Talk:CS gas

Contact Lenses

Does anyone have a source for this statement : Furthermore, individuals who are exposed to CS Gas should not have contact lenses in their eyes, since exposure to the gas causes the lens to fuse to the cornea of the eye.

Since I researched it and find no evidence of this at all, in fact several sites mention that you should remove and wash or discard them as the gas can build up behind them and cause irritation and blindness. But nowhere does it mention that they can fuse to the cornea. As a scientist, this seems pretty damn unlikely too. More likely a myth.

Sources that refute this statement

http://www.actionmedics.org.uk/prepare.html

Contact Lens Complications: Etiology, Pathogenesis, Prevention, Therapy By Hans-Walter Roth - ISBN: 1588901327

62.31.122.158 (talk)

Having been sprayed with a 3% CS spray myself, while wearing contact lenses, I can say this is not the case. It sounds like the sort of scare stories about non-lethal options like tasers and water cannons which get spread by people with bad intentions, and believed by the ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.90 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

England & Wales?

The article excludes Scotland for some reason, even though police forces there issue CS Spray. Why has it been left out? Also, the article mentions the term "CS gas" is a misnomer, but it is used elsewhere in the article in reference to CS Spray - should these be changed? Any objections, answers or comments, let me know. Ben 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct Version Edited

I have edited this page to show accurately what CS Incapacitant Spray is. I am a Police Officer and what was originally wrote here is mostly a confusing combination between Tear gas and CS Spray which are two entirely different things, therefore the edited version seeks to re-dress this issue and correct the myth.

Best wishes!

That is all well and good but there was a lot of useful CS gas information that has been deleted by this user. SeanMack 15:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to the above, the information was deleted as it was inaccurate information with regard to what CS Spray was. The deleted information related to Tear Gas and not CS Spray (Gas) therefore meaning that it does not belong in this article. The remaining information is accurate and does relate to CS Spray and therefore was kept.

The article is CS Gas not CS Spray! On many ocassion canisters of CS gas where dispersed into crowds in Northern Ireland, this accurate and factual information was removed. This feels to me like POV pushing. Are you stating that the CS Gas article should not have historical and factual information about CS gas canister use in crowd control? SeanMack 17:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as CS Gas! CS are solid crystals and do not turn into gas (the CS cannisters contain a propellant of spray to force the crystals out onto target areas). The gas cannisters used in Northern Ireland contained Tear Gas for crowd control which again means that it has no place for this article - Tear Gas and CS Spray are two different things. Try not to get confused.(Darktrial 17:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

If I am confused, it appears I am not alone, please see this note from Hansard, where the venerable Dr Reid refers to your non-existing CS gas: [1], and here, the guardian, no less [2]. You do agree that "Tear Gas" exists, one form of which is CS tear gas. In many instances this has been shortened to CS gas. This article talk page is named CS gas - what does that tell you? I would ask you to go to this web page for example and do a search for "CS gas". Yes there is a semantic issue here, but that is all the more reason to fully detail the natures of tear gas (CS based) and the spray form. The Wikipedia article on Riot control agents refers to CS, CN and CR as gases. No these are not gases in the classic sense - but it is how these compounds are known in common parlance. It is dissapointing that you chose to remove relevant information rather than give it a deserved place in the article. I assume you have heard of Porton Down, perhaps this google search will help. Finally I would quote from a report from the Medical Toxicology Unit, London:

CS causes a burning sensation in the eyes and is a potent lacrimator, but generally does not cause irreversible eye effects. Duration of aerosol induced irritation is usually 5–15 minutes after removal from exposure. Respiratory effects include coughing, bronchoconstriction, and change in the frequency and depth of breathing.

Parneix-Spake et al reported cases of CS spray causing erythematous dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis with vesicles, keratitis, blisters and crusts, accompanied by pronounced oedema.7 Onset occurred 12 hours to three days after exposure. Varma and Holt report a case of severe contact dermatitis.10 Further case reports record delayed effects with various types of dermatitis and blisters.

No deaths have been attributed to CS. However, Hu et al reported that inhalation of high concentration CS could result in chemical pneumonitis and fatal pulmonary oedema. However, the LD50 of inhaled CS gas has been estimated at 25 000 to 150 000 mg/m3—that is, a dose many times greater than the exposure dose that produces intolerable symptoms in humans. No site decontamination other than ventilation is necessary after use of CS aerosol because CS dispersed in air quickly loses potency.

Kind regards. SeanMack 18:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have taken on your criticisms of the article and have completely re-written it - please have a look and add or change anything that you deem improves the article. Regards SeanMack 18:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were able to get a photo of the spray - that would be an excellent addition to the article. Cheers SeanMack 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Question?

