Hair into garments

[Roberto]

A complete red-herring. Mark doesn't seem to believe that passengers on trains were deloused, or that transports of deportees were deloused in concentration camps. Of course this is nonsense. They certainly were. The Germans were doing plenty of delousing to control wartime epidemics.

I thought this was about disinfection of human hair for industrial applications, not about ridding people of lice. For the latter purpose, in what the hair is concerned, it's enough to cut it off. Posterior disinfection of the hair to be used for whatever industrial or military purposes would have been done - and seems to have been done indeed, see the testimony of Filip Mueller - with a substance more suitable for disinfection than Zyklon B, described by no less an authority than Dr. Gerhard Peters as rather ineffective for the purpose of disinfection. This means that disinfection of hair after it was cut off is not a likely explanation for the presence of Zyklon B on the enormous quantities of hair found at Auschwitz-Birkenau when the Red Army liberated the camp. Exposure of the hair to the substance while the hair's bearers were being killed with it, on the other hand, is an explanation not only plausible but also corroborated by evidence, namely the testimonies of the members of the
Sonderkommando.

I never made any other claims about the Final Solution. But the idea that all deportees necessarily were gassed is completely absurd. There are too many "Survivors" for that.

The only thing absurd is objections like these. And as we're at it, how many survivors from among the 1,274,166 Jews from the General Government taken to the "Reinhart" camps until 31.12.1942, according to Hoefle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943 and the Korherr Report, can Smith show us to be known? How many from among the ca. 1.3 million people deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, according to the documentary evidence assessed by Piper and other historians? Nobody is saying that every one of the deportees to these camps was gassed or otherwise murdered, as "Revisionist" paper dragon slayers would have it. But overwhelming evidence shows murder to have been the fate of the overwhelming majority of those who entered these places, and the true believers cannot explain away this evidence let alone come up with a convincing alternative explanation supported by evidence. So they would do well to just shut their trap.

I never said that millions did not perish in one way or another during the war.

How many of those millions would you consider to have been murdered, Smith? In the legal sense of the term, I mean, in case you should feel like dishing up that beaten "war is murder" – rhetoric.

Two-million (to use establishment figures) perished " in one way or another" by the ethnic-cleansing of GERMANS after the war. No homicidal gas was needed.

And in what way would that speak against the evidence to homicidal gassing at Nazi extermination camps?

Did anyone maintain that homicidal gas was needed to bring about so large a death toll, by the way? The killers themselves certainly didn’t state that they were applying it due to considerations of efficiency. Shooting everybody would have been at least as efficient, and bunching the victims up behind barbed wire and letting them starve to death would also have been. So what?

And right into the Memory Hole, besides.

Smith again reveals his ignorance of Germany, where the fate of ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe was one of the topics of greatest interest in the 1950s and has again become a subject of intensive research and discussion lately. But what else can you expect of someone whose main source of information is “Revisionist” scripture?

I am certainly not the True Believer when it comes to necessarily viewing history darkly through the Holo-Speculum.

Such rhetoric actually suggests that Smith is a true believer in every sense of the word, a crusader on an ideological mission. Could it be that he’s too dumb to realize this?

[Tarpon27]

Well, I guess part of this issue comes down to the following:

1. Scott asserts that ALL train travelers, including Jews shipped to the GeneralGovernment, were routinely subjected to a disinfestation process while ON the trains, and his one claim to this, is Weisel;

2. Traces of Zyklon B were found in piles of human hair, founbd in such camps;

3. While Zyklon is a pesticide, it is not a "disinfectant" (at least by any common definition I know of per "disinfection");

4. Lice, the source of typhus, and the insects of the family Anoplura, many of which are parasites, can only survive in fairly rigid conditions including temperature gradients and a food source (a "host"). Therefore, once infected clothing and hair is removed from the human host, the lice will not survive.


Now, then, if the hair was found to have residues of Zyklon B, it is doubtful it was still attached to a living human, as in order to kill lice, concentrations of Zyklon would be in the range of what even Carlos Whitlock Porter quotes:

**2**TRUTH: actual dosage: 16 gr/m2 over a 24 hour exposure to kill clothes moths according to Document NI-9912, Directions for Use of Zyklon. The area must be ventilated for 2 days.

http://www.cwporter.com/nizprop.htm

At this concentration, and over 24 hours, you would dead lice in hair, and dead people in minutes.

So, then, where did the HCN traces come from?

Well, Scott says it is Occam's Razor:

Or the converse explanation, which is again, a good example of always seeing things through the Holo-Speculum darkly. Occam's Razor, Chuck: the simplest answer is probably the best one. The bundles of hair were disinfested. And certainly the warehouse storing it would be too.

But he already says that the Jews were disinfested on the trains, complete with showers and a petroleum bath, new clothes, etc., and yet the now disinfested Jews have to not only go through a second disinfestation at the camp, but so does their hair, and the warehouses it is stored in...even though such hair could not support lice.

Now, Charles Bunch has posted from witness Mueller's account that ammonium chloride was used to wash hair.

I have never read that, but I can say that in my business, quatenary ammonium compounds are by far the most commonly used disinfectant. My main business, and 95% of all property insurance claims in SW Florida are flooded homes (water damage) resulting from Category 1, Clean Water from broken indoor sanitary water sources. I have been on about 4800 claims in the last 14 years, and quats are a very common disinfectant.

1. INTRODUCTION
CLEANING IS A PREREQUISITE FOR EFFECTIVE SANITIZATION

Sanitization begins with an effective cleaning program. Organic deposits from food residues, such as oils, greases and proteins not only harbor bacteria but may actually prevent the sanitizer from coming into physical contact with the surface that needs to be sanitized. In addition, the presence of organic deposits may actually inactivate or reduce the effectiveness of some types of sanitizers such as hypochlorites, rendering the procedure ineffective.

{My note: hypochlorites is common chlorine laundry bleach, 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, a member of the halogens, and not a particularly great disinfectant, outside of cost and common availabilty. In fact, on work with spores and mold, I think its use is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.}

In large food processing establishment, a general protocol for maintaining good hygiene works according to the following protocol. Large soils and residues are initially removed by scraping or other mechanical means and usually followed by a high pressure water pre-rinse. The detergent, appropriate for the soil being removed is then applied for a specified period, usually 15 minutes, followed by a potable water rinse to flush away residual soil and detergent.

Once this process has taken place and the surface is visually clean, the sanitizer can then be applied for the specified time recommended by the manufacturer. With sanitizer applications, a further rinse with potable water is not required nor is it recommended, since there is a high probability that in doing so, might result in recontamination of the surface with micro organisms present in the rinse water.

