![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Looks like we may soon see official confirmation of at least one Novichok agent structure once they release details of what was used to poison Skripal and his daughter. Now the question for us is, do we create a new page for this specific compound or just add details to the general page here? It will certainly meet WP:N given the high profile of this poisoning incident! Meodipt ( talk) 20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Source: Mirzayanov, Vil (1995), "Dismantling the Soviet/Russian Chemical Weapons Complex: An Insider's View", Global Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Hearings Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 104th Cong., pp. 393–405
Name | Type | Research site | Test site | Production site | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Substance 33 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow) | Shikhany | Novocheboksarsk |
|
A-230 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Shikhany) | Nukus |
|
|
A-232 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Shikhany) |
|
|
|
Novichok-5 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow) | Nukus |
|
|
Novichok-? |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow and Shikhany) |
|
|
|
Novichok-7 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow) | Shikhany | Shikhany |
|
So which is A-234? Neil S. Walker ( talk) 11:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, my copy of Mirzayanov's book was just delivered; let's see if it clarifies the position. Neil S. Walker ( talk) 12:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Just leafing through Mirzayanov's book again, there are a few clarifications that could be added to the main article
So barely enough to make an article for A-234 here, if it is confirmed by OPCW that this was the agent that was used to poison the Skripals then it is certainly notable enough, but it would be nice to have more sources. I suppose there will probably be a great deal more published research on this class of compounds in the next few years after they have suddenly been given such a high profile anyway! Meodipt ( talk) 20:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The Iranian spectroscopic study is actually very interesting. Note (i) they synthesized all the compounds themselves, and (ii) these are all new structures, not in Hoenig / Ellison or Mirzayanov. However they are very similar to the guanidine derivatives Mirzayanov identifies as A-242 and A-262. This tells us that the Iranians have been carrying out genuinely independent third-party research on the Novichoks (i.e. independent from both Russia and NATO), and that they consider Mirzayanov's structures as being the more reliable. However note that if Mirzayanov is correct, the structures listed by Hoenig / Ellison that were cited to Soviet literature, are indeed still nerve agents developed under the Foliant program, they are just weaker examples not the super potent agents developed for military use. Meodipt ( talk) 20:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Mirzayanov explicitly states that A-232 is a phosphate (and not a phosphamide, for example) in his 2009 article:
Next, agent A-232 doesn’t belong to the class of phosphonates, as all other known phosphor organic chemical agents do. It is a phosphate, like many pesticides. Phosphates are not listed among the controlled chemicals on the CWC lists. In order to hide it more effectively, they synthesised and started producing a decoy pesticide, based on a component of the binary version of A-232. Laboratory tests at GosNIIOKhT confirmed the high efficiency of this binary of A-232, and so, on October 6 1989, the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU and future Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mikhail Gorbachev signed Resolution N 518-33 to begin mass development and testing of this agent.
Major General Nikolay Antonov writes in his 1994 book that (quoted per US DoD National Air Intelligence Center translation with a minor and pretty obvious correction of 'ether' to 'ester'):
Replacement in analogs of VX of methyl group by methoxyl in some cases makes it possible to obtain substances with toxicity comparable with toxicity of VX. Observation in esters of phosphoric acid of levels of toxicity comparable with levels of toxicity of esters of methylphosphonic acid, is, first of all, of only scientific, not practical interest.
I don't believe Antonov didn't know about adoption of the binary A-232, most likely he was being deceptive ('nothing to see here'), however it may be relevant to cover this aspect in the article. By the way, four Ellison's supposed Novichok agents from C01-A035 to C01-A038 have a methoxy group, don't have a P-C bond, and are esters of phosporic acid (in other words, organic phosphates like Dichlorvos). Ain92 ( talk) 23:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
GosNIIOKhT syntethic chemist Vladimir Uglev who worked with Mirzayanov and blowed the whistle to support him in 1990s gave his largest interview since 1993 (both links are English translations, even though maybe not the best ones) where he refused to comment on certain classified technicalities but otherwise gave a lot of useful information. For example he listed (under his own codenames) unitary agents which can be referred as __Novichoks__, three from the Foliant program and a subsequent one:
BTW he also claims not a single binary was weaponized, at least before 1994. Ain92 ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm reading Mirzayanov's memoir now (like it so much, strongly recommended) and found out today that Mirzayanov himself actually wasn't cleared for binary R&D himself and first heard about it in a celebration after the GosNIIOKhT bosses had been awarded for the binary, despite heading the department of countermeasures against foreign technical intelligence services in this research institute (head of a organization department in Russian terms is roughly equivalent to Chief Officer position in a Western company) and holding the highest security clearance (so-called first form for documents classified as osoboy vazhnosti, may be analogous either to TS or TS/SCI in the US – in the military industry AFAIK usually the latter, e.g. military operation requirements for a nuclear device of a new warhead design being developed were classified OV, but compartmentation complicates the comparison, the details being out of scope of this post). As Mirzayanov points out in his interview to Kommersant-FM, Uglev as a senior engineer most likely haven't been cleared either, and the documents he managed to copy from his criminal case prove successful development of the binaries beyond any reasonable doubt. Ain92 ( talk) 09:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm reading the Russian original of the memoir and I heard the English translation is pretty bad, that's so sad. =( As a side note, I added to the article a mention of Uglev's 1998 interview when he actually confirmed development of the binary A-232. Ain92 ( talk) 19:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
See for example [5] (US Dept of Defense), [6] (US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), [7] (US Senate Committee on the Judiciary), [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc etc. Recognised term. Neil S. Walker ( talk) 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Jsrkiwi has again removed the term, claiming—without offering evidence—that it "is disputed by academics
" and—without offering evidence—that he is "an expert in the field
". The term is clearly in widespread use by academics and one might be forgiven for suspecting Jsrkiwi is now simply
being pointy.
