Talk:Tear gas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tear gas

Tear gas links back to this article, which doesn't help much if people click on the links in, um, this article! 86.149.2.192 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

this article sucks 24.113.113.216 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin of military designations

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) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Move to tear gas

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the common name of the subject.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Lachrymatory agent → Tear gas — It seems that tear gas is the more common term. Kaldari (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Or "teargas" as one word.

  As Lachrymator redirects here, should there be a hatlink to lachrymators encountered as an industrial hazard, rather than in riot control? (E.g., around 1960 my mother once complained "teargas" about chlorine gas coming out of the water of an over-chlorinated swimming pool.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the intro reads "commonly referred to as tear gas", then, assuming no ambiguity or other issues, that should tell us where to go. Support per WP:UCN. — AjaxSmack 16:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment isn't it also Lachrymating agent ? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I support moving the article to Tear gas (not teargas) because it is overwhelmingly what most people call it. The words lachrymatory or lachrymating agent may be retained in the article to introduce the term to people unfamiliar with it. --O'Dea (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antacid is NOT a Defense Against Tear Gas

Despite several media references to instructions for using liquid antacids to counter the effects of tear gas, this information is false. Tear gas is not an acid. Spraying liquid antacid solution on someone may increase external pain because the dust adheres more readily to wet skin and the liquid can carry the dust through clothing onto the person's skin underneath. These "defense" instructions are harmful. And by giving people a false sense of security their lives may be endangered by continued and aggravated exposure. Rick MILLER (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It can be

Maalox and other Antacids often have Calcium in them. Calcium (essentially) deactivates the TRPV1 (Vanilloid) receptors that capsaicin binds with. This is why calcium-rich liquids such as milk are effective against most spicy foods, and why pouring milk or a Calcium-tablet salve as an eyewash can help after getting pepper-sprayed. TRPV1#Desensitization. You are correct that teargas is not an acid, though, and that neutralization of teargas's "burning" sensation is not a typical RedOx reaction.

Depending on the lachrymating agent, if it's not capsaicin-based, the Calcium desensitization may not work. Elecmahm (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

chlorobenzylidene malononitrile

Why is it missing from this article? 173.174.212.164 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin?

"Lachrymator" coming from Latin? Unlikely. If a scientific-looking name contains 'ch' and 'y', the chance that it is Greek is overwhelming. I'll dig a little... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all sources claim "Latin". Odd! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Effects

I think for such a dramatic claim that it causes blindness one needs a citation for that..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.240.4 (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Malversion of Reigners

The last acapit mentions tear gas is forbidden in military use, but not for police to counter riots. Thats truly show malversation of reigners since they force humanitary treat on soldiers (soldiers are fighting another soldiers), but they don't mind unhumanitary treat on civils (where from humanitary point of view it's more important to keep civils safe).

I believe the sentence but I prefer to have more sources. Anyway any amount of information showing the spoil of reigns especially ones so called democracy isn't too much. Don't say us the scary stories people repeat but are not allowed to or laughed at are just Conspiracy Theories as a result of incidence and mistake. Maciek.czerniawski (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DIY "treatments"

Please note that any "Treatment" information for this page must be based on reliable medical sources—something which is currently lacking in the articles for DIY remedies such as Maalox, lemon juice etc. Since carrying these substances on one's person may be considered a counter-measure, in a broad sense of the term, I feel it is preferable to retain the content on the subject in the "Counter-measures" section, rather than having to remove it from the page altogether. For this reason, I propose to undo this revert. Regards, 81.157.7.7 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that putting the text in a different section makes any difference there - people are just as likely to try and rely on that info in that other section. The text should make clear the reliability of the sources, and then people have to make up their own minds. Or else we should remove it altogether. Podiaebba (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from, but the issue does exist. I was trying to find an editorial way to preserve the information, but not in a strictly medical context. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess what we really need is a reliable medical source that discusses the effectiveness of these DIY treatments. That's not really my area though. Podiaebba (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think there is one right now (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%28%22Tear%20Gases%22[Mesh]%20OR%20%22tear%20gas%22[All%20Fields]%20OR%20%22cs%20gas%22[All%20Fields]%29%20AND%20%28%22Antacids%22[Mesh]%20OR%20%22Citrus%22[Mesh]%20OR%20lemon[tw]%20OR%20vinegar[tw]%20OR%20maalox[tw]%20OR%20antacid[tw]%20OR%20yoghurt[tw]%20OR%20yoghourt[tw]%29%20AND%20%28Review[ptyp]%20OR%20guideline[pt]%29&cmd=DetailsSearch), though there probably will be one day. I'm really not sure about this. IMO, what people have been doing may be noteworthy if documented by general reliable sources. But I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be discussed under "Treatment" unless there's some specific reliable medical source. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that PubMed search supposed to return "No items found."? Just checking? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This change doesn't make sense to me: there are any number of treatments that have not been adequately studied - that doesn't make them something other than treatments: it just means they are untested treatments. They are equally untested as "counter-measures" and it is now illogical. "Counter-measures" imply to me something that you do to take measures against being on the receiving end of tear gas. Thus, soaking a bandanna in lemon juice would be a counter-measure: an attempt to counteract tear gas having an effect on you. If, however, you've been gassed, and you use the lemon juice in your eyes because you believe it means you will recover from the effects of tear gas faster if you do so, then you are treating the effects of being gassed. I looked quite extensively on the weekend for medical sources for lemon and vinegar and couldn't find any. But this is true of lots of treatments - even surgical techniques. It doesn't stop them being treatments. Hildabast (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as a temporary measure I've moved the content to a new section titled "DIY remedies". 81.157.7.7 (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That's better, but it still doesn't make sense entirely: why is squirting water in your eye treatment, but squirting lemon juice DIY? Hildabast (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it isn't (or doesn't seem to be) clinically validated? I know it's a band aid editorial fix, but I can't think of anything better. Rather hoping that someone else comes up with something. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Water isn't validated either, is it? I seem to remember reading that water can make the burning worse... Podiaebba (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been able to access PMID 19542106 (Management of the effects of exposure to tear gas, BMJ 2009) or PMID