In the removal of soil, a detergent functions in various ways involving both physical and chemical actions. These functions do not occur separately or in any particular sequence, but in a complex and interrelated manner. For cleaning a particular type of soil, certain functions are emphasized more than others to arrive at a balanced product. Surfaces which contain oily food residues might require a product which exhibits a high level of emulsification for fatty material, whereas those contaminated with protein residues usually respond best to highly alkaline and chlorinated cleaners. Regardless of the product used, effective cleaning is dependent on temperature, water hardness, pH of the water used, contact time and method of detergent application. Each establishment will have its own Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), which has been worked out often by trial an error until a proper combination of the variables have found to be both efficient and cost effective.

The discussion in the remaining portion of this article will deal with choosing the proper
sanitizer will assume that the surfaces being sanitized have been properly cleaned and rinsed.

2. BASIC DEFINITIONS

The terminology often associated with germicidal activity can be confusing or misleading and in many cases there is an overlap in function.

An iodophor, when used at 25 ppm (parts per million of available iodine), is considered to act as a sanitizer. However that same product when applied at 75 ppm falls into the disinfectant category. Quats (quaternary ammonium compounds) and hypochlorites are still other examples in which the use concentration of the product defines its classification.

In order to clarify some key terms which are often used interchangeably, I have attempted to define the meaning of the products under discussion in their legal sense.

a. SANITIZER

In general, to sanitize means to reduce the number of microorganisms to a safe level. One official and legal version states that a sanitizer must be capable of killing 99.999% known as a 5 log reduction, of a specific bacterial test population, and to do so within 30 seconds. A sanitizer may or may not necessarily destroy pathogenic or disease causing bacteria as is a criteria for a disinfectant.

An alternate definition is that a hard surface sanitizer is a chemical agent which is capable of killing 99.9% ( 3 log reduction), of the infectious organisms which may be present in a bacterial population, within 30 seconds.

b. DISINFECTANT

A disinfectant is a chemical agent which is capable of destroying disease causing bacteria or pathogens, but not spores and not all viruses. From a technical and legal sense, a disinfectant must be capable of reducing the level of pathogenic bacteria by 99.999% during a time frame greater than 5 but less than 10 minutes.

The main difference between a sanitizer and a disinfectant is that at a specified use dilution, the disinfectant must have a higher kill capability for pathogenic bacteria compared to that of a sanitizer.

c. STERILANT

Sterilants are specialized chemicals, such as glutaraldehyde or formaldehyde, which are capable of eliminating all forms of microbial life, including spores. The term sterilant conveys an absolute meaning; a substance can not be partially sterile.

d. SPORES AND SPORICIDES

Some species of pathogenic bacteria are capable of adapting to hostile conditions by forming a thick outer and chemically impervious shell. They transform from their normal or vegetative state to form spores and are difficult to eliminate since they can resist the effects that sanitizer or disinfectant exposures have on bacteria. Elimination of spores is carried out by specialized chemical agents or physical means, and require several hours for total microbial destruction.

e. HIGH, MEDIUM AND LOW LEVELS OF DISINFECTION:

HIGH LEVEL DISINFECTION

High level disinfection refers to sterilization activities in which all microbial life, including spores and viruses are destroyed. High level sterilization can be accomplished by chemical agents such as glutaraldehyde or ethylene oxide gas over a 10 hour period or by physical means such as auto claving in which surfaces are exposed to steam at elevated temperatures (121C) for 15 minutes. High level disinfection is reserved for special applications such as disinfection of surgical equipment and medical devices.

MEDIUM LEVEL DISINFECTION

Medium level disinfection usually refers to elimination of tuberculocidal causing microorganisms as well as the destruction of the more resistant types of viruses, such as the ones without a protein membranes in their structure. Medium level disinfection is not effective against spores.

LOW LEVEL DISINFECTION

Low level disinfection refers to the destruction of bacteria in their natural state, and is not effective against tuberculosis causing microorganisms, spores or viruses which do not have outer protein membranes in their structure.
When choosing a method requiring sanitization, it is necessary to consider which one would have the least harmful environment impact, the most cost-effective, the easiest to apply and the most suitable under prevailing water conditions . If you don't need to get rid of spores then don't sterilize.

3. HOW SANITIZERS EXERT THEIR GERMICIDAL ACTIVITY

When bacterial cells are exposed to a sanitizers or disinfectant, various physical structures within the cell may sustain irreversible damage. The permanent loss of a bacterial cell's capability to reproduce is commonly referred to microbial death. In the presence of germicides, some bacteria, may only be partially damaged. A surface which is swabbed immediately after sanitization can often provide false or negative results, indicating that effective sanitization had occurred. However, depending on the degree, partially inactivated bacteria have the capacity to "heal" or regenerate within 18 to 24 hours and become viable. Such an "apparently" clean and bacteria free surface will show the presence of high levels of bacterial contamination the following day and if left unchecked, can contaminate food products which may come into contact with the surface during the normal course of food processing.

The effectiveness of a specific germicide is a function of several factors, including the number and type of microorganisms which are present on the surface being sanitized.

Some of the factors requiring consideration are whether they are the easy to kill bacteria in their vegetative state or whether they are present on the surface as highly resistant spores. A major consideration that also needs to be addressed is whether other materials such as blood, feces or organic matter are are present within the bacterial environment. These contaminants reflecting an unclean surface, can rapidly inactivate some germicides, such as hypochlorites, rendering them ineffective for their intended use.

In general however, germicides exert their effect by either attacking a specific part of the bacterial cell, or causing damage to some of its components. Germicides can fall into three classifications, based on the their method ot bacterial attack.

a. CELL MEMBRANE DESTRUCTION

Germicides such as sodium hypochlorite of peroxyacetic acid (PAA), are strong oxidizing agents and can cause total destruction of the cells membrane, resulting in vital bacterial components leaking out into their surrounding environment. This process results in a true microbial death.

b. INHIBITION OF FOOD UPTAKE AND WASTE EXCRETION

Some germicides, such as the quaternary ammonium compounds (quats), have the capacity to attach themselves onto specific sites on the bacterial cell membrane. They do this by virtue of the fact that the quats carry a positive electrical charge in solution and are attracted to the negatively charged portions of the bacterial membrane. The end result is that quats block the uptake of nutrients into the cell and prevent the excretion of waste products which accumulate within their structure.

In effect, the cell is both starved and internally poisoned from the accumulated wastes.

c. INACTIVATION OF CRITICAL ENZYMES

Biocides, such as phenolics, which exert their activity in this manner actually enter the cell and chemically react with certain key enzymes which support either cell growth or metabolic activities which supplies the bacteria with the energy needed for growth and multiplication. If inactivation is incomplete the injured bacteria can regenerate several hours later and recontaminate the surface.

4. COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE PRODUCT

Table I summarizes some of the properties and characteristics of commercially available sanitizers and disinfectants. Although sanitization is distinct from disinfection, common elements exist between the two. The differences are often related to the concentrations of product used and length of exposure of the product on the surface.

a. HYPOCHLORITES

Because of their effectiveness and relatively low cost, hypochlorites are widely used in a multitude of sanitization operations, and have become a standard to which other sanitizers are compared. Hypochlorites exert their germicidal activity by inactivating vital bacterial enzymes.

