Talk:Fluorine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Photo

I think the photo of the mineral in the main article is misleading. Fluorine is a gas, and is hard to display, but it's not quite clear enough for a novice that you aren't somehow saying this object is Fluorine (looks like Fluorite to me). If the article really does need a photo or illustration it could be a representation of the Fluorine atom, or perhaps a Fluorine mineral with a proper explanation of its chemical composition and relation to the element Fluorine.

One reason for the lack of a flourine pic is the fact you cannot store it in a clear glass container - flourine will eat a hole right through it. Joeylawn

86.139.168.138 09:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149, DrBob and 152.1.193.xx. Elementbox converted 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:21, 18 Jun 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Fluorine. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed in Fluorine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

Talk

---

Fluorinated carbons are very potent greenhouse gases, much more potent than a similar amount of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide and methane are far more prevalent in the atmosphere. However, the global warming impact of fluorinated carbons is increasing.

Jsdday (talk)jsdday —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The "dangerous toxin" part is not at all appropriate. In a very real sense everything in the human body can be toxic in excess. The "dangerous" part for fluoride is in dispute due to the low concentrations used in dental health care products and in municipal drinking supplies. Therefore it is not at all appropriate to state, as fact, that it is a dangerous toxin. This is missleading. --mav

I have information to show that Fluoride makes calcium fluoride hydroxy appetite which is foreign to the immune system and produces a bone making and destructing cycle that leads to Osteosarcoma. This is well documented by Fluoride researchers. Currently no government has valid research to support the notion that Fluoride protects against dental cavities, I have viewed the dental records of every 11 to 12 year old in Auckland NZ in 1996 and found that those who lived in fluoridated areas had actually more caries than the non fluoridated areas. I have also viewed government documents that show the Australian and NZ governments know the dangers of Fluoride but for some reason chose to ignore it. Many mayors of local councils have been confronted over this issue and some have voted to have Fluoride banned but where combined water reticulation exists only one council needs to say yes to Fluoride to have the entire water system fluoridated as is the case in Auckland New Zealand. In Melbourne Australia the level of Fluoride was decreased from 1ppm to 0.7ppm as it was found to be toxic, in fact a level of 0.1ppm is ten times more toxic if in the presence of Alum which is used to make water clear. Most people believe that Fluoride is good for their teeth but the truth is published on the net for all to see but most people will never see what I have seen as this information can't be obtained under the freedom of information act but can be obtained by someone who works in parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.237.107 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with stating:

"The fluorine ion fluoride is used in dental health care products and as a controversial additive to some drinking water supplies."

Is it not used in dental health care products? Is it not a controversial additive to some drinking water supplies? --mav

Clutch, there is no reason to delete intros to compound articles here. Introducing all things about an element is provided as part of the framework of this WikiProject. --mav

I don't see a problem with the current version's "The fluorine ion fluoride is used in dental health care products and, controversially, as an additive to some drinking water supplies." Seems a good summary. -- Tarquin 23:42 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

It is not ethical to leave the article in a state that would lead people who don't bother to click the fluoride link into believing that fluoride is harmless to their health. --Clutch 00:05 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

What? The article mentions that fluorides are used used for rat poison and that its use in water supplies is controversial. Whether or not this low concentration use is in fact harmful is a matter of great controversy. --mav

The use of fluoride as a ratpoison is neither controversial, nor is it suitable for the lead paragraph of an article on fluorine. Likewise, neither is any quack medical use of fluoride appropriate for the lead paragraph on fluorine. --Clutch 00:40 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

It is a very major use of this element. And fluoride compounds, not the ion itself, is added to water supplies in order to get fluoride ion to where authorities think it should go. The "quack" statement isn't appropriate here since fluoridation is perscribed by respected government agencies and the majority opinion on its use is still favors the idea that its medicinal effects outweigh deleterious ones. The word "quack" is reserved for fringe thinking. --mav

Two people have so far stated that there is nothing wrong with the wording. Clutch's only response is to call his critics "quacks" and "people without conscience". This is hardly persuasive and only tends to discredit anything Clutch says. --mav

Clutch's lack of understanding of chemistry is showing as sodium fluoride is obviously a compound. --rmhermen, a chemist and one who has worked on flouride analysis for public water systems

Note, nowhere did I refer to sodium fluoride. --Clutch 01:16 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Clutch, stop making personal attacks on Mav, and lying about him being a vandal. That's insane. Between your hateful remarks on Jews, your paraboid comments in regards to fluoride, and your egregiously paranoid and slanderous comments on all social workers, I am seriously beginning to wonder if you suffer from sort of organic problem. Seriously. You need to seriously think about whether your presence here is good for your mental health.

RK-the above reference to mental health was a personal attack.

---

fluorine != the fluoride ion, Clutch.

fluorine is not the same as the fluoride ion! fluorine is the element, whilst the fluoride ion is what is most commonly used in toothpaste, in the form of compounds such as sodium fluoride. - User:Mark Ryan

Well from what I remember of Chemistry (and it's been quite awhile) ions don't always act the same as their corresponding elements. I think that's what the person meant? mav? anyone? --KQ

Actually, no, I can answer that myself. Chlorine is highly carcinogenic. Sodium Chloride (salt) is not. So Clutch might want to consider the fluorine/fluroide thing in the same light. --KQ

The ionized form is much more reactive. --mav

Not to mention completely different chemically! Chlorine is completely different to sodium chloride. Just because a compound contains atoms of a particular element, doesn't mean is has similar chemical properties! Compare sodium metal (highly reactive) and sodium chloride (table salt). Don't forget that you can't regularly get an ion on its own. A fluoride ion doesn't come on its own - it must be sodium fluoride, calcium flouride etc. - cations and anions - User:Mark Ryan

Um, that they would be different chemically was my point.  :-) The chlorine/NaCl example was my counterexample to Clutch's belief. --KQ

---

Stopping the edit war by temporarily protecting the page. All further discussion should be directed to the mailing list. --mav

Removed sentence:
The fluorine ion fluoride is used in dental health care products and, controversially, as an additive to some drinking water supplies.

Since Clutch has a problem with this sentence I have removed it for now in order to stop the edit war. I'm unprotecting the page now. --mav

---

Fluoride is added to drinking water. So what? There is a known acceptable amount of fluoride which is healthy for protecting teeth against decay (god, I sound like a Colgate ad). Studies have shown that children brought up in cities where fluoride is added to tap water have better dental health than those children bought up on farms drinking rainwater. Sure, it's probably hamful to your health in large quantities, but that's the point. The concentrations in tap water are quite small. The addition of fluoride ions to tap water is neither controversial nor unpopular here in Australia. - User:Mark Ryan

The good citizenry of the city of Redding, California voted in the latest elections only a month ago to ban the additon of fluoride to the water of their city because it "hasn't been proven to work, and is a poison." In the 1950s, fluoride was controversial because it was said to be a Communist plot to poison good Americans. -- Zoe

Have you been to Redding? It's not exactly high IQ or science aware central. Sorry, I couldn't resist. --mav

The discussion seems to be missing a key point about the controversy regarding flouride in water supplies. Whatever the medical arguments may be, for many people, the core of the problem is that you are medicating people without their permission. And it's not just one or 2 people under extreme circumstances but whole populations. That's why it has been discredited in many places such as The Netherlands. --da.brickbat

---

This edit war has made me curious. I've just done some reading on fluoride. Okay, maybe it could be dangerous, but it's not used as a rat poison. [1] says it straight out:

Is fluoride used as a rat poison? No. Although fluoride in extremely high doses was used as a rat poison before the first World War, it did not work very well

But that's just one little voice in the crowd of hysterical anti-fluoride websites. Rather more convincing is the fact that an extensive discussion on the range of baits available ([2]) doesn't mention it. It's not surprising when you consider the toxicity - 52mg/kg for NaF, compared to 0.27 mg/kg for Brodifacoum (used in "Talon"). In other words, you'd need 200 times as much bait to kill a rat, compared to modern rodenticides. Toxicity data for NaF came from [3] -- Tim Starling

Please change the article accordingly. --mav

I have removed mention of the effectiveness as a rat poison. I have also changed "has been used" to "was used". Are we sure it was in the past, though, and it is not still being used? - Mark Ryan

Good job, Tim. - Mark Ryan

Note that it is used for cockroach poison, see for example [4]. -- Tim Starling

---

Clutch, were you by any chance abused as a child by a social worker named Fluorine?

---

Fluorides are compounds that combine this fluoride ion with some positively charged radical. That is not correct. E.g. Sulfurhexafluoride SF6 does not contain ions nor radicals. Somebody please change it. Malbi

Be bold! Get in there and make some good edits :) Dysprosia 13:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was reluctant to think of a wording of my own. ;-) Malbi 20:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fluoride means the negative ion of fluorine, F-. Sulfurhexafluoride is not a real fluoride, as it does not contain fluoride ions. However, it shoyuld be ion not radical) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F2Andy (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed text - the only gaseous Uranium salt - describing uranium hexaflouride, I think I can see what that's trying to say but it's not clear what it means, and the naive interpretation (that it's a gas at STP) is just plain wrong. The article on "hex" needs some similar work. Andrewa 00:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel that this page could do with some tidying up.

1. I think it makes more sense to have the history and preparation before the applications and compounds.

Suggested order:

• Notable characteristics
• History
• Preparation and manufacture of elemental fluorine
• Safety
• Applications of elemental fluorine
• Fluorine compounds

Inorganic

Organic

• Applications of fluorine compounds

2. Most of the applications are really application of the compounds, not fluorine itself, and so should be listed after the compounds section. The list reads like anybody who uses fluorine compounds ho passes by has added their bit (I guess two people came by interested in Teflon as it appears twice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by F2Andy (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Color

I am confused about the way the color of the element is stated. The first paragraph says Fluorine is a yellow-green gas, then goes on to say pure Fluorine is pale yellow. Chlorine is yellow-green...

Fluorine is VERY hard to display, because it will eat glass. The picture on this article might have some florine in it, but chances are there are more Silicon Floride molecules attached to the glass. Fluorine does not eat glass, certainly at ambient conditions and when diluted to 50% or below, the reaction with glass "etching" is due to the presence of hydrogen fluoride. Flourine is actually a brownish color... See this picture

I think there is something wrong with the picture, maybe the lighting or the way the picture was taken. Fluorine is pale yellow.

Depends on how much of it the light passes through. It's like yellow food coloring: it looks orange-red in the bottle, but when diluted or smeared on a surface, it looks yellow. I will change the color above the picture to yellowish brown, becuase yellow-green is wrong.--24.16.148.75 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the colour in the first paragraph from yellow green to yellowish brown to match other instances where the colour is mentioned in the article. Thaurisil^t_c 07:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK but it depends on what state your looking at, liquid F₂ Looked orange to me, you need to use something like single crystal saphire tubes to be able to see it in the liquid state and hold the pressure, even at very low tempature it has significant vapor pressure, the other question I would ask is what color is silicon floride? colorless! It depends on concentration, pressure, tempature and so on. Also extremely dry Fluorine, scrubed free of HF doesn not eat glass as fast as one might think98.112.11.160 (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Franz

Rhodium

An interesting sidelight, Rhodium does not react with Fluorine, but will with Chlorine and Oxygen, etc. Very odd as Fluorine forms compounds with most of the other elements.

Rhodium fluorides do in fact exist but can only be produced under the extremely forcing conditions of a pure fluorine atmosphere. Both RhF₃ and RhF₅ have been synthesised in this way by Bartlett et al Inorganic Chemistry (1973) 12, 2640-2644

--CharlieBoy 10:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Argon

A mention of Argon FluoroHydride might be an interesting addition to the article as it is the only known compound of Argon made, even though only stable at cryogenic temperatures only.

Elemental occurrence in nature

Regret I cannot trace the exact reference but I recall from ca. 1980 a textbook commenting that elemental fluorine does in fact turn up on Earth in native form in some fluorspar minerals due to the α-decay of the thorium included with it at formation (presumably we are seeing ThF₄ -> RaF₂ + F₂ + He, the hoped-for RaF₄ not existing even though RnF₄ probably does, as with Xe). Fortunately (according to the textbook concerned), it decomposes atmospheric water vapour before it reaches human noses, leaving behind only the smell of ozone as its signature, benign at the concentrations involved. Dajwilkinson 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

why?

i wan to know who discovered it and when?

F-F use

55% for UF6 40% for SF6

Büchner Schliebs Winter Büchel Industrial Organic Chemistry VCH Weinheim 1989.Stone 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to know where does floride come from?

Nealy all of the fuoride is mined as CaF₂

Preparation

"Elemental fluorine is prepared industrially by Moissan's original process: electrolysis of anhydrous HF in which KHF2 has been dissolved to provide enough ions for conduction to take place."

=> I can't make sense of this method of preparation. Who can write the full reaction for me, please? Causesobad --> Talk) 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2H⁺ + 2e^- -> H₂

2F^- -> 2e^- + F₂

Simple electrolysis like that of the production of chlorine, but like aluminium or fluorine electrolysis is not as simple. HF simply does not dissoziate in a big enough numer to have a current flowing in liquide HF, therfor KF is added to get a liquid which is ionic enough for electrolysis. --Stone 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have limited experence contributing to Wiki, so if I did not fallow the rules some how, I'm sorry I'm learning, but I added some detail to this section concerning the story of it's chemical synthesis. I obtained this information directly from Dr. Karl Christe, over several years of working in his lab, and asking him about the story, seeing the talk he actually gave and so on. Also I clearified some other parts that I felt did not realy depicte the process98.112.11.160 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"Franz"

Applications

The applications section could do with a bit of a clean-up. Many of the "chemical uses" seems more like engineering uses, electronics uses, etc. Just because chemistry is required to make the fluorine compound does not mean they are "chemical uses". In my opinion, chemical uses should only include examples where it is used as a chemical! • TheBendster (talk) 20 September 2007, 14:34 (UTC)

I agree, I am going to start removing organofluorine content. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Istope Metals

I was wondering if a metal can become normal after it becomes an istope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.80.140 (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This question is meaningless. Metals (as do all elements) appear in several varieties--these are isotopes. Hydrogen, for instance, has three: Hydrogen-1, with a proton and no neutrons (by far the most common); hydrogen-2, with a proton and one neutron (used in heavy water); and hydrogen-3, with a proton and two neutons (it's radioactive). So metals don't become isotopes, and they can't really become "normal" afterwards. There is no normal.

There are certain types of radioactive decay in which an atom can change from one isotope of a given element to another, I believe, though.

If you weren't talking about isotopes, but about something else, this doesn't help you one bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.247.39 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Basicity of Fluoride

Hydrogen fluoride is a weak acid when dissolved in water. Consequently, fluorides of alkali metals produce basic solutions. A 1M solution (at RT) of NaF in water has a pH of 8.59 (using pKa of HF = 3.12[5]) to a 1M solution of NaOH has a pH of 14.00 (K = infinity) Mandor (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

costs

how much does fluorine cost by tthe kilogram? 74.214.10.45 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on location, amount, purity, and date (before or after the world economic collapse?). These things vary so wildly for every element,that we don't usually bother to even approximately quantify prices in these articles. SBHarris 03:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate organofluorine content (pharmaceuticals and fluorocarbons) under Uses section

The position described above in applications, and my opinion are identical: "the applications section could do with a bit of a clean-up. Many of the "chemical uses" seems more like engineering uses, electronics uses, etc. Just because chemistry is required to make the fluorine compound does not mean they are "chemical uses". In my opinion, chemical uses should only include examples where it is used as a chemical!" Please note that uses under the chlorine page are vastly weighted towards chlorine itself. Please also note that the chlorine page is locked (probably from higher quality). I favor sharply reducing/eliminating the organofluorine content from the uses section to improve the quality of the article. I made edits to remove this content, but they were reinstated, without any discussion in the Applications section above, where I also commented. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. What we really want is "industrial" applications, not chemical applications. The chemistry should be discussed in a "chemistry" section. Which did exist but was misnamed. See if you like the headers better, now. SBHarris 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better as a temporary measure, but the headers were not my main point. I still think the bulk of the uses are heavily weighted towards organofluorines inappropriately, and it will lead to edits such as the one I am about to do, which I think clutter the page, and distract the reader from the uses of fluorine itself. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I could insert other things, such as how wonderful a surfactant PFOS is, and how wonderfully toxic perfluoroisobutylene is, but I haven't. You don't see the same problem I do? That the page is too heavily weighted to organofluorines instead of fluorine itself? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, take a look at how the other element articles are done-- say nitrogen. We could have chosen to make them entirely about the free element, but instead these articles also include surveys of all the uses and roles of the element and its compounds in nature and technology. I wouldn't object if you split off a section explicitly on uses of elemental fluorine, as has been done in most of the other element articles, of course. And there probably should be a mention of PFOS in the fluorine article, given how widespread its use is, and how much of a problem it's getting to be. I've sprayed it on many a boot, and wonder now how much I breathed, and if it matters. SBHarris 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think a split for a section explicitly on the uses of elemental fluorine is what is needed. Btw, I mentioned PFOS at the bottom of the article under safety of organofluorine compounds. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC) -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Electronegativity image

I removed and questioned the relevance (understanding it adds) of a picture of a F with 9 dots (electrons) around it. While I am not 100% adverse to its presence, I think this article would be much much better served with a 3D looking image that shows the high electronegativity of fluorine. IMHO, that would really add understanding (for consequences of reactivity and on the properties of fluorocarbons in reducing polarizability.) -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Biological section

Because F₂ is so reactive, it shouldn't have a biological role (unless we look up some chemical warfare info or occupational information about exposure). because of this, and because the section has languished for so long (thanks to Stone for adding content but I have now moved that content to organofluorine), i am going to remove the section. the dental stuff is for floride not fluorine. additionally, there are many edits on this talk page that discuss the bias this article has towards organofluorine compounds. it looks like an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies to me. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• So what did you do with this information you deleted? There was no consensus for that. When we say "fluorine" or any other element, we don't mean just the free element-- we include the element as all of its compounds. The "nitrogen cycle" in nature (for example) isn't just about elemental nitrogen. Magnesium metal has no role in biology, but you'll see extensive discussion of the role of magnesium in biology in both the magnesium article and subarticle. Likewise the roles of sodium and potassium in biology. So stop this. The consensus was to isolate elemental sections from the others, not get rid of everything in the article that wasn't about elemental flourine. SBHarris 01:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, you are misleading. the consensus you are referring to is regarding uses and applications. that section does not equal the biological role section. the referenced content on the biological role of organofluorines is at that page. for the dental uses of the fluoride anion look here. I thanked the author for his contributions and it would be nice to see what he thinks. for the bigger issue: you don't think fluorine reads like an ad for pharma after reading the organofluorine page? to be very frank, fluorine is a neutral gas, not a monoatomic anion or an organofluorine. check out the higher quality chlorine article for my inspiration. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Most of the uses given are not pharm uses, and there's a note that the pharm uses are a prime causes of organofluorine buildup in wastewater (which they are). As such, these are all notable. If you go to a hospital, it would be rare for you to escape without being administered some fluororganic, from your anesthetic to your antibiotic.

