Perth Ambay RCRA
Ciba-Geigy Corp. Ocean County Route 37 in Dover Township NPL
Cinnaminson Ground Water Contamination Burlington County Cinnaminson Township NPL
Clariant Corporation Bergen County Fair Lawn RCRA
Combe Fill North Landfill Morris County Mt. Olive Township NPL
Combe Fill South Landfill Morris County Chester and Washington Township NPL
Cooper Road Dump Camden County Voorhees Township NPL
Cornell Dubilier Electronic Inc Middlesex County South Plainfield NPL
Cosden Chemical Coatings Corporation Burlington County Beverly NPL
CP Chemicals Incorporated Middlesex County Sewaren RCRA
Cps/madison Industries Milldlesex County Old Bridge Township NPL
Crompton Corporation Middlesex County Perth Amboy RCRA
Crown Vantage Landfill Hunterdon County Alexandria Township NPL
Curcio Scrap Metal Inc. Bergen County Saddle Brook NPL
Curtis Specialty Papers Hunterdon County Milford and Alexandria Townships NPL
Cycle Chem Incorporated Union County Elizabeth RCRA
Cytec Industries Incorporated – Warners Union County Linden RCRA
D’imperio Property Atlantic County Hamilton Township NPL
Dayco Corp. /L.E.carpenter Co. Morris County Wharton NPL
De Rewal Chemical Company Hunterdon County Kingwood Township NPL
Delilah Road Atlantic County Egg Harbor Township NPL
Denzer & Schafer X-ray Company Ocean County Bayville NPL
Diamond Alkali Co. Essex County Newark NPL
Diamond Head Oil Hudson County Kearny NPL
Dolan Wholers Corporation Morris County Boonton Township RCRA
Dover Municipal Well 4 Morris County Dover NPL
DSM Nutritional Products Incorporated Warren County Belvidere RCRA
DuPont Company Gloucester County Gibbstown RCRA
DuPont Imaging Department Middlesex County Parlin RCRA
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company – Deepwater Salem County Deepwater RCRA
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company – Pompton Lakes Passaic County Pompton Lakes RCRA
El Paso Energy Corporation Hunterdon County Flemington RCRA
Electronic Parts Specialty Company Burlington County Lumberton RCRA
Ellis Property Burlington County Evesham & Medford Townships NPL
Emmell’s Septic Landfill Atlantic County Galloway Township NPL
Ethicon Incorporated Bridgewater Township Somerset County RCRA
Evor Phillips Leasing Milldlesex County Old Bridge Township NPL
Ewan Property Burlington County Wallingford Way Shamong Township NPL
Exxon Bayway Refining Company Union County Linden RCRA
FAA Technical Center Atlantic County Atlantic City NPL
Fair Lawn Well Field Bergen County Fair Lawn NPL
Federal Creosote Somerset County Manville NPL
Federated Metals Corporation Essex County Newark RCRA
Ferro Corporation Gloucester Bridgeport RCRA
Fisher Scientific Somerset County Somerville RCRA
Fisher Scientific Chemical Division Bergen County Fair Lawn RCRA
Florence Land Recontouring Landfill Burlington County Florence Mansfield and Springfield NPL
FMC Corp. Gloucester County Franklin Township RCRA
Fort Dix landfill Site Burlington County Pemberton NPL
Franklin Burn Gloucester County Franklin Township NPL
Friction Division Products Mercer County Lawrencevillle Removal
Fried Industries Middlesex County East Brunswick Township NPL
Friedman Property Monmouth County Upper Freehold Township NPL
Garden State Cleaners Co. Atlantic County Minotola NPL
Garfield Chromium Groundwater Contamination Bergen County Garfield Study
Gems Landfill Camden County Gloucester Township NPL
Glen Ridge Radium Site Essex County Glen Ridge NPL
Global Sanitary Landfill Milldlesex County Old Bridge Township NPL
GM Assembly Division Linden Plant Union County Linden RCRA
Goose Farm Ocean County Plumsted Township NPL
Grand Street Mercury Hudson County Hoboken NPL
Griffin Pipe Products Burlington County Florence RCRA
Helen Kramer Landfill Gloucester County Mantua Township NPL
Hercules Inc. Gibbstown Plant Gloucester County Gibbstown NPL
Hercules Incorporated Burlington County Burlington RCRA
Hercules Incorporated Middlesex County Parlin RCRA
Higgins Disposal Somerset County Kingston NPL
Higgins Farm Somerset County Franklin Township NPL
Honeywell International Incorporated Morris County Morristown RCRA
Hopkins Farm Ocean County Plumsted Township NPL
Horseshoe Road Middlesex County Sayreville NPL
Huntsman Corporation Gloucester County West Deptford Township RCRA
Hyatt – Clark Industries – Former Union County Clark RCRA
IBM Corporation – Dayton Facility Middlesex County Dayton RCRA
Iceland Coin Laundry Area Cumberland County Vineland NPL
Imperial Oil Company Inc./ Champion Chemicals Monmouth County Morganville NPL
Industrial Latex Corp. Bergen County Wallington NPL
Inmont Corporation – Hawthorne Plant Passaic County Hawthorne RCRA
International Flavors & Fragrances – Union Beach Monmouth County Union Beach RCRA
Jackson Township Landfill Ocean County Jackson Township NPL
Jersey Plating Company Morris County Boonton RCRA
JIS Landfill Middlesex County South Brunswick NPL
Johnson Matthey Incorporated Camden County Winslow RCRA
Kauffman & Minteer Inc. Burlington County Jobstown NPL
Kearfott Guidance & Navigation Corporation Passaic County Little Falls RCRA
Kin-buc Landfill Middlesex County Edison Township NPL
King Of Prussia Camden County New Jersey Pine Barrens NPL
Krysowaty Farm Somerset County Hillsborough Township NPL
Landfill And Development Company Burlington County Mt. Holly, Eastampton, and Lumberton Townships NPL
Lang Property Burlington County Pemberton Township NPL
LCP Chemicals Inc. Union County Linden NPL
Lenox China Incorporated Pomona New Jersey County RCRA
Lightman Drum Company Camden County Winslow Township NPL
Lipari Landfill Gloucester County Mantua Township NPL
Lodi Municipal Well Bergen County Lodi NPL
Lone Pine Landfill Monmouth County Freehold NPL
M & T Delisa Landfill Monmouth County Asbury Park NPL
Mannheim Avenue Dump Atlantic County Galloway Township NPL
Mannington Mills, Inc. Salem County Salem RCRA
Martin Aaron Inc. Camden County Camden NPL
Matlack Incorporated Gloucester County Swedesboro RCRA
Matteo & Sons, Inc. Gloucester County Thorofare NPL
Maywood Chemical Company Bergen County Maywood Lodi Rochelle Park NPL
Mcguire Air Force Base Burlington County Wrightstown Township NPL
Merck & Company Incorporated Union County Rahway RCRA
Metaltec/ Aerosystems Sussex County Franklin NPL
Methode Electronics, Inc. Burlington County Willingboro Township RCRA
Middlesex Sampling Plant Middlesex County Middlesex NPL
Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne Hudson County Bayonne RCRA
Monitor Devices/intercircuits Inc. Monmouth County Wall Township NPL
Monroe Township Landfill Middlesex County Monroe NPL
Montclair/ West Orange Radium Site Essex County Montclair and West Orange NPL
Montgomery Township Housing Development Somerset County Montgomery Township NPL
Myers Property Hunterdon County Franklin Township NPL
Nascolite Corporation Cumberland County Millville and Vineland NPL
Naval Air Engineering Center Ocean County Lakehurst NPL
Naval Weapons Station Earle site A Monmouth County Colts Neck NPL
NL Industries Salem County Pedricktown NPL
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation Morris County East Hanover RCRA
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Somerset County Raritan RCRA
Passaic River Passaic County NPL
Pepe Field Morris County Boonton NPL
Picatinny A
rsenal Morris County Rockaway Township NPL
Pijak Farm Ocean County Plumsted Township NPL
PJP Landfill Hudson County Jersey City NPL
Pohatcong Valley Groundwater Contamination Warren County Washington and Franklin Townships NPL
PolyOne Corporation Burlington County Burlington RCRA
Pomona Oaks Residential Wells Atlantic County Galloway Township NPL
Price Landfill #1 Atlantic County Egg Harbor NPL
Puchack Well Field Camden County Pennsauken Township NPL
Quanta Resources Corp Bergen County Edgewater NPL
Radiation Technology Inc. Morris County Rockaway Township NPL
Raritan Bay Slag Middlesex County Sayreville NPL
Reich Farm Ocean County Dover Township NPL
Renora Inc. Middlesex County Edison Township NPL
Revlon Consumer Products Corporation Middlesex County Edison RCRA
Ringwood Mines/landfill Passaic County Ringwood NPL
Rockaway Borough Well Field Morris County Rockaway Township NPL
Rockaway Township Wells Morris County Rockaway Township NPL
Rocky Hill Municipal Well Somerset County Rocky Hill Borough NPL
Roebling Steel Co. Burlington County Florence NPL
Rolling Knolls Landfill Morris County Chatham Township NPL
Route 561 Dump Site Camden County Gibbsboro NPL
Safety-Kleen Corporation Linden RC Union County Linden RCRA
Safety-Kleen Envirosystems Company – Newark Essex County Newark RCRA
Sayreville Landfill Middlesex County Sayreville NPL
Schering Corporation Hudson County Union RCRA
Scientific Chemical Processing Bergen County Carlstadt NPL
Sharkey Landfill Morris County Townships of Parsippany-Troy Hills and East Hanover NPL
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek Camden County Gibbsboro NPL
Shieldalloy Corp. Gloucester County Newfield NPL
Simmonds Precision Company – Operative Industries. Morris County Chester RCRA
Solutia Incorporated – Delaware River Palant Gloucester County Bridgeport RCRA
Solvey Solexis Incorporated Gloucester County Thorofare RCRA
South Brunswick Landfill Middlesex County 1/2 mile northwest of Route 1 NPL
South Jersey Clothing Company Atlantic County Minotola NPL
Southland Corporation Warren County Great Meadows RCRA
Spence Farm Ocean County Plumsted Township NPL
Square D Company Burlington County Bordentown RCRA
Standard Chlorine Chem Co. Inc. Hudson County Kearny NPL
Standard T Chemical Company Incorporated Union County Linden RCRA
Sunoco Incorporated R&M Eagle Point Refinery Gloucester County West Deptford RCRA
Swope Oil & Chemical Co. Camden County Pennsauken Township NPL
Sybron Chemicals Incorporated Burlington County Birmingham RCRA
Syncon Resins Hudson County Kearny NPL
Tabernacle Drum Dump Burlington County Bozarthtown NPL
Tidewater Baling Essex County Newark Removal
Turnpike Dump Hudson County Jersey City Removal
U.S. Radium Corp. Essex County Orange NPL
U.S. Army – Fort Dix Burlington County Fort Dix RCRA
Unilever Bestfoods Morris County Montville Township RCRA
United States Avenue Burn Camden County Gibbsboro NPL
Universal Oil Products chemical Division Bergen County East Rutherford NPL
Universal Aluminum Extrusion Corporation Atlantic County Egg Harbor Township RCRA
Upper Deerfield Township Sanitary Landfill Cumberland County Upper Deerfield Township NPL
Ventron/ Velsicol Bergen County Wood-Ridge NPL
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC Middlesex County Middlesex RCRA
Vineland Chemical Co. Inc. Cumberland County Vineland NPL
Vineland State School Cumberland County Vineland NPL
W.R. Grace / Wayne Interim Passaic County Wayne Township NPL
W.R. Grace / Zonolite Site Mercer County Hamilton Township Removal
Waldick Aerospace Devices Inc. Monmouth County Sea Girt section of Wall Township NPL
Welsbach & General Gas Camden County Gloucester Township NPL
White Chemical Corp. Essex County Newark NPL
White Swan Laundry and Cleaners Inc. Monmouth County Wall Township NPL
Williams Property Cape May County Swainton NPL
Wilson Farm Ocean County Plumsted Township NPL
Witco Chemical Corp Oakland Plant Bergen County Oakland NPL
Woodbrook Road Dump Middlesex County Edison Township South Plainfield NPL
Woodland Route 532 Dump Burlington County Woodland Township NPL
Woodland Route 72 Dump Burlington County Woodland Township NPL
Wyeth Holdings Corporation Mercer County Princeton Junction RCRA
Zschiegner Refining Monmouth County Howell Township NPL
http://www.epa.gov/region02/cleanup/sites/njtoc_name.htm
***
Radiation Technology, Inc.
Rockaway Township, NJ
Site Information
* Home
* Fact Sheet
* Additional Documents
* Map
* News
Public Meeting
No meetings scheduled
Contact Information
Cecilia Echols – (212…
echols.cecilia@epa.gov
Mailing List
Join our Mailing List to receive updates on EPA’s activities at this Superfund site.
Sign Up Today
EPA added the Radiation Technology, Inc. (RTI) site in Rockaway Township, New Jersey to the National Priorities List on September 1, 1984 because volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or potentially harmful chemicals that can easily evaporate into the air, were found in onsite water supply wells. The 263-acre Superfund site, located in Morris County, was used for testing and developing rocket engines and propellants. Onsite operations also included radiation sterilization, production of architectural products, and hardwood flooring production. RTI improperly stored and disposed of waste drums containing solvents and other chemicals.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Rockaway Township Health Department closed onsite contaminated wells. During the first part of the cleanup, RTI installed wells to measure and monitor the ground water contamination, and also removed abandoned tanks and drums under NJDEP supervision. At New Jersey’s request, EPA took over the cleanup. EPA oversaw ground water investigation and removed material containing asbestos in a portion of the site. In early 2007, the U.S. Army Military Munitions Response Program notified EPA that a portion of the site fell within the boundaries of a historic practice projectile firing area, and could have contained unexploded materials. The U.S. Army conducted an investigation, and no dangerous materials were found or removed. As a precaution, EPA requested that safety procedures related to unexploded materials be included in the site’s work plans.
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/radiationtech/index.html
index.html
***
Superfund
Related Information
* Basics
* Find Sites
* Emergency Response
* Public Liaison
* Pre-Remedial
* Database Search
* Enviromapper
* Superfund Headquarters
* Green Remediation
The 1978 discovery of toxic chemicals beneath the suburban infrastructure of Love Canal, in Niagara Falls, New York first illuminated the consequences of environmental neglect. For decades, many American businesses had disposed of hazardous waste improperly, contaminating tens of thousands of sites nationally, including nearly 250 within Region 2 alone. Accidents, spills, and leaks of hazardous materials resulted in land, water, and air that pose immediate and potential threats to public and environmental health.
Citizen reaction to these localized threats led Congress to establish the Superfund Program in 1980, an initiative designed to locate, investigate, and clean up the most hazardous sites nationwide. Superfund is officially called CERCLA, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The EPA administers the Superfund Program in cooperation with individual states and tribal governments.
The national EPA office that oversees management of the program is the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). The sites dealt with under Superfund are listed on the NPL, or National Priorities List. Superfund constitutes a crucial environmental and economic precedent within American legislative history.
Superfund/CERCLA
1980 legislation to locate, investigate, and clean up hazardous waste sites in the United States
Basics | Find Sites | Emergency Response
Public Liaison | Pre-Remedial
Database Search | Enviromapper | Superfund HQ
Brownfields
EPA program providing funds for the redevelopment of real properties contaminated with hazardous waste
Basics | Funding Information | Sites in Region 2 | Project Fact Sheets
Resource Directory [33pp, 1.62M]
RCRA Corrective Action
Requires facilities managing hazardous waste to clean up environmental contaminants
RCRA Basics | RCRA Database | Facilities Near You | Environmental Indicators | Regulations and Policy | RCRA Hazardous Waste
Links By Region
Find cleanup information and sites
where you live and work
New Jersey | New York | Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Last updated on Thursday, August 20th, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/
***
Lindane Dump
EPA ID# PAD980712798
NPL Status: Final
Route 28 & Spring Hill Rd
Harrison Twp, PA 15065
Allegheny County
Contacts
Remedial Project Manager
Bradley White
(215) 814-3217
white.brad@epa.gov
Community Involvement Coordinator
Carrie Deitzel
215-814-5525
1-800-553-2509
deitzel.carrie@epa.gov
Governmental Liaison
Megan Mackey
215-814-5534
mackey.megan@epa.gov
Administrative Record Locations
Public files (Administrative Record) on EPA’s actions and decisions for this site can be examined at the following location:
U.S. EPA Region 3
http://www.epa.gov/arweb/
U.S. EPA Region III
6th Floor Docket Room
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215…
Current Site Information
Site Progress Profile
Administrative Record
Fact Sheet
*
March 1998
Press Release
* 10/12/1999: Cleanup Underway at 13 Toxic Sites in Pennsylvania (Contact: Ruth Podems, (215) 814-5540)
* 07/21/1999: ALLEGHENY LUDLUM TO PAY $150,000 FOR BLOCKING EPA ACCESS TO SUPERFUND CLEANUP (Contact: David Sternberg (21…)
Record of Decision
Site Actions
Site Map
Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Superfund
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PAD980712798/index.htm
***
Lindane Dump
Current Site Information
EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic)
Pennsylvania
Allegheny County
Harrison Township
EPA ID# PAD980712798
4th Congressional District
Last Update: March 2009
Other Names
Pennwalt Lindane Dump
Alsco Community Park
Current Site Status
EPA completed the Second Five-Year Review of the Site in September 2008. The purpose of the Five-Year Review is to determine if the remedy at the Site is protective of human health and the environment. The remedy at the Site has been determined to be protective of human health and the environment in the short term. Exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled, and institutional controls are preventing exposure to, or the ingestion of, contaminated wastes, soils, and ground water. Contaminated leachate and shallow ground water are being controlled by the successful operation of the leachate/shallow ground water collection and treatment system. The quality of the effluent from the treatment system achieves discharge standards. To ensure long term protectiveness, 1,4-dioxane will be added to the list of sampled contaminants and additional monitoring will be performed to assess potential downgradient plume migration. Long term protectiveness of the remedy is expected to be achieved through the continued operation and maintenance of the leachate/shallow ground water collection and treatment system and continued compliance with institutional controls. EPA continues to review quarterly monitoring reports and annual groundwater monitoring reports.
Site Description
The Lindane Dump site, located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, consists of a recreational park about 14-acres in size and a 47 ½-acre lower project zone that includes a closed landfill area. About 400 tons of powdered lindane pesticide waste and other industrial waste were dumped at the site from 1900 to 1950. Industrial waste dumping continued after the sale of the property in 1965. In 1976, a portion of the site was donated by the owner to Harrison Township for use as a park area. There are approximately 13,000 people living within one-mile of the site. Residents near the site obtain water from a municipal system that draws water from the Allegheny River.
Site Responsibility
This site is being addressed through Federal, State, and potentially responsible parties (PRPs) actions.
NPL Listing History
Our country’s most serious, uncontrolled, or abandoned hazardous waste sites can be cleaned using federal money. To be eligible for federal cleanup money, a site must be put on the National Priorities List. This site was proposed to the list on September 30, 1982 and formally added to the list on September 8, 1983.
Threats and Contaminants
The ground water and soil are contaminated with pesticides. The site has been capped and an upgraded leachate collection and treatment system has been installed. These actions have significantly reduced the possibility that pesticide residues in the soil might leach into the ground water and surrounding soils. The cap and leachate collection and treatment system also prevent humans and wildlife from accidentally ingesting or coming into direct contact with contaminated ground water, soil, or leachate which may pose health risks.
Contaminant descriptions and associated risk factors are available at: (ATSDR web site).
Cleanup Progress
A leachate treatment system has been installed and activated to control the spread of pesticide residues. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) and Pennwalt, a potentially responsible party have conducted an investigation into the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The investigation defined the contaminants and recommended alternatives for the final cleanup. In 1983, the State and Pennwalt, agreed to conduct a leachate treatability study to evaluate short- and long-term treatment and disposal alternatives. In 1992, EPA selected the remedy for cleanup of the site which includes capping the site and installing an upgraded leachate control system. In 1993, EPA and Elf-Atochem, a successor of Pennwalt, agreed to a Consent Decree, requiring Elf-Atochem to conduct the remedial design and construction activities for the site. The leachate treatment system has reduced the further spread of contaminated materials from the Lindane Dump. Construction of the cap began in the spring of 1998 and was completed in the spring of 1999. A baseball field and tennis courts were constructed on the upper portion of the site which is commonly known as the Alsco Community Park. Operation and maintenance activities will continue for at least 30 years.
Contacts
Site Contacts
Administrative Record Locations
Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Superfund |EPA Home | EPA Superfund Homepage
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/PAD980712798.htm
***
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/PAD980712798/index.htm
***
US EPA
Mid-Atlantic Superfund
Serving Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
Contact Us Search: All EPA Mid-Atlantic Superfund
* You are here: EPA Home
* Mid-Atlantic Cleanup
* Mid-Atlantic Superfund
* All Sites
Alphabetical List of Superfund Sites
[ All Sites | District of Columbia | Delaware | Federal Facilities | Maryland | Pennsylvania | Virginia | West Virginia ]
Site Name EPA ID NPL Status City County State Zip
8th and Plutus Streets Pottery WVN000305784 Non Chester Hancock WV 26034
12th Street Dump DESFN0305510 Non Wilmington New Castle DE 19802
16th Street Quarry DESFN0305308 Non Wilmington New Castle DE n/a
2020 Chestnut St VA0002366946 Non Portsmouth Portsmouth VA 23701
2020 Daniels Road Non Ellicott City Howard MD 21043
2314 N. American Street PAD048613368 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19123
50th and Hayes DCSFN0305431 Non Washington DC DC 20019
68th Street Dump MDD980918387 Proposed Rosedale Baltimore MD 21237
70th and Kingsessing Trailer PAD987332848 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19142
A-1 Auto Body Tire Dump PAD987334679 Non Erie Erie PA 16501
Abandoned Chemical Trailer PAD982363939 Non North Versailles Allegheny PA 15137
Aberdeen Proving Ground – Edgewood Area MD2210020036 Final Aberdeen Harford MD 21001
Aberdeen Proving Ground – Michaelsville LF MD3210021355 Final Aberdeen Harford MD 21005
Abex Corp VAD980551683 Final Portsmouth Portsmouth VA 23704
Action Manufacturing Company PAD987366515 Non Atglen Chester PA 19310
AES-Monsanto Property WVSFN0305408 Non Nitro Putman WV 25143
A.I.W. Frank/Mid-County Mustang PAD004351003 Final Exton Chester PA 19341
Ainsworth Paint Mfg. MDD025722786 Non Baltimore Baltimore MD 21231
Aladdin Plating PAD075993378 Deleted Clarks Summit Lackawanna PA 18411
Alderfer Landfill PAD981939051 Non Franconia Twp Montgomery PA 18924
Allegany Ballistics Lab WV0170023691 Final Short Gap Mineral WV 26753
Allentown Mercury Spill PASFN0305569 Non Allentown Lehigh PA 18102
Allied Chemical Corp Works VAD003064003 Non Front Royal Warren VA 22630
Allied-Pulaski VAD980551915 Non Pulaski Pulaski VA 24301
Ambler Asbestos Piles PAD000436436 Deleted Ambler Montgomery PA 19002
Amchem Products, Inc PAD002348324 Non Ambler Montgomery PA 19002
American Insulator Company PAD075274431 Non New Freedom York PA 17349
American Street Tannery PAD981939267 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19147
AMP, Inc PAD041421223 Deleted Glen Rock York PA 17327
Anacostia River Initiative Non Washington DC DC
Andela aka Warwick Twp Real Estate PA0000585901 Non Warwick Twp Bucks PA 18929
Andrews Air Force Base MD0570024000 Final Andrews AFB Prince Georges MD 20331
Anne Arundel County Landfill MDD980705057 Withdrawn Glen Burnie Anne Arundel MD 21061
Army Creek Landfill DED980494496 Final New Castle New Castle DE 19720
Arrowhead Associates VAD042916361 Final Montross Westmoreland VA 22520
Ashland Chemical Co. PAD043394683 Non Easton Northampton PA 18042
Ashland Chemical Company PAD980552251 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19148
Atlantic Avenue Drum DED981739469 Non Elsmere New Castle DE 19703
Atlantic Wood Industries VAD990710410 Final Portsmouth Portsmouth VA 23704
Atwell Mountain Drum WVD982363780 Non Atwell McDowell WV 24813
Austin Ave. Radiation Site PAD987341716 Deleted Lansdowne Delaware PA 19050
AVCO Lycoming PAD003053709 Final Williamsport Lycoming PA 17701
Avtex Fibers, Inc. VAD070358684 Final Front Royal Warren VA 22630
Bahn Warehouse/Strawberry Alley PAD987277977 Non Mechanicsburg Cumberland PA 17055
Baker Brothers Scrap Yard PAD987389624 Non Lewisburg Union PA 17837
Baldwin Defiance PAD987285079 Non Darby Borough Delaware PA 19036
Baldwin Street PCB Drum VA0001995349 Non Danville Danville VA 24541
Bally Groundwater PAD061105128 Final Bally Berks PA 19503
Barefoot Disposal PAD981040611 Non Hollidaysburgh Blair PA 16648
Barney Circle DC0001840818 Non Washington DC DC 20032
Basic Tool Company VAD988212429 Non Hampton Hampton VA 23661
Bay Products PA0002298107 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19136
Bayway Refining Company MDSFN0305426 Non Baltimore Baltimore MD 21226
Beaumont Glass Co. WVD988788345 Non Morgantown Monongalia WV 26505
Belfield Avenue PAD982364036 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19144
Belfield Paint PA0000694513 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19144
Bell Landfill PAD980705107 Final Wyalusing Bradford PA 18853
Belle Isle Playground Drums WV0001584994 Non Wheeling Ohio WV 26003
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (USDA) MD0120508940 Final Beltsville Prince Georges MD 20705
Bendix Flight Systems PAD003047974 Final South Montrose Susquehanna PA 18843
Berkley Products Co. Dump PAD980538649 Deleted Denver Lancaster PA 17517
Berks Landfill PAD000651810 Final Sinking Springs Berks PA 19608
Berks Sand Pit PAD980691794 Final Longswamp TWP Berks PA 19539
Better Homes Trailer Park Clandestine Lab Assessment VAN000306111 Non Sugar Grove Smyth VA 24375
Bickmore Drum Dump WVD988770350 Non Bickmore Clay WV 25019
Big Island Run Oil Site Girta Wirt WV
Big John Salvage – Hoult Rd WVD054827944 Final Fairmont Marion WV 26554
Blosenski Landfill PAD980539985 Final West Caln TWP Chester PA 19376
Blue Ribbon Paint Company WVD004319158 Non Wheeling Ohio WV 26003
Boarhead Farms PAD047726161 Final Bridgeton TWP Bucks PA 18972
Bolling Air Force Base Non Washington DC DC 20331
Bollinger Steel Plant PAD987279346 Non Ambride Beaver PA 15003
BoRit Asbestos Site PAD981034887 Proposed Maple Street Ambler PA 19082
Boyertown Farms PASFN0305457 Non Gilbertsville Montgomery PA 19525
Boyle Galvanizing PA0000569244 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19125
Brandywine Creek Mystery Oil DEN000305651 Non Wilmington New Castle DE 19802
Brandywine DRMO MD9570024803 Final Andrews Prince Georges MD 20331
Braxton Industries, Inc. WVD056805674 Non Ireland Braxton WV 26374
Breslube-Penn, Inc. PAD089667695 Final Coraopolis Allegheny PA 15108
Brodhead Creek PAD980691760 Deleted Stroudsburg Monroe PA 18360
Brooke County Glass Dump WV0002456275 Non Wellsburg Brooke WV 26070
Brown’s Battery Breaking PAD980831812 Final Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Browning Lumber WVD054116538 Non Bald Knob Boone WV 25010
Bruin Lagoon PAD980712855 Deleted Bruin Butler PA 16022
Buckeye Pipeline Emergency Response–Nestle Purina Alpo Plant PAN000306205 Non Allentown Lehigh PA 18104
Buckingham County LF VAD089027973 Final Dillwyn Buckingham VA 23936
Buckingham Landfill Drum VASFN0305528 Non Buckingham Buckingham VA 23921
Buffalo Run #1 Oil Site Petroleum Ritchie WV
Buffalo Run #2 Oil Site Petroleum Ritchie WV
Bush Valley Landfill MDD980504195 Final Abingdon Harford MD 21009
Butler Mine Tunnel PAD980508451 Final Pittston TWP Luzerne PA 18640
Butyric Acid Drum PAD987379203 Non Strattonville Clarion PA 16258
Butz Landfill PAD981034705 Final Jackson TWP Monroe PA 18360
C & D Recycling PAD021449244 Final Freeland Luzerne PA 18224
C & R Battery VAD049957913 Final Richmond Chesterfield VA 23234
Camp Simms DC0001840669 Non Washington DC DC 20032
Capitol Assay Labs MDD108981531 Non Baltimore Baltimore MD 21230
Capitol Hill Anthrax DCN000305703 Non Washington DC DC 20002
Cardozo High School Mercury Spill DC0001840669 Non Washington DC DC
Cemetary Lane MDD985366632 Non-Archived Elkridge Howard MD 21227
Central Chemical MDD003061447 Final Hagerstown Washington MD 21740
Centre County Kepone PAD000436261 Final State College Centre PA 16801
C G Wood PAD981113558 Non Jamestown Mercer PA 16134
Chain Bike Corp PAD053061909 Non Allentown Lehigh PA 18103
Charlestown Coal Tar WVD988767612 Non Charlestown Jefferson WV 25438
Chauncey PCB WVN000305921 Non Chauncey Logan WV 25612
Chem-Fab Corp PAD002323848 Final Doylestown Bucks PA 18901
Chemical Metals Industries MDD980555478 Deleted Baltimore Baltimore MD 21230
ChemSolv, Inc DED980714141 Final Dover Kent DE 19901
Cherry Pit Drum MD0001406867 Non Baltimore Baltimore MD 21226
Cherry Valley Furniture Removal WVN000306572 Non Richwood Nicholas WV 26261
Chesapeake PLT VAD001704808 Non Chesapeake Chesapeake VA 23320
Chillum Gasoline Release MDN000305887 Non Chillum Prince Georges MD 20783
Chillum PERC MDN000305887 Non Chillum Prince Georges MD 20783
Chisman Creek VAD980712913 Final Seaford York VA 23690
Cochranville Tire Fire PAD982367831 Non West Oxford Twp Chester PA 19330
Coker’s Sanitation Landfill DED980704860 Final Cheswold Kent DE 19936
Cockerille Estate Abandoned Lab VAD988167771 Non Greenwood Albemarle VA 22943
Coeburn Battery Disposal VAD988174835 Non Coeburn Wise VA 24230
Coeburn Town Dump VAD988226429 Non Coeburn Wise VA 24230
Coleman Company PAD987390523 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19140
College Avenue Chemical VAN000306642 Non Pembrooke Giles VA 24136
Collegeville Radium PASFN0305467 Non Collegeville Montgomery PA 19426
Collins Well Service WVSFN0305395 Non West Union Doldridge WV 26456
Colonial Pipeline VAD988225876 Non Reston Fairfax VA 22091
Columbia Gas Transmission WV0000229666 Non Charleston Kanawha WV 25314
Columbia Plating PAD981741176 Non Columbia Lancaster PA 17512
Commodore Semiconductor Group PAD093730174 Final Norristown Montgomery PA 19403
Concept Science Explosion PASFN0305433 Non Hanover Twp Lehigh PA 18103
Congo Road Boron PASFN0305500 Non Congo Montgomery PA 19505
Consolidated Pharmacutical MDN000306570 Non Baltimore Anne Arundel MD 21225
Cosmechem MDN000306098 Non Baltimore Anne Arundel MD 21223
Courtaulds Lead WVD004319208 Non Wheeling Ohio WV 26003
Craig Branch Drum Dump WVD988775441 Non Sissonville Kanawha WV 25312
Craig Farm Drum PAD980508527 Final Parker Armstrong PA 16049
Crater Resources PAD980419097 Final King of Prussia Montgomery PA 19406
Crawford Station HSCA PAD987270188 Non Middletown Dauphin PA 17057
Creek Road Sand Blasting aka River Bend PASFN0305402 Non Hartsville Bucks PA 18974
Crossley Farm PAD981740061 Final Hereford TWP Berks PA 18056
Croydon TCE PAD981035009 Final Croydon&Bristol Bucks PA 19020
Crozet Township VAN000305873 Non Crozet Albemarle VA 22932
Cryochem PAD002360444 Final Boyertown Berks PA 19512
CSX Pump House Drive Locomotive Spill PASFN0305485 Non Richmond Richmond VA
Culpeper Wood Preservers VAD059165282 Final Culpeper Culpeper VA 22701
Cummings Landfill WVD980830731 Non Hurricane Putnam WV 25526
Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard MD4690307844 Final Baltimore Anne Arundel MD 21226
Dallas Cleaner Site PAN000306173 Non Dallas Luzerne PA 18612
Dalzell Viking Glass Co. WVSFN0305531 Non New Martinsville Wetzell WV 26155
Deardorff Drive/Ridge Road HSCA PAD981939937 Non Etters York PA 17319
Defense General Supply Center VA3971520751 Final Richmond Chesterfield VA 23297
Defense Supply Center Philadelphia PA09715900005 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19101
Delaware City PVC DED980551667 Final Delaware City New Castle DE 19706
Delaware Sand & Gravel DED000605972 Final New Castle New Castle DE 19720
Delta Quarries PAD981038052 Final Antis & Logan TWP Blair PA 16602
Dewart Farms PASFN0305473 Non Watsontown Northumberland PA 17777
Dewey Beach Cylinder DED984067207 Non Dewey Beach Sussex DE 19971
Diamond State Salvage DE0000122218 Non Wilmington New Castle DE 19805
Dixie Caverns County LF VAD980552095 Deleted Salem Salem VA 24153
Donegal TWP Midnight Drum Dump PAD981738982 Non Donegal TWP Butler PA 16025
Dorney Road Landfill PAD980508832 Final Mertztown Berks PA 19539
Douglassville Disposal PAD002384865 Final Douglassville Berks PA 19518
Dover AF Base DE8570024010 Final Dover Kent DE 19901
Dover Gas Light DED980693550 Final Dover Kent DE 19901
Doyle Wood Treating VA0000094490 Non Martinville Martinville VA 24115
Drake Chemical PAD003058047 Final Lock Haven Clinton PA 17745
Drumco Drum Dump MDD985386119 Non Baltimore Anne Arundel MD 21240
Dublin TCE PAD981740004 Final Dublin Bucks PA 18917
Duncanville Tanker PAD981736325 Non Duncanville Blair PA 16635
Dupont Explosives PAD981939325 Non Bradford McKean PA 16701
Durham Township Solvent Spill PAD981738925 Non Rieglesville Bucks PA 18077
E.I. DuPont (Newport Landfill) DED980555122 Final Newport New Castle DE 19804
E-Z Chemical PAD987271194 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19123
Eager Beaver Lumber PAD004375192 Non Townville Crawford PA 16360
East Mount Zion PAD980690549 Final Springettsbury York PA 17402
East Norriton PCE PAN000306145 Non East Norriton Montgomery PA 19404
East 7th Street Drum DESFN0305397 Non Wilmington New Castle DE 19809
East Tenth Street PAD987323458 Proposed Marcus Hook Delaware PA 19061
East Coast Trailer Sales PA0000634659 Non Bensalem Bucks PA 19020
Eastern Diversified Metals PAD980830533 Final Hometown Schuylkill PA 18252
Eastern Maryland Wood Treating Co. MDD981040207 Non Federalsburg Dorchester MD 21632
Eddystone Ave. Trailer PAD987269941 Non Eddystone Delaware PA 19094
Edwards Road Spill WVD981738750 Non Coalburg Kanawha WV 25035
Elizabethtown Landfill PAD980539712 Final Elizabethtown Lancaster
Elkton Farm MDD985407196 Non Elkton Cecil MD 21921
Elkton Farm Firehole MDN000306146 Non Elkton Cecil MD 21921
Elkview Drum Dump WVD988767901 Non Elkview Kanawha WV 25071
Elrama School PAD981034994 Non Union Twp Washington PA 15332
Enterprise Avenue PAD980552913 Deleted Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19153
Enterprise Transformer Dump WVD988770665 Non Enterprise Harrison WV 26568
Evans Chemical Site VASFN0305570 Non Roanoke Roanoke VA 24016
Everdure, Inc. VAD003121142 Non Orange Orange VA 22960
Exeter PCB VAD988222972 Non Hopewell Hopewell VA 23875
Fairview Water Co. PAD987392271 Non Mt. Pocono Boro. Monroe PA 18344
Falkenstein Electroplating PAD002268944 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19133
Fine Petroleum/Mariner Hi Tech VAD023837628 Non Norfolk Norfolk VA 23504
First Piedmont Rock Quarry VAD980554984 Final Chatham Pittsylvania VA 24531
Fifth Street Drum Dump WVD982367443 Non Huntington Wayne WV 25701
Fike Chemical, Inc WVD047989207 Final Nitro Kanawha WV 25143
Fischer & Porter PAD002345817 Final Warminster Bucks PA 18974
FMC Corp VAD980714877 Non Fredericksburg Spotsylvania VA 22553
Follansbee Site WVD004336749 Deleted Follansbee Brooke WV 26037
Foote Mineral PAD077087989 Final Frazer Chester PA 19355
Former Mohr Orchards PAN000306624 Non Schnecksville Lehigh PA 18078
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot VAD123933426 Final Suffolk Suffolk VA 23434
Ft. Detrick Area B Groundwater MDD985397249 FInal Frederick Frederick MD
Ft. Eustis VA6210020321 Final Newport News Newport News VA 23604
Ft. George G. Meade MD9210020567 Final Odenton Anne Arundel MD 20755
Ft. Pickett VA2210020705 Non Blackstone Nottoway VA 23824
Ft. Ritchie MD0000795211 Non Cascade Washington MD 21719
Foster Lab VASFN0305571 Non Shenandoah Warren VA 22630
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation/Church Road TCE PAD003031788 Proposed Mountaintop Luzerne PA 18707
Franklin Slag Pile PASFN0305549 Final Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19134
Franklin Smelting PAD002280725 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19134
Frazier’s Bottom PCB Site WVD981738875 Non Frazier’s Bottom Putnam WV 25082
Garfield Street Drum Dump WVD982363913 Non McMechin Marshall WV 26040
GE Railcar MDN000306575 Non Elkton Cecil MD 21922
General Electric – Hammermill PAD981114820 Non Lawrence Park TWP Erie PA 16511
Glen Dale TCE WVSFN0305381 Non Glendale Marshall WV 26038
Glen Morgan Drum Dump WVD988767455 Non Glen Morgan Raleigh WV 25847
Glenside Mercury Spill PA0001401520 Non Glenside Montgomery PA 19038
Goodwin Junkyard VAD988187076 Non Carrollton Isle of Wight VA 23314
Goose Creek Abandoned Well WV0001095413 Non Cairo Ritchie WV 26337
Grant Chemical PA0001017144 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19135
Greenwood Chemical VAD003125374 Final Greenwood Albemarle VA 22943
Halby Chemical DED980830954 Final New Castle New Castle DE 19720
H & H Inc., Burn Pit VAD980539878 Final Montpelier Hanover VA 23192
Hamburg – Pine Creek (PDF) (3 pp, 30.8K, About PDF) PAN000306001 Non Albany Berks PA 19529
Hamburg – Pleasant Hills Trailer Park PAN000305911 Non Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Hamburg – Port Clinton Avenue PAN000305872 None Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Hamburg Lead – Kaercher Creek PAN000305723 Non Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Hamburg Lead – Railcut PAN000305725 Non Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Hamburg Playground PAD987332541 Non Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Hampton Industrial Plating VAD988201992 Non Tabb York VA 23690
Hanlin-Allied-Olin WVD024185373 Final Moundsville Marshall WV 26041
Hannibal Lock & Dam WVD988768941 Non New Martinsville Wetzel WV 26155
Hanover Avenue Rocket VAN000305932 Non Richmond Richmond VA 23221
Harbeson Dead Swan DESFN0305412 Non Harbeson Sussex DE 19947
Harrison County PCB WVD981738941 Non Fairmont Harrison WV 26554
Harvey & Knott Drum, Inc DED980713093 Final Kirkwood New Castle DE 19708
Havertown PCP PAD002338010 Final Haverford TWP Delaware PA 19041
Healthways Inc. DED984072249 Non Odessa New Castle DE 19730
Hebelka Auto Salvage Yard PAD980829329 Deleted Upper Macungie TWP Lehigh PA 18062
Heisman Field PA0002377828 Non Titusville Crawford PA 16354
Heizer Creek Landfill WVD980538656 Non Poca Putnam WV 25159
Heleva Landfill PAD980537716 Final Coplay Lehigh PA 18037
Hellertown Manufacturing PAD002390748 Final Hellertown Northampton PA 18055
Henderson Road PAD009862939 Final Upper Merion Twp Montgomery PA 19406
Henshell Corporation PAD987283520 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19132
Hidden Lane Landfill VAD980829030 Final Sterling Loudoun VA 21065
Hilltop Residential Lab PASFN0305565 Non Upper Darby Delaware PA 19082
Histand’s Supply PAD069027027 Non Wycombe Bucks PA 18980
Hranica Landfill PAD980508618 Deleted Buffalo TWP Butler PA 16055
Hoffman Metal Removal WVN000305643 Non Mabscott Raleigh WV 25827
Holly Hill Subdivision WV0001095421 Non Fairdale Raleigh WV 25839
Hunter Farm Drum PAD987332533 Non Bakerstown Allegheny PA 15007
Hunterstown Road PAD980830897 Final Gettysburg Adams PA 17325
Hutchinson Mine PCB PAD982364275 Non Hutchinson Westmoreland PA 15640
Hyman-Viener VAD003112364 Non Richmond Richmond VA 23231
I-81 Tractor Trailor Chemical Spill Site VAN000306150 Non Fort Defiance Augusta VA 24437
Iaeger PCB Site WVD988784641 Non Iaeger McDowell WV 24844
Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center MD7170024684 Final Indian Head Charles MD 20640
Industrial Lane PAD980508493 Final Easton Northampton PA 18042
J & L Industries, Inc. MDD022527584 Non Baltimore Baltimore MD 21220
JF & M Co. PCB WVD054114707 Non Huntington Cabell WV 25701
Jacks Creek/Sitkin Smelting PAD980829493 Final Lewistown Mifflin PA 17044
Jackson Ceramix Inc. PAD001222025 Final Falls Creek Jefferson PA 15840
JenkinJones Drum Dump WVD988768552 Non JenkinJones McDowell WV 24848
Joe’s Creek Well Oil Site Tango Lincoln WV
John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA
Johnson Bronze Co. PAD981036171 Non New Castle Lawrence PA 16103
Joyce National Powder PAD101274686 Non Eldred McKean PA 16731
Kanawha Motive Power WVSFN0305389 Non Montgomery Fayette WV 25136
Kanawha River Site WVSFN035516 Non Kanawha WV
Kane & Lombard Street Drums MDD980923783 Final Baltimore Baltimore MD 21224
Kay Lane Drum Dump WVD988767463 Non Charleston Kanawha WV 25302
Kelly Drive Sulfuric Acid Spill PAN000305641 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19131
Kenilworth Landfill DCSFN0305462 Non Washington DC DC 20020
Kennett Square Junkyard PAD980692776 None Kennett Square Chester PA 19348
Kent County (Houston) Landfill DED980705727 Remove Houston Kent DE 19954
Kessel Lumber Supply WVD041014572 Non Keyser Mineral WV 26726
Kevak Property PAD981740129 Non Glen Lyon Luzerne PA 18617
Keyser Avenue Borehole PAD981036049 Removed Scranton Lackawanna PA 18508
Keystone Sanitation Landfill PAD054142781 Final Hanover York PA 17331
Keystone Drive WVD982363046 Non Charleston Kanawha WV 25311
Kimberton Site PAD980691703 Final Kimberton Chester PA 19442
Kim-Stan Landfill VAD077923449 Final Selma Alleghany VA 24474
Klotz Brothers Courtyard VA0001907831 Non Staunton Staunton VA 24401
Komak/Ontario Street PAD982364416 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19140
Koppers Co, Inc DED980552244 Final Newport New Castle DE 19804
Krewatch Farm DED981039878 Non Seaford Sussex DE 19973
Krieger’s Landfill DED981736317 Non Wilmington New Castle DE 19720
L.A. Clarke & Son VAD007972482 Final Spotsylvania Spotsylvania VA 22553
Lackawanna Refuse PAD980508667 Deleted Old Forge Lackawanna PA 18504
Lake Street Oil Farm Oil Site Salisbury Wicomico MD
Lakin State Farm WVD982363855 Non Camp Conley Mason WV 25550
Langley AFB/NASA Research Cntr VA2800005033 Final Hampton Hampton VA 23665
Lansdowne Radiation Site PAD980830921 Deleted Lansdowne Delaware PA 19050
Laurel Chlorine Cylinder MDSFN0305488 Non Laurel Prince Georges MD 20707
Layton Landfill PAD981044845 Non Perry Twp. Fayette PA 15482
Leetown Abandoned Chemical Drum WVD988766119 Non Leetown Jefferson WV 25430
Leetown Pesticide WVD980693402 Deleted Leetown Jefferson WV 25430
Lehigh Electric and Engineering Co. PAD980712731 Deleted Old Forge Lackawanna PA 18518
Lehman MTBE PA0000057471 Non Lehman Luzerne PA 18627
Letterkenny Army Depot PDO Area PA2210090054 Final Chambersburg Franklin PA 17201
Letterkenny Army Depot SE Area
PA6213820503 Final Chambersburg Franklin PA 17201
Level A Field Exercise at Ft. Meade Non Odenton Anne Arundel MD
Lewes Coal Gas DED984066209 Non Lewes Sussex DE 19958
Limestone Rd MDD980691588 Final Cumberland Allegany MD 21502
Lindane Dump PAD980712798 Final Harrison TWP Allegheny PA 15065
Lo-Ming WVN000306106 Non Sara Ann Logan WV 25644
Logan Section Contamination Site PASFN0305530 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19120
Lord-Shope Landfill PAD980508931 Final Girard Erie PA 16417
Lower Darby Creek Area PASFN0305521 Final Darby TWP Delaware and Philadelphia PA 19023
MW Manufacturing PAD980691372 Final Valley TWP Montour PA 17821
Macson’s, Inc. VA0001118207 Non Chesapeake Chesapeake VA 23324
Main Avenue Lead VA0001992957 Non Big Stone Gap Wise VA 24219
Malitovsky Drum Company PAD980831408 Non Pittsburgh Allegheny PA 15201
Malvern TCE PAD014353445 Final Malvern Chester PA 19355
Manilla Creek Landfill WVD980537526 Non Raymond City Putnam WV 25159
Marcus-Paulsen PA0001411552 Non Denbo Washington PA 15429
Marinace Ficam MDSFN0305383 Non Johnsville Frederick MD 21701
Marine Corps Combat Development Comand VA1170024722 Final Quantico Prince William VA 22134
Marjol Operation PAD003041910 Non Throop Lackawanna PA 18512
Matthews Electroplating VAD980712970 Deleted Roanoke Roanoke VA 24153
Mayburg Tar Pit PAD980832612 Non Mayburg Forest PA 16347
McAdoo Associates PAD980712616 Deleted McAdoo Schuylkill PA 18237
Mechling Hill Drum Dump WVD982367500 Non Follansbee Brooke WV 26037
Merit Products PAD987322534 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19132
Metal Bank PAD046557096 Final Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19135
Metcoa PAD080719446 Non Pulaski TWP Lawrence PA 16143
Metro Container Corp PAD044545895 Non Trainer Delaware PA 19013
Metropolitan Mirror & Glass PAD982366957 Deleted Frackville Schuylkill PA 17931
Micucio Brothers DED984075127 Non Middletown New Castle DE 19709
Mid-Atlantic Wood Preservers MDD064882889 Deleted Harmans Anne Arundel MD 21077
Middletown Air Field PAD980538763 Deleted Middletown Dauphin PA 17057
Middletown Road Dump MDD980705099 Deleted Annapolis Anne Arundel MD 21401
Mill Creek Dump PAD980231690 Final Erie Erie PA 16505
Millsboro TCE Site DEN000306645 Proposed Sussex DE
Misplaced Cesium 137 Gauge WV0001411446 Non Dairy McDowell WV 24828
Modern Sanitation PAD980539068 Final York York PA 17404
Monroe Street PAD982367625 Non York York PA 17404
Moosic PA0002008506 Non Avoca Luzerne PA 18641
Morrison Plant Site VASFN0305388 Non Lynchburg Lynchburg VA 24501
Motiva Enterprises Sulphuric Acid Spill DEN000305677 Non Delaware City New Castle DE 19706
Mount Clare Drum Dump WVD988767042 Non Mount Clare Harrison WV 26408
Mount Vernon Mills VAD988207957 Non Fries Grayson VA 24330
Moyers Landfill PAD980508766 Final Collegeville Montgomery PA 19426
Municipal/Industrial Disposal Corp PAD982366353 Non Elizabeth Twp Allegheny PA 15037
Mt. Sidney VAN000305720 Non Mt. Sidney Augusta VA 24467
Nanticoke Homes DED054719851 Non Greenwood Sussex DE 19950
NASA Wallops Island VA8800010763 Non Wallops Island Accomack VA 23337
National Vulcanized Fiber PAD107214116 Non Kennett Square Chester PA 19348
Naval Air Development Center PA6170024545 Final Warminster Bucks PA 18974
Naval Amphibious Base VA5170022482 Final Norfolk Virginia Beach VA 23521
Naval Support Station PA3170022104 Non Mechanicsburg Cumberland PA 17055
Naval Surface Warfare Center VA7170024684 Final Dahlgren King George VA 22448
Naval Surface Warfare Center – White Oak MD0170023444 Non Silver Spring Montgomery MD 20903
Naval Training Center Bainbridge MDD985397256 Non Bainbridge Cecil MD 21904
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown VA8170024170 Final Yorktown York VA 23690
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown – Cheatham Annex VA3170024605 Final Williamsburg Williamsburg VA 23185
Navy Ships Parts Control Center PA3170022104 Final Mechanicsburg Cumberland PA 17055
Nazcon Concrete MDSFN0305379 Non Beltsville Prince Georges MD 20705
NCR Corp DED043958388 Final Millsboro Sussex DE 19966
Nelson Electric Co VAD003115706 Non Richmond Richmond VA 23214
Neutron Products, Inc. MDN000305785 Non Dickerson Montgomery
New Castle Spill DED058980442 Deleted New Castle New Castle DE 19720
New Castle Steel DED980705255 Deleted New Castle New Castle DE 19720
Newport Drum DED984066696 Non-Archived Newport New Castle DE 19804
Nichols #1 Well Non Looneyville Roane WV
Nickel Plate Road PAD982367369 Non Cochranton Crawford PA 16314
Nitro Municipal Landfill WVD980538722 Non Nitro Putnam WV 25143
Nitro Sanitation Landfill WVD980513642 Non Nitro Kanawha WV 25143
Norfolk Naval Base VA6170061463 Final Norfolk Norfolk VA 23511
Norfolk Naval Shipyard VA1170024813 Final Portsmouth Portsmouth VA 23709
North Penn Area 1 PAD096834494 Final Souderton Montgomery PA 18964
North Penn Area 2 PAD002342475 Final Hatfield Montgomery PA 19440
North Penn Area 5 PAD980692693 Final Colmar Montgomery PA 18915
North Penn Area 6 PAD980926976 Final Lansdale Montgomery PA 19446
North Penn Area 7 PAD002498632 Final Lansdale Montgomery PA 19446
North Penn Area 11 PA0001412311 Non Creamery Montgomery PA 19474
North Penn Area 12 (Transicoil) PAD057152365 Final Worcester Montgomery PA 19490
Northeastern Pennsylvania Inland Sub-Area Plan Non
Novak Sanitary Landfill PAD079160842 Final Allentown Lehigh PA 18104
NVF Yorklyn DE0002337806 Non Yorklyn New Castle DE 19736
O’Brien Machinery PAD987379187 Non Downingtown Chester PA 19335
Oakland Junkyard Site MDD981739584 Non-Archived Oakland Garrett MD 21053
Oceana Salvage VAN000306180 Non Virginia Beach City Virginia Beach VA 23454
Occidental Chemical Corp PAD980229298 Final Pottstown Montgomery PA 19464
Ohio River Park PAD980508816 Final Neville Island Allegheny PA 15225
Ohio River Wells Non St. Marys Pleasants WV
Oil Tank Lines Inc. PA0001909522 Non Darby Delaware PA 19023
Old Athens Turnpike Lead WVN000305682 Non Princeton Mercer WV 24740
Old Barrett Building PAD987277175 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19146
Old Brine Sludge Landfill DED980704894 Removed Delaware City New Castle DE 19706
Old City of York Landfill PAD980692420 Final Seven Valleys York PA 17360
Old National Carbide VAD988166146 Non Raketown Carroll VA 24350
Old Salem Tannery VAD988170437 Non Salem Salem VA 24153
Old Wilmington Road Ground Water Comtamination / Perry Phillips Landfill PAD981938939 Final Sadsburyville Chester PA 19320
Ordnance Products, Inc MDD982364341 Final Northeast Cecil MD 21901
Ordnance Works Disposal Area WVD000850404 Final Morgantown Monongalia WV 26505
ORFA Manufacturing Co PAD987400561 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19143
Osborne Landfill PAD980712673 Final Grove City Mercer PA 16127
Otsego PCB Capacitor WVD988767448 Non Otsego Wyoming WV 25882
P&W Tire Fire VA0001120260 Non Axton Henry VA 24054
Pagan Road PAD981033632 Non Summit Twp Erie PA 16509
Palmerton Zinc Piles PAD002395887 Final Palmerton Carbon PA 18071
Paoli Rail Yard PAD980692594 Final Paoli Chester PA 19301
Pathan Chemical PAD067399378 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19125
Patuxent River Naval Air Station MD7170024536 Final Patuxent River St Marys MD 20670
Peach Alley Parking Lot PAN000305909 Non Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Peck Iron and Metal VAN000306115 Proposed Portsmouth Portsmouth VA 23704
Peninsula Plating DE0001167998 Non Blades Sussex DE 19973
Penn Foam Corp PAD080874282 Non Raubsville Northampton PA 18042
Pennsylvania 500 Non Long Pond Monroe PA 18334
Pennsylvania Dept of Transportation Lab PAD980827851 Non Harrisburg Dauphin PA 17101
Penrose Drum PAD987279890 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19145
Perkasie TCE PAN000306027 Non Perkasie Bucks PA 18944
Philadelphia Naval Complex PA4170022418 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19112
Pigeon Point Landfill DED980494603 Removed New Castle New Castle DE 19720
Plymouth TWP CO2 Release PASFN0305547 Non Plymouth TWP Montgomery PA 19428
Point of Rocks VAD982363798 Non Enon Chesterfield VA 22401
Potomac Yard Site VAD020312013 Non Alexandria Arlington VA 22301
Pottstown Drum PAD981738818 Non Pottstown Montgomery PA 19464
Powers Boss Batteries, Inc. VAD988169900 Non Saltville Smyth VA 24370
Precision National Corp. PAD053676631 Non Clarks-Summit Lackawanna PA 18411
Presque Isle PAD980508865 Deleted Erie Erie PA 16501
Price Battery PAN000305679 Final Hamburg Berks PA 19526
Princeton Enterprises WVD988790333 Non Clarksburg Harrison WV 26304
Printed Circuits PAD054717475 Non Bristol Twp Bucks PA 19007
Professional Food Service VASFN0305449 Non Bedford Bedford VA 24523
Publicker Industries PAD981939200 Deleted Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19148
Purolite Chemical PAD987277498 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19122
Ravenswood PCE WVSFN0305428 Final Ravenswood Jackson WV 26164
Ray York Body Shop WVD981939697 Non Oak Hill Fayette WV 25901
Raymark PAD039017694 Final Hatboro Montgomery PA 19040
Recticon/Allied Steel PAD002353969 Final Parker Ford Chester PA 19457
Reeser’s Landfill PAD980829261 Deleted Upper Macungie Twp Lehigh PA 18062
Rentokil, Inc. VAD071040752 Final Richmond Henrico VA 23228
Resin Disposal PAD063766828 Deleted Jefferson Boro Allegheny PA 15025
Revere Chemical PAD051395499 Final Revere Bucks PA 18953
Rhinehart Tire Fire VAD980831796 Deleted Winchester Frederick VA 22601
Ridgeview PCB WVD981738883 Non Ridgeview Boone WV 25169
River Bend aka Creek Road Sand Blasting PASFN0305402 Non Hartsville Bucks PA 18974
River Road Landfill PAD000439083 Deleted Sharpsville Mercer PA 16146
Roanoke Drum Recycling VA0001897289 Non Roanoke Roanoke VA 24019
Robesonia Mercury PA0002122927 Non Robesonia PA 19551
Rodale Manufacturing PAD981033285 Final Emmaus Lehigh PA 18049
Roger’s Electric Company MDD024275257 Non-Archived Cheverly Prince Georges MD 20785
Rohm and Haas Landfill PAD091637975 Removed Bristol Township Bucks PA
Round Bottom Hill WVD988796587 Non Moundsville Marshall WV 26041
Route 52 / Washington Street Extension WVD981939622 Non Bluefield Mercer WV 24701
Route 522 Bridge PA0002021731 Non Lewistown Mifflin PA 17044
Route 563 Drum PAD981738867 Non Salford Twp Montgomery PA 18957
Route 735 Abandoned Barrel VAD988212379 Non Coatesville Hanover VA 23069
Route 940 Drum Dump PAD981034630 Deleted Tobyhanna Monroe PA 18350
Royal Dry Cleaners PAD987279817 Non Lansdale Montgomery PA 19446
RR2 Emlenton Lead PASFN0305448 Non Emlenton Venango PA 16373
Rustin Barrel VAD988212361 Non Mechanicsville Hanover VA 23069
Ryeland Road PAD981033459 Final Heidelberg Berks PA 19567
Sable Diamonds PAD982364234 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19106
Sabol Farm Drum PA0001096171 Non Girard Erie PA 16417
Sackville Mills Property PA0000198846 Non Nether Providence Delaware PA 19086
Saegertown Industrial Area PAD980692487 Final Saegertown Crawford PA 16433
Safety Light Corporation PAD987295276 Final Bloomsburg Columbia PA 17815
Salford Quarry PAD980693204 Final Lower Salford TWP Montgomery PA 19438
Salt Service PAD987387578 Non Ridley Park Delaware PA 19078
Saltville Power Plant VA0000878090 Non Saltville Smyth VA 24370
Saltville Waste Disposal VAD003127578 Final Saltville Smyth VA 24370
Sam Jones’ Junkyard VAD981036858 Non Gainesville Prince William VA 22065
Sand, Gravel, & Stone MDD980705164 Final Elkton Cecil MD 21921
Sasser Electric Company Drum WVD123625709 Non Mt Hope Fayette WV 25880
Saunders Supply Co. VAD003117389 Final Chuckatuck Suffolk VA 23432
Scott Robinson Lead Battery VAD988176368 Non Wise Wise VA 24293
Seaford-Arbutus Well Field DED984075523 Non-Archived Seaford Sussex DE 19973
Sealand Limited DED981035520 Deleted Mt Pleasant New Castle DE 19709
Second Street Electoplating PAD987270964 Non PA
Sellite Area Drum Site WVSFN0305501 Non Point Pleasant Mason WV 25550
Sewell Bottom Drum Dump WVD988768743 Non New River, George Nat’l PA Fayette WV 25936
Shaffer Equipment WVD981038300 Non Minden Fayette WV 25879
Shaler/JTC Properties PAD981041064 Non Bruin Twp Butler PA 16022
Sharon Steel Corporation (Fairmont Coke Works) WVD000800441 Final Fairmont Marion WV 26554
Sharon Steel Corp. (Farrell Works Disp Area) PAD001933175 Final Farrell Mercer PA 16121
Shriver’s Corner PAD980830889 Final Gettysburg Adams PA 17325
Singleton Drum VAD988222220 Non Rappahannock Culpeper VA 22701
Skipjack Chemicals, Inc. MDD985390327 Non Denton Caroline MD 21629
Sloan Glass WV0004294104 Non Culloden Cabel WV 25510
Small Lab Site MDD985382456 Non-Archived Sykesville Carroll MD 21784
Snow Hill Lane MDD981108467 Non Brooklyn Baltimore MD 21225
Solly Ave. Midnight Dump Site PAD981738800 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19111
Sophia Battery Dump WVSFN0305434 Non Sophia Raleigh WV 25921
South West Philadelphia Sludge Spill PAD987336989 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19153
Southeast Federal Center Non Washington DC DC 20408
Southern International Wood Treatment Co. VAD139372239 Non Miller’s Tavern King and Queen VA 23085
Southern MD Wood Treating MDD980704852 Deleted Hollywood St Marys MD 20686
Spectron, Inc MDD000218008 Final Elkton Cecil MD 21921
Spelter Smelter WV0000634584 Non Clarksburg Harrison WV 26438
Spencer Transformer PCB WVD021607494 Non Spencer Roane WV 25276
SSCD Schoolyard Site PAD981738743 Non Punxsatawney Jefferson PA 15767
St. Elizabeth’s Hospital Non Washington DC DC 20032
St Julien’s Creek Annex (US Navy) VA5170000181 Final Chesapeake Chesapeake VA 23702
St. Mary’s Salvage MDD985370030 Non-Archived St Marys St Marys MD 20686
Standard Chlorine of DE
aka Metachem DED041212473 Final Delaware City New Castle DE 19706
Stanley Kessler PAD014269971 Final King of Prussia Montgomery PA 19406
Starbrick Area PAD980918510 Non Conewango Twp Warren PA 16365
Starlight Lane Tire Fire VAN000305871 Non Roanoke Roanoke VA 24001
State Road PAD002279040 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19135
Stoney Creek PAN000306567 Non Trainer Delaware PA 19061
Stauffer Chemical Company VAD980551634 Non Bentonville Warren VA 22610
Strasburg Landfill PAD000441337 Final Newlin TWP Chester PA 19320
Strube Inc. PAN000306591 Non Marietta Lancaster PA 17547
Struble Trail Drums PA0001405166 Non E. Caln. Twp. Chester PA 19335
Suffolk City LF VAD980917983 Deleted Suffolk Suffolk VA 23434
Sussex County Landfill DED980494637 Deleted Laurel Sussex DE 19956
Sutton Enterprises, Inc. VAD988173548 Non Chesapeake Chesapeake VA 23320
Swanson Creek Oil Spill/Pepco Oil Pipeline Spill Charles and Prince George’s MD
Swissvale Auto Surplus Parts PAD980692560 Non Swissvale Allegheny PA 15218
Sycamore Well VASFN0305541 Non Danville Danville VA 24540
Sykesville Oil Spill Non Sykesville Carroll MD 21784
TMC Asbestos PA0002269660 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19145
Tacony Warehouse PA0210000931 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19135
Taylor Borough Dump PAD980693907 Deleted Taylor Lackawanna PA 18517
Taylor County Mercury WV0001986744 Non Grafton Taylor WV 26354
Tennessee Ave. Lead VA0001412600 Non Big Stone Gap Wise VA 24219
Thompson Street Trailer PAD987268646 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19125
Thompson’s Auto Parts Fire WVD988768800 Non Huntington Cabell WV 25701
Tobyhanna Army Depot PA5213820892 Final Tobyhanna Monroe PA 18466
Tonolli Corp PAD073613663 Final Nesquehoning Carbon PA 18240
Tordon Herbicide Chem Drum WVD982366908 Non Mechanicsville Hampshire WV 26757
Tranguch Gasoline PA0001409671 Non Hazelton Luzerne PA 18201
Trowbridge Estates Mercury PAD982363160 Non Feasterville Bucks PA 19020
Turpin Property VAD988168902 Non Wytheville Wythe VA 24382
Twin City Iron & Metal Co., Inc. VAD034557579 Non Bristol Bristol VA 24201
Tybouts Corner Landfill DED000606079 Final Wilmington New Castle DE 19899
Tyler Refrigeration Pit DED980705545 Deleted Smyrna Kent DE 19977
Tysons Dump PAD980692024 Final Upper Merion TWP Montgomery PA 19406
UGI Columbia Gas Plant PAD980539126 Final Columbia Lancaster PA 17512
United Chemical Technologies PA0000382820 Non Bristol Bucks PA 19007
Upper Glade Drum Dump WVD982362980 Non Upper Glade Webster WV 26266
Upshur County 4-H Tarpit WVD981941685 Non Selbyville Upshur WV 26263
U.S. Titanium VAD980705404 Final Piney River Nelson VA 22964
USA Cameron Station VA4210220139 Non Alexandria Alexandria VA 22304
USA Radford Ammuntion Plant VA1210020730 Non Radford Radford City VA 24141
USA Support Oakdale
formerly: C.E. Kelly Support Facility PA5210022344 Non Oakdale Allegheny PA 15071
USAF Andrews Air Force Base MD0570024000 Final Andrews AFB Prince Georges MD 20331
USN NRTF-Driver VA9170022488 Non Suffolk Suffolk VA 23434
Valley Forge National Historic Park PA9141733080 Non Valley Forge Chester PA 19481
Valley Plating VAD980832836 Non Richmond Henrico VA 23222
Valmont TCE (Former Valmont Industrial Park) PAD982363970 Final West Hazleton Luzerne PA 18201
Verdict Chemical Site PAN0000305629 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19133
Vermiculite WRG4 PAN000305592 None Ellwood City Lawrence PA 16117
Vienna Tetrachloroethene WVD988798401 Final Vienna Wood WV 26105
Vint Hill Farms Station VA8210020931 Non Warrenton Fauquier VA 22186
Vinton Drum Site VASFN0305390 Non Vinton Bedford VA 24179
Virginia Scrap Iron & Metal VA0000807156 Non Roanoke Roanoke VA 24015
Voortman Farm PAD980692719 Deleted Ladark Lehigh PA 18034
W & G Electroplating WVD988769642 Non Fairmont Marion WV 26554
Wach’s Landfill PAD980918767 Non S. Huntingdon Westmoreland PA 15089
Wade (ABM) PAD980539407 Deleted Chester City Delaware PA 19013
Walker Creek Well Non Parkersburg Wood WV
Walsh Landfill aka Welsh Landfill PAD980829527 Final Honeybrook Chester PA 19344
War Memorial Hospital Oil Spill WV0001766864 Non Berkeley Springs Morgan WV 25411
Warrenton PCE VA0000180836 Non Warrenton Fauquier VA 22186
Warrenton Training Center VAD988189312 Non Warrenton Fauquier VA 22186
Warwick Twp Real Estate aka Andela PA0000585901 Non Warwick Twp Bucks PA 18929
Washington D.C. Chemical Munitions (Spring Valley) DCD983971136 Non Washington DC DC 20015
Washington DC Mercury Incident DCN000306000 Non Washington DC DC 20032
Washington Gas & Light Non Washington DC DC 20019
Washington National Airport VAD988166518 Non Arlington Arlington VA 22030
Washington Navy Yard DC9170024310 Final Washington DC DC 20374
Watson Johnson Landfill PAD980706824 Final Richlandtown Bucks PA 18955
Weirton Drum Disposal WVD988776258 Non Weirton Hancock WV 26062
West Dauphin Chemical PAN000305598 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19132
West Virginia Ordnance WVD980713036 Final Pt Pleasant Mason WV 25550
Westinghouse Electric (Sharon) PAD005000575 Final Sharon Mercer PA 16146
Westinghouse Elevator Co. PAD043882281 Final Gettysburg Adams PA 17325
Westline PAD980692537 Deleted Westline McKean PA 16751
Wheeling Acid Spill WVD981739295 Non Wheeling Ohio WV 26003
Wheeling Scrap Radiation Source WVD000895987 Non Wheeling Ohio WV 26003
Whitemarsh Twp. Drum Dump PAD982366841 Non Plymouth Meeting Montgomery PA 19462
Whitmoyer Labs PAD003005014 Final Myerstown Lebanon PA 17067
Wildcat Landfill DED980704951 Final Dover Kent DE 19901
William Dick Lagoons PAD980537773 Final West Caln TWP Chester PA 19376
Willow Grove Naval Air Station PAD987277837 Final Willow Grove Montgomery PA 19090
Windsor Manor Road MDD985382829 Non Brandywine Prince Georges MD 20613
Woodard Property Abandoned Drums PAD987329794 Non Erie Erie PA 16501
Woodbridge Research Facility (WRF) VA7210020981 Non Woodbridge Prince William VA 22191
Woodlawn County Landfill MDD980504344 Final Woodlawn Cecil MD 21904
Yankee Street Arsenic WVN000306642 Non Wellsburg Brooke WV 26070
York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority PAD980830715 Deleted Hopewell TWP York PA 17363
York Metal Finishing PAN000305638 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia PA 19133
Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Superfund |EPA Home | EPA Superfund Homepage
Local Navigation
* Superfund Home
* Cleanup Home
* Region 3 Home
* Mid-Atlantic Cleanup
* Region 3 Superfund
o Federal Facilities
o Delaware
o District of Columbia
o Maryland
o Pennsylvania
o Virginia
o West Virginia
* Administrative Record Online
* Five-Year Reviews and Closeout Reports
* Current Issues
* Enforcement
* Grants & Funding
* Partnerships
* Related Links
* Calendar
* EPA Home
* Privacy and Security Notice
* Contact Us
Last updated on Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/allnpl.htm
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/allnpl.htm
****
Federal Facilities Superfund Sites
[ All Sites | District of Columbia | Delaware | Federal Facilities | Maryland | Pennsylvania | Virginia | West Virginia ]
Site Name EPA ID NPL Status City County Zip State
Aberdeen Proving Ground – Edgewood Area MD2210020036 Final Aberdeen Harford 21001 MD
Aberdeen Proving Ground – Michaelsville LF MD3210021355 Final Aberdeen Harford 21005 MD
Allegany Ballistics Lab WV0170023691 Final Short Gap Mineral 26753 WV
Andrews Air Force Base MD0570024000 Final Andrews AFB Prince Georges 20331 MD
Barney Circle Non Washington DC 20032 DC
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (USDA) MD0120508940 Final Beltsville Prince Georges 20705 MD
Bolling Air Force Base Non Washington DC 20331 DC
Brandywine DRMO MD9570024803 Final Andrews Prince Georges 20331 MD
Camp Simms Non Washington DC 20032 DC
Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard MD4690307844 Proposed Baltimore Anne Arundel 21226 MD
Defense Supply Center Philadelphia PA09715900005 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia 19101 PA
Defense General Supply Center VA3971520751 Final Richmond Chesterfield 23297 VA
Dover AF Base DE8570024010 Final Dover Kent 19901 DE
Former Nansemond Ordnance Depot VAD123933426 Final Suffolk Suffolk 23434 VA
Fort Eustis VA6210020321 Final Newport News Newport News 23604 VA
Ft. Detrick Area B Groundwater MDD985397249 Final Frederick Frederick MD
Ft. George G. Meade MD9210020567 Final Odenton Anne Arundel 20755 MD
Fort Pickett VA2210020705 Non Blackstone Nottoway 23824 VA
Ft. Ritchie MD0000795211 Non Cascade Washington 21719 MD
Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center MD7170024684 Final Indian Head Charles 20640 MD
Langley AFB/NASA Research Cntr VA2800005033 Final Hampton Hampton 23665 VA
Letterkenny Army Depot PDO Area
PA2210090054 Final Chambersburg Franklin 17201 PA
Letterkenny Army Depot
SE Area
PA6213820503
Final Chambersburg Franklin 17201 PA
Marine Corps Combat Development Comand VA1170024722 Final Quantico Prince William 22134 VA
Middletown Air Field PAD980538763 Deleted Middletown Dauphin 17057 PA
NASA Wallops Island VA8800010763 Non Wallops Island Accomack 23337 VA
Naval Air Development Cntr PA6170024545 Final Warminster Bucks 18974 PA
Naval Amphibious Base VA5170022482 Final Norfolk Virginia Beach 23521 VA
Naval Support Station PA3170022104 Non Mechanicsburg Cumberland 17055 PA
Naval Surface Warfare Center VA7170024684 Final Dahlgren King George 22448 VA
Naval Surface Warfare Center – White Oak MD0170023444 Non Silver Spring Montgomery 20903 MD
Naval Training Center Bainbridge MDD985397256 Non Bainbridge Cecil 21904 MD
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown VA8170024170 Final Yorktown York 23690 VA
Naval Weapons Station Yorktown – Cheatham Annex VA3170024605 Final Williamsburg Williamsburg 23185 VA
Norfolk Naval Base VA6170061463 Final Norfolk Norfolk 23511 VA
Norfolk Naval Shipyard VA1170024813 Final Portsmouth Portsmouth 23709 VA
Patuxent River Naval Air Station MD7170024536 Final Patuxent River St Marys 20670 MD
Philadelphia Naval Complex PA4170022418 Non Philadelphia Philadelphia 19112 PA
St. Elizabeth’s Hospital Non Washington DC 20032 DC
St Julien’s Creek Annex (US Navy) VA5170000181 Final Chesapeake Chesapeake 23702 VA
Southeast Federal Center Non Washington DC 20408 DC
Tobyhanna Army Depot PA5213820892 Final Tobyhanna Monroe 18466 PA
USA Cameron Station VA4210220139 Non Alexandria Alexandria 22304 VA
USA Radford Ammuntion Plant VA1210020730 Non Radford Radford City 24141 VA
USA Support Oakdale
formery: C.E. Kelly Support Facility PA5210022344 Non Oakdale Allegheny 15071 PA
USN NRTF-Driver VA9170022488 Non Suffolk Suffolk 23434 VA
Valley Forge National Historic Park PA9141733080 Non Valley Forge Chester 19481 PA
Vint Hill Farms Station VA8210020931 Non Warrenton Fauquier 22186 VA
Warrenton Training Center VAD988189312 Non Warrenton Fauquier 22186 VA
Washington DC Chemical Munitions (Spring Valley) DCD983971136 Non Washington DC 20015 DC
Washington Gas & Light Non Washington DC 20019 DC
Washington National Airport VAD988166518 Non Arlington Arlington 22030 VA
Washington Navy Yard DC9170024310 Final Washington DC 20374 DC
West Virginia Ordnance WVD980713036 Final Pt Pleasant Mason 25550 WV
Willow Grove Naval Air Station PAD987277837 Final Willow Grove Montgomery 19090 PA
Woodbridge Research Facility (WRF) VA7210020981 Non Woodbridge Prince William 22191 VA
Region 3 | Mid-Atlantic Cleanup | Mid-Atlantic Superfund |EPA Home | EPA Superfund Homepage
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/ff.htm
***
My Note – there had been a chemical weapons lab somewhere near Cleveland, Ohio – in a small town. What happened to that area’s cleanup – has it ever been checked or did they simply build people’s houses on top of it as they did in Washington, DC and other places?
