Talk:VX (nerve agent)

message: Is there a source for France possessing VX? David.Monniaux 12:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope this helps. Also, I will be coming back to this article in the next few days. I want to fact check and find references for everything in here, and in the course of that I will try to find a definitive answer for you if you don't have one already. ClockworkSoul 22:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should put too much faith in articles pretending that France sold this or that to Iraq, in view of the large amount of disinformation that was made around such topics. :-) David.Monniaux 15:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  I agree entirely. When I get back from my "real life" in a couple of days , I'll fully fact-check this article. ClockworkSoul 03:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  France possessing VX? 

message: Perhaps it would be effective to include the effects of exposure to the gas in this article? If I knew them, I'd probably add them in now, but seeing how I don't...(it's something that can be used to see if the TV show 24 is accurate or not)Ctifumdope 03:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It causes all your muscles to contract, so you can't breathe. Nerve agent goes into more detail. 24 was pretty realistic about the symptoms, although I doubt even a government agency could design a building as bad as CTU headquarters. (Computers that can't be accessed remotely? No atropine or respirators in the safe rooms?) —Keenan Pepper 03:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: In german WP there is a LD at 10 micrograms inahlated. 1 milli = 1000 micro. I think this is an havy Error! Sadorkan (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source we have does say 10 mg which is the normal abbreviation for milligrams.  Looking at other sources they are also in the milligrams range not micrograms. This source says 10 mg is the existing estimated LD50 and proposes a 5 mg LD50.  This one says 10 mg and compares it to a raindrop weighing 50 mg.  Both use the same abbreviation and a raindrop does not weigh 50 micrograms.  I believe based on this that milligrams is the proper units.  GB fan 17:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heared that VX is one of the strongest toxins known by mankind, among few others like ricine, tetrodotoxin, Aflatoxin or TCDD (and 10 or more milligrams doesn't correspond to that!). The 10 to 50mg is right for application via the skin. But the mg of VX-varpor in m*3 air is not the same dose than the total amount of bioavailable beeing inhalated and remains in the lung. The lung is warm, so most of VX does not condense at it's inner surface, and the very most of it gets exhalated. As we see here: http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Nerve/VX.shtml intrvenous or subcutane application is much more strong. The medicinal science says that inhaleted doses of most toxins like cocaine and others are near-equal to the doses beeing shot with a Syringe. Sorry it's my mistake getting confused with the difference of mg/m*3 air (multiplied with time time) and the dose beeing "absorbed" by the lunge (and respiratory tract). Excuse my bad english. thanks & best greetings  =o)   Sadorkan (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  milligramms or micrograms? 

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

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

message: I'm sorry if this doesn't belong here, but I can't pass noticing that in several articles there seems to be different points of view whether the correct spelling should be BE or AE, eg "vapour" or "vapor". Any idea, anyone? Lost Boy 04:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is usually left at the discretion of the first editor who made a major contribution to the article.  there were 2 instances of vapor and 1 instance of vapour in the article.  I changed the vapour to vapor so they all agreed.  Not that I care one way or the other, just so they are all consistent. Jons63 15:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: THX, Lost Boy 06:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British or American English? 

message: Is this true? If so, that's enough to kill the entire population of our planet, including animals (with the exception of sea bearing creatures)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.217.94 (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is true. The US stockpile has hundreds of thousands of munitions full of this stuff in assorted sizes.  Be thankful it is being destroyed as we speak.  The Newport site has destroyed 66% of this total as of October 16, 2007 according to the CMA website.   Oh Snap 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  250,000 gallons of VX 