As to the role of flourine in biology, we don't know what it is, except that Mertz's fluoride-deprived rats were scruffy, puny, and ill. All this is prevented by levels of fluoride far below those added to water supplies for dental reasons. THAT role is almost certainly not meditated via a fluoro-organics (no F-C bonds)l; it's a direct strengthening action of F- on hydroxyappetite salts in enamel. There's now no place in the article where somebody who wants to know about fluorine and biology can find anything. Don't move stuff without links to show where you put it. Organofluorine is not only a non-obvious place for biology, but in the case of teeth it is wrong, and in the case of the rest of biology, nobody KNOWS whether it is right or wrong.

By the way, Chlorine is a rather poor template to use for elements and biology, since nobody has added anything to chlorine (or even much to chloride) to show that they have any roles in biology. It's simply a gap. But I've pointed out the articles on Carbon, Nitrogen, Sodium and so on, that make far better templates for chemical elements and biology. SBHarris 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ok i'm going to let this one cool down i'll be back later. however, please note that i discuss how important fluorine is for pharmaceuticals at the organofluorine page. also, please look at the talk page to trifluoromethyl. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Sbharris is right. The convention followed by all the element articles (that I remember) is to include a section on the biological role (if known), although generally this role involves compounds of the element and not the free element. Same for the uses; in addition to the uses of the free element, we tend to give an overview of the uses of its compounds. The relative weight given to free element vs compound in the uses section can vary from element to element; for example, oxygen focuses largely on uses of the free element, while phosphorus focuses largely on the uses of compounds such as phosphates. IMHO, fluorine should devote substantial attention to the uses of compounds, because otherwise there is practically only one use left: making fluorides. But the reader should see why one would want to make fluorides in the first place, and that needs a discussion of the use of the fluorides themselves. Even if elemental fluorine is not used for making certain fluorides, they can still be included for the same reason as the biological role of compounds. --Itub (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I put the biological role back but left the other edits untouched. Will have a look later!--Stone (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

i renamed it to show that it is compounds. i am about to reword and reinstate the enzyme. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Fluorine also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bio role of fluoride

• Out of curiosity, what are "Mertz' fluoride-deprived rats"? II | (t - c) 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER: Excuse if I had fluoride confused with the other ultratrace minerals identified in Walter Mertz' rat isolation-chamber experiments at the Long Beach V.A. These were done with ultrapure food elements (like purified amino acids and glucose) and dust filters, and they identified chromium, tin, nickel, vanadium and silicon as needed ultratrace minerals. Selenium had earlier been identified as essential by Schwarz-- perhaps in Mertz' lab. As for the identification of a need for flouride in animal growth, this may be Nielsen's work (see review below). I remember only the photos of very poor-looking rats, which normalized completely when the rats were exposed merely to normal dusty air (all these minerals, including fluoride, are needed in amount far too small to require supplementation-- so this has nothing to do with the water fluoridation issue). Here are some review refs:

1. Proc Nutr Soc. 1974 Dec;33(3):307-13. The newer essential trace elements, chromium, tin, nickel, vanadium and silicon. Mertz W. PMID 4617884

2. Am J Clin Nutr. 1974 May;27(5):515-20. Are nickel, vanadium, silicon, fluorine, and tin essential for man? A review. Nielsen FH, Sandstead HH. PMID 4596029

3. J Nutr. 1996 Sep;126(9 Suppl):2377S-2385S. How should dietary guidance be given for mineral elements with beneficial actions or suspected of being essential? Nielsen FH. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, North Dakota 58202, USA.

The term ultratrace elements, often used to indicate elements with an established, estimated or suspected requirement generally indicated by microgram/, could be applied to at least 20 elements. The quality of experimental evidence for nutritional essentiality varies widely for the ultratrace elements. Thus, although differing dietary guidance is appropriate for these elements, most need increased attention in future editions of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for the following reasons: (1) Increased interest in these elements by the public has been stimulated by the mass media; thus, responsible information about the usefulness of the ultratrace elements for health and well being is needed. (2) Risk assessments and toxicological standards are influenced by the RDAs. Authorative advice is required to prevent standards that obstruct the achievement of beneficial intakes of ultratrace elements. (3) An emerging new paradigm is that the determination of nutritional requirements should include consideration of the total health effects of nutrients, not just their roles in preventing deficiency pathology; some of the ultratrace elements have identified health benefits. Six ultratrace elements, iodine, selenium, manganese, molybdenum, chromium and boron (and cobalt as vitamin B12), merit specific RDAs. The term "estimated safe and adequate daily dietary intakes (ESADDI)" should not be used for any of the other ultratrace elements because of the misleading words "adequate" and "safe". "Apparent beneficial intake (ABI)" seems more appropriate for the elements with beneficial, if not essential, actions that can be extrapolated from animals to humans; these elements include arsenic, fluoride, lithium, nickel, silicon and vanadium. The evidence is too limited or controversial for the remaining ultratrace elements to even provide an ambiguous ABI. The amount found in a healthful diet probably should be a value provided for an appropriate intake for aluminum, bromide, cadmium, germanium, lead, rubidium, and tin. PMID 8811801

SBHarris 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Note how old that Nielsen paper is -- today, the idea that fluorine is an essential trace mineral is not regarded as proven (WHO draft document). That WHO paper cites the Institute of Medicine 2003, but that book they're citing is only on the website for 1997. It also cites a couple other sources. But the WHO document says it should not be cited. Incidentally, I agree with you that this article should briefly discuss fluorine in biology. It looks about right at the moment. II | (t - c) 06:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Fluorine also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead revised Nov 28

I revised the 2nd paragraph to highlight the impact of fluorination on the properties of a breadth of compounds. Previously this paragraph focused on C-F containing species, so I extended the discussion to other elements as well as to the pharma area. Comments welcome, of course.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

good job in taking the focus off of c-f containing compounds. i tweaked it so take a look. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Pharmaceuticals

Instead of listing pharmaceuticals, the article should provide context, and mention, IMHO, three to five drugs at most. The organofluorine compounds page says "the carbon–fluorine bond increases the probability of having a successful drug by about a factor of ten.[4] An estimated one fifth of pharmaceuticals, and 30-40 percent of agrichemicals are organofluorines, including several of the top drugs.[4]" Also, IMHO, providing lists without context is a form of punishment to readers. This concept is established on the Talk:Trifluoromethyl page. I propose that this article should follow that lead and eliminate the bulk of drugs listed without context. Comments? Any favorites that people can not live without mentioning? -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the dental and medical uses section? I don' think it's excessive at all; largely it lifts classes of fluorinated chemicals. The SSRIs section could be trimmed by just noting the exception, but in general I think it is encyclopedic to note the major classes of medical/dental chemicals which are fluorinated. II | (t - c) 05:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that mentioning major specific drugs is good and might even be expanded. Most readers are not really interested in F₂, is my guess, but in F-containing things. In general, mentioning specific examples enliven generalities. But all of these sprawling articles are helped by periodic copy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. You both raise some good issues. However, fluorine's incorporation into drugs is more of a gamble, than a coherent example that provides a meaningful case study in pharmacology, as this source shows: "Fluorinated groups are isosteres of many common substituents, and fluorine can play various roles in affecting activity. "Every time you see a biologically active molecule that has fluorine in it, it could be in there for a different reason.""[6] So, IMHO, it is not encyclopedic to provide an overview in structural pharmacological classes (especially when I guess that people come to this page because fluorine is on the periodic table.) Just the mere mention that fluorine is pervasive in drugs implies inclusion in a broad range of pharmacological classes, and if the reader wants to learn more about those distinctions, IMHO, think they should look elsewhere. (And yes, the listing in the SSRIs section is what tipped me over the edge.) Comments concerns?

All drugs, natural or otherwise, are "gambles." And I suspect that, as you say, "fluorine can play various roles in affecting activity." (as if activity is one function). All substituents in all bioactive compounds are gambles - some make money, some dont, some make people healthy in the short run, some dont, some are lead to chronic problems, .... The aspect of the fluorine that has been awkward or at least time consuming within Wikipedia is the that fluorine (and especially fluoride - see NaF) particularly alarms segments of the population. One could imagine that people would collectively be worried about other elements (like arsenic), but fluorine is the champion whipping boy of the periodic table within Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lethal dose

Fluoride ions are toxic: the lethal dose of sodium fluoride for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.[17]

From Fluoride_poisoning

Potentially fatal dose = 5 mg of fluoride per kg of bodyweight.

5mg * 70 = 350mg so why 5-10 g? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.62.213 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the reference for that "potentially fatal dose" to see exactly what they mean. It looks like a number taken out of context by anti-fluoridation activists. It's not the same to say "it will probably kill you", which I think is true of the 5-10 g figure, than saying "it may have arguably killed someone once". "Real" numbers for lethal doses need to include a probability (something that is much better estimated for test animals such as rats than for humans for obvious reasons). --Itub (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Half life of fluorine in the body?

How does the body get rid of fluorine / fluoride? How does fluorine leave the body? How long does it take? Where does fluorine reside in the body? Does it get into the bone? Does fluorine inhibit growth? Just really curious :)Nunamiut (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many kinds of fluorine compounds. Fluoride, the anion that seems to drive people into fits of "conspiracitis," is highly soluble in water and is eliminated as are virtually all species, in urine. The key question is how fluoride and fluorine compounds are retained and what they do while in residence. Some of these biomedical themes are discussed very carefully in water fluoridation. A large number of pharmaceuticals contain fluorine (e.g. paxil, prozac, cipro) and you can check those articles. For the most part the associated C-F bonds are inert so it just comes along for the ride. Wikipedia would strongly welcome some general reference to the half-life of various fluorine compounds in the body. Just steer clear of the rabid antifluoridation literature which is guided by preordained conclusions. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fluorine is extremely toxic (might even set your tongue on fire)! --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Lock?

Is there an edit lock on this page? I know I'm editing anonymously, but I've never been locked out of editing unless there was a bit on top about a temporary lock... If there is a lock, maybe someone with admin-type privileges could post a bit at the top to that effect? If it's because this IP edited without signing in a few times, then nevermind. Ignore me. 199.99.251.85 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disregard that comment entirely. I didn't see the padlock. Why is there sometimes a large notice, and other times just the little padlock?

199.99.251.85 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugliness one presumes. It's of little interest (or relevance) to most readers that an article is persistently vandalised, so adding a large, ugly tag is unnecessary. Articles are sometimes locked because of genuine (or plausible) content issues, but reading this article's history, this isn't one of them. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

current Fluorine photo

File:Fluorine imitation.jpg

a fake photo

I will be searching Google for uncopyrighted images --Marioman798 15:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The current fluorine photo is a fake. Can we accept it? My opinion: NO. The real color of fluorine is more dirty very light yellow-green, not so yellow. I found a real image: at the www.chemie-master.de webside --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the exact hue in a photograph depends on the concentration of the substance, lightning conditions, the different sensitivities of the film or pixels in the camera, right? For an extreme example, read Holmium(III) oxide. Those two photographs are actually photographs of the exact same substance, but one appears yellow and the other appears pink. This is due to very sharp emission/absorption of specific frequencies, and its unexpected interaction with monochromatic trichromatic lighting used indoors.—Tetracube (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also, the image you linked to shows liquid fluorine (as proven by the ice bath it's in). What makes you think gaseous fluorine has an identical color to liquid fluorine? For example, liquid iodine is purple, whereas solid iodine is grey.—Tetracube (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The current image is of a gas, that explains its clean and light color. It is an admitted photomontage, which I guess would be a "fake" for Alchemist-hp anyway :). Thus I would support replacing the image with anything more reliable, but don't have an alternative image. Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An other image: Theodore Gray. I don't like fakes. For me: better: not an image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I try to take a fluorine gas/liq. image, somewhere in an university (in Germany) ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Having read the description of how to produce a single-crystal quartz container without Si-OH bonds, etc., all I can say is, I hope you don't lose your fingers in the process of making that photograph. Yikes. This gas is something to be reckoned with.—Tetracube (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Problem

Can images be copyrighted? ----21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

--> YES, sure. The most of the wikipedia images are also copyrighted (if no PD)! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Newer version

I've worked hard on fluorine, so I think it can't have its previous quality rank anymore; I believe, it's now worth more than C. But I mustn't decide on my own-- I'm opening a peer review in order to re-rank this Top-importance C (like Iron) and improve further; I hope to make it a FA at some point; everyone's welcome to check that against A-class (my current target) and B-class (my plan B) criteria; I'll be there to point your views and do the further work. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I did an peer review and it's excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, large, mature article should not be revised in one shot. Such actions are certainly well-intentioned but they go against the spirit of Wikipedia (collaboration) and such large-scale edits impede copy-editing. Again, my salute to the chemical knowledge of the editor who did this massive rewrite, but some editors probably would have had suggestion on individual sections.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, you may be right but I don't want to input my raw versions into main space, it took really long to turn what it was to what it is and my way was mistakeful. However, I got that well in the end :) So that's why such a thing. Or what is the alternative? Bring that into main space section-by-section or what? --R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Compounds

Normally, an article on an element has a big section on compounds. For some reason, in fluorine this theme has become a showcase for F-containing noble gas compounds. This situation probably reflects the fact that sttudents are pretty well versed on these species and they are easy to discuss (systematic and all that), but such exotic materials are probably far less important than boring things like NaF, CaF2, SF6, etc. So I recommend that we contract the noble gas bit (or move some of it) and discussion of commercially useful derivatives be expanded. We are here to serve the public, and they want to see how fluorine intersects with their lives, at least to some extent. Suggestions on how to deal with this issue, essentially WP:UNDUE.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Take another look at the main article for this organofluorine chemistry. It's got a LOT of stuff, and needs to, since almost any organic compound (certainly all that have C-H bonds) has a C-F analog. And all of these exist, since if you can make the organic, there are direct ways to polyflourinate it, at least. I have a whole catalogue of polyfluorinated organics from Aldrich, and know what it's like to buy one just to see what it looks like and how it reacts. Flourine is a real wild card in O-Chem.

Anyway, here's what happened in this article: the section on fluorinated organics got mostly spun off into Organofluorine chemistry, which included the compounds themselves, leaving very little behind (not enough). Meanwhile, the corresponding noble gas compound article didn't get enough of that chemistry, even though it's not nearly industrially important. I'll make it the main article for that section here (even though there are some non-fluorine compounds in it, most of them are F), kill the easter-egg piped link to it, and put in my own vote here to shrink this section to the size of the (present) organofluorine section, while expanding the organofluorine section to the size of the present nobel gas compound section. That's a matter of moving (or duplicating) summary material from organofluorine chemistry back to here, as per WP:SS. SBHarris 04:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to start splitting the compounds section into a separate, stand-alone article, which would include the Ng [noble gas] ones. Nergaal (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no objection. Right now, fluorine compounds is a redirect to fluorine. However, unlike some other elements which form only one sort of compound, I think it's sort of a waste of time to do all the flourine compounds in a single article, as we do with (say) Sodium compounds. The reason is that such an article would have a bunch of sections that don't have much to do with each other, and would need main subarticles which might as well be stand-alones reference from flourine (that's probably why it hasn't been done).

F compounds naturally divide themselves into a few subcategories which have totally different properties and the only thing they share is that they contain fluorine! So, why not simply have four or five articles for them, since these are going to exist anyway? I propose Flourine noble gas compounds, Organofluorine compounds (now subsumed in organofluorine chemistry), Ionic fluoride compounds, and perhaps Nonorganic covalent fluorine compounds or Flourinated acids to cover magic acid and the many covalent fluorine compounds which are not simple ionic fluorides (they are partly covalent), but don't contain carbon, either. SBHarris 22:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

There are some things about the lead section; electronegativity, formulae, history, halogen

• electronegativity: amount in Pauling is not needed in the lead since electronegativity itself is very relative; also, that may say nothing to someone and generally confuse them. Fluorine is relatively general topic, so we should keep the its lead understandable. Also, from older version:

meaning it can only form compounds in which it is negatively charged, such as the fluorides containing F⁻

No! Its electronegativity is not even the highest (the highest out of elements it is defined for, but not totally. Neon should certainly have more than 4, but it's not known exactly). And nothing perverts fluorine from having compounds with oxidized fluorine if anything will ever oxidize it (maybe a neon monopositive radical will take an electron from fluorine atom, forming a very short-living FNe⁺ if that is possible or anything) if something will ever oxidize it. Did you ever expect neon fluoride? It exists! Read the article. At least, back to a neutral version that doesn't disturb one's eye so.

• formulae: should not be used like synonyms to the substances they denote. Same reason. It is even spoken, well, tungsten hexafluoride rather than tungsten-ef-six, double-u-ef-six or however formulae are pronounced (I prefer names). Or, maybe, there's a guideline saying I'm wrong? I'd like to know.
• history; should go from earliest record to latest, significant only. The earliest record of it itself or its compounds is always significant.
• fluorine is a halogen. This doesn't mean F₂ is a halogen; it's a molecule. Halogen is element class, so its atoms or just fluorine as a word are a halogen, but not the difluorine. Halogens form diatomic molecules, not atoms form halogen; I hope you get it)
• ::Fluoride-containing inorganic compounds are abundant in nature but fluoride is probably not an essential element.

The article says about that exactly.

Also,

volatile, and this trend is exploited in process of uranium enrichment, which relies on volatility of uranium hexafluoride.

No need to mention the trend in the lead, only uranium example is enough. But I'll introduce that to some other place in the article.

