Talk:Kolokol-1

Comments

Kolokol means bell in Russian. It is unclear wether this information would be of any interest to people trying to find out more about the chemical agent called Kolokol-1.

I think that yes, that it will be interesting, so I will change the article.--Oleg Str 10:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Source for Fyodorov paragraph?

The article says:

According to Lev Fyodorov, a former Soviet chemical weapons scientist who now heads the independent Council for Chemical Security in Moscow, the gas was originally manufactured in a secret KGB laboratory in Leningrad during the 1970s, and that in the subsequent decade methods of dispersing it were tested on the Moscow public without their knowledge. Furthermore, Fyodorov claimed that leaders of the failed 20 August 1991 Communist coup intended to use the agent to recover members of the Russian parliament.

Perhaps the source is linked below; if so, could it be referenced within the paragraph? Eric 19:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The source can be found here. It is referenced below, but I'll also add it to the article proper in the morning. My wife is yelling at me to come to bed right now. – ClockworkSoul 06:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the article a bit, and added the citations. The articles I cited are available on Lexis-Nexis, but if you want the text I would happily email them to you. – ClockworkSoul 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Found the actual source. It's an article in Moscow's Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper of Oct 28, 2002, titled "Hostage Dealths Result from Special Forces Blunder?" Interviewed by the newspaper, Fyodorov said: "It was an incapacitating agent, a gas that temporarily disables the human body... A secret Institute for Very Pure Substances [translated literally] was created in Leningrad in the ealy 1970s. Peptides were developed there such that could affect human brain. It is in there where the incapacitating agent was long kept... It took a long time to learn how to use that weapon. They had to develop a means to release the gas in the atmosphere and disseminate it there uniformly... First [atmospheric release] experiments began in Moscow in the 1980s. Harmless bacteria were released in the Moscow subway [the Metro] through ventilation shafts. Later the experiments moved to Novosibirsk where a subway system was built to this end... It looks like it was the first time the incapacitatnt was used in the theater. In 1991, during the coup d'etat, an operation like that went abortive. Back then they intended to release it into the White House [Russian Parliament Building]."--129.128.45.126 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

opiate type

I find it hard to believe that the exact nature of the opiate used is not known. 3 methyl fentanyl would certainly fit the bill. Ohmefentanyl is even stronger, but would that beta hydroxy group make it more difficult to make it into aerosol form? I found that para-fluoro ohmefentanyl is even stronger so maybe para fluoro 3 methyl fentanyl? There are other classes of opiate that have the same range of potency but the fentanyls would be the easiest to produce in bulk. Also, does anyone know how long the people were out cold for? Certain fentanyls have very short or very long 1/2 lives. Carfentanil is supposed to be x10000 morphine but has a 1/2 life that is VERY short. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.26.110 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

The exact substance/agent hasn't been disclosed/verified by official or other reliable sources. Well actualy, there was a short statement given by a higher-rank officier of the russian Army/Special Forces where he stated that the agent used was 3-methylfentanyl, as far as I remeber, but I do not know the source/news agency which brought this at that time anymore. Speculations about all those potent opioids don't clear the matter further anyhow. Cheers,--93.192.171.222 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a broad consensus - even assumption - among the Bluelight community that the agent is indeed 3-methylfentanyl. The substance has the advantage of being relatively cheap and simple to synthesize; it can be produced at existing facilities set up for the medically useful fentanyl with only trivial changes in process/configuration.Sargon3 (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A team of toxicologists at the United Kingdom's chemical and biological warfare research labs at Porton Down published a paper, Analysis of Clothing and Urine from Moscow Theatre Siege Casualties Reveals Carfentanil and Remifentanil Use, showing that while fentanyl or 3-methyl fentanyl were absent from the urine of one survivor or residues of the agent in clothing of two other British survivors, the veterinary large animal sedative drug carfentanil and anesthetic agent remifentanil were discovered by liquid chromatographic tandem mass spectrometry (compared to standards which comprised fentanyl hydrochloride, cis-3-methylfentanyl free base, carfentanil oxalate, sufentanil citrate, lofentanil oxalate, remifentanil hydrochloride, norcarfentanil and remifentanil acid).