– cricketdiane
P.S. I don’t think it was Colonel Mustard that did this one . . .
***
12 Monday Oct 2009
Tags
cricketdiane, Human Rights, International Concerns, life in the United States, United States, US Government, US government corruption
The Project Daedalus reference article from the English Wikipedia on 24-Jul-2004
(provided by Fixed Reference: snapshots of Wikipedia from wikipedia.org)
Project Daedalus
Project Daedalus was a study conducted between 1973 and 1978 by the British Interplanetary Society to design a plausible interstellar unmanned spacecraft. A dozen scientists and engineers led by Alan Bond worked on the project.
The design criteria were that the spacecraft had to use current or near-future technology and had to be able to reach its destination within a human lifetime (a flight time of 50 years was alotted). The target chosen was Barnard’s Star, 5.9 light years away, which at the time was believed to posses at least one planet (the evidence on which this belief was based has since been discredited). The design was required to be flexible enough that it could be sent to any of a number of other target stars, however.
Daedalus would be constructed in Earth orbit and have an initial mass of 54,000 tons, including 50,000 tons of fuel and 500 tons of scientific payload. Daedalus was to be a two-stage spacecraft. The first stage would operate for two years, taking the spacecraft to 7.1% of light speed, and then after it was jettisoned the second stage would fire for 1.8 years, bringing the spacecraft up to about 12% of light speed before being shut down for a 46-year cruise period.
This velocity was well beyond the capabilities of chemical rockets, so nuclear pulse propulsion was selected instead. Specifically, Daedalus would be propelled by a fusion rocket using pellets of deuterium/helium-3 mix that would be ignited in the reaction chamber by inertial confinement using electron beams. 250 pellets would be detonated per second, and the resulting plasma would be directed by a magnetic nozzle.
The second stage would have two 5-meter optical telescopes and two 20-meter radio telescopes. About 25 years after launch these telescopes would begin examining the area around Barnard’s Star to learn more about any accompanying planets. This information would be sent back to Earth, using the 40-meter diameter second stage engine bell was a communications dish, and targets of interest would be selected. Since the spacecraft would not decelerate upon reaching Barnard’s Star, Daedalus would carry 18 autonomous sub-probes that would be launched between 7.2 and 1.8 years before the main craft entered the target system. These sub-probes would be propelled by nuclear-powered ion drives and carry cameras, spectrometers, and other sensory equipment. They would fly past their targets, still travelling at 12% of the speed of light, and transmit their findings back to the Daedalus second stage mothership.
The ship’s payload bay containing its sub-probes, telescopes, and other equipment would be protected from the interstellar medium during transit by a 50-ton 7mm-thick beryllium disk. Larger obstacles that might be encountered while passing through the target system would be dispersed by an artificially-generated cloud of particles some 200 km ahead of the vehicle. The spacecraft would carry a number of robot wardens capable of autonomously repairing damage or malfunctions.
External links
* http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/Daedalus.html
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Project_Daedalus
***
Operation Northwoods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Northwoods memorandum (March 13, 1962).[1]
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington .
This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.
The plan stated:
The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.
Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government’s Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.
Contents
* 1 Origins and public release
* 2 Content
* 3 James Bamford summary
* 4 Related Operation Mongoose proposals
* 5 Reaction
* 6 See also
* 7 Further reading
* 8 References
* 9 External links
Origins and public release
The main proposal was presented in a document entitled Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS), a collection of draft memoranda written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group.[1] (The parenthetical TS in the title of the document is an initialism for Top Secret. ) The document was presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that both the covert and overt aspects of any such operation be assigned to them.
The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,[2] a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy’s assassination.[3][4][5][6][7] A total 1521 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.
Appendix to Enclosure A and Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A of the Northwoods document were first published online by the National Security Archive on November 6, 1998 in a joint venture with CNN as part of CNN’s 1998 Cold War television documentary series[8][9]—specifically, as a documentation supplement to Episode 10: Cuba, which aired on November 29, 1998.[10][11] Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A is the section of the document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks.
The Northwoods document was published online in a more complete form (i.e., including cover memoranda) by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001.[12]
Content
In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations of the Cuba Project, Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outlined plans) the authors believed would garner public and international support for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin.
1. Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite preliminary actions such as has been developed in response to Task 33 c, could be executed as an initial effort to provoke Cuban reactions. Harassment plus deceptive actions to convince the Cubans of imminent invasion would be emphasized. Our military posture throughout execution of the plan will allow a rapid change from exercise to intervention if Cuban response justifies.
2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.
a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
1. Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
2. Land friendly Cubans in uniform over-the-fence to stage attack on base.
3. Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4. Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).[13]
5. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
6. Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
7. Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
8. Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
9. Capture militia group which storms the base.
10. Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires—napthalene.
11. Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be in lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A Remember the Maine incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to evacuate remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.[14]
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
5. A Cuban-based, Castro-supported filibuster could be simulated against a neighboring Caribbean nation (in the vein of the 14th of June invasion of the Dominican Republic). We know that Castro is backing subversive efforts clandestinely against Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nicaragua at present and possible others. These efforts can be magnified and additional ones contrived for exposure. For example, advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. Cuban B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane-burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with Cuban messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and Cuban shipments of arm which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach.
6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.[15]
7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.
8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a MAY DAY message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to sell the incident.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.
b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down, a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.[17]
James Bamford summary
Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[18]
Related Operation Mongoose proposals
In addition to Operation Northwoods, under the Operation Mongoose program the U.S. Department of Defense had a number of similar proposals to be taken against the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro.
Twelve of these proposals come from a February 2, 1962 memorandum entitled Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba, written by Brig. Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project.[5][6][7][19]
The memorandum outlines Operation Bingo, a plan to, in its words, create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba.
It also includes Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying: The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al. Cuba [sic]. It continues, This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.
Even after General Lemnitzer lost his job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff still planned false-flag pretext operations at least into 1963. A different U.S. Department of Defense policy paper created in 1963 discussed a plan to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. The U.S. Department of Defense document says of one of the scenarios, A contrived ‘Cuban’ attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS.
The plan expresses confidence that by this action, the U.S. could almost certainly obtain the necessary two-thirds support among OAS members for collective action against Cuba. [18][20]
Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[18] As the U.S. Department of Defense report noted:
Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation. [18]
The U.S. Department of Defense report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo. [18]
Reaction
President John F. Kennedy personally rejected the Northwoods proposal. A JCS/Pentagon document (Ed Lansdale memo) dated March 16, 1962 titled MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, 16 MARCH 1962 reads: General Lemnitzer commented that the military had contingency plans for US intervention. Also it had plans for creating plausible pretexts to use force, with the pretext either attacks on US aircraft or a Cuban action in Latin America for which we could retaliate. The President said bluntly that we were not discussing the use of military force, that General Lemnitzer might find the U.S so engaged in Berlin or elsewhere that he couldn’t use the contemplated 4 divisions in Cuba. [21] The proposal was sent for approval to the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, but was not implemented.
Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly afterward, although he became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963.
The continuing push against the Cuban government by internal elements of the U.S. military and intelligence community (the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Project, etc.) prompted Kennedy to attempt to rein in burgeoning hardline anti-Communist sentiment that was intent on proactive, aggressive action against communist movements around the globe. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy fired then CIA director Allen W. Dulles, Deputy Director Charles P. Cabell, and Deputy Director Richard Bissell, and turned his attention towards Vietnam.
Kennedy also took steps to bring discipline to the CIA’s Cold War and paramilitary operations by drafting a National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) which called for the shift of Cold War operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Department of Defense as well as a major change in the role of the CIA to exclusively deal in intelligence gathering. Kennedy was notably unpopular with the military, a rift that came to a head during Kennedy’s disagreements with the military over the Cuban Missile Crisis, shortly before the presentation of Northwoods. Personally, Kennedy expressed concern and anger to many of his associates about the CIA’s growing influence on civilians and government inside America.
On August 3, 2001, the National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba (the main legislative body of the Republic of Cuba) issued a statement referring to Operation Northwoods and Operation Mongoose wherein it condemned such U.S. government plans.[22]
See also
Cuba portal
* Bay of Pigs Invasion
* Body of Secrets
* CIA Family Jewels
* Cuba – United States relations
* Operation WASHTUB
* Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group
* Operation Gladio
* False flag
Further reading
* Jon Elliston, editor, Psywar on Cuba: The Declassified History of U.S. Anti-Castro Propaganda (Melbourne, Australia and New York: Ocean Press, 1999), ISBN 1-876175-09-5.
* James Bamford, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency From the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century (New York: Doubleday, first edition, April 24, 2001), ISBN 0-385-49907-8. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 4: Fists of this book.
References
1. ^ a b U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS), U.S. Department of Defense, March 13, 1962. The Operation Northwoods document in PDF format on the website of the independent, non-governmental research institute the National Security Archive at the George Washington University Gelman Library, Washington, D.C. Direct PDF links: here and here.
2. ^ The Records of the Assassination Records Review Board, National Archives and Records Administration.
3. ^ Media Advisory: National Archives Releases Additional Materials Reviewed by the Assassination Records Review Board, Assassination Records Review Board (a division of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration), November 17, 1997. A U.S. government press-release announcing the declassification of some 1500 pages of U.S. government documents from 1962-64 relating to U.S. policy towards Cuba, among which declassified documents included the Operation Northwoods document.
4. ^ Jim Wolf, Pentagon Planned 1960s Cuban ‘Terror Campaign’, Reuters, November 18, 1997.
5. ^ a b Mike Feinsilber, At a tense time, plots abounded to humiliate Castro, Associated Press (AP), November 18, 1997; also available here.
6. ^ a b Tim Weiner, Documents Show Pentagon’s Anti-Castro Plots During Kennedy Years, New York Times, November 19, 1997; appeared on the same date and by the same author in the New York Times itself as Declassified Papers Show Anti-Castro Ideas Proposed to Kennedy, late edition—final, section A, pg. 25, column 1.
7. ^ a b Jon Elliston, Operation Mongoose: The PSYOP Papers, ParaScope, Inc., 1998.
8. ^ National Security Archive: COLD WAR: Documents, National Security Archive, September 27, 1998-January 24, 1999.
9. ^ U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Appendix to Enclosure A: Memorandum for Chief of Operations, Cuba Project and Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify US Military Intervention in Cuba, U.S. Department of Defense, circa March 1962. First published online by the National Security Archive on November 6, 1998, as part of CNN’s Cold War documentary series. Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A is the section of the Operation Northwoods document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks.
10. ^ Episode 10: Cuba; Cuba: 1959-1968, CNN (Cable News Network LP, LLLP).
11. ^ Cold War Teacher Materials: Episodes, and Educator Guide to CNN’s COLD WAR Episode 10: Cuba, Turner Learning (Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.).
12. ^ Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, National Security Archive, April 30, 2001.
13. ^ Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify US Military Intervention in Cuba, p7, media.nara.gov, accessed 9/3/09
14. ^ Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify US Military Intervention in Cuba, p8, media.nara.gov, accessed 9/3/09
15. ^ Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify US Military Intervention in Cuba, p9, media.nara.gov, accessed 9/3/09
16. ^ Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify US Military Intervention in Cuba, p10, media.nara.gov, accessed 9/3/09
17. ^ Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A: Pretexts to Justify US Military Intervention in Cuba, p11, media.nara.gov, accessed 9/3/09
18. ^ a b c d e James Bamford, Chapter 4: Fists of Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency From the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century (New York: Doubleday, first edition, April 24, 2001), ISBN 0-385-49907-8. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 4: Fists of this book.
19. ^ Memo from Brig. Gen. William Craig to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass, or Disrupt Cuba, U.S. Department of Defense, February 2, 1962. The following are photoscans of this document in JPEG format: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4. (Note: the foregoing links to Brig. Gen. Craig’s memo are at this time offline. The following are backup links: text in HTML; JPEG photoscans: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4.)
20. ^ Mike Feinsilber, Records Show Plan To Provoke Castro, Associated Press (AP), January 29, 1998.
21. ^ Lansdale Memo of 16 Mar 1962. This memo records a high-level meeting in the White House 3 days after McNamara was presented with Operation Northwoods. [1]
22. ^ Statement by the National Assembly of People’s Power of the Republic of Cuba, National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba, August 3, 2001; also available here.
External links
See the above References section for documents cited in the body of this article.
* The Full Operation Northwoods document in both JPEG and fully searchable HTML format.
* High resolution scans from the National Archives, main pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
* Scott Shane and Tom Bowman with contribution from Laura Sullivan, New book on NSA sheds light on secrets: U.S. terror plan was Cuba invasion pretext, Baltimore Sun, April 24, 2001.
* Ron Kampeas, Memo: U.S. Mulled Fake Cuba Pretext, Associated Press (AP), April 25, 2001.
* Bruce Schneier, ‘Body of Secrets’ by James Bamford: The author of a pioneering work on the NSA delivers a new book of revelations about the mysterious agency’s coverups, eavesdropping and secret missions, Salon.com, April 25, 2001.
* David Ruppe, U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba; Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba, ABC News, May 1, 2001.
* TV interview with James Bamford regarding Operation Northwoods
* The Truth Is Out There—1962 memo from National Security Agency, Harper’s Magazine, July 2001.
* Chris Floyd, Head Cases, Moscow Times, December 21, 2001, pg. VIII; also appeared in St. Petersburg Times, Issue 733 (100), December 25, 2001.
* Operation Northwoods, SourceWatch.
* Thierry Meyssan, Operation Northwoods: The Terrorist Attacks Planned by the American Joint Chief of Staff against its Population, Voltaire Network, November 5, 2001.
v • d • e
Flag of Cuba Cuba – United States relations Flag of the United States
Bay of Pigs Invasion A Brothers to the Rescue A Cuban American A Cuban-American lobby A Cuban Five A Cuban Missile Crisis A Cuban opposition since 1959 A Elian Gonzalez affair A Guantanamo Bay Naval Base A Helms-Burton Act A List of Cuba-US aircraft hijackings A Luis Posada Carriles A Mariel boatlift A Operation Peter Pan A Platt Amendment A Spanish–American War A United States Ambassador to Cuba A United States embargo against Cuba A United States Interests Section in Havana
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Categories: Canceled military operations involving the United States | United States intelligence operations | False flag operations | Cuba – United States relations | Opposition to Fidel Castro | Official documents of the United States | Terrorism in Cuba | 1962 works | Secret government programs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
185px-NorthwoodsMemorandum.jpg
Operation Northwoods memorandum (March 13, 1962).[1]
***
USS Thresher (SSN-593)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USS Thresher (SSN-593) underway, 30 April 1961.
Career United States Navy ensign
Ordered: 15 January 1958
Builder: Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Laid down: 28 May 1958
Launched: 9 July 1960
Commissioned: 3 August 1961
Struck: 16 April 1963
Motto: Vis Tacita (Silent Strength)
Fate: Sank with all hands during deep diving tests, 10 April 1963, 129 died.
Status: Located 350 km east of Cape Cod at a depth of 8400 ft.
General characteristics
Displacement: 3,540 short tons (3,210 t) light, 3,770 short tons (3,420 t) submerged
Length: 279 ft (85 m)
Beam: 32 ft (9.8 m)
Draft: 26 ft (7.9 m)
Propulsion: 1 Westinghouse S5W PWR, Westinghouse Geared Turbines 15,000 shp (11 MW)
Speed: 20+ kts
Complement: 16 officers, 96 men
Armament: 4 x 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes amidships
For other ships of the same name, see USS Thresher.
The second USS Thresher (SSN-593) was the lead ship of her class of nuclear-powered attack submarines in the United States Navy. Her loss at sea during deep-diving tests in 1963 is often considered a watershed event in the implementation of the rigorous submarine safety program SUBSAFE.
The contract to build Thresher was awarded to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on 15 January 1958, and her keel was laid on 28 May 1958. She was launched on 9 July 1960, was sponsored by Mrs. Frederick B. Warder (wife of the famous Pacific War skipper), and was commissioned on 3 August 1961, with Commander Dean L. Axene in command.
Content
* 1 Early career
* 2 Sinking
* 3 Details of the disaster
* 4 Memorials
* 5 See also
* 6 Footnotes
* 7 References
* 8 External links
Early career
Thresher conducted lengthy sea trials in the western Atlantic and Caribbean Sea areas in 1961 and 1962. These tests provided a thorough evaluation of her many new and complex technological features and weapons. Following these trials, she took part in Nuclear Submarine Exercise (NUSUBEX) 3-61 off the northeastern coast of the United States from 18 September to 24 September 1961.
On 18 October Thresher headed south along the East Coast. While in port at San Juan, Puerto Rico on 2 November 1961, her reactor was shut down and the diesel generator was used to carry the hotel electrical loads. Several hours later the generator broke down, and the electrical load was then carried by the battery. The generator could not be quickly repaired, so the captain ordered the reactor restarted. However, the battery charge was depleted before the reactor went critical. With no electrical power for ventilation, temperatures in the machinery spaces reached 60 °C (140 °F), and the boat was partially evacuated. Cavalla (SS-244) arrived the next morning and provided power from her diesels, enabling Thresher to restart her reactor.[1]
Thresher conducted further trials and fired test torpedoes before returning to Portsmouth on 29 November. The boat remained in port through the end of the year, and spent the first two months of 1962 evaluating her sonar and Submarine Rocket (SUBROC) systems. In March, the submarine participated in NUSUBEX 2-62 (an exercise designed to improve the tactical capabilities of nuclear submarines) and in antisubmarine warfare training with Task Group ALPHA.
Off Charleston, SC, Thresher undertook operations observed by the Naval Antisubmarine Warfare Council before she returned briefly to New England waters, after which she proceeded to Florida for more SUBROC tests. However, while moored at Port Canaveral, Florida, the submarine was accidentally struck by a tug which damaged one of her ballast tanks. After repairs at Groton, Connecticut, by the Electric Boat Company, Thresher went south for more tests and trials off Key West, Florida, then returned northward and remained in dockyard for refurbishment through the early spring of 1963.
Sinking
On 9 April 1963, after the completion of this work, Thresher, now commanded by Lieutenant Commander John Wesley Harvey, began post-overhaul trials. Accompanied by the submarine rescue ship USS Skylark (ASR-20), she sailed to an area some 350 kilometers (220 statute miles or 190 nautical miles) east of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and on the morning of 10 April started deep-diving tests. As Thresher neared her test depth, Skylark received garbled communications over underwater telephone indicating … minor difficulties, have positive up-angle, attempting to blow. [2][3][4] When Skylark received no further communication, surface observers gradually realized Thresher had sunk. Publicly it took some days to announce that all 129 officers, crewmen, and military and civilian technicians aboard were presumed dead.
After an extensive underwater search using the bathyscaphe Trieste, oceanographic ship Mizar and other ships, Thresher’s remains were located on the sea floor, some 8,400 feet (2,600 m) below the surface, in six major sections.[5] The majority of the debris had spread over an area of about 134,000 square metres (160,000 sq yd). The major sections were the sail, sonar dome, bow section, engineering spaces section, operations spaces section, and the stern planes.
Deep sea photography, recovered artifacts, and an evaluation of her design and operational history permitted a Court of Inquiry to conclude Thresher had probably suffered the failure of a joint in a salt water piping system, which relied heavily on silver brazing instead of welding; earlier tests using ultrasound equipment found potential problems with about 14% of the tested brazed joints, most of which were determined not to pose a risk significant enough to require a repair. High-pressure water spraying from a broken pipe joint may have shorted out one of the many electrical panels, which in turn caused a shutdown ( scram ) of the reactor, with a subsequent loss of propulsion. The inability to blow the ballast tanks was later attributed to excessive moisture in the ship’s high-pressure air flasks, which froze and plugged the flasks’ flowpaths while passing through the valves. This was later simulated in dock-side tests on Thresher’s sister ship, USS Tinosa (SSN-606). During a test to simulate blowing ballast at or near test depth, ice formed on strainers installed in valves; the flow of air lasted only a few seconds. Air driers were later retrofitted to the high pressure air compressors, beginning with Tinosa, to permit the emergency blow system to operate properly.
Unlike diesel submarines, nuclear subs rely on speed and deck angle rather than deballasting to surface; they are driven at an angle towards the surface. Ballast tanks were almost never blown at depth, and to do so could cause the ship to rocket to the surface out of control. Normal procedure was to drive the ship to periscope depth, raise the periscope to verify the area was clear, then blow the tanks and surface the ship.
At the time, reactor-plant operating procedures precluded a rapid reactor restart following a scram, or even the ability to use steam remaining in the secondary system to drive the ship to the surface. After a scram, standard procedure was to isolate the main steam system, cutting off the flow of steam to the turbines providing propulsion and electricity. This was done to prevent an over-rapid cool-down of the reactor. Thresher’s Reactor Control Officer, Lieutenant Raymond McCoole, was not at his station in the maneuvering room, or indeed on the ship, during the fatal dive. McCoole was at home caring for his wife who had been injured in a household accident — he had been all but ordered ashore by a sympathetic Commander Harvey. McCoole’s trainee, Jim Henry, fresh from nuclear power school, probably followed standard operating procedures and gave the order to isolate the steam system after the scram, even though Thresher was at or slightly below her maximum depth and was taking on water. Once closed, the large steam system isolation valves could not be reopened quickly. Reflecting on the situation in later life, McCoole was sure he would have delayed shutting the valves, thus allowing the ship to answer bells and drive herself to the surface, despite the flooding in the engineering spaces. Admiral Rickover later changed the procedure, allowing steam to be withdrawn from the secondary system in limited quantities for several minutes following a scram.
There was much (covert) criticism of Rickover’s training after Thresher went down,[citation needed] the argument being his nukes were so well conditioned to protect the nuclear plant they would have shut the main steam stop valves by rote — depriving the ship of needed propulsion — even at great depths and with the ship clearly in jeopardy.[citation needed] Nothing enraged Rickover more than this argument. Common sense, he argued, would prove this to be untrue.[citation needed]
It’s more likely that the engine room crew was simply overwhelmed by the flooding casualty, or took too long to contain it.[citation needed] In a dockside simulation of flooding in the engine room, held before Thresher sailed, it took the watch in charge 20 minutes to isolate a simulated leak in the auxiliary seawater system. At test depth, taking on water, and with the reactor shut down, Thresher would not have had anything like 20 minutes to recover. Even after isolating a short-circuit in the reactor controls it would have taken nearly 10 minutes to restart the plant.
The Thresher probably imploded at a depth somewhere between 1,300 and 2,000 feet (400 and 600m).
Over the next several years, the Navy implemented the SUBSAFE program to correct design and construction problems on all submarines (nuclear and diesel-electric) in service, under construction, and in planning. During the formal inquiry, it was discovered record-keeping at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was far from adequate.[citation needed] For example, no one could determine the whereabouts of hull weld X-rays made of Thresher’s sister ship Tinosa, nearing completion at Portsmouth, or, indeed, whether they had been made at all. It was also determined that the engine room layout was awkward, in fact dangerous, as there were no centrally-located isolation valves for the main and auxiliary seawater systems. Most subs were subsequently equipped or retrofitted with flood control levers, which allowed the Engineer Officer of the Watch in the maneuvering room to remotely close isolation valves in the seawater systems from a central panel, a task necessarily performed by hand on Thresher. Hand-power valves might not even have been accessible during a flooding casualty: at such depths, the blast of water from even a small leak (a water spike ) can dent metal cabinets, rip insulation from cables, and even cut a man in half. (Water pressure at 1,000 feet (300 m)] is about 450 psi (3,100 kPa)].)
SUBSAFE would prove itself to be a crucial part of the Navy’s safe operation of nuclear submarines, but was disregarded just a few years later in a rush to get another nuclear sub, Scorpion, ready for service as part of yet another program meant to increase nuclear submarine availability. The subsequent loss of Scorpion reaffirmed the need for SUBSAFE, and apart from Scorpion, the U.S. Navy has suffered no further losses of nuclear submarines.
The Navy has periodically monitored the environmental conditions of the site since the sinking and has reported the results in an annual public report on environmental monitoring for U.S. Naval nuclear-powered ships. These reports provide specifics on the environmental sampling of sediment, water, and marine life which were taken to ascertain whether Thresher’s nuclear reactor has had a significant effect on the deep ocean environment. The reports also explain the methodology for conducting deep sea monitoring from both surface vessels and submersibles. The monitoring data confirms that there has been no significant effect on the environment. Nuclear fuel in the submarine remains intact.
According to newly declassified information, the Navy sent Commander (Dr.) Robert Bob Ballard, the oceanographer credited for the successful search for the wreck of RMS Titanic, on a secret mission to map and collect visual data on both the Thresher and the Scorpion wrecks.[citation needed] The Navy used Ballard’s search for the Titanic as a screen to hide the mission. Ballard approached the Navy in 1982 for funding to find the Titanic with his new deep-diving robot submersible. The Navy saw the opportunity and granted him the money on the condition he first inspect the two submarine wrecks. Ballard’s robotic survey discovered that the Thresher had sunk so deep it imploded, turning into thousands of pieces. His 1985 search for the Scorpion, which was thought to be a victim of a Soviet attack, revealed such a large debris field that it looked as though it had been put through a shredding machine. The survey data revealed the most likely cause of the loss of the Scorpion was one of its own torpedoes exploding inside the torpedo room. Once the two wrecks had been visited, and the radioactive threat from both was established as small, Ballard was able to search for Titanic. Due to dwindling funds, he had just twelve days to do so, but he used the same debris-field search techniques he had used for the two subs, which worked, and the Titanic was found.[6]
U.S. submarine classes are generally known by the hull number of the lead ship of the class – for instance, Los Angeles-class boats are called 688s because the hull number of USS Los Angeles was SSN-688. The Thresher-class boats should thus be called 593s, but since Thresher’s sinking they have been referred to as 594s (Permit class).
Details of the disaster
Time-accelerated sequence of events during the disaster
The following is from the 1975 book The Thresher Disaster by John Bentley.[7] Times are in 24-hour notation.
* 07:47: Thresher begins its descent to the test depth of 1,300 feet (400 m).
* 07:52: Thresher levels off at 400 feet (120 m), contacts the surface, and the crew inspects the ship for leaks. None are found.
* 08:09: Commander Harvey reports reaching half the test depth.
* 08:25: Thresher reaches 1,000 feet (300 m).
* 09:02: Thresher is cruising at just a few knots (subs normally moved slowly and cautiously at great depths, lest a sudden jam of the diving planes send the ship below test depth in a matter of seconds.) The boat is descending in slow circles, and announces to Skylark she is turning to Corpen [course] 090. At this point, transmission quality from the Thresher begins to noticeably degrade, possibly as a result of thermoclines.
* 09:09: It is believed a brazed pipe-joint ruptures in the engine room. The crew would have attempted to stop the leak; at the same time, the engine room would be filling with a cloud of mist. Under the circumstances, Commander Harvey’s likely decision would have been to order full speed, full rise on the sail planes, and blowing main ballast in order to surface. Due to Joule-Thomson effect, the pressurized air rapidly expanding in the pipes cools down, condensing moisture and depositing it on strainers installed in the system to protect the moving parts of the valves; in only a few seconds the moisture freezes, clogging the strainers and blocking the air flow, halting the effort to blow ballast. Water leaking from the broken pipe most likely causes short circuits leading to an automatic shutdown of the ship’s reactor, causing a loss of propulsion. The logical action at this point would have been for Harvey to order propulsion shifted to a battery-powered backup system. As soon as the flooding was contained, the engine room crew would have begun to restart the reactor, an operation that would be expected to take at least 7 minutes.
* 09:12: Skylark pages Thresher on the underwater telephone: Gertrude check, K [over]. With no immediate response (although Skylark is still unaware of the conditions aboard Thresher), the signal K is repeated twice.
* 09:13: Harvey reports status via underwater telephone. The transmission is garbled, though some words are recognizable: [We are] experiencing minor difficulty, have positive up-angle, attempting to blow. The submarine, growing heavier from water flooding the engine room, continues its descent, probably tail-first. Another attempt to empty the ballast tanks is performed, again failing due to the formation of ice. Officers on the Skylark could hear the hiss of compressed air over the loudspeaker at this point.
* 09:14: Skylark acknowledges with a brisk, Roger, out, awaiting further updates from the SSN. A follow-up message, No contacts in area, is sent to reassure Thresher she can surface quickly, without fear of collision, if required.
* 09:15: Skylark queries Thresher about her intentions: My course 270 degrees. Interrogative range and bearing from you. There is no response, and Skylark’s captain, Lieutenant Commander Hecker, sends his own gertrude message to the submarine, Are you in control?
* 09:16: Skylark picks up a garbled transmission from Thresher, transcribed in the ship’s log as 900 N. [The meaning of this message is unclear, and was not discussed at the enquiry; it may have indicated the submarine’s depth and course, or it may have referred to a Navy event number (1000 indicating loss of submarine), with the N signifying a negative response to the query from Skylark, Are you in control? ]
* 09:17: A second transmission is received, with the partially recognizable phrase exceeding test depth…. The leak from the broken pipe grows with increased pressure.
* 09:18: Skylark detects a high-energy low-frequency noise with characteristics of an implosion.
* 09:20: Skylark continues to page Thresher, repeatedly calling for a radio check, a smoke bomb, or some other indication of the boat’s condition.
* 11:04: Skylark attempts to transmit a message to COMSUBLANT (Commander, Submarines, Atlantic Fleet): Unable to communicate with Thresher since 0917R. Have been calling by UQC voice and CW, QHB, CW every minute. Explosive signals every 10 minutes with no success. Last transmission received was garbled. Indicated Thresher was approaching test depth…. Conducting expanding search. Radio problems meant that COMSUBLANT did not receive and respond to this message until 12:45. Hecker initiated Event SUBMISS [loss of a submarine] procedures at 11:21, and continued to repeatedly hail the Thresher until after 17:00.
On 11 April, at a news conference at 10:30, the Navy officially declared the ship as lost.
Memorials
Memorial stone in Arlington National Cemetery, USS Thresher, July, 1967
* Just outside the main gate of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California, a Thresher-Scorpion Memorial honors the crews of the two submarines.[8]
* In Carpentersville, IL the Dundee Township Park District named a swimming facility in honor of Thresher.[citation needed]
* In Portsmouth, New Hampshire, there is a stone memorial with a plaque honoring all who were lost on the Thresher. It is located outside the USS Albacore museum.[9]
* A Joint Resolution was introduced in 2001 calling for the erection of a memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, but this proposal has yet to be adopted.[10]
* On 12 April 1963, President John Kennedy issued an Executive Order (No. 11104) paying tribute to the crew of Thresher by flying flags at half-staff.[11]
* The musician Phil Ochs composed a song detailing the vessel’s demise. This song appears on his debut album, All the News That’s Fit to Sing. Pete Seeger also composed a song inspired by the vessel.[citation needed]
* The Thresher’s hull number, 593, can be seen on the sailfin of the fictional USS Wayne in the movie The Spy Who Loved Me.[citation needed]
* In Eureka, Missouri, there is a marble stone at the post office on Thresher Drive honoring the officers and crew of the USS Thresher, Lost 10 April 1963 [12]
See also
* Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle
* USS Scorpion (SSN-589), the only other American nuclear-powered submarine to be lost at sea, sunk under mysterious circumstances in 1968
* John Craven USN Key individual in the search for Thresher
Footnotes
1. ^ [1]
2. ^ COMSUBPAC Web site, Submarines Lost or Damaged before and after World War II . http://www.csp.navy.mil/othboats/593.htm. Retrieved 2006-02-02.
3. ^ U.S. Gov Info / Resources, US Navy’s Submarine Rescue Team . http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081700a.htm. Retrieved 2006-02-02.
4. ^ NOVA Web site, transcript of Submarines, Secrets, and Spies . http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2602subsecrets.html. Retrieved 2006-02-02.
5. ^ Brand, V (1977). Submersibles – Manned and Unmanned. . South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society journal 7 (3). ISSN 0813-1988. OCLC 16986801. http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6154. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
6. ^ The Times: Titanic search was cover for secret Cold War subs mission; May 24, 2008
7. ^ Bentley, John. The Thresher Disaster, New York: Doubleday, 1975, pp. 157-165
8. ^ http://www.submarinehistory.com/ThresherScorpionMemorial.html
9. ^ [2]
10. ^ http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/uss-thresher.htm
11. ^ http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo//eo//11104.htm
12. ^ http://www.eureka.mo.us/MINUTES/2007PARK_BOARD/Park_Board_Minutes_4-10-07.pdf (pdf file)
References
* Loss of USS Thresher: http://www.submarinehistory.com/Thresher.html
* Thresher-Scorpion Memorial: http://www.submarinehistory.com/ThresherScorpionMemorial.html
* World War II National Submarine Memorial – West: http://www.submarinehistory.com/WWIISubmarineMemorial.html
* World War II National Submarine Memorial – East: http://www.submarinehistory.com/WWIISubmarineMemorial-East.html
* Sontag, Sherry; Drew, Christopher; Drew, Annette Lawrence (1998). Blind Man’s Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage. Harper. ISBN 0-06-103004-X.
* Polmar, Norman Death of the Thresher The Lyons Press, ISBN 1-58574-348-8
* Bentley, John The Thresher Disaster Doubleday, ISBN 0-385-03057-6
* Rockwell, Theodore The Rickover Effect iUniverse, Inc, ISBN 0-595-74527-X
* http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/USS-THRESHER-SSN593/2005-01/1104944120 — McCoole’s statement re: shutting main steam valves during reactor scram
* DeMercurio, Michael The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Submarines Alpha Books, ISBN 978-0028644714
External links
* On Eternal Patrol: USS Thresher
* http://www.ussthresher.com/
* http://www.thresherbase.org/
* Memorial Video on YouTube
[hide]
v • d • e
Thresher/Permit-class submarine
Thresher A Permit A Plunger A Barb A Pollack A Haddo A Jack A Tinosa A Dace A Guardfish A Flasher A Greenling A Gato A Haddock
List of submarines of the United States Navy A List of submarine classes of the United States Navy
Coordinates: 41°46?N 65°03?W? / ?41.767°N 65.05°W? / 41.767; -65.05
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
Categories: United States submarine accidents | Permit class submarines | Lost submarines of the United States | Lost nuclear submarines | Nuclear-powered ships | United States Navy nuclear ships | Maritime incidents in 1963 | Shipwrecks in the Atlantic Ocean | Ships built in Maine | 1960 ships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
***
Lyman Lemnitzer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lyman Louis Lemnitzer
August 29, 1899(1899-08-29) – November 12, 1988 (aged 89)
Lyman L. Lemnitzer.jpg
General Lyman Louis Lemnitzer, US Army (Ret.)
Place of birth Honesdale, Pennsylvania
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Army
Years of service {USAMA 1916-1920} 1920-1969
Rank US-O10 insignia.svg General
Commands held Chief of Staff of the United States Army
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Supreme Allied Commander, NATO
Battles/wars World War II
Korean War
Awards Army Distinguished Service Medal (3)
Navy Distinguished Service Medal
Air Force Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star
British Order of the British Empire
French Legion of Merit (Officer)
German Bundeswehr Cross of Honour in Gold
Other work Rockefeller Commission
Lyman Louis Lemnitzer (August 29, 1899 – November 12, 1988) was an American Army General, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1960 to 1962. He then served Supreme Allied Commander, NATO from 1963 to 1969.
Contents
* 1 Biography
* 2 Awards and decorations
o 2.1 Foreign decorations
* 3 See also
* 4 References
* 5 External links
Biography
Lemnitzer was born on August 29, 1899 in Honesdale, Pennsylvania. He graduated from West Point in 1920 and was assigned at his request to a Coast Artillery unit. Lemnitzer served in the Philippines but soon began receiving the staff assignments that marked his military career.
Lemnitzer was promoted to Brigadier General in June 1942 and assigned to General Eisenhower’s staff shortly thereafter. He helped form the plans for the invasions of North Africa and Sicily and was promoted to Major General in November 1944. Lemnitzer was one of the senior officers sent to negotiate the Italian surrender during the secret Operation Sunrise and the German surrender in 1945.
Following the end of World War II, Lemnitzer was assigned to the Strategic Survey Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was later named Deputy Commandant of the National War College. In 1950, at the age of 51, he took parachute training and was subsequently placed in command of the 11th Airborne Division. He was assigned to Korea in command of the 7th Infantry Division in November 1951 and was promoted to Lieutenant General in August 1952.
Lemnitzer was promoted to the rank of General and named Commander of U.S. Army Forces in the Far East and of the 8th Army in March 1955. He was named Chief of Staff of the Army in July 1957 and appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 1960. As Chairman, Lemnitzer weathered the Bay of Pigs crisis and the early years of American involvement in Vietnam. He was also required to testify before the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee about his knowledge of the activities of Major General Edwin Walker, who had been dismissed from the Army over alleged attempts to promote his political beliefs in the military.
Lemnitzer approved the plans known as Operation Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag and develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington . Lemnitzer presented the plans to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. It is unclear how McNamara reacted, but three days later President Kennedy told the general that there was no chance that America would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the denial of Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman.[1]
In November 1962, Lemnitzer was appointed as Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, and as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (the US European Command is the crown jewel of regional commands) in January 1963.[2] This period encompassed the Cyprus crisis of 1963-1964 and the withdrawal of NATO forces from France in 1966.
Major-General Arsa Jovanovic’, Major-General Fitzroy MacLean, Field Marshal Harold Alexander & Major-General Lyman Lemnitzer in Belgrade, February 1945.
Lemnitzer retired from the military in July 1969. In 1975, President Ford appointed Lemnitzer to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States (aka the Rockefeller Commission) to investigate whether the Central Intelligence Agency had committed acts that violated American laws and allegations that E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis (of Watergate fame) were involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Lemnitzer died on November 12, 1988 and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. His wife, Katherine Tryon Lemnitzer (1901-1994), is buried with him.
Lemnitzer was played by John Seitz in the 1991 Oliver Stone film, ‘JFK.
[edit] Awards and decorations
Lemnitzer was awarded numerous military awards and decorations[3] including but not limited to:
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Distinguished Service Medal ribbon.svg
Army Distinguished Service Medal (with three oak leaf clusters)
Navy Distinguished Service ribbon.svg Navy Distinguished Service Medal
Air Force Distinguished Service ribbon.svg Air Force Distinguished Service Medal
Silver Star ribbon.svg Silver Star
Legion of Merit ribbon.svg Legion of Merit (Officer) and (Legionnaire) degrees
PresFree.gif Presidential Medal of Freedom (Awarded by President Reagan, June 23, 1987)
American Defense Service ribbon.svg American Defense Service Medal
Bronze service star
Bronze service star
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign ribbon.svg
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (with two campaign stars)
American Campaign Medal ribbon.svg American Campaign Medal
World War II Victory Medal ribbon.svg World War II Victory Medal
Army of Occupation ribbon.svg Army of Occupation Medal
National Defense Service Medal ribbon.svg National Defense Service Medal
Bronze service star
Bronze service star
KSMRib.svg
Korean Service Medal (with two service stars)
* Parachutist Badge
Foreign decorations
* Honorary Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath (Great Britain)
* Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (Great Britain)
* Knight of the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic (Italy)
* Grand Cross of the Order of the Crown (Italy)
* Military Order of Merit (Italy)
* Grand Cross of the Légion d’honneur (France)
* Médaille militaire (France)
* Croix de guerre with Palm (France)
* Bundeswehr Cross of Honour in Gold (Germany)
* Grand Officer of the Order of Boyaca (Columbia)
* Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun (Japan)
* Medalha de Guerra (Brazil)
* Grand Official of the Order of Military Merit (Brazil)
* Order of Military Merit Teaguk (Korea)
* Order of Military Merit Teaguk with Gold Star (Korea)
* Gold Cross of Merit with Swords (Poland)
* Most Exalted Order of the White Elephant (Thailand)
* Medal for Military Merit, First Class (Czechoslovakia)
* Royal Order of the White Eagle, Class II (Yugoslavia)
* Grand Star of Military Merit (Chile)
* Order of Melnik (Ethiopia)
* United Nations Korea Medal
* Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation
See also
World War II portal
United States Army portal
References
1. ^ ABC News: U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
2. ^ Lyman L. Lemnitzer, General, United States Army . arlingtoncemetery.net. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lemnitz.htm.
3. ^ Richard Nixon: Remarks on Presenting the Distinguished Service Medals of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to General Lyman L. Lemnitzer. – July 11th, 1969
External links
* Finding aid for Lyman L. Lemnitzer Oral History, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
* Official US Joint Chiefs of Staff Biography
Military offices
Preceded by
Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor Chief of Staff of the United States Army
1959—1960 Succeeded by
Gen. George Decker
Preceded by
Gen. Nathan F. Twining Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1960—1962 Succeeded by
Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor
Preceded by
Gen. Lauris Norstad Supreme Allied Commander Europe (NATO)
1963—1969 Succeeded by
Gen. Andrew Goodpaster
v • d • e
Leaders of the United States Army
Senior Officer /
Commanding General
Washington A Knox A Doughty A Harmar A St. Clair A Wayne A Wilkinson A Washington A Hamilton A Wilkinson A Dearborn A Brown
Macomb A Scott A McClellan A Halleck A Grant A Sherman A Sheridan A Schofield A Miles
Flag of the Chief of Staff of the Army
Flag of the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
Chiefs of Staff
Young A Chaffee A Bates A Bell A Wood A Wotherspoon A Scott A Bliss A March A Pershing A Hines A Summerall A MacArthur A Craig A Marshall A Eisenhower A Bradley A Collins A Ridgway A Taylor A Lemnitzer A Decker A Wheeler A Johnson A Westmoreland A Palmer A Abrams A Weyand A Rogers A Meyer A Wickham A Vuono A Sullivan A Reimer A Shinseki A Schoomaker A Casey
Vice Chiefs of Staff
Collins A Haislip A Hull A Bolte A Palmer A Lemnitzer A Decker A Eddleman A Hamlett A Abrams A Haines A Palmer A Haig A Weyand A Kerwin A Kroesen A Vessey A Wickham A Thurman A Brown A RisCassi A Sullivan A Reimer A Peay A Tilelli A Griffith A Crouch A Shinseki A Keane A Casey A Cody A Chiarelli
[show]
v • d • e
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Bradley • Radford • Twining • Lemnitzer • Taylor • Wheeler • Moorer • Brown • Jones • Vessey • Crowe • Powell • Jeremiah (acting) • Shalikashvili • Shelton • Myers • Pace • Mullen
Flag of the Chairman
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer
Categories: 1899 births | 1988 deaths | American military personnel of World War II | Burials at Arlington National Cemetery | Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff | Recipients of the Distinguished Service Medal (United States) | Recipients of the Silver Star | Recipients of the Legion of Merit | American military personnel of the Korean War | People from Pennsylvania | United States Army Chiefs of Staff | United States Military Academy alumni | NATO Supreme Allied Commanders | Honesdale, Pennsylvania | United States Army Vice Chiefs of Staff | Recipients of the Croix de Guerre (France) | Grand Croix of the Légion d’honneur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer
***
Lessons from the Palomares nuclear accident | Bulletin of the …
May 13, 2009 … The 1966 nuclear accident over Palomares, Spain, was one of the worst mishaps … The United States, the thinking goes, would launch nuclear …
www.thebulletin.org/…/lessons-the-palomares-nuclear-accident
#
U.S. Nuclear Accidents
Article: US Nuclear Accidents. … over the coast of Spain, killing eight of the eleven crew members and igniting the KC-135’s 40000 gallons of jet fuel. …
www.lutins.org/nukes.html
#
US Dropped Four H-Bombs On Spain In 1966
PALOMARES, Spain — Almost 40 years have passed since the U.S. Air Force … fifth nuclear bomb from the Palomares accident was never recovered and remains …
www.rense.com/general45/drop.htm
#
Calendar of Nuclear Accidents
17-1984: Fire on board the US-nuclear submarine Guitarro 18-1968: Accident during launch of US satellite, radioactive materials fall into ocean near …
archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
#
Nuclear weapons and nonproliferation: a reference book – Google Books Result
by Sarah J. Diehl, James Clay Moltz – 2002 – History – 375 pages
The United States submits a draft nuclear nonprolifera- tion treaty in August to the … midair accident and drops four nuclear weapons on Palomares, Spain. …
books.google.com/books?isbn=1576073610… –
#
Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents | atomicarchive.com
Since 1950, there have been 32 nuclear weapon accidents, known as Broken Arrows. … with a KC-135 during refueling operations and crashed near Palomares, Spain. … The U.S. nuclear-powered submarine Gato reportedly collided with a …
www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml
#
1966 Palomares B-52 crash – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Retrieved 2008-02-16. ^ a b c Megara, John. Dropping Nuclear Bombs on Spain, The Palomares Accident of 1966 and the U.S. Airborne Alert (PDF). …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
#
N-BASE – Submarine accident list
The threat of a serious nuclear weapons accident has not disappeared with the … a KC-135 tanker aircraft while over the village of Palomares in southern Spain. … 9 April 1981: The U.S. nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine USS …
http://www.n-base.org.uk/public/report…/air_sea_accidents.html – Cached – Similar –
***
John R. Bolton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Bolton
25th United States Ambassador to the United Nations
In office
August 1, 2005 – December 9, 2006
President George W. Bush
Preceded by John Danforth
Anne W. Patterson (acting)
Succeeded by Alejandro Wolff (acting, Dec.2006-April 2007)
Zalmay Khalilzad (May 2007 to Jan 2009)
Born November 20, 1948 ( 1948-11-20) (age 60)
Baltimore, Maryland
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Gretchen Bolton
Children Jennifer Sarah Bolton
Profession Lawyer, diplomat
Military service
Service/branch United States Army National Guard
Unit Maryland
John Robert Bolton (born November 20, 1948), is an American conservative political figure who has been employed in several Republican presidential administrations. He worked as the interim Permanent US Representative to the UN from August 2005 until December 2006 on a recess appointment[1], and resigned in December 2006 when his recess appointment would have ended[2] [3] and he was unable to gain confirmation from the Senate.[4][5]
Bolton is currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and of counsel to the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, in their Washington D.C. office.[6] He is also involved with a broad assortment of other conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Institute of East-West Dynamics, National Rifle Association, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the Council for National Policy (CNP). Bolton is often described as a neoconservative,[7][8][9] though he personally rejects the term.[10]
Contents
* 1 Background and education
* 2 Personal life
* 3 Legal career
* 4 Public policy career
* 5 Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
o 5.1 Weapons of mass destruction
o 5.2 Diplomacy
o 5.3 Criticism
* 6 Permanent Representative to the UN
o 6.1 Views on the United Nations
o 6.2 2005 nomination, Senate confirmation hearings
+ 6.2.1 Day 1
+ 6.2.2 Day 2
+ 6.2.3 Erosion of Republican support
o 6.3 The Democrats’ filibuster
o 6.4 Accusations of false statement
o 6.5 Recess appointment
o 6.6 Term at the UN
o 6.7 2006 nomination
o 6.8 Support for Bolton
* 7 American Enterprise Institute
* 8 References
* 9 Bibliography
o 9.1 Books
* 10 External links
Background and education
Bolton was born in Baltimore, Maryland. The son of a fireman[11], he grew up in the working-class neighborhood of Yale Heights and won a scholarship to the McDonogh School in Owings Mills, Maryland, graduating in 1966. He also ran the school’s Students For Goldwater campaign in 1964. He then attended Yale University, where he shared classes with his friend Clarence Thomas, and was a contemporary of Bill and Hillary Clinton at Yale Law School.[12]. He was a member of the Yale Political Union, and he ultimately earned a B.A. summa cum laude in 1970 and a J.D. in 1974. Though Bolton supported the Vietnam War, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard, but did not serve in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost. [13] In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from. [14][15]
Personal life
He is married to Gretchen Smith Bolton. She has degrees from Wellesley College and New York University. The couple’s home is currently in Bethesda, Maryland.[16]. They have one daughter, Jennifer Sarah, who graduated from the Holton-Arms School and, in May 2008, graduated from Yale in the same residential college as her father did, Calhoun College. She is the former Chairman of the Tory Party of the Yale Political Union, an organization her father was also involved in. John Bolton is a member of the Lutheran Church.[17]
Legal career
From 1974 to 1981, Bolton was an associate at the Washington office of Covington & Burling; he returned to the firm again from 1983 to 1985. Bolton was also a partner in the law firm of Lerner, Reed, Bolton & McManus, from 1993–1999.[18][19]
Public policy career
Between 1997 and 2000, Bolton worked pro bono as an assistant to James Baker in Baker’s capacity as Kofi Annan’s personal envoy to the Western Sahara.[20] Before joining the George W. Bush administration, Bolton was Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
During the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, he worked in several positions within the State Department, the Justice Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
His Justice Department position required him to advance Reagan administration positions, including opposition[citation needed] to financial reparations to Japanese-Americans held in World War II-era internment camps; the insistence of Reagan’s executive privilege during William Rehnquist’s chief justice confirmation hearings, when Congress asked for memos written by Rehnquist as a Nixon Justice Department official; the framing of a bill to control illegal immigration as an essential drug war measure; and, issues related to the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair.
Bolton’s government service included such positions as:
* Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State (1989–1993), where he led in the successful effort to rescind the UN resolution from the 1970s that had equated Zionism with racism, and also played a major role in obtaining UN resolutions endorsing the use of force to fight Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait;
* Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice (1985–1989);
* Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, USAID (1982–1983); and
* General Counsel, USAID (1981–1982).[18][19]
Bolton is also the former executive director of the Committee on Resolutions in the Republican National Committee.[18]
During the George W. Bush administration, Bolton has been the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security (2001-2005) and U.S. Ambassador to the UN (2005-2006).
Bolton has been a prominent participant in some neoconservative groups such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG). But Bolton disputes the label neo-conservative attached to him[7],pointing out that he was a conservative since high school, when he worked on the 1964 Goldwater campaign[21].
Bolton was formerly involved with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Federalist Society, National Policy Forum, National Advisory Board, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New Atlantic Initiative, Project on Transitional Democracies).