Neil S. Walker (
talk)
20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a very clear and concise list of "Generations of classical lethal chemical weapons"—published in table form in the journal Toxins— here. (Pitschmann, Vladimír (2014). "Overall View of Chemical and Biochemical Weapons." Toxins, 6(6), 1761–1784. doi 10.3390/toxins6061761). Neil S. Walker ( talk) 08:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have noted that 14 people (or 18??) have been exposed to the agent in the attack in the UK, it's obvious that the government might want to hush hush that because that would easily classify as a terrorist attack by means of chemical weapons, is there anyone monitoring the health of the affected people?
Because from what is clear from the chemical structure is that these agents suffer hardly any decay, and that might explain the continuous health decline of the affected scientist. That also means that all and any such agents will be permanent environmental load equal to radioactive sources, but actually worse, since radioactive materials can be precisely measured for their activity, while this has no means of showing how damaging to health it is.
I've read in the news that people were angry to know what the long term health implications are. It would be nice to know the mechanisms and how many years or decades if the damage going to progress after any exposure. The exposed policeman is alive and talking, yet still in hospital, does that mean he has 15-20 years to live in ill health? These are all interesting questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.56.176 ( talk) 15:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Judge for yourself on these articles on lifespan:
Allegedly plaintext version of the above here: https://100vampirenovels.com/pdf-novels/cassidys-run-by-david-wise-free/19-page
"After he had spent eighteen days in intensive care, the doctors managed to save his life. But he was left totally disabled, diagnosed with, among other illnesses, cirrhosis of the liver, toxic hepatitis, and epilepsy. In July 1992, he died."
“if people have no protection and are out in the open. Even if they only breathe fumes they may not die but there could be terrible consequences. Nerve gas can cause mutations in the next generation and in future generations after that.”
It seems that no person exposed has lasted more than five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.39.41 ( talk) 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sky News claim to have found someone else that has survived - another scientist: https://news.sky.com/story/russias-novichok-programme-exists-i-worked-on-it-scientist-tells-sky-news-11300710
According to Mirzayanov, only the binary versions are called Novichok, the unitary versions kept their unique names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.56.176 ( talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Are there any public data sources with information regarding synthesis, manufacture, or precursors? 2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:AA ( talk) 15:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The Soviet State Scientific Research Institute for Organic Chemistry and Technology (GosNIIOKhT) was near Moscow [14] [15] not Nukus as claimed, so I plan to remove this offline-cited info until someone can check the cite. We can stick with the NYT + other cites for Nukus until someone can check the book. Rwendland ( talk) 12:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The correct English translation of the Russian word "новичок" is "rookie", not "newcomer". English-language media would do well to employ qualified translators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.72.63 ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Google translate, there are 21 English words that are possible translations of the word "новичок". One of them is "rookie" but "newcomer" seems more reasonable to me in the context of a code-word for a forth-generation chemical warfare reagent. Google ranks "beginner" as the most common translation. -- Mikedt10 ( talk) 11:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
As native Russian speaker I feel that "rookie" is a more accurate term, particularly because it is more narrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malexeye ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The page currently gives the non-word "Новичо́к" when it should be "Новичо́к" as per Russian Wikipedia and the above. I'll change it. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Novichok agent has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update for USA response to appear at the end of the "2018 UK attack" section. 172.3.142.18 ( talk) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Nikki Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said: “Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.3.142.18 ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The structure of a large number of Novichok nerve agents and their precursor chemicals were published in Ellison (2007) (see page 37). [16] This seems odd as other papers I consulted claimed their structure were were unknown. (Guidotti & Trifirò 2016) [17] includes a CAS number for one of the Novichoks (CAS 17642-30-7) but it does not appear in any public databases. I instead traced this CAS number to Ellison (2007). So it appears that the formula for several Novichoks and precursors chemicals have been published in the open literature. The question is where did these formulae come from, are they accurate? -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
(you forgot to sign your post with ~~~~)
A slew of post-Skripal news articles have appeared in the media conjecturing that this was caused by a Novichok agent. But prior to this, the poisonous agent was reported as cadmium. Examples: The New York Times, The Independent, LA Times, Washington Post. These newer claims need to be properly examined, and if found to be just tabloid gossip and sensationalism, removed. Neil S. Walker ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Simple question: Is there a reliable source that categorically states Kivelidi was poisoned with a Novichok agent? Neil S. Walker ( talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
According to writings by Jonathan B. Tucker, a chemical weapons expert, the first binary formulation developed under Foliant was used to make Substance 33, also known as VR. This compound is very similar to the more widely known VX, differing only in the alkyl substituents on its nitrogen and oxygen atoms. “This weapon was given the code name Novichok,” Tucker wrote in “War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda.”
