Jump to content

Talk:Oxygen: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Plural: new section
 
(24 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Science|class=FA}}
{{American English}}
{{American English}}
{{article history
{{article history
Line 57: Line 56:
|otd10date=2021-08-01|otd10oldid=1036299124
|otd10date=2021-08-01|otd10oldid=1036299124
|otd11date=2023-08-01|otd11oldid=1168204867
|otd11date=2023-08-01|otd11oldid=1168204867
|otd12date=2024-08-01|otd12oldid=1237571941
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Elements|class=FA|importance=Top|vital=yes}}
{{WikiProject Elements|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Materials|class=FA|importance=Mid|vital=yes}}
{{WikiProject Materials|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology}}

}}
}}


Line 73: Line 73:
}}
}}
{{archives|age=365}}
{{archives|age=365}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Atomic theory#Earliest empirical evidence|atomic hypothesis]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Earliest empirical evidence) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/520000279|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Earliest empirical evidence","appear":{"revid":327059068,"parentid":326977759,"timestamp":"2009-11-21T04:47:53Z","removed_section_titles":["Birth"],"added_section_titles":["Earliest empirical evidence"]},"disappear":{"revid":520000279,"parentid":519974764,"timestamp":"2012-10-26T19:03:48Z","removed_section_titles":["Earliest empirical evidence"],"added_section_titles":["Early Development"]},"very_different":"26≥17","rename_to":"First evidence-based theory"} -->
}}

== "High-energy oxygen" theory ==

The claim, currently included in the lede, that


== Oxygen-15 natural occurrence ==
:[[Allotropes of oxygen#Dioxygen|Dioxygen]] provides most of the [[chemical energy]] released in [[combustion]] and aerobic [[cellular respiration]]


Shouldn't oxygen-15 be listed as "trace" rather than "synthetic" , since trace ammounts are produced naturally by lightning and in the sun. [[Special:Contributions/174.103.211.189|174.103.211.189]] ([[User talk:174.103.211.189|talk]]) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
is part of a very wide campaign by a Wikipedia editor to insert references to his theory in many science articles (so if you're trying to research it on Wikipedia, you'll likely come across another page edited in the same way by the same person). This theory, which describes oxygen as a "high-energy" molecule, is pretty fringe-y, and culminates in such statements as


== oxygen is not the most abundant element on earth. iron is ==
:the lower heating value is directly proportional to the amount of oxygen consumed in the combustion


thought that should be changed [[Special:Contributions/2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726|2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726]] ([[User talk:2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726|talk]]) 05:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
which, of course, it isn't. Branched alkanes differ in their heating value (but not in the amount of oxygen consumed in their combustion) from the unbranched alkane they are based on. (See also [[ring strain]], [[aromaticity]], [[triple bond]]).


:Oxygen is the most abundant specifically on Earth’s crust [[Special:Contributions/99.17.2.140|99.17.2.140]] ([[User talk:99.17.2.140|talk]]) 08:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
(It's well-known that for restricted classes of fuels, a rough approximation of the heating value can be obtained by considering only the elemental composition of the fuel, or even just the amount of oxygen required for its combustion. See [[Weir formula]] for a 1949 paper that's pretty clear about that.)


::Define abundance. By number fraction, i.e., actual number of atoms, oxygen is by far more abundant over the entire Earth. There is a greater mass fraction of iron but that's simply because it's heavier. However, as stated in the article, there is a greater abundance of oxygen by mass in the Earth's crust and biosphere. <small>'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])</small> 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I strongly feel this theory should be removed from Wikipedia. It's non-notable, violates the scientific consensus, has been introduced by a single COI editor, and I believe (though others may feel differently) that it qualifies as both a fringe theory and pseudoscience. Asking whether it's the oxygen or the fuel which "provides" the chemical energy for a reaction is a question which, in standard chemistry, simply makes no sense. (It does make sense, of course, if you consider nuclear energies, but the results are then very different from the predictions of this theory).