Their main disadvantage is that they are corrosive to metal surfaces including stainless steel. Hypochlorites also degrade in strength with time, are affected by the presence of organic matter and the pH or alkalinity of the water from which their use-solutions are prepared. Hypochlorites function best within the narrow pH range around neutrality

(pH 5 - 7), since hypochlorous acid formed at that pH, is the chemical component which exerts the germicidal activity. High pH waters (>9.0) inhibits the sanitization effect of hypochlorites, requiring longer exposure times to achieve the desired results.

b. IODOPHORS

Iodophors exert their bactericidal activity in a similar manner to that of hypochlorites but to a less rapid degree. They attach themselves to proteins specifically those containing sulfur in their composition (cysteine) and inactivate them. Iodine solutions usually consist of elemental iodine which is complexed to carriers such as PVP (polyvinylpyrolidone) or non ionic surfactants. The iodine carrier provides a sustained-release reservoir of iodine, and the iodine stays bound to the carrier until the free iodine concentration in solution falls below a certain equilibrium level, before additional free iodine is released into solution.

Their main disadvantage is that they can be highly staining on virtually any surface, work only within the acidic pH range and flash off at temperatures greater that 35 C.

West-Agro in Kansas City, Mo is a prime manufacturer of iodophors and supports EPA registration for chemical manufacturers using their concentrates and EPA registered formulas.

c. QUATERNARY AMMONIUM CHLORIDES (QUATS)

The Quats have varied germicidal activity and are generally used in low-level sanitization. Their main advantages are that they are odorless, non-staining, non-corrosive to metals and are relatively non-toxic at use-dilution concentrations. As sanitizers they exhibit a wide latitude in germicidal activity when used in hard water and are effective over a wide pH range.

Quats leave a non-volatile residue on surfaces to which they are applied, rendering the surfaces bacteriastatic for a given time. For this reason they are rarely used in dairies where cheese is manufactured; doing so could increase the risk of inactivating desirable bacterial cultures used in cheese production.

d. ACID SANITIZERS

Acid sanitizers have a broad spectrum germicidal activity and are very cost-effective to to apply. They are also relatively unaffected by organic matter. Because of their low pH, acid sanitizers have the added advantage of being able to react with hard water deposits as well as milk stone deposits, a common soil occurring in dairies and for this reason are ideal for use under hard water conditions. Because of their combined acid cleaning, free rinsing and sanitization properties, they are ideal for use in CIP (circulation-in-place) systems.

Alex C. Fergusson of Frazer, PA manufactures 2 types of acid sanitizers; TOPS and LOW FOAMING TOPS, both of which exhibit excellent sanitization properties and have become the standard for measuring acid sanitizer activity. At 1 ounce per 2 gallons of water, LOW FOAM TOPS provides the required 200 ppm of sulfonate in a pH environment that is typically less than 3.0; the combination provides true sanitation according to the legal definitions.

e. ALDEHYDES: (FORMALDEHYDE AND GLUTARALDEHYDE)

Aldehydes are extremely reactive chemicals which combine with and irreversibly denature key bacterial proteins. They are generally not used for routine sanitization and their application is restricted mainly to high-level disinfection. A 2% solution of either compound exhibits sterilization properties over a given period.

Formaldehyde can leave residual films on the surfaces with which it comes into contact and therefore its use poses a potential health hazard. Formaldehyde films can also combine with certain food-containing components and impart an undesirable medicinal flavor. Because formaldehyde has been identified as a potential carcinogen, its use is declining and limited to specific applications.

f. ALCOHOLS

Alcohols exert their germicidal activity by denaturing bacterial proteins. In the absence of water, proteins are not readily denatured by alcohol and therefore a 70% solution of isopropyl alcohol is a much more effective sanitizer than the pure (99%) product. Isopropyl alcohol is capable of killing most bacteria within 5 minutes of exposure but is ineffective against spores and has limited virucidal activity. The main disadvantages towards the use of isopropyl alcohol is that it is flammable, and can not be diluted as quats or iodophors can and therefore is relatively expensive to use.

g. PHENOLICS

Phenolics are effective at sanitization and disinfection in the presence of biological fluids and are tolerant towards a certain level of organic presence. Their main advantage is that they are highly effective in destroying the bacteria causing tuberculosis. Phenolics suffer from the disadvantage that they are relatively expensive to use, and react with certain types of plastic surfaces. They are also difficult to oxidize and therefore difficult and expensive to dispose of in an environmentally suitable manner.

h. PEROXYACETIC ACID (PAA)

Peroxyacetic Acid or Peracetic acid as it is commonly referred to is manufactured by reacting Acetic acid with hydrogen peroxide. FMC in Philadelphia, PA, manufactures a highly stable PAA solution containing as major ingredients: Peracetic acid (5.1%); and hydrogen peroxide(22.7%). PAA has grown in popularity because of its effectiveness and environmental compatibility. Upon degradation, PAA breaks down to acetic acid (vinegar), water and oxygen. One of the major advantages in using PAA is that it also functions extremely well under cold conditions ( 4 C) and unlike other sanitizers, does not experience cold temperatures failure. For this reason sanitization can be carried out on equipment and vehicles which do not first have to be brought to ambient temperatures. PAA solutions are generally used at 150 to 200 ppm are highly effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria and spores. A major disadvantage of PAA is that it is more expensive to apply than hypochlorite, but is rapidly gaining in popularity because of the multitude of applications for which it has been registered for with the EPA and its environmental compatibility.

i. CHLORINE DIOXIDE

Chlorine dioxide is a powerful sanitizer and disinfectant which is produced by reacting sodium chlorite in solution with an acid. The yellowish-green gas produced in this reaction is allowed to remain in a closed system until it dissolves in the solution from which it was generated. The aqueous solution of chlorine dioxide is subsequently used for sanitization. Chlorine dioxide is 3 to 4 times as potent as sodium hypochlorite as a sanitizing agent and is generally effective against all bacteria and viruses. It does not have the disadvantages that sodium hypochlorite has with respect to corrosivity of metal surfaces. Its main disadvantage is that the extremely reactive nature of sodium chlorite from which chlorine dioxide is generated poses a serious and potential fire hazard. The complex and expensive equipment to generate chlorine dioxide on site requires a significant capital outlay and therefore its use is unattractive for routine sanitization to the majority of end users.

[...]

http://www.schiff-consulting.com/choosing.html


Now, I don't believe warehouses storing human hair at Auschwitz were heated, even insulated...why? and would be immatrerial, anyway...the picts today available don't show any environment where cut, baled, hair needs to be "disinfested" for risk of lice producing typhus.

So...how did these traces of Zyklon get in human hair samples?

Cut hair is no evidence of a warcrime. Cut hair that has Zyklon in it is an obvious problem. You can't use Zyklon unless you want to kill the person with the hair, and after it is shorn, you don't need to use Zyklon.

