The Prevarications of Markiewicz (Prussian Blue)

[TlsMS93]

This letter mentions a request for 10 gas detectors but does not say for which buildings. Were they all for Krema II? It could be to anticipate a chemical war. In any case, how could the extermination continue with this problem unresolved since it was causing poisoning of personnel? If there were protective masks, this request for detectors is ineffective, as is the poisoning. We have a circular problem here.

It's only a problem if you believe the Nazis would have been devoted to the well being of the Jewish slave laborers they were using to clear the gas chambers of Jews they had killed in a program of mass genocide. Within the mainstream framework, the issue was a reduction in the effectiveness of the Jewish SK due to some being poisoned.

It did not solve the circular problem that I mentioned. There is no reason to ask for a gas detector if there is a protective mask and if the request was not met, extermination would be unfeasible.

[bombsaway]

It's possible I am misremembering exactly what Rudolf argued, I'm not going to go back and check right now. Regardless, there did need a significant amount of Zyklon B in the room to the point where it would have been comparable to the HCN in the delousing chambers for the story to be true. And no, I'm not going to read your AI slop. But looking through the sources, it looks like Rudolf is using a different standard, which is how much to kill a room full of people whereas the literature you're citing is based on safety protocols. This has already been explained to you.

The source Rudolf cites here about toxicity in humans https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/toxin ... anide/363/

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA028501.pdf

says humans and goats and monkeys have similar profiles.

The source has a table for toxicity in shows concentrations of PPM of 500 killing consistently in 10 minutes (pg 16)

When concentration goes up to 1200 ppm, animals die consistently in 3 minutes.

Rudolf says 10,000 ppm is needed to kill in 5 minutes. This is just laughable given such sources and makes me come to the conclusion that Rudolf is deeply mentally compromised and I shouldn't take him seriously on this stuff despite his scientific credentials.

It did not solve the circular problem that I mentioned. There is no reason to ask for a gas detector if there is a protective mask and if the request was not met, extermination would be unfeasible.

Unfeasible because you think it would be absolutely intolerable to the Nazis for the Jewish SKs to occasionally become sick, thereby lowering their work capacity?

[TlsMS93]

No, it is not feasible because successive gassings would not have occurred. I repeat, Tauber claims that the victims destroyed the electrical and ventilation systems, so successive gassings are not feasible.

Now, for those who assume that these were mere morgues with crematoriums attached, they see no problem in the lack of protective masks for the Sonderkommandos or in this request for a gas detector.

[fireofice]

Bombsaway is baffled on why it takes more to kill a room full of people with people consciously trying to survive longer by holding their breath rather than one animal.

[bombsaway]

No, it is not feasible because successive gassings would not have occurred. I repeat, Tauber claims that the victims destroyed the electrical and ventilation systems, so successive gassings are not feasible.

Now, for those who assume that these were mere morgues with crematoriums attached, they see no problem in the lack of protective masks for the Sonderkommandos or in this request for a gas detector.

This is a separate argument (destruction of ventilation).

What were the 10 gas detectors for exactly?

Bombsaway is baffled on why it takes more to kill a room full of people with people consciously trying to survive longer by holding their breath rather than one animal.

I was commenting on Rudolf's statements about toxicity. He never brings up this argument

even so

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The maximum oxygen consumption reduction a normal, untrained person could achieve under optimal conditions depends on their ability to lower their metabolic rate. Here’s a breakdown:

Factors Affecting Oxygen Consumption
Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR):

At rest, a normal person consumes about 0.2-0.25 liters of oxygen per minute (~300-360 ml/min).
This consumption is driven by basic bodily functions (e.g., breathing, circulation, maintaining body temperature).
Relaxation and Minimal Movement:

By remaining motionless and deeply relaxed, metabolic demands can be reduced to the basal level (~0.15-0.2 liters/min).
Cooling the Body:

Lowering body temperature (within safe limits) reduces metabolic activity, as the body requires less energy for thermoregulation.
In optimal, cool conditions, oxygen consumption could drop further.
Breathing Control:

Techniques like controlled slow breathing or intermittent breath-holding reduce the rate of oxygen exchange and delay the onset of hypoxia.
Estimated Oxygen Reduction for a Normal Person
Under optimal conditions, a normal person might reduce oxygen consumption as follows:

Baseline (relaxed, no movement): ~0.2 liters/min.
With extreme relaxation and cooling: ~0.15 liters/min.
With controlled breathing (e.g., periodic breath-holding): ~0.1-0.15 liters/min.
This represents a potential reduction of 40-50% from normal resting oxygen consumption.