== Lavoisier's contribution, "Sur la combustion en général", mentions neither "vital air" or "azote" ==
I've brought this up in a number of places:
* the author's talk page at [[User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr#Photosynthesis]]
* WP:FTN at [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Chemical energy and related articles]]
* my user page is where I currently keep notes: [[User:IpseCustos]]
* individual articles' talk pages. Unfortunately, there's quite a few.


I've been doing some basic research into the etymology behind Oxygen, and found that Lavoisier's contribution states that:
I've also fixed a few pages, but was, of course, reverted.


::''This and other experiments on combustion were documented in his book Sur la combustion en général, which was published in 1777. In that work, he proved that air is a mixture of two gases; 'vital air', which is essential to combustion and respiration, and azote (Gk. ἄζωτον "lifeless"), which did not support either.''
My question is two-fold:
# If I'm wrong and it's actually perfectly good science and in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, could someone please tell me?
# If I'm right and Wikipedia has been widely damaged in an attempt to push pseudoscience, how do I fix it? Is an RfC the next step?


However when actually reading "Sur la combustion en général", neither "vital air" nor "azote" are ever mentioned:
[[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 18:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
::Up to his old tricks again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188&oldid=1082426428#Carpet-bombing_of_articles_on_Thermodynamics_with_undeclared_self-citations]. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC).


[https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf]https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf
== "High-energy oxygen": I'm sorry this discussion is a mess ==


The closest he came to defining either (as far as I could find) is the line:
The discussion concerning "high-energy oxygen" is a mess. That's my fault, and I'm sorry and will try to do better in future, choosing a single central venue for discussion when possible.


::''Ainsi, pour résumer, l’air est composé, suivant moi, de la matière du feu comme dissolvant, combinée avec une substance qui lui sert de base et en quelque façon qui la neutralise''
* Most of it is on [[WP:FTN]] at [[WP:FTN#Chemical energy and related articles]].
* Some of it is on [[User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr]] and [[User talk:IpseCustos]].
* Some of it is on [[Talk:Photosynthesis]].
* Some of it is on this page, [[Talk:Oxygen]].
* There's a plea for help on [[Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Chemistry]].


In English:
Since so many articles are involved (57 articles assigning the chemical energy of oxidation to the oxygen molecule), I might have missed some.


::''Thus, to summarize, air is composed, according to me, of the matter of fire as a solvent, combined with a substance which serves as its base and in some way which neutralizes it.''
Again, I'm sorry, I realize this is making life harder for other editors who just want to get an overview. If there's anything I can do to actually improve the situation, rather than adding more and more posts to various discussion forums, please let me know?


The wikipedia text that claims he called these "vital air" and "azote" stems from reference [18]: "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements." [https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up]https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up
[[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


