Talk:Bismuth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stability related to shell model?

Is Bismuth's surprising radioactive stability related to it having 126 neutron, a magic number in the shell model theory of nuclei? My high school text agrees, but someone more knowledgable than the shoddy quality of my text should probably express this more coherently. -- postglock 09:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

One way to show this is true is to look at the A = 83 isobaric chain and note that Bi-209 is the only one stable against beta decay, but yes, it can be argued on nuclear-systematics grounds that the N = 126 closed shell is what gives Bismuth its stability. However, Polonium-209 is the most stable isotope of that element, and it has 84 protons and 125 neutrons. Polonium-210's half-life is cut down by two orders of magnitude (when calculated by the Geiger-Nuttall rule) because of the fact that Lead-208 is doubly-magic and in the theory of alpha decay it is easier to form the alpha particle when the nucleons to form it are already spin-paired.

Nontoxic

I think what the "nontoxic" statement means to achieve is remove your intuition, in comparison to similar metals, similar applications, especially lead, which is very poisonous, and it's right next to bismuth in the periodic table. In my mind, bismuth belongs in the group of lead, antimony, selenium, tin, arsenic, mercury, etc. type of element group, in decreasing order of "similarity." Of these and most other metals, bismuth shines in the sense that pepto-bismol is a straight bismuth compound you can ingest without any fear. It's hard to think of many other non-biologically significant metal compounds that are similarly nontoxic, yet reactive with stomach acid. Sillybilly 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, bismuth can be toxic if heavily overdosed, and it's only 'relatively' nontoxic to humans, but it can be very toxic to prokaryotes, such as Helicobacter pylori bacteria that cause stomach ulcers. This is the main function of bismuth subsalicylate, the active ingredient in Pepto-Bismol, and not the stomach acid reactivity that bismuth subcarbonate similar to calcium carbonate pills would have. Sillybilly 02:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How 'non-toxic' do you mean? Anything in excess cause trouble, including water and salt (sodium chloride). If bismuth is 'non-toxic', then it is more in the league with calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium ions (although sodium, potassium, or calcium metals would be extremely dangerous due to the corrosiveness of the metal hydroxides, and any significant imbalance of potassium and magnesium in the blood would be lethal).

What water-soluble or acid-soluble metallic ions (including those of weak metals), are non-toxic? I'm not referring to substances rendered inert due to insolubility (for example, barium sulfate). --66.231.41.57 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the discussion here is about semantics, due to the very poor phraseology of the original text. Without changing the intended meaning, I have rephrased the "hevaiest" and "non-toxic" clauses so that they should now be non-controversial. 150.203.69.27 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Dr. A. G. Christy, Dept. Earth & Marine Sciences, Australian National University

Precaution creep

Hi. After some reflection I changed back your most recent edit to the above, as I thought the previous version read better (listing the protective equipment in more detail). I note your qualifications from your talk page and your experience as a Wikipedian, and don't want to appear high-handed in reverting the edit. If you disagree with my reverson, I am happy to discuss. Jeendan 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have put more of my thinking on the TALK page, so here it is. As it is, this bit of article, which was supposed to be on crystals, was getting to be a collection of warnings and user instructions for amateurs. This is sort of unencyclopedic, since it's not our job to tell people about dangers of home hobbies, or give instructions on do it yourself dangerous stuff. We've had problems putting that stuff even in the "precautions" sections of element articles (which some people have argued shouldn't even BE there at ALL). Nevertheless, the precaution section has survived for particularly trecherous elements like sodium, sort of as a public service. But I'd hate to see "precaution creep" in this fashion, all over wikis, intended for people who are bound and determined to screw up with some material--- and that's what I thought I was detecting here. See if you don't agree. SBHarris 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A new wording proposed. Feel free to change it if you think it does not do the trick. Jeendan 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello...?

Will someone post the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons of bismuth? And also the mass number? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 (talk) .

