wounds from phosphorus burns (from nazi's)....American Soldiers

put 'phosphorus' on bush*'s POW sex-torture victims....has bush* sent a medical hospital to the prison to alleviate pain and heal his victims???? rape couselors, medical doctors....when will bush* send help to his victims??? how long must they wait?

--------------------------
General Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib.

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact


nazi torture victim

Photo of wounds left by a medical experiment. The victim had been
burned with phosphorous so that medicaments could be tested.


the nazi humiliated their victims too....stripping them of their clothes....









Statement by Justice Jackson on War Trials Agreement; August 12, 1945
There are some things I would like to say, particularly to the American people, about the agreement we have just signed.

For the first time, four of the most powerful nations have agreed not only upon the principles of liability for war crimes of persecution, but also upon the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.

Repeatedly, nations have united in abstract declarations that the launching of aggressive war is illegal. They have condemned it by treaty. But now we have the concrete application of these abstractions in a way which ought to make clear to the world that those who lead their nations into aggressive war face individual accountability for such acts.

The definitions under which we will try the Germans are general definitions. They impose liability upon war-making statesmen of all countries alike. If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure.

We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.

I therefore want to make clear to the American people that we have taken an important step forward in this instrument in fixing individual responsibility of war-mongering, among whatever peoples, as an international crime. We have taken another in recognizing an international accountability for persecutions, exterminations, and crimes against humanity when associated with attacks on the peace of the international order.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack02.htm

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/phototoc.html

Some people are too quick to use Nazi analogies, but you make a valid point about Nazis burning prisoners with chemicals and stripping them.

We need specific criminal laws and independent oversight such that any American who orders that is harshly punished.

to use Nazi analogies?

..they really hit home as to what the military and its contractors are doing to those prisoners.. you can see the Nazi guards smiling in the background. I'm near tears seeing those photos.

If that type of abuse and torture is not* allowed according to our Constitution in our own prisons, it should never be practiced by our citizens anywhere else.

Ah.. but we musn't make any comparisons of Bush's regime to Hitler's.. isn't what we've been taught to think now? Can I just say that this administration is the closest to the Nazi mentality of any American adminstration in history? Can I say that?

*edited Freudian slip.

A few months ago, the GOP chairman said that it was terrible that MoveOn uploaded a couple of anti-Bush contest ads which compared Bush to Hitler.

Now that we know of prisoners being stripped and burnt with phosphorous, the comparison seems less radical, though of course Bush didn't murder 6 million Jews.

3 and a half years into his term. They started out with propaganda and getting rid of civil rights, censorship.

The mass killings didn't start until later, with the retarded and unfit German citizens coming first, and then Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals.

wHO LEAKED THOSE PHOTOS

None of your links are connected to American Soldiers. If you are saying American Soldiers are National Socialists do you mean many? do you mean one? do you mean any? do you mean none?

"(U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/

We take mil surplus chem lights (all colors) and smear it all over us every Summer with no ill effect. Why do supposed intelligent people buy into that kind of prattle crap?

nt

:evilgrin:

You know, just in the interest of some harmless fun and games.

but I wouldn't object if it was just a nontoxic, nonirritating substance like that found in a chemical light stick.

I really don't give a tinker's damn where it comes from.

However, if they used nontoxic and nonirritating substances like those used in chemlites, I don't guess I'd mind. After all, I've had that stuff on me before.

I think the first time I was probably about ten years old or so and sawed one open just to see what was inside. Then we used to get stoned and spray ourselves and others with it in high school. Then we used to mark people and objects with it in the military. I'd imagine I've had the stuff on me a dozen times or so and have somehow escaped permanent disfigurement.

Do you think I'm lying to you about that or what?

With the same chem lights? You know, boys will be boys, just good clean fun and all that...

I think that arguing Lightstick/Phospher light is way missing the point. Look at what was done.

n/t

What inspired you to choose that name? French ingratitude for American help in World War Two?

Its good seeing a name that reminds us of history.

on the sex-torture abuse at the Prison....these reports were written by High Level American Military Generals...specifically stated that phosphorus (phosphoric acid...both terms refer to the same caustic chemical) was poured onto POW's skin....

