Talk:Antifreeze

Cmt

"Antifreeze's use is limited to times before the engine is running in cold climates, as friction progressively heats the engine." This is an interesting statement on two counts. (1) antifreeze is a component of the engine coolant at all times. It's present not only to depress the melting point but also to provide anti-corrosive properties against the complex electrochemical composition of the engine. (2) the engine, whether internal combustion or diesel, functions by burning fuel in air in a series of small explosions. This process generates heat. Friction contributes only a very small proportion of the total heat generated.

Name change and disambiguation

This disambiguation seems unnecessary since we only have two articles that have been written and one meaning is used far more commonly than the other. This usually calls for a note at the top of the most popular usage instead of a disambiguation page. I suggest that this article be named antifreeze and that its content include antifreeze for engines and probably that of plumbing and deicing (when they get written). A link to the antifreeze protein article could be added to the top of the article or the whole article could be included in the main article if it doesn't get too big. -- Kjkolb 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems like a "primary topic" disambiguation case. (Properly renaming this requires administrator attention to do the rename/delete/move combo, right?) Femto 11:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Let's see if anyone else has a comment and then we can go throught the renaming process. -- Kjkolb 12:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not call the article "Engine Coolant", since that is what we in the business call it? --Bearfoot 00:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's apparently used interchangeably, but in my understanding one is the additive and one is the resulting mixture: antifreeze + water = engine coolant. "Antifreeze: a substance, often a liquid such as ethylene glycol or alcohol, mixed with another liquid to lower its freezing point." - American heritage dictionary (there's no entry on engine coolant). Femto 13:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Water alone could cool the engine, but antifreeze is added so that the coolant doesn't freeze during cold weather. Once the mixture is in the car, I think calling it engine coolant would be appropriate. -- Kjkolb 10:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It also protects against overboiling, however. I think "engine coolant" is more appropriate. — Omegatron 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I like Engine coolant better too, but ........ whatever. H Padleckas 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

antifreeze (engine) → antifreeze — primary topic move per talk above Femto 11:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. Femto 11:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo

In the photo it looks like someone filling his windshield fluid tank with washer fluid (usually blue). It should show someone filling his radiator spillover tank with antifreeze fluid .

I took the photo. I actually this the man is filling his windshiel fluid tank, now that you mention ir. I asked him, and he said it was antifreeze windshield fluid, so which article should it go into? --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a form of antifreeze, but not what we're talking about in most of this article. It should go in an article about windshield washers, and we should get a similar picture for here. I can take one if you want. — Omegatron 15:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

More on the photo

There is a type of windshield washer fluid that is freeze resistant, most available in the USA are now of that type. The photo should go under "windshield washer fluid" more appropriately than here.

This article deals with fluids that are used in an engine's cooling system.

I think all washer fluids are freeze resistant. — Omegatron 16:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all vehicle windshield washer fluids are freeze resistant. In the far south, soapy solutions of water are often used. Maybe that cleans the bugs off better. In the north, windshield washer solutions of methanol must be used so the fluid does not freeze in winter. H Padleckas 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mixture melt temperature

I don't think -40ºF (-40ºC) is the right melting temperature of a 1:1 mixture of ethylene glycol and water, as the article says. In its pure state, ethylene glycol melts at 8,8ºF (-12,9ºC) and water at 32ºC (0ºC), so how come a mixture of both melt at -40ºF (-40ºC). Assuming someone made a mistake with the sign and unit conversion between ºF and ºC, I would say (I have NOT checked it, though) the mixture melts at -4.4ºC (24ºF) (note 40ºF are 4.4ºC).

Mixture melt temperature - I reply myself :p

Yap, the figure was right( -40ºF). Interesting indeed!!

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF6/680.html

Maybe a graph like that one should be included here... I think it is very explicative!

Tasty?

Is antifreeze actually tasty? I find it difficult to fathom something so hopelessly toxic being so wonderfully delicious.

