Talk:VX (nerve agent)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine / Toxicology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (marked as Mid-importance).

France possessing VX?[edit]

Is there a source for France possessing VX? David.Monniaux 12:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I wasn't the one that put that info in the article, but I was interested too. Search is difficult, because the information pool is tainted with lots of Iraq data (it was interesting running across the deeply pro- and anti- American opinions). Here's what I found in my brief search:
    1. Per Human Rights Watch], "[In] April 1997 ... eight states declared former or existing chemical weapons production plants (China, France, India, Russia,South Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan) and pledged to destroy their stockpiles of chemical agents.". This doesn't specify VX, however.
    2. This Daily Times article (Google cached here) mentions that a French company was supplying a VX predecessor to Iraq. It's not much (especially considering that nobody ever prooved that Iraq had VX after ).
Hope this helps. Also, I will be coming back to this article in the next few days. I want to fact check and find references for everything in here, and in the course of that I will try to find a definitive answer for you if you don't have one already. ClockworkSoul 22:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think we should put too much faith in articles pretending that France sold this or that to Iraq, in view of the large amount of disinformation that was made around such topics. :-) David.Monniaux 15:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree entirely. When I get back from my "real life" in a couple of days , I'll fully fact-check this article. ClockworkSoul 03:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Researchers in Porton Down, England in 1952 invented the chemical; the British government later abandoned the project.

THAT IS TOTAL CRAP!!!! VX was invented accidently in nazi-germany before of world war two, as they did research for pesticides

Your statement "The VX is in the process of being diluted into VX hydrolysate" misses an important point. The VX is being destroyed chemically (by hydrolysis) by the adding of aqueous sodium hydroxide. The VX continues to decrease in concentration, the longer it is in the resulting hydrolysate. The target concentration is 20 parts per billion (ppb) before shipping the hydrolysate for secondary treatment at DuPont. From an environmental point of view, simple dilution of bulk amounts of toxic materials as a means of disposal is discouraged. The actual amount of dilution (waste volume increase) occuring at Newport is about 3- to 6-fold. The reduction in VX concentration, however, is (1 billion ppb)/(20 ppb) = 50 million-fold. Drbillellis 21:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps it would be effective to include the effects of exposure to the gas in this article? If I knew them, I'd probably add them in now, but seeing how I don't...(it's something that can be used to see if the TV show 24 is accurate or not)Ctifumdope 03:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It causes all your muscles to contract, so you can't breathe. Nerve agent goes into more detail. 24 was pretty realistic about the symptoms, although I doubt even a government agency could design a building as bad as CTU headquarters. (Computers that can't be accessed remotely? No atropine or respirators in the safe rooms?) —Keenan Pepper 03:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Effects include unexplainable severe headache, trouble seeing, pinpointed pupils, unexplainable runny nose, trouble breathing, tightness of chest, severe vomiting, spasms or twitching of muscles,defecation and urination, and in large amounts of exposure convulsions then death. This is apart of my job. I am a chemical operations specialist. Basically, i prepare and test for chemical and biological warfare within the US Army. As for the appearance of VX, i have seen it myself. It is a oily light tan color, but when it is in a lesser pure form it is more amber colored. Atropine can be used to help prevent further effects in small or mild cases, but in severe cases atropine can only save so much from nerve damage. I had a lab i went to where we watched effects of psuedonerve agent on lab animals. Hard to stomach when you are having to inject them and then watch as they go through the steps. One thing i noticed though was the fact that their palms and face excreted large amounts of sweat, that would be one good clue to look for. When we adminstered the atropine the effects were reversed and the animals we were told were back to 100% health. Gas masks and full MOPP(Mission oriented protective posture) gear are needed to protect oneself from VX. People also become delerious when exposed and are often unable to realize that they are exposed, so watch your buddies closely. Also let us dearly hope the government never does build a building as bad as CTU hjeadquarters, LOL, or God help the people in my position!-Stephanie Riley US ARMY CHEM CORPS

Reply to Above: Hey, do you think you can find me a real picture of actual VX? I always wondered what it really looked like.