My very best wishes ( talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Just as an aside, the ru.wiki page on the poisoning of the Skripals claims that a Novichok agent was also used to assassinate the Chechen militant leader Ibn al-Khattab in 2002 [23] though the source they cite doesn't seem to say this. [24] May be another relevant incident though. Meodipt ( talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This subsection contains no citations whatsoever, and so is placed expecting readers to trust Wikipedia expertise (contrary to Wikipedia policies). 73.110.46.43 ( talk) 18:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC) the interested user is expected to read any and all materials referenced anywhere in the article and find the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.41.146 ( talk) 23:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The image I added from the Czech source describes the final binary reaction with this phrase. Does anyone know off-hand if this is a general chemical synthesis route or something unique to this context? Wnt ( talk) 00:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Averre (1995), 5 to 10 tons of new binary nerve agent (Substence-33 or a Novichok) was manufactured at a chemical plant operated by Khimprom in Volgograd in 1991 and field tested on the Ust'yurt plateau, Uzbekistan in early 1992. Other very interesting information about Foliant program and Novichok development can be found that paper.
Averre, D.L. 1995. The Mirzayanov affair: Russia’s ‘military‐chemical complex’. [26] European Security, 4, 273–305, https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839508407219.
-- Diamonddavej ( talk) 05:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been sharing the binary agents of A-234 with Mirzayanov, with the time I have been researching on the synthesis of all Novichok and potential agents, I came across the following, all Novichok agents are disseminated in binary agents due to the corrosivity of the agents , which made me study a lot about such precursors, I came to know that the precursors were simply Acetonitrile and a variant of Fluorotabun, due to the lack of sources and exclusion of several sources of synthesis, I ended up studying this alone for more than a year. I do not know how to explain the mechanisms of reaction, impurities, and excesses, but Acetonitrile reacts with Diethylamines to form adducts, something similar to acids. http://www.mediafire.com/view/5mo10471a86hn3c/Acetonitrile%20complex%20reactions.png Basquyati ( talk) 12:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a substantial portion of Copypaste from Independent in the section Novichok_agent#Poisoning_of_Ivan_Kivelidi_and_Zara_Ismailova. Someone should immediatly fix that. -- Itu ( talk) 10:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Current wording "claimed by some sources" sounds quite speculative but Novaya Gazeta published documents from official investigation from his death back in 90's with interrogation protocols of Leonid Rink, who accussed of producing and selling the batch used to kill Kivelidi to a criminal group. The protocols (in Russian only for now unfortunately) come with a lot of details on both the substance (including chemical formula) and how it was produced and deployed. It also directly mentions the "Novichok group of agents". I believe the wording of this paragraph should be changed to reflect that.
Cloud200 ( talk) 10:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Novichok agent has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest changing this, "Acetylcholine concentrations then increase at neuromuscular junctions to cause involuntary contraction of all muscles (cholinergic crisis)." Should be changed to, "Acetylcholine concentrations then increase at neuromuscular junctions to cause involuntary contraction of all skeletal muscles (cholinergic crisis)."
Here is why, They quote acetylcholine (and a cholinergic crisis) being the mechanism by which nerve gases work, which it is. However, The cardiac muscle is both sympathetically and parasympathetically innervated by the nervous system. The sympathetic cardiac system, which actually uses the neurotransmitter nor-adrenaline/norepinephrine, increases contraction strength and heart rate. Cardiac muscle has receptors in the parasympathetic nervous system that use acetylcholine but they are responsible for slowing down the heart rate and weakening the contraction strength. Thus not ALL muscles are forced into "involuntary contraction" by a cholinergic poison, only those which are innervated by nerves who's neurotransmitter is acetylcholine, such as all skeletal muscles. I only mention this because the author immediately makes references to the cardiac system after this statement. Studies show that cardiac damage does occur due to organophosphate poisoning but not through the suggested method of acetylcholine induced involuntary contraction.
source http://learntech.uwe.ac.uk/synapsesNeuro/Default.aspx?pageid=1921
source /info/en/?search=Heart_rate#Factors_influencing_heart_rate (citation 11, Betts, J. Gordon (2013). Anatomy & physiology. pp. 787–846. ISBN 1938168135. Retrieved 11 August 2014.) 68.39.10.116 ( talk) 00:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
> The Soviet Union and Russia reportedly developed extremely potent fourth-generation chemical weapons from the 1970s until the early 1990s, according to a publication by two chemists, Lev Fyodorov and Vil Mirzayanov in Moskovskiye Novostiweekly in 1992.[21][22][b]
[b] Mirzayanov had made a similar disclosure a year earlier in the 10 October 1991 issue of the Moscow newspaper, Kuranty.[23]<
The disclosure of October 1991 cannot have related to Russia because the USSR was not dissolved until December 1991. 'Similar' here has the potential to mislead. It's very important to have clarity on this issue: did the 1992 publication state that the Russian Federation continued to produce 'Novichok' after the break up of the USSR? Nine-and-fifty swans ( talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Further to previous this part of the article appears to be ten years old. Perhaps it hasn't mattered that much up until now, but it matters now if anyone is using wikipedia as a source. Nine-and-fifty swans ( talk) 10:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the treatment with atropine remarkable results may be achieved with the dosage of 10,000 to 20,000 mg of ascorbic acid every 4 hours until the crisis is averted. See Irwin Stone, Vitamin C Against Disease, Chapter 24, chemical stresses, Poisons, Toxins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.192.26 ( talk) 15:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
One sentence begins: “Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and many other heads of state ...”. Ms. May is not a Head of a State; she is a Head of Government. Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7440:800:5c11:bad6:6f30:7bd1 ( talk) 05:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Short Story: The Article does not provide an Indication of how quickly (in seconds or minutes) Novichok operates to have effects (ie: kill).
