Talk:Lead/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Copy edit

R8R I've started on the 'Origin and Occurrence section, 4.1 In space. You may be a bit shocked by how much I've trimmed from it. There is sentence in this section that I don't understand:

"The r-process does not directly form as much lead as the s-process, because neutron-rich nuclei with mass numbers 206–208 that would decay to lead are not magic, unlike those that reach the closed neutron shell at neutron number 126 and decay to the platinum group metals around mass number 194."

I looked up the source, too and I don't understand that either:

"The termination of the r-process occurs very differently. Nuclei along the r-process path with A >/~= 250 will undergo (spontaneous, neutron-induced, and β-delayed) fission and repopulate the r-process chain at lower nuclear masses (Panovet al. 2008). Neutron-rich nuclei produced in the r-process that have closed neutron shells at N = 126 (at the time of the termination of the r-process) will rapidly β− decay to atoms of elements at the third r-process peak—osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), and platinum (Pt), but not Pb. The nuclei that form with A = 206–208 nucleons in the r-process (i.e., those that will β− decay to the Pb isotopes) have neither a magic number of neutrons or protons, so they are produced in smaller relative amounts."

Why would the β− decay process favour Os, Ir and Pt, but not Pb? Os, for example, has no magic numbers but Pb has magic number of protons. Sandbh (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember having similar questions. Double sharp explained it well to me. See here. DS is better at understanding nucleosynthesis than I am, so while I'd love to help, I believe DS would be more competent.--R8R (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

One section to go and the preliminary copy edit is done. Sandbh (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Great to know; thank you for doing the work. I hope I succeeded in writing an interesting piece of text. Eagerly awaiting your comments during the FAC, should there be any.--R8R (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting. Ill give you some pre-FAC comments. Sandbh (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. Thanks.--R8R (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Have finished first copy edit of the main article. Will now look at notes, and then give you an overall impression. Sandbh (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, it's 37.2 38.5 °C outside here at the moment. What's it like over your way? Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I know you weren't asking me, but its an unseasonable 28.4 °F (−2.0 °C) where I am. YBG (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unseasonable? Too cold or too warm? Sandbh (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unseasonably cold. It does get this cold every couple of years or so, but this year it has we've had several cold spells and they've lasted longer than usual. We've a 5 foot (1.5 m) snowman in the front garden, with the wheelie bins on the side of the road in the snow and ice that is expected to melt (finally) in day or so. Not much, I suppose, compared to R8R, but there you have it. YBG (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't match that but we had a surprise windstorm here on Friday afternoon that blew over quite a few trees, including one in our front yard :( Cost me a tidy sum to have it removed. Sandbh (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I first read that as "unreasonably cold." Temperature around here has increased back up to normal. Right now, it's −3 °C (27 °F) outside, which is great for winter if the snow is still around (it is). Just a week ago, however, the temperature fell as low as −28 °C (−18 °F). That was unreasonably cold (and rare around here). Though even this can be handled without any problems, the current temperature is nicer to handle :)--R8R (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes done. Will now form an overall impression (this will take a little longer). Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Practically stable elements

The intro says "It has the second highest atomic number of all practically stable elements.". I really don't like it, and I guess it says "pratically" because of Bi?. But I would say Th is pratically stable too (T½ approx. 10^10 y) and you could say the same for isotopes of U, Pu, Cm, and Np (T½ from 10^9 to 10^6 y). Christian75 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Because of Bi, yes. There is a difference between Bi and Th: bismuth is a billion times less radioactive than thorium. Bismuth-209 is radioactive at 0.003 decays per second per kilogram, while thorium-232 is so at 400,000 decays per second per kilogram. Human body, for comparison, is radioactive at 65 decays per second per kilogram.

