Dr. Mark Kroll supports 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism

Kroll has graciously provided direct support for the 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism. [LINK]

Dr. Mark Kroll: "The fundamentals of an excited delirium [+ taser] death are not that difficult to understand. Our bodies have limits to exertion. ... would eventually tire and slow down or stop because our brain recognizes signals of overexertion such as acid in our blood. If we were to continue -- because our brain ignored such signals [or because you're being tasered] -- we would exert ourselves until we died. The body has limits for a reason. If these limits are sufficiently exceeded we will die." [LINK]


What does the taser do even when it is working exactly as planned?

It locks-up muscles, perhaps many muscles. Perhaps similar to weight lifters when they strain every muscle in their bodies.

To quote the obviously-incomplete and liability-inducing taser warning sheet:

"The TASER device can cause strong muscle contractions that may result in physical exertion or athletic/sports-type injuries."


Now think!

What would be the exactly worst device to use on someone that might already be worked up in the manner described by Kroll? The subject is already teetering on the edge of their limits of exertion. And the officer comes along, and (in accordance with his training and product promises) gives them a good solid tasering (more physical exertion), and thereby pushes them right over the edge, and the victim ends up dead.

It all makes sense.

Dangerously exerted. Add lots more involuntary physical exertion. Surprise, surprise.


This alternate (non-cardiac) explanation for taser-CAUSED deaths suggested by Dr. Mark Kroll is exactly in alignment with the 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism which won the "$6.2M" FAILURE TO WARN lawsuit against Taser International. [LINK]

Given that Dr. Mark Kroll sits on (...a thick stack of TASR stocks and options, and on...) the scientific and medical advisory board for TASER International, his opinion regarding this self-evident taser-induced death mechanism might be quite useful for the next flood of 'Blood pH' (or anything similar) taser death lawsuits.

The original story is here [LINK]. Plaintiff lawyers may wish to grab a copy and compare this admission to the obviously-incomplete official Taser product warning sheet.


Dr. Mark Kroll's statement may be directly applicable to the likely-inevitable lawsuit regarding the death of Brian Cardall. He's just tossed Taser International into the mix.


Note also - all of this also fits into the RCMP warning that tasers are especially dangerous (including risk of death) when used on people in an agitated state.


See also the comments associated with Kroll's letter [LINK].

"So, Excited delirium is a term invented when COWBOYS roamed the wild wild west huh? Makes sense. It uses about the same amount of medical mentality and knowledge as they had 200 years ago when everyone carried a gun, rode a horse, and dodged sagebrush on their way to work shoeing horses."

"Mark Kroll is about as deceptive a shill as they come. If a search is done from the AMA website using their search function not a single document comes up that is available to be accessed by the public that even mentions "excited delirium". The true fact is that the AMA DOES NOT recognize 'excited delirium' as a valid medical or psychiatric condition. That fact is easily confirmed by performing a simple Google search. It is also not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as a valid medical or psychiatric condition..."

PS: I wonder if Taser International is on the line to Kroll telling him to Shut up!, or if this is part of an elaborate scheme to (somehow?) reduce liability in the long run.

Repost (26 June 2009): Dr. Mark Kroll supports 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism

From 26 June 2009 [LINK]

Dr. Mark Kroll supports 'Blood pH' taser-death mechanism

Kroll has graciously provided direct support for the 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism. [LINK]

Dr. Mark Kroll: "The fundamentals of an excited delirium [+ taser] death are not that difficult to understand. Our bodies have limits to exertion. ... would eventually tire and slow down or stop because our brain recognizes signals of overexertion such as acid in our blood. If we were to continue -- because our brain ignored such signals [or because you're being tasered] -- we would exert ourselves until we died. The body has limits for a reason. If these limits are sufficiently exceeded we will die." [LINK]


What does the taser do even when it is working exactly as planned?

It locks-up muscles, perhaps many muscles. Perhaps similar to weight lifters when they strain every muscle in their bodies.

To quote the obviously-incomplete and liability-inducing taser warning sheet:

"The TASER device can cause strong muscle contractions that may result in physical exertion or athletic/sports-type injuries."


Now think!

What would be the exactly worst device to use on someone that might already be worked up in the manner described by Kroll? The subject is already teetering on the edge of their limits of exertion. And the officer comes along, and (in accordance with his training and product promises) gives them a good solid tasering (more physical exertion), and thereby pushes them right over the edge, and the victim ends up dead.

It all makes sense.

Dangerously exerted. Add lots more involuntary physical exertion. Surprise, surprise.


This alternate (non-cardiac) explanation for taser-CAUSED deaths suggested by Dr. Mark Kroll is exactly in alignment with the 'Blood pH' taser death mechanism which won the "$6.2M" FAILURE TO WARN lawsuit against Taser International. [LINK]

Given that Dr. Mark Kroll sits on (...a thick stack of TASR stocks and options, and on...) the scientific and medical advisory board for TASER International, his opinion regarding this self-evident taser-induced death mechanism might be quite useful for the next flood of 'Blood pH' (or anything similar) taser death lawsuits.

The original story is here [LINK]. Plaintiff lawyers may wish to grab a copy and compare this admission to the obviously-incomplete official Taser product warning sheet.


Dr. Mark Kroll's statement may be directly applicable to the likely-inevitable lawsuit regarding the death of Brian Cardall. He's just tossed Taser International into the mix.


Note also - all of this also fits into the RCMP warning that tasers are especially dangerous (including risk of death) when used on people in an agitated state.