Well, from the article, the atomic number of bismuth is 83, so it has 83 protons. The most common isotope is bismuth-209, so it has 209 - 83 = 126 neutrons. And the mass number is the same as the atomic mass, so that would be 208.98 g / mole. -- MarcoTolo 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh...Thanks. I just didn't understand the method, I think...Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.218.179 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

No need to be sorry - glad I could help. In the future you might have better luck posting questions like this at the Wikipedia Reference desk. -- MarcoTolo 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I just thought it didn't belong there. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.218.179 (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Suggested re-rating

I suggest that this article be re-rated to B-class, given its depth and style. --Deryck C. 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on the project guidelines for Start-class articles ("The article has a good amount of content, but it is still weak in certain areas, and may lack a table. For example it may cover the uses and physical properties extensively, but be weak on actual chemistry."), I'm guessing the article is not quite a B-class yet.... -- MarcoTolo 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Theoretical vs. experimental (in)stabilty

In russian (USSR) "Popular library of chemical elements" (1977) stated, that bismuth (isotope 209Bi) _is_ decaying with half-period of 2*10^18 years. Please remove that crap about 2003 and France.

Evidence (all in russian):

(1983 edition djvu hard copy) <http://www.rushim.ru/books/obzor/popular-biblioteka2.djvu>

(HTML version of 1977 edition) <http://n-t.org/ri/ps/pb083.htm>

I had a Russian look at that page and he says it's not a scientifically rigorous page, it's a reprint of a book intended for a general audience so they have no cite for where the half-life comes from. My guess is that it was a theoretical calculation reported as fact by the Soviet publisher. 142.90.99.21 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What i meant is that current text states, that it was stable until 2003. Theory is theory. Well educated people will not publish something _modern_ and _shiny_ in form of accepted true, unlike those who will due to their intere$T$. I beleive, that many investigations in the USSR were done not for number of publications, but for common good, so to speak. Even today many fields are secret and results are closed. Old reports may be just lost.

If somebody will rephrase that to something like "modern measurements of the half-life etc... have following results...." it will be much better and doubtless.

For person, who like to know how it was done, original article in the Nature 422 876 (2003) is the main source of information, unless you can read russian or find equivalent information (3 of <http://ufn.ioc.ac.ru/news/rus/2003/0603_r.html> :).

Dead link

I removed this dead link www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00037810.html. Glad I read it particularly about Pepto-Bismal.--Dakota ~ ° 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is in the Internet Archive, but I am not sure how much useful information it adds. Milkfish 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bi-210

Please add the isotope to the table. It says Bi-210m decays into Bi-210, but what is Bi-210?--Certh (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Color of Bismuth

The Crystal shown in the chembox under appearance might be "lustrous pink", but as far as I know, bismuth is usually grey. I would like to know if that crystal is pure Bi or some compound. But for all reasonable purposes, I think that the appearance of Bi is grey, or silver, or something to that effect. Ruff ^{Bark away!} 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the copper page, it is described as "metallic bronze". Having first hand experience with both metals, copper is a more of a pale pink that reacts within seconds with the air and turn yellow. Bismuth is just like silver but faster reacting, if bismuth is used as a plating material under vacuum (i.e. no air present) it looks just like silver & then will dull to a grey color (with air), then after a few days may develop rainbow effects that silver objects would normally take several years to develop. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.222.186.230 (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Toxic?

One of the references, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bismuth+line, implies it can be toxic. Yes, anything can be toxic in high doses, but since the main article says it's a non-toxic element shouldn't we try to include lethal or damaging dose or the specific way (or ways) this "non-toxic" element can be toxic? Khono (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bismuth encephalopathy

Please include information about bismuth encephalopathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.64.253 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Measuring its half-life

Given that the half-life of bismuth is so long and that decay is therefore a very rare event I would like to ask how it is possible to accurately measure its half life? For example if a reasonable mass of bismuth only has one theoretical atomic decay a year there is a real statistical chance (by random variation) that none or more may occur and so one would surely need to measure over an unfeasible period of time (of unfeasible mass)? Also such a low rate would surely be masked by contamination and background radiation or re-absorption of emitted particles? Could an explanation of the method be added as a link? --ManInStone 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact you need rather sensitive alpha detectors for this. There is an article somewhere that notes they accidentally came across an alpha decay line that wasn't in the tables and concluded it was bismuth-209's natural radioactivity. 100 nuclei sounds like a lot but when you consider that Avogadro's number is 6.02 * 10^23, it's basically nothing. All the bismuth that's been around since the Earth formed is essentially still present.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_18_163/ai_101941095

--142.90.99.60 (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bismuth 2008-09 news

The 2007 Bismuth Minerals Yearbook chapter will be out in a few months ( today is 2/24/09). Note new 2008-09 bismuth price series, the bismuth (metal) customer-input price on http://customer-inputprices.blogspot.com Bmhtayl (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

The statement that bismuth is the heaviest of the heavy metals and the only non-toxic comes from [1], however I think it is misleading. For "heaviest", it certainly isn't w.r.t density, but might be w.r.t atomic number for certain definitions of heavy metal (if uranium and thorium are not classified as heavy metals). For "the only non-toxic", it is mentioned that gold is not very toxic either (e.g. in heavy metal and gold).

