Talk:T-2 mycotoxin

some comments

If one reads the ref cited as "yellow rain controversy" one finds the following facts

1. the investigation(s) by the US govt were, as the Govt itself admits, Seriously flawed
2. At least some of the claimed attacks were almost certainly Bee pollen + possibly some moldy food + hyping by US political interests
3. there may have been some chemical warfare actions, but the evidence was so poorly handled by the US govt that unless we have an admission from the soviets, we will never know what happened.

In light of this, perhaps this needs to be reformulated —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.69.179.85 (talk • contribs).

You're seriously misreading that article, which takes a neutral position and does not report that "the Govt itself admits" its investigation was flawed (although this may have happened, it is not in the article). While Meselson and supporters certainly believe the bee pollen explanation, that doesn't amount to a "fact". The last ("we will never know what happened") is probably the generalized good-faith-on-all-sides argument and closest to representing the content of the CNS article, and I think our article is close enough to that same position. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

if you go here http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/81/81tucker.pdf, which is cited in the "yellow rain" source in teh wiki article, please look at the quote at the bottom of page 36, the left hand column, concerning the conclusion of US govt researchers. Perhpas I mistated things a bit, but it would seem accurate to state that US govt researchers concluded the govt investigatin was shoddy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs).

Yes, that's more accurate (after all, that article explicitly states that the official US position remains unchanged, which is hardly the same as "the U.S. admits"). It's pretty clear that the subsequent studies of the evidence have weakened the original claims by the U.S., but I think it's also pretty clear that they were for the most part good faith claims (certainly by comparison to more recent events), and there are still important unanswered questions. In any case, we can't write things like "study by X demolished the government case", as that is conclusory. The article could always use expansion, as long as we're careful to present each side's part of the argument fairly, e.g. "Meselson hypothesized ...", "the U.S. government insisted", "according to Smith, the U.S. position was 'pure propaganda'", and so on per WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible redundancy-

"T-2 (also known as "Yellow Rain"), a trichothecene mycotoxin..."

Doesn't T-2 mycotoxin stand for trichothecene mycotoxin?

Lunakeet 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on T-2 mycotoxin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012102221/http://www.cbwinfo.com:80/Biological/Toxins/T2.html to http://www.cbwinfo.com/Biological/Toxins/T2.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

More precision needed

Under the "Chemical Properties" subsection, it is written that "They do not degrade at high temperatures either." This is an inherently imprecise statement. The desired statement is along the lines of "They do not degrade at relatively high temperatures", and the question in need of an answer is then "relative to what?". Of course, there is a temperature above which these compounds would degrade; for instance, stellar matter almost always exists as individual atoms, often ionized at that, since molecular bonds are destroyed under the intense heat.