Long Story: It is clear that the different Novichok chemicals OUGHT to have different properties. However, one would imagine that, due to the acetylcholinesterase mechanism, the speed at which Novichok agents operates should be quite fast (I cannot imagine it taking longer than a few minutes, if that, for the nerve agent to induce suffocation effects - and the subject exposed ought to be dead within 5 minutes - nevertheless, the article states that galantamine with atropine can be given "between five hours before and thirty minutes after exposure". This clearly seems at odds with the assumed speed with which Novichok 'ought to operate' as thirty minutes after exposure, one would be dead.
I am **NOT** a scientist or a Doctor, therefore, my observations could be COMPLETELY WRONG *but* once the chemical agent diffuses throughout the central nervous system, then it ought to operate quickly to induce suffocation-like effects.
Quoting the below site : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nerve-agents-how-do-they-work-science-symptoms-causes-explained-salisbury-a8245726.html
Which states "With an extremely rapid build up of acetylcholine in the synapse, things like secretions, respiratory problems, and muscular dysfunction can go on unattenuated."
This has certain logical implications for the current situation. _I sincerely hope that this post does not flout any Wikipedia rules since there is a factual deficiency in the article (but you can always remove the post if it does)_. ASavantDude ( talk) 16:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
According to https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/novichok-agent, the AChE50 value for VX is taken as 0.023 mg/kg in an **oral dose** (Sidell, 1974) (meaning that for a 80kg individual, 1.84mg will have 'toxic' effects associated when "more than 50% of the AChE enzyme is inhibited" ). Different routes will have different lethal doses, but it is clear that a very small dose of Novichok will achieve lethal effects Orally. **I think the article should indicate the lethal dose (which it does not seem to from what I've checked)**.
ASavantDude ( talk) 20:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
In June 2018, the President of Czeck Republic disclosed that Novichok had indeed been simply produced by Czech labratories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.12.173 ( talk) 14:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
actually, the cardiac muscle is not directly affected as it is not contracting under influence of acetyl choline. the heart rate is influenced to some extent by the vagus nerve. but contractions are independent of nerve endings. Bart ( talk) 11:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
“In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reese1379 ( talk • contribs)
https://twitter.com/i/status/1038438152703279107
"Alex Vassiliev, journalist and expert on the history of Russian espionage, on his doubts about the #Salisbury poisoning suspects."
131.111.184.102 ( talk) 15:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
This document [27] released today by the Russian government that announced the abolition of the closed city of Shikhany. Interesting timing. Here's a rough translation...
Ah, just notice the article on Shikhany mentioned its abolition as a closed city.
-- Diamonddavej ( talk) 18:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Could anyone explain, what means the term "Allen's reaction"? I can only say it is connected with compound named Novichok. How to understand the term "allen's reaction" in the broader plan, not only in the Novichok context? My e-mail is gall102@wp.pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gall Anonym ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Allan%E2%80%93Robinson_reaction
Allan–Robinson reaction?
131.111.184.102 ( talk) 15:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
As well as I know it, it is known that a perfume spray bottle was the source of the agent in discussion. Is the meaning of discarded in question? If someone doesn't want something, and either places it in a trash container, or otherwise leaves it around, is it discarded? Gah4 ( talk) 06:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"To all appearances at the time, the deception was a great success. The Soviet military did, indeed, expand and intensify its efforts to develop a super nerve gas like GJ. However, as time went on, there was increasing evidence that Soviet scientists had succeeded where their American counterparts had given up, and that the Soviets had successfully developed a usable, much more toxic, and highly effective nerve gas called Novichok. Whether Novichok is directly descended from GJ is not entirely clear, but the unexpected outcome raises an intriguing and important question."