General Peter Pace confirmed yesterday that the POW sex-torture reports were reported to both rumsfeld AND the pResident TWO MONTHS AGO (March 2004) and they did nothing....nothing....

no medical help for the chemical burn victims, or the POW's with their rectums and intenstines torn apart, or treatment for infections resulting from such wounds....bush* compassionate conservatism....

and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees" That's exactly what the report says, and the only possible explanation for that is the one I've given below. It's a misstatement. Chemlites do not, when broken open, give people chemical burns.

Phosphorous and phosphoric acid don't apply to the same thing, and neither is a caustic chemical. Caustic, by definition, is something that has a high pH.

Phosphorous is an element which reacts violently with the oxygen in the air to combust itself into phosphorous dioxide, trioxide and pentoxide.

Phosphoric acid is just that, an acid. It's the hydrated molecular form of phosphorous dioxide, or H3PO4. It's a high pKa mineral acid, but only the primary proton shows significant acid strength. It has very low dehrydration potential, so it tends NOT to cause severe burns, unless left on the skin for a pretty long time. It's actually the ingredient in Coca Cola that gives it that little acidic bite. It's essentially nontoxic to humans.

Phosphorous is solid, and can't be poured onto the skin, but the Nazis did use it in torture, by placing pieces on a victims chest while lying down on their back. The reaction with air is not instantaneous, and the build up of heat would be very frightening. When it finally went into full combustion, it would leave EXTREMELY bad burns, but, thermal, not chem burns. They'd probably be 3rd degree, because the heat would be so intense.

Phosphoric acid would be a pretty mild acid to use on skin, compared to hydrochloric, hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or perchloric.

Then, the article sort of indicates the substance was from a chemlite, which is not any of the above, but a phosphorescing liquid, which is likely a fairly innocuous blend of chemicals in a silicone polymer fluid. The active chemicals react with one another to emit light as a by product of the reaction, at VERY low heat liberation.

So, i think there is some significant confusion in the terminology used in these related stories.

I'm no apologist for the MP's who did this at the prison, but the story that is the basis for this thread, smells suspicious to me.
The Professor

..."a hydrogen peroxide solution and a solution containing a phenyl oxalate ester and a fluorescent dye." That sound about right to you, Prof?

I'm not defending the MPs here either; I don't think anyone is attempting to. But manufacturing another element to the story which isn't supported at all by the evidence doesn't help anybody.

Glad you found that reference. Phenyl esters (in this case the ester of phenol and oxalic acid) are well known pearlescent agents as well. They are commonly used as non-toxic ingredients in shampoos and liquid hand soaps to create the "mother of pearl" effect in the liquid.

These materials are highly susceptible to oxidzation to create an ether linkage between subsequent phenyl rings, as well as create a perester. As these peresters break down over time, the energy level of the double oxygen group gives off light. Same thing as the weak ether linkage breaks down. One breakdown gives off one range of photons in the green range, the other a different range of photons in the yellow range, which is why the light looks pale green.

Just thought i could help clarify the discussion.
The Professor

but are you talking about the lightsticks? I think whomever wrote the report chose the wrong word to describe the chemlite fluid. It's phosphorescent, as in it gives off light without heat, not phosphoric, as in composed of phophorus. Chemlite fluid is nontoxic. We used to get messed up, crack open lightsticks and spray them all over ourselves and everything else in sight.

Although I think in comparing chemlite fluid with willy peter you've provided an excellent example of exactly how inane comparisons of US soldiers to Nazis are.

Do you think they put a harmless chemical on the prisoners?

If so, for what purpose?

Part of the process of humiliation? Or, more likely, because these jackasses thought it funny?

Chemlite fluid doesn't burn. C'mon, people, common sense here; how many little kids on Halloween or ravers do you see with chemlite? You think they're all filled with fluid which would produce horrible chemical burns?

When I was real young we would toss the littlest among us in the dryer at the project Laundromat.