Mark

[Scott Smith]

Well, I guess part of this issue comes down to the following:

1. Scott asserts that ALL train travelers, including Jews shipped to the GeneralGovernment, were routinely subjected to a disinfestation process while ON the trains, and his one claim to this, is Weisel;

Er, no. I never said ALL anything. I said that travellers travelling in sanctioned areas east of the Reich's borders were routinely stopped for inspection and disinfestation, similar to insect inspection checkpoints here in the Soutwestern USA (intended to control fruit pests). I have talked to Germans who have undergone this when they were travelling from eastern territories into the Reich. And I have stated that 25 million in Axis Europe were deloused with Zyklon (i.e., their clothing was deloused for you obfuscators) according to company reports, which I have cited many times before from the paper by F. P. Berg, "Typhus and the Jews."

Dr. Mathis objected because of the depiction of Jews being seen as "dirty" in some of the primary sources cited by Berg--and I accepted that objection as valid but countered that the same consescending language would be used in a "Third World" context or even when describing "Oakies" or Whites from Appalachia in the same time period--so one shouldn't read too much into these "nobless oblige" efforts at public sanitation in so-called backward areas, which the Generalgouvernement certainly was.

Typhus has always reigned as an endemic disease in the Eastern and Southeastern provinces of the former Polish state. This was especially true for the provinces of Wilna, Nowogrodek and Stanislawow. Here during severe outbreaks, about 5-10% and more of the population would fall ill annually whereas in the Western parts of Poland, the disease declined steadily over the years so that it was virtually unknown in the present Warthegau or else occurred only in isolated cases or clusters without any tendency to spread. During the last years before the present war, the pestilence had almost been eradicated within the central parts of the country, just as conditions in the Eastern parts were also improving. That the present wartime dislocations would again increase the frequency of typhus was to be expected since it had always been a typical plague of war, but the magnitude of the reoccurrence in 1940 was many times less than had been expected." [Emphasis mine~Scott]

Source: Appendix C, "Typhus and the Jews" by F.P. Berg.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/8/4/Berg433-481.html

I also said that one of the functions handled at concentration camps was sanitation and delousing. This was true of Dachau and Majdanek and Auschwitz. I cited an example of Wiesel, deported from Hungary to Birkenau and deloused there. I also cited Spielberg's film Schindler's List, which showed Jews from Plaszow deloused at the Sauna at Birkenau and then being put back on the train. I do this because sometimes it is necessary to use the Holo-genre itself, even if it is fiction, to illustrate a point that seems to go against the grain of True Holo-Belief. We are taught from infancy that Jews were gassed in concentration camps exclusively--and we believe it because we cannot even imagine what delousing is other than a shampoo with RID™ after the kids have played with "those foreign kids." (And your Mom also bleached the sheets and pillow cases and you never even knew it.)

No, I did NOT say that NO Jews were gassed and I did NOT say that ALL Jews were deloused (for those of you from Absurdistan).

2. Traces of Zyklon B were found in piles of human hair, found in such camps;

Big deal. I provided alternative explanations that were simpler than esoteric mass-murder fantasies and Hollywood-style props in museums.

Two possibilities that are more likely than mass-murder are a) the hair was disinfested of lice with Zyklon after being cut, and/or b) that the warehouse containing the hair was disinfested with Zyklon. Do you deny that Zyklon was used to disinfest buildings, Mark? Of course it was! And a bunch of lousy hair would be a prime warehouse to fumigate. Yes, the lice and nits will die if simply wrapped in paper and stored, but how long? Better to gas it at once and then wrap it up to minimize the chance of other handlers becoming infested.

On the other hand, the Holocaustian explanation that the presence of Zyklon is explained by the barbers cutting the hair post mortem (after homicidal gassing) makes little sense. It is obviously far easier to cut the hair of living subjects than corpses. Bomba the Barber in the Shoah documentary said nothing of cutting the hair of corpses; no, he cut the hair of those before they were gassed to death. He also said that he cut their hair IN the gaschamber but most Holo-commentators have interpreted this as error. But the least likely possibility is that when they emptied the gaschamber they then separated the clippings from the corpses. (Yes, I know he was referring to Treblinka where Zyklon has never been alleged to have been used.) In any case the Holo-answers are the least probable.

Basically we have a bunch of dead hair intending to serve as a symbol for something it is not-necessarily: the hair of gassed Jews. You refuse to calculate whether the 7 metric tons of hair found by the Soviets at Auschwitz could have come from the 1.2 million Jews who perished at Auschwitz so I can't see what the fuss is about all this dead hair.

3. While Zyklon is a pesticide, it is not a "disinfectant" (at least by any common definition I know of per "disinfection");

I have not argued that HCN or Zyklon was a disinfectant; however, the Germans are fond of the term Disinfektion, when they really mean disinfestation. Disinfection kills germs, while disinfestation kills bugs and other vermin.

4. Lice, the source of typhus, and the insects of the family Anoplura, many of which are parasites, can only survive in fairly rigid conditions including temperature gradients and a food source (a "host"). Therefore, once infected clothing and hair is removed from the human host, the lice will not survive.

No, it will not survive ultimatly but it has to be handled first and it is louse ridden. Lice are frequently carried by warm-blooded vermin, and thus you have not eliminated the disease vectors if you just dump it into a warehouse.

Now, then, if the hair was found to have residues of Zyklon B, it is doubtful it was still attached to a living human, as in order to kill lice, concentrations of Zyklon would be in the range of what even Carlos Whitlock Porter quotes:

Quote:
**2**TRUTH: actual dosage: 16 gr/m2 over a 24 hour exposure to kill clothes moths according to Document NI-9912, Directions for Use of Zyklon. The area must be ventilated for 2 days.

http://www.cwporter.com/nizprop.htm

The argument that the hair was attached to a living human is absurd and I can hardly believe you are serious. Zyklon was never used to delouse people--just their clothing, luggage, and buildings, like railway cars, for example. When you fumigate a train you either throw in some cans of Zyklon and wait for however long the manufacturer says you need to and then air it out for the recommended time. (I have a photograph showing the fumigation of an airplane with Zyklon which I need to have scanned one of these days.) Or, you pull the train into a fumigation barn and a high-tech Zyklon Kreislaufprinzip fumigator (such as the ones found at Dachau) fumigates the car(s) using a minimum quantity of Zyklon and a minimal length of time to complete the process. This information is taken from Berg's paper on fumigation, drawing on original German documents.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/7/1/Berg73-94.html

Here is a photo of a modern fumigation chamber used to gas shipping containers, although a different gas is used:

http://www.nordiko.com.au/products.html

At this concentration, and over 24 hours, you would dead lice in hair, and dead people in minutes.

I cannot believe you are serious. You must think that I have argued the people were still ON the trains when they were fumigated. Absurd! They would be dead--of course--which, parenthetically, is why the idea of killing Jews in basements is so absurd to me. A point which I have made many times. It certainly would not have been devised by an engineer or anyone with any common sense--but it is a perfect story for mythology. Why ship them to special camps and cram them into basements when you can keep them in the train to kill them with gas?

