The Hong Kong police raise a banner warning of "tear smoke" when they're about to fire, and this is a much less confusing name for the stuff than tear gas.
A cartridge of something hot and smoking skitters at your feet. You can throw it back, or douse it with water, or immerse it in water, but you'll burn your hand if you don't have gloves on. The smoke is a powerful irritant that feels like someone blew pepper into your eyes and nose. If the residue gets on your skin and clothes, you can tear gas yourself later by accident. Goggles and a particulate filter mask protect against it.
That's really all you need to know about tear gas.
I have experienced several riots (Hong Kong 2019, Hong Kong 2013, Istanbul 2013, Paris 2019..) where gas was deployed. Your comments are pithy and correct.
What is interesting is observing theearning curve of the protest participants, who rapidly learn and adapt, but always seem initially underprepared.
Right place at the wrong time, mainly.
The Istanbul protests were the exception, as I knew several people and wanted to see the situation personally.
What is true is that Life Goes On. Even in Istanbul or Paris with the huge protests, if you're not in that specific part of town at that specific moment, you wouldn't even know it was happening.
Hotels in HK are wildly cheap at the moment.. it's the time to visit a tourist free city and witness (for better or for worse) history in motion
I agree that it's an excellent time to visit Hong Kong if you do not mind the risk of travel disruption (airport delays or trouble getting around on public transit). This is not a violent society even now, and travelers are not at risk in my opinion.
Protestors have thrown them back, but typically the police don protective goggles & masks before they deploy the gas so it may not be the most effective thing.
There was also a video going around of a protestor in HK placing a traffic cone over the canister and dousing it with water to defuse. It looked to do the trick.
Lots of protestors have the belief that a handkerchief soaked in vinegar will have some type of "neutralization action" against the gas when worn tightly around the face - watch protest videos and you'll see this in action. I have no idea if the vinegar has any actual effect on the chemical or if a wet barrier just keeps it from being easily inhaled.
There's great photos out there of a Hong Konger using a tennis or badminton racket to hit it back.
I don't believe the foam would work because the burning bit has its own oxidizer. I've seen fire extinguishers used to create a smokescreen and to make floors slippery, but water is enough for the tear gas cartridges (and people here really seem to prefer to throw them back).
They brought in an expert to answer the question and he didn't answer the question. I still don't know what was in the thermos or what to use to extinguish a tear gas canister.
This would have been more useful and interesting if PopMech had just bought a few canisters, tested the various theorie, and reported the results.
As for CS gas, it attacks and inflames exposed mucous membranes.
The best homemade solution for protecting lungs is a wet but separated barrier, like being wrapped in wet towels. Oiled rags work decently too and do not need to be moistened repeatedly.
If inhaled, apply amyl acetate inhalant stick to help with breathing.
You will need tight glasses to protect eyes, eg. swimming goggles.
Temporarily you can cover them with said wet barrier but that loses you vision and is mostly useful for passing area of gas.
Immersing or tightly covering the source will prevent it from spreading the gas. Careful, it's hot, do not use anything flammable.
Of course a real gas mask with filters or P95 (or better) respirator plus goggles is better for protecting lungs. (N level respirators for dust won't work.)
Naw, it's just smoke from a different source then you'd expect. It's clear if you've been in boot camp. They light up the tabs that produce the gas. Also, gas grenades can get pretty hot, that's why you shouldn't pick them up without gloves.
Fire needs a flammable source, heat, and oxygen. I suspect the enclosed cannister space hampered the O2 and the mud hampered the combustible material. Mud does seem plausible.
The article says the tear gas cannister uses potassium chlorate (KCIO2) as its oxygen source, rather than atmospheric oxygen, so I'm not sure how effective smothering it would be. The thermos probably is just to protect the protestor's hands.
As no one else mentioned it, depending on which country you are in, you should never try to pick up a tear gas canister shot/thrown at you as you might confuse it with a flash bang in the heat of the moment. There is a long list of people in France who tried to throw back flash bang grenades and lost a hand as a result.
Tear gas grenades used in France are GLI-F4's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLI-F4_grenade) and not flash bangs. It actually contains more TNT than CS gas to get a blast effect (similar to flash bangs)
Had to read up a bit, but either way i seem to have mixed something up. I did not know the French tear gas grenades also had TNT in them. But I read about such flashbang/teargas mixups before their introduction in 2011. The non french sources are a bit muddy, but Vital Michalon seems to have died at Superphénix due to a sock grenade damaging his lungs?
But nevertheless it seems i mixed up France with Switzerland here. Though I cant find the original source I had in mind, Guy Smallman had his leg severely injured in Geneva during the 2003 G8 summit by a shock grenade.
Odder for me were the informative articles on SyFy's site Bad Astronomy section.
I will take good and interesting information wherever I can get it. Isn't that what makes the internet great? That we have so many sources that we are bound to come across something we had little to no knowledge of and then have the ability to cross check it?
