The MOD admits spraying the UK public between 1940 and 1979 in secret trials

WavedRhyme

New Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience



care to debunk this? ill quote the last part


"Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: 'Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

'The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.'

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: 'It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.' "
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's nothing to debunk in that article.

The bunk comes in the interpretation. Really it was just the army spraying what they thought were harmless substances to see how far the wind blew them. Much later some concern was raised about some minor health issues associated with them - similar to second-hand-smoke.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There's nothing to debunk in that article.

The bunk comes in the interpretation. Really it was just the army spraying what they thought were harmless substances to see how far the wind blew them. Much later some concern was raised about some minor health issues associated with them - similar to second-hand-smoke.
Mick, I understand what your saying . . . however, this same information collected in the UK, US and Canada using high altitude injection of chemical aerosols is not comforting to many . . . while stated the experiments were done in concern for public safety the same information could be used to confirm the most effective way to optimize offensive weaponry . . . and since this information was held classified for decades and was only released in the US in rancorous debate over Human Experimentation it is not surprising the alarm and questions regarding its efficacy . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, I understand what your saying . . . however, this same information collected in the UK, US and Canada using high altitude injection of chemical aerosols is not comforting to many . . . while stated the experiments were done in concern for public safety the same information could be used to confirm the most effective way to optimize offensive weaponry . . . and since this information was held classified for decades and was only released in the US in rancorous debate over Human Experimentation it is not surprising the alarm and questions regarding its efficacy . . .

Sure, but the questions haven't turned up anything particularly bad. Very minor health concerns about something done decades ago. It's a minor pollution issue, that's all (if that). Just has shadowy overtones.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And and regarding "ongoing" research. They just can't confirm or deny anything. It does not mean it's ongoing. It means that if they denied everything they were not doing, they you could figure out what they were doing by a process of elimination.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sure, but the questions haven't turned up anything particularly bad. Very minor health concerns about something done decades ago. It's a minor pollution issue, that's all (if that). Just has shadowy overtones.
The issue to many is not that the health concerns were and are minimal but this activity was allowed without notification or the consent of the people under the experiment . . . if bureaucrats and defense leaders can make such unilateral decisions such as this (in a non-emergent environment) what else have they or are they capable of deciding . . . and if higher governmental authority was involved the implications are more disturbing . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The issue to many is not that the health concerns were and are minimal but this activity was allowed without notification or the consent of the people under the experiment . . . if bureaucrats and defense leaders can make such unilateral decisions such as this (in a non-emergent environment) what else have they or are they capable of deciding . . . and if higher governmental authority was involved the implications are more disturbing . . .

They were not experimenting on people, they were just seeing how far stuff blew in the wind.

Essentially is not different from factory emissions, and vastly smaller.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
They were not experimenting on people, they were just seeing how far stuff blew in the wind.

Essentially is not different from factory emissions, and vastly smaller.
We will have to disagree there . . . the object of the experiment may not have been to target people but the net effect was to see how many potential people could be exposed to the effects of such an aerosol release . . . I cannot argue the apparent results were no different than factory emissions however, they (factory emmisions) are at least regulated and are not released normally in a covert and classified way by the Government who we expect to act differently . . .
 

Rico

Senior Member.
We will have to disagree there . . . the object of the experiment may not have been to target people but the net effect was to see how many potential people could be exposed to the effects of such an aerosol release . . . I cannot argue the apparent results were no different than factory emissions however, they (factory emmisions) are at least regulated and are not released normally in a covert and classified way by the Government who we expect to act differently . . .

In this particular case, I think I'd agree with you. I'm not the people affected, so I don't know what the real effects are, but I'd still be pretty angry if this were done behind my back. It's not the target that matters, nor whether or not it was just an eff up. Messing with things that have a fallout behind people's backs does strike me as a tad bit unethical. Old news, but still.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
In this particular case, I think I'd agree with you. I'm not the people affected, so I don't know what the real effects are, but I'd still be pretty angry if this were done behind my back. It's not the target that matters, nor whether or not it was just an eff up. Messing with things that have a fallout behind people's backs does strike me as a tad bit unethical. Old news, but still.

