10

In the final assault ending the 1993 siege of a compound in Waco, Texas , in which 76 people were killed, the FBI fired 40mm M651 CS and Ferret CS rounds into buildings containing adults and children as part of their strategy.

On 19 April 1993, President Clinton stated that he had been informed by Attorney General Janet Reno that:

the tear gas [CS] had been tested and would not cause permanent damage to adults or children

Putting aside whether it had been tested on children prior to Clinton's statement, is it true that the use of CS tear gas (used in the concentrations at Waco) would not have permanently harmed children?

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • 2
    There's [WP:CS gas#Toxicity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS_gas#Toxicity)... with the one study used in the (challenged) citation being conducted *after* the Clinton statement. -- I'd rather you re-phrased the question; the current wording makes it look that Clinton ordered experiments on children... – DevSolar Nov 28 '18 at 13:36
  • @DevSolar: Could that be used as the basis for an answer? (I don't think *when* it was conducted is relevant - that just goes to whether Clinton should have known better at the time or not.) – Oddthinking Nov 28 '18 at 14:11
  • @Oddthinking somebody could answer if it was true or not that it had been tested on children when Clinton said that, or someone could answer with test results on children before or after he said it. Either type of answer would be helpful. – DavePhD Nov 28 '18 at 14:16
  • 4
    @Oddthinking: Right now I am in doubt what actually is being asked here; 1) can CS be harmful or not; 2) could CS be harmful in the specific circumstances that the statement was about; 3) did President Clinton say the truth (as he knew it) or lie in his statement. I realized the ambiguity only after I found the linked factoid, and lost interest. In such circumstances I drop the factoid in a comment so someone else could expand on it. – DevSolar Nov 28 '18 at 14:17
  • @DevSolar I'm just asking about the children. Whether, in the circumstances that Clinton used the CS (hundreds of military rounds inside a single building) was it true that it would not cause permanent damage to children, and was it true that tests had shown that prior to his statement. – DavePhD Nov 28 '18 at 14:20
  • @Oddthinking please edit more carefully. Many more people were killed than what you are claiming. – DavePhD Nov 28 '18 at 14:39
  • @DavePhD: That doesn't make the rest of his edits roll-back-worthy like that. Especially that you've taken the quote out of context and mis-attributed it. – DevSolar Nov 28 '18 at 14:54
  • @DevSolar you or Oddthinking can change it again, as long as the number of people killed is right. I was just upset that he said only 10 people were killed. Trying to calm down. – DavePhD Nov 28 '18 at 14:57
  • 2
    @DavePhD: Water is harmless to children ... unless they drown. Would a study showing that CS gas leaves no permanent damage in children at concentration X be helpful, or are you asking whether there were tests with children being exposed to Waco-level concentrations of the gas? – bukwyrm Nov 28 '18 at 15:01
  • 2
    Still not really happy that it's not quite clear whether you're asking about the effects of CS gas *as known today*, or about whether Reno's statement (as described in Clintons statement) was truthful or that Reno could / should have known better. That's two rather different questions. – DevSolar Nov 28 '18 at 15:03
  • @DevSolar yes, there are two angles to a approach the question. I would upvote both types of answers. – DavePhD Nov 28 '18 at 15:05
  • @DavePhD: Drat. You are right. The ten people were killed in the first day alone. 76 by the end. It did seem fewer than I recalled. Apologies. – Oddthinking Nov 28 '18 at 15:36
  • 9
    Please choose one of the approaches - it is unfair on the answerers not to know which you would accept. Generally, we avoid making the questions about the claimant. (1) If it is notable, then many people believe it, not just Clinton. (2) Clinton said that Reno said that tests showed that the CS was safe. Clinton would still be right if no tests were done or tests were done and were wrong, or tests were done and were right, just as long as Reno said it. – Oddthinking Nov 28 '18 at 15:41
  • @DavePhD I edited the question because the format expected on Skeptics SE is "X said Y. Is Y correct?", not "X said Y. Is the polar opposite of Y correct?". The reason is that "not proven guilty" is (still) not the same as "proven not guilty" or "proven innocent" (which is why that famous principle's **full** reading is "**Presumed** innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"). –  Nov 28 '18 at 15:42
  • In particular, it is not clear whether DevSolar's data *after* Clinton's statement is addressing the question or not. – Oddthinking Nov 28 '18 at 15:42
  • 2
    Side note: the US uses CS gas on its own soldiers as part of "know how to wear your gasmask" training. I'm not aware of any reported negative long-term effects. Indeed, it seems to kill off respiratory illnesses. That's not proof in and of itself, but it at least heavily implies that the US Government *believes* that it's safe. – Ben Barden Nov 28 '18 at 15:57