I guess that's it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Flourine probably is essential, as rats grown without it end up with poor bones and bad-looking fur. However, it's an ultratrace mineral. As for lower forms of life, I don't think anything about its essentiality is known. I've addressed your comments about electronegativity in the lede by simply leaving this matter out, and not mentionining it. I haven't gotten to the history part yet. The volitility and slipperiness of perfluorocompounds mentioned in the lede all has origin in the low F-F interaction between perflouronated molecules. They simply don't stick to each other, so are free to slip, or vaporize. SBHarris 05:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluorite discovered in the 1500's?

"The fluorine-containing mineral fluorite has been known since 1530" This just seems like complete nonsense. Maybe white guys in Europe started using it as a flux in the 1500's, and they might have named the mineral etc, but one can be reasonably sure that these distinctive purple and yellow crystalline rocks, of which the earth is endowed with megatons, were kicked around by aboriginal folks for thousands of years. I dont understand what the point of pushing this eurocentric fantasy.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right! Do you have a source that anybody used the material for something? But I think kicked around by aboriginal folks is not enough for discovery. Used for something or the knowledge that this material is something special would be necessary.--Stone (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Vasa Murrinaand Vasa Murrina and the Lexica give the use by romans, but not with 100% confidence.--Stone (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes my kicking allusion is not a good ref! Presently I am trying to figure out which European discovered granite - is it a Dutch rock or a German rock? I need to start at the basics and am looking forward to R8R Gtrs explaining the discovery (not their naming) of the minerals. It's like Columbus discovered America, much to the surprise of the thousands of local Indians. More seriously, I think that the reference was to the first documented use of fluorite. The article needs more work but progress is being made.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Where HF comes from...

I tried to correct this mistake before but was reverted by the editor who hijacked this article. I also once thuoght that HF from fluoroapatite is the main source of HF, but it not. To quote from Ullmann's encyclopedia (emphasis added): "The industrial processes for the manufacture of anhydrous hydrofluoric acid are all based on the action of sulfuric acid on fluorite. However, phosphate rock, which contains fluorapatite, CaF2·3 Ca3(PO4)2, constitutes the most important natural reserves of fluorine..." --Smokefoot (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no! I just now read this note, and I had just got through making the opposite change to harmonize all the articles on fluorite, the article on hydrogen fluoride, and so on. (I am not said "hijacking author"). If these articles are now all wrong and the major would source of HF is NOT a byproduct of phosphoric acid manufacture, they all have to be changed back. Let us get to the bottom of this issue, and fix it once and for all. Ullman's is an encyclopedia, and on this issue cannot be trusted as an ultimate authority. Let us find an authoritative source for world HF manufacture. SBHarris 19:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources: Books trump patents

Those of us that work with patents know that these documents can be laughably unreliable sources of information and difficult to parse. They are vetted not on scholarly basis but on a technical innovation basis. Except when they are of historic interest, patents also are inferior sources for readers of Wikipedia. One often must pay for to get them, and they are often written at a level that is not easily readable. Instead for reliable sources, let's stick with textbooks and technical monographs, and related series. This approach has served the English part of Wikipedia-Chemistry well. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Patents are not vetted or edited or peer-reviewed. The patent office only looks to see if they conflict with other patents. I can pay for a patent on a warp drive engine design, and so long as it doesn't conflict with somebody else's warp drive design, it will issue. Patent lawyers and the patent office are fearless about taking money for such things: if it doesn't prove to work, that's the inventor's problem. That said, were their any patent references in this article?? SBHarris 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done with a draft

I've now been over the article since it was rewritten by another editor, and it now more or less satisfies me as a rough cut. I've cut down the noble gas section, but all that info is in the Noble gas compound main article (I think-- if any got cut here that isn't there, please rescue it to THERE). The organofluorine compounds section, which now serves to describe (in summary only!) C-F compound classes not elsewhere discussed in the article, should probably profitably have a few sections added from the main article on organofluorine chemistry, since this is a huge and complex subject, and the reason most chemists who use fluorine earn a living. Major organofluorine compound classes are noted elsewhere in the article, as they crop up in noble gas chem, biology, industry, biomedicine, pollution, etc., and there's no need to mention these again. However, there are many C-F compounds that aren't mentioned elsewhere in the fluorine, that still need some mention or passing summary in this residual section. For example, very little is said about halons, freons, fluorocarbons and perfluorochemicals, even in summary. So see what you think. SBHarris 00:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The readership is endebted to you (but dont expect any checks in the mail). It is helpful that you indicated where possible gaps exist, such as possible expansion of the section on CFCs. And thank you for trying to control the ultra-minor chemical physics experiments on He and Ne. That kind of niche stuff gets inserted far too often and much to the detriment of readers who think they are reading mainstream information vs a semi-random factoid inserted by a science boy-scout.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxidation State of Fluorine

What will be the real oxidation state of fluorine when it is bonded with extremely electronegative oxygen and nitrogen ligands like -OTeF₅, - OCF₃, -OClO₃, -N(SO₂CF₃)₂ etc.? Anoop.m (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "real" oxidation state, actually, as it's calculated as though all atoms had ionic bonds, and often they do not. Read the article on oxidation state carefully. By definition, fluorine has an oxidation state (a formally assigned number, not a physical property) in any compound where it appears (save F₂) of -1. This might seem to make the statement that no element can oxidize fluorine a tautology (how would we discover it, if one could?), but we don't get that from calculation of oxidation states! Rather, to get oxidation states, we assign oxidation state number to certain atoms that always or usually get certain numbers, on the basis of bond polarity and electronegativity. Then we just assume that these most electronegative elements always gets BOTH electrons in any bond. Of course, that's not really true, but again, remember, oxidation state is a formal exercise-- a bookkeeping fiction-- not something one can measure with some device that outputs whole numbers (as actually happens with ionic charge, atomic number, and some other properties). SBHarris 19:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

He+ (or He2+) and Ne+ will oxidize F2. Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So will ordinary H+ (the naked proton), for that matter. And yes, He2+. In fact, any naked nucleus of any higher element. But we don't count positive ions in electronegativity cascades, since positive nuclei can be infinitely reactive and "oxidative" with respect to neutral atoms, depending on how many electrons are removed. SBHarris 03:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reacts with Argon

ArF lasers have been in use for more than a decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raumfahrtingenieur (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Argon fluoride laser might be worth mentioning, with the clear statement that ArF does only exist for a very short time before it goes back to its stable ground state.--Stone (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To do before FAC

Things still missing:

• F-19 NMR: frequency, receptivity relative to proton, degree of use (I think even medical MRI uses it sometimes)

Added more on that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• considering the dangers and difficulties in obtaining an image, I suggest using a NF rationale and upload the liquid F image at: http://www.chemie-master.de/FrameHandler.php?loc=http://www.chemie-master.de/pse/pse.php?modul=F

yeah, but it's liquid, and fluorine under standard conditions is a gas, so that poor-quality gaseous photo shouldn't be replaced with poor quality liquid photo. Right?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• the oxidation states table is unnecessary

removed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• point out that F is used to get the maximum oxidation number of many elements: HgF4, PtF6, AuF5, [CuF6]2-, UF6, SF6, and many others doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2008.07.014

Something now appears in Chemical.

• "In natural biology" is this uses of Biological roles?

I guess so.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Organofluorine compounds should discuss CFCs and teflon a bit

FACs can be rough, for which I suggest GANning first. Nergaal (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The external link section consists mostly out of links to pages which are lower in quality than the article and add no real important info to the article.

removed all (not all myself), except for Periodic Table of Videos video.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fluorite is linked twice in the lead , so there might be some over linking in the article.

I've largely contacted number of wikilinks to the mineral in the whole article, in lead one one remains.

• The fluorine concentration in ocean water might be a nice addition

--Stone (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• In general the writing needs to be copyedited for concision. The lede was awfully over-written and I have taken a preliminary hack at it. I will continue over the weekend. --John (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice Article. For me, it's about ready for being a featured article! ~~Awsome EBE123 ^talk_Contribs 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment: "Even through neon atom, isoelectronic with fluoride ion, has a smaller radius than fluorine atom, fluoride ion has a larger electron cloud radius compared to radius of a fluorine atom" looks really confusing. I have no idea on how to reword this. Other than that, everything else is fine. Can somebody do this? FREYWA 04:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

William T. Miller a prominent flourine chemist worked in two important areas, as noted in his Wikipedia biography, "Miller carried out research into chemically resistant materials from which he developed the chlorofluorocarbon polymer used in K-25, the first gaseous diffusion plant constructed for the separation of uranium isotopes. The K-25 plant was a crucial factor in the development of "Little Boy" and other early nuclear weapons. Miller was also the first to synthesize methoxyflurane, a volatile inhalational anesthetic." I think that the role of flourine in helping to win World War II is worthy of mention. The flourine article should also note that organofluorine compounds are used as volatile anesthetic agents. Methoxyflurane was discontinued in most nations as an anesthetic because of its toxic effect on kidney function, and that could be added to the "Toxicology" section. Racepacket (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through and I don't believe that its anywhere near "about ready for being a featured article", but having said that this is not a FAC review.

On the basis of a quick read through, it looks to be a "good" WP:GAN candidate; its certainly appears well referenced and to be comprehensive, but the grammar is poor in some sentences and I'm "tempted" by Racepacket's argument that the WWII first gaseous diffusion plant constructed for the separation of uranium isotopes is worthy of mention - but for fluorine not flourine.

Note: I struck out the above, since I found it is already in the article, in the Etymology and history section. Pyrotec (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have the article go the extra step and add that the these techniques were then used to isolate the radioactive isotope of Uranium in sufficient quantities to make the "Little Boy" bomb that played a key roll in ending World War II. There was a lot of scientific and technical work done in the Manhattan Project which was not on the critical path to success, but the fluorine work was. Racepacket (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a detailed review, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point I'm just going to concentrate on "problems", so if I don't have much to say about a particular section/subsection, that probably means its OK. It helps me if any comment/objections/questions about a particular "action" are placed beneath the "action" rather than lumped together at the end. I anticipate that this detailed review could take another day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Characteristics -
  • Physical -

• As a whole this subsection is poorly referenced, i.e. it is not WP:Verifiable.

I'm working on it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) All problems shown are resolved plus all paras have at least one ref. I guess, it's also done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• The first paragraph is unreferenced apart from the last sentence, a statement, and that comes from Britannica. None of the data is verifiable.

The fact cited by Britannica, is a common one in chemistry, so Britannica finally out. Figure in it has a ref now.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - The statement, i.e. "A fluorine atom has nine electrons, which falls just before the extremely stable ten-electron configuration of neon, so a fluorine atom is much more likely to receive the "missing" electron than to lose one; its first ionization energy is 1681 kJ·mol−1, which makes a fluorine atom extremely difficult to oxidize into a monopositive cation, F+.[6]", now seems to be referenced by ref 6 (Dean, John A. (1999). LANGE'S HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY (Fifteenth edition). Britannica.com.) That is a book (see Amazon listing). So I'm not sure were "Britannica.com comes" from. Since it is a book, it has a publisher and and isbn, which should be given in the citation; together with the page number(s). Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a mistake... Fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - The sentence: "Such oxidation of fluorine by extraction of an electron requires such energy that no oxidant is known that can oxidize fluorine to any positive oxidation state." is poorly constructed, using "such" twice.

Fixed. Now OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've copy edited it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - The second and the third paragraphs are unreferenced: I'm certainly not accepting a wikilink (used four times) to another wikipedia article as a WP:Verifiable reference. So none of the ionization energies are verifiable. Perhaps it was not intended to be a citation, more of a foot note (see below)

You're right, it's footnote now. Figures again come up with a wikilink.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - Comments have been made, above, about "Even through neon atom, isoelectronic with fluoride ion, has a smaller radius than fluorine atom, fluoride ion has a larger electron cloud radius compared to radius of a fluorine atom" - another example of poor grammar.

I've tried to reword, please, check that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've copy edited it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - Information given in the fourth paragraph is not verifiable using reference 7.

It cites one out of three facts, other two lead from the first one using common laws.

• Well the reference cites the mass, but the paragraph states five facts: the temperature of liquefaction and freezing, plus density (relative and actual), and the molecular mass. Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It actually has boiling and melting points, molecular mass (ref), and density (in g/L and compared to air). The density is lead from molecular mass, since it's a gas. So, I'll provide refs for BP and MP only, tomorrow, the density's obvious using the law. I'm sure none verifiable writes about that and it's clear enough.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, since this is a chemistry article it's WP:Verifiable and Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, all five figures have refs now. Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Chemical -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 13 (Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan) is a book, so the relevant page number, or numbers, should be given in the citation, but they are not.

Hydrogen fluoride production is placed on page 844--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) -The sentence "Metal higher fluorides are known for their volatility; this unique property of fluoride is caused by its small radius." is unclear. "Reference 16" is not a reference it is a footnote masquerading as a reference. It should be converted to a footnote (also see above) and a citation provided.

Slightly reworded, so maybe now OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, It's better, thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - The sentence "No attempt has been made to oxidize astatine, francium, four latter actinides, and the transactinides with fluorine, due to the radioactive instability of these elements, though such oxidations are thought to be possible in theory" is in two parts: the first states "that no attempt has been made to ....", I willing to accept that without a citation; but the second part "though such oxidations are thought to be possible in theory" needs a citation.

Is this citation OK?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Etymology and history -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 38 is a bound volume of papers (out of copyright) that has been published on the web. The article cited is a paper and it has an author, but that is missing from the citation.

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - From a European perspective, I regard the statement "Bromofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons are being phased out in favor of hydrofluorocarbons, due to environmental protection reasons.[42]" as somewhat out of date. Many of these substances have already gone as a result of Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol. Some contries have not yet signed up and some have exemptions (mosly third-world countries). Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT. I don't think any of them can be said to be entirely gone, or ever will be, since as fire-extinguishing gases for closed spaces where people have to breathe them and can't get out (aircraft, primarily), they are irreplaceable. The bromine in them damages the ozone layer for the same reason it puts out fires. Kyoto actually doesn't call for a total ban on brominated Halons (bromofluorocarbons = BFCs), but industry has apparently quit making them. Leading to the absolutely stupid idea that aircraft safety people should "save" what they have. [7] It will run out, of course, and then somebody will need to make it again at great expense, and some people will die from lack of it. The rabid environmentalists, who really do love Earth but hate people, would rather people die in aircraft disasters than release another kg of BFC into the atmosphere, despite the fact that niche use really would not be a siginificant part of the problem. (All of this sort of reminds me of nuclear testing. It not being done for political reasons, but the gap is pretend-- lying to ourselves-- since everybody knows we'll have to restart eventually, after we can no longer trust our aging warheads. It's a quality control issue. The only alternative would be to make "extras" to make up for a certain fraction of "duds.") SBHarris 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed that, so maybe now better?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Production -

• Ref 45 (Jaccaud, M.; Faron, R.; Devilliers, D. and Romano, R) is a book, or section of a book, so page numbers and an ISBN should be given in the citation.

I can't find a digital copy to find pages (which does seem to be impossible without spending over 9000 USD unlike most books), but ISBN given.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry is not very uncommon, I will try to get somebody look for the page number or look myself.--Stone (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I finally found a copy. Done. Note that in the book page numbers begin with 1 each section again and again--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Compounds -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) -Ref 53 should be made into a footnote, its not a reference.

Done. Note that you mentioned refs 65 and 70, which are now 64 and 69, due to removal ref 53 from reflist (to notelist).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 65 is cited as a web link (title and publisher), but its actual a scientific paper with authors, a journal title, etc. It should be properly cited.

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Applications -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 70 appears to be a book, the page numbers should be cited.

Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Isotopes -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - This part-sentence needs a copyedit: "Fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance is not the basic one out of all similar effects in science and medicine, but .....". I think it is trying to say something like: "Fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance is not one of the" commmon/frequently-used/etc "magnetic resonance spectrometers/analysers/imagers found in science and medicine, but use of this isotope is quite common." (but you don't have to use my words).#

Reworded. I believe this to be OK--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Elementary state -

• ref 73 is another "Ullmann" ref that needs a page number(s).

Split into two (73 and 97) and both done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Environmental and health issues -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC) - The status of the C8 Science Panel needs to be clarified in "It is neither lipophilic, unlike chlorinated hydrocarbons, nor directly genotoxic by the C8 Science Panel, but it binds to serum albumin and is excreted primarily from the kidney." It seems to be a committee set up in one specific State of the USA.

Reworded a bit. C8 Science Panel don't seem notable enough, so removed author, leaving, however, the fact--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• Looks OK.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. There are a few (just a few) minor issues to resolve; I'll then award GA. Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

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:

   Well illustrated.

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

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This article has been improved considerably during the course of this review and I'm now happy to be able to award it GA-status. Congratulations on producing a good "chemistry" article.

The article may have potential to become a WP:FAC, but I would strongly recommend that it is is submitted to WP:PR (again) before any submission to WP:FAC, as it could be "failed" if submitted prematurely. A WP:GAN review is not a WP:FAC review.

Took a crack at the lead

Think we were pretty decent, but wanted to go a little further in putting A with A and B with B, within the paras.

Cut the organic molecule discussion to two sentences, but called out commercial application a little more. Cut the comment on covalent compounds (I think other than HF, interesting compounds are all organic). Added a sentence on HF (think we need it).

Fluorospar is a melting aid for metal ores (ceramics essentially). It's a flux, like what high Tc people use to help grow crystals. Pretty different from soldering fluxes (which is what the wiki mettalurgy flux article actually covers).

No, it's what it MOSTLY covered. But that should (and now partly has been) fixed. Fluxes are indeed important in smelting. They don't entirely work there the same as in metal joinging, but then the word is generally descriptive rather than mechanistic. The idea is something that gets rid of certain inhomogeneities that are in the way physically. SBHarris 20:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Cut one sentence in last medical para, which seemed pretty low impact and basically implied by the sentence before. (Fine for body though. Just not high gain here.) Would like to get the references moved out of that one para and down into the body as well...

If I messed up some grammar or something, mea culpa. Just trying to improve the logic.

Or if you hate it, we can change or switch back. just seemed easier for me to just take a wack at it.

TCO (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Indium?

