Talk:Potassium dichromate

Head On

I have no problem with Scientizzle adding that little bit about homeopathy into the article. I think it's a little much, per WP:UNDUE but if it will keep the piece, I am all aboard. Referencing Head On is a good idea because I am sure we are all familiar with the product and their commercials. Baegis (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's rather Americocentric to presume that everyone is familiar with an American product line's commercials. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but the Zinc gluconate article mentions Cold-eeze, which is, from what I gather, an American product. Baegis (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Frass/Chest Paper was archived

It's all over folks, per Scientizzle's suggestion, this is archive material. Baegis (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I archived the recent discussion on the Chest paper because it was starting to go off-topic and frankly, it was past the point of helping the article. If anyone has a serious problem with this, please tell me in reply to this post. Otherwise, let's just all move on because we need to back away from the horse. Baegis (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I just posted my rational for opposing this early archiving here [1]. To make everyone's life a tad easier, I will repeat it here: What is the hurry? I do not see any obvious reason to archive this dialogue now, especially when there is much older and more "stale" dialogue. I understand your concern here. However, there was some interesting dialogue happening just today. Because we are both appealing to the Arb Committee right now, it is in both of our interests to make this dialogue as accessible as possible and to keep it in the time-order as it is. I hope that you will honor these wishes. (I will also add that if you wish to archive something on this page, why not archive earlier material?) DanaUllmanTalk 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I archived it because you are using this as a vehicle to make pointy refrences to a study. There is nothing further to gain from discussing that study. You can archive any discussion that is not helping the article grow. It is a preventative measure. And, in case you aren't aware, I am not the one with mountains of evidence against me in an ArbCom case. Why do you want to add more to the case of you being a disruptive editor? Baegis (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC) You are choosing to provide strong evidence for your own TE. You've chosen to archive active discussion from just today (!), without consensus (actually without anyone agreeing with you yet), and even though another editor, Scientizzle, had earlier proposed to give reference to the CHEST article (that article to which you insist will NOT be mentioned in any way. I sincerely hope that you will realize your error and will UNDO yourself. Even if you get consensus in a day or 2 or 3, you had no right to archive this material until you got it. In the meantime, you are proving my point. Thanx. DanaUllmanTalk 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Older?! You've been pushing that study since January 15! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) That article is not of the unimpeachably high quality necessary for a mention in the limited space of an encyclopedia. And yes, the discussion was veering off the narrow focus of improving this article. Sorry to be part of the problem. Do we have any new ideas? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I hope we could move on, but Dana decided to go off and canvass for a pro-homeopathy editor to join the fray. I certainly hope Guido does not come here, because that will just tarnish Dana's standing. Baegis (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Consensus is an inherent part of the Wikipedia editing process. Perhaps a workable compromise could be one sentence refecting the viewpoints on this page and elsewhere: "Homeopathic authors have pointed to a study conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 25 patients who received homeopathic potassium dichromate (30C potency) had significant improvements in tracheal mucous secretions, the rate of extubation, and the length of stay in the hospital compared with those patients given a placebo; this study has been objected to by many who say it is premature to draw any definite conclusion due to the low number of participants and no follow-up replication." Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC) No, that won't fly, per WP:UNDUE. Please, just drop it. Consensus has already been established. Baegis (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Baegis, I openly inquired with Guido to ask him his opinion because he previously provided comment on this page. I just think that it is an interesting "coincidence" that you chose to archive this material shortly after Shoemaker asked me a question, and I responded to it by quoting Lancet editorial (!) along with an important study testing homeopathy that was published in the Lancet. Instead of archiving older discussions, you chose to archive an ACTIVE discussion...without consensus...and you continually bully editors. This is unacceptable. It reflects very badly on you. As for "pushing" this study, consensus was reached to include it in the past, and it was a part of this article for several weeks. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it. DanaUllmanTalk 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) No, Dana, Scientizzle did not ever say that this should be referenced. Ever, ever, ever. Not a single time. He said he was fine with the compound being mentioned, which it is. So, either you are blatantly lying or you only hear what you want to. Since I think there is enough evidence to make either assumption, let me spell this out to you. The study is not going to be included. Continuing to harp on this is a violation of polices. Recruiting more editors is a violation. Basically, stay off this page because it is clear you can't contribute. Stop violating consensus and whining to get your way. I thought only small children acted in such a manner. Baegis (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Wow. Just in the past week or so, Scientizzle recommended that we reference it. Here are all the diffs from my particpation on this talk page since the discussion renewed in April: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Please do indicate in which of these edits I recommended referencing Frass et al. If you're saying that my statement, "Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.ref" is a recommendation to reference it, you have wrongly interpretated my non-glowing evaluation of this source's utility. — Scientizzle 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) When i read the Frass paper (about three months ago) and looked at the response from the scientific community my comment was: "Being published in a high impact journal does not by definition make a paper notable. It does look good on a resume though (especially to bean counters). Any paper that gets cited a lot starts to move into the realm of notable, including those published in low impact journals. Asserting it is notable does not make it so, however, this does not stop it becoming notable in the future. When that time comes it will be appropriate for wikipedia.". What has changed since three months ago? David D. (Talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) David D, I'm glad you asked. I thought that editors would reconsider this study now that several socks were muted, and I was right! Scientizzle voiced support for including reference to this,[8]. And yet, despite several protests against archiving an ACTIVE discussion, Baegis disregarded these concerns. DanaUllmanTalk 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Dana, did you miss my comment above? — Scientizzle 22:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Of course he has, it's one of the hallmarks of TE. Shot info (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Scientizzle, no, not at all. Did you see your words: "I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms. " [9] It is interesting how you chose to not give the entire quote from your posting at that same time. You clearly say that you're NOT against inclusion...this strongly suggests that the conversation is open. I hope that you will stop stonewalling. You did recommend providing reference to this study in at least a minimalistic way. Therefore, I continue to assert that the archiving of the active conversation is part of a bullying behavior conducted without consensus, in a WP:TE manner with the audacity to inaccurately blame me for TE. DanaUllmanTalk 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Gee, golly Mr. Ullman, I love how, at the same time you criticise Scientizzle for not giving the full quote, ypou remove six words from your version of the quote that completely change the meaning. The actual quote is. “ I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.[ref]" statement). — Scientizzle 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) ” You have now gone beyond tendentious editing into full trolling, and I think you should be blocked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Given recent events, Dana has been topic banned. Hopefully we can now move on. I'd advise that this line of conversation just end--nobody seeking a "last word"--and would support an archive of this section. — Scientizzle 18:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Safety