The page lists the crystal structure as rhombohedral, but it is monoclinic. In a rhombohedral crystal, the unit cell edges are all of equal length. In the monoclinic crystal, the unit cell edges are different lengths. This is the case with bismuth. To verify what I'm saying, go to webelements.com to check the lattice parameters of bismuth and then compare them to the information listed in the wikipedia entry for Bravais Lattices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.238.85 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Global warming??!

Exactly what is meant by assigning a global warming potential to bismuth, in some weird way? The text in the section on its recyclability and sustainability mentions global warming.. but, *why*? There's no possible reason I can think of that bismuth is involved directly in global warming:

• Even if recycling it takes energy, that energy could easily be provided by established non-emitting source, such as nuclear or hydroelectric power, or even one of the non-established alternative sources, like solar or wind...
• Even if the recycling process directly involves carbon, the cost of bismuth and the quantities involved mean that sequestration is easily an economic option; the CO2 produced by bismuth oxide reduced by carbon is a fairly small amount that could easily be recaptured without adding significantly to the cost of the effort.

Zaphraud (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming-see Footnote

Check the study in footnote 8. I would agree that global warming as applied to bismuth is a very elastic perhaps peculiar concept. For example, do you go all the way back to mining the lead and tungsten ore, go through lead/tungsten smelting and refining, bismuth separation and refining, or begin somewhere in the middle? "lead-free" study began in the middle. Bmhtayl (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Diodes

minor problem, but the Diode link under the application section links to a Canadian band's page 03:50, 9 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.173.61 (talk)

Thanks. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Bi-crystal.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bi-crystal.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 28, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-28. 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} 17:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A bismuth crystal covered with an iridescent oxide surface. Bismuth is a post-transition metal with the atomic number 83. It is generally considered to be the last naturally occurring stable, non-radioactive element on the periodic table, although it is actually slightly radioactive. Bismuth compounds are used in cosmetics, medicines, and in medical procedures. As the toxicity of lead has become more apparent in recent years, alloy uses for bismuth metal as a replacement for lead have become an increasing part of bismuth's commercial importance.Photo: Alchemist-hp

Edits to "chemical characteristics"

I added chemical reactions with the metal. I am used to working on simple Wikipedia so please reformat them as needed. Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bismuth falling in a vacuum.

In 1999, my chemistry professor told me that bismuth falls slower in a vacuum than other elements. I found this interesting and over the years have tried to find more information on this. Has anyone have any further information pro or con? 66.55.54.106 (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For objects of different composition to fall with different speeds in a vacuum would be very surprising, because it would be a violation of the weak equivalence principle of general relativity. In the early 1920's Charles F. Brush reported experiments showing that pendulums with bobs of bismuth had significantly shorter periods than similar pendulums of other materials, implying that a bismuth weight would fall faster in a vacuum. However these results could not be reproduced by subsequent researchers (see for example H. Potter, Physical Review, http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.19.187), who found on the contrary that pendulums of many different materials, including bismuth, had equal periods to within experimental error. Many of the more recent experiments have verified the weak equivalence principle to better than one part per billion, so the consensus is that the Brush results were in error.CharlesHBennett (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

To cite Harry Potter for magical deceleration of bismuth is very funny. --Stone (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Radioactivity

In the opening paragraph it says that bismuth is non radioactive, then that it is radioactive. Can we clean this up? AStudent (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is generally considered to be the last naturally occurring stable, non-radioactive element What I now most people consider bismuth as non radiactive material.