Just noting that reviewing this article is getting me interested in doing an FA on In. TCO (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? It is one of many interesting elements, but what makes it so special. I did my first FA on an element which is even more obscure, niobium.--Stone (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nb is a good one. Got the alloy superconductrs from it...TCO (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But you are right could be fun and a lot of people would help.--Stone (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've worked with ITO. The element has some interesting commercial aspects (supply and demand) related to the boom in FPDs along with the inherent limits of production (also a very few suppliers). The chemistry of transition group metals is more "sexy" than main group ones, but that actually makes it a little bit of a neglected interesting area. There's no real connection to Fl. It's just that working with any element gets me interested in doing something with that one. I think it is a nice blend of obscurity (not like carbon in complexity to be daunting), along with having some actual usefulness (not like some obscure Hahnium or whatever they call that element now).TCO (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Right! I get always drawn into the history of the element. The spectroskopy of Kirchhof and Bunsen made a bigg difference.--Stone (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Fluxes in metallurgy

The flux (metallurgy) article was MOSTLY about fluxes as used in metal-joining, but that's just due to imbalance in this article, not a wrong meaning. The article does mention the many perfectly legitimate uses of fluxes as flowing agents (and also purifying agents and additives) in smelting-- it just didn't do that in the LEDE (now fixed). It just needed/needss some work to mention these up front (done), and expand the extractive section below (not yet done). After all, smelting is where the world flux entered metallurgy, and it hasn't ever left that use just because the hobbyist knows it better from solders, etc.

I think, BTW, that fluoride ions really do decrease the melting point in slags in much the same way they decrease viscosity in most fluorinated materials (by disrupting certain ionic interactions) but I haven't been able to find a good reference for this. However, fluorine's use in industry is probably more "all of one piece" than is realized by many chemists, and this "disruption of stickiness" property gives the element its name also-- very fittingly! SBHarris 20:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Linked short citations

User:TCO asked me to help link up the short citations in this article. I did one (Dean (1999)), but several of the others are a bit more difficult, and I have a few questions.

First, Aigueperse et al. (2005) in Ullmann's encyclopedia. Is "Flourine" the title of the article? If so, then {{cite book}} should have |contribution=Flourine. I don't think we need "Flourine" in the short footnote. Also, I notice there's another reference (in footnote #123) to an article by Aigueperse et al. titled "Flourine compounds: Organic". Is this a different article? Or part of the same article? I don't have access to this reference. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure (R8r?), but would argue to cut the long list of "authors" and just refer to Ullman's (they really are NOT co-authors of the overall text in the normal meaning of the term, but of sections within). I knew we would have this problem. TCO (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a workaround for multiple authors. See Template:Sfn#Large numbers of authors. I used this on Aigueperse et al. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

P.s. And guys...Gillingham is basically THE expert on doing this referencing stuff...so I brought you the best. He is the Bela Karolyi of whipping these articles into gold medal winning shape. TCO (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks.

One other one. Footnote #93 has the title "Flourine Compounds: Inorganic". Same question, is this a different article or part of the "Flourine" article? Do both articles have exactly the same authors? Are they in the same volume with the same ISBN? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

About contribution parameter, it was used previously, before I brought it to bibliography. "Fluorine Compounds, Inorganic", "Fluorine Compounds, Organic" and "Fluorine" are all different chapters of the same book. The point why the names of the chapters are used, because every chapter has a different page numbering (I mean, all chapters have their own p. 1, so on, the book itself is about 15000(?) pages to my memory), so please take them back.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. I'll restore the title in the short citations to the chapter "Flourine" and fix the one that got left out. I take it that all three chapters have exactly the same set of authors? (If not then we really should split it into three citations.)

I have to admit, the citation looks a little odd to me with an editor but no title for the contribution. But perhaps it's appropriate in this case. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

spaces in edit view

The displayed text is the same whether you have spaces after headings or not (in article). So the only difference is in edit view. The benefit to having the spaces are

(1) this is how you would do it if typing a manuscript (headers get spaces after them, they live at a level "above" the paragraphs and are not attached to the first para.

(2) Edit view is already very hard to write in because of all the coding and such. The more we can break that up the better.

Images are basically the same as headers (no difference in how the page displays, just edit view is easier with not jamming every thing together.

P.s. I really don't care, just explaining.TCO (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO Thoughts on overall needs

Really feel warmly to this article, to the topic, and to the R8 for all the work done. Right now, I don't think this thing is star-worthy. Just doesn't read as smooth as professional content (for intance books I've been looking at lately). I DO think there is a LOT of good content, so major issues are more presentation.

Major concerns

1. Structure. This is "hard" but crucial and I don't think it has been sweated. We have a lot of duplication of content from section to section or comments on things that don't belong in their section. This is both at the macro and micro level. A few examples: long list of high oxidation state metal flourides would go better down in compounds (have a short section on reactivity, cover the breaking the nitrogen bond and all, up top). We talk about environmental aspects of Freon under compounds. I know it is tempting, but we really just need to clean a lot of that up by making choices.

2. Still some flabby prose. Although some quite muscular too. It really varies!

3. Citation formatting (still, I guess).

Minor concerns

There are a few places where I want to add some content (e.g. DWR). Use in TCOs like SnO2 (gotta give me my username...and there is actually very large scale use...it is in every flourescent light bulb in the thin layer on the inside.) Not much, as we really DO hit the important aspects of F, nicely. But I'm feeling the urge to include a little more.  :)

Also some places where I want to tweak an explanation. For instance, the stellar synthesis could better reflect the insights from Sky and Telescope, to tell us that the situation is uncertain and to explain a bit more what all those linked terms really mean and all. (I read the reference so I understand it now, but we could write a para that helped readers understand it better.) Also, the mineral discussion should have a little of a "story" to it to explain what is different about each mineral in terms of occurrence, F content, etc. In each case, we basically HAVE the right stuff. It's just not a clean tight conveyance of organized info (just a little too much feeling like stray facts.) I don't think it would take more space, but would take rewrite work to tell the story a little clearer.

TCO (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Color

I did a quick search on this issue of color and "how can you tell". Am going to try to get a couple science papers: [8]

BTW, not sure where yellow-green is coming from. My inorganic texts all say pale yellow.

TCO (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some more reading on F. A lot of F researchers do handle it in glass (I assume inside a hood as well, since they also discuss looking at it in releases and no color observed then). Moissan reported the color initially after using a tube of platinum that had end plates of machined fluorite for observation. What a bad ass! Burdon et al basically repeated the experiment in 1987 (but using very carefully purified F, that was verified clean of any trace HF, OF2, Cl2, etc.) and in pyrex glass. Basically it is noticeable as an extremely pale yellow, not yellow-green, and much paler than chlorine. There have also been UV-VIS absorption measurements done on it, that showed weak absorption at 2800 angstroms, pretty much consistent with the observations. The 1987 paper has photos showing comparison of looking through air and through F (at a white background), and it shows up as yellow. I might write to Burdon (he is still at Birmingham Uni) and ask for a photo donation to the 'pedia. If you want...TCO (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See for yourself: http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/009.htm. --Ben (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That video is awesome. Pretty much fits with everything I've been reading. You have to have a long tube and then look down the end of the tube to really see the color (don't see it, looking across). A little disturbing how they are just releasing that stuff into the room, not even using a hood. I hope they stood back...TCO (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We can tell from the video that liquid fluorine is yellow; but that's not much good because liquid oxygen is blue and O gas is colourless. That said, my two inorganic chem. textbooks differ: "pale yellow" (Hill & Holman, 1978); "a pale greenish-yellow gas ... the liquid is clear yellow ... Dewar (1903) obtained pale-yellow solid fluorine" (Partington, 1920) --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The 1987 paper is oretty good: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/349981/fluorine_yellow.pdf TCO (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sent an email request to Professor Burdon for his image. TCO (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And to Gray for his image. TCO (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gray wrote back and said that he is not sure if that tube is really F. Will release a medium resolution, watermarked image (medium resolution is fine, but our license means changes allowed, so we could just strip the watermark). He also wanted to know if there was any other pics we wanted. TCO (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And to chemie-master.de for their image. TCO (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Got permission for this one. Will get it into Commons and OTRSed. May need an FS cleanup.

File:Fluorine gas.jpg

Fluorine gas, but only as photomontage, because fluorine reacts even with glass.

I've found this image that could be used as its freely licensed. I know there is some debate about the colour but this could be used in the meantine, that is until we get one possibly from Gray, in place of the non-free one currently in the infobox of the article. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Image is way too yellow. Gives a false conception of appearance. You have to look at a long tube, head-on to see anything. If you look across normal glassware, it will be too faint and just look like air. Can see this in the youtube video in our article.TCO (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to note — this image has already been deleted once because it's photomontage only (a stated one even at that point). I'll be myself OK with it if it's stated to be photomontaged--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I hate it.  :( It's totally not what you would see. Want to try to get one of the image donations. If we fail, then move the liquid one up to the place of honor (add cryogenic blabla in caption) and then we can put the solid structure of F2 where the liquid was. TCO (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

metal halides

Don't understand a couple sentences on metal halides (asking for discussion). I will go read up on them as well, but just want to understand if someone was pushing for the current wording:

1."Fluorides of the transition metals often resemble oxides in that they are generally polymeric and refractory."

I agree with refractory, but polymeric seems like a misnomer. There are a few transition metals (W, Mo) that I think of as having SOME polymeric oxides. But in general, I think oxides are usually thought of in therms of close packed oxygens and then metal ions in the interstices. Yes, they are not completely little balls of charge. But they're not like organic chain polymers either. Or even zeolites or silicates. Refractory is pretty accurate although perhaps we should use a simpler term or give a quick explanation or at least a wikilink.

2. "Metal tetra- and lower fluorides are highly ionic, with the exception of calcium fluoride, which is hard and insoluble because of its large lattice energy."

My impression was that it was still pretty ionic (we are talking flouride, and an alkaline earth...not even any d electrons for bonding), just that it has a basically perfect crystal structure for the size of the ions, so it doesn't dissolve in water. I would imagine the band gap is pretty huge, which usually indicates more of an ionic bonding.

TCO (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

let's sex this thing up with pictures

Looking at "Oxygen" it has many pictures and they are very appealing visually. I think we should drive for both more pictures (more aspects of the subject covered) as well as prettier ones.

There is space to hold more and the article will be gaining content anyway. Even if we get more than can hold there, that's fine, we can illustrated daughter articles, and/or just be more selective about prettiest ones. There are also tricks to do with centering, galleries, etc. to allow showing more image content and not breaking sections. In general, I like one pic per subsection of text as done in "Painted turtle". Oxygen has even more than that.

Think it will help blow reviewer socks off and also be much appreciated by outside readers of the article.

Free-associating (feel free to add):

• better liquid pic (either more cropped or a new photo from scratch)
• Moissan's color picture (I can already see a daughter article on F2 gases color forming in my head).
• The Burdon photos (if we can get them) of gaseous F2.
• beta-F structure (probably for solid daughter)
• photo of solid F
• phase transformation V-T for solid state (for daughter)
• dramatic picture of a burning reaction
• bond energy table
• some sound related to F, somehow, maybe the click of the phase transformation? Or some other aspect...but a sound. Let's figure out some (good) reason for one.
• I can't think of a good picture for "isotopes" (not the PET one already in applications)
• blow up of nucleusynthesis atom distribution pic, showing F discrepancy
• At least one more history image, I am thinking Manhattan plant separation plant image
• electrolytic cell diagram (per Greenwood, but copyright compliant)
• picture of a tank, seems dorky, but listing things...
• more compound pictures, vary the type of display, perhaps photo of substance
• flow diagram of usage and discussion of economics (ACTUALLY WHOLE ARTICLE IS MISSING THIS CONTENT)
• picture of a halon usage in FF?
• picture of water bead on DWR surface
• teeth or skeleton with fluorosis
• poison
• drug structure
• plant that has F poison?
• (wonder if we should cut the whole section on chronology)
• Ozone hole picture
• GHG time graph? for CFCs?
• PFOA structure
• burns
• skeletal fluorosis
• DOT symbol
• Calcium gluconate gel picture

TCO (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

My first reaction is that photos must be VERY visually sexy to warrant putting them in just to get one per section as art. For the rest, you only use photos where a picture illustrates something very hard to describe. Don't put in duplicate photos from other more specific articles unless they are very pretty. Completely out, are generic pictures of teeth or a tank or any noun you happen to be talking about. Show people what they've never seen and aren't likely to see, like an HF burn or a tube of F2 or a beaker of PFC with water above it, and a fish (I'll get you one).SBHarris 05:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I know not to do junk stuff or just examples of a tangential concept. But if you look at Painted turtle you will see a lot of appealing illustration. That did not come from Commons pulls btw. We need to dig down and go after it. Not by spattering junk...but by working on each one to find a suitable image. I mean...we had that frying pan before! that was not making most effort. I got an FP for the map (with Fallshchirmjager) in Painted turtle. Takes work...but professional work needs professional illos. We can clearly progress a long way. Look at Oxygen...it looks appealing.TCO (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thing is that attractive pictures can draw the non-technical readers into the content. For instance a graphic on the "hole in the ozone" layer is both illustrative and enticing to put into what is no a purely textual Environmental section. Same with having a picture of an HF burn (I mean it is intrinsically, gut-grabbing in interest, and also something that one could not know from just reading text.) Cf. Oxygen.TCO (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Think we need more particulars in article

Like under Environmental, we never mention the Montreal protocol for CFCs. And we refer to an "incident" in Alaska, rather than saying how many people got hurt. Note, this is not about padding out the article. Or dwelling on minutia. The extra text would be very small. But it is about giving the readers more real content. More meat, less vagueness. For instance, what is the economic size of the F industry? We have an entire page and give no indication of that (the estimates are in GnE or in the 2008 uses of F article).TCO (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD --vuo (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude...I am working my fucking ass off. Check recent history. This is to share a thought on what is being done and use the talk page for strategizing. TCO (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

tell me which ozone map picture you like better

Image of the largest Antarctic ozone hole ever recorded (September 2006).

NASA projections of stratospheric ozone concentrations if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned.

TCO (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

solid F

I got this reference [9] on solid F. It's 1969 so a little old and dwells on structure more than temp of the transition. But I can write something up. If someone has more recent paper or access to some databases offline that's great too...

TCO (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Got some other refs on it, and it seems that all the basic science is from 60-70 (nothing recent we are missing). I will add a sentence or two to our article. Thinking about writing a little stub for the heck of it. (Also helps in case you all edit my content down! ). Interestingl though, the papers from then still show a fair amount of uncertainty on the crystal strucure of the monoclinic, so I bet there is an opportunity for some F chemist to still do something pretty useful for science and use modern techniques (more powerful X rays, better puter programs) to nail the structure.TCO (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested, check my sandbox for a draft article and contribute. Let's get a DYK. User:TCO/Sandbox/Fluorine (solid) Little disorganized for now.TCO (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought: the article should be called solid fluorine when released. Like solid oxygen, liquid helium, and so on--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do.TCO (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture nom for ozone Gif

I urged FS to put in for a featured picture for his ozone gif creation (in our article, showing effect of CFC on environment). Please go and give a thumbs up or down! Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Future ozone layer concentrations TCO (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How did this article fail FAC?

There seemed to be overwhelming consensus. 82.8.55.199 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah-- this is hidden under "articles milestones" above. [10]. I have no idea why it wasn't. You might ask user:Karanacs, who didn't give a reason. SBHarris 16:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A few points I could fix in August

Just lemme know if this is needed, and it'll be fixed in August.

• Fluorine used to have Fl symbol. At least, I saw it in a 1850s book. Many elements had something similar...worth adding?

• Occurrence section also talks about origin. Change the title?

• "All covalent bonds are essentially single bonds (no evidence of higher bonding)." boron monofluoride claims it's isoelectronic with N2. This means a triple bond, right?

• Metal fluorides and Nonmetal fluorides sections selectively wikilink compounds it mentions. All or nothing, but what?

• Os(VIII) is known as OsO4, but not as OsF8. The article claims F is a stronger oxidizer than O, maybe explaining needed?

• Should we discuss the name in other languages? Fluorine comes not directly from fluere or whatever, but from fluor in other languages. Also, even through fluor and variations dominate in most languages, it's фтор (translit:ftor) in Russian (and, subsequently, in Ukrainian, Tatar, Tajik and many others, where the USSR used to lie) and φθόριο (fthório) in Greek (as I know, Russian name is modified Greek one, and not vice versa)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all. High value points, chessplayer. TCO (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could some go through the article and add {{cn}} tags where needed? I'm aware of some places that need refs, and will fix them in August, but maybe there are more that need it? Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 DoneTCO (reviews needed) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, boss. Will do this and try do some other stuff too. If I don't, it's from tiredness, not laziness. Been a little sick lately. Intricate mental tasks are harder than typing comments and such (footnotes are the worst). TCO (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

fluoridation

conversely we probably ought to pimp dental fluorine to more of a subsection and pimp a little more the FA (just saw) on water fluoridation. I was keeping my head low, to keep the crazies away, but I think we gotta bite the bullet and cover this a little more overtly.TCO (reviews needed) 00:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

changing out the7 coordinate image

I know R8r loves this, but it is an awkward one for fitting into the text layout because of size of image and then long caption. Also, a bit confusing as it represents a case of a structure that both nonmetal and metal fluorides adopt...plus making reader look at a really long caption to evaluate the image. Going to go with BF3, which is a very important industrial compound and has a simple structure and story. Will put all the great text from the caption into our prose. Also have been adding other images and it just sorta works out that way. Anyway...my rationale.TCO (reviews needed) 01:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

fluorine dating

that is a very stubby article, when you go to it and one ref (19 pages in a book). Seems less notable or used than isotope dating. I think we should slim that to a sentence or so and get rid of the ugly tiny section. (I think we cover it too much.)TCO (reviews needed) 00:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It was originally added by someone while I was already working on it. I wanted to screw it first but thought, "need to leave it, it's notable." Wanted to merge with (or into) something then, but found nothing good for that. I also think it shouldn't have a section, but I don't know where to put it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I need to take a vacation, fren'. This is a great article. Keep up the good work. Sorry, I won't have time to draw a nice graphic of supply chain of F from minerals to applications (ala Italian ref 2008) or fix your English mistakes or make the structure more strong. Keep up the good work and hope all is well for you IRL with work, family, etc.TCO (reviews needed) 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

cutting the F18 in stars

I pulled the ref and it read the same as the abstract. there have been synchrotron studies done that show F18 "should" be detecable in the future. Not supporting statement that is has been observed. For that matter, given the prediciton has to do with nova production, think that is probably low relevance (not like there is continuious production) since the isotope has a 2 hour half life.TCO (reviews needed) 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oxidation State

What is the oxidation state of fluorine in HOF , O₂F₂ & OF₂. The reaction shown in the aricle [[OF₂]] says

Oxygen difluoride oxidizes sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide:

OF₂ + SO₂ → SO₃ + F₂

Is there any special orbital effects that increases electronegativity of oxygen beyond that of fluorine? It is interesting to note that NF₄⁺ is available where as OF₃⁺ is not.

