Talk:Zyklon B

Krakow

The link "Krakow" leads to a city where there should be a person. It makes it seem as if this person doesn't exist, thus discrediting anything that paragraph asserts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.39.68 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because Krakow is indeed a city and not a person. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Warfare

Zyklon B was not used on chemical warfare (see c.w. on wiki). It was a means to execute/murder people. Or would you call the electric chair an instrument of electric warfare? 141.13.8.14 10:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

From Ed Poor's talk page:

And I don't admire his censorship! Why did You remove: "It is doubtful wheter "Zyklon B" has been used to kill humans in Auschwitz or elsewhere: http://www.codoh.com/found/fndgcger.html from: http://www.codoh.com/found/found.html " ??? from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Zyklon_B&action=history

Such links should be included, since the THHP link is included as well. I'd like to suggest: http://germarrudolf.com/work/trr/index.html

If you want to mention such doubts, please follow our guidelines. Say, for example, that Mr. X of the Y organization say, etc. --Ed

Please either ban me, Wik, or protect extermination camp and death camp. Lirath Q. Pynnor Also, in the future, try not to remove POV statements like the Zyklon B linkl; rather, just NPOV them. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Much as as the thought of banning you tempts me, I think I'll pass. I'd rather assign you more work! ;-)

Now, Wik, on the other hand, there's an idea! :-)

As for the Zyklon B thing, I was just doing as secretlondon requested. Why make such a big deal about it? It's fixed now.

Im not making a big deal out of it. The page has been unprotected, there is no reason since there is no edit war. Lirath Q. Pynnor

---

Now I believe that Zyklon was used as a poison gas. What I don't understand is why we shouldn't have links to the doubters on this page. I would rephrase the text about the link to something more explanatory. Rmhermen 17:51, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Broken Link

That was me who removed the link that appeared to be broken; I forgot to log on. If that link actually *does* work, put it back in, but I've tried several times already, so I don't think it's just me. TheProject 04:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Broken Links...

The links are/were indeed broken: But there are other links with exactly the same contents: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html and http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

So please simply replace those links! Regards George...

Those are dead, too. --84.128.183.218 19:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These last two links work just fine, they are not dead. --83.103.132.96 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tested and at least the first one is working fine.--41.242.207.217 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. vho is not an acceptable source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of verifiable sources and references

This article contains numerous statements and claims but provides no references or sources for verification. Is the article not about a chemical substance that can kill lice? What is the chemical formula, the specific gravity, atomic weight, etc. of this compound? How about providing more NPOV facts and information along with citations of sources?Kenny56 09:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As the first para says :'It consisted of hydrocyanic acid (prussic acid), a stabilizer, and a warning odorant that were impregnated onto various substrates, typically small absorbant pellets, fiber discs, or diatomaceous earth. It was stored in airtight containers; when exposed to air, the substrates evolved gaseous hydrogen cyanide (HCN).' It is meaningless to ask for the formula, sp grav, or atomic weight. The compounds mentioned are linked, so you can look at the article for HCN.

It is beyond despute that it was used to kill millions of people at Auschwitz and Majdenek. There is a link to a page discussing the Leuchter report (and 2 others) on the page. There is a link to a paper on the prussian blue staining at the end of one of the paras you added disputed tags to. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely not beyond dispute. Where do you get such an arrogant attitude to think that the belief that you hold, and all the while still refusing to provide verifiable sources or references, is beyond dispute?

How did you obtain this knowledge? Were you an eyewitness? If not then you must supply statements of fact from sources that can be checked and verified. This is a fundamental principle for Wiki content.

By the way i don't appreciate your removing the disputed and unsourced tags without providing the requested verifiable sources first. You have acted in violation of Wiki guidelines. i will give you this warning before taking action to have you sanctioned.Kenny56 07:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The people who dispute the use of Zyklon B in gas chambers are Nazi apologists. No serious historian disputes the facts of the Holocaust. This has been supported in the court cases of David Irving and Ernst Zündel. If you want some reference books, try

1. Bresheeth, Hood and Jansz, 'The Holocaust for Beginners', Icon Books, 1994, ISBN 1-874166-16-1
2. Lucy Dawidowicz, 'The War Against the Jews', Penguin, 1990, ISBN 0-14-013463-8
3. Martin Gilbert, 'The Holocaust', Fontana, 1990, ISBN 0-00-637194-9

You might also want to take a look at Deborah Lipstadt's 'Denying the Holocaust'.

If you are using the {{disputed}} tag, you should say what you think the truth is. If you only want sources to be cited, use {{fact}} or {{citation needed}}, but note that WP:CITE says ' This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many of instances of {{citation needed}} is unlikely to be beneficial.' --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It says there's no citation for the claim that the sales were separated by region, yet one of the links says this: "The chief gas involved was Zyklon B, a highly dangerous poison gas, 99 per cent. of which was prussic acid. The gas was manufactured by another firm. Tesch and Stabenow had the exclusive agency for the supply of the gas east of the River Elbe, but the Zyklon B itself went directly from the manufacturers to the customer." http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm

JWhiteheadcc (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Zyklon B poisonous?

Last time I checked it was a pesticide, and pesticides although harmful do not kill humans.

wowee, hold all calls folks, we have a winner. Gzuckier 14:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check this out:

http://pubweb.northwestern.edu/~abutz/di/dl/zyklon.html

Maybe the doubting user accepts statements by Gerhard Peters, manager of Degesch, the inventor of Zyklon B, made 1941 in a respected German language scientific journal (Zeitschrift für hygenische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung (Journal of Hygienic Zoology and Pest Control, No. 8/9, 1941)) as evidence that the temperature range of Zyklon B application is unlikely to be limited by the low temperature in "half-underground mortuaries of the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematories":

Die in beiden Richtungen durchgeführten Untersuchungen erbrachten die eindeutige Bestätigung der auf langjährigen praktischen Beobachtungen gegründeten Annahme, daß die Wirksamkeit der Blausäure und die Eignung des Zyklons-Verfahrens ein Temperaturgebiet umfassen, das mit Bestimmtheit noch bis mindestens 10°C unter Null reicht. (The analyses in both directions decisively support the assumption based on many years of practical observations that the effectivity of prussic acid and the applicability of the Zyklon-method includes a temperature range which does with certainty reach down to at least 10°C below zero.")

Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Take, for instance, the deposition of Wolfgang Froelich during the recent trial of Swiss revisionist Jurgen Graf (condemned to 15 months imprisonment and 18,000 SwF in monetary penalties for investigating the "Holocaust" in Russian archives and publishing the results, as well as a booklet titled "On the Decline of Swiss Freedom").

Froelich is an Austrian engineer and an expert witness whose field of expertise are process engineering and gas applications. He told the court he has carried out numerous gassings to exterminate pests and infectious microbes. Here is how he answers the questions by public prosecutor Aufdenblatten:

Aufdenblatten: "In your opinion were mass gassings with Zyklon B possible?"

Froelich: "No".

Aufdenblatten: "Why not?"

Froelich: "The pesticide Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid absorbed in a granular-shaped carrier substance. It is released though contact with the air. The evaporation point of hydrocyanic acid is 25.7 degrees (Celsius). The higher the temperature, the more rapid is the rate of evaporation. The delousing chambers in which Zyklon B was used in NS (German wartime) camps and elsewhere were heated to 30 degrees and higher, so that the hydrocyanic acid would be released rapidly from the carrier granules. However, in the half-underground mortuaries of the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematories, where witnesses claim that mass killings with Zyklon B took place, the temperatures were much lower. Even if one allows for the warming of the spaces by the body warmth of the hypothetical prisoners, the temperature would not have been more than 15 degrees, even in summer time. Consequently, it would have taken many hours for the hydrocyanic acid to evaporate.

"According to eyewitness reports, the victims died very quickly. The witnesses mention time frames of 'instantaneous' to '15 minutes'. To be able to kill the gas chamber prisoners in such a short time, the Germans would have had to use ridiculously large amounts of Zyklon -- I estimate from 40 to 50 kilograms for each gassing. This would have made any work in the gas chamber fundamentally impossible. The special detachment (Sonderkommando) people, whom the witnesses say were assigned the task of clearing out (dead bodies) from them (the gas chambers), would have collapsed immediately upon entering the rooms, even if they were wearing gas masks. Enormous amounts of hydrocyanic acid would have streamed out into the open, and would have poisoned the entire camp".

Froehlich's statement corroborates the investigations and declarations of such specialists as gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter, Austrian engineer Wlater Lueftl, American research chemist William B. Lindsay, German chemist Germar Rudolf, and German engineer Wofgang Schuster.

I'm afraid you've given too much credibility to Holocaust deniers like Butz and Leuchter. They make up lies to fit their neo-Nazi political agenda. This is well covered in the article on Holocaust denial, and at the Nizkor Project [www.nizkor.org].

The argument is beyond circular. you couldn't use Zyklon because it's not poisonous enough so you would have had to use so much that it would have been too dangerous, because it's poisonous. Presumably, the argument would then be that you have to use a more poisonous gas so that it would be less dangerous. Gzuckier 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Polish research groups study on Zyklon B has imploded. They invalidated their own work when the pressure got too high. So far noone has refuted Leuchter and the German Koch?'s work was too precise to deny ( sorry about that word ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Leuchter the one that had little or no qualifications in chemistry? The guy who thought that it takes more cyanide to kill Humans then lice? (it's the other way around) When you make a fundamental and obvious error like that, how can any of your "conclusions" be taken seriously? Cantankrus 03:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be surprising that I myself don't place much stock in what an unsigned anon "believes" when he states that he also believes that nobody's refuted Leuchter. As you say, Leuchter goofed in many ways, also including taking thick samples of brick when a beginner in chemistry will figure out that cyanide doesn't penetrate brick to any depth. As the guy who ran the lab that Leuchter sent the samples to testified in court, stating that if Leuchter had told him in advance the plan he would have informed him. And note that, nevertheless, he found traces of cyanide in the gas chamber samples, which Leuchter dismissed, even though his control found zero cyanide. Bad thinking. Kind of like finding "traces" of plutonium in somebody's luggage and dismissing it because it wasn't as high as you expected. The reasonable explanation is that the cyanide/plutonium had been there and your expectations regarding how much it would leave behind are wrong. Gzuckier 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuchter did goof in several (few,maybe 1 or 2)details. However, his method was scientific. Remember those Cracow guys - similar method. Zyklon is very poisonous, but very slow release ( under Polish conditions particularly ). Leuchter should have written more concisely - ie if you want to kill x hundreds of people in a cool cellar in y minutes you would need z amount at the outgassing rate of Zyklon B used in the 1940s. The amount used to kill lice might have killed a human eventually - hours, if not days later. But to get enough to kill humans ( in minutes ) would require a massive dose - the columns connected to the holes that don't seem to be around anymore are way,way,way too small. The quantity of Zyklon needed would require that the columns be the gas chamber and the gas chamber be the column. Leuchter is not an out of the box thinker it appears so he stumbled into logical thinking, but still several other researhers seem to have arrived at his same conclusion - except of course the Cracow group. They seemed to think that Prussian blue on the outside of gaschambers ( for lice - why did they give up that piece, why not have the place with lots of Prussian blue be the "real" gas chamber ( obviously Leuchter isn't the only one who doesn't think outside the box) was from mattresses leaning on the outside wall). These guys - Cracow - seem to have some chance but they decided not to test the blue stuff - don't send your kids to Poland to take chemistry is the moral to this story.159.105.80.63 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Cracow group says that blue color is not related to cyanide ( which of course they don't feel complied to test )and in the next breath they say the mattress ( airing out its cyanide ) colored the wall - the world's chemists let them get away with this logic ( they must all be scared to death of someone - wonder who).159.105.80.63 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Millions? Thousands?