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

message: The IUPAC name given isn't correct. I'm hesitating about as to insert one of the actual IUPAC names (which would be either 1. Ethyl {[2-[di(propan-2-yl)amino]ethylsulfanyl} methylphosphinate if considered as a methylphosphonic acid derivative or 2. N-[2-(ethoxy-methylphosphinyl)sulfanylethyl]-N-propan-2-yl-propan-2-amine, if considered an tertiary amine) or the better-known "organophosphorous" name S-[2-(di(propan-2-yl)amino)ethyl]-O-ethyl methylphosphonothiolate, which is the systematic name officialy used in military documents and CWC. I think, that the correct (valid) IUPAC name should be used in the box with the organophosphor chemistry synonym given as well. So, clearly, as the current name given as IUPAC name is invalid, it must be changed. I do so myself and suggest this subject to be reviewed by WP Chemistry to settle the issue. Before you consider reverting or changing my edit, please consult WP Chemistry, if you self are not credited in the WP:Chem. Thank you, --84.163.104.218 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC name incorrect 

message: Someone is removing the category "chemical weapons" not only here, but also in the articels on e.g. Sarin. Any idea why? FOr the time being, I just undid the change here. From my understanding, these agents are chemical weapons according to the OPCW. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most certainly a chemical weapon.  Someone was just confused.  Xihr  13:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Publishing the methods of synthesising VX should come with serious consideration of any rational human being. Fortunately, the people writing this article are seriously askew in their methods, but really can you say Al Queda?
:You can be certain that there is nothing nearly precise enough presented in this article to enable someone to actualy synthetise this nerve agent. Quite the contrary, I think, it might be helpful to make clear to the general public as well as vendors or companies selling chemicals, that it is imporatant never to make some of the crucial chemicals needed available to anyone but state-certified and controlled institutions or companies for clear, legitimate and legal purpose. Cheers,--93.192.176.216 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics 

message: There might be reasons to add such a section to an article, especially if the information in this section adds value to the article. An emotional quote from a movie clearly does not qualify as adding scientific value to this article. Hence, I am going to again delete it unless someone today comes up with a good reason to keep it. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's trivia.  Rarely very interesting trivia, at that.  Xihr  21:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK; I'm going to delete it. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  VX is featured in the movie: how it's stored, how it's handled, how it could be used by terrorists, and depictions of its effects. Furthermore, mentioning it here satisfies Wikipedia's own criteria for Wikipedia:%22In_popular_culture%22_content. Articles on nuclear war, the Halabja poison gas attack and Rubik's Cube all have references to films in their Popular Culture sections. I picked those subjects at random; there are many more. Even a specific nuclear warhead, the B83 lists its references from films. With that in mind, is my mentioning of a film that features VX really TOTALLY irrelevant? I like the way you capitalized TOTALLY, Lost Boy. Thank you for just deleting my edit outright without discussing it. Polihale (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  please, -do- read Xihr's post above. Trivia stays trivia, and quoting numerous other seemingly parallel situations does not add weight to your arguments. Someone jumping off a cliff not necessarily is good enough a reason to jump yourself. Moreover, nearly all the facts on VX stated in the movie are, to put it mildly, rubbish. Please inform yourself on the facts on the open websites. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

text: Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. All you've done is listed films/shows that mention VX, this does not help the reader in any way understand the subject of the article better nor help the reader understand the subject's use in popular culture. All you've done is shown that it gets used in popular culture, that's trivial. If this section is to exist then it needs to be an in-depth discussion of the use of VX in popular culture (things it gets wrong, things it gets right, why it's used, the general effect on the viewing public, etc.) and of course with references to reliable sources that discuss the issue. SQGibbon (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. Lost Boy (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

text: If the point of those links is to show "a visual presentation" then they should be External Links, not "popular culture". If they're available online, it may be useful to readers; otherwise, it's not likely to be. As to The Rock: the Royal Society for Chemistry says VX was "made infamous" by it  so it is certainly worth a mention. And correcting the film's artistic license, when this is what most people have been exposed to in terms of VX info, is well worth doing. Podiaebba (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

text: As I see it, we have a minority vote for putting this section in the article and a majority for deleting it. I would propose to delete it, at least until there's a clear concept to it. The way it is now, it is just adding completely irrelevant trivia to a scientifically sound article, thus significantly devaluing the article. Opinions, anyone? 05:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't a majority to have no "in popular culture" section, where do you get that idea from? And where do you get the idea that the opinion of the Royal Society of Chemistry is trivial? Where do you get the idea that correcting misconceptions in the "infamous" use of VX in The Rock is unhelpful to have in an encyclopedia article about VX? This is not a scientific handbook, it's an encyclopedia. Podiaebba (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