I'm sure they would enjoy a dryer ride as well. Maybe if you pass a hat around, the laundromat patrons would cough up a few quarters so the kids could have some more harmless fun.

Lucky nephews.

Back then we ground down electrical knockouts to pay our way. We knew how to make fun and only made money when we had to.

I interpret it as: you are a guy who really knows how to pull himself up by his bootstraps when in a pinch for fun.

BTW does your brother or sister know about you smearing chemicals on their children? You might want to let them in on the harmless fun that can be had on the cheap.

who the fuck are you pal?

I don't care where you put a lightstick; it still doesn't cause chemical burns. Is that what you're attempting to imply?

Phosphoric acid (CAS #7664-38-2) can exist as a crystal or clear liquid. It is an oily, thick, colorless, and odorless liquid....used in the manufacture of....electric lights......(added note: if you want to see different types of electric lights, there's a great exhibit at the Smithsonian American History exhibit)

It can form three series of salts: primary phosphates, dibasic phosphates, and tribasic phosphates. It is deliquescent and hygroscopic. (added note: this will help people with a chemistry background grasp the full uses and slightly different terminology in the chemical nomenclature....i.e., phosphorus, phosphoric....)

Health effects:

Phosphoric acid can affect human health through inhalation of mist, ingestion, and contact with the skin and eyes. It can severely irritate the upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin. It can burn the skin, mouth, and eyes, and cause dermatitis, a sour acrid taste, coughing, conjunctivitis, tearing, blepharospasm, severe gastrointestinal irritation, nausea, vomiting, bloody diarrhea, difficult swallowing, severe abdominal pains, extreme thirst, acidemia, difficult breathing, convulsion, shock, and even asphyxial death.

It can cause circulatory collapse with clammy skin, weak and rapid pulse, shallow respirations, and scanty urine. It can corrode the mucous membranes of the mouth, throat, and esophagus, with immediate pain and dysphagia.

People at special risk of exposure to phosphoric acid include those with chronic pulmonary disease, and skin disease.







http://www.nsc.org/library/chemical/phosphor.htm

I WANNA BELIEVE!!!

Read thru this stuff again, carefully. Note the difference betwixt the "chemical lights" and the "electric lights."

"Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

Now, why would that be in this report if it was just a harmless substance?

It's obvious what the writer of this article meant.

if we'd inflicted severe chemical burns on these folks it would have gotten more press? Haven't you ever seen a little kid with a chemical lightstick? Have you ever noticed them for sale in the store bearing a sticker that says "Warning: causes severe chemical burns"? Ever heard of catastrophic disfiguring rave accidents? How would pouring luminous liquid on these naked prisoners for the purposes of humiliation and general jackassery be at all inconsistent with the other things they've done? Can you show me a source for lightsticks that use phosphorus? Why would such incredibly dangerous light sources be used, especially in a military environment where they might be prone to rupturing?

Cyalume is the military's prime lightstick supplier, or at least was a couple of years ago when I was getting them issued:

"Cyalume® Lightsticks
The CYALUME® Lightstick is a portable and cost-efficient source of light. Each Lightstick is a pliable, plastic tube filled with two nontoxic chemical solutions, one held separate in a floating ampule to prevent activation until required. They are packaged in a foil wrapper for protection until use."

http://www.lifesavingsystems.com/product_pages/signal1_3.htm

"Lightsticks provide visible and infrared light (up to one mile) in situations or environments where flashlights, flares, or candles are not suitable for use. Nonsparking and nonflammable—ideal for confined space illumination of victims, surroundings, and tools; escape route marking; firefighter identification in dense smoke; landing zone identification; search-and-rescue area demarcation; low-light triage; traffic direction; vehicle break-down warning; and more. Select from four styles: Snaplight*, Cyalume*, SafetyGlow*, or Cyalume Impact lightsticks. All use nontoxic, nonirritating chemiluminescent materials contained within a chemical-resistant polyethylene tube to provide light in varying intensities, durations, and wavelengths. Typical illumination times range from 30 minutes to 12 hours; the shorter the duration, the higher the intensity. Activation is easy—bend, snap and shake (except Cyalume Impact lightsticks). Impervious to wind and weather. Waterproof and buoyant. Maintenance-free."

https://www1.fishersci.com/Coupon?gid=93752&cid=1342


Just once I'd like to see someone on this site admit that they're mistaken.