Flynn, M.; Garthoff, R. L.; Flynn, M. (2000). "Playing with Fire". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 56 (4): 35–40. doi: 10.1080/00963402.2000.11456992.{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
there are many hundred publications- Really? There are "many hundred publications" covering the origins of Novichok, let alone the inner details? You can't ask me to accept your assessment that this is "undue" without showing me a representative, non-cherrypicked sample of RS covering the early beginnings of this agent without mentioning this intelligence operation. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Looks like we may soon see official confirmation of at least one Novichok agent structure once they release details of what was used to poison Skripal and his daughter. Now the question for us is, do we create a new page for this specific compound or just add details to the general page here? It will certainly meet WP:N given the high profile of this poisoning incident! Meodipt ( talk) 20:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Source: Mirzayanov, Vil (1995), "Dismantling the Soviet/Russian Chemical Weapons Complex: An Insider's View", Global Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Hearings Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 104th Cong., pp. 393–405
Name | Type | Research site | Test site | Production site | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Substance 33 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow) | Shikhany | Novocheboksarsk |
|
A-230 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Shikhany) | Nukus |
|
|
A-232 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Shikhany) |
|
|
|
Novichok-5 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow) | Nukus |
|
|
Novichok-? |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow and Shikhany) |
|
|
|
Novichok-7 |
|
GosNIIOKhT (Moscow) | Shikhany | Shikhany |
|
So which is A-234? Neil S. Walker ( talk) 11:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, my copy of Mirzayanov's book was just delivered; let's see if it clarifies the position. Neil S. Walker ( talk) 12:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Just leafing through Mirzayanov's book again, there are a few clarifications that could be added to the main article
So barely enough to make an article for A-234 here, if it is confirmed by OPCW that this was the agent that was used to poison the Skripals then it is certainly notable enough, but it would be nice to have more sources. I suppose there will probably be a great deal more published research on this class of compounds in the next few years after they have suddenly been given such a high profile anyway! Meodipt ( talk) 20:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The Iranian spectroscopic study is actually very interesting. Note (i) they synthesized all the compounds themselves, and (ii) these are all new structures, not in Hoenig / Ellison or Mirzayanov. However they are very similar to the guanidine derivatives Mirzayanov identifies as A-242 and A-262. This tells us that the Iranians have been carrying out genuinely independent third-party research on the Novichoks (i.e. independent from both Russia and NATO), and that they consider Mirzayanov's structures as being the more reliable. However note that if Mirzayanov is correct, the structures listed by Hoenig / Ellison that were cited to Soviet literature, are indeed still nerve agents developed under the Foliant program, they are just weaker examples not the super potent agents developed for military use. Meodipt ( talk) 20:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Mirzayanov explicitly states that A-232 is a phosphate (and not a phosphamide, for example) in his 2009 article:
Next, agent A-232 doesn’t belong to the class of phosphonates, as all other known phosphor organic chemical agents do. It is a phosphate, like many pesticides. Phosphates are not listed among the controlled chemicals on the CWC lists. In order to hide it more effectively, they synthesised and started producing a decoy pesticide, based on a component of the binary version of A-232. Laboratory tests at GosNIIOKhT confirmed the high efficiency of this binary of A-232, and so, on October 6 1989, the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU and future Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mikhail Gorbachev signed Resolution N 518-33 to begin mass development and testing of this agent.
Major General Nikolay Antonov writes in his 1994 book that (quoted per US DoD National Air Intelligence Center translation with a minor and pretty obvious correction of 'ether' to 'ester'):
Replacement in analogs of VX of methyl group by methoxyl in some cases makes it possible to obtain substances with toxicity comparable with toxicity of VX. Observation in esters of phosphoric acid of levels of toxicity comparable with levels of toxicity of esters of methylphosphonic acid, is, first of all, of only scientific, not practical interest.
I don't believe Antonov didn't know about adoption of the binary A-232, most likely he was being deceptive ('nothing to see here'), however it may be relevant to cover this aspect in the article. By the way, four Ellison's supposed Novichok agents from C01-A035 to C01-A038 have a methoxy group, don't have a P-C bond, and are esters of phosporic acid (in other words, organic phosphates like Dichlorvos). Ain92 ( talk) 23:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
GosNIIOKhT syntethic chemist Vladimir Uglev who worked with Mirzayanov and blowed the whistle to support him in 1990s gave his largest interview since 1993 (both links are English translations, even though maybe not the best ones) where he refused to comment on certain classified technicalities but otherwise gave a lot of useful information. For example he listed (under his own codenames) unitary agents which can be referred as __Novichoks__, three from the Foliant program and a subsequent one:
BTW he also claims not a single binary was weaponized, at least before 1994. Ain92 ( talk) 23:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm reading Mirzayanov's memoir now (like it so much, strongly recommended) and found out today that Mirzayanov himself actually wasn't cleared for binary R&D himself and first heard about it in a celebration after the GosNIIOKhT bosses had been awarded for the binary, despite heading the department of countermeasures against foreign technical intelligence services in this research institute (head of a organization department in Russian terms is roughly equivalent to Chief Officer position in a Western company) and holding the highest security clearance (so-called first form for documents classified as osoboy vazhnosti, may be analogous either to TS or TS/SCI in the US – in the military industry AFAIK usually the latter, e.g. military operation requirements for a nuclear device of a new warhead design being developed were classified OV, but compartmentation complicates the comparison, the details being out of scope of this post). As Mirzayanov points out in his interview to Kommersant-FM, Uglev as a senior engineer most likely haven't been cleared either, and the documents he managed to copy from his criminal case prove successful development of the binaries beyond any reasonable doubt. Ain92 ( talk) 09:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm reading the Russian original of the memoir and I heard the English translation is pretty bad, that's so sad. =( As a side note, I added to the article a mention of Uglev's 1998 interview when he actually confirmed development of the binary A-232. Ain92 ( talk) 19:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
See for example [5] (US Dept of Defense), [6] (US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), [7] (US Senate Committee on the Judiciary), [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc etc. Recognised term. Neil S. Walker ( talk) 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Jsrkiwi has again removed the term, claiming—without offering evidence—that it "is disputed by academics
" and—without offering evidence—that he is "an expert in the field
". The term is clearly in widespread use by academics and one might be forgiven for suspecting Jsrkiwi is now simply
being pointy.