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
John Bolton
Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
In office
2001 – 2005
Preceded by new position
Succeeded by Robert Joseph
Bolton worked as the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, sworn in to this position on May 11, 2001. In this role, a key area of his responsibility was the prevention of proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Bolton also led the Bush administration’s opposition on constitutional grounds[22] to the International Criminal Court, negotiating with many countries to sign agreements, called Article 98 agreements, with the U.S. to exempt Americans from prosecution by the Court, which is not recognized by the U.S.; more than 100 countries have signed such agreements so far. Bolton said the decision to pull out of the ICC was the happiest moment of his political career so far.[23]
Weapons of mass destruction
Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 biological weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969. [24]
Also in 2002, Bolton is said to have flown to Europe to demand the resignation of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and to have orchestrated his removal at a special session of the organization.[citation needed] The United Nations’ highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an unacceptable violation of principles protecting international civil servants. Bustani had been unanimously re-elected for a four-year term — with strong U.S. support — in May 2000, and in 2001 was praised for his leadership by Colin Powell.[25]
He also pushed for reduced funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials.[26] At the same time, he was involved in the implementation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, working with a number of countries to intercept the trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and in materials for use in building nuclear weapons.[citation needed]
Diplomacy
According to an article in the The New Republic, Bolton was highly successful in pushing his agenda, but his bluntness has won him many enemies. Iran’s Foreign Ministry has called Bolton ‘rude’ and ‘undiplomatic’ .[27] In response to critics, Bolton states that his record demonstrates clear support for effective multilateral diplomacy. Bush administration officials have stated that his past statements would allow him to negotiate from a powerful position. It’s like the Palestinians having to negotiate with [Israeli Prime Minister] Ariel Sharon. If you have a deal, you know you have a deal, an anonymous official told CNN.[28] He also won widespread praise for his work establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative,[29] a voluntary agreement supported by 60 countries .[30]
He was part of the State Department’s delegation to six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear program in 2003. He was removed from the delegation after describing Kim Jong-il as a tyrannical dictator and saying that, for North Koreans under Kim’s rule, life is a hellish nightmare. [31] In response, a North Korean spokesman said such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks. [32] Congressional Democrats argued that Bolton’s words at the time were undiplomatic and endangered the talks. Critics argued that Bolton’s record of allegedly politicizing intelligence would harm U.S. credibility with the United Nations[33] President Bush said he wanted John Bolton because he can get the job done at the United Nations. [34]. Bolton recalls that his ‘happiest moment at State was personally ‘unsigning’ the Rome Statute,’ which had set up the International Criminal Court.[35]
Criticism
Critics allege Bolton tried to spin intelligence to support his views and political objectives on a number of occasions. Greg Thielmann, of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), was assigned as the daily intelligence liaison to Bolton. Thielmann stated to Seymour Hersh that, Bolton seemed troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear … I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Undersecretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’ According to former coworkers, Bolton withheld information that ran counter to his goals from Secretary of State Colin Powell on multiple occasions, and from Powell’s successor Condoleezza Rice on at least one occasion.[36]
In 2002, Bolton accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention. [37] According to a Scripps Howard News Service article, Bolton wanted to say that Cuba had a biological weapons capacity and that it was exporting it to other nations. The intelligence analysts seemed to want to limit the assessment to a declaration that Cuba ‘could’ develop such weapons. [38] According to AlterNet, a progressive/liberal activist news service, Bolton attempted to have the chief bioweapons analyst in the State Department’s bureau of intelligence and research and the CIA’s national intelligence officer for Latin America reassigned. Under oath at his Senate hearings for confirmation as Ambassador, he denied trying to have the men fired, but seven intelligence officials contradicted him.[26] Ultimately, intelligence officials refused to allow Bolton to make the harsh criticism of Cuba he sought to deliver, [38] and were able to keep their positions. Bolton claims that the issue was procedural rather than related to the content of his speech and that the officers, who did not work under him, behaved unprofessionally.
Bolton is alleged by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman to have played a role in encouraging the inclusion of statement that British Intelligence had determined Iraq attempted to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address.[39] These statements were claimed by critics of the President to be partly based on documents later found to be forged.[40] Waxman’s allegations have no visible means of support as they are based on classified documents.[39]
Bolton is alleged by the Knight Ridder news agency to have been scheduled to tell the House of Representatives International Relations subcommittee that Syria’s development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the region. Knight Ridder reported that Bolton’s appearance was cancelled after CIA and other intelligence agencies said that assessment was exaggerated.
Bolton claimed that Iran and Syria were threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction, an allegation that was denied by the CIA. Bolton has also made threats against Iran. In a 2006 speech to AIPAC, Bolton threatened Iran with painful consequences if that country did not yield to Washington demands that it shut down all its nuclear programs. Bolton’s actions at the United Nations Security Council were controversial. During and after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he consistently blocked efforts to adopt a ceasefire. He rejected criticism of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon and claimed that there is no moral equivalence between Lebanese civilians killed accidentally by Israel retaliation attacks and Israelis killed by malicious terrorist acts .
Bolton stated in June 2004 congressional testimony Iran was lying about enriched uranium contamination: Another unmistakable indicator of Iran’s intentions is the pattern of repeatedly lying to … the IAEA, … when evidence of uranium enriched to 36 percent was found, it attributed this to contamination from imported centrifuge parts. However, later isotope analysis supported Iran’s explanation of foreign contamination for most of the observed enriched uranium.[41] At their August 2005 meeting the IAEA’s Board of Governors concluded: Based on the information currently available to the Agency, the results of that analysis tend, on balance, to support Iran’s statement about the foreign origin of most of the observed HEU contamination. [42]. Bolton has authored a new book titled Surrender Is Not an Option. In his book Bolton criticizes the Bush administration for changing its foreign policy objectives during the start of the administration’s second term.[43]
On May 28, 2008, the British activist George Monbiot attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of Bolton, for his role as an architect of the Iraq War at the Hay Festival of Literature & Arts in Hay-on-Wye, Wales. The attempt was unsuccessful, and Monbiot was ejected by security personnel.[44]
Permanent Representative to the UN
President George W. Bush announces the nomination of Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to UN as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice looks on.
On March 7, 2005 Bolton was nominated to the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations by President George W. Bush. As a result of a Democratic filibuster, he was never confirmed by the Senate and thus never obtained the official title of Ambassador. Bolton’s nomination received strong support from Republicans but faced heavy opposition from Democrats due initially to concerns about his strongly expressed views on the United Nations.
Holding a 10-8 majority in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (tasked with vetting ambassadorial nominees), the Republican leadership hoped to send Bolton’s nomination to the full Senate with a positive recommendation. Concern among some Republicans on the committee, however, prompted the leadership to avoid losing such a motion and instead to send the nomination forward with no recommendation. In the full Senate, Republican support for the nomination remained uncertain, with the most vocal Republican critic, Ohio Senator George V. Voinovich, circulating a letter urging his Republican colleagues to oppose the nomination.[45] Democrats insisted that a vote on the nomination was premature, given the resistance of the White House to share classified documents related to Bolton’s alleged actions. The Republican leadership moved on two occasions to end debate, but because a supermajority of 60 votes is needed to end debate, the leadership was unable to muster the required votes with only a 55-44 majority in the body. An earlier agreement between moderates in both parties to prevent filibustering of nominees was interpreted by the Democrats to relate only to judicial nominees,[46] not ambassadorships, although the leader of the effort, Sen. John McCain, said the spirit of the agreement was to include all nominees.
On November 9, 2006, Bush, only days after losing both houses to a Democratic majority, sent the nomination[47] for John Robert Bolton to continue as representative for the United States at the UN.[48] He said: I believe that the leaders of both political parties must try to work through our differences. And I believe we will be able to work through differences. I reassured the House and Senate leaders that I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country.
Views on the United Nations
Bolton has been a strong critic of the United Nations for much of his career. In a 1994 Global Structures Convocation hosted by the World Federalist Association (now Citizens for Global Solutions), he stated,
“ There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States. [49] He also stated that The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. [50] ”
Both Bolton’s opponents[51] and his supporters[52] have used the same video of his remarks at the 1994 event in support of their points of view.
When pressed on the statement during the confirmation process, he responded, There’s not a bureaucracy in the world that couldn’t be made leaner. [53] In a paper on U.S. participation in the UN, Bolton stated the United Nations can be a useful instrument in the conduct of American foreign policy. [54]
A member of the Project for the New American Century, Bolton was also one of the signers of the January 26, 1998 PNAC letter sent to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. The letter also stated American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
The November 15, 2005 Washington Times article Can the U.S. find a substitute for the U.N.? noted that Bolton advocates a revolution of reform at the UN. Specifically, he called for:
* The five permanent members of the UN Security Council to work more closely to craft powerful resolutions and make sure they are enforced, and to address the underlying causes of conflicts, rather than turning them over to the Secretariat and special envoys;
* A focus on administrative skills in choosing the next secretary-general; and
* A more credible and responsible Human Rights Commission.
Bolton noted that the U.S. had the option of relying on regional or other international organizations to advance its goals if the U.N. proves inadequate.[55]
2005 nomination, Senate confirmation hearings
Day 1
On April 11, 2005, The Senate Foreign Relations Committee reviewed Bolton’s qualifications. Bolton said that he and his colleagues view the U.N. as an important component of our diplomacy and will work to solve its problems and enhance its strengths.[citation needed]
Republican committee chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana criticized Bolton for ignoring the policy consequences of his statements, saying diplomatic speech should never be undertaken simply to score international debating points to appeal to segments of the U.S. public opinion or to validate a personal point of view. [56] The committee’s top Democrat, Joe Biden of Delaware, compared sending Bolton to the UN to sending a bull into a china shop, and expressed grave concern about Bolton’s diplomatic temperament and his record: In my judgment, your judgment about how to deal with the emerging threats have not been particularly useful, Biden said.
Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia said that Bolton had the experience, knowledge, background, and the right principles to come into the United Nations at this time, calling him the absolute perfect person for the job.
Russ Feingold, a Democrat on the committee from Wisconsin, asked Bolton about what he would have done had the Rwandan genocide occurred while he was ambassador to the United Nations, and criticized his answer – which focused on logistics – as amazingly passive.
According to Newsday, Lincoln Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island, may be pivotal for Bolton’s nomination. [57] His initial remarks were cautiously favorable: You said all the right things in your opening statement. Chafee stated that he would probably support Bolton unless something surprising shows up.
According to an Associated Press story on the hearing, [T]hree protesters briefly interrupted the proceedings, standing up in succession with pink T-shirts and banners, one reading: ‘Diplomat for hire. No bully please.’ These protesters were part of a group advocating representation in the Senate for residents of the District of Columbia that is known for such demonstrations at a variety of hearings.
Day 2
On April 12, 2005, the Senate panel focused on allegations discussed above that Bolton pressured intelligence analysts. I’ve never seen anybody quite like Secretary Bolton. … I don’t have a second, third or fourth in terms of the way that he abuses his power and authority with little people, former State Department intelligence chief Carl W. Ford Jr., said, calling Bolton a serial abuser. Ford contradicted Bolton’s earlier testimony, saying: I had been asked for the first time to fire an intelligence analyst for what he had said and done. Ford also characterized Bolton as a kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy , implying that he was always ready to please whoever had authority over him, while having very little regard for people working under him[58].
Lugar, who criticized Bolton at his April 11 hearing, said that the paramount issue was supporting Bush’s nominee. He conceded that [b]luntness may be required, even though it is not very good diplomacy.
Chafee, the key member for Bolton’s approval, said that the bar is very high for rejecting the president’s nominees, suggesting that Bolton would make it to the Senate.
Erosion of Republican support
Search Wikinews Wikinews has related news: U.S. Senator Voinovich allows Bolton nomination to pass to full Senate vote
On April 19, Democrats, with support from Voinovich, forced Lugar to delay the committee vote on Bolton’s nomination until May. The debate concerning his nomination raged in the Senate prior to the Memorial Day recess. Two other Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee, Chafee and Chuck Hagel, also expressed serious concerns about the Bolton nomination.
Asked on April 20 if he was now less inclined to support the nomination, Chafee said, That would be accurate. He further elaborated that Bolton’s prospects were hard to predict but said he expected that the administration is really going to put some pressure on Senator Voinovich. Then it comes to the rest of us that have had some reservations.
On April 20, it emerged that Melody Townsel, a former US AID contractor, had reported to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton had used inflammatory language and thrown objects in the course of her work activities in Moscow. Townsel’s encounter with Bolton occurred when she served as a whistleblower against a poorly performing minority contractor for US AID, IBTCI. Townsel told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff that Bolton had made derogatory remarks about her sexual orientation and weight, among other workplace improprieties. In an official interview with Senate Foreign Relation Committee staff, Townsel detailed her accusations against Bolton, which were confirmed by Canadian designer Uno Ramat, who had served as an IBTCI employee and one of Townsel’s AID colleagues. Time Magazine, among other publications, verified Townsel’s accusations and Ramat’s supporting testimony, and Townsel’s story was transcribed and entered into the official Senate committee record. Townsel, who was an employee of Young & Rubicam at the time of her encounter with Bolton, continued working for the company on a variety of other US AID projects.
On April 22 the New York Times and other media alleged that Bolton’s former boss, Colin Powell, was personally opposed to the nomination and had been in personal contact with Chafee and Hagel. The same day, Reuters reported that a spokesman for Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said that the Senator felt the committee did the right thing delaying the vote on Bolton in light of the recent information presented to the committee. [59]
On April 28, The Guardian reported that Powell was conducting a campaign against Bolton because of the acrimonious battles they had had while working together, which among other things had resulted in Powell cutting Bolton out of talks with Iran and Libya after complaints about Bolton’s involvement from the British. It added that The foreign relations committee has discovered that Bolton made a highly unusual request and gained access to 10 intercepts by the National Security Agency… Staff members on the committee believe that Bolton was probably spying on Powell, his senior advisers and other officials reporting to him on diplomatic initiatives that Bolton opposed. [60] However, Rich Lowry pointed out that During the same four-year period, other State Department officials made roughly 400 similar requests. [61]
Also on May 11, Newsweek reported allegations that the American position at the 7th Review Conference in May 2005[62] of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty had been undercut by Bolton’s absence without leave during the nomination fight, quoting anonymous sources close to the negotiations .[63]
The Democrats’ filibuster
On May 26, 2005, Senate Democrats postponed the vote on Bolton’s UN nomination. The Republican leadership failed to gain enough Republican or Democratic support to pass a cloture motion on the floor debate over Bolton, and minority leader Harry Reid conceded the move signaled the first filibuster of the year. The Democrats claimed that key documents regarding Bolton and his career at the Department of State were being withheld by the Bush administration. Scott McClellan, White House press secretary, responded by saying, Just 72 hours after all the good will and bipartisanship (over a deal on judicial nominees), it’s disappointing to see the Democratic leadership resort back to such a partisan approach. [64]
The failure of the Senate to end debate on Bolton’s nomination provided one surprise for some: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) voted against cloture for procedural reasons, so that he could bring up a cloture vote in the future.[65] (Although Voinovich once spoke against confirming Bolton, he voted for cloture.) Senator John Thune (R-SD) voted to end debate but announced that he would vote against Bolton in the up-or-down vote as a protest against the government’s plans to close a military base (Ellsworth) in his home state.
On June 20, 2005 the Senate voted again on cloture. The vote failed 54-38, six votes short of ending debate. That marked an increase of two no votes, including the defection of Voinovich, who switched his previous yes vote and urged President Bush to pick another nominee (Democrats Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson voted to end debate both times). On June 21, Frist expressed his view that attempting another vote would be pointless, but later that day, following a lunch at the White House, changed his position, saying that he would continue to push for an up-or-down vote.[66] Voinovich later recanted his opposition and stated that if Bolton were renominated he would have supported the nomination.[67]
Accusations of false statement
On July 28, 2005 it was revealed that a statement made by Bolton on forms submitted to the Senate was false. Bolton indicated that in the prior five years he had not been questioned in any investigation, but in fact he had been interviewed by the State Department’s Inspector General as part of an investigation into the sources of pre-war claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After insisting for weeks that Bolton had testified truthfully on the form, the State Department reversed itself, stating that Bolton had simply forgotten about the investigation.[68]
Recess appointment
Search Wikinews Wikinews has related news:
* Bush likely to appoint Bolton during congressional recess
* Bush appoints John Bolton United States’ ambassador to the United Nations
On August 1, 2005, Bush officially made a recess appointment of Bolton, installing him as Permanent US Representative to the UN. A recess appointment lasts until the next session of Congress ends or until the individual is renominated and confirmed by the Senate. During the announcement, Bush said, This post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform. [69] Democrats criticized the appointment, and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Bolton would lack credibility in the U.N. because he lacked Senate confirmation.[70] U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan welcomed Mr. Bolton, but told reporters that the new ambassador should consult with others as the administration continued to press for changes at the United Nations.[71]
Term at the UN
The Economist called Bolton the most controversial Ambassador ever sent by America to the United Nations. Some colleagues in the UN appreciated the goals Bolton was trying to achieve, but not his abrasive style.[72][73] The New York Times, in its editorial The Shame of the United Nations, praised Bolton’s stance on reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission ,[74] saying John Bolton, is right; Secretary-General Kofi Annan is wrong. The Times also said that the commission at that time was composed of some of the world’s most abusive regimes who used their membership as cover to continue their abusiveness.
Bolton also opposed the proposed replacement for the Human Rights Commission, the UN Human Rights Council, as not going far enough for reform, saying: “We want a butterfly. We don’t intend to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a success.”[75]
2006 nomination
Bush announced his intention to renominate Bolton for confirmation as U.N. ambassador at the beginning of 2006, and a new confirmation hearing was held on July 27, 2006, in the hope of completing the process before the expiration of Bolton’s recess appointment at the end of the 109th Congress.[76] Voinovich, who had previously stood in opposition to Bolton, had amended his views and determined that Bolton was doing a good job as UN Ambassador; in February 2006, he said I spend a lot of time with John on the phone. I think he is really working very constructively to move forward. [77]
Over the summer and during the fall election campaign, no action was taken on the nomination because Chafee, who was in a difficult re-election campaign, blocked a Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote.[citation needed] Without his concurrence, the SFRC would have been deadlocked 9-9, and the nomination could not have gone to the Senate floor for a full vote. Bush formally resubmitted the nomination on November 9, 2006, immediately following a midterm election that would give control of the 110th Congress to the Democratic party.[78] Chafee, who had just lost his re-election bid, issued a statement saying he would vote against recommending Bolton for a Senate vote, citing what he considered to be a mandate from the recent election results: On Tuesday, the American people sent a clear message of dissatisfaction with the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration. To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of U.N. ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for. [79]
On December 4, 2006, Bolton announced that he would terminate his work as U.S. Representative to the UN at the end of the recess appointment and would not continue to seek confirmation.[80] His letter of resignation from the Bush administration was accepted on December 4, 2006, effective when his recess appointment ended December 9 at the formal adjournment of the 109th Congress.
The announcement was characterized as Bolton’s resignation by the Associated Press,[81] United Press International,[82] ABC News,[83] and other news sources, as well as a White House press release[3] and President Bush himself.[84] The White House, however, later objected to the use of this language. Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino told CBS News it is not a resignation. [85] The actual language of the President’s written acceptance was: It is with deep regret that I accept John Bolton’s decision to end his service in the Administration as Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations when his commission expires. However, at press conference, the president said, I received the resignation of Ambassador John Bolton. I accept it. I’m not happy about it. I think he deserved to be confirmed. [84] Some news organizations subsequently altered their language to phrases such as to step down, to leave, or to exit. [citation needed]
Support for Bolton
During his confirmation hearings in 2005, letters with signatures of more than 100 co-workers and professional colleagues were sent to Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in praise of Bolton and contradicting other criticisms and allegations concerning his diplomatic style and his treatment of colleagues and staff. In late 2006, when his nomination was again before the Committee, another letter signed by more than 56 professional colleagues supporting the renomination was sent to Senator Lugar.[86] A Wall Street Journal op ed by Claudia Rossett on December 5, 2006, said in part, Bolton has been valiant in his efforts to clean up UN corruption and malfeasance, and follow UN procedure in dealing with such threats as a nuclear North Korea, a Hezbollah bid to take over Lebanon, and the nuclearization of Hezbollah’s terror-masters in Iran. But it has been like watching one man trying to move a tsunami of mud.
American Enterprise Institute
In Bolton’s time at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, he spoke against the policy of rewarding North Korea for ending its nuclear weapons program.[87] He said the policy would encourage others to violate nuclear non-proliferation rules so that they could then be rewarded for following the rules they’d already agreed to.[87]
On three episodes of Fox News in May and June 2008, Bolton suggested that Israel may attack Iran after US elections in November.
In January 2009, Bolton proposed a three state solution to the Arab Israeli conflict in which Gaza is returned to Egyptian control and the West Bank in some configuration reverts to Jordanian sovereignty. [88]
On July 27, 2009, John Bolton was appointed to the board of directors for EMS Technologies, Inc. (ELMG), a Georgia based tech company that subcontracts for many DOD contractors.
References
1. ^ Jennifer Senior (January 1, 2006). Bolton in a China Shop . New York. http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/international/features/15457/.
2. ^ White House announces John Bolton’s resignation . International Herald Tribune. 2006-12-04. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/04/news/bolton.php. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
3. ^ a b President Bush Accepts John Bolton’s Resignation as U.S. Representative to the United Nations . White House, Office of the Press Secretary. 2006-12-04. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061204.html. Retrieved 2006-12-04.
4. ^ John Bolton resigns as ambassador to U.N. . Associated Press (MSNBC). 2006-12-04. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16036708/. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
5. ^ Cooper, Helene (2006-12-04). John Bolton resigns as ambassador to U.N. . World (The New York Times). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/world/05boltoncnd.html?hp&ex=1165294800&en=0e5a81b1f6309575&ei=5094&partner=homepage. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
6. ^ Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Bolton, John R. Kirkland & Ellis, Retrieved February 6, 2009
7. ^ a b John Bolton: The Angriest Neocon
8. ^ Empire Builders: Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power , Christian Science Monitor, June 2005
9. ^ David Ramm, Bolton, John R. , Current Biography Yearbook, 2006
10. ^ Jacob Heilbrun, They Knew They Were Right, Random House (2008), p. 266
11. ^ Embassy of the U.S. London: Current Issues: Current Issues: President George W. Bush: President Appoints Bolton U.S. Ambassador to United Nations
12. ^ John Bolton, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, Theshold, 2007
13. ^ Ross Goldberg and Sam Kahn, Bolton’s conservative ideology has roots in Yale experience , Yale Daily News, April 28, 2005.
14. ^ Diane Rehm Show, NPR, Nov. 12, 2007, http://wamu.org/programs/dr/07/11/12.php
15. ^ In his memoir, ‘Surrender Is Not an Option’, Bolton now writes that he didn’t want to ‘waste time on a futile struggle’. Cited Brian Urquhart, ‘One Angry Man’, New York Review of Books’, March 6,2008 pp.12-15,p.12
16. ^ official biography from aei.org
17. ^ A lecture about the book Surrender is not an option , November 13, 2007. See transcript here.
18. ^ a b c results.gov : Resources For The President’s Team
19. ^ a b http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/2976.htm
20. ^ US Department of State (2005-03-07). Announcement of Nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the UN . Press release. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/43062.htm. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
21. ^ John Bolton, Munk Debates
22. ^ Reasonable Doubt: The Case against the Proposed International Criminal Court
23. ^ Let the child live . The Economist. 2007-01-25. http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8599155. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
24. ^ Slavin, Barbara; Bill Nichols (2003-11-30). Bolton a ‘guided missile’ . USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-30-bolton-usat_x.htm. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
25. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/05/AR2005060500182.html
26. ^ a b AlterNet: The Abysmal Ambassador
27. ^ Kaplan, Lawrence F. (2004-03-29). THE SECRETS OF JOHN BOLTON’S SUCCESS. . The New Republic. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040329&s=kaplan032904. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
28. ^ Bush nominates Bolton as U.N. ambassador . CNN. 2005-03-08. http://cnn.com/2005/US/03/07/bolton/. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
29. ^ http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/other/34726.htm
30. ^ Profile: John Bolton . BBC News. 2005-08-01. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4327185.stm. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
31. ^ Kralev, Nicholas (2003-08-04). Bush backs Bolton’s tough talk . The Washington Times. http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030804-111212-6491r.htm. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
32. ^ Lee, Soo-Jeong (2003-08-04). North Korea bans Bolton from talks . The Washington Times. http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030804-121425-6611r.htm. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
33. ^ Kaplan, Fred (2005-04-11). It’s Time To Write a Dear John . Slate Magazine. http://slate.msn.com/id/2116567/. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
34. ^ U.S. Will Pursue Common Approach to North Korea, Bush Says – US Department of State
35. ^ John Bolton, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, Theshold 2007, as cited by Brian Urquhart, ‘One Angry Man’, New York Review of Books, March 6,2008 pp.12-15,p.13
36. ^ Linzer, Dafna (2005-04-18). Bolton Often Blocked Information, Officials Say . The Washington Post. pp. A04. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61304-2005Apr17.html. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
37. ^ U.S.: Cuba Developing Biological Weapons . Fox News. 2002-05-06. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52049,00.html. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
38. ^ a b http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=BOLTON-04-11-05&cat=WW
39. ^ a b http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050301112122-90349.pdf
40. ^ Events leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Africa-uranium allegation (Forged Niger Documents)
41. ^ Linzer, Dafna (2005-08-23). No Proof Found of Iran Arms Program . The Washington Post. pp. A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
42. ^ http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-67.pdf
43. ^ America’s latest African misadventure. – By Michela Wrong – Slate Magazine
44. ^ [1] Telegraph.co.uk May 28, 2008 Accessed May 28, 2008
45. ^ Jehl, Douglas (2005-05-26). Republican urges colleagues to reject UN . he International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/25/news/bolton.php. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
46. ^ ConfirmThem
47. ^ Nominations Sent to the Senate
48. ^ Press Conference by the President
49. ^ Watson, Roland (2005-03-08). Bush deploys hawk as new UN envoy . The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1515816,00.html. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
50. ^ Applebaum, Anne (2005-03-09). Defending Bolton . The Washington Post. pp. A21. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18706-2005Mar8.html. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
51. ^ home accommodation uk activity holidays at stopbolton.org
52. ^ Move America Forward
53. ^ http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/04/11/ap/headlines/d89ddcug0.txt
54. ^ USIA, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, May 1997 John R. Bolton, AMERICA’S SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE UNITED NATIONS
55. ^ Pisik, Betsy (2005-11-15). Can the U.S. find a substitute for the U.N.? . The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20051115-123449-9640r.htm. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
56. ^ Borger, Julian (2005-04-12). Democrats try to block Bush’s man for UN job . The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1457569,00.html?gusrc=rss. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
57. ^ http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-un-ambassador-quotes,0,3383126.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
58. ^ USATODAY.com – Critic says Bolton a ‘kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy’
59. ^ http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8270328
60. ^ Blumenthal, Sidney (2005-04-28). The good soldier’s revenge . The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1471879,00.html. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
61. ^ http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050422.shtml
62. ^ Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
63. ^ Hirsh, Michael; Eve Conant (2005-05-11). A Nuclear Blunder? . Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7817986/site/newsweek/. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
64. ^ Jehl, Douglas (2005-05-27). DEMOCRATS FORCE SENATE TO DELAY A VOTE ON BOLTON . The New York Times. pp. A1, Column 6. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/politics/27bolton.html?hp&ex=1117252800&en=13e283b4538d3c0f&ei=5094&partner=homepage. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
65. ^ Say Anything
66. ^ http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/21/frist_says_no_new_vote_planned_for_bolton/
67. ^ Babington, Charles (2006-07-22). Bolton’s Nomination Revives After Senator Changes Mind . The Washington Post. pp. A02. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR2006072101351.html. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
68. ^ Weisman, Steven (2005-07-30). Bolton not truthful, 36 senators charge in opposing appointment . New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/politics/30bolton.html. Retrieved 2005-07-30.
69. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth; Sheryl Stolberg (2005-08-01). Bush appoints Bolton as U.N. envoy, bypassing Senate . New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01cnd.bolton.html. Retrieved 2005-08-01.
70. ^ Williams, Timothy (2005-08-01). Bush appoints Bolton as U.N. envoy, bypassing Senate . New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01cnd-bolton.html. Retrieved 2005-08-01.
71. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth; Sheryl Stolberg (2005-08-02). President sends Bolton to U.N.; bypasses Senate . New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/politics/02bolton.html. Retrieved 2008-02-08.
72. ^ His UNdoing . The Economist. 2006-12-07. pp. 33-34. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8382325. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
73. ^ A matter of honour . The Economist. 2007-07-26. http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9546302. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
74. ^ The Shame of the United Nations . New York Times. 2006-02-26. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/opinion/26sun2.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
75. ^ Bad counsel . The Economist. 2007-04-04. http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8966293. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
76. ^ U.S. Congress (July 27 2006). Nominations . Congressional Record Daily Digest. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/digest2006/d27JY061.pdf.
77. ^ [2]
78. ^ Key Republican joins Dems opposing Bolton nomination – CNN.com
79. ^ Bolton May Not Return As U.N. Envoy , Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, Friday, November 10, 2006
80. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/04/bolton.resignation.ap/index.html
81. ^ Terence Hunt (2006-12-04). Bush Accepts Bolton’s UN Resignation . CBS News. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/04/ap/politics/mainD8LQ53500.shtml. Retrieved 2006-12-04.
82. ^ Russians hope for better ties to U.S. . United Press International. 2006-12-04. http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061204-121611-6155r. Retrieved 2006-12-04. : They were reacting to the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton earlier Monday, Bolton resigned after it became clear that the incoming Democratic-controlled Senate in the 110th Congress would not vote to confirm his appointment as ambassador.
83. ^ Ben Feller (2006-12-04). Bush Accepts Bolton’s U.N. Resignation . ABC News. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2699916. Retrieved 2006-12-04.
84. ^ a b President Bush Meets with United Nations Ambassador John Bolton . Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. 2006-12-04. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061204-8.html. Retrieved 2006-12-04. : I received the resignation of Ambassador John Bolton. I accepted.
85. ^ White House Contests Claim That Bolton ‘Resigned’ . CBS News. 2006-12-04. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/12/04/publiceye/entry2224533.shtml. Retrieved 2006-12-04.
86. ^ [3]
87. ^ a b Fighting fires . The Economist. 2007-02-16. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8696412. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
88. ^ Jordan and Egypt should take over Palestine – Bolton, By Agence France Presse (AFP) , Tuesday, January 06, 2009 [4]
Bibliography
Books
* Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations, Threshold Editions, ISBN 1416552847
External links
Search Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons has media related to: John R. Bolton
Search Wikiquote Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: John R. Bolton
* Profile: John R. Bolton, RightWeb
* John R. Bolton, Notable Names Database
* The Creation, Fall, Rise, and Fall of the United Nations John Bolton’s chapter from the Cato Institute book, Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention
* John Bolton interviewed by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show from March 20, 2007
* John Bolton interview by Neal Conan on Talk of the Nation, May 1, 2007
* Audio interview with National Review Online
Government offices
Preceded by
John D. Holum Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
2001 – 2005 Succeeded by
Robert Joseph
Diplomatic posts
Preceded by
Anne W. Patterson (acting) United States Ambassador to the United Nations
2005 – 2006 Succeeded by
Alejandro Daniel Wolff (acting)
v • d • e
United States Ambassadors to the United Nations
Edward Stettinius, Jr. A Warren Austin A Henry C. Lodge, Jr. A James J. Wadsworth A Adlai Stevenson A Arthur Goldberg A George Ball A James R. Wiggins A Charles W. Yost A George H. W. Bush A John A. Scali A Daniel P. Moynihan A William Scranton A Andrew Young A Donald McHenry A Jeane Kirkpatrick A Vernon A. Walters A Thomas R. Pickering A Edward J. Perkins A Madeleine Albright A Bill Richardson A Richard Holbrooke A John Negroponte A John Danforth A John R. Bolton A Zalmay Khalilzad A Susan Rice
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
Categories: 1948 births | Assistant Attorneys General of the United States | Living people | American Lutherans | People from Baltimore, Maryland | United States Department of State officials | Permanent Representatives of the United States to the United Nations | People from Bethesda, Maryland | Yale University alumni | Yale Law School alumni | Recess Appointments during the George W. Bush administration | Reagan Administration personnel | American Enterprise Institute | Presidents of the United Nations Security Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
***
Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents
Since 1950, there have been 32 nuclear weapon accidents, known as Broken Arrows. A Broken Arrow is defined as an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that result in the accidental launching, firing, detonating, theft or loss of the weapon. To date, six nuclear weapons have been lost and never recovered.
1950s
Date: November 10, 1950
Location: Quebec, Canada
A B-50 jettisoned a Mark 4 bomb over the St. Lawrence River near Riviere-du-Loup, about 300 miles northeast of Montreal. The weapon’s HE [high explosive] detonated on impact. Although lacking its essential plutonium core, the explosion did scatter nearly 100 pounds (45 kg) of uranium. The plane later landed safely at a U.S. Air Force base in Maine.
Date: March 10, 1956
Location: Exact Location Unknown
Carrying two nuclear capsules on a nonstop flight from MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa, Florida to an overseas base, a B-47 was reported missing. It failed to make contact with a tanker over the Mediterranean for a second refueling. No trace was ever found of the plane.
Date: July 27, 1956
Location: Great Britain
A B-47 bomber crashed into a nuclear weapons storage facility at the Lakenheath Air Base in Suffolk, England, during a training exercise. The nuclear weapons storage facility, known as an igloo, contained three Mark 6 bombs. Preliminary exams by bomb disposal officers said it was a miracle that one Mark 6 with exposed detonators sheared didn’t explode. The B-47’s crew was killed.
Date: February 5, 1958
Location: Off Georgia, United States
In a simulated combat mission, a B-47 collided with an F-86 near Savannah, Georgia. After attempting to land at Hunter Air Force Base with the nuclear weapon onboard, the weapon was jettisoned over water. The plane later landed safely. A nuclear detonation was not possible since the nuclear capsule was not on board the aircraft. Subsequent searches failed to locate the weapon.
Date: February 28, 1958
Location: Great Britain
A B-47 based at the U.S. air base at Greenham Common, England, reportedly loaded with a nuclear weapon, caught fire and completely burned. In 1960, signs of high-level radioactive contamination were detected around the base by a group of scientists working at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE). The U.S. government has never confirmed whether the accident involved a nuclear warhead.
1960s
Date: January 24, 1961
Location: North Carolina, United States
While on airborne alert, a B-52 suffered structural failure of its right wing, resulting in the release of two nuclear weapons. One weapon landed safely with little damage. The second fell free and broke apart near the town of Goldsboro, North Carolina. Some of the uranium from that weapon could not be recovered. No radiological contamination was detectable in the area.
Date: July 4, 1961
Location: North Sea
A cooling system failed, contaminating crew members, missiles and some parts of a K-19 Hotel -class Soviet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine off Norway. One of the sub’s two reactors soared to 800 degrees Celsius and threatened to melt down the reactor’s fuel rods. Several fatalities were reported.
Date: December 5, 1965
Location: Pacific Ocean
An A-4E Skyhawk attack aircraft loaded with one B43 nuclear weapon rolled off the deck of the USS Ticonderoga. Pilot, plane and weapon were never found.
Date: Mid-1960s (Date undetermined)
Location: Kara Sea
Soviet nuclear-powered icebreaker Lenin was forced to dump its reactors in the Kara Sea. Some accounts said the Lenin experienced a reactor meltdown.
Date: January 17, 1966
Location: Palomares, Spain
A B-52 carrying four nuclear weapons collided with a KC-135 during refueling operations and crashed near Palomares, Spain. One weapon was safely recovered on the ground and another from the sea, after extensive search and recovery efforts. The other two weapons hit land, resulting in detonation of their high explosives and the subsequent release of radioactive materials. Over 1,400 tons of soil was sent to an approved storage site.
Date: April 11, 1968
Location: Pacific Ocean
A Soviet diesel-powered Golf -class ballistic missile submarine sank about 750 miles northwest of the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Reports say the submarine was carrying three nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, as well as several nuclear torpedoes. Part of the submarine was reportedly raised using the CIA’s specially constructed Glomar Explorer deep-water salvage ship.
Date: November 1969
Location: White Sea
The U.S. nuclear-powered submarine Gato reportedly collided with a Soviet submarine on November 14 or 15, 1969, near the entrance of the White Sea.
1970s
Date: April 12, 1970
Location: Atlantic Ocean
A Soviet November -class nuclear-powered attack submarine experienced an apparent nuclear propulsion problem in the Atlantic Ocean about 300 miles northwest of Spain. Although an attempt to attach a tow line from a Soviet bloc merchant ship; the submarine apparently sank, killing 52.
Date: November 22, 1975
Location: Off Sicily, Italy
The aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy and the cruiser USS Belknap collided in rough seas at night during exercises. Although it was declared as a possible nuclear weapons accident, no subsequent nuclear contamination was discovered during the fire and rescue operations.
1980s
Date: October 3, 1986
Location: Atlantic Ocean
A Soviet Yankee I -class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine suffered an explosion and fire in one of its missile tubes 480 miles east of Bermuda. The submarine sank while under tow on October 6 in 18,000 feet of water. Two nuclear reactors and approximately 34 nuclear weapons were on board.
Date: April 7, 1989
Location: Atlantic Ocean
About 300 miles north of the Norwegian coast, the Komsomolets, a Soviet nuclear-powered attack submarine, caught fire and sank. The vessel’s nuclear reactor, two nuclear-armed torpedoes, and 42 of the 69 crew members were lost.
Date: August 10, 1985
Location: Near Vladivostok, Russia
While at the Chazhma Bay repair facility, about 35 miles from Vladivostok, an Echo -class Soviet nuclear-powered submarine suffered a reactor explosion. The explosion released a cloud of radioactivity toward Vladivostok but did not reach the city. Ten officers were killed in the explosion.
1990s
Date: September 27, 1991
Location: White Sea
A missile launch malfunction occurred during a test launch on a Typhoon -class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine.
Date: March 20, 1993
Location: Barents Sea
The U.S. nuclear-powered submarine Grayling collided with a Russian Delta III nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine. Both vessels reportedly suffered only minor damage.
Date: February 11, 1992
Location: Barents Sea
A collision between a CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) Sierra -class nuclear-powered attack submarine with the U.S. nuclear-powered attack submarine Baton Rouge. Both vessels reportedly suffered only minor damage. There is a dispute over the location of the incident in or outside Russian territorial waters.
2000s
Date: August 12, 2000
Location: Barents Sea
The CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) Oscar II class submarine, Kursk, sinks after a massive onboard explosion. Attempts to resuce the 118 men fail. It is thought that a torpedo failure caused the accident. Radiation levels are normal and the submarine had no nuclear weapons on board.
Sources:
U.S. Defense Department
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
National Security Archive
Greenpeace
Joshua Handler, Princeton University
United Press International
The Associated Press
Blind Man’s Bluff : The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml
***
Edwin Walker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edwin Anderson Walker
November 10, 1909(1909-11-10) – October 31, 1993 (aged 83)
ColEAWalker.jpg
Colonel Edwin A. Walker
Place of birth Center Point, Texas
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Army
Rank Major General
Commands held 24th Infantry Division
Battles/wars World War II
Korean War
Major General Edwin Anderson Walker (November 10, 1909 – October 31, 1993) of the U.S. Army was known for his conservative political views and for being an attempted assassination target of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Early life and military career
* 2 Assassination attempt
* 3 Associated Press v. Walker
* 4 Later life
* 5 Culture
* 6 Notes
* 7 External links
Early life and military career
Edwin Ted Walker was born in Center Point, Texas and graduated from the New Mexico Military Institute in 1927. He then attended the United States Military Academy, where he graduated in 1931.[1] During World War II, Walker commanded a subunit of the Canadian-American First Special Service Force in the invasion of Anzio, Italy in January 1944. In August 1944, Walker succeeded Robert T. Frederick as the unit’s commanding officer. The FSSF landed on the Hyeres Islands off of the French Riviera, taking out a strong German garrison.
Walker again saw combat in the Korean War, commanding the Third Infantry Division’s Seventh Infantry and was senior advisor to the First Korean Corps. He next became the commander of the Arkansas Military district in Little Rock, Arkansas. During his years in Arkansas, he implemented an order from President Eisenhower in 1957 to quell civil disturbances during the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock.
In 1959, General Walker was sent to Germany to command the 24th Infantry Division. In 1961, however, he became involved in controversy. Walker initiated an anti-communist indoctrination program for troops called Pro Blue (due to Free World troops being coloured blue on maps)[2] and was accused of distributing right-wing literature from the John Birch Society to the soldiers of his division. He was also quoted by a newspaper, the Overseas Weekly, as saying that Harry S. Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Dean Acheson were definitely pink. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara relieved Walker of his command, while an inquiry was conducted, and in October Walker was reassigned to Hawaii to become assistant chief of staff for training and operations in the Pacific. Instead, Walker resigned from the Army on November 2, 1961. Said Walker: It will be my purpose now, as a civilian, to attempt to do what I have found it no longer possible to do in uniform. [3]
In February 1962, Walker entered the race for Governor of Texas, but finished last among six candidates in a Democratic primary election in May that was won by John Connally.[4]
Walker organized protests in September 1962 against the use of federal troops to enforce the enrollment of African-American James Meredith at the racially segregated University of Mississippi. His public statement on September 29:
This is Edwin A. Walker. I am in Mississippi beside Gov. Ross Barnett. I call for a national protest against the conspiracy from within. Rally to the cause of freedom in righteous indignation, violent vocal protest, and bitter silence under the flag of Mississippi at the use of Federal troops. This today is a disgrace to the nation in ‘dire peril,’ a disgrace beyond the capacity of anyone except its enemies. This is the conspiracy of the crucifixion by anti-Christ conspirators of the Supreme Court in their denial of prayer and their betrayal of a nation.[5]
After a violent, 15-hour riot broke out on the campus, on September 30, in which two people were killed and six federal marshals were shot, Walker was arrested on four federal charges, including insurrection against the United States. Walker posted bond and returned home to Dallas, where he was greeted by a crowd of 200 supporters.[6] After a federal grand jury adjourned in January 1963 without indicting him, the charges were dropped. Because the dismissal of the charges was without prejudice, the charges could have been reinstated within five years.[7]
Assassination attempt
It was around this time that Walker got Lee Harvey Oswald’s attention. Oswald, a self-proclaimed Marxist,[8] considered Walker a fascist and the leader of a fascist organization. [9]
A front page story on Walker in the October 7, 1962, issue of the Worker, a Communist Party newspaper to which Oswald subscribed, warned the Kennedy administration and the American people of the need for action against [Walker] and his allies. On October 8, Oswald quit his job and moved to Dallas, with no explanation. Five days after the front page news on January 22, 1963 that Walker’s federal charges had been dropped,[10] Oswald ordered a revolver by mail, using the alias A.J. Hidell. [11]
In February 1963, Walker was making news by joining forces with evangelist Billy James Hargis in an anti-communist tour called Operation Midnight Ride .[12] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to liquidate the scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba. [13] Seven days later, Oswald ordered by mail a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, using the alias A. Hidell. [14]
Oswald began to put Walker under surveillance, taking pictures of Walker’s Dallas home on the weekend of March 9–10.[15] He planned the assassination for April 10, ten days after he was fired from the photography firm where he worked. He told his wife later that he chose a Wednesday evening because the neighborhood would be relatively crowded because of services in a church adjacent to Walker’s home; he would not stand out and could mingle with the crowds if necessary to make his escape. He left a note in Russian for his wife Marina with instructions should he be caught.[16] Walker was sitting at a desk in his dining room when Oswald fired at him from less than a hundred feet (30 m) away. Walker survived only because the bullet struck the wooden frame of the window, which deflected its path. However, he was injured in the forearm by fragments.
At the time, authorities had no idea who attempted to kill Walker. A police detective, D.E. McElroy, commented that Whoever shot at the general was playing for keeps. The sniper wasn’t trying to scare him. He was shooting to kill.
Marina Oswald stated later that she had seen Oswald burn most of his plans in the bathtub, though she hid the note he left her in a cookbook, with the intention of bringing it to the police should Oswald again attempt to kill Walker or anyone else. Marina later quoted her husband as saying, Well, what would you say if somebody got rid of Hitler at the right time? So if you don’t know about General Walker, how can you speak up on his behalf? [17] Oswald’s involvement in the attempt on Walker’s life was suspected within hours of his arrest on November 22, 1963, following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.[18] But police had no evidence of Oswald’s involvement in the Walker attempt until early December 1963, when the note and some of the photos were found by authorities. The bullet was too badly damaged to run conclusive ballistics tests, but neutron activation tests later determined that it was extremely likely the bullet was a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company, the same ammunition used in the Kennedy assassination.[19]
Oswald later wrote to Arnold Johnson of the Communist Party, U.S.A., that on the evening of October 23, 1963 he had attended an ultra right meeting headed by Gen. Edwin A. Walker.[20]
Associated Press v. Walker
Angered by negative publicity he was receiving for his conservative political views, Walker began to file libel lawsuits against various media outlets. One of these suits was in response to coverage of his participation in the University of Mississippi riot, specifically that he had led a charge of students against federal marshals and that he had assumed command of the crowd. [21] A Texas trial court in 1964 found the statements false and defamatory.[22] The decision was appealed, as Associated Press v. Walker, all the way to the United States Supreme Court,[23] but the Court ruled against Walker and found that although the statements may have been false, the Associated Press was not guilty of reckless disregard in their reporting about Walker. The Court, which had previously said that public officials could not recover damages unless they could prove actual malice, extended this to public figures as well.
Later life
By resigning instead of retiring, Walker was unable to draw a pension from the Army. He made statements at the time to the Dallas Morning News that he had refused to take his pension. The Army restored his pension rights in 1982. He had made several previous requests for his pension dating back to 1973.[24]
Walker, then 66, was arrested on June 23, 1976 for public lewdness in a restroom at a Dallas park and accused of fondling an undercover policeman.[25][26][27] He was arrested again in Dallas for public lewdness on March 16, 1977.[28][29] He pled no contest to one of the two misdemeanor charges, was given a suspended, 30-day jail sentence, and fined $1,000.[30]
He died of lung cancer at his home in Dallas in 1993.[31]
Culture
* Walker was cited as inspiration for the Air Force General James Mattoon Scott character in the film Seven Days in May, although Walker himself is mentioned by name in the film.
Notes
1. ^ Handbook of Texas: Center Point, Texas. Retrieved March 16, 2007.
2. ^ p. 105 Schoenwald, Jonathan M. A Time for Choosing: The Rise of American Conservatism Oxford University Press 2001
3. ^ I Must Be Free . . ., Time, November 10, 1961.
4. ^ Elections of Texas Governors, 1845–2006.
5. ^ Walker Demands a ‘Vocal Protest,’ New York Times, September 30, 1962, p. 69.
6. ^ Crowd Welcomes Ex-Gen. Walker’s Return to Dallas, Dallas Morning News, October 8, 1962, sec. 1, p. 1.
7. ^ The Strange Case of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker.
8. ^ Radio debate between Oswald and anti-Castro activists Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier at station WDSU in New Orleans, August 21, 1963.
9. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 1, p. 16, Testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald.
10. ^ Judge Dismisses Walker Charges, Dallas Morning News, January 22, 1963, sec. 1, p. 1.
11. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 16, p. 511, CE 135, Mail-order coupon in name of A.J. Hidell.
12. ^ Hargis Says Walker Will Join in Tour, Dallas Morning News, February 14, 1963, sec. 1, p. 16. Walker Preparing for Crusade, Dallas Morning News, February 17, 1963, sec. 1, p. 16. Pickets Protest Talks Given by Hargis, Walker, Dallas Morning News, March 28, 1963, sec. 4, p. 18.
13. ^ Dallas Times Herald, March 6, 1963.
14. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 17, p. 635, CE 773, Photograph of a mail order for a rifle in the name A. Hidell, and the envelope in which the order was sent.
15. ^ Construction work seen in one of the photos was determined by the supervisor to have been in that state of completion on March 9–10. Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 22, p. 585, CE 1351, FBI Report, Dallas, Tex., dated May 22, 1964, reflecting investigation concerning photographs of the residence of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker.
16. ^ A photocopy of Oswald’s note, in Russian. Retrieved March 16, 2007.
17. ^ Testimony of Marina Oswald Porter, HSCA Hearings, vol. II, p. 232.
18. ^ Officials Recall Sniper Shooting at Walker Home , Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963, sec. 1, p. 15.
19. ^ Testimony of Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, HSCA Hearings, vol. I, p. 502.
20. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 20, p. 271, Undated letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to Arnold S. Johnson, with envelope postmarked November 1, 1963. Rally Talk Scheduled by Walker, Dallas Morning News, October 231963, sec. 1, p. 7. Walker Says U.S. Main Battleground, Dallas Morning News, October 241963, sec. 4, p. 1.
21. ^ Associated Press v. Walker, 393 S.W.2d 671, 674 (1965).
22. ^ The General v. The Cub , Time, June 26, 1964.
23. ^ Associated Press v. Walker, 389 U.S. 28 (1967).
24. ^ Warren Weaver, Jr., Pension Restored for Gen. Walker , New York Times, July 24, 1983, p. 17.
25. ^ General Walker Faces Sex Charge: Right-Wing Figure Accused in Dallas of Lewdness , United Press International, New York Times, July 9, 1976, p. 84.
26. ^ Catch as Catch Can, Time, July 26, 1976.
27. ^ Trial for Walker Routinely Passed , Dallas Morning News, September 15, 1976, p. D4.
28. ^ Police Arrest Retired General for Lewdness, Dallas Morning News, March 17, 1977, p. B18.
29. ^ General Walker Free on Bond , New York Times, March 18, 1977, p. 8.
30. ^ Judge Convicts, Fines Walker , Dallas Morning News, May 23, 1977, p. A5.
31. ^ Eric Pace, Gen. Edwin Walker, 83, Is Dead; Promoted Rightist Causes in 60’s , New York Times, November 2, 1993, p. B-10.
External links
* Edwin Walker biography page
* The Strange Case of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker
* The Handbook of Texas Online: Walker, Edwin A.
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
Categories: American military personnel of the Korean War | American military personnel of World War II | Cancer deaths in Texas | Deaths from lung cancer | John Birch Society | John F. Kennedy assassination | People from Kerr County, Texas | Recipients of the Combat Infantryman Badge | United States Army generals | United States Military Academy alumni | American anti-communists | 1909 births | 1993 deaths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker
***
United States President’s Commission on CIA activities within the United States
The U.S. President’s Commission on CIA activities within the United States was set up under President Gerald Ford in 1975 to investigate the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies within the United States. The commission was led by the Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, and is sometimes referred to as the Rockefeller Commission.
The commission was created in response to a December 1974 report in The New York Times that the CIA had conducted illegal domestic activities, including experiments on U.S. citizens, during the 1960s. The commission issued a single report in 1975, touching upon certain CIA abuses including mail opening and surveillance of domestic dissident groups. It publicized Project MKULTRA, a CIA mind control study. It also studied issues relating to the John F. Kennedy assassination, specifically the head snap as seen in the Zapruder film (first shown on television in 1975), and the possible presence of E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis in Dallas, Texas.[1]
A larger investigation, the Church Committee, was set up on 27 January 1975 by the U.S. Senate. The Nedzi Committee was created in the U.S. Congress on 19 February 1975. It was replaced by the Pike Committee five months later.
Contents
* 1 References
* 2 See also
* 3 Additional reading
* 4 External links
References
1. ^ Michigan State University Libraries – Electronic Resources
See also
* Church Committee
* COINTELPRO
* Family jewels (Central Intelligence Agency)
* Nedzi Committee
* Pike Committee
* Plausible denial
* Project MKULTRA
* Hughes-Ryan Act
Additional reading
See Chapter 3, The Politics of Spying: The Rockefeller Commission and the CIA, in Kenneth Kitts, *Presidential Commissions and National Security (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2006).
[edit] External links
* Rockefeller Commission Report – the full text of the report, as scans
* The Pike Committee Investigations and the CIA
v • d • e
Major US Intelligence Reforms
National Security Act of 1947 (1947) • The First Hoover Commission – Eberstadt Report (1947) • The Dulles-Jackson-Correa Report (1949) • The Second Hoover Commission (1953) • The Doolittle Report (1954) • The Bruce-Lovett Report (1956) • The Taylor Report (1961) • The Kirkpatrick Report (1961) • The Schlesinger Report (1971) • The Murphey Investigation (794) • The Rockefeller Commission (1975) • The Church Committee (1976) • The Pike Committee (1976) • Clifford/Cline Proposals (1976) • EO 11905 (Ford) (1976) • Charter Legislation (1978) • EO 12036 (Carter) (1978) • EO 12333 (Reagan) (1981) • Iran-Contra Investigation (1987) • Boren-McCurdy (1992) • Aspen-Brown Commission (1995) • IC21 (1996) • US Commission on National Security/21st Century (2001) • 9/11 Commission Report (2004) • WMD Commission (2005) • EO 13470 (G. W. Bush) (2008) •
Stub icon This United States government-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
v • d • e
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_President%27s_Commission_on_CIA_activities_within_the_United_States
Categories: Central Intelligence Agency | Surveillance | John F. Kennedy assassination | Mind control | United States national commissions | United States government stubs
***
Project MKULTRA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
MKULTRA redirects here. For other uses, see MKULTRA (disambiguation).
Declassified MKULTRA documents
Project MK-ULTRA, or MKULTRA, was the code name for a covert CIA mind-control and chemical interrogation research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. The program began in the early 1950s, continuing at least through the late 1960s, and it used United States citizens as its test subjects.[1][2][3] The published evidence indicates that Project MK-ULTRA involved the surreptitious use of many types of drugs, as well as other methods, to manipulate individual mental states and to alter brain function.
Project MK-ULTRA was first brought to wide public attention in 1975 by the U.S. Congress, through investigations by the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission. Investigative efforts were hampered by the fact that CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MK-ULTRA files destroyed in 1973; the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms’ destruction order.[4]
Although the CIA insists that MK-ULTRA-type experiments have been abandoned, 14-year CIA veteran Victor Marchetti has stated in various interviews that the CIA routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MK-ULTRA was abandoned a cover story. [5][6]
On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said:
The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an extensive testing and experimentation program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign. Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to unwitting subjects in social situations. At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers.[7]
To this day most specific information regarding Project MKULTRA remains highly classified.[citation needed]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Title and origins
* 2 Goals
* 3 Budget
* 4 Experiments
o 4.1 Drugs
+ 4.1.1 LSD
+ 4.1.2 Other drugs
o 4.2 Hypnosis
o 4.3 Canadian experiments
* 5 Revelation
* 6 U.S. General Accounting Office Report
* 7 Deaths
* 8 Legal issues involving informed consent
* 9 Extent of participation
* 10 Notable subjects
* 11 Conspiracy theories
* 12 Popular culture
* 13 See also
* 14 Footnotes
* 15 Further reading
* 16 External links
[edit] Title and origins
Dr. Sidney Gottlieb approved of an MKULTRA subproject on LSD in this June 9, 1953 letter.
The project’s intentionally oblique CIA cryptonym is made up of the digraph MK, meaning that the project was sponsored by the agency’s Technical Services Division, followed by the word ULTRA (which had previously been used to designate the most secret classification of World War II intelligence). Other related cryptonyms include MK-NAOMI and MK-DELTA.
A precursor of the MK-ULTRA program began in 1945 when the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency was established and given direct responsibility for Operation Paperclip. Operation Paperclip was a program to recruit former Nazi scientists. Some of these scientists studied torture and brainwashing, and several had just been identified and prosecuted as war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials.[8][9]
Several secret U.S. government projects grew out of Operation Paperclip. These projects included Project CHATTER (established 1947), and Project BLUEBIRD (established 1950), which was later renamed to Project ARTICHOKE in 1951. Their purpose was to study mind-control, interrogation, behavior modification and related topics.
Headed by Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the MK-ULTRA project was started on the order of CIA director Allen Dulles on April 13, 1953,[10] largely in response to Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind-control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea.[11] The CIA wanted to use similar methods on their own captives. The CIA was also interested in being able to manipulate foreign leaders with such techniques,[12] and would later invent several schemes to drug Fidel Castro.
Experiments were often conducted without the subjects’ knowledge or consent.[13] In some cases, academic researchers being funded through grants from CIA front organizations were unaware that their work was being used for these purposes.[14]
In 1964, the project was renamed MK-SEARCH. The project attempted to produce a perfect truth drug for use in interrogating suspected Soviet spies during the Cold War, and generally to explore any other possibilities of mind control.
Another MK-ULTRA effort, Subproject 54, was the Navy’s top secret Perfect Concussion program, which used sub-aural frequency blasts to erase memory.[15]
Because most MK-ULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by order of then CIA Director Richard Helms, it has been difficult, if not impossible, for investigators to gain a complete understanding of the more than 150 individually funded research sub-projects sponsored by MK-ULTRA and related CIA programs.[16]
[edit] Goals
The Agency poured millions of dollars into studies probing dozens of methods of influencing and controlling the mind. One 1955 MK-ULTRA document gives an indication of the size and range of the effort; this document refers to the study of an assortment of mind-altering substances described as follows:[17]
1. Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.
2. Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.
3. Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
4. Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.
5. Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.
6. Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.
7. Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called brain-washing .
8. Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.
9. Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.
10. Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.
11. Substances which will produce pure euphoria with no subsequent let-down.
12. Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.
13. A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.
14. Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.
15. Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.
16. A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.
17. A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.
Historians have asserted that creating a Manchurian Candidate subject through mind control techniques was a goal of MK-ULTRA and related CIA projects.[18]
Budget
A secretive arrangement granted the MK-ULTRA program a percentage of the CIA budget. The MK-ULTRA director was granted six percent of the CIA operating budget in 1953, without oversight or accounting.[19] An estimated US$10m or more was spent[20].
Experiments
CIA documents suggest that chemical, biological and radiological means were investigated for the purpose of mind control as part of MK-ULTRA.[21]
Drugs
LSD
Early efforts focused on LSD, which later came to dominate many of MK-ULTRA’s programs.
Experiments included administering LSD to CIA employees, military personnel, doctors, other government agents, prostitutes, mentally ill patients, and members of the general public in order to study their reactions. LSD and other drugs were usually administered without the subject’s knowledge or informed consent, a violation of the Nuremberg Code that the U.S. agreed to follow after World War II.
Efforts to recruit subjects were often illegal, even discounting the fact that drugs were being administered (though actual use of LSD, for example, was legal in the United States until October 6, 1966). In Operation Midnight Climax, the CIA set up several brothels to obtain a selection of men who would be too embarrassed to talk about the events. The men were dosed with LSD, the brothels were equipped with one-way mirrors, and the sessions were filmed for later viewing and study.[22]
Some subjects’ participation was consensual, and in many of these cases, the subjects appeared to be singled out for even more extreme experiments. In one case, volunteers were given LSD for 77 consecutive days.[23]
LSD was eventually dismissed by MK-ULTRA’s researchers as too unpredictable in its results.[1] Although useful information was sometimes obtained through questioning subjects on LSD, not uncommonly the most marked effect would be the subject’s absolute and utter certainty that they were able to withstand any form of interrogation attempt, even physical torture.
Other drugs
Another technique investigated was connecting a barbiturate IV into one arm and an amphetamine IV into the other.[24] The barbiturates were released into the subject first, and as soon as the subject began to fall asleep, the amphetamines were released. The subject would begin babbling incoherently at this point, and it was sometimes possible to ask questions and get useful answers.
Other experiments involved heroin, morphine, temazepam (used under code name MK-SEARCH), mescaline, psilocybin, scopolamine, marijuana, alcohol, sodium pentothal,[25] and ergine (in Subproject 22).
Hypnosis
Declassified MK-ULTRA documents indicate hypnosis was studied in the early 1950s. Experimental goals included: the creation of hypnotically induced anxieties, hypnotically increasing ability to learn and recall complex written matter, studying hypnosis and polygraph examinations, hypnotically increasing ability to observe and recall complex arrangements of physical objects, and studying relationship of personality to susceptibility to hypnosis. [26]
Canadian experiments
The experiments were exported to Canada when the CIA recruited Scottish physician Donald Ewen Cameron, creator of the psychic driving concept, which the CIA found particularly interesting. Cameron had been hoping to correct schizophrenia by erasing existing memories and reprogramming the psyche. He commuted from Albany, New York to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of McGill University and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKULTRA experiments there. In addition to LSD, Cameron also experimented with various paralytic drugs as well as electroconvulsive therapy at thirty to forty times the normal power. His driving experiments consisted of putting subjects into drug-induced coma for weeks at a time (up to three months in one case) while playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements. His experiments were typically carried out on patients who had entered the institute for minor problems such as anxiety disorders and postpartum depression, many of whom suffered permanently from his actions.[27] His treatments resulted in victims’ incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents.[28] His work was inspired and paralleled by the British psychiatrist Dr William Sargant at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, and Belmont Hospital, Surrey, who was also involved in the Intelligence Services and who experimented extensively on his patients without their consent, causing similar long-term damage.[29] Dr. Cameron and Dr. Sargant are the only two identified Canadian experimenters, but the MKULTRA file makes reference to many other unnamed physicians who were recruited by the CIA.[citation needed]
It was during this era that Cameron became known worldwide as the first chairman of the World Psychiatric Association as well as president of the American and Canadian psychiatric associations. Cameron had also been a member of the Nuremberg medical tribunal in 1946-47.[30]
Revelation
In 1973, CIA Director Richard Helms ordered all MK-ULTRA files destroyed. Pursuant to this order, most CIA documents regarding the project were destroyed, making a full investigation of MK-ULTRA impossible.
In December 1974, The New York Times reported that the CIA had conducted illegal domestic activities, including experiments on U.S. citizens, during the 1960s. That report prompted investigations by the U.S. Congress, in the form of the Church Committee, and by a presidential commission known as the Rockefeller Commission that looked into domestic activities of the CIA, the FBI, and intelligence-related agencies of the military.
In the summer of 1975, congressional Church Committee reports and the presidential Rockefeller Commission report revealed to the public for the first time that the CIA and the Department of Defense had conducted experiments on both unwitting and cognizant human subjects as part of an extensive program to influence and control human behavior through the use of psychoactive drugs such as LSD and mescaline and other chemical, biological, and psychological means. They also revealed that at least one subject had died after administration of LSD. Much of what the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission learned about MKULTRA was contained in a report, prepared by the Inspector General’s office in 1963, that had survived the destruction of records ordered in 1973.[31] However, it contained little detail.
The congressional committee investigating the CIA research, chaired by Senator Frank Church, concluded that [p]rior consent was obviously not obtained from any of the subjects . The committee noted that the experiments sponsored by these researchers … call into question the decision by the agencies not to fix guidelines for experiments.
Following the recommendations of the Church Committee, President Gerald Ford in 1976 issued the first Executive Order on Intelligence Activities which, among other things, prohibited experimentation with drugs on human subjects, except with the informed consent, in writing and witnessed by a disinterested party, of each such human subject and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the National Commission. Subsequent orders by Presidents Carter and Reagan expanded the directive to apply to any human experimentation.