I would say that these are enough hard data to allow us to conclude that the Russian Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko either willingly lied or was misled by his own government's sources in announcing the active agent of the gas used in the hostage rescue at the Barricade Theatre in Moscow was fentanyl, and that speculation that the agent was the more toxic and potent analogue 3-methyl fentanyl was premature. Analysis of actual agent residues, compared to known standards of both fentanyl and 3-methyl fentanyl, showed presence of neither drug, while showing the presence (otherwise unaccountable-for in a moviegoer's clothing or urine) of carfentanil and remifentanil.

That's the last analytical word, friends. I added it to the article, along with a review article in The Annals of Emergency Medicine which places the whole issue into four valuable perspectives:

- the toxicology in HUMANS of the veterinary drug carfentanil and the perioperative anesthetic drug remifentanil when used as aerosolized agents ("gases" within the military sense of the word) weren't studied closely enough and the lipophilicity of all the fentanyl derivatives may have caused a "re-narcosis" syndrome requiring repeated doses of the appropriate antidote (these authors state that would have been the standard opiate antidote naloxone ("Narcan"), while the Porton Down team correctly state that naltrexone is the preferred and much more highly effective antidote to human overdosage with carfentanil) promptly to save affected persons' lives;

- withholding of the identity of these drugs or even the general class to which they belonged probably cost many lives after the rescue, but hypoxic brain damage might have been unavoidable in some cases;

- these points notwithstanding, it's hard to see what other options the Spetsnaz team in charge of the rescue had but using these agents to subdue the Chechen terrorists (with their fingers on the detonators of enough high explosives to kill everyone there) and, unavoidably, their hostages. The secrecy which prevented Russian officials from IMMEDIATELY informing their own physicians what they were treating WAS avoidable, however; and

- future use of these or similar agents to subdue hostage takers or other violent individuals while trying to avoid unnecessary fatalities should only be attempted after more extensive study of their effects, how they are deposited after being introduced into building air vents or other ways, how the human body absorbs them and which metabolic and physiological pathways the drugs take after inhalation or ingestion, and - most importantly - making appropriate antidotes for these agents available to be administered promptly to incident survivors after their use. loupgarous 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Needs a section on long term effects

Just as radiation victims get monitored, the >700 Moscow survivors/exposure victims should be monitored for effects. This page should have a section for the long term. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The active ingredients in the agent used to subdue the Chechens and their hostages, carfentanil and remifentanil, have extremely short biological half-lives (which is why the Russians probably honestly believed they could be used in enclosed spaces without a high fatality rate). Sixteen percent, or one in every six hostages died after this incident, and available information is that the Russians never saw this in prior use of this or similar incapacitating agents - they've been playing around with nonlethal incapacitants since the early 1980s in Afghanistan.

You do have a great point, however. A review article in The Annals of Emergency Medicine touches on the fact that most of the fentanyl derivative drugs are lipophilic (in other words, taken up rapidly into the fatty tissues), so that a "renarcosis" syndrome can occur - it's possible to treat a patient for exposure to these drugs, get a good response, then have the patient re-experience toxic symptoms from the drug as it is released from the patient's body fat back into the patient's circulation, often at an unpredictable interval (at least until more data are available on uptake of these agents into body fat and the rate at which it is released back into the central circulation).

But while within the context of the intended use of these very short-acting opiate drugs, a span of hours to several days after exposure may be "long-term effects," I don't know if we ought to call them that in a separate section heading. Generally, "long-term effects" (from my experience as a medical writer and clinical data analyst for a few Big Pharma firms) are "months to years" in scope.