...

Remember this?

Compare this crap-fest (less than six months ago) to what we are now hearing at the Braidwood Inquiry:

Tasers safer than Tylenol, engineer tells conference

CBC News (Friday, November 30, 2007) - A biomedical engineer with ties to the company that makes Tasers insists that the stun-guns are safer than Tylenol.

"You have Tylenol in your home? As far as an electronic controlled device killing you, this stuff is safer than Tylenol," Dr. Mark Kroll said Thursday in Las Vegas.

Kroll, an adjunct professor at California Polytechnic State University who specializes in electrical currents, made his comments while addressing a group of 360 doctors, police officers, lawyers and medical examiners attending a three-day conference on sudden death and in-custody deaths.

Kroll and some of the other medical specialists and law enforcement officials who spoke at the conference stressed that Tasers do no harm, despite the outcry over the death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish man who died last month after RCMP officers stunned him with a Taser gun at the Vancouver International Airport.

The federal government is examining the case, as are officials from Poland and the B.C. Coroner's office.

Kroll insisted Tasers are safe under all circumstances, and have never been proven to have directly killed anyone. He said they don't output enough electricity to kill, even if people are stunned several times.

There are several myths surrounding the stun-guns that are not true, Kroll said.

"One myth is that these devices can affect the heart. That myth has almost died out but you still see it once in awhile," he said.

"Another myth is that they're more dangerous [if the person being hit with a Taser is on] drugs, but one of my favourite myths is that these devices can harm pacemakers."

Kroll said even though he consults with Taser International, the maker of Tasers, and sits on the company's advisory board, he said he does not speak for the company.

Others at the sudden death conference, which ends Friday, also had ties to Taser International — three researchers in attendance are consultants with the company, while Taser paid for 10 of its employees to attend.

John Peters, who directs the U.S. Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths [IPICD], said his organization is not influenced by Taser International, despite the ties.

"We're not funded by Taser, we teach at the Taser academy a couple of times a year, but that's it," he said.

He conceded that his conference did not include the work of researchers who raised safety questions about Tasers.

"Their studies were very small, they were isolated," he said. "I thought it wasn't a good fit."

[LINK]

Kroll's ties to Taser also included stock options potentially worth about a million dollars. He sold about half his TASR holdings on 26 Oct 2007, pocketing $413,500. At the same time, he was sitting as chair of Taser's in-house so-called Medical Advisory Board. [LINK] [LINK]

IPICD is not funded by Taser. But IPICD is sponsored by Taser's lawyer, Micheal Brave. [LINK] [LINK]

A call for IEEE Spectrum to retract Kroll's incorrect claims about taser safety

How a Taser Works
The stun gun shocks without killing--but how safe is it? Two experts take a look

IEEE Spectrum magazine - December 2007 [LINK]

By Mark W. Kroll [LINK][LINK], Patrick Tchou

[technical errors highlighted]

...about 1 percent of what's needed to cause the heart of the typical male to fibrillate. So the Taser's average current is far from the danger zone for healthy human hearts. ...a Taser's 100-us pulses are such a small fraction of the heart's chronaxie... ...you wind up with a pretty large margin of safety.

Compare and contrast the above wildly-inaccurate claims with what was released on May 1st, 2010:

Taser International admits that tasers can kill [LINK]


The basic technical mistakes are:

1) Assuming that "average" waveform currents are applicable when in fact the correct measurement would be 'effective'. Nobody knows exactly what the effective current is, but it seems likely to be in the range of about 30 to 50 mA considering the effects. The RMS current is about 150 mA, that's clearly not right either (a bit too high). But the "average" of about 2mA is also clearly not the correct measure (duh-obviously too low, considering the effects). See [LINK].See also [LINK].

2) Forgetting Fourier and failing to consider that the DC pulse after the arc phase is low frequency and thus those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle [LINK]. So the incorrectly-assumed chronaxie safety factor disappears for all low frequency spectral components. Even mentioning "chronaxie" without addressing the DC pulse is an obvious oversight. Again, nobody knows exactly what percentage of the current is low frequency and what percentage is high frequency. But this blogger was (as far as I know) the first to point out that the "experts" at Taser International appear to have slept through the Fourier class during EE 101.

These errors are really quite elementary.

And these errors perfectly explain the apparent discrepancy between what Kroll et al erroneously believed (that tasers were cardiac safe by a wide margin), and the cold hard fact that they aren't as safe as was claimed.

I don't mind dumb errors, but when combined with hubris... 

*** An URGENT call to IEEE Spectrum ***

This above referenced article, especially the section written by Dr. Mark Kroll where he argued that tasers are essentially cardiac-safe, should be formally retracted, or somehow marked as "taser safety claims now known to be incorrect".

Taser International, in their latest training bulletin released 1 May 2010 [LINK], has abandoned their long-standing position that tasers are essentially inherently safe. They now formally acknowledge that tasers can significantly affect the heart if a dart happens to land too close. They also now acknowledge that tasers may cause acidosis. And they acknowledge that these are potentially lethal impacts.

The position taken by Kroll in this article was wrong at the time, and has now been contradicted by the position recently adopted by Taser International themselves. Again, see [LINK].

Because of the human-safety aspect to those false claims of taser safety, it is essential that this article be formally acknowledged as being wrong in those areas where Kroll argued (incorrectly) that tasers are essentially cardiac-safe.

This situation represents an important test for the editors and management of IEEE Spectrum to demonstrate the basic ethics that are such an important part of engineering where it intersects with human safety.