Pls excuse this long comment if too verbose, inflamatory, whirly-twirly, etc. I am serious about the topic. No financial interest in potassium dichromate. All standard disclaimers apply.

Greetings, I want to send up a flare and propose to make changes to the Safety section, because I suspect the toxicology information therein is out of date. I also want to point out that the safety section is not accurate wrt the data on the cited source's current web page. I want to do the edits and will commit to doing them soon, but wanted to solicit comments, ferret out collaborators to design this section with, and perhaps even get someone to offer me a wise word about reducing or developing a broader scope for the Safety topic.

Right now, I think that correcting this potassium dichromate article is important, because sections of the main article report on intriguing potential for producing novel or technically-advanced results in woodworking and photography by using potassium dichromate (BTW, photography author: BRAVO, thank you).

I think the intrigue means it is likely that many hobbyists and professionals in those fields, some of whom are unsophisticated about chemicals and safety, are already using it (or contemplating doing so), and I'd like for this section to do a better job of presenting concise, crucial information to that audience while they're researching, while they're still looking into it, because I think it can be done safely, with the proper knowledge, which I think could be covered at 30,000 feet, or in cross-section, as a summary survey in a few paragraphs.

To the point I raised about accuracy of the current article, please make note of the following comparison, showing the Safety author's statement about lethality versus the actual tox data source cited in that footnote. I'm more concerned about the apparent lack of comprehension in the article than I am about getting the right Lethal Dose data into the article.

Wiki article: "It is also toxic, with doses of approximately 100 mg/kg being fatal in rabbits and rodents."

Cited source's data (decoded):

100 mg potassium dichromate per kilo of bodyweight is the lowest reported lethal dose when administered onto the skin of mouse test subjects.

28 mg per kilo ... intravenously in rabbit test subjects. 163 mg per kilo ... orally to guinea pig test subjects. 177 mg per kilo, administered orally, killed 50% of rat test subjects.

To the point about my suspicion that the Safety article is outdated:

I have found one recently-published MSDS on the web, published in 2008 by a major chemical company in the US, that specifically supercedes their MSDS dated 2005. The 2008 MSDS reports potassium dichromate toxicity as much higher than the current article's cited source does. The cited source's data was last updated on March 29, 2005.

Comments here, thanks.

Sign me,

Writealong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writealong (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

17. Oxidising agent

19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD Some 40 years ago, an 'old boy's book on chemistry' gave the recipes for two flash powders, one)KMnO4 + Mg, the other) K2Cr2O7 + Al. The first, I have discussed in another section, the latter, I never did test. The Ammonium salt OF 'DICHROMATE' is a brilliant fuel/oxiser combined, especially if you wish to make mountains of green chromic acid. Another little gem, from the same book ( the title of which I no longer recall).It was however, generally an accurate text, though I have never come across this reaction since. I have no doubt it would indeed 'flash', though I can see some very real probable dangers, more extreme than the mag/permanganate mix. I leave it open for any who may wish to further 'enlighten' us on this topic. 19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)PROFMAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profmad (talk • contribs)

Preparation

This page seems a little thin. Where is the section on preparation? Vmelkon (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Synonyms in lede

Are chromic acid and dichromic acid really alternative names for potassium dichromate? I would have expected the acids to contain hydrogen instead of potassium, but ref 1 from the US EPA supports the article text, so I'll invite someone more knowledgeable to boldly remove them from the list of synonyms. Certes (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)