Take it up with them.

So you're cool with guards pouring glowing liquids on prisoners for their own amusement? Not "wrongdoing" in your book?

I'm sorry, am I deliberately obfuscating the issue for you again?

Yes, you are.

I've made this issue as clear as possible. I've given you a plethora of sources and arguments that refute this silly notion of chemlites that produce horrific burns. You've addressed none of them.

Horse, water. Drink if you wish.

Which doesn't say that a "harmless" substance was used on the prisoners.

They wouldn't call pouring a harmless substance on a naked person's body "sadistic, wanton," etc. unless some damage resulted from the act.

So I give up, too.

when it came up on the smoking gun and read it in its entirety yesterday.

This inference that you're making is ridiculous. If it happened the way I said it did, do you think they'd just leave that out? It's part of the process of humiliating them. Address some of the arguments I've made. Show me an ad for a phosphorus filled lightstick. Make some semblance of an argument for your contention that horrible chemical burns were inflicted on these folks other than one ambiguous line in a 50-odd page report.

It's not described here as part of "humiliation" but as "torture".

"Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

No other grounding in fact? Nothing else?

And, reading it again, do you notice an escalation in the severity of the incidents described? Pouring chemlite fluid and cold water are up first, working up to sodomy and attack dogs? Don't you think that inflicting severe chemical burns might rate a little higher? I mean, if you're going to tea-leaf this report I might as well get in on the action.

I don't believe it would be included in this report if it was just "harmless" humiliation or some sort of mind game. Notice this paragraph doesn't reference the pyramid pile or naked photos or all the other pyschological trauma--this paragraph is referencing direct physical torture.

to address any argument whatsoever. You believe this because you want to believe it, not because you've taken a reasoned, intellectually defensible position on it.

Those words "sadistic, blatant, and wanton" just don't describe a harmless substance.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/lighting/bios/vrenkn.htm


Johan B.J. van Overveld and Louis Vrenken (l-r)
testing compact fluorescent lamps at Philips around 1980

"The use of the new phosphors is not restricted to 40W T12 lamps."
-- Louis Vrenken, 1976 paper

Attempts to manufacture a practical compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) date to the beginning of commercial fluorescent technology in the 1930s. A major hurdle lay in the inability of phosphor coatings (materials that convert ultraviolet rays to visible light) to withstand close proximity to the electrical arc in a fluorescent lamp.

Conventional halophosphors, used since the early 1940s, simply would not emit light for more than about 100 hours when placed in a thin tube. While there were other physical and manufacturing difficulties facing CFL designers, the "lumen maintenance problem" seemed especially intractable.

During the early 1960s a new type of phosphor using rare-earths was introduced into the manufacture of color TV tubes. In 1978, Louis Vrenken and his colleagues at Philips (Eindhoven, The Netherlands) discovered that combining the rare-earths with an aluminate host-lattice (rather than the tungstate or silicate used previously) resulted in new phosphors that lasted for thousands of hours in thin tubes -- long enough to be commercially viable.

Philips' SL-18® lamp, using the new phosphors, became available for purchase in 1980. The 18 watt CFLs with their 1/2" diameter folded tubes represented a radical change from then common 40 watt, 1-1/2" diameter linear tubes. (Fluorescent lamps are classed by diameter in 1/8" increments, so T12 in Vrenken's statement above refers to a Tubular, 12/8" diameter lamp.)