I've heard that antifreeze has a sweet taste and that children tend to drink loads of it when adults pour antifreeze into other containers...in fact I only went searching for antifreeze cos of a story about an antifreeze attempted murder http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7209463.stm and I wanted to know if there was any info about it's taste. Does anyone know why antifreeze has a sweet taste? I'd have thought it'd be 'simple' to add a bitter taste to deter animals and people from drinking it? Londonsista (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the same. I've even heard that some food producers in developing countries even use it as a sweetener (often illegally). The article says something like "the taste was changed to have a bitter and vile taste". It seems obvious to me that this isn't true of every brand or manufacturer of antifreeze. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Melt temperature & tasty

Not many chemists here! There's nothing unusual about a mixture having a phase transition temperature outside the range of its individual components; after all water melts at 273K and sodium chloride at 1074K, but added sodium chloride depresses the melting point of water (see Raoult's Law). Reportedly MEG is very sweet tasting; it is chemically similar to the sugars. --Bearfoot 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of different colors / Dex-cool

There are apparently a lot of different colors. It would be best if we could make a chart of them all and what they represent. I know the Prestone extended life stuff is a yellowish green and the Dex-Cool is a red/pink/orange. We should try to find what the company calls the color themselves and use that in our description.

I'd also like to see something about Dex-Cool, either here or in its own article, as there were all kinds of class action lawsuits claiming it turned to sludge after a while, didn't work for the time it was said to, ruined components, caused corrosion, etc., but they all seem to be abandoned now. (I'm trying to figure out what the film in my coolant is, which has a mixture of several types and is supposed to have only Dex.) It's impossible to find unbiased, accurate information online. — Omegatron 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The text relating to treatment following ingestion of ethylene glycol seems to be more appropriate to ingestion of methanol, however it may also be relevent to the glycol. I suggest that it be relocated or revised to remove references to the toxic products of methanol reactions.

I just want to know what kind of antifreeze I can put in my car. The filler cap has dire warnings if I use the wrong kind, but doesn't specify the right kind. The owner's manual says use our product or compatible, but doesn't say what's compatible. The two bottles of antifreeze in my garage say how fabulous they are, and how they comply with all sorts of government and industry standards, and how they contain "the same ingredients" (you mean, like water?) as the manufacturer's original blend. But even the great encyclopedia of antifreeze doesn't seem to know what kind goes in what car! What is someone without a degree in chemistry and 5 years of automotive engineering supposed to do? 72.208.56.148 15:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

• It would be useful to have a section on the consequences to the environment and human health arising from the use of antifreeze, (or at least to note the fact that there is no evidence suggesting any adverse effects should this be the case). reetep 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements about Dexcool

I removed this statement from the source:

However Dex-cool has caused severe corrosion and ruined radiators and manifolds and should be flushed out of GM cooling systems, rather than relying on the purported 5 year service life.

The GM orange Dexcool coolant is controversial, but broad, declarative statements about a part used by a manufacturer in virtually all its cars needs to be backed up by credible sources--which does NOT mean informal publications that are filled with communally-reinforced, non-objective statements.

Nova SS (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a completely bogus statement about mixing Dexcool with other antifreezes and replaced it with a far more credible site. In fact, it is perfectly safe to mix Dexcool with regular antifreeze. Dexcool is merely regular antifreeze + some other stuff. Nova SS (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No more stories about Kate Knight killing her husband: Not notable

I would like everyone to join the "Wikipedians against stories about Kate Knight," which I am founding today. She is a bloody idiot, and who cares? Wikipedia is not "News of the Absurd," which the BBC or CNN might carry. Oh, wait, here is the link: New of the Absurd Podcast from CNN. Now that that is taken care of, I shall continue to work for the removal of all references to Kate Knight's bologna absurdness and the severe discipline of Wikipedians who continue to post her rubbish here. You have been warned. Let the games begin. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

DUH! K. Thanks to the someguy using Huggle that whomped all over that fiend in 60 seconds or less. Smart move. Remind me to buy you an adult beverage some day. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the page. For those of you who didn't know what happened, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Antifreeze or WP:BLP. which supersedes WP:not notable. I like to saw logs! (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: The attacker from somewhere in the huge 86.x.x.x IP space is continuing to vandalize, violate WP:BLP and continues to disrupt the Wikipedia. If anyone is watching this, please help squelch the attacks. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just note that there is still an excess of links to the murder story - four or five IIRC. One is the maximum necessary or useful. I don't see how a specific murder has any relevance to this article, it's just gossip. --Gar37bic (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Industrial Antifreeze