Neil S. Walker (
talk)
20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a very clear and concise list of "Generations of classical lethal chemical weapons"—published in table form in the journal Toxins— here. (Pitschmann, Vladimír (2014). "Overall View of Chemical and Biochemical Weapons." Toxins, 6(6), 1761–1784. doi 10.3390/toxins6061761). Neil S. Walker ( talk) 08:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have noted that 14 people (or 18??) have been exposed to the agent in the attack in the UK, it's obvious that the government might want to hush hush that because that would easily classify as a terrorist attack by means of chemical weapons, is there anyone monitoring the health of the affected people?
Because from what is clear from the chemical structure is that these agents suffer hardly any decay, and that might explain the continuous health decline of the affected scientist. That also means that all and any such agents will be permanent environmental load equal to radioactive sources, but actually worse, since radioactive materials can be precisely measured for their activity, while this has no means of showing how damaging to health it is.
I've read in the news that people were angry to know what the long term health implications are. It would be nice to know the mechanisms and how many years or decades if the damage going to progress after any exposure. The exposed policeman is alive and talking, yet still in hospital, does that mean he has 15-20 years to live in ill health? These are all interesting questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.56.176 ( talk) 15:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Judge for yourself on these articles on lifespan:
Allegedly plaintext version of the above here: https://100vampirenovels.com/pdf-novels/cassidys-run-by-david-wise-free/19-page
"After he had spent eighteen days in intensive care, the doctors managed to save his life. But he was left totally disabled, diagnosed with, among other illnesses, cirrhosis of the liver, toxic hepatitis, and epilepsy. In July 1992, he died."
“if people have no protection and are out in the open. Even if they only breathe fumes they may not die but there could be terrible consequences. Nerve gas can cause mutations in the next generation and in future generations after that.”
It seems that no person exposed has lasted more than five years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.39.41 ( talk) 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sky News claim to have found someone else that has survived - another scientist: https://news.sky.com/story/russias-novichok-programme-exists-i-worked-on-it-scientist-tells-sky-news-11300710
According to Mirzayanov, only the binary versions are called Novichok, the unitary versions kept their unique names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.56.176 ( talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Are there any public data sources with information regarding synthesis, manufacture, or precursors? 2600:387:B:9:0:0:0:AA ( talk) 15:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The Soviet State Scientific Research Institute for Organic Chemistry and Technology (GosNIIOKhT) was near Moscow [14] [15] not Nukus as claimed, so I plan to remove this offline-cited info until someone can check the cite. We can stick with the NYT + other cites for Nukus until someone can check the book. Rwendland ( talk) 12:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The correct English translation of the Russian word "новичок" is "rookie", not "newcomer". English-language media would do well to employ qualified translators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.72.63 ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Google translate, there are 21 English words that are possible translations of the word "новичок". One of them is "rookie" but "newcomer" seems more reasonable to me in the context of a code-word for a forth-generation chemical warfare reagent. Google ranks "beginner" as the most common translation. -- Mikedt10 ( talk) 11:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
As native Russian speaker I feel that "rookie" is a more accurate term, particularly because it is more narrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malexeye ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The page currently gives the non-word "Новичо́к" when it should be "Новичо́к" as per Russian Wikipedia and the above. I'll change it. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Novichok agent has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update for USA response to appear at the end of the "2018 UK attack" section. 172.3.142.18 ( talk) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Nikki Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said: “Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.3.142.18 ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The structure of a large number of Novichok nerve agents and their precursor chemicals were published in Ellison (2007) (see page 37). [16] This seems odd as other papers I consulted claimed their structure were were unknown. (Guidotti & Trifirò 2016) [17] includes a CAS number for one of the Novichoks (CAS 17642-30-7) but it does not appear in any public databases. I instead traced this CAS number to Ellison (2007). So it appears that the formula for several Novichoks and precursors chemicals have been published in the open literature. The question is where did these formulae come from, are they accurate? -- Diamonddavej ( talk) 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
(you forgot to sign your post with ~~~~)
A slew of post-Skripal news articles have appeared in the media conjecturing that this was caused by a Novichok agent. But prior to this, the poisonous agent was reported as cadmium. Examples: The New York Times, The Independent, LA Times, Washington Post. These newer claims need to be properly examined, and if found to be just tabloid gossip and sensationalism, removed. Neil S. Walker ( talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Simple question: Is there a reliable source that categorically states Kivelidi was poisoned with a Novichok agent? Neil S. Walker ( talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
According to writings by Jonathan B. Tucker, a chemical weapons expert, the first binary formulation developed under Foliant was used to make Substance 33, also known as VR. This compound is very similar to the more widely known VX, differing only in the alkyl substituents on its nitrogen and oxygen atoms. “This weapon was given the code name Novichok,” Tucker wrote in “War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda.”