They're chemical lights, and contain..."a hydrogen peroxide solution and a solution containing a phenyl oxalate ester and a fluorescent dye."

http://science.howstuffworks.com/light-stick.htm

No phosphorus. Nothing harmful. It's just a misstatement. What the writer meant was:

phos·pho·res·cence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fsf-rsns)
n.
Persistent emission of light following exposure to and removal of incident radiation.
Emission of light without burning or by very slow burning without appreciable heat, as from the slow oxidation of phosphorous: “He saw the phosphorescence of the Gulf weed in the water” (Ernest Hemingway).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
phospho·rescent adj.
phospho·rescent·ly adv.


and not...

phos·phor·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fs-fôrk, -fr-)
adj.
Of, relating to, or containing phosphorus, especially with valence 5 or a valence higher than that of a comparable phosphorous compound.

I mean, I'm no chemist. One of those chemicals in there might be in some way phosphoric, and I could be totally wrong about that. But I can assure you that they in no way cause burns. Again, a little critical thinking here. Phosphorus is used in grenades; why would you use what would essentially be a small, activated grenade as your light source? I've seen burning white phosphorus immolate steel; how would a thin plastic tube keep it in place?

I don't mean to ride you on this. I just hate seeing these completely off-the-wall myths started, because they gather a life of their own.

from your own notes...

----------------------------------

phosphorescence: ...from the slow oxidation of phosphorous.....

phosphoric: containing phosphorous....especially with a valence 5 or a valence higher than that of a comparable phosphorous compound....

-------------------------------------

what this means is...phosphorus can exist in different valences as it OXIDIZES...slow oxidation is called phosphorescence and gives off light, which you can use to read by...rapid oxidation is called napalm and is very bright light, too much light all at once...you called it 'white phosphorus', but it can yellow if there are impurities....doesn't matter whether you are slowing oxidizing a human's skin or rapidly oxidizing a human's skin...it hurts like hell and causes LOTS of damage....it will continue to burn right down to the bone unless you get fast treatment...


so, Chem 101 lesson: Phosphorescence is caused by the presence of Phosphorous...pouring phosphorous from 'chemical lights' or 'phosphoric lights' is a war crime....got it? the victims need immediate medical care, skin grafts and antibiotics....

If you need more chemical lessons, I'll check back later tomorrow after I finish work....

with a reading lesson.

"Emission of light without burning or by very slow burning without appreciable heat, as from the slow oxidation of phosphorous"

"As from" doesn't limit the source of the light to the oxidation of phosporous. Anything that emits light without burning can be described as "phosphorescent".


Those folks weren't burned. Chemlights do not burn people. They do not contain phosphorous. There is ample information on the internet regarding chemical lights. A smidgen of common sense would show that the very notion of using phosphorous-filled chemical lights is incredibly stupid. Be intellectually honest and admit you are wrong.

Napalm doesn't contain phosphorus either; you're obviously talking out of your fourth point of contact on that one.

they'd find electric phosphoric lights anyway. I've never seen an indoor light that contained liquid of any sort. Do they make those?

I'm surprised that there seems to be so little familiarity with them here. They're pretty common.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/light-stick.htm

I think they were chemlites too. The military uses them, so they'd be available. But even if they did intend to dump corrosive phosphorus on the prisoners, I don't think they could find electric lights that contained it.

This is going to be another DU urban legend: The Great Coverup of the Horribly Burned Iraqi Chemlite Victims.

what about the other points in the OP?

allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

whatya think about the rest? DU urban legend, or military investigative report? You be the judge.

mysterious burning chemlites. I don't doubt that they were cracked open and poured on the detainees; I just think the inference that these folks are all third degree burn victims now is ridiculous. I've got got no qualms with the findings of the report.

Why, Babs? What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

is that the torture methods used by our own military are just as heinous as those used by any other band of torturers, the Nazi's being the comparison group in this thread.

Why leanings? Why do you exert such effort to boil it down to whether chemlites are phisiologically harmful to pour onto a POWs body?

Can you link us up to a medical study which proclaims the harmlessness of such antics? Flander's Fields nephews want to know.

I think the comparison of chemlite fluid with phosphorus is a pretty good analogy of how off-the-wall the US-Nazi comparisons are, and I think the gullibility of the folks here that swallow this nonsense or try to overlook the basic fallacy of the comparison is pretty indicative of what people here want to believe.

specifically, the General wrote:

.... "pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees"...




any kind of 'light' could be called a 'chemical light'....