What in the world is this? Whatever it is, I removed this nuance from the main article and placed it here. If this is really something, then it likely needs (1) sources, (2) a new section, and (3) rewriting for clarity. Surely it doesn't belong where it was, um, plopped. I have no idea what this even means, so here it is in all of its pristine unparsable prose:

Industrial antifreeze (CH₅OH₂F₂ )is a common chemical compound resulting in a synthetic reaction between Methanol (CH₃OH) and Ethylene glycol. Some manufacturers use other colligative agents, such as Propylene glycol, which results in a variant of the standard Antifreeze compound.

I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good ref for types and issues of colour

This is a good link discussing automotive antifreeze and the basic types. Could someone with time and motivation write some of it up, perhaps? In particular it's a nice reference for the fact that colour is no longer (maybe never?) any useful indication of antifreeze type.

http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/05-2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.19.58 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan of the anticorrosive properties of engine coolant

I change my engine coolant every 2 years or 30,00 miles. Recently my service tech did not change my coolant after mainetence visit in which I indicated I wanted it done. His reply was that it was alright, the present coolant would protect the engine down to -30 F. My question is does this 2 year solution have the necessary anti corrosive property that I need??

  JJPRPH17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning section

I prefer this version of the poisoning section, because it properly summarizes the topic of antifreeze poisoning by naming it not only as a murder weapon but symptoms of having been poisoned by it, the main way poison by it can be identified, and what can be done to help prevent it. From having seen how plenty of Good and Featured articles here are summarized, and how others should be summarized, when directing the reader to a larger article on the subject, I am convinced that my version of the summary is better. The reader should not have to go to the main article just to get a bit of information about the symptoms of antifreeze poisoning; the main article being linked is for more information about poisoning. Uruiamme, however, prefers this version, which only names it as a murder weapon and what can be done to help prevent this or its accidental poisoning (and leaves the section so small that it feels as though there is no point of it being a subsection of this article). I also point out that before I fixed up that section months ago, it was completely unsourced, with statements about it no longer having a subtle taste and smell (though Mr Bungle rightfully removed that entire unsourced section).

Any thoughts from other editors about this? Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a firm opinion, but indeed most articles that have sections directing the reader to a larger article on the subject do have a resonable summary on the topic in that section. For poisoning articles for example Benzodiazepine section Benzodiazepine overdose and paracetamol section paracetamol toxicity have a good paragraph summarising the main article. I see no reason why this article could not be similar; although this is slightly different as it is not Ethylene glycol/ethylene glycol poisonng but an antifreeze page which may be made up of ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, or other ingredients. I don't think mentioning specfic cases/names of people who have used antifreeze for murder is necessary though. I might edit/add a bit later to see what people think. Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 05:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on this, Mr Bungle. Yeah, I feel that the fact that this article is about antifreeze which may be made up of ethylene glycol is why Uruiamme started off the poisoning section with the words "Ethylene glycol antifreeze," as to point out that this is a different type of antifreeze when poison is due to the antifreeze consisting of ethylene glycol. And, yeah, I agree that famous antifreeze murderers need not be mentioned in this article, which is why I did not restore that part after seeing why Uruiamme removed it (as stated in his or her edit summary; though I did not really see it as a WP:BLP issue).

Anyway, I am open to any improvements you make to the poisoning section. You have done great work on several "kind of similar" articles. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: The main way antifreeze poisoning is identified: Should it be in the article?