My very best wishes ( talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Just as an aside, the ru.wiki page on the poisoning of the Skripals claims that a Novichok agent was also used to assassinate the Chechen militant leader Ibn al-Khattab in 2002 [23] though the source they cite doesn't seem to say this. [24] May be another relevant incident though. Meodipt ( talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This subsection contains no citations whatsoever, and so is placed expecting readers to trust Wikipedia expertise (contrary to Wikipedia policies). 73.110.46.43 ( talk) 18:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC) the interested user is expected to read any and all materials referenced anywhere in the article and find the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.41.146 ( talk) 23:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The image I added from the Czech source describes the final binary reaction with this phrase. Does anyone know off-hand if this is a general chemical synthesis route or something unique to this context? Wnt ( talk) 00:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Averre (1995), 5 to 10 tons of new binary nerve agent (Substence-33 or a Novichok) was manufactured at a chemical plant operated by Khimprom in Volgograd in 1991 and field tested on the Ust'yurt plateau, Uzbekistan in early 1992. Other very interesting information about Foliant program and Novichok development can be found that paper.
Averre, D.L. 1995. The Mirzayanov affair: Russia’s ‘military‐chemical complex’. [26] European Security, 4, 273–305, https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839508407219.
-- Diamonddavej ( talk) 05:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been sharing the binary agents of A-234 with Mirzayanov, with the time I have been researching on the synthesis of all Novichok and potential agents, I came across the following, all Novichok agents are disseminated in binary agents due to the corrosivity of the agents , which made me study a lot about such precursors, I came to know that the precursors were simply Acetonitrile and a variant of Fluorotabun, due to the lack of sources and exclusion of several sources of synthesis, I ended up studying this alone for more than a year. I do not know how to explain the mechanisms of reaction, impurities, and excesses, but Acetonitrile reacts with Diethylamines to form adducts, something similar to acids. http://www.mediafire.com/view/5mo10471a86hn3c/Acetonitrile%20complex%20reactions.png Basquyati ( talk) 12:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a substantial portion of Copypaste from Independent in the section Novichok_agent#Poisoning_of_Ivan_Kivelidi_and_Zara_Ismailova. Someone should immediatly fix that. -- Itu ( talk) 10:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Current wording "claimed by some sources" sounds quite speculative but Novaya Gazeta published documents from official investigation from his death back in 90's with interrogation protocols of Leonid Rink, who accussed of producing and selling the batch used to kill Kivelidi to a criminal group. The protocols (in Russian only for now unfortunately) come with a lot of details on both the substance (including chemical formula) and how it was produced and deployed. It also directly mentions the "Novichok group of agents". I believe the wording of this paragraph should be changed to reflect that.
Cloud200 ( talk) 10:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Novichok agent has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest changing this, "Acetylcholine concentrations then increase at neuromuscular junctions to cause involuntary contraction of all muscles (cholinergic crisis)." Should be changed to, "Acetylcholine concentrations then increase at neuromuscular junctions to cause involuntary contraction of all skeletal muscles (cholinergic crisis)."
Here is why, They quote acetylcholine (and a cholinergic crisis) being the mechanism by which nerve gases work, which it is. However, The cardiac muscle is both sympathetically and parasympathetically innervated by the nervous system. The sympathetic cardiac system, which actually uses the neurotransmitter nor-adrenaline/norepinephrine, increases contraction strength and heart rate. Cardiac muscle has receptors in the parasympathetic nervous system that use acetylcholine but they are responsible for slowing down the heart rate and weakening the contraction strength. Thus not ALL muscles are forced into "involuntary contraction" by a cholinergic poison, only those which are innervated by nerves who's neurotransmitter is acetylcholine, such as all skeletal muscles. I only mention this because the author immediately makes references to the cardiac system after this statement. Studies show that cardiac damage does occur due to organophosphate poisoning but not through the suggested method of acetylcholine induced involuntary contraction.