Many elements like N, Cl, Mn, Os, Pu, Am exists in their maximum oxidation state either in oxides or oxy complexes. eg. N₂O₅, Cl₂O₇, Mn₂O₇, OsO₄, [PuO₂]³⁺, [AmO₆]^5-.

The thermal stability of many oxides are higher than fluorides and/or nitrides. eg. ThO₂

And finally, what happens if fluorine is bonded to extremely electronegative oxygen and nitrogen ligands like -OTeF₅, -OIO₂F₂, -OCF₃, -N(SO₂CF₃)₂ etc.Anoop.m (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your questions are quite sophisticated and my responses rather simple without more research, but here goes.

Oxidation state is a formality of course, but F always has some fraction of excess electron on it (negative oxidation state) except in F2 where it is neutral of course. That's what Cotton and Wilkonson (or Greenwood and Earnshaw, lack my books to check which) say. In OF2, oxygen is formally +2 and each fluorine -1 (of course any charges are really fractional, we are talking a covalent bond). For the -OTeF2 and the like, I've never heard of them, but would point out the structure sort of looks superacid like with the F groups at one end. I don't think F will withdraw electrons from F though.

On the ThO2. Yes, a lot of oxides are quite refractory. I think ionic solids though are affected a lot by crystal structure and how well the ions "fit" together in size, not just charge separation, in terms of their high melting points. You can't say one compound is more ionic because it melted higher.

Oxygen and fluorine have a lot in common and both are strong oxidants. Fluorine is definitely a stronger general oxidizing agent than oxygen though.

TCO (reviews needed) 14:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

New content

(Just discussion, not criticism)

1. I like the new content (I'm in favor of covering a lot), but just have a science question. Is part of the reason for highest oxidation with oxygen because oxidation state is a formality? And the actual charge transfer may not match oxidation number?

Thanks! But I don't seem to understand the question...do you mean there's only +2 in OF2?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

2. The new picture looks like electrons are being donated from fluorine to boron.

It's almost the same an oxygen atom donates an electron to its carbon buddy in CO. The only difference is that in CO, it's a full transfer, and in BF3 they're moving to boron, but are still fluorine's; at least the way I understand it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Question About the Physical Properties Section

“ Though sometimes cited as yellow-green, the gas is a very pale yellow, visible only in long tubes.[5] ”

I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say (maybe that you can only observe the color in concentrated fluorine gas kept in long glass tubes?). can someone more experienced explain it more clearly? Thanks! Quae legit (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can only observe the color in concentrated fluorine gas kept in long glass tubes :) For a better understanding, I'll give another, a more common example: water. Water seems to have no color when you look at a glass of water. But actually, it IS blue. Look at the ocean (ocean is deep, and when you look on the water, you see a layer of water kilometers (miles) thick compared to centimeters (inches) of your glass. Of course, color of water in ocean is also affected by sky's color, and water seems greenish when weed's growing up on the its bottom, but the water is still very weak blue. Fluorine is similar.

________ 
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
| F2   |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |   ← Looking from here, you don't see the color
|  F2  |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|    F2|
|      |
|      |
|F2    |
_______

   ↑
Look from here and you may see the color.

Don't hesitate to ask other questions :) --R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! I'll update the section to match your explanation. Quae legit (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

General Questions!

1. "water is not an inert solvent for hydrogen fluoride." (from Section "Inorganic Acids): What does this mean? If whoever wrote this meant that HF dissociates in water (HF + H20 -> F- + H30) then isn't that true of all (or most?) acids?

I don't think so. I mean, HF does dissolve this way, but that not what's meant. If you dissolve HF, HCl, HBr and HI is something else (say, organics), then HF is the strongest. But in aqueous solutions, water decreases HF's acidity (partially due to HF---HOH hydrogen bonds, see this for a long and more correct explanation)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2. "Unlike uranium hexafluoride, sulfur hexafluoride [...] does not necessarily require fluorine to be produced,but most often, it is produced in reaction between sulfur and fluorine" (from Section: Uses of fluorine gas): Once again, what is this trying to say? it seems to contradict itself.

SF₆ may be produced w/o F₂ gas (which is hard to handle) in some other way, but in the industry, S+3F₂→SF₆ reaction is used. Hope these help--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

R8R--Do you know what either of these quotes are trying to say? Thanks!Quae legit (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are both very helpful answers! I will update these sections to reflect your answers! Quae legit (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

3. "Fluorine compounds are highly amenable to nuclear magnetic resonance, because fluorine-19 has a nuclear spin of ½, a high nuclear magnetic moment, and a high magnetogyric ratio, which allows it to make measurements quickly, comparable with similar effect based on hydrogen-1." (from Section: uses of isotopes): I know basically nothing about NMR. Can you explain what the comparison between hydrogen-1 and fluorine-19 is? (Or, could you update this section to explain the comparison more clearly. I might mess it up). Thanks! Quae legit (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember to have read that F-19 is almost as useful as H-1, with 83% of its efficiency. Is it what you want to know?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Gifblaar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gifblaar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

was kept.--Stone (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

On to chlorine?

This article is now very nicely done-- one of the better element articles. As such, it now makes the article on chlorine (never up to par anyway) look pretty scrappy by comparison. Even the bromine article is better than the one on chlorine! Yet chlorine as chloride is necessary for all life and is a macromineral in the diet, with a far more important presense on Earth than fluorine, and a chemistry just as interesting. Might I suggest that those of you who have worked on fluorine and are looking for new worlds to conquer, take a look at the neglected chlorine article? It's my own next target as well. SBHarris 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done a lot for the article, reconstructing it since March prior to the FAC2. I have also done a lot between FAC2 and FAC3, but a great credit should be given to the User:TCO, who has, however, retired. For this reason, I feel I should reply. If you want it— OK, after this article gets featured. What I'm saying is, OK if the points I'll be unable to fix will be helped.

I just need this featured. Besides, comments on, still, this article would be useful at FAC3 page.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxidation comparison

I love oxygen (love it even more than F). But, I think the comparison on oxidation is confusing. What I would do is

1. make a new page and save your comparison stuff over there.

2. Reorg this article so it is more about the F, not the O.

A. Perhaps save 1-2 sourced sentence about the comparison, and put that in the highest section of "Inorganic compounds". Something like this (not perfect).

"Fluorine forms a wide variety of inorganic compounds. In some cases the compounds are similar to other halides. In others, they are more like oxides. Because F2 is a stronger oxidizing agent than O2, many difficult to reduce elements form compounds with F, but not O. However, because oxide anion, O-2, has twice the formal charge of fluorine anion, F-, some of the highest elemental oxidation states (+7, +8, etc.) are more common in oxides than fluorides. (See "comparison of fluorine and oxygen oxidation states for more information.)"

->note, this also gives the reader a little bit of an overview for the inorganic stuff to come in the subsections.

B. Re-org all the content from the comparison section BACK into the metal halides, noble gas, etc. Ditch most or all of the specific oxygen examples, but keep the info on the example fluorides.

3. figure out a little more why and so what (and put it in that OTHER page). Like I still wonder about "oxidation state" versus negative charge on the atom. Is one reason why oxygen gives higher oxidation states, just related to bookkeeping (after all peroxides are well known, or for that matter is the oxygen really completely double the negative charge of the F? Or perhaps it is related to space-filling? You just can't fit twice as many F's around a metal atom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.IP 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm way not in favor of this. Here's why: a) the topic is interesting and notable only as a subtopic of another one; I'm generally against articles and only compare several objects. b) this is an important (at least, very notable) part of fluorine chemistry. c) 1-2 sentences are a bad idea, as it does not give the expression to the reader why. Don't want to have anything about this cut.

And yes, the reason for a (relatively) stable OsO₄ and not OsF₈ is the number of ligands. Too hard to squeeze eight fluorine atoms around only one other (this is only a partial explanation, though).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...I am usually a fan of combining things rather than having separate articles. I just knew you put a lot of work into it and was trying to find a place for your baby instead of just cutting its throat. Maybe you could skinny it down into 1-2 paras? It just seems like a side issue and a distraction from our subject which is fluorine. If you made it shorter, that would satisfy me (and could get away from the subheaders). Some of that content, like the heavier element fluorides could move back into metal fluorides. I think knowing what metal fluorides form is more important on its own than only in the context of comparison. [Please don't take offense. I love you, Russian chessplayer. And I know you are sad from the US girls beating the Soviets in team and AA at the gymnastics World Champs, this week.]

Also, this is a section that has come in for criticism for the English. Could be a chance to fix both things at same time. Srsly...you can keep the major insights while just toning it down versus the "straight" fluorine info. 96.238.184.111 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I now think I may shorten it, if this is needed, but no radicalism. Will try to figure something out.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See what you can do, brother in arms. I always liked the Soviets. In a way. You come to love your enemy. I know you did a lot of work and don't want to lose it. But that section has come in for criticism. And I react same as reviewers. I feel bad since you did all that work and are a sweet boy and all. But still...think about how to handle it. Peace...heading deep.24.131.1.132 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I've done, check it, edit it. The previous version has been saved on a subpage, link above. Didn't check the English, am too tired. Sorry for not doing this when I promised to do, it's all due to personal reasons. Hope to be understood.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ref 31

ref 31 is messed up. You have the same name for two different refs. For that matter, still don't like mentioning radon, this high up. Will move down. Water and the like are substances (should not be wikilinked) that reader will understand as commonly nonreactive. Radon is not something that the common reader thinks of for it's chemistry (more for its radiation). Also, as it is so far down the table, not as surprising that it makes compounds. 71.246.147.40 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Quickfixed ref. 31. Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I love you.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

ref 118

The abstract for this ref (don't have the paper) seems to talk all about solution chemistry. I'm concerned that it may not support the sentence about the solid product (perhaps the messed up ref 31 does).

In fact, often the articles contains not only the material shown in the title; for example, all the articles on transactinide chemistry always have a detailed description of how they got the individual atoms, even though there's nothing about chemistry in it. It's the same.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(A) I looked at the abstract, NOT just the title. (B) Saying it "might" contain the info is not the same as saying you, R8rg8tr KNOW that the source is valid. (Like I said, I have a "concern", not that I KNOW it is a bad ref.) (C) I have found a few places previously where a ref was not supporting the text. This smells similar...;)96.238.184.111 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, I still would like the whole article gone through and source checked ref, by ref. Have been concerned with finding a few refs that were wrong in the past (and this is an old article and may have submarines sneaking around).71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put it all on you, either R8er. I can vouch for the Greenwood info. I assume you have the stuff from Ullman's? (I have not gotten copies of that.) If we just made a list of all the stuff that we can vouch for, then we can divide up and check the refs on the rest. 71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Boron trifluoride

Should the article explain why BF₃ is a Lewis acid (1-2 sentences)? The explanation would be really suit to this text: "Period 2 elements (with the exception of boron, which forms a trifluoride) form fluorides that follow the octet rule: carbon tetrafluoride,[98] nitrogen trifluoride,[99] and oxygen difluoride.[100][101]" Just want to ask if this is needed. If anyone say yes, I'll add it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that para is getting long. Break it. Also, even if you don't like the bullets, I think the reader would benefit from clarification of the para org with a topic sentence ("from left to right"). Also, generally better to not rely on "definition by blue link" (in other words, forcing readers to look up strange terms just for definition, not to learn more). In this case, defining pnictogen and chalcogen is good writing and helps reader orient the (good) structure that you already put in. (If you don't beleive me ask Tony1 who will say same thing as me on this issue and he is a superstar writer-guy.) Yeah...halo-oxide might be wrong. Perhaps it is halooxide? In any case, I think it helps orient the reader. Otherwise, you have this one sentence about not same oxidation state, but then the following comments are just examples of fluorides.96.238.184.111 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If it supports the discussion of why BF3 is a Lewis acid, you might bring back that arrow-filled picture (can put it to the right). I would just add something in the caption so it is a little less cryptic and connected to an insight.96.238.184.111 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Will try to reorganize it tomorrow morning (Moscow Time). Feel free to comment it or fix. (about "definition by a blue link". I'm not against having a parenthized explanation; those one were just really raw)

"Perhaps it is halooxide?" Why not "halogen oxide?" It's easier to understand and does not smell a jargon.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Highest oxidation states

Pd(VI) is stable in theory, but it hasn't been produced. I think the article doesn't need to mention it. --Makecat (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Solid fluorine

What happened to the drafted article?? I can't find it anymore. Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

templates making save times painful

The cite templates are really making intermediate saves painful here. Half minute delay on each save. Probably work on this in sandbox in sections instead.TCO (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Schwanard glass etching in 1600s

A lot of casual books mention this but we have a 1920 ref on the history of HF that disputes it. (I am pulling it.) Says that has not been proven and it was likely nitric acid on soft glass. I think we need to mention it is disputed. Will discuss after getting that reference.TCO (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I pulled it and read it. The 1920 ref goes into specifics and details of the actual texts. Other references to Shwanhard are in passing and concerning other things (looks like error carried forward). We should treat by note or in text (to describe the difference of sources), just because this keeps getting added. But that is an assessment of the sources. In text for now.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

krypton tetrafluoride

I don't think this exists. Am cutting it. Researched it a bit. There was a 1963 report (in Science, no less). But no one has duplicated it and one report mentioned that. None of the stuff on krypton commpounds on/off wiki mentions it existing.TCO (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis + some characterization: doi:10.1126/science.139.3559.1047, doi:10.1063/1.1725463, doi:10.1063/1.1725990 (KrF was produced from KrF4 there). A detailed review of properties doi:10.1126/science.145.3634.773. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The 1963 Grosse paper is the original bad report (I think). The other stuff is all from that time, too. Your Hyman review is from 1964 and says (in the free text I can see), that they only really knew the xenon compounds at that time and the krypton and radon discussions are extrapolations.

You won't find any current properties on KrF4. It's not mentioned in lists of noble gas compounds from books and such. De-wiki lacks an article. Google scholar comes up blank for recent papers. I think it was a false report. There was a lot of funky stuff back then. HeF2 got reported also!

Google scholar shows almost nothing recent for KrF4, but I did find this from 2007 "Krypton tetrafluoride and any krypton species in a higher oxidation state than +2 are still unknown." [11] (not in free abstract, but Google showed it in search). TCO (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to this later, and perhaps write a stub on KrF4 (got to finish some work now). A general note on lack of reports since 1960s - those years between 1950s and 1980s were a golden era when materials scientists were already reasonably well equipped and could study anything for fun, spending lots of money and effort in the process. Internet didn't exist and most databases don't cover those years well. There are hundreds of compounds which were simply forgotten since. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I exchanged an email with Professor Dixon. He does not think it was ever made. I would be leary of doing a stub from those 19060s papers (don't care if there is wrong info, just feel bad if you waste work). Here is text from his article in Inorganic Chemistry:

The first

synthesis of a krypton compound was reported by Grosse et al.,14,15 who claimed to have prepared KrF4 by the use of a high voltage glow discharge through a Kr/F2 mixture at -78 °C. Subsequent attempts to repeat the glow discharge synthesis of KrF4 verified the formation of a krypton fluoride;13 however, the vapor pressures and the 19F NMR spectrum were very similar to those reported in the meantime for KrF2.16 Other workers have since failed to synthesize KrF4 by the method of Grosse et al. or by any other method, producing only KrF2. Turner and Pimentel12 prepared KrF2 by irradiation of Kr/F2 mixtures at 20 K in an argon matrix and were the first to correctly identify KrF2 and characterize it by infrared spectroscopy. Krypton difluoride has sufficient kinetic stability to permit its handling at ambient temperature over short periods of time.13 Krypton tetrafluoride and any krypton species in a higher oxidation state than +2 are still unknown. The neutral fluorides of krypton are presently limited to KrF2, which is isolable in gram quantities using a variety of low-temperature

synthetic approaches8 and to the transient violet-colored

TCO (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Krypton tetrafluoride and any krypton species in a higher oxidation state than +2 are still unknown" in doi:10.1021/ic701313h
• "krypton tetrafluoride [i]. However, subsequently it was convincingly demonstrated by methods of .." doi:10.1007/BF01375764

This might be the better literature to search for the answer you are searching for.--Stone (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

@TCO. Yes, I saw comments that synthesis of KrF4 was reported by one group and not reproduced, but apparently there are several reports, from different groups. What stopped me from writing is that most of them talk about sizeable crystals, yet I couldn't find structural information (as well as chemical identifiers like CAS No, ChemSpider, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The two articles mentioned above both tell that up to now no Krypton tetrafluoride was produced, one article calculates that it is instable.--Stone (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A few questions

Here they are:

• Bullets and size. I generally don't like bullets, and I was originally going to write a long-long essay why not to use them. But fine. I'll take it. Just will point you here: "Vanadium, niobium, and tantalum lie in a periodic table column that typically reaches +5 as the highest oxidation state. They form pentafluorides as their highest fluoride. Many metals that form hexafluorides also can form pentafluorides. Metal penta- and higher fluorides are all molecular and volatile. This behavior contrasts with the corresponding oxides. Oxygen is a weaker oxidant and inherently more likely to form covalent bonds, but it only forms molecules with four metals (manganese heptoxide, technetium heptoxide, ruthenium tetroxide and osmium tetroxide). Fluorine forms molecules with twelve metals because its small size and single charge as an ion allows surrounding metal atoms with more fluorines than oxygen can. (See fluoride volatility.)." It begin on talking about pentafluorides, but then goes a little away. As a possible way out, I suggest this:

• (info about tetrafluorides)

Metal (right, no bullet) penta- and higher fluorides are all molecular and volatile. This behavior contrasts with the corresponding oxides. Oxygen is a weaker oxidant and inherently more likely to form covalent bonds, but it only forms molecules with four metals (manganese heptoxide, technetium heptoxide, ruthenium tetroxide and osmium tetroxide). Fluorine forms molecules with twelve metals because its small size and single charge as an ion allows surrounding metal atoms with more fluorines than oxygen can. (See fluoride volatility.)

• (pentafluorides)

Well, the text is to be polished...or maybe that's just me. The main reason why I don't like bullets is that everything looks so unfinished. I wanna write more to make it look nice, but if I succeed, I'm already sure that the article is too long. For the first time I wanna take the scissors. What if I try to do something about the size in January? (at least write about it on the talk page, or use the hiding tool <!--- text to hide --->.

