The Power of Citizen Journalism
Post News ($)»     Post Blog»     Upload Image»     Groups»     Events»     Alerts»     User Benefits»
Email Print Share

Email this article

Recipient email:
Your email:
optional
Message:
optional

article imageTasers Are Really Dangerous? Who Knew!

Posted May 11, 2008 by  Connie M (Catana) in Technology | 11 comments | 295 views
1 more article on this subject:
Advertising
In spite of increasing numbers of news reports about deaths from tasering, the weapons are being put into the hands of more and more untrained law officers, and the industry has continued to insist that the devices aren’t dangerous.
Now, with the recent British Columbia conference, spurred by the death of a man who was tasered at Vancouver International Airport last October, and the report of Zian Tseng, a San Francisco cardiologist and electrophysiologist, those who oppose the growing use of tasers will have hard facts to work with. After the report of a taser-related death in 2005, Dr Tseng became interested in the possibility that tasers could cause fatal heart fibrillation. He made the suggestion in a newspaper interview and was almost immediately contacted by Taser International, Inc., and asked to reconsider. "They even offered to ... give me grant money for research." This is a typical move when an industry is threatened by the possible revelation of unsavory facts.

But there was much more on the unsavory side of the ledger. Not only was the safety testing seriously flawed, many of the studies which “proved” the safety of tasers were financed by Taser International, and some of the authors of a 2005 study were employees of the company. Does anyone hear echoes of numerous pharmaceutical industry scandals?

One of the most critical failures of testing was that heart rates were monitored only before and after a human volunteer was shocked. Dr. Tseng pointed out that the fibrillation that would occur during a tasering would not necessarily be present in later monitoring, and wouldn’t show up at all in an autopsy. As usual in such testing, only healthy subjects were used, so there was no information about what would happen if someone with a heart condition received a shock. As if these research flaws weren’t serious enough, it seems that some of the tests were conducted with simulated taser guns, not the real thing.

Dr Tseng said that the chance of the heart rate being disrupted increases fatally when the barbs are embedded close to the heart. High levels of adrenaline, which would be typical of a confrontational encounter with police, are also a factor increasing the possibility of death, as are drug use, heart disease and even high blood acidity.

Many of the reported deaths also involved multiple barbs being fired into a person. If I recall past articles correctly, much of the safety claim rests on the assumption that a person will be hit once, and that the shock is survivable. In real life, that assumption may be fatal. Tasers are becoming the weapon of choice even when less violent means of containing a situation are available, and they are being used indiscriminately against people who are obviously sick or unable to resist, and against young children.
article:254563:12::0

2 subscribers
Subscribe To This Thread[?] :
  • avatar Posted May 11, 2008 by  Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    #1
    There is an important difference between pharmaceuticals and tasers. Pharmaceuticals are intended to help someone get back to health. Tasers are intended to have fewer deaths from shootings. Tasers are "less lethal" not "not lethal". They should be used by people who know what they are doing, not by some random nitwits whose only qualification is a uniform.
  • Connie M (Catana) Posted May 11, 2008 by  Connie M (Catana)
    #2
    I doubt that most people care about differences of intent, though you're right. Both industries, as well as many others, wind up being lethal through falsification of research, and coverups, as well as misuse.
  • avatar Posted May 11, 2008 by  Nikki W (karateblossom)
    #3
    Good point Bart!

    With both operating at opposite ends of the health spectrum (so to speak), there putting either in the hands of an overzealous individual (whether due to lack of training or kickbacks) not a good idea.

    One thing with tasers that bothers me, although I am not opposed to their use (sorry) is that those with epilepsy are are significant risk of death. Many who have seizures but are not diagnosed with epiliepsy or seizure disorder (or are not required to wear a band) because doing so isn't necessary with the type of seizures they have may be at serious risk if tazed.

    How does this particular group sound off that they suffer seizures PRIOR to being tazed? In cases where they are repeatedly tazed without provocation, death could follow.
  • Connie M (Catana) Posted May 11, 2008 by  Connie M (Catana)
    #4
    I'm trying to remember the source of the quote that goes more or less like this: "Kill them all and let God sort it out. When the standard procedure is to shoot first and ask questions later, there's really no form of identification that's going to protect anyone.

    Did a quick lookup and it turns out the phrase go all the way back to the 13th century and the Church's fight against heresy.
  • avatar Posted May 11, 2008 by  Raymonty
    #5
    What happened to the good old fashion rubber bullet like the ones they use in the middle east to stop children from throwing stones.
  • Jedediah Redman Posted May 11, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #6
    @ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
    There is an important difference between pharmaceuticals and tasers. Pharmaceuticals are intended to help someone get back to health. Tasers are intended to have fewer deaths from shootings. Tasers are "less lethal" not "not lethal". They should be used by people who know what they are doing, not by some random nitwits whose only qualification is a uniform.


    Perhaps it is time to subject perps to comparison tests to determine which are most dangerous--batons or tasers..?
  • avatar Posted May 11, 2008 by  Orange
    #7
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is a famous quote from Arnaud-Armaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, and "spiritual advisor" to the Alibigensian Crusade.

    Pope Innocent III ordered the Aligensian Crusade to purge southern France of the Cathari heretics. It began in 1209, and the first target was the town of Beziers. The local Catholic faithful in that town refused to give up their fellow townsfolk who were Catharis, so the Abbot declared, "Kill them all. God will know his own." The crusaders slaughtered 20,000 people, nearly everybody in the town, and the victims were either burned, or clubbed to death. All of that killing, in order to kill the 200 Catharis in the town.

    Later, the Catholic church found a new way of getting rid of "heretics". It was called "The Inquisition".
  • Jedediah Redman Posted May 12, 2008 by  Jedediah Redman
    #8
    Probably a root source of the term cathartic, don't you reckon..?
  • Connie M (Catana) Posted May 12, 2008 by  Connie M (Catana)
    #9
    Hmmm. I just noticed that the punctuation in my title was changed. Hello, whoever decided it needed correction. I chose that punctuation deliberately. How about attending to the horrendous grammar in some of the headlines I see, instead of second guessing my intention -- humor.

    Redman --- booo!
  • avatar Posted May 13, 2008 by  Paul Wallis (Wanderlaugh)
    #10
    The physiology and the adrenalin link is right, anyway. Find nervous system, overstimulate, see what happens. Great science.

    Tasers are an invention which people seemed to manage without, until someone started promoting them.

    Grammar- I should probably point out that "!" has various meanings...

    Particularly when you're wondering what the exclamation mark is doing there.
  • Connie M (Catana) Posted May 13, 2008 by  Connie M (Catana)
    #11
    Paul, punctuation sometimes indicates emphasis. If you say "Who knew!" as an exclamation rather than a question, it's that shrug of the shoulder expression that expresses something like "duh!" or "I thought everybody knew that." Maybe too subtle for this site. Maybe just too subtle, period. After all, half the people here can't figure out how to use apostrophes.

    But changing the headline to "Tasers are Dangerous, Who Knew?" is no improvement.

Add a Comment

emptyAdd a Comment or Login/Register empty