Might they have actually, as they state, been trying to anticipate the extent of a chemical attack and plan for dealing with it or does no one wish to believe that explanation?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Might they have actually, as they state, been trying to anticipate the extent of a chemical attack and plan for dealing with it or does no one wish to believe that explanation?

I'd have no reason not to believe it. I just don't agree with the practice.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
But considering the available technology in the time peiod referenced, how else could accurate data be obtained?

Well I'm not sure to what degree one can call that accurate data. A little more of a controlled environment would be a start. Away from people, ideally?

Ask yourself this: Would you agree to have them test a biological warfare counter measure close to your own home?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Might they have actually, as they state, been trying to anticipate the extent of a chemical attack and plan for dealing with it or does no one wish to believe that explanation?
Sure that was the accepted explanation and was probably the motivation . . . Yet, the information derived from said project can be used for both defensive and offensive purposes and why the decades long secrecy?? No one likes to be a test subject even if unintended without their consent . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well I'm not sure to what degree one can call that accurate data. A little more of a controlled environment would be a start. Away from people, ideally?

Ask yourself this: Would you agree to have them test a biological warfare counter measure close to your own home?

That's not what they were testing though - they were blowing some inert stuff in the wind to see how far it blew.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's not what they were testing though - they were blowing some inert stuff in the wind to see how far it blew.
The duration and amount of missions would seem to discount such a simple objective . . . :)
 

Rico

Senior Member.
That's not what they were testing though - they were blowing some inert stuff in the wind to see how far it blew.

I'm sorry, I worded the question incorrectly. Yeah, inert as you say, but i'm still pretty sure it's stuff people don't want blown over their back yards, especially behind their backs.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Well I'm not sure to what degree one can call that accurate data. A little more of a controlled environment would be a start. Away from people, ideally?

Ask yourself this: Would you agree to have them test a biological warfare counter measure close to your own home?

I don't see how else they could get accurate data about how anything might spread over populated areas,unless they sprayed something over those exact areas.

I don't know if there is equivalency there, but in general, no.

In my opinion the crux of the matter lies in properly identifying the chemical concentrations that resulted from the spraying and the toxicity, at those concentrations, of what was sprayed.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I don't see how else they could get accurate data about how anything might spread over populated areas,unless they sprayed something over those exact areas.

I don't know if there is equivalency there, but in general, no.

In my opinion the crux of the matter lies in properly identifying the chemical concentrations that resulted from the spraying and the toxicity, at those concentrations, of what was sprayed.

I'm curious as to the point of doing the test over an actual populated area. You know as well as anyone that winds change, and likewise the spread of what's being sprayed.

They could have just picked a better spot.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
I'm curious as to the point of doing the test over an actual populated area. You know as well as anyone that winds change, and likewise the spread of what's being sprayed.

They could have just picked a better spot.

Would the winds have been the same? Don't know.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Do we know how many missions were flown?
There was a follow-up investigation by a congressional commission that detailed the times, locations, etc . . . the project ranged from Texas to the Midwest including some if Canada . . . I don't have the link right now but have posted it on this Forum before . . . it was rather extensive and surprising while being very incomplete in details as well . . .
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=5739

Toxicologic Assessment of the Army's Zinc Cadmium Sulfide Dispersion Tests:
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions


The committee estimated that the excess maximum lifetime cancer risk for the most heavily exposed residents of St. Louis is 1.5 in 1 million; in Minneapolis it is one in 2.5 million; one in 1 million in Winnipeg; seven in 100 million in Fort Wayne; and one in 100 million in Corpus Christi.
Content from External Source
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
There was a follow-up investigation by a congressional commission that detailed the times, locations, etc . . . the project ranged from Texas to the Midwest including some if Canada . . . I don't have the link right now but have posted it on this Forum before . . . it was rather extensive and surprising while being very incomplete in details as well . . .
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=5739

The committee estimated that the excess maximum lifetime cancer risk for the most heavily exposed residents of St. Louis is 1.5 in 1 million; in Minneapolis it is one in 2.5 million; one in 1 million in Winnipeg; seven in 100 million in Fort Wayne; and one in 100 million in Corpus Christi.
Content from External Source

This is the UK? Did I miss something?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm curious as to the point of doing the test over an actual populated area. You know as well as anyone that winds change, and likewise the spread of what's being sprayed.