Safety claims now revealed to have been incorrect MUST be formally corrected.

Kroll: "...very short pulses..."

Dr. Mark Kroll wrote: "The actual pulse voltage delivered by the TASER X26 is 600 volts and that is in very short pulses." [LINK]

As I suspected, Dr. Mark Kroll (in spite of his purported education) fails to understand Fourier Transforms. I've made this point before, and I assume Kroll has read this blog cover-to-cover, but he apparently still doesn't get it.

The 19 Hz and all associated spectral components (harmonics) emitted by the X26 taser are 100% continuous duty cycle. These low frequency energies begin when the 5-second cycle begins and are completely continuous for the entire deployment cycle.


There is NO SUCH THING as a "very short" (100+ microsecond) pulse of 19 Hz.

It's impossible.

Think.

Duh!


Plaintiff lawyers may well wish to use this self-evident ignorance displayed by Dr. Kroll against him and against Taser International. I recommend bringing a Prof. of EE to explain to Dr. Kroll about the ins and outs of Fourier Transforms.

He's obviously failed to include such fundamental and elementary basics of waveform theory in his worldview of how tasers work.

Which is completely amazing to me.


PS: The "600 volts" is a new and lower-than-ever claimed value. I've been following the taser issue since late-2007 and I've never seen a claim that the applied voltage after the arc phase is as 'low' as 600 volts. The usual number is 1200 volts. I get the impression that these idiots just make this sh*t up as they go along.

Oh my... a goldmine...

Have a read and then come back to review:

Link= CrunchGear

Start with this:

TASER’s Mark W. Kroll responds in an email:

Him again? Keeps turning up like a bad penny...

The infamous Ruggieri clearly does not count as he is a high-school dropout fired by the Coast Guard where he had been hired by falsely claiming to be an engineer. His junk science manuscript, “Lethality of TASERs” was rejected by the reviewers for the Journal of Forensic Science so he has never had a peer-reviewed article. Ruggieiri got a friend to do a photocopy “publication” of an amusing piece which claimed, among other things, that cardiomyopathy patients could die from the static shock of walking across carpet or combing their hair. He also apparently solved the energy problem by getting 704 watts out of a TASER device powered by a 30 watt pack of 8 AA cells. One glance at this piece will disabuse anyone of the fantasy that it was ever peer reviewed.


Some rebuttals:

Jean | November 27th, 2007 at 1:34 am

Thanks for this article. It seems there are many here who wish to silent you too. The Taser’s respondant Mark W. Kroll should verify his sources. His reply only shows contempt but not a single ounce of consideration for others opinion nor for the truth, and this is precisely what we could object to Taser. Recently a UN committee expressed concerns regarding the Taser saying that is looks like a torture gun.

About Ruggieri’s credentials, one should read the following article:

www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11338

“Ruggieri said he left high school to attend college in New York. He later obtained a master’s degree in computer science from the University of Phoenix. Ruggieri’s resume shows that he is a professional engineer with licenses in five states. He said he has investigated electrical accidents for federal agencies and helped write electrical safety standards for top electrical laboratories and commissions. (His) study, published … in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, concluded that the shocks are powerful enough to cause fatal heart rhythms. It is one of the few scientific studies of Taser’s electric jolt in which the company did not participate. Journal Editor Marvin Specter said the academy is affiliated with the National Society of Professional Engineers and is made up of experts in several engineering disciplines. The Journal lists a technical review committee for Ruggieri’s study that includes 20 engineers, including one well-known Taser consultant. The reviewers’ identities are confidential and have not been released, Specter said. Specter said Ruggieri’s paper went through a rigorous peer-review process before being published in the biannual journal”



Gerteg Brueller | March 30th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

"The comment of Mark Kroll is part of why the Taser Co. has lost so much respect. I am a professor of physics and electrical engineering and I have verified the study made by Mr. Ruggieri. Also, an esteemed professor at Duke University at the United States, and a close former student of my at a national laboratory has also confirmed Ruggieri’s testing and results. I looked up Mark Kroll and note that he is employed by Taser. Why did he not reveal that he has a large axe to grind? This company has lost so much respect and affection and we will never use these equipment here in this country."


Anonymous Engineer | June 14th, 2007 at 7:53 am

Ignoring the debate on the merits of Tasers for a moment, there is a serious flaw in the argument. Did Mark Kroll (Chief Technologist of St. Jude Medical Cardiac Rhythm Management) and apparently on the board of directors at Taser, seriously make this dismissive statement:

“He also apparently solved the energy problem by getting 704 watts out of a TASER device powered by a 30 watt pack of 8 AA cells.”

If that is Mark’s considered opinion, he is clearly incompetent to speak on the issue. It is TRIVIAL to get 704 watts out of a 30 watt pack of batteries. It doesn’t break the laws of conservation of energy. ‘Watts’ is a measure of POWER, not ENERGY. A chief technologist working for Taser should be competent enough to know the difference. For example, you could charge a capacitor from the 30 watt pack of batteries for 12 seconds, then discharge the capacitor in half a second … that would give you an output of 720 watts. (Ignoring inefficiencies - I’m pointing out the lack of logic here, not designing a circuit for them)

I hope that this was only a momentarily lapse of competence on Taser’s behalf. I hope.

(PS: This comment is anonymous because it doesn’t rely on my identity to give it value. Any competent engineer will confirm the details.)


Well, I can vouch for that basic fact about power and energy. If a so-called Ph.D. doesn't know that of the top of his head, then he should turn in his diploma.