What I said was that people (not necessarily all and not necessarily Jews enroute to a camp, where they would be deloused, and were deloused) would get OFF the train at the inspection station. If they passed inspection they would remove their clothes anyway (if they hadn't already) and the CLOTHES would be gassed using some method (steam, hot-air, Zyklon, possibly microwaves, etc.) and they would be made to shower (whether they needed one or not). If they did not pass inspection then individuals would be shaved and deloused with chemicals on their person. Petroleum works well because it smothers the lice AND the nits. But other chemicals may have been used as well.

The Germans did not have DDT powder until the latter part of the war and not in quantity. Some of it may have be saved for German troops or German hospitals. In any case, the Allies had plenty of DDT for liberation and it simplified the containment of typhus epidemics, which were still a grave concern--at this point widespread throughout the old Reich, not just in concentration camps filled with inmates that had been force-marched in the evacuation of eastern camps. All of this is explained in Berg's papers for those wishing to learn something.

So, then, where did the HCN traces come from?

Most likely explanation is that the hair was gassed before storage and/or the warehouse was fumigated at some point (as such a building would be).

Well, Scott says it is Occam's Razor:

Or the converse explanation, which is again, a good example of always seeing things through the Holo-Speculum darkly. Occam's Razor, Chuck: the simplest answer is probably the best one. The bundles of hair were disinfested. And certainly the warehouse storing it would be too.

Indeed. And the simplest explantion for your attempt to argue that I claimed that Jews were gassed for delousing in railway barns which supposedly explains the HCN in their hair shorn later at the barbershop and spa, followed by five-star accomodations at Auschwitz, is that you are intentionally obfuscating my position. I don't see how anybody could have interpreted the living Jews were deloused with Zyklon based on what I wrote unless they were willfully attempting to pull some wool...

But he already says that the Jews were disinfested on the trains, complete with showers and a petroleum bath, new clothes, etc., and yet the now disinfested Jews have to not only go through a second disinfestation at the camp, but so does their hair, and the warehouses it is stored in...even though such hair could not support lice.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that railway cars and travellers were routinely disinfested to control the spread of disease by German wartime authorities. Jews might be too--depending on their destination and where they would pass. But if they are locked in the cattle-cars there is no need to do anything until they get to the camp. Delousing was certainly done in camps. If it wasn't then disease would have overrun the camps and the camps served the hygiene needs of the greater district (at least in the Generalgouvernement). Not everybody sent to a camp was killed. To get to the Sauna at Birkenau for delousing, for example, you marched right past Krema III. This is what happened to Schindler's Jews enroute from Plaszow to Birkenau for delousing, and then off to some other labor camp.

Now, Charles Bunch has posted from witness Mueller's account that ammonium chloride was used to wash hair.

I have never read that, but I can say that in my business, quatenary ammonium compounds are by far the most commonly used disinfectant.

I don't doubt that ammonium chloride was used as a disinfectant. They may have washed the hair in it. So what? They also used bleach as a disinfectant and swabbed the decks with chemicals in their barracks and other buildings. Wiesel says they were made to do this even when they evacuated Auschwitz. We used to do that in every barracks I've ever stayed in as well when I was in the Army.

Chuck's source is Mueller. This is another example of using canonical evidence--the mountain must come to Mohammed to make the evidence work. Any traces of ammonium chloride residue in this dead hair? Hmmm? The museum probably didn't even test for that. They just found some traces of HCN (big deal) and bingo--we have "scientific confirmation" of Holy Scripture. Praise the Lord and the Big-H.

This conversation is like arguing with Creationists.

[Roberto]

To cut a long story short – it’s too late at night for me to address yet another of Smith’s exercises in beating about the bush with long slabs of text containing nothing other than "Revisionist" articles of faith – let’s just address the following statements:

1.

I have not argued that HCN or Zyklon was a disinfectant; however, the Germans are fond of the term Disinfektion, when they really mean disinfestation. Disinfection kills germs, while disinfestation kills bugs and other vermin.

Exactly, Mr. Smith.

Then why on earth would they have used Zyklon B to disinfect hair that had been cut off the heads of Auschwitz-Birkenau inmates before shipping it to whatever industrial applications?

No typhus-carrying lice, bugs or other insects there, just germs or fungi, and Zyklon B was a rather ineffective bactericide/fungicide according to Dr. Peters himself.

So what, considering also the testimonies of the members of the Sonderkommando, would be the simplest explanation for the presence of Zyklon B on the bales of hair found by the Red Army at Birkenau?

2.

All of this is explained in Berg's papers for those wishing to learn something.[emphasis, believe it or not, is Smith’s]

Learn something from Berg, Smith?

Like what?

Like how to lie and cheat suckers with "technical arguments" that are irrelevant at best?

Or like how to provide comic relief with statements like the one below, and incidentally reveal in one sentence what "Revisionism" is all about?

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.

“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

No, Smith, I’m not "cornered". Just a bit too tired to dissect the rest of your rubbish, and later today I’ll be on a beach party because today is a Portuguese national holiday. So I’ll take apart the rest of your crap, or what my fellow posters may have left of it, the day after tomorrow.

Have a nice evening, buddy.

P.S.

Just a final piece of friendly advice: see if you can do without that theatening/taunting "hmmm". It's too silly even for Scott Smith - especially if you look at what it refers to. Rather than ask about traces of ammonium chloride on hair that you cannot necessarily assume to have undergone the described disinfecting process, try to find some evidence to disinfection of cut hair at Auschwitz-Birkenau having been done with Zyklon B. Then you may argue that - big deal - the traces of Zyklon B on the hair in the sacks are not necessarily one of the smoking guns.

Talk about sacks, by the way (in which the hair was found, if I remember correctly): don't they exclude the warehouse fumigation hypothesis?

Would the Zyklon B used for fumigation have penetrated the sacks and settled on the hair underneath?

[Scott Smith]

You should give your keyboard a rest unless you have something to say, Roberto.

Rather than ask about traces of ammonium chloride on hair that you cannot necessarily assume to have undergone the described disinfecting process, try to find some evidence to disinfection of cut hair at Auschwitz-Birkenau having been done with Zyklon B. Then you may argue that - big deal - the traces of Zyklon B on the hair in the sacks are not necessarily one of the smoking guns.

Then why the fuss? Hang onto every shred of Scripture, Dear Boy.

Talk about sacks, by the way (in which the hair was found, if I remember correctly): don't they exclude the warehouse fumigation hypothesis?

Why would it? A sort of duct tape hypothesis, perhaps?

Would the Zyklon B used for fumigation have penetrated the sacks and settled on the hair underneath?

Why not? Paper is porous, and cardboard or wooden disks are one of the carriers for Zyklon. Maybe we should test some of these sacks. But oh, they never thought of that, did they? The only reason they tested the hair was to validate their Hollywood Holo-Prop in the first place.