Natural potassium is radioactive at 30 decays per second per kilogram. That means that a natural banana is radioactive due to its potassium and the dose you get from one banana is 5.02 nSv/Bq × 31 Bq/g × 0.5 g ≈ 78 nSv = 0.078 μSv (read banana equivalent dose for details). Same 0.5 grams of thorium-232 result in 4.43×10⁻⁴ Sv/Bq ([1]) × 400,000 Bq/g × 0.5 g ≈ 89 mSv, which is a lot more and no longer negligible. I can't calculate same value for bismuth, but since you know people only learned it was radioactive not in human experience, but in an experiment conducted at temperatures below 100 mK, you're free to assume that bismuth's radioactivity, unlike thorium's, is negligible.--R8R (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that if you work with Th in the lab, you have to take its radioactivity into account, while you don't have to for Bi. The difference between 10¹⁰ and 10¹⁹ is nine orders of magnitude, so there is a clear demarcation. An added issue with the actinides is that unlike bismuth, they do not decay to clean stability: when working with thorium, you have to take its much less stable daughters like ²²⁸Ra (half-life about 5 years IIRC) into account. Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead in the 21st Century

I feel there is need for an updated overview of the role of lead in modern society. Where is it mined? Where are lead products used? Who is affected by its mining/use/disposal? I think it's relevant to include major incidents involving lead (i.e. lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan). There must be other incidents around the globe which are relevant to lead's role in the 21st century.Carlypmiller (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a lot is already dedicated to answering these questions. We list top mining countries in Lead#Production and we tell what uses lead has in Lead#Applications. We explain why lead is dangerous (we mentioned that the general trend of disposing lead from interactions with people back initiated in the 20th century and we explain problems lead could cause in (more or less) detail in Biological and environmental effects); the Flint incident you mentioned is listed in Lead#See also, which seems to me most appropriate. A more detailed coverage would be expected in a sub-article if there was one or anything that focuses on this aspect of lead more closely, but this is an overview article.--R8R (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead an essential element?

I think the last paragraph in the "Biological" section is very contradictory of all the previous information. It suggests that lead could be an essential element while the paragraph before it emphasizes the dangers of even very low exposure to lead. Perhaps there should be a separate paragraph for the biological implications of lead in animals, like pigs and rats (which are mentioned); as of now it seems off-topic and random. There is a plethora of reliable research which establishes the dangers of lead exposure in humans. However, there is no substantial research which says that lead could be an essential element for humans, and thus this should not be included. --Carlypmiller (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it does suggest so. I hoped it would be clear we are talking about "trace amounts" -- we use that phrase in the text -- yet you're free to emphasize it further (if you actually think this is needed, I encourage you to try or provide suggestions). We don't talk about non-human animals much. We even mention finding that in mammals because it would actually suggest this could (not for sure, but there's an actual chance of that) be true for humans as well (you've surely heard about how many products to be used by humans are first tested on other mammals like rabbits or mice, for example); this is far different than finding that lead has biological uses in some bacteria. It is mentioned in one short (three lines of text on my laptop) para only for a reason, after the main idea -- that lead is toxic -- has been explained in detail, and we emphasize that this is only a possibility and that even if so, lead poisoning is still far more dangerous than lead deficiency. The uncertainty of this has been clearly emphasized. But there is a chance of that; I don't see why we would hide it.--R8R (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Overall impressions

0. Paragraph construction is good.

• Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

1. I wonder if the Etymology section, which is quite long, really deserves to be in section 1?

• I decided it'd be interesting to learn where the name came from as I was writing the History section. Then this info didn't fit in and broke the flow, so I split it from the rest of History. Note that some other articles on topics that are not related to chemistry (but also rich history-wise) have Etymology sections: see Australia and Russia, for example. Also I thought that Etymology was quite short?