I find it doubtful that Zyklon B is single handed responsible for killing 10%+ of all those who died in the holocaust, assuming 10 million total. It is seems logistically impossible. Perhaps the "millions" should be "thousands" or "hundreds of thousands" until more firm numbers can be established.

The number killed at Auschwitz, where Zyklon B was used, are 1.1 million +, and Z-B was also used at Majdanek, where 80,000 to 250,000 were killed. I've reworded the sentence, see what you think. I don't like 'thousands', because it gives the impression of a number between 2 and 10 thousand. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with your wordings in the article. We know approx. 1 to 1.3 million people died at Auschwitz, however, not all of this was done through Zyklon B. In you article you write: "notorious for its use by Nazi Germany to kill over one million people in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek during the Holocaust." I think the sentence needs revision, since Zyklon B itself was not responsible for the total death at Auschwitz, but your sentence is more inclined to perhaps make others to assume that Zyklon B was almost solely responsible. Other factors led to the death of people at Auschwitz that included starvation, disease, forced long labour, individual executions (such as shooting), medical experiments, suicide, and so much more. It is therefore wrong to assume, or to state a figure incling to state "notorious for its use by Nazi Germany to kill over one million people" when that figure shows the total dying at Auschwitz and not that by Zyklon B.--Waqas1987 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have decided to remove the numbers, which now reads: "notorious for its use by Nazi Germany against civilians in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek during the Holocaust." I think this is a much more historically accurate and proper sentence to use --Waqas1987 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

there is not one single solitary shred of physical evidence that anyone died of gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

hard facts

I too would like to see some hard facts. How long does it take Zyklon B to kill people? What are the variables?

Something more than eyewitness testimony would be nice, btw.

See Hydrogen Cyanide and Cyanide. You will find answers there. --Jklamo 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot have hard facts, they don't exist. If the eye witness accounts are made availabe by wikipedia to the general public they could be sued for causing the deaths of thousands - maybe millions - from laughter.

Really? What would be funny about that? Please elaborate; is the extermination of people something that you find as a source of mirth? If so why?

Nevermind. I think we are starting to understand. . . .

Facts

Hydrogen cyanide gas is lethal at 300 parts per million and explosive at 56,000 parts per million. Below room temperature (25.7C, 78F) it tends to revert to liquid or solid. Normally a gas chamber would be hermetically sealed and constructed of non-porous material in order to avoid hazards to those operating the chamber, and removal of the gas is achieved by ducting and fans. Depending on temperature, this could take anywhere from one to twenty-four hours. Workers would need to wear gas masks to avoid potentially lethal exposure. In colder temperatures, hydrogen cyanide is slow to dissipate (though lighter than air) and would require aggressive measures for removal. Few physically intact gas chambers survived the war, though several delousing chambers remained in existence. These were installed in various locations to rid piles of clothing, even entire train cars, of lice, which spread typhus, an acknowledged principle cause of death of civilians and camp prisoners throughout Europe during the war. The reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz on view today lacks the various mechanisms for heating, dispersal, and removal of Zyklon B.

Some basic facts for free. Here we go:

"Below room temperature (25.7C, 78F) it [HCN] tends to revert to liquid or solid."

HCN has, under atmospheric pressure, a boiling point of 25.7°C and a melting point of -13.24°C. This does not mean, however, that it forms no gaseous phase (known as vapor, already heard of?) below its b.p., or as a liquid. In fact, liquid HCN at 0°C (the freezing point) has a vapor pressure of 264 Torr (mm Hg), or about 0.347 bar, or about 35,171 Pa. This means that at full saturation by its vapor in the air at 0°C, there are over 300,000 ppm (yes, that's three hundred thousand), or about 30% hydrogen cyanide. Given that this full saturation is practicaly achievable only under lab conditions and even more so, not necesarry (remember, that 3,000 ppm kills a human in about a minute), the boiling point or the absolute temperature in the gas chamber at the point of immersion of Zyklon B pellets are irrelevant. In fact, any temperature above 7 - 10°C is fully sufficient to rapidly evaporate lethal concentrations of hydrogen cyanide off the solid carrier, as is known from the practice of fumigation by applying Zyklon-B-like products (Cyanosil, Uragan, Cyatox), which are all copies of Zyklon B and are still being used by professional pest control operators around the world.

"Normally a gas chamber would be hermetically sealed and constructed of non-porous material in order to avoid hazards to those operating the chamber, and removal of the gas is achieved by ducting and fans."

Gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau ("Krema II - V") were made of high-quality reinforced steel concrete, equipped by doors with synthetic rubber lining, 4 immersion shafts for Zyklon B pellets each and venting systems. All these were to a great extent demolished by exlosives in january 1945 by the SS. The only structurly intact gas chamber in the whole Auschwitz complex that can be seen from within is the one next to Auschwitz I "Stammlager", within the old crematory. It was used in 1941, later abandoned for this use due to its low capacity, (as the "Red House" and "White House" went into use in early 1942 and Kremas II - V were built in 1942 - 1943) and rebuilt into a bomb shelter for the SS staff for the rest of the war.

"Depending on temperature, this could take anywhere from one to twenty-four hours."

