Have a look at this article over at Scientific American! TASER Seeks to Zap Safety Concerns by Larry Greenemeier
Scientific American for God's sakes!
When did Scientific American become the public relations arm of the stun gun industry? What happened to the science in Scientific?
The only expert quoted is Steven Ashley, former police officer, stun gun industry consultant, and a guy who works for two stun gun manufacturers. Without bias? I think not.
But Ashley, a senior master instructor for Scottsdale, Ariz.–based TASER International and an instructor for its competitor, Stinger Systems, Inc., in Tampa, Fla., disagrees that TASER weapons damage the heart or other internal organs. "The energy they emit follows the grain of the muscles and impacts sensory motion and the motor control," he says. "It doesn't go off searching for internal organs." The most common lingering effect after the muscle contractions, he says, is muscle fatigue lasting a few hours. But, he admits, "you don't know exactly how each individual will react." Other variables determining victims' injuries are how hard they fall and where they land.
How can this type of reporting take place in a scientific publication?
Let's remove ourselves from the specifics of the stun gun for a moment.
Plenty is known about electrical shock from other sources. Wet skin increases conductivity which could make an otherwise nasty encounter with electricy into a fatal one. The route of the electricity through or on the surface of the body makes a difference in outcome too. So a current passing from one hand to the other across and or through the heart might be fatal when a current passing from hand to foot on the same side of the body might not. There are studies showing that atrial fibrillation that begins with a shock can eventually lead to death. That's an important point. Certain shocks are enough to disrupt the rhythm of the heart and they don't kill right away. (see: University of St. Andrews: Electrical Safety 4.1
Ashley doesn't claim or cite any scientific credentials or studies. I concede his expertise in observing that you may get hurt when you fall down. Falls are not trivial sources of injury, even serious injury. I'll let the experts evaluate the scientific evidence because this isn't really my area. The information I've presented is widely available and isn't the basis of my objection to the article.
Ashley claims that stun guns don't produce pain, that they are "nonlethal", the average current is nonlethal etc. etc. etc. Non of his claims are supported with the type of evidence one might expect in a scientific publication. Important Update:15 Dec 2007 Steven Ashley did not state the stun gun doesn't produce pain. I made an editing error. Ashley says the weapon is effective because it overrides the central nervous system, and that it does not rely on pain compliance. I apologize for my error. Thanks to Willy be frantic for his observation of this error in the comment section at acreativerevolution.ca.
In the Scientific American article's comment section James D said:
"This is one of the most intentionally biased articles I have read here in a very long time. The author chose to accept everything the manufacturer and thier paid representative said without challenge and without checking the veracity of the "facts" they spouted.
In response Greenemeier said
"...My goal wasn't to defend or attack Taser but rather to address the technology, how it works, and where it's going, in the context of the tragic events that transpired in Canada."
They also disagreed about some secondary sources cited by James D.
I don't claim any particular expertise in this area except to say I've taken a few courses in physiology and related subjects over the years. What I do object to is the use of a scientific forum in this way.
Is Scientific American the latest victim in Bush's assault on science?
Crossposted at A Creative Revolution