Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Phosgene was used by the German army from the end of May 1915, when attacks were conducted on the Western Front against French troops and on the Eastern Front on Russians, where 12,000 cylinders with 240–264 long tons (244–268 t) of 95 per cent chlorine and 5 per cent phosgene was discharged on a 7.5 mi (12 km) front at Bolimów. [5]
German phosgene came in the form of diphosgene, codenamed Grün Kreuz (Green cross). This was less effective than its allied counterpart, being less toxic and slower to evaporate, but was easier to handle in shell manufacture early in the war. [35] Phosgene was a potent killing agent, deadlier than chlorine.
Phosgene was first deployed as a chemical weapon by the French in 1915 in World War I. [24] It was also used in a mixture with an equal volume of chlorine, with the chlorine helping to spread the denser phosgene. [25] [26] Phosgene was more potent than chlorine, though some symptoms took 24 hours or more to manifest.
Traces of a toxic, colorless gas were found at the headquarters of Sweden’s security agency where a suspected gas leak last week forced authorities to evacuate some 500 people from the facility ...
Phosgene was up to six times as potent than chlorine and did not suggest any urgent symptoms that was associated with the coughing and discomfort that chlorine did. Psychological impacts of the gas had resulted in unexplained anxiety attacks which would cause men to tear off their gas masks to breathe correctly exposing them to the gas. [ 3 ]
Chemical warfare (CW) involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances as weapons.This type of warfare is distinct from nuclear warfare, biological warfare and radiological warfare, which together make up CBRN, the military acronym for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (warfare or weapons), all of which are considered "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs), a term that ...
The first World War saw chemicals especially chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas used heavily. Over 100,000 tons of toxic gas was produced by the end of the war in 1918. For the most part gas masks neutralized advantages. Gas injured many soldiers but it did not change the course of the war. There were no permanent environmental effects. [11] [12]
However, chemical weapons expert Jonathan B. Tucker, writing in the Nonproliferation Review in 1997, determined that although "[t]he absence of severe chemical injuries or fatalities among Coalition forces makes it clear that no large-scale Iraqi employment of chemical weapons occurred," an array of "circumstantial evidence from a variety of ...