although it is actually slightly radioactive, with an extremely long half-life also right. With a half-life of 10¹⁸ years you have a real problem to measure radiation. With age of the universe in the range of 10⁹ years it is very close to stable.--Stone (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather bizarre to bring up its radioactivity as if this contradicts its being the heaviest stable element: it is my understanding that ALL elements are unstable, but some have extremely long half lives. At the heat death of the universe all elements have completely decayed. For now I'm going to remove the 'however...' bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.49.172 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"heaviest"

In the article it says "Bismuth has classically been considered to be the heaviest naturally occurring stable element". I think that this sentence should be reworded to make it clear in what sense "heaviest" is used. 86.181.169.245 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added the words "in terms of atomic mass" to that sentence. --24.80.104.17 (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Recycling

The section on recycling uses "possibly" and "probably" in a manner that doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. I wouldn't know how to begin to fix it so I thought I'd post here and see if anyone else would. Cyrissia (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

BXR

The salts of bismuth are sometimes fed to people before abdominal X-ray, to produce a higher contrast, more detailed photo. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[2] judging from this looks more like a historic use to me.--Stone (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The article says: "Bismuth appears in the 1660s, from obsolete Ger. Bismuth, Wismut, Wissmuth (early 17c.);"

OED says "wissmuth, the form in which the word first occurs in G. Agricola (1629), "

but elsewhere "bismuth 1660s, from obsolete Ger. Bismuth, also Wismut, Wissmuth (early 17c.), of unknown origin; perhaps a miner's contraction of wis mat "white mass," from O.H.G. hwiz "white." Latinized 1530 by Georgius Agricola (who may have been the first to recognize it as an element) as bisemutum. According to Klein, not from Arabic."

"Bismuth is originally the German name for element 83. The name was originally wismuth or wismut, which is the current form in modern German. The “B” form makes its appearance in the works of 16th century mineralogist Georgius Agricola, who latinized the name as bisemutem. "

Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob vnd Wilhelm Grimm in the entry for "wismut" says: "als bisemutum G. Agricola de re metallica (1530) " and "nach Erdmann schon um 1450 in latinisierter form wismutum "

Georgius Agricola died in 1555.

I hate to say it, but I think the OED is wrong here. I'm changing this to "(early 16c)".

Ranvaig (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

From de.wikipedia.org "Der Name des Metalls, der im Deutschen 1390 als wesemut und lat. 1450 als wismutum,[13] 1530 als bisemutum[11] erscheint, kann auf die in einer arabischen Dioskurides-Übersetzung des 9. Jahrhunderts belegte Form b[i]sīmūtīyūn zurückgeführt werden, die selbst wohl eine Transliteration von altgriechisch ψιμύθιον psimýthion ‚Bleiweiß‘ darstellt. Auch Entstellung aus arabisch iṯmid ‚Antimon‘ wurde angenommen; öfters wird außerdem auf die angeblich erste Mutung in der Zeche St. Georgen in der Wiesen bei Schneeberg im Erzgebirge im 15. Jahrhundert verwiesen,[14] oder auf die Variante wis(se)mat, die ‚weiße Masse‘ bedeuten soll.[15]"

Ranvaig (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Trivalant

It is multivalanet, having 7 valance electrons,not vtrivalant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.178.155 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bismuth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. I would like to alert the contributing editors that Ref #25 contains a dead link. Please fix. Thanks, and i look forward to this review! --Tea with toast (話) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed

• The introduction states that Bismuth is chemically similar to arsenic and antimony, but does not give any reason why they do. From the article's text, many similarities are made between bismuth and lead and tin and few are made between the previously mentioned compounds. I know that there is a difference between chemical properties and physical properties, and that the reason behind the similarities is likely due to being in the same group or period, but the reader may not, so please clarify this in the introduction.
• The "Recycling" section is a bit confusing and disorganized, and it also has some missing citations. There are several sentences that do not pertain to bismuth recycling very much and may belong else where in the article (such as "applications"). I find the following sentence hard to understand: "The most important sustainability fact about bismuth is its byproduct status, which can either improve sustainability (i.e., vanadium or manganese nodules) or, for bismuth from lead ore, constrain it; bismuth is constrained." What does vanadium and manganese have to do with this? What is meant by constrainment?
• References...(Ref# as of this version)
  • The following refs are missing some type of citation information (e.g. date, source, access date, etc.), please complete: 1, 10, 23, 39, 45, 47, 53, 67
  • Refs #5 & 65 need new pages/sources since they are most likely broken links
  • Ref#12 needs page numbers. Being that it is cited so many times, I feel it is likely that the multiple pages are being referenced.
  • Ref#39 links to the index webpage, not issue 29, which is the real source.

