Tear Gas: Political and Medical Aspects

A look at how tear gas is used, and why this is medically and morally problematic. A first draft. I'm looking for feedback - either about what other angles to cover, or typos and thinkos. Thanks, Dru.



Tear Gas: Political and Medical Aspects
By Dru Oja Jay


   When meetings had ended and protests subsided at the Summit of the
   Americas in Quebec City last April, police had used a [1]total of
   4,709 canisters of tear gas over a 72 hour period, effectively
   filling the downtown area with gas. A [2]month later, downtown
   residences were still contaminated by the gas, and calls for a
   public inquiry were dismissed.
   
   In the aftermath, Prime Minister Jean Chretien congratulated police
   for "conducting themselves in an exemplary manner", and noted that
   "[protestors] had the right to protest but we will not tolerate
   breaking the peace of the people... You have the right to speak but
   you have to respect the law." Other officials were more cautious,
   noting that things had gone better in Quebec than in previous mass
   protests in Seattle or Washington DC (with the implication that
   things were more peaceful in Quebec as a result of actions on the
   part of police, not protesters).
   
   Chretien's comments are curious, given that people who intend to do
   serious damage would have likely forseen the need for a gas mask.
   Despite repeated condemnations of a "violent minority", the use of
   massive amounts of tear gas effectively (whether it was intentional
   or not) assaulted thousands of peaceful protesters, as well as
   residents. According to multiple eyewitnesses, medics who were
   treating tear gas victims were targeted by police. Additionally, the
   police raided the "clinic" space where injured protesters were being
   treated.
   
     [the police] marched everyone who was in the alley (the
     decontamination space) out at gunpoint. This included many medics
     and their patients, even seriously injured ones. The cops
     forcibly removed all the protective gear from everyone, including
     gas masks, vinegar bandannas and any goggles, saying "No more
     protection for you guys!".
     They also took all the medical supplies and equipment that was in
     the alley or being carried by the medics. They then marched them,
     hands in the air and at gunpoint, out into the gas. They made
     them walk one way, then changed their minds and marched them
     another direction. My friend Sean said that one guy next to him
     was hit in the head with a rubber bullet, and the cops wouldn't
     allow him to stop and treat the person.
     (from [3]an account by Sara Ahronheim, who volunteered as a medic
     during the protests)
     
   Aside from the rhetoric of politicians (though it light of the fact
   that the discussions were kept secret, and the text of the FTAA
   agreement was only released to selected corporations, Bush and
   Chretien's [4]talk of democracy is puzzling), the use of tear gas
   raises some serious health and human rights issues. The type of gas
   most often used by police to deter protests is
   o-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile, usually referred to as CS Gas.
   
   CS gas, along with its relatives, CN and CR, actually consist of
   crystals which vapourize at high temperature. CS spray irritates the
   skin, eyes and upper respiratory tract, causing severe discomfort,
   pain, or in high concentrations, asphyxiation. Proponents of
   continued use of CS Gas note that when "used properly" (i.e.
   outdoors, in low concentrations), it is effective in dispersing
   crowds while causing no permanent damage.
   
   These conclusions are also contingent on the assumption that people
   feel compelled to leave an area contaminated with gas, which not
   always the case. In Quebec City, for example, police fired tear gas
   canisters on to a crowded staircase, where people could not easily
   leave. In other cases, passages were blockaded by police, making it
   easy to be trapped. Or, as the authors of the EU report (mentioned
   below) put it, "operational usage sometimes means individuals face
   additional punishment or even death if they seek to leave a
   contaminated zone."
   
   A [5]survey of medical studies reveals that:
     * CS is both [6]clastogenic and [7]mutagenic;
     * Severe injury from exploding tear gas canisters has been
       documented;
     * CS has caused lethal toxic injury in documented cases.
       
   A European Union report on crowd control technologies [available
   [8]in pdf, [9]excerpted here] goes into greater detail, noting that
   extended exposure to CS gas can cause, in layman's terms, "victims
   to die by drowning in their own lung fluids" and "severe
   blistering". More simply, exposure to CS gas even in low
   concentrations raises blood pressure, which can be a serious risk to
   people over 30, or those with heart conditions. CS is especially
   harmful to infants, of which there were many in the populated
   downtown area. Outside of medical studies, protesters who have been
   exposed to CS have reported weakened immune systems for months after
   exposure, and women have experienced premature menstruation within
   hours of exposure.
   
   CS is not the only substance delivered by tear gas canisters.
   [10]Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), is used as a solvent for CS,
   which is normally in crystal form. MIBK has a number of [11]effects,
   including headaches, vomiting, and dizziness. It has not been
   established whether MIBK is carcinogenic.
   
   Asphysiating gasses like CS are banned for military use by a
   [12]protocol on chemical weapons signed in Geneva in 1925, but one
   wouldn't know it given the rather smug comments by Prime Minister
   Chretien and the lack of concern shown by other governments who use
   CS gas. Indeed, the British and American governments asserted (after
   signing the protocol) that CS was not covered because it is "not
   harmful to man". CS was allowed for specific applications (such as
   dispersing rioting prisoners of war) later on, but remains banned
   for general military use.
   
   Gassing of citizens, whether peacefully protesting or simply because
   they happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time is
   apparently a different matter altogether. Indeed, even in war it is
   generally understood that medics are not to be targeted (at the very
   least, it is in bad taste), whereas medics were quite intentionally
   targeted in Quebec. That governments feel compelled to be more civil
   in war than in confrontations with their own citizens is no
   understatement. Not only does it set a grave precedent (which, by
   most [13]indications, is being followed), but has real consequences.

References

   1. http://www.theexperiment.org/articles_printer.php?news_id=1311
   2. http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSQuebecSummit01/0522_homes-cp.html
   3. http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=38603
   4. http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSQuebecSummit01/0422_summit-cp.html
   5. http://www.zarc.com/english/tear_gases/jamateargastoxic.html
   6. http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?clastogenic
   7. http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?mutagenic
   8. http://www.europarl.eu.int/stoa/publi/pdf/99-14-01-a_en.pdf
   9. file://localhost/cs-gas/eu_report.html
  10. http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/subst/0173.htm
  11. http://www.lakes-environmental.com/toxic/METHYL_ISOBUTYL_KETONE.HTML
  12. http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/geneva1.html
  13. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010710/bs/g8summitantterrorism_010710_1.html


--
Posted on Monkeyfist at http://monkeyfist.com/articles/765