As for section order: the order of sections seems otherwise great to me. We first describe physical properties; they are somewhat useful when we discuss chemistry (relativity, for example); both are important to give the context on Occurrence; all of this is, in turn, useful for History; then follow the sections on Production and Uses, extensions of History into the modern days (also relying on Occurence and Properties); and then last follows Biology, because it seems natural to put Precautions and similar stuff in the end and because it also relies on previous information (you get modern information in this section, so it's useful to have general description of where lead in the contemporary world is found). However, no section relies on Ethymology, and Etymology relies on no other section. It was short, and I put it in the beginning.--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved it into the History section, and added some some subsections. It's not quite there yet, but I feel the structure is better. Sandbh (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

2. In section 2 on properties, I noticed some duplication in mentioning malleability and ductility. And I'm not sure what value there is in mentioning lead's boiling point, at least not without any context.

• I also initially thought that was strange, but that was what the sources said. I consulted a dictionary and our Wiki articles and it turned out malleability and ductility were different properties. Surprised, I added a note there. I thought, however, that explaining it to native speakers would be nearly pointless as they would all be aware.

As for boililng point: I somewhat sympathize this thinking, but that's what all textbooks do. mp and bp, as well as density, are always listed. Myself, I got used to the fact this is the info I'm certain to get and the story without it doesn't seem complete. So I followed suit.--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

3. The isotopes subsection is quite long.

• Yes, but for a purpose. Lead has a special position in the chart of nuclides as it completes many decay chains. There are few elements for which such length of Isotopes would be justified, but lead is one of those few.--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I just re-read this section and I think it's fine now. Sandbh (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

4. In section 3, on chemistry, I got the impression of some duplication when it came to talking about relativistic effects.

• Seems fine to me; could you specify what triggered this thinking?--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

5. In section 8, on Biology etc, I gained the impression of some duplication between the subsections.

• Could be, I guess? It seems to me that the topic and the way we're discussing it is continous, so uhm, I don't know. Could you give an example?--R8R (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll do another copyedit pass. -- Sandbh (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time. Much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is looking very good! Excellent, even. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! It's always very pleasant to read such comments.--R8R (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Restructure of the On Earth section?

The two paragraphs in the On Earth section: [2] are not well structured, discussion of reactions, minerals, then abundance, but then followed by yet more discussion of minerals. Perhaps the discussion of minerals can be better combined, and then followed by discussion of abundance? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that the first para is about general characteristics of lead in minerals: where it occurs and how and why it got there. The second para discusses particular minerals.--R8R (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom: lead can be widespread and it can be found in the nature; occurrence is cannot be found in nature because that's not how the English language works. There aren't many senses in which an element can be widespread, and even if there are any other than primary, the context is clear on that we're talking about primary one.--R8R (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is important in the first sentence of a section to make sure that the context is clear, hence my edit. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I rarely have problems with others' wording. Wikipedia doesn't belong to me, and I don't see too much point in defending my wordings anyway especially given they're often not the best. My concern is that the phrase "occurrence is widespread" is incorrect. Lead can be widespread. Occurrence can be high.--R8R (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm seeing that this is the first sentence of a section on "Prehistory and early history", and so some context needs to be established. While I'm not exactly sure of why you find "occurrence is widespread" to be incorrect, I note that it is "natural occurrence is widespread" that I'm emphasizing. Lead can be "widespread" if people find it in one or a few locations, and then redistribute it to lots of other places, but I don't think that is the point, here. The point is that lead can be found "naturally" in lots of places, and this, then, led to its widespread use. I'm not just trying to argue, here, and I'm open to restructuring the sentence, if we can just help to establish the context. Note, further, that geologists often use the words "natural occurrence", see: [3]. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am still bothered about how words play together. Will you be okay with the phrase "Lead is abundant in the nature"?--R8R (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can accept that, even though I think it would be better to say "naturally occurring", which would be standard in even "geology light" literature. We don't need to go around on this anymore. You are writing a very good article. Thank you for that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

See my recent change; adjust it if you want to.

