Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:40, 6 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 06:32, 21 June 2005). 21 June 2005
"Extremely toxic"? Isn't that a little extreme? Many people in my industry handle it without precautions (which they should use) and suffer no short term ill effects. <Sig?>
I agree that "extremely toxic at low concentrations" is a bit of a stretch. Animal subjects have to be exposed to low doses of cadmium (both oral and inhalation) for 1-3 months before any signs of toxicity appear. Substances like sarin or hydrogen cyanide are extremely toxic, but not cadmium.Jay Litman 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say sarin or HCN are extremely toxic, they're extremely harmful, but once they're out of your body they're gone for good. PCBs are extremely toxic. Many people expose themselves to cyanides everyday or more, it's in a number of root vegetables people in hot countries eat. I THINK exposure to small doses is actually good for your body in some way, like it helps produce a vitamin or more hemoglobin, but again, it doesn't build up over the years. So long as someone has received a less than gigantic dose, you can cure them by dragging them outside and giving them some O2; the cyanide will burn off the electron carrier chains.
I just went ahead and removed 'extremely.'--Jay Litman 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a chemist, but in the "Most Stable Isotopes" table, should it be Cadmium 108, not 188?
What about the story that says the name Cadmium derives from King Cadmus of Phoenicia from Greek mythology ? Jay 16:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Lots of websites I visited said that 60% of cadmium is used in electroplating, not 6%. Which is correct?
Well the cadium is actually extremely toxic. I mean look up itai-itai disease
I found severl links which mention risk of Cadmium in fertilizers. The phosphate ore contains cadmium and if not extracted it ends in the fertilizer. It looks like the EU made a upper level for Cadmium in Fertilizer.
Stone 10:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This section needs a serious overhaul. It contains redundancy, scientifically obsolete statements, and several dead links. I'm going to start updating/rewriting. If anyone finds a problem or inconsistency with my edits, please leave a comment here. Thanks! --Jay†Litman 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The infobox states that Cadmium is "silvery gray", and the first paragraph text and the "Notable Characteristis" setion say that it is "bluish white". Stifynsemons 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that the In popular Fiction section is completely out of place and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madris (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
What is casesin in the article? Warut 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
hi
i would like to ask a question regarding cadmium.
I work in a chemcial testing lab. Recently i have received a metal sample that the client claim that it the metal base material contain hilumin with nickel, tin and gold plated. After i analyse, i discover that there is a high concentration of cadmium... Would it be possible that there is cadmium in the metal material? For what i know, i only know that lead concentration is often occur high in plating material.
is there any test where i can test if there is any cadmium in a metal sample??? Does tin contain cadmium in it. Or does hilumin had cadmium content in it??
this is my email: eyemoe@hotmail.com
regards
nicole --202.156.6.54 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article has contained the following assertion nearly since its inception:
The assertion is unsupported by any reference, and the article on meter, which contains a history of definitions of the meter, does not mention cadmium at all. In fact, it states that the definition in 1927 was changed to the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar. Does anyone know whence this assertion came? Julesd 19:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been auditing the nav images in element articles to fix wrong neutron counts and giving Lu and Lr the lanthanoid and actinoid coloring, respectively. Part way through, I started to review our definitions for element categories to check them against IUPAC's provisional recommendations. See IUPAC Red Book IR-3.6 GROUPS OF ELEMENTS. Turns out that their specific definition for transition metal deviates from ours in a somewhat embarrassing way:
ED NOTE: Turns out, that IUPAC's approved recommendations define transition metals as either the set of elements in groups 3 to 12 (our current set-up) or the set of elements from 3 to 11 (the set-up in the below table).
Fixing this results in somewhat modified periodic tables (Note, that the expanded 'Other metal' category includes all the post-transition metals plus aluminium):
So, before I finish my audit and fix of the nav images, I'd like to know if I should fix group 12 to be consistent with the provisional IUPAC definition of transition metals. OR should we wait for IUPAC to come out with the final-updated Red Book (comment period ends at the end of 2008)? I'm putting my audit and update of the nav images on hold until we figure this out. --mav (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements.