One editor feels that the main (most assured) way that antifreeze poisoning is identified -- the growth of calcium oxalate crystals in the urine or kidneys[1] -- should be in the article, as sections on a topic should be well-summarized before pointing others to the main article on that same topic. Another editor does not. Often, antifreeze poisoning is looked at as simply the flu...unless the medical team treating the patient knows that the patient was poisoned with antifreeze. This is why murder by antifreeze has been so popular, and is difficult to detect...until the body of the victim is examined more closely (usually by a medical team exhuming the already-buried body). The fact that antifreeze poisoning usually cannot be identified in any other way but by calcium oxalate crystals in the urine or kidneys seems like a pretty relevant thing to mention in summarizing antifreeze poisoning. This year (and it was removed back in 2009, along with other stuff, by the same editor; see the section above this on the talk page), the editor who objects to the information being in the article, stated, "I am removing the medical fact that certain crystals form in the kidneys. THAT IS ABSURD for an article talking about antifreeze, but feel free to put it into the article about POISONING/ medical care."[2] Even after a better, reliable source showing that calcium oxalate crystals form because of this,[3] the editor has continued to remove the information.[4][5][6][7]

Other opinions are needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have other opinions, even if I am the unnamed editor.

1. If this was sort of a "first aid" discussion about EG poisoning, there is no one able to look into someone's kidneys to see the crystals, hence the specific word "absurd" I have used.
2. The brief mention of first aid symptoms or measures are welcome on this page, but I feel that medical diagnoses, tests, or procedures are inappropriate for this page. It is not notable, except in a medical article, that crystals grow in a kidney. Here's a good article, Ethylene glycol poisoning, maybe we just need really big and bold links to it, the more, the merrier?
3. All of this info is one click away. Back in the old days, we would have to go get a different volume off the shelf and look it up. We are talking about the reader being one click from a full article on every conceivable medical nuance suitable for a general-purpose encyclopedia. Can't a reader be satisfied with knowing that the stuff is poisonous until he clicks the LINK? Ethylene glycol poisoning
4. There is a huge step from reading about the danger of poisoning (with relevant and observable symptoms) to a reference and extraneous info more relevant to toxicology, forensics, and surgery. How divergent and obtuse for an article discussing industry, chemistry, and physical science?! I don't expect LD50 info here, but at least it might be valuable in a first aid scenario.
5. In the "shoe on the other foot" scenario, would the aforementioned good article, Ethylene glycol poisoning be better if we had a paragraph or 2 discussing antifreeze and that PG is NOT poisonous and too bad people didn't use PG, since EG is so deadly, and how great antifreeze is for all sorts of industrial uses. Or how about the fact that cars use this stuff to prevent engine damage? And how ironic that cars are safer, but people and cats get murdered!!!! Humans get their "engine damaged" by the "engine protectant." No, I think we will stick to putting relevant info in medical and industrial article, in my opinion. I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I of course disagree with your opinion that the information should not be in that section, for the reasons I stated above. It's not absurd at all to mention the main (or rather, usual) way such poisoning is identified in the section about poisoning. It is extremely relevant and notable, and I don't see how it can be argued that it is not. For goodness sakes, this is one of the few ways that the poison is detected. This type of poisoning can also be diagnosed by the measurement of the blood ethylene glycol concentration, but many hospitals do not have the ability to perform this blood test. Therefore, the crystals become the default main identification, though they may not appear until the later stages of poisoning. In fact, because of all this, it should be specifically mentioned that antifreeze poisoning is difficult to detect...assisted by the add-on "but it may be identified by the growth of calcium oxalate crystals in the urine or kidneys." That can be addressed in just one line, and is certainly relevant/notable to the topic of antifreeze poisoning. That section is supposed to be an adequate summary of the larger article -- Ethylene glycol poisoning. To have all the necessary elements summarizing such poisoning...except the fact that it is difficult to identify but is usually identified by the growth of calcium oxalate crystals in the urine or kidneys is extremely inadequate, in my view.