I will put this article on hold until these issues are addressed. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

References might have shifted and will shift, thus I refer to the above version.

• Replaced ref. 1 (and corrected crystal symmetry), tidied refs. 5, 10, 39, 47, 53, 67.
• Ref. 12 is a one-paragraph summary. It is cited so often because it is printed in a "Bible". I've added the page number.
• I have substituted refs. 23, 39, 45 and 65 with proper books and USGS reports, expanded and tidied some other parts, and would probably stop there. This article is far from perfect, and can be expanded using the bibliography books (they contain some interesting details that are not mentioned in the article, though many might suit better in the articles on compounds). Materialscientist (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I am impressed by the changes you have made! The "Occurrence and production" section is much improved. I also appreciate the figure you made for the pricing section. Great job! --Tea with toast (話) 02:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am pleased with all the changes that have been made. Thanks for all your hard work! --Tea with toast (話) 02:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thermal Resistance

Not sure I fully understand what they're trying to say with the statement "only mercury has less thermal conductivity." Probably they mean of the heavy metals, but using Gold as per another example, it has a much lower thermal conductivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etmax (talk • contribs) 22:31, June 5, 2006.

I'm not sure what you mean. Bismuth has a thermal conductivity of about 8 W/mK, while gold has a thermal conductivity of over 300 W/mK. Gold conducts heat much better than bismuth. eaolson 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, the first entry here has my adress number thing stuck on the end of it, but i didn't write it. What's the matter? 24.137.78.34 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I looked at the wrong history entry when I added the unsigned template. Now fixed. eaolson 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem 24.137.78.34 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists the thermal conductivity of Bi as 7.97 W/mK and 8.30 W/mK for Hg. This indicates that Bi has a lower thermal conductivity than Hg. Are the listed values correct or is the "only mercury has less thermal conductivity" statement correct? The statement is repeated widely on the web. I only found one source of thermal conductivity values that supported it. Ddbaughman (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks, I think this was a typo from manganese, but Np and Pu have lower values too. Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Bismuth crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bismuth crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 27, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-27. 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} 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Synthetic crystals of high-purity bismuth, and a 1 cm³ cube of it for comparison. Bismuth is a pentavalent poor metal. Silvery white when freshly produced, it is often seen in air with a pink tinge caused by surface oxidation. Among metals, it is the most naturally diamagnetic and has one of the lowest values of thermal conductivity.Photo: Alchemist-hp

Contradictory

Is it just me, or is this verbage a bit contradictory?

"Bismuth has few commercial applications, none of which is particularly large. Taking the US as an example, 884 tonnes of bismuth were consumed in 2010, of which 63% went into chemicals (including pharmaceuticals, pigments, and cosmetics), 26% into metallurgical additives for casting and galvanizing,[54] 7% into bismuth alloys, solders and ammunition, and the balance into research and other uses.[45]

Some manufacturers use bismuth as a substitute in equipment for potable water systems such as valves to meet "lead-free" mandates in the U.S. (starts in 2014). This is a fairly large application since it covers all residential and commercial building construction."

( "none of which is particularly large" and "fairly large application" are a bit of a contradiction, IMO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.200.117 (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

209-Bi

209-Bi is not radioactive Qwh (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Your info is outdated. As the article states (and with a cited source), its alpha decay was detected in 2003. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry i did not know i was thinking it was a vandal Qwh (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Disputed

Bismuth is toxic so is Gold Qwh (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bi is much less toxic than the other nearby heavy elements and doesn't accumulate in the body, so can safely be treated as nontoxic. The gold ion is toxic, but metallic Au is not and the body's chemicals cannot oxidise it to the ion. Double sharp (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Bi is less toxic then lead and the other heavy elements 65.175.134.44 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 26, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An artificially grown bismuth crystal, illustrating the stairstep crystal structure, with a 1-cm cube of bismuth metal for comparison. The iridescent surface here is a very thin layer of oxidation.Photo: Heinrich Pniok

