Jump to content

Talk:Cadmium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:40, 6 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 06:32, 21 June 2005). 21 June 2005

Talk

"Extremely toxic"? Isn't that a little extreme? Many people in my industry handle it without precautions (which they should use) and suffer no short term ill effects. <Sig?>

I agree that "extremely toxic at low concentrations" is a bit of a stretch. Animal subjects have to be exposed to low doses of cadmium (both oral and inhalation) for 1-3 months before any signs of toxicity appear. Substances like sarin or hydrogen cyanide are extremely toxic, but not cadmium.Jay Litman 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say sarin or HCN are extremely toxic, they're extremely harmful, but once they're out of your body they're gone for good. PCBs are extremely toxic. Many people expose themselves to cyanides everyday or more, it's in a number of root vegetables people in hot countries eat. I THINK exposure to small doses is actually good for your body in some way, like it helps produce a vitamin or more hemoglobin, but again, it doesn't build up over the years. So long as someone has received a less than gigantic dose, you can cure them by dragging them outside and giving them some O2; the cyanide will burn off the electron carrier chains.

I just went ahead and removed 'extremely.'--Jay Litman 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a chemist, but in the "Most Stable Isotopes" table, should it be Cadmium 108, not 188?

I agree, 188Cd must be wrong. JWSchmidt 08:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about the story that says the name Cadmium derives from King Cadmus of Phoenicia from Greek mythology ? Jay 16:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lots of websites I visited said that 60% of cadmium is used in electroplating, not 6%. Which is correct?

Well the cadium is actually extremely toxic. I mean look up itai-itai disease

Cadmium in fertilizer

I found severl links which mention risk of Cadmium in fertilizers. The phosphate ore contains cadmium and if not extracted it ends in the fertilizer. It looks like the EU made a upper level for Cadmium in Fertilizer.
Stone 10:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Precautions section

This section needs a serious overhaul. It contains redundancy, scientifically obsolete statements, and several dead links. I'm going to start updating/rewriting. If anyone finds a problem or inconsistency with my edits, please leave a comment here. Thanks! --Jay†Litman 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Color Inconsistency

The infobox states that Cadmium is "silvery gray", and the first paragraph text and the "Notable Characteristis" setion say that it is "bluish white". Stifynsemons 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the In popular Fiction section is completely out of place and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madris (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

casesin

What is casesin in the article? Warut 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Since no one around here seems to know what casesin is, I'll remove it from the article. Warut 15:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

hilumin in metal sample

hi

i would like to ask a question regarding cadmium.

I work in a chemcial testing lab. Recently i have received a metal sample that the client claim that it the metal base material contain hilumin with nickel, tin and gold plated. After i analyse, i discover that there is a high concentration of cadmium... Would it be possible that there is cadmium in the metal material? For what i know, i only know that lead concentration is often occur high in plating material.

is there any test where i can test if there is any cadmium in a metal sample??? Does tin contain cadmium in it. Or does hilumin had cadmium content in it??

this is my email: eyemoe@hotmail.com

regards

nicole --202.156.6.54 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With your nickel and gold plating, as far as I know, it's quite possible to have a small bit of cadmium involved. This article does list 6% usage in electropating. Look up a book on Inorganic Chemical Analysis like Vogel's or try digesting some your sample to aspirate through a flame atomic absorption spectrometer. Your spelling of hilumin confuses me. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Meter

The article has contained the following assertion nearly since its inception:

In 1927, the International Conference on Weights and Measures redefined the meter in terms of a red cadmium spectral line (1m = 1,553,164.13 wavelengths). This definition has since been changed (see krypton).