On the heels of the revelations about CIA experiments, similar stories surfaced regarding U.S. Army experiments. In 1975 the Secretary of the Army instructed the Army Inspector General to conduct an investigation. Among the findings of the Inspector General was the existence of a 1953 memorandum penned by then Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson. Documents show that the CIA participated in at least two of Department of Defense committees during 1952. These committee findings led to the issuance of the Wilson Memo, which mandated—in accord with Nuremberg Code protocols—that only volunteers be used for experimental operations conducted in the U.S. armed forces. In response to the Inspector General’s investigation, the Wilson Memo was declassified in August 1975.
With regard to drug testing within the Army, the Inspector General found that the evidence clearly reflected that every possible medical consideration was observed by the professional investigators at the Medical Research Laboratories. However the Inspector General also found that the mandated requirements of Wilson’s 1953 memorandum had been only partially adhered to; he concluded that the volunteers were not fully informed, as required, prior to their participation; and the methods of procuring their services, in many cases, appeared not to have been in accord with the intent of Department of the Army policies governing use of volunteers in research.
Other branches of the U.S. armed forces, the Air Force for example, were found not to have adhered to Wilson Memo stipulations regarding voluntary drug testing.
In 1977, during a hearing held by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to look further into MKULTRA, Admiral Stansfield Turner, then Director of Central Intelligence, revealed that the CIA had found a set of records, consisting of about 20,000 pages,[32] that had survived the 1973 destruction orders, due to having been stored at a records center not usually used for such documents.[31] These files dealt with the financing of MKULTRA projects, and as such contained few details of those projects, but much more was learned from them than from the Inspector General’s 1963 report.
In Canada, the issue took much longer to surface, becoming widely known in 1984 on a CBC news show, The Fifth Estate. It was learned that not only had the CIA funded Dr. Cameron’s efforts, but perhaps even more shockingly, the Canadian government was fully aware of this, and had later provided another $500,000 in funding to continue the experiments. This revelation largely derailed efforts by the victims to sue the CIA as their U.S. counterparts had, and the Canadian government eventually settled out of court for $100,000 to each of the 127 victims. None of Dr. Cameron’s personal records of his involvement with MKULTRA survive, since his family destroyed them after his death from a heart attack while mountain climbing in 1967.[33]
U.S. General Accounting Office Report
The U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report on September 28, 1994, which stated that between 1940 and 1974, DOD and other national security agencies studied thousands of human subjects in tests and experiments involving hazardous substances.
The quote from the study:
… Working with the CIA, the Department of Defense gave hallucinogenic drugs to thousands of volunteer soldiers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In addition to LSD, the Army also tested quinuclidinyl benzilate, a hallucinogen code-named BZ. (Note 37) Many of these tests were conducted under the so-called MKULTRA program, established to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing techniques. Between 1953 and 1964, the program consisted of 149 projects involving drug testing and other studies on unwitting human subjects…[34]
Deaths
Harold Blauer, a professional tennis player in New York City, died as a result of a secret Army experiment involving MDA.[35]
Frank Olson, a United States Army biochemist and biological weapons researcher, was given LSD without his knowledge or consent in 1953 as part of a CIA experiment, and died under suspicious circumstances (initially labeled suicide) a week later following a severe psychotic episode. A CIA doctor assigned to monitor Olson’s recovery claimed to be asleep in another bed in a New York City hotel room when Olson jumped through the window to fall ten stories to his death.[36]
Olson’s son disputes this version of events, and maintains that his father was murdered due to the belief that he was going to divulge his knowledge of the top-secret interrogation program code-named Project ARTICHOKE.[37] Frank Olson’s body was exhumed in 1994, and cranial injuries indicated Olson had been knocked unconscious before exiting the window.[38]
The CIA’s own internal investigation, by contrast, claimed Gottlieb had conducted the experiment with Olson’s prior knowledge, although neither Olson nor the other men taking part in the experiment were informed as to the exact nature of the drug until some 20 minutes after its ingestion. The report further suggested that Gottlieb was nonetheless due a reprimand, as he had failed to take into account Olsen’s already-diagnosed suicidal tendencies, which might well have been exacerbated by the LSD.[36]
Legal issues involving informed consent
The revelations about the CIA and the Army prompted a number of subjects or their survivors to file lawsuits against the federal government for conducting illegal experiments. Although the government aggressively, and sometimes successfully, sought to avoid legal liability, several plaintiffs did receive compensation through court order, out-of-court settlement, or acts of Congress. Frank Olson’s family received $750,000 by a special act of Congress, and both President Ford and CIA director William Colby met with Olson’s family to publicly apologize.
Previously, the CIA and the Army had actively and successfully sought to withhold incriminating information, even as they secretly provided compensation to the families. One subject of Army drug experimentation, James Stanley, an Army sergeant, brought an important, albeit unsuccessful, suit. The government argued that Stanley was barred from suing under a legal doctrine—known as the Feres doctrine, after a 1950 Supreme Court case, Feres v. United States—that prohibits members of the Armed Forces from suing the government for any harms that were inflicted incident to service.
In 1987, the Supreme Court affirmed this defense in a 5–4 decision that dismissed Stanley’s case.[39] The majority argued that a test for liability that depends on the extent to which particular suits would call into question military discipline and decision making would itself require judicial inquiry into, and hence intrusion upon, military matters. In dissent, Justice William Brennan argued that the need to preserve military discipline should not protect the government from liability and punishment for serious violations of constitutional rights:
The medical trials at Nuremberg in 1947 deeply impressed upon the world that experimentation with unknowing human subjects is morally and legally unacceptable. The United States Military Tribunal established the Nuremberg Code as a standard against which to judge German scientists who experimented with human subjects… . [I]n defiance of this principle, military intelligence officials … began surreptitiously testing chemical and biological materials, including LSD.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing a separate dissent, stated:
No judicially crafted rule should insulate from liability the involuntary and unknowing human experimentation alleged to have occurred in this case. Indeed, as Justice Brennan observes, the United States played an instrumental role in the criminal prosecution of Nazi officials who experimented with human subjects during the Second World War, and the standards that the Nuremberg Military Tribunals developed to judge the behavior of the defendants stated that the ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential … to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts.’ If this principle is violated, the very least that society can do is to see that the victims are compensated, as best they can be, by the perpetrators.
This is the only Supreme Court case to address the application of the Nuremberg Code to experimentation sponsored by the U.S. government. And while the suit was unsuccessful, dissenting opinions put the Army—and by association the entire government—on notice that use of individuals without their consent is unacceptable. The limited application of the Nuremberg Code in U.S. courts does not detract from the power of the principles it espouses, especially in light of stories of failure to follow these principles that appeared in the media and professional literature during the 1960s and 1970s and the policies eventually adopted in the mid-1970s.
In another law suit, Wayne Ritchie, a former United States Marshall, alleged the CIA laced his food or drink with LSD at a 1957 Christmas party. While the government admitted it was, at that time, drugging people without their consent, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel found Ritchie could not prove he was one of the victims of MKULTRA and dismissed the case in 2007.[40]
Extent of participation
Forty-four American colleges or universities, 15 research foundations or chemical or pharmaceutical companies and the like including Sandoz (currently Novartis) and Eli Lilly & Co., 12 hospitals or clinics (in addition to those associated with universities), and 3 prisons are known to have participated in MKULTRA.[41][42]
Notable subjects
A considerable amount of credible circumstantial evidence suggests that Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, participated in CIA-sponsored MK-ULTRA experiments conducted at Harvard University from the fall of 1959 through the spring of 1962. During World War II, Henry Murray, the lead researcher in the Harvard experiments, served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was a forerunner of the CIA. Murray applied for a grant funded by the United States Navy, and his Harvard stress experiments strongly resembled those run by the OSS.[43] Beginning at the age of sixteen, Kaczynski participated along with twenty-one other undergraduate students in the Harvard experiments, which have been described as disturbing and ethically indefensible. [43][44]
Merry Prankster Ken Kesey, author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, volunteered for MK-ULTRA experiments while he was a student at Stanford University. Kesey’s ingestion of LSD during these experiments led directly to his widespread promotion of the drug and the subsequent development of hippie culture.[45]
Candy Jones, American fashion model and radio host, claimed to have been a victim of mind control in the ’60s.[46]
Infamous Irish mob boss James Whitey Bulger volunteered for testing while in prison.[47]
Conspiracy theories
MK-ULTRA plays a part in many conspiracy theories given its nature and the destruction of most records.
Lawrence Teeter, attorney for convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan, believed Sirhan was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. Teeter linked the CIA’s MKULTRA program to mind control techniques that he claimed were used to control Sirhan.[48]
Jonestown, the Guyana location of the Jim Jones cult and Peoples Temple mass suicide, was thought to be a test site for MKULTRA medical and mind control experiments after the official end of the program. Congressman Leo Ryan, a known critic of the CIA, was assassinated after he personally visited Jonestown to investigate various reported irregularities.[49]
Popular culture
* MKULTRA is referenced in the plots of The Ambler Warning by Robert Ludlum, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe, Firestarter by Stephen King, Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, Just a Couple of Days by Tony Vigorito, The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon, The Telling of Lies by Timothy Findley; and The Watchmen by John Altman; the films The Bourne Ultimatum, Conspiracy Theory, The Good Shepherd, Jacob’s Ladder, and The Killing Room; the television series Angel, The West Wing. The Lone Gunmen, Numb3rs, Bones, Quincy M.E. and The X-Files; the games Conspiracy X and The Suffering: Prison is Hell; the character Deathstroke the Terminator in the Teen Titans by DC Comics.
* The bands mk Ultra, MK-ULTRA, and a side project of Frank Tovey took their names from these projects. MKULTRA is also referenced by such musical artists as Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Canibus, Exit Clov, Fatboy Slim, Green Magnet School, Immortal Technique, Manic Street Preachers, Muse, The Orb, Sirius Isness, Lustmord side project Terror Against Terror, Tokyo Police Club, and Unwound.
* MKULTRA also provides a name for a move by professional wrestler Sterling James Keenan.
See also
* Brainwashing
* CIA operations
* Human radiation experiments
* Louis Jolyon West
* Macy conferences
* Project MKDELTA
* Project MKNAOMI
* Operation Paperclip
* Sidney Gottlieb
* United States v. Stanley
* William Sargant
Footnotes
1. ^ Richelson, JT (ed.) (2001-09-10). Science, Technology and the CIA: A National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book . George Washington University. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/. Retrieved 2009-06-12.
2. ^ Chapter 3, part 4: Supreme Court Dissents Invoke the Nuremberg Code: CIA and DOD Human Subjects Research Scandals . Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_4.html. Retrieved 2005-08-24.
3. ^ The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign and Military Intelligence . Church Committee report, no. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.. Washington, D.C..: United States Congress. 1976. pp. 392. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book1/html/ChurchB1_0200b.htm.
4. ^ An Interview with Richard Helms . Central Intelligence Agency. 2007-05-08. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v44i4a07p_0021.htm. Retrieved 2008-03-16.
5. ^ Interview with Victor Marchetti . http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/marcheti.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-22.
6. ^ Cannon, M (1992). Mind Control and the American Government . Lobster Magazine 23.
7. ^ Opening Remarks by Senator Ted Kennedy . U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, and Subcommittee On Health And Scientific Research of the Committee On Human Resources. 1977-08-03. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/Hearing01.htm.
8. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4443934.stm
9. ^ http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html
10. ^ Church Committee; p. 390 MKULTRA was approved by the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] on April 13, 1953
11. ^ Chapter 3, part 4: Supreme Court Dissents Invoke the Nuremberg Code: CIA and DOD Human Subjects Research Scandals . Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_4.html. Retrieved August 24 2005. MKULTRA, began in 1950 and was motivated largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean uses of mind-control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea.
12. ^ Church Committee; p. 391 A special procedure, designated MKDELTA, was established to govern the use of MKULTRA materials abroad. Such materials were used on a number of occasions.
13. ^ Church Committee; The congressional committee investigating the CIA research, chaired by Senator Frank Church, concluded that ‘[p]rior consent was obviously not obtained from any of the subjects.’
14. ^ Price, David (June 2007). Buying a Piece of Anthropology: Human Ecology and unwitting anthropological research for the CIA (PDF). Anthropology Today 23 (3): 3–13. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2007.00510.x. https://secure.wikileaks.org/w/images/AT-june07-Price-PT1.pdf. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
15. ^ http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/e1950/mkultra/Hearing05.htm, retrieved 25 April 2008
16. ^ Chapter 3, part 4: Supreme Court Dissents Invoke the Nuremberg Code: CIA and DOD Human Subjects Research Scandals . Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. http://www.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_4.html. Retrieved August 24 2005. (identical sentence) Because most of the MK-ULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 … MK-ULTRA and the related CIA programs.
17. ^ Senate MKULTRA Hearing: Appendix C–Documents Referring to Subprojects, (page 167, in PDF document page numbering). (pdf). Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Committee on Human Resources. August 3, 1977. http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~pellr/lansberry/mkultra.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
18. ^ Ranelagh, John (March 1988). The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA. Sceptre. pp. 208–210. ISBN 0-340-41230-5.
19. ^ Declassified
20. ^ Mind Control and the Secret State
21. ^ Declassified
22. ^ Marks, John (1979). The Search for the Manchurian Candidate. New York: Times Books. pp. 106–7. ISBN 0-8129-0773-6.
23. ^ NPR Fresh Air. June 28, 2007 and Tim Weiner, The Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA.
24. ^ Marks 1979: pp 40-42.
25. ^ Marks 1979: chapters 3 and 7.
26. ^ Declassified
27. ^ Marks 1979: pp 140-150.
28. ^ Turbide, Diane (1997-04-21). Dr. Cameron’s Casualties . http://www.ect.org/dr-camerons-casualties/. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
29. ^ Collins, Anne ([1988] 1998). In the Sleep Room: The Story of CIA Brainwashing Experiments in Canada. Toronto: Key Porter Books. pp. 39, 42–3, 133. ISBN 1550139320.
30. ^ Marks 1979: p 141.
31. ^ a b Prepared Statement of Admiral Stansfield Turner, Director of Central Intelligence
32. ^ Government Mind Control Records of MKULTRA & Bluebird/Artichoke
33. ^ HistoryOnAir Podcast 98 – MKULTRA
34. ^ Quote from Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans Health? Lessons Spanning Half A Century , part F. HALLUCINOGENS 103rd Congress, 2nd Session-S. Prt. 103-97; Staff Report prepared for the committee on veterans’ affairs December 8, 1994 John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia, Chairman. Online copy provided by gulfweb.org, which describes itself as Serving the Gulf War Veteran Community Worldwide Since 1994 . (The same document is available from many other (unofficial) sites, which may or may not be independent.)
35. ^ Marks 1979: p 72n.
36. ^ a b Marks 1979: chapter 5.
37. ^ Olson, E (2002-08-22). Family Statement on the Murder of Frank Olson . http://www.frankolsonproject.org/Statements/FamilyStatement2002.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
38. ^ Ronson, Jon (2004). The Men Who Stare at Goats. Picador. ISBN 0-330-37548-2.
39. ^ United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)
40. ^ Ritchie v. United States of America: United States District Court, Northern District of California No. C 00-3940 MHP. Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law Re: Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings (pdf). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/Ritchie.pdf. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
41. ^ Book Review: Search for the Manchurian Candidate by John Marks
42. ^ CIA Off Campus: Building the Movement Against Agency Recruitment and Research
43. ^ a b Chase, A (2000-06-01). Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber . The Atlantic Monthly. pp. 41-65. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/chase.htm. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
44. ^ Cockburn, A; St Clair J (1999-10-18). CIA Shrinks and LSD . CounterPunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/ciashrinks.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
45. ^ Baker, Jeff (November 11, 2001). All times a great artist, Ken Kesey is dead at age 66 . The Oregonian: pp. A1.
46. ^ Bennett, C (2001-07-01). Candy Jones: How a leading American fashion model came to be experimented upon by the CIA mind control team . Fortean Times. http://www.forteantimes.com/features/profiles/497/candy_jones.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
47. ^ Bruno, A. James Whitey Bulger . truetv.com. http://www.trutv.com//library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/james_whitey_bulger/2.html. Retrieved 2008-10-16.
48. ^ Teeter, Lawrence. Interview with Sirhan’s attorney Lawrence Teeter . KPFA 94.1/Guns & Butter show. http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=8965&page=2&type=.
49. ^ Meier, M (1989). Was Jonestown a CIA Medical Experiment?: A Review of the Evidence. New York: Edwin Mellen. ISBN 0-8894-6013-2.
Further reading
* U.S. Congress: The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Foreign and Military Intelligence (Church Committee report), report no. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1976), 394 . http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book1/contents.htm.
* U.S. Senate: Joint Hearing before The Select Committee on Intelligence and The Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. August 3 1977 . http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1950/mkultra/index.htm.
External links
* Short documentary about MKULTRA and the Frank Olson incident
* The Most Dangerous Game Downloadable 8 minute documentary by independent filmmakers GNN
* GIF scans of declassified MKULTRA Project Documents
* Interview of Alfred McCoy on CIA mind control research
* U.S. Supreme Court CIA v. SIMS, 471 U.S. 159 (1985) 471 U.S. 159
* U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. STANLEY, 483 U.S. 669 (1987) 483 U.S. 669
v • d • e
United States chemical weapons program
Agents and chemicals
3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ) A Chlorine A Methylphosphonyl difluoride (DF) A Phosgene A QL A Sarin (GB) A Sulfur mustard (HD) A VX
Weapons
Bigeye bomb A M1 chemical mine A M104 155mm Cartridge A M110 155mm Cartridge A M121/A1 155mm Cartridge A M125 bomblet A M134 bomblet A M138 bomblet A M139 bomblet A M2 mortar A M23 chemical mine A M34 cluster bomb A M360 105mm Cartridge A M426 8-inch shell A M43 BZ cluster bomb A M44 generator cluster A M55 rocket A M60 105mm Cartridge A M687 155mm Cartridge A XM-736 8-inch projectile A MC-1 bomb A M47 bomb A Weteye bomb
Operations and testing
Dugway sheep incident A Edgewood Arsenal experiments A MKULTRA A Operation CHASE A Operation Geranium A Operation LAC A Operation Red Hat A Operation Steel Box A Operation Ranch Hand A Operation Top Hat A Project 112 A Project SHAD
Facilities
Anniston Army Depot A Anniston Chemical Activity A Blue Grass Army Depot A Deseret Chemical Depot A Edgewood Chemical Activity A Hawthorne Army Depot A Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System A Newport Chemical Depot A Pine Bluff Chemical Activity A Pueblo Chemical Depot A Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility A Umatilla Chemical Depot
Units and formations
1st Gas Regiment A U.S. Army Chemical Corps A Chemical mortar battalion
Equipment
Chemical Agent Identification Set A M93 Fox A MOPP A People sniffer
Related topics
Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory A Chlorine bombings in Iraq A Herbicidal warfare A List of topics A Poison gas in World War I A Tyler poison gas plot
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
Categories: Devices to alter consciousness | History of the United States government | Central Intelligence Agency operations | Psychedelic research | LSD | Medical research | Military history of the United States | Military psychiatry | Mind control | 1953 establishments | Secret government programs | Human experimentation in the United States | Investigations and hearings of the United States Congress | Code names
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
***
The Pond (intelligence organization)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Pond was a small, secret organization formed by the government of the United States of America which operated between 1942 and 1955.[1] It engaged in espionage. Its existence has only recently been acknowledged.
In the spring of 1942, Brigadier General Hayes Kroner, the head of the War Department’s Military Intelligence Service, was given the go-ahead to set up an espionage organization separate from William Wild Bill Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services.[1] He selected U.S. Army Captain John or Jean Grombach to head it.[1] Grombach, the son of the French consul in New Orleans, had obtained American citizenship and graduated from West Point before World War II.[1]
In 1955, The Pond was disbanded by the American government because of post-war centralization of intelligence gathering and questions about the organization’s effectiveness.
On April 27, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the Central Intelligence Agency planned to release a stash of Pond-related papers accidentally discovered in a Virginia barn in 2001 and hand them over to the National Archives at College Park, Maryland.[2]
References
1. ^ a b c d Mark Stout. The Pond: Running Agents for State, War, and the CIA . Central Intelligence Agency official site. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article07.html.
2. ^ Clues surfacing in Wallenberg disappearance / WWII hero may have had ties to White House; other data to be released . Associated Press. April 27, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24339683/wid/7279844//. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pond_(intelligence_organization)
Categories: United States intelligence agencies | Secret government programs | United States government stubs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pond_(intelligence_organization)
***
President’s Surveillance Program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cover of the 10 July 2009 Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program
The President’s Surveillance Program (PSP) is a collection of secret intelligence activities authorized by then President of the United States George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks in 2001 as part of the War on Terrorism. The Terrorist Surveillance Program, which authorized warrantless wiretapping of international communications where one party to the communication was believed to be affiliated with al-Qa’ida, is the only part of the President’s program that has been publicly disclosed. The other intelligence activities covered under the same Presidential authorizations remain classified information, although the Attorney General publicly acknowledged the existence of such activities in 2007.[1] The other activities have reportedly included data mining of e-mail messages[2] and telephone call detail records in the NSA call database.[3]
The President’s Surveillance Program activities were periodically reauthorized by the President, and were later transitioned to authority granted in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008. The act required the Inspectors General of all intelligence agencies involved in the program to complete a comprehensive review of the activities through January 17, 2007, and produce an unclassified report within one year after enactment. The report published on July 10, 2009 concluded that the President’s program involved unprecedented collection activities, that went far beyond the scope of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.[1] The report raised questions over the legal underpinnings of the authorizations, a lack of oversight, excessive secrecy, and the effectiveness of the program.[4][5] The report concluded that the program was built on a factually flawed legal analysis.[6]
Public disclosure of the Terrorist Surveillance Program in 2005 ignited the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. The other classified aspects of the program had also raised serious concerns within the Department of Justice over the program’s legal status and its potential effect on future criminal prosecutions. This caused conflicts with the White House that resulted in a dramatic confrontation in 2004 at the hospital bedside of the ailing Attorney General, and nearly lead to mass resignations of top Justice officials in protest when they were overruled.[7] The report on the program was also released during a period of intense negotiations over proposed language in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that would amend the National Security Act of 1947, increasing the requirements for briefing Congress on some classified intelligence programs like this one—President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill over that issue.[8]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Background
* 2 PSP IG Group report
o 2.1 Origin of the program
o 2.2 Legal underpinnings
+ 2.2.1 Initial justification
+ 2.2.2 Conflicts between DOJ and the White house
# 2.2.2.1 Ashcroft hospital bedside meeting
+ 2.2.3 White House Counsel reauthorization
+ 2.2.4 Transfer to FISA
+ 2.2.5 Briefings
+ 2.2.6 Discovery issues
+ 2.2.7 Effectiveness
o 2.3 Reaction
* 3 Timeline
* 4 Further reading
* 5 References
* 6 External links
[edit] Background
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the President of the United States authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct a classified program to detect and prevent further attacks in the United States. As part of the NSA’s classified program, several different intelligence activities were authorized in Presidential authorizations, and the details of these activities changed over time. The program was reauthorized by the President approximately every 45 days, with certain modifications. Collectively, the activities carried out under these authorizations are referred to as the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP).[1]
One of the activities authorized as part of the PSP was the interception of the content of communications into and out of the United States where there was a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al-Qa’ida, affiliated with al-Qa’ida, or a member of an organization affiliated with al-Qa’ida. After a series of articles published in The New York Times revealed classified details on this aspect of the PSP, they were publicly acknowledged and described by the President, the Attorney General, and other Administration officials beginning in December 2005, including a Presidential radio address on December 17, 2005. The President and other Administration officials labeled the publicly disclosed interception of the content of certain international communications by the NSA as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The Attorney General subsequently publicly acknowledged the fact that other intelligence activities were also authorized under the same Presidential authorization, but the details of those activities remain classified.[1]
Several different agencies had roles in the PSP. At the request of the White House, the NSA was involved in providing the technical expertise necessary to create the program. The NSA also was responsible for conducting the actual collection of information under the PSP and disseminating intelligence reports to other agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) for analysis and possible investigation. With the exception of the NSA, the Department of Defense (DoD) had limited involvement in the PSP.[1]
Components of the Department of Justice (DOJ) other than the FBI also were involved in the program. Most significantly, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provided advice to the White House and the Attorney General on the overall legality of the PSP. In addition, DOJ’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (now called the Office of Intelligence in DOJ’s National Security Division) worked with the FBI and the NSA to address the impact PSP-derived information had on proceedings under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). DOJ’s National Security Division also handled potential discovery issues that may have involved PSP-related information in international terrorism prosecutions.[1]
The CIA, in addition to receiving intelligence reports as PSP consumers, requested information from the program and used this information in its intelligence analyses. The CIA also initially prepared threat assessment memoranda that were used to support the periodic Presidential authorizations. Beginning in 2005, the newly created ODNI assumed responsibility for preparing these threat assessment memoranda. In addition, NCTC analysts received program information for possible use in analytical products prepared for the President, senior policymakers, and other Intelligence Community (IC) analysts and officers.[1]
PSP IG Group report
The Inspectors General (IGs) of the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Justice (DOJ), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) – collectively the PSP IG Group – conducted the review required under the FISA Amendments Act. The 32 page unclassified report, dated July 10, 2009, summarized the portions of the collective results of the IG reviews that could be released in unclassified form. A separate classified report summarized the classified results of the individual IG reviews.[1] The classified report is reportedly several hundred pages long. The unclassified report revealed new details of internal deliberations over the programs, but few new details on the scope of the surveillance.[5]
The PSP IG Group collectively interviewed approximately 200 government and private sector personnel as part of this review. Among the interviewees were former and current senior government officials, including Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte, NSA and CIA Director and Principal Deputy DNI (PDDNI) Michael Hayden, White House Counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The IGs did not have the power to compell testimony,[9] and Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Attorney General John Ashcroft, DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet declined the opportunity to be interviewed for the review.[1]
Origin of the program
In the days immediately after September 11, 2001, the NSA used its existing authorities to gather intelligence information in response to the terrorist attacks. When Director of Central Intelligence Tenet, on behalf of the White House, asked NSA Director Hayden whether the NSA could do more against terrorism, Hayden replied that nothing more could be done within existing authorities. When asked what he might do with more authority, Hayden said he put together information on what was operationally useful and technologically feasible. This information formed the basis of the PSP. Shortly thereafter, the President authorized the NSA to undertake a number of new, highly classified intelligence activities.[1]
The specific intelligence activities that were permitted by the Presidential Authorizations were highly classified. Former White House Counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the DOJ OIG that it was the President’s decision to keep the program a close hold. Gonzales stated that the President made the decision on all requests to read in any non-operational persons, including DOJ officials. Attorney General Ashcroft approved the first Presidential Authorization for the PSP as to form and legality on the same day that he was read into the program in October 2001.[1]
The CIA initially prepared the threat assessment memoranda that were used to support the Presidential Authorization and periodic reauthorizations of the PSP. The memoranda documented intelligence assessments of the terrorist threats to the United States and to U.S. interests abroad from al-Qa’ida and affiliated terrorist organizations. Initially, the analysts who prepared the threat assessments were not read into the PSP and did not know how the threat assessments would be used.[1]
DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo was responsible for drafting the first series of legal memoranda supporting the program. Yoo was the only OLC official read into the PSP from the program’s inception in October 2001. Jay Bybee was OLC Assistant Attorney General at the time, and Yoo’s supervisor. However, Bybee stated he was never read into the PSP and could shed no further light on how Yoo came to draft the OLC opinions on the program. The first OLC opinion directly supporting the legality of the PSP was dated November 2, 2001, and was drafted by Yoo.[1]
NSA Director Hayden consulted with NSA senior technical experts and experienced attorneys from the NSA’s Office of General Counsel, but only Hayden knew about and participated in the development of the Presidential Authorization by serving as a technical advisor. After the Authorization was signed, NSA attorneys supported the lawfulness of the resulting program. After Hayden received the first Authorization, he assembled 80 to 90 people in a conference room and explained what the President had authorized. Hayden said: We’re going to do exactly what he said and not one photon or electron more. According to Hayden, the program was designed to provide the NSA with the operational agility to cover terrorism-related targets.[1]
Legal underpinnings
Initial justification
John Yoo was the sole OLC attorney who advised Attorney General Ashcroft and White House officials on the PSP from the program’s inception in October 2001 through Yoo’s resignation from DOJ in May 2003. Upon Yoo’s departure, another DOJ official, Patrick Philbin, was selected by the White House to be read into the PSP to assume Yoo’s role as advisor to the Attorney General concerning the program. In addition, Jack Goldsmith replaced Jay Bybee as the Assistant Attorney General for OLC on October 6,2003. Even though Bybee had never been read into the PSI, Philbin persuaded Counsel to the Vice President David Addington to read in Goldsmith, Bybee’s replacement. After being read into the PSP, Goldsmith and Philbin became concerned about the factual and legal basis for Yoo’s legal memoranda supporting the program.[1]
Goldsmith and Philbin began developing an analysis to more fully address the FISA statute with respect to the PSP. Beginning in August 2003, Philbin and later Goldsmith brought their concerns about the OLC legal opinions to Attorney General Ashcroft. In December 2003, Goldsmith and Philbin met with Counsel to the Vice President Addington and White House Counsel Gonzales at the White House to express their growing concerns about the legal underpinnings of the program. In late January 2004, at Goldsmith’s request, the White House agreed to allow Deputy Attorney General James Comey to be read into the PSP following Comey’s confirmation as the Deputy Attorney General in December 2003. After being briefed, Comey agreed that the concerns about Yoo’s legal analysis were well-founded. Comey told the DOJ OIG that of particular concern to him and Goldsmith was the notion that Yoo’s legal analysis entailed ignoring an act of Congress, and doing so without full congressional notification.[1]
The DOJ OIG later concluded that it was extraordinary and inappropriate that a single DOJ attorney, John Yoo, was relied upon to conduct the initial legal assessment of the PSP, and that the lack of oversight and review of Yoo’s work, as customarily is the practice of OLC, contributed to a legal analysis of the PSP that at a minimum was factually flawed. Deficiencies in the legal memoranda became apparent once additional DOJ attorneys were read into the program in 2003 and when those attorneys sought a greater understanding of the PSP’s operation. The DOJ OIG concluded that the White House’s strict controls over DOJ access to the PSP undermined DOJ’s ability to perform its critical legal function during the PSP’s early phase of operation.[1]
Conflicts between DOJ and the White house
Comey told the DOJ OIG that he met with Attorney General Ashcroft on March 4, 2004, to discuss the PSP and that Ashcroft agreed with Comey and the other DOJ officials’ assessment of the potential legal problems with the PSP. Later that day, Ashcroft was struck with severe gallstone pancreatitis and was admitted to the George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. Because of Ashcroft’s disability, Comey took over as Acting Attorney General.[1]
Later on March 5, Gonzales called Goldsmith to request a letter from OLC stating that Yoo’s prior OLC opinions covered the program, meaning the PSP. Goldsmith, Philbin, and Comey re-examined Yoo’s memoranda and concluded that Yoo’s memoranda did not accurately describe some of the Other Intelligence Activities that were being conducted under the Presidential Authorizations implementing the PSP, and that the memoranda therefore did not provide a basis for finding that these activities were legal. On Saturday, March 6, Goldsmith and Philbin, with Comey’s concurrence, met with Addington and Gonzales at the White House to convey their conclusions that certain activities in the PSP should cease.[1]
After a series of follow-up meetings between DOJ and White House officials, the President instructed Vice President Cheney on the morning of Wednesday, March 10, to call a meeting with congressional leaders to advise them of the impasse with DOJ. A meeting with the Top administration officials, and the congressional leaders known as the Gang of Eight, but without DOJ personnel, was convened in the White House Situation Room later that day. According to Gonzales’s notes of the meeting, the consensus of the congressional leaders was that the program should continue. However, after Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2007, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and Senator Tom Daschle issued statements sharply disputing Gonzales’s characterization of their statements at the March 10, 2004 meeting, stating that there was no consensus at the meeting that the program should proceed.[1]
Ashcroft hospital bedside meeting
Gonzales told the DOJ OIG that following the meeting with the congressional leaders on March 10, President Bush instructed him and Card to go to the George Washington University Hospital to speak to Ashcroft, who was in the intensive care unit recovering from surgery. At approximately 7:00 p.m. that day, Comey learned that Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital to see Ashcroft. He relayed this information to FBI Director Mueller, and told him that Ashcroft was in no condition to receive guests, much less make a decision about whether to recertify the PSP. Philbin said he was leaving work that evening when he received a call from Comey, who told Philbin that he needed to get to the hospital right away and to call Goldsmith and tell him what was happening.[1]
Comey recalled that he ran up the stairs with his security detail to Ashcroft’s floor, and he entered Ashcroft’s room, which he described as darkened, and found Ashcroft lying in bed and his wife standing by his side. Comey said he began speaking to Ashcroft, and that it was not clear that Ashcroft could focus and that he seemed pretty bad off. Goldsmith and Philbin arrived at the hospital within a few minutes of each other, and met with Comey in an adjacent room. Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin later entered Ashcroft’s room and, according to Goldsmith’s notes, Comey and the others advised Ashcroft not to sign anything. [1]
When Gonzales and Card arrived, they entered Ashcroft’s hospital room and stood across from Mrs. Ashcroft at the head of the bed, with Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin behind them. Gonzales told the DOJ OIG that he carried with him in a manila envelope the March 11, 2004, Presidential authorization for Ashcroft to sign. According to Philbin, Gonzales first asked Ashcroft how he was feeling and Ashcroft replied, Not well. Gonzales then said words to the effect, You know, there’s a reauthorization that has to be renewed …. [1]
Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that at this point Ashcroft told Gonzales and Card in very strong terms about his legal concerns with the PSP, which Comey testified Ashcroft drew from his meeting with Comey about the program a week earlier. Comey testified that Ashcroft next stated: ‘But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the Attorney General. There is the Attorney General,’ and he pointed to me – I was just to his left. The two men [Gonzales and Card] did not acknowledge me; they turned and walked from the room. [1]
Gonzales, subsequently summoned Comey to the White House, and he brought United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson with him as a witness. Andy Card was also present for this meeting which took place later that evening. Gonzales told the DOJ OIG that little more was achieved at this meeting other than a general acknowledgment that a situation continued to exist because of the disagreement between DOJ and the White House regarding legal authorization for the program.[1]
White House Counsel reauthorization
On the morning of March 11, 2004, with the Presidential Authorization set to expire, President Bush signed a new Authorization for the PSP. In a departure from the past practice of having the Attorney General certify the Authorization as to form and legality, the March 11 Authorization was certified by White House Counsel Gonzales. At noon on March 11, Director Mueller met with Card at the White House. According to Mueller’s notes, Card told Mueller that if no legislative fix could be found by May 6, 2004, when the March 11 Authorization was set to expire, the program would be discontinued. Mueller wrote that he told Card that the failure to have DOJ representation at the congressional briefing and the attempt to have Ashcroft certify the Authorization without going through Corney gave the strong perception that the [White House] was trying to do an end run around the Acting [Attorney General] whom they knew to have serious concerns as to the legality of portions of the program. [1]
Several senior DOJ and FBI officials considered resigning after the Presidential Authorization was signed without DOJ’s concurrence. Corney told the DOJ OIG that he drafted a letter of resignation because he believed it was impossible for him to remain with DOJ if the President would do something DOJ said was not legally supportable. Corney also testified that Ashcroft’s Chief of Staff David Ayres believed Ashcroft also was likely to resign and thus Ayres urged Corney to wait until Ashcroft was well enough to resign with him. Goldsmith told the DOJ OIG he drafted a resignation letter at around the same time as Corney. According to his contemporaneous notes, Goldsmith cited the shoddiness of the prior OLC legal review, the over-secrecy of the PSP, and the shameful incident at the hospital as among his grievances.[1]
At approximately 1:30 a.m. on March 12, 2004, FBI Director Mueller drafted by hand a letter to withdraw the FBI from participation in the program. Mueller told the DOJ OIG that he planned on having the letter typed and then tendering it, but that based on subsequent events his resignation was not necessary. Later that morning, the President met with Mueller. According to Mueller’s notes, Mueller told the President of his concerns regarding the FBI’s continued participation in the program, and that he was considering resigning if the FBI were directed to continue to participate without the concurrence of the Attorney General. Mueller wrote that he explained to the President that he had an independent obligation to the FBI and to DOJ to assure the legality of actions we undertook, and that a presidential order alone could not do that. According to Mueller’s notes, the President then directed Mueller to. meet with Corney and other PSP principals to address the legal concerns so that the FBI could continue participating in the program as appropriate under the law. [1]
On March 17, 2004 the President decided to modify certain PSP intelligence-gathering activities and to discontinue certain Other Intelligence Activities that DOJ believed were legally unsupported. The President’s directive was expressed in two modifications to the March 11, 2004 Presidential Authorization. On May 6,2004 Goldsmith and Philbin completed an OLC legal memorandum assessing the legality of the PSP as it was operating at that time. The OLC memorandum stated that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001 gave the President authority to use both domestically and abroad all necessary and appropriate force, including signals intelligence capabilities, to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the United States.[1]
Transfer to FISA
Certain activities that were originally authorized as part of the PSP have subsequently been authorized under orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The activities transitioned in this manner included the interception of certain international communications that the President publicly described as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Further details regarding this transition are classified. As a result of this transition, the President decided not to reauthorize these activities and the final Presidential Authorization expired on February 1, 2007. The Protect America Act of 2007, passed in August of that year, amended FISA to address the government’s ability to conduct electronic surveillance in the United States of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. This legislation expired in early 2008, and in July 2008 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 was enacted.[1]
The DOJ OIG review concluded that several considerations favored initiating the process of transitioning the PSP to FISA authority earlier than had been done, especially as the program became less a temporary response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and more a permanent surveillance tool. These considerations included the PSP’s effect on privacy interests of U.S. persons, the instability of the legal reasoning on which the program rested for several years, and the substantial restrictions placed on FBI agents’ access to and use of program-derived information due to the highly classified status of the PSP.[1]
Briefings
Each Presidential Authorization also included a requirement to maintain the secrecy of the activities carried out under the program. The President also noted his intention to inform appropriate members of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the program as soon as I judge that it can be done consistently with national defense needs. According to the NSA, between October 25,2001, and January 17,2007, Hayden and current NSA Director Keith B. Alexander, sometimes supported by other NSA personnel, conducted approximately 49 briefings to members of Congress and their staff, 17 of which took place before the December 2005 media reports regarding what was called the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Hayden told the IGs that during the many PSP briefings to members of Congress no one ever suggested that NSA should stop the program.[1]
From January 2002 to January 2006, only Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) Presiding Judge Royce C. Lamberth, followed by Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, were read into the PSP. The circumstances under which the Presiding Judge was notified of the existence of the PSP and read into the program, and the measures subsequently taken to address the effect of the PSP on the government’s relationship with the FISC are only revealed in the classified report.[1]
Discovery issues
DOJ was aware as early as 2002 that information collected under the PSP could have implications for DOJ’s litigation responsibilities under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16 and Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Analysis of this discovery issue was first assigned to OLC Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo in 2003. However, no DOJ attorneys with terrorism prosecution responsibilities were read into the PSP until mid-2004, and as a result DOJ continued to lack the advice of attorneys who were best equipped to identify and examine the discovery issues in connection with the PSP. The steps taken since then to address discovery issues with respect to the PSP are discussed only in the classified report. The DOJ may need to re-examine past cases to see whether potentially discoverable but undisclosed Rule 16 or Brady material was collected under the PSP, to ensure that it has complied with its discovery obligations in such cases.[1]
Effectiveness
The IGs also examined the impact of PSP information on counterterrorism efforts. Many senior IC officials believe that the PSP filled a gap in intelligence collection thought to exist under the FISA statute shortly after the al-Qa’ida terrorist attacks against the United States. Others within the IC, including FBI agents, CIA analysts and officers, and other officials had difficulty evaluating the precise contribution of the PSP to counterterrorism efforts because it was most often viewed as one source among many available analytic and intelligence-gathering tools in these efforts. The IG reports describe several examples of how PSP-derived information factored into specific investigations and operations.[1]
During the May 2006 Senate hearing on his nomination to be CIA Director, Hayden said that, had the PSP been in place before the September 2001 attacks, hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located. In May 2009, Hayden told NSA OIG that the value of the Program was in knowing that NSA signals intelligence activities under the PSP covered an important quadrant of terrorist communications. NSA’s Deputy Director echoed Hayden’s comment when he said that the value of the PSP was in the confidence it provided that someone was looking at the seam between the foreign and domestic intelligence domains.[1]
The DOJ OIG found that the exceptionally compartmented nature of the program created some frustration for FBI personnel. Some agents and analysts criticized the PSP-derived information they received for providing insufficient details, and the agents who managed counterterrorism programs at the FBI field offices the DOJ OIG visited said the FBI’s process for disseminating PSP-derived information failed to adequately prioritize the information for investigation. In sum, the DOJ OIG found it difficult to assess or quantify the overall effectiveness of the PSP program as it relates to the FBI’s counterterrorism activities. However, based on the interviews conducted and documents reviewed, the DOJ OIG concluded that although PSP-derived information had value in some counterterrorism investigations, it generally played a limited role in the FBI’s overall counterterrorism efforts.[1]
The CIA OIG determined that several factors hindered the CIA in making full use of the product of the PSP. Many CIA officials stated that too few CIA personnel at the working level were read into the PSP. The CIA OIG determined that the CIA did not implement procedures to assess the usefulness of the product of the PSP and did not routinely document whether particular PSP reporting had contributed to successful counterterrorism operations. In a May 2006 briefing to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a senior CIA official said that PSP reporting was rarely the sole basis for an intelligence success, but that it frequently played a supporting role.[1]
Reaction
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), issued a statement on the day the report was released saying, no president should be able to operate outside the law. She was responding specifically to a statement in the report attributed to former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey that,[6] Yoo’s legal analysis entailed ignoring an act of Congress, and doing so without full congressional notification. [1] Pelosi further stated that, the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees will closely examine the findings and recommendations of the classified and unclassified reports, and will conduct appropriate oversight of electronic surveillance activities. [6]
John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman, made the following comments in an official statement on the day the report was released: This report, mandated by Congress last year, documents what many of us in Congress concluded long ago: President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program was illegal from the beginning, and of questionable value. It clearly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulates domestic surveillance for intelligence purposes, and was based on legal analysis that was ‘factually flawed’…. The refusal of key Bush administration officials such as David Addington and John Yoo to cooperate with the IGs’ review underscores the need for an independent commission with subpoena power to further review these issues, as I have called for. [10][11]
Conyers’ counterpart on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), issued a statement on the report saying its conclusions should highlight rule-of-law issues ignored by the previous administration. Leahy said, This report underscores why we should move forward with a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. Without a thorough, independent review of decisions that run counter to our laws and treaties, we cannot ensure that these same mistakes are not repeated. Such a commission must have bipartisan support to be able to truly get to the bottom of these issues with objectivity and credibility. [12]
Shortly after the report was released, former NSA Director Michael Hayden, who designed and implemented the program in 2001, told the Associated Press that he personally briefed key members of congress on the program. He maintained that the members were kept well-informed, and was distressed by suggestions that they were not. Hayden said key members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence of both parties were briefed about four times a year, but admitted that the number of lawmakers informed was intentionally limited as the program was highly classified.[13]
Timeline
* 2001-09-11: September 11 Attacks kill approximately 3000 people in the U.S.
* 2001-10-25: First Congressional briefing on the surveillance program[1]
* 2001-11-02: Date of first OLC opinion directly supporting the legality of the PSP (drafted by John Yoo)[1]
* 2002-12-11: Yoo drafted another opinion concerning the PSP using the same basic analysis contained in his November 2, 2001 memo[1]
* 2003-03: Yoo’s supervisor Jay Bybee resigns as the Assistant Attorney General for the OLC,[1] to become a U.S. Court of Appeals judge
* 2003-05: Yoo resigns from DOJ[1]
* 2003-10-06: Jack Goldsmith replaced Jay Bybee as the Assistant Attorney General for OLC[1]
* 2003-12: Goldsmith and Patrick Philbin met with David Addington, and Alberto Gonzales to express their concerns[1]
* 2004-01: Goldsmith’s request for the new Deputy AG James Comey to be read into the PSP is granted[1] by Addington[14]
* 2004-02-19: Mike Hayden and Vito Potenza from NSA meet with Comey to read him in to the program in the Justice Department’s SCIF[14]
* 2004-02-19: Hayden tells Comey, I’m so glad you’re getting read in, because now I won’t be alone at the [witness] table when John Kerry is elected president [14]
* 2004-03-01: Comey discussed DOJ’s concerns about the legality of the program with FBI Director Robert Mueller[1]
* 2004-03-04: Comey met with Attorney General John Ashcroft to discuss his concerns on the legality of the PSP [1]
* 2004-03-04: Attorney General Ashcroft is hospitalized that evening[1]
* 2004-03-05: Comey takes over as Acting Attorney General[1]
* 2004-03-05: Gonzales calls Goldsmith to request letter reaffirming Yoo’s prior OLC opinions[1]
* 2004-03-06: Goldsmith and Philbin met with Addington and Gonzales at the White House to tell them that certain activities in the PSP should cease.[1]
* 2004-03-07: Goldsmith and Philbin met again with Addington and Gonzales at the White House.[1]
* 2004-03-09: Gonzales called Goldsmith to the White House in an effort to persuade him that his criticisms of Yoo’s memoranda were incorrect[1]
* 2004-03-09: Another meeting at the White House was held with Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin present[1]
* 2004-03-10: Comey learns his old friend, then Deputy National Security Advisor Frances Townsend, is not read in, so he cannot consult her.[14]
* 2004-03-10: Goldsmith, Philbin, and Comey met to discuss the meeting at the White House the day before and how DOJ should proceed[1]
* 2004-03-10: Vice President Dick Cheney decides to get personally involved in the reauthorization[14]
* 2004-03-10: Gonzales, Cheney, Card, Hayden, and others, convened an emergency meeting with the Gang of Eight in the White House Situation Room[1]
* 2004-03-10: Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin rush to the hospital to tell Ashcroft not to sign anything[1]
* 2004-03-10: Gonzales and Card entered Ashcroft’s hospital room with the March 11, 2004, Presidential Authorization for Ashcroft to sign[1]
* 2004-03-10: Ashcroft told Gonzales and Card in very strong terms about his legal concerns with the PSP and referred them to Comey[1]
* 2004-03-10: Gonzales and Card left the hospital and then summoned Comey to the White House before he had left[1]
* 2004-03-10: Goldsmith called his deputy at OLC M. Edward Whelan III and told him to go to the office to draft a resignation letter for him, without explanation[15]
* 2004-03-10: After calling Comey, Card learns that top Justice staff are planning to resign[15]
* 2004-03-10: Comey brings Ted Olson to the White House at about 11:00 p.m. to witness the meeting with Gonzales and Card[1]
* 2004-03-10: Card confronts Comey over the resignation rumor, and learns that Comey is planning to resign [15]
* 2004-03-11: Addington re-types the code-word-classified Presidential authorization, replacing the signature line for Ashcroft with Gonzales[15]
* 2004-03-11: President George W. Bush signed a new Authorization for the PSP certified by White House Counsel Gonzales instead of the Attorney General[1]
* 2004-03-11: After learning the PSP was reauthorized, Comey types a resignation letter, but holds it at the request of Ashcroft’s Chief of Staff David Ayers
* 2004-03-12: Mueller drafts a resignation letter[1]
* 2004-03-12: National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice suggests that President Bush talk directly to Comey to “hear him out”[15]
* 2004-03-12: At the end of his daily briefing, Bush calls Comey aside, and asked him wait another 45 days, but Comey declines[15]
* 2004-03-12: After learning from Comey that Mueller planned to resign, Bush met with him privately and tells Mueller to tell Comey to do what “needs to be done.”[15]
* 2004-03-16: Comey drafted a memorandum to White House Counsel Gonzales setting out his advice to the President. Gonzales sent a dismissive reply[1]
* 2004-03-17: Bush modifies some PSP intelligence-gathering activities and discontinues others that DOJ believed not were legally supported[1]
* 2004-03-31: Ashcroft is cleared by his doctors to resume his duties as Attorney General[1]
* 2004-05-06: Goldsmith and Philbin completed an OLC legal memorandum assessing the legality of the PSP as it was operating at that time[1]
* 2004-05-06: The March 11 Authorization was set to expire[1]
* 2004-11-02: George W. Bush is re-elected President of the United States
* 2005-12-16: The New York Times publishes the first article describing NSA warrantless wiretaps[16]
* 2005-12-17: President Bush describes the TSP in a radio address[1]
* 2005-12-19: Gonzales & Hayden discuss legal issues around the TSP in a joint press conference[17]
* 2006-07-18: Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee[1]
* 2007-02-01: The President decided not to reauthorize these activities and the final Presidential Authorization expired[1]
* 2007-07-24: Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the March 10, 2004, Gang of Eight briefing[1]
* 2007-08-05: The Protect America Act was enacted, amending FISA to address the government’s ability to conduct domestic electronic surveillance[1]
* 2008-02-17: The Protect America Act expired[1]
* 2008-07-10: The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was enacted, providing broader authority than the acknowledged TSP scope[1]
* 2009-07-10: Inspectors General report required under FISA Amendments Act released[1]
Further reading
* Gellman, Barton D. (2009). Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics). ISBN 0-14-311616-9. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cheney/.
References
1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz Inspectors General of the DoD, DOJ, CIA, NSA, and ODN (2009-07-10) Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program. Report. Retrieved on 2009-07-11. “Finally, the collection activities pursued under the PSP, and under FISA following the PSP’s transition to that authority, involved unprecedented collection activities. We believe the retention and use by IC organizations of information collected under the PSP and FISA should be carefully monitored.”
2. ^ U.S. Wiretapping of Limited Value, Officials Report . The New York Times. 2009-07-12. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11nsa.html?_r=1. Retrieved 2009-07-12. The report states that at the same time Mr. Bush authorized the warrantless wiretapping operation, he also signed off on other surveillance programs that the government has never publicly acknowledged. While the report does not identify them, current and former officials say that those programs included data mining of e-mail messages of Americans.
3. ^ Cauley, Leslie (2006-05-11). NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls . USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm. Retrieved 2009-07-12. The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
4. ^ Hess, Pamela (2009-07-11). Report: Too few officials knew of surveillance . Google News. The Associated Press. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEr2O_sANlmWwPWdPygTxCbq1_bQD99C4KI00. Retrieved 2009-07-11. Not enough relevant officials were aware of the size and depth of an unprecedented surveillance program started under President George W. Bush, let alone signed off on it, a team of federal inspectors general found. The Bush White House pulled in a great quantity of information far beyond the warrantless wiretapping previously acknowledged, the IGs reported. They questioned the legal basis for the effort but shielded almost all details on grounds they’re still too secret to reveal.
5. ^ a b Taylor, Marisa (2009-07-11). Report: Effectiveness of Bush wiretap program disputed . Miami Herald. McClatchy News Service. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1136936.html. Retrieved 2009-07-11. A declassified intelligence report faults the Bush administration’s secrecy about its warrantless wiretap program. Despite the Bush administration’s insistence that its warrantless eavesdropping program was necessary to protect the country from another terrorist attack, FBI agents, CIA analysts and other officials had difficulty evaluating its effectiveness, according to an unclassified government report made public Friday.
6. ^ a b c Bush-era wiretap program had limited results, report finds . CNN.com date=2009-07-12. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/12/bush.wiretap/. Retrieved 2009-07-12. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who took part in that face-off, told investigators that the program’s original authorization ‘involved ignoring an act of Congress, and doing so without full congressional notification.’ That line drew the ire of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who issued a statement Friday declaring that ‘no president should be able to operate outside the law.’
7. ^ Johnson, Carrie; Nakashima, Ellen (2009-07-12). Report: Wiretaps risked a crisis . Philadelphia Inquirer. The Washington Post. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090711_Report__Wiretaps_risked_a_crisis.html. Retrieved 2009-07-12. The Bush White House so strictly controlled access to its warrantless-eavesdropping program that only three Justice Department lawyers were aware of the plan, which nearly ignited mass resignations and a constitutional crisis when a wider circle of administration officials began to question its legality, according to a watchdog report released yesterday.
8. ^ Shane, Scott (2009-07-12). Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project . The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?hp. Retrieved 2009-07-12. Democrats in Congress, who contend that the Bush administration improperly limited Congressional briefings on intelligence, are seeking to change the National Security Act to permit the full intelligence committees to be briefed on more matters. President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if the changes go too far, and the proposal is now being negotiated by the White House and the intelligence committees.
9. ^ Johnson, Carrie; Nakashima, Ellen (2009-07-11). Inspectors General Report Faults Secrecy of Surveillance Program . The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002536.html?wprss=rss_print/asection. Retrieved 2009-07-11. ‘Extraordinary and inappropriate’ secrecy about a warrantless eavesdropping program undermined its effectiveness as a terrorism-fighting tool, government watchdogs have concluded in the first examination of one of the most contentious episodes of the Bush administration.
10. ^ Conyers: IG Report Shows Bush Broke the Law, Personally Authorizing the Warrantless Surveillance Program . House Committee on the Judiciary. http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090710.html.
11. ^ Stern, Christopher (2009-07-10). Bush Wiretapping Program Lacked Proper Legal Review (Update1) . Bloomberg.com. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ai0sdApeGhds. Retrieved 2009-07-12. ‘President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program was illegal from the beginning and of questionable value,’ said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, in an e-mailed statement.
12. ^ AFP: US govt review questions effectiveness of wiretaps . Google News. 2009-07-11. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gbmJ61GItjVdbI6rLlbNlq-8wneA. Retrieved 2009-07-12. Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that the conclusions of this review should help shed more light on these rule-of-law issues that the previous administration avoided for a long time.
13. ^ Hess, Pamela (2009-07-12). AP Interview: Hayden denies Congress not informed . Google News. Associated Press. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwJhPuY4ndVAdfJgwbiS3uh7uIGgD99CJOBO0. Retrieved 2009-07-12. Former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden angrily struck back Saturday at assertions the Bush administration’s post-9/11 surveillance program was more far-reaching than imagined and was largely concealed from congressional overseers. In an interview with The Associated Press, Hayden maintained that top members of Congress were kept well-informed all along the way, notwithstanding protests from some that they were kept in the dark.
14. ^ a b c d e Gellman, Barton (2008-09-14). Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink . The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302284.html?sid=ST2008091302818. Retrieved 2009-07-13. This is the first of two stories adapted from Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, to be published Tuesday by Penguin Press.
15. ^ a b c d e f g Gellman, Barton (2008-09-15). Cheney Shielded Bush From Crisis – washingtonpost.com . The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091401974.html. Retrieved 2009-07-13. This is the second of two stories adapted from Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, to be published Tuesday by Penguin Press.
16. ^ Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts . NYT’s Risen & Lichtblau’s December 16, 2005 Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts . http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm. Retrieved February 18 2006. via commondreams.org
17. ^ The White House (December 19, 2005). Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence . Press release. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/20051219-1.html.
External links
* Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program on Wikisource.
PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from the United States Government document Unclassified Report on the President’s Surveillance Program, 10 July 2009 .
[hide]
v • d • e
War on Terrorism
Timeline A Casualties A Theaters A Criticism A ISAF
Participants
Operational
ISAF A Operation Enduring Freedom participants A Multinational force in Iraq A Afghanistan A Northern Alliance A Iraq (Iraqi Army) A NATO A Pakistan A United Kingdom A United States A Philippines A Ethiopia
Targets
al-Qaeda A Osama bin Laden A Abu Sayyaf A Iraqi insurgency A Hamas A Islamic Courts Union A Jemaah Islamiyah A Taliban A Jaish-e-Mohammed A Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami A Hizbul Mujahideen A Hezbollah A Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan A Lashkar-e-Taiba
Conflicts
Operation
Enduring Freedom
War in Afghanistan A OEF – Philippines A Georgia Train and Equip Program A Georgia Sustainment and Stability A OEF – Horn of Africa A OEF – Trans Sahara A Missile strikes in Pakistan
Other
Insurgency in the Maghreb A Iraq insurgency and operations A Insurgency in Saudi Arabia A War in North-West Pakistan A South Thailand insurgency A Lebanon War A War in Somalia A Lebanon-Fatah al-Islam conflict
Islamist
attacks
2001–2002
September 11 attacks A Bahawalpur church attack A Indian Parliament attack A Shoe bomb plot A Ghriba synagogue bombing A Karachi bus bomb A Jaunpur train crash A Karachi US Consulate bombing A Akshardham Temple attack A 1st Bali bombing A Zamboanga bombings A Kurnool train crash
2003–2004
Riyadh compound bombings A Casablanca bombings A 2003 Mumbai bombings A Jakarta Marriott Hotel bombing A Istanbul bombings A SuperFerry 14 bombing A Madrid train bombings A Khobar massacre A Beslan school hostage crisis A Jakarta Australian embassy bombing
2005–2006
1st London bombings A 2nd London bombings A Sharm el-Sheikh attacks A 2nd Bali bombing A 1st Delhi bombings A Amman bombings A 2006 Varanasi bombings A 2006 Mumbai train bombings A Transatlantic aircraft plot A Toronto terrorism plot
2007–2008
1st Algiers bombings A Fort Dix attack plot A Ankara bombing A London car bomb plot A Glasgow Airport attack A 2007 Yemen tourist attack A Hyderabad bombings A Qahtaniya bombings A Karachi bombing A Baghlan bombing A Philippine Congress bombing A 2nd Algiers bombings A Assassination of Benazir Bhutto A Jaipur bombings A Danish embassy A Indian embassy A United States consulate A Bangalore bombings-Ahmedabad A 2nd Delhi bombings A American embassy A Islamabad bombing A 3rd Delhi bombing A 2008 Assam bombings A 2008 Mumbai attacks
2009–current
Attack on Sri Lankan cricket team A 2009 Yemen tourist attack A 2009 Lahore bombing A Pearl Continental hotel bombing A Jakarta bombings
See also
Abu Ghraib prison A Axis of evil A Bush Doctrine A CIA run Black sites A Combatant Status Review Tribunal A Enhanced interrogation techniques A Extrajudicial prisoners of the US A Extraordinary rendition A Guantanamo Bay detention camp A Military Commissions Act A NSA electronic surveillance program A President’s Surveillance Program A Protect America Act of 2007 A Unitary executive theory A Unlawful combatant A USA PATRIOT Act
Terrorism A War
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Surveillance_Program
Categories: Anti-terrorism policy of the United States | Counter-terrorism | George W. Bush administration controversies | National Security Agency | Secret government programs | Surveillance | War on Terrorism | Intelligence operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Surveillance_Program
***
The Nuclear fallout reference article from the English Wikipedia on 24-Jul-2004
(provided by Fixed Reference: snapshots of Wikipedia from wikipedia.org)
Nuclear fallout
For people who check facts
Fallout is radioactive dust created when a nuclear weapon explodes. A nuclear explosion vaporizes any material within the fireball, including the ground if it is nearby. In water, the minerals (including sodium in ocean water) are made radioactive by neutrons from the bomb core. Fallout from seawater is unusually dangerous because it is difficult to remove by washing.
When this material condenses in the cloud, it forms dust and light sandy material that resembles ground pumice. In the case of seawater, it forms a heavy fog from the base of the mushroom cloud (the base surge ). This highly irradiated material then falls to earth. The fallout behaves much like thousands of tiny x-ray machines, emitting gamma rays in all directions. A fallout shelter is designed to shield its occupants from this radiation. However, some radioactive contamination will probably remain when the inhabitants eventually emerge.
The closer to ground an atomic bomb is detonated, the more dust and debris is thrown into the air, resulting in greater amounts of fallout. From a tactical standpoint, this has the disadvantage of hindering any occupation efforts until the fallout clears, but more directly, the impact with the ground severely limits the destructive force of the bomb. For these reasons, ground bursts are not usually considered tactically advantageous, with the exception of hardened underground targets such as missile silos or command centers such as Cheyenne Mountain. Salting enemy territory with a fallout-heavy atomic burst could be used to deny enemy access to a contaminated area but such use is generally not considered an ethical military action.
The fallout residue can be used to analyze the source and nature of the weapon used. Materials used in the weapon will have distinct signature, which with proper analysis could reveal where or by whom the weapon was made.
Table of contents [showhide]
1 Effects of fallout
1.1 See also
2 Nuclear fallout
2.2 See also
3 References
Effects of fallout
Initial radiation from fallout can exceed 300 gray per hour (Gy/h) immediately downwind of a ground burst. A cumulative dose of 4.5 Gy is fatal to half of a population of humans. There have been no documented cases of survival beyond 6 Gy. Most people become ill after an exposure to 1 Gy or more. The fetuses of pregnant women are vulnerable and may miscarry, especially in the first trimester. Human biology resists mutation from large radiation exposure: grossly mutated fetuses usually miscarry. Civilian dose rates in peace-time range from 0.1 to 0.03 mGy/year.
Fallout radiation falls off (‘decays’) exponentially (quickly) with time. Most areas become safe for travel and decontamination after three to five weeks.
The ground track of fallout from an explosion is a long, thin fuzzy ellipse downwind of the explosion. It may be hundreds of km long, and up to 50 km (30mi) wide from a single explosion. Rain can cause fallout to settle more quickly. This means that a rainstorm can significantly increase the hazards to those just downwind of a nuclear war.
The most dangerous emissions from fallout are gamma rays, which travel in straight lines, like ordinary light. The fallout particles emit the invisible, deadly gamma rays in the same way that a light bulb emits light. Gamma rays are invisible, and cannot be seen, smelt, or felt, even at very dangerous intensities. Special equipment is required to detect and measure gamma rays.
Gamma rays do not contaminate people or objects. Fallout particles contaminate people or objects, and since they resemble sand, they can be brushed off, or washed off. The radioactive fog from seawater is a notable exception, being very difficult to wash off. The particles should be removed from the shelter, or shielded. Emergency drinking water can be adequately cleaned by filtering contaminated water through more than 25cm (10 in) of dirt. Food in sealed packages is not poisoned by fallout. Stored grain and exposed fruit can be cleaned and peeled. Vehicles are usually washed down with fire-hoses, into drains with removable filters, or deep trenches. Ground is usually decontaminated by bulldozing the fallout into deep, narrow trenches, and then back-filling the trenches.
See also
* Radioactive contamination
* Poison
* Dirty bomb
* Neutron bomb
* Radiological weapon
Nuclear fallout
The residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion is in the form of radioactive fallout and neutron-induced activity. Residual ionizing radiation arises from:
* Fission Products. These are intermediate weight isotopes which are formed when a heavy uranium or plutonium nucleus is split in a fission reaction. There are over 300 different fission products that may result from a fission reaction. Many of these are radioactive with widely differing half-lives. Some are very short, i.e., fractions of a second, while a few are long enough that the materials can be a hazard for months or years. Their principal mode of decay is by the emission of beta and gamma radiation. Approximately 60 grams of fission products are formed per kiloton of yield. The estimated activity of this quantity of fission products 1 minute after detonation is equal to that of 1.1 x 1021 Bq (30 million kg of radium) in equilibrium with its decay products.