Thank you again for your compliment, much appreciated. I guess I'll see you at the FAC that is about to begin? :)--R8R (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

(Or rather will begin when I find that that confounded sourcee about lead bullets. It is astoundingly difficult to find one that talks about all those alloying elements...) Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so true. So much in fact that I yesterday decided to ask a relevant WikiProject (WP:Firearms) for assistance and they advised two sources to look in. I was able to find both online (1, 2).--R8R (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

BP

The statement "Years B.P. = years before 1980" in the History figure caption contradicts Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#BP_or_YBP where it is stated that the reference point is 1950. Plantsurfer 15:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I never knew there was a scientific convention about that and used the date of the source I could trace the graph back to. I'll remove or correct the comment.--R8R (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Radioactive decay diagram needed

We have several molecular diagrams, but not one showing that lead is a common end product of radioactive decay -- possibly especially showing Uranium to Lead decay chain. I've seen one someplace in Wikipedia, but I can't seem to find it now. Maybe somebody can find it and put it into this article? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I found what I was looking for. Have a look at the isotope section. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic to the idea in general, but I'll remove the chain because it does not fit size-wise. When inserting images, I (naturally) faced the problem for the Isotopes section as well, and a graph of a decay chain was my first idea. I declined it as these pictures are too long. When contracted to an apprehensive side, they become unreadable (and then what's the point?), like the picture now. I genuinely can't read mass numbers or atomic numbers (can you?). I think we have now a better picture anyway, one of the two in this article I'm especially glad to have.

If you really think we need it (though do we?), you're free to try Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop and ask them to rotate one of the images 90 degrees. Better any one of the other three, so the resultant picture is not too thick/high. Then we could insert it between some paragraphs.

Also, I'd like to ask you to restrain from copyediting for now. I know you mean best, and I generally don't mind such work done by anyone as I am not that good with English anyway, but we now have John---a well-established master in copyediting---doing the work. His work is sort of a safe ticket for me through the FAC on prose quality, one (and perhaps only) thing I can't enhance myself in an article. Hope that's okay with you.--R8R (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure the half-lives of the intermediate steps of the chain are important in such an article. If we're making a graphic from scratch, I'd like to have a very-low-detail Segrè chart where the only isotopes named are the natural primordial ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, and ²³⁸U. Each of them is the parent of a decay chain leading to a lead isotope that would be colour-coded somehow: maybe the uranium series is green, the actinium series is orange, and the thorium series is violet. (Or something else, I don't know.) Then we'd just make it clear where the chains start and end and mark their route somehow. Double sharp (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Notes" section needs attention

Looking over the notes, I note that they need attention for grammar. Take, for example, note "i":

It decays solely via electron capture, which means when there are no electrons available and lead is accordingly fully ionized—has all 82 electrons removed—it cannot decay and becomes stable. Fully ionized thallium-205, the isotope lead-205 would decay to, becomes unstable with respect to decaying into a bound state of lead-205.

I have to leave for now, but maybe somebody can comb through these? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of this and will have a hack later if nobody else gets there first. --John (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a once-over. --John (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

references

• I'm finding many errors in the references. Even if you don't want to change formats (which I would suggest, for the sake of greatly improved clarity), we can deal with the errors now (ongoing) or at FAC, whichever you prefer.Cheers   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Lingzhi: Thank you for your interest and offer of assistance. What errors were you referring too? Sandbh (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Many. Maybe even "many, many". Each error itself is (almost always) trivial, but the cumulative effect == "lots of boring fiddling with details".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh! Do you have some examples? Sandbh (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) Forex Whitten, K. W.; Gailey, K. D. General chemistry with qualitative analayis (3 ed.). Saunders College. pp. 904––905. ISBN 978-0-314-20397-7. Unknown parameter plus isbn points to a completely different book.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: One source of help (for books only): There's a tool that's almost always (but not always) accurate with books. Go to my user page and look at the bottom-most userbox. That tool is nifty; I use it constantly. It has options to format the authors by lname fname, to add ref=harv, etc.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I found it very recently myself. Their tool for DOI is also very good.--R8R (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre, as I'm sure I got the ISBN from http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter What was the unknown parameter? Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Spelling error lats, last; I think R8R Gtrs fixed it....User:Lingzhi/sandbox2 will give you an idea of what I would do to change the referencing. It still needs tweaking. The format makes it much easier to spot errors, IMO. Plus it's just.... nicer looking. Organized. But I am not done tweaking the Python (programming language) program I wrote to convert it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty. I use that format myself in articles I write but since Lead is not my article, would like to hear from @R8R Gtrs:

Normally, I would say I am torn. It indeed looks nicer but also requires to make more clicks to get to the sources.

However, the topic is not something I would find important to argue about anyway (in a context other than getting through FAC). If you guys like either option, I will accept whatever it is.--R8R (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) Re: "more clicks to the sources". For cites that are in body text (not inside notes), one click shows you author/date, and two clicks shows full ref. For clicks inside notes, one click to the note and you DON'T see author/date, then another click to full reference. I am persuaded (evolved position) that using {{harv}} or {{harvtxt}} (depending on context) is best inside notes, so the author/date are visible. Either way, it's two clicks to full-length reference, but with harv inside notes, it's always one click to author/date. If you have no idea what I just said, you can look at User:Lingzhi/sandbox, find a Note and click it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

OK Done. If I were to make two more suggestions, I would use ((tl|sfnm}} for multiple cites in a row (so for example smelting.[93][103][104] would display as smelting.[93], and when you click down there are three refs together like this: Hong et al. 1994, pp. 1841–1843; Callataÿ 2005, pp. 361–372; Settle & Patterson 1980, pp. 1167–1176.). The second I discussed above, so inside the footnotes (and only there), instead of "...has been attributed to relativistic effects.[5]" you would see "has been attributed to relativistic effects (Pyykko 1988, pp. 563–594). But that's all up to you.... OH Sorry, just noticed a problem with Winder (1993). Needs to be Winder (1993a) and Winder (1993b), and need to sort out which bit of info goes to which source. But bedtime now. Tomorrow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work. I noticed a stray bit of code and enclosed it in an <!-- invisible comment --> for now as it was annoying me. Could you (or someone else who understands the syntax) please fix it? --John (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• The source covers pages 1167–1176, and someone put a note "See pages 1170–1176" (or I assume that's what "1170f" means). Since there are only three pages of difference, I deleted it.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, 1170–1176 is the page range of the article; 1170 is the actual page of interest. So the citation now shows as pp. 1170–1176 (1170). Sandbh (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Alas, many of the page numbers are kinda hosed. The page/pages parameter was used inconsistently in {{cite book}} in the version before I altered it.... So... I'll see if I can fix this programmatically... but may have to fix 50 or so by hand... This is the reason why separating a cite into {{sfn}} in body text and {{cite book}} in References is the way to go.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sandbh:, @R8R Gtrs: I believe I am finished, though I certainly could have missed something. Several of the journals have the full page range in both the Notes and References rather than specific in the former and full range in the latter; that's the way they were when I found them. There are three references <--- Commented Out -->. I made {{sfn}} for them and left those inside the comments, then I added the full refs into the "Further Reading". I am not interested in co-nom, and will also step aside from FAC review. Please do ping me if I messed anything up. ;-). Good luck!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Lingzhi for all of your work. I'll have a look at those outstanding items. Sandbh (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: "Sources of lead contamination are being curtailed" ironically, not in source (Greene).

This one will take me a bit longer as I think the whole section may need to be restructured. Sandbh (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, this one's done. Sandbh (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"The rate of skin absorption is low for inorganic lead" I put page 17 after the Tarrago cite, but p. 17 doesn't say exactly what our article says. It doesn't say "low"; it says "lower than for organic".

