Jump to content

Talk:Gadolinium/Archive 1

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

NFD and Gd in CKD

JAMA/MMWR have identified another series of NFD (this is the accepted nomenclature) after Gd administration in chronic kidney disease.[1] JFW | T@lk 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Double beta decay

I don't think it's appropriate to show double beta decay in the table when according to the article it's never been observed. The discussion of the situation in the Isotopes section is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.0.215 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics: Physical: fullerenes...

The information about fullerene encapsulation of single atoms seems misplaced and questionably useful. Characteristics such as malleability, density, crystalline structure, luster, et cetera can all be easily observed by the average reader. In contrast, single fullerene-encapsulated atoms will be observed by almost no one. Furthermore, identical or very similar wording exists in the same section of several lanthanides' articles (lanthanum, terbium, samarium, dysprosium, erbium), which is both obtrusive and redundant (see Endohedral fullerenes). Anyone agree this information should be removed or at least given lesser prominence?

--lizardo_tx (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it's out-of-place in the physical characteristics section. It should probably be merged into the compounds section.—Tetracube (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with moving around in the article, but disagree with deleting (It is just one phrase anyway). I can argue to the same extend that lanthanide metals "will be observed by almost no one" simply because are never found as metals in nature and oxidize in air when isolated :-). The concept of encapsulation as a tool to reduce oxidation and to isolate atoms is useful. Come to think about it another way - the article is not about metal, but about element, i.e. single atoms of that elements are by no means irrelevant. Materialscientist (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Value

Explanation for why 1994 & '95 are in pounds (rather than kilograms): the USGS report provided that measurement in those years. Since that mineral yearbook is the source for these values, I thought it best to provide it in the same measurement for verafiability. I provided the per-gram cost, to allow for a more direct comparison. --LeyteWolfer 05:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC) 

   Since this is used in medical diagnosis why isnt there more about its poison effect. It shows up in hair analysis as a poison but not much about its effects. (User michael) 13:25, 27 Feb 2007§§§§
The data here gives the impression of an absolutely stable price, yet a 2007 reference says that the price "has dropped three orders of magnitude in recent years"![2] No small contradiction! Wnt (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have found another source http://www.chemicool.com/elements/gadolinium.html which gives the current price at 191 dollars per 100g (1910 dollars per kg) which is obviously quite differnt. Does anyone know where to get a reliable value from? 62.49.4.186 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
   2 Gd (s) + 3 H2SO4 (aq) → 2 Gd3+ (aq) + 3 SO2−4

A compound has properties that differ from those of the elements blahhhh 

   } (aq) + 3 H2 (g)

What is this about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.165.103 (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Safety

Included a reference to an article (one of many on the same subject) in the Danish newspaper Avisen which clearly shows a causal link of the dangers (if not fatality) of the gadolinium content in the product Omniscan. (Simply search Avisen with the word "Omniscan".) Changed the sentence:

Although a causal link has not been definitively established, current guidelines in the United States are that dialysis patients should only receive gadolinium agents where essential, and that dialysis should be performed as soon as possible after the scan is complete, in order to remove the agent from the body promptly.[24]

to:

Current guidelines... [24] However, after several years of controversy during which up to 100 Danish patients have been gadolinium poisoned (and some died) after Omniscan use, it has been admitted by the Norwegian medical company Nycomed that they were aware of the dangers of using gadolinium based agents for their product. [1]

Jahibadkaret (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferromagnetic Superconductor

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetic_superconductor Gadolinium is a superconductor below 1 Kelvin, and a type of superconductor that has special properties. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere? 70.3.44.201 (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Added. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference for the superconductivity in Gd is from a 2003 book ^ Efthimios Kaxiras (2003). Atomic and electronic structure of solids. Cambridge University Press. p. 283. ISBN 0521523397. http://books.google.com/?id=ULXZwEJeElYC&pg=PA283. This, however, is a typo in the table of that book as "Gd" should actually be "Ga" (gallium), a well-known superconductor. Note that gallium is missing from that table! Also note the critical temperature and field cited for Gd match that of Ga (see Table 34.2 in "Solid State Physics", Ashcroft & Mermin (1976), ISBN 0-03-083993-9). Ferromagnetic superconductors are exotic and it would be astounding if elemental Gd were among them at such a relatively easily accessible temperature. --Physics138 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

What periodic table group does this belong to? At the moment, the entry in the table for this is blank. The Anome 12:30 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Lanthanides, which I think have no group number. Or do they? I'm not a chemist, just an interested layman... -- Schnee 12:34 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To my knowlege there is no group number for them. Same with actinides. -fonzy

I'd propose to always put in "none" for Lanthanides and Actinides, then. -- Schnee 14:52 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It could be good to mention the "magnetocaloric" effect that is rarely found in Nature except I think in Gadolinium and alloys. It is used in superconductive refrigerators lately. -- User:mtodorov_69 11:31 17 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Is Gd's Curie temperature 16°C, 17°C, 18°C, or 20°C? This article mentions at least two of these values, other random web pages mention more. 292K is closest to 19°C though - yet another number. Bernd Jendrissek (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. p. 4.122. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5. says 293.4 K, which is what I'm going to put in the article. Other mentioned sources seem obsolete/unreliable. Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be an error in the sentence below - 'occurrence in from contrast' it should be just 'in' i think . . . Its association with gadolinium and not the carrier molecule is confirmed by its occurrence in from contrast materials in which gadolinium is carried by very different carrier molecules. suzeikew (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Plants

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gadolinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gadolinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gadolinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Gadolininum" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gadolininum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Nyhedsavisen: Medicinalfirma fortiede at stof var farligt". Retrieved 2010-11-05.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gadolinium/Archive_1&oldid=1180659257"