They could have just picked a better spot.

They would want to known how an urban environment (buildings, of various sizes) affect the dispersion. Probably also would want to see how much gets inside buildings. Does it concentrate in some areas? Are some areas safer?
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
There was a follow-up investigation by a congressional commission that detailed the times, locations, etc . . . the project ranged from Texas to the Midwest including some if Canada . . . I don't have the link right now but have posted it on this Forum before . . . it was rather extensive and surprising while being very incomplete in details as well . . .
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?recordid=5739

Toxicologic Assessment of the Army's Zinc Cadmium Sulfide Dispersion Tests:
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions


The committee estimated that the excess maximum lifetime cancer risk for the most heavily exposed residents of St. Louis is 1.5 in 1 million; in Minneapolis it is one in 2.5 million; one in 1 million in Winnipeg; seven in 100 million in Fort Wayne; and one in 100 million in Corpus Christi.
Content from External Source

I've seen some lotteries and casino games with better chances of "winning."
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The duration and amount of missions would seem to discount such a simple objective . . . :)

Why?

Here's what the zinc cadmium sulphide looked like when "sprayed" from an aircraft (Valetta) during the UK trials:


As for why keep it secret? In the day of course biological and chemical warfare were very real possibilities - and terrifying ones at that - why would you make any of this information available to the public where the enemy could also get it??

And these days why would you want it public where various groups with evil intent could get it??
 
Last edited by a moderator:

A.G.

Senior Member.
I'd just like to get something clarified regarding these tests, especially regarding the implied links to chemtrails and George B's first reply: there was nothing "high altitude" about these tests, were there?
 

A.G.

Senior Member.
"WAS there?" Damn. The late hour. Oh well, no doubt there are worse things about my English that I don't even notice.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I'd just like to get something clarified regarding these tests, especially regarding the implied links to chemtrails and George B's first reply: there was nothing "high altitude" about these tests, were there?
By high altitude I mean anything released by an aircraft whether at 200 feet or 20,000 feet . . . anything but at ground level by ground vehicles or from the tops of buildings or towers . . .I made no reference to chemtrails . . . this is simply a discussion about the testing of biochemical warfare stimulants on the US and UK populations . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Why?

Here's what the zinc cadmium sulphide looked like when "sprayed" from an aircraft during the UK trials:


As for why keep it secret? In the day of course biological and chemical warfare were very real possibilities - and terrifying ones at that - why would you make any of this information available to the public where the enemy could also get it??

And these days why would you want it public where various groups with evil intent could get it??
1) The technical details of the research were never released to my knowledge . . . so evil people getting the info is moot. . .

2) The testing was done in the 50s and 60s . . . when the information was released it was 1995-1997 . . . after the cold war was well over and treaties in force to outlaw biochemical warfare . . . the fact this was withheld was embarrassment factor by DoD and nothing more . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
In Britain at least many of the releases were eat ground or sea level, from vehicles and boats.

The information was not withheld in the 1990's - the US released a toxilogical report on ZnCS in 1997 and the NY Times reported on it the day it was released.

I'm still interested in why you think the number of missions does not support the idea that their objective was "simply" to investigate the way the agents spread across the countryside?


1)That is what I stated . . . . I said it was released between 1995 and 1997 (in the US )

2) What you said . . . Is not what I was responding too . . . see Mick's statement . . . it was far more than an exercise to see how far it blew . . .

That's not what they were testing though - they were blowing some inert stuff in the wind to see how far it blew.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Sorry - I got confused by your comment about the info being "withheld".

Your 2nd point is exactly what I am questioning - why do you say it was more than an exercise to see how far it blew?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry - I got confused by your comment about the info being "withheld".

Your 2nd point is exactly what I am questioning - why do you say it was more than an exercise to see how far it blew?
It was obviously used as a biochemical agent stimulant . . . to test the potential exposure potential in different release patterns and weather conditions in vastly different environments . . . it was longer in duration, complexity and intent than just seeing how far it would blow in the wind . . . these trials were also withheld from public knowledge and done without their consent . . . IMO a breach of public trust . . .this information was released against DoD's desire in Congressional Testimony in a rancorous series of sessions about covert human experimentation . . . it lead IMO to a rewrite of the US laws which allowed the experimentation of biochemical agents on US Citizens without their consent . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
ZnCS is a SIMULANT - and

to test the potential exposure potential in different release patterns and weather conditions in vastly different environments . . .

