Psychochemical Weapons

Thursday, January 3rd, 2013

At the US Army’s Edgewood Arsenal, researchers studied chemical weapons — including psychochemical weapons:

Edgewood had been built in a fit of urgency during the First World War, when weaponized gas — chlorine and, later, mustard — was used to devastating effect in the trenches of Europe. Fritz Haber, the German scientist who pioneered the rise of chemical weapons, proclaimed, “In no future war will the military be able to ignore poison gas. It is a higher form of killing.” The U.S. Army took the threat seriously, and launched a program to study the chemicals, building laboratories and gas chambers in order to test human subjects. “We began to hear about the terrors of this place,” a private wrote in 1918. “Everyone we talked to on the way out here said we were coming to the place God forgot! They tell tales about men being gassed and burned.

After the Second World War, intelligence reports emerged from Germany of chemical weapons far deadlier than mustard or chlorine. The new compounds, which had evolved out of research into insecticides, were called nerve gases, because they created a body-wide overflow of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, often triggering organ failure and near-sudden death. The Reich had invested primarily in three — tabun, soman, and sarin — and the victorious powers rushed to obtain them. The Soviet Union secretly dismantled an entire nerve-gas plant and relocated the technology behind the Iron Curtain. The American government, for its part, acquired the Nazi chemical formulas — and, in some cases, the scientists who developed them — and brought them to Edgewood.

The Army decided to pursue sarin. The chemical was about twenty-five times as deadly as cyanide, and readily made into an aerosol. It was virtually impossible to handle without casualties; in one year, seven technicians required immediate treatment following accidental exposure. As the vapor was released after tests, birds passing over the flue of the gas chambers fell dead, and had to be cleared off the roof. In experiments that the arsenal contracted at Johns Hopkins University, researchers gave sarin to healthy volunteers in cups of water over three days. Some of the subjects were severely poisoned; they twitched, vomited, and had trouble breathing.

Early nerve-gas experiments focussed on the extreme lethality of the chemicals, and on antidotes, but researchers at Edgewood also began to take note of the chemicals’ cognitive side effects. Subjects often felt giddy at first, then deeply anxious. Some had nightmares or lost sleep and became depressed. A secret 1948 study on the poisoned Edgewood technicians noted that “the outstanding feature of these cases appears to be the psychological reactions,” and its author wondered how “young men having no experience or knowledge” of the chemicals would react. A senior official at the arsenal had observed that men exposed to highly diluted tabun “were partially disabled for from one to three weeks with fatigue, lassitude, complete loss of initiative and interest, and apathy.”

I spoke to a former Edgewood test subject who was given the nerve agent VX, which, when applied to the skin, is a hundred times as deadly as sarin. An officer came to his bedside to draw a small circle on his arm, and then a doctor with a syringe squirted on a drop of liquid. The effect was rapid. The subject heard other people groaning — one man said, “Oh, shit” — but he felt only a calm disassociation from his environment. There was a radio on in the room, but the words made little sense. When he was given food, he didn’t know what to do with his utensils. “I was not in control,” he told me. “It was incredible. This tiny drop had rendered me helpless.” As the test continued, he was seized by an agonizing wave of tension, as if each nerve ending were being crushed in a vise. “It was intense,” he told me. “My body was clenched. All of my nerves were tight, physically and mentally.”

In 1949, L. Wilson Greene, Edge wood’s scientific director, typed up a classified report, “Psychochemical Warfare: A New Concept of War,” that called for a search for compounds that would create the same debilitating mental side effects as nerve gas, but without the lethality. “Throughout recorded history, wars have been characterized by death, human misery, and the destruction of property; each major conflict being more catastrophic than the one preceding it,” Greene argued. “I am convinced that it is possible, by means of the techniques of psychochemical warfare, to conquer an enemy without the wholesale killing of his people or the mass destruction of his property.”

