Jump to content

Talk:Aluminium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 87.113.111.248 (talk) at 00:58, 12 November 2008 (→Ridiculous anglocentric view). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For discussion regarding spelling please use Talk:Aluminium/Spelling.

Template:FAOL

Former good articleAluminium was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 29, 2005Good article nomineeListed
August 10, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Chemical Element Template:WP1.0

Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149

Toxicity

We need some clarification in the matter of aluminium toxicity. The article begins by saying that aluminium is non-toxic but later says, under the heading 'Precautions', that it is a neurotoxin. It can't be held both ways. Which is right?

I am inclined to believe that is a neurotoxin, because of something my teacher said, but a textbook would be nice. --DolphinnGoLeafsGo 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because many kitchen pots and pans are made of aluminium, the issue of toxicity is indeed an important concern. Greg Fisher 06:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that elemental Al is toxic, but that since it quickly forms Al203 in air that it's not actually a huge concern in practice. This MSDS says that it's toxic if inhaled but not if ingested. Not sure whether to count that as an authoritative source or not. fsiler (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there has been research done on this by the RIVM in the netherlands, see e.g. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/710401022.html (and I know there is a follow up on this report which debunks the alzheimer claim, but also shows another health risk, but I need to dig somewhat deeper probably to find it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.82.4 (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Aluminum. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Aluminum Statistics and Information, USGS Periodic Table - Magnesium, 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 was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Abundance

is it a coincidence that as the most abundant metal, it is the 'half' of iron, the most stable element, is there a reason or just coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.83.241 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on speaking to my academic supervisor, it is suggested that it is a coincidence, and its abundance is more likely related to its stability due having magic nuclei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_(physics), is this relevant to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.83.241 (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the abundance topic, I noticed that the reference used to cite this claim (ref 1) contained no references and can not be verified. Is this a potential problem? Should we request a better citation? 72.54.98.226 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 does support the sentence it is on. Wizard191 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aluminium is the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust for reasons having nothing to do with nuclear chemistry but with geology and geochemistry. In fact, iron is much more abundant in the universe and in the solar system, and even on Earth if you count all the iron in the planetary core. --Itub (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous anglocentric view

'Aluminum' redirects to 'Aluminium'? Are you serious? Aluminium is not and has never been the primary spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustave Pennington (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please blame IUPAC, and take your argument to them. Vsmith (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC) ... and see the note at the top of this page. Vsmith (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Aluminium' is the correct spelling in English, being as it's the spelling in England. The clue is in the name "English". I don't care if there are more Americans in the world; if there are more copies of a counterfeit than the genuine article the genuine article doesn't become the counterfeit. The only benefit to 'aluminum' is that it has more credibility than the truly cringe-worthy 'sulfur'.

Poor?

Aluminium has a resistivity of(20 °C) 26.50 nΩ·m, compared to copper (20 °C) 16.78 nΩ·m, which is why is is often taken as a cheaper alternative for conductive wires. Could somebody please explain how that makes Aluminium a "poor" metal?? This is really ridiculous. Jcwf (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Poor metal - it's an old classification term and doesn't indicate "good" or "bad". Vsmith (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some might help--Stone (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aluminium&oldid=251226154"