There hasn’t been this much news about chemical weapons since Saddam Hussein didn’t have them after all.
First it was the Skripals, father and daughter, apparently poisoned by some kind of nerve agent in Britain. More recently, it has been Syrian civilians, hundreds of them, including children and elderly.
In both cases, the perpetrator hasn’t been conclusively proven. The U.K. holds Russia responsible for the attack on the Skripals, possibly as revenge for his having betrayed his own government by providing secret information to British Intelligence.
Similarly, the western nations blame Syria’s ruler, Bashar Al Assad, for the poison gas attacks on civilians in a suburb of Damascus, one of the last stands of Syrian rebels.
In all this finger-pointing, I see very few media commentators examining the nature of the weapons themselves.
So here’s a brief history -- Chemical Weapons 101, perhaps.
Chemical Weapons 101
In one sense, chemical weapons have always existed. Even primitive tribes in the Amazon coated the tips of their spears and arrows with natural poisons.
Modern chemical warfare began in the first World War, when German armies released chlorine gas so that favourable winds would carry it across Allied trenches. Soldiers who didn’t die suffered lifelong damage to their lungs.
Both sides, apparently, also used mustard gas against opposing forces. And other chemical weapons such as prussic acid, phosgene, and diphosgene.
The shock and horror about these chemical weapons resulted in their use being banned by all countries after World War One.
But that didn’t stop countries from developing increasingly toxic weapons.
Second generation poisons
The second generation of chemical weapons was developed mainly in the western world -- since the losers in World War II no longer had the capabilities of doing so. In the 1950s, the U.S., Sweden, and Britain created what were called the V-gases, commonly known as Sarin, Soman, and Tabun.
The poison itself is an oily liquid, soluble in water, that can be sprayed or smeared on its victims. The poison penetrates through the lungs or the skin. Depending on the dose, it can act within minutes, or less commonly, in four to six hours.
When the U.K. renounced chemical weapons in 1968, the secret formula for VX was passed to the U.S. A small amount that escaped from the U.S. army testing ground in Utah killed 3,000 sheep grazing 27 miles away.
VX may have been used in the Iran-Iraq war. In a gang war in Japan. And to assassinate the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in Kuala Lumpur, Indonesia.
But that’s only the second generation of chemical weapons.
Now the third generation
The third generation was developed in Russia, during the Cold War period.
Previous chemical weapons had been “unitary.” That is, they had to be fully prepared for use in a secure laboratory. Russia developed “binary” chemical weapons -- two chemicals that do not react to produce their lethal effects until mixed. The two components can safely be transported separately; they may even be available as common agricultural pesticides.
Russian propaganda claims they are the most deadly nerve agents ever created, as much as ten times more potent than VX.
The Novichok poison used on Sergei and Yulia Skripal is one of these binary products. Current suspicions say that it may have been used as a powder, placed on a doorknob, where the binary components would be activated by the pressure and moisture of a hand gripping that doorknob.
In the world of lethal toxins, Novichok is the new kid on the block. In Russian, novichokmeans “newcomer.”
Dedicated to disaster
Nerve gases get their name because their primary effect is on the central nervous system. The pupils of the eyes constrict to pinpoints. Victims see haloes, circles, flashing lights. The gut contracts; victims lose control of their bladders and bowels. They may vomit; they may foam at the mouth. Larger muscles go into spasms.
You don’t live very long when your heart and lungs seize up.
Not surprisingly, victims of nerve gases are sometimes assumed to be having epileptic seizures.
Atropine injections can counteract the poisons, if administered soon enough and often enough. That may be why the Skripals are now recovering; the British medical system was able to act within minutes. The Syrian victims are not so lucky -- if there were supplies of atropine at all, there would certainly not be enough to treat an entire community.
Nerve poisons are horrifying. Even more horrifying is that there are people who spend all day, every working day, working to make these toxic weapons even more deadly.
And there are governments that pay them to do it.
In our name. With our tax dollars.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
Judyth Mermelstein told me that my column about “data mining” last week got it wrong. We exchanged several letters. In essence, she said, “What I think you got wrong was the assumption that data mining is essentially harmless, and that Facebook in particular doesn't bear full responsibility for the harms it enables by not caring about privacy and security of its users.”
Judyth went on in fuller detail: “It's one thing to analyze what people made public on Facebook -- which anyone is free to view -- and another for Facebook to retain and provide access to information the user chooses not to publish (phone number, IP address, web browsing history, etc.) and doesn't know Facebook is giving to third parties.
“Facebook did that ‘for research purposes’ to a lot of people for years and only stopped when it became a political hot potato. It also didn't come clean about it: tried to downplay it, pretended the damage wasn't serious (it was, and not just in the US), claimed it wasn't their fault anyway because they asked CA to delete the info once the harm was done (without mentioning the other political and commercial operations that had been given free rein, too).
“There's a huge difference between citing published sources (or unpublished ones with permission) for research purposes and what most of the world's data miners are doing these days.