In its broad strokes, “Psychochemical Warfare” fit within the evolving ethos at Edgewood: better fighting through chemistry. The first commanding general of the Army’s Chemical Warfare Service had extolled the “effectiveness and humaneness” of gases: they killed quickly, and kept infrastructure intact. Psychochemical warfare certainly promised a form of conflict less deadly than clouds of sarin — even more humane, in that sense, perhaps. But Greene did not want to elevate consciousness; he wanted to debilitate, in ways that would inspire terror. As he put it, “The symptoms which are considered to be of value in strategic and tactical operations include the following: fits or seizures, dizziness, fear, panic, hysteria, hallucinations, migraine, delirium, extreme depression, notions of hopelessness, lack of initiative to do even simple things, suicidal mania.”

Greene drew up a list of chemicals to investigate, ranging from barbiturates to carbon monoxide, and he urged a deeper inquiry into the psychological effects of nerve gas. Enoch Callaway, a Navy psychiatrist who arrived at Edgewood in 1950, recalled, “I was told that I needed to measure ‘nervousness,’ because nerve gas was supposed to make you nervous.” So he designed a test: people given sarin were blasted with noise to measure how much they jumped. “We figured out that nerve gas actually reduced anxiety in doses that did not cause convulsions.” The work, he insisted, was conducted responsibly, with a sense of urgency now hard to understand: “We didn’t know that chemical warfare was going to disappear so thoroughly.”

In the mid-nineteen-fifties, psychochemical warfare was formally added to Edgewood’s clinical research, and approval was granted to recruit soldiers from around the country for the experiments, in a systematic effort called the Medical Research Volunteer Program. The Army assured Congress that the chemicals were “perfectly safe” and offered “a new vista of controlling people without any deaths” — even though early efforts to make weapons from mescaline and LSD were dropped, because the drugs were too unsafe or too unpredictable. Congressional overseers, terrified of Soviet military superiority, were ready to lend support. The Red Army had an extensive chemical-warfare program, and evidence suggested that it had an interest in “psychic poisons,” used to trigger mental illness. “Some foreign enemy could already be subjecting us in the United States to such things,” one panicky legislator proclaimed during a hearing. “Are we the ones receiving it now? Are we the rabbits and guinea pigs?”

Edgewood began reviewing hundreds of chemicals, many provided by pharmaceutical companies. One officer remarked, “The characteristics we are looking for in these agents are in general exactly opposite to what the pharmaceutical firms want in drugs, that is the undesirable side effects.” Starting in 1959, the arsenal aggressively pursued phencyclidine — or PCP — which Parke, Davis & Company had marketed as an anesthetic but abandoned because patients were having hallucinations and delusions. Edgewood doctors tested it as an aerosol and surreptitiously gave it to soldiers to see if they could then “maintain physical security over simulated classified material.” One subject — who had been exposed to sarin gas a week earlier — was handed a glass of whiskey laced with twenty milligrams of PCP. “Manic reaction and much hostility,” a doctor observed. The subject passed out, and began breathing in a pattern associated with neurological trauma or cardiac stress.

Rioch told Ketchum that another volunteer had ended up in the hospital for six weeks. “He had a paranoid reaction that didn’t go away after the drug wore off,” Ketchum recalled. The trials with PCP were eventually dropped, but stories of other problem cases circulated. A military advisory council decided that the arsenal was ill equipped for the newer line of research. “It seems important to undertake immediately a program to develop sound, fundamental techniques of assessing abnormal behavior,” its members noted. “The services of people trained in this field, such as psychologists, psychiatrists and neuro-physiologists should be obtained.” Edgewood, in other words, needed young doctors just like Jim Ketchum.

Psychochemical research seems to have attracted exactly the kind of people who should not be making ethically challenging decisions:

Not long after arriving at Edgewood, Ketchum took to playing tennis with a commanding officer at the arsenal, who, after a match one day, described how Sim had spiked his morning coffee with LSD. “He was pissed off as hell,” Ketchum told me. LSD had been mixed into cocktails at a party, and into an Army unit’s water supply. Some men handled it fine; some went berserk. A test subject in 1957 exhibited “euphoria followed by severe depression, anxiety, and panic — feeling he was going to die,” according to his chart. Another test involved intelligence specialists who were blindfolded and placed in an isolation chamber. “Only one subject was in a condition to undergo extended interrogation,” a report concluded. “A second subject fled from interrogation in panic.”