'chemicals' are in all lights...

--------------------------------------

you are correct that the original Vietnam napalm did NOT contain phosphorus...however, the 'new and improved' Iraq napalm DOES contain phosphorus....


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html
On March 22nd, correspondent Lindsay Murdoch, who was travelling with the US Marines, had reported that napalm was used in an attack on Iraqi troops at Safwan Hill, near the Kuwait border. Murdoch's account was based on statements by two US Marine Corps officers on the ground.

The inflammable fuel in Mark-77 fire bombs is thickened with slightly different chemicals, and is believed to contain oxidizers, which make it harder to extinguish than Napalm-B.

Neither weapon technically contains napalm. The chemical mixture that became known as 'napalm' - a combination of naphthalene and palmitate - was used only in the earliest versions of the weapon.


here's a thread discussing the phophorus (White Phosphorus - WP) used in napalm weapons...you must have something to 'ignite' the weapon...
http://yarchive.net/explosives/napalm.html

-snips-

The standard napalm bomb in Viet Nam used a WP igniter, usually as a nosecone fitting activated, I believe I remember being told, by a 50 caliber bullet arrangement. I've worked with the
screw in cannisters, but not the bullet mechanism - testing for
ignition and dispersion via hot high explosives.

I believe Dresden was also WP. Some of the stories included
macabre tales of people who got phosphorus on their skin or
clothes and jumped into the river to put out the fire. On
emerging from the water the fire would begin again.

refer to lightsticks as chemical lights. The report talks about sodomy being committed with a chemical lightstick. It's the same thing. Can you show me a commercially available product described as a "chemical light" that contains any phosphorus? Where in the report are severe burns mentioned? Where in the Arab news media? One would think that would get some play. Why would anyone use a light in a combat environment that caused severe burns when ruptured?

And regardless of the current mixture of "napalm", your statement that "rapid oxidation is called napalm and is very bright light" is totally off base. I also haven't seen any evidence that modern, Vietnam era or original recipe "napalm" contained phosphorus, other than the igniter you've pointed out. Such a device would only require an extremely small amount of WP to set off the mixture, and I hardly think the use of such as device could cause napalm to be considered to use phosphorus as part of its composition. The "oxidizers" you pointed out aren't named as phosphorus. Again, I have a limited chemistry background, but perhaps you could dazzle ProfGAC with yours.

You can take one of my 500 or 600 level classes on quantum chemistry, but the term is derived from the effect you described apropos phosphorous. There are LOTS of phosphorescing chemical compounds and mixtures which contain not one microgram of phosphorous.

The light in the original derivation is actually hot light caused by gradual diminishment of the elemental P. In most modern phosphorescent mixtures, the light is actually a quantum displacement phenomenon, as high energy electrons drop into signficantly closer valances in the new compound. The lost kinetic and potential energy of those equal velocity, but shorter path electrons is emitted as photons of low intensity light.

The effect is the same, but the chemistry is radically different.
The Professor

Physical Chemistry (Quantum Chemistry), Chemistry courses 468, 469 and 481 (at the University of Michigan)

in addition, I completed my graduate-level Physical Chemistry (Quantum Chemistry), Chemistry 5710 (at the University of Colorado)

(and math minor and physics minor, just to get ready to pass my courses in Physical Chemistry)....

_________________________________________

the Military General wrote that American Soldiers were

...pouring phosphoric liquid onto POW's skin....

_______________________________________


nobody knows what has happened to those POW victims, but I believe that this 'phosphoric liquid' and other U.S. chemical torture techniques needs immediate attention by agencies and personnel OUTSIDE THE MILITARY....if there was 'phosphoric liquid' on your students' skin, you would feel a need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT fast, rather than to 'study the situation for months' and argue about whether it was a "quantum displacement phenomenon"....or a nasty chemical burn eating through skin right to the bone.....

sorry, I'm just a two-decimal-place chemist working in the 'real world'.....not a 'military chemist', who makes money designing vicious weapons to the 27th decimal place, while forgetting about their victims....