The assertion is unsupported by any reference, and the article on meter, which contains a history of definitions of the meter, does not mention cadmium at all. In fact, it states that the definition in 1927 was changed to the distance between two lines on a platinum-iridium bar. Does anyone know whence this assertion came? Julesd 19:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC definition for transition metals

NOTE: This section is transcluded so the widest-possible number of people can comment

I've been auditing the nav images in element articles to fix wrong neutron counts and giving Lu and Lr the lanthanoid and actinoid coloring, respectively. Part way through, I started to review our definitions for element categories to check them against IUPAC's provisional recommendations. See IUPAC Red Book IR-3.6 GROUPS OF ELEMENTS. Turns out that their specific definition for transition metal deviates from ours in a somewhat embarrassing way:

  • IUPAC defines transition metals specifically as being those elements in groups 3 to 11. This excludes the group 12 elements!

ED NOTE: Turns out, that IUPAC's approved recommendations define transition metals as either the set of elements in groups 3 to 12 (our current set-up) or the set of elements from 3 to 11 (the set-up in the below table).

Fixing this results in somewhat modified periodic tables (Note, that the expanded 'Other metal' category includes all the post-transition metals plus aluminium):

Table showing the more IUPAC consistent element categories

So, before I finish my audit and fix of the nav images, I'd like to know if I should fix group 12 to be consistent with the provisional IUPAC definition of transition metals. OR should we wait for IUPAC to come out with the final-updated Red Book (comment period ends at the end of 2008)? I'm putting my audit and update of the nav images on hold until we figure this out. --mav (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how many agree to this definition so waiting would be ok. Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I just checked one of my college chemistry textbooks and it agrees with IUPAC. If this definition for transition metals is already widespread, then we may not need to wait for IUPAC's final revision of the Red Book. On the other hand, the updated document may impact other parts of the table and / or nav images. I'm simply not sure how or when we should proceed. --mav (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm, the comment period ended in 2004, according to the root of the file you quoted. The text approved in 2005 was (p. 51):

The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements.

As far as I'm aware, there are no new inorganic recommendations planned for four or five years or so (until they get round to sorting out inorganic Preferred IUPAC names). Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah - I saw this and assumed it also applied to the inorganic nomenclature. My bad. I also remember something about unfilled d-suborbitals as part of the definition, which also excludes group 12 elements (with a complication with at least one Hg compound). --mav (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Definition of this term has always been a problem- whether to base the classification on chemistry or atom electron configuration. I was taught at school (1942 Sherwood Taylor text book) that the transition metals did not include Cu group and Zn group - only then to be told at university that Cu was a transition metal. IMO we should go with current IUPAC - that definition has been around for at least 40 years (Cotton and Wilkinson 2d edition 1966)- it leaves a little problem of colouring in and explaining the position of Zn group which is neither main group nor transition metal, but is in the d block according to our chart- although the chart conflicts with the definition in the article (sic "..highest energy electron is in a d orbital") which would seem to exclude both copper (3d10 4s1) and zinc (3d10 4s2) - if our list of electron configurations is right. Best of luck.--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The current IUPAC definition (quoted above) gives us freedom to include group 12 or not. Let's not forget that Cotton & Wilkinson doesn't class scandium and yttrium as transition metals either, on chemical grounds. Greenwood and Earnshaw agrees with our current classification except for lanthanum and actinium, which they (correctly in my view) class as transition metals. I seem to remember that the edition of Sherwood Taylor that you quote classes thorium and uranium as transition metals and, in the case of thorium ([Rn] 7s2 5d2), a naive or dogmatic application of the electron configuration criterion would force us to do the same! Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
IMHO IUPAC does not clearly define the matter, that's why such a long discussion is needed. My experience is very close to the Axiosaurus' one. The first simple definition refers to empty d orbitals at the elemental state whereas at university I was taught that it's more useful to include group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au) as well because they form ions having empty d orbitals - that is the Cotton Wilkinson definition. This is supported by their behaviour, for instance because they can form coloured complex as the other transition metals. I've never heard that the 12th group (Zn, Cd, Hg) can be included in the transition metals because their behaviour, i.e as catalist, is completely different than the others due to their full d shell. Most of my teachers would have marked as a serious mistake. Cotton Wilkinson (III edition, 1972) includes Scandium and Yttrium between the transition metals. Chemical behaviour should prevail as even Mendeleev based and actually built the periodic table on this characteristic. Some authors try to bridge this describing group 3-12 as d block. Please do not be misled by the shape of the periodic table or, worse, by aestetics issues. Chemistry is an experimental science and sometimes cannot be oversimplyfied. --Avogadro-I (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that our periodic tables have too many colors and that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we got rid of most of them. But I'm afraid I'm in the minority. --Itub (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But the table is so purty with the colors! And we'd have one less thing to argue about discuss - that would be boring. ;) --mav (talk)

