Talk:Sarin

I removed "under the mistaken impression that the Allies had stockpiled similar weapons." This seems to me to be pure opinion. If I'm wrong give serious references.

So when is the synthesis going to put on this page?

Ericd 18:23 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

This statement is made in Joseph Borkin's The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben. I do not know which sources he use in turn, but the book has several footnotes so I'll look it up. Nixdorf 10:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did the US use sarin in the Vietnam War? I seem to recall having heard something along those lines. Does anyone know for sure?

What kind of shelf life does sarin have? I've heard that it has a usuable shelf life of only two months, in the context of arguments that even if Iraq had sarin stockpiles in the past, they would be useless now. PST

Hi. Highly pure (rectified, without traces of moisture, HF and so on) GB, if stored below 50°C, in teflon-lined shells, has a typical shelf life of up to 5 years, so was considered stable enough for stockpile-shell-filling. If combined with stabilizers (pyridine, triisopropylamine, chlorobenzene), its stability is even higher, so that stabilised-GB-filled shells were considered deployable up to 10 years, if properly stored (i.e., cool, in first place). However, binary GB is a far better (technically speaking) solution for stability and deployability of GB.--84.163.122.90 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The bit at the end about the US gassing their own troops doesn't seem relevant at all. Did they gas their own troops with Sarin? It doesn't say so... --Prisonblues 14:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since we apparently just had a sarin shell explode in Iraq, the question of sarin shelf life just got new urgency. TM Lutas

I found some info at the following link regarding sarin: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31228 (I'm not sure of this site's credibility).

According to Peter Zimmerman, former Chief Scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the documentary film "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War":

"Any sarin that they [the Iraqis] were making in 1990-91 had a known shelf life of about two months. I have confirmed this with the inspectors and analysts who were deeply involved in the 1990s analyses. If you made it twelve years ago, and it had a shelf life of two months, it may not be safe to drink, but it isn't sarin nerve gas any longer. And there's no way the agency [CIA?] could not have known that."

---

I de-capitalized most of the uses of the nerve agents in this article (but not in the quoted section; I didn't know if that capitalization was the author's or not); all reputable media references I could find used lower-casing, which seems right because "sarin" and "tabun" are not brand names in the commercial sense.

I also attempted to answer the shelf-life question, which is alot more complicated than I had originally anticipated.

ClockworkTroll 15:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I made several changes, but I'm short on time and still want to do more:

• I want to add a section about shelf life and other details I found, and that have been requested.
• I would also like to clean up and add to the history section.

ClockworkTroll 16:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Several changes:

• As was requested I added a bit of information on sarin shelf life. My sources are mostly CIA documents; I didn't use the WorldNetDaily article directly.
• Added many chemical characteristics about sarin taken from sarin's Material Safety Data Sheet
• Cleaned up the history section by adding details about the gassing of the Iraqi Kurds, and adding historical hooks to the Chemical Weapons Convention and UN Resolution 687. Added various dates.
• I decided to keep the Operation Tailwind mention, because I found it was sarin that was allegedly used. I added some details, and a link to the CNN "oops, we screw up" article. Also noted that CNN and Time are owned by the same company, and added some dates.

ClockworkTroll 20:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which "specific gravity" here?

What does a "Specific Gravity 1.0887 at 25 °C" mean here? Does it mean that the density of sarin at 25 °C is compared to

1. the density of water at 25 °C, and thus sarin's density is 1.0855 g/cm³
2. the density of water at  4 °C, and thus sarin's density is 1.0887 g/cm³
3. the density of water at  0 °C, and thus sarin's density is 1.0885 g/cm³
4. or something else?
   

Gene Nygaard 15:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Hello Gene. This value is relative to the density of H₂O at 25 °C (where H₂O = 1.0). – ClockworkSoul 06:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so now what are those "vapor density" figures; I hadn't noticed before because those were not identifiec as either relative density or specific gravity. What temperature and pressure for sarin vs. what temperature and pressure for water? Gene Nygaard 07:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that to some extent I'm guilty of taking information directly from the material safety data sheet, but it stands to reason that it, like many standard measurements of temperature and pressure, would use Standard Temperature and Pressure (1 atmosphere, 0 °C), but it may be using Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure (100 kPa, 25°C). One thing though: I removed all of your "half done" work: it's not pretty (doohickeys? ___ temperature and ___ pressure vs. air at ____?) To me, it's far worse that sombody should view a page that reads "doohickeys" than it is to get some data that may or may not be accurate to within 4 significant figures. &ndash ClockworkSoul 14:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Those "doohickeys" have nothing to do with "accurate to 4 significant digits". What the hell are those units of pressure? Millimeters of mercury? Kilopascals? Microbars? Pounds-force per square foot? Standard atmospheres or technical atmospheres? Inch-ounces force per U.S. gallon?

2. Often when this template is used we have unentered information, with units and the like to show what is missing if something needs to be added.