In Krema II and III, there were undergroud gas chambers with dimensions of 8 m wide × 40 m long × 2.2 m high, having internal volume of some 700 + m³. For one "special operation" (gassing), 4 cans of Zyklon B of 1.5 kg each = 6 kg total of Zyklon B = ~ 4 kg of available hydrogen cyanide were thrown down the four immersion shafts (which fell into "baskets" made of tight wire mesh, surrounded by protective steel lattices, within the gas chambers themselves). By temperatures over 10°C, most of the HCN available in full contact with air due to the basket/lattice constructed shafts, evaporated within few minutes. If we consider only 10% the amouth of HCN (= 0.4kg or 400 grams) to become airborne within the chamber of some 700 m³ internal volume, we get an average concentration of over 570 mg HCN /m³ air, which is well over 500 ppm. Granted there were not ideal conditions for instantenous intimate mixture of HCN vapors with air, yet the concentrations achievable in the chambre in matter of minutes at any temperature (which would be regardless of the weather outside somewhere around 10 - 12°C without heating, as in most basement-like structures) were sufficiently high to kill everyone inside within minutes.

Good analysis Spiperon, but the concentration of airborne HCN you calculated is valid for an empty gas chamber. Now subtract from that the volume displaced by hundreds of human bodies and the concentration of cyanide increases dramatically.Gumbootchiton (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Workers would need to wear gas masks to avoid potentially lethal exposure."

They did (SS as well as the Sonderkommando).

"In colder temperatures, hydrogen cyanide is slow to dissipate (though lighter than air) and would require aggressive measures for removal."

Chambers were vented by ventilators (as is evident from the construction blueprints as well as witness testimonies) after each gassing. If the temperature outside would be lower than that in the chamber, this would, along with thermal convection of the crematoria exhausts right next to ventilation outlets, only help to dissipate the contaminated air from the chamber.

"The reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz on view today lacks the various mechanisms for heating, dispersal, and removal of Zyklon B."

This gas chamber was the first one within the Auschwitz complex, its located just south to the "Stammlager" and was dismantled by the SS themselves by the end of 1941; it was used for the rest of the war as an airraid shelter of the camp SS staff. The ultimate reason for dropping the use of this structure as a gas chamber was its unfavourable construction, lacking any sophisticated Zyklon introduction methods and effective ventilation, making it, along with its relative small dimensions, rather an "ineffective" site of genocide.--Spiperon (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources for your Holocaust denial original research before attempting to re-insert it into any article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would Germany use Zyklon B when they had thousands of tons of VX gas on hand? They never used their VX gas on anyone as far as I know, not even the Allies, but they had thousands of tons of it right on hand. VX would have been far more efficient a killer, and Germans are not known for being ignorant of chemistry. I'd imagine you'd have to inhale grams and grams of Zyklon B to be in danger of dying, while drops of VX gas would do the job by itself.

Dear anonymous. VX was first synthetised in 1952 in the british military research facility at Porton Down. Third Reich had not a single gram of this agent. They had stockpiles of the agent GA (Tabun), manufactured for potential CW purposes from 1942 onwards in Dyhernfurth/Oder and some experimental batches of the agents GB (Sarin) and GD (Soman). There are two points more I'd like to explain to you: 1. Why Zyklon B? Because it was cheap, plentiful, rapidly acting, predictable and many operators were familiar with it. It could be made in vast quantities even towards the end of the war, with most of resources cut off and the industry bombed down to rubble, from natural/agrotechnical/rudimentar sources at hand. It was easy and safe to transport, store and handle, if the operators have made a two-week course of good work practice at Testa/Degesch/SS Hygiene Services. It could be stored and imported to the camps in large quantities without raising suspicions as it was the most widely used insecticide for delousing of large structures/complexes. Not the last, antidotes for cyanide poisoning were known at the time, in contrary to nerve agents. 2. No, nerve agents wouldn't be more effective and certainly not cost-effective. Manufacture of these was orders of magnitude more expensive and complicated, than that of HCN, these substances are all liquids with lower vapor pressures, therefore not as effective for gassing operations and it would be far more complicated to decontaminate the chambers after use of some of the G-agents. And as for your "figures" on toxicity of HCN vs. nerve agents: you have no clue apparently. Lethal dose of pure HCN for a man is about 50 - 100 mg (~1 mg/kg BW). Grams of Zyklon B, containing grams of hydrogen cyanide, present lethal doses for dozens of people.--Spiperon (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually they could have used the exhaust gas of the cremation ovens.

Only a very small fraction of the Zyklon used in any of the camps would have been capable of killing all the victims claimed - if there was a gas chamber. It appears that almost all the gas was used to kill lice 99% and that leaves about 1% to kill people ( which would have been enough ).

This is roughly correct. Reliable sources cited in the text show that more than 95% of the Zyklon B was actually used for delousing, and less than 5% for mass murder. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

However, it seems strange to use 99% to save the inmates and then use 1% to kill them - not a terribly effective operation.

You miss a basic point in the setup of Auschwitz. Look at the main article: It was actually a combination of an extermination camp and a camp for **huge** slave labor population. That is why the notorious selections took place: Those apparently nor fit for work were exterminated immediately; those fit for work were assigned to slave labor. It would not have been 'economical' to have the slave workers die of typhus before they were scheduled to. Also the SS was afraid of catching typhus as well. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The lack of the warning agent must have also applied to the lice - the warning agent was produced by a different company, there may be more than one interpretaion of why warning agents and Zyklon were not combined during wartime conditions. The dire warning agent idea seems more like wild conjecture than a citable fact.159.105.80.141 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor question - why use Zyklon ( designed to make it safe to use - also slow release ) when the stright cyanide could have been shipped in small vials, etc and would have killed almost instantly in an enclosed ares - not slow release granules. Germans must have all been dumb as rocks.159.105.80.141 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they were quite smart if this was an admissible term here. Pure HCN has many disadvantages in handling and storage. That is why it went out of use for pest control in Germany already during the 1920s and was widely replaced by Zyklon B. I have expanded the respective section of the article. Zyklon B had been a safe, popular and highly effective pest control agent for years before the holocaust - and continued to be one for many years more. The high porosity and surface area of the adsorbents used in Zyklon B made sure that a high HCN concentration would be available within minutes - even at low temperatures. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If Zyklon needs to be 78 degrees F to become a gas then wouldn't you need a heating system in the winter - even in the summer - in Poland. Naturally 78+ days must be rare and unpredictable in Poland - how could you go from the train to the gas chamber in winter if the previous trainload was waiting for summer.159.105.80.141 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This question is answered already at great length above. Check your basic physical chemistry book! Even much below the boiling point, liquids such as HCN have a substantial vapor partial pressure. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DuPont's literature on the topic is enlightening:

Specific HCN air quality standards for the OSHA Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) are 4.7 ppm, 5 mg/m3. The ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is 10 ppm, 11 mg/m3, Time Weighted Average (TWA). This is also a ceiling value. The Du Pont Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL) is 10 ppm-8-hour TWA, 5 ppm-12-hour TWA. [27]

OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which sets workplace safety guidelines for the U.S. Department of Labor.

DuPont lists furthermore the following safety thresholds:

2-5 ppm Odor threshold

4-7 ppm OSHA exposure limit, 15 minute time weighted average

20-40 ppm Slight symptoms after several hours

45-54 ppm Tolerated for 1/2 to 1 hour without significant immediate or delayed effects

100-200 ppm Fatal within 1/2 to 1 hour

300 ppm Rapidly fatal (if no treatment)

Cracow Report a Fraud?

The following statement is nonsense:"Modern Holocaust deniers assert that Zyklon B gas was not used in the gas chambers, as evidenced by the lack of Prussian Blue residue in the chambers themselves. The Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow, however, refuted this claim, finding substantial concentrations of cyanide in the buildings in 1994.[1]" TH cyanide found was within natural, normal range for those materials. The concentrations were less then 1 ppm! To refute the claim, they also would have to proof that Zyklon B. had indeed been used against humans. In fact they haven't. Rudolf exposes the cracow report as fraud

Except that the barracks, where you would expect no cyanide, showed zero point zero residue. "within natural normal range" my ass. in fact, Leuchter and the Cracow report both found cyanide in the fumigation rooms, cyanied in the execution chambers, and no cyanide where there wasn't supposed to be any cyanide. Gzuckier 14:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is where the science behind gassig seems to elude most folks. Barracks are not airtight so not finding traces where it would have been stupid ( ie a waste ) to use Zyklon is not unexpected. Finding lots in a delousing chamber is to be expected ( lots was found - except by Cracow using their new method ). Not much was found ( nearly the same as the barracks ) in the supposed gas chambers - not airtight etc ( this is the rub - why would a German engineer all of a sudden build a gas chamber that was a stupid design when not far away he had a delousing chamber that worked - maybe the good engineers all were dead? Alzheimers?...)159.105.80.63 11:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fritz Haber is not the inventor

The following sentence is not correct: Zyklon B was originally developed by Fritz Haber. Erfinder: Dr. Walter Heerdt / Patentschrift vom 27.12.1926 für DEGESCH / Patent rückwirkend zum 20. 6. 1922 erteilt / Please have a look at Diskussion:Fritz Haber in Wikipedia (german) - Holgerjan

Holgerjan is right, "Dr. Fritz Haber" is not the inventor of Zyklon B.(He 'only' invented the Haber process) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Zyklon B was invented at his institute, but not from himself.

citation: During the 1920s, scientists working at his institute developed the cyanide gas formulation Zyklon B, which was used as an insecticide, especially as a fumigant in grain stores, and also later, after he left the program, in the Nazi extermination camps.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

In the german Wiki "DR WALTER HEERDT" is the inventor.

for verifikation see this links:

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=DE&NR=438818C&KC=C&FT=D&date=19261227&DB=&locale=en_V3

http://www.zyklon-b.info/produkt/geschichte.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Kodiak666 (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is fixed now. --Trinitrix (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Faurisson argument

Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument:

"If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

See articles by Juergen Graf. I believe it is impermissible to delete discussion entries, so please don't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.125.139 (talk) 16:09, July 8, 2006

So, given the above, I take it you believe that the tales told by "revisionists" regarding use of zyklon for delousing couldn't possibly be true, eh? Gzuckier 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is bogus. No such system would be needed. When used to kill bugs you just put paper tape around doors and windows. He compares the gas chambers with modern gas chambers and that's hardly relevant. For instance compare how plutonium was handled in the Manhattan project with how it's handled today. // Liftarn

I tried your first link but was unable to locate any "handling" section. I would love to read about these two concepts! Would you be kind and further delineate the actual locations of this information? Thanks.... (Duane44 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Of course bugs can't use the doorknob, tear off the tape or open the window. I suspect a person - but probably not a bug - would try the door, then maybe the window,..... Plutonium kills you later - cyanide kills you now,, slight difference.159.105.80.141 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Irritants