Great feedback - thanks for finding the the current recommendations. Looks like IUPAC is giving us some leeway in the definition of transition metals in the approved recommendations. That means that our current table does not conflict with IUPAC. That is all I was worried about. We should therefore leave well-enough alone. We can revisit this if/when IUPAC comes up with a more rigorous definition. But I welcome anybody else to comment just in case we have missed anything. Again - Thank you everybody! --mav (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my own opinion is that it's one of those debates that creates more heat than useful work! Physchim62 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) allows us to go againt IUPAC occasionally, when circumstances demand it! Physchim62 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I may be getting in here a little late, but I just wanted to note that in post-transition metal, it claims that the IUPAC definition for transition metals is in conflict with it self. Based upon what I've read here, that doesn't seem to be the case any more. I think it needs to be cleaned up to match the above conclusions. --Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: first time we get the chance, we should try to get rid of the color differenciation between actinoids and lanthanoids. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why and what would replace it? --mav (talk)
does not add enough information, and within the TMs, the variations in chemistry are larger than those between Ac and Ln's. Any of the two colors used now would be fine, or some random mix of the two too. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The actinides and lanthanides are distinct enough for us to label them as separate element categories. That combined with the lack of consensus on what is an inner transition tells me that we should leave well enough alone. --mav (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercury is considered a transition element under both IUPAC definitions now, because the compound HgF4 has been synthesized in 2007, giving Hg a d8 electron configuration. Should this be incorporated in the table and the article? Kumorifox (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that mercury is a transition metal due to the observation of HgF4 under exotic conditions. See the article on HgF4 for details. --Itub (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing suggestion to Merge d-block and Transition metal

Well I showed up 3 months too late for the fun, but I based on what I read, I am removing the suggestion to merge these two articles. No change in IUPAC recommendations will ever alter Periodic table (by blocks). The blocks must have a number of columns corresponding to the number of electrons that a full subshell can hold. So the d-block must occupy groups 3-12. This is a man-made oversimplification because the chemistry and even the ground state electrons in Periodic_table_(electron_configurations) are messier than the blockiness, but that's ok. Oversimplifications are important because they make reality interesting. "Transition metal" on the other hand, is a convention, not an oversimplification. One bunch of folks call some elements "Transition metals" and another bunch of folks don't, and IUPAC says that's ok. When the most recent IUPAC book says "the elements of group 12 are not always included," they mean not always included in the transition metals. Group 12 has to be in the d-block because if it weren't, then the d-block would only hold 9 columns, meaning 9 electrons maximum in the d-subshell and Kimmie, the cute new 22-year old high-school chemistry teacher, would cry because even the oversimplifications would be too complex to teach, and angry mobs of high school boys who love Kimmie would grab torches and pitchforks and attack IUPAC folks and Wikipedia editors for making Kimmie cry. So that's why d-block and Transition metal should not be merged even though IUPAC says they -can- contain the same elements. By the way, Inner transition element and f-block should also be separate articles for the same reason. Conventions and oversimplifications are very, very different. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I'm glad to see you editing again. :) --mav (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if Kimmie is wrong, too bad I say. (^_^) Other than that, I agree they should remain separate articles (though that's probably because I am of the firm opinion that the d-block and the transition metals should be different groups). Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Cadmium be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ?

