![]() | A news item involving Mustard gas was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 March 2004. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Is it known how the Mustard gas causes blisters? AxelBoldt 19:03 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)
http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/mustardg.htm has more detail than some of the other Web pages I've seen. Any help?
mustard gas does have an odor, it is one that made people tear and start to bleed from the inside. Coughing and vomiting came after being exposed to the poison
There is something not quite right here: it the first section, Mustard gas is said to be odorless, while further down in the article is "has a distinct odor", these two don't mix.
Also I am in doubt whether the first statement of Mustard gas being odorless is really true, as far as I know the name does NOT come from the color of the substance, but from a very light odor resembling mustard or garlic. I will try to find references on this.
LMAO O.K. guys, try reading the whole article. It states that, " Pure sulfur mustards are colorless, odorless, viscous liquids at room temperature. However, when used in impure form as warfare agents they are usually yellow-brown in color and has an odor".
How the compound with single bonds only can be polymerised? -- Grzes 01:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Elimination of HCl could generate double bonds; also homolytic cleavage of C-Cl and C-S bonds could give rise to unclean polymerisation via radical mechanisms.
The Wikipedia article states:
"Mustard gas was dispersed as an aerosol in a mixture with other chemicals, giving it a yellow-brown colour and a distinctive odour. Mustard gas was lethal in only about 1% of cases."
The article I linked to: https://ccc.apgea.army.mil/sarea/products/textbook/Web_Version/chapters/chapter_7.htm#mustard states:
"The British had 180,983 chemical casualties; the injuries of 160,970 (88%) were caused solely by mustard. Of these casualties, 4,167 (2.6%) died. Of the 36,765 single-agent U.S. chemical casualties, the injuries of 27,711 (75%) were caused solely by mustard. Of the casualties who reached a medical treatment facility (MTF), 599 (2.2%) died."
With a reference to: Gilchrist HL. Statistical consideration of gas casualties, I: Gas casualties. In: Weed FW, ed. Medical Aspects of Gas Warfare. Vol 14. In: The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1926: 273–279."
Later in the textbook:
"Mustard-related death occurs in about 3% of the casualties who reach an MTF; of those who die, most die 4 or more days after exposure ... Of the casualties who died, 84% required at least 4 days of hospitalization. The causes of death are usually pulmonary insufficiency from airway damage, superimposed infection, and sepsis. Rarely, the amount of mustard will be overwhelming and cause death within 1 to 2 days; in these circumstances, death might be due to neurological factors or massive airway damage."
However, it does state that in modern times (The Iran-Iraq war) there are even fewer fatalities due to mustard exposure.
The Textbook of Military Medicine Article aligns with my previous knowledge of the fatality rate of mustard gas, and provides a reference.
Perhaps an even more ambitious edit could go through both the textbook and the wiki article and add references to the wiki article backing up some facts. I may do it in about a month, but I have never edited an article before, and time is scarce at the moment.
BTW, I am assuming that this textbook is under the public domain - it is produced by the government.
I just noticed, www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mustard-gas has the exact same data for mustard gas as wikipedia does. Who has the rights to this?
Some guy posted this in the article, thinking it was the discussion.
Does anyone know of mustard gas left over from the World Wars being used as a pesticide? I've heard of it being used on tobacco and cotton crops in Georgia well into the 1960s. 170.215.105.20 08:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Mustard gas redirects here. I think it's safe to say that many, many more people are going to be searching for that term than this one, looking for information on its use as a weapon. And yet this article only mentions its military use at the very end of the second paragraph, almost in passing! I think that, at the very least, if mustard gas is going to redirect here it should be the primary focus of the first paragraph. In general, though, I think that they should either be seperate articles or placed at mustard gas; aren't articles supposed to be placed under the name by which they're more commonly called? -- Aquillion 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
In the external links section, two references were named which contain errors, I have moved them here:
Maybe someone can find better references for this? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The use of mustard gas described as "Soviet Union in Xinjiang, China in 1934 and 1936-1937" needs better references; ref. 4 does not seem to contain any mention of this, and ref. 2 is a table that merely repeats the assertion.