* Unfissioned Nuclear Material. Nuclear weapons are relatively inefficient in their use of fissionable material, and much of the uranium and plutonium is dispersed by the explosion without undergoing fission. Such unfissioned nuclear material decays by the emission of alpha particles and is of relatively minor importance.
* Neutron-Induced Activity. If atomic nuclei capture neutrons when exposed to a flux of neutron radiation, they will, as a rule, become radioactive (neutron-induced activity) and then decay by emission of beta and gamma radiation over an extended period of time. Neutrons emitted as part of the initial nuclear radiation will cause activation of the weapon residues. In addition, atoms of environmental material, such as soil, air, and water, may be activated, depending on their composition and distance from the burst. For example, a small area around ground zero may become hazardous as a result of exposure of the minerals in the soil to initial neutron radiation. This is due principally to neutron capture by sodium (Na), manganese, aluminum, and silicon in the soil. This is a negligible hazard because of the limited area involved.
Worldwide Fallout: After an air burst the fission products, unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere, particularly if the explosive yield exceeds 10 kt. They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth’s surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout.
The radiobiological hazard of worldwide fallout is essentially a long-term one due to the potential accumulation of long-lived radioisotopes, such as strontium-90 and caesium-137, in the body as a result of ingestion of foods incorporating these radioactive materials. This hazard is much less serious than those which are associated with local fallout and, therefore, is not discussed at length in this publication. Local fallout is of much greater immediate operational concern.
This type of fallout is featured in the book On the Beach by British author Nevil Shute.
Local fallout: In a land or water surface burst, large amounts of earth or water will be vaporized by the heat of the fireball and drawn up into the radioactive cloud. This material will become radioactive when it condenses, with fission products and other radiocontaminants that have become neutron-activated.
There will be large amounts of particles of less than 0.1 micrometer to several millimeters in diameter generated in a surface burst in addition to the very fine particles which contribute to worldwide fallout.
The larger particles will not rise into the stratosphere and consequently will settle to earth within about 24 hours as local fallout.
Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield surface detonations.
Whenever individuals remain in a radiologically contaminated area, such contamination will lead to an immediate external radiation exposure as well as a possible later internal hazard due to inhalation and ingestion of radiocontaminants.
In severe cases of fallout contamination, lethal doses of external radiation may be incurred if protective or evasive measures are not undertaken.
In cases of water surface (and shallow underwater) bursts, the particles tend to be rather lighter and smaller and so produce less local fallout but will extend over a greater area. The particles contain mostly sea salts with some water; these can have a cloud seeding affect causing local rainout and areas of high local fallout.
For subsurface bursts, there is an additional phenomenon present called base surge. The base surge is a cloud that rolls outward from the bottom of the column produced by a subsurface explosion. For underwater bursts the visible surge is, in effect, a cloud of liquid (water) droplets with the property of flowing almost as if it were a homogeneous fluid. After the water evaporates, an invisible base surge of small radioactive particles may persist.
For subsurface land bursts, the surge is made up of small solid particles, but it still behaves like a fluid. A soil earth medium favors base surge formation in an underground burst.
Meteorological Effects: Meteorological conditions will greatly influence fallout, particularly local fallout. Atmospheric winds are able to distribute fallout over large areas. For example, as a result of a surface burst of a 15 Mt thermonuclear device at Bikini Atoll on March 1, 1954, a roughly cigar-shaped area of the Pacific extending over 500 km downwind and varying in width to a maximum of 100 km was severely contaminated.
Snow and rain, especially if they come from considerable heights, will accelerate local fallout. Under special meteorological conditions, such as a local rain shower that originates above the radioactive cloud, limited areas of heavy contamination may be formed.
Blast and thermal injuries in many cases will far outnumber radiation injuries. However, radiation effects are considerably more complex and varied than are blast or thermal effects and are subject to considerable misunderstanding. A wide range of biological changes may follow the irradiation of animals, ranging from rapid death following high doses of penetrating whole-body radiation to essentially normal lives for a variable period of time until the development of delayed radiation effects, in a portion of the exposed population, following low dose exposures.
Median Lethal Dose (LD50): When comparing the effects of various types or circumstances, that dose which is lethal to 50% of a given population is a very useful parameter. The term is usually defined for a specific time, being limited, generally, to studies of acute lethality. The common time periods used are 30 days or less for most small laboratory animals and to 60 days for large animals and humans. It should be understood that the LD50 assumes that the individuals did not receive other injuries or medical treatment.
For yields of 5-10 kt (or less), initial nuclear radiation is the dominant casualty producer on the battlefield. Military personnel receiving an acute incapacitation dose (30 Gray) will become performance degraded almost immediately and combat ineffective within several hours. However, they will not die until 5-6 days after exposure if they do not receive any other injuries which make them more susceptible to the radiation dose. Soldiers receiving less than a total of 150 cGray will remain combat effective. Between those two extremes, military personnel receiving doses greater than 150 cGray will become degraded; some will eventually die. A dose of 530-830 cGray is considered lethal but not immediately incapacitating. Personnel exposed to this amount of radiation will become performance degraded within 2-3 hours, depending on how physically demanding the tasks they must perform are, and will remain in this degraded state at least 2 days. However, at that point they will experience a recovery period and be effective at performing nondemanding tasks for about 6 days, after which they will relapse into a degraded state of performance and remain so for about 4 weeks. At this time they will begin exhibiting radiation symptoms of sufficient severity to render them totally ineffective. Death follows at approximately 6 weeks after exposure.
Late or delayed effects of radiation occur following a wide range of doses and dose rates. Delayed effects may appear months to years after irradiation and include a wide variety of effects involving almost all tissues or organs. Some of the possible delayed consequences of radiation injury are life shortening, carcinogenesis, cataract formation, chronic radiodermatitis, decreased fertility, and genetic mutations.
For videos and more on the effects of a thermonuclear device check [1]
See also
radiation poisoning, radioactive contamination, fallout shelter, nuclear terrorism, radioactive waste, nuclear weapon design.
References
* Glasstone, Samuel and Dolan, Philip J., The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (third edition), U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977. (Available Online)
* NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive Operations (Part I – Nuclear), Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Washington, D.C., 1996. (Available Online)
* Smyth, H. DeW., Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, Princeton University Press, 1945. (Available Online)
* The Effects of Nuclear War, Office of Technology Assessment (May 1979)
http://july.fixedreference.org/en/20040724/wikipedia/Nuclear_fallout
***
Information on Nuclear Smuggling Incidents
Since the early 1990s, there have been numerous reports of illicit trafficking in many types of nuclear materials worldwide. According to IAEA, nuclear materials include nuclear source material, such as natural uranium, depleted uranium, thorium, plutonium, and uranium enriched in the isotopes U-233 or U-235. Plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU)—known as weapons usable material-are considered to pose the greatest proliferation risk because they are used to produce nuclear weapons. In 1993, IAEA established a database to record incidents involving illicit trafficking in nuclear materials. Sixty-nine countries, or about one-half of IAEA’s member states, currently participate in the database. As of December 31, 2001, IAEA listed 181 confirmed incidents involving the illicit trafficking in nuclear materials, including weapons-usable material. According to IAEA, a confirmed incident is one in which the information has been verified to IAEA through official points of contact from the reporting country. Of the 181 confirmed illicit trafficking incidents reported by IAEA, 17 involved either HEU or plutonium. More than half of the 17 incidents involving weapons-usable material occurred during 1993-95. The remaining cases occurred during 1999-2001.
**
Nuclear Smuggling Incidents Involving Weapons-Usable Material since 1992
Date Source of material Country where
material seized Material/quantity How material was found
May 1992 Russia
(Luch Scientific Production Assoc.) Russia 1.5 kilograms
(90 percent HEU) Police investigation
May 1993 Russia Lithuania 0.1 kilogram
(50 percent HEU) Police investigation
July 1993 Russia Russia 1.8 kilograms
(36 percent HEU) Police investigation
November 1993 Russia Russia 4.5 kilograms
(20 percent HEU) Police investigation
March 1994 Russia Russia 3.05 kilograms
(90 percent HEU) Police investigation
May 1994 Unspecified Germany 0.006 kilograms plutonium-239 Police investigation
June 1994 Russia Germany 0.0008 kilograms
(87.8 percent HEU) Police investigation
July 1994 Russia Germany 0.00024 kilograms plutonium Police investigation
August 1994 Russia Germany 0.4 kilograms of plutonium Police investigation
December 1994 Russia Czech Republic 2.7 kilograms
(87.7 percent HEU) Police investigation
June 1995 Russia Czech Republic 0.0004 grams
(87.7 percent HEU) Police investigation
June 1995 Russia Czech Republic 0.017 kilograms
(87.7 percent HEU) Police investigation
June 1995 Russia Russia 1.7 kilograms
(21 percent HEU) Police investigation
May 1999 Russia Bulgaria 0.004 kilograms of HEU Interdiction at border by Bulgarian customs.
October 1999 Unspecified Kyrgyzstan 0.0015 kilograms of plutonium Police investigation
April 2000 Unspecified but Russia suspected Georgia 0.9 kilograms of HEU (30 percent) Possible combination of radiation detection equipment at border and police investigation
September 2000 Possibly Russia
and/or Ukraine Georgia 0.0004 kilograms of plutonium Police investigation
December 2000 Germany Germany Less than 1 milligram of plutonium Radioactive contamination disclosed in a test.
January 2001 Unspecified Greece Approximately 0.003 kilograms of plutonium Police investigation
July 2001 Unspecified France About 0.005 kilograms of HEU
(approximately 80 percent enriched) Police investigation
Note: Uranium enriched with 20 percent or higher U-235 is considered weapons-usable material. One kilogram equals 2.2 pounds. One thousand grams equal 1 kilogram and 1 gram is equal to about 0.04 ounces, or the weight of a paperclip.
Source: GAO Report, May 2002: NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: U.S. Efforts to Help Other Countries Combat Nuclear Smuggling Need Strengthened Coordination and Planning
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Smuggling.shtml
***
Appendix A: Chronology of Nuclear Smuggling Incidents
The Continuing Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction
Appendix A: Chronology of Nuclear Smuggling Incidents
March 27, 1996
———- 1996 ———-
17 March
Tanzanian police arrested one individual last week and seized a container of radioactive cesium.
9 March
Romanian police announced on 8 March that they are holding two individuals for attempting to sell stolen radioactive material, according to press reports. A po lice spokesman announced that two had in their possession 82 kg of radioactive material including low enriched uranium. Officials also found reportedly secret documents stolen from the Research and Design Center for Radioactive Metals.
4 March
UPDATE (12 February): According to press reports, Lithuanian officials have determined that the 100 kg of radioactive material seized last month from an armed gang is uranium-238. This material was stolen from a company responsible for maintenance at the nearby Ignalina nuclear power plant.
23 February
According to press reports, the Belarus Committee for State Security (KGB) seized five kilograms of cesium-133. The radioactive metal reportedly was sealed in glass containers. Belarus authorities are investigating the incident, according to press.
12 February
Lithuanian authorities announced that they had arrested seven people and seized nearly 100 kg of radioactive material, according to press reports. The mate rial, believed to be uranium, will undergo further tests to ascertain its makeup and origin. It was emitting 14,000 microroentgens per hour. Some reports stated that the material was a component of a nuclear fuel assemply which has been missing from the n early Ignalina nuclear power plant for several years. The Ignalina plant manager claims that the seized material is not nuclear fuel or equipment used at his facility.
1 February
Swiss federal prosecutors announced on 1 February the arrest of a Swiss citizen of Turkish descent for attempting to sell a sample of slightly-enriche d uranium in Switzerland, according to press. Swiss authorities stated that the individual claimed the sample was part of a larger cache still in Turkey. Turkish police using information from their Swiss counterparts, then arrested eight people and seized 1.128 kg of similar material. Press reports indicate that the uranium was similar to that used in nuclear power plant fuel rods. Swiss authorities reportedly are conducting tests to determine the uranium’s country of origin.
25 January
According to press reports, German authorities have charged a merchant and his lawyer with crimes stemming from their attempt to sell radioactive cesium to another merchant who was a police informant. The cesium reportedly was transported to Germany from Zaire on board a commercial airliner.
21 January
UPDATE (7 November 95): The German parliamentary commission investigating the 1994 plutonium smuggling incident, reportedly has uncovered German gove rnment documents indicating that the three smugglers offered to supply 11 kilograms of Russian-origin, weapons-grade plutonium, which they claimed was enough to build three nuclear weapons, according to press reports.
18 January
According to press reports, German authorities have charged a merchant and his lawyer with crimes stemming from their attempt to sell radioactive cesium-137 smuggled from Zaire to another merchant who was a police informant. The cesium reportedly was transported to Germany from Zaire on board a commercial airliner.
17 January
A Palestinian in Dubai, UAE has offered to sell three kilograms of reportedly Russian-origin red mercury to a Lebanese-American businessman, according to US diplomatic reporting.
———- 1995 ———-
28 December
According to press reports, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) arrested nine members of a criminal organization in Novosibirsk and seized a quantit y of radioactive material. The material was identified in press reports as enriched uranium-235. The material had been transported to Novosibirsk by middlemen, possibly from Kazakstan. The ultimate destination may have been South Korea, accord ing to press reports.
2 December
UPDATE (9 Nov 95): According to Italian press reports, Italian prosecutors have arrested an individual, Roger D’Onofrio, with reported links to the U S Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Italian-American mafia as part of their investigation of smuggling radioactive materials, money-laundering and arms trafficking. D’Onofrio, 72, reportedly has dual Italian and U.S. citizenship and retired from t he CIA only two years ago. The ring he is alleged to have been part of is said to have been active from the early 1990s up to this year. Italian investigators reportedly suspect that D’Onofrio is the mastermind behind an international ring which laundered dirty money and smuggled gold, weapons, and radioactive material. His name also appears in another investigation into an arms smuggling operation between Italy and the Middle East, according to press reports. D’Onofrio was taken into preventive custody o n charges of money laundering and acting as a broker in illegal currency dealing. According to press, the prosecutors had so far ascertained money laundering for over 2.5 billion dollars on behalf of secret service and organised crime sources in complicit y with diplomats, the ruling families in Kuwait, Morocco and Zambia, bankers, prelates and others.
1 December
UPDATE (23 November ): According to US diplomats in Moscow, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) delivered an official statement to US official s regarding the radioactive material discovered in Izmailov park on 23 November. The container, which held cesium-137, posed no public health threat. Radiation levels of the cesium were between 10 to more than 50 millicurrie. The radioactive material may have been used as an instrument calibration source used in flaw detection equipment.
30 November
A former Greenpeace president revealed that the organization had been offered a nuclear warhead by a disgruntled former Soviet officer keen to highlight la x security, according to press accounts. The former Greenpeace official stated in a recently published book that a Soviet officer with access to nuclear weapons offered Greenpeace an 800 kg nuclear Scud warhead for public display in Berlin. The offer was made shortly before 7 September 1991.
29 November
Russian security officials have recovered four containers with radioactive cesium, stolen from an industrial plant in the Urals and arrested the thieves, a ccording to press reports. Federal Security Service (FSB) officers found the 90-kilogram (198-pound) containers in a shaft of an old mine, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. One of the alleged thieves, the Bakal mining plant’s electrical engineer, had in itially kept them at his vegetable garden but moved them to a safer place after the theft had been discovered, claimed security officials. Two officials of a local penitentiary were his accomplices, they further alleged. Each container held a capsule with cesium 137, a radioactiveisotope used in geological research, as well as in medicine. The containers were similar to the one allegedly planted by Chechen rebels in a Moscow park.
23 November
Acting on a tip from Chechen separatist leader Basayev, Russian television reporters discovered a 32 kg container–reportedly holding cesium-137–in a Mosc ow park. The container was reportedly removed and turned over to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). FSB officials stated that an official investigation was underway and that no further comments would be made until the inquiry was completed, accor ding to press reports. Television reports quote a highly-placed FSB officer as stating unofficially that the object was a piece of a hospital x-ray machine. Basayev claimed earlier this month that several containers of radioactive material attached to exp losive devices had been planted in Russia. In a television interview aired on 15 October, Russian Interior minister Kulikov stated that Chechen separatist leader Basayev might have radioactive waste or radioisotopes taken from the Budyonnovsk hospi tal seized by Chechen rebels last spring.
23 November
UPDATE (7 Nov 95): A German court sentenced Adolph Jaekle, a German businessman, to 51/2 years in prison for smuggling weapons grade plutonium into the country, according to press reports. Investigators made the first in a series of contraband plutonium seizures in Germany when they raided Jaekle’s home, in the southern town of Tengen in May, 1994, and found a lead cylinder containing 6.15 grams ofpl utonium 239. Jaekle had pleaded not guilty to the plutonium charge, arguing that he did not know what the substance was.
11 November
Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officials arrested two Lithuanian citizens in Smolensk for smuggling 10 kgs of uranium-238 into Russia, according to Russian television rep orts. Three Russians also were arrested for attempting to sell the uranium. Both the Lithuanians and the Russians claimed that poverty had induced them to attempt to traffic in smuggled nuclear materials. According to press accounts, Russian authorities s tressed that the material was not weapons grade and had no commercial or industrial uses.
9 November
Italian prosecutors reportedly have asked Spanish authorities for permission to question the Archbishop of Barcelona about his role in an international criminal syndicate involved in smuggli ng radioactive materials, according to Italian press accounts. Accusations against the Archbishop arose after Italian officials tapped a telephone conversation in which the Archbishop was named as playing a leading role in the criminal enterprise. Both th e Archbishop and the Vatican have vehemently denied the accusations. The Spanish Justice ministry has characterized the Italian request as not very well thought out. The Italian investigation grew out on an earlier probe into money laundering operations which reportedly uncovered information that a criminal enterprise involving a self-professed Italian intelligence official, was attempting to sell 7.5 kg osmium for $63,000 per gram, according to Italian press accounts.
7 November
During a search of a car at the Polish-Czech border, Polish Border Guards discovered 11 cigarette pack-size containers filled with strontium-90, according to press accounts. This incident is the first case in 1995 involving smuggling radioactive material through Poland.
7 November
UPDATE (10 Aug 94): Adolf Jaekle, accused of smuggling Russian-origin plutonium following a May 1994 raid on his home, denied any involvement in nuclear smu ggling, according to press reports. Jaekle insisted that the container of plutonium was planted at his home and that the container was not the same one he took from a Swiss associate for metal reprocessing.
7 November
Iranian press reports indicate the Iranian law enforcement authorities have arrested five Iranians and seized nine packets of uranium in tehran and two other cities. No details were released regarding amount of material or whether it was enriched or not.
25 October
The cleaning staff at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo 2 airport found a small lead container packed with radioactive substances in the men’s restrooms, according to p ress reports. Experts reportedly are attempting to determine the exact composition of the three sources of ionizing radiation found in the container. The speculation, in the Russian press, was that a nuclear smuggler lost his nerve and abandoned the mater ial during an aborted smuggling attempt.
19 October
UPDATE (10 Aug 94): According to a 19 October article in Der Stern, nuclear weapons smugglers involved in smuggling Russian-origin plutonium into Ger many in August 1994 have stored eight to ten kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium in Berlin. The article also implicates highly placed Russians in the smuggling activity.
14 October
Russian mafia figures reportedly were behind the 1993 theft of radioactive beryllium from a Russian nuclear laboratory and the failed attempt to sell the ma terial in the West, according to press reports. The theft, which was widely reported in 1993, was seized by police in Lithuania and remains today in the bank vault where it was first discovered. According to press, the smugglers were preparing to sell the beryllium to an Austrian middleman who in turn had a mystery buyer who reportedly was willing to pay as much as $24 million for the material. The buyer, although never identified, was said to be Korean. Beryllium, which is used in missile guidance system s, is a highly efficent neutron reflector, according to public statements by nuclear scientists.
10 October
Russian authorities claim that there have been no identified incidents in which weapons-grade radioactive material has been smuggled out of Russia, accordin g to press reports. In a press conference, Russian General Terekhov of the Interior Ministry, stated that of the 16 cases involving theft of radioactive materials, none could have been used to make nuclear weapons. He also ruled out any involvement by Rus sian organized criminal organizations in the thefts. The general claimed that the thefts were spontaneous actions by individuals working at nuclear facilities. The Russian officials concluded the press conference by stating that there is no black market i n nuclear materials.
1 September
According to press reports, Bulgarian police had broken an international nuclear smuggling ring composed of Russians and Ukrainians. Police spokesmen, decl ining to disclose details only said that the materials seized were of strategic value and included rare metals. The arrests were the culmination of a year-long undercover operation. Senior policie officials comented that they were still investigating the final destination of the materials, some of which were radioactive.
15 June
Press reports indicate that so far in 1995 Romanian authorities have seized 24 kgs of uranium powder and tablets and 1994 they arrested 24 people for involveme nt in nuclear smuggling and seized 10.35 kgs of uranium powder and tablets. From 1989 to 1993, the Romanians reportedly broke up five gangs, arrested 50 people, and seized 230 kgs of nuclear material.
13 April
Slovak police culminated a long investigation with the discovery of 18.39kg of nuclear material, 17.5 kg of which apparently is U-238, in a car stopped near P oprad in eastern Slovakia. Altogether, three Hungarians, four Slovaks, and two Ukrainians were arrested. This gang was connected to three other nuclear material smuggling incidents.
5 April
Four brass containers weighing 2 kilos each containing radioactive americium-241 and cesium-137 were stolen from a storeroom of isotopes in Wroclaw, Poland.
4 April
Press reports that 6 kg of U-235, U-238, radium, and palladium were found in a Kiev apartment. Occupants were ex-army, a lieutenant colonel and a warrant offic er, and material reportedly came from Russia.
2 April
Documents recovered by Japanese police in the investigation of Aum Shinrikyo involvement in the Tokyo subway sarin gas attack reportedly indicated that the ter rorists were collecting information on uranium enrichment and laser beam technologies. A spokesman for Russia’s prestigious nuclear physics laboratory, Kurchatov Institute, acknowledged that at least one Aum Shinrikyo follower was working at the institute .
14 March
Polish police in Bielska-Biala province arrested a man for possession of uranium .
8 March
Italian police arrested one Nicola Todesco for murder in a plutonium smuggling case gone awry when the murder victim did not have the money to pay for a quanti ty of plutonium smuggled out of Bulgaria. Todesco claimed he threw 5g of plutonium into the Adige river, but no trace of it was found after an extensive search. (Comment: Although an official Italian spokesman believed the plutonium was enriched for military use, it had not been analyzed and may be another scam involving ‘plutonium screws’ from smoke detectors.
25 January
According to Talinn news broadcasts, Lithuanian border police, using U.S.-supplied stationary radiation detectors, seized two tons of radioactive wolfram hi dden in a secret compartment in a truck trailer. (The wolfram is tungsten, which has a short half-life, and probably was infected by a radioactive contaminant.) The incident occurred at the Lithuanian-Belorus border, and the truck’ s owner and two other men were arrested. A similar incident occurred a week earlier at another border post but no details are available.
———- 1994 ———-
14 December
Czech police seized 2.72 kg of material–later identified as 87.7 percent enriched U-235–in Prague; this is the largest recorded seizure of such material. Police arrested a Czech nuclear physicist and two c itizens of the Former Soviet Union. The uranium apparently came from the FSU and was to be smuggled to Western Europe.
10 December
Press reporting indicates Hungarian border guards seized 1.7 kg of uranium and arrested four Slovak citizens. The material (depleted uranium and reactor fu el grade) reportedly was concealed in a fruit jar and was to be smuggled into Austria.
6 December
In a long article in Pravda, it was reported that three staffers of the Institute of Nuclear Physics were convicted of stealing 4.5 kg of uranium.
10 November
Press reporting indicates Hungarian police discovered 26 kg of radioactive material in the trunk of a car. Three suspects were subsequently arrested.
November
Press reporting indicates German police seized 1 milligram of cesium-137 in early November and arrested two suspects.
19
October
Press reporting indicates Turkish police arrested an Azeri national trying to sell 750 g of uranium.
17
October
Press reporting indicates Russian authorities seized 27 kg of U-238, an unknown quantity of U-235 and detained 12 members of a criminal gang.
October
Press reporting indicates that in mid-October, four Indian villagers were arrested attempting to sell 2.5 kg of yellowcake, i.e. uranium extracted from ore.
13
October
Press reporting indicates Bulgarian officials seized four lead capsules suspected of containing radioactive material. The capsules were found on a bus enrou te to Turkey and police detained the two bus drivers.
10
October
Press reporting indicates Romanian authorities arrested seven people and seized 7 kg of uranium and an unidentified quantity of strontium or cesium.
01
October
Press reporting indicates Romanian police arrested four people trying to sell over 4 kg of U-235 and U-238.
October
Press reporting dated 26 October indicates Russian authorities arrested three men trying to pass 67 kg of U-238 to unidentified individuals in the city of Psko v.
28 September
Press reporting indicates that a container with radioactive substances was found on a street in Tallinn.
28 September
Romanian authorities arrested several indivduals who were attempting to sell 4.55 kg of uranium tetrachloride (61.9 percent uranium) for $25 thousand per kg, according to press reports
28 September
Press reporting indicates Slovak officials arrested four Slovaks trying to smuggle almost 1 kg of U-235 (judged not to be weapons-grade) into Hungary.
26 September
Press reporting indicates the discovery of a glass flask containing unspecified weak radioactive material at the Wetzlar railroad station in G ermany.
September
A Pole tried to sell 1 kg of U-235/238 in Germany. A German court subsequently sentenced him to two and a half years in prison for trading in radioactive ura nium.
11 September
Press reports indicate German police arrested a Zairian national attempting to smuggle 850 g of uraninite into Germany.
07 September
Press reports indicate Russian police arrested three people in Glazov trying to sell 100 kg of U-238.
05 September
Press reports indicate Bulgarian authorities arrested six Bulgarians in connection and seized 19 containers of radioactive material.
30 August
Press reports indicate thieves broke into a chemical plant in Tambov and stole 4.5 g of cesium 137.
29 August
Press reports indicate Hungarian police arrested two men and seized 4.4 kg of material believed to be fuel rods from a reactor in Russia.
20 August
Press reports Russian authorities arrested two men attempting to steal 9.5 kg of uranium 238 from the Arzamas-16 nuclear weapons research facility.
18 August
Press reports indicate Estonian police arrested a man and seized 3 kg of U-238 he had buried under his garage.
According to press reporting, about 100 uranium-contaminated drums were stolen from South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation plant in Pelindaba, Transvaal.
12 August
Press reports indicate that St. Petersburg police arrested three men trying to sell 60 kg of unidentified nuclear material.
12 August
Press reports indicate German police in Bremen arrested a German who claimed to have 2 g of plutonium; the sample contained only minute amounts of legally ob tainable plutonium.
10 August
Press report indicates that over 500 g of nuclear material were seized at Munich airport. The trial began on 10 May 1995 of two men for possession of 363g (12.8 ounces) of weapons-grade plutonium-239.
August
Unconfirmed press report says 3 kg of enriched uranium were seized in August in southwestern Romania.
July
Press reporting dated 19 July indicates Turkish National Police arrested seven Turks and seized 12 kg of weapons-grade uranium.
July
According to 6 July press reporting, Russian authorities in Shezninks discover 5.5 kg of U-238 previously stolen from the Chelyabinsk-65 nuclear facility.
July
According to a 2 November press report, police in Timisoara, Romania, arrested five Romanians trying to sell 2.6 kg of Russian uranium.
13 June
Press reporting indicates a seizure of 0.8 g of uranium 235 (enriched to 88%) occurred in Landshut, Germany.
June
According to 6 June press reporting, Russian security official announces the arrest of three Russians in St. Petersburg who allegedly tried to sell 3.5 kg of HEU.
June
According to an 8 July press report, Russian authorities arrested three officers from the Northern Fleet accused of having stolen 4.5 kg of U-238 from their base in Nov 93.
June
According to a 2 November press report, police in Pitesti, Romania, arrested three Romanians trying to sell 3 kg of uranium tablets.
May
According to 30 July press reporting, 56 g of material, including 6 g of plutonium 239, were seized and Adolf Jaekle, a German citizen, was arrested in G ermany in May.
———- 1993 ———-
November
In a case stemming from an incident in November 1993 in which a Russian naval officer stole 4 kg of 20 percent enriched U 235 nuclear fuel rods from a p oorly guarded area at Severomorsk, a Russian court found the officer guilty but gave him a suspended sentence because he admitted the act. Two accomplices were sentenced to three years at a labor camp.
Posted: Apr 03, 2007 08:54 PM
Last Updated: Apr 03, 2007 08:54 PM
Last Reviewed: Apr 03, 2007 08:54 PM
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/1996/go_appendixa_032796.html
***
Trafficking in Nuclear and Radioactive Material in 2005
IAEA Releases Latest Illicit Trafficking Database Statistics
Staff Report
21 August 2006
* Story Resources
* Full Report: 2005 Nuclear Trafficking Statistics [pdf]
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/RadSources/PDF/fact_figures2005.pdf
* Security of Radioactive Sources
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/RadSources/index.html
* IAEA and Nuclear Security
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/NuclearSecurity/index.html
* IAEA Office of Nuclear Security
http://www-ns.iaea.org/security/
There were 103 confirmed incidents of illicit trafficking and other unauthorized activities involving nuclear and radioactive materials in 2005, newly released statistics from the Agencýs Illicit Trafficking Database (ITDB) show.
The ITDB covers a broad range of cases from illegal possession, attempted sale and smuggling, to unauthorized disposal of materials and discoveries of lost radiological sources.
Eighteen of the confirmed incidents in 2005 involved nuclear materials; 76 involved radioactive material, mainly radioactive sources; two involved both nuclear and other radioactive materials, and seven involved radioactively contaminated materials.
Another 57 incidents from previous years were reported. They involved illicit trafficking and other unauthorized activities and had occurred earlier, mainly in 2004.
Two reported cases in 2005 involved small quantities of high-enriched uranium (HEU) which is a fissile material. In New Jersey, USA, a package containing 3.3 grams of HEU was reported inadvertently disposed of. The second incident occurred in Fukui, Japan, when a neutron flux detector containing 0.0017 grams was lost at a nuclear power plant.
From the terrorism threat standpoint, these cases are of little concern but they show security vulnerabilities at facilities handling HEU, the latest report from the ITDB said. Indeed the majority of cases reported in 2005 showed no evidence of criminal activity.
The ITDB facilitates the exchange of authoritative information on incidents of trafficking in nuclear and radioactive materials. There are 91 countries that report to the IAEÁs database. See Story Resources for the full report, which covers the past 13 years.
The Past 13 Years: 1993 – 2005
Nuclear Materials
During the thirteen year period, there were 16 confirmed incidents that involved trafficking in HEU and plutonium – which are fissile materials needed to make a nuclear weapon. A few of these incidents involved seizures of kilogram quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material, but most involved very small quantities.
View Chart: Incidents Involving HEU and Pu (1993-2005) » [pdf]
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/RadSources/PDF/table1-2005.pdf
The majority of confirmed cases with nuclear materials involved low-grade nuclear materials, i.e. low enriched uranium (LEU) mostly in the form of reactor fuel pellets, and natural uranium, depleted uranium, and thorium. Where information on motives is available, it indicates that profit seeking is the principal motive behind such events, the ITDB report said.
View Chart: Incidents Involving Nuclear Materials (1993-2005) » [pdf]
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/RadSources/PDF/chart2-2005.pdf
Other Radioactive Materials
During 1993-2005, just over 60 incidents involved high-risk dangerous radioactive sources, which present considerable radiological danger if used in a malicious act. In the hands of terrorists or other criminals, some radioactive sources could be used for malicious purposes, e.g. in a radiological dispersal device (RDD) or ́dirty bomb́, the ITDB said. The overwhelming majority of incidents concerning dangerous sources were reported over the last six years. The majority of all incidents involved the radioisotope Caesium 137.
View Chart: Incidents Involving Radioactive Sources, by Type of Radioisotope (1993-2005) » [pdf]
Click to access chart3-2005.pdf
View Chart: Incidents Involving Radioactive Sources, by Type of Application (1993-2005) » [pdf]
Click to access chart4-2005.pdf
See Story Resources for more information.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/traffickingstats2005.html
***
Observed data from confirmed smuggling incidents and associated seizures and arrests are not necessarily representative of the wider universe of black market nuclear deals, including sophisticated schemes that escape scrutiny. As with other illegal commodities—
drugs for instance—what is captured probably represents just a fraction of what is available in the international marketplace. For example, the small (usually multi-gram) quantities of HEU and plutonium intercepted by authorities suggests that traders planned to show prospective customers samples of what could be larger inventories of privately-held material. Even kilogram-sized lots appearing in the black market may represent the tip of the proverbial iceberg. For instance, according to a Czech police investigation of a 1994 seizure in Prague of 2.7 kilograms of Russian-origin HEU, smugglers claimed they could deliver to buyers an additional 40 kilograms of HEU in the short term and 5 kilos each month over the next 12 months.2 Where this vagabond material, if it really existed, is now anyone’s guess.
Furthermore, the basic preconditions of a true market—would-be sellers and interested buyers—appear to be present. In Russia, the post-cold
war loss of government orders for nuclear goods, weakened security controls, and the economic desperation faced by the Russian workforce, set the stage for a dangerous proliferation dynamic. As then-senator Sam Nunn told a Senate hearing in 1995, the former Soviet Union was a ‘‘vast potential supermarket for nuclear weapons, weapons grade uranium and plutonium and equally deadly chemical and biological weapons.’’ 3
The literally hundreds of attempted thefts of nuclear and radiological materials at post-Soviet nuclear enterprises, especially in the 1990s, is ample evidence of proliferation pressures on the supply side. In one revealing 1998 incident, suggestive of a highly unstable security
climate, Russian security officials reportedly foiled a plot by ‘‘staff members’’ of a Chelyabinsk nuclear facility to steal 18.5 kilograms of HEU which, depending on the level of enrichment, could be almost enough for an atomic bomb.4
Click to access lee.nuclearsmuggling.pdf
***
Among sub-national groups, Al Qaeda and (in the 1990s) the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo cult have most consistently demonstrated an interest in acquiring a nuclear capability, including a complete nuclear weapon via black market channels. Osama bin Laden, in an oft quoted statement, called the acquisition of nuclear weapons for the defense of Muslims a ‘‘religious duty,’’ leaving little doubt of his WMD intentions.6
Finally, the ostensible lack of clear market relationships in observed
nuclear smuggling activity may be unrepresentative of the true state of affairs. That is, purveyors of strategic nuclear wares may be converging with customers in ways not readily apparent to western intelligence or security officials.
The prime example of such a ‘‘shadow market’’ in the nuclear realm was the notorious marketing network for nuclear weapons technology set up by Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan. The network, which sold centrifuges, centrifuge components, uranium hexafluoride gas, and nuclear weapons designs to various adversary nations, operated for about 15 years (from the late 1980s to early 2004) before being shut down by a joint U.S.-U.K. intelligence effort.7
For example, in June 2003 an Armenian smuggler was captured at the border with Georgia carrying 170 grams of HEU. The material was enriched to 89 percent U-235, close to the standard used for nuclear weapons (above 90 percent). In early 2006, a Russian (North Ossetian) trafficker was apprehended in a sting operation in Georgia with 100 g of HEU also enriched to 89 percent. Whether the two shipments were part of the same cache is not known. The smuggler told Georgian authorities that he had access to an additional two to three kilograms of the same material, but this claim was not verified.
A New York Times account of the incident observed that ‘‘the case has alarmed officials, because they had thought that new security precautions had tamped down the nuclear black market that developed in the 1990s . . .’’ However, in both of the above cases, there is a strong likelihood that the material leaked out years earlier, before the safeguards were fully in place, and then stashed while the perpetrators looked for a buyer.12
Click to access lee.nuclearsmuggling.pdf
***
The cases of Iran and Al Qaeda—adversaries of greatest current
concern—suggest a plausible link between smuggling and proliferation, even
if no definitive evidence exists that either has obtained a weapon or the means
to make one through smuggling channels.
The link is especially obvious in the case of Al Qaeda, since for nonstate
actors smuggling is practically the sole pathway to a nuclear capability.
The group is believed to have sought HEU (apparently unsuccessfully) in
various venues—Africa, Western Europe, and the former Soviet Union—since
the early 1990s. The group appears to have been victimized by scam artists
offering low-grade reactor fuel and radioactive trash, useless for making fission
weapons, Possibly of greater import are its efforts to acquire a complete
nuclear weapon. Stories circulated in 1998 that bin Laden offered a Kazakh
arms dealer two million pounds for a weapon, and that Al Qaeda actually
bought 20 tactical nuclear warheads from the ‘‘Chechen mafia’’ for $20 million
and two tons of opium.13 Also, former CIA director George Tenet recounts in
his book, At the Center of the Storm, that the agency in 2001 had received ‘‘a
stream of reliable reporting’’ that senior Al Qaeda leaders in Saudi Arabia had
been negotiating for the sale of three Russian tactical nuclear devices.14
Al Qaeda’s leaders have not been shy about claiming success in its
nuclear ventures. Bin Laden announced in a late 2001 interview that ‘‘we have
chemical and nuclear weapons as a deterrent’’ and his deputy Ayman al
Zawahiri told the same correspondent in 2004 that the group had succeeded in
purchasing some ‘‘suitcase’’ nuclear weapons, and that such items were widely
available on the ‘‘black market’’ in Central Asia.15 Most observers are skeptical
of such claims, citing the group’s technical inexperience, its pariah status, the
failure to detonate such a weapon and other factors. Importantly, an extensive
search of government buildings, military compounds, terrorist camps, safe
houses and the like in the wake of Operation Enduring Freedom found no
trace of fissile materials or a weapon.16 Predictable denials have come from
Russia: then Russian president Vladimir Putin stated in a 2002 interview that he
was ‘‘absolutely confident’’ that terrorists in Afghanistan do not possess Soviet
or Russian weapons of mass destruction.17 Nevertheless, Al Qaeda’s evident
Nuclear Smuggling
13 Riyad Alam al-Din et al., ‘‘Report Links Bin Laden, Nuclear Weapons,’’ Al-Watan al-Arabi,
November 13, 1998, p. 20-21, Marie Colvin, ‘‘Holy Warrior with U.S. on His Sights—Focus—
Bomb—Profile—Osama bin Laden,’’ The Sunday Times, August 16, 1998. global.factiva.com/
en/arch/display.asp.
14 George Tenet, At the Center of the Storm, (New York: HarperCollins 2007), p. 272.
15 Sara Daly et. al. Aum Shinrikyo, al Qaeda and the Kinshasa Reactor: Implications of Three
Case Studies for Combating Nuclear Terrorism. (Santa Monica RAND 2005), pp. 26-27.
16 Thom Shanker, ‘‘U.S. Analysts Find No Sign bin Laden Had Nuclear Arms,’’ February 21
2002, p.1. CNN.com., ‘‘Was al Qaeda Working on a Super Bomb?’’ January 24, 2002. http://www.isis.-
online.org/publications/terrorism/transcript.html.
17 RAND Aum, p. 45.
Summer 2008 | 439
determination to acquire a nuclear weapon and the possibility that some such
weapons are unaccounted for or at least not under Russian control are
disconcerting, to say the least.
For a nation-state, smuggling is one pathway, if not the preferred one,
to a nuclear bomb. Unlike terrorists, states have various legitimate options for
engaging a supplier country including official diplomatic ties, open contacts
with officials, scientists and so on. In the case of Iran, a cozy nuclear
relationship with Russia, epitomized by, but not limited to, the construction
of a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant at Busehr is a continuing source of
proliferation concern. Some U.S. officials believe that Iran could leverage
the relationship to expand contacts with Russia’s nuclear entities and to
acquire information and materials directly applicable to a nuclear weapons
program. For Iran, the chances of pulling off a clandestine procurement effort
for nuclear wares seem much higher than for an internationally proscribed
group such as Al Qaeda.
Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities are very much matters of
conjecture. The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran is an
awkward document, one subject to widely divergent interpretations, but
providing a more benign assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities than
probably is warranted. It judges with moderate to high confidence that Iran
does not now have a nuclear weapon or sufficient fissile material to make one.
However, it won’t rule out that it could have acquired a weapon or the
necessary explosive ingredients from abroad. According to the estimate, Iran
halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but just what activities are
subsumed under the term ‘‘program’’ is unclear.18 For example, available
intelligence might indicate that Iran suspended efforts to retrofit long-range
rockets for nuclear warheads, but fail to detect continued clandestine procurement
activities for fissile materials and other bomb components.
Moreover, the NIE judges that Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program
faces major technical challenges and probably won’t yield enough highly
enriched uranium (HEU) until 2010–2015 timeframe. This strengthens the case
for diplomatic approaches to Iran (as opposed to tougher sanctions and
military strikes). Yet what lethal nuclear items Iran may already possess cannot
be inferred from the performance of its uranium conversion and enrichment
facilities nor from the spotty intelligence that apparently shaped the NIE.
Indeed, Iran’s highly publicized nuclear energy program could serve as a
convenient cover for a parallel small scale – but potentially dangerous –
weapons-building effort that relies extensively on black market operations to
obtain strategic nuclear wares.
Iran’s black market dealings are shrouded in mystery, but its procurement
networks for nuclear bomb ingredients have most likely focused
LEE
18 ‘‘Key Judgments from a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Activity,’’ New
York Times, December 4, 2007.
on the former Soviet Union.19 As a 2001 Department of Energy report noted,
‘‘Iran, among others, has tried to exploit Russia’s nuclear security problems
by attempting to acquire fissile materials’’20 Iran reportedly maintains an
active network of front companies and espionage agents inside Russia to
facilitate its WMD procurement objectives. Furthermore, Iranian legal
nuclear cooperation with Russia could mask and facilitate a variety of
illegal transfers, and also give Iran plausibility regarding its motives and
actions.
In addition, Iran, like other aspiring nuclear actors, may seek weapons
components by means of smuggling chains that they either patronize or
control. For instance, in mid-2007 British authorities reported disrupting an
alleged plot by a British company to smuggle Russian-origin HEU to Iran by
way of Sudan. According to an account in the London Observer, ‘‘A group of
Britons was tracked as they obtained weapons-grade uranium from the black
market in Russia. Investigators believe that it was intended for export to Sudan
and on to Iran.’’ The investigators reportedly had evidence that the material
was destined for Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The incident may represent
a sample of a wider proliferation problem. As a British parliamentarian who
monitors export control matters observed, ‘‘If one company is involved, how
many others might be out there?’’21
Russia, of course, has long been notorious for its leaky nuclear
stockpiles. Whether or not Iran (or other sinister actors) has been able to
exploit gaps in Russian nuclear security to procure the ingredients for a
bomb is an open question. Russian officials share Western skepticism about
Iran’s near-term ability to develop a nuclear weapon but some less publicized
signals from Russia should be cause for concern. In a post 9/11
conversation reported by former CIA director George Tenet, then Russian
president Vladimir Putin told Bush that he could not account for the
security of nuclear materials during his predecessor’s administration.22
(The well-publicized problems of the Yeltsin era – a near-bankrupt economy,
disarray within the nuclear complex, and a rising tide of criminality
and corruption – certainly provided a window for consequential proliferation
episodes.)
Then, at a press conference in June 2002, General Yury Baluyevsky,
outgoing chief of the Russian general staff, made the startling announcement
that ‘‘Iran does have nuclear weapons. Of course these are nonstrategic
nuclear weapons. I mean they are not ICBMs with a range of more
than 5,500 kilometers.’’ Baluyevsky did not elaborate on how Iran acquired
Nuclear Smuggling
19 As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran would have every incentive to
keep such dealings secret.
20 Department of Energy MPC&A Program: Strategic Plan, Washington, July 2001, p. 2.
21 Mark Townsend, ‘‘MI-6 Probes UK Link to Nuclear Trade with Iran,’’ The Observer, June 10,
2007.
22 George Tenet, In the Center of the Storm, (New York: HarperCollins 2007), p. 272.
Summer 2008 | 441
the weapons or the wherewithal to manufacture them.23 In a later statement,
the general maintained that Iran would not be able ‘‘to develop
nuclear weapons either in the near or in the distant future,’’ but the context
of the remarks indicated that he was referring to Iran’s indigenous enrichment
program, which would explain the contradiction.24 Baluyevsky’s
assertion is not incompatible with the NIE’s judgment that Iran stopped
its nuclear weapons program in 2003, conceivably having gotten much of
what it wanted by then.
Of course, it is hard to distinguish fact from fiction (or disinformation)
in deciphering commentary on proliferation issues. Yet given Russia’s
history of leaky nuclear stockpiles, the warnings about Iran have the ring
of plausibility. While Western experts debate the sophistication and spin
speed of Tehran’s centrifuges, Iran already could have obtained a nuclear
weapons capability of sorts through clandestine transfers from the former
USSR. The NIE’s conclusions substantially weaken the case for war with
Iran (and rightly so, in this writer’s opinion), however, possibly for the
wrong reasons. Consider that even a small number of ‘‘non-strategic’’ or
defensive nuclear warheads in Iran’s possession could be delivered with
devastating effect to Western targets via Iran-linked terrorist groups such
as Hezbollah or Hamas. There is no hard evidence of such a capability,
but the signs are disturbing enough to warrant caution in dealing with
Tehran. Indeed, Washington eventually may have to acknowledge that, as
former chief of U.S. Central Command John Abizaid puts it, ‘‘there are
ways of living with a nuclear-armed Iran,’’ however unpalatable the
prospect.25
To some, the threat of a nuclear Iran or (especially) a nuclear Al Qaeda
may seem greatly overblown. Yet it cannot be dismissed entirely. Certainly, it’s
conceivable that, in the 16 years since the Soviet collapse, given Iran’s multifaceted
nuclear relationship with Russia, and the distressing economic circumstances
that afflicted Russia’s nuclear complex in the 1990s, that Iran could
have managed to acquire enough fissile material for at least one bomb.
Moreover, despite official Russian assurances, it requires a leap of faith to
believe that all tactical nuclear warheads and small atomic munitions are safely
locked down and accounted for in Russia. Conditions for a black market in
weapons and other nuclear assets, thus, could have materialized in the
confused post Soviet years, even if adversaries’ ability to exploit this opportunity
was problematic.
LEE
23 Safa Haeri, ‘‘Iran Has Nuclear Bomb, Says Top Russian General,’’ Iran Press Service, June 6,
2002.
24 Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, ‘‘Iran Has No Chance of Producing Nukes on its Own—
Russian Chief of Staff,’’ The Analyst, April 15, 2004.
25 Peter Baker, ‘‘Bush’s War Rhetoric Reveals the Anxiety that Iran Commands,’’ Washington
Post, October 19, 2007, p. 5.
442 |
Click to access lee.nuclearsmuggling.pdf
***
Nuclear Smuggling Incidents Increasing, Agency Warns
Wednesday, October 03, 2001
More than 20 attempts at smuggling nuclear materials have been confirmed this year, according to Jane’s Information Group Foreign Report. The incidents this year, in addition to more than 370 which have occurred in the last seven years — including 15 incidents involving plutonium or weapon-grade uranium — have prompted the International Atomic Energy Agency to step up its programs to improve the physical security of nuclear materials.
A collaborative law enforcement program under IAEA leadership was started earlier this year to help with the smuggling problem. In conjunction with the World Customs Organization, Interpol and the FBI, the IAEA program will seek better information exchanges between law enforcement agencies as well as training programs for police and customs organizations (Foreign Report, Oct. 4).
Even more IAEA action is needed to prevent nuclear materials from falling into terrorist hands, according to two nonproliferation specialists writing in Arms Control Today. George Bunn and Fritz Steinhausler write that adoption of stronger physical protection standards against these threats is essential, and the sooner the better.
The two supported a recent decision by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to convene a meeting of experts to draft a new amendment to the 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which currently only applies to nuclear materials in transit.
The new amendment should add some sort of verification or reporting requirement, Bunn and Steinhausler said, adding that the convention should apply to domestic facilities and include measures on preventing sabotage (Bunn/Steinhausler, Arms Control Today, Oct. 2001).
http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20011003/19010_story.asp
***
The EPA’s Superfund program was established in 1980 to locate, investigate, and clean up hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. Nationally, EPA’s Superfund program has located, analyzed and worked to clean up thousands of hazardous waste sites since 1980.
In New England, the Superfund program has carried out or is currently involved in the clean up of close to 500 such sites since the law went into effect.
Today, the six New England states have 115 toxic and hazardous waste sites on the Superfund National Priority List (NPL).
http://www.epa.gov/region01/superfund/index.htm
***
The 1978 discovery of toxic chemicals beneath the suburban infrastructure of Love Canal, in Niagara Falls, New York first illuminated the consequences of environmental neglect. For decades, many American businesses had disposed of hazardous waste improperly, contaminating tens of thousands of sites nationally, including nearly 250 within Region 2 alone. Accidents, spills, and leaks of hazardous materials resulted in land, water, and air that pose immediate and potential threats to public and environmental health.
Citizen reaction to these localized threats led Congress to establish the Superfund Program in 1980, an initiative designed to locate, investigate, and clean up the most hazardous sites nationwide. Superfund is officially called CERCLA, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The EPA administers the Superfund Program in cooperation with individual states and tribal governments.
The national EPA office that oversees management of the program is the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). The sites dealt with under Superfund are listed on the NPL, or National Priorities List. Superfund constitutes a crucial environmental and economic precedent within American legislative history.
Superfund/CERCLA
1980 legislation to locate, investigate, and clean up hazardous waste sites in the United States
Basics | Find Sites | Emergency Response
Public Liaison | Pre-Remedial
Database Search | Enviromapper | Superfund HQ
Brownfields
EPA program providing funds for the redevelopment of real properties contaminated with hazardous waste
Basics | Funding Information | Sites in Region 2 | Project Fact Sheets
Resource Directory [33pp, 1.62M]
RCRA Corrective Action
Requires facilities managing hazardous waste to clean up environmental contaminants
RCRA Basics | RCRA Database | Facilities Near You | Environmental Indicators | Regulations and Policy | RCRA Hazardous Waste
Links By Region
Find cleanup information and sites
where you live and work
New Jersey | New York | Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/
***
New York Sites
Click on the headings to view sites by Name, County, City or Cleanup Type.
Site Name County City Cleanup Type
914th Airlift Wing – AFRC Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Action Anodizing Plating And Polishing Corp. Suffolk County Nassau/Suffolk Co. line NPL
Akzo Nobel Polymer Chemicals LLC Niagara County Burt RCRA
Alcoa Incorporated St. Lawrence County Massena RCRA
Aluminum Company Of America St. Lawrence County Grasse River NPL
American Thermostat Company Greene County South Cairo NPL
American Candle Company Ulster County Saugerties RCRA
Amphenol Aerospace Delaware County Sidney RCRA
Anchor Chemicals Nassau County Hicksville NPL
Applied Environmental Services Nassau County Glenwood Landing NPL
Arch Chemicals Incorporated Monroe County Rochester RCRA
Arkema, Inc. Livingston County Piffard RCRA
Batavia Landfill Genesee County Batavia NPL
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated Monroe County Rochester RCRA
Bec Trucking Broome County Vestal NPL
Bioclinical Laboratories Inc. Suffolk County Hamlet of Bohemia NPL
Black & Decker US Incorporated Monroe County Brockport RCRA
Brewster Well Field Putnam County Brewster NPL
Brookhaven National Laboratory usdoe Suffolk County Upton NPL
Buffalo Color Erie County Buffalo RCRA
Byron Barrel And Drum New York Genesee County Batavia NPL
C & J Disposal Leasing Co. Dump Madison County Eaton NPL
C W M Chemical Services Llc Niagara County Model City RCRA
Carroll And Dubies Sewage Disposal Orange County Port Jervis NPL
Cayuga County Groundwater Contamination Site Cayuga County Union Springs NPL
Cecos International Incorporated Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Cherokee Columbus Real Estate LLC Chenango County Bainbridge RCRA
Chevron Incorporated Dutchess County Glenham RCRA
Ciba Corporation Secure Landfill Warren County Queensbury RCRA
Ciba Geigy – Hercules Plant Site Warren County Queensbury RCRA
Circuitron Corporation Suffolk County Farmingdale NPL
Claremont Polychemical Nassau County Old Bethpage NPL
Clothier Disposal Oswego County Granby NPL
Colesville Municipal Landfill Broome County Colesville NPL
Computer Circuits Suffolk County Hauppauge NPL
Conklin Dumps Broome County Conklin NPL
Consolidated Iron And Metal Orange County Newburgh NPL
Cortese Landfill Sullivan County Tusten NPL
Crown Cleaners Of Watertown, Inc Jefferson County Village of Herrings NPL
Crumb Trailer Park Herkimer County West Winfield Removal
Diaz Chemical Corporation Orleans County Holley NPL
Dunkirk Acquisition Corporation Chautauqua County Dunkirk RCRA
Dupont Necco Park Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Durez Corporation Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Dyno Nobel Incorporated Ulster County Ulster Park RCRA
Eastman Kodak Company – Kodak Park Monroe County Rochester RCRA
Edmos Corporation Nassau County Glen Cove RCRA
Ellenville Scrap Iron And Metal Ulster County Ellenville NPL
Endicott Village Well Field Broome County Endicott NPL
Facet Enterprises Inc. Chemung County Elmira Heights NPL
Fairchild Republic Company Nassau County Farmingdale RCRA
FMC Corp. Dublin Rd. Landfill Orleans County Ridgeway and Shelby NPL
FMC Corp. Middleport Niagara County Middleport RCRA
Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Frontier Chemical Waste Process, Inc. – Pendleton Site Niagra County Pendelton RCRA
Frontier Chemical Waste Process, Inc. – Royal Avenue Facility
Nigara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Fulton Terminals Oswego County Fulton NPL
Fulton Ave. Nassau County Hempstead NPL
G.E.C. Alstrom Transportation Incorporated Steuben County Edison Drive Hornell RCRA
GCL Tie & Treating Inc. Delaware County Sidney NPL
GE Moreau Saratoga County South Glens Falls NPL
General Electric Company – CPP Fort Edward Washington County Fort Edward RCRA
General Electric Company – Hudson Falls Washington County Hudson Falls RCRA
General Electric – Auburn Plant Cayuga County Auburn NY RCRA
General Electric – River Road Schenectady County Schenectady RCRA
General Motors central Foundry Division St. Lawrence County Massena NPL
Genzale Plating Co. Nassau County Old Bethpage NPL
Goldisc Recordings Inc. Suffolk County Holbrook NPL
Gowanus Canal Kings County Brooklyn NPL
Griffiss Air Force Base Oneida County Rome NPL
Haviland Complex Dutchess County Town of Hyde Park NPL
Hertel Landfill Ulster County Plattekill NPL
Hiteman Leather Herkimer County West Winfield NPL
Hooker Chemical/ Ruco Polymer Corp. Nassau County Hicksville NPL
Hooker Chemical/ S-area Niagara County Niagara River NPL
Hooker – Hyde Park Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Hooker 102nd Street Niagara County East of Griffin Park in Niagara Falls NPL
Hopewell Precision Dutchess East Fishkill NPL
HQ 10th Mtn Division & Fort Drum Jefferson County Jones Street T4819 & Off North Memorial Drive P11 NY RCRA
Hudson Technologies Inc. Rockland County Hillburn NPL
Hudson River PCBs Washington County Hudson River New York from Hudson Falls to the Battery in New York City including Rensselaer Washington and Saratoga Counties. NPL
IBM Corporation – East Fishkill Dutches County Hopewell Junction RCRA
IBM Corporation – Endicott Broome County Endicott RCRA
IBM Corporation – Former Tioga County Owego RCRA
IBM Corporation – Kingston Ulster County Kingston RCRA
IBM Corporation – Poughkeepsie Dutches County Poughkeepsie RCRA
IBM Corporation – TJ Watson Research Center Yorktown Westchecter County Yorktown RCRA
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill Suffolk County Long Island NPL
Jackson Steel Nassau County Mineola/North Hempstead NPL
Jewett White Lead Company Richmond County Richmond Terrace Removal
Johnstown City Landfill Fulton County Johnstown City NPL
Jones Sanitation Dutchess County Hyde Park NPL
Jones Chemicals Inc. Livingston County Caledonia NPL
Katonah Municipal Well Westchester County Village of Katonah in the Town of Bedford NPL
Kenmark Textile Corp. Suffolk County Farmingdale NPL
Kentucky Avenue Well Field Chemung County Near Horseheads NPL
Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminals, LLC Richmond County Staten Island RCRA
Lawrence Aviation Industries Inc. Suffolk County Port Jefferson Station NPL
Lehigh Valley Railroad Derailment Site Genesee County Leroy NPL
Li Tungsten Corporation Nassau County Glen Cove NPL
Liberty Industrial Finishing Nassau County Farmingdale NPL
Little Valley Cattaraugus County Little Valley NPL
Lockheed Martin Corporation – Ocean Radar and Sensor Systems Onondaga County Liverpool RCRA
Love Canal Niagara County Niagara Falls NPL
Ludlow Sand & Gravel County Paris Oneida NPL
Mackenzie Chemical Works Suffolk County Central Islip NPL
Malta Rocket Fuel Area Saratoga County Malta and Stillwater NPL
Marathon Battery Corp. Putnam County Cold Spring NPL
Mattiace Petrochemical Co. Inc. Nassau County Glen Cove NPL
McKesson Envirosystems Onondaga County Syracuse RCRA
Mercury Refining Inc. Albany County Colonie NPL
Mercury Refining Company Inc. MERECOsa Albany County Albany RCRA
Mohonk Road Industrial Plant Ulster County Marbletown NPL
Momentive Performance Materials Silicones, LLC Saratoga County Waterford RCRA
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Suffolk County Calverton RCRA
Nepera Chemical Plant Orange County Hamptonburgh NPL
Newtown Creek Kings County Brooklyn Study
Niagara County Refuse Niagara County Wheatfield NPL
Niagara Mohawk Power Co. saratoga Springs Saratoga County Saratoga Springs NPL
Niagara Mohawk Seventh North Onondaga County Syracuse RCRA
North Sea Municipal Landfill Suffolk County Southampton NPL
Northeast Environmental Services Madison County Lenox RCRA
Northrop Grumman Corporation – Bathpage Nassau County Bethpage RCRA
Occidental Chemical Corporation – Buffalo Avenue Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Old Bethpage Landfill Nassau County Oyster Bay NPL
Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated Groundwater Area Nassau County Garden City NPL
Olean Well Field Cattaraugus County Olean NPL
Olin Corporation Niagara County Niagara Falls RCRA
Onondaga Lake Onondaga County City of Syracuse and Towns of Salina Geddes and Camilus NPL
Pasley Solvents & Chemicals Inc. Nassau County Hempstead NPL
Peter Cooper Cattaraugus County Gowanda NPL
Peter Cooper Markhams Cattaraugus County Dayton NPL
Pfohl Brothers Landfill Erie County Cheektowaga NPL
Philips Display Components Seneca County Seneca Falls RCRA
Plattsburgh Air Force Base Clinton County Plattsburgh NPL
Pollution Abatement Services Oswego County Granby NPL
Port Washington Landfill Nassau County North Hempstead NPL
Preferred Plating Corp. Suffolk County Babylon NPL
Pride Solvents & Chemical Company Incorporated Suffolk County West Babylon RCRA
Radium Chemical Company Inc. Queens County Woodside/Queen NPL
Ramapo Landfill Rockland County Hillburn NPL
Realco Incorporated Albany County Watervliet RCRA
Revere Smelting & Refining Corporation Of NJ Orange County Middletown RCRA
Reynolds Metals Company St. Lawrence County Massena NPL
Reynolds Metals Company St. Lawrence County Massena RCRA
Richardson Hill Road Landfill/pond Delaware County Richardson NPL
Robintech Inc./ National Pipe Co. Broome County Vestal NPL
Rosen Brothers Scrap Yard/dump Cortland County Cortland NPL
Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination Suffolk County Village of Sag Harbor NPL
Rutherford Acquisition Corporation Orange County Harriman RCRA
Sabic Innovative Plastics US LLC Albany County Selkirk RCRA
Safety-Kleen Corporation – Congers 2-118-01 Rockland County Congers RCRA
Sarney Farm Dutchess County Amenia NPL
Schenectady International Incorporated – Congress Street Schenectady County Schenectady RCRA
Schenectady International Incorporated – Rotterdam Junction Schenectady County Rotterdam Junction RCRA
Sealand Restoration Inc. St. Lawrence County Lisbon NPL
Seneca Army Depot Seneca County Romulus NPL
Shenandoah Road Ground Water Contamination Site Dutchess County East FishKill NPL
Sidney Landfill Delaware County Sidney NPL
Sinclair Refinery Allegany County Wellville NPL
Smithtown Ground Water Contamination Suffolk County Smithtown NPL
SMS Instruments Inc. Suffolk County Deer Park NPL
Solvent Savers Chenango County Lincklaen NPL
Solvents & Petroleum Service Incorporated Onondaga County Syracuse RCRA
Stanton Cleaners Area Ground Water Cont. Nassau County Town of Great Neck NPL
Star Anchors & Fasteners Orange County Mountainville RCRA
Stauffer Management Company Onondaga County Skaneateles Falls RCRA
Suffern Village Well Field Rockland County Suffern NPL
Syosset Landfill Nassau County Oyster Bay NPL
Tecumseh Redevelopment, Inc. Erie County Lackawanna RCRA
Textron Realty Operations Incorporated Niagara County Wheatfield RCRA
Tri-cities Barrel Broome County Adjacent to Old Route 7 in Fenton NPL
Triumvirate Environmental Incorporated. Queens County Astoria RCRA
Tronic Plating Co. Inc. Suffolk County Farmingdale NPL
USDOE Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Schenectady County Niskayuna RCRA
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 Broome County Vestal NPL
Vestal Water Supply Well 4-2 Broome County Vestal NPL
Volney Municipal Landfill Oswego County Volney NPL
Von Roll Isola USA Incorporated – Riverview Schenectady County Schenectady RCRA
Warwick Landfill Orange County Warwick NPL
Watervliet Arsenal Albany County Watrevliet RCRA
West Valley Demonstration Project USDOE Cattaraugus County West Valley RCRA
Western NY Nuclear Service Center Cattaraugus County Ashford RCRA
White Mop Wringer Montgomery County Fultonville RCRA
Wide Beach Development Erie County Brant NPL
Wyeth – Ayerst Laboratories Rockland County Pearl River RCRA
Xerox Corporation Monroe County Webster RCRA
York Oil Company Franklin County Next to the Town Hall and the Moira Town Highway Garage NPL
http://www.epa.gov/region02/cleanup/sites/nytoc_sitename.htm
***
Threat and Contaminants
Before the site was remediated, on-site soils, sludges, sediments, and surface water were contaminated with phenolics,
heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and PCBs. The ground water, which is contaminated, is not used by area
residents for drinking water. Wetlands and wildlife inhabiting the wetlands near the site were threatened by contaminants.