Shouldn't Cadmium be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

References

In the article as it is, for some reason footnote #10 occurs twice in the main article. There is, of course, only one hyperlink in foonote #10, and it refers to the first #10 superscript. The edit page of that section seems to have the right URL in it, so I'm thoroughly confused. The second hyperlink in the second #10 superscript works fine, it just isn't accessible on the page. Anyway, someone who knows how to fix this should fix the reference (it's the one on cadmium production through 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.228.189 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify? The reference 10 in the article, with its one url, supports three claims and therefore is repeated 3 times, but to avoid typing it three times in the ref. list, those 3 references are consolidated. Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you examine the content of the three claims, the third claim is not in any way demonstrated by reference 10. Reference 10 refers to a webpage with a graph describing cadmium production through 1960 or so. The third claim refers to cadmium use through 2009. When I go to the edit window for that page, I see a completely different reference to this url: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cadmium/cadmimcs06.pdf this url currently does not show up anywhere on the cadmium page, as far as I can tell, except in the edit window for that page. I don't know if it's a scripting error, or what... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.228.189 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

How about now? I believe there were two errors in the text, one factual on constancy of consumption and one code-related (two inputs for one reference name). Materialscientist (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reactivity?

I can't find a section on reactivity on this article, even though the other elements in the d-block have it. I think it would be really helpful, if not consistant. MewtwoDude (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing

This was poorly said: "Cadmium does the same job as zinc in other anhydrases, but the diatoms live in environments with very low zinc concentrations, thus biology has taken cadmium rather than zinc, and put it to work." I don't know enough about Cadmium to describe it in a roll usually filled by zinc, so I just changed it to "Cadmium is more abundant and preforms the same function that zinc would in a zinc-rich environment." 64.190.57.34 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Information Sources

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

Where is the original $3.55 price from? (And what is the purity it refers to?) It certainly conflicts with the $12/lb stated at the above-mentioned LANL site. -Nathan24601 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific reference for this? Zinc forms many complex compounds and I have never been under the impression that cadmium forms more complex compounds.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cancer from Cadmium

It would be nice to know how you expose yourself to cancer from Cadmium. Do you have to eat it? Hold it? be near it? hold a cadmium battery?

Otherwise it's just a silly statement that cadmium can cause cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.189.251.1 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The carcinogenicity of cadmium is still an area of controversy with many researchers believing that observed responses are due to the confounding effects of other carcinogens rather than the presence of cadmium or cadmium oxide. Cadmium toxicity depends upon the species and the concentration. All forms of cadmium at all concentrations are not toxic since it is a naturally occurring element. Please see the source for verification--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Decrease of overall consumption

Free-world consumption of cadmium in the period from 2000 to 2010 has remained relatively stable at 20,000 mt per year, a figure that now includes consumption in China and Russia. An explanation for a decrease of direct cadmium consumption in the United States may be the shift of the cadmium market away from coatings and pigments that used to be done in the United States to nickel-cadmium batteries which are now all manufactured in China and Japan. World consumption of cadmium has increased not decreased from the 1970s to 2010. Please see source: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Article Cadmium. I thus deleted the sentence.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Other uses: Helium Cadmium Metal Vapor Laser

This is a very specialized and insignificant use. I don’t think this needs to be part of the article.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hydrogen embrittlement

This sentence is confusing and invokes the impression that cadmium plating should not be used on low alloy steels or titanium alloys. In fact it has been used on both materials for many years.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Toxicity paragraph on Cadmium and Zinc

Paragraph deleted. What is the basis for this statement, and what specific biological systems are involved? The statement requires a reference to be credible.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tabacco Smoke

“Tobacco smoking is the most important single source of cadmium exposure in the general population. It has been estimated that about 10%” - Do you have a source for this figure?--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/0048-9697(90)90186-X--Stone (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of nickel-metal hydride batteries