Practical Limits
While it’s theoretically possible to reduce oxygen consumption further:

Normal individuals lack the training and adaptations needed for extreme reductions (e.g., diving reflex in free divers).
Untrained people will experience discomfort from rising CO 2 , levels before achieving substantial oxygen savings.

Conclusion
For a normal, untrained person in optimal conditions (cool environment, deep relaxation, minimal activity), oxygen consumption could be reduced by 40-50%, from ~0.25 liters/min to as low as 0.1-0.15 liters/min. This would modestly extend survival in an oxygen-limited environment. However, survival would still ultimately be limited by CO2 toxicity rather than oxygen depletion.

So even assuming everyone did this (which is just an insane assumption - which I might as easily argue is the opposite of what happened - mass panic), it doesn't substantially change things or justify Rudolf's calculations.

I'm frankly baffled by the notion that these are strong arguments.

[fireofice]

I have no idea how accurate any of that AI slop is. ChatGPT is not some infallible thing and you can't use that in substitute for evidence.

https://promptyes.com/blog/confidently-incorrect/

It doesn't have to be the case that "all" would hold their breath. Just one has to. They have to kill all of them after all!

Also I never claimed it explained all the difference. The main difference is that it takes more to kill lots of people than 1 animal. Bombsaway is still confused on why these aren't comparable.

[bombsaway]

I have no idea how accurate any of that AI slop is. ChatGPT is not some infallible thing and you can't use that in substitute for evidence.

https://promptyes.com/blog/confidently-incorrect/

It doesn't have to be the case that "all" would hold their breath. Just one has to. They have to kill all of them after all!

Also I never claimed it explained all the difference. The main difference is that it takes more to kill lots of people than 1 animal. Bombsaway is still confused on why these aren't comparable.

From the study Rudolf referenced when saying there was a difference

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA028501.pdf

I. Man has a susceptibility to HCN similar to that of the resistant goat or monkey.
2. Only in the mouse are LCtSO values available at various exposure times from 0.5
to 30 minutes. These values allow estimation of the LCtSO as related to exposure time. The values
for mice were multiplied by 4 to obtain LCt50 estimates for man at each time interval. These
derived LCt5O's are comparable to available corresponding values for the goat, thus placing man
near the goat in sensitivity to HCN.
3. The LCt5O for HCN in man increases with exposure time in a manner similar to
that determined experimentally in animals.
K 4. The dose-response distribution found at a given exposure would apply over the
exposure range of 0.5 to 30 minutes.
5. Since all experimental values are for inactive animals, resting breathing rates
must be used. The resting rate for man iN assumed to be 10 liters per minute.
S6. The frequency of death for man (1%, 16%, 30%, 50%, 84%, and 99%) is similar
to that for the resistant goat.
The LCtS0 values for man, shown in table 6, were derived by using the frequency of
deaths in a population of goats as a model to derive corresponding percentages of deaths in a
population of men whose LCt50's were those established as explained in assumption 2, above.

It took about 600 ppm to consistently kill an inactive goat (unconscious) in 10 minutes. Rudolf is totally off base here, and you don't seem to be batting an eye.

[fireofice]

So this whole back and forth is just going to be bombsaway not understanding that it takes more to kill more people than one? OK I'm done here.

[bombsaway]

So this whole back and forth is just going to be bombsaway not understanding that it takes more to kill more people than one? OK I'm done here.

