National Defense Research Council

Nature NavOrd Rept NBSJR NC NDRC Rept NOra or NORD Rept OffGaz Off) Ohart(1946) ONRRR OpNav( Publications) Ordn OrgSynth(Voi year) Nature(London) Naval Ordnance Report National Bureau of Standards, Journal of Research (see JRNBS) Nitrocellulose (combined with SS in 1943) National Defense Research Council Report Naval Ordnance Report OffieialGazette, US Patent Office, Dept of Commerce, Washington 25,DC Official Tournal(British Patents) T.C.Ohart," Elements of Ammunition, Wiley, NY (1946) Office of Naval Research, Research Reviews Office of the Chief of Naval Operations(Publications), Washington,DC Ordnance, formerly ArOrdn "Organic Syntheses Wiley, NY, Coll Vols 1(1941), 2(1943), 3(1955) and individual vols 30(1950), 31(1951), 32(1952), 33(1953), 34(1954), 35(1955) 36(1956)... 

National Defense Research Council Report Naval Ordnance Report... 

When Bush met Hopkins, though the presidential aide was a liberal Democrat and the Carnegie president an admirer of Herbert Hoover and a self-styled Tory, something meshed, writes Bush, and we found we spoke the same language. Hopkins had a scheme for an Inventors Council. Bush countered with his more comprehensive National Defense Research Council. Each of us was trying to sell something to the other. Bush won. Hopkins liked his plan. 

The National Defense Research Council immediately absorbed the Uranium Committee. That had been part of its purpose. Briggs was a cautious and frugal man, but his committee had also lacked the authority of a source of fimds independent of the military. The white-haired director of the National Bureau of Standards would continue to be responsible for fission work. He would report now to James Bryant Conant, Harvard s wiry president, boyish in appearance but in practice cool and reserved, whom Bush had enlisted as soon as FDR authorized the new council. 

This work was supported by National Cancer Institute grant no. CA29133 and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Protocol no. R07502. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private ones of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Department of Defense or the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. The experiments reported herein were conducted according to the principles set forth in the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals", Institute of Animal Resources, National Research Council, DHEW Pub. No. (NIH) 78-23. 

As part of the overall project on Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century, a workshop on National Security and Homeland Defense has led to a separate report Challenges for the Chemical Sciences in the 21st Century National Security Homeland Defense, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002. The reader is urged to consult that report for further information. 

I am deeply indebted to my coworkers, whose names may be found in the literature cited, for their contributions to this work. The projects were supported by the Defense Research Board of Canada, Ottawa in the early stage followed by the National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, to whom I am grateful. It has been a privilege to colloborate with Dr. R. W. Yip, National Research Council of Ottawa in the flash photolysis studies. 

Ellen Silbergeld, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C. National Research Council Staff... 

Dialogue on Alternative Technologies Moves Citizens and Army toward Disposal Solutions , Common Sense (September 1997), p. 4 National Research Council, Disposal of Neutralent Wastes (Washington, DC National Academy Press, 2001) Statement by Mike Parker, Program Manager for Assembled Chemical Weapons, Before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Defense, 25 April 2001 The Keystone Center, ACWA Dialogue Close-Out Report (draft) (15 April 2004). 

The toxicity associated with SM is quite profound. The Army s Chemical Defense Equipment Process Action Team estimated in 1994 that a 900 mg-min/m SM vapor exposure would be lethal in 2-10 min, based on animal studies (National Research Council Review, 1997). Fortunately, in the battlefield, lethality has been limited. Only 1-3% of exposed soldiers died from SM exposure after WWI, and mortality mostly was not a direct consequence of SM, but rather the indirect effect of secondary respiratory infections. The 1999 Material Safety Data Sheet, put out by the US Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, USA Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, has estimated the LD50 of a skin exposure to sullur mustard as lOOmg/kg. This roughly translates into as little as 7 ml of neat SM (i.e. 8.9 g) spread over the skin resulting in the death of a 80 kg adult (Department of the Army, MSDS, 1999). The cornea, of course, is more sensitive than the skin. Below we review three chief toxic effects of severe SM exposure to the cornea. 

---