The effects are detailed in nerve agent. – ClockworkSoul 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

milligramms or micrograms?[edit]

In german WP there is a LD at 10 micrograms inahlated. 1 milli = 1000 micro. I think this is an havy Error! Sadorkan (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The source we have does say 10 mg which is the normal abbreviation for milligrams. Looking at other sources they are also in the milligrams range not micrograms. This source says 10 mg is the existing estimated LD50 and proposes a 5 mg LD50. This one says 10 mg and compares it to a raindrop weighing 50 mg. Both use the same abbreviation and a raindrop does not weigh 50 micrograms. I believe based on this that milligrams is the proper units. GB fan 17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've heared that VX is one of the strongest toxins known by mankind, among few others like ricine, tetrodotoxin, Aflatoxin or TCDD (and 10 or more milligrams doesn't correspond to that!). The 10 to 50mg is right for application via the skin. But the mg of VX-varpor in m*3 air is not the same dose than the total amount of bioavailable beeing inhalated and remains in the lung. The lung is warm, so most of VX does not condense at it's inner surface, and the very most of it gets exhalated. As we see here: intrvenous or subcutane application is much more strong. The medicinal science says that inhaleted doses of most toxins like cocaine and others are near-equal to the doses beeing shot with a Syringe. Sorry it's my mistake getting confused with the difference of mg/m*3 air (multiplied with time time) and the dose beeing "absorbed" by the lunge (and respiratory tract). Excuse my bad english. thanks & best greetings =o) Sadorkan (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Aum Shinrikyo[edit]

I added the reference to VX being used by the terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo. raptor 09:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Aum Shinrikyo used an impure form of Sarin gas, which is far less toxic than VX.

Aum Shinrikyo exposed the public to sarin in in Matsumoto and Tokyo but they also synthesised VX amoung other things and used it against individual targets, either directly or by contaminating doors, cars etc. with it. Some attacks were successful while others were not. raptor 08:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The way the article currently stands (Nov 2006), there's a stand-alone sentence about sarin gas used by Aum Shinrikyo in Tokyo subways. It does not link in any way to the rest of the article. Better to leave that sentence to the sarin page, or make a link to Aum Shinrikyo and have the sentence repeat what raptor said above, that they are a terrorist group known to have synthesised VX. 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Aum Shinrikyo used VX gas against three persons. One person died.

"Japanese cult used VX to slay member" by Pamela Zurer, Chemical and Engineering News 1998, Vol 76 (no. 35)
The Japanese cult whose homemade sarin killed 13 people and sickened thousands of commuters in the Tokyo subway in March 1995 had earlier killed one of its own members with the even more deadly nerve agent VX.
The murdered man is the "only victim of VX ever documented in the world," said Hitoshi Tsuchihashi, chief forensic toxicologist at the Osaka Police Forensic Science Laboratory, Osaka, Japan. In Boston, Tsuchihashi described how he found metabolites of VX in samples of the victim's blood seven months after his murder, one of which is similar to the compound found in the soil at the Sudanese plant the U.S. bombed recently.
The Aum Shinrikyo sect had a small lab set up to make VX at a compound near Mount Fuji where it could also produce sarin on the ton scale, said Yasuo Seto, chief chemist with the National Research Institute of Police Science in Tokyo. The cult members succeeded in making only 100 to 200 g of VX and 20 to 30 kg of sarin, he told C&EN.
Both scientists took part in a symposium on the Japanese incidents organized for the Division of Agricultural & Food Chemistry by Anthony T. Tu, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, Fort Collins. An expert on chemical weapons who served as an adviser to Japanese police after the subway attack, Tu invited the experts who treated the victims and investigated the crime to Boston for the first briefing on their efforts outside Japan.
The 28-year-old VX victim, who apparently had soured on the cult, was attacked in December 1994 on the street in Osaka by two men who sprinkled the nerve agent on his neck. He chased them for about 100 yards before collapsing, dying 10 days later without ever coming out of a deep coma. Doctors in the hospital suspected at the time he had been poisoned with an organophosphate pesticide. But the cause of death was pinned down only after cult members arrested for the subway attack confessed to the killing, Tsuchihashi said.
Aum Shinrikyo members also unsuccessfully tried to kill a lawyer who opposed them, Tokyo police forensic toxicologist Noriko Tsunoda told C&EN. They confessed to squirting a mixture of VX and hair oil into a keyhole, hoping the lawyer would then touch the nerve agent on his contaminated key. Police later found VX degradation products in the keyhole.