"If I had know what they would have done with my work, I would have become a plummer or a pedler" (Albert Einstein)

one of the 7 Cardinal sins
"Science without Humanity"

"Chem 101 lesson: Phosphorescence is caused by the presence of Phosphorous"

Why don't you follow along the suggestion made by Professor GAC....

"You can take one of my 500 or 600 level classes on quantum chemistry, but the term is derived from the effect you described apropos phosphorous."

then come back here to discuss after you're done....

contains phosphorus? Or can they not be described as "phosphorescent"?

I'm full up on science. Never quite my forte. You seem adept, altho your grasp of ethics seems to leave something to be desired. I will, however, share with you a bit of my understanding of the English language and how to read sentences.

"term is derived from the effect you described apropos phosphorous."

In other words, the description "phosphorescent" is derived not from the chemical composition of a substance but its tendency to emit light without heat. This statement does not support your argument in the least.

I think there is a terminology error in the article. My guess is that they used the term phosphoric when they meant phosporescent.

Also, you are the one who brought up that the term itself required the presence of phosphorous. With your chemistry background, you should have known that wasn't true, given the nature of phenyl ester and phenyl ethers, as well as various ketoesters and peracid esters.

You gave a Chem 101 lesson, and simply ignored that you knew more information to make your point, as if there were only one to be made. That's fairly duplicitous for an expert in the field. You stated, as a fact, that it required the presence of phosphorous, and it does not.

And, BTW, if i knew that a student had a non-toxic phosphorescing mixture on his or her skin, i wouldn't panic as your post indicates i should. If it's phosphoric, i would get it washed off. If it were phosphorous, i'd plunge under water to prevent combustion, and then add epsom salts. (Elemental phosphorous reacts with epsom salts to glow the pieces so they can be seen under water. You probably know that, right?)

As to your last point, i won't get into a pissing match over who has the more involved or clever, or more humanitarian job. You have no idea what i do, aside from teach classes. So, painting me with a dark color does nothing to maintain civility.

The Professor

I just got done bombing my Physics 106 final, and I still know what burns and what don't. :D

why don't you bring that up with the MILITARY GENERAL, who wrote

"...pouring phosphoric on the skin of detainees..."

because you claim that the General made an error and meant something else...and IMO, the General did NOT make an error....

------------------------------------------

and you are clear that

"If it's phosphoric, i would get it washed off."

of course you would, because 'phosphoric' causes nasty burns and is very painful too...washing it off IMMEDIATELY would minimize the chemical burn....

-----------------------------------

my Chem 101 lesson was not a Chem 500 or Chem 600 lesson...and was never intended to be....

Yes, i think i made it abundantly clear that i think the word was used incorrectly. So, i'm questioning the general's use of the term. Yes, yes, yes. What part of the first post left any doubt of that?

The reference to the chemlites is right in the article, and i don't think it's a stretch to infer that the liquid from the chemlites is what was put on people's skin.

So, again, yes, yes, yes, as i made very clear in my last post, i THINK the word phosphoric should be phosporescent.

BTW: Ever gotten H3PO4 on your hands? It doesn't burn that badly, at least compared to most concentrated mineral acids. It does not scavenge water so the diffusion into the skin is minimal. Therefore, deep tissue burns are far less likely than with something like sulfuric or nitric. Only the local epidermal area is affected and it takes a long time to progress beyond 1st degree. So, once again, you overstate a fact in order to prove a point, and with your background, you should know better.
The Professor

from the first that the term "phosphoric" was a misstatement. And you've offered nothing to back up your argument other than that one ambiguous line in a 50 page report. I mean, hell, just show me where I can buy a "chemical light" filled with phosphoric fluid. Address some of the practical issues I've raised. Where's the outraged family, the closeups in Al-Jazeera of the chemical burns? Where are those burns evident in the dozens of pictures taken? There just ain't no burned Iraqi detainees.

Good thing you guys have diversity.

Phosphorous is a main row non metallic element that exists in it's pure form in two common allotropes. Red phosphorous and white phosphorous, both are sort of chalky solids and while one is much more toxic then the other, I wouldn't want to be exposed to either. Phosphorous is used in matches, gunpowder, and incendiary bombs. Vonnegut wrote well on what the latter does to civilians.