Ketchum later wrote of Sim’s “hare-brained experiments” and his “lack of scientific (and ethical) judgment.” The Army had apparently reached the same conclusion. In 1959, responsibility for the volunteers was taken from Sim — who was eventually given the new title of chief scientist—and transferred to Lindsey, a more capable leader, though not immune to bouts of recklessness himself. To demonstrate the effects of VX, he was known to dip his finger in a beaker containing the lethal agent, then rub it on the back of a shaved rabbit; as the animal convulsed and died, he would casually walk across the room and bathe his finger in a Martini to wash off the VX. “I thought they were crazy,” a doctor who served under him told me. “I was going to New York, and Colonel Lindsey tells me, ‘How about taking a vial of nerve gas to New York to make a demonstration.’ And I am looking at the guy and thinking, If I have an accident on the Thruway, I could kill thousands of people—thousands of people. I said, ‘No. It’s that simple.’ ”

Read the whole thing. Then read the follow-up piece.

Unwilding America

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

North America was much wilder and more dangerous before the Indians arrived, Gregory Cochran reminds us:

Today, or for that matter during colonial times. there are only a few dangerous creatures around: grizzly bears, black bears, polar bears, and a few poisonous snakes. Mountain lions attack people, but rarely. I suppose some people die from drunkenly running their pickup into a buck on a country road.

Back in the Pleistocene, life was more exciting. You had to worry about really potent predators like dire wolves, sabertooth cats, lions, and short-faced bears. There were also plenty of giant herbivores that would have been dangerous, ranging from mammoths to ground sloths. In general, more like Africa today, a place where people who fall asleep walking home from the beer joint in the next village have their faces eaten by hyenas.

Paul Martin, who did excellent work in showing that Quaternary extinctions were caused by human hunters, felt that we should do our best to recreate those extinct faunas in North America, by introducing wild horses, camels, elephants, tigers, and such to the great plains. I don’t think he ever bothered to explain why anyone would want to do this. To him, it was obvious. Not to me.

A related concept, the Wildlands Project, was put forth almost 20 years ago. Loons are still pushing it. The idea is that many species, especially predators, can only survive in the long term if they have much more space than they do currently. So the people backing the Wildlands project want to expel humans from as much as half of the continent. Some big names such as Paul Ehrlich and E. O. Wilson have endorsed this. Of course, they’re all mad as hatters.

First question is why anyone would want to infest the nation with maneaters? Right now, in most of the country, you don’t have to worry about your kids being eaten. Why would anyone want to change that? They’d have to be implacably hostile to the human race. And of course, they are.

I’m pretty sure they’re suggested fenced-in game preserves, not saber-toothed tigers let loose in Nebraska — or maybe not.

Aretae On Self Help

Tuesday, January 1st, 2013

Self help falls into six categories, Aretae says:

Category one: The self-help book that attempts to help you change your personality. Sorry, it’s substantially genetic. You mostly just lose. Some books in this category admit it, for instance Sonja Ljubomirsky’s Happiness book leads by saying 50% of your happiness is basically genetic and unmodifiable outside of decade-long work that no one is willing to do.

Category two: The self-help book that attempts to teach you something new. See, for instance, Robert Greene’s books on Seduction or Power. I prefer Yudkowsky’s term for this kind of book: Epiphany porn. She looks awful good on the pages, but she ain’t gonna do you. What you think once has no impact on your life at all, with p > 0.99. So what is one to do?