The above exchange reflects very badly on that cornered wild animal that Taser has become. Very dangerous.

What's the simplest explanation?

CLAY, N.Y. - An Onondaga County grand jury won't charge a Syracuse-area police officer who used a Taser on a man who later died. Christopher Jackson [#329, LINK] went into cardiac arrest in March after Clay Police Officer Kevin Drumm stunned him with a taser. Authorities were called to Jackson's apartment for a domestic complaint involving his mother. While Drumm was interviewing a witness, the 37-year-old Jackson tried to grab him. After warning that he was going to use a taser, Drumm shot Jackson with the stun device. Within 90 seconds of handcuffing Jackson, officers noticed he was unresponsive and called for paramedics. Jackson was pronounced dead at a local hospital. [LINK]

"...within 90 seconds..." What are the odds?


Kroll insisted tasers are safe under all circumstances... [LINK]

Do you think, maybe, possibly, perhaps, that Kroll is just plain wrong?

The first of Clark's three laws [LINK]: When a distinguished but elderly scientist [Kroll, but he's not THAT old, and neither is he THAT distinguished] states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Kroll thinks that a taser death is impossible [we're not talking about falling down here].

I think that Kroll is very probably wrong.

Who is "Dr." Mark W. Kroll

First - Dr. Mark W. Kroll is NOT a real (medical) doctor.

"Kroll holds a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the University of Minnesota; and a MBA from the University of St. Thomas."

I don't see any medical qualifications listed there at all. None.


For a review of Kroll's ideas on medical matters (such as the relative risk of 'excited delirium' as compared to a good solid tasering), please review the multiple pages of comments starting here [LINK].


If you want to see the laughing face of The Man that forgot Fourier, then click here [LINK].

MORE: Kroll is also the author of Taser International's gold-plated liability bulls-eye article on "Cardiac Safety". I'm not positive, but it appears that this article has been yanked from their website.

Plaintiffs' lawyers need to get a copy of this article that compares repeated taser hits to being repeatedly hit with a ping pong ball.

Contact the blog if you require pointers.

"You won't find them..." Really? UPDATE

A few posts back I mentioned the article by Capt. Greg Meyer (ret.) - SPONSORED BY TASER.

He stated that "...you won't find..." any studies critical of taser safety.

So I sent him a sample list of five such studies. The list was intended to be just a simple counter-example with four spares. There are many more such studies.

So Capt. was WRONG. He didn't do his research. He claims to have a journalism degree, but he merely prints propaganda from Taser. He apparently wasn't even aware of the ever-growing science on the other side of the issue. Not very good journalism. Seriously.

So, prompted by my e-mail, Capt apparently called up his apparently-good-friend, a certain millionaire Director of Taser: Dr. Mark Kroll, and updated his article with a Kroll-quote (i.e. rubbish) without backing down. Kroll basically states that swine models are a poor replacement for human studies.

Okay humanoid-with-a-bowtie; stop talking and open your shirt.

I challenge Dr. Millionaire Kroll to allow an experiment to be conducted upon his person.

An X26 taser directly across the chest (with barbs carefully placed for worst case highest risk) and tasered repeatedly until the batteries run out (about 200 five-second shocks). This should be about 16 minutes duration, not including the short gaps between each trigger press. This shouldn't take any more than about half an hour.

According to Dr. Kroll's theories, he will be perfectly fine. No risk of any cardiac impact.

And I'd like to see the test supervised by Ruggieri to ensure that Taser doesn't pull any funny business.

So - just do it. Put up or shut up.

Dr. Mark Kroll's arguments torn to shreds (call the SEC)

Dr. [not a real (medical) doctor] Mark Kroll, a bought and paid-for Taser International shrill (*), wrote a letter to The Salt Lake Tribune in a pathetic attempt to blame "excited delirium" (solely) for the death of Brian Cardell. [LINK]

Between the comments on the Salt Lake Tribune website [LINK] (and don't miss the several pages of comments...), and the Truth ... Not Tasers blog [LINK], and here [LINK], Dr. Kroll's pathetic arguments and purported facts have been systematically shredded by the members of the public.

All that's left is that he believes that over-exertion can kill, and tasers cannot. But he fails to acknowledge that tasers cause uncontrolled and extreme physical exertion. Ba da bing.


* Mark W. Kroll "...holds an option to acquire 36,000 shares of stock at an exercise price of $7.22 ... with an expiration date of January 7, 2014..." [SEC Form 4/A, filed 01/06/09].

If he, a Taser insider in all senses of the word, can issue such twisted propaganda with a view of defending the indefensible, and if he can get the TASR stock back up over $21, then he makes a cool half-million dollars.

Aren't there SEC rules about such stock market manipulation? Aren't such company-originating propaganda supposed to be subject to SEC rules? With disclaimers, disclosures and such-like? Are company insiders and major options holders allowed to manipulate the market like this?

HELLO SEC REGULATORS !!!

2008 - a year in review...

The Year 2008 In Review

(And this is just a sample. It's not even all the major highlights.)


We started the year 2008 with a review of an "article" in IEEE Spectrum written by Taser's leading braintrust member, Dr. Mark Kroll. We more-fully exposed Dr. Kroll's extreme financial ties to Taser. [LINK] & [LINK] Then we dissected his Taser mouthpiece article more fully. [LINK] It was also noted that Dr. Kroll is a serial non-discloser of his close ties to Taser. [LINK]

Also very early this year, we noted that the X26 taser has a electrical waveform with characteristics that are the exact opposite of those characteristics that were claimed to be the reason that the M26 taser was 'safe'. The older 1999-era M26 taser is high frequency and low duty cycle. The 2003-era X26 taser is low frequency and very high continuous 100% duty cycle. I've not seen this critical technical distinction high-lighted in any other source. Taser's own data sheets mention the raw information, but not a word about this critical change to the waveform. [LINK] [LINK] and [LINK]. See also [LINK].