The article I cited does call for more research into ALL the effects of these drugs when used as military incapacitants. However, I'm reluctant to single out what may or may not be considered a "long-term effect" in normal medical contexts, because I don't think the articles I've read supply that information solidly enough for it to appear in this article (it'd be a real case of WP:Undue Weight, I think).

I am glad you brought this up, however, because we need someone with experience in industrial or toxicological epidemiology or just plain experience with these sorts of opiate drugs to lend us their experience with what is or is not a "long-term effect" stemming from exposure to these drugs. I'd be willing to venture that brain hypoxia would cause such effects, and it's been mentioned as a sequel to exposure to these drugs in a setting such as the Barricade Theatre hostage rescue, but we need a greater consensus than just you and me before putting that in the article.

Anyone? loupgarous 00:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WMD

Am I alone in thinking that Kolokol slips through the cracks of the CWC? It's dual use. It can be classed as a riot control agent but these strong opioids don't qualify as WMDs because the treaty specified 'liquid or gas'. Certainly carfentanil should be classed as a WMD? The police in North America seized 1Kg of carfentanyl which ≈ 10 tonnes of morphine. I would suggest that the CWC is altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.74.135 (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point. Neither Fentanyl, carfentanil, remifentanil nor any other strong opioid agonist (let's say, etorphine as an extreme, lethal example) are covered either specifically or generically in the Chemical Weapons Convention for the very good reason that their cases never came up when it was being negotiated. Potent incapacitating pharmaceuticals - e.g., nitrous oxide or halothane (mentioned by Timperley, et al from Porton Down as a potential component in Kolokol-1) are generally overlooked (unless, like agent BZ, they were developed specifically for military use). Whether they will be added to the CWC we don't know. We need to cite good WP:RS sources that say if and when the CWC is going to be changed to cover these drugs (something you can help us find, because more eyes are better).

By the way, I'm looking over the definition of "chemical weapon" in the text of the Chemical Weapons Convention. and it doesn't seem to specify "liquid or gas":

• 1. ""Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).[2.

• 2. Toxic Chemical" means:

"Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere."

I’m just sad we’re having this conversation at all. We better not call hydrazines hepatoxic or some bureaucrat might not get his payoff. It doesn’t have to be illegal, it could be donations to non-profits which the bureaucrat, or his advisors, may rationalize as worth it. I am not accusing anyone of any crime. Rogelio Pfirter almost certainly didn’t come up with that talking point himself. I am not accusing anyone whose name I know of unethical behavior. Anyway we have a consensus. His quote is relevant but incorrect, marked dubious. Dogshu (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Several Novichok agents are solids at room temperature, as is agent BZ. That "liquid or gas" thing is probably a left-over meme from second and third-generation military chemistry - the mustards and nerve agents being called "gases" even though they're actually liquids dispersed as a mist.

We already do discuss the Russian government's denial that their use of Kool lol-1 was banned under CWC in the article. We also discuss the Porton Down team's assessment of the agents they identified in residues on hostages' clothing and that of emergency physicians in general terms, but no one seems yet to have proposed amendment of the CWC to control military use of these drugs in sources that meet our guideline in WP:RS, and we can't mention changing the CWC in our article until such a source publishes such a suggestion. If you want to monitor the Web for such suggestions, it'd be helpful.

Thank you for talking about that seizure of carfentanil! I found the Associated Press article on the Canadians' seizure of that shipment, which raises the specter of carfentanil's potential military use. Carfentanil seems to qualify under the definition of "chemical weapon" and "toxic chemical" under the Chemical Weapons Convention - definitely something we don't want people being able to order from China in kilo lots over the Internet. It's a good source for comment about one of the constituents of Kolokol-1 being considered a chemical weapon. Again, thanks for that information!

I'll add this information to our article on carfentanil, too. 1,000 grams of that stuff in one place is a huge amount (far over the DEA's yearly production quota of 19 grams for that drug in the USA given in our article on the drug). loupgarous (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)