::''In 1777 he published his work on combustion under the title "Sur la combustion en general." Lavoisier showed that air is essentially a mixture of two gases, which he called "vital air" and "azote."''
:I am a published expert in chemical energy and bioenergetics, the field under dispute here, and have credentials as a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Everything I have written on this topic builds quantitatively on chemical textbook principles of the relations between bond strengths, chemical energy, and heat or free energy release. According to these textbook principles, conversion of relatively weak electron-pair bonds, as found for instance in O<sub>2</sub>, to stronger bonds releases energy, which means that relatively weak bonds store chemical energy. I have not deleted other editors’ content in any major or disruptive manner but rather ''added'' fairly brief technical statements prompted by the context (and have also made numerous unrelated advanced technical edits in articles within my expertise, e.g. on formal and applied thermodynamics, chemical equilibrium, kinetics, acids/bases, mass in special relativity, NMR spectroscopy, electrochemistry, statistical mechanics, materials, solubility, etc.).
:
:My (and a few colleagues') careful and quantitative thermodynamic analyses have elucidated notable but previously unexplained facts of chemical energy and bioenergetics, and have been published in detailed and accessible peer-reviewed articles by reputable publishers such as the American Chemical Society. <ref name="Weiss2008">{{cite journal | last1 = Weiss | first1 = H. M. | year = 2008 | title = Appreciating Oxygen | journal = J. Chem. Educ. | volume = 85 | issue = 9 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231267944 | pages = 1218–19 | doi = 10.1021/ed085p1218 | bibcode = 2008JChEd..85.1218W | access-date = March 13, 2017 | archive-date = October 18, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201018083423/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231267944_Appreciating_Oxygen | url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="Schmidt-Rohr 15"> Schmidt-Rohr, K. (2015). "Why Combustions Are Always Exothermic, Yielding About 418 kJ per Mole of O{{sub|2}}", ''J. Chem. Educ.'' '''92''': 2094-2099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00333. </ref><ref name="Merckel2019"> Merckel, R. D.; Labuschagne, F. J. W. J.; Heydenrych, M. D.(2019). "Oxygen consumption as the definitive factor in predicting heat of combustion", ''Appl. Energy'' '''235''': 1041-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.111</ref><ref name="Schmidt-Rohr 20"> Schmidt-Rohr, K. (2020). "Oxygen Is the High-Energy Molecule Powering Complex Multicellular Life: Fundamental Corrections to Traditional Bioenergetics". ''ACS Omega'' '''5''': 2221-2233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b03352. </ref>
:
:Examples of questions answered include:
:
:- Why is combustion or aerobic respiration of organic molecules always exothermic, and why is the heat of combustion of an organic fuel in a fire (LHV) directly proportional to the amount of O<sub>2</sub> consumed?
:- Why do carbohydrates have less than half the heat of combustion, per gram, of fat?
:- Why does fermentation of glucose produce only 2 ATP, while respiration of glucose + 6 O<sub>2</sub> produces 30 ATP? (Attributing this difference to incomplete decomposition of glucose in fermentation is invalid, because splitting glucose up all the way into 3 CO<sub>2</sub> + 3 CH<sub>4</sub> releases only 15% of the energy of glucose combustion with 6 O<sub>2</sub>, and complete decomposition of glucose into 6 formaldehyde molecules would release no energy at all.)
:- How is nearly half of the energy of aerobic respiration released by the reaction of O<sub>2</sub> at Complex IV of the inner mitochondrial membrane without any bonds of an organic molecule being broken?
:- Why do plants need two photosystems in tandem?
:- What is the source of the energy of the photons (~200 kJ/mol) emitted, for instance by fireflies, in bioluminescence, and why O<sub>2</sub> the only indispensable reactant in bioluminescence?
:- Why was life energetically limited before the widespread availability of atmospheric oxygen?
:
:My brief explanations answering these questions in relevant Wikipedia articles have led to friction with editors who for some reason seem uninterested in providing explanations of such notable facts (even after repeated prompting, they have not shared sources showing alternative valid explanations of the notable science questions listed) and accepting their conceptual consequences.
:
:In any case, as soon as I understood the viewpoints and expectations of other editors, I started to work on consensus phrasing that took these concerns into account where possible. Specifically, we have consensus that in general terms combustion and aerobic respiration “releases the chemical energy of fuels/nutrient molecules and oxygen”, and I have accordingly revised the contested phrasing in a significant fraction of the articles in question. '''Can we build on that consensus?''' In a few other cases, I have documented every important statement with a reliable secondary source (textbook with specific page number or official standard) and thus fully met Wikipedia requirements.
:
:In the course of this discussion, individual editors have opined that incorrect statements are fine on Wikipedia or that experts should not edit in their area of expertise; notable scientific facts backed by reliable secondary sources (textbooks) have been deleted. This is rather disappointing. I hope that the community of science editors on Wikipedia more broadly will carefully examine the veracity and notability of the specific disputed statements and their contexts, in the cases where consensus has not yet been reached. [[User:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr|Klaus Schmidt-Rohr]] ([[User talk:Klaus Schmidt-Rohr|talk]]) 16:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
::There is no such consensus. The word "together", in the phrase I agreed might be an acceptable compromise under certain conditions, is crucial. [[User:IpseCustos|IpseCustos]] ([[User talk:IpseCustos|talk]]) 17:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
:::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188&oldid=1082426428#Carpet-bombing_of_articles_on_Thermodynamics_with_undeclared_self-citations]. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 22:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC).