3. If, as you said here, the liquid relative density (specific gravity) is compared to water at the same temperature, then the density at 25 °C is indeed only 1.0855 g/cm³.

• If, OTOH, you misstated the situation above, then you need to clarify it here, and tell us why you have changed your mind.
• In addition, in that situation the ambiguous and also redundant-if-disambiguated "specific gravity" or "relative density" (whichever was used here) line needs to be removed.

4. The vapor density needs to be expressed in units of density, and it needs a specified temperature (which obviously would be greater than 158 °C, the boiling point). Furthermore, if you are going to compare it to air, you need to specify the temperature and pressure of air. If you are comparing it to air at the same temperature, analagous to your claim that the liquid density was to water at the same temperature, the density of air at 158 °C is quite significantly different from air a 0 °C or any of the other possibilities. Gene Nygaard 16:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Relax, Gene. I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't think that sticking words like "doohickey" is the best way to approach an edit. You want to make changes, and I'm all for it. Just make them all at once, and don't leave loose ends. – ClockworkSoul 04:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

May 2004 IED unlikely to have contained both Sarin presursors

The article currently says:

2004: May 14 Iraqi insurgency fighters in Iraq detonate a 155 mm shell containing several litres of binary precursors for sarin. The shell was designed to mix the chemicals as it spun during flight. The detonated shell released only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly, or the chemicals inside the shell had degraded significantly with age. Two United States soldiers were treated for exposure after displaying the early symptoms.

I think this paragraph needs to be re-written. First, the source it cites, an MSNBC article does not say the IED released several litres of binary precursors. Second, I spent a couple of hours in May of 2004 looking into this incident. I found a number of authoritative looking sources that described the state of the Iraqi chemical weapons industry. I'll go look for them again. In the meantime, let me summarize. The Iraqis had not been able to master the construction of sophisticated binary munitions. They didn't store both binary precursors in separate capsules in their chemical munitions. They used chemical munitions with just a single reservoir. They stored those munitions charged, half full of a single nerve gas precursor. When the munition was about to be fired a courageous volunteer would be suited up, with a syringe full of Atropine ready, and they would charge up the munition with the other precursor, just prior to firing it at the enemy.

So, while it was widely reported by a credulous press that this IED contained Sarin, it did not, could not have contained Sarin.

The Americans cleverly mark their various artillery shells with prominent and unmistakable colour codes. The Iraqis didn't. I strongly suspect that the bomb-maker who made this IED did not realize this shell was not an ordinary 155 mm shell. -- Geo Swan July 3, 2005 06:36 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolution 687

UN Security Council Resolution 687 is a resolution welcoming the restoration of the independence of Kuwait, not about declaring sarin as a WOMD. Someone should give the correct resolution number. --Abdull 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The claim in this article seems wrong, 687 says simply says "the present resolution represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons", which does not read to me that it defining chemical weapons as WMDs. Can anyone provide a reputable source supporting the article's contenetion? Rwendland (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemical structure

The chemical structure as pictured in the article doesn't resemble the one on the Dutch page. Since I am not a chemist, can someone else take a look at it?

Wereldburger758 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are the same, actually, the picture on the Dutch site is probably more clear to non-chemists, 'we chemists' tend to simplify, carbons are connected to other atoms (including other carbons) using lines, the symbol C and the attached H's are often not drawn, all other atoms are. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia testing

Hi, just thought that this may be of interest to any active editors. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=287260 Iciac (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Downplaying the effective inhalative hazards of GB?

"Its low vapor pressure (2.9 mmHg at 20 °C) makes it relatively ineffective as a terrorist inhalation weapon."
With respect to the vapor pressure given (2.9 mm Hg at 25°C in article vs. 2.2 mm Hg at 25°C in my source quoted), and with respect to moderate difference (~32%) to reference available to me at the moment (ISBN 3777306088, Klimmek, R. et al.: Chemische Gifte und Kampfstoffe, Hippokrates Verlag, Stuttgart, 1983), the volatility of GB given there is 12.5 mg/L air at 20°C and 16.8 mg/L air at 25°C at full saturation and 100 kPa atm. pressure. Now, considering that the agent dispersed would create only a fraction of it's saturated vapor pressure in the surrounding atmosphere (that would be 16,800 mg/m³ at full saturation!), I dare to speculate, that, especially in a (quasi) closed room such as an interior of a building, or worse, its in-let ventilation system, concentrations of GB vapor achievable, given enough agent is dispersed, would be at least severly harmful, if not fatal. I might also point out, that in the 1995 Tokio subway attacks, only relatively small amouths of diluted (20 - 30%) GB were dispersed simply by rupturing bags containing it, nevertheless causing thousands of injuries and 12 casualties. As far as I know, GB is also the most volatile nerve agent known at the time and was considered rather an "respiratory nerve agent" (in contrast to e.g. GA or VX, which are rather/primarily "skin resorptive" nerve agents). So, is it really "relatively ineffective as a terrorist inhalation weapon"?--Spiperon (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One more issue I would like to adress:

"...it [Sarin] is the most toxic of the four G-agents made by Germany."