Fixed with a better cite. Sandbh (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Audi et al. 2003, pp. 3–128 SIX cites to this source, none with page numbers, but unfortunately the entire content of that article is Greek to me. I cann't find any of the cited info.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

One by one:

• "this has not been observed for any of them": pp. 108--110;
• "Lead is therefore often quoted as the heaviest stable element.": none (will remove the claim);
• "although it has a half-life of 22.3 years": p. 111;
• "In total, thirty-eight lead isotopes have been synthesized, with mass numbers 178–215.": pp. 102--112;
• "The second-most stable is the synthetic lead-202, which has a half-life of about 53,000 years...": p. 108; "...longer than any of the natural trace radioisotopes": basically the entire article save for introductions;
• "tin (element 50) having the highest number of isotopes of all elements, ten.": pp. 63--69.

I either learn (later) the patterns in the new citation style and fix it, or welcome anyone to help with that.

Lingzhi: I have come to like the new style; it seems better than what we had before (and it's now far easier to maintain a single citation style). Thank you so much!--R8R (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I will fix them. You're welcome for the help... By the way, the two best computer programming professors I ever had were both Russian. [I dropped that career path later, but still.]  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I could easily believe this now that I'm not in, but clearly near that scope of activity. :) warming to know, thank you.--R8R (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

More comments

TEL emissions

In among the copyedits I noticed what seemed to be an error of chemistry. We were taught that bromoalkanes were added to remove the lead as lead(II) bromide. In any case there is no way TEL would survive the trip through a car engine. --John (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC) This article discusses it, and so does Britannica. But these details are likely not germane in this article. --John (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you John; I edited this passage to make it clear that lead arose from the combustion of TEL, rather than from the TEL itself. Good call. Sandbh (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See also

Needs a trim. --John (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So done. Sandbh (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And I was able to convert some of the trimmed "see also's" into wlinks. Sandbh (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I took it the rest of the way. This part is for links that will be incorporated into the article when it is a quality one. It's getting there, I'd say. --John (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And some more

• Atomic "Such behavior is attributable to relativistic effects, which become particularly prominent at the bottom of the periodic table.[4] The result is that the 6s electrons of lead become reluctant to participate in bonding[a] (a phenomenon referred to as the inert pair effect), and that the distance between nearest atoms in crystalline lead is unusually long.[6]" Seems clumsy to say "attributable to" and then immediatlely "the reason is that". Not sure how to fix it. YBG (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Try that....  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox isotopes (projected)

This issue is a development. The idea was to move the "Most stable isotopes" block from the infobox into a separate box in the Isotopes section, for all elements. The new box would be like {{Infobox lead isotopes}}. The main infobox could have a simple short list of "Main isotopes", say four for lead. The new Isotopes box would also be the regular top infobox in Isotopes of lead.

Regular development process would be a general proposal being discussed & fleshed out, but I'd like to hear your opinions while you are working & thinking the Lead article. My questions are:

1. Would such a change be possible and acceptable for the lead article?
2. Would it be possible in its current version (i.e., change it right now)?

-DePiep (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

My only concern is the amount of vertical space it takes. Can we remove the last line with "view/talk/edit"? We don't need the color of its background (chemical category is irrelevant for an isotopes talk), and the links can migrate to the top left corner in the form of V•T•E.--R8R (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

1. V•T•E in top could work, but would look ugly. I will add it for demo purposes. Cannot make this work easily. Bad trade off: not a nice design for the minor benefit of saving one row.

Hmm. We can go for the bottom left corner then?--R8R (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Category color is not used, it's grey everywhere (see U isotopes). Bottom row color lighter, no stress needed.