York Oil Company
New York
EPA ID#: NYD000511733
EPA REGION 2
Congressional District(s): 24
Franklin
Next to the Town Hall and the Moira Town Highway Garage
NPL LISTING HISTORY
Proposed Date: 7/1/1982
Final Date: 9/1/1983
Site Description
The York Oil Company recycled waste oil at this 17-acre site, 1 mile northwest of Moira, from 1962 until 1975. The
facility’s operators collected crankcase and industrial oils, some containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), from
sources throughout New England and New York. They stored or processed the oils at the site in eight aboveground
storage tanks, three earthen-dammed settling lagoons, and at least one underground storage tank. The recycled
PCB-contaminated oil either was sold as No. 2 fuel oil or was used in dust control for the unpaved roads in the vicinity of
the site. During heavy rains and spring thaws, the oil-water mixture from the lagoons often would overflow onto
surrounding lands and into adjacent wetlands, which the company purchased in 1964. Contamination at the site first was
reported by a state road crew in 1979. In 1982, the County assumed title because of unpaid property taxes.
Approximately 1,700 people live within a 3-mile radius of the site; 400 live within a mile. Residents rely on private wells
for drinking water; 13 wells exist within 1/2 mile of the site. Recent sampling of well water in the area has revealed no
site-related contaminants.
Site Responsibility: This site is being addressed through federal, state, and potentially responsible parties’ actions.
0201202c.pdf
The actions that have been performed at the site, to date, have resulted in the removal of approximately
27,000 gallons of PCB-contaminated oil/water and 230 drums of PCB-contaminated debris from the site. In addition,
15,000 tons of steel from waste oil storage tanks was decontaminated, cut up, and disposed of off-site.
Approximately 21,000 tons of contaminated soils and sediments from the Site Proper were excavated and treated and
approximately 18,000 tons of contaminated sediments from the Contamination Pathways were excavated and treated. All
of the treated material was placed under a cap on the Site Proper.
Off-Site Contamination: The first stage of the long-term cleanup dealt, primarily, with the source control. The second
phase studied the Contamination Pathways, particularly the lead- and PCB-contaminated wetlands. The State began an
intensive study of the problem in 1986, which was continued by EPA in September 1988. In September 1998, EPA
selected a remedy for the Contamination Pathways. It features the excavation of contaminated sediments, followed by
solidification/stabilization and on-site disposal, natural attenuation of the ground water contamination, institutional
controls to prevent the installation and use of ground water wells, and long-term ground water monitoring. The remedial
design was completed in September 1999; construction commenced in September 1999 and was completed in
September 2002.
The site is being addressed in three stages: emergency actions and two long-term remedial phases focusing on source
control and contamination pathways.
Response Action Status
Emergency Actions: In 1980, EPA began emergency cleanup activities at the site. It secured the site to limit access and
to reduce the threat of direct contact with hazardous substances and removed oil and contaminated water from the
lagoons, which then were filled with a concrete by-product and sand. The top 3 feet of oil-soaked soil were excavated
from the neighboring wetlands. Contaminated oil was transferred to aboveground storage tanks, and contaminated soil
was contained on-site. Contaminated water from one of the lagoons was treated and discharged into the wetlands. An
interceptor trench was dug to alter the flow of surface water and ground water. In 1983, EPA conducted additional
emergency actions including the collection of oil seeping into drainage ditches, the installation of a new filter fence
system, and the posting of warning signs. EPA developed a schedule for collecting oily leachate and replacing sorbent
pads and began monitoring the site. In August 1992, EPA stabilized leaking tanks and drums. In December 1994, EPA
removed PCB-contaminated oil and drums of PCB-contaminated debris from the site, and decontaminated, cut up, and
disposed of off-site several waste oil storage tanks. In December 1995, EPA installed another interceptor trench to
collect oil seeping into the wetlands.
Source Control: Upon completion of a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) conducted to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the site and to evaluate remedial alternatives in 1988, EPA selected a remedy for
controlling the source of the contamination. It featured: (1) excavating approximately 22,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soils and 8,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments and solidifying this material on-site; (2) installing deep ground
water draw-down wells at the edges of the site to collect the sinking contaminated plume; (3) installing shallow
dewatering wells to collect contaminated ground water and oil during excavation; (4) treating these liquids and
discharging the clean ground water in accordance with state environmental requirements; (5) removing about 25,000
gallons of contaminated tank oils, as well as other oils collected at the site, to an EPA-approved facility to be incinerated;
(6) cleaning and demolishing the empty storage tanks; (7) backfilling the solidified soil into the excavated areas; and (8)
inspecting the site every five years to assure that human health and the environment continue to be protected.
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0201202c.pdf
****
fswyeth.htm
Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
Other (Former) Names of Site: Lederle Laboratories, American Cyanamid Company
EPA Identification Number: NYD054065909
Facility Location: 401 North Middletown Road, Pearl River, New York
Site Map
Facility Contact Name: Michael Kontaxis, (845) 602-2500
EPA Contact Name: Andy Park, (212) 637-4184, park.andy@epa.gov
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Case Manager: Paul Patel, (518) 402-8602, appatel@gw.dec.state.ny.us, and
Keith Gronwald, (518) 402-8589, khgronwa@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Last Update: April 2007
Environmental Indicator Status:
Human Exposures Under Control [PDF 2.65 MB, 13 pp] has been verified.
Groundwater Contamination Under Control [PDF 1.72 MB, 9 pp] has been verified.
Site Description
The plant is located on 401 North Middletown Road in the village of Pearl River on a 580-acre site that lies within Clarkstown and Orangetown in Rockland County, New York. The facility is located about 1.5 miles north of the New Jersey State border and 20 miles northwest of New York City. It is bounded by Middletown Road on the East, Crooked Hill Road to the south, and forested and residential areas to the west and north respectively.
The facility produces pharmaceutical products, generating hazardous wastes (e.g., spent solvents, toxic and mixed wastes) and large quantities of nonhazardous solid waste (e.g., incineration ash, composting and wastewater sludge) in the process. Hazardous wastes are stored in 250 55-gallon containers on-site. Releases of contaminants have occurred from the leachate generated at landfills, the burning of solvents in an open pit, leaks of industrial wastewater from underground sewers, and chemical spills.
There are four landfills at this site (1, 2, 2A, and 3A). Landfills 1, 2, and 2A received a mix of waste including incinerator ash, glass, debris, plant trash and rubbish, vitamins, wastewater treatment plant sludge, fermentation cake, animal remains, and small quantities of laboratory chemicals. These three landfills were closed in early 1980 and they were covered with a relatively low permeability material to prevent water seepage. However, groundwater monitoring indicates that releases of organic contaminants have occurred from these units. Landfill 3A, which remains open, receives solid waste generated onsite and operates under a New York State Part 360 Solid Waste Management permit.
The landfill area is in the western portion of the facility, adjacent to Muddy Creek, which bisects the Wyeth-Ayerst facility, flowing into the Pascack Brook and then discharging into the Hackensack River. The nearest New York State regulated freshwater wetland is located about 1.5 miles northwest of the site.
Site Responsibility and Legal Instrument
A NYS Part 373 hazardous waste management permit regulates the storage and management of hazardous waste in tanks, containers including lab packs, the treatment of hazardous wastes, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action.
Permit Status
A NYS Part 373 hazardous waste permit was issued September 28, 1993 and expired September 29, 1998. This permit has been extended as required by State law and will stay in effect until issuance of the renewal permit.
Potential Threats and Contaminants
Several chlorinated and non-chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) have been detected in the groundwater at this site. A few of these organic constituents, such as chloroform and 1,1,1-trichloroethylene, have been found to exceed New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) groundwater quality protection standards. These exceedances have been limited to on-site areas: one immediately down-gradient of the closed landfills, and one close to the burn pit.
Soils have been found to be contaminated with mercury and methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) at two different spill locations. This contamination has been removed by direct excavation.
This solid waste landfill has released mercury and phenols into the groundwater. Mercury has been found also in a routine excavation near Building 100.
Wyeth-Ayerst is located in Rockland County, which is serviced by a public water supply system. Contaminated groundwater from the site is not used for any purpose on-site or off-site. However, the State considers all its groundwater to be a potential source of potable water and thus it should be remediated to groundwater quality protection standards.
Current groundwater monitoring data indicates that the contaminated groundwater generated from releases at the landfills does not migrate off-site nor does it adversely impact Muddy Creek. Further contamination is not leaving the landfills. Trespassers are kept off most of the site by fencing and security, and groundwater exposure is unlikely should they gain access to the site.
There are no known direct potential threats to humans from the site’s contaminated soil. The closed landfills are covered and the contaminated soils were removed from areas where spills have occurred. Contaminated ash remaining in the burn pit remains inaccessible to trespassers because of site security and fencing.
Cleanup Approach and Progress
The closed landfills were investigated during the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) and found to have contaminated groundwater flowing under them. Wyeth-Ayerst is implementing a three year natural attenuation and monitoring program, with the intention of demonstrating that the groundwater contamination will meet the State’s protective standards before reaching the property line of the facility. Actual groundwater data for the first year verifies this conclusion.
A number of interim corrective measures (ICMs) have been implemented at the site: eight hazardous waste above-ground storage tanks were closed in 2002, including two 100,000-gallon spent combined-acid filtrate tanks and their bottom sludge; removal of 598 tons of discolored soil in the vicinity of the tanks contaminated with methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK); an ICM program repaired or replaced 9,200 feet of ruptured underground sewers servicing production and pilot plant buildings, by placing new plastic piping inside the old pipeline, and excavating and removing several severely damaged sections of sewer pipe.
In April 1998 the facility discovered a mercury spill of unknown origin while doing routine maintenance outside a building. An ICM removal action was immediately implemented, and 144 cubic yards of mercury-contaminated soil were excavated and replaced with clean fill. The contaminated soil was sent off-site for mercury recovery.
Site Repository
Copies of supporting technical documents and correspondence cited in this site fact sheet are available for public review at:
NYS DEC
Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials
Bureau of Radiation & Hazardous Site Management
625 Broadway, 8th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-7252
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) makes its public records available for a review under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/fswyeth.htm
****
Western New York Nuclear Service Center
Other (Former) Names of Site: Nuclear Fuels Service
EPA Identification Number: NYD986905545
Facility Location: 10282 Rock Spring Road, West Valley, New York
Site Map
Facility Contact Name: Colleen Gerwitz, (716) 942-4435
EPA Contact Name:
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Case Manager: Tim DiGiulio, (315) 426-7471, txdigiul@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Last Updated: October 2006
Environmental Indicator Status: Human Exposures Under Control [PDF 8.06 MB, 6 pp] has been verified.
Groundwater Contamination Under Control [PDF 15.85 MB, 8 pp] has been verified.
Western NY Nuclear Service Center fact sheet [PDF 10.02 KB, 2 pp]
The inspection of some of the documents cited in the site fact sheet may require a formal request under the United States Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/fswester.htm
***
nucle725.pdf
Rationale and References: A RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) of the State Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center has been completed. Results of the RFI indicate that subsurface soils beneath a former surface impoundment and immediately adjacent to the disposal trenches are contaminated with mixed (radioactive and hazardous) waste constituents. Classes of constituents detected in trench leachate include volatile and semi-volatile organics, PCB’s metals and cyanide. Additional details on the nature of contamination can be found in the “RCRA Facility Investigation for NYSERDA – Maintained Portions of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, Final Report, E & E, December 1994 .
http://www.epa.gov/region02/waste/nucle725.pdf
(From the listing above for Western NY Service Center)
***
***
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?cd=20&geocode=FSYgtAId7AXs-g&hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&z=3
Nuclear Plants in the US – Power Plants – 2008
old, new and about to be built
***
11 Sunday Oct 2009
Tags
air pollution, Air Quality, Alternative Energy, Alternative Fuels, carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide emissions, CO2, CO2 sequestration, cricketdiane
Report: CO2 could be stored under towns
Published: Oct. 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM
LONDON, Oct. 10 (UPI) — Britain must consider storing millions of tons of the potentially deadly greenhouse gas carbon dioxide beneath cities to slow climate change, a geologist says.
“The worst-case scenario would be a situation where people were unaware there had been a leak. In particular weather conditions or in confined spaces, those people could suffer asphyxiation,” said Nick Riley, head of science policy at the British Geological Survey.
Riley, who advises the government on carbon storage, said the most geologically suitable areas are in Dorset, Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Cheshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire.
The sites would be monitored to detect leaks, but bedrooms on ground floors might be prohibited because of the risk of the gas poisoning people as they slept, Riley told The Times of London in a story published Saturday.
Britain has proposed storing carbon dioxide
under the North Sea, but that might not be as practical as onshore storage, he said.
“Onshore storage can be much cheaper because you don’t have the transport costs or the problem of building long pipelines, but then you have to persuade people it is safe,” Riley said.
The risk of leakage would be the highest while the gas was being pumped under strong pressure into layers of porous rock 2,600 feet underground, Riley said. The gas would react with the rock and form more stable carbonates over time, he said.
**
Comment I made on this story – 10-10-09
cricketdiane 40 minutes ago
Don’t let them do that. After seeing what the “killer lakes” have done as a result of CO2 – why would we even consider storing it underground? The most sensible solution to CO2 and other carbon sequestration is to harness it for use as a fuel or some other industrial / transportation / electricity generating use. That is the only way that the problem will be solved quickly, efficiently, economically and in a reasonable manner which takes into account the public safety, today and in the future.
And, somebody please find a way for these scientists with their specific language and specialized jargon of their areas of expertise to be able to talk with one another across the lines of their specialties. It really is going to take what they can know and understand of each other’s work, not just that of their narrowly defined field of knowledge.
Thanks,
– cricketdiane
***
Powered only by natural sunlight, an array of nanotubes is able to convert a mixture of carbon dioxide and water vapour into natural gas at unprecedented rates.
Such devices offer a new way to take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into fuel or other chemicals to cut the effect of fossil fuel emissions on global climate, says Craig Grimes, from Pennsylvania State University, whose team came up with the device.
Although other research groups have developed methods for converting carbon dioxide into organic compounds like methane, often using titanium-dioxide nanoparticles as catalysts, they have needed ultraviolet light to power the reactions.
The researchers’ breakthrough has been to develop a method that works with the wider range of visible frequencies within sunlight.
The team found it could enhance the catalytic abilities of titanium dioxide by forming it into nanotubes each around 135 nanometres wide and 40 microns long to increase surface area. Coating the nanotubes with catalytic copper and platinum particles also boosted their activity.
The researchers housed a 2-centimetre-square section of material bristling with the tubes inside a metal chamber with a quartz window. They then pumped in a mixture of carbon dioxide and water vapour and placed it in sunlight for three hours.
The energy provided by the sunlight transformed the carbon dioxide and water vapour into methane and related organic compounds, such as ethane and propane, at rates as high as 160 microlitres an hour per gram of nanotubes. This is 20 times higher than published results achieved using any previous method, but still too low to be immediately practical.
If the reaction is halted early the device produces a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as syngas, which can be converted into diesel.
“If you tried to build a commercial system using what we have accomplished to date, you’d go broke,” admits Grimes. But he is confident that commercially viable results are possible.
“We are now working on uniformly sensitising the entire nanotube array surface with copper nanoparticles, which should dramatically increase conversion rates,” says Grimes, by at least two orders of magnitude for a given area of tubes.
This work suggests a “potentially very exciting” application for titanium-dioxide nanotubes, says Milo Shaffer, a nanotube researcher at Imperial College, London. “The high surface area, small critical dimensions, and open structure [of these nanotubes] apparently provide a relatively high activity,” he says.
Journal Reference: Nano Letters (DOI: 10.1021/nl803258p)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16621-sunpowered-device-converts-co2-into-fuel.html
***
A new catalyst that can split carbon dioxide gas could allow us to use carbon from the atmosphere as a fuel source in a similar way to plants.
“Breaking open the very stable bonds in CO2 is one of the biggest challenges in synthetic chemistry,” says Frederic Goettmann, a chemist at the Max Planck Institute for Colloids and Interfaces in Potsdam, Germany. “But plants have been doing it for millions of years.”
Plants use the energy of sunlight to cleave the relatively stable chemical bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in a carbon dioxide molecule. In photosynthesis, the CO2 molecule is initially bonded to nitrogen atoms, making reactive compounds called carbamates. These less stable compounds can then be broken down, allowing the carbon to be used in the synthesis of other plant products, such as sugars and proteins.
In an attempt to emulate this natural process, Goettmann and colleagues Arne Thomas and Markus Antonietti developed their own nitrogen-based catalyst that can produce carbamates. The graphite-like compound is made from flat layers of carbon and nitrogen atoms arranged in hexagons.
The team heated a mixture of CO2 and benzene with the catalyst to a temperature of 150 ºC, at about three times atmospheric pressure. In a first step, the catalyst enabled the CO2 to form a reactive carbamate, like that made in plants.
The catalyst’s next useful step was to enable the benzene molecules to grab the oxygen atom from the CO2 in the carbamate, producing phenol and a reactive carbon monoxide (CO) species.
“Carbon monoxide can be used to build new carbon-carbon bonds,” explains Goettmann. “We have taken the first step towards using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a source for chemical synthesis.”
Future refinements could allow chemists to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels as sources for making chemicals. Liquid fuel could also be made from CO split from CO2, says Goettmann. “It was common in Second World War Germany and in South Africa in the 1980s to make fuel from CO derived from coal,” he adds.
The researchers are now trying to bring their method even closer to photosynthesis. “The benzene reaction currently supplies the energy that splits the CO2,” Goettmann says, “but in plants it is light.” The new catalyst absorbs ultraviolet radiation, so the team is experimenting to see if light can provide the energy instead.
Joe Wood, a chemical engineer at Birmingham University in the UK, is also researching ways of fixing CO2. “There’s growing interest in using it as a recycled input into the chemical industry,” he says.
The Max Planck technique has only been demonstrated on a small scale and it has a low yield of 20%, he points out. “But it looks quite promising,” he adds. “The catalyst can be made cheaply and it works at a relatively low temperature.”
The products of the technique are well suited to making drugs or herbicides, says Wood, “so hopefully they can improve the efficiency and scale it up.”
Reference: Angewandte Chemie (vol 46, p 1) DOI:10.1002/anie.200603478
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11390-catalyst-could-help-turn-cosub2sub-into-fuel.html
***
Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico have found a way of using sunlight to recycle carbon dioxide and produce fuels like methanol or gasoline.
The Sunlight to Petrol, or S2P, project essentially reverses the combustion process, recovering the building blocks of hydrocarbons. They can then be used to synthesize liquid fuels like methanol or gasoline. Researchers said the technology already works and could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, although large-scale implementation could be a decade or more away.
“This is about closing the cycle,” said Ellen Stechel, manager of Sandia’s Fuels and Energy Transitions department. “Right now our fossil fuels are emitting CO2. This would help us manage and reduce our emissions and put us on the path to a carbon-neutral energy system.”
The idea of recycling carbon dioxide is not new, but has generally been considered too difficult and expensive to be worth the effort. But with oil prices exceeding $100 per barrel and concerns about global warming mounting, researchers are increasingly motivated to investigate carbon recycling. Los Alamos Renewable Energy, for example, has developed a method of using CO2 to generate electricity and fuel.
S2P uses a solar reactor called the Counter-Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator, or CR5, to divide carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen.
“It’s a heat engine,” Stechel said. “But instead of doing mechanical work, it does chemical work.”
Lab experiments have shown that the process works, Stechel said. The researchers hope to finish a prototype by April.
The prototype will be about the size and shape of a beer keg. It will contain 14 cobalt ferrite rings, each about one foot in diameter and turning at one revolution per minute. An 88-square meter solar furnace will blast sunlight into the unit, heating the rings to about 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, cobalt ferrite releases oxygen. When the rings cool to about 2,000 degrees, they’re exposed to CO2.
Since the cobalt ferrite is now missing oxygen, it snatches some from the CO2, leaving behind just carbon monoxide — a building block for making hydrocarbons — that can then be used to make methanol or gasoline. And with the cobalt ferrite restored to its original state, the device is ready for another cycle.
Fuels like methanol and gasoline are combinations of hydrogen and carbon that are relatively easy to synthesize, Stechel said. Methanol is the easiest, and that’s where they will start, but gasoline could also be made.
However, creating a powerful and efficient solar power system to get the cobalt ferrite hot enough remains a major hurdle in implementing the technology on a large scale, said Aldo Steinfeld, head of the Solar Technology Laboratory at the Paul Scherrer Institut in Switzerland, in an e-mail.
He and Stechel said the technology could be 15 to 20 years from viability on an industrial scale.
The Sandia team originally developed the CR5 to generate hydrogen for use in fuel cells. If the device’s rings are exposed to steam instead of carbon dioxide, they generate hydrogen. But the scientists switched to carbon monoxide, so the fuels they produce would be compatible with existing infrastructure.
Stechel said the Sandia team envisions a day when coal-fired power plants might have large numbers of CR5s, each reclaiming 45 pounds of carbon dioxide using reclamation technology currently under development and producing enough carbon monoxide to make 2.5 gallons of fuel. The Sunlight to Petrol process also raises the possibility that liquid hydrocarbon fuels might one day be renewable – provided CO2 reclamation reaches a point where the greenhouse gas can be snatched directly from the air. Such a process is being explored by Global Research Technologies and Klaus Lakner of Columbia University, among others.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P
***
Carbon Sciences, Inc. (OTCBB: CABN), the developer of a breakthrough technology to recycle carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into gasoline and other portable fuels, today announced the filing of a patent application for a highly efficient nano-scale CO2-to-fuel reactor, which is the most critical part of the company’s CO2-to-Fuel technology.
The company previously announced several important breakthroughs for the commercial viability of its proprietary CO2-to-Fuel technology including: (1) a low energy enzyme based biocatalytic process, and (2) a proprietary enzyme encapsulation technology that increases the life of key enzymes to reduce the cost of fuel production. Carbon Sciences has now successfully incorporated all of these discrete innovations into a self-contained nano-scale CO2-to-Fuel reactor optimized for the efficient transformation of CO2 and H20 molecules into hydrocarbon molecules that are identical to today’s transportation fuels.
These nano-scale reactors, called Smart Particles™, are the key to achieving a fast reaction time and industrial scale up of the company’s CO2-to-Fuel process. The design of Smart Particles is inspired by the way single-cell organisms work. A Smart Particle is based on the concept of synthetic biology and functions like a highly efficient artificial cell that contains proprietary enzyme processes to serve a single purpose — to absorb CO2 molecules and excrete fuel molecules. The patent application for Smart Particle Technology contains the detailed design of Smart Particles, as well as a proprietary manufacturing process where they self-assemble in solution without any external nano-manufacturing.
Dr. Naveed Aslam, the company’s chief technology officer, commented, “We are very excited about our Smart Particle Technology. Previous enzyme approaches to transform CO2 into fuel work in laboratory experiments, but fall short of a design for industrial scale up. Our Smart Particle Technology is a major breakthrough that solves the scale up problem and will be the key to our industrial scale, low energy, low cost, and highly efficient CO2-to-Fuel process. Based on our initial analysis, each newly created Smart Particle can function for over a year and can transform CO2 into fuel in a reaction time of minutes.”
About Carbon Sciences, Inc.
Carbon Sciences, Inc. is developing a breakthrough technology to transform carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the basic fuel building blocks required to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other portable fuels. Innovating at the intersection of chemical engineering and bio-engineering disciplines, we are developing a highly scalable biocatalytic process to meet the fuel needs of the world. Our solution to energy and climate challenges is a sustainable world of fuel consumption and climate stability by transforming CO2 into fuel. For example, Carbon Sciences’ breakthrough technology can be used to transform CO2 emitted from fossil fuel power plants into gasoline to run cars and jet fuel to fly aircraft. To learn more about the Company, please visit our website at http://www.carbonsciences.com.
Safe Harbor Statement
Matters discussed in this press release contain statements that look forward within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this press release, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “may,” “intend,” “expect” and similar expressions identify such statements that look forward. Actual results, performance or achievements could differ materially from those contemplated, expressed or implied by the statements that look forward contained herein, and while expected, there is no guarantee that we will attain the aforementioned anticipated developmental milestones. These statements that look forward are based largely on the expectations of the Company and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties associated with: the impact of economic, competitive and other factors affecting the Company and its operations, markets, product, and distributor performance, the impact on the national and local economies resulting from terrorist actions, and U.S. actions subsequently; and other factors detailed in reports filed by the Company.
http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=276044&Itemid=29
***
ELCAT uses catalysts within carbon nanotubes for the photoelectrochemical conversion of CO2 to hydrocarbon fuels. |
Most of the work on reducing the concentration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is focused on either reducing the emissions from fossil fuel combustion or capturing and sequestering the resulting carbon dioxide. There is, however, a third possible path: the conversion of CO2 back to a hydrocarbon fuel.
In an invited talk at this week’s National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Professor Gabriele Centi from the University of Messina provided an overview of an ambitious EU-funded project to use solar energy to power the photoelectrochemical gas-phase conversion of CO2 back to hydrocarbon fuels.
It is feasible to convert CO2 to fuel. There is still a long way to go to practical application, but it is a good and interesting direction to go.
—Prof. Gabriele Centi, University of Messina
There have been a number of attempts over the past decades to use solar energy to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) into a variety of products, including hydrogen and carbon monoxide for use as a syngas for further processing (e.g., Fischer-Tropsch) as well as direct hydrocarbon products.
Past efforts have found that the rate of recombination is not very high and productivity is very low, according to Prof. Centi. The products formed were lower carbon hydrocarbons—CH4 (methane) and CH3OH (methanol) for example. No hydrocarbon greater than C3 was obtained.
These aqueous phase processes found that the photoreduction of carbon dioxide was in competition with the formation of other reaction products, the formation of which would need to be blocked to develop higher carbon hydrocarbons—i.e., hydrocarbons closer to the liquid fuels used in most engines.
There were also a number of other limits on the processes. But not much had been done in exploring a gas-phase conversion.
The EU provided €875,246 ((US$1.1 million) in funding for ELCAT—electrocatalytic gas-phase conversion of CO2 in confined catalysts—a three-year project under the Sixth Framework Program (6FP) to focus on the gas-phase electrocatalysis of CO2 to Fischer-Tropsch (FT)-like products (C1-C10 hydrocarbons and alcohols). Work began in 2004.
The project was born from the observation that with carbon dioxide confined inside carbon micropores, and electrons and protons allowed to flow to an active catalyst of noble metal nanoclusters, that gaseous carbon dioxide was reduced to a series of hydrocarbons and alcohols. The reaction products were remarkably similar to those of the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process in which synthetic gas is converted to a series of hydrocarbons (alkanes, alkenes and so on) and water.
Three organizations are involved in addition to the University of Messina, Italy: Fritz-Haber-Institut der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Berlin, Germany; Université Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg, France; and University of Patras in Patras, Greece.
The ELCAT approach confines the catalyst particles within carbon nanotubes. The catalyst particles need to be quite small, due to the fact of the high number of electrons that must be transferred to generate the higher hydrocarbons. The number of electrons required is quite high—on the order of 24 for a butanol product, and an average of 46 for C8 to C9.
There is no evolution of hydrogen in this process.
The ELCAT team has found that it is possible to produce higher carbon hydrocarbons (C8 to C9), with productivity depending upon a number of factors such as catalyst, electrolyte and flow rates.
As a closing note, Prof. Centi observed that in addition to its utility on Earth, such a process would be of use for Mars missions that could use Martian resources (CO2 and water) to produce propellant for Earth return as well as life-support consumables.
Resources:
September 14, 2006 in Climate Change, Emissions, Fuels |
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/converting_co2_.html
(And from among the comments on this article – )
Posted by: Patrick | September 14, 2006 at 07:55 AM
http://www.greenshift.com/product_desc.php?mode=3
***
**
October 9, 2008 — Updated 1343 GMT (2143 HKT)
Turning carbon dioxide into fuel
* Story Highlights
* Californian company testing a revolutionary new method of recycling CO2 into fuel
* Carbon Sciences using biocatalyst technology to transform CO2 into fuel efficiently
* Technology could reduce the millions of tons of CO2 emitted by the energy sector
By Matthew Knight
For CNN
LONDON, England (CNN) — You might have thought that recycling is limited to paper, plastics and glass. Well, think again. A Californian company is developing a new technique for recycling carbon dioxide, or CO2, and turning it back into fuel.
Carbon Sciences are developing a “breakthrough technology” to make fuel out of waste CO2.
Carbon Sciences are developing a “breakthrough technology” to make fuel out of waste CO2.
more photos »
Carbon Sciences believe they have made a breakthrough with their technology, which they say can transform CO2 back into basic fuel building blocks efficiently.
Their biocatalytic process converts CO2 into basic hydrocarbons – C1 (methane) C2 (ethane) and C3 (propane) — which can then be utilized to make higher-grade fuels like gasoline and jet fuel.
“We are very excited by what we’ve seen in the lab. We’ve had some promising results,” Derek McLeish, President and CEO of the Santa Barbara-based company, told CNN.
By employing biocatalysis — using natural catalysts to perform chemical reactions — Carbon Sciences hope to bypass the problem of inefficient energy ratios which can render many CO2 recycling projects pointless.
“We don’t use high temperatures or high pressures, which is a huge advantage in terms of scaling the project up,” McLeish said.
In the future, McLeish envisages Carbon Sciences setting up shop next door to large CO2 emitters — coal, gas-fired plants and oil refineries — recycling concentrated streams of CO2 discharged from fossil fuel plants. Trying to take CO2 out of natural air just wouldn’t be worth it.
Don’t Miss
* Principal Voices: Cleaner coal trial underway
* Principal Voices: Dreaming of a climate bailout
* Principal Voices: Sowing the seas
“The beauty of this system is the whole infrastructure to distribute, to market and to use it is already in place,” he said.
The recycling process has five main stages. After rudimentary purification and regeneration of the biocatalysts, the CO2 is transferred to a Biocatalytic Reactor Matrix where mass quantities of biocatalysts function in a matrix of liquid reaction chambers breaking down CO2 and turning it into hydrocarbons.
Liquids are then filtered and gases are extracted through condensers ready for conversion to higher grade fuel.
Carbon Sciences are just one of many companies all over the world who are beavering away trying to find effective methods of renewing CO2. The science is well known, but practical energy effective devices are in short supply.
Scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico are exploring the idea of using concentrated solar energy to turn CO2 into fuel. The Sunshine to Petrol project is testing a prototype device called the Counter Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator (called CR5 for short) which turns CO2 into carbon monoxide which could then form part of a liquid fuel.
Others, like Michael North, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Newcastle University in the UK, are looking at transforming CO2 into useful chemical compounds called cyclic carbonates for industrial use.
Professor North says recycling CO2 may be more vital for the chemical industries than for fuel production.
“People don’t seem to realize that ten percent of everything that comes out of an oil well doesn’t go to the fuel industry, it drives the chemical industry. So not only are we facing a fuel crisis but the entire chemical industry is likely to cease to exist. So we desperately need to find ways of making basic chemical materials out of CO2 to keep the chemical industries ticking over.
Professor North and his team are currently in discussions with some potential investors. He believes that Carbon Sciences’ program sounds feasible.
“They will need to address issues about how long the biocatalysts are active for before they need replacing. If they only work for a day then you are going to be getting through tons and tons of biocatalyst for each ton of CO2.
“Biocatalyst life span and poisoning — by things like nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and other impurities – will be the issues determining how feasible it is and how cost effective it is,” he said.
While McLeish doesn’t envisage his biocatalytic technology being able to service the fuel needs of all motorists, he is confident that it can perform profitably on a smaller scale.
“Transportation uses transportable fuels. We need renewables — wind, tidal — but these are not useable in the transport sector. One of the challenges in the future will be transportation,” he said. “The grand vision here is to take waste, build it into a portable fuel and make it useful.”
McLeish recently presented his ideas to a climate conference at Cambridge University in the UK where they were warmly received. And if all goes to plan the company will start a pilot project in 2009.
The conference also gave him the opportunity to promote another Carbon Sciences venture: turning CO2 into precipitated calcium carbonate. Like Professor North, his target is the industrial sector; in particular the paper, plastics and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Another potential benefit of recycling CO2 will be the reduction of large scale geosequestration.
The problem of rising CO2 emissions was highlighted again recently with the publication of the Global Carbon Project’s Carbon Budget 2007. Concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have risen to 383 parts per million. A rise of 2.2 ppm on 2006 figures.
Of 28 billion metric tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere, fossil fuel emissions accounted for almost a third.
Although some climate critics might scoff at the idea of recycling CO2 arguing that we should be emitting less rather than recycling a pollutant, reusing it may well prove effective in kick-starting a new carbon market, as well as helping clean up our increasingly polluted planet.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/08/co2.fuel/index.html
***
Australasia’s premier Trade Fair & Conference for carbon market participants & service providers will be this year’s best opportunity to network with key domestic and international carbon market players, and to develop the strategies ahead of the introduction of Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to minimise costs and maximise benefits associated with emissions trading
The event is to be hosted by leading carbon market industry associations
Environment Business Australia | Asia-Pacific Emissions Trading Forum
<!– Queensland Government –> Business Gold Coast | Queensland Government
http://www.carbonexpo.com.au/?gclid=CNWvyefEtZ0CFZI52godIw-E_A
***
As of March 2009, carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.[update][1]
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared.
Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 atmospheres. At 1 atmosphere (near mean sea level pressure), the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below −78 °C and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above −78 °C. In its solid state, carbon dioxide is commonly called dry ice.
[etc.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
***
Candlestick Rocket ShipThe high-tech rocket fuels of the future could be made from a surprisingly low-tech material: candle wax! |
Listen to this story via streaming audio, a downloadable file, or get help.
January 29, 2003: Waiting inside his Mercury capsule for the command that would start the countdown and make him the first American in space, Alan Shepard yelled impatiently, “Let’s light this candle!” Those words may turn out to be more prophetic than Shepard intended. Since 2001, NASA’s Ames Research Center has been testing a new rocket fuel made from–believe it or not–candle wax. Right: A material in household candles, paraffin, could become the environmentally friendly rocket fuel of the future. Image copyright © 2003 Comstock, Inc., all rights reserved. “We actually ordered the wax for our test firings through a commercial Web site that sells candle wax in bulk,” says Arif Karabeyoglu, who developed the theory behind paraffin-based rocket fuels and is currently a research associate at Stanford University. “We use the exact same wax found in ‘hurricane’ candles,” he says.
Safer to handle and better for the environment than today’s solid rocket fuels, this modern twist on an ancient fuel could someday propel sounding rockets and commercial-payload rockets into space. It could even form the heart of a new generation of shuttle solid rocket boosters (SRBs) that would have a key safety feature today’s SRBs lack: an “off” switch. This may seem a shockingly primitive fuel for 21st Century rocket technology. After all, humans have been burning candles (today often made of “paraffin” wax) for the last five millennia. Why didn’t someone think of using it for rockets before? As anyone who’s lit a candle knows, paraffin normally burns quite calmly, and it’s difficult to make it burn at all without a wick. By all appearances, it just wasn’t the kind of high-powered, explosive fuel needed to blast a rocket off of the planet! Working in collaboration with David Altman, currently president of Space Propulsion Group, and Brian Cantwell, a professor at Stanford, Karabeyoglu figured out a way to make paraffin burn three times faster than had ever been achieved before–fast enough to serve as rocket fuel. In their design, the paraffin burns in the presence of pure oxygen gas. This alone causes it to burn much hotter than it does in air, which is only about 21% oxygen. That much had been done before. Karabeyoglu’s innovation was to blow the oxygen past the melted surface of the paraffin fast enough to “whip up” this surface, like the ocean’s choppy surface on a windy day. The “sea spray” of paraffin droplets that this kicks up burns very rapidly, tripling the combustion rate of the fuel. Above: That’s no candle flame! This test of the paraffin-based fuel was conducted at NASA’s Ames Research Center. Image courtesy NASA. More than 40 test firings by the Stanford-Ames collaborative project have shown that the idea works as advertised. That’s good news for the rocket industry, because this paraffin fuel would be much simpler and safer to work with than the toxic, explosive fuels used today. Just think of a household candle. You can safely carve it, melt it, and mold it. If it’s free from artificial colors or perfumes, you could even lick it or chew on it. You could burn dozens of them in a room with no fear of toxic gases making you sick. Don’t try any of these things with conventional solid rocket fuels! One reason for the benign nature of candle wax is that the oxidizer needed for it to burn is separate from the wax itself: air in the case of candles, and pure oxygen for rockets. (Chemically speaking, combustion is the rapid “oxidation” of the fuel, usually by combining with the oxygen gas in the air. That’s why fires go out when deprived of air.) This kind of rocket with a solid fuel and a separate gaseous or liquid oxidizer is called a “hybrid” rocket. In contrast, today’s solid-fuel rockets use solid materials such as perchlorate compounds as oxidizers, and the fuel and oxidizer are mixed together before being packed into the rocket. In other words, the fuel is “charged” and ready to explode … not a friendly material to work with. It’s not friendly for the environment either. When today’s solid fuels burn, they produce the acidic compound hydrogen chloride and other noxious chemicals. When it rains, these compounds find their way into lakes and soils, and the increased acidity can harm plant and animal life. Paraffin, in contrast, burns cleanly. The only gases left behind are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Rocket launches are still so rare that the total pollution they emit is tiny compared to that from cars, airplanes, and coal-fired power plants. But in the future, as more countries and private companies begin launching people and payloads into space, clean-burning rocket fuels will become an increasingly important environmental issue. Above: The space shuttle Columbia (STS-107) leaves Earth on Jan. 16, 2003. Photo credit and copyright: Becky Ramotowski. Using hybrid rockets would make all these rocket launches a bit safer as well. By controlling the flow of the oxidizing gas, “hybrid rockets … can be throttled over a wide range, including shut-down and restart,” Cantwell said in a prepared statement. “That’s one reason why they could be considered as possible replacements for the shuttle’s current solid rocket boosters that cannot be shut off after they are lit.” “A hybrid rocket equivalent to the space shuttle’s solid rockets would be about the same diameter, but would be somewhat longer,” Cantwell continues. “One design concept being considered is a new hybrid booster rocket that is able to fly back to the launch site for recharging,” he says, which would save considerable cost and time in preparing the boosters for the next launch. Left: NASA and Stanford scientists and engineers work on the testing rig for the new paraffin-based solid rocket fuel. Pictured are (clockwise from bottom-left): Brian Cantwell, Arif Karabeyoglu, Shane De’Zilwa, Rusty Hunt, Dave Yaste, Kent Shiffer, Greg Zilliac. Image courtesy NASA. However, we won’t be seeing paraffin-based shuttle SRBs for many years to come, if ever, Karabeyoglu says. The technology is still in the demonstration phase, and would likely be used for years on smaller rockets before being considered for NASA’s flagship launch vehicle. But if the tests continue to go well, the launch director at Mission Control may one day mean it quite literally when she or he says, “All right, enough waiting around … let’s light this candle!” |
Credits & Contacts Author: Patrick L. Barry Responsible NASA official: John M. Horack |
Production Editor: Dr. Tony Phillips Curator: Bryan Walls Media Relations: Steve Roy |
The Science and Technology Directorate at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center sponsors the Science@NASA web sites. The mission of Science@NASA is to help the public understand how exciting NASA research is and to help NASA scientists fulfill their outreach responsibilities. |
Web Links |
NASA Ames Research Center — home page
Paraffin fuel press release — more information about this new rocket fuel, from Ames Paraffin rocket fuel research at Stanford — abstracts from research papers Classroom paraffin combustion experiment — from Louisiana State University, a step-by-step classroom exercise to determine the heat of combustion of paraffin. Also, an alternate procedure is available here. How a solid propellant rocket works — from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Shuttle SRBs — facts about the space shuttle’s current solid rocket boosters Composition of fuel for shuttle solid rocket boosters: (from Kennedy Space Center) “The oxidizer in the Shuttle solids is ammonium perchlorate, which forms 69.93 percent of the mixture. The fuel is a form of powdered aluminum (16 percent), with an iron oxidizer powder (0.07) as a catalyst. The binder that holds the mixture together is polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonitrile (12.04 percent). In addition, the mixture contains an epoxy-curing agent (1.96 percent). The binder and epoxy also burn as fuel, adding thrust.” Houston, are we there yet? — (Science@NASA) NASA is developing a variety of new safe and fast technologies to ropel explorers across the solar system. |
Join our growing list of subscribers – sign up for our express news delivery and you will receive a mail message every time we post a new story!!! More Headlines THE END |
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/28jan_envirorocket.htm
***
Gravity and Black Holes
Curriculum Guide
|
Select Section Overview The Mission 5-8: Goals & Objectives 5-8: Learning Standards 5-8: Guiding Questions 5-8: Content Resource Document 9-12: Goals & Objectives 9-12: Learning Standards 9-12: Guiding Questions 9-12: Content Resource Document References Annotated References <input type=”SUBMIT” value=”Go There!”>
|
PURPOSE:
This activity will demonstrate Newton’s Laws of Motion through carbon dioxide powered rockets.
OBJECTIVE:
• Students will articulate that force is a push or pull on an object.
• Students will describe Newton’s Laws using mathematical expressions and give examples that relate to everyday situations as well as locations near black holes.
INTENDED AUDIENCE:
9th-12th grade
TIME REQUIRED:
2 hours
MATERIALS:
• 1 or 2 Film canisters per small group (with lids that attach on the inside of the canister, e.g. Fuji canisters)
• 1/2 Effervescing antacid tablet per rocket launch
• Paper rocket template
• Various types of paper (computer, cardboard, tracing, typing etc.)
• Scissors
• Tape
• Eye protection
• Water
• A plate to control the liquid from the rocket
• Paper towels
• Meter sticks and quadrant to measure height of launch
• How High worksheet
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The rockets the class will create will be using a chemical reaction of the antacid and water, producing CO2. The CO2 will be contained in the film canister where the pressure will build up forcing the cap off the canister (the action) which results in the paper rocket shooting up in the opposite direction (the reaction). The template allows for parts of the rocket to be altered and tested. The alterations will allow students to understand that mass, weight, gravity, and amount of fuel affects actions and reactions. The heavier the rocket, the shorter the distance it will climb. The more massive the object, the more work is needed to imbalance the force of gravity, and therefore, the more fuel is needed. Students could write hypotheses based upon Newton’s Third Law and proceed from there, or the Law could be left for them to “discover”.
PREPARATION:
Constructing the Rocket:
• Cut out the template.
• Wrap the long paper around the film canister, canister top facing towards the floor, and tape the paper rocket together. Do not tape the paper to the canister before wrapping around!
• Form the cone and tape to top of body tube.
• Finish with taping the fins to the base of the body, with the right angle of the fin perpendicular with the base of the rocket.
• Tape 1/2 effervescent tablet to top of film canister.
• Fill film canister 1/2 full with water and place in the bottom of the rocket.
• Fit the lid on the canister and flip it over, standing the rocket on the base, with the top of the canister facing the floor. This will allow for the water and antacid to mix, creating CO2. The CO2 will create pressure inside the tube and shoot the rocket.
Preparing Data:
You may want to have a set of control data ready, from several launches with no variables changed. This can serve for comparison for the students’ findings
PROCEDURE:
1. Define Newton’s Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
2. Discuss how rockets demonstrate this Law of Motion. As the fuel in a rocket is ignited, pressure builds up within the fuel tank and the thrust from the escaping fuel leads to an imbalance of forces. An imbalance of forces causes an action. The action is the burnt fuel pushing out of the rocket toward the ground and the reaction is the rocket being pushed in the opposite direction.
3. Have students work in small groups to test various changes with the rockets. Suggested strategies for student working groups:
• Strategy 1
Assign each group a variable to alter and observe.
Have students make rockets adapting the design above. For example, one group can test how the weight of the paper that the rocket is made from affects the outcome of launch. Another may test the difference between having fins and not having fins on a rocket.
Pose the question “Which is more beneficial and why?”
Have the groups use the scientific method to write a hypothesis, test it, and draw a conclusion. Each group of students should tabulate and graph their data to aid them in drawing conclusions.
As a class, compile a set of data, and discuss what variables were tested and how they altered the action or the reaction of the experiment. Also, you could discuss the importance of doing many trials and finding an average and noting their sources of error.
• Strategy 2
– Discuss with the class the variables in the rocket that may be altered for testing.
– Challenge the small groups to test the variables to find what will allow the rocket to go the highest. They can use the quadrants found at the end of this lesson to find the height for each trial.
– Make the students responsible for supporting their findings and relating them to the action or reaction component of the launch. For example, if the fins are taken away, does it affect the action or the reaction of the rocket?
– As a class, discuss the groups’ findings and decide what makes the rocket the most successful.
EVALUATION:
Have the students write a conclusion about the design variables within the demonstration of Newton’s Third Law of Motion. What were their findings, and how can they apply them to real life situations? Their conclusions should be supported by graphical evidence.
RESOURCES:
For an extension check out Rockets Away.
“Make a Pop Rocket” http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/rocket.htm.
Also check out NASA’s Teacher’s Guide to Rockets PDF: http://spacelink.nasa.gov/Instructional.Materials/NASA.Educational.Products/Rockets/Rockets.pdf
[from – ]
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/education/resources/gravity/9-12_gq2-2.shtml
***
Carbon dioxide is used by the food industry, the oil industry, and the chemical industry.[11] It is used in many consumer products that require pressurized gas because it is inexpensive and nonflammable, and because it undergoes a phase transition from gas to liquid at room temperature at an attainable pressure of approximately 60 bar (870 psi, 59 atm), allowing far more carbon dioxide to fit in a given container than otherwise would. Life jackets often contain canisters of pressured carbon dioxide for quick inflation. Aluminum capsules are also sold as supplies of compressed gas for airguns, paintball markers, for inflating bicycle tires, and for making seltzer. Rapid vaporization of liquid carbon dioxide is used for blasting in coal mines. High concentrations of carbon dioxide can also be used to kill pests, such as the Common Clothes Moth.
Carbon dioxide is produced mainly from six processes:[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
***
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmeCX4xcFjM
***
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Manufacturers of Plasma Powder welding machines (PTA), Hardbanding machines, Column and Boom, Welding positioners and Rotators, Plasma torches & consumables – Welding Inverters, Plasma Cutting Machines, Micro-Tig Welding Machines, Micro Plasma Welding Machines, AC Welding Machines, Mig welding Machines, Shape Cutting Machines, Special Purpose Machines for hardfacing and cladding.
Advantages of Plasma Welding
http://www.arcraftplasma.com/welding/plasma-welding.htm
***
Introduction:
Plasma welding a modern high quality welding process which is very similar to TIG as the arc is formed between a pointed tungsten electrode and the workpiece. Plasma welding has greater energy concentration and can permit higher welding speeds or less distortion. Additionally plasma welding greater torch standoff. Plasma welding also has improved arc stability. Out of position welding is simpler with plasma welding.
WHAT IS PLASMA?
Plasma is commonly known as fourth state of matter after solid, liquid and gas. This is an extremely hot substance which consists of free electrons, positive ions, atoms and molecules. It conducts electricity.
How it works:
By positioning the electrode within the body of the torch, the plasma arc can be separated from the shielding gas envelope. Plasma is then forced through a fine-bore copper nozzle which constricts the arc. There are three operating modes which can be produced by varying bore diameter and plasma gas flow rate:
•Microplasma: 0.1 to 15A.
•Medium current: 15 to 200A.
•Keyhole plasma: over 100A.
The plasma arc is usually operated with a DC, drooping characteristic power source. Because its unique operating features are results of the special torch arrangement and separate plasma and shielding gas flows, a plasma control console can be added on to a normal TIG power source. Full plasma systems are also available. The plasma arc is not stabilised with sine wave AC. Arc reignition is difficult when there is a long electrode to workpiece distance and the plasma is constricted, extreme heating of the electrode during the positive half-cycle causes balling of the tip which can disturb arc stability. Special-purpose switched DC power sources are available. By misbalancing the waveform to reduce the duration of electrode positive polarity, the electrode is kept passably cool to maintain a pointed tip and achieve arc stability.
Although the arc is initiated using HF, it is first formed between the electrode and plasma nozzle. This ‘pilot’ arc is held within the body of the torch until required for welding then it is transferred to the workpiece. The pilot arc system ensures dependable arc starting and, as the pilot arc is maintained between welds, it obtains the need for HF which may cause electrical interference.
Electrode
The electrode used for the plasma process is tungsten-2%thoria and the plasma nozzle is copper. The electrode tip diameter is not as critical as for TIG and should be maintained at around 30-60 degrees. The plasma nozzle bore diameter is critical and too small a bore diameter for the current level and plasma gas flow rate will lead to excessive nozzle erosion or even melting. Large bore diameter should be carefully used for the operating current level.
Because too large a bore diameter, may give problems with arc stability and maintaining a keyhole.
Plasma and shielding gases
The normal combination of gases is argon for the plasma gas, with argon plus 2 to 5% hydrogen for the shielding gas. Helium can be used for plasma gas but because it is hotter this reduces the current rating of the nozzle. Helium’s lower mass can also make the keyhole mode more difficult.
Applications:
Microplasma welding:
Microplasma was traditionally used for welding thin sheets (down to 0.1 mm thickness), and wire and mesh sections. The needle-like stiff arc minimises arc wander and distortion. Although the alike TIG arc is widely used, the newer transistorised (TIG) power sources can produce a very stable arc at low current levels.
Medium current welding:
When used in the melt mode this is a substitute to normal TIG.
The advantages are:
1-Deeper penetration (from higher plasma gas flow).
2-Greater tolerance to surface contamination including coatings (the electrode is within the body of the torch).
The major disadvantage lies in the bulkiness of the torch, making manual welding more difficult. In mechanised welding, greater attention must be paid to maintenance of the torch to ensure consistent performance.
Keyhole welding:
This has several advantages which can be exploited: deep penetration and high welding speeds. Compared with the TIG arc, it can penetrate plate thicknesses up to l0mm, but when welding using a single pass technique, it is more usual to limit the thickness to 6mm. The normal methods is to use the keyhole mode with filler to ensure smooth weld bead profile (with no undercut). For thicknesses up to 15mm, a vee joint preparation is used with a 6mm root face. A two-pass technique is employed and here, the first pass is autogenous with the second pass being made in melt mode with filler wire addition.
As the welding parameters, plasma gas flow rate and filler wire addition (into the keyhole) must be carefully balanced to maintain the keyhole and weld pool stability, this technique is only suitable for mechanised welding. Although it can be used for positional welding, usually with current pulsing, it is normally applied in high speed welding of thicker sheet material (over 3 mm) in the flat position. When pipe welding, the slope-out of current and plasma gas flow must be carefully controlled to close the keyhole without leaving a hole.
http://physicsnobelprize.net/plasma.html
***
Plasma arc welding (PAW) is an arc welding process similar to gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW). The electric arc is formed between an electrode (which is usually but not always made of sintered tungsten) and the workpiece. The key difference from GTAW is that in PAW, by positioning the electrode within the body of the torch, the plasma arc can be separated from the shielding gas envelope.
The plasma is then forced through a fine-bore copper nozzle which constricts the arc and the plasma exits the orifice at high velocities (approaching the speed of sound) and a temperature approaching 20,000 °C.
Plasma arc welding is an advancement over the GTAW process. This process uses a non-consumable tungsten electrode and an arc constricted through a fine-bore copper nozzle. PAW can be used to join all metals that are weldable with GTAW (i.e., most commercial metals and alloys). Several basic PAW process variations are possible by varying the current, plasma gas flow rate, and the orifice diameter, including:
Contents |
// <![CDATA[
//
At least two separate (and possibly three) flows of gas are used in PAW:
These gases can all be same, or of differing composition.
The parts are usually of conductive metals and alloys ranging from 3 mm in thickness to .25 in in thickness. Anything less than the 3 mm may fail due to lack of material and anything more than .25 in. in thickness may experience a failure due to an instability within the weld.
Depending upon the design of the torch (e.g., orifice diameter), electrode design, gas type and velocities, and the current levels, several variations of the plasma process are achievable, including:
When used for cutting, the plasma gas flow is increased so that the deeply penetrating plasma jet cuts through the material and molten material is removed as cutting dross. PAC differs from oxy-fuel cutting in that the plasma process operates by using the arc to melt the metal whereas in the oxy-fuel process, the oxygen oxidizes the metal and the heat from the exothermic reaction melts the metal. Unlike oxy-fuel cutting, the PAC process can be applied to cutting metals which form refractory oxides such as stainless steel, cast iron, aluminum, and other non-ferrous alloys. Since PAC was introduced by Praxair Inc. at the American Welding Society show in 1954, many process refinements, gas developments, and equipment improvements have occurred.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_welding
***
[Excerpt from the above article – ]
The plasma is then forced through a fine-bore copper nozzle which constricts the arc and the plasma exits the orifice at high velocities (approaching the speed of sound) and a temperature approaching 20,000 °C.
****
Among the used of CO2 in the wikipedia entry –
Carbon dioxide is one of the most commonly used compressed gases for pneumatic (pressurized gas) systems in portable pressure tools and combat robots.
Carbon dioxide extinguishes flames, and some fire extinguishers, especially those designed for electrical fires, contain liquid carbon dioxide under pressure. Carbon dioxide has also been widely used as an extinguishing agent in fixed fire protection systems for total flooding of a protected space, (National Fire Protection Association Code 12). International Maritime Organisation standards also recognise carbon dioxide systems for fire protection of ship holds and engine rooms. Carbon dioxide based fire protection systems have been linked to several deaths. A review of CO2 systems (Carbon Dioxide as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risks, US EPA) identified 51 incidents between 1975 and the date of the report, causing 72 deaths and 145 injuries.
Carbon dioxide also finds use as an atmosphere for welding, although in the welding arc, it reacts to oxidize most metals. Use in the automotive industry is common despite significant evidence that welds made in carbon dioxide are more brittle than those made in more inert atmospheres, and that such weld joints deteriorate over time because of the formation of carbonic acid. It is used as a welding gas primarily because it is much less expensive than more inert gases such as argon or helium.
Liquid carbon dioxide is a good solvent for many lipophilic organic compounds, and is used to remove caffeine from coffee. First, the green coffee beans are soaked in water. The beans are placed in the top of a column seventy feet (21 m) high. Then supercritical carbon dioxide in fluid form at about 93 degrees Celsius enters at the bottom of the column. The caffeine diffuses out of the beans and into the carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide has begun to attract attention in the pharmaceutical and other chemical processing industries as a less toxic alternative to more traditional solvents such as organochlorides. It’s used by some dry cleaners for this reason. (See green chemistry.)
In the chemical industry, carbon dioxide is used for the production of urea, carbonates and bicarbonates, and sodium salicylate.
Plants require carbon dioxide to conduct photosynthesis. Greenhouses may (and of large size – must) enrich their atmospheres with additional CO2 to sustain plant life and growth. A photosynthesis-related drop (by a factor less than two) in carbon dioxide concentration in a greenhouse compartment would kill green plants, or, at least, completely stop their growth. At very high concentrations (a factor of 100 or more higher than its atmospheric concentration), carbon dioxide can be toxic to animal life, so raising the concentration to 10,000 ppm (1%) or higher for several hours will eliminate pests such as whiteflies and spider mites in a greenhouse.[12]
It has been proposed that carbon dioxide from power generation be bubbled into ponds to grow algae that could then be converted into biodiesel fuel.[13] Carbon dioxide is already increasingly used in greenhouses as the main carbon source for Spirulina algae. In medicine, up to 5% carbon dioxide (130 times the atmospheric concentration) is added to pure oxygen for stimulation of breathing after apnea and to stabilize the O2/CO2 balance in blood.
A common type of industrial gas laser is the carbon dioxide laser.
Carbon dioxide can also be combined with limonene oxide from orange peels or other epoxides to create polymers and plastics.[14]
Carbon dioxide is used in enhanced oil recovery where it is injected into or adjacent to producing oil wells, usually under supercritical conditions. It acts as both a pressurizing agent and, when dissolved into the underground crude oil, significantly reduces its viscosity, enabling the oil to flow more rapidly through the earth to the removal well.[15] In mature oil fields, extensive pipe networks are used to carry the carbon dioxide to the injection points.
Liquid and solid carbon dioxide are important refrigerants, especially in the food industry, where they are employed during the transportation and storage of ice cream and other frozen foods. Solid carbon dioxide is called “dry ice” and is used for small shipments where refrigeration equipment is not practical.
Liquid carbon dioxide (industry nomenclature R744 or R-744) was used as a refrigerant prior to the discovery of R-12 and is likely to enjoy a renaissance due to environmental concerns. Its physical properties are highly favorable for cooling, refrigeration, and heating purposes, having a high volumetric cooling capacity. Due to its operation at pressures of up to 130 bars, CO2 systems require highly resistant components that have already been developed for mass production in many sectors.
In automobile air conditioning, in more than 90% of all driving conditions for latitudes higher than 50°, R744 operates more efficiently than systems using R-134a. Its environmental advantages (GWP of 1, non-ozone depleting, non-toxic, non-flammable) could make it the future working fluid to replace current HFCs in cars, supermarkets, hot water heat pumps, among others. Some applications: Coca-Cola has fielded CO2-based beverage coolers and the U.S. Army is interested in CO2 refrigeration and heating technology.[16][17]
By the end of 2007, the global automobile industry is expected to decide on the next-generation refrigerant in car air conditioning. CO2 is one discussed option.(see The Cool War)
In enhanced coal bed methane recovery, carbon dioxide is pumped into the coal seam to displace methane.[18]
Carbon dioxide in the form of dry ice is often used in the wine making process to cool down bunches of grapes quickly after picking to help prevent spontaneous fermentation by wild yeasts. The main advantage of using dry ice over regular water ice is that it cools the grapes without adding any additional water that may decrease the sugar concentration in the grape must, and therefore also decrease the alcohol concentration in the finished wine.
Dry ice is also used during the cold soak phase of the wine making process to keep grapes cool. The carbon dioxide gas that results from the sublimation of the dry ice tends to settle to the bottom of tanks because it is heavier than regular air. The settled carbon dioxide gas creates an hypoxic environment which helps to prevent bacteria from growing on the grapes until it is time to start the fermentation with the desired strain of yeast.
Carbon dioxide is also used to create a hypoxic environment for carbonic maceration, the process used to produce Beaujolais wine.
Carbon dioxide is sometimes used to top up wine bottles or other storage vessels such as barrels to prevent oxidation, though it has the problem that it can dissolve into the wine, making a previously still wine slightly fizzy. For this reason, other gasses such as nitrogen or argon are preferred for this process by professional wine makers.
Carbon dioxide can be used as a mean of controlling the pH of swimming pools, by continuously adding gas to the water, thus keeping the pH level from rising. Among the advantages of this is the avoidance of handling (more hazardous) acids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
***
Liquid carbon dioxide (industry nomenclature R744 or R-744) was used as a refrigerant prior to the discovery of R-12 and is likely to enjoy a renaissance due to environmental concerns. Its physical properties are highly favorable for cooling, refrigeration, and heating purposes, having a high volumetric cooling capacity. Due to its operation at pressures of up to 130 bars, CO2 systems require highly resistant components that have already been developed for mass production in many sectors.
[excerpt from above]
***
Laser Welding |
||
Laser beam Welding | Electron Beam Welding | Plasma Arc Welding |
Electron Beam Welding:
Introduction:
How it works:
Beam Delivery: Lower Column
Two welding modes are used in the (EBW):
Advantages: |
www.forexhandel.info; Heizkörper bei www.raatschen-shop.de; derbi 50; Muskelaufbau; Kinderwagen; Immobilien Trier; Chiptuning; Reisetaschen; avapro european visa
http://physicsnobelprize.net/ebw.html
***
Moving Atoms
Watching researchers move atoms can be an unsettling yet wonderful experience: It’s hard to conceive that humans can manipulate things so small that they can barely be called “things.”
But the work environment is quite a bit more prosaic. Today IBM researchers working on atomic science are housed in a cramped room noticeably lacking in flat-panel displays and personal supercomputers. Instead they hunch over a PC running Pentium processors that were popular in the late 1990s. The computer controls a multimillion dollar scanning tunneling microscope and moves its tip around.
Following the fuzzy, pixelized graphics on the monitor that shows the atoms, researchers can zero in on one individual atom, pick it up and drop it in a different location. It’s an experience that has what Eigler calls the “boggle factor.”
“What hits you is the enormity of what you are doing in terms of building at an atomic scale,” says Eigler in this video. “It’s so far from what we could have conceived many years ago.”
IBM spelled by positioning 35 Xenon Atoms.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/gallery-atomic-science/2/
[excerpt from – ]
***
20 Years of Moving Atoms, One by One
* By Priya Ganapati Email Author
* September 30, 2009 |
* 8:31 pm |
* Categories: R&D and Inventions
*
<< previous image | next image >>
Sometimes genius looks like an elegant equation written in chalk on a blackboard. Sometimes it’s a hodgepodge of wires, canisters and aluminum-foil-wrapped hoses, all held together by shiny bolts.
Despite its homebrew appearance, this device, a scanning tunneling microscope, is one of the most extraordinary lab instruments of the last three decades. It can pick up individual atoms one by one and move them around to create supersmall structures, a fundamental requirement for nanotechnology.
Twenty years ago this week, on Sept. 28, 1989, an IBM physicist, Don Eigler, became the first person to manipulate and position individual atoms. Less than two months later, he arranged 35 Xenon atoms to spell out the letters IBM. Writing those three characters took about 22 hours. Today, the process would take about 15 minutes.
“We wanted to show we could position atoms in a way that’s very similar to how a child builds with Lego blocks,” says Eigler, who works at IBM’s Almaden Research Center. “You take the blocks where you want them to go.”
Eigler’s breakthrough has big implications for computer science. For instance, researchers are looking to build smaller and smaller electronic devices. They hope, someday, to engineer these devices from the ground up, on a nanometer scale.
“The ability to manipulate atoms, build structures of our own, design and explore their functionality has changed people’s outlook in many ways,” says Eigler. “It has been identified as one of the starting moments of nanotech because of the access it gave us to atoms, even though no product has comes out of it.”
On the 20th anniversary of Eigler’s achievement, we look at the science, art and implications of moving individual atoms.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
atomic_science_1a.jpg
atomic_science_1a_t.jpg
atomic_science_2a.jpg
atomic_science_2a_t.jpg
atomic_science_3a.jpg
atomic_science_3a_t.jpg
atomic_science_4a_t.jpg
atomic_science_5a_t.jpg
atomic_science_6a.jpg
atomic_science_6a_t.jpg
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/gallery-atomic-science/
atomic_science_2a.jpg
Moving Atoms
Watching researchers move atoms can be an unsettling yet wonderful experience: It’s hard to conceive that humans can manipulate things so small that they can barely be called “things.”