When I first researched this topic around four years ago, it seemed clear to me that the removal of the irritant component in Zyklon-B (which had made it a more effective insecticide, by stimulating bugs into frantic breathing) was a bit of a "smoking gun". It made the gas less effective at killing bugs, and more hazardous to humans, yet that's what the SS apparently wanted. The "only delousing stuff, honest, guv'nor" story explaining its use seemed unsustainable. Since then, two things have happened: I've lost track of the website at which I saw a photostat of the memo from the SS to Degesch ordering the batch without the irritant; and revisionists have started coming up with explanations for why Zyklon-B might have lacked the irritant at some points (to do with shortages of chemical supplies), denying any evidence that the SS wanted it that way. Help? Adhib 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anything about the addition or removal of an irritant. It would be interesting if you could find a source. Doremifasolatido 07:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'll just Google Zyklon-B with irritant you'll unearth a gazillion sources. The problem is finding that one source I recall which actually includes the photostat of the decisive memo. Without it, the 'debate' on that topic is somewhat too nebulous in both directions. Adhib 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been a so-called "Holocaust Denier" most of my life, due mostly to exaggerated figures. When I was young, 100,000,000 Jews killed was the figure usually quoted. In high-school, I was told 3-6 million (which seems reasonable, given Wiki's quote of 9-11 million total, and the fact that many victims were not Jewish). I used to be anti-semetic, but later realized that racism is just a way for people to feel better about themselves at the expense of others (thanks in part to watching 'American History X'). I'm still not willing to believe that most, or even a large percentage of those who died in concentration camps were gassed.... However this is to me a peripheral issue, as the cause and ultimate effect in this chain of events remain the same. Providing documentation of a request or order for irritant-free Zyklon-B, or a memo suggesting its use, would put this issue to rest for those who find it significant. A shipping manifest or delivery receipt wouldn't quite kill the wartime scarcity argument tho.--BlackFlag30 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If such a memo exists, it should have surfaced here by now - yes?

• Depends if anyone else has actually tried to find it. Adhib? You been looking? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for dampening the debate, but insects don't breathe. spiracles. Gzuckier 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They do take in air, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick googling gives http://www.h-ref.de/vernichtung/zyklon-b/zyklon-b-warnstoff.php It has some kind of receit, but it's blurry and I don't read German, but I can guess that "Vorsicht, ohne Warnstoff" means "Carefull, without warning stuff". // Liftarn

Thanks, Liftarn, I took that to babelfish.altavista.com - it's close, but not precisely the item I was looking for. You've found an invoice demonstrating that Degesch were indeed supplying Z-B minus the irritant additive, adding a warning note on the invoice to that effect. What I recalled seeing was a photostat of the memo making the original order to Degesch. This I have either forgotten the research skills I had to search with back then, or it has been taken down (perhaps even shown to be a forgery, who knows?). But if anyone wants to get to the bottom of the irritants angle, that would still be a worthwhile prize. Alternatively, if a would-be revisionist were able to demonstrate that the irritant ceased to be supplied in Z-B for any of Degesch's other pesticide clients, that would be informative, too.

BTW, Gzuckier, I can confirm it's my understanding that the relevant insects do have a capacity to increase or decrease their respiration rate, spiracles and all, and that the irritants in Z-B were designed to stimulate just such functions. Adhib 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the irritant was a form of tear gas - didn't affect toxicity. The irritant and the gas were made by separate companies I read. In war shortcuts are/were taken ( unarmored Hummers for one example ) for murder or for lice ??? probably no smoking gun unless some document shows up - maybe Irving will clear this up someday. RE above snappy retorts ( love'm )if a meaningful memo existed it would be significant enough to probably have its own wiki article, we wouldn't have to find it or remember it. 159.105.80.141 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Zyklon B and generics usualy contain an admixture (about a per cent) of a lachrimatory subsatnce (eye irritant), in Zyklon B this was methyl bromoacetate or methyl chlorocarbonate. Some other hydrogen cyanide-based products of this sort contain chloropicrin as a warning additive. This is do as to warn people potentially being exposed to hydrogen cyanide by causing a strong irritation even in minute concentrations. However, batches of carrier-adsorbed hydrogen cyanide were made and used e.g. for fumigation of empty rooms in food-processing facilities (with food production and storage cancelled during the gassing for obvious reasons -- hydrogen cyanide dissolves in moisture in foods and so could make these poisonous). The reason for doing so is/was not to interfere with foodwares aroma and taste. Some batches are trackable to be delivered to Auschwitz-Birkenau e.g. upon order from Kurt Gerstein. The irritant-less Zyklon B was mentioned to be specifically ordered from the manufacturer out of "human considerations" (i.e., not panicking people exposed to gas until they observed its rapid toxic effects). --84.163.110.147 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Manufacture

Should the process of manufacture be written in this article? Vader1941 18:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Vader1941

• Sure, why not? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit re the Soviet photo

I removed an edit questioning the identification of the serviceperson in the photo. I've no doubt that the prior edit had been done in good faith, but it was not done as an edit to the article... in its then-current form, it was more an item which would have been expected to appear on the Talk Page. I don't have the expertise to know whether the edit was correct in its assertions. Perhaps the same material could be redone as an actual edit to the article itself. Xenophon777 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RE source on using Zyklon for Mexican immigrants in the 1920s. Any source - pictures, etc - of the facilities to do this spraying? The story sounds farfetched, but possible, as is. Spraying would have meant cyanide - not Zyklon - and spraying out in the open would have been a very interesting procedure - the death rate in the INS employees would put a stop to this practice fairly quickly one would think. If enclosed facilities etc existed there must be some records etc around.159.105.80.141 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some poorly worded or unsupported statements...

You're probably referring to modern diesel engines. Older diesels were much more ineffective. Furthermore, CarbonDIoxide levels will also become rapdily toxic in the case of breathing humans + diesel exhaust. for example the chinese refugees enclosed in the container died this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.253.50 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First: "At the other extermination camps, engine exhaust was used in the gas chambers."

As someone whose job is to prevent deaths from engine exhaust in confined spaces on a daily basis, I have looked at this estudiously. As an anal retentive engineer, I cannot fail but to point out that the witnesses' statements and alleged confessions which comprise the source of the sentence above specified a "diesel" engine and none of the witnesses' descriptions ever alleged a gasoline engine, as far as I've read. The most likely component present in diesel exhaust which could kill in a short amount of time is carbon monoxide (CO). However, CO is only a trace component of diesel engine exhaust. To kill within 25-30 minutes, 6200 ppm is required (http://biology.about.com/library/blco.htm), which a diesel engine even at full load is incapable of providing (max. 5000 ppm)(http://www.kiprc.uky.edu/abstracts/npeer4.pdf). Although diesel engine exhaust is not without risks (OSHA, NIOSH), short-term death is not one of them. The sentence in the article is not referenced, and is probably not needed in a Zyklon B article.