Aqueous species

The aqueous section had always surprised me as Bi salts are notoriously insoluble in anything but strong acid. Wibergs account is from a 1972 paper and was slighly misquoted in any event. I don't think it can stand now that the aqua ion is recognised as Bi(H₂O)₈³⁺ Axiosaurus (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Bismuthyl, BiO⁺

There is a quote concering the existence of BiO+ allegedly from "Godfrey, S. M.; McAuliffe, C. A.; Mackie, A. G.; Pritchard, R. G. (1998). Nicholas C. Norman, ed. Chemistry of arsenic, antimony, and bismuth. Springer. pp. 67–84. ISBN 0-7514-0389-X." can someone with access to the book please check this. I suspect that the book has been misquoted.Axiosaurus (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

[3] looks very much the same. What is the problem with BiO⁺?--Stone (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Lidin (1996, p. 44) says that BiO+ doesn't exist, either in a crystal lattice or solution. He instead refers to it as Bi₆(OH)₁₂⁶⁺, the dodecahydrohexabismuth(III) cation. Colourless, with its Bi6 unit forming an uncentred octahedron. Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Lidin 1996, Inorganic substances handbook, begell house, New York

Thanks for that. FYI there has been no direct evidence for a BiO⁺ entity- it was postulated from electrochemical studies, from a simple view of the stoichiometry of e.g. BiOCl, and most tellingly from analogy with uranium. The hydrolysis actually goes through an octahedral cluster and isolated "BiO" has never been found in solids. Many bismuthyl compounds have layer structures often with Bi₂O₂²⁺ layers (isoelectronic with PbO which in one polymorph has a similar PbO layer.) I am surprised that Normans book still quotes "BiO⁺". By the way the exact form of the cluster is not known, some go with a Raman study, (e.g. Greenwood and Liden above) which indicated a Bi₆(OH)₁₂ cluster, others (Wiberg) go with the octahedral oxo/hydroxo as found in solids. I will correct accordingly. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bismuth subsalicylate

I deleted the primary link to "Pepto-Bismol" (as brand-name) because it is Wikipedia policy to use INN name, not brand-names for pharmaceuticals. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide The brand-name is mentioned later in this article, and that is appropriate. --Zeamays (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This should be restored. Pepto-Bismol is a widely recognisable name, it is the only recognisable name, amongst both the compound's name and any other brand names. Our purpose here is to communicate with readers: to do so in this case it is essential to use the name Pepto-Bismol, even in the lead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel - "Artifically grown crystal"

I find the caption of the bismuth crystal picture "The Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel" not very clear: "Artificially grown bismuth crystal illustrating the stairstep crystal structure, with a 1 cm3 cube of bismuth metal" I could interpret "Artificially grown crystal" in multiple ways. Is it grown in a unnatural crystal form or does it mean that the crystal was grown in a lab? Bonnom (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Bismuth now used in Grecian Formula

I noticed that a bismuth compound has replaced lead for the last 10 years or so in Grecian Formula, the famous hair-darkener for men. But this is only done outside the United States. In the United States, the formula still contains lead(II) acetate. Maybe something could be said about that. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bismuth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225155540/http://leadfree.ipc.org/files/RoHS_15.pdf to http://leadfree.ipc.org/files/RoHS_15.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Date of radioactivity discovery

The article says bismuth was discovered to be very slightly radioactive in 2003. Asimov: Inside the Atom (1956) had already said that bismuth was discovered to be very slightly radioactive back then. Was the claim that Asimov cites premature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. ²⁰⁹Bi had long been suspected to be unstable on theoretical grounds, though, and it is possible that Asimov was reporting this prediction as fact (admittedly I'm not sure about the precise timeline). Double sharp (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Heaviness relating to toxicity

"Scientific literature indicates that some of the compounds of bismuth are less toxic to humans via ingestion compared to other heavy metals (lead, arsenic, antimony, etc.)"

This section is problematic, arsenic and antimony are acutely toxic because of their chemical similarity to phosphorous which is included ubiquitously across all metabolism of living cells. What is surprising is that bismuth being chemically related isn't as deadly toxic. Its nothing to do with it being heavy that's surprising in relation to arsenic and antimony, both of which are not toxic because of their mass and reaching unmanageable levels in the body etc. -- MattOates (Ulti) 14:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Pepto-Bismol

I have seen videos online that take Pepto-Bismol and take the Bismuth out of it. Can you put that in the article and explain it? I'll send you the link if you need it. Porygon-Z 13:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Poor metal vs. semi-metal?