As a compromise, though, I would agree with the removal of specific mention of calcium oxalate crystals, as long as the following line is included with the source that is already present: Antifreeze poisoning is difficult to detect, as its symptoms often mimic other known illnesses, but ways for identifying such poisoning do exist. Or, since "ways for identifying such poisoning do exist" just leaves readers wanting to know what these "ways" are, we could use this wording instead: Antifreeze poisoning is difficult to detect, as its symptoms often mimic other known illnesses, but some hospital laboratories are able to identify such poisoning through blood tests, urine microscopy, or other means. Of course "other means" leaves readers wondering too, but not everything can always be specified (which is why people often use "etc.")...and at least it is more specific than Version 1. Would you be willing to accept either of these wordings (Version 1 or Version 2), as a compromise? I feel either is better than what is currently in the article about calcium oxalate crystals anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I regard this as valuable information, I'm not sure it has a place in this article. I just read the poisoning section and I think it includes too much information. I think the section itself does belong, and would be adequate with a quick remark about the occurrence and immediate symptoms. When we start delving into details of long-term effects it seems extreme. If these details are desired, one can obtain them via the link. Niluop (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think all we need in this article is information about the primary symptoms. Since we already have a detailed article about EG poisoning, the information about the kidneys can go there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Niluop, I disagree that the poisoning section includes too much information. There is barely any information there at all, as it's been downsized/streamlined more than once. It only includes the relevant information, whether the crystal/kidney information is included or not. As Mr. Bungle stated in the section above this one, "...indeed most articles that have sections directing the reader to a larger article on the subject do have a r[e]asonable summary on the topic in that section. For poisoning articles for example Benzodiazepine section Benzodiazepine overdose and paracetamol section paracetamol toxicity have a good paragraph summarising the main article. I see no reason why this article could not be similar..." Basically, there's no point in even having the section if it's only one or two sentences long, unless they are long, run-on sentences that fill the section out nicely. Right now, the section only has four sentences (and that is the case with or without the crystal/kidney information), and goes over the most important things one should know about antifreeze poisoning -- that it is toxic to humans and other animals, should be handled and disposed of properly because of that, has a sweet taste which contributes to its accidental ingestion or its deliberate use as a murder weapon, and then the symptoms bit and what is used to help discourage either accidental or deliberate consumption. That is a small, relevant, and adequate summary.

SarekOfVulcan, the information about the kidneys is already there in the main article. But as for what should be in a section about poisoning before directing the reader to the larger article, I feel that what is there now (in only four sentences) should be there, per what I stated above about adequate summaries. I can do without the crystal part, though that is also a primary symptom in my opinion. It coming later than the other symptoms makes it no less "primary." I added part of the information I proposed above instead,[8][9] as antifreeze mimicking other illnesses and being difficult to identify are primary symptoms of the poisoning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So what about LD50? Seems more relevant than the kidney-crystals. Also, since the crystals (as you point out) are quite occult to even medical professionals in modern hospitals, why would you insist putting in this obscure fact into the antifreeze article? Maybe you need to mass e-mail medical professionals about this, or spam everyone in the Western world, you know, to get the word out? I am so sarcastic... mainly because your proposal seems to me tantamount to using a fire hose when a straw is all we need here. I don't think you are trying to make things look silly, but after working on the article a while the kidney thing just goes against a concise, clear essay on antifreeze. I feel if this was subject to scrutiny by an editorial department, the kidneys would get axed in favor of brevity or general symptoms. Why do you insist that crystals are a primary symptom yet they do not appear until later (terminal?) stages? I thought I was the one talking in circles, but why not take your own advice and see that the crystals are a later issue very far removed from the topic of green juice poured into a radiator. Primarily, people get an upset tummy, but since we state clearly that death can result, why worry about whether damage to the spleen/kidney/heart is the penultimate symptom before breathing stops? I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your complaint is now, other than what I did/insisted in the past, considering that I already moved specific mention of the crystals. What I have there now is fine. I traded out the crystal information for specific mention that antifreeze poisoning is difficult to identify (mimicking other illnesses, which is mainly why it's so difficult to identify in the first place). I already made clear why I insisted on putting the crystal information in the article, and really don't need to state it again. But I will, and a little differently this time: My reasoning for having wanted it included is based on what a good poisoning summary should be. Why do you insist that one of the few ways antifreeze poisoning is identified should not be in the article? This information is considered so important that it is included in the lead (intro) of the Ethylene glycol poisoning article...as part of the summary of the poisoning. The reason I stated the crystals as a primary symptom is because their formation may start upon poisoning. It's not like they suddenly appear. They are forming there in the kidneys during poisoning, and it does not always have to be a late or terminal stage in which they appear. As the Diagnosis part of the main article says, "Urine microscopy can reveal needle or envelope-shaped calcium oxalate crystals in the urine which can suggest poisoning; although these crystals may not be present until the late stages of poisoning." It says "may not." It doesn't say "will not" or anything about the "terminal stage" on that front. It names the ways this poisoning can be identified, which is very few. And since the blood test isn't an option in many hospitals, I felt that mention of the crystals should at least be here. In a section summarizing the poisoning, it only makes sense to mention a way the poisoning is identified. I'm not seeing how that is silly or whatever other insult. To say this information doesn't belong in the section about poisoning "because this isn't a medical article and the information has its own article" is what is silly/ridiculous to me, as that same excuse could go for the whole section on poisoning. Of course this article isn't a medical article. But the poisoning aspect of antifreeze has to do with a medical issue. And since people can be poisoned by antifreeze and it is actually a very dangerous poisoning issue that has received a lot of media attention, there should be a Poisoning section about it in this article. And there is. There being a main article about the poisoning does not mean that we should have an inadequate section about the poisoning in this article. That's not even how Wikipedia articles generally work. They generally have a good summary before redirecting people to the larger article. I've never understood your reasoning for wanting the Poisoning section in this article to be as small as possible, other than possibly your hating that antifreeze gets a lot of attention for its poisoning aspect...and your rather wanting the reader to focus more on its other aspects. But at only four sentences long, that section is small enough. It needs no more cuts by/from you, and it is time that it become stable once again. I already removed specific mention of the crystals and left the section to the "immediate symptoms" issue. The only difference now is that it makes it clear how difficult this poisoning is to identify, due to it mimicking other illnesses.

