(2 of 5)
Even the rationale of giving every civilian a gas mask is questionable. . . . After all, just because you have a gas mask does not mean you can go to the corner store for a loaf of bread during an air raid. Mustard-gas (or other blister gas) droplets falling during an air raid or the vapor of these materials left on the ground arid streets after a raid will injure skin and contaminate clothes, shoes, and hair regardless of gas mask. Is the A.W.V.S. going to suggest that we sew together 13 pairs of rubber panties in order to sniggle enough rubber sheeting from the war effort to make a suit of protective clothing (that wouldn't be protective anyway) ? Much better, let civilians obey air-raid rules, stay indoors in a blackout room with the windows blanketed and cracks stuffed as well as possible with wet paper (mustard gas will not cross a water barrier because of its poor water solubility), lie down on the floor with head in arms. Little gas will penetrate such a "gas mask." If vesicant gas is suspected by a peculiar odor or presence of oily mist, spray or droplets, an immediate bath with plenty of soap and some water will minimize its effects on the skin; irrigation of the eyes with 2% baking soda solution will protect them against damage. Breathing through a cloth dampened with baking soda solution will protect against such little vapor that gets inside a house but not against street or high local concentrations. . . .
DAVID FIELDING MARSH
University of Georgia
School of Medicine
Augusta, Ga.
> To Professor (of Pharmacology) Marsh thanks for a provocative critique of the homemade-panties gas mask reported (reservedly) by TIME.—ED.
Steel Mess: Postscript
Sirs:
CONGRATULATIONS EXCELLENT HANDLING REESE TAYLOR RESIGNATION [TIME, Sept. 7] BUT MY REPORT WAS NO PART OF THE CAUSE. IT MAY ALSO OCCUR TO SOME READERS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR HIRELING LIBBEY TO SPEND FOUR MONTHS AND THOUSANDS MILES GOVERNMENT TRAVEL PREPARING AN "UNAUTHORIZED" REPORT. PERHAPS YOU MEANT THE CONCLUSIONS.
FREDERICK I. LIBBEY
Washington
>TIME meant what it said the first time (Aug. 31): that WPB Consultant Libbey was not authorized to give the report to the Washington Post.—ED.
Philosopher's Hope
Sirs:
I have read with much interest the account of Indian events and persons in TIME, Aug. 24. I admire the impartiality with which highly controversial matters are treated. I deplore the present conflict in India, but I do not think it would be possible, as the Congress party demanded, to hand over the Government to a professedly representative collection of Indians hastily assembled in the middle of a war, and bitterly at odds among themselves on many important questions. Apart from the difficulties necessarily involved in a change while a Japanese invasion is imminent, the replies to Sir Stafford Cripps made clear that a British withdrawal now would leave India in chaos and anarchy, if not actually in civil war, which would result in an easy conquest of India by Japan.