What is the actual name for the gas known as "vomit gas"? It's simmilar to tear gas, but causes nausea instead. // Liftarn There are various "vomit" gases: Adamsite (DM), diphenylchloroarsine (DA) & Diphenylcyanoarsine (DC), to name but 3 I could find. SeanMack 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

How did it get it's name?

Does anybody out there know how CS gas got the name CS? I always assumed it was short for the chemical name, but the article says the chemical name is chlorobenzylidene malonitrile... so what does "CS" actually mean?

Also, is this verified? It's actually illegal to use CS in warfare, but still legal to use in crowd control? How's that for irony--Pariah 06:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant section

I removed:

Chlorobenzene, was described by Dr Raymond McClean¹ as “a well known industrial poison which could cause damage to the brain, the liver and the kidneys”. Another of its components, malonic acid, has caused fatalities in industry.

as it is irrelevant. Chlorobenzene and malonic acid are different chemicals to CS gas. Carbon and nitrogen, don't forget, form a rather nasty chemical when combined - compounds are very often very different to their constituents. Dan100 (Talk) 13:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, although irrelevant is a personal judgement call. When I put the info in, I was thinking along the lines of effects on the body of related chemical combinations. I thought some people may have been interested in the fact that Chlorobenzene and malonic acid are closely related to CS and are themselves pretty toxic. For example the article in the external link I added treats the irritants Cs, Cn, Cnc, Ca, Cr, Cnb, PS together. However if the article is to focus solely on CS then the info does not need to be there. I fixed the notes though which you'd not updated. Cheers SeanMack 14:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC).

Thanks. Dan100 (Talk) 10:11, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question of personal judgement - it is a question of chemistry. You will recognise that the "closely related" chemicals common salt, chlorine and sodium have rather different effetcs when ingested.81.170.62.51 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

CS gas is actually named after its two American inventors, B. Carson and R. Staughton who developed it in 1928. Cheers, Robert—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.223.181 (talk • contribs) .

Good Article stamp of approval

What makes a good article?

A good article shares many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it must:

be well written

yes

be factually accurate

Don't know anything about CS gas myself so I can't really say, but the references seem to be from pretty in-the-know sources.

use a neutral point of view

yes

be stable

I see no conflicts

be referenced

Nice inline citations and plenty of references here

wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it. The images should all be appropriately tagged.

Looks good

Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

If you ask me, the article seems to be mostly about how CS has been used over time and all the situations its caused, is there anything more you can find on how exactly it was created and how their reaserch proceeded until it was in its compleated form?

Yay! Homestarmy 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe this article is written from a neutral point of view. (See below). The tone is US/UK centric.SuperFluid 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-lethal?

I have read elsewhere in Wikipedia land that using a rhetorical device as a category title is not good style. Perhaps this should be changed to Toxicity? Mr Christopher 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed that title. Feel free to change it to something better but I think we should avoid using a rhetorical question as a title. Mr Christopher 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dosage and tolerance

When I was in training as an NBC instructor in the Swedish armed forces (during 2003) we were told that a concentration of CS agent in the air of 1,2 mg per cubic meter was the limit of "human tolerance" (implying that a person will be unable to perform or resist at this level). We were also recommended to use a concentration of 200-400 mg of the agent per cubic meter for educational and testing purposes (carried out while wearing protective equipment and to illustrate to recruits the value and reliability of the equipment supplied to them). My question is: is this true for the actual CS levels or just a standard for the agent we used?

UK / US Use

"Notably the CS spray used by UK police has 5 times as much CS as the spray used by American police forces (5% dissolved CS and 1% CS respectively). [27]"

I would dispute this. Each individual US police agency has its own purchasing mandate and officer use everything from CS in a 1% right the way through to a 10% solution, as well as OC (Pepper), PAVA, and hybrids (5%OC5%CS etc).

"The forces that do use the PIS in the UK require that police constables should themselves be sprayed with a 3% dissolved CS"

Again not true. Officers are sprayed with the same product as they carry.

It would be good to be able to add this to the article, can you provide references for this information? Ta. SeanMack 12:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Officers are not sprayed with the same dosage. In Scotland for example, officers are sprayed with a 3% concentrate rather than 5 % and it is not the same as the spray they carry as it is in an aerosol version rather that a single spray. User:Duffit 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam Section

The estimate "15 million pounds" is entirely compatible with "thousands of tons" (1 thousand tons == 2 million pounds) but the writing here makes it sound like the two measurements are at odds.

I changed this ("15 million pounds" to "seven and a half thousand tons") to make it more readable/understandable, but my edit was reverted because it supposedly added incorrect information. I guess I should have gone through the proper channels before submitting an edit...