text:  Right. Arithmetic Don't count. Anyway, EOD 4 me. Lost Boy (talk) 09:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are three different versions (2 versions of the section, and no section at all) and discussion spread over 2 years, with the third version only extant recently so some people haven't been able to express an opinion on it. Pretending that it's straightforward to count who wants what isn't helpful, especially as a simple headcount shouldn't determine the outcome anyway, it should be the weight of argument. Podiaebba (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  in popular culture 

message: The reference given on the sentence which lists the LD50 as 734 micrograms through skin exposure ( http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwagents.html ) actually lists the LD50 as the much larger 10mg. This claim has now been repeated in a number of blogs and news sources, based on this article, because of the Dugway Proving Ground incident; so I think it would be good to work this out. Does anyone have any idea where this number comes from? Zombiejesus (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Official US and international (SIPRI, OPCW) sources as well as most of the specialist literature do quote the percutaneuos lethal dose for an adult male to be about 10 mg. This however is an approximation only, and there is a lot of factors influencing the actual lethal dose; those 10 mg are supposed to be absorbed on a patch of bare, healthy, naked skin without any decontamination or the like. Wearing an summer type uniform puts the lethal dose up to about 90 mg, supposing the agent does penetrate the uniform and resorb within an hour; rapid decontamination and antidotal treatment would also greatly increase the dose needed to yield a lethality; opposingly, getting the agent onto a wound or being it mixed with some blistering agent or solvents might greatly reduce the lethal dose. "734 micrograms" sounds a bit odd and it appears to me as an estimate of the oral or inhalatory lethal dose in a man of ~70 kg body weight (oral/inhalatory LD50 being estimated to be in order of 2 — 10 µg×kg-1 body weight). Cheers, --93.192.165.169 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that 10mg is an approximation, and that inhalation may have a smaller LD-50. However the page lists this dose as being through skin exposure explicitly. It does seem reasonable that this may apply to some other method of ingestion; but without a reference to how this number was derived (let alone what ingestion method it refers to) I don't think we should leave it on this page, even with the 'citation needed' flag that I see it has now. Do you, or anyone else, see it differently? Zombiejesus (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections, I have changed the listed LD50 to 10mg. Zombiejesus (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LD50 does not seem to be 734 micrograms 

message: The intro claims to have no known uses other than as a weapon. However, one small line notes that it is used to treat turf grass, and it has a source. Is this a reliable source? If so, is the "no known uses" part false? That's all I can say about this. 75.73.226.36 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear what "it" is referring to in the sentence "It is also used to treat seeds and turf grasses".  If it is VX, then the statement is dubious; if it is EMPTA, then the statement is not relevant.  So I have removed it.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No known uses" 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on VX (nerve agent). 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/20030401082316/http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk:80/mom/vx/VX.htm to http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/vx/VX.htm
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mention how much 10 milligrams is. A drip? A drop? Jidanni (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention how much 10 milligrams is 

message: Did any one survive smelling and tasting these substances to report that they were odourless and tasteless? Was this information provided by Kim Jong Nam? 109.156.178.186 (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I disagree that we need to explain in this article how we know this. Why do you think that's important? I'm going to remove the tag. Please discuss. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

text: All claims in Wikipedia articles need to be sourced. Who the heck is this "we" who purportedly "knows" this? Removing the tag is unwarranted. Simply add a reference to a reliable source for this claim ... the sole reference on that paragraph doesn't mention odor or taste, but there are others that do. Once a reference to a reliable source is added supporting the claim, the tag can be removed. (I do agree that the source does not have to explain how it is known that a substance is odorless and tasteless, only state that it is.) -- Jibal (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got the wrong tag then. You want Template:Citation needed. I will find a source and add it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Given that the organic molecule contains a sulfur atom, is it likely to be odorless and tasteless? 109.156.178.186 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the synthesis method, not likely because of sulfur.  Most thiophosphates smell like the mercaptan used to make them, as they end up being residual in the end product.  In this case, there isn't one.  The binary VX uses dimethyl polysulfides, so it may have some odor, due to residual dimethyl sulfur species.  JSR (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps add, "Odorless and tasteless upto the lowest lethal dose"? 109.156.178.186 (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to volunteer to find out.  It should require a reference which would in some manner describe at what concentration this property was found to be true, and how it was performed, without killing the test subject. (Or is this someone's last words?)JSR (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odourless and tasteless 