The introduction of NiMH batteries had only a minor effect on the NiCd battery market and only for a short time. Lithium-ion batteries are now the rechargeable battery chemistry of choice, and the NiMH battery market is shrinking because of much higher nickel and cobalt contents in NiMH batteries, along with much higher metal prices. --Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source?--Stone (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Other uses: Train painted with Cadmium Orange (picture)

Is there a source for this? I don’t think Cadmium is used in on trains anymore. Cadmium pigments are no longer used in automotive paints for example.--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The train is old and the image description on Wikimedia states it is old cadmium yellow.--Stone (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Class

The cites seem OK (one ref per para), although cite 33 is unclear. If a compounds section was added, I think this would be a straight B. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FREYWA 06:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. For this review (and subsequent ones?) I will use copper as a reference. FREYWA 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Review

Don't fry your brain over the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Specific issues will be provided in the comments section. This one is really bad, but I'm giving it a chance!

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See below.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Try and arrange the sections as per WikiProject Elements guidelines. Everything is fine except the layout, particularly Capitalised Words as subsections in the applications section.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    See below.
    C. No original research:
    I don't know if there are sources for the unsourced statements!
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    There is no "Compounds" section.
    B. Focused:
    For example: the "Isotopes" section mentions the longest-lived metastable and the second-longest and third-longest and so on...
  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:
    What do the Jinzu River and the skull-and-crossbones pictures have to do with cadmium? Totally irrelevant. Captions are out-of-context with their corresponding pics.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

Always remember: the six criteria work together!

There are too many issues on here!

I'm too tired now, and I haven't taken a look at the article. But to mention - compounds section, even through would be good, should not be an obstacle to GA status. It's not like there are lot of things to say on cadmium, and it can be covered in Chemical characteristics. Cadmium compounds are (almost) all the same, Cd2+, there are no special cadmium compounds, it's nothing to say. I've taken a look on four other random TM GAs: Mo, Os, Rh, Ni. None of this has a separate Compounds section. Even FA yttrium doesn't. Section arrangement shouldn't be as well - this is a WikiProject standard, not a Wikipedia one or GAN. So I don't find these two relevant to GAN. And please, don't take copper as standard - the article is still imperfect, even through good. (there's just no perfect article, so it's OK). Don't take anything. Just let the standards lead you. Oh yeah, I'll take a better look tomorrow or at the weekend--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with R8R Gtrs on this one. See palladium (recent) - no real need for Compounds section if the chemistry is not really strange. (Of course compounds section is needed for elements that don't behave chemically quite as one would expect, like protactinium.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I wouldn't really call it "not focused" for mentioning those meta states. They don't even take up one sentence! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Glaring omission that is missed: Regulations (under Safety section) - just 1 sentence only! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed the subsection, the sentence is now in the main section--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Another one: Neurological role (under Biological role) - just 1 section only again! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Have all the comments been addressed yet? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No. FREYWA 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Now? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Issues

Don't listen to this!
This will bore the happiness out of you!
Problems playing this file? See media help.
This place is for issues only!

Regarding criteria 2B, there are two hitches:

Oh, and here's a problem with the lead:
Isn't copernicium also in group 12?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Cn is in group 12, yes, but Cd is not chemically similar to Cn. Remember from the copernicium article that Cn is expected to have a dominant +4 oxidation state; Zn and Cd do not have +4 and only HgF
4 has Hg4+
. FREYWA 09:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
My point is that the article does not mention that copernicium is a metal in group 12, despite not being chemically similar to cadmium. As is stands it sounds like group 12 consists solely of zinc, cadmium and mercury (which even IUPAC doesn't endorse now, though it probably did till 2010, copernicium not having been named until then). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I reworded it anyway. :-) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Chemical properties of copernicium are unknown, and I removed info about it. Word "stable" added as a compromise--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you FREYWA 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Now for the final criterion, 1A. I'll go through each section.

