Talk:Hydrogen cyanide

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fruit pits

How much hydrogen cyanide is in the pit of cherries and such? Less than 300 parts per million? Like, if you ate like 10 pits of cherries, would you become cyanide poisoned? Or is it a different, non-poisonous, say, ion? ugen64 23:56, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I believe you have Iraq as using cyanide - according to the US Army War College it was the Iranians.

On the above point - why is the article left incorrect? Pellitiere ( Army War College in PA ) researched this many years ago and reported that it appeared the Iranians accidentally killed civilians with their cyanide based gas - Iraq used mustard gas at the time.

100g of pits (as I wrote) will yield ~10mg of HCN 19:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Preparation

I don't believe that Prussic acid can be synthesized from ammonia and carbon monoxide, but I'm a first year chem student so I'm not exactly an expert in the field. Someone should check on that (and by "check on" I don't mean try at home!) 17:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A google search seems to agree with the article, and I believe that it is correct.

P.S. Since you're a first year chem student, try to start using the IUPAC names for chemicals. You'll still be served well by knowing what Aqua fortis, Oil of Vitriol, Muriatic acid, slaked lime etc. are, but try to avoid using archaic names for chemicals.

You should also sign your posts with "~~~~"

Darrien 18:36, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article cites the Andrussov process as a production method of HCN, but gives the chemical formula:

CH₄ + NH₃ + 1.5 O₂ → HCN + 3 H₂O

This is not the empirical formula. It would work on a molar basis, but I'm pretty sure that the correct formula for the balanced reaction should be:

2 CH₄ + 2 NH₃ + 3 O₂ → 2 HCN + 6 H₂O

I'm an engineering student who's only had the prerequisite freshman chemistry courses, but I'm pretty sure that you can't have half of an O₂ molecule in a reaction because O^- is an entirely different beast. Am I wrong on this one?

ianrox 17:01, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Either equation is fine but expert chemists like to minimize the multiplyiers preceding the formulas. When a chemist writes 1.5 O₂, we are not considering subdividing molecules (!) but subdividing moles (ca. 6 x 10exp23 molecules!). Your question is excellent, I wish that more folks tried as hard to decipher the language of chemistry.--Smokefoot 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical formulas are the easy part. I definitely understood what the reaction meant, it was all just a technical foible in my eyes. Chemical equilibria are the parts that got me. ianrox 14:47, 1 Jun 2006 (UTC)

History

Hi. I added a section about the use of cyanide by the Nazis. I think it's appropriate, but if anyone doesn't like it, let me know and we can discuss. Perhaps some additional facts about who first isolated the chemical or what-not could tone it down if desired. LMK --DanielCD 20:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's appropriate, it would be inappropriate not to mention it in an encyclopedia. E=MC^2 T@lk 00:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think it is appropriate, especially since you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keep to the technical facts of science and leave the politics. propaganda, and controversial aspects to another forum.Kenny56 05:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Nazis used HCN to kill is not politics, propaganda, or controversial. It is factual history. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it shouldn't be any problem for you to cite the sources of these "facts", right? Please provide references to back up your claims. The link that you provided does not seem to exist. Kenny56 16:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any history book on the Holocaust provides this info. Use of HCN at Auschwitz is beyond doubt. It is too widely known to need a ref on the page. The link I added was about the Iraq-Iran war. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. It was in the form of an insecticide marketed under the trade name Zyklon B. – Clockwork Soul 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is too widely known to need a ref" - what the heck humor me with the ref anyway, seeing as it is so well known.

Weapons claims and reports

Reports that lack sources or citations are considered dubious at best, and approach propaganda in their worst form. Please do not make claims without providing references for verification.Kenny56 05:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of what do you refer, specifically? – Clockwork Soul 15:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three sentences under a section about use as a chemical weapon. Please provide verifiable citations for statements and claims of facts, otherwise the information is dubious and has no place in an encylopedia.Kenny56 16:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen cyanide + tobacco smoke = foul taste in mouth?

quote: “Hydrogen cyanide forms a foul-tasting compound when it combines with tobacco smoke. For this reason, some chemists choose to have a lit cigarette in their mouth while they are working with it, as they receive an early warning against possible cyanide poisoning.”

Can you give a source? Or is it a personal observation of the author or a habit of a chemist the author knows? I’ve never heard that but it sounds interesting.

Corrosivity

Can anyone tell me if HCN gas is corrosive to mild steel? It doesn't appear to be, but I know that CN- behaves much like a halogen ion, and HCl and HF are very corrosive to steel, right? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.76.76 (talk • contribs) Both HCN and HF are molecules in the pure form, and then not corrosive (you can pump HF through a steel pipe without reaction). If there is water available, they become corrosive, and then the corrosivity is depending on a) the pKa of the acid and b) the stability of the salts formed (a.o determined by lattice energy), some combinations of metal-cations and certain anions are particularly stable, thereby driving the reaction; some metals do not dissolve in strong acids like sulphuric acid or nitric acid, or even aqua regia, but do dissolve in dilute HCN) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Propaganda in a Wikipedia Science Article

This afternoon I used this Wikipedia article on hydrogen cyanide in an internet post because HCN's spectral signature was found in observations of the unusual Kuiper Belt object 2003 EL61. I was annoyed to see unfounded accusations included in this chemistry article. It has not been proven that "Iraq gassed the Kurds". Iraq denied this claim. Plausible evidence has been provided that another party did this, specifically Iran.

This information is in no way appropriate to an article about chemistry. I consider it politically motivated vandalism. If one wishes to make such accusations, then that person or group needs to create an article about it. I believe in this case that such articles must surely already exist on Wikipedia, it might be appropriate to link to such an article, but injecting propaganda into a science article is abhorrent. It gives the propaganda unwarranted credibility by masquerading as "Science".

What definitely identifies this as propaganda is that only two actors are accused, German Nazis and Iraqi Ba'athists. Many tonnes of poison gas were used in World War I and I would be surprised if there weren't others involved in the use of hydrogen cyanide as a chemical weapon in history.

Mike Emmert 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Michael C. Emmert[reply]

I think the text is quite correct, it does say 'may have been employed' for the attack on the Kurds, it does not state 'proof', and there is a reference (in wrong format, but I will help that in a moment). A counterargument may be added with a ref. The second part is also a referenced statement, so I see no problem there. I don't think this is propaganda. It may indeed be that there are not many examples, but you are free to add more. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Still propaganda in wiki" - wow I may faint.I thought wiki was a propaganda ocean - ref Pellitiere et al - Army War College - as a counter claim - the Iranians used cyanide not the Iraqis. Counterclaim refs on the Zyklon B would be any text book on chemistry or go to the experts on any Holocaust Denial site. The Zyklon B story lacks any technical feasability, much less evidence.

Heh heh. "Go to the experts on any Holocaust Denial site". That's a good one. You sly devil. Gzuckier 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

I added the attempted attack by Aum Shinrikyo in the Tokyo subway with HCN. raptor 14:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]