• Compounds (before I forget -- Perfluorinated compounds -- why italics?). I'm silent about refs, I know it's under construction. I've got only two questions (other than ce issues). Why is it renamed to a longer title (especially with that Organic compounds says almost nothing about the chemistry)? Why moved down the page?

Well, these are the two main ones. There are a few more, but I'm too lazy right now, I wanna sleep. Will probably add more later. In general, it's looking like quite a mess right now, but a good ce will save the day. Everything is in your hands.

Oh yeah-- I'm leaving the city tomorrow. In other words, tomorrow is my last activity day in 2011. I won't be back until Jan 8 at earliest. We'll see what the article will be like when I come back. when you're done.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I like your workaround for the issue in pentafluorides. I can bend on the bullets, but was just trying them out. I think people on Wiki react to the page look too quickly and reactively, not the real reading experience. I find bullets (when well done) are a useful "mini-section" device, espeically for content that is more listy. I use them when writing memos in corporate world or the like (i.e. in Word, not PowerPoint). I worry a little that peeps on Wiki sort of scan the page to look at what it looks like, but not think about the real reading experience. Or they think that if you are using bullets, it is only because you can't write paragraphs and write for PowerPoint...and that is not the case, for me. That said...it is really NOT a huge issue to me and they can just be converted to text (especially within Compounds). I was figuring that would be a concession I could make later in the Soviet style negotiation.  ;-) Here is an article that shows more my philosophy: [12]

Yeah, it is getting longer. That said, I think it makes more sense now. At least to me. I can maybe bend on that in the end also, but would like to keep messing with it now as is. (we can cut later). More like FEB, not JAN though.  :) There are two schools of thought on length. One says topics should be short narratives and have lots of separate articles. Another says that having good content in the FA is a way to have it all good and easier for the reader (he can use sections and will not "read" an article like this from start to finish anyway). Since the subordinate articles have a lot of issues, I felt this was an easier way for me to understand the topic. But we can spin stuff out in the end after taking a look at it. I think FA will be fine with it either way (it is not over the length limit...is on the "long side", but they will be OK for a topic of this importance...we need to think what is best for readers).

I put Compounds at the end since it is long and a bit more technical (i.e. hard) and also has less "human interest". I was trying it out, but that is kind of growing on me.

You can change the name back from Chemistry of the Compounds to Compounds. I just wanted to try it out as something to emphasize that this was the geeky area. And we do talk about history, applications, etc. elsewhere also. But this trial has not grown on me!

TCO (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I implemented most of your reccommendations.

I do prefer lots of sections, shorter sentences, shorter paras, and very step by step logic within technical text. I think Wiki overuses multiclause sentences in general (as a compensation to appear "smarter"...but I can be smart by finding content!) Especially in technical topics, the general writing advice on readability is to keep the structure clear and simple when the topic itself is "hard" or abstract (not a narrative). For instance, USG plain writing website says "don't be afraid of lots of periods"!TCO (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll be short (I'm tired, physically). Good replies. I'm even placing back the bullets (like them more than these ugly naked short paras. I mean, I also like paras short (not always can write them, however), but not too short). Not to say that in (say) Occurrence bullets made it better. Also, I'm now ready to accept the length (but we'll see that in FEB once again). About the name... well, when I asked why rename, I had the idea. So I think, they all do as well.

And three smaller questions which came to my mind when I was re-reading the article. First, why does the article no longer lists density in any real units (other than air, which BTW has a density in grams per liter)? I know it's in the infobox, but still? And also, (this one is minor) do the general molecular formulas of polymers look like –(CH₂)–? I have been taught that such compounds should be written like (–CH₂–)_n. (This, however, means nothing. Tangent is denoted using tan is the West, and tg in here. Am just asking.) Also, wanna ask an American. Is it "ionomer". or "ionomer."? Always thought that it's the second option...all the American shows like Breaking Bad or alike, my education (both secondary and higher), they all tell me so. No offfense (am saying that just in case), I JUST WAИИА КИOW TO IMPЯOVE MУ EИGLISCH.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up with my bourgious deviations from the Party line.  ;)

We can look up the polymer thing. I think if you are specifying the whole chain (the molecule), it would have the n and if you are just talking about the unit, drop the n. Let's see what is most common. I think without n looks simpler too.

For the quotes, you would have the period inside if it is a quote from a person who said something (in American Engrish). For scare quotes or here using quotes to indicate you mean the word itself, you would have period outside. In any case, I will clear them out, not really needed, term is obvious in context and blue linked.

TCO (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

On the density, I just thought it was crufty. Like to avoid numbers. (and you have to add pressure and temp too...and then pressure is more numbers and units rather than one atmosphere). If you are dying to add it, put it back (go to history and find it and cut and paste). Ideal gas laws will mean that ratio of density versus air is the same at all normal temps and pressures.TCO (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

–(CH₂)– is still more complicated than just –CH₂– (just a thought). Density...I'm not even inclined to add it back, it just looks weird that air has it and fluorine doesn't. Out of the four possible versions (both F₂ and air have it, neither, only F₂ and only air) the version picked up makes no sense to me (it would be also fine to remove the air density...I think you get the point, as air density gives no useful info w/o fluorine density). <offtopic>And the period (I know, it's already resolved in the article). I checked up a few teaching pages over the Net...they (all American, huh) keep telling me that the period is never out of the quotation marks (like here) (except when only a number or a letter inside the marks, which I didn't know before)... Maybe it's something regional, varying by states?</offtopic>

1. Agreed with getting rid of the parens on units. Nice add.

2. I surfed some sites and it looks like you are right. I would have thought it was different with scare quotes or word as a word quotes (like the letter, number example), but seems like the mark still goes inside.

3. I don't get you on the density. We do not give the numerical density of air. We say fluorine is 1.3 times as dense as air. Stop. It is just a comparison of the two. I just thought it was crufty to give the actual numerical density of fluorine in text and then having to cite the pressure and temp too. If you want it, put it back. Won't bug me.

We do give the numerical density of air. The first footnote. I'll think if the article really needs the density (really not sure), but it's good that you're not against.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Periodic table fluorine.svg

Uuq, Uup, Uuh and Uus are light grey because they're not discussed in the article, right? Is there a source for predicted fluorides of these elements? Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

'Cause they are not sure no be metals/non-metals (no other transuranics too....so what?); even Mt and other unconfirmed got their places 'cause I'm sure about them; and Uuo 'cause the article mentions it among noble gases (even though the next noble gas may be 114...or only 168...everything's so complicated, so don't worry). I don't know how to include them (and am sure it's better not to). Little (something, but little) is calculated (unusual structure of UusF₃, for example); but these may be miscalculations. Nothing is for sure.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We could say that "It is calculated that UusF₃ may have an unusual structure, but this is uncertain.[cite]" Some transuranics (like Uut and Uuo) are included, aren't they? Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we have enough. If you want to track down a source and try it out, feel free. But it might go bye-bye anway, just as an editorial choice of detail.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Some good fluoropolymer refs (note for self, use if we lack a cite for a factoid)

• (two entire volumes on fluoropolymers: http://books.google.com/books?id=x5N40jiWljYC&pg=PA5&dq=what+are+the+major+uses+of+PTFE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GY7_TpW3Gern0QGP5cWtAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=what%20are%20the%20major%20uses%20of%20PTFE&f=false
• (general polymer chemistry ref) [13] page 15 and 154 are helpful for us.
• (another industrial polymers book, similar to the current ref, section starting at 4-26 covers FP) [14]

TCO (Reviews needed) 17:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"The fluorine economy" in for Featured Picture

See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The fluorine economy

TCO (Reviews needed) 04:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Got FP. Squeeked by. Kudos Fallschirmjaeger! TCO (Reviews needed) 01:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

pharma references

(cut and paste from user talk page)

There is a brief description of the use of fluorine in pharmaceuticals in Organofluorine#Biological_role, which might be a place to start. I did a quick literature search and found several general review articles. I don't know how easy it will be to find any of these, but if you don't have access to any of them through your library, just let me know and I'll see if I can get them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Hagmann, William K. The Many Roles for Fluorine in Medicinal Chemistry. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (2008), 51(15), 4359-4369

• Purser, Sophie; Moore, Peter R.; Swallow, Steve; Gouverneur, Veronique. Fluorine in medicinal chemistry. Chemical Society Reviews (2008), 37(2), 320-330.
• Filler, Robert; Saha, Rituparna. Fluorine in medicinal chemistry: a century of progress and a 60-year retrospective of selected highlights. Future Medicinal Chemistry (2009), 1(5), 777-791.
• Yamazaki, Takashi; Taguchi, Takeo; Ojima, Iwao. Unique properties of fluorine and their relevance to medicinal chemistry and chemical biology. Fluorine in Medicinal Chemistry and Chemical Biology (2009), 3-46.
• Pattan, S. R.; Dighe, N. S.; Shinde, H. V.; Hole, M. B.; Gaware, V. M. Significance of fluorine in medicinal chemistry: a review. Asian Journal of Research in Chemistry (2009), 2(4), 376-379.
• Shah, Poonam; Westwell, Andrew D. The role of fluorine in medicinal chemistry. Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry (2007), 22(5), 527-540.
• Boehm, Hans-Joachim; Banner, David; Bendels, Stefanie; Kansy, Manfred; Kuhn, Bernd; Mueller, Klaus; Obst-Sander, Ulrike; Stahl, Martin. Fluorine in medicinal chemistry. ChemBioChem (2004), 5(5), 637-643.

Bio sections

Train is starting to roll a little on this one. Google viewed some book chapters.

• I was curious what the deal is with the agrichemicals. It is all related to pesticide/herbicide stuff (not fertilizer or something). Basically same mechanisms as with drugs (crossing the lipid barriar, ring stability). more of a cost tradeoff. Helpful with pests that become resistant (a reason that sector has continuing new molecules).

• Our drug section is pretty good in terms of amount of content and specific examples. Maybe just a little work to make it more friendly to non chemists. And name drop Prozac.

• Org is a little akward and want to noodle that over. I think drugs or maybe drugs and agri should be a separate section. Poisons should be on own or perhaps with gifblaar (that is just a natural source of making poisons). need to look at Hazards as well and understand the separation.

• I think we need a subsection on dental applications. It feels a little bit like we are hiding from the nuts, with how we downplay dental use. Not a huge increase but a subsection header for visibility and a little more content (maybe market size or something)...and "pimp" the existing FA on water fluoridation, just a leetle. Dental is a significant important thing for humans and is a topic that the general reader will have interest in (people like seeing something they already know about, vice some of the stuff that is more technical).

• I want to understand a little better (and tell reader) the rationale for why organisms make fluorochemicals. Is it as a poison for things that eat them. Or is that tangential, like they want to bind F to keep it away from their Ca and it just happens to poison other stuff. And what is the rationale for the fluorinated fatty acids? Also the comment on the enzyme is a little bit of a one off, we should explain the so what (that it is a potential pathway for biosynthes or remediation or such).

• I have some notes out to get papers and emailed a couple academics in the field. Will not be a huge change, but just want to brush it up a bit and make sure we research the content, not just polish up what was there.

• Mechanism for poison of fluoracetate is very different than a fluoride ion. Has to do with messing up the Krebs cycle, the acetate end of the fluoracetate. Fluoride ion binds calcium. [15]

• Probably a sentence or para on gas-holding perfluorocarbons (that stuff is just cool). It is just kinda researchy but is pretty noteworthy.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

TCO (Reviews needed) 16:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Followup to polish

I can see a lot of little typos or the like from where I added content. Whole thing will need another pass when done. To hard to go back when I see one (given load times), so will do a CE in sections again after last few sections and ref checking done.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

high view linked articles

I did a quick analysis to look at what kinds of articles we link to. Was amazing that almost every article we link to had reasonable views (defining 3000+ per month as threshold). Many or perhaps most were well into the 5 digits. Lots of very fundamental chemical concepts that have high view articles. Unfortunately most were below GA. Little distressing as they are not that "hard" to improve. Just seems that without dedicated effort, these kinds of articles are not brought to any reasonable finished state.TCO (Reviews needed) 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding updated Biological aspects section

Changed the org a little, to put artificial and natural fluoroacetate together. Added a section on dental care (think this is a big topic, good articles to send people to, we were ducking it, and reader appreciates stuff he "half knows about" for some reassurance). Added a small section on liquid breathing as it is just wicked cool. Added a couple pics. One para of content (on water fluoridation) is lifted from the fluoride therapy wikiarticle. Added an overview intro.

Want to add just a little more on agrichemicals (blow it out to more of a paragraph, explain mechanisms and market). Drug content is prima but want to go over it to make it more accessible to general audience. (will do later, just getting new content/org in for now).TCO (Reviews needed) 18:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

electronic structure diagram is getting fixed

The neon shell should be outside the blue cloud, not inside it. Should be fixed in a few hours.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

fixedTCO (Reviews needed) 16:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

diamagnetism

(don't scream)

I want to add a sentence or two about the MO bonding in F2 and diamagnetism. (which I have the source for). Anyone know a good source for the numerical value of the susceptibility? I found some that were very old (early 20th century) so worried about the accuracy. I guess I can check my CRC hard copy as well. Also, is it relevant to think about numerical value of such a thing in a gas? How will it compare to numerical value in a solid? (I am magnetism stupid.) TCO (Reviews needed) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I found a 1999 paper measuring the susceptibility of the gas. (and there was a 2000 comment and reply on it). Don't have access and did not pull the papers. Abstract gave a number pretty different from the early 20th century report. I would imagine measruments have been or could be made on the liqiuid and solid as well. I didn't bother putting in article as it is just a number. If anything, could go in the infobox with other obscure properties, but am not pursuing for now Basically punting on this.TCO (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick notes, without thinking much: (i) post your link, I'll see if I have access; (ii) CRC copy on magnetism is here [16]. I don't think CRC has a value for fluorine. (iii) The susceptibility is per mole, thus can be compared, but the overall interaction between molecules/atoms is much weaker in a gas than solid/liquid, thus it is atomic magnetism in gas, and I would rather compare the value with other gases rather than solids (if compare at all). Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, physics-man! Here are the citations:

• 1999 report on gas
• comment and reply on 1999 report: [17], [18]. Obviously would want to look at what went down with the comments before citing the 1999 paper.
• here is the old literature value: but this might be the liquid...there is a ref to the ref!
• My (old) CRC also lacks elemental F diamagnetism values (of any phase).

If you track down the value, I propose to put it in penal..infobox. I would not sweat it too much though. It is kinda fascinating (just like the phase diagrams of 2 component Van der Walls solids are (frozen O2/F2 slushes and the like). But still pretty obscure even for working scientists. But if you track it down...I'll find a place to put it in Wiki.  ;-)

TCO (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article seems Ok, and I haven't seen other measurements or references to this article, except for several calculation studies and "comments" (which can be ignored). It is important to say F is diamagnetic (already in the infobox). The magnetic susceptibility value can be compared with that of Br and Cl gases (see pdf link, note that all these values are in the same, cgs units). It does not strike me as anything unusual: a low value typical for small atoms, lower than in Cl and Br. Materialscientist (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Was more useful and fits in story better than I would have thought. Stuck in a couple sentences. The issues with trace O2 content help better justify the comparison I had made to O2 paramagnetism. Also the handling issues and late determiniation fit in with the general F2 is a pain to work with "story". == Image update ==

@TCO I have more tightly cropped the flourine piping image that I made, assuming that that was what you might have wanted but dare not ask. ;-) Now, at the risk of sounding boastful or shamelessly self-promoting I must say that I would have much prefered you to use the image that I (or Centpacrr) made than the one you chose to go in the Handling subsection. That alteration is badly executed, to say the least. Please compare both images at full-size, and if you wish me to make further edits I'd be more than willing. And please let's not let the fruits of our labours suffer because of an air of tension between editors. nagualdesign (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

..Much better, even if I do say so myself. I hope you actually prefer the image and didn't see this as me just applying more pressure on you! The page is looking great, by the way. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is better. Nickel tank looks nicely prominent...also nice to de-emphasize that floating probe that was on top earlier, but unrelated to the action. Not just being nice. This is kind of a minor part of article, but still nice to make every part sparkle! And I'm working with what was available for free...so the graphics assist helps make something sketchy become more suitable by crop and the like.

that said, I did see all the versions you had in file and am impressed by the effort and skill. Thanks for all the work. Hope we can do more in the future. Thanks!TCO (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Good job!TCO (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

fluorosurfactants

I got global market data from our wiki article (with a ref that I am asking for at the reference desk). Also found a little info on pricing and context, that was stronger than what I had before just in a textile context. I will add into article (will double check when I get the article and also we are fact checking regardless). US in textiles alone, really underestimates the overall market. (for one thing textiles have mostly moved to Asia!) Bad thing is a couple more sentences and refs coming in. Good thing is we actuall understand and cover topic better now.

TCO (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked the EST source and it backs up the market size numbers I added ($billion).TCO (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

multicultural pictures

I'm sensitive to the criticism of being to Ameri-centric in articles (although...well...we have more aircraft carriers!  ;-))

Some of the pictures like the NASA pic, hazard signs, etc. are just US centric because that is what is available. I did include the little Nicaraguan kid and the South African plant and the Russian transformers and Tokyo dome and Australian sign to try to mix it up.) We already had Moissan and the F2 cell room picture to keep the Gauls and Angles happy.

It's probably still a little skewed, but at least not 100% Yankee Doodle.

TCO (Reviews needed) 23:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to worry about U.S.-centrism in images. There are a few U.S. references unnecessary (but may be good, even nice under some conditions).

• Fluoropolymers were, as of 2008, a $1.4 billion market in the United States alone. There should be a worldwide figure (for example, here lies one: 2.5 billion US$, but it's older. I'll try to find something better. If the U.S. has the largest share, then it's fine to give the number, though.

Added a world tons figure and a little more context for the US $ number. Feel free to add your world figure and replace the US $ figure (I can't see that ref). Just note the year. It is fine. Reader understands we are getting different pieces of info from different sources. TCO (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't get Google Books? Weird. Anyway, it doesn't have a year cited. I spent an hour trying to find it better. Only found this: over 2.5 bln now. A few future numbers (all for U.S. alone): $2.08 bln by 2013, > $2 bln by 2015, and $16 bln (sic) by 2016--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the Springer link you gave. Let's use the world figure, I will put it in. (also says 60-80% PTFE, which kinda gibes with stuff I've been seing of 60-85%, will use it for 60-80 PTFE also.)TCO (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• In that same year, the market for fluorosurfactants was $100 million in the U.S. textile industry alone. The same

Added the world market for all fluorosurfactants.TCO (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• The last United States mine, in Illinois, shut down in 1995. So what? Again, may be kept if the U.S. was the greatest miner originally.