Two structures (HOP(O)(OEt)Me and MeSCH2CH2N(i-Pr)2) are shown with the title Found in Japanese murder victim.

Here is a full detail of the criminals (sentensed by the Tokyo district court written in Japanese).

Masami Tsuchiya first synthesized nontoxic VX hydrochloride, because he used N,N-dimethylaniline instead of triethylamine. So the first and second attacks against Mr. M. (who protected a friend from AUM Shinrikyo) by Tomomitsu Niimi on Nov 27, 1994 and Nov 28, 1994 failed. Tsuchiya then synthesized 200-mL hexane solution which contains ca. 50 g of VX. The third attack against Mr. M. succeeded and the victim was taken in hospital for two months. The attack against Mr. H. (the second victim, who was suspected as a spy by Shoko Asahara) on Dec 12, 1994 also succeeded and he was dead (see above). The attack against Mr. N. (Head of the Victims of AUM Shinrikyo at that time; the third victim) on Jan. 4, 1995 also succeeded. He did not notice that he was attacked, but later cramped and was in hospital for 2 months. (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of atropine[edit]

The article states that atropine can be used as an antidote because it blocks mAChRs preventing the depolarizing block associated with organophosphate cholinesterase inhibitors. Shouldn't that mean that one would still experience all of the sympathetic effects (SLUD) of the nerve agent? --Selket Talk 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit of "footnotes"[edit]

Could anyone point me to a guide of how to edit the last lines of this article? E.G., I'd like to edit the links in the "This article is part of the chemical weapons"-box, since HN definitely is NOT a gas. THx, Lost Boy 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

British or American English?[edit]

I'm sorry if this doesn't belong here, but I can't pass noticing that in several articles there seems to be different points of view whether the correct spelling should be BE or AE, eg "vapour" or "vapor". Any idea, anyone? Lost Boy 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is usually left at the discretion of the first editor who made a major contribution to the article. there were 2 instances of vapor and 1 instance of vapour in the article. I changed the vapour to vapor so they all agreed. Not that I care one way or the other, just so they are all consistent. Jons63 15:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
THX, Lost Boy 06:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

250,000 gallons of VX[edit]

Is this true? If so, that's enough to kill the entire population of our planet, including animals (with the exception of sea bearing creatures) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is true. The US stockpile has hundreds of thousands of munitions full of this stuff in assorted sizes. Be thankful it is being destroyed as we speak. The Newport site has destroyed 66% of this total as of October 16, 2007 according to the CMA website. Oh Snap 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stereochemistry shown of VX[edit]

Although it has not been shown unequivocally, the active form of VX is considered to be the "S" isomer. The chemical structure shown on the page is the "R" isomer. -- (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me a reference and I'll modify the images if necessary.
Ben (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben- Please see my email with requested reference HMG -- (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it, just working on it now.
Ben (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the biological activity of each of the enantiomers, the compound is made and used as the racemate, so either both enantiomers should be shown, or the structure should be redrawn without chirality.HowardJWilk (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

EA 2192[edit]

Any opinions out there about adding additional information about EA 2192 into the VX article? Perhaps it requires its own article if enough data can be gathered but right now I think it could start out in the VX article under a sub heading such as Chemical characteristics/ Neutralization byproducts(?) until it got it's legs. Oh Snap (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Anon comment[edit]