20972236 (Educating on CS or 'tear gas', Emerg Med J 2010), which I think would be appropriate sources. The most recent review I've been able to access is PMID 11901348 from 2002:
"There is some debate in the literature regarding the optimal management of eye symptoms, with some advocating traditional irrigation43,44 and others suggesting that evaporation facilitated by a fan or air from a cold hairdryer is more effective in the removal of CS particles.33,45,46 Patients wearing contact lenses should remove them as quickly as possible, and soft lenses should be discarded, since it is likely that they will retain enough contaminant to make them unwearable.47 Patients who develop respiratory symptoms that do notresolve should be admitted for observation.48 Humidified oxygen may provide relief of symptoms, but occasionally inhaled beta-2 agonists or aminophylline may be required for the treatment of bronchospasm." [1]
81.157.7.7 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed ayran - I cant find a source for it, and it seems to be tongue-in-cheek given the ayran-vs-beer politics in Turkey at the moment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(sorry; new here.) I belive that the last sentence needs some evidence. It is a fact that in Chile we are using bicarbonate, but "with some good results" sounds far from a reliable source. Aolavea (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong citation for "Incorrect aim"

The claim "Incorrect aim will send the capsules away from the targets, causing risk for non-targets instead." links to http://www.ttb.org.tr/index.php/Haberler/cagri-3870.html as a citation. While it looks like good citation for the general topic of tear gas, especially in the context of the 2013 Turkish protests, it doesn't appear to support that particular claim. — Alan De Smet | Talk 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mace is not tear gas

It appears from careful study of the external sources that the MACE brand has not maufactured CS or CN tear gas exculsively, nor does it appear that it has ever done so based upon my reading of the reference links (though it has involvement in OC sprays and OC spray / tear gas combinations). Therefore, It would be my position that the term MACE should be severed in it's entirety from the tear gas article as such is fundamentally misleading information. 2605:A601:4515:F400:1537:1EDB:C95D:7702 (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Long-term heath effects of tear gas

ProPublica] has an article about the effects of tear gas, including the long-term effects, which are not pleasant. Apparently it makes you more susceptible to respiratory diseases like influenza and COVID-19, and seeps into homes and clothes. I think this is relevant info for the article, but am not sure how to integrate it, being a newbieish IP--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:F0D6:F3F3:F7E3:A9DE (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

References to the George Floyd protests

There have been repeated edits to this article that added (and removed) sections about use of Tear Gas during the George Floyd protests. In my opinion, that topic is out of scope and should be discussed in the article about the protests themselves. Blablubbs (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's out of scope WP:RECENTISM. Tear gas use in protests long predates the GF protests. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sure, the tear gas was used long before. However, this is an entirely new application of tear gas during a pandemic of a dangerous respiratory disease. As explained here [2], [3]:

1. teargas and other irritants that cause people to choke, hack and rip off their face masks will help the virus proliferate,
2. it’ll cause people to shout and scream, propelling droplets of these fluids – which could be carrying coronavirus – and giving them superpowers, to spread much farther than six feet.”
3. these chemical agents can irritate the nose, mouth and lungs, causing inflammation that could weaken the body’s ability to resist infection.

That is an entirely new application, a combined action of chemical and biological agents that was occasionally debated in the context of civil defense and WMD. No one did this before on own citizens to my knowledge. So yes, this must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I do not think it is a new application :-) Tear gas was already used all over the world during this pandemic, before George Floyd. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

That said, I agree that "tear gas during the pandemic" is content worth including in the article (along with the other links you posted below). GF protests are one example, and I think we can mention that, but I don't think it should be the focus, as opposed to taking a global view. GF are the protests in the US, but there's also Hong Kong, Kenya, and other places where tear gas was used. I haven't looked, but it was probably used in similar circumstances before coronavirus. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point. agree. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That was not only discussed, by actually tested on US soldiers [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Tear gas: an epidemiological and mechanistic reassessment - good review of effects of tear gas on human health per WP:MEDRS, in context of epidemiology. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I completely agree that the topic itself warrants discussion on Wikipedia - and I also think that a general discussion of the impact of tear gas use on the spread of respiratory disease is within the scope of this article. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my initial comment. However, I think that discussion of the subject as it relates to the George Floyd protests specifically should probably take place in the respective article, considering that this article makes no attempt at chronicling any other noteworthy instances of tear gas use. Best, Blablubbs (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)