I expanded the discussion as you mentioned, but if you want to cut instead, feel free. TCO (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Its use in the U.S. began in the 1940s If U.S. was the first, pretty fine.

US was the first place, but I cut it anyway (not important).TCO (talk)

Other U.S. things are fine, at least for me. I hope to get to it later this week--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

rational for weak acid HF and homoconjugation

I think the homoconjugation is a different thing than "why is HF weaker than HCl". Our HF article has a decent discussion on homoconjugation. That concept relates to increasing pkA at high concentration (interesting). But it doesn't explain why you have the weakness itself at low concentrations. That has to do with special aspects of water interaction.

I think we should explain why it is so weak: we can wave hands and call it hydrogen bonding, mention the clusters from our HF article, or mention the more complicated clustering discussion from the original source. Then we should ALSO mention this curious aspect of homoconjugation and changing behavior with concentration.

I need to get home from travel and read Cotton at least though. But after looking at our HF page and back at the chemquide source, I think it makes sense...

TCO (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am very excited to get a perfluorocarbon liquid breathing picture

Check out this Google image search: [19]

I want to get a donation (none are free now). Rat or goldfish picture preferred. There is one from BNL (although I worry about the provenance, but could write and ask). If not that, then the one that shows a sort of OR setting at U Michigan. Major coolness factor and I think it will fit space wise...and kinda validate the text which otherwise sounds hard to beleive.

I got the damned HF burn picture done...we can get this done too!TCO (Reviews needed) 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The rodent ones are rather cruel since the poor animal must cool to about room temp and lose consciousness before his falling metabolic rate catches up with the amount of liquid he can move (if you kept the PFC at rodent body temp, they'd die). Then, he sort of hangs there, held down by a monster weight, unconscous and gasping. Also (what they don't tell you this) rodents don't survive this. Any mental images you have of rodents living underwater happily like goldfish (even if they had lead diver weights), are fantasy.

In large animals the metabolism is naturally slower and you can get a machine to help you move enough liquid to keep them alive, even at normal body temp (remember CO2 removal is the hard part, since the pCo2 gradient cannot be changed from 40 Torr), but all that looks just like any ventilation experiment, as the animals are anesthetized and not immersed in liquid (not much to see). The only part interesting visually is the lung X-rays. And the fluid going into and out of the ET tube, but it's clear and you can't tell it from air when the ventalation is total (mixes you can see, but you can't tell WHAT you're seeing)

Goldfish are interesting as they swim in a blue dye-tinged water layer ABOVE a PFC layer, but they're don't swim in the PFC naturally, since they can't. Density problems. The only interesting thing here is when the goldfish attempt to dive through the PFC to get to the bottom of the container, swimming like mad against their bouyancy. They do this for about 3 seconds because it's a big fight (it's like they are being pulled up by a balloon). Then they pop back up into the water later, unharmed, and swim around in that (probably confused as hell, but goldfish don't have much expression). So it's high speed photography to get anything while they're doing the "PFC dive". A photographer I worked with provided me with some blurry shots only of stuff we did in my lab (I've seen this behavior, and it's very odd). I have nothing of my own that I can post under my own copyright. But I'll see what I can do. I would mean buying goldfish, setting things up, etc, etc. Big hassle. I have all kinds of PFCs. SBHarris 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the rat dies. Well, people feed them to snakes too...;-) It is an amazing picture. The gold fish just swimming in layer above could be cool. Could do it with a 2 or 3 layer pic also and kill a couple birds. Just throw the goldfish away after (don't tell the bioethics board  ;-) ) I might write and ask for a donation too. If you want to make a pic, I'm sure it will find use. Probably in this article, but certainly in liquid breathing or fluorocarbon articles themselves (and probably foreign wikis also). So it is for a good cause. Even if a little razzle dazzle. (I kinda like a little razzle dazzle, especially since I bore people with a lot of chemistry also.) Even the most technical people are drawn to powerful images...TCO (Reviews needed) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a ventilator-patient picture could work as well. There were some from U Mich group showing people in scrubs kinda hanging over some hoses and stuff. I already moved it to the end of the section, since it is a bit more research (less economically signficant) than the existing uses. But a picture might sorta "help" it seem more tangible to reader. I think it is ok to include it in article (such a short section) as we have lots of inorganic chemistry as well, later.TCO (Reviews needed) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

another bad ass reference

Actually just the list of people seems like a great list for asking for an external review (eventually) or for asking for name of someone else to review! (along with J Fluor Chem of course)

Fluorine chemistry at the millennium: fascinated by fluorine, Ronald Eric Banks

http://books.google.com/books?id=PKegfJ_fVBMC&dq=fluorine+magnetic+susceptibility&source=gbs_navlinks_s

TCO (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ref duplication caveat

I am trying to check that I don't bring in refs we already have (with a new name), but I may miss a couple. When we have the article all fact checked and move on to ref format work, I assume we catch any dupes at that time.TCO (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice fact

A very thin "sandwich" (Ag covered with MgF₂ and again Ag on it (MgF2 = 100 nm)) has shown to be invisible in two dimensions for red light. This was one of the first (or, very likely, the first) experiment to achieve invisibility. Is it interesting enough to add? If yes, I'll find the book to give details for the article--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pass, probably. (I think it is a bit of a single paper demonstration at this point, and also more about the geometry of metal-insulator arrays than the MgF2). If you want to pull it feel free, but what I Googled, that's what my impression comes from.

We could add a sentence or two on MgF2 (and CaF2) as optical coatings, though. MgF2 is commonly used on a lot of lenses.

I'll use your Springer link for FP industry info though.TCO (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Lists of fluorides and in some cases oxides

FYI, I have done a little work on the articles (lists basically) of trifluorides, tetrafluorides, etc. Also on trioxide. Nothing super sexy as articles, but if you are looking to understand the properties of the metal fluorides, those articles are very convenient gateways to click on individual compounds.TCO (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

photo of fluorine for TFA

Trying to think of a good photo for TFA. I guess the lead photo could be used, but concerned about how poor it is (although small display helps, but then small display will make the yellow look tiny too). Was thinking something "wow" would be some snapshot of a fire from F impinging on something (like in our linked videos). Unfortunately no good free images and F pretty hard for normal chemists to play with, so need to write for a donation. Doable, but just work and low priority. Of course, having that, then helpful for use in article, perhaps.TCO (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally, some Google book had a photo of a of a fluorine stream directed into a sheet of metal. Again, using it just for photo would be nice for Chemical reactivity (hmmmm...never thought of it), but not sure that's it. I'll try to find it later. Maybe you'll like it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Failed to find this. Can show you this (p. 107). It's cool, but we'll never get it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

1. That is actually very helpful for citing in chemical reactivity where I wanted to talk about reaction with common unreactive substances (I had water, bricks, cold meat). They are all "true", can see it on Youtube. I will change it to water and asbestos and just cite this article. Was struggling to find brick and meat cites.

2. Check out the train with the glass top or the washing machine scooter and the gas tank car! (pages further in). Gotta love that stuff. Typist is attractive, too. TCO (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw that (especially loved the tank car ($350! where did those prices go?)). 1947 is amazing. I mean, it's quite ago, and didn't everyone have to recover after the WWII? Even though the basic mechanics was already quite developed even then. That's what makes the stuff even cooler. Also, I'm glad it helped.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

chemical routes and HF info

Was just paging through C of the E (looking for metal halide stuff, not finding a lot). Anyhoo:

1. In there it says that the Christie reactants can both be prepared from HF (our article says opposite). I guess we/I need to research that.

You're great. You're right. Here.

2 KMnO₄ + 2 KF + 10 HF + 3 H₂O₂ → 2 K₂MnF₆ + 8 H₂O + 3 O₂

K₂MnF₆ + 2 SbF₅ → 2 KSbF₆ + MnF₃ + 0.5 F₂

2. Some good stuff on HF/HF acid. Don't worry, I won't go crazy but something about the time and perspective made it make more sense to me now. Think a little bit different emphasis and such in our writeup is warranted. I can handle it. Don't worry, won't get longer.

No worries. You're in my trust. And I haven't been disturbed by the length lately. I really feel that it all lets the article communicate with the reader better (kinda repeating your words to me of not so long ago, but I realized your your philosophy...). Way better now than half a year ago. :) And we can watch it later, after all --R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ref checking update

1. I think I have the Ampere story close to straightened out. Got a Frenchie to look at the text and page 20 applies (our pagination is off, 6-20 are the best pages). Story is interesting with Ampere and Davy actually (really working in parallel). Want to look at some secondary sources to double check, but after that can fix it.

2. I'll go over the list and look at ones you gave links to and do some strikeouts and ref requests also.

TCO (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ref consolidation

Mackay Inorganic should probably become a biblio ref. Using it in 3 places now and it is wonderfully Google book searchable.TCO (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Some repetition, will fix later

The solubility of alkaline earths is mentioned in two paras in a row couple places. Need to think through how to make that structure better. Deal with it later.TCO (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, but I am going to do a side-by-side illustration of BeF2 disorder versus CaF2 order (in progress). If the whole thing becomes too long, we can cut/spinout. But I just know this will be cool and help with the strangeness of the BeF2 and make it work as a story (good orderly CaF2, bad mischeivious disorderly BeF2). Will go centered, so not taking more text space...TCO (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not gonna. I actually love the idea (just feel sorry not having come up with it myself)!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

HF diagram

I'm getting a couple diagrams made related to HF. Plan is to show the bp elevation as it sort of backs up the "story" of similarity to H2O and difference from HCl, graphically. I think a structural diagram of HF or a picture of the bottle, do little. In any case, even if you don't like them, they will be good for the HF article. And I think the BP one will work well if we keep it simple, looking.TCO (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A few small things to do (note to self actually, but give your opinion)

I need more time. Once I have it (tomorrow?), I should take rid of Compounds section. First, I don't find it right that BiF5 and BeF2 are on the different sides. I think, I'll remane "ionic fluorides" to "nonvolatile." Will also expand (slightly) tetrafluorides (some ionic, some not, to the different sides). I'll explain why BeF2 is so different (and how). I'll write about the invisibility. (Then will probably go on ref checking).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make MF3 and MF4 paras longer, there are some comparisons to oxides and chlorides that can be made. ReO3 is the same structure as some trifluoride (Al maybe?) and then they actually call its structure "ReO3 type". Also, probably for both tri and tetra fluorides can make some comparison of the fluoride being ionic when the chloride is not.

Also, I don't mind if you get rid of the ionic and molecular headers entirely and just make it one section on metal fluorides. (maybe makes it easier the issues of netword bonding, the tetra being halfway between, etc.)TCO (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if we needed to remove the headers. I mean, yeah, the whole things reads well without them. On the other hand, this is 10 para straight without breaking headers. Anyway, it's not that much...just a thought. I still got BeF₂ to do. (I'm waiting for Stone as well-- I asked him for help on BiF5). Tried to ce the section, the bigger things caught by eye. (Also, to check. If ZrF4 is ionic, it's fair to expect it for the its twin HfF4. Will also try to represent the "transition point" better.)

Also came up with an idea to run a standardization drive (some things really need to be done here). After everything's done here, and refs are checked, and so. It'll be tedious, but it's OK. If you want, I can do this alone if that bothers you/you're tired/you want out/whatever. But it needs to be done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Nice add on the BeF2 (we are progressing). I want to tweak it just a little. Google book searched several refs and it is true that it is different than the other alkaline earths. Think a bald statement that it is covalent is too much (and wrong). Will put in sourced comment (basically it is mixed bonding character, more covalent than the other alkaline earths, but much less so than BeCl2 or the like). Be is just a funky bastard and kind of plays both sides of the street. Probably more ionic than covalent though in the fluoride (and the oxide, but that would be a digression).

2. Yeah, sure, I know we need to do that. (Felt overwhelmed for a split second, but really that mechanical stuff, I know we can get it done, if we put lists of tasks up and just get them done. Have done it before with Painted Turtle [see old talk, month before that went FA].) We will get there. Probably helpful to make lots of talk page chatter on stuff like reference format or spelling of alumin(i)um and all. I am fine with any system, just helps to say on talk so we know what we standardized to! TCO (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

3. I think bismuth polymer sort of works, especially with the mentions of polymers already in tetra paragraph.. I'm kind of imagining some gradation of completely ionic, then polymer, then small molecule. UF5 adopts same structure in the solid state. It's covalent, just not molecular (as a solid, gas is monomers of UF5). I think it's actually OK...but feel free to peck at it if it worries you. Sometimes we find good things when we do peck at things!TCO (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One by one (in short):

Mixed bonding is a closer approach. Well, we both understand how it works. This was too, fine. (The first ever book I saw on the question said that BeF2 is covalent with a great degree of ionicity. It also said that N-F bond is 0.2 ionic and CsF is 0.97 ionic. It is cut off stone in my memory.)

Aha. Exactly the way I think of it. The standardization rules can probably go to where its rudiments are (on the top, no timestamp).

As with no headers, it's fine. Gave it another read two hours ago. Wow. It's all OK, no need now to mess with Bi or whatever.

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok (to self). Need to add the F2-less F2 production. Also, need to find the halogen bonding ref. Excimers may go to the header of Compounds (I think, we need only mention this, not discuss, not worth it). And come with the standardization rules (the earlier we have them, the less time we need to fix the rest). Please leave these (except for the last one) to me. Don't do much these days, but I think I have to do this myself, 'cause what else I can? Feel more and more sorry as the days go. I see you working hard, and feel kinda guilty for not being that hard. (in the meantime, put a few requests for astatine. They don't usually require time from me, but take it, that's why)

Also, can we have the older noble gases order (Xe/Kr--Rn--Ar--He/Ne--118)? I originally set it up as the well-known compounds number goes down, generally.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No need maybe for excimers. Of no practical interest, the journals don't write about it, as the books. None needs it or researches it (not the "upset" feeling having found nothing, I'm really sure we don't need it)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the Russian Wiki article

Not that great actually, but there are two points we may steal from there.

• "Fluorine has an abnormally low melting point. This is to the lack of d-subshells in fluorine, which prevents it from forming sesquialteral bond, unlike the other halogens (multiciplity of bonds abot 1.1)." huh, how 'bout that? even cited, but a terrible quality ref. Will try to get the book later.

  (to self) Got the source. There's no page range for it, but check again p.312 for Cl, and pp.??? for the rest. (Also mentions BrF7 as a "reactive gas," there's much to read, we could use something maybe)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  the latter is given in the citation. the correspondence with mp/bp is not. Will try to find smth about it later.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• It also says fluorine can form positive oxidation states in excimers and such. We could say this as well, 'cause a reader would probably think it's impossible at all. But that's not so needed, from my view.

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I added some words to the mp/bp paragraph. Please feel free to change.

I'm fine with the excimer point, but you'll need to think where to add it. Also, I would like to make sure we at least understand it ourselves (always helps to have that if explaining to reader!) Stuff I could find real quickly talks about F in excimers talks mostly about F in negative state in excimers with noble gases. There is some discussion of F+ in the context of recombination to F2, but would think this is more like a detached ion. In any case, see what you can do. Here's one ref: http://doc.utwente.nl/57860/1/thesis_Mathew.pdf

TCO (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

List items

Please see WP:Accessibility#Lists. I have no problem with the fact that they may be separate paragraphs, but using the bullet notation to attempt to present them as such is incorrect and is further inaccessible. No opinion on the content itself. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OK (I would write it that way in the real world, so it is screen text not keeping up with printed, but OK. I like blind people). Changed it to separate paras (cut bullets).TCO (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the chosen solution won't work either, because the indentation method is still using list items (

). What exactly are you trying to do which wouldn't be accomplished by an actual set of bullets (which can still be separate paragraphs)? --Izno (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bromine heptafluoride

Was it ever made? Some sources say so, while most don't. I think that it wasn't (false discoveries), but need to be confirmed. Thank anyone willing to reply in advance.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The journal says that it is not stable at -78°C but a real proof that it never existed and is theoretically impossible is not given in that not-peer reviewed journal. Seppelt, Konrad (1978). "?Nichtexistierende? Verbindungen". Chemie in unserer Zeit (in German). 12: 27. doi:10.1002/ciuz.19780120105. --Stone (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. Good info (good enough to add). Maybe will leave it as it is (or maybe mention it and the BrF⁺
₆ cation, as well as ClF⁺
₆).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To be incorporated (maybe)

HF as a way to find hydrogen--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of chronic fluorine assumption on humans and other animals

Many studies are revealing at least the possibility that chronic fluorine assumption in quantities as low as 2.5 mg/L in drinking water may lead to impairments on the development of cognitive faculties. The academic literature is vast and a very exhaustive list of publications can be found at: http://www.fluoridealertXXX.org/health/brain/ (remove the XXX)

It is my humble opinion that this information must be included in the article. What do you think?

Also, why the site i cite (that i'm only using as a "collection" of papers) is blacklisted? 79.23.218.220 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That probably isn't very relevant to this particular article. It is more appropriate to be discussed in the context of the related articles fluoride, water fluoridation, or water fluoridation controversy. The link fluoridealert.org has been blacklisted apparently because of repeated linkspamming. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

i think we could, actually. But to get a good composition, much'd have to be changed. And space problem worries me. It's not a yes nor a no. I'll have in mind: we'll see, I promise, okay?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.218.220 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

bond order

Sources I find in English just say that Br2, Cl2, I2 all have bond order of one. What does "bond order" really mean (is it a formalism like formal charge or something measurable or calculatable with quantum mechanics?) And what is the primary source proving the higher than single? Or is this sort of squishy like taxonomy of animals? 64.134.168.97 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This mainly relies on the inner (non-valence) electrons' interactions, I believe.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the argument. But MO theory does not give more than single bond given no disparity in energy levels. Is there observed backbonding (how?) And I sayagain the English sources don't support. Also, is bond order a formalism or does it really correspond to something?64.134.168.97 (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

From bond order: "Furthermore, bond orders of 1.1, for example, can arise under complex scenarios and essentially refer to bond strength relative to bonds with order 1." I found the info in a university studentbook. Perhaps if you look into something similar in English, you'll find it as well. However, I don't really claim to understand, would also love to find out how it works (will sometime), but if you ask if it works, it works.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

See Bond order for an overview. --Ben (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ALL the general chem and inorganic chem textbooks that I googled said that the bond order was 1. Of course they are discussing things in the context of MO and VSEPR and basically talking about 1 versus 2 (except perhaps simple resonance structures).