Should it change pounds to tons (second number), or tons to pounds (first number)? Balrogthane (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment on your IP address page. Nice to see you've registered. Welcome! TINYMARK 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Iraq?

The line "Saddam used CS against the Kurds"...

We know he gassed them...but it wasnt with CS. I believe that is wrong and should be removed. FireBadger 20:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi FireBadger, I've looked into a bit - at least at what's easily available online, you have a point in that it could be worded better. Iraq used CS against the Iranians as opposed to the Kurds [3]. However it is reported that: "a biological agent, aflatoxin, was used in CS gas"[4] in Halabja. SeanMack 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this part should be changed. The line that says "Saddam used CS...in his own country" has a blatant US politically centric tone. Governments all around the world use CS gas "in their own countries" all the time. It is commonly used by police worldwide. The entire section should be removed, unless every instance of CS use around the globe is going to be listed.SuperFluid 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps review

Re-reviewing this article in accordance with WikiProject Good Articles' sweeps review process. The article continues to meet the GA criteria, and will be kept. I made a few minor changes to the reference and formatting structure, adding some details. Editors might want to review WP:CITE for tips on keeping references formatted and looking clean. The external links section is also getting a little long, so you might want to consider pruning it a bit in accordance with WP:EL. The lead section could also use a little expansion, though it's sufficient, it could use more details on some of the uses and other aspects. See WP:LEAD.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

criteria

Why do some countries have their own subjects and others not? In the US CS gas is used, but the country is very large and the usage is not so common comparatively. In Palestine CS gas is used at least every week, more likely a few times a week, in many places. Usage in israel is given a sentence while the US is given a subject. I'm not trying to say that this should be reversed, just what is the criteria why some countries have large sections and others almost none? 213.6.5.208 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Wikipedia isn't actually a US conspiracy. The English Wikipedia attracts vastly more American editors than any other nationality, so it's hardly surprising that US angles are covered more comprehensively than others. Add well-sourced Palestinian info and it will likely remain in the article. Chris Cunningham 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The name of CS Gas

I am slightly concerned at it being called CS Gas as it isn't technically a gas. Police forces in the uk call it CS spray. Was wondering if this could be looked at?

Removed reference to NYPD

Having worked as a street medic and Emergency Medical Technician for some years in NYC, I can confirm that the NYPD does not use CS gas. This isn't to say there isn't some stockpiled somewhere, but police officers will often say, "We don't use teargas," when asked about it. Since the NYPD is notable for its not using CS gas in situations comparable to where other police forces have, I thought it was inappropriate to use them as the example.

Typically, the NYPD doesn't use CS gas because they have a much larger police force than most cities (allowing them to make arrests or use OC spray rather than CS), and because NYC's population density ensures that there would be many third parties affected by CS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.152.153.66 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Immunity

The article makes no mention of immunity to this substance. Some people are immune to the effects of CS, or suffer greatly reduced symptoms. In my own military training, I was able to breathe CS normally and function with open eyes in a gas hut full of the stuff, while other trainees were unable to breathe at all. The only noticeable effect was a slight warming of the skin as though in sunlight. An instructing NCO informed me that in any given group of 50 or 60 trainees, there was usually one or two who displayed immunity. Obviously my personal experience and hearsay of that NCO is no reference, but I assume such could be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.188.147.34 (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw basically the same thing. One guy was immune and showed no reaction. We had to test the leak rate of or equipment and after that the brave ones (stupid!) took of they gas masks and all but one had to leave due to severe reactions. The guy was running in the CS for 5 minutes and came out with the rest of us. --Stone (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Some answers about the origin of the designations for chemical agents

It seems there are uncited claims on Wikipedia about the origin of the military designations CS, HS, SK, etc. I've found this source which attributes SK to "South Kensington" and HS to "Hun Stuff" - does anyone have more sources that clarify these designations? ----IsaacAA (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this included?

Under the "Use" section, this sentece appears: Domestic police use of CS is legal in many countries, however, as the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits only military use.

And under the section dealing with the US, this sentence appears: CS gas has been banned by international treaty in warfare since the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, and the United States is a signatory to this treaty. However CS can and is used against its own citizens by local police forces without restriction.

THe construction of the second quote seems to insinute that the US allows the use of CS gas in violation of international agreements, while the first quote shows this to be untrue. Additionally, no other section about national usage makes mention of that nation's status relative to the international agreement in question. Why is the US singled out in this regard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.49.200 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncited anecdotes do not constitute encyclopaedic entries

On the UK section, the last two paragraphs have been written and left uncited, apart from a footnote saying they come from the contributors personal experience. If the events in Essex are in fact reported in the "Illford Recorder", then why can they not be cited?