I have corrected the entry for the chemical composition of HT in the first part of the article. As pointed out by Beetstra, HT is a mixture of bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide and bis[2-(2-chloroethylthio)ethyl]ether. See article http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg165.pdf. -- Cwcchemist 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been warned that stuff that looks like amber can be mustard gas. But how could it be mistaken for ambergris? There are no sperm whales in the Baltic sea and ambergris should be completely unknown. Amber is frequently found in the southern Baltic. Amber would make sense, ambergris not.
-- 88.115.120.116 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This is gold hahaha Science Is My Life ( talk) 01:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I've merged the article Sesquimustard to Sulfur mustard. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-28 06:35Z
Is this really a valid source? The link provided is filled with historical inaccuracies, typos, original research, and personal bias. -- NEMT 22:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wilhelm Steinkopf (* 1879, † 1949) and W. Lommel-- Stone ( talk) 10:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be moved a couple of sections down. It should logically be presented after the effects and the history of the compound have been introduced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have the first names for Lommel and Steinkopf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.13.45 ( talk) 00:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
There's an apparent contradiction in that "Hun stuff" is defined in the article as a crude mixture made by the Levinstein Process - yet the Germans, as the honorary Huns, are described using a different process with a different precursor. Even the British are described, at the end of the war, as beginning to synthesize the compound by yet another synthesis. So we have in the article that neither the Germans nor anyone in World War I used the formulation of the compound that is named as "Hun stuff" ... which seems odd. Wnt ( talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This sentence, in the introduction, is not actually true. Mustard gases are sometimes used in organic syntehsis. Sulfur and nitrogen mustards are also an innovative field for the development of anti-tumoral drugs. (source: "Organic Chemistry", aut.: Brown, Foote, Iverson) Giupio 14:26 april 9, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC). Wouldn't it be easier to just not mix Sulfur with anything?23:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.222.157 ( talk)
I agree, I believe the sentence should read "...as substances with little or no use other than in chemical warfare.". This is the definition of Schedule 1 in the CWC, plus it is more accurate since the nitrogen mustards were also used for chemotherapy. 70.60.102.9 ( talk) 18:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Mustard agents were actually among the first chemotherapy agents. If this is not already in the article, it should be added. If it IS already in the article then the quote in question is contradictory Science Is My Life ( talk) 01:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I've deleted the incorrect sentence saying that mustard gas is not a gas because it is a vapour (i.e., a gas). If someone wants to replace it with a correct statement about it being a liquid, feel free. LachlanA ( talk) 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The following has been removed from the "Mechanism of toxicity" section because it is more appropriate here:
I don't have access to the article, so I can't verify the claim. I'll leave it to the chemists among us to check this.— Tetracube ( talk) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thsi source seems to be outdated: http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml
Especially datas about using sulphur gas in Poland 1939 are good for nothing. It seems to be a copied from "SIPRI" publication: "The Problems of Chemical and Biological Warfare, t. I, The Rise of CB Weapons", Sztokholm 1971, p. 154-155.
This is copied from Mathias Kräutlera and Karl Springenschmidt book "Es War ein Edelweiss. Schicksal und Weg der zweiten Gebirgsdivision", Graz-Stuttgart 1962), p. 20-21.
And news here are taken straight from German war-propaganda.
This is explained in this division commander - general Valentin Feurstein - "Irrwege der Pflicht 1938-1945" (München-Wels 1963) p. 13.
So-
"In 1939, Polish troops used chemical training mines containing diluted mustard agent to mine a bridge near Jaslo, injuring 14 German soldiers. It is unclear..."
It is clear now. Polish Army had some gas bombs in depots, Germans found a lot of them, but not in Jaslo. Polish units defending the city (1. pulk KOP) was a reserve units without regular chemical platoon and was not prepared for chemical warfare.
Somebody had to be real moron, to mine a bridge.