  • The soft, bluish-white metal is chemically similar to the two other stable metals in group 12, zinc and mercury. First word should be "this".
    Done (though not by me). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you FREYWA 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Average concentration in the earth’s crust is between 0.1 and 0.5 parts per million (ppm). No article at the front and is the sentence referring to cadmium?
  • Cadmium occurs as a minor component in most zinc ores and therefore is a byproduct of zinc production. Cadmium was used for a long time as a pigment and for corrosion resistant plating on steel. Cadmium compounds were used to stabilize plastic. Three sentences all beginning with "Cadmium" - try and merge them!
    Thank you FREYWA 08:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Characteristics
    • Physical properties
    • Chemical properties
      • The most common oxidation state of cadmium is +2, though rare examples of +1 can be found. This doesn't meld with the previous segment.
      • Cadmium burns in air to form brown amorphous cadmium oxide (CdO). The crystalline form of the same compound is dark red and changes color when heated, similar to zinc oxide. These two sentences can be merged.
      • Hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and nitric acid dissolve cadmium by forming cadmium chloride (CdCl
        2        ) cadmium sulfate         (CdSO
        4        ) or cadmium nitrate (Cd(NO
        3        )
        2        )        . No comma.
        Thank you FREYWA 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Isotopes
      • Naturally occurring cadmium is composed of 8 isotopes. For two of them, natural radioactivity was observed, and three others are predicted to be radioactive but their decay is not observed, due to extremely long half-life times. The two natural radioactive isotopes are 113Cd (beta decay, half-life is 7.7 × 1015 years) and 116Cd (two-neutrino double beta decay, half-life is 2.9 × 1019 years). The other three are 106Cd, 108Cd (double electron capture), and 114Cd (double beta decay); only lower limits on their half-life times have been set. At least three isotopes - 110Cd, 111Cd, and 112Cd - are stable. Really bad, but I can help. Change to "Naturally occuring cadmium is composed of eight isotopes; of these, 110Cd, 111Cd and 112Cd are stable, 113Cd and 116Cd are radioactive and 106Cd, 108Cd and 114Cd are expected but have not been observed to be radioactive."
      • The paragraph immediately following the one mentioned above can also be polished. Among the isotopes absent in natural cadmium, the most long-lived are 109Cd with a half-life of 462.6 days, and 115Cd with a half-life of 53.46 hours. All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are less than 2.5 hours, and the majority of these have half-lives that are less than 5 minutes. This element also has 8 known meta states, with the most stable being 113mCd (t½ = 14.1 years), 115mCd (t½ = 44.6 days), and 117mCd (t½ = 3.36 hours). The known isotopes of cadmium range in atomic mass from 94.950 u (95Cd) to 131.946 u (132Cd). For isotopes lighter than 112 u, the primary decay mode is electron capture and the dominant decay product is element 47 (silver). Heavier isotopes decay mostly through beta emission producing element 49 (indium). changes to "30 unstable isotopes exist, the longest-lived being 109Cd with a half-life of 462.6 days; 12 metastable states exist, the longest-lived being 113mCd with a half-life of 14.1 years. Isotopes lighter than 112Cd primarily decay to silver; isotopes heavier than that decay to indium."
      • The last two paragraphs of this section: One isotope of cadmium, 113Cd, absorbs neutrons with very high probability if they have an energy below the cadmium cut-off and transmits them readily otherwise. The cadmium cut-off is about 0.5 eV. Neutrons with energy below the cutoff are deemed slow neutrons, distinguishing them from intermediate and fast neutrons. Cadmium is created via the long S-process in low-medium mass stars (0.6 -> 10 solar masses), lasting thousands of years to do. It requires a silver atom to capture a neutron and then undergo beta decay. becomes "113Cd has the property of effectively absorbing neutrons with an energy below 0.5 eV and transmitting them otherwise. Cadmium is created in the S-process by a silver atom capturing a neutron and undergoing beta decay." The caption can be changed as well.
        I'm fixing these problems and finding a few more errors --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Don't touch the isotopes part. It's better in the original version. The new one is good to write a conspectus, not an article--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Just to note — I didn't agree with most (but not all!) of it. Reasons given--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
      • For two of them, natural radioactivity was observed, and three others are predicted to be radioactive but their decay is not observed, due to extremely long half-life times. Doesn't flow.
        To me, it's OK. Suggestions?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Rewrite as "Two of them are radioactive, and three are expected to decay but have not been experimentally confirmed to do so. FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        Thank you FREYWA 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The two natural radioactive isotopes are 113Cd (beta decay, half-life is 7.7 × 1015 years) and 116Cd (two-neutrino double beta decay, half-life is 2.9 × 1019 years). Could be simplified.
        It's already maximum simple. If I wrote it, it would be more complicated. However, suggestions may be useful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        The two expressions in brackets can be modified to "beta decay with a half-life of 7.7 × 1015 years" and "double beta decay with a half-life of 2.9 × 1019 years" respectively. The third word in the sentence should be "naturally". FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        Thank you FREYWA 17:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The other three are 106Cd, 108Cd (double electron capture), and 114Cd (double beta decay); only lower limits on their half-life times have been set. Is 106Cd suspected of double EC? Punctuation error (comma before and), last bolded section should be moved to the front.
