POISON GAS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 194, 15 August 1936, Page 10

POISON GAS

HUMANE WARFARE VIEW OF EXPERTS “Gas warfare is now commo/ily regarded by experts as being humane,” sad Mr. L. H. Davis, M.Sc., in opening a lecture entitled “Gas, the Weapon of the Future,” to the Institute of Chemistry at Victoria College, Wellington, this week. Mr. Davis said that in the vast majority of cases with modern gases, if they were not fatal, there were few after-effects. Panic was a big factor in their use. The term “gas" had become attached to certain types of war materials, although this application was really a misnomer. “Gas" was now understood, with reference to warfare, as any type of chemical, liquid, solid, or vapour capable of inflicting injury on the human body. The reason for the use of gas In warfare given in 1914 was not to kill the enemy, but to dislocate his organisation so as to cause panic. The number of deaths immediately caused by the gas appeared to be very small compared with the number of casualties, the disorganisation, and the panic. In addition, some types of gas poisoned the ground for long periods. This was particularly the case with the type known as the “persistent” group, usually liquids, which soaked into grounds, walls, and even bitumen, giving off poisonous fumes for a long time afterwards. Heavy rain, although it usually cleared the air, spread “persistent” gases over a larger area so that it was impossible for a man lo walk over the area without special equipment. Six Types of Gases. The Gas Defence Corps had classified gases into six types. Pulmonary irritants were those which attacked the lungs, causing choking, an example being chlorine. With sneezing and coughing gases the idea was really to penetrate the gas-mask, causing it to be discarded. Tear gases had slight after-effects, and were now used for police purposes. Blistering gases, or vesicants, attacked the skin, the eyes, and lungs, and, in severe cases, the digestion and nerves. Mustard gas was an excellent example. It had not been thought of very highly in the Great War. Paralysants, the fifth group, poisoned the nervous system, and in the sixth group were gases interfering with the function of the blood. There were several methods by which gases were distributed. Gas cylinders had been used in the war, gases being allowed to drift in clouds over the enemy’s lines. Bombs and trench mortars were valuable up to approximately 600 yards. A high concentration of gas could be obtained in the vicinity of the target, which might be, for instance, a machine-gun nest, as much as 30 pounds of compressed gas being conveyed with one shell. A method of distribution not used in the Great War but believed to have been used since was the method of spraying by aeroplane. This was most likely to be successful with “persistent" gases such as mustard gas. Another method was by using a therrnogenerator, which released the gas in the form of smoke. Effect of Wind and Rain. Weather conditions affected whatever method was used, heavy rain dispersing poison gases in the air, and rain also assisting to wash them out. Three occasions were recorded in the Great War, when a change in the direction of the wind, after the gases had been released, turned attack into retreat. The lecturer discussed the individual effects of a number of different gases with reference to the concentration that was necessary to cause death, and the warning that they gave of their presence. At the conclusion of the lecture, Mr. Davis answered a number of questions. Asked as to the protection given by gas-masks, he said that that depended to a large extent upon the type of mask and the gas used. With mustard gas, for instance, an oiled silk suit from top to bottom, and gumboots, was said to give protection for some two and a-half hours. A discussion took place upon the question as to whether the danger of gas attack was not exaggerated. The lecturer expressed the view that it would take an enormous amount of gas to cover a city for any length of time. Mr. A. D. Monroe said that gases were much more humane than high explosives. The mask gave at least some protection. He had had experience of both. Mr. Davis, in reply, said that he did not personally consider gas a less humane form of warfare than the use on a city of high explosives or thermite bombs, which would have the same effect as molten metal falling on buildings. It was much better than bombs of phosphorus or thermite, he