Using chemical in the middle of the mountain river?
Here is a text - unfortunately in Polish:
http://www.schwrp-wroc.com/dodatki/biuletyn/biuletyn2/uzyciebrchemicznej.htm
Here is a picture of so-called "cemical explosion":
http://audiovis.nac.gov.pl/obraz/216/h:436/
There is an article about this accident: Robert Michulec, "Gazem w 1939 roku", Magazyn Wojna! Nr.5/6 2004r. str. 22. but not online :(
T.Pawlowski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.38.29 ( talk) 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
In the Nitrogen mustard article it mentions that "It is a common myth that the drug mustine was developed after a war accident in 1943 in Bari, Italy" They cite an article that mentions that a group at Yale was performing classified human clinical trials of nitrogen mustards in the fall of 1942, a year before the incident at Bari. But, muddling the issue, in this article a cited book (Author: Faguet, Guy B.) that focuses on the Bari incident but also acknowledges that there were previous experiments and also mentions that during WWI doctors noticed decreased white cell counts in exposed soldiers. The book summarizes that after the war ended the combination of the Bari aftermath and the subsequently declassified human clinical trials lead to the development of the first anti-cancer drugs.
Based on the combination of these sources and the medical significance of the development of the first anti-cancer drugs I would suggest creating a new section after Use and before Disposal expanding on the development of mustards into anti-cancer drugs. Additionally, I would suggest updating the Nitrogen mustard article to discuss both events (the Bari incident and the Yale trials. As it is, the articles seem to be in competition with each other over which event was the "true" inspiration. Finally, on the Air Raid on Bari talk page someone suggested adding a section to that article about the development of anti-cancer drugs. Perhaps adding a blurb in the Bari page that links back to this page and it's (soon to be) expanded section about drug development. Falconerd ( talk) 06:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Why have so many useful photos with explanatory captions been deleted? A picture is worth a thousand words and some things can't be adequately described using text. If it's a question of having a neat & tidy layout for this Wikipedia article, then surely the photos could be moved to a separate "gallery" section at the end. Here are examples of the photos I'm talking about e.g. one of the deleted photos actually shows what mustard gas looks like. Hopefully, someone can explain the logic behind deleting the only free-use photo of mustard gas available on the web depicting the Wikipedia subject being described because frankly, I'm puzzled:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toxic_gas_set_(CAIS)_bottle_containing_sulfur_mustard_(HD).jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MustardGasBurns2.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MustardGasChemicalBurns.JPG
Nabokov ( talk) 12:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
What was the involvement of the Bush Administration in the use of mustard gas in the Gulf War? I recall from televised coverage that the Administration sponsored the use of nerve gas and bulldozing techniques of large populations, ending the war. This is not listed in your account. Please verify.
75.198.149.142 ( talk) 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Christine
As there is a lot of it dumped in oceans and other places, it would be interesting if there was any information available about natural degradation into other compounds. Under which circumstances it takes place, how rapid the process can be and so on. Does not anyone have that kind of data?-- Mlewan ( talk) 04:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I know this isn't really the place for me to say this... but how much of a jerk do you have to be to dump a bunch of chemical warfare agent in the freaking ocean. JFC humans disgust me Science Is My Life ( talk) 01:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The recent attack against the children in the school seems to be Mustard Gas. Anyone want to follow up with the research and addition ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.121.208 ( talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The list of uses since WWI includes a use by United Kingdom against the Red Army in 1919; the cited link is dead. Why was the UK fighting the Red Army in 1919? Marnanel ( talk) 02:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sulfur mustard. 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 to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Sulfur mustard. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sulfur mustard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Can we get a little clarity on how the stuff was actually used in combat? For starters I don't understand how an agent that takes up to 24 hours to show effect is useful as anything other than a tool of attrition. I mean, do you bombard the sector you want to attack with mustard gas, and then wait 24 hours until the troops start start showing up with burns and blisters, and then attack them? I thought gas was mostly useful as an agent of breaking up defense and causing casualties immediately prior to attacking them. AnnaGoFast ( talk) 10:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | It was proposed in this section that
Sulfur mustard be
renamed and moved to
Mustard gas.