But the work environment is quite a bit more prosaic. Today IBM researchers working on atomic science are housed in a cramped room noticeably lacking in flat-panel displays and personal supercomputers. Instead they hunch over a PC running Pentium processors that were popular in the late 1990s. The computer controls a multimillion dollar scanning tunneling microscope and moves its tip around.
Following the fuzzy, pixelized graphics on the monitor that shows the atoms, researchers can zero in on one individual atom, pick it up and drop it in a different location. It’s an experience that has what Eigler calls the “boggle factor.”
“What hits you is the enormity of what you are doing in terms of building at an atomic scale,” says Eigler in this video. “It’s so far from what we could have conceived many years ago.”
IBM spelled by positioning 35 Xenon Atoms.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/gallery-atomic-science/2/
atomic_science_3a.jpg
Scanning Tunneling Microscope
At the heart of the atomic experiments is the scanning tunneling microscope that can not only take pictures of individual atoms but also build new structures using those atoms. Two IBM scientists at the company’s Zurich lab, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer, created the first tunneling microscope in 1981. Six years later, the inventors won a Nobel Prize.
Here’s how it works. The microscope has a fine tip so sharp that it is just one of two atoms at the point. The tip is brought very near to the surface of a sample. An applied voltage will cause electrons to “tunnel” between the surface and the tip. That means the electrons move beyond the surface of the solid into a short region in space above it. Meanwhile, the tip slowly scans the surface of the sample at a distance equal to the diameter of a single atom. Through the scanning process, the tip maintains the same distance and helps draw a profile of the surface. A computer-generated contour map shows the atomic detail.
When the tip is brought close enough to the sample surface, a strong attractive force is present that can pick up an electron from the surface. To deposit it in another region of the sample, a repulsive force between the tip and the atom is generated.
Eigler built a specialized version of this microscope. His STM allows samples to be prepared and studied in an ultrahigh vacuum and at the temperature of liquid helium, which is just four degrees above absolute zero, or -459 degrees Fahrenheit. The low temperature keeps atoms from flying off the copper surface within the microscope.
“Physicists have to do experiments that require design and building of entirely new instrumentation, something that never exists before,” says Eigler. “It’s part of their training.”
Eigler built the first version of the microscope in about 14 months. “The actual microscope that moves the atoms is not very much larger; it can fit into the palm of the hand,” he says. “But it seems like a big machine because of everything else that was required to maintain very low vibration, high vacuum and excellent electronics to move the atoms.”
Nobel laureates Heinrich Rohrer (left) and Gerd Binnig (right) of IBM’s Zurich Research Laboratory are shown here in 1981 with a first-generation scanning tunneling microscope.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Tags: atoms, electron microscopes, IBM, microscopes
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/gallery-atomic-science/3/
atomic_science_4a.jpg
Fun With Single Atoms
Once IBM researchers had the ability to position individual atoms, they had some fun. In 1993, they spelled the Kanji characters for the word atom using iron atoms on a copper surface.
Researchers found it to be so much fun that they started leaving messages for their fellow scientists in the lab STM notebook. Mornings would bring a new figure drawn with manipulated atoms. In one case, a scientist manipulated carbon monoxide on a platinum surface, creating a carbon monoxide man who greeted his lab mates the next morning.
In 1996, The researchers also created the world’s smallest abacus with atoms. The abacus was created out of 10 carbon atoms and was seen as a milestone in nanoscale engineering. Moving the links of the abacus wouldn’t be easy and require the scanning tunneling microscope but with enough time and patience, it could be done.
The world’s smallest abacus with atoms (left), Kanji characters for the word ‘atom’ (center) and a carbon monoxide man were some of the pictures created by moving atoms.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/gallery-atomic-science/4/
atomic_science_5a.jpg
Atomic Force Microscope
The successor to the STM is the atomic force microscope, which researchers use to measure the force needed to move individual atoms.
The atomic force microscope has a miniature “tuning fork” that measures the interaction between the tip of the microscope and the atoms on a surface. When the tip is positioned close to an atom on the surface, the frequency of the tuning fork changes slightly. This change in frequency is analyzed to determine the force exerted on the atom, which can be used for mapping the surface and moving atoms.
Eigler says the business of moving atoms around is fun and his work never gets boring.
“I have developed an unexpected affinity for some of the most common things in the world, like rocks,” he says. “The affinity comes from realizing that’s what I am — just a bunch of atoms. It’s a difficult thing to talk about and explain, but it’s a reaction that is deep, psychological and emotional.”
The atomic force microscope has a tuning fork used to measure the force required to move an atom.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Tags: atoms, electron microscopes, IBM, microscopes
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/gallery-atomic-science/5/
atomic_science_6a.jpg
Implications for Nanotechnology
In the last few years, Eigler’s group has built on his work and constructed custom molecules using the STM. They have also constructed and operated an electrical switch whose only moving part is a single atom.
In the “If you can read this, you are too close” image, the letters are just 1 nanometer wide and 1 nanometer tall.
A measure of the impact of this work is in the number of experiments and technical papers today that use atom manipulation as one of their primary scientific tools, says Eigler.
“If you think about it, this is not a manufacturing capability but a powerful technique in the laboratory,” he says. “It lets us do those experiments that give us the knowledge that we would not get otherwise.
“What’s really exciting to watch is that with every passing week, month or year we end up with new discoveries due to our abilities to work with very small structures,” says Eigler. “It’s fair to anticipate that these will have a technological impact on people’s lives very soon.”
These words were created by laying carbon monoxide molecules on a flat copper surface.
All photos courtesy IBM
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Tags: atoms, electron microscopes, IBM, microscopes
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/gallery-atomic-science/6/
****
And from my cards –
Acetylene
a colorless, poisonous, highly flammable gaseous hydrocarbon, CH:CH produced by the reaction of water and calcium carbide: it is used as the starting material in the synthesis of many organic compounds – for lighting and as a fuel with oxygen to produce a hot flame, as in a blowtorch.
and
Chlorophyll, Chlorophyl –
the green pigment found in the chloroplasts of plant cells: it occurs in two forms
10 Saturday Oct 2009
Tags
agreements of merit, International Concerns, most amazing events of the day, treaties, world peace
ZURICH, Switzerland (CNN) — Turkey and Armenia signed an agreement Saturday night intended to end nearly a century of animosity.
The signing was delayed because of Armenian objections to the wording of an oral statement to be given after the signing.
It was not immediately clear what had resolved the issue.
10 Saturday Oct 2009
Tags
Afghanistan, Afghanistan war, carrots and sticks, creative solutions, cricketdiane, Foreign policies, Iran, Iran nuclear program, negotiation, Pakistan, United States foreign policy, US Secretary of Defense, US State Department, USAID
When our foreign policy is based on carrots and sticks – it sounds like we are training donkeys or working with a stubborn, obstinate mule – or that we are trying to get a group of donkeys and mules to comprehend that they are dumb animals who have to do what we want.
If I could get any one thing out of Washington that would help the most to encourage World Peace, it would be for the “carrots and sticks” statement to never be said again, to never be used in describing foreign or domestic policies and to never be considered an adequate approach to anything that involves other people. It is disrespectful. It is arrogant. It is insulting. And, it is not descriptive of the basic principles of partnership, mutual respect and efforts that we are all making together for the world to be a better, safer place with prosperity, security, hope, democracy, equality and intellectual growth throughout the United States and across the countries of the world.
– cricketdiane, 10-10-09
***
From the book –
“Getting to Yes – Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In”
by Roger Fisher and William Ury
of the Harvard Negotiation Project
Penguin Books; New York, NY; 1981
pp. 145-146
(under the heading – )
Lock-in Tactics
This tactic is illustrated by Thomas Schelling’s well-known example of two dynamite trucks barreling toward each other on a single-lane road. The question becomes which truck goes off the road to avoid an accident. As the trucks near each other, one driver in full view of the other pulls off his steering wheel and throws it out the window. Seeing this, the other driver has a choice between an explosive crash or driving his truck off the road into a ditch. This is an example of an extreme commitment tactic designed to make it impossible to yield. Paradoxically, you strengthen your bargaining position by weakening your control over the situation. (maybe, – my note)
[ . . . ]
But lock-in tactics are gambles. You may call the other side’s bluff and force them to make a concession which they will then have to explain to their constituency.
Like threats, lock-in tactics depend on communication. If the other truck driver does not see the steering wheel fly out of the window, or if he thinks the truck has an emergency steering mechanism, the act of throwing the steering wheel out the window will not have its intended effect. The pressure to avoid a collision will be felt equally by both drivers.
(then it describes a couple of tactics that could be used in negotiations to confront this lock-in tactic – which are great but do not apply to the example cited above, – my note)
***
So, I was reading this examples to one of my daughters who is in her early twenties to describe a way of thinking about negotiating with someone that had been withholding her belongings and bullying her up in NY. She was sure that the only real solution to the two drivers was that one would yield and win by staying alive, while the other would win by forcing him or her to submit and to have yielded. But, I pointed out that there are more solutions on the menu beyond those two, where one is to crash head-long into each other or the other solution is to yield and concede in order to survive.
I pointed out to my daughter, that if it was me behind the wheel of one of those vehicles the chances are that I would be hopping into the back and throwing dynamite out of the vehicle, bracing for impact and just allow the damn thing to hit the son-of-a-bitch. Maybe . . .
And, I pointed out that if she were driving one of the vehicles, she would likely point the nose of that truck at an angle to drive the other truck off the road and down the cliff, leaving a racing stripe from the other truck down the side of hers.
And, if one of my other daughters were driving, she would probably grab one of the sticks of dynamite (or two or five or ten) – light them and hoist them at the other truck so that it would explode before it could get to her and then nudge it off the roadway and go on through – probably never missing a beat.
I think again about the choices and obviously, in that scenario talking between the drivers would not be on the list at all. But, shooting the tires out would be and putting my own truck in reverse would at least be on the menu of options at the moment I might have to consider doing something. That menu would include anything that would defuse, disarm and destroy the capacity of the other driver and the vehicles carrying dynamite from doing harm to anyone. If that means, putting it in reverse and letting the bastard push me, as the driver and my truck all the way down the mountain backwards until I could shoot or dynamite his engine block slap out of his truck – then that would be in the choices on the menu.
That is what I’m mostly trying to say, that “carrots and sticks” is not a foreign or domestic policy solution as the only choice on the menu. It just isn’t.
And, the capacity for human beings to be creative, to creatively and resourcefully problem solve, and to create new solutions which have never been developed before that moment can yield more options that could uniquely resolve those difficult foreign policy decisions we face, but only if they are allowed to be on the list.
As long as the narrow-minded and singular “carrots and sticks” answer is the solution to be followed, no other options can be motivated, can be considered, and can be utilized. And, it is increasingly arrogant and standoffish to set ourselves above every other player in the world by acting that way about it even while claiming “mutual respect” and “equality” among those players and ourselves.
It is true that systems of encouragement for the more desirable outcomes and discouragement of those things we find undesirable are one method that, while insulting to our international equals and the people they represent, has been used in a variety of settings, including foreign policy. But, it isn’t the only way to get it done. All-Win solutions can be hammered out to some extent even between players who would just prefer that the other side didn’t exist at all. It has been done. It has worked. It is another way to do it.
There will also be those that simply will not rest until somebody, some country, some people, some race or ethnic group, or something that they hate has been obliterated. Personally, I think that is a mental aberration and not negotiable. It is ignorant and psychotic. And, that is the part which needs to be fixed because negotiated settlements cannot occur successfully where ignorance and psychotically-based hatred, bigotry, prejudice and racism are setting the standards for winning in the minds of any of the parties involved. Those standards by their structure and basis are “no-win” solutions for everyone which reach far beyond the tables of negotiation.
Over the last few years, Saudi Arabia has found a way to re-program that equation by serving the extreme fundamentalists and terrorist cell members with the kind of programs used for cults, cultists, and for cult members / cult victims to be un-brainwashed and to begin healing from the cult brainwashing techniques. By doing that in a psychiatric, psychological and mental health understanding of the problem, those individuals have a chance to be co-opted into Saudi Arabian and Islamic society in productive ways. But, the idea does represent one possible solution to the problem of negotiating with those whose psychotic and often religious interpretations of their ideology leave no room for anything except obliterating everyone they hate. And, often – they hate everybody, just pick a reason.
In a way, I would like to know which simple-minded, short-sighted arrogant jackass came up with the “carrots and sticks” mentality for US foreign policy and then spread it every damn where. But, then didn’t they used to say the same things about slaves and women and blacks and Arabs and Jews and just about everybody else subordinate in their eyes due to station in life, status, financial means, education, background, race, gender, age, country of origin or whatever else? I seem to remember that in some writings prior to the Civil War among plantation owners describing to one another effective ways to get things done. And, it just never ends regardless of the reasons why one human considers themselves above others.
When I watched Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton on CNN’s Amanpour interview, I felt ashamed of our country when they started describing the “carrots and sticks” policy that our State Department, Department of Defense, USAID and other foreign policy professionals are using and intend to use on Iran and other countries in the world. I knew they had probably just never thought about it in the way I was thinking about it, but if I were in Iran or any of the other countries where the United States is trying to exert influence – I would’ve been insulted and likely, aggravated by that almost patronizing and pervasively arrogant mentality about it.
Aside from being thought of as “dumber than a mule” and as someone considered to be so far beneath them (in their estimation), I would be thinking about “who the hell do they think they are?” and of the umpteen reasons why my country stands among the highest scientific thinkers, has made the substantial contributions to mathematics, language and astronomy and why its better than anyone in the United States or in the US government knows. It would breed nothing short of contempt and derision before getting anything else done.
And, it just isn’t the only way to do it . . .
– cricketdiane, 10-11-09
***
And some of these USAID programs and funding are in need of revision for the same reasons –
This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject International Development may be able to help recruit one. (November 2008) |
United States Agency for International Development | |
---|---|
Agency overview | |
Formed | November 3, 1961 |
Preceding agency | International Cooperation Administration |
Jurisdiction | Federal government of the United States |
Headquarters | Washington, D.C. |
Employees | 1,759 (2006) |
Agency executives | Alonzo Fulgham, Acting Administrator Vacant, Deputy Administrator |
Website | |
www.usaid.gov | |
Footnotes | |
[1][2] |
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the United States federal government organization responsible for most non-military foreign aid. An independent federal agency, it receives overall foreign policy guidance from the United States Secretary of State and seeks to “extend a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to make a better life, recover from a disaster or striving to live in a free and democratic country…”[3]
USAID advances U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade; health; democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance. It provides assistance in Sub-Saharan Africa; Asia and the Near East, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, and Eurasia. USAID is organized around three main pillars: Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade; Global Health; Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance.
Contents[hide] |
// <![CDATA[
//
USAID’s origins date back to the Marshall Plan reconstruction of Europe after World War II and the Foreign Assistance Act. In 1961, an executive order established USAID by consolidating U.S. non-military foreign aid programs into a single agency. To address rising deficits, aid was tied to the purchase of U.S. goods and services, effectively subsidizing the U.S. balance of payments; for example, aid-financed commodities were required to be shipped in U.S. flagships.[4]
As a part of the U.S foreign affairs restructuring laws enacted in 1999, USAID was established as a statutorily independent agency, as 5 U.S.C. § 104 defines independent establishment.
USAID is headed by an Administrator and Deputy Administrator, both appointed by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate.
The immediate past USAID Administrator, under the administration of President George W. Bush, was Henrietta Fore, who concurrently held the position of Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance in the Department of State.
USAID’s office in Washington includes both geographical and functional bureaus, and well as those for major headquarter functions.
Overseas, USAID offices are called “missions.” Mission staff include career foreign service officers (FSOs), personal services contractors (PSCs), foreign service nationals (FSNs), and occasionally civil service employees.
Nation | Billions of Dollars |
---|---|
Iraq | 18.44 |
Israel | 2.62 |
Egypt | 1.87 |
Afghanistan | 1.77 |
Colombia | 0.57 |
Jordan | 0.56 |
Pakistan | 0.39 |
Liberia | 0.21 |
Peru | 0.17 |
Ethiopia | 0.16 |
Bolivia | 0.15 |
Uganda | 0.14 |
Sudan | 0.14 |
Indonesia | 0.13 |
Kenya | 0.13 |
USAID’s budget is funded through the 150 Account, which includes all International Affairs programs and operations for civilian agencies. In FY 2009, the Bush Administration’s request for the International Affairs Budget for the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign affairs agencies totals approximately $39.5 billion, including $26.1 billion for Foreign Operations and Related Agencies, $11.2 billion for Department of State, and $2.2 billion for Other International Affairs.
The request under the FY2009 Foreign Operations budget, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies is:
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, most of the world’s governments adopted a program for action under the auspices of the United Nations Agenda 21, which included an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) for rich nations, specified as roughly 22 members of the OECD and known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The United States never agreed to this target but remains – in real terms – the world’s largest provider of official development assistance. However, relative to its economy, the U.S. is the second lowest provider with a 0.17% of GNI in aid[7]. Only Greece, among the DAC countries, provides a lower percentage of GNI in the form of aid.[8]
According to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (DAC/OECD), the United States remains the largest donor of “official development assistance” at $23.53 billion in 2006. DAC/OECD reports that the next largest donor was the United Kingdom ($12.46b). The UK was followed (in rank order) by Japan ($11.19b), France ($10.60b), Germany ($10.43b), Netherlands ($5.45b), Sweden ($3.95b), Spain ($3.81b), Canada ($3.68b), Italy ($3.64b), Norway ($2.95b), Denmark ($2.24b), Australia ($2.12b), Belgium ($1.98b), Switzerland ($1.65b), Austria ($1.50b), Ireland ($1.02b), Finland ($0.83b), Greece ($0.42b), Portugal ($0.40b), Luxembourg ($0.29b) and New Zealand ($0.26b).[9]
USAID has been a major partner in the United States Government’s (USG) reconstruction and development effort in Iraq. As of June 2009[update], USAID has invested approximately $6.6 billion on programs designed to stabilize communities; foster economic and agricultural growth; and build the capacity of the national, local, and provincial governments to represent and respond to the needs of the Iraqi people.[10]
Rebuilding Iraq – C-SPAN 4 Part Series In June 2003, C-SPAN followed USAID Admin. Andrew Natsios as he toured Iraq. The special program C-SPAN produced aired over four nights.[11]
This subsection titled “Bolivia” does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2009) |
In 2008, the coca growers “union” affiliated with Bolivian President Evo Morales “ejected” the 100 employees and contractors from USAID working in the Chapare region, citing frustration with U.S.[12] efforts to persuade them to switch to growing unviable alternatives. From 1998 to 2003, Bolivian farmers could receive USAID funding for help planting other crops only if they eliminated all their coca, according to the Andean Information Network. Other rules, such as the requirement that participating communities declare themselves “terrorist-free zones” as required by U.S. law irritated people, said Kathryn Ledebur, director of the organization. “Eradicate all your coca and then you grow an orange tree that will get fruit in eight years but you don’t have anything to eat in the meantime? A bad idea,” she said. “The thing about kicking out USAID, I don’t think it’s an anti-American sentiment overall” but rather a rejection of bad programs”.
USAID states that “U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.” However, some critics[who?] say that the US government gives aid to reward political and military partners rather than to advance genuine social or humanitarian causes abroad. Another complaint[by whom?] is that foreign aid is used as a political weapon for the U.S. to make other nations do things its way, an example given in 1990 when the Yemeni Ambassador to the United Nations voted against a resolution for a US-led coalition to use force against Iraq, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering walked to the seat of the Yemeni Ambassador and retorted: “That was the most expensive No vote you ever cast”. Immediately afterwards, USAID ceased operations and funding in Yemen. [13]
Although USAID defends that contractors are selected by their proven abilities, “watch dog” groups, partisan politicians, foreign governments and corporations contend that the bidding process has at times involved both the financial interest of its current Presidential administration and political motivation.[14]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: United States Agency for International Development |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development
***
***
Carrot and stick (also “carrot or stick”) is an idiom that refers to a policy of offering a combination of rewards and punishment to induce behavior. Some claim that this usage of phrase is erroneous, and that in fact comes from the figure of a carrot on a stick. In this case, the driver would tie a carrot on a string to a long stick and dangle it in front of the donkey, just out of its reach. As the donkey moved forward to get the carrot, it pulled the cart and the driver so that the carrot would always remain out of reach.
The earliest citation of this expression recorded by the Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary is to The Economist magazine in the December 11, 1948, issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick
***
Carrots, Sticks and Donkeys
Those who have some knowledge of American policy and strategy anticipated the sale of P3C Orions, F-16s and other sophisticated weaponry to Pakistan. What makes it all laughable is that the pretext is to aid Pakistan’s counterinsurgency efforts. These weapons will be used to intimidate or attack India. The daydreamers in India including respectable web-sites are mollified and crowing about two op-eds by former Ambassador Blackwill and former Senator Pressler recommending that America wholeheartedly embrace democratic India and overtly state its tilt towards it. The timing of these writings should make sensible thinking persons suspect that these were carrots hung in front of the donkey to fool the ass before it is to be struck by the heavy stick of arm sales to Pakistan. However well meaning these two persons maybe, they are currently out of power. One has become a lobbyist who gets paid to cash in on past influence and the other is on the board of directors of Infosys and has to proclaim a pro-India bias. The pie in the sky promises of Condoleeza Rice are just that. The hurdle of convincing the Congress and negotiating terms and transfer of technology in planes and nuclear reactors are slow and uncertain.
Let us consider why India was offered F-16s or F-18s. It was a sop to cover the sale to Pakistan. Furthermore, the technologies are a generation old and being phased out by replacement with the Raptor F-22 and the JSF F-35. It would be foolish for India to own the same model plane as Pakistan, even though modern air warfare is often beyond visual range. The reason Pakistan was offered the planes is to please Musharraf and his generals and defuse the widely prevalent public ill feeling towards America. This would consolidate Musharraf’s hold on power and obtain his co-operation, if Iran is to be attacked. This would calm the primary worry of America of Pakistani nuclear assets falling into the hands of Islamic terrorists. It is worth noting that there is no limit on the number of planes and I am sure that one of them will handed over to China for reverse engineering. This doesn’t worry America and India’s concerns do not matter a bit to America, as the timing of the sale and previous anointing of Pakistan as a key non-NATO ally prove.
There is another widely prevalent misconception amongst Indian analysts that we can cozy up to China. China has no interest in seeking a military alliance or partnership with India. It has designs on our territory, is economically and militarily stronger, and having India on its side does little to help it stand up against America in the Taiwan or any other future dispute. It fears Japan which has the economic might and technology to threaten it, if it escapes American domination. Thus it wants a pacific Japan relying on American protection. It has not forgotten Nanking and Manchuria. Presently it wants to trade with America to obtain foreign exchange, provide jobs for its roving unemployed and obtain western technology. Thus it voices protests but still pretends to co-operate with America with regards to North Korea. In the meantime it is becoming the largest trading partner of Japan, South Korea, the ASEAN group and it is making inroads into Latin America and former Soviet Republics and Iran. It will continue to hold Pakistan’s hand, support Bangladesh and Burma, while fomenting unrest in Nepal and the Indian northeast to cripple or slow India’s rise.
Japan’s interest in India is to police the Straits of Malacca, the bottleneck in the route of its oil supply. Until it abandons the American umbrella, there is no benefit to it of closer political or military ties to India. Only Russia, a dethroned superpower may have interest in a closer relationship. It is wooing Iran to counter American interference in Georgia, Ukraine etc. Its technology though good is not often superior to that of America, but it would be downright foolish of India to fight a war with America or even prepare for one as China is doing. Taiwan is the cause of that. If we fight a war with Pakistan, America may threaten or criticize us but it is not going to defend Pakistan as it may defend Taiwan.
Some of the technological gaps can be filled with the help of another country with whom we share a world-view. That is Israel. It has the technology as the refit of our MiGs, the Phalcon system, Green Pine radar, UAVs and Barak missile system purchase proves. In the meantime we should become a first rate military power by improving our economic might and that means trading with all and making it a point to negotiate transfer of technology in purchasing arms.
France and to some extent Britain are two such sources worth cultivating, while still giving preference to Russia and Israel with whom we currently have common interests, while avoiding open conflict with America and China, just as America did by placating Britain and France within a decade of its birth as a nation. We must also follow America’s example of not becoming the handmaiden of great powers, nor be beguiled by their grandiose proclamations or vague future promises.
Our current price advantage in back office work, BPOs, call centers and software services is ephemeral and undependable. It could vanish overnight if America is peeved or someone does it cheaper. This is why China chose to go the manufacturing route and not the service sector one. Another lesson to be learnt from Prithviraj and America is that war, economic or military, is not some chivalrous contest on a medieval battlefield where victors and vanquished have a peg or two like pukka sahibs in the officers’ mess, but a zero sum game where the victors make the rules and the vanquished get Nuremberg trials.
– Gaurang Bhatt, MD
April 3, 2005
http://www.boloji.com/rt2/rt165.htm
***
09 Friday Oct 2009
Tags
AMA, betrayal of public trust by health care industry and medical professionals, cricketdiane, doctors and medicine, formaldehyde, health care in the United States, health care industry, health care reform, medicine in America, mercury in vaccines, pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical toxins, recall pharmaceuticals drugs medicines, thimerisol, thimerosal, vaccines
The honest, truthful representation of medicine and health care in America –
Any medical doctor, health care professional, nurse or surgeon with a prescription pad making out a prescription for any of us would only be truthful and honest, if he or she actually said this to us when making out that prescription –
“I’m prescribing this for you and once you take it you won’t be able to pee or relieve yourself as long as you are on it. You won’t be able to sit up or drive a car or vacuum the house because it will make your heart race and cause vertigo and dizziness.
You will be nauseated whether you eat or not and you won’t be able to metabolize food so expect water gain, edema and increased fat weight gain while your body is actually starving for nutrients.
And, you can have heart failure like 1 in every 3 people who take it. However, kidney and liver failure are more likely before it gets to the point of causing a heart attack. Sometimes, it has done all three with kidney, liver and heart failure. It has killed some people, maybe about half the people who took it in India and Uganda where the drug company studied it, but some of those people in the test group were two years old.
But, it is absolutely safe.
And if you want to take a piss so bad that it’s causing extraordinary pain and you have a fever or your skin turns yellow, call me and I’ll add another drug to it that will allow you to pee. – it hardly has any side effects at all, but these drugs won’t hurt you.
They do cause blood clots, vision loss, hair loss and you might have hallucinations, itchy skin, trouble breathing, vomiting, and it is known to cause holes in the stomach and the stomach lining, and you may not able to sleep, but that’s okay and to be expected.
At least it will take care of (the shit you were in here complaining about.) A lot of people do have suicidal thoughts and those are caused by this drug so don’t worry about it.”
– cricketdiane, 10-09-09
***
Yasmin Side Effects Lawsuit
Keywords: Yasmin Stroke Lawyer Side Effects Lawsuit Yasmine
If you use Yasmin, you should be aware that this popular birth control pill has been associated with some very serious side effects. These include life-threatening blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. Since 2004, at least 50 deaths have been reported in women taking Yasmin and similar contraceptives.
Yasmin contains a very different type of progestin called drospirenone. Drospirenone is known to carry some health risks not seen with other forms of the hormone. Unfortunately, these risks were downplayed in Yasmin’s early marketing campaigns, and its benefits were exaggerated. In fact, in 2003, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) ordered the maker of Yasmin to stop running a commercial that made such claims.
Because of the exaggerated claims made in Yasmin promotions, millions of women chose it as their birth control. Unfortunately, these same promotions left many Yasmin users unaware of its serious health risks. The maker of Yasmin must be held accountable for the injuries caused by this drug.
If you or someone you love suffered a blood clot, heart attack or stroke while taking Yasmin, you may be entitled to compensation. Please contact one of our Yasmin side effect lawyers right away to protect your legal rights.
Yasmin Side Effects
Some of the Yasmin side effects reported to the FDA over the years include:
* Heart Attack
* Cardiac Arrhythmias
* Stroke
* Pulmonary embolism (an artery in the lung is blocked)
* Blood Clots (Non-Vaginal)
* Kidney Failure
* Seizures
* Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
* Gallbladder Disease
* Hepaic Adenomas
* Sudden Death
All birth control pills, including Yasmin, increase the risk of blood clots, strokes and heart attacks. But because Yasmin is made with drospirenone, it carries additional risks. Most notably, it can increase the levels of potassium in the blood, which can lead to a disorder called hyperkalemia in high risk patients. This condition may result in potentially serious heart and health problems, including fatal cardiac arrhythmias. High potassium levels are especially dangerous for people who are obese, or who have diabetes or high blood pressure.
Since early 2004, the FDA has received over 50 reports of deaths in women who were taking Yasmin and other drospirenone-containing contraceptives. Many of the Yasmin deaths reported to the FDA involved elevated potassium levels. Some of the women in the reports were as young as 17. The deaths were caused by a variety of ailments, including cardiac arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, intracardiac thrombus (blood clots in the heart), pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs) and stroke in women in their child bearing years.
Yasmin FDA Warning Letter
In 2003, the then-maker of Yasmin, Berlex Laboratories (acquired by Bayer in 2006) received an FDA warning letter about a Yasmin TV ad the agency said was misleading. The unifying theme of the ad, typified by the tagline “Ask about Yasmin, and the difference a little chemistry can make? suggested that Yasmin is better than other birth control pills because of drospirenone and the way in which it is metabolized in the body. This “chemistry” difference was presented as a product benefit, according to the FDA.
In the warning letter, the FDA said it was not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience demonstrating that Yasmin is superior to other birth control pills or that the drospirenone in Yasmin is clinically beneficial. The FDA also found that the advertisement “fails to communicate that the potential to increase potassium is a risk” or that “increased serum potassium can be dangerous.”
Yasmin Side Effects Lawsuit
In the summer of 2009, several lawsuits were filed by women who claimed Yasmin made them ill. They allege Bayer overstated the benefits of Yasmin and failed to warn that it could put women at risk of serious injury. It is expected that many such Yasmin lawsuits will be filed in the future.
Our Yasmin side effect lawyers are continuing to offer free case evaluations to victims of Yasmin side effects. If you or someone you love suffered from a blood clot, heart attack or stroke while taking Yasmin, we urge you to contact us as soon as possible. Simply fill out our online form, or call 1-800 LAW INFO (1-800-529-4636) to discuss your case with one of our Yasmin side effect lawyers today.
http://www.yasmin-side-effects-lawyer.com/
***
My Note –
But it works. Dead people don’t get pregnant.
– cricketdiane
***
(and this is how much the United States government and FEMA under the Republican administrations both in the Federal, State and Local governments have thought of the health and welfare and well-being of America’s citizens -)
Particleboard Main Source of Formaldehyde Fumes in Toxic FEMA Trailers
Date Published: Thursday, July 3rd, 2008
Immediately following the Hurricane Katrina devastation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ordered about $2.7 billion worth of trailers and mobile homes to house Katrina victims. FEMA’s requirements were detailed in a mere 25 lines, with minimal details regarding occupant safety. Today, industry and government experts say the Toxic FEMA Trailers are linked to a public health catastrophe involving 300,000 people, many children, who were exposed to high formaldehyde levels exceeding the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended 15-minute exposure limit for workers. Fifteen minutes is the limit at which acute health symptoms begin to appear in sensitive individuals.
While the CDC found that although levels of formaldehyde varied from unit to unit of a particular brand, nearly all brands of Toxic FEMA Trailers tested had units with high formaldehyde levels. The CDC “supported the need to move quickly,” and get people out of FEMA housing before summer, as heat can increase formaldehyde fumes. In a previous CDC study, scientists tested air quality inside hundreds of Toxic FEMA Trailers and mobile homes occupied by Katrina victim and detected potentially dangerous levels of formaldehyde in many units. Pilgrim International, Inc.; Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.; Thor Industries, Inc.; and Coachmen Industries, Inc. were the trailers reviewed in the CDC study.
Now, particleboard appears to be one of the main sources of potentially harmful fumes in the government-issued Toxic FEMA Trailers. The report issued by the CDC in Atlanta recommends using different building materials to produce emergency housing for FEMA. The CDC also said that better ventilation in the units could make them safer. Scientists speculate that formaldehyde levels in the Toxic FEMA Trailers were higher than in mobile homes because they contain more composite wood products, such as particleboard, in a smaller space, and with poorer ventilation. The latest tests—conducted to determine which components were responsible for emitting formaldehyde fumes—were performed by California’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories.
Formaldehyde is an industrial chemical that can cause nasal cancer, may be linked to leukemia, and worsens asthma and respiratory problems. Within months of moving into the trailers, residents began complaining about unusual sickness; breathing problems; burning eyes, noses and throats; and even death. Formaldehyde is emitted from the resins and glues used in many construction components, including particleboard flooring, plywood wall panels, composite wood cabinets, and laminated countertops. Emissions are greatest in warm weather and when trailers are newly constructed. (and in curtains and carpets. – my note)
Michael McGeehin, director of the CDC’s division of environmental health hazards, said the report’s findings only apply to FEMA trailers that sheltered Gulf Coast storm victims. “They do not apply to other trailers in use elsewhere in the country,” he said. Although the CDC maintains that formaldehyde emitted by each trailer part didn’t exceed limits set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban and Development, McGeehin said those HUD standards were meant for larger mobile homes.
Becky Gillette, formaldehyde campaign director for the Sierra Club, said the test results highlight the “terrible inadequacies” of the HUD standards, which date back to 1984.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am and is filed under Health Concerns, Legal News, Toxic Substances.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3392
***
Formaldehyde Chemical Information
formaldehyde – A colorless poisonous gas synthesized by the oxidation of methanol and used as an antiseptic, disinfectant, histologic fixative, and general-purpose chemical reagent for laboratory applications. Formaldehyde is readily soluble in water . . . (NCI04)
(from – )
www.medications.com/drugs/formaldehyde
***
From wikipedia entry about Formaldehyde –
Aqueous solutions of formaldehyde are referred to as formalin. “100%” formalin consists of a saturated solution of formaldehyde (this is about 40% by volume or 37% by mass) in water, with a small amount of stabilizer, usually methanol to limit oxidation and polymerization. A typical commercial grade formalin may contain 10–12% methanol in addition to metallic impurities such as aluminium (3 ppm), iron (1 ppm) and copper (1 ppm).
“In view of its widespread use, toxicity, and volatility, exposure to formaldehyde is a significant consideration for human health.”[3]
Safety
Occupational exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation is mainly from three types of sources: thermal or chemical decomposition of formaldehyde-based resins, formaldehyde emission from aqueous solutions (for example, embalming fluids), and the production of formaldehyde resulting from the combustion of a variety of organic compounds (for example, exhaust gases). Formaldehyde can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic.[2] Because formaldehyde resins are used in many construction materials it is one of the more common indoor air pollutants.[19] At concentrations above 0.1 ppm in air formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and mucous membranes, resulting in watery eyes.[20] Formaldehyde inhaled at this concentration may cause headaches, a burning sensation in the throat, and difficulty breathing, as well as triggering or aggravating asthma symptoms.[21][22]
Formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that there is “sufficient evidence” that occupational exposure to formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer in humans.[2] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows no more than 16 ppb formaldehyde in the air in new buildings constructed for that agency.[23] The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also announced limits on the formaldehyde levels in trailers purchased by that agency.[24]
Formaldehyde can cause allergies and is part of the standard patch test series. People with formaldehyde allergy are advised to avoid formaldehyde releasers as well (e.g., Quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, and diazolidinyl urea).[25] Formaldehyde has been banned in cosmetics in both Sweden and Japan.
[ . . . ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
***
FORMALDEHYDE (37% SOLUTION, methanol free) ICSC: 0695
Date of Peer Review: October 2004
Methanal
Formalin
CAS # 50-00-0 H2CO
RTECS # LP8925000 Molecular mass: 30.0
UN # 2209
EC # 605-001-00-5
TYPES OF HAZARD / EXPOSURE ACUTE HAZARDS / SYMPTOMS PREVENTION FIRST AID / FIRE FIGHTING
FIRE Combustible.
NO open flames.
Water in large amounts, water spray.
EXPLOSION
EXPOSURE
AVOID ALL CONTACT!
Inhalation Burning sensation. Cough. Headache. Nausea. Shortness of breath.
Local exhaust or breathing protection.
Fresh air, rest. Refer for medical attention.
Skin Redness.
Protective gloves. Protective clothing.
Remove contaminated clothes. Rinse and then wash skin with water and soap.
Eyes Causes watering of the eyes. Redness. Pain. Blurred vision.
Face shield, or eye protection in combination with breathing protection.
First rinse with plenty of water for several minutes (remove contact lenses if easily possible), then take to a doctor.
Ingestion Burning sensation. Nausea. Shock or collapse.
Do not eat, drink, or smoke during work. Wash hands before eating.
Rinse mouth. Refer for medical attention.
SPILLAGE DISPOSAL PACKAGING & LABELLING
Ventilation. Remove all ignition sources. Chemical protection suit. Personal protection: filter respirator for organic gases and vapours. Do NOT let this chemical enter the environment.
EU Classification
Symbol: T
R: 23/24/25-34-40-43
S: (1/2-)-26-36/37/39-45-51
Note: [B, D]
UN Classification
UN Hazard Class: 8
UN Pack Group: III
http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0695.htm
***
My Note –
but for some reason it is okay for pharmaceutical and health care industry product manufacturers / drug manufacturers to use formaldehyde in the process of drug manufacturing that are being directly into the bloodstream even though the process is leaving remnants of the formaldehyde in the completed product / drug / surgical glue / birth control pills and vaccines which are injected, ingested and internalized directly into the human body.
It is barbaric to call that health care.
– cricketdiane
***
Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see “Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials” and “Thimerosal Toxicity”, below).
http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm
**
MERCURY POISONING _ from wikipedia entry –
Mercury poisoning can also result from exposure to soluble forms of mercury (such as mercuric chloride or methylmercury), inhalation of mercury vapor, or eating fish contaminated with mercury. (and from injected medical pharmaceuticals that have used mercury derivatives for preservatives – my note).
Toxic effects include damage to the brain, kidney, and lungs.[1] Mercury poisoning can result in several diseases, including acrodynia (pink disease), Hunter-Russell syndrome, and Minamata disease.[2]
Symptoms typically include sensory impairment (vision, hearing, speech), disturbed sensation and a lack of coordination. The type and degree of symptoms exhibited depend upon the individual toxin, the dose, and the method and duration of exposure.
Signs and symptoms
Common symptoms include peripheral neuropathy (presenting as paresthesia or itching, burning or pain), skin discoloration (pink cheeks, fingertips and toes), edema (swelling), and desquamation (dead skin peels off in layers).
Because mercury blocks the degradation pathway of catecholamines, epinephrine excess causes hyperhidrosis (profuse sweating), tachycardia (persistently faster-than-normal heart beat), mercurial ptyalism (hypersalivation) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Mercury is thought to inactivate S-adenosyl-methionine, which is necessary for catecholamine catabolism by catechol-o-methyl transferase.
Affected children may show red cheeks and nose, erythematous lips (red lips), loss of hair, teeth, and nails, transient rashes, hypotonia (muscle weakness), and photophobia. Other symptoms may include kidney disfunction (e.g. Fanconi syndrome) or neuropsychiatric symptoms (emotional lability, memory impairment, insomnia).
Thus, the clinical presentation may resemble pheochromocytoma or Kawasaki disease.
An example of desquamation of the hand of a child with severe mercury poisoning acquired by handling elemental mercury is this photograph in Horowitz, et al. (2002).[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
***
About Aluminum (from wikipedia) –
Health concerns
Despite its natural abundance, aluminium has no known function in living cells and presents some toxic effects in elevated concentrations. Its toxicity can be traced to deposition in bone and the central nervous system, which is particularly increased in patients with reduced renal function.
Because aluminium competes with calcium for absorption, increased amounts of dietary aluminium may contribute to the reduced skeletal mineralization (osteopenia) observed in preterm infants and infants with growth retardation. In very high doses, aluminium can cause neurotoxicity, and is associated with altered function of the blood-brain barrier.[51]
A small percentage of people are allergic to aluminium and experience contact dermatitis, digestive disorders, vomiting or other symptoms upon contact or ingestion of products containing aluminium, such as deodorants or antacids. In those without allergies, aluminium is not as toxic as heavy metals, but there is evidence of some toxicity if it is consumed in excessive amounts.[52]
Although the use of aluminium cookware has not been shown to lead to aluminium toxicity in general (according to some studies done by the makers of that cookware), excessive consumption of antacids containing aluminium compounds and excessive use of aluminium-containing antiperspirants provide more significant exposure levels.
Studies have shown that consumption of acidic foods or liquids with aluminium significantly increases aluminium absorption,[53] and maltol has been shown to increase the accumulation of aluminium in nervous and osseus tissue.[54] Furthermore, aluminium increases estrogen-related gene expression in human breast cancer cells cultured in the laboratory.[55] These salts’ estrogen-like effects have led to their classification as a metalloestrogen.
Because of its potentially toxic effects, aluminium’s use in some antiperspirants, dyes (such as aluminum lake), and food additives is controversial. Although there is little evidence that normal exposure to aluminium presents a risk to healthy adults,[56] several studies point to risks associated with increased exposure to the metal. Aluminium in food may be absorbed more than aluminium from water.[57] Some researchers have expressed concerns that the aluminium in antiperspirants may increase the risk of breast cancer,[58] and aluminium has controversially been implicated as a factor in Alzheimer’s disease.[59]
According to The Alzheimer’s Society, the overwhelming medical and scientific opinion is that studies have not convincingly demonstrated a causal relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease.[60] Nevertheless, some studies cite aluminium exposure as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, as some brain plaques have been found to contain increased levels of the metal. Research in this area has been inconclusive; aluminium accumulation may be a consequence of the disease rather than a causal agent. In any event, if there is any toxicity of aluminium, it must be via a very specific mechanism, since total human exposure to the element in the form of naturally occurring clay in soil and dust is enormously large over a lifetime.[61][62] Scientific consensus does not yet exist about whether aluminium exposure could directly increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.[60]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
(check out the information about Teflon and what it is now known to cause sometime and aluminum toxicity is known although not indicated in this wikipedia article.)
***
My Note –
Not only are these vaccines using an aluminum based carrier for its liquid which is injected into the human body, but it is also deriving certain constituents for the vaccine using formaldehyde at different states in the process. These formaldehyde molecules are not fully removed from the vaccine serums and are also directly injected into the human body, particularly in infants, children whose bodies are developing, pregnant women and elderly, among others.
***
http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Infanrixhexa/200500en6.pdf
SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION
This module reflects the initial scientific discussion for the approval of Infanrix Hexa.
This scientific discussion has been updated until 01.11.02. For information on changes after
01.11.02 please refer to module 8B.
1. Introduction
Infanrix hexa is a combined vaccine, which contains
• diphtheria toxoid (D), adsorbed
• tetanus toxoid (T), adsorbed
• three purified pertussis antigens (pertussis toxoid (PT), filamentous haemagglutinin (FHA) and
pertactin (PRN; 69 kiloDalton outer membrane protein), adsorbed
• the purified major surface antigen (HBsAg) of the Hepatitis B virus (HBV), adsorbed
• three types of inactivated Polioviruses (IPV type 1: Mahoney strain; IPV type 2: MEF-1 strain;
IPV type 3: Saukett strain)
and
• a conjugate of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) capsular polysaccharide and Tetanus
toxoid (PRP-T), adsorbed.
**
The first five components are in a liquid aluminium salt adsorbed state (suspension for injection) whereas the Hib component is a lyophilised powder adsorbed onto aluminium salt. Prior to
administration, the lyophilised Hib powder has to be reconstituted with the liquid suspension for injection containing the DTPa-HBV-IPV component.
In the following this combination vaccine will be referred to as “Infanrix hexa” or as the “candidate vaccine”. The components of the vaccine will be referred to as “DTPa-HBV-IPV component” or “Hib component”.
All antigens of Infanrix hexa have already been licensed, either in monovalent vaccines or as combined vaccines in EU member states and are manufactured by the applicant (e.g. Infanrix HepB: D, T, Pa and HBV; Infanrix IPV: D, T, Pa and IPV; Hiberix: Hib). Infanrix hexa is thus a new combination of known and approved antigens.
The rationale for the development of this combination vaccine is : to facilitate the universal vaccination of infants against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and invasive disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b, in countries recommending the use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine as well as universal vaccination against hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type b by simplifying vaccine delivery.
The therapeutic indication for Infanrix hexa is “for primary and booster vaccination of infants against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b”.
2. Part II: Chemical, pharmaceutical and biological aspects Composition
The composition of Infanrix hexa is given in Table 1.
To potentiate the immune response, D, T, pertussis antigens (PT, FHA and PRN), and HBsAg are adsorbed on aluminium salts (aluminium hydroxide and aluminium phosphate) which are well-known
and universally accepted immunopotentiating agents. The IPV component, although not pre-adsorbed for formulation, does adsorb when mixed with the other antigens. The Hib component is adsorbed also.
[ . . . ]
During its meeting on 19-21 October 1999, the CPMP agreed that a GMP inspection of the manufacturing sites was not necessary.
**
Control of starting materials
D and T –
Diphtheria and tetanus toxoids are obtained by formaldehyde treatment of purified Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Clostridium tetani toxins. The toxoids are produced and controlled by Chiron-Behring, Marburg, Germany as previously described and approved for Infanrix HepB.
PT, FHA and PRN
The acellular pertussis vaccine components are obtained by extraction and purification from phase I Bordetella pertussis cultures, followed by irreversible detoxification of the pertussis toxin by glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde treatment, and formaldehyde treatment of FHA and PRN.
The antigens are produced according to the methods approved for Infanrix HepB. They comply with the
specification limits and are tested as approved for Infanrix HepB.
The pertussis antigens comply with the requirements of the Ph. Eur. monograph 1356 (1999 supplement).
Elimination of adenylate cyclase, tracheal cytotoxin and dermonecrotic toxin was demonstrated for all the production scales validated. Absence of residual pertussis toxin is shown on each lot of the threeantigens using the CHO cell test. The histamine sensitisation test in mice is not carried out at that stage but is performed on the finished product.
Elimination of detoxifying agents and other reagents has been validated. (except that it only requires a certain degree of detoxifying to pass both the manufacturers testing and the FDA / EU regulators / industry testing – my note) Polysorbate 80 is the only quantifiable reagent that remains in the bulk antigens (approximately 40 ?g/dose).
Results of in process and quality control tests indicate that the production process is adequate. Virus yield after culture is reproducible. Purification gives a product of consistent quality from which proteins and VERO cell DNA are virtually eliminated. ( another indication that purity doesn’t include complete elimination of toxins used during the process of manufacturing.)
Inactivation is performed in standard conditions using formaldehyde and effective inactivation is consistently achieved.
For quality control, all the tests recommended by WHO and Ph. Eur. are performed.
(My note – these vaccines along with other drugs / pharmaceutical products use formaldehyde through and during different stages of the products manufacture. The final combined product could have active percentages of formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum and various other toxins allowable by the authorities who ought to know better, or they need to go back and re-learn chemistry, human metabolism and physiology.)
PRP-T
The manufacture and testing of the PRP-T active ingredient of the Hib adsorbed component is described in Ph. Eur. Monograph 1219 on Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate vaccine (1998) and WHO TRS 814 (note the 1991 version is under revision). It involves the following steps:
• fermentation of Haemophilus influenzae type b (strain 20,752) based on the seed lot principle,
• extraction and purification of PRP,
• activation of PRP with cyanogen bromide and adipic acid dihydrazide,
• coupling to purified tetanus toxoid,
• purification of the conjugate by size exclusion chromatography,
• diafiltration.
Control of intermediate products
Intermediate products are prepared in advance and a shelf life is claimed for them. These are the adsorbed DT concentrate, the adsorbed PT, FHA and PRN concentrates, the trivalent polio concentrate and the tetanus toxoid concentrate used to prepare the purified tetanus toxoid for coupling with the
PRP component.
As the adsorbed DT concentrate is prepared at Chiron-Behring, Marburg, Germany, the product is
released by them and retested at SB Biologicals prior to use. Each lot of DT concentrate is tested for
As the adsorbed DT concentrate is prepared at Chiron-Behring, Marburg, Germany, the product is released by them and retested at SB Biologicals prior to use. Each lot of DT concentrate is tested for
aluminium, formaldehyde, sodium chloride and 2-phenoxyethanol content, for pH and sterility, for potency in animals, specific toxicity and for absence of blood group substances. Batch analysis data show consistency of production and quality.
The adsorbed Pa antigen concentrates are prepared at SB Biologicals and are in process tested for pH and sterility after adsorption and prior to use.
[ . . . ]
The tetanus toxoid concentrate used to prepare the purified tetanus toxoid for coupling with the PRP component is manufactured by Chiron-Behring. The tetanus toxoid concentrate complies with Ph. Eur. 452 (bulk purified toxoid) and WHO (TRS No. 800, 1990) requirements. The tests performed for
release are sterility, antigenic purity, absence of tetanus toxin, reversion to toxicity, formaldehyde content, sulphate content, sodium chloride content and pH. Batch release protocols from Chiron- Behring are provided in the application. This intermediate may be stored at +2?C to +8?C for a
designated time before being processed at SB Biologicals. The shelf life is supported by stability data.
The other tests performed on each final bulk vaccine are pH, sterility, 2-phenoxyethanol content and formaldehyde content. Each final container lot is tested for appearance, identity for all antigens,
volume, pH, aluminium content and as indicated above, for HBV and IPV content (in vitro potency).
Validation data for these methods are presented in the application. The specification limits and tests performed are in accordance with Ph. Eur. monograph 153 (1999 supplement) “Vaccine for Human use”, where applicable.
http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Infanrixhexa/200500en6.pdf
200500en6.pdf
***
My Note –
I don’t disagree with the value of vaccinations. I disagree with the use of known toxic and poisonous substances being used in the vaccines and other medicines which are causing more harm than the diseases they are intended to vaccinate against or help with. They don’t have to be made that way with those particular chemicals used in the manufacture and as carriers for drugs and vaccines which are injected or ingested directly into the body. That is a complete betrayal of public trust and defies the whole concept of health, health care and medicine.
– cricketdiane
***
Amino Resins and Phenolic Resins Production
Final rule published January 20, 2000
* Amino/phenolic resins are primarily used in the manufacture of plywood, particle board, adhesives, wood furniture, and plastic parts.
* A number of toxic air pollutants, including formaldehyde (a probable human carcinogen), phenol, methanol, xylene, and toluene, are released during the resin manufacturing process.
* EPA’s rule establishes emission limits or control efficiency requirements for several emission points: reactor batch process vents, non-reactor batch process vents, continuous process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and heat exchange systems. The rule encourages the use of pollution prevention measures and provides flexibility by allowing the use of a variety of control strategies rather than specific control devices.
* The rule affects new and existing amino/phenolic resin manufacturing facilities. EPA has identified 100 existing facilities that may be affected. The rule will reduce air toxics emissions by approximately 360 tons per year, a 51 percent reduction from 1992 levels.
Secondary Aluminum Production
Final rule published March 23, 2000
* Secondary aluminum plants recover aluminum from beverage cans, foundry returns, and other aluminum scrap. These facilities release air toxics during both preprocessing operations (such as aluminum scrap shredding, drying, and decoating) and furnace operations (such as aluminum melting, refining, and alloying).
* Secondary aluminum plants emit a variety of toxic air pollutants. These air toxics may include up to 11 metals, organic compounds, and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and chlorine. The health effects associated with exposure to these air toxics can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the nervous system.
* EPA’s rule establishes emission standards for metals, dioxin/furans, organic hazardous air pollutants, and acid gases for larger secondary aluminum plants. The rule also establishes standards for dioxin/furan emissions from smaller secondary aluminum plants.
* Affected sources can achieve the emission reductions required by the rule through the use of pollution-control equipment and/or through a variety of pollution-prevention measures, including work practices and operating practices. The rule provides flexibility to the industry by offering alternative compliance and monitoring options. To reduce monitoring and emissions testing costs, the rule uses particulate matter as a surrogate for metals, total hydrocarbons as a surrogate for organics, and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for total emissions of hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride.
* The rule will affect 80 large secondary aluminum plants. Hundreds of smaller plants may be subject to limitations on emissions of dioxin/furans. The rule will reduce nationwide emissions of air toxics by about 12,420 tons per year, a reduction of nearly 70 percent from current levels. In particular, hydrogen chloride emissions will be reduced by about 12,370 tons per year or by 73 percent, and emissions of metals will be reduced by about 40 tons per year, a reduction of over 60 percent from current levels.
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/takingtoxics/sum4.html
***
Scientists-Decry-IRIS-Changes-9-17-08.pdf
The GAO report provides several examples of interference by EPA’s political appointees, DOD, and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to delay or weaken IRIS assessments. 5
These include:
• Naphthalene, a possible cancer-causing agent of jet fuel.6 Six years after initiating the IRIS review, the EPA has sent it back to the drafting stage after repeated objections from OMB and DOD;
• Royal Demolition Explosives (RDX), used in munitions.7 RDX is a possible carcinogen known to leach from soil to groundwater. EPA delayed its review by seven years at the request of the DOD to wait for DOD-sponsored research. Some of that research is still outstanding.
• Formaldehyde, is a cancer-causing gas used to manufacture building materials such as pressed wood.8 The EPA began an IRIS assessment of formaldehyde in 1997. In 2004 members of Congress requested that the assessment be delayed until the completion of a large epidemiological study from the National Cancer Institute. In the absence of a completed IRIS assessment, the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation relied on a cancer risk assessment provided by an industry-funded organization in drafting its 2004 rule regulating formaldehyde emissions.
The industry study found formaldehyde to be 2,400 times less potent than the proposed IRIS value, which was based on robust, peer reviewed science. This weaker value was used to justify exempting certain plywood and composite wood manufacturing facilities from regulation under the Clean Air Act.9 The rule was later struck down by a federal court, but the IRIS assessment remains unfinished 11 years after it was begun.
• Trichloroethylene, TCE, a solvent used as a degreasing agent. TCE is one of the most common contaminants of superfund sites across the nation, and has been linked to cancer, including childhood cancer, and birth defects.10 The IRIS draft was initiated in 1998, and in 2001 said TCE was ‘highly likely’ to cause cancer, and specifically noted the added health risks when exposures took place during childhood. Now, ten years after beginning the assessment, it is back at the draft stage.
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate. Report No. GAO-08-440; March 2008. Available at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08440.pdf
4 Toxic Chemicals: EPA’s New Assessment Process Will Increase Challenges EPA Faces in Evaluating and Regulating Chemicals GAO-08-743T April 29, 2008. Summary at
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-743T
5 GAO report. Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s
Integrated Risk Information System. Pages 37-42
6 ATSDR ToxFAQs for naphthalene. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts67.html
7 ATSDR ToxFAQs for RDX. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts78.html
8 ATSDR ToxFAQs for formaldehyde. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts111.html
Toxicological Profile
for
Formaldehyde
July 1999
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp111.html
9 GAO report pages 37-39.
10 ATSDR ToxFAQs for trichloroethylene. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts19.html
Tetrachloroethylene, or perchloroethylene (perc), a dry cleaning and degreasing chemical which is a widespread groundwater contaminant. The IRIS assessment of perc was initiated in 1998.
In 2006 Risk Policy Report revealed that the assessment was held up when EPA scientists rejected a directive from George Gray, a political appointee who directs the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, to reanalyze cancer risks using a “nonlinear” model which assumes a safe level of exposure. 11 The scientific staff insisted scientific evidence would not support using that model.
This assessment is still being delayed.12
**
The GAO’s scathing critique concluded that the new procedures would sacrifice public trust in open government, compromise scientific credibility, and delay or derail the public release of robust scientific assessments needed by governments to set health-protective limits for hazardous chemicals.13 Moreover, GAO concluded that, “given the importance of the IRIS program to EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment, Congress should consider requiring EPA to suspend its new process…” These changes would compound what has already become an intolerable delay in completing new and updated assessments. The GAO report summary notes that,
“The IRIS database is at serious risk of becoming obsolete because EPA has not been able to routinely complete timely, credible assessments or decrease its backlog of 70 ongoing assessments–a total of 4 were completed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007.” 14 The GAO concludes that, “recent assessment process changes, as well as other changes EPA was considering at the time of GAO’s review, further reduce the timeliness and credibility of IRIS assessments.”15
**
The EPA IRIS program serves a critical scientific service to the public, and must be preserved and protected to conduct its work without political interference. The EPA’s authority to determine the risks posed by hazardous chemicals should not be compromised by interference from other federal agencies or industry stakeholders with conflicted interests.
EPA’s recent changes undermine the scientific integrity of the IRIS process, and weaken protections for public health and the environment. We implore you to defend your staff and the agency by withdrawing the new IRIS procedures and ensuring that health assessments are established in an
open process, free from inappropriate political interference or inappropriate policy considerations.
11 Clean Air Report via InsideEPA.com. Staff rebuff ORD Chief’s bid for new risk study for key solvent. Inside Washington Publishers. Vol. 17, No. 20. October 5, 2006. Originally reported in Risk Policy Report, September 26,
2006, p1.
12 On January 25, 2007 the California Air Resources Board ordered the phase out the use of perchloroethylene, from dry cleaning, with a complete ban by 2023, See details in news release at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr012607b.htm
13 Toxic Chemicals: EPA’s New Assessment Process Will Increase Challenges EPA Faces in Evaluating and
Regulating Chemicals GAO-08-743T April 29, 2008. Summary at
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-743T
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
(From pp. 2-3)
***
***
The IRIS database contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. This testimony highlights GAO’s work on toxic substances, focusing on (1) its March 2008 report, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System and (2) key changes to the IRIS assessment process EPA included in its revised IRIS assessment process released on April 10, 2008. It also highlights the findings of two GAO reports on EPA’s regulation of toxic chemicals. For the IRIS report, GAO analyzed EPA data and interviewed officials at relevant agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-743T
***
EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential to Address Key Problems
GAO-09-774T June 11, 2009
Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 13 pages) Accessible Text
Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. Toxicity assessments in the IRIS database constitute the first two critical steps of the risk assessment process, which in turn provides the foundation for risk management decisions. Thus, IRIS is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations. GAO’s 2008 report on the IRIS program identified significant concerns that, coupled with the importance of the program, caused GAO to add EPA’s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-risk area in its January 2009 biennial status report on governmentwide high-risk areas requiring increased attention by executive agencies and Congress. This testimony discusses (1) the findings from GAO’s March 2008 report Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System and related testimonies and (2) GAO’s preliminary evaluation of the revised IRIS assessment process EPA issued on May 21, 2009. For this testimony, GAO supplemented its prior audit work with a preliminary review of the new assessment process and some IRIS productivity data.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-774T
***
Amino Resins and Phenolic Resins Production
Final rule published January 20, 2000
* Amino/phenolic resins are primarily used in the manufacture of plywood, particle board, adhesives, wood furniture, and plastic parts.
* A number of toxic air pollutants, including formaldehyde (a probable human carcinogen), phenol, methanol, xylene, and toluene, are released during the resin manufacturing process.
* EPA’s rule establishes emission limits or control efficiency requirements for several emission points: reactor batch process vents, non-reactor batch process vents, continuous process vents, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and heat exchange systems. The rule encourages the use of pollution prevention measures and provides flexibility by allowing the use of a variety of control strategies rather than specific control devices.
* The rule affects new and existing amino/phenolic resin manufacturing facilities. EPA has identified 100 existing facilities that may be affected. The rule will reduce air toxics emissions by approximately 360 tons per year, a 51 percent reduction from 1992 levels.
Secondary Aluminum Production
Final rule published March 23, 2000
* Secondary aluminum plants recover aluminum from beverage cans, foundry returns, and other aluminum scrap. These facilities release air toxics during both preprocessing operations (such as aluminum scrap shredding, drying, and decoating) and furnace operations (such as aluminum melting, refining, and alloying).
* Secondary aluminum plants emit a variety of toxic air pollutants. These air toxics may include up to 11 metals, organic compounds, and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and chlorine. The health effects associated with exposure to these air toxics can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the nervous system.
* EPA’s rule establishes emission standards for metals, dioxin/furans, organic hazardous air pollutants, and acid gases for larger secondary aluminum plants. The rule also establishes standards for dioxin/furan emissions from smaller secondary aluminum plants.
* Affected sources can achieve the emission reductions required by the rule through the use of pollution-control equipment and/or through a variety of pollution-prevention measures, including work practices and operating practices. The rule provides flexibility to the industry by offering alternative compliance and monitoring options. To reduce monitoring and emissions testing costs, the rule uses particulate matter as a surrogate for metals, total hydrocarbons as a surrogate for organics, and hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for total emissions of hydrogen chloride, chlorine, and hydrogen fluoride.
* The rule will affect 80 large secondary aluminum plants. Hundreds of smaller plants may be subject to limitations on emissions of dioxin/furans. The rule will reduce nationwide emissions of air toxics by about 12,420 tons per year, a reduction of nearly 70 percent from current levels. In particular, hydrogen chloride emissions will be reduced by about 12,370 tons per year or by 73 percent, and emissions of metals will be reduced by about 40 tons per year, a reduction of over 60 percent from current levels.
Forward to Summaries of Related Solid Waste Incineration Rules
Local Navigation
* Taking Toxics Out of the Air – Contents
* Part 1 – Main Body of Brochure
* Part 2 – Summaries of EPA’s Final Air Toxics MACT Rules
* Part 3 – Summaries of Related Solid Waste Incineration Rules
* EPA Home
Last updated on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007.
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/takingtoxics/sum4.html
***
http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/takingtoxics/sum4.html
***
***
shapingourlegacy.pdf
In the Shadow of Chemical Valley
We thought it was normal.
We thought that seven miscarriages was normal.
We thought that the host of respiratory problems – 40 percent of our community requires a puffer to breathe – was normal.
We thought that sirns going off in the middle of the night was normal.
We thought that your shoes turning orange in the spring from the melting snow and the chemicals landing on the grass was normal.
It’s not.
— Ronald Plain, Aamjiwnaang First Nationa
The 850-person Aamjiwnaang First Nation community lives in the shadow of what is called Chemical Valley in the Canadian town of Sarnia, Ontario (about one hour north of Detroit, Michigan). Each year, 52 Canadian and US industrial facilities that are located within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) of their community pollute the air with more than 10 million kilograms (23 million pounds) of chemicals suspected to cause reproductive and developmental problems, as well as over 410,000 kilograms (900,000 pounds) of chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer or to disrupt the endocrine system. National Geographic has described Chemical Valley as the most polluted spot in North America.
from a 2005 report –
Shaping Our Legacy: Reproductive Health and the Environment
http://www.prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pubs/shapingourlegacy.pdf
Also – in the same document, from the paragraph entitled –
“Implement a national, comprehensive chemical testing policy for both pre- and post- market chemicals.”