Some of the basics of Canadian law jumped out at me. I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps there is 'case law' that has taken away some of our fundamental rights (I doubt it). But some of the mistakes being made are (quite literally) elementary. Lawful 'force' is a noun. It's not a damn verb. Police officers and officials that think that they're allowed to use painful electric shock as a form of on-the-spot torture to coerce (force - verb) someone to obey are morons. Let me repeat - morons. The language used to forbid such behaviour is crystal clear. If 'failure to obey' is an offense, then add it to the list of charges and bring the subject before the court. You're not allowed to torture. And Tasers-R-Torture. [LINK]

By the 6th day, it had been noted that former Taser Board of Director member Mr. Bernie Kerik was facing charges that might result in him being jailed for up to 142 years. [LINK] [LINK] (Update: now facing just 28 years. [LINK]) In Canada, we have Sgt Darren Laur (Victoria, BC) and his 'apparent and perceived conflict of interest' [LINK], and coroner James Cairns' jaunts [LINK]. There are quite a few more ethical lapses associated with Taser and/or Taser-associated folks - eg. [LINK] - review the whole blog for more.

Shooting holes in Taser propaganda is a continuing theme of this blog. After Smith's appearance before SECU, I blasted away at the pure BS Taser propaganda. [LINK][LINK][LINK] There is so much propaganda from Taser that is so weak that almost anyone with a modicum of skepticism can instantly see the logical and technical flaws.

By early February, I'd tracked down a certain Taser fan-boy, (apparently) named David E. Zuskin, who (it seems) had been spamming the Internet with his nonsense trademark 'TASERS SAVE LIVES EVERYDAY' (in all caps) - which is both factually and grammatically incorrect. He has since installed a brain and now keeps a much lower profile (now he's 'Bob'). But he's still out there spamming the Internet - and nursing his investments [smirk...]. He got his bum smacked by his ISP [LINK] after clumsily entering my blog e-mail address into many investment-related news letters as some sort of punishment. Typical... ...these law and order (sic) folks are the ones that will break the law to maintain their order. LOL.

Another theme of this blog is taser abuse, misuse and overuse. For some reason [LINK], tasers are constantly being used where there is little to zero justification. Honestly, I don't care if the police are equipped with flame-throwers, so long as everyone is being perfectly honest. But if the manufacturer of flame-throwers starts claiming that they're perfectly safe, and that the burnt-to-a-crisp subjects are simply examples of Spontaneous Human Combustion, then those flame-throwers need to be put away until the brains are reinstalled and lawsuits settled.

By March, we had had a visit from Grettir, who may or may not be Dr. Mark Kroll himself (it certainly sounded like him). [LINK] The flawed thinking by Grettir was crystal clear - some of the logical errors were shocking in their simplicity - such as double-dipping for the natural protection of everybody's shared anatomical characteristics. The other points were equally easy to shred. It's clear that even self-styled big thinkers sometimes make small mistakes.

I note with interest that as these sorts of pro-taser arguments have been shredded by this blog, they tend to disappear from the Taser PR machine. The only argument that they've been using recently has been the 'reduces injuries to the police officers'. Yeah, so would a 'shoot first and let God figure it out' policy. They've very few arguments left standing.

By April, I had noticed that the higher RMS current values had been expunged from the later data sheets. [LINK] Taser would probably say that it was to reduce confusion. Yeah thanks for thinking of us. Nothing to do with ~160 milliamperes RMS being well above the safety limits, eh?

BC Transit Police revealed their empty-headed policies in April. Tasering fare-cheats for gawd's sake. [LINK] Idiots!

Safety margins were examined here [LINK]. They didn't stand-up very well to even a modest application of scrutiny.

But the most important contribution of this blog might be highlighting the relationship between the M26 waveform, and the X26 waveform, and the potentially huge impact of the seemingly-minor change to the waveform. A little DC offset changes everything - it lowers frequency (more dangerous), and it VASTLY increases duty cycle (to 100% continuous). It really seems that Taser forgot about Fourier. [LINK]

See also the guesstimated spectrograms [LINK].

We started plotting the number of taser-associated deaths per month, by month. The running average jumped up from much less than 1 per month before the introduction of the X26 taser in 2003, to a fairly steady 7 per month after that point. Perhaps it's just a coincidence. Perhaps all these deaths are just coincidences. [LINK] and others... [LINK]

In May, the brave BC Mounties tasered an 82-year old man in his hospital bed. Because he had a knife. It was 'a very dangerous situation'. So the frightened officer walked up really, really close to the elderly man and zapped him at close (zero) range. Yeah, it makes no sense to me either. [LINK]

Taser chairman Tom Smith more-or-less accidentally admitted that tasers takes one life for every 70 'lives saved'. [LINK] Well - ah - that's nice. Except that they claim that almost every time a taser is deployed, it counts as a life saved. Which is nonsense. And that just leaves the lives lost. Not to mention the Karma issue [LINK] of saving some lives at the expense of instituting a street level "death lottery" [LINK] on everyday citizens that do not deserve such risks.