Moved. See strong, policy-based support below and regrettably, opposition rationales do not appear to be based on any policy nor guideline. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Sulfur mustard →
Mustard gas – The article currently starts with Sulfur mustard, erroneously known as mustard gas...
. Somewhat ironically, this statement is actually erroneous. It's true that mustard gas is technically not a gas, so "shouldn't" be called a gas, but it nonetheless is most commonly called "mustard gas". WP is an encyclopedia, and should not -- indeed cannot -- dictate what people must do with their own language. It would be like renaming our article on the
Holy Roman Empire something like "Schismatic German Confederacy" because it technically wasn't holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an empire. Even though true, none of that matters; we name the article based on what people call it, period.
Per WP policy at WP:COMMONNAME, this article should be once again named Mustard gas. Unless reasoned opposition is stated here for not following WP policy on this, I'll soon initiate the move back to its original name.
Once the move is complete, I'll reword the article opening to note that it's technically not a gas, and that scholarly sources often call it "sulfur mustard" instead, and have the rest of the article use the common name, per WP policy. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 00:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Question:
Are you then proposing to {{merge}} all of the "mustard gas" articles into one article, such as
Nitrogen mustard? It's a mustard "gas" even though it isn't a gas at all, just like
sulfur mustard. If you move the sulfur mustard article, then you'll have to propose the article merge also.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (
talk)
05:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I encountered the "citation needed" mark here through Citation Hunt. I've managed to find this entry in the IUPAC gold book that defines "mustard", but I don't have the wherewithal to determine whether that definition matches the one in the article. The other information seems quite general and may need multiple sources. — Ifandonlyif0 ( talk) 18:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
i found this source for the etymology of the term : https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/education/resources/highschool/chemmatters/gc-mustard-gas-personal-safety-and-natl-security.pdf
"It is called mustard gas because impure forms of the gas have an odor that resembles that of mustard. The name is somewhat misleading because at room temperature the substance is actually a liquid, not a gas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olshevsky ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this page would significantly benefit from explaining why the cyclization product is the active alkylating agent. Basic organic chemistry principles suggest that the non-cyclized version should be plenty effective as an alkylating on its own. This raises the question "why isn't it the active alkylating agent?" Although I have not had the chance to find primary sources on this specific case, the answer can once again be found in basic ochem principles. Intramolecular reactions like this (which aren't sterically hindered) are essentially always faster than their intermolecular counterparts. This is because molecules are constantly vibrating and wiggling. It is much more kinetically favorable for one part of a molecules to bump into another part of the same molecule than for two individual molecules to bump into each other just right. This is because the distances are much shorter and there are fewer barriers (like solvent molecules) in the way. I don't have the time to make this change to the article, but I highly recommend someone make it. It's an important fundamental concept to understand if you want to understand the reactivity of these complexes. I'm sure there's even a name for it if someone wants to find out what that is. Science Is My Life ( talk) 01:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know what are the exact products when normal mustard gas reacts with chloramine-T? DASL51984 ( Speak to me!) 11:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that most editors would agree that this article is very complicated, consisting of some advanced chemistry (including a "chembox"), lots on the chemical weapon theme and discussions of wounds, hefty discussion of the biology (mustards have non-weapons applications, BTW), and then diverse derivative of the parent bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide and ways that these things are delivered on the battlefield.
My idea is not going to make a complex topic easy to read, but I think that some splitting would help.
Proposal: to create an article on the main chemical Bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide. This smallish article would have the "chembox", describe how this stuff is made, and its basic organic chemistry. It could also list analogues of bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide. I just dont think that most readers of mustard gas are keen to dig into thorny organic chemistry.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not think it should be changed; a chembox is totally vital for such an article it should neither be changed nor split. In my opinion every substance should have a chembox. Eggbeeters ( talk) 20:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)