How much more? Statistically sure. If a certain concentration kills 90% of people in 10 minutes, then probably an extra 5 would be needed. But you don't need concentrations like the kind Rudolf is talking about, likely at least 5x less going by the data in the study he referenced. He's bad at this, is what I'm saying, and you should care, if you're treating him as an authority. He seems very mentally compromised to me.

[fireofice]

Another thing bombsaway left out is this:

Talmage and Rodgers suggested that human beings are roughly only half as sensitive as monkeys to hydrogen-cyanide-gas exposure due to our slower
breathing (smaller breathing volume per body mass; Talmage/Rodgers 2002, p. 214). The above concentrations could therefore be doubled.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 2-tcoa.pdf

So he's completely ignoring that Rudolf gives reasons for not going with the McNamera numbers anyway.

Also notice bombsaway has not given any reasons for rejecting Rudolf's calculations or what is wrong with them. He has just asserted his opinion. OK cool opinion bro.

[bombsaway]

Another thing bombsaway left out is this:

Talmage and Rodgers suggested that human beings are roughly only half as sensitive as monkeys to hydrogen-cyanide-gas exposure due to our slower
breathing (smaller breathing volume per body mass; Talmage/Rodgers 2002, p. 214). The above concentrations could therefore be doubled.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 2-tcoa.pdf

So he's completely ignoring that Rudolf gives reasons for not going with the McNamera numbers anyway.

Also notice bombsaway has not given any reasons for rejecting Rudolf's calculations or what is wrong with them. He has just asserted his opinion. OK cool opinion bro.

This is the quote from the study

Based on relative respiration rates, the uptake of HCN by the monkey is more rapid than that of humans. The monkey is an appropriate model for extrapolation to humans because, compared with rodents, the respiratory systems of monkeys and humans are more similar in gross anatomy, the amount and distribution of types of respiratory epithelium, and airflow pattern. Because the monkey is an appropriate model for humans but is potentially more susceptible to the action of cyanide based on relative respiration rates, an interspecies UF of 2 was applied.

UF stands for uncertainty factor. They're not saying monkeys consume 2x as much oxygen or whatever Rudolph contends, this is another super basic mistake on Rudolf's part, that further discredits him in my view. "potentially more susceptible", not even definite. This should show you some of the bias that Rudolf is exhibiting that makes me believe he is compromised.

I said what was wrong with Rudolf's numbers -- they aren't reflected in the studies that he is referencing.

[fireofice]

UF stands for uncertainty factor. They're not saying monkeys consume 2x as much oxygen or whatever Rudolph, this is another super basic mistake on Rudolf's part, that discredits him in my view.

Strawman. He never said he based it on the uncertainty factor.

[bombsaway]

UF stands for uncertainty factor. They're not saying monkeys consume 2x as much oxygen or whatever Rudolph, this is another super basic mistake on Rudolf's part, that discredits him in my view.

Strawman. He never said he based it on the uncertainty factor.

"Talmage and Rodgers suggested that human beings are roughly only half
as sensitive as monkeys to hydrogen-cyanide-gas exposure due to our slower
breathing (smaller breathing volume per body mass; Talmage/Rodgers 2002,
p. 214). The above concentrations could therefore be doubled."

If he's not doubling it based on the UF, then he's imagining something in the study which is not there, which is even worse. I followed his citation, it's on the second or third page of the study, which I linked to.

[fireofice]

Well it's possible Rudolf made a mistake. His book/report has been through several editions with several mistakes corrected. I'm sure he hasn't gotten all of them. Everybody makes mistakes. Regardless, the source still says that monkeys are probably more susceptible to HCN than humans, therefore taking that number as sacrosanct is silly. And the believer side still has to explain the large amount of HCN in the delousing chamber but not in the homicidal gas chamber. They have yet to demonstrate that it is likely there would be negligible amounts of HCN in a homicidal Zyklon gas chamber.

[TlsMS93]

Were there heaters in these Kremas? Otherwise the basal release of cyanide would take much longer than claimed by the Sonderkommando, even in summer in underground cellars, instead of asking for a gas detector.