Talk:Mustard gas

Blistering method
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?

Odor
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.


 * I changed the statement about odorlessness a bit to correspond with the source mentioned in the link at the bottom. -- Jörgen Nixdorf


 * There is still the odorless...smells like mustard inconsistancy in the first two sentences. Can someone competent fix this?69.207.22.219 06:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It also says that they are colourless and then that they're yellow-brown coloured in the next sentence. I'm assuming that one means in its purified form and the other in its common form (whatever that might be) but I'm not changing the article on the basis of a guess...Chris 12:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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".

Polymerisation
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.

Fatality Rate
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.

This was in the article
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.


 * This data was copied directly from us (from me, in fact: I wrote most of that text). If you're skeptical, take a look at their main page Of course, they're allowed to do that under the GNU Public License, so long as they don't try to sell it. – ClockworkSoul 13:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Actually, they can sell it all they like— that is part of the nature of the GNU license: that it is free for anyone to use for any purpose, including possible commercial reuse. But they are not free to do so without giving proper credit to the original source.  KDS4444 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pesticide?
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)
 * I've never heard of any such thing, and if it's true then it was an exceedingly reckless thing to use. While I think it's very unlikely, I'll look into it and see what I can find. – ClockworkSoul 13:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/metro/stories/05/11cyanide.html
 * Cyanide gas canister found in an abandoned cotton gin. Says here it was used to kill insects in the grain and cotton seed, doesn't say if it was military surplus. Use of dangerous chemicals such as this was (and perhaps still is) actually quite common in poorer areas of rural America.12.150.117.30 17:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cyanide is a very different thing from mustard gas, though: it was commonly used as a pesticide (an still is, in many places), whicle mustard gas has only seen very limited non-military applications. – ClockworkSoul 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * well it will kill everything so i mean it would be a good pesticide. but you likely won't have any plants either. Taffy boeing b 17 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Article focus
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)

Removed some external links
In the external links section, two references were named which contain errors, I have moved them here:
 * Bristol University - Basic Chemical Overview
 * This reference has several errors in it:
 * The Fredrick Guthrie synthesis should be from ethylene and SCl2, not ethylene and Cl2 as stated.
 * The hydrolysis reaction pathway produces two molecules of HCl and the last one produced is H2O, not three molecules of HCl as shown in the reference.
 * The molecular structure given for nitrogen mustard (N-mustard) is not correct. The nitrogen atom should have a hydrogen bonded to it.
 * The bulleted item describing HT at the beginning of the article suggests that T is a nitrogen mustard, this is incorrect. T is a sulfur mustard, specifically Bis[1(2-chloroethylthio)ethyl] ether, according to Department of the Army Field Manual (DA FM) 3-9, Potential Military Chemical/Biological agents and compounds, 1990.


 * Organic chemistry of mustard gas
 * This reference also has an error in it: in the sentence on synthesis of mustard gas, the phrase "sulfur monochloride, S2Cl2" should be "sulfur dichloride, SCl2"

Maybe someone can find better references for this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of references
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.

Corrections to HT
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)

Ambergris?
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)

Merge from Sesquimustard
I've merged the article Sesquimustard to Sulfur mustard. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-28 06:35Z 

CBWinfo.com
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)

Lost
Wilhelm Steinkopf (* 1879, † 1949) and W. Lommel--Stone (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving "Forumations" section down
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)

Names
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)

Huns never used Hun stuff?
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)
 * The Germans never reffered to it as "Hun Stuff", their codenames for the agent were "LOST" and "Gelbkreuz" respectively. As the imperial german army/artillery first used mustard agent shells in the night of 12-13 July 1917 in the Ypres Salient area, mainly concentrating on the British/Commonwealth positions in the northern part of the Salient, they deployed some 50,000 shells (75 and 105 mm caliber mainly). Some of these shells gone dud and were recovered in the following days by the Brits as the devastating delayed effects became clear (this single attack alone caused many thousand casualties on the British side and postponed the planned allied offensive in that summer for 2-3 weeks). These dud shells were easily recognised because of the yellow cross marking they had and were sent to Porton Down for further investigation. Soldiers dreaded this new agent, giving it the colloquial name Hun Stuff, which was swiftly used in official reports (as "H.S.", or later simply "H"). Analyse in Porton Down identified the agent in few days as bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide. Efforts were made to get the production on allied side running in an industrial scale to be able to retaliate in kind, but they failed to accomplish that for almost a year following. One of the reasons was that neither British nor French or American industry at that time could reach to the massive scale production of 2-chloroethanol/ethylene chlorohydrine (Bayer AG manufactured this precursor even before WW I in a kiloton-year-scale as a intermediary product for the dye industry, so that they could later rapidly divert these existing capacities for a large scale produciton of sulfur mustard); the Allies focused on the "direct" method of addition of sulfur chloride on ethene, which was however not mastered until well into 1918 and yielded a crude product, containing on average ~70% HD, which was not as effective and storage-stable as the highly pure (over 95% HD, the rest being mainly the even more toxic T) german agent. Therefore towards the end of the war, the crude british product was labeled "H"/HS", due to need for rapid buildup of a stockpile that could be used straigthforward on the front. Only after the end of the war, the Brits, Americans and the French began to further purify this agent by vacuum-distilling it, resulting in HD/Pyro. Cheers--93.192.168.250 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"No use other then chemical warfare"
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)