Ya gotta Believe.

(Grotesque Human Hair Exhibit at Auschwitz Museum)

[michael mills]

Re the washing of women's hair with ammonium chloride (or whatever it was), as attested to by Filip Mueller:

If that process had been carried out after the hair had been shorn from women who had just been killed by gassing with Zyklon-B (thereby leaving traces of HCN in the hair), would it have removed those traces?

[Maple 01]

er, no it wouldn't, something to do with absorbsion rates - ask a toxicologist

[Roberto]

You should give your keyboard a rest unless you have something to say, Roberto.

Very lame, chum. Your angry comments instead of arguments suggest that you're again running out of the latter.

Rather than ask about traces of ammonium chloride on hair that you cannot necessarily assume to have undergone the described disinfecting process, try to find some evidence to disinfection of cut hair at Auschwitz-Birkenau having been done with Zyklon B. Then you may argue that - big deal - the traces of Zyklon B on the hair in the sacks are not necessarily one of the smoking guns.

Then why the fuss? Hang onto every shred of Scripture, Dear Boy.

Poor Smith is pissed again and losing his composure. A truly enjoyable sight. And the evidence that Zyklon B was used to disinfect cut-off hair is:

Talk about sacks, by the way (in which the hair was found, if I remember correctly): don't they exclude the warehouse fumigation hypothesis?

Why would it? A sort of duct tape hypothesis, perhaps?

Smithsonian bullshit going strong. The question is whether gaseous Zyklon B would penetrated two layers of thick sacking paper (see below) to reach the hair and the objects therein during a warehouse fumigation.

Would the Zyklon B used for fumigation have penetrated the sacks and settled on the hair underneath?

Why not? Paper is porous, and cardboard or wooden disks are one of the carriers for Zyklon. Maybe we should test some of these sacks. But oh, they never thought of that, did they? The only reason they tested the hair was to validate their Hollywood Holo-Prop in the first place.

Ya gotta Believe.

Blah, blah, blah, jabber, jabber, jabber. Better cool down, [insert fitting insult], for now the ball is on you again. According to the translation of the 1945 report by the Cracow Institute of Forensic Research, transcribed on pages 109 and following of Bailer-Galanda et al, Die Auschwitzleugner, the hair examined was found in a sack of two-layered thick paper which had been closed by folding the upper part several times. So for Smith's warehouse fumigation hypothesis - which is not supported by any evidence, as usual - to be even plausible, the Zyklon B would have had to penetrate these two layers of thick paper in amounts high enough to leave traces of prussic acid detectable with the methods available at the time on the hair and the various objects contained in the hair, which - especially the latter - were not exactly highly absorptive.

Can you demonstrate that this would have been so, Mr. Smith? I would expect something more concrete than "paper is porous", of course.

[michael mills]

I suppose this whole argument comes down to what Pohl meant when he ordered that the hair of women inmates be collected and packed after disinfection.

Does anybody have the original German text immediately to hand? I imagine Pohl used the German word "Desinfektion", which as I understand it can refer to the elimination of insects as well as of microbes.

The question would then be, what was the purpose of the "disinfection" of the collected hair, and what was the danger that the "disinfection" was intended to remove. Was it insects in the hair, such as lice, or microbes?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of shearing the head and body hair of concentration camp inmates (and of prisoners, and even of soldiers) was to prevent infestation by lice, rather than to combat bacterial infections.

As to the question of the packing of the collected hair in thick paper bags, the order for the collection of the hair of inmates implies that the "disinfection" would be carried out before the packing, so that any residues of the disinfecting (or disinfesting) agent in the hair, whatever it was, would have got there prior to packing, rather than while the packed hair was in storage.

Moulded has calculated that the quantity of hair found packed in paper sacks in a storage building at Auschwitz would have come from 120,000 individuals, or about 10% of the total number of persons who passed through Auschwitz and presumably had their hair shorn. In other words, its condition cannot be regarded as necessarily typical of the treatment of all the collected hair.

It may be that a number of different methods of treating the hair was used, including washing in chemicals as described. I do not think that the possibility that some of the collected hair was fumigated with Zyklon-B can be excluded categorically. The HCN residues on the hair found at Auschwitz might be the result of fumigation after collection, or it might be the result of homicidal gassing prior to the hair being cut off; it is impossible to tell simply from the fact of the residues themselves.

Perhaps a contributor to this forum with real scientific knowledge can tell us how quickly HCN residues can form on hair. Can the residues form after only a short exposure, the time necessary to kill a human being? Or does the concentration of residue that was found on the hair require a longer exposure time?

[Charles Bunch]

I suppose this whole argument comes down to what Pohl meant when he ordered that the hair of women inmates be collected and packed after disinfection.

Or how the order was interpreted.

Does anybody have the original German text immediately to hand? I imagine Pohl used the German word "Desinfektion", which as I understand it can refer to the elimination of insects as well as of microbes.

The question would then be, what was the purpose of the "disinfection" of the collected hair, and what was the danger that the "disinfection" was intended to remove. Was it insects in the hair, such as lice, or microbes?

As I understand it, the whole purpose of shearing the head and body hair of concentration camp inmates (and of prisoners, and even of soldiers) was to prevent infestation by lice, rather than to combat bacterial infections.

Well quite obviously the shearing of hair was not merely to prevent lice infestation. Virtually all of the deportees to the Reinhard camps, and the vast majority of those sent to Auschwitz were murdered immediately upon arrival. Shearing the hair, rather than simply burying or cremating the corpse, served no purpose other than to harvest the hair.

(snip)

Moulded has calculated that the quantity of hair found packed in paper sacks in a storage building at Auschwitz would have come from 120,000 individuals, or about 10% of the total number of persons who passed through Auschwitz and presumably had their hair shorn. In other words, its condition cannot be regarded as necessarily typical of the treatment of all the collected hair.

Actually the estimate is 140,000 individuals. And this likely represents hair from women. The Nazis sold the hair to a number of industrial firms for .50 RM per Kg, or just over $1 per Kg.

Apparently Mr. Mills thinks we can only make good judgements about how the hair was treated if all the harvested hair was found and tested. I don't think historians would find that a reasonable proposition.

It may be that a number of different methods of treating the hair was used, including washing in chemicals as described. I do not think that the possibility that some of the collected hair was fumigated with Zyklon-B can be excluded categorically.

Ah, so now we can't be categorical!

And yet Mr. Mills sounded quite categorical when he wrote:

"The collection of human hair from concentration camps was merely part of a wider operation of utilising human hair, for example the collection of hair from women's hair salons; it was initiated by an order from Himmler issued in 1942, which ordered the collection of hair from prisoners and its despatch to textile factories after fumigation to kill lice (the fumigation was by Zyklon-B, hence the cyanide residues detected in the hair found at Auschwitz). "

It seems with Mr. Mills that it is fine to be categorical when the result is the downplaying of Holocaust evidence, but not when it might add to the support of Nazi crimes.