  • Findable science shows that In '83 (and '78...) animal testing was undertaken that showed that mortality was linked to concentration, i.e. you could kill rats with a high enough dose of CS. The same is true for, as i said before, water, but it is unclear to me how that would make Reno or Clinton right or wrong - The CS concentrations projected and planned for were 'safe' as in non-teratogenic, non-mutagenic etc. but five canisters in one room would easily kill a todddler. Also, current reviews on the use of CS see the mechanical damage from canisters as far more serious (amputations, death) – bukwyrm Nov 28 '18 at 15:59
  • 1
    "concentrations would easily kill a toddler" seems like the sort of assertion that would require a fair amount of math, including things like the size of the room and possibly duration of exposure. – Ben Barden Nov 28 '18 at 16:01
  • 1
    @Oddthinking 10 were killed on 28 February before the siege, and an additional 76 were killed on 19 April. So 86 total. – DavePhD Nov 28 '18 at 16:10
  • @Oddthinking I narrowed it to just one question. In the concentration and manner Clinton used CS on 19 April 1993, would it cause permanent damage to children? – DavePhD Nov 28 '18 at 16:44
  • 3
    @DavePhD: Clinton did not use CS gas. He neither came up with the idea nor with the amount used. What he did was authorize the plan others came up with, and told him would be "safe". I understand that it is common to contract statements like that, but I think it's unfair in an investigatory context like this. – DevSolar Nov 29 '18 at 08:27
  • 3
    Is the core question whether CS gas is bad? If so, why is the Waco incident even relevant. CS is widely used and mostly in situations uncomplicated by deaths from fire and shooting. The people of Waco had far more deadly things to worry about. And plenty of civilian protests are suppressed with CS which would surely produce less conflicted data on its effects. – matt_black Nov 29 '18 at 10:08
  • The question just gets more and more confused. Supposedly, Clinton was informed by Reno **before** the ill-fated showdown, and **before** any deployment of CS gas was made into the buildings. So how was Clinton then supposed to know if the concentrations of CS gas — that would be used **in the future** from the time he was informed — would be causing "permanent damage to children"? And what do we consider "permanent damage to children? I have several scars, some from my childhood that are permanent; is that "permanent damage" to the child that was I? –  Nov 29 '18 at 11:36
  • 3
    And what @DevSolar said: Clinton did not use any CS gas; he was not there — on-site — to shoot canisters or drive vehicles. Agents of authorities under his administration used them. Sure, he was at the time the highest authority for all federal agents, but that does not means that same as to say that he — personally — deployed the gas. –  Nov 29 '18 at 11:42
  • @BenBarden Sorry about my grammar - i wanted to convey: There is a concentration c1g of CS gas that has been shown to cause no lasting effects (as far as science ever can prove a negative...) and there is a concentration c2g that causes effects including death. Same goes for water (and concentrations c1w and c2w). Note to the OP was supposed to be: 'is it true that the use of water would not have permanently harmed children?' is also not really a question that is boonfully answerable with a yes or no. --- the '5 canisters' were a (seemingly) big number to denote a huge concentration. – bukwyrm Nov 30 '18 at 09:53
  • 2
    I guess I'm missing the point of the Waco reference. You refer to "the strategy" and then ask if it would have really not harmed the children. Was that the goal, or was the goal to put them at less relative risk than a full assault with bullets and explosives, which is the usual response to being fired upon by hostile forces? – PoloHoleSet Dec 05 '18 at 15:54
  • Removed Clinton from the title. The only thing that's relevant here is the question if CS gas (used in the concentrations at Waco) is dangerous to children. Now we have something we can (maybe) answer. Any opinions or political implications drawn from that are out of the scope of this site. –  Dec 11 '18 at 09:46
  • Finally, a version of the question worth asking and worth an upvote. – matt_black Dec 11 '18 at 13:36
  • 1
    @JanDoggen Well now we do not have a claim any more. "Does CS Tear gas permanently harm children" is not an answerable question, because — as was taught us by Paracelsus — "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison". Also, since the question is posed to us from the context of Clinton, Reno and the Waco siege, anyone using the answer they get here cannot then apply the answer to make any kind of judgement whether Clinton and Reno acted in good faith or not. –  Dec 11 '18 at 14:38
  • @MichaelK *(used in the concentrations at Waco)* I'll edit that in –  Dec 11 '18 at 14:49
  • @JanDoggen It does not matter: we do not have a person making a claim any more. And in either case the original claim is very difficult to nail down, because the original claim is to the effect of: someone else told me that the CS gas — as it would be employed in the upcoming assault — would not be harmful. Well what is the claim we are examining? Whether they were really told this, or that the person that told the other person was justified in believing it at the time? **No-one** is making the claim "CS gas in the concentrations used in the Waco assault is not harmful to children". –  Dec 12 '18 at 10:07

0 Answers0