So if this is all now settled, I'll be removing the RfC tag in a couple more days. And as for your being sarcastic, I'm used to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have the issue sorted, but it's worth mentioning that Lead#Health effects, Mercury (element)#Toxicity and safety and Asbestos#Health problems all have fairly lengthy summaries of health issues in addition to a more detailed dedicated article. In light of that, I'm not convinced that the prior text here was in any way excessive. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That was/is of course my point -- generally having a good/adequate summary before redirecting people to the larger article. I appreciate your pointing out other examples. And on that note, I'll be removing the RfC tag now. Flyer22 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: The mention of crystals has been taken care of in a way that is appropriate. One editor added mention of it, and then Reify-tech tweaked it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Current discussion

It seems that Uruiamme doesn't listen to reason or follow WP:Consensus. From the above, it is clear that there should be an appropriate use of WP:Summary style regarding the poisoning information. Yet he recently removed this information after the above input from others, and compromise wording, that this type of information should be in this article. Every editor above agreed that "immediate" and/or primary symptoms should definitely be included. I therefore reverted Uruiamme because the removal simply is not justified. Removing that this poison is diffucult to detect? That's the most relevant thing to mention, aside from the fact that antifreeze, ethylene glycol in particular, is poisonous. And he's been doing this since 2009? Good grief. Don't know what he thinks is going to get resolved by doing this every few months to a year, after he's apparently decided that the opposing editor is no longer paying attention, but it needs to stop. Like I stated already, oddly enough, he'd left in the information about the oxalic acid crystals this time, which is rendered irrelevant in a way without mentioning the fact that this poison is so difficult to identify. I see valid reasons grounded in relevancy, in guidelines and precedent for keeping this material. But none for removal. I also remind all that this article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for a reason; I very much doubt that they'd agree with removal of the symptoms. In fact, I'm going to ask them to weigh in here. This has gone on long enough. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with the current version, which reverted[10] the removal of the difficult to detect bit. I don't see any reason for any more detail, though. Biosthmors (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, thanks for commenting on this, Biosthmors. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The current summary paragraph in this article looks fine. Is there someone who isn't happy with it? If so, please explain your concern here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED. I'm pretty relaxed about the coverage here. I mildly favour including a little more precise info about detecting poisoning, since it's so occult, and can be said in one sentence, but we do have a hatnote pointing to the main article, so I'm relaxed either way. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On October 20, 2012, UncleBubba tweaked the wording, and I'm okay with that, although I have a slight objection to "humans and animals" since humans are animals (so I'll likely change it to "humans and other animals" or "animals, including humans") and I don't know what he meant by "apparent contradiction." But once again, Uruiamme violated WP:Consensus and removed information on November 11, 2012; he was reverted by Andy Dingley today, yet another editor who is for including this information. Uruiamme needs to be reported to WP:ANI if he keeps violating consensus on this issue. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Per comments up the page, it would seem that Uruiamme has been flogging this particular horse since 2009. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Is Ethylene Glycol a Synonym for Antifreeze?