Second: "The pesticide was used by Nazi Germany as a chemical weapon to poison prisoners in the gas chambers of the largest extermination camp, Auschwitz Birkenau, and also at Majdanek, one of the Operation Reinhard camps."

"Chemical Weapon" in this sentence is ridiculous. The whole phrase "as a chemical weapon" should be deleted, as it doesn't add anything to the remainder of the sentence. If anything, a pesticide was used as a homicide (grammatically speaking.)

Let those whose egos require editing power of these wiki pages, do whatever they will regarding my comments.

Charles

71.41.57.60 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:06, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

"which a diesel engine even at full load is incapable of providing (max. 5000 ppm)(http://www.kiprc.uky.edu/abstracts/npeer4.pdf)."

That article doesnt even begin to say such a thing. It merely tests the CO output of one particular vehicle at one particular time. CO output in vehicle exhausts spans a very wide range, depending on how well the engine is designed and set up. Needless to say 1930s & 40s vehicles had much higher CO output than modern equipment, and CO output can be extremely high if an engine mixture is set poorly. The fact that people can kill themselves by inhaling vehicle exhaust was established a very long time ago. (Note this is no longer true with most recent vehicles, which are usually self regulating enough to mostly avoid this risk.) Tabby (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen cyanide gas in air is explosive

Hydrogen cyanide gas in air is explosive at concentrations over 5.6% How did the Germans prevent their gaschambers from exploding? Especialially since some of them are build near large furnaces, that were supposed to burn night and day.

And if it is true what Charles said above, about engine exhausts. Then how did the Germans kill so many people in so short a time, in those camps where they used engine exhausts?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.233.105 (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 

Hi, anonymous. I assume you're not a chemist, are you? Now let's do some maths. HCN forms explosive mixtures with air at over 5.6% HCN, that is 56,000 ppm (parts per million, here milliliters per m³). Yet lethal inhalative concentrations are about 270 ppm HCN in the air, death following after about 8 minutes exposure, and about 3,000 ppm within a minute of exposure. Now, 3,000 ppm kills a human in about a minute. This is equivalent to 0.3% concentration, which is well (almost 20-fold) below the lowest explosive concetration. All clear now? Cheers, --Spiperon (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin_cutie raed this , you should too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.146.67 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, Some interesting research and conclusions about diesel engine toxicity vs petrol (gasoline) engines. In particular, "Asphyxiation from diesel exhaust is more likely to be caused by acute lung injury from soot particles, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide than by carbon monoxide. This is different from gasoline exhaust, which contains 28 times more carbon monoxide than diesel exhaust.30" (Ref: http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/55#T2) 58.172.57.175 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't all clear. It sounds like nonsense to me. Putting an explosive gas near an open flame? were the German's really that dumb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP, it may be helpful for you to actually read the article about Zyklon B ;-). It is a preparation of HCN that was especially developed to be an effective means to deliver HCN gas while very safe in handling. In contrast to you, the operators of the gas chambers were smart enough to understand this. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Haber is not the inventor of Zyklon B

Hi all, why is in this article "Dr. Fritz Haber" the inventor of Zyklon B? (He 'only' invented the Haber process) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Zyklon B was invented at his institute, but not from him. citation:

During the 1920s, scientists working at his institute developed the cyanide gas formulation Zyklon B, which was used as an insecticide, especially as a fumigant in grain stores, and also later, after he left the program, in the Nazi extermination camps.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

In the german Wiki "DR WALTER HEERDT" is the inventor.

for verifikation see this links:

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=DE&NR=438818C&KC=C&FT=D&date=19261227&DB=&locale=en_V3

http://www.zyklon-b.info/produkt/geschichte.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

The issue is fexed now. --Trinitrix (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kodiak666 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory text

Under "Production," first paragraph: "Zyklon B was manufactured by the German companies Degesch..."

under "Production," third paragraph: "Degesch's role at this point was limited to acquiring patents and intellectual property: it did not itself produce Zyklon B" Could this be slightly rephrased to avoid the contradiction? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

History and Production sections need citations

Please add sources and citations for those two sections to improve the article. Citation needed tags will guide you as to the areas needing a sources/citation. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Zyklon B, Zyklon A

I'd long wondered, given the name "Zyklon B", what "Zyklon A" was. The start of this article says that the "B" in Zyklon B indicates Blausäure (prussic acid). However later Zyklon A (a redirect to Methyl cyanoformate) is mentioned with no reference to Zyklon B. So is the "B" in Zyklon B coincidental, or was Zyklon B an "advance" (if one can call it that) on Zyklon A? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Zyklon A was the first product, a pressurized container with prussic acid, combined with a strong smelling warning chemical. As prussic acid is also highly explosive this was a dangerous form of handling it, so they invented Zyklon B which is adsorbed prussic acid that can be handled much safer and releases the poison slowly, just like nitroglycerin that was made safe into dynamite by absorbing it in a matrix. Zyklon A = Prussic Acid + Warning Chemical, Zyklon B ("Version 2") is the improved Formula Prussic Acid + Warning Chemical + Absorbing Medium. Today the preparation is sold just under the brand name Zyklon and used for heavy pest control. Jochen Löblein, 4.8.2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.164.109 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

"In quantitative terms, more than 95% of the Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz was used for delousing and less than 5% in the homicidal gas chambers.[18]"

Less than 5%? Can someone explain this?--andreasegde (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The source cited (Pressac) says "By far the greater part (over 95 percent) was destined for delousing (effects and buildings) while only a very small part (less than 5 percent) had been used for homicidal gassings." Pressac is a good source, but that page doesn't go into further detail.