When I was down in Santiago Chile, I actually got tear tear gassed as it was deployed in huge amounts to break up protests. The police down in Chile don't mess around, at first signs of a protest they bring out the armored vehicles and just start firing away. It was brutal but also exciting besides the burning, coughing, and watered eyes for nearly an hour.
I was going to comment the same thing. I used to live across from the park in Providencia. Even on New Years, just to clear the streets, police tear-gassed the streets in Valpo.
I can't help but think that there could be an unfortunate inverse to JFK's "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." in this. Tyrants finding their nonlethal weapons not working might more quickly turn to using guns.
This strict split is also one of the central theme of Poppers "The Open Society And Its Enemies".
"For we may distinguish two main types of government. The first type consists of governments of which we can get rid without bloodshed — for example, by way of general elections; that is to say, the social institutions
provide means by which the rulers may be dismissed by the ruled, and the social traditions- ensure that these i nstitutions will not easily be destroyed by those who are in power. The second type consists of governments which the ruled cannot get rid of except by way of a successful revolution — that is to say, in most cases, not at all"
...
"the criterion of a
democracy is this: In a democracy, the rulers — that is to say, the government — can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny. We need only distinguish between two forms of government, viz. such as possess institutions of this kind, and all others"
Doesn't this presume that the structures which prop up the government are already an intrinsic good? Consider the frequently seen sentiment that no matter who is in office, it is the office itself that does not serve the people, the government is not for the people, and the foundations of the government work against the people and will continue to do so even if a ruler is dismissed and another brought in. To use a more crude example, a slave does not cease to be a slave just because he can vote out his old master - rather it is the institution of slavery that must change, not merely adding the ability to choose.
This is frequently found in political philosophy that goes well beyond Popper's liberal egalitarianism. It's very strange to see this in the context of a country which is ostensibly (but not actually) democratic, such as China.
I am sure that riot police that saw this was actually grateful. The MO for protesters around the world is to haul the charges back at the police - he just disabled it.
In my experience, the only cops who like tear gas are those who never used it. They have a whole barrage of cynical jokes about tear gas (~"It's only weather control device that works - wind will turn 180 degrees a few seconds after you placed the charge.").
EDIT: Disclaimer - got some loads myself during protests but also have riot police in my family.
The failure of teargas to disperse crowds is cited as one of the reasons for quickly bringing the water cannons into service, despite concerns related to using them in the very densely populated streets of HK.
You dont really need pellets. The pressure of a water canon is high enough to break rips and pop eyes. You dont achieve anything more by adding pellets. They do however mix in the different variants of pepper spray into the water.
Some countries use regular pellet guns, for example India in Kashmir with the expected result of a lot of lost eyes.
Unfortunately this means you have the choice between accepting oppression, or face an escalation in force. That is how tyrants keep their populations subservient and living in fear.
As long as commerce keeps flowing, I think China has high enough self esteem that they'll do just fine losing some popularity, and I can't see Western corporations putting any money where their mouths are.
Actually, no corporations have really commented on the matter as far as I know, so they're not even being hypocritical. There is so much money on the line, it would have to get incredibly bloody before anyone would do anything, so I think China has lots of leeway, and I've seen nothing to indicate they're not incredibly sharp.
No idea why this is downvoted, I think its a daring thesis that China cares what the rest of the world thinks. On top of that there are only a few countries that can afford and are willing to actually act on something like this, there is just to much money to be made in the Chinese market.
That lethal force against protesters leads somehow automatically to breaking down of political support is wishful thinking. Do you really need a list of countries who regularly use lethal force against protesters and are good friends and partners of western governments? When it comes to a state killing protesters all that matters is who the state is.
The US started a trade conflict due to geopolitical interests, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The US is willing to act in their best interest, we are talking about countries acting against their best interest out of a humanitarian conviction.
I was wondering about exactly that when I read the article. The description of how it works is really gruesome. Many policemen themselves have probably no clue how it works.
A lacrosse stick is perfect for scooping and chucking this stuff back. A tennis racket would work too. And the HK protesters have successfully used traffic cones as a way to contain and extinguish it.
Anything possibly weapon-like is often discuraged at protests. Most want to be non-violent, even if there is resistance. A boot or a heavy gloved hand is fine.
And since chemical weapons are banned for military, I rrad the morbid explanation for research in the area is "no worries, it will not be used in combat, just for crowd control".
A cartridge of something hot and smoking skitters at your feet. You can throw it back, or douse it with water, or immerse it in water, but you'll burn your hand if you don't have gloves on. The smoke is a powerful irritant that feels like someone blew pepper into your eyes and nose. If the residue gets on your skin and clothes, you can tear gas yourself later by accident. Goggles and a particulate filter mask protect against it.
That's really all you need to know about tear gas.