Every reference I've read on bismuth refers to it as a semimetal (metalloid), not a "poor metal". In fact, I've never really heard of an scientific use of "poor metal" other than a casual term meaning it's a poor conductor, or not an effective engineering material.

Eric 22:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Layout and wordwrap

There seems to be an issue with text ovrlapping and coming to close to the "bismite mineral" picture and "Recycling Header". Using Firefox 3.0.11. Not present in IE6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.203.244 (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I converted the mixture of text and prices into a Google spreadsheet with a graph: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pE93ibhhw1_grnvBTdEdbVA The graph does not show the dates. I don't know why. I don't know how you would fit it into the article, and I am not sure even where to put this note. ccp

WHO WROTE THIS ARTICLE????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.166.186 (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk

Bismuth is a diamagnetic, it can be use to block Magnet fields. It can be used to make Power (Voltage, current).Take a magnet, Bismuth, and coil of wire. Put the Bismuth between the magnet and coil of periods. By taking a Magnet blocking the field with Bismuth and removing the Bismuth. Now move the Bismuth in and out of the center(Between the Magnet and Coil of wire). Troy Frei

Do it yourself and get back to us. It takes work to remove a diamagnetic meterial from a magnetic field, just as it does to remove a dielectric from the electric field in a capacitor. SBHarris 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

---

One quick question I can't seem to find in the article. Does the dimagnatism of Bismush continue in hihg temperatres? Does it get stronger or weaker in say, bismuth vapor? Thanks, all the infromation I can find about this is inverably about superconductors. 24.137.78.34 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

On the subject of etymology, the sentence

GermanWeisse Masse meaning "white mass"; later Wisuth and Bisemutum

seems (to me) to contain several errors. I have more faith in Merriam-Webster.
—Herbee 21:47, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

The word origin "wismuth" and Anglicized "bismuth" supposedly derived from German "Weisse Masse" is often reported, but unlikely. The more likely explanation is that it is derived from medieval German "wise muth", with the first word having exactly the same meaning as the English word "wise" (contemporary German: "weise"), and "muth" meaning mineral claim, a term that was used in German legal documents for mineral rights until the 19th century. In contemporary German, it is spelled "Mutung", if this ancient word is used at all. 24.77.9.78 (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear systematics - Does the theoretical mass defect come in higher or lower than that which is empirically measured? I can provide the empirical value from Ehmann/Vance or NuDat, and it is -18.2585 MeV. Inquiring minds wish to know.. :-)

--24.80.110.173 06:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

imortal being

imho that is to stupid to include

I added that section to metaphorically emphasize the stability of bismuth. I don't regard it as "stupid". Pakaran (ark a pan) 16:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

THE MOST UNPROFESSIONAL, UNMITIGATED, NON-SCIENTIFIC AND ENTITLED GATEKEEPERS HAVE HIJACKED WHAT LITTLE INTEGRITY WIKIPEDIA HAD LEFT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.166.186 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

trendy, clinical trial in coronavirus fwiw.

http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2000030398 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.151.159 (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No mention of artificially grown bismuth crystals as art and/or home décor/knickknacks in the "Applications" section

Over the past decade or two, there's been a small but growing commercial interest in artificially grown bismuth crystals for their aesthetic appeal. I was surprised to find that there is no mention of this under the "Applications" section, despite the fact that if you google "bismuth crystals" or even just "bismuth" you will find that the majority of results returned are commercial links to purchase said crystals for the above mentioned purpose. I was going to add a sentence or two about this to the section, but I've not been able to find any suitable source(s) to cite. So, should I simply post the edit I had in mind with an added "CN" tag, or should I wait until I or someone else finds a suitable source before posting? I'm far from new to Wikipedia, but I don't edit often, so that is why I'm asking first. ProgHead777 (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Most protocols are the same, however nuance and technique are made proprietary and held as a "trade secret". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.166.186 (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Redundant!

