Cougar Allen,
It's obvious many of the people posting in these threads haven't even done a web search and read the advertising (much less gone to dejanews and read what people who aren't selling them have to say). You'll find convincing evidence in the ads that "stun guns" cannot injure anyone, whether they're equipped with pacemakers or not.
I assume some of the above quotation is directed at me, and I acknowledge that I have not looked through DejaNews. However, my main claim, in my mind, has always been that there is simply insufficient information from a biological context to state that the effects of a stun gun are inconsequential.
Given the fact that one of the ads quoted by Mike botched simple physics terms such as measuring current in terms of joules, I don't ascribe a great deal of credibility to an ad designed to sell products to the average consumer. After all, to the average consumer, stainless is all the same, right?
I am a biology student, and as such, I've approached the physiology of stun guns from the electrical potentials, and physical properties, of the cells and organs most likely to be affected by electricity. Based on what I've studied in this area, and given the limited scientific knowledge currently available about the mechanism of function of the heart and nerve tissue, I would find it irresponsible for me not to point out the potential hazards for introducing current into your body.
One quick comment I'll make here is one that hopefully most people here will understand, regardless of their level of biological knowledge. Nerve cells, with very few exceptions, do not regenerate. As a baby, you have all the nerve cells you will ever have; they do NOT divide and replicate like most other cells in your body.
Muscle cells are the same way. When you perform resistance training and your muscles increase in size, it is the individual muscle cells increasing in size, not in number. Arnold Schwartzenegger had more muscle cells as a baby than he does now, due to muscle cells dying off over the natural course of time.
Now, given the fact that there are anecdotal stories from forum members who state that the electrical shock really affected them, is it really so unreasonable to suggest that they have suffered irreversible damage at some level?
Nerve and muscle cells don't heal. Clearly some cellular damage must have occurred, or some protein function altered in an unnatural way, to disrupt the ability to think and act. While it's true that other nerves and muscles can adapt to take over the lost cells' functions, the implication is that electrical shocks may damage your tissue in the long term, by destroying irreplaceable nerve and muscle cells.
I doubt you'll find many posts on stun guns regarding the long term impacts 20 years after shock treatment because stun guns simply haven't been around too much longer than that. Never forget the long term effects. So why not err on the side of caution?
I also went over to MedLine to look up stun guns, and there's very little data to be had. One study mentions a police report detailing 16 fatalities after Taser use, although 15 of those are attributed to drug effects, and not the Taser itself. Given a sample size of 16, I move that few, if any conclusions can be drawn. Another study is:
Ann Emerg Med 1991 May;20(5):583-7
Published erratum appears in Ann Emerg Med 1991 Sep;20(9):1031
Electronic weaponry--a question of safety.
O'Brien DJ
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Kentucky 40292.
Electronic weapons represent a new class of weapon available to law enforcement and the lay public. Although these weapons have been available for several years, there is inadequate research to document their safety or efficacy. Two of the most common, the TASER and the stun gun, are reviewed. The electronic weapon was initially and still is approved by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission; its approval was based on theoretical calculations of the physical effects of damped sinusoidal pulses, not on the basis of animal or human studies. These devices are widely available and heavily promoted, despite limited research into their safety or efficiency and despite recent animal studies documenting their potential for lethality.
I would point out the 1991 date of the above paper, and note that there have been no subsequent follow-ups as of 1999 to a paper that basically states: "We don't have enough information. We want more data."
The data simply isn't out there.
This is as far as I go on the stun gun issue; it's a moot point for me, as I'm a Canadian resident. However, it's a free country, and I wouldn't deign to tell you what to do to your body. Hopefully you'll keep the forum appraised, as many of us are curious too.
Ian