We've reported incidents where diabetics in comas [LINK], people sleeping [LINK], and those having epileptic episodes [LINK] are tasered. These sorts of examples, which are almost endless in number, shred the old stale argument about 'just obey the police and you won't be tasered'. If you see that argument, please be gentle to the weak and ill-informed mind that houses it.

Another theme is the extraordinarily bad Taser-certified training. Given the actual behaviour of some supposedly-trained police officers, the only possible explanation is that the Taser-certified Trainers are brainwashed numskulls, and the Taser-certified training material is so poor as to be considered evil. [LINK] How else can you explain this nonsense? [LINK] !!!

This issue is (far and away) more than sufficient to fully justify a moratorium to allow time to surgically removed all the Taser propaganda from the skulls of those that have been Taser-certifiably brainwashed. It might take a year or two to sort out.

It's probably time to remind the readers that this taser issue is not just in the cross-hairs of a few outrage civilian bloggers. People with PhDs are also pointing out that some of Taser's so-called studies are useless. [LINK] And a more skeptical mind might ask, 'Wouldn't the pro-taser 'researchers' be familiar with the basics of Statistics 101?' Are these uselessly-small sample sizes an innocent mistake? ...or a sign of deeper issues?

Inconvenient facts like this [LINK] must annoy Taser: "...people with heart problems are about 5% of the general population (2% to 8% averages to 5%), but they represent 54% of the (tasered-then-dead) victims. That's about an 11-to-1 ratio that needs to be explained. Well obviously [sic] there's no connection [sic] between the taser and the heart. None at all...[ROLLS EYES]..."

Mid-way through 2008, the NIJ released a report that found no evidence of a high risk from tasers. Well DUH! What about low to moderate risk? And NIJ excluded huge swaths of the population, which add up to most of the population. [LINK]

Then a truth-stretcher named Billo turned the NIJ statement around to claim that this proved that Tasers-R-Safe. [LINK] Which it doesn't. [LINK]

Oh my! Then it was noted by another blogger that Billo the Blogger is a certain William Oliver and he is sitting on the same damn NIJ Taser Study panel!! Oh my gawd. [LINK][LINK] and especially [LINK] !!! Isn't that amazing!! This unabashed taser fan-boy is sitting on the NIJ panel "studying" tasers. And then he systematically twists the NIJ findings to suit Taser. What a bunch of clumsy clots.

On the subject of clumsy clots - I discovered by accident that Taser's lawyer Micheal Brave was registering domain names that promote "Excited Delirium" and he points these URLs to a seeming-front organization. Read it here [LINK] and [LINK] You're either in on it, or you're being played like a trumpet.

Taser likes to highlight its legal record, but not that fact that they actually settled many cases to make them go away. [LINK] [LINK]

By September, the RCMP had been body-slammed by an independent report [LINK]. But by mid-December, the RCMP thumbed their noses at the Parliamentary committee SECU that directed that the RCMP recategorize tasers as impact weapons (to cut back on the abuse, misuse, and overuse). [LINK][LINK] I guess the RCMP doesn't take them seriously, but they should... [LINK]

Still in September, the Canadian Police Research Center (seemingly acting as a branch of Taser sometimes, sat beside Taser at SECU for gosh sakes!) report failed to note that tasers are already considered to be firearms. [LINK] You'd think that might be worth noting. They had their chain yanked in August [LINK].

Taser's French distributor got himself arrested. [LINK] For some reason, Taser seems to be occasionally associated with people (Di Zazzo, Kerik) that are not as far above the law as they thought.


There is so much more. The above tidbits are just a sample of the issues that we've discussed. I've made some very interesting findings along the way.

It's been a crazy year for Taser. Their stock has tanked "due to oil prices", but I believe that the next year is when the perfect storm of cold hard facts will intersect with the legal system to make the year 2009 even more interesting for them.

X26 Taser specifications (2003, 2007) and Kroll's IEEE article

X26 Specification sheet from 2003 clearly shows that the body current is 0.151 amps (or 151 mA) RMS.




The RMS value has been expunged from the 2007 version of the same specification sheet. Taser International and their in-house minion are making the preposterous claim that the EFFECTIVE current is the AVERAGE. They hold-forth the insane position that the 2.1 mA average is the only current measurement worth mentioning. This claim is completely unjustifiable.



It can be seen that Kroll's original Figure 3 [from his infamous IEEE Spectrum article, edited in red] places the "Taser shock" (see original black dot) as being low frequency and about 2 mA.

We are left to conclude that the taser shock isn't capable of even locking-up muscles (but that's what it does), let alone interfering with breathing (ditto), and well away from causing the heart to behave erratically (ditto).

Kroll et al claim that the taser waveform has magical properties that make it more likely to affect the muscle and less likely to affect the heart. Chief of these claims is that the pulses are very very very short (~100 microseconds).

THINK!

100 microseconds of 19 Hz?

That's like saying that you can squeeze an elephant into a matchbox. Actually the nonsensical ratio is even larger than that.

I believe that this whole thing stems from Taser International and their in-house "experts" not understanding that when they added the DC pulse after the arc phase on the X26 taser, they didn't realize that they were (probably unintentionally) walking away from the safety features of high frequency and very very low duty cycle.



Above graph (Reilly) shows 1999-model M26 waveform versus 2003-model X26 waveform. Note that the M26 waveform is basically a short pulse of AC (more or less centered around the zero axis). The X26 waveform is basically an offset DC pulse, that makes it primarily low frequency and thus 100% continuous duty cycle for as long as the trigger is held down.