I've always thought that our periodic tables have too many colors and that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we got rid of most of them. But I'm afraid I'm in the minority. --Itub (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Great feedback - thanks for finding the the current recommendations. Looks like IUPAC is giving us some leeway in the definition of transition metals in the approved recommendations. That means that our current table does not conflict with IUPAC. That is all I was worried about. We should therefore leave well-enough alone. We can revisit this if/when IUPAC comes up with a more rigorous definition. But I welcome anybody else to comment just in case we have missed anything. Again - Thank you everybody! --mav (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I may be getting in here a little late, but I just wanted to note that in post-transition metal, it claims that the IUPAC definition for transition metals is in conflict with it self. Based upon what I've read here, that doesn't seem to be the case any more. I think it needs to be cleaned up to match the above conclusions. --Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a note: first time we get the chance, we should try to get rid of the color differenciation between actinoids and lanthanoids. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Mercury is considered a transition element under both IUPAC definitions now, because the compound HgF4 has been synthesized in 2007, giving Hg a d8 electron configuration. Should this be incorporated in the table and the article? Kumorifox (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I showed up 3 months too late for the fun, but I based on what I read, I am removing the suggestion to merge these two articles. No change in IUPAC recommendations will ever alter Periodic table (by blocks). The blocks must have a number of columns corresponding to the number of electrons that a full subshell can hold. So the d-block must occupy groups 3-12. This is a man-made oversimplification because the chemistry and even the ground state electrons in Periodic_table_(electron_configurations) are messier than the blockiness, but that's ok. Oversimplifications are important because they make reality interesting. "Transition metal" on the other hand, is a convention, not an oversimplification. One bunch of folks call some elements "Transition metals" and another bunch of folks don't, and IUPAC says that's ok. When the most recent IUPAC book says "the elements of group 12 are not always included," they mean not always included in the transition metals. Group 12 has to be in the d-block because if it weren't, then the d-block would only hold 9 columns, meaning 9 electrons maximum in the d-subshell and Kimmie, the cute new 22-year old high-school chemistry teacher, would cry because even the oversimplifications would be too complex to teach, and angry mobs of high school boys who love Kimmie would grab torches and pitchforks and attack IUPAC folks and Wikipedia editors for making Kimmie cry. So that's why d-block and Transition metal should not be merged even though IUPAC says they -can- contain the same elements. By the way, Inner transition element and f-block should also be separate articles for the same reason. Conventions and oversimplifications are very, very different. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Cadmium be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
In the article as it is, for some reason footnote #10 occurs twice in the main article. There is, of course, only one hyperlink in foonote #10, and it refers to the first #10 superscript. The edit page of that section seems to have the right URL in it, so I'm thoroughly confused. The second hyperlink in the second #10 superscript works fine, it just isn't accessible on the page. Anyway, someone who knows how to fix this should fix the reference (it's the one on cadmium production through 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.228.189 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If you examine the content of the three claims, the third claim is not in any way demonstrated by reference 10. Reference 10 refers to a webpage with a graph describing cadmium production through 1960 or so. The third claim refers to cadmium use through 2009. When I go to the edit window for that page, I see a completely different reference to this url: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cadmium/cadmimcs06.pdf this url currently does not show up anywhere on the cadmium page, as far as I can tell, except in the edit window for that page. I don't know if it's a scripting error, or what... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.228.189 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't find a section on reactivity on this article, even though the other elements in the d-block have it. I think it would be really helpful, if not consistant. MewtwoDude (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This was poorly said: "Cadmium does the same job as zinc in other anhydrases, but the diatoms live in environments with very low zinc concentrations, thus biology has taken cadmium rather than zinc, and put it to work." I don't know enough about Cadmium to describe it in a roll usually filled by zinc, so I just changed it to "Cadmium is more abundant and preforms the same function that zinc would in a zinc-rich environment." 64.190.57.34 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Cadmium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Cadmium Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.
Where is the original $3.55 price from? (And what is the purity it refers to?) It certainly conflicts with the $12/lb stated at the above-mentioned LANL site. -Nathan24601 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a specific reference for this? Zinc forms many complex compounds and I have never been under the impression that cadmium forms more complex compounds.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to know how you expose yourself to cancer from Cadmium. Do you have to eat it? Hold it? be near it? hold a cadmium battery?