That's not correct. See article Soman for its toxicity and compare to data given here. The respective inhalative LCt₅₀ values are 100 - 130 mg/m³/min for Sarin and 60 - 75 mg/m³/min for Soman, depending on source. Also, percutaneous toxicity of GD is considerably higher. 0.2 - 0.3 g GD are reported to be lethal for an adult male if resorbed through unprotected skin, compared to about 1 - 2 g GB under same circumstances.--Spiperon (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany Production figures

I just noticed in the article that it states "Estimates for total sarin production by Nazi Germany range from 500 kg to 10 tons.", however I was recently reading through some things about this and this website [1], says that "By 1945, the Germans had 7,000 tons of Sarin alone – enough to kill the occupants of 30 cities the size of Paris." Now I don't know if this website is accurate or not, but perhaps someone should investigate the true amount (especially as the figure given in the article is uncited also). --Hibernian (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Warhead Photo should be deleted

The photo should be deleted, because there is no evidence that the Photo shows an actual chemical-warhead. The Clusterbomb in the warhead looklike conventional BLU-61A-B. Does some one have any evidence which suports the claim that this picture shows what the Picture-text sugests. Besides in the libary of congres photo database is no photo of a MGR-1 Honest John missile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.128.194 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Biological effects

Its mechanism of action resembles that of some commonly used insecticides, such as malathion. In terms of biological activity, it resembles carbamate insecticides such as sevin and medicines pyridostigmine, neostigmine, and physostigmine. Like other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system.

Specifically, sarin is a potent inhibitor of the enzyme cholinesterase.[5] Sarin acts on cholinesterase by forming a covalent bond with the particular serine residue at the active site. Fluoride is the leaving group, and the resulting phosphoester is robust but biologically inactive.[6][7] With the enzyme inhibited, acetylcholine builds up in the synapse and continues to act so that any nerve impulses are, in effect, continually transmitted. Normally, the acetylcholinesterase breaks down the acetylcholine in the synaptic cleft in order to allow the effector muscle or organ to relax.

This section is incomprehensible and absurdly difficult to understand. Is this page written for chemists? Maybe we need another Wikipedia to explain all the science articles. This is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.236.10 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the topic is more complicated than Britney Spears's social life .... wait, I take that back. I mean the language and background requires more formal training. What do you expect to find? And even the language we use is dumbed down. We are talking about complicated stuff, right? Like molecules and enzymes. But if you have suggestions, we'd respond and improve the article. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading this section, I still don't have the slightest idea of what exactly happens to a person who is exposed to sarin. Besides dying, obviously. One could explain to casual readers what it does to people. You don't have to dumb it down, simply explain it more clearly. Pikolas (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of vocabulary in the Biochemistry field that does not permeate into society. And understanding complicated enzyme function is not something that can simply be jumped into. Check out the enzyme page, but in order to communicate with any level of clarity, assumptions must be made that both parties have had a background in the subject. You can't try reading books until you know the alphabet, so to speak.

Darkhelmet41290 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Layman's" explanation

Please remove that crap about Layman. It shouldn't be in an ecyclopaedia. 79.133.228.177 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

L-sarin/D-sarin

The article says that sarin is chiral. Are the pictures of L-sarin or D-sarin? --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now (25. August 2012), the structural image in the ChemBox shows the (S)—enantiomer, which should correspond to the "(+)—", or "D—" isomer of Sarin. There is also an image showing both enantiomers, which in my opinion would suit better because most of the weapon-grade Sarin manufactured was/is racemic (or, it was not manufactured enantiomericaly pure, as far as I know). Cheers,--147.251.68.9 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article contradicts "No WMD" parts of the Iraq war article.

If there were no WMDs in Iraq's arsenal, where did the Iraqi insurgents get a Serin gas shell to use on US soldiers? This seems contradictory. Either this article is wrong, or the "No WMD" information in several other articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwood Elf (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It was reported that on one occassion, the iraqi insurgents did detonate a shell filled with the binary precusor DF (Methylphosphonyl difluoride). This precursor has to react with OPA (an equimolar mixture of 2-propanol and 2-aminopropane) well prior to the burst charge detonation to in fact produce Sarin; there was no Sarin involved in that incident, otherwise dozens of people would be killed or severly poisoned by it. The shell with the DF canister was not a part of an existing stockpile (by March 2003), judging from the coverage I got by, it was most probably either a dud or a leftover/forgotten piece of ordonance from the late 1980s/First Gulf War timeframe. Cheers,--147.251.68.9 (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

US plan to gas austrailian troops

This cliam, although widely reported in 2008 originates from a single spurce, channel 9, and was not corroborated b any other spurce. All reports simply quote the channel 9 report. I'm a little uneasy with such a significant claim only being made by a single source and question whether it should be included. Per policy auch a serious claim should have more than a single refernce (refs simply reporting channel 9's claim would not count, there needs to be additional spurces verifying this). 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)