Phosphoric acid, H3PO4, is a strong acid which, when concentrated, can cause horrible burns. I have the scars to prove it. It's also one of the listed ingredients of coca-cola.

Other phosphorous containing compounds are common. Adenosine triphosphate is the energy currency in all living organisms, and phosphate makes up the back bone of DNA and RNA molecules.

Phosphorescence is a form of light. It's the quantum mechanically forbidden transition of an electron in a triplet state to a singlet state, basically, it's glow-in-the-dark. It got it's name centuries ago when some egalitation "scientist" first noticed in while experimenting with white phosphorous. That's the only connection phosphoresence has with phosphorous. Objects that phosphoresce are called phosphors, they do not, by definition, need to containg phosphorous.

Long story short:

Just because a compound contains phosphorous does not mean its bad, the human body contains a lot of phosphorous naturally.

Just because something is phosphorescent does not mean it's bad or contains phosphorous.

Just because somebody was born in the United States it does not mean they don't torture people.

General Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. The General specifically wrote that American Soldiers were:

.... "pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees"...



and nazi's knew that too, that phosphoric can caused 'terrible burns'...it's an old torture technique....wonder if any got into POW's eyes??....for that would blind them forever...
isn't it time to get some outsiders into bush* 'sex-torture snuff operation designed to extract info on WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...


a human's skin burned by phosphoric...nazi photo of torture victim

And the problem is illustrated by your disigenuous editing.

"Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees"

Is the full quote and it is obviously wrong.

Chemical lights do not contain phosphoric liquid. Therefore the quote makes no logical sense.

I read the link he posted and there is NO PHOSPHORIC ACID used in these chemical lights. NONE AT ALL.

Why would you want to perpetuate a falsehood after being shown that you are wrong?

The only warning I saw on the actual material used in chemical lights was "may cause temporary discomfort".

You trivialize everything we are trying to do in this situation when you insist on admitting you are wrong about this. We have bigger fish to fry on this situation without having to dispell falsehoods from our own side.

that's exactly what the Military General reported

'....pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees....'

Which part of

Chemical lights do not contain phosphoric liquid are you having difficulty comprehending?

'....pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees....'

Sniiping then saying "exactly" is weak too.

These things aren't made with phosphoric acid so that could not have happened.

Find one source for glo sticks made with phosphoric acid and I will eat my hat.

How did you get bad burns from phosphoric? I know the pKa of the first hydrogen is very high and the ionic strength ranks it the 5th strongest acid, (in Lewis terms), but it is non-hygroscopic, so does not scavenge water. So, it's diffusion rate into the dermis is VERY slow, and deep tissue burns (to cause scarring) are extremely rare from phosphoric.

So, did you get it on you and not know until it was there a long time, or something? I've gotten it on me too, and i've never had anything worse than a red mark.

Now, sulfuric, perchloric and nitric; i've got scars from those, and i could empathize with anyone who has gotten those on their skin. Those suck the water out of your skin in seconds and diffuse into the dermis quickly. Those can cause REALLY bad burns.
The Professor

Skin: Contact with liquid is corrosive and causes severe burns and ulceration. May cause skin rash (in milder cases), and cold and clammy skin with cyanosis or pale color.

From an 85% solution in water.

Maybe neat phosphoric acid is safer, I don't know since I've never worked with it, but if it's in aqueous solution...

It is the only way to document the evidence before everything gets cleaned up and hidden away and to resolve arguments like the one going on in this thread.

It was this kind of light, no it was that kind of light. It was harmful, not it wasn't harmful. This is torture, no they were just having some fun...

Please call your reps and ask them to demand a full and open investigation into what is going on in the prisons in Iraq and that includes sending in photographers. Thanks.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x7686

...and that is that AGGRESSIVE WAR made these atrocities possible. Crimes against humanity will naturally follow when leaders take their country into an unnecessary, unprovoked war without the backing of the international community.