Category three: The books that attempt to teach you to think differently as a habit are a completely different category of book. Much academic learning tries to do this but fails. Some succeeds. This is easily understood by folks who took their curricula seriously, and studied a brain-bending discipline (I know personally that math, econ, philosophy all try to deeply reconfigure how you think about everything. In general, I found that psychology didn’t… nor did most education courses). The good news is that this is far better than insight porn. It can actually change how you think about many things. The bad news is that again, it probably has no impact on your life at all (p > 0.95). Human beings suck very very badly at translating idea into action. If it involves human action in natural realms (dealing with people), 19 times out of 20, your action will remain as it was, while you think about your failure differently than you used to. WTF? So we’re screwed?

Category four: The book that attempts to teach you to act differently as a habit is a kind of book that has some chance of working. I found that Neil Strauss’s 2nd book on Game was a beautifully well-done book in this form. What can you do? The primary issue that self help books fail on is that self-help is 99% about action and 1% about thinking. And almost all of them attempt to screw with your thinking, not your action.

Category five: Long term books. A sequence of meditation practice books can be beautifully self-helpful, if you practice their approach over the course of decades, without seeing much progress at any one point. Good Luck.

Category six: Encouragement books. Some books exist simply to give you the psychic strength to persevere. Much fiction is like this. Neil Straus’s first book on Game is like this. Gain strength from the story to persevere in building a habit. IF you use this kind of book this way, it can be useful. Most folks don’t.

There’s Little We Can Do to Prevent Another Massacre

Tuesday, January 1st, 2013

Megan McArdle states the unpopular truth that there’s little we can do to prevent another massacre:

What Lanza shows us is the limits of the obvious policy responses.  He had all the mental health resources he needed — and he did it anyway.  The law stopped him from buying a gun — and he did it anyway.  The school had an intercom system aimed at stopping unauthorized entry — and he did it anyway.  Any practical, easy-to-implement solution to school shootings that you could propose, along with several that were not at all easy to implement, was already in place.  Somehow, Lanza blew through them all.

Perhaps we need to go farther.  But how far? The one thing we cannot do, though this did not stop many people from suggesting it, is to ban “the types of weapons that make these shootings possible”.  It is easy and satisfying to be for “gun control” in the abstract, but we cannot pass gun control, in the abstract.  We have to pass a specific law that describes very specifically what people may and may not do.  That means we need to carefully specify the features that makes these shootings possible.  And unfortunately, the feature is… “fires metal pellets at high speed”.

You don’t need a special kind of gun to shoot civilians.  You just need a gun. A handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle are all pretty deadly at close quarters, and Lanza went to the school with all three.  (He left the shotgun in the back of a car).  You don’t need a military style rifle, or a high-powered scope, or a pistol grip, or a detachable stock, because concealment is not a big issue, and you don’t need much aim to put a bullet into someone at ten feet.  Nor can you stop these shootings by restricting people to hunting rifles, which for some reason people seem to think are less deadly than regular guns.

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

Tuesday, January 1st, 2013

A recent study compares the effects of three genetically modified corn varieties on rats:

Patho-physiological profiles are unique for each GM crop/food, underlining the necessity for a case-by-case evaluation of their safety, as is largely admitted and agreed by regulators. It is not possible to make comments concerning any general, similar subchronic toxic effect for all GM foods. However, in the three GM maize varieties that formed the basis of this investigation, new side effects linked to the consumption of these cereals were revealed, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others [4]. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity.

This can be due to the new pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) present specifically in each type of GM maize, although unintended metabolic effects due to the mutagenic properties of the GM transformation process cannot be excluded [42]. All three GM maize varieties contain a distinctly different pesticide residue associated with their particular GM event (glyphosate and AMPA in NK 603, modified Cry1Ab in MON 810, modified Cry3Bb1 in MON 863). These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown. Furthermore, any side effect linked to the GM event will be unique in each case as the site of transgene insertion and the spectrum of genome wide mutations will differ between the three modified maize types.

In conclusion, our data presented here strongly recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years) animal feeding studies be performed in at least three species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods. Our analysis highlights that the kidneys and liver as particularly important on which to focus such research as there was a clear negative impact on the function of these organs in rats consuming GM maize varieties for just 90 days.