        It is not a punctuation error. See serial comma for more info, but in general — using the comma is American style, not using — British (maybe the whole Commonwealth). Why should it be moved? All other such sentence use something similar. However, the first one is valid, improved--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Oxford comma --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        Fine! You win! Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Among the isotopes absent in natural cadmium, the most long-lived are 109Cd with a half-life of 462.6 days, and 115Cd with a half-life of 53.46 hours. First bolded area can be simplified, second is a comma-and error.
        In general, if a construction is simple but can be further simplified, it is considered simple. However, reworded. Punctuation — see above.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • This element also has 8 known meta states, with the most stable being 113mCd (t½ = 14.1 years), 115mCd (t½ = 44.6 days), and 117mCd (t½ = 3.36 hours). Redundant "also", comma error.
        OK, removed, punctuation — see above.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The known isotopes of cadmium range in atomic mass from 94.950 u (95Cd) to 131.946 u (132Cd). For isotopes lighter than 112 u, the primary decay mode is electron capture and the dominant decay product is element 47 (silver). Heavier isotopes decay mostly through beta emission producing element 49 (indium). We're not using atomic mass here, we're using nucleon number. The 47 in "47 (silver)" is redundant (likewise for 49 (indium)).
        Both are possible. It says lighter, and a mass given. It's OK. Element 47 (silver) may be left — because considering someone who don't know how radioactivity appears, what Z is, and atomic number for say, silver and indium, without the Z they may understand nothing. So I take take cadmium... and it turns silver? Neat! But seriously, having read in the lead cadmium is element 48, they may see so a beta minus decay is a decay to the next element (hmmm... indium?) and beta plus is to the previos (silver, alright!) just don't expect everyone to know as much as you do--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Fine. Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • One isotope of cadmium, 113Cd, absorbs neutrons with very high probability if they have an energy below the cadmium cut-off and transmits them readily otherwise. The cadmium cut-off is about 0.5 eV. Neutrons with energy below the cutoff are deemed slow neutrons, distinguishing them from intermediate and fast neutrons. The first bolded area has the redundant "readily". The second one refers to the fact that the first two sentences can be efficiently merged. The third is that the reader doesn't need to have it to understand the meaning.
        "readily" removed, the latter may be left — just when you touch something new, more info may be useful. However, this is to your choice — if asked once again, I'll remove it--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Cadmium is created via the long S-process in low-medium mass stars (0.6 -> 10 solar masses), lasting thousands of years to do. The first bolded area is removable. The second can be restated "stars with 0.6 to 10 solar masses". Third one? Bad grammar.
        "long" word is connected to the final part of the sentence, the second one, yes, should be reworded, the third maybe too.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        Incidentally, isn't cadmium slightly bluish? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        Thank you FREYWA 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • History
    • Even though cadmium and its compounds may be toxic in certain forms and concentrations, the British Pharmaceutical Codex from 1907 states that cadmium iodide was used as a medication to treat "enlarged joints, scrofulous glands,[13] and chilblains." The ref should always be put at the end of the sentence.
    • After the industrial scale production of cadmium started in the 1930s and 1940s the major application was the coating of iron and steel to prevent corrosion. In 1944, 62% and in 1956 59% of the cadmium in the United States was used for this purpose. These two sentences can be merged into one. Regarding the percentages, the second one should have a comma behind it like the first.
    • The second application was red, orange and yellow pigments based on sulfides and selenides of cadmium. In 1956, 24% of the cadmium used within the United States was used for this purpose. Again, can be merged.
    • The stabilizing effect of cadmium-containing chemicals (carboxylates such as the laureate and the stearate) on PVC led to a increased use of those compounds in the 1970s and 1980s. The bolded area should be "like the laureate and the stearate".
    • The use of cadmium in applications such as pigments, coatings, stabilizers and alloys declined due to environmental and health regulations in the 1980s and 1990s. In 2006, only 7% of total cadmium consumption was used for plating and coating and only 10% was used for pigments. Can be merged into one sentence.
      Thank you FREYWA 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Occurrence
  • Production
    • In 2001, China was the top producer of cadmium with almost one-sixth world share closely followed by South Korea and Japan, reports the British Geological Survey. No connecting expression, wrong word used.
      Done.--Stone (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      Thank you FREYWA 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Zinc metal is produced either by smelting the oxide with carbon or by electrolysis in sulfuric acid. Cadmium is isolated from the zinc metal by vacuum distillation if the zinc is smelted, or cadmium sulfate is precipitated out of the electrolysis solution. The expressions can and should be combined in a different way from here, based on their intended meanings.
      Thank you FREYWA 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Applications
  • Biological role
  • Safety