The X26 was introduced to the market in 2003. Find 2003 on the graph below...



The 19 Hz spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle for the entire 5-seconds, or as long as the trigger is held down... The claims about "short pulses" are utter nonsense. Any EE should know this by instinct. Any Professor of Electrical Engineering would probably be so incensed by this stupid error that they'd testify for free.

Taser International's very own Mark Kroll is on the record referring to the very short pulses (100us). Even while simultaneously acknowledging that the X26 waveform is low frequency (19Hz).

The billion dollar error. Right there.

Kroll's mole-role trolls

The CMAJ editorial [LINK] mentioned that they had noted that some 'researchers' occasionally neglect to mention their close connections to Taser.

"The scientific literature bears witness to a small group of dedicated researchers who diligently write letters to journals pointing out flaws in studies reporting harm from tasers. Unfortunately, some of these researchers occasionally neglect to mention their participation on TASER International’s medical advisory board or board of directors. 11,12"

The two references 11 and 12 are as follows:

11. Kroll M, Luceri RM, Calkins H. A very interesting case study involving a TASER conducted electrical weapon (CEW) used on a patient with a pacemaker. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2007;18:E29-30.
12. Kroll MW, Calkins H, Luceri RM. Electronic control devices and the clinical milieu. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:732-3.

So he occasionally neglects to mention that has been on the Taser Board of Directors since 2003. He sometimes also forgets to mention that he is (was?) Chairman of their in-house so-called Medical Advisory Board. There is normally no proactive disclosure* of the many tens of thousands of stock options that he has been presented with (worth more if the stock goes up, worth less if the stock goes down).

[*The stock options are - of course - disclosed in the legal sense in the applicable SEC filings. I'm referring to being forthright with the parties to his various communications: e-mails or published articles or letters.]

And this isn't the first time that he's been caught neglecting to declare his Taser connections.

Wired, June 2007: "One title Kroll neglects to put in his sig -- or mention in his note -- is that he's also on the board of Taser International." [LINK]

And these are just the examples that I've stumbled across. I don't know if there are other examples...

But if you walk past a haystack and spot a couple of needles, then the haystack is likely to contain more than just a couple of needles.

So, what do you think?

Taser Director Kroll invokes "U.L."

Dr. Mark W. Kroll, Member of the Board of Directors of Taser International:

"The X26 taser satisfies the Underwriters Laboratory electric fence standards..." [LINK]

According to reports, tasers have NEVER been certified by the Underwriters Laboratory [LINK] [LINK]. And if it hasn't been tested by an approved laboratory (certified by U.L.), then this claim is essentially false.

It seems apparent that tasers would not, and could not, actually pass U.L.'s scrutiny. If they could, they would have already - and Taser International would be proudly claiming the fact (instead of leaving the false impression).

Kroll has been informed that the electric fence standards DO NOT APPLY to tasers for several very good reasons. Differences include application, waveform, duty cycle, frequency spectrum, and probably even build quality. He knows all this, and yet he chooses to ignore it.

Furthermore, the specified output from the X26 taser is 100 microcoulombs (100 uC). And yet the published X26 waveform graph clearly shows that "100 uC" is a significant understatement [LINK]. So even playing Kroll's semantic games, it's still not clear that the basic facts are exactly as he claims.

Taser International has reportedly had their wrist slapped before for falsely invoking the U.L. trademarks [ibed]. And here they go again...


It's like cleaning up after a pigeon. It only takes him about five seconds to emit the crap,but it takes us twenty minutes to clean it up.

[HT: CM & TNT]

Blog hit of the Week: Kroll receives my memo

Mound, Minnesota [Kroll's ISP location, as far as I know] arrived from email01.secureserver.net [direct hit from an email server used by Taser International, probably] on "www.Excited-Delirium.com: A call for IEEE Spectrum to retract Kroll's incorrect claims about taser safety". - about 24 hours ago.

Hey Kroll, why did Taser International yank your infamous "Cardiac Safety" webpage article? Was it because it was WRONG and DANGEROUSLY MISLEADING? Hey, I'm just asking.

I'm also just asking IEEE Spectrum to consider doing roughly the same thing to your infamous IEEE Spectrum article as Taser International did to your "Cardiac Safety".

Actually I'd like IEEE Spectrum to leave the article on-line, but prominently marked as false and linked to a formal retraction with corrected details. That way, rather than just disappear, it could serve as a warning to future generations of the dangers of hubris.

Maneuvering for a legal 'soft-landing'?

I've noticed a few very subtle clues that indicate to me that Taser has been carefully laying the groundwork to try to achieve a legal 'soft-landing'.

For example, it is occasionally mentioned that Kroll does not speak for Taser (which almost makes no sense anyway). And then Kroll makes outlandish claims about the level of safety ("Safer than Tylenol" and similar nonsense). It is almost as if they laying a trap that legal attacks will be aimed towards Taser, but based on Kroll's statements. Then Taser will suddenly jump away from Kroll's opinions.

And the exact wording used by Tom Smith when questioned is very well rehearsed. Sometimes his mouth is moving, but nothing meaningful is being emitted. Many examples of very clever non-answers.

Also, I've seen the writings of Taser lawyer Michael Brave. There are some very clever word smithing that can be interpreted one way or the other.

It'll take an attentive lawyer to cut-off their pre-planned legal escapes.

Kroll actually testifies in Nugent's Taser-Death trial

Question:

I wonder what Taser International sponsored moron they're going to install in the witness box? [LINK]

Wow. "Dr." Mark Kroll.