I don't disbelieve that Lavoisier started calling the two components of air "vital air" and "azote" at some point after his discovery, and the etymology of Oxygen aligns well with him mentioning that a lot of combustions produce acid later in the paper.
{{talkref}}


...But I'm not sure where Clifford A. Hampel, from ''"The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements,"'' found the terms "vital air" and "azote". From what I can gather, it can't be found in ''"Sur la combustion en général"''.
⚫
== Symbol O ==


Now this is all hyper-nitpicky for sure, and maybe I've overlooked a very important line in Lavoisier's paper and I'm all wrong here, but when I came upon this discrepancy I figured it might be worth pointing out. :-) [[User:Fiets38|Fiets38]] ([[User talk:Fiets38|talk]]) 23:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I was taught O is a letter not a symbol. [[Special:Contributions/2601:881:202:2980:5D1A:9254:4721:BFFD|2601:881:202:2980:5D1A:9254:4721:BFFD]] ([[User talk:2601:881:202:2980:5D1A:9254:4721:BFFD|talk]]) 15:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


== “Dark Oxygen” found deep underwater ==
:In this context, the term "symbol" refers to [[chemical symbol]]. O is the chemical symbol for oxygen. [[User talk:Praseodymium-141|<sup>141</sup>]][[User:Praseodymium-141|Pr]] 17:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/22/dark-oxygen-in-depths-of-pacific-ocean-could-force-rethink-about-origins-of-life] “ Charged metallic lumps found to produce oxygen in total darkness in process akin to how plants use photosynthesis” [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
== Breathing ==


⚫
== Image ==
I could find nothing in this article about oxygen being the reason we breath, and it being the element that combines with food to produce the energy to keep us alive. Am I wrong? Did I over look it? A huge number of readers will not know this, and this is the most important feature of oxygen from our point of view. So I added it to the introduction, which should always contain the information that readers will find the most important. [[User:Nwbeeson|Nick Beeson]] ([[User talk:Nwbeeson|talk]]) 23:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


Why does the image keep changing from gaseous to liquid O2 [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18|2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18|talk]]) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:It is covered in [[Oxygen#Photosynthesis_and_respiration]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 03:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
:It might be stated better that the reason we breath at all is precisely because of the prevalence of dioxygen (or rather life evolved to breath dioxygen because 'it is there' and it is suitably reactive) (Andy Loates). [[Special:Contributions/81.155.194.247|81.155.194.247]] ([[User talk:81.155.194.247|talk]]) 00:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:Fuck ya. Oxygen O'2 is what humans breathe to live. Most is produced by natural trees and plants of Earth. Trees also act as filters. They take in carbon dioxide and filter it. I CANNOT BELIEVE what I've just read. Oh my god.....I see utc in the receipt? I have no relation. Dioxygen sounds like die oxygen. Sounds like something don't like rust lol! Also H 2'O water has oxygen in it for sea life. Without it Earth dies. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1010:B187:8DA5:0:25:978D:3C01|2600:1010:B187:8DA5:0:25:978D:3C01]] ([[User talk:2600:1010:B187:8DA5:0:25:978D:3C01|talk]]) 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


== Plural ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023 ==


H, C and O, if referring to [[hydrogen]], [[carbon]], and [[oxygen]]; should be [[plural]]ized as H's, C's, and O's (with [[apostrophe]]s); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = [[hassium]], Cs = [[cesium]], and Os = [[osmium]]. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a [[PDF]], did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. [[User:Solomonfromfinland|Solomonfromfinland]] ([[User talk:Solomonfromfinland|talk]]) 03:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|Oxygen|answered=yes}}
The sentence "The body's circulatory system transports the oxygen the cells, where cellular respiration takes place." is missing the word "to". It should read "The body's circulatory system transports the oxygen TO the cells, where cellular respiration takes place." [[User:ChiCub08|ChiCub08]] ([[User talk:ChiCub08|talk]]) 21:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 21:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:04, 31 December 2024