message: I don't think Kim Jong-nam was a "dissident", as shown. Wasn't  this supposedly a family dispute? I'm going to tweak this, subject to other editors' views.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this at the Kim Jong-nam page. This article is about the chemical compound only. 115.66.203.56 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't want sloppy reporting, even if it's only about something other than the main page topic.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I have removed the word.  He isn't described in the lead of his article that way, no reason to do it here. - GB fan 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fix  —  thanks.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kim Jong-nam]] relationship with Korea 

message: The article does not claim she applied VX with her bare hands. It is very unlikely anyone applied it with the bare hands. Most likely it was applied as 2 chemicals, as a binary weapon. The two chemicals react to create VX. The second attacker is likely to have come into contact with either the vapour or some VX as she applied the second does at it reacted. 
--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, I removed the mentioning of bare hands. What we deem likely is WP:OR, until a source for that is found. Lklundin (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beyond the 2-substance, 2-women theory (Guardian: ), there has been video described as "wiping his face" with scarf, which could reduce direct contact with skin mixture by attacker not touching other binary substance already on face, but need sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The authorities further reported that one of the women suspected of applying the nerve agent with her bare hand experienced physical symptoms of VX-poisoning

message: LOL! There are exactly zero chemical properties mentioned in the section titled "Chemical Properties". Instead physical properties (such as viscosity and volatility) as well as biochemical (biological) properties are mentioned (former) or discussed (latter). What's its solubility in water?40.142.183.194 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Properties 

message: I'm going to change this back to "leader". It's a more neutral term, and is used by three of the four sources that were originally cited. The WSJ says "dictator" but that source has been removed. The Kim Jong-un article calls him "supreme leader". Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Jong-un: leader or dictator? 

message: Can you elaborate a bit more on what kind of source you'd like to see for "odorless and tasteless"? There are quite a few books from various fields, here are a few:  Were you looking more for a journal article? Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odorless and tasteless 

message: Patent DE 10337978 awarded to Germany, ministry of defence describes a composition comprising chloramine T, chlordioxide or hypochlorite used for decontamination and detoxification in bio- or chemical warfare.
https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=bibdat&docid=DE000010337978A1
Patent DE 10142216 C2, registered 29.08.2001 with the German Patent Office DPMA describes a composition comprising an oxidizing agent based on chlorine (chloramine T) and emulsifier for decontamination and detoxification of skin contaminated with chemicals in warfare.   
https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=bibdat&docid=DE000010337978B4
United States patent application No 8,722,956 (Kit for decomposing organophosphorus compounds) awarded to Brown et al  describes the decontamination of organo-thiophosphates including lipophilic VX with a non-aqueous solution, preferably an alcohol, comprising metal ions from the group consisting of lanthanides and at least a trace amount of alkoxide ions. The product and procedure is for use on non living and living surfaces. 
 
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=2&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&S1=(decontamination+AND+warefare)&OS=decontamination+AND+warefare&RS=(decontamination+AND+warefare)2osecampo (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not good sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. Patents describe methods for doing things, but can't be used to verify that one procedure is better than, or used more frequently than, another. Textbooks and journal articles are better for statements like these. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Treatment: citations for decontamination of VX 

message: The difference of a single methyl/ethyl group doesn't seem to justify the need for another article. VX (nerve agent) definitely has a lot more information about the entire family of nerve agents as a whole. Hdjensofjfnen (Can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 05:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[VS (nerve agent)]]