Isotopes

The above information on the isotopes of cadmium seems to me to be a bit esoteric and of limited interest to the general Wikipedia reader. Does anybody feels the same?--Hugh Morrow (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

no, i usually read that among the first sentences213.233.92.45 (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cadmium Vs. Mercury

Which is more toxic? Just curious; I would guess they have similar mechanisms of action since their chemical properties are similar, but I wonder which one would be a more effective poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I think mercury is more toxic (or at least more popular as a poison throughout history). You may be interested in reading Emsley's Elements of Murder which discusses cases of poisoning involving various elements. Mercury is one of the main elements featured in the book (together with lead, thalium, and arsenic); cadmium receives only a brief mention in the last chapter together with other elements. --Itub (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 321C qualifies as a "low melting point" compared to -39C. It seems that if a similarity should be drawn to mercury, this shouldn't be it. --24.213.110.33 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Cadmium-crystal bar.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cadmium-crystal bar.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 31, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-31. 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} 18:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cadmium
A crystal bar of cadmium, made by the flux process, and 1 cm3 of cadmium for comparison. This soft, bluish-white metal is chemically similar to the two other stable metals in group 12, zinc and mercury. It was discovered in 1817 simultaneously by Stromeyer and Hermann, both in Germany, as an impurity in zinc carbonate.Photo: Alchemist-hp
Archive – More featured pictures...

Electroplating

A description of the visual appearance of a cadmium plated surface would be appropriate. The appearance should be distinguished from chromium, nickel and zinc. PeterEasthope (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cadmium. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadmium. 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:

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) 11:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-fluoridationist material and sourcing

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)

References for the discovery of Cadmium

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadmium/Archive_1&oldid=1185168114"