This article is the pinnacle of stupidity and retardation. Why is the molecular diagram, instructions, what chemicals to use, and the processes for making VX CLEARLY explained on this page? Would someone care to explain it to me? Anyone with good intentions won't want to know how to make VX gas, I don't care how many other places the instructions are, this is the FIRST LINK on google and it clearly shows you how to make it. Freaking idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some details about its synthesis are presented on this page, but not nearly enough detail is present to actually make the stuff in your garage. If you wanted it though, there are a few thousand other web sites available out there that actually do present full protocols for the synthesis of various nerve agents. – ClockworkSoul 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh gee. So, you go to a store, buy a gallon of phosphorous trichloride (being widely used as a drain cleaner), 2-N,N-diisopropylaminoethanol (found in any decent aquarium stuff store of course) and there you go with the Wiki "receipe", yeah?-- (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Relax Phosphorous Trichloride (PCl3) is NOT available in drain cleaner. Far too dangerous. It's practically a controlled substance, and is useful as a precursor for PCl5 synthesis, which in turn is useful for making stuff like LSD. PCl3 is listed on Schedule 3 under OPCW (chemical weapons convention), and not available to just anyone, unless maybe you find a source in China or India willing to sell you a jug. BTW, why no mention of the Dugway VX sheep slaughter in 68? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be really confident that I was serious, don't you?-- (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a link in a new see also section to the Dugway sheep kill in 1968, as requested above. Also seconding what was said above, there is no way there is enough detail here to synthesize VX, information that is not exactly secret anyway. --IvoShandor (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
If you think detailed instructions for cooking VX are bad, consider that the United States Government got the bright idea to declassify all but a very few of the secrets of Nuclear Weapons design in 1965, with the result that one can now order for about forty bucks from Amazon "The Los Alamos Primer", which was the introduction to bomb Physics that was presented to new Manhattan Project staff during the Second World War.
This had the eventual result that after the first Persian Gulf War, UN Arms Control Inspectors found declassified Manhattan Project documents all over Iraq. the Uranium used for Hiroshima was refined not in a Uranium Hexafluoride Gas Centrifuge as is the modern practice, but in an electromagnet device known as a Calutron. Those UN Arms Inspectors also found Calutrons buried underground, with their electrical power coming from hundreds of miles away via buried cables.
I have a Bachelor's in Physics from UCSC, and some graduate study. If you consider how much is now publicly documented about how to build The Bomb, consider my assertion that I myself could have performed the required radiation experiments by the last year of my undergraduate work, and that afer graduate school I could have performed the required computational and theoretical work on a personal computer that I already own.
A whole bunch of Genies have escaped a whole bunch of bottles. MichaelCrawford — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

IUPAC name incorrect[edit]

The IUPAC name given isn't correct. I'm hesitating about as to insert one of the actual IUPAC names (which would be either 1. Ethyl {[2-[di(propan-2-yl)amino]ethylsulfanyl} methylphosphinate if considered as a methylphosphonic acid derivative or 2. N-[2-(ethoxy-methylphosphinyl)sulfanylethyl]-N-propan-2-yl-propan-2-amine, if considered an tertiary amine) or the better-known "organophosphorous" name S-[2-(di(propan-2-yl)amino)ethyl]-O-ethyl methylphosphonothiolate, which is the systematic name officialy used in military documents and CWC. I think, that the correct (valid) IUPAC name should be used in the box with the organophosphor chemistry synonym given as well. So, clearly, as the current name given as IUPAC name is invalid, it must be changed. I do so myself and suggest this subject to be reviewed by WP Chemistry to settle the issue. Before you consider reverting or changing my edit, please consult WP Chemistry, if you self are not credited in the WP:Chem. Thank you, -- (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Weapon or not?[edit]

Someone is removing the category "chemical weapons" not only here, but also in the articels on e.g. Sarin. Any idea why? FOr the time being, I just undid the change here. From my understanding, these agents are chemical weapons according to the OPCW. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly a chemical weapon. Someone was just confused.  Xihr  13:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
All of those articles are already in subcategorys of Chemical weapons, no need to be redundant. It's exactly how it's supposed to work. I know it's a chemical weapon, don't worry. --IvoShandor (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Basically, I was just trying to clean up the category. Nearly every article that was in Chemical weapons cat was also in, e.g. nerve agents cat, which is just redundant in my book. --IvoShandor (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if folks here don't agree, no skin off my nose, and i will abide by consensus. --IvoShandor (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