Seems to me to be exactly the same as

...seeing how far it would blow in the wind

After all if you are going to see how far it blows in the wind then you need it to last long enough to blow in the wind!! "Blowing in the wind" might be non-technical shorthand, but IMO you are arguing that it blew in the wind longer than was needed if it was jest being tested to blow in the wind, therefore it can't possibly have just being tested to see how long it would blow in the wind!;);):rolleyes:

As for this:

it lead IMO to a rewrite of the US laws which allowed the experimentation of biochemical agents on US Citizens without their consent . .
Content from External Source
I think you mean it lead to a rewrite which specifically excluded any and all testing on US citizens without informed consent - after all you started the thread that pointed out that it has been made illegal:cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
ZnCS is a SIMULANT - and



Seems to me to be exactly the same as



After all if you are going to see how far it blows in the wind then you need it to last long enough to blow in the wind!! "Blowing in the wind" might be non-technical shorthand, but IMO you are arguing that it blew in the wind longer than was needed if it was jest being tested to blow in the wind, therefore it can't possibly have just being tested to see how long it would blow in the wind!;);):rolleyes:

As for this:

it lead IMO to a rewrite of the US laws which allowed the experimentation of biochemical agents on US Citizens without their consent . .
Content from External Source
I think you mean it lead to a rewrite which specifically excluded any and all testing on US citizens without informed consent - after all you started the thread that pointed out that it has been made illegal:cool:

1) No . . . I meant exactly what I said . . . the law prior to 1997 gave the Secretary of Defense the authority to use biochemical agents on US Citizens without their knowledge or consent . . . this Congressional testimony lead to a rewrite of US Law "which (had) allowed the experimentation of biochemical agents on US Citizens without their consent" . . . does the word "had" help to clarify my statement for you?

2) Mick's shorthand IMO was an attempt to minimize the size, intent, and importance of the activities . . . and I think you know that as well . . . Congress did not agree with Mick and took several actions based on the testimony and objections to Zinc Cadmium Sulfide "blowing in the wind" . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
Putting the word "had" completely changes the meaning of the sentence to past tense instead of saying that the rewrite allowed experimentation - so yes - it does help - how can you say that you had said exactly what you meant, and then change it completely without so much as bating an eyelid??

Your 2nd paragraph lacks any actual information as to what way the experiment was about more than "just" seeing how far the chemicals would disperse - "blow in the wind" - Congress objected to the experimentation without consent - AFAIK they did not make any judgement about whether the experiment actually intended to do more than measure dispersal.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Putting the word "had" completely changes the meaning of the sentence to past tense instead of saying that the rewrite allowed experimentation - so yes - it does help - how can you say that you had said exactly what you meant, and then change it completely without so much as bating an eyelid??

Your 2nd paragraph lacks any actual information as to what way the experiment was about more than "just" seeing how far the chemicals would disperse - "blow in the wind" - Congress objected to the experimentation without consent - AFAIK they did not make any judgement about whether the experiment actually intended to do more than measure dispersal.

1) "which allowed" vs "which (had) allowed" both past tense, one past perfect tense . . . both IMO essentially conveying the same meaning . . . since you disagree, so be it . . .

2) Congress did fear that the substance released was more than testing smoke signals . . . I think this splinting hairs is going no where . . . what is your point? Do you want to discuss the substance of the issues or just debate the meanings of words and their use?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2) Mick's shorthand IMO was an attempt to minimize the size, intent, and importance of the activities . . . and I think you know that as well . . . Congress did not agree with Mick and took several actions based on the testimony and objections to Zinc Cadmium Sulfide "blowing in the wind" . . .

No, it was an attempt to describe the events as I perceived them.

I believe the law was changed as a reaction to forcible vaccinations of Gulf War servicemen. Nothing to do with ZCS.
 
Top