source http://learntech.uwe.ac.uk/synapsesNeuro/Default.aspx?pageid=1921
source /info/en/?search=Heart_rate#Factors_influencing_heart_rate (citation 11, Betts, J. Gordon (2013). Anatomy & physiology. pp. 787–846. ISBN 1938168135. Retrieved 11 August 2014.) 68.39.10.116 ( talk) 00:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
> The Soviet Union and Russia reportedly developed extremely potent fourth-generation chemical weapons from the 1970s until the early 1990s, according to a publication by two chemists, Lev Fyodorov and Vil Mirzayanov in Moskovskiye Novostiweekly in 1992.[21][22][b]
[b] Mirzayanov had made a similar disclosure a year earlier in the 10 October 1991 issue of the Moscow newspaper, Kuranty.[23]<
The disclosure of October 1991 cannot have related to Russia because the USSR was not dissolved until December 1991. 'Similar' here has the potential to mislead. It's very important to have clarity on this issue: did the 1992 publication state that the Russian Federation continued to produce 'Novichok' after the break up of the USSR? Nine-and-fifty swans ( talk) 09:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Further to previous this part of the article appears to be ten years old. Perhaps it hasn't mattered that much up until now, but it matters now if anyone is using wikipedia as a source. Nine-and-fifty swans ( talk) 10:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
In addition to the treatment with atropine remarkable results may be achieved with the dosage of 10,000 to 20,000 mg of ascorbic acid every 4 hours until the crisis is averted. See Irwin Stone, Vitamin C Against Disease, Chapter 24, chemical stresses, Poisons, Toxins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.192.26 ( talk) 15:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
One sentence begins: “Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and many other heads of state ...”. Ms. May is not a Head of a State; she is a Head of Government. Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7440:800:5c11:bad6:6f30:7bd1 ( talk) 05:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Short Story: The Article does not provide an Indication of how quickly (in seconds or minutes) Novichok operates to have effects (ie: kill).
Long Story: It is clear that the different Novichok chemicals OUGHT to have different properties. However, one would imagine that, due to the acetylcholinesterase mechanism, the speed at which Novichok agents operates should be quite fast (I cannot imagine it taking longer than a few minutes, if that, for the nerve agent to induce suffocation effects - and the subject exposed ought to be dead within 5 minutes - nevertheless, the article states that galantamine with atropine can be given "between five hours before and thirty minutes after exposure". This clearly seems at odds with the assumed speed with which Novichok 'ought to operate' as thirty minutes after exposure, one would be dead.
I am **NOT** a scientist or a Doctor, therefore, my observations could be COMPLETELY WRONG *but* once the chemical agent diffuses throughout the central nervous system, then it ought to operate quickly to induce suffocation-like effects.
Quoting the below site : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nerve-agents-how-do-they-work-science-symptoms-causes-explained-salisbury-a8245726.html
Which states "With an extremely rapid build up of acetylcholine in the synapse, things like secretions, respiratory problems, and muscular dysfunction can go on unattenuated."
This has certain logical implications for the current situation. _I sincerely hope that this post does not flout any Wikipedia rules since there is a factual deficiency in the article (but you can always remove the post if it does)_. ASavantDude ( talk) 16:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
According to https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/novichok-agent, the AChE50 value for VX is taken as 0.023 mg/kg in an **oral dose** (Sidell, 1974) (meaning that for a 80kg individual, 1.84mg will have 'toxic' effects associated when "more than 50% of the AChE enzyme is inhibited" ). Different routes will have different lethal doses, but it is clear that a very small dose of Novichok will achieve lethal effects Orally. **I think the article should indicate the lethal dose (which it does not seem to from what I've checked)**.
ASavantDude ( talk) 20:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
In June 2018, the President of Czeck Republic disclosed that Novichok had indeed been simply produced by Czech labratories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.12.173 ( talk) 14:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
actually, the cardiac muscle is not directly affected as it is not contracting under influence of acetyl choline. the heart rate is influenced to some extent by the vagus nerve. but contractions are independent of nerve endings. Bart ( talk) 11:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
“In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reese1379 ( talk • contribs)
https://twitter.com/i/status/1038438152703279107
"Alex Vassiliev, journalist and expert on the history of Russian espionage, on his doubts about the #Salisbury poisoning suspects."
131.111.184.102 ( talk) 15:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
This document [27] released today by the Russian government that announced the abolition of the closed city of Shikhany. Interesting timing. Here's a rough translation...
Ah, just notice the article on Shikhany mentioned its abolition as a closed city.
-- Diamonddavej ( talk) 18:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Could anyone explain, what means the term "Allen's reaction"? I can only say it is connected with compound named Novichok. How to understand the term "allen's reaction" in the broader plan, not only in the Novichok context? My e-mail is gall102@wp.pl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gall Anonym ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Allan%E2%80%93Robinson_reaction
Allan–Robinson reaction?
131.111.184.102 ( talk) 15:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
As well as I know it, it is known that a perfume spray bottle was the source of the agent in discussion. Is the meaning of discarded in question? If someone doesn't want something, and either places it in a trash container, or otherwise leaves it around, is it discarded? Gah4 ( talk) 06:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"To all appearances at the time, the deception was a great success. The Soviet military did, indeed, expand and intensify its efforts to develop a super nerve gas like GJ. However, as time went on, there was increasing evidence that Soviet scientists had succeeded where their American counterparts had given up, and that the Soviets had successfully developed a usable, much more toxic, and highly effective nerve gas called Novichok. Whether Novichok is directly descended from GJ is not entirely clear, but the unexpected outcome raises an intriguing and important question."
Flynn, M.; Garthoff, R. L.; Flynn, M. (2000). "Playing with Fire". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 56 (4): 35–40. doi: 10.1080/00963402.2000.11456992.{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)
there are many hundred publications- Really? There are "many hundred publications" covering the origins of Novichok, let alone the inner details? You can't ask me to accept your assessment that this is "undue" without showing me a representative, non-cherrypicked sample of RS covering the early beginnings of this agent without mentioning this intelligence operation. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)