Talk:Cadmium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleCadmium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starCadmium is part of the Group 12 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Anti-fluoridationist material and sourcing[edit]

I have, for the second time, removed comments about cadmium as an alleged contaminant of fluoridation additives to water, sourced from the notorious anti-fluoridationist crusader Phyllis Mullenix. I do not intend to pursue further removal of this material if it is added back yet again. Rather than continue, myself personally, to remove this inappropriate, and inappropriately sourced, material, I would like to start a discussion here, for achievement of consensus on the relevant issues—although, as a general matter, Wikipedia consensus already condemns addition of material to articles for purposes of WP:FRINGE POV-pushing, especially in articles with no clear relationship to the fringe POV involved.

The removed comments were originally added, and then added back after the first removal, by user Seabreezes1, who has a history of adding similar POV anti-fluoride material to pages which, like Cadmium, have no obvious connection with fluoride or dentistry, including:

As far as I can tell, none of these insertions was accompanied by discussion on the talk page of the article in question.

The relevant issues include not only the appropriateness of bringing anti-fluoridationist material into the Cadmium article at all, but also the appropriateness of treating a crusader for a WP:FRINGE theory, even in academic publications, as a reliable source for material directly related to the fringe theory in question. In view of Phyllis Mullenix's known history as an anti-fluoridationist crusader, her formal qualifications do not make her a reliable source on the topic, any more than Linus Pauling's Nobel and other eminent qualifications as a biochemist make him a reliable source on vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Although bias and non-neutrality in general may not exclude a source as reliable, extreme advocacy of a WP:FRINGE theory can still invalidate the reliability of even so eminent a source as Pauling—let alone Mullenix—at least for questions directly related to the fringe theory. WP:RS points out that the creator of a work, as well as the venue of publication, can be relevant to its reliability. Also see the comments on promoters of fringe theories as sources in the section WP:PROFRINGE within WP:FRINGE.

Syrenka V (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Since cadmium fluoride is used in the creation of metal alloys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_fluoride) and fluoridation chemicals are sourced from pollution control systems of phosphorus and metal factories, it is entirely plausible that cadmium is present in fluoridation chemicals. That cadmium is not tested for under current EPA guidelines does not negate the independent testing of those fluoridation chemicals any more than the POV of a wiki editor negates the credibility of a qualified toxicologist who published those test results. That there is no 'discussion' on this page is only indicative of the effectiveness of those who persistently promote a biased pro-fluoridation point of view that denies scientific findings in discouraging the sharing of inconvenient science. Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

NFPA704 Hazard Codes[edit]

The NFPA704 hazard codes (4:health/0:flamability/0:reactivity/white:special) are almost certainly incorrect. I was able to find the codes for cadmium powder (3/4/3/white) via cursory google search, but nothing official for solid metal. I have also found significantly conflicting categorizations for it here, here and here, all of which seem to be using the OSHA category numbering system in which 1 is the most hazardous and 4 is the least hazardous. At least based on the guidelines here and the oral LD50 that seems to vary between >1g/kg and ~200mg/kg depending on the source, the solid metal should be a (2/0/0/white).

[1] -

17:57, 6 May 2019 174.46.151.226

References for the discovery of Cadmium[edit]

  • Roloff, D. "Zur Geschichte des Kadmiums". Annalen der Physik u (Gilberts Annalen). 60: 194–199.
  • Hermann. "Ueber das Schlesische Zinkoxyd und den Kadmium-Gehalt desselben". Annalen der Physik u (Gilberts Annalen). 60: 276–289.
  • Stromeyer. "Ueber das Kadmium". Annalen der Physik u (Gilberts Annalen): 193.
  • Hermann. "Entdeckung zweier neuen Metalle in Deutschland". Annalen der Physik u (Gilberts Annalen): 95.

--Stone (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)