"Bioelectricity expert [?] in Winnfield manslaughter trial says Taser did not cause suspect's death" [LINK]

Kroll reportedly said, "There's zero negative effect on the body." This claim is obviously not correct. Even Taser International acknowledges numerous risks.

If the opposing lawyer fails to make Kroll cry like a baby on the witness stand, then I'll be very disappointed. It won't be for lack of documented openings.

Ask him why even Taser International disagrees with his over-the-top claims?

Ask him why cardiac capture in 1 of just 8 subjects tested with a newer, presumably safer, taser device?

Fort Worth PD Chief seeks to remove the Kroll-hubris feature from taser

Taser International and their minion "Dr." Mark Kroll, an electrical engineer (not a medical doctor) that dabbles in medical matters, have repeatedly claimed that tasers can be used repeatedly without fear of serious medical consequences (such as, to choose one example, DEATH). Kroll's infamous "paper" (sic), that compared repeated taser hits to being hit with a ping pong ball, seems to have been yanked from the Taser International website. It was previously given prominent exposure under "Cardiac Safety" (sic).

Now the Chief of the Fort Worth police is explicitly suggesting that Taser International reprogram the taser so that a continuous trigger pull is limited to a ten seconds discharge cycle (instead of endless tasered-until-dead as it presently is designed). [LINK]

The liability issues swirling around Taser International are getting thick.

The Ministry of Public Enlightenment

Taser International has some amazingly bizarre propaganda on their website.

One particularly hilarious page, recently referenced via the Wired article, is entitled "Why do certain anti-police groups blame Taser for injuries or death", written by Taser minion Mark W. Kroll.

First, note the old trick of the "injuriesanddeath" (essentially all one word) muddle. An intentional muddle I suspect. I've already discussed this immoral mixing in several previous posts.

One reason I find their webpage funny is that the title is obviously aimed at Amnesty International, which Kroll's propaganda price refers to as an "anti-police group". This is a sleazy and obvious 'It's us versus them" trick that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. And if you fall for it, then you are being played like a trumpet.

I guess they're not going to update the title to account for the fact that Amnesty International is not alone. The American Medical Association (AMA), the United Nations, the Canadian RCMP, and the recent Braidwood Inquiry - all of them - have issued formal acknowledgements that tasers are capable of causing death. The AMA even includes the phrase, "...directly or indirectly...".

So Kroll, are these additional groups also anti-police? The RCM Police are anti-police? The AMA?

And with respect to the Latin-laced logic, it's basically a taunt that the taser leaves little if any postmortem clues.

Too bad about the taser's "Curious Temporal Asymmetry".

IEEE Spectrum - How a taser kills

Before you read the article, keep in mind the following facts:

Mark W. Kroll is a Director of Taser. He just (10/26/07) sold 25,000 shares and raked in $413,500. He still retains another 20,833 shares. So he has sold off more than half of his holdings of Taser stock. Keep this in mind so you understand where he is coming from.

If what he is saying were perfectly true, then nobody would EVER die from being tasered - no matter what. His arguments PROVE (sic) that death by tasering is well nigh impossible. But the facts are that people have died from tasering under some circumstances. Even ONE example proves the point, and arguably there have been many more than one. So, unfortunately that leaves a rather large smoking hole in the 'air-tight' (sic) logic presented by Mr. Kroll.

That's the really nice things about facts. It only takes one single solitary counter-example to leave the expert standing in a bucket of turds.

The other fallacy overlooked are the numbers. These guys do a few experiments on a few pigs (exact number NOT mentioned) and they try to extrapolate this to "...according to Taser, its guns are now fired more than 620 times a day and have been used a total of more than 680,000 times worldwide."

Well, other people have tested a few pigs and ended up with two loads of fried pork. Refer to posting below titled "Acute Effects of TASER X26 Discharges in a Swine Model" to see another rigorous experiment.

Taser has (more-so in the past) claimed that the taser is perfectly safe. Once this lie became obviously incorrect, they've retreated from this position a bit. But along comes Kroll again making the same old (wrong) argument that it is by-design perfectly safe. Which it ISN'T.

If they were to claim that the taser is mostly safe and that it would probably kill only a few (few hundred?) people a year, then that would be more honest.


Here's the article (3-pages), come back here after you're done.

Link= IEEE Spectrum


Note the section:

"Even so, we were comforted to learn that stun guns do not normally pose any cardiac risk. The full length of the Taser dart tip would have to embed itself into the skin and chest-wall muscle of a relatively small, thin person to get within the range of distances where we found the heart to be most vulnerable. Furthermore, the most sensitive region for the induction of fibrillation covers just a small area. And it is unlikely that two darts would land there."

Update - I just noticed this: "...unlikely that two darts would land there..." Really? "two". All it takes is one dart to land in the critical area and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff's law will ensure that what goes in one dart will come out the other dart. (Pssst! That's why it's called a 'circuit'.)

The 3rd page is a very cautious criticism of Taser. I suspect that there's more than one off-design mode, but let's pretend for the time being that this is the only issue.

Did they mention that "unlikely" multiplied by 226300 usages per year ("620" x 365) equals certain death at least several times per year?

That's the thing with statistics:

'unlikely' times big numbers becomes CERTAINTY.

So they have unintentionally made my point. Tasers are mostly safe, but will (as a statistical certainty) kill several (several hundred?) people per year.

Now that we've established a common understanding, then the lawsuits should start going the other way more often.