Phase -- gas, vapour, liquid?
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)


 * I would like to replace the opening statement "commonly known as" with the correct "erroneously known as". When dispersed, it is a vapor akin to rain clouds—a fog, which is a suspension of a liquid. The only 'gas' is the atmosphere in which it is dispersed, not the mustard agent itself. This is explained further within the same paragraph, but we should stop calling it a gas, otherwise we'll never get it right.
 * Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Mechanism
The following has been removed from the "Mechanism of toxicity" section because it is more appropriate here:


 * Mechanism is wrong! See http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2005.06.014

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.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Some sources seems to outdated
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)

Inconsistency with Nitrogen Mustard article
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)

Unecessary deletion of photos
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)

Use of mustard gas under the Bush Administration
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


 * IMHO there's no need to verify such total nonsense. Regards, Lost Boy (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Natural Degradation
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)
 * Mustard readily hydrolyses to form Thiodiglycol. However, since this happens only in solution or at the pase border, and mustard poorly dissolves in water, the effective hydrolysis is quite slow. It is safe to assume that the mustards leeking from submerged grenades doesn'travel very far before being hydrolysed.
 * Viscous/thickened Mustard is a different story, since the thickener prevents but the outer layer of mustard coming in contact with the sea water. This mixture (THD) was used munitioned extensively in the "Spray Can 37" (Srprühbüchse 37, SprüBü37), which was dumped by the thousands in the North and Baltic seas. Sources: 1. Lehrbuch der MIlitärchemie Band 1 Autorenkollektiv, Militärverlag der DDR, 1977; 2. Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society Study “Cross-Border Environmental Problems Emanating from Defence-Related Installations and Activities”, Volume 2: Chemical Contamination; Phase I: 1993-1995. Best regards, Lost Boy (talk) 04:51, 4 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)

Probable use by Syria against school recently
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)

Use by the United Kingdom against the Red Army in 1919
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)
 * Oversimplified, the Imperial Britain as well as the other Entente Powers and their allies were hostile towards the Bolsheviki and their Revolution, for a number of reasons, among others: the Powers being inherently antirevolutionary, the Royals being Tzars family, the Bolsheviki signing a separate peace with the German Empire in Brest-Litovsk, March 1918, providing the German Army with substantial reserves for the Spring Offensive 1918 on the Western Front etc. p.p.. See the article Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War for the start.  Cheers,--46.223.137.198 (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sulfur mustard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521195550/http://in.news.yahoo.com:80/43/20090514/812/tnl-india-destroys-its-chemical-weapons.html to http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090514/812/tnl-india-destroys-its-chemical-weapons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on Sulfur mustard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140811100809/http://fas.org/programs/ssp/bio/chemweapons/production.html to https://fas.org/programs/ssp/bio/chemweapons/production.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070724063602/http://cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml to http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100822165939/http://www.fas.org:80/bwc/papers/review/cwtable.htm to https://fas.org/bwc/papers/review/cwtable.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060527013022/http://www.fema.gov:80/government/grant/csepp1.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/csepp1.shtm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130907155755/http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2007/12/30/26543/India-to-destroy-chemical-weapons-stockpile-by-2009 to http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/world/2007/12/30/26543/India-to-destroy-chemical-weapons-stockpile-by-2009
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081205033022/http://lithgow.yourguide.com.au:80/news/local/news/general/bases-phantom-war-reveals-its-secrets/1237570.aspx to http://lithgow.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/bases-phantom-war-reveals-its-secrets/1237570.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100609132933/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/breaking_news/2010/06/signs_of_bliste.html to http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/06/signs_of_bliste.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430224324/http://www.ucdper.com/counteract/biblio to http://www.ucdper.com/counteract/biblio
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120105155850/http://www.mod.uk:80/NR/rdonlyres/77CEDBCA-813A-4A6C-8E59-16B9E260E27A/0/ic_munitions_seabed_rep.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/77CEDBCA-813A-4A6C-8E59-16B9E260E27A/0/ic_munitions_seabed_rep.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090514/812/tnl-india-destroys-its-chemical-weapons.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Delayed reaction
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)


 * I realize I'm replying to a year-old question, but: "immediately" is relative. Offensives in the the Great War would sometimes be preceded by *days* of shelling, with literally millions of shells fired. 204.194.77.3 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * An excellent question, with an equally excellent response. It makes one wonder the usefulness of such an agent in a war of attrition (why it was used at all). The force employing the mustard agent would have to be protected in order to exploit the effectiveness, as the standard issue clothing won't protect either side. Anything that it comes into contact with becomes contaminated, just as anyone entering the area days to weeks after it's use; gas masks alone just won't do. It simply becomes an indiscriminate weapon of area denial to everyone.
 * Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