Featured articleOxygen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 14, 2008, and on September 5, 2017.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 27, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 28, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 6, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 1, 2004, August 1, 2005, August 1, 2006, August 1, 2007, August 1, 2008, August 1, 2009, August 1, 2010, August 1, 2012, August 1, 2014, August 1, 2021, August 1, 2023, and August 1, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Oxygen-15 natural occurrence

[edit]

Shouldn't oxygen-15 be listed as "trace" rather than "synthetic" , since trace ammounts are produced naturally by lightning and in the sun. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oxygen is not the most abundant element on earth. iron is

[edit]

thought that should be changed 2605:A601:AA0D:F900:9CA4:FB25:36E:D726 (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen is the most abundant specifically on Earth’s crust 99.17.2.140 (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define abundance. By number fraction, i.e., actual number of atoms, oxygen is by far more abundant over the entire Earth. There is a greater mass fraction of iron but that's simply because it's heavier. However, as stated in the article, there is a greater abundance of oxygen by mass in the Earth's crust and biosphere. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lavoisier's contribution, "Sur la combustion en général", mentions neither "vital air" or "azote"

[edit]

I've been doing some basic research into the etymology behind Oxygen, and found that Lavoisier's contribution states that:

This and other experiments on combustion were documented in his book Sur la combustion en général, which was published in 1777. In that work, he proved that air is a mixture of two gases; 'vital air', which is essential to combustion and respiration, and azote (Gk. ἄζωτον "lifeless"), which did not support either.

However when actually reading "Sur la combustion en général", neither "vital air" nor "azote" are ever mentioned:

[1]https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Franklin/Franklin_pdf/Mem1777_p592.pdf

The closest he came to defining either (as far as I could find) is the line:

Ainsi, pour résumer, l’air est composé, suivant moi, de la matière du feu comme dissolvant, combinée avec une substance qui lui sert de base et en quelque façon qui la neutralise

In English:

Thus, to summarize, air is composed, according to me, of the matter of fire as a solvent, combined with a substance which serves as its base and in some way which neutralizes it.

The wikipedia text that claims he called these "vital air" and "azote" stems from reference [18]: "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements." [2]https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofch00hamp/page/500/mode/2up

In 1777 he published his work on combustion under the title "Sur la combustion en general." Lavoisier showed that air is essentially a mixture of two gases, which he called "vital air" and "azote."

I don't disbelieve that Lavoisier started calling the two components of air "vital air" and "azote" at some point after his discovery, and the etymology of Oxygen aligns well with him mentioning that a lot of combustions produce acid later in the paper.

...But I'm not sure where Clifford A. Hampel, from "The Encyclopedia of the Chemical Elements," found the terms "vital air" and "azote". From what I can gather, it can't be found in "Sur la combustion en général".

Now this is all hyper-nitpicky for sure, and maybe I've overlooked a very important line in Lavoisier's paper and I'm all wrong here, but when I came upon this discrepancy I figured it might be worth pointing out. :-) Fiets38 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Dark Oxygen” found deep underwater

[edit]

[3] “ Charged metallic lumps found to produce oxygen in total darkness in process akin to how plants use photosynthesis” Doug Weller talk 19:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Why does the image keep changing from gaseous to liquid O2 2603:8080:D03:89D4:9DA3:31CD:BFE5:1E18 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plural

[edit]

H, C and O, if referring to hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen; should be pluralized as H's, C's, and O's (with apostrophes); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = hassium, Cs = cesium, and Os = osmium. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a PDF, did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxygen&oldid=1266326832"