Talk:Novichok

Agent

Looks like we may soon see official confirmation of at least one Novichok agent structure once they release details of what was used to poison Skripal and his daughter. Now the question for us is, do we create a new page for this specific compound or just add details to the general page here? It will certainly meet WP:N given the high profile of this poisoning incident! Meodipt (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

VX for example has a separate page from Nerve agent, so I anticipate the same for any specific Novichok agent. I suspect detailed and reliably sourced information will be as rare as rocking horse shit for quite some time, however. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Fourth generation

See for example [1] (US Dept of Defense), [2] (US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), [3] (US Senate Committee on the Judiciary), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc etc. Recognised term. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Jsrkiwi has again removed the term, claiming—without offering evidence—that it "is disputed by academics" and—without offering evidence—that he is "an expert in the field". The term is clearly in widespread use by academics and one might be forgiven for suspecting Jsrkiwi is now simply being pointy. Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Besides, the book by Birstein (quoted on the page) provides some historical details - according to Mirzayanov. It was first developed by Pyotr Kirpichev in 1973. In 1987 chemist Andrey Zhelezov was accidently exposed to the gas, but he died much later, in 1992. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a very clear and concise list of "Generations of classical lethal chemical weapons"—published in table form in the journal Toxins—here. (Pitschmann, Vladimír (2014). "Overall View of Chemical and Biochemical Weapons." Toxins, 6(6), 1761–1784. doi 10.3390/toxins6061761). Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Injuries/exposure

I have noted that 14 people (or 18??) have been exposed to the agent in the attack in the UK, it's obvious that the government might want to hush hush that because that would easily classify as a terrorist attack by means of chemical weapons, is there anyone monitoring the health of the affected people?

Because from what is clear from the chemical structure is that these agents suffer hardly any decay, and that might explain the continuous health decline of the affected scientist. That also means that all and any such agents will be permanent environmental load equal to radioactive sources, but actually worse, since radioactive materials can be precisely measured for their activity, while this has no means of showing how damaging to health it is.

I've read in the news that people were angry to know what the long term health implications are. It would be nice to know the mechanisms and how many years or decades if the damage going to progress after any exposure. The exposed policeman is alive and talking, yet still in hospital, does that mean he has 15-20 years to live in ill health? These are all interesting questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.56.176 (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Judge for yourself on these articles on lifespan:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_7hz1dogTk8C&pg=PT189&lpg=PT189&dq=Andrei+Zheleznyakov+novichock&source=bl&ots=tzJkgELXcW&sig=LcLmnY2VlqMhKjXB5fJSgI_z-oI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirvt6n5efZAhXJ6xQKHW83AxcQ6AEIODAC#v=onepage&q=Andrei%20Zheleznyakov%20novichock&f=false

Allegedly plaintext version of the above here: https://100vampirenovels.com/pdf-novels/cassidys-run-by-david-wise-free/19-page

"After he had spent eighteen days in intensive care, the doctors managed to save his life. But he was left totally disabled, diagnosed with, among other illnesses, cirrhosis of the liver, toxic hepatitis, and epilepsy. In July 1992, he died."

“if people have no protection and are out in the open. Even if they only breathe fumes they may not die but there could be terrible consequences. Nerve gas can cause mutations in the next generation and in future generations after that.”

It seems that no person exposed has lasted more than five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.39.41 (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Novichok -- only binary?

According to Mirzayanov, only the binary versions are called Novichok, the unitary versions kept their unique names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.56.176 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well there are other sources too. So we just go by the common use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis/Manufacture?

Are there any public data sources with information regarding synthesis, manufacture, or precursors?2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:AA (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

As explained in the article, the Novichok agents are a large group of chemicals of the organophosphate class. Synthesis of individual members would be specific to each agent. The article on VX (nerve agent), for example, does discuss its synthesis, although it is not a Novichok. A competent organic chemist could suggest which precursors and synthetic methods would be appropriate once the target Novichok structure had been disclosed. In the particular case of the agent used in the recent Salisbury poisonings this structure is currently highly secret and unlikely to be revealed to the public for some time. --Mikedt10 (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Per article the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board has pointed out there are no peer reviewed papers on Novichok agents. I'm extremely doubtful we should try to put something in this gap! Rwendland (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

GosNIIOKhT near Moscow not in Nukus

The Soviet State Scientific Research Institute for Organic Chemistry and Technology (GosNIIOKhT) was near Moscow[10][11] not Nukus as claimed, so I plan to remove this offline-cited info until someone can check the cite. We can stick with the NYT + other cites for Nukus until someone can check the book. Rwendland (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Try this link. Neil S. Walker (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

wrong translation of Russian name

The correct English translation of the Russian word "новичок" is "rookie", not "newcomer". English-language media would do well to employ qualified translators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.72.63 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

According to Google translate, there are 21 English words that are possible translations of the word "новичок". One of them is "rookie" but "newcomer" seems more reasonable to me in the context of a code-word for a forth-generation chemical warfare reagent. Google ranks "beginner" as the most common translation. --Mikedt10 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is the prevalence of a word used in translation as reported by a machine translator, and the assumptions of someone not expert on the Russian language, being used to determine the correct translation of the Russian term? Please, as the URL editor suggests, involve a language-qulified editor; Google Translate, as of 2017, should never be used to settle translation questions that arise. Take the editor's concern seriously, please. 73.110.46.43 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources used throughout the article state that the name was intended as "newcomer". Neil S. Walker (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Then these sources should appear, one or more, with the appearance of the translation, yes? So that questions such as raised by the URL editor are answered a priori, yes? (That is, so it is clear that the translation that is used is not appearing on the basis of WP editor authority.) 73.110.46.43 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

Update for USA response to appear at the end of the "2018 UK attack" section. 172.3.142.18 (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Nikki Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said: “Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.3.142.18 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Topic Scope creep; see Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Structure and Formula of Novichok nerve agents and their precursor chemicals

The structure of a large number of Novichok nerve agents and their precursor chemicals were published in Ellison (2007) (see page 37).[12] This seems odd as other papers I consulted claimed their structure were were unknown. (Guidotti & Trifirò 2016)[13] includes a CAS number for one of the Novichoks (CAS 17642-30-7) but it does not appear in any public databases. I instead traced this CAS number to Ellison (2007). So it appears that the formula for several Novichoks and precursors chemicals have been published in the open literature. The question is where did these formulae come from, are they accurate? --Diamonddavej (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, full text of Ellison is available on Archive.org HERE. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1995 poisoning

A slew of post-Skripal news articles have appeared in the media conjecturing that this was caused by a Novichok agent. But prior to this, the poisonous agent was reported as cadmium. Examples: The New York Times, The Independent, LA Times, Washington Post. These newer claims need to be properly examined, and if found to be just tabloid gossip and sensationalism, removed. Neil S. Walker (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Chemistry subsection not encyclopedic

This subsection contains no citations whatsoever, and so is placed expecting readers to trust Wikipedia expertise (contrary to Wikipedia policies). 73.110.46.43 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)