I'd be interested in information about the collection and use of women's hair from salons, by the way!

The HCN residues on the hair found at Auschwitz might be the result of fumigation after collection, or it might be the result of homicidal gassing prior to the hair being cut off; it is impossible to tell simply from the fact of the residues themselves.

But it was possible for Mr. Mills to assert that hair was fumigated with Zyklon B!

What is possible to tell is that no evidence has been presented to support the fumigation of sheared hair, while evidence has been presented for its treatment with ammonium chloride.

[gabriel pagliarani]

In my opinion this is not Nuremberg 2 and there are not further evidences to add to those referred. But there are some considerations to be collected:
1) 7 tons of hair are too many to be produced in a single camp
2) therefore hair had been collected
3) not only from other places but also in other times
4) a lot of jews had to be bald
5) therefore the total amount is not directly related to Shoah only
6) not all the sacks of hair were contaminated with Cyclon-B
7) HCN is not related to any mass-murder
If I were the Court I simply had to avoid the argument hair: it is not a perfect proof. Something illegal is in it surely, but facing the biggest mass-murder never attempted in modern Europe and all the other suitable evidences the Court had to persecute infamous Nazi leaderships, simply hair= no contest.

[Roberto]

It may be that a number of different methods of treating the hair was used, including washing in chemicals as described. I do not think that the possibility that some of the collected hair was fumigated with Zyklon-B can be excluded categorically.

I consider this possibility a rather remote one, the reason being the evidence to the use of other substances together with the statement on the unsuitability of Zyklon B as a disinfectant quoted hereafter.

On page 24 of his 1933 study Blausäure zur Schädlingsbekämpfung ("Prussic Acid for Pest Control"), which can be viewed under

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... ters24.gif

[…]Zum Schluß der Betrachtungen über die Giftigkeit sei noch angedeutet, daß Blausäure nur geringe bakterizide und fungizide Wirkung hat. Bakterien erleiden zwar in äußerst verdünnten Blausäurelösungen Wachstumshemmung (in Sonderfällen allerdings Wachstumsförderung), von gasförmigem Cyanwasserstoff hingegen werden nur wenige Arten beeinflußt. Niedere Pilze, Flechten u. dgl. können durch Blausäure nur schwer geschädigt werden; die fungizide Blausäurewirkung liegt weit unter der des Schwefelwasserstoffes.[…]

My translation:

[…]At the end of the considerations about the toxicity it shall further be mentioned that prussic acid has only little bactericide and fungicide effect. While bacteria suffer growth impairment (though in some cases their growth is encouraged) in extremely diluted prussic acid solutions, only few species are influenced by gaseous hydrogen cyanide. Lower fungi, lichens and the like can only be heavily damaged by prussic acid; the fungicide effect of prussic acid is far below that of hydrogen sulfide.[…]

The HCN residues on the hair found at Auschwitz might be the result of fumigation after collection, or it might be the result of homicidal gassing prior to the hair being cut off; it is impossible to tell simply from the fact of the residues themselves.

Unless there is corroborating evidence – which exists in the form of the testimonies of members of the Sonderkommando describing how the hair was cut off the heads of women after they had been gassed – and alternative explanation must be excluded. As to the one that the hair was disinfected with a delousing agent unsuitable for disinfecting, see above. As to another that the hair was stored in a fumigated warehouse, there is the question if gaseous Zyklon B would have penetrated the sacks in which the hair seems to have been stored, made of two layers of thick paper, to settle on the hair and objects contained therein in amounts high enough to be detectable with the methods available at the time. And there is the other question what evidence to such warehouse fumigation at some time during the final phase of the camp’s existence – if earlier, the hair would no longer have been there – the proponents of this thesis can offer. Fumigation other than of clothing in special delousing chambers doesn’t seem to have been all that frequent at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The fumigation of the prisoners' barracks at the time of the typhus epidemic in 1942, for instance, seems to have been the only such occasion.

[…]Petro Mirchuk, a Ukranian prisoner, wrote that a delousing in August 1942, the worst month of the epidemic, "eliminated the epidemic and the billions of fleas and lice ceased to exist." […]

Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -disposal/

[…]In his reasoning Leuchter (2) claims that the vestigial amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after fumigations carried out in the Camp "once, long ago"(Item 14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing[my emphasis], and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp.[…]

Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... port.shtml

[Tarpon27]

Apparently, trying to ask Scott about trains and people becomes a problem, but I will try again.

Mark wrote, Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:48 pm:

1. Scott asserts that ALL train travelers, including Jews shipped to the GeneralGovernment, were routinely subjected to a disinfestation process while ON the trains, and his one claim to this, is Weisel;

Scott replies, Mon Jun 09, 2003 10:15 pm:

Er, no. I never said ALL anything. I said that travellers travelling in sanctioned areas east of the Reich's borders were routinely stopped for inspection and disinfestation, similar to insect inspection checkpoints here in the Soutwestern USA (intended to control fruit pests).

Oh?

Well, and if I mistaken, please inform me of my misquotes of yours on this thread:

Scott Smith wrote:

[...]

In addition, Polish camps had more worry about typhus and louse-born disease so it stands to reason that more emphasis would be made on haircuts, and not just for KL prisoners but anybody needing deloused. Anybody travelling by train had to shower and have their clothing gassed, for example. And if infested they had to have all their hair shorn
[...]

Thu Jun 05, 2003 6:49 pm
-------

As I reply to my question, posted, Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:48 pm when I asked:

[...]

Although I do have a question for you, on this train travelling issue...did Jews being transported, say, from Hungary to Aushwitz have to "shower" and have their "clothing gassed"?And how do you gas clothing with Zyklon when it is still be worn, say, insuring the eradication of pests (lice) while not killing the human wearing it?

Scott Smith wrote:

[...]

Yes, Wiesel tells about it in his novel but in his case he was issued prison duds.

[...]

... followed by...

You don't. The procedure is to have a haircut, get doused in petroleum, then shower, and the clothes go through a gaschamber in little baskets. After the cars are fumigated you are on your way. The railway cars are gassed in barns like this one in Budapest. Of course if you intended to kill the travellers you could do the gassing in the cars with the passengers inside. Any discussion with German refugees from eastern territories will relate to this delousing procedure. Even if the passengers are not infested they shower and their clothes are gassed.

Scott later posted on Fri Jun 06, 2003 8:43 am:

[...]

As far as delousing ordinary passengers, talk to Germans who travelled from the East into the Reich. We have had some on this forum who experienced this but don't want to subject themselves to abuse by being accused of Nazi apologia. About 25 million experienced it during the war. They were inspected, showered, and their clothes were gassed with Zyklon. If they were actually infested they had to get a haircut and be deloused too.

[...]