Update 2 My intent in editing out the extraneous information of ethylene glycol poisoning in the Antifreeze article is that many editors and visitors to the Article are of the impression that all antifreeze is ethylene gylcol. This is a misconception. Case in point? Look above at the comments made by Flyer22 and TechnoSymbiosis. 1. Note that they mention articles in which the poisonous chemical is the Article in question. 2. Lead, Mercury (element), Asbestos, Benzodiazepine, paracetamol. That is a list of six 5 chemical substances and asbestos, which is virtually a chemical species for the purposes of this discussion. 3. Note also that the article in question here is not about a specific chemical, rather it is about a wide range of substances including the poisonous and deadly methanol and ethylene glycol. The article isn't about a chemical species like mercury or lead. It is about liquids (plural) which have special properties in commerce and mechanics and discusses practical applications of chemicals.

So when auto mechanics or airplane mechanics discuss antifreeze, or when chemists discuss it or talk about it, this poisoning aspect is a rare but useful part of the discussion. It is only when talking about this topic medically that the need arises to discuss the many symptoms and embark upon long-winded treatises on what happens internally to a person intoxicated on a particular antifreeze. In commercial, practical, and chemical discussions, the fact that something is toxic arises obtusely to the main concern.

Take those ethylene glycol warnings to the Ethylene glycol page and (if there was any sudden interest in it) to the Methanol article, which would be consistent with the 6 examples listed above. As a sideline, why aren't there any warnings of the deadliness of methanol, which is soooooo poisonous that it takes 10 mL of it to blind a person, and 30 mL to kill. Sounds pretty notable by the above standards, so let's list all of the symptoms in the antifreeze article, too. Or not. That would be borderline absurd, since the ethylene glycol lobby dictates that ethylene glycol is synonymous with Antifreeze.

Another absurd corollary would be to go to the Thermal insulation page and discuss how poisonous Asbestos is. I mean, all insulation is asbestos, right?

To summarize, this argument is about the scope of Antifreeze. I don't think this scope encompasses the symptoms of poisoning (from a particular type of antifreeze) which happen to be so difficult to spot that they deserve the full attention available at the Good Article named Ethylene glycol poisoning where all of the nuances of medical research and diagnosis can be discussed at length. I like to saw logs! (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So fix the misconception, don't just blank an entire section.

Most antifreeze is still ethylene glycol. It's hardly an obscure risk. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is or has stated that "ethylene glycol is a synonym for antifreeze." And the misconception that "all antifreeze is ethylene gylcol" can also be mentioned in the aforementioned section, although I have not read anyone in the discussions about this on this talk page express any misconception (especially since you've expressd such concerns before). Somehow, you are completely missing the point about why you are wrong to repeatedly remove this information. The point is that ethylene glycol poisoning, which is a part of this article, causes these symptoms; and therefore, there should be an appropriate summary of these symptoms, per WP:Summary style, before pointing readers to the article about it. It is not "extraneous information." So once again, I will contact WP:MED to comment here on this issue. In the meantime, this information stays per the WP:Consensus against your repeated removal of it. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Diethylene glycol

Most commercial Ethylene glycol antifreeze in the US contains a few percent Diethylene glycol. Why? Because it is a common contaminant of the production process, that would be trouble or expense to remove? Does it add desirable properties?-96.237.78.13 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)