Otherwise it's just a silly statement that cadmium can cause cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.189.251.1 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Free-world consumption of cadmium in the period from 2000 to 2010 has remained relatively stable at 20,000 mt per year, a figure that now includes consumption in China and Russia. An explanation for a decrease of direct cadmium consumption in the United States may be the shift of the cadmium market away from coatings and pigments that used to be done in the United States to nickel-cadmium batteries which are now all manufactured in China and Japan. World consumption of cadmium has increased not decreased from the 1970s to 2010. Please see source: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Article Cadmium. I thus deleted the sentence.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a very specialized and insignificant use. I don’t think this needs to be part of the article.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This sentence is confusing and invokes the impression that cadmium plating should not be used on low alloy steels or titanium alloys. In fact it has been used on both materials for many years.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Paragraph deleted. What is the basis for this statement, and what specific biological systems are involved? The statement requires a reference to be credible.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
“Tobacco smoking is the most important single source of cadmium exposure in the general population. It has been estimated that about 10%” - Do you have a source for this figure?--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The introduction of NiMH batteries had only a minor effect on the NiCd battery market and only for a short time. Lithium-ion batteries are now the rechargeable battery chemistry of choice, and the NiMH battery market is shrinking because of much higher nickel and cobalt contents in NiMH batteries, along with much higher metal prices. --Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there a source for this? I don’t think Cadmium is used in on trains anymore. Cadmium pigments are no longer used in automotive paints for example.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The cites seem OK (one ref per para), although cite 33 is unclear. If a compounds section was added, I think this would be a straight B. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Specific issues will be provided in the comments section. This one is really bad, but I'm giving it a chance!
The above information on the isotopes of cadmium seems to me to be a bit esoteric and of limited interest to the general Wikipedia reader. Does anybody feels the same?--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Which is more toxic? Just curious; I would guess they have similar mechanisms of action since their chemical properties are similar, but I wonder which one would be a more effective poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think 321C qualifies as a "low melting point" compared to -39C. It seems that if a similarity should be drawn to mercury, this shouldn't be it. --24.213.110.33 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cadmium-crystal bar.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 31, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 18:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
A description of the visual appearance of a cadmium plated surface would be appropriate. The appearance should be distinguished from chromium, nickel and zinc. PeterEasthope (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cadmium. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cadmium. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I have, for the second time, removed comments about cadmium as an alleged contaminant of fluoridation additives to water, sourced from the notorious anti-fluoridationist crusader Phyllis Mullenix. I do not intend to pursue further removal of this material if it is added back yet again. Rather than continue, myself personally, to remove this inappropriate, and inappropriately sourced, material, I would like to start a discussion here, for achievement of consensus on the relevant issues—although, as a general matter, Wikipedia consensus already condemns addition of material to articles for purposes of WP:FRINGE POV-pushing, especially in articles with no clear relationship to the fringe POV involved.
The removed comments were originally added, and then added back after the first removal, by user Seabreezes1, who has a history of adding similar POV anti-fluoride material to pages which, like Cadmium, have no obvious connection with fluoride or dentistry, including:
As far as I can tell, none of these insertions was accompanied by discussion on the talk page of the article in question.
The relevant issues include not only the appropriateness of bringing anti-fluoridationist material into the Cadmium article at all, but also the appropriateness of treating a crusader for a WP:FRINGE theory, even in academic publications, as a reliable source for material directly related to the fringe theory in question. In view of Phyllis Mullenix's known history as an anti-fluoridationist crusader, her formal qualifications do not make her a reliable source on the topic, any more than Linus Pauling's Nobel and other eminent qualifications as a biochemist make him a reliable source on vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Although bias and non-neutrality in general may not exclude a source as reliable, extreme advocacy of a WP:FRINGE theory can still invalidate the reliability of even so eminent a source as Pauling—let alone Mullenix—at least for questions directly related to the fringe theory. WP:RS points out that the creator of a work, as well as the venue of publication, can be relevant to its reliability. Also see the comments on promoters of fringe theories as sources in the section WP:PROFRINGE within WP:FRINGE.
—Syrenka V (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.