Scott has yet to answer my question about Jews on cattle cars being "disinfested" or even "disinfected". It is is a continous diversionary conduct to somehow equate wartime "disinfestion" of train passengers with those trains that sent Jews to the GeneralGovernment.

In other words, I do not equate "disinfesting" Wehrmacht soldiers and ordinary "valued" citizens of the The Third Reich, traveling as PASSENGERS in passenger cars as the same as Jews on freight cars to the East.

The Jews or "undesirables" of the Third Reich are not Scott Smith's "anybod[ies]".

Well, what explanation is it Scott?

Were all people on trains, including Jews, subjected to being "disinfested" while riding the trains of German occupied and controlled Europe?

The "anybody". Yes or no?

Your TWO sources are now:

Scott wrote:

I cited an example of Wiesel, deported from Hungary to Birkenau and deloused there. I also cited Spielberg's film Schindler's List, which showed Jews from Plaszow deloused at the Sauna at Birkenau and then being put back on the train.

So, I assume that you will have less of a problem with Weisel as a source in the future, and if I am not mistaken, did you not do a review on the film _Schindler's List_ for CODOH?

Here...I'll be like Scott..."chooo-chooo", the little train purrs, and for all you Jews in a flat floored cattle car for the next day or several, you will soon be able to shower, change clothes, and continue on your way!

After all...

Scott wrote:

Anybody travelling by train had to shower and have their clothing gassed, for example.

I will also adress other points of your post, here on this thread.

Forgive me for the "chooo-chooo"...it is my equivalent to "bugspray in basements". I'm sure Scott will understand.

Regards,

Mark

[Tarpon27]

Michael Mills wrote:

The question would then be, what was the purpose of the "disinfection" of the collected hair, and what was the danger that the "disinfection" was intended to remove. Was it insects in the hair, such as lice, or microbes?

Michael, if I may call you that...that is not an unimportant question.

During wartime conditions, obviously, populations that were now placed in ghettoes were subject to sanitary conditions that would allow the spread of infectious disease through insects...or chlorea through water supplies.

My uncle, a Mastery Gunnery Sargeant in the US Marine Corps, and I do remember "grunts" and Marines, per our own contacts (yours and mine, here, and in fact, you can count on how I will never forget it), contracted malaria while safeguarding the Panama Canal as a young Marine. From a mosquito. He also served for four years in the Pacific, during WWII, but I digress.

Per hair, AFTER it had been shorn off in the Aktion camps, look no farther than Scott Smith on how to control growth:

The Germans frequently say "disinfection" when they really mean disinfestation. And certainly you do have to disinfest hair or clothing, including bedding for delousing; everybody born before DDT knew that. (Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite.) Russian peasants disinfested their clothes and bedding by hanging it on a clothesline overnight in freezing weather. This would kill lice and nits (disinfestation) but would have no disinfection properties (kills germs), unlike washing the bedding in bleach or using heat or steam.

Posted by Scott on: Fri Jun 06, 2003 3:23 pm

IOW, Scott is quite aware that to "disinfect", Russian peasants:

Russian peasants disinfested their clothes and bedding by hanging it on a clothesline overnight in freezing weather.

Apparently, the idea that one doesn't have to "disinfect" hair at Auschwitz by using Zyklon B has never made it to the technologically superior Germans.

It is Scott's observation, not mine.

Now, one more point for your consideration: on this thread, Scott Smith asked Charles Bunch for "evidence" on the use of ammonium compounds to wash hair as witness Mueller described. After Scott's "evidence" on trains, I find that humorous but for you, I would consider looking at Auschwitz-Buna, and the I.G. Farben plant.

It produced, as I understand it, synthetic fuels and synthetic rubber for the German war effort.

It also, used, I believe, a methane-oxygen process...which means that ammonium chlorites would have been in abundance "just down the road" so to speak.

A web site, detailing the interest of the US in learning, post-war, of German advances in making synthetic fuels, is here:

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/Bureau_o ... c_7375.htm

If you can read the various engineering/scientific "arguments", you will find, well, whatever.

Michael Mills wrote:

Perhaps a contributor to this forum with real scientific knowledge can tell us how quickly HCN residues can form on hair. Can the residues form after only a short exposure, the time necessary to kill a human being? Or does the concentration of residue that was found on the hair require a longer exposure time?

I cannot answer that question, as I am not much of an expert on anything but a few questions, mostly unrelated to this Forum.

But I think your question is a good one, somewhat.

The reason I say that, is simply this: I work with quatenary ammonium compounds, and ammonium chloride was part of Aushwitz-Buna's I.G. Farben complex (my opinion), and somehow, a "Denier", and I am NOT saying you Sir, are one, will have to post how Zyklon got on this hair, and for ME, why, hair was not found in the concentration camps, as opposed to the Aktion camps. I mean why no inventories, elsewhere?

I would also say, from what I have posted earlier on this thread that the use of ammonium chloride in "hard water" makes it almost perfect for washing hair at Aushwitz, plus its other benign qualities. Read my source, posted earlier,

http://www.schiff-consulting.com/choosing.html

vs. the other chemical biocides, and trust me, Zyklon is not there as a "disinfectant", and not back in WWII.

Somewhere, along the line the WHVA did not just need Zyklon. Nor more than the SS did not need socks, bread, bullets, boot polish, tunics, etc.

When I was at war, I needed "beans, bullets, and gas". Nothing much has changed, as far as I can see.

I am looking into Primo Levi's works, and looking for a mention of ammonium chlorites, although his work on the Periodic Table is classic. I got some wonderful quotes of his from science; just wish I had more from Auschwitz....

I have a much greater confidence in Mueller's observation on quats...how does one KNOW what to even say, such as an "ammonium chlorite" compund being used as a "disinfectant" to wash hair, unless observed, and noted.

Regards,

Mark

[Scott Smith]

Just a couple of quick points since I don't have much time at the moment.

So, I assume that you will have less of a problem with Weisel as a source in the future, and if I am not mistaken, did you not do a review on the film _Schindler's List_ for CODOH?

I'm not sure what you mean since Wiesel's book is a novel and so is Kennealy's. No, I didn't review Schindler's List. I reviewed two films, Enemy at the Gates and Disney's Pearl Harbor for the IHR. (Click on the links.) And I have reviewed two books, Prof. Richard Holmes' Battlefields and Prof. Michael Allen's The Business of Genocide for Germar Rudolf's Revisionist, ISSN: 1542-376X. I'm working on two more in my spare time.

Btw, when I said that Russian peasants disinfested their clothes by hanging them out on the clothesline in the winter air, which killed the lice, I did not mean that the Germans made them do it. This is in Russian social history. I don't know if it killed the nits and I don't think it substituted for a bath. They also picked lice off of each other and put the critters on someone else. A sort of beneficial Communism. And when all were "clean" but that one person that unlucky soul took a bath in the cold creek. Really, I don't make this stuff up. I've heard that WWI soldiers did the same thing to the guy going on leave and then he took all the lice with him to go get deloused.