VX is a chemical warfare agent; a potent liquid with the appearance of 10 weight motor oil. It is does not cover area targets on its own. A TMU-28/B spray tank is a chemical weapon when filled wih VX. A M121 155mm artillery projectile is a chemical weapon when filled with VX. A chemical weapon is an integrated device of agent, dissemination means, and delivery system. Not trying to be pedantic, it is a misnomer to term VX a chemical weapon, it is only the critical component to a weapon, and thus why controlled by the OPCW. --Reid Kirby (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Publishing the methods of synthesising VX should come with serious consideration of any rational human being. Fortunately, the people writing this article are seriously askew in their methods, but really can you say Al Queda?

You can be certain that there is nothing nearly precise enough presented in this article to enable someone to actualy synthetise this nerve agent. Quite the contrary, I think, it might be helpful to make clear to the general public as well as vendors or companies selling chemicals, that it is imporatant never to make some of the crucial chemicals needed available to anyone but state-certified and controlled institutions or companies for clear, legitimate and legal purpose. Cheers,-- (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

in popular culture[edit]

There might be reasons to add such a section to an article, especially if the information in this section adds value to the article. An emotional quote from a movie clearly does not qualify as adding scientific value to this article. Hence, I am going to again delete it unless someone today comes up with a good reason to keep it. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's trivia. Rarely very interesting trivia, at that.  Xihr  21:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
OK; I'm going to delete it. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
VX is featured in the movie: how it's stored, how it's handled, how it could be used by terrorists, and depictions of its effects. Furthermore, mentioning it here satisfies Wikipedia's own criteria for Wikipedia:%22In_popular_culture%22_content. Articles on nuclear war, the Halabja poison gas attack and Rubik's Cube all have references to films in their Popular Culture sections. I picked those subjects at random; there are many more. Even a specific nuclear warhead, the B83 lists its references from films. With that in mind, is my mentioning of a film that features VX really TOTALLY irrelevant? I like the way you capitalized TOTALLY, Lost Boy. Thank you for just deleting my edit outright without discussing it. Polihale (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
please, -do- read Xihr's post above. Trivia stays trivia, and quoting numerous other seemingly parallel situations does not add weight to your arguments. Someone jumping off a cliff not necessarily is good enough a reason to jump yourself. Moreover, nearly all the facts on VX stated in the movie are, to put it mildly, rubbish. Please inform yourself on the facts on the open websites. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The Rock's featuring of VX is certainly significant enough to mention, especially with a description of its artistic license. I have two references for the significance, but none for the artistic license I've described; perhaps someone can come up with some. Podiaebba (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not. Please, do read what's been written on this subject over and over and over again; I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you are a) obviously quite alone w/ your POV and b) flogging a dead horse. Best regreds, Lost Boy (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I not only read this discussion, I went back in the history find what was written (the "emotional quote" mentioned above), and didn't add it. You are in fact being extremely disrespectful in ignoring the differences between what was written at the time and what I wrote here, which includes two sources pointing out the significance of The Rock. I'm reverting, and if you respond again, I expect you to respond to the actual content I've created. Podiaebba (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted back to the original "in popular culture" paragraph. it was short and useful for readers who want to see a visual presentation of VX scenario etc. The references attached mentioning these films/shows come from reputable popular science sources - Scientific American, Discover magazine and the History channel. (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. All you've done is listed films/shows that mention VX, this does not help the reader in any way understand the subject of the article better nor help the reader understand the subject's use in popular culture. All you've done is shown that it gets used in popular culture, that's trivial. If this section is to exist then it needs to be an in-depth discussion of the use of VX in popular culture (things it gets wrong, things it gets right, why it's used, the general effect on the viewing public, etc.) and of course with references to reliable sources that discuss the issue. SQGibbon (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Lost Boy (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If the point of those links is to show "a visual presentation" then they should be External Links, not "popular culture". If they're available online, it may be useful to readers; otherwise, it's not likely to be. As to The Rock: the Royal Society for Chemistry says VX was "made infamous" by it [1] so it is certainly worth a mention. And correcting the film's artistic license, when this is what most people have been exposed to in terms of VX info, is well worth doing. Podiaebba (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, we have a minority vote for putting this section in the article and a majority for deleting it. I would propose to delete it, at least until there's a clear concept to it. The way it is now, it is just adding completely irrelevant trivia to a scientifically sound article, thus significantly devaluing the article. Opinions, anyone? 05:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost Boy (talkcontribs)
No, there isn't a majority to have no "in popular culture" section, where do you get that idea from? And where do you get the idea that the opinion of the Royal Society of Chemistry is trivial? Where do you get the idea that correcting misconceptions in the "infamous" use of VX in The Rock is unhelpful to have in an encyclopedia article about VX? This is not a scientific handbook, it's an encyclopedia. Podiaebba (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Right. Arithmetic Don't count. Anyway, EOD 4 me. Lost Boy (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
There are three different versions (2 versions of the section, and no section at all) and discussion spread over 2 years, with the third version only extant recently so some people haven't been able to express an opinion on it. Pretending that it's straightforward to count who wants what isn't helpful, especially as a simple headcount shouldn't determine the outcome anyway, it should be the weight of argument. Podiaebba (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