The text in the end of main uses and the beginning of history is repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epmtunes (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I fixed this and a few similar issues. ComplexRational (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

About bismuth recycling

The "citation needed" label, which I removed, was added by a blinkered person who has an established track record of making conceited Wikipedia edits. Anyway, let me explain, for those who are a bit slow, why recycling bismuth used in the applications listed in the article is obviously not practical:

• stomach medicines: substances in orally ingested medicines are either incorporated in the tissue or bones, or is excreted e.g. as sweat, urine or stools. "Recycling" material that is incorporated in living tissue is impractical, unless you're willing to kill the person. "Recycling" material that is excreted, and which typically ends up in sewage, is impractical, because the cost of recovery exceeds the value of the material involved.

• paints: paint is typically applied as a fairly thin coating on a surface — e.g. a building's walls. Recovering paint, once it forms a thin, hard and adhering surface is technically difficult, as doing so would probably require damaging / altering the surface it's been applied on. Recovering paint when surface damage isn't an issue — e.g. after a building is torn down, is difficult, because it would involve trying to extract paint flakes that are admixed with building debris — e.c. brick, mortar, cement, concrete etc. The cost of recovery would typically exceed the value of the material involved.

• cosmetics: cosmetics are, in general, used at some point in time by a human, instead of being kept indefinitely e.g. in the container in which they are sold. After application on human skin, these cosmetics are, typically, washed away within a day. The water that carries these cosmetic residues typically ends up in a sewer. Chemically treating sewage to try to recover bismuth is impractical, because the cost of recovery would typically exceed the value of the material involved.

• bullets: not all bullets fired reach their intended target, and some end up landing quite far from the place from which they've been fired, and are, for all prctical purposes, "lost" in the environment. The small metal spheres — the "shot" — used e.g. in shotguns have a propensity to disperse, and locating and recovering them from the environment after they've been fired is difficult, as the cost of doing so would typically exceed the value of the material recovered.

As another example of the economics and practicality of recovering / "recycling" highly diluted / dispersed material, like bismuth-containing cosmetics in sewage water: seawater is known to contain elements like gold, as well as rare earths like dysprosium, yttrium, niobium etc., but the degree of dilution is such that the cost of recovery would typically exceed the value of the material involved, which is why there are no "gold mines" recovering gold e.g. from seawater (or sewage, which is also known to contain gold) 94.225.75.162 (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything you say sounds reasonable. But it's not about whether what you say is plausible or even right. It's whether it is sourced. Please see WP:VERIFY, which can fairly be described as the cornerstone of Wikipedia. From that article: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." The reliability of this material has been challenged; it therefore requires an inline citation.

"was added by a blinkered person who has an established track record of making conceited Wikipedia edits": I think WP:NPA is relevant here.

I am reverting the edit pending your providing reliable sources. Please do not revert it back. The Wikipedia policy is clear here. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth: There has, in fact, been serious discussion of recovering gold from sewage. This helps illustrate why the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not plausiblity or even truth: The threshold is verifiability.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You are apparently too stupid to realize that I mentioned recovering gold from sewage precisely because research has been undertaken about the feasibility of same, and the results are that it wasn't practical. If you beg to differ, please indicate where those hypothetical gold mines recovering gold from sewage are. The economics are even worse for bismuth — which isn't a precious metal to start with — as far as recovery from sewage or shots dispersed by firearms in the environment are concerned.

Please take a look at WP:NPA again. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

But my point actually isn't the recoverability of bismuth. My point is that it's asinine and idiotic to arbitrarily add "cite" labels to random sentences in a Wikipedia article. People like you are too stupid to even realize that the MAJORITY of the sentences contained in Wikipedia articles deserve such a label, if one were strict about "verifiability". Fortunately, common sense in general prevails, but there are obviously cases where blinkered and ignorant "editors" try to enforce unenforceable rules, based on their own pettiness. 94.225.75.162 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@94.225.75.162: Considering that you have contributed very little to the encyclopeda compared to Mr. Budge, I advise you cease your personal attacks. Asking for citations to verify sentences is a core policy of Wikipedia per WP:V. It is you who is stupid and asanine, and I advise you to get lost. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@94.225.75.162: I don’t understand, are you objecting both to the citation needed tags *and* to the unsourced text? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

An NFPA 704 rating for Bismuth

Many other elements have an NFPA 704 rating on their articles. However, bismuth does not. I was able to find ratings here and here online. However, they contradict each other for the blue part of the NFPA 704 rating. Additionally, I am not completely sure that either source is reliable. Can anyone please help? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)