Pharmaceutical drugs and new pesticides must undergo testing for health and safety before the government will register them for use. However, companies do not have to provide evidence that chemicals used in all other consumer and industrial products are safe before or after they are manufactured and sold. As a result, only a small percentage of the approximately 87,000 chemicals registered for use in this country (in the US) have been evaluated for effects on health, and these studies only crudely evaluate effects on reproductive health.
For example, only 7 percent of the nearly 3,000 chemicals we produce or import the most (over 1 million pounds a year) have undergone basic health and environmental testing. We know very little about the toxicity of the products we use every day and the chemicals that contaminate our air, water, food and bodies. We also don’t know exactly how chemicals are getting into our bodies, which makes it very difficult to take steps to eliminate exposure.
A national program to test all pre- and post- market chemicals will help to fill the void of information on the hazards of chemicals in our environment. This testing program should evaluate risks to the environment and wildlife as well as to human health.
It should test for the effects of exposure during all stages of development and look for effects throughout the lifespan. It should test or otherwise account for our exposure to mixtures of chemicals, particularly chemicals that may cause similar damage. And it should identify the potential for chemicals to enter the human body. Knowledge gained from this testing program will support solid, scientifically based policymaking. It will enhance material safety data sheets (information materials that inform workers of chemical hazards) and consumer product labeling, and will allow for a more informed medical and public sector.
&& (from the same document) &&
Change the triggers of action used to make policy decisions about regulating potentially harmful chemicals.
Current U.S. regulations permit use of most chemicals without evaluating their ability to produce harm. At the same time, they do not require companies to conduct any research that would produce evidence of harm for chemicals other than pesticides. Lack of research and lack of information translate into continued production and use. Even when government or independent researchers produce evidence, it takes years and major court battles to ban or restrict the use of chemicals.
A protective public health policy would turn our current paradigm on it s head. It would take protective action when there is an indication of harm rather than waiting for absolute proof of harm. It would require information on the health effects of all chemicals used or registered for use. And, it would direct the most intensive action be taken on the most commonly used chemicals that we know the least about.
[ . . . ]
Recent environmental reproductive health research has produced a new body of information and understanding that has yet to be incorporated into the risk assessment process.
[ . . . ]
Updating hazard and risk assessment protocols and guidelines to reflect these and other scientific discoveries will help to ground health standards in science and thereby maximize public health protections.
Expand information on chemicals in products given to consumers and workers.
Consumer product labeling and worker access to information on industrial chemicals are inadequate. [ . . . ] Right-to-Know laws should be improved so that consumers and workers can access information on all of the chemicals used in a product or in the workplace.
Revise occupational health standards so that worker health is protected.
Occupational safety laws and regulations allow workers to be exposed to far higher levels of chemicals than the general public. For example, they can be exposed to about 330 times higher levels of arsenic and about 70 times higher levels of methanol. At least 2100 chemicals used in commerce are known to harm reproduction. An additional 250 are suspected to do the same.
Several steps can be taken to improve worker protection from chemical exposure. One, reduce permissible occupational exposure levels to chemicals that harm reproduction and development so that they are more in line with environmental exposure limits. Two, change permissible exposure limits to reflect the toxicity of exposure to mixtures of chemicals used in the workplace, rather than exposure to individual chemicals. Three, expand exposure assessment and monitoring in occupational settings. Finally, expand occupational health researchers’ access to workers, so that health consequences can be identified and corrected.
From the document and link listed above and delivered at “The Summit on Environmental Challenges to Reproductive Health and Fertility” (2005?)
“One point became increasingly clear during the Summit: Communication may be a bigger impediment to progress than our lack of knowledge. The array of stakeholders committed to understanding and improving environmental reproductive health includes fields that have traditionally been separated by institutional and cultural divides. Each of these fields speaks a different, highly specialized language and often communicates in a way that assumes their audience holds background expertise in the topic.
Overcoming the lack of common frameworks, language and expertise as well as cultural barriers will require substantial effort and commitment. Courage to step out of one’s particular specialty area and interact with experts from different fields is mandatory. So too, is the ability to incorporate one’s partners’ goals, needs and directions. Simplifying technical information so that nonexperts can understand and participate in multi-disciplinary collaborations requires time and effort, and therefore resources and patience.
http://www.prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pubs/shapingourlegacy.pdf
***
Web sites geared towards the general public –
Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE)
www.healthandenvironment.org
CHE’s website includes:
* A searchable database that summarizes the links between chemical exposures and approximately 180 human diseases or conditions (database.healthandenvironment.org)
* Scientist-reviewed papers on the links between chemical exposures and numerous reproductive health diseases and disorders (www.healthandenvironment.org/science/papers)
(And from the chemicals list – )
Formaldehyde –
A chemical that is used to produce fertilizer, paper products, plywood, and urea-formaldehyde resins. It is also used as a preservative in some foods and in many products used around the house, such as antiseptics, medicines and cosmetics. Automobile engines, power plants, manufacturing facilities, incinerators, cigarettes, gas cookers, some household cleaners and open fireplaces release formaldehyde into outdoor and indoor air. The air is also contaminated when formaldehyde-containing carpets, permanent press fabrics and manufactured wood products off-gas (give off fumes). Most of our exposure to formaldehyde comes from breathing it (or ingesting it from medicines and foods where it was used as a preservative, my note) but we can also be exposed through skin contact with formaldehyde-containing products (pgs. 28-29).
From pp. 59-60 of the above document
http://www.prhe.ucsf.edu/prhe/pubs/shapingourlegacy.pdf
***
Lead – A naturally occurring metal that has been mined and used for thousands of years and, as a result, has spread throughout the environment. Lead is used in batteries, ammunition, building construction, certain ceramic glazes, (water plumbing and other) pipes, and is part of solder, pewter and certain metal alloys. Lead was used widely in paints until 1978 and was added to gasoline in the United States until 1996 (most lead was phased out of use by the mid-1980’s) – (but isn’t it still in airplane fuels and some others? – my note) People are exposed to lead by drinking water that is contaminated either at the source or by lead-containing solder in pipes, by inhaling or ingesting lead contaminated dust or soil, or by eating lead-contaminated foods.
[ from pp. 60 of the above document]
***
My Note –
and believe it or not, I have seen somewhere that the hormones, estrogen and progesterone used in human birth control pills was sequestered from the urine of some pregnant animal species using formaldehyde to do it. Then later in the process of manufacturing the birth control pills, the formaldehyde is taken back out except for whatever “acceptable” remnants of it are allowable by the FDA and other regulators whose loyalty is to the manufacturing pharmaceutical corporations, rather than to people, traditionally.
I will find the scientific papers that I had found online last year about it which included how many ppb of formaldehyde remaining in the birth control pills was found to be acceptable.
And, that is about how much concern for good health, long life and quality of life that the medical community, health care industry professions and corporations, pharmaceutical companies and health care providers generally have had for us. So, don’t tell me that the example at the start of this blog is outlandish – because it is excessively common for such a wide range of drugs that the likelihood is, some corner has been cut during manufacturing by pharmaceutical and health care industry corporations which are causing most, if not all, of the preventable side effects and drug-based negative health consequences of nearly every pharmaceutical, vaccine and product they produce.
Maybe injecting the human body with formaldehyde laced drugs, birth control pills, vaccines and other products like surgical and specifically, heart surgery glues is mortally lethal, dangerous and making people sick or dead.
And, maybe from using thimerisol, aluminum salts, mercury and similar known toxic substances into the human body in the name of “health care” when they are known to cause cancer, dementia, neurological damage, mental retardation, damage to internal organs and countless other hellish living nightmares – maybe, just maybe, that is barbaric and wrong.
– cricketdiane
***
The following information on the levels of mercury and other preservatives is public information taken from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration web site.
Introduction
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes. Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines.
Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (> 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose.
http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm
***
Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see “Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials” and “Thimerosal Toxicity”, below).
At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.
http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm
***
My Note –
***
Gelatin-resorcinol-formaldehyde glue has excellent
hemostatic characteristics and is widely used for dissecting
aneurysm; however, some problems concerning GRF
glue have been reported. Fukunaga and associates [4]
reported nine cases of aortic root redissection after reconstruction
of dissecting aneurysms using GRF glue.
They considered that the complications were likely to be
caused by the toxic effects of formaldehyde, particularly
in cases where an excessive amount of formaldehyde was
present that was not chemically bound to resorcin. Coronary
ostial stenosis after complete replacement of the
aortic root and reimplantation of the coronary arteries
was observed in several circumstances in which no GRF
glue was used. It might be related to the suture technique
at the coronary ostium, particularly if a small Dacron
graft is used for reimplantation. In our case, it is conceivable
that ostial stenosis occurred as a result of inappropriate
use of GRF glue rather than a technical problem,
because T1 scintigraphy, electrocardiography, and TEE
showed no abnormalities on discharge and it occurred
bilaterally and simultaneously. Bingley and associates [5]
reported that some months to years after the initial use of
GRF glue, tissues were extremely fibrosed at the site of
glue application, and a number of patients had redissection
of the aortic root where GRF glue had been applied.
In our case, an excessive amount of formaldehyde could
have induced bilateral ostial stenosis of the coronary
arteries owing to redissection of the coronary ostia accompanied
by fibrosis at the site of glue application;
however, it is impossible to verify the adverse effects of the formaldehyde because histologic examination was not done. (and they couldn’t use known toxicity studies on formaldehyde from anything else – my note)
Bachet and associates [2] recommended that as few as two or three droplets of formaldehyde are sufficient to polymerize 1 mL of gelatin resorcinol mixture. To avoid ostial stenosis, the glue is injected between the dissected layers, with special care directed not to contaminate the coronary ostia. A few drops of formaldehyde are then added to the glue by using a cannula-tipped syringe. Thereafter, the layers should be compressed to
improve the polymerization process.
The authors thank Naoko Ishizuka, MD, Department of Cardiology,
The Heart Institute of Japan, Tokyo Women’s Medical
University, for her skillful evaluation of echocardiography.
***
A protective public health policy would turn our current paradigm on it s head. It would take protective action when there is an indication of harm rather than waiting for absolute proof of harm. It would require information on the health effects of all chemicals used or registered for use. And, it would direct the most intensive action be taken on the most commonly used chemicals that we know the least about.
(from – )
Click to access shapingourlegacy.pdf
***
Databases (search term used)
***
(See above in text of document)
EPA Chemical Assessments: Process Reforms Offer the Potential to Address Key Problems
GAO-09-774T June 11, 2009
Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 13 pages) Accessible Text
Summary
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals. Toxicity assessments in the IRIS database constitute the first two critical steps of the risk assessment process, which in turn provides the foundation for risk management decisions. Thus, IRIS is a critical component of EPA’s capacity to support scientifically sound environmental decisions, policies, and regulations. GAO’s 2008 report on the IRIS program identified significant concerns that, coupled with the importance of the program, caused GAO to add EPA’s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-risk area in its January 2009 biennial status report on government-wide high-risk areas requiring increased attention by executive agencies and Congress. This testimony discusses (1) the findings from GAO’s March 2008 report Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System and related testimonies and (2) GAO’s preliminary evaluation of the revised IRIS assessment process EPA issued on May 21, 2009. For this testimony, GAO supplemented its prior audit work with a preliminary review of the new assessment process and some IRIS productivity data.
*******
Medicine, medical doctors, health care, formaldehyde in birth control pills and vaccines, thimerisol continues to be in flu vaccines given to children and pregnant women and elderly, aluminum is being injected into people with every vaccination and in many injected drugs, truth, honesty and health care reform – Any medical doctor, health care professional, nurse or surgeon with a prescription pad making out a prescription for any of us would only be truthful and honest, if he or she actually said this to us when making out that prescription –
*********
Modern homes often poison their occupants through toxic chemicals found in numerous building materials. Certain manufactured wood products such as plywood, particleboard, and oriented strand board (OSB, also known as wafer board or chip board) contain formaldehyde resins that are used to bind the wood fibers together. (Formaldehyde is the chemical biologists use to preserve biological specimens.) Studies show that these materials release formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals into room air long after a building is completed.
Potentially toxic chemicals are also found in furniture made from particleboard, furnishings such as carpeting and curtains, as well as paints, stains, and finishes. Appliances like water heaters and furnaces can also release toxins (in this case, carbon monoxide). So not only are our homes poisoning the many species that share this planet with us, they’re also poisoning the people they’re meant to serve.
http://www.realgoodssolar.com/solar/p/The-Impacts-of-Modern-Building.html
***
http://www.healthandenvironment.org
Thimerosal as a Preservative
Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study (see “Guidelines on Exposure to Organomercurials” and “Thimerosal Toxicity”, below).
At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose.
http://www.autismcoach.com/FDA%20Thimerisol%20Information.htm
******
Epidemics of methylmercury poisoning also occurred in Iraq during the 1970s when seed grain treated with a methylmercury fungicide was accidentally used to make bread (Bakir et al. 1973). During these epidemics, fetuses were found to be more sensitive to the effects of methylmercury than adults. Maternal exposure to high levels of methylmercury resulted in infants exhibiting severe neurologic injury including a condition resembling cerebral palsy, while their mothers showed little or no symptoms. Sensory and motor neurologic dysfunction and developmental delays were observed among some children who were exposed in utero to lower levels of methylmercury.
(from web site above)
***
Kharasch was born in Ukraine in 1895 and immigrated to the United States at the age of 13. In 1919, he completed his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Chicago and spent most of his professional career there. Most of his research in the 1920’s focused on organo-mercuric derivatives. He synthesized an important anti-microbial alkyl mercuric sulfur compound, thimerosal[2], commercially known as Merthiolate, which he patented in 1928 and assigned to the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company. Merthiolate was introduced as a vaccine preservative in 1931, and by the late 1980’s thimerosal was used in all whole-cell DPT vaccines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Kharasch
***
Merthiolate is a mercury-containing substance that was once widely used as germ-killer and a preservative in many different products, including vaccines.
Merthiolate poisoning occurs when large amounts of the substance are swallowed or come in contact with your skin. Poisoning may also occur if you are exposed to small amounts of merthiolate constantly over a long period of time.
This is for information only and not for use in the treatment or management of an actual poison exposure. If you have an exposure, you should call your local emergency number (such as 911) or the National Poison Control Center at 1-800-222-1222.
Q&A; First Aid or Not?
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY
Published: Tuesday, June 30, 1998
Q. Whatever happened to Mercurochrome and Merthiolate? How do they work?
A. Mercurochrome is a trade name for merbromin, a compound containing mercury and bromine. Merthiolate is a trade name for thimerosal, a compound containing mercury and sodium.
Both these compounds kill some (but not all) disease-causing microbes by denaturing enzymes and other proteins so that the microbes’ metabolism is blocked; they do this by breaking up chemical bonds in the proteins.
Both have been widely used as topical antiseptics, applied to the surface of the skin of a living body. Thimerosal is still often used to help rid skin of bacteria before medical procedures. Mercurochrome is not widely used anymore.
Both Mercurochrome and Merthiolate (and iodine preparations, too) sting when applied to broken skin and can interfere with healing. Experts now recommend that first aid kits contain newer antibacterial creams, especially those containing bacitracins, a class of antibacterials first produced by other microorganisms.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/30/science/q-a-first-aid-or-not.html
***
Thimerosal is an organic compound that is 49.6 percent ethylmercury. Eli Lilly and Co., the Indianapolis-based drug giant, developed and registered thimerosal under its trade name Merthiolate in 1929 and began marketing it as an antibacterial, antifungal product. It became the most widely used preservative in vaccines. Thimerosal cannot be used with live-cell vaccines, such as MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) or polio, because it would kill the vaccine. The only research looking into the safety of thimerosal was done in 1930 by Eli Lilly-sponsored doctors, who injected it into 22 patients with meningitis. The human experiments failed to prove that thimerosal was nontoxic. Nonetheless, researchers H.M. Powell and W.A. Jamieson published a study in September 1931 in the American Journal of Hygiene that stated thimerosal had a “low order of toxicity” for humans, without mentioning that the human subjects were ill and subsequently died. Internal Lilly documents from the time, however, revealed that the company’s researchers were worried about Merthiolate’s “burning qualities” when used on the skin. By 1935, Eli Lilly’s Jameison had further evidence of thimerosal’s toxicity when he received a letter from a researcher who had injected it into dogs and saw severe local reactions, leading him to state: “Merthiolate is unsatisfactory as a preservative for serum intended for use on dogs.”
In the 70 years since thimerosal/Merthiolate was developed, the FDA never required Eli Lilly to conduct clinical studies of its safety, despite ample evidence of its toxicity and its highly allergic properties. In fact, the FDA today still refers to the 1931 Powell and Jameison study on its Web site as indication of the “safety and effectiveness” of thimerosal as a preservative. Thimerosal/Merthiolate was widely used in over-the-counter products, including ointments, eye drops, nasal sprays and contact lens solution. In 1998, the FDA finally banned Thimerosal for use in OTC products—18 years after it began a safety review of mercury-containing products. It took another year before the CDC and the FDA would ask manufacturers to remove thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Eli Lilly stopped making Merthiolate-containing products in the mid-’80s but still profits from licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies around the world.
Eli Lilly faces hundreds of civil lawsuits from parents who blame thimerosal for their autistic children. But the pharmaceutical giant has powerful friends in the White House and in Congress. The elder George Bush sat on Lilly’s board of directors in the 1970s, and White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels was a Lilly executive. Lilly CEO Sidney Taurel was named by President George W. Bush to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. In November 2002, Congress passed a provision, tucked into a spending measure for homeland security, to indemnify Eli Lilly from lawsuits and require families to seek compensation through the federally funded Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It was repealed in February 2003 after public outcry. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) still hopes to pass a similar bill. Congressional consideration for Eli Lilly makes sense: In the 2002 election cycle, the company gave more than $1.5 million to federal candidates, with three quarters to Republicans, making it the fourth-biggest giver in the pharmaceutical industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the current election cycle, the company already has given close to $230,000 (67 percent to Republicans) to federal candidates.
Eli Lilly may be determined to avoid liability for thimerosal, but that doesn’t mean it has abandoned children with neurological problems. This year, the FDA approved Straterra, a new Eli Lilly drug for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The irony that Eli Lilly profits from damaged children is not lost on parent Robert Krakow: “When Eli Lilly is promoting Straterra on TV, saying up to 10 percent of children can be helped, you realize what we are up against.”
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/649/
***
In the U.S., the only exceptions among vaccines routinely recommended for children are some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children older than two years.[5] Several vaccines that are not routinely recommended for young children do contain thiomersal, including DT (diphtheria and tetanus), Td (tetanus and diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace of thiomersal from steps in manufacture.[2]
Outside North America and Europe, many vaccines contain thiomersal; the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.[7]
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[8] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.[2]
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
[etc.]
Thiomersal was used as a preservative (bactericide) so that multidose vials of vaccines could be used instead of single-dose vials, which are more expensive. By 1938, Lilly’s assistant director of research listed thiomersal as one of the five most important drugs ever developed by the company.[3] Thiomersal’s safety for its intended uses first came under question in the 1970s, when case reports demonstrated potential for neurotoxicity when given in large volumes as a topical antiseptic. At the time, the DPT vaccine was the only childhood vaccine that contained it; a 1976 United States Food and Drug Administration review concluded that this use of thiomersal was not dangerous.[3] Concerns about mercury arising from Minamata disease and other cases of methylmercury poisoning led U.S. authorities to lower reference doses for methylmercury in the 1990s, about the same time that autism diagnoses began rising sharply. In 1999, a new FDA analysis concluded that infants could receive as much as 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury during the first six months;[23] lacking any standard for ethylmercury, it used methylmercury-based standards to recommend that thiomersal be removed from routine infant vaccines in the U.S., which was largely complete by summer 2001.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal
***
08 Thursday Oct 2009
Tags
America land of poverty and oppression, Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights, cricketdiane, Human Rights, life in America, police brutality, police brutality and injustice in America, sadistic incompetent criminal police actions in the United States, tasers, value of life in America
Here is a list of the real major crimes in America –
(as evidenced by the facts that these are the things police and politicians insist of spending our resources to fix.)
1. not speaking when you are spoken to by a police officer in a manner he or she likes
2. having a broken taillight on a vehicle
3. not having the exact same name on birth certificate, social security card, county records, school records and drivers’ license – whether because one is your married name and one is your maiden name or whatever the reason
4. not keeping the lawn cut down to three inches from the soil
5. illegal parking
6. having a vehicle tag that is one day past getting its current sticker
7. being a woman
8. being a child of a woman
9. being disabled
10. being poor
There are no other crimes which get the attention of the police, law enforcement, detectives, FBI and CIA in the United States – that’s why the 45 children who were good decent human beings were killed in Chicago and that’s why for 18 years, a kidnapped child was kept in the backyard of the jackass who kidnapped her, and that’s why police brutality with every weapon at their disposal is used against ordinary citizens in the ordinary daily course of their lives – while crime, criminality, heinous brutality, violence, domestic violence, murder, robbery, rape and gang violence runs rampant in every place in America. As long as those criminals make sure they have the same name on everything, talk nice to police officers and aren’t a woman, they are allowed to keep on doing whatever they want to anybody for any reason or in fact, for no reason at all, without consequence.
Whose idea of America was that?
– cricketdiane
***
As was the case with Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s, the “War on Drugs” initiated by President Richard M. Nixon in 1969 has been marked by increased police misconduct. Critics contend that a “holy war” mentality[10][11] has helped to nurture a “new militarized style of policing” where “confrontation has replaced investigation.”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality
***
POSTED: 4:57 pm CDT October 5, 2009
UPDATED: 12:02 am CDT October 6, 2009
MILWAUKEE — A case of alleged police brutality could soon cost Milwaukee taxpayers $3 million.The common council will consider the proposed settlement to a federal civil rights lawsuit later this month.“Well when you pay $3 million that means you have to admit that your officer committed police brutality,” said Harris’ Attorney Jason Abraham.
A police booking video from December 2003 became a key piece of evidence.Police reports said Harris was drunk, disorderly and uncooperative after he was brought in on an outstanding traffic warrant. In the booking room, officer Kevin Clark claims Harris threw a punch — something Harris denied to 12 News during a 2004 interview.
In the video, Harris can be seen being led over to a desk by officer Kevin Clark. Suddenly Harris is yanked back and thrown to the ground. On his way down, Harris’ head hits a wall.“Ultimately what happens is the officer gets mad, ends up pushing my client toward a booking room desk and then throws him head first into a wall — rendering him a quadriplegic,” said Harris’ Attorney Jason Abraham.
On Monday, the city’s Finance and Budget Committee recommended the city settle for $3 million.12 News contacted Milwaukee’s City Attorney and asked for his input on the possible settlement of the lawsuit. He told us he wasn’t available.“I get depressed from time to time — I try to stay strong — but hopefully one day I’ll walk again,” Harris said a video that is part of a lawsuit against the city.
The common council still has to approve the proposed settlement.A vote on that is scheduled for Oct. 13.Officer Kevin Clark was fired from the Milwaukee Police Department in 2004 after he was accused of snow sledding while on duty, got injured and then tried to cover it up.
http://www.wisn.com/news/21209387/detail.html
***
Hearing Impaired Man Tased by Police
Posted: Dec 03, 2007 10:35 PM EST Updated: Dec 05, 2007 12:35 PM EST
by Michael Schwanke by Michael Schwanke
(Wichita, KS)
Donnell Williams had just gotten out of the bath tub, wearing only a towel around his waist, when he turned the corner to see guns pointing right at him.
“I ain’t never been so scared,” says Williams.
Police forced entry into Williams home while responding to a shooting, but it turned out to be a false call. They had no idea at the time the call wasn’t real and that Williams is hearing impaired. Without his hearing aid he is basically deaf.
“I kept going to my ear yelling that I was scared. I can’t hear! I can’t hear!”
Officers were worried about their own safety because at the time it appeared Williams was refusing to obey their commands to show his hands. That’s when they shot him with a Taser.
Deputy Chief Robert Lee of the Wichita Police Department says, “This one occurred on the worst of calls, that being a shooting. The first few minutes getting control of the scene are very, very important.”
Once the facts were all sorted out, officers repeatedly apologized to Williams. Police wish it never happened, but with the information they had at the time, their choices were limited.
“Do I wish there would have been some way they were notified in advance this gentleman was hearing impaired? I certainly do. No one is happy with the way it worked out,” says Lee.
Williams was not hurt in the incident. Police say the shooting call came from a cell phone but they still don’t know who made it or why.
The case is being reviewed by the department.
http://www.kwch.com/global/story.asp?s=7446220
***
My Note –
This man was in his own home, naked without a gun – obviously the police officers could see he was not hiding a gun in nothing more than a towel around his waist. Who trains these sadistic and incompetent excuses for humanity, sticks them in police uniforms and gives them guns and tasers and pepper spray to use on people?
– cricketdiane
***
MOBILE, Ala., July 28, 2009
Cops Taser Deaf, Mentally Disabled Man
When Man Wouldn’t Leave A Store Bathroom, Alabama Police Used Stun Gun, Pepper Spray
* Photo
(AP / CBS)
* Stories
* Triple Taser: New Gun Can Stun 3 at a Time
* Aussie Bursts into Flames after Tasering
(AP) Police in Mobile, Alabama, used pepper spray and a Taser on a deaf, mentally disabled who they said wouldn’t leave a store’s bathroom.
The family of 37-year-old Antonio Love has filed a formal complaint over the incident on Friday.
Police tell the Press-Register of Mobile that officers shot pepper spray under the bathroom door after knocking several times. After forcing the door open, they used the stun gun on Love.
Police spokesman Christopher Levy says police didn’t realize Love had a hearing impairment until after he was out of the bathroom. The officers’ conduct is under investigation.
The newspaper says the officers attempted to book Love on charges including disorderly conduct, but a magistrate on duty wouldn’t accept the charges.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/28/national/main5193064.shtml
***
My Note –
so if you have diarrhea, food poisoning, stomach virus or vomiting in a four foot by four foot closet-sized bathroom in the Dollar General without having committed any crime and fully unarmed – the police in the cities and counties of the United States have a right to taser you multiple times, stick pepper spray on you and in your face and eyes to make you sicker and can shoot you or beat you to death if they want to do that and it is completely justified according to the “authorities” who investigate it. (which means they are okay with that and find it acceptable, in fact, these local authorities are promoting and condoning that level of violence and police brutality against unarmed citizens.) – Are they any different than the Gestapo at that point? Who have they helped, who have they saved, who have they protected? The man was unarmed, deaf and in one of those little store bathrooms. He hadn’t stolen anything, he hadn’t threatened anybody and the only thing he had done was to stay in the bathroom longer than normal because of stomach illness.
– cricketdiane
***
Ala. Police: Taser Use on Disabled Man Justified
Police defend using pepper spray, Taser on mentally disabled deaf man in Ala. store bathroom
MOBILE, Ala. July 28, 2009 (AP)
The Associated Press
Ala. Police: Taser Use on Disabled Man Justified
(ABC News Photo Illustration)
Officers who used pepper spray and a Taser to remove a man from a store bathroom found out only later he was deaf and mentally disabled and didn’t understand they wanted him to open the door, police said Tuesday.
A spokesman for the Mobile Police Department said the officers’ actions were justified because the man was armed with a potential weapon — an umbrella.
But relatives of Antonio Love, 37, have asked for a formal investigation and said they plan to sue both the police and the store.
“I want justice,” Love’s mother, Phyllis Love, said Tuesday.
The woman said her son hears only faintly, has the mental capacity of a 10-year-old and didn’t realize that it was the police who were trying enter the bathroom.
“He thought the devil was out there trying to get in to get him,” she said.
Antonio Love, in a written statement and in a television interview given in sign language about the confrontation, said he had a badly upset stomach last Friday and went into a Dollar General store to use the restroom.
Police spokesman Christopher Levy said Tuesday store workers called officers complaining that a man had been in the bathroom for more than an hour with the door locked. Officers knocked on the door and identified themselves, but the person didn’t respond.
Officers used a tire iron to open the door, but the man pushed back to keep it shut. Officers saw the umbrella and sprayed pepper spray through a crack trying to subdue the man, Levy said. They shot the man with a Taser when they finally got inside, he said.
Officers didn’t realize Love was deaf or had mental problems until he showed them a card he carries in his wallet, Levy said. He was arrested on a charge of disorderly conduct, but officers released him and took him home after a magistrate refused to issue a warrant.
Levy said officers were justified in using force against Love since he had an umbrella.
“The officers really worked within the limits of our level-of-force policy,” he said. “We had no information about who this guy was.”
Phyllis Love said her son, who has worked in the garden department at a Lowe’s store for several years, was scared when he realized someone was trying to get into the bathroom with him. He put water on his face and on the floor after being hit with pepper spray, she said.
“He didn’t know it was a policeman until they busted the door in on him,” she said. “He had a knot on his head from where it hit him.”
Levy said police wish the confrontation had never occurred. The internal investigation will include a review of Love’s complaints that officers laughed at him after realizing he was deaf, he said.
“We’ll make whatever efforts we can to resolve this situation, hopefully so this man will be able to trust police in the future so we can help him. Obviously, it’s going to be a rough road,” he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8189526
***
Top 7 ‘Shocking’ Taser Incidents
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8156219&page=1
Did Great Grandmother Deserve to Be Tasered?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7799290&page=1
Pregnant Woman’s Tasering Probed
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3931934&page=1
Related
Taser Nation: Do Cops Overuse Them?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3634737&page=1
Tasers Safe? Study Recharges Debate
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3695594&page=1
Police Too Quick to Taser?
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3633845&page=1
***
Pregnant Woman’s Tasering Probed
FBI, Ohio Cops Investigate Nov. 18 Incident After Complaint Filed
By DAVID SCHOETZ
Nov. 29, 2007
The FBI and an Ohio police department are investigating an incident in which a pregnant woman was stunned with a Taser inside the lobby of a police station after refusing to answer an officer’s question and ultimately resisting arrest.
Taser
The two investigations began after Richard Jones, president of the Ohio chapter of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, called in a complaint to the Trotwood Police Department, Trotwood public safety director Michael Etter told ABC News.
Surveillance video of the incident, which took place on the morning of Nov. 18, shows a woman identified in a police incident report as Valreca Redden, 33, in the lobby of the suburban Dayton police station with her 1-year-old son.
Redden, according to Etter, had come to the police station to ask police to take custody of her child. When officer Michael Wilmer asked why, the woman reportedly would only say that “she’s tired of playing games” with the baby’s father.
“At this point, they had a little more discussion that went nowhere,” Etter said, recounting the incident. “She says, ‘I’m leaving.'”
Etter, who repeatedly emphasized to ABC News that Wilmer had no idea the Valreca was pregnant, said that the officer then explained that she could not leave without further explanation. He took hold of the child with one arm, Etter said, and pushed the woman down with the other.
When a second officer arrived, Wilmer handed over the 1-year-old and attempted to handcuff Valreca. She began to resist, Etter said, at which point he “employed what is called a ‘drive stun'” on the back of her neck.
“If he were to take the baby and have her leave, we don’t know who the baby is,” Etter said. “There’s certain information that he’s responsible for. I think the officer made the right decision in detaining her.” Wilmer remains on duty.
The Taser model used by the Trotwood police force, according to Etter, can either be fired like a gun or pressed against a target to deploy.
Valreca was charged with obstructing official business and resisting arrest. It was not until the woman, wearing a heavy coat, was being checked out by jail staff that officers learned she was pregnant, Etter said. At that point, she was transported directly to the hospital.
Jones, from Sharpton’s National Action Network, called to complain about the incident, claiming that police violated Ohio’s “safe haven” law and that the woman should have been able to simply drop the 1-year-old without questions from police. Etter explained that the state statute applies only to children 72 hours old or younger.
Jones, who did not immediately return a phone call from ABC News, also informed Etter that he would be contacting the FBI, Etter said. Etter did the same, and the FBI has said it will investigate the incident.
For its part, he said, the department wants to see if its Taser policy is proper. “We’re investigating a lot of different things,” Etter said. “But No. 1 is force.”
According to a copy of Trotwood Police Department General Orders, police officers are encouraged to “greatly evaluate each situation with discretion” before using a Taser on a child, elderly person or pregnant woman.
Tianesha Robinson, 33, was pregnant in 2006 when she was jolted by a stun gun in Kansas after she allegedly resisted arrest during a traffic stop. Robinson ultimately had a miscarriage, according to The Associated Press, but doctors could not conclusively link the Taser to the woman losing the baby.
Another woman, Cindy Grippi, delivered a stillborn girl in December 2001 after California police hit her with a Taser. A medical examiner never determined the cause of the child’s death, which could have been traced to the woman’s methamphetamine usage. Still, the city of Chula Vista settled a lawsuit with the woman for $675,000, according to the AP.
Authorities in Utah are probing a recent Taser incident in which motorist Jared Massey was struck by the device after allegedly disobeying an officer’s requests. Massey, who filed a complaint with Utah authorities about the trooper’s use of force, posted the dashboard camera video of the confrontation on YouTube last week. The incident sparked a new round debate.
Canadian officials continue to investigate the case of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died after he was hit by a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport in October. The four police officers involved in that incident, which also was caught on surveillance tape, have since been reassigned to different posts. Eighteen people have died in Canada after being hit with a Taser in the last four years, according to the Canadian federal police.
The human rights organization Amnesty International, which urges more restraint by law enforcement when choosing to discharge the devices, cited 250 cases in the United States in the last six years in which a suspect died after being hit with a Taser. Those statistics, however, do not track whether the shock actually caused the deaths.
Taser International Inc., the company that manufactures Tasers, claims that the device can only be tied to 12 deaths but does recognize that pregnant women are at more risk of danger if hit by one of the devices.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3931934&page=1
***
My Note –
You can”t be that stupid, abusive and psychotic and get a job even at MickeyD’s but its okay for some reason to put these same sadistic bastards into a police uniform and give them weapons. And then, when they do something psychotic – the government authorities are covering for them and saying to the public that the citizens’ lives are not important, not valuable and don’t count for anything.
Then what are the police there to do? – what purpose do they serve if people’s lives, health and safety don’t matter to them? Are the police and law enforcement commonly brutalizing people in America because they can or are they part of the last thirty years of Republicans running this country into the ground and creating a police state to do it – just to assure their own what?
What did they really think they would get out of it? – every society in history that has done this kind of cruel, vicious brutality to their people has ultimately been decimated and the powerful “authorities” that caused it, decided for it and supported that brutality have been stripped of that power and wealth.
– cricketdiane
***
Top 7 ‘Shocking’ Taser Incidents
Grandma, Pregnant Woman, University Student All Felled by Taser-Wielding Cops
By SARAH NETTER
July 24, 2009
Police officers often take a lot of flak for their actions after being thrust into volatile situations.
Two officers in Boise, Idaho, are disciplined for Taser use during an arrest.
Department policy often outlines when use of force — from a gun to a baton — is warranted, but the increased use of Tasers has created a grey area where internal investigators often struggle to balance an officer’s right to protect himself and others with the use of high-voltage electricity shot into another person’s body.
Some of the more high-profile uses of Tasers have turned into punch lines or jokes, like the 2007 “Don’t tase me bro!” incident at the University of Florida.
But others, such as this year’s death of a mentally ill man in New York City, can have life-changing consequences for the victims and the officers involved.
Here is a list of some of the most memorable Taser incidents:
No Ifs, Ands or Butts About It — Cops Took Taser Incident Too Far
Two Boise, Idaho, police officers were reprimanded after an investigation concluded excessive force was used on an unidentified man who was shocked in the back and the backside.
But it wasn’t the actual shocks that got the officers in trouble. It was their threats to tase the man in the anus and genitals that raised eyebrows. The man, who claimed the officers thrust the Taser into his nether regions, told the Idaho Statesman that he plans to sue.
Police were called to the scene after a neighbor reported a possible domestic violence dispute.
Great-Grandma Gets What She Asked For
A routine traffic stop got off to a bad start for 72-year-old great-grandmother Kathryn Winkfein.
After being pulled over in Travis County, Texas, in May for driving 60 mph in a 45 mph zone, Winkfein, captured on the officer’s dashboard camera, refused to sign her ticket. She then got out of the truck, telling Officer Chris Bieze to “give me the f—ing ticket now.”
Bieze can then be seen shoving the woman, something he said was to keep her away from oncoming traffic.
“You’re going to shove me? You’re going to shove a 72-year-old woman?” Winkfein demanded.
Bieze can be heard on the tape warning the woman about a half dozen times that he would tase her if she didn’t stand back, to which she replied, “Go ahead, tase me.”
So he did.
Winkfein was charged with resisting arrest and taken to jail. Bieze’s boss later told reporters that his officer did everything by the book.
Man’s Naked Plunge Leads to Cop’s Suicide
Police in New York City didn’t get off so easily last September when a naked man plunged to his death in Brooklyn after being tased.
Top 7 ‘Schocking’ Taser Incidents
Outrageous use of Tasers makes for great headlines, but people have been killed and officers have been fired when law enforcment takes it too far.
(AP Photo)
Inman Morales, 35, died at a hospital after falling 10 stories. Police had been summoned to the building because Morales had threatened suicide.
When they arrived, Morales crawled out a window and onto a ledge, thrusting an 8-foot-long fluorescent light at officers as he went.
A video of the incident shows an officer raising his stun gun at the man who toppled head first off the ledge, prompting gasps and screams from the crowd below.
The officer who fired the electric shock was placed on desk duty while the NYPD investigated and the lieutenant who ordered the use of the stun gun was relieved of his gun and badge.
That lieutenant, Michael Pigott, shot himself in the head a few days later on Oct. 2.
An NYPD official said after Morales’ death that department guidelines specifically prohibit the use of Tasers when the suspect is in danger of falling from an elevated surface.
No criminal charges were filed in the case.
Cop Obliges Partygoing Teen’s Request for Tase
A rookie Florida cop got a little too Taser-happy at a birthday party he hosted where adults and minors mingled over alcohol.
Eustis Police Department officials said former officer Dan NeSmith, 22, tased 15-year-old Taylor Davis in the back in September after the teen wanted to know what it felt like.
The stunt was caught on camera with the crowd cheering NeSmith on as he placed the Taser along Davis’ spine and counted down. Even as visible electrical currents shoot into the boy, NeSmith holds the Taser on his back until Davis falls forward onto the floor.
NeSmith was found to have violated department policy and on Oct. 8, he was fired from the post he’d held for just 13 months.
Officer Shocked to Find Tasered Lady Pregnant
An Ohio police officer came under fire back in 2007 after a confrontation with a pregnant woman led to the officer tasing the woman in the back of the neck.
Valreca Redden, then 33, had come to the Trotwood Police Department to ask police to take custody of her 1-year-old son, telling officers that she was “tired of playing games” with the baby’s father.
When Officer Michael Wilmer told her she needed to provide more of an explanation, Redden attempted to leave. Wilmer then held the child with one hand and pushed Redden down with the other.
As officers attempted to put handcuffs on the woman, she resisted. That’s when, Trotwood public safety director Michael Etter told ABC News at the time, Wilmer fired a stun gun into the woman’s neck.
It wasn’t until Redden, who was wearing a heavy coat, was examined by jail staff that officials realized she was pregnant.
The Ohio chapter of the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network later called for an investigation by both police brass and the FBI.
According to a follow-up article by the Dayton Daily News, Wilmer was found at fault for the incident. He was dismissed from the force in December 2007 after violating department policy unrelated to the Redden incident.
The paper also reported that Redden was found not guilty on the charges of resisting arrest and obstructing official business.
Father, Newborn Hit the Ground After Taser Strike
New father William Lewis claimed his newborn daughter suffered head injuries in April 2007 after a hospital security guard tased him while Lewis was still holding his little girl.
According to The Associated Press, Lewis and his wife had tried to leave the hospital after becoming upset with the staff, but a wristband on the baby prevented the elevators they were using to leave from operating.
In a video of the incident, Lewis can be seen holding his daughter at the Women’s Hospital of Texas in Houston, pacing while his wife and two security guards stand nearby.
A few moments later, one of the guards — later identified as off-duty Houston Police Officer David Boling — tases Lewis off-camera, causing him and the baby to fall to the ground.
The baby was later placed in state custody because of prior domestic problems between Lewis and his wife, according to the AP, and state officials said she showed no signs of trauma from the incident.
The hospital defended the guard’s actions, saying in a statement that they followed proper procedure.
The Tase Heard ‘Round the World
It’s arguably the most famous use of a Taser. University of Florida student Andrew Meyer yelled out “Don’t tase me bro!” as he was tackled by university police during a September 2007 speaking engagement by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
Meyer had rankled the crowd by refusing to stop firing questions at the senator, including whether or not he’d been a member of the Yale secret society Skull and Bones.
Meyer’s tasering prompted a student protest at the University of Florida and the then 21-year-old became a viral hero after video of the incident hit the Internet. “Don’t tase me bro!” became a popular rallying cry and an instant pop culture staple.
The officers, according to the AP, were eventually cleared of any wrongdoing.
The “Don’t tase me bro!” video has nearly 4 million views on YouTube.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8156219&page=1
***
My Note –
Because police are public servants and are being paid from our tax dollars and because they are armed civil servants, they should be held to a higher standard of accountability. And, when they use unreasonable force, brutalize people or shoot, taser or beat someone to death, these police officers should be sent to jail as psychotic, deranged killers and either held until they die or they should be electrocuted under the death penalty. Because what they are doing is deranged psychotic and sadistic murder, brutality, violence and crime against the people of the United States and against our communities.
If they were at risk of being hung, electrocuted or killed by lethal injection and facing, at the very least – life in prison until they died naturally – these police and law enforcement officers would not be brutalizing people, abusing the authority of their office and killing people who are unarmed or maiming citizens permanently. They just wouldn’t be doing it because there would be real and personal consequences to them for those actions. And, honestly – the police are the criminals in these situations and they are mentally unstable, mentally ill and acting as tyrants in every sense of it. It isn’t justified.
Anyone who can’t figure out a better way to take scissors away from a mentally and developmentally disabled person than to shoot them – shouldn’t be a police officer and damn sure shouldn’t be armed with anything, certainly not be armed with anything permanently life altering nor with anything that can cause death.
– cricketdiane, 10-09-09
***
Jan 8, 2009 12:55 am US/Pacific
BART Shooting Protest Turns Violent In Oakland
Reporting
Joe Vazquez
OAKLAND (CBS 5 / KCBS / AP / BCN) —
Related Slideshows
Fatal BART Shooting Caught On Tape
BART Shooting Protest Becomes Violent
Related Stories
* Family Files Claim In BART Shooting; Officer ID’d
(1/7/2009)
* Shooting Protesters Rally At BART Headquarters
(1/6/2009)
* Home Video Surfaces Of Oakland BART Shooting
(1/3/2009)
* Oak. Attorney: BART Shooting Was Unjustifiable
(1/3/2009)
* Police Fatally Shoot Man At Oakland BART Station
(1/2/2009)
* $25 Million Lawsuit Announced In BART Shooting
(1/5/2009)
An Oakland protest over the fatal shooting of an unarmed man on a train platform by Bay Area Rapid Transit police turned violent Wednesday night, with fires set, cars vandalized, and windows smashed – just hours after the officer who fired the deadly shot resigned.
Police reported at least 15 arrests had been made in the rioting as of late Wednesday night, while Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums urged crowds to calm down.
“Even with our anger and our pain, let’s still address each other with a degree of civility and calmness and not make this tragedy an excuse to engage in violence,” Dellums said. “I don’t want anybody hurt, I don’t want anybody killed.”
Protesters numbering about 400 had gathered at the Fruitvale BART station where the shooting occured for a peaceful rally, and then took the streets of Oakland to condemn the incident and call for criminal charges against 27-year-old BART police officer Johannes Mehserle.
The protesters temporarily shut down three BART stations in Oakland during the evening commute: Fruitvale, Lake Merritt and City Center/12th Street. Then the crowd became violent at 8th and Madison streets, as protesters set a large garbage dumpster on fire and attacked a police car, smashing the back window and attempting to overturn it.
Nearly 250 police officers in riot gear fired tear gas at the rowdy demonstrators, most of whom ran from the scene while a few stayed and threw bottles at officers. Smaller splinter groups of protestors continued their raucus march through the Lake Merritt and downtown areas — setting more fires, vandalizing vehicles and breaking windows at a McDonald’s restaurant at 14th and Jackson streets.
The rioting continued into the late-night hours as police continued moving in to shut down some city streets in the hopes of restoring order.
The uproar surrounded the shooting death of 22-year-old Oscar Grant of Hayward, who was lying face-down on the Fruitvale station platform when he was shot and killed early New Year’s Day by Mehserle — one of several BART officers responding to reports about groups of men fighting on a train.
BART officials said Mehserle was urged to cooperate with a probe into the shooting. Mehserle was scheduled to meet with agency investigators on Wednesday, but did not show up. His attorney and union representative turned in his resignation letter, instead.
John Burris, an Oakland civil rights attorney hired by Grant’s family, said the timing of the resignation was not a surprise to him: “He doesn’t want to give a statement because BART could’ve ordered him to do so, and if he didn’t, he could be terminated.”
Now that he is not employed by BART, Mehserle can exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and not speak to investigators.
Mehserle’s attorney did not immediately respond to calls for comment Wednesday, but BART spokesman Linton Johnson said Mehserle had received death threats since the shooting and has moved twice to ensure his safety.
“This shooting is a tragic event in every respect for everyone involved,” Dorothy Dugger, BART’s General Manager said after announcing Mehserle’s resignation. “We recognize that the family and friends of Oscar Grant are in mourning and we extend our condolences.”
The shooting case was also under investigation by the Alameda County District Attorney’s office.
“Emotions around it are 100 percent understandable, but they can’t determine the decision that is eventually made after an objective analysis,” Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff told CBS 5 after a meeting with some of Oakland’s African-American city leaders.
Orloff said he would not provide a timeline for the investigation by his office, indicating that these types of cases usually take weeks.
“I’ve been telling people in general these things take weeks rather than days, but this is one where there’s a high degree of interest so I’d like to get to a resolution as quickly as I can,” Orloff said.
Grant’s family has filed a $25 million wrongful death claim against BART and also wants prosecutors to file criminal charges against Mehserle.
The shooting incident was captured on video cameras and cell phones by multiple train passengers. Some gave their footage to CBS 5 and other media outlets, and the images have sparked an outcry from the community.
“This is an issue of grave concern in our community,” said Oakland City Councilwoman Desley Brooks, who was among those who met with the D.A. “I’ve not seen anybody handcuffed on their knees begging for their life shot before. I would hope that it would be alarming to anybody who saw that.”
Burris said Wednesday that one of the latest amateur videos of the shooting shows that Mehserle did have a Taser on his left side, but he went for a gun on his right side, instead.
“The video supports the position we are taking and eyewitnesses’ testimony that the officer deliberately went for his gun and there’s no mistake about it,” Burris said. “He didn’t reach across for his Taser. He couldn’t have been thinking about that. He went directly for his gun.”
However, Burris said he’s not optimistic that Orloff will file criminal charges against Mehserle, saying that he doesn’t know of any occasions in which the District Attorney’s office has prosecuted a police officer for killing someone.
So, Burris said he also planned to send a letter to federal civil rights officials asking them to charge Mehserle under federal criminal statutes.
At a City Hall news conference shortly before the protest rally began, Dellums had called Grant’s death “a tragic moment in our community’s history.”
“Our entire community grieves at the loss of Oscar Grant III,” but the mayor added, “while the investigation now under way may shed light on specific details of the shooting, at the end of the day, establishing culpability will not bring back a life tragically lost.”
Earlier in the day, about 700 hundred mourners attended a funeral for Grant, the father of a 4-year-old girl, at Palma Ceia Baptist Church in Hayward.
Sister Donna Smith of the church, said Grant “loved the Bible when he was growing up,” and had the loudest voice in the church choir. The Rev. James Word added, “I thought Oscar was going to be a preacher but God had other plans.”
Word recalled that Grant, who worked as a butcher at an Oakland grocery store, came to his office one day to tell him how happy he was when he became an apprentice meat cutter.
The Rev. Ronald Coleman, who presided at the funeral service, said, “this is something that the world is watching. They wonder if we will start a fight or a civil commotion.”
But Coleman told the audience, “We must respond with prudence. I understand that some of you youngsters are upset, but nonetheless we have to trust in God. This is not your fight.”
But afterward, the hours-long protest that would turn violent began at BART’s Fruitvale station, with rally organizer Evan Shamar proclaiming that Grant “was executed right here while he was hogtied” and vowed “we will not be silent.”
There was a loud cheer when Shamar announced to the crowd that Mehserle had resigned, but added that he “should be prosecuted for second-degree murder.”
“We want him charged in an American courtroom,” Shamar said as the crowd chanted, “No justice, no peace!”
Shamar maintained late Wednesday night that a group of anarchists, who were not part of the organizations hosting the protest rally, were responsible for igniting the violence.
http://cbs5.com/local/oscar.grant.funeral.2.902090.html
***
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2009) |
Police brutality is the intentional use of excessive force, usually physical, but potentially also in the form of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation, by a police officer. It is in some instances triggered by “contempt of cop“, i.e., perceived disrespect towards police officers.
Widespread police brutality exists in many countries, even those that prosecute it.[1] Police brutality is one of several forms of police misconduct, which include false arrest, intimidation, racial profiling, political repression, surveillance abuse, sexual abuse, and police corruption.
Contents[hide] |
Throughout history, efforts to police societies have been marred by brutality to some degree. In the ancient world, policing entities actively cultivated an atmosphere of terror, and abusive treatment was used in order to achieve more efficient control of the population[citation needed].
The origin of modern policing based on the authority of the nation state is commonly traced back to developments in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, with modern police departments being established in most nations by the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see Police – History section). Cases of police brutality appear to have been frequent then, with “the routine bludgeoning of citizens by patrolmen armed with nightsticks or blackjacks.”.[2] Large-scale incidents of brutality were associated with labor strikes, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the Pullman Strike of 1894, the Lawrence textile strike of 1912, the Ludlow massacre of 1914, the Steel strike of 1919, and the Hanapepe massacre of 1924.
In the United States, the passage of the Volstead Act (popularly known as the National Prohibition Act) in 1919 had a long-term negative impact on policing practices. By the mid-1920s, crime was growing dramatically in response to the demand for illegal alcohol. Many law enforcement agencies stepped up the use of unlawful practices. By the time of the Hoover administration (1929–1932), the issue had risen to national concern and a National Committee on Law Observation and Enforcement (popularly known as the Wickersham Commission) was formed to look into the situation.[3] The resulting “Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement” (1931) concluded that “[t]he third degree–that is, the use of physical brutality, or other forms of cruelty, to obtain involuntary confessions or admissions–is widespread.”[4] In the years following the report, landmark legal judgements such as Brown v. Mississippi helped cement a legal obligation to respect the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[5]
During the Vietnam War, anti-war demonstrations were sometimes quelled through the use of billy-clubs and CS gas, commonly known as tear gas. The most notorious of these assaults took place during the August 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The actions of the police were later described as a “police riot” in the Walker Report to the U.S. National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.[9]
As was the case with Prohibition during the 1920s and 1930s, the “War on Drugs” initiated by President Richard M. Nixon in 1969 has been marked by increased police misconduct. Critics contend that a “holy war” mentality[10][11] has helped to nurture a “new militarized style of policing” where “confrontation has replaced investigation.”.
In the United States, race and police brutality continue to be closely linked, and the phenomenon has sparked a string of race riots over the years. Especially notable among these incidents was the uprising caused by the arrest and beating of Rodney King on March 3, 1991 by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. The atmosphere was particularly volatile because the brutality had been videotaped by a bystander and widely broadcast afterwards. When the four law enforcement officers charged with assault and other charges were acquitted, the 1992 Los Angeles Riots broke out.
Numerous human rights observers have raised concerns about increased police brutality in the U.S. in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. An extensive report prepared for the United Nations Human Rights Committee tabled in 2006 states that in the United States, the “War on Terror” has “created a generalized climate of impunity for law enforcement officers, and contributed to the erosion of what few accountability mechanisms exist for civilian control over law enforcement agencies. As a result, police brutality and abuse persist unabated and undeterred across the country.”[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality
***
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEeqrbV2-W8
policebrutality.info since 2008
***
***
Police shoots a 15 year old mental disabled kid
Labels: article, police violence
A 15-year-old student at Garfield Park, a private school for children with emotional or behavioral disorders, was shot twice after he threatened the police with a pair of scissors. (shot in the stomach and chest, because anybody who has scissors might be a viable threat to police officers who aren’t in striking distance and are armed with guns. – in what guys’ army would that make any sense? – my note)
The incident happened in front of the school. The boy was first threatening some school employees and also some students, before he ran out on the parking lot where he pointed two scissors at a police officer. He was asked to put his weapon down, and a witness said that she heard how they yelled ”put it down, put it down!” before the sound of two gunshots being fired.
She said she went out to see what was going on and there she saw the victim lying on his side clutching his stomach. The officer that shot the boy, William Smith, was not injured. The shooting will be investigated according to the Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office. The boy was reported in critical but stable condition at Cooper University Hospital, Camden.
Carol Dunn had a similar incident with the police in New Jersey, where her son was shot by an officer outside a church because he refused to let go of the knife he was holding. “I think police should take every necessary step to save lives. This should be included in their training,” she said. “Are they interested in taking lives or is the state of New Jersey interested in saving lives?”
Related: Police broke hand on 15 years old boy (video)
http://www.policebrutality.info/2009/01/police-abusing-and-shooting-ill-kid.html
**
Prosecutor: Police shooting at Garfield Park Academy in Willingboro was justified
Posted in News on Thursday, August 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
A Willingboro police officer who shot a 15-year-old boy armed with scissors outside the Garfield Park Academy two summers ago was cleared of any wrongdoing, authorities announced today.
The Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office and the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice determined that Willingboro Sgt. William Smith was legally justified in his use of deadly force during the June 7, 2007 incident at the private school on Glenolden Lane.
According to investigators, the shooting occurred shortly before 4 p.m. when Smith and several other officers responded to 911 calls from the school reporting an out-of-control student armed with scissors threatening staff in the school office and students in a front hallway.
When the officers arrived, they were confronted inside the lobby by a 15-year-old student brandishing scissors. The officers approached the student and attempted to speak to him, but the teenager refused several commands to drop the scissors.
“When the student continued to behave in an aggressive manner and his actions became threatening toward officers, Sergeant Smith fired two shots, striking the student in the chest and abdomen,” the Prosecutor’s Office reported.
The student, whose name was not released because he is a juvenile, survived after undergoing treatment at Cooper University Hospital in Camden.
The Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office investigated the shooting and determined that Smith “fully complied with the Attorney General’s guidelines pertaining to the use of force,” a press release said. The state Division of Criminal Justice reviewed the Prosecutor’s Office findings and concurred, the release said.
Information was not available about whether Smith is still employed as an officer in Willingboro.
The Garfield Park Academy is a nonprofit, kindergarten through 12th grade private school founded in 1993 that specializes in educating students with emotional and behavioral problems. ( and then inviting police to shoot them dead or maim them permanently out on the front lawn because they have scissors and are aggravated and unhappy, isn’t that some special treatment for disabled people with special needs – oh yeah, they’re starting to make the Cold War Soviet Union tactics, Stasi and secret police tactics of Saddam Hussein on the streets of America – but not from terrorists, its happening from our own police and law enforcement officers, with the DA’s office and local politicians backing them – my note)
At the time of the shooting, school officials described the boy as a special-needs student who attended an individualized program at the school in the late afternoon and evenings that was separate from the day classes.
***
My Note –
“The Garfield Park Academy is a nonprofit, kindergarten through 12th grade private school founded in 1993 that specializes in educating students with emotional and behavioral problems. ”
( and then inviting police to shoot them dead or maim them permanently out on the front lawn because they have scissors and are aggravated and unhappy, isn’t that some special treatment for disabled people with special needs –
oh yeah, they’re starting to make the Cold War Soviet Union tactics, Stasi and secret police tactics of Saddam Hussein on the streets of America – but not from terrorists, its happening from our own police and law enforcement officers, with the DA’s office and local politicians backing them – cricketdiane)
***
//
MERCED, Calif. — The Merced Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division is investigating whether an officer twice used a Taser on an unarmed, wheelchair-bound man with no legs.
The man who was Tasered, Gregory Williams, 40, a double-leg amputee, spent six days in jail on suspicion of domestic violence and resisting arrest, but the Merced County District Attorney’s office hasn’t filed any charges.
RELATED: VIDEO: Police Taser And Beat Man In Texas
Williams is black, and the two main arresting officers are white, but it’s unknown whether race played any role in the incident.
Williams, who was released from jail on Friday, said he was manhandled and Tasered by police, even though he said he was never physically aggressive toward the officers and didn’t resist arrest.
Williams said he was humiliated after his pants fell down during the incident. The officers allegedly left him outdoors in broad daylight, handcuffed on the pavement, nude below the waist. Williams said the Sept. 11 arrest also left him with an injured shoulder, limiting his mobility in his wheelchair.
A handful of residents in Williams’ apartment complex said they witnessed the incident and supported Williams’ charges. A short video clip, shot by a neighbor and obtained by the Sun-Star, shows Williams sitting on the pavement with his pants down, his hands cuffed behind his back.
RELATED: Man Dies After Being Tasered In Los Angeles
A Merced police report, written by the responding officers, says that police tried to reason with Williams before the arrest, to no avail. The officers wrote that Williams was uncooperative and refused to turn his 2-year-old daughter over to Merced County Child Protective Services, among other allegations.
[SOURCE: McClatchy]
//
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department says a man has died after a deputy shocked him three times with an electric stun gun at a subway station.
Sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore says the man, who was not immediately identified, was at the North Hollywood Red Line station Wednesday night when a deputy repeatedly asked if he had a ticket.
The man didn’t answer, so the deputy took hold of his hands to stop and question him.
Whitmore says the man broke free, raised clenched fists and charged the deputy several times. He was Tasered, then shocked twice more when he got up and charged again.
Whitmore says a pipe used to smoke drugs fell to the ground during the scuffle.
Los Angeles, police, Police brutality
http://newsone.com/nation/man-dies-after-being-tasered-in-los-angeles/
***
My Note –
but the man wasn’t killed because he was threatening the officer nor because he didn’t have a two dollar ticket for the subway – he was tasered and killed because the officer didn’t like the fact that the man didn’t answer him when he demanded an answer and assaulted the man who wasn’t doing anything illegal in front of the officer. These types of police actions are a betrayal of public trust, an abuse of authority, purely police brutality and psychotic. And, the criminal behavior is exhibited by that police officer who should be tried as a murderer, since in fact, that he what he is. When it is no longer possible to tell the difference between the violence and abuse and torture and heinous crimes of the police and the “bad guys” – something is very wrong.
– cricketdiane
***
The trial of Anthony D. Marshall, the 85-year-old son of the socialite and philanthropist Brooke Astor, was a tale of morality, and the sadness of it was not lost on the jury that on Thursday found him guilty of looting his mother’s estate. Jurors said they had tried to see through the wealth and glamour of the characters in the unfolding drama. And although the amounts of money were at times astounding to ponder, they infused their deliberations with experiences from their own lives.
The guilty verdict has done little to resolve the uncertain fate of the $180 million estate at the heart of the discord. So even as Mr. Marshall awaits sentencing and a possible appeal, another legal showdown looms.
(Also see The Daily News, and its article on Mr. Marshall’s reaction.)
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/astor-case-ends-in-verdict-of-guilt/
***
And that’s the moral fiber of this country who has all the money, all the power and the contemporary decision-making opportunities that we all have to endure? This kind of guy and his socialite / political / wealthy cronies form our decision-making bunch who have all the resources at their disposal? No wonder its all screwed up . . .
– cricketdiane, 10-09-09
***
This is what you call enviromentally benign fuels and chemicals that basically incorporate man into the carbon cycle. Rather than have man pump more carbon into the atmosphere, it is theoretically and technically feasible to use carbon dioxide directly to produce methanol or other lower chemicals then convert these into higher products. If you heat municipal solid waste at 1000 degrees in a carbon dioxide environment you get a gas that is predominantly carbon monoxide; carbon monoxide can then be reoxidized to operate turbines, engines, make fuels through FT synthesis and the enflluent can undergo the process infinitely.
(And this one – )
Posted by: An Engineer | September 14, 2006 at 04:53 PM
I like the CO2 Bioreactor MUCH BETTER…
and the technology is ready NOW…
http://www.gs-cleantech.com/product_desc.php?mode=3&media=true
(which yielded this: )
***
GreenShift’s patented and patent-pending bioreactor process uses thermophillic cyanobacteria to consume carbon dioxide emissions. The organisms use the available carbon dioxide in the emissions and water to grow and give off oxygen and water vapor. The organisms also absorb nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. Once the organisms grow to maturity, they fall to the bottom of GreenShift’s bioreactor where they can be harvested for extraction and conversion into value added carbon neutral products
How it Works
All photosynthetic organisms need the following to live and grow: a supply of CO2, light, a growth media and water with nutrients. GreenShift’s CO2 Bioreactor has the potential to reduce the costs of and technical barriers to managing the flow resources into, through and out bioreactor in a compact and cost-efficient way as compared to other algae bioreactor technologies.
Concentrated CO2 is captured and piped to the bioreactor. The sunlight is then collected using efficient parabolic mirrors that transfer and filter the light to a series of light pipes. The light pipes channel the light into the bioreactor structure where it is distributed and radiated throughout the structure using light panels. The organisms we use require as little as 1.5% direct light which means that our collected light can be distributed over a substantial surface area. Next, a growth media, such as polyester, is inserted between each lighting surface. Water, containing nutrients, continuously cascades down the growth media to facilitate the final required step for optimal growth.
To harvest the new biomass, the flow rate of the water over the growth media is increased slightly to remove a portion of the algae, allowing a portion of algae to remain and to begin the next growth cycle. The removed algae is then collected and routed for conversion into value added carbon neutral products. Our technology is also very flexible and can accommodate a variety of algae types. High starch, high oil, or high cellulose algae can be grown in our bioreactor depending on output requirements.
Pilot Facility
GreenShift’s pilot bioreactor is designed as a mobile demonstration platform to quantify existing benchtop testing results and to refine the design parameters for commercial-scale deployments of the technology at targeted locations.
GreenShift’s commercialization plan for this technology is to co-locate bioreactors at corn ethanol production plants and other fermentation processes where concentrated supplies of carbon dioxide naturally emit and are relatively easy to capture and control. We plan to leverage our existing extraction platform and presence in the U.S. ethanol industry to reduce capital and go-to-market costs.
Efficacy data and other relevant information from our pilot will be provided when it is available. In the meantime, we are seeking qualified early adopter sites for testing and deployment of this technology.
» Request Information