LD50 does not seem to be 734 micrograms[edit]

The reference given on the sentence which lists the LD50 as 734 micrograms through skin exposure ( ) actually lists the LD50 as the much larger 10mg. This claim has now been repeated in a number of blogs and news sources, based on this article, because of the Dugway Proving Ground incident; so I think it would be good to work this out. Does anyone have any idea where this number comes from? Zombiejesus (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Official US and international (SIPRI, OPCW) sources as well as most of the specialist literature do quote the percutaneuos lethal dose for an adult male to be about 10 mg. This however is an approximation only, and there is a lot of factors influencing the actual lethal dose; those 10 mg are supposed to be absorbed on a patch of bare, healthy, naked skin without any decontamination or the like. Wearing an summer type uniform puts the lethal dose up to about 90 mg, supposing the agent does penetrate the uniform and resorb within an hour; rapid decontamination and antidotal treatment would also greatly increase the dose needed to yield a lethality; opposingly, getting the agent onto a wound or being it mixed with some blistering agent or solvents might greatly reduce the lethal dose. "734 micrograms" sounds a bit odd and it appears to me as an estimate of the oral or inhalatory lethal dose in a man of ~70 kg body weight (oral/inhalatory LD50 being estimated to be in order of 2 — 10 µg×kg-1 body weight). Cheers, -- (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that 10mg is an approximation, and that inhalation may have a smaller LD-50. However the page lists this dose as being through skin exposure explicitly. It does seem reasonable that this may apply to some other method of ingestion; but without a reference to how this number was derived (let alone what ingestion method it refers to) I don't think we should leave it on this page, even with the 'citation needed' flag that I see it has now. Do you, or anyone else, see it differently? Zombiejesus (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I have changed the listed LD50 to 10mg. Zombiejesus (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"No known uses"[edit]

The intro claims to have no known uses other than as a weapon. However, one small line notes that it is used to treat turf grass, and it has a source. Is this a reliable source? If so, is the "no known uses" part false? That's all I can say about this. (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear what "it" is referring to in the sentence "It is also used to treat seeds and turf grasses". If it is VX, then the statement is dubious; if it is EMPTA, then the statement is not relevant. So I have removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Being an (obviously strong) facilitator of acetylcholine, this is quite the generalization. For example, it could serve as an antidote for things like tubocurarine, though atropine would still be the appropriate choice. The point being it could HAVE a use, it is just not one currently used in practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RabidRick (talkcontribs) 01:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Source needed?[edit]

Under the heading "History" it says, "The chemical in question was later identified as O-ethyl hydrogen methylphosphonothioate (EMPTA), used as a precursor in the production of VX." Does this need to be sourced? I thought Sudan asked the United States to send an inspection team, and the United States declined. Has anyone confirmed what was actually being made there? It seems this subject is controversial. KyleHis2 (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on VX (nerve agent). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)