CROWD CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - Omega Research Foundation

currently available is not sufficient to allow the use of PAVA as an incapacitant in the United Kingdom
at present(. 120 However, Civil Defence Supply Ltd has been awarded 45,000 from the UK Department
of Trade and Industry to research PAVA as an allegedly safer alternative to CS to become what the
company hopes will be the incapacitant for the millennium. 121
Finally, in regard to safety, it is worth recalling that way back in 1975, the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute was warning about delayed toxic effects from chemical warfare agents
including tear-gases. 122 Not all the effects of using these chemicals will emerge straight away and just
as the full implications of tobacco and asbestos only became apparent many years after their popular
usage, so might be the case with chemical crowd control agents. Given the overall costs of litigation
associated with tobacco and asbestos, it is worth reminding ourselves that the precautionary principle
pays off in the longer term.
4.1.2 Hazards of Dispensing Excess Levels of Chemical Irritant There are many instances of the
police and the military using CS either excessively or indiscriminately. For example, the South Korean
government admitted to using 351,000 canisters and grenades of CS throughout the major cities, in
June 1987. 123 There are reports of demonstrators passing out or experiencing heart attacks during
episodes where helicopters were used to spray teargas. 124 No official scientific studies on the biomedical
impacts of this CS barrage on the health implications for those working in Seoul, including the
police themselves appear to have been published either then or since. 125 However, in 1999 the South
Korean authorities in Seoul announced a policy of not using CS as a crowd control option. (See Section
7).
When such indiscriminate mass sprayings involve different riot agents, the health risks are
compounded. For example, severe health problems were reported in at the anti WTO protests in
Seattle last December, where the police used a combination of CS,CN and OC. 126 Even some of the
manufacturers of these products warn about the synergistic consequences of such mixing )which can
prove harmful or even fatal in real life situations(. Zarc International also asserts that a mixture of CS
with OC in pepper sprays has caused )documented eye injury and blindness(. 127
The issue of excessive delivery of agent to subject also touches on product design and actual
adherence to technical specification. For example, in November 1996, a UK Channel 4 Dispatches
programme found that the concentration of CS in UK sprays at 5%, was five times higher than similar
sprays in the USA and the flow rate was also five times greater which means that anyone targeted in
the UK would receive 25 times the amount of chemical irritant used in America. 128 Even that figure may
be an underestimate. An internal Home Office note suggests that the French manufactured CS sprays
may contain an even higher concentration than the stipulated 5%. Spot checks carried out by one UK
police force revealed concentrations of CS between 5.4 and 6.8 per cent, ie a CS )dump rate( of
between 27 and 34 times that used in the USA. 129 The Home Office has asked SAE Alsetex, which
manufactures the spray, about their alleged failure to ensure product quality control in terms of the
higher than stipulated concentrations. According to the note of February 1997, the company simply said
that they had not been measuring the concentrations of CS in their canisters up to that point. The UK
Home Office admitted that it had no system of regular spot checking these devices. When forces do
undertake such an inspection the results are worrying. In December 1997 another force checked their
canisters and found concentrations of 8.5 % or a )dump rate( of 42.5 times more than would be
permissible in the USA.
Other hazards of excess application of chemical irritants are related to the development of
tolerance. Such tolerance has been associated with people taking medication because of mental health
problems and/or recreational drug users, factors which can diminish the effectiveness of the chemical
irritants. Why tolerance occurs in these groups is unclear but it may be related to reduced anxiety. 130 A
recent report by the UK Police Complaints Authority has recommended that where mental illness is
involved )that training should emphasise the risks involved in using the spray on those who are
vulnerable through mental illness, alcohol or drugs, and that the [CS] spray may not work in these
circumstances and may also exacerbate a violent situation( and )that training should reinforce the need
for consultation with family and mental health professionals where possible, to find alternatives to the
xxiv