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&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 00:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 
 * We can call the Earth "flat", but that doesn't make it true no matter how common or popular. Accuracy is valued here, thus I disagree with the suggestions you have stated. As stated within the article, one of the key problems regarding the use of sulfur mustard is that unlike a gas, it doesn't disperse, but remains active in the field for days to weeks. The common chemical name is sulfur mustard, and that is the way it should remain until proven otherwise.
 * Please do not change Sulfur mustard to gas without a consensus.
 * Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * WP does not care about WP:TRUTH. In fact, anything based on assertions of "truth" should be disregarded.  WP also does not care about "accuracy" when it's just another name for "truth".  WP is an encyclopedia, a reflection and collection of common knowledge, and thus can never even attempt to be a champion for changing that knowledge.
 * I tend to agree that the term "sulfur mustard" is more "accurate", but any and all editors' opinions on what the accurate or true name of something is means absolutely nothing. WP cares about sources, only, "true" or not.  The great majority of sources -- dictionaries, histories, articles, both historical and contemporary -- call this subject "mustard gas".  Only a much smaller number of technical/chemical publications call it otherwise.  Per WP:DUE, we can -- and indeed should -- mention this in the lede, but that's as far WP policy allows us to use minority terminology.  There is simply no benefit, and some harm, in using a name readers will find obscure or misleading.  And, again, it's against WP policy.
 * I will follow consensus, but reasons based on personal assertions of what "is" true or accurate hold no weight in this. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  00:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ We call those rigid rectangles "floppy disks", we call the Elizabeth Tower "Big Ben". We call Sulfur mustard "mustard gas". It's well-established Wikipedia policy that we call articles by the common name, not by the technically accurate name (which is then immediately introduced). Captainllama (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you then proposing to 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)
 * Um, of course not. This is a simple rename; no merge involved.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So, by your account sulfur mustard should be called "mustard gas" even though it's not a gas, but nitrogen mustard should be called "nitrogen mustard" even though it one of the mustard gasses. Should we also rename the Pyrite article "fool's gold" even though it's not really gold? Where will it end if we keep using inaccurate "common" names instead of the chemical names? Why not just stick to accurate chemical names?
 * Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * None of this is by "my account". It's all about what sources say, only.  And they say "mustard gas".  Bringing up other articles is feeble "whataboutism", akin to WP:OTHERSTUFF, but even so, the Pyrite article is named correctly by COMMONNAME, as must all articles be named, including this one.  Personal claims of "innacurate" are dismissed by definition in WP policy.
 * This isn't complicated. We're just here to undo the original rename of this article to "Sulfur mustard" done without consent and against policy.  That's it.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  00:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I feel it is fine as it is. Mustard gas already redirects to the article, so it won't miss any searches. Fools gold is a prime example (it redirects to Pyrite as points out — IVORK <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:Green; font-size:x-small">Talk</b> 02:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact of the name of our article on Pyrite supports this move. "Pyrite" is the name used in the majority of articles and sources on the subject, thus it follows COMMMONNAME, as all WP articles should.  That the article is not called "Fools gold" has nothing to do with it being less correct or some other variation on the TRUTH false argument, just that its a much less common name by sources.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  02:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Obvious support per WP:COMMONNAME. And it is categorically and absolutely the common name. I'm really not sure why an exception to this basic Wikipedia naming convention is being made for this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As stated above, if one mustard agent gets renamed to "mustard gas", then under the same argument nitrogen mustard must be merged into the same article because "mustard gas" is the common name for both chemicals. All mustard agent articles would be merged.<BR />
 * "Common" does not mean 'correct', so why describe mustard agents as gasses? Can we still call it a "gas" if thickeners can be added? Why not just stick to the accurate chemical names? Practice something incorrectly, and we become proficient at doing things incorrectly.<BR />
 * Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You made your point Christopher, Sheridan, OR, please let the discussion develop and stop repeating yourself every time someone has a different view. Captainllama (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is not true; since sulphur mustard is by far the commonest form of mustard gas only that one needs renaming. We merely need to add a hatnote to point to the others. ""Common" does not mean 'correct'"? No, it means common! See WP:OFFICIALNAME. I'm sensing that you're not terribly au fait with Wikipedia naming conventions here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sourcing second paragraph of "Mechanism of cellular toxicity"
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)

etymology
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)

Kinetic explanation for cyclization
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)

Decontamination reaction with Chloramine-T
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)

Split proposal
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)


 * Support - readers would definitely benefit by having the nitty gritty information of the chemistry and its use in science, warfare, etc separated. i really oughta emphasize, though, that there certainly should be an article that has the thorny organic chemistry of mustard gas. Ayyydoc (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Smokefoot (talk) 03:11, 28 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)