If we have some more fancy interpretation, I really think we need a science paper backing it. Not a textbook. A textbook is fine for something obvious (like fluorine has 9 electrons). But for something that is esoteric (and that not every textbook shows), we really ought to have something sourcing it that is more scientifically strong (a peer reviewed paper). I would say to either back up the BO point with a real science paper or cut it.

Also, I found something saying that Cl2 (can't find it now, but was a science website) has a bond order of less than 1. Perhaps F2 is less than one also (for instance it tends to cleave like a peroxide). Donno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

N in +5 formal charge

Agreed that N2O5 has N in +5 FC. Also, nitrate ion (NO3-) is a very common species...with N in +5 FC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.168.97 (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I could agree a year ago. But don't now. First, formal charge and oxidation state are different things. Consider SbF⁻
₆. The oxidation state of Sb is +5, the formal charge on Sb is -1. Next. For the oxidation state of +5, you need five bonds, no less. If you look at the molecule structure, you won't notice five full bonds. Only partial. The Lewis structure in the article shows four bonds. Nitrates don't have five bonds either. This is because nitrogen does not wish to get its octet expanded. Five bonds mean 10 electrons. If you want to learn more about nitrogen's octet, read chapter four of [20].--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In SbF6- (or SbF5), the formal charge is +5. Discussing an oxidation state of nitrogen in a covalently bonded molecule is a bit of a misnomer anyway. FC is the concept you want. N2O5 is certainly not a molecule composed of +5 ions of N and -2 ions of oxygen. There is no requirement for an equal number of bonds to an oxidation state. For one thing, you can have an ionically bonded compound. Consider UO2 (fluorite structure). The oxidation state of U is +4. but it has 8 nearest neighbors of oxygen.64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the two. Have a look at formal charge and the example given in there (CO2: formal charges are 0, OSs are -2 and +4 (O/C)). And given you say N2O5 got no ions in the structure (which is entirely correct), the should be no charges, at least not that high, there are polar molecules, of course. Charges are characteristic to ions mainly, not OSs. OSs apply to both ionic and covalent compounds. Charges only to ionic. Is UO2 ionic? If so, the OSs and charges should be the same. The surrounding negative oxygens surround well from all sides, and they all 8 want to meet the U (plus always wants the minus, you know it) the same and are equally away, thus it "moves" toward al oxygens the same, actually staying where it is standing (vector sum gives zero). (a little oversimplification and not 100% scientistproof, but should be gettable) The point is, its stability (doesn't sublime at r.t., for example) comes from charges. Now consider a covalent solid (no charges), it sublimes way more readily.

The charge on Sb is -1. 5 "standard" electrons - (5 electrons involved in bonding + 0 from the lone pairs + 1 extra from the ion charge) = 5-6=-1.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I had them backwards. Nitrate and NO3- will have N in +5 oxidation state, then.75.88.87.190 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I just got it how N manages to have +5. Delocalization confused me. Thankfully, I've found an easy explanation using simplified structures. You were right about +5, and I learned something new:) thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

the nanocrystals

Reading the entire article, it is very clear that the nanocrystals are positioned as a possible future help for babies. No, they are not helping babies yet...but that is why the word "may" is in there. the actual testing is on animals...but that is normal for medical R&D in initial stages. There is definitely no impression that they are being developed for veterinary uses! 64.134.168.97 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, I guess. I'll be OK with it if we pick some other wording up (not changing your point). Watch--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead organization challenge

1. The lead has too many paras now with the addition of a whole para on organismal use of fluorine. We are restricted to 4, but now have 5. My vote would be to just cut this stuff, other than a mention of dental fluoride. The fluoracetate plants are a very minor oddity. Even the comment about "not used by mammals" is not really needed. Since, we are so bandwidth limited, better to use the space for positive information, not negative. If we want to keep that para, we will have to merge the other 4 down to 3 (hard). I really hate Wiki disputs and don't want anyone to feel bad...so prefer not to cut someone's work...but...welll...good luck with reducing those other paras.  ;)

Writing the lead is always difficult given the 4 para limit, desire for unified paras, and then the breadth of the topic.

My initial lead was basically organized:

Para 1: Characteristics and occurence

Para 2: History, fluorine gas isolation and usage.

Para 3: Inorganic fluoride chemistry and applications.

Para 4: Organic flurine chemistry and applications.

I think we can basically make this work. I would describe fluoride under inorganic applications (maybe a little more positive and including both toothpaste and water fluoridation links). Would cut the bio stuff.  :-( I do want to change my own lead and make a comment about the extreme reactivity (we are lacking it) in para one, along with the "most electronegative). That sort of needs to be up front. I can cut the fluorine martyrs. Put them in for sex appeal, but better to be more economical.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Bleh. The world will not end if you have a 5 paragraph lede, so long as it's not too long. WP:IGNOREALLRULES. SBHarris 03:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I like you man. Come be a wiki-rebel like me.  ;-)64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually that could be one approach. The article is very long and having a 5 or even six para essay not unreasonable. I still question a whole para on organismal uses. Rather have a whole para on bio aspects, then. (we sort of do that inside the article, though.)64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If there's an interaction with life/bio, either as pharmaceutical or poison or metabolic use, we traditionally reserve the last paragraph for that. See bromine, chromium, gallium, vanadium, etc, etc. Even sulfur. One could add the pharmaceuticals to that last paragraph, perhaps (with non pharm apps elsewhere), but I think we're stuck with it. If you can't stand a total of 5, that leaves you with 3 others. I think inorganic and organic chem could be one paragraph, particularly as the inorganic chem is just F- and F2, and we can discuss that in the minerology/history/occurance paragraph. SBHarris 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel like each element sort of has its own "story". I think the basic organization is helpful, to start with, but once we get into the content, we always find good reasons to modify the organization to fit the specific element. Hurts us if we are too cookie cutter and identical.

I just don't think the fluoroacetate 40 species are really that important. This element's story is not about bio-usage. That said, I think you can totally have what you want. Just at least bulk the para up with the pharma and other bio stuff. Go ahead and take a crack at writing it how you want. Also, I can live with 5 paras.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I myself have argued that we should not straightjacket element stories into one form but let them flow in a natural order if they have an obvious one, I can't really argue with your approach here. I couldn't resist adding the use of fluorine by some bacteria and plants, but not mammals in metabolism. It's not a big part of the fluorine story, granted, but it's one of the first questions people have about any element-- is it used by life? We're biocentric critters. SBHarris 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think it would fit better at the end of the orgo paragraph. Something along the lines of...

"...Lipitor and Prozac are notable examples. While a few plants and bacteria synthesize organofluorine poisons, fluorine has no metabolic role in mammals. However, fluoride ion is used in toothpastes and municipal water supplies to reduce tooth decay."

64.134.168.97 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, works for me. I've re-added the tweak that fluoridation for teeth is not a metabolic use (it would work as well to harden the enamel of a tooth in a jar). The salutary effects on teeth continue after the teeth are formed, so this is not your usual metabolic thing, as it works on dead enamel. It's not necessary that this fluoride be swallowed. Studies HAVE tried swallowed fluoride to see if it will harden bone in people with osteoporosis, and have generally found that this encourages bone growth and denser bone, but this bone is more brittle, so the net effect is a wash. It doesn't decrease fractures. SBHarris 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What did you think of my liquid breathing section (in article bio section)? Isn't that your field of research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.168.97 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is, actually. I've tried to stay away from liquid breathing editing for that very reason, since it would make my head explode to edit it. What is said in this article is a fair synopsis, although you might want to emphasize that liquid breathing uses pure PFC, not the emulsions used in blood. Also, liquid breathing tests in humans have been limited to partial liquid ventilation (lungs filled about 1/5 to 1/3 of the way "up") and only one human has ever been subjected to full liquid ventilation (which would need a totally different ventilator, and you must do that with NO gas bubbles, for deep diving studies). This man was close to death anyway, so we know little about it. Rodents subjected to total liquid ventilation die immediately unless it is done at room temperature so that they are cooled metabolically so that they can get rid of their (very much lower) CO2 production. They also generally do not survive when removed, so the public has the wrong idea. My own model is the dog, where we also do a sort of partial liquid ventilation to get heat exchange from the ice-cold liquid to the blood. This introduces about 5 mL/kg to the lungs every 8 seconds or so, and cools with extreme rapidity. Also, it's survivable long-term almost 100% of the time. However, it's not really liquid breathing but PFC-mediated lung lavage for heat exchange. The gas exchange is done in the normal way, by the rest of the lung surface and using gas ventilation at the same time (this is a lot easier than total liquid ventilation). SBHarris 21:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Here's my point:

• "the vast majority of commercial fluorine" refers to all fluorine in the industry, not F2, but also fluoride salts, volatile fluorides, organofluorides, etc.
• "is never oxidized to the element" is mined as fluoride and remains fluoride

You probably think that the sentence is talking about is only about the fluorine gas. It is not. Moreover, your version reads like supporting it (not electrolysis, thus something else). It is not in this way. Read the next sentence, it talks about global fluorochemical industry synonymously. Please just read again.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ClF3 and ClF5

It doesn't make sense to say that it is the most powerful fluorinator and than say "perhaps more than the pentafluoride". I don't have access to Greenwood right now. I did find a source which gives similar behavior of both chemicals (and is a nice reference to add, regardless).

page 477-479

TCO (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is, usually the highest fluoride (for halogens) is the strongest oxidizer. ClF5 is understudied but mb is an exception. Pick up a wording you find the best--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC?

So, when should I expect to see Fluorine at FAC again? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

December? I think it would take at least 3 weeks of "manic" work (and I don't have the time to do unpaid work right now) to get it to those kind of standards. It is still a great article though either way because of the illos and the comprehensiveness and innovations.

Yeah, article quality is really what's important in the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're back, great. Hopefully the reason's good, a topic above seems to state so. If only I were right.

Just wanted to say to feel good about you feeling FAC's possible in 2012. To be honest, I'm not really sure, yet this is not imposiible. Noticed your recent activity. Good, so good. Hope to get myself in very soon. Want to ask a few questions and share a few thoughts.

• Do you still feel like organics later? We need refs, you wanted to revise the contents.
• Good image work. Real good. No idea how you do it. Amazing (remember the article when you saw it the firsttime!) Just one little thing: Are you sure the num of molecule pics isn't too much? Got nothing against, just there are many different shapes, structures, etc. Think it's visually overweights the chemistry over uses, etc. if you think that proper imaging is better than composition, fine, just wanna ask.
• CrF6 doesn't exist
• a nine-fluoride-coordinated atom does exist (ReF9(2-)), so we will maybe surprise ones by the fact a neutral MF8 doesn't. If we say that ligand num matter that much. Co(V) is known as a cation, only so, no idea why. That last sentence about octafluoroanions makes me wonder further. Gotta get rid of that. Either no story or an explained story (sending out is also fine, as with HF), but not a half! There are things we don't need. Did you know SF6 has an effect on human voices opposite to that of helium? It don't really matter, in the article. But this one is a topic...you know something? Or an easy way out? Just gotta do smith about it.Most people won't care, but some others will.)
• Why are we discussing the structures at all when linking them to no properties? That section, turns me mad. So big, still imperfect.
• Had more (mostly minor), don't remember right now. Watch the article's talk page. Will also be fine if you move this discussion there.

P.S. That activity splash... Fluorine was Main Page's Selected-Anniversaries-featured. On June 26, fluorine had an isolation anniversary.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks dude. Hope you are well in real life. I'm still busy so can't commit to work here (Wiki does not pay my rent). When I'm here it is a diversion. But to really do good work, you have to sweat major effort and concentration and time. It is a false idea that people randomly throwing words down leads to good articles. (Could you imagine a great Russian novel getting written by rabble crowdsourcing?)

I looked at organics refs a little today. I have one new review article (Sanford 2000, not in article yet) from the ref desk. It has a bit, but we need more. Ullman's will also have some. Maybe even looking at the Wiki articles on the subtopics and what their refs are (getting them, not just copying) would be helpful. Sanford references a few older reviews (probably fine for us) (Banks 86 and Chambers 73). Probably I need to go to the university library (have a membership now) and check out some specialty books (there really are few good overviews of organofluorine chemistry). I can't do that while still working though.

In terms of organization, the easiest quick fix is to retitle the Compounds section to be "Structural chemistry of the compounds". Since we talk about economics/applications of the compounds in the industry section (and a little in history and biology). Doing this makes it more obvious that we are basically making a penalty box at the end for the geeky chemical aspects (which I advocated because I think the general reader prefers the human interest stuff first).

If you want to scrap that approach, feel free, but will be significant work. The issue we had before was a lot of repitition in the article (saying the same thing in different sections). I took the approach of discussing (useful) properties a bit more in connection with applications. We do discuss basic physical properties (solubility, melting points) in connection with the structural chemistry. Again, I'm really open to a major change...just don't underestimate how tricky this will be and what we need to make sure does not come back (the repetitions). And of course, the whole thing could be spun out. Just...it is significant work.

I almost think it is easier to make it perfect (in long form) and then prune later. Actually...I have a bit of a bias to long articles because they better control things and allow things to be in context. If I wrote an article on fluoropolymers or Teflon...it would probably be the length of fluorine also! (See "Painted turtle").

I do think it is possible to get the thing to FA, but I would need the time off to really concentrate on it for a few weeks...it really is a substantive topic if you step back and think about it...imagine you were writing a review for a book or the like. For Painted Turtle, I had 1200+ edits (going over that thing for first linking, ref format, everything...and there I still really had not re-researched the Ernst-based content--just the parts I added.)

I would love you to get your star since I know it would mean a lot to you. I don't know if I want to donate my name to that process...or that I would hurt your campaign. Probably easier if I just did the work to whip the thing into shape and then let you take it through with help from Mav or Material Scientist. To me, I really see the process as "my bitch", not me as theirs. If you get me? In other words, I value the aspect of having other people put their eyes and brains and sweat on the thing to catch problems I did not. And even the push to be ready for the look. But I don't care so much about "getting the thing through to get on the main page"...more about the benefits of the process. Like if someone had a suggestion that was taking it in the wrong direction...fuck that...the artist should control the artwork. But...for sure...FA is the class of review on Wiki. And...no pressure, no diamonds and all that...

Thanks for backing me up on the HF lead sentence. I like knowing that if I am in a bar fight, you will break heads for me. Didn't mean to double back on you. Just. The more I thought about it, even if HF is a HUGE aspect of F, well...there is limited space in the lead. You can't say everything. And shorter leads are so much more pleasant for the reader. We had one aspect of HF covered (its use as an intermediate)...and that is basicaly all we have room for...one aspect of a thing. So, I wasn't giving into the fuckers...and the "good stuff" is still in article and the little critic was not messing with it, just the lead. So...I think in the end...even if for wrong reasons...it reads better without the diversion to HF's properties (and it did tend to divert that para slightly).

Thanks on the images. It is a little bit of work...to get donations or stuff from the Graphics Lab. But it is really huge bang for the buck in terms of educational impact. I think it can be taken to a much higher level...but when the bar is so low (Wiki), it is easy to do these little tricks and show improvement. "Painted turtle" was translated into Russian and French and FAed there. And people raved about the illustrations (despite some fucker at FA saying it lacked illos...wtf?) On the substance, I have been going through and snipping some images. I think I can do a little more judiciously in the article. For instance, left justifying the difluorides. And probably replacing the ZrF4 structure with an MnF4 structure. I can sort of try to make it look a little less cluttered.

Go fix the CrF6 please.

The stuff with anions is interesting. Add it to either the end of the high valency metal fluorides section or the O versus F section.

Use your judgment on the SF6. Could add it to SF6 article?

Feel free to chat on talk page. I'm a big advocacte of active talk for article collaboration (even inserting some chitchat amongst the nitty gritty work). I'll try to watch the talk page, but may need to take another enforced break. Editing here can be very absorbing especially if done to the intensity needed to really produce top notch content.

I actually feel sort of guilty for taking over the article so much. (I did the same thing on Painted turtle coming in as a copy editor.) In both cases, main editors were sweet about it, but I felt mixed feelings. Maybe better to let them drive their own project and do my own myself (like I sort of have an eye on Iodine). But then I feel guilty for not following the damn thing through, after I made it so long and all and moving the thing in a different direction.

TCO (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hope I will have you sometime not so busy. But the whole thing still needs a prose quality guard (will always need). Leo Tolstoy re-wrote War and Peace many times. Now see how popular it is. (Although it is not maybe what you meant, this is what I mean)

OK, organics is on you (unless you ever tell me so not). I'll wait.

So much to be done. To be honest, I don't have the energy either. I'm still a student. The year was hard. I wanna be lazy and chill out...dammit. Tensions with research can wait. Can do minor things, but not ready to research. I'm not that enthusiastic as when I took your ref challenge up. Maybe sometime later. Not this month. And I still want a lazy way out. Even think it would be the easier (mb not the right, though) way to change the paradigm and agree with it rather than going up and fixing, re-writing... Will see later. Also, consider I want the star not because I can hang it out on my userpage. I want a project I started to be finished. It doesn't have to be done fast (you probably noticed the num of pluses on my userpage is slowly growing). But has to one day. I wanna say, I work more like because I need to (owe myself), not because I want to. The interest peak on this is somewhere in the past. This doesn't mean I'm giving up. Not in my plans... just keep in mind my lazyass views.

I can accept the thing with any lead (it only should be some reasonable length). You're in my trust, remember? No problems on this

Yeah. That article's great. Happy you hear me, although I will maybe think any outcome you come up with is the best one. Can't be a good judge...simply trust you.

It would need reaerch...later

It is already in there (I didn't know before today, though). Fluorine will hang out without it. Not as famous as helium, at least because of this.

Aha, gotcha. Will be ready in case of this.

In theory, I only can't handle images. Other things, I can do. If other words, you can leave even right now. I will be sorry, but will also understand you. That said, feel free to. Reserve an opportunity to ask for a consultation, and will be fine, will still have a very good view of you.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)