The reason is probably that lice are much more resistant to cyanide than humans (requiring longer exposure to higher concentrations), and if all the clothes of the victims were also de-loused, plus barracks etc. then I'm not surprised about this figure. The report de-bunking the Leuchter report (IIRC) found slight cyanate staining in homicidal gas chambers, and deep blue cyanate staining in de-lousing chambers. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollercoaster name

It seems that Pinfari rollercoasters is still using "Zyklon" as a model name despite occasional complaints. Elsewhere on Pinfari's website it uses other spellings (Cyclon, Ciclone), which some unreliable Googling hints might be an attempt to avoid giving offence. I'm not sure whether they made a half-baked renaming, or have a half-updated website. jnestorius^(talk) 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

flamable

was the gas produced by dropping the pelets into the chamber flamable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK it's flammable in high enough concentrations, but the lethal concentration for humans is much lower than that. 22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

so the Germans didnt care and put the gas chambers right next to the ovens? what concentration makes it flammable and how to we know how much was used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.164 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Without Odorant

I have tried to clarify what I think editors have been meaning to say on zyklon B without odorant, it's the purpose for which it was used rather than the location. If anyone wishes to revert please could they explain. That statement in all cases needs a citation. I don't find it a very tenable view, removing the odorant wouldn't make victims less compliant but would increase risks to perpetrators. I wonder how widely the view is held in mainstream quarters today - it may be easy enough to find one 'mainstream' source some years old to support it but that wouldn't make it up-to-date mainstream consensus. 86.166.78.254 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Reworked correction. Not all Zyklon B used on humans was without odorant. Hardicanute (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

First Use on humans

In January or February 1940, 250 Gypsy children from Brno in the Buchenwald concentration camp were used as guinea pigs for testing the Zyklon B gas.[24] The references for this is dated 1968 - is there nothing more recent? Mainstream views on such details can change over time. There is no record of this experiment leading anywhere. Hardicanute (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute (formerly known as Sceptic1954, but lost my log in for previous name.)

Incomplete detail on use at Auschwitz

I'm not going to spend time doing major edits on this myself but there is no indication that the first experiments were carried out in Block 11 and that subsequent gassings took place in various locations. The two bunkers are presumably the 'Little White' and 'Little Red' Houses. Most of the gassings took place in Birkenau in one of four crematoria buildings which are not mentioned. Hardicanute (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Physical form

I have corrected the description of Zyklon-B as "crystalline" prussic acid. In fact this is not correct. Hydrogen cyanide (a.k.a. prussic acid) is a highly volatile liquid at room temperature (it boils at 26 °C), not a solid. In Zyklon-B HCN, was adsorbed onto a solid carrier and immediately desorbed when the can were opened (where they had been in equilibrium with a saturated air/HCN mixture.

What happens to Zyklon B after it's been deployed?

does it desintegrate? does it remain in the area? does it have to be neutralized with something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is only effective as a gas and is not stable - the hydrogen cyanide article indicates light alone will break it up. I.e. it decomposes and reacts with the environment and forms something like Prussian blue or other cyanide compounds which for the most part (I failed chemistry twice...) will not be toxic. It shouldn't be hard to find some a reference about this. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone does find a reliable source, this would be relevant content to add to the article. Otherwise, sounds like a good question for the Reference Desk. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but HCN is a weak acid, and thus it reacts with many organic and inorganic substances to farm various compounds. In addition it is very volatile, and thus quickly diluted by the air if it is not in an enclosed space. That's part of the reason why it's not used as a chemical weapon. 95.109.104.45 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

'Holocaust Deniers' is a pejorative term

We don't call those that believe the Holocaust occurred as 'Holocaust believers' so why call a group that does not as 'deniers?' A more appropriate and technically accurate unloaded term would be 'Holocaust revisionist.' Malv (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nor do we call murderers "lifespan revisionists". If "Holocaust revisionist" ever becomes the standard term used by reliable sources, we'll cheerfully switch. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Second that. Not only is it the established term, alternative terms are inherently POV-loaded, and whatever one might think of it, putting Holocaust under doubt is a legal issue in quite a few European countries. benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

use today

apologies for the strange and probably inappropriate question but is this gas ever used today (obviously not for the purpose the fash used it for but for pest control etc?) should there be a section detailing post-war usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.63.6 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the Production and marketing section may answer your first question. As to your second question, I'd say it's not a high priority, but if you find a reliable source, a minor expansion of the article wouldn't hurt. Rivertorch (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's a bit disturbing that they've kept a name which means something close to what the original did, but I guess that it's not the chemical itself that was evil but the use it was put to.

20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.63.6 (talk)

Nazi Germany workman's comp claims?

Are there any datas on workplace injuries or compensation related to work with Zyclon B in German circa 1942-45? I would like to know where to find this info. Thanks! 68.228.221.209 (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Translation

The current article holds the following text:

"Heute ist die Zyklon-Blausäure als "das Mittel der Wahl" [...] nicht nur zur Entwanzung und Entlausung, sondern ganz allgemein zur Entwesung großer Räume in allen Erdteilen bekannt. (Today Zyklon-prussic acid is known as the means of choice [...] not only for debugging and delousing but also, in general, for the extermination of large spaces in all quarters of the globe.)"

The word "Entwesung" does not mean "extermination". It means "disinfestation". Athough" "Räume" can mean places, her it definitely means "rooms". "In allen Erdteilen" does not mean "in all quarters of the globe". The expression Erdteil is a synonym for "continent". You can check all of this on leo.org.

Therefore, the correct translation is:

"Today Zyklon-prussic-acid is known on all continents as the "the means of choice" [...] not only for debugging and for delousing but also, in general, for disinfesting large rooms."

I am going to correct the translation accordingly unless someone has reasonable objections.Pilava (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)