“Most Internet users have no idea how much information on them is gathered in the background when they view web pages, by Facebook and other social media but also by commercial ad networks and data brokers. Because of bad security on many sites, that can also include access to other things on the user's device that they had no intention of sharing. In Facebook's case, it's not an accident but a key element of their business model. In fact, thanks to the current brouhaha, they've just backtracked on a plan to add users' medical information to their profiles.
“However benign the intent of data mining health data on individuals, it matters whether those individuals have knowingly given their permission for that data to be shared with a third party, especially if (as is often the case) it will not be truly anonymized or stored securely. At this point, not even governments are doing that well; in the U.S., health insurance and hospital systems are prime targets for hackers and a lot of that data is for sale already. Meanwhile, not all researchers are trustworthy, as Kogan and others at Cambridge appear to have been selling their ‘for research only’ data for large sums.
“The upshot is: data mining involves an extremely complex situation these days which we're only beginning to grapple with. The European Union's GDPR,which comes into effect in May, requires a much more stringent approach to personal data's privacy and security.
“If prior informed consent is required and users can be confident their data won't be misused, then perhaps the utopian vision of data mining only for good will be realized. Until then, anyone involved with data security issues will be deeply sceptical. It's a major sore point in my circles these days and I really don't expect most people to understand why we geeks are so incensed about it.”
Tom Watson had some similar thoughts: I concur with you that it's the purpose rather than the process that needs to be examined. The question is: How would the purpose be controlled?
“I don't use Facebook because I don't trust it. But I naively use Google extensively. The business model of both companies is similar -- they give away their service to anyone who wishes to subscribe, but then they control any personal data that we provide, and in turn charge for the distribution of that data to companies who target us for advertising, or to data mining companies who use it in other ways. It would be interesting to figure out how either Facebook or Google might control the purpose behind the use of the data that is mined.
“On Saturday, March 30, CBC.cacarried a most enlightening piece entitled ‘Want to know everything Google knows about you?’ Turns out Google and Facebook know far more about us than any of us might think.
“Through ‘location services,’ Google traces and keeps track of everywhere we go. To see how that works go to http://maps.google.com/timeline. If you want to dig far enough, everything from the time you started using Google, where you were each day, and how long you spent before you travelled on to somewhere else, plus the text messages and emails and their content, is all in Google's hands. Even if you use incognito mode so that you can prevent your spouse or children from knowing where you go online, it's still stored there.
“Web developer and consultant Dylan Curran reminds us that ‘Everything we do online leaves a footprint and is kept forever’.”
Bob Rollwagen takes a pessimistic view of public intelligence: “It is amazing that so many people are shocked by the use of personal information they put out in public. I have [also] been amazed at the number of professionals that have been telling all about how marketing sites use, collect, and analyze data for the purpose of bringing products to market. When I was doing research, we had to use paper surveys where your name was an option at the end.
“You are right, it is why that is most critical. I have already noted false news or deliberate exaggeration and misleading statements about the current party in power in Ontario being circulated by the far right groups. A substantial portion of the electorate will be duped into thinking some of this is true because they do not trust our existing third party reporting channels that provide reality.”
A couple of additional letters commented on the letters I published last week.
George Brigham responded to Steve Roney, who wrote, “I really do not think that a Christian has any option but to accept the Resurrection as a literal, honest-to-God fact.”
To which George replied, “Whilst I do believe in the physical resurrection, I reject the notion that those who do not do not share this joyous truth with me are outside the Christian faith. Today (Sunday after Easter Day) the Gospel reading was from John 20 about Thomas. According to John, a week after the other disciples, Thomas had not seen Jesus, but when he does see he declares ‘My Lord and my God’.
“Jesus responds with this affirmation, ‘Because you have seen you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.’
“It is not those who believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection who are blessed, but those who believe that Jesus is their Lord and their God. To share this belief is the essence of being Christian.”
And James Russell picked up on a line, “...it's one more reason why people are abandoning the church in droves”.
James wrote, “Annie and I were wandering conversationally around about churches the other day and reflecting how, peculiarly, women seem to be their biggest attendees and supporters despite the fact so many of the institutions are deeply patriarchal. Among our speculations was that in the past churches provided a sort of safe place for women. There, another man -- not their husband or father -- might have authority over the men in their lives, know a lot about them, and be able to intervene, threaten, and counsel on their behalf [the woman’s] without exposing them to punishment for sassing back.
“Could the ‘problem’ of [declining] church attendance be related to the fact that women, increasingly, have real options beyond service to men? They can get educations, own their own property, earn their own livings, keep their own children (and demand and get support for them). If you don’t need a crutch, why carry one?”
******************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the ‘Reply’ button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
To use the links in this section, you’ll have to insert the necessary symbols.
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at wwwDOTsinghallelujahDOTca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://wwwDOThymnsightDOTca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://wwwDOTchurchwebcanadaDOTca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, wwwDOTtraditionaliconoclastDOTcom
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawoodATgmailDOTcom to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatsoATgmailDOTcom or twatsonATsentexDOTnet