3. Scope could be widened, "main isotopes" not just "most stable".

-DePiep (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

4. See also {{Infobox lead/sandbox}} (now single datarow isotopes). -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Relative abundance

In the section "On Earth",I added a clarification tag to the citation to the book by Emsley ---page 286 of this book is about niobium, not lead. Also, note, the linked Wikipedia article Abundance of elements in Earth's crust gives a ranking for lead's abundance at 37, not 38 as stated in this article. This is something of a technical point as there is some uncertainty in these rankings, but we might consider a way to handle this. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Which edition of Emsley did you refer to? In the 2011 (revised) edition page 286 is about lead. I added a note about the variability in the detail of elemental abunance figures, but now this makes me think that perhaps all of our element articles should use the CRC reference in our data page. Sandbh (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I used the version that was hyperlinked in the article itself:[4], which is the 2001 edition. I've now taken this link out to avoid confusion. I think I might have been the one that put the link in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

FAC 2

This article is an FA candidate. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lead/archive2. -DePiep (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A general note (old?) on how to reference

A guide on how to add a reference to this article and fall in line with the general referencing style

1. Write a reference as you usually would in a template that is most appropriate for your reference: {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite report}}, or any other template of this series, preceded by an asterisk for the bullet list. Please use |first1=, |last1=, |first2=, |last2=, etc.; also, please add |displayauthors=3 if there are more than three authors (alternatively, add only three authors and then add |displayauthors=etal). Finish your reference template by |ref=harv.
2. Do not add it not in the text, enclosed by <ref></ref> tags; add to the Bibliography section following the alphabetical order of references. Alphabetical order is set by the first word in the displayed reference text; this will be either the last name of the first author (or the author organization if the author is an organization) or, if no author is present, the title of the referenced work.
3. Add an {{sfn}} template to the piece of text you want to reference. All parameters are unnamed, except for the |page= parameter (or |pages=, or |p=, or |pp=). Add them in the following order: last names of the first four (or less, if less are provided) authors; year of publication; |page= or analogous parameter.

The reference should look like this:

• * {{cite book |last=Emsley |first=J. |authorlink=John Emsley |title=Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements |year=2011 |publisher=Oxford University |isbn=978-0-19-850341-5 |ref=harv}} in the Bibliography section; and
• {{sfn|Emsley|2011|p=280}} in the text near the claim.

Lead renomination

Hi R8R, where are things up to? I gather there's only a few outstanding items. Sandbh (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The future renomination has been off from my immediate agenda ever since I learned we have to add the new direct industrial technique of lead production and check the current text and the new additions form a good non-overlapping text. I've set up a placeholder empty subsection with the expectation that I fill it as soon as I have enough spare time to do so. I wanted to do it yesterday but I was overwhelmed by my RL activities.

It shouldn't take all too long (and then the renom will be back on my agenda) but must be done first.--R8R (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Take your time. Would like to see you back sometime later on. Meanwhile, all the lead in the world should take care of themselves. Old enough. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for a late response. I've spent most my Wiki time for a post for the Wikimedia blog which should go live soon. Thanks for the warm reply. Now that most of this work is done, I'll be back to this article as far as I'm not away again for a different reason.--R8R (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we're going to be ready to go soon. It seems I only need response from Nergaal. Will maybe try to think about it in the meantime myself as well.--R8R (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Webb, Marsiglio & Hirscha 2015

The reference Webb, G. W.; Marsiglio, F.; Hirscha, J. E. (2015). "Superconductivity in the elements, alloys and simple compounds" (PDF). arXiv.org. p. 2. Retrieved 2 March 2017. is incorrect since the name of the last author is just Hirsch, and since it's an arXiv preprint that was published in Physica C: Superconductivity and its Applications, I suggest change it to cite journal and add |arxiv=1502.04724 to give link to the free access preprint, but the page number will need to be changed (the page range for the journal article is 17–27). Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for a late response. A magnificent catch. Done. Thank you.--R8R (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As for arxiv, I'd rather not. I have no problems with it, but reviewers will want uniformity and we don't use it elsewhere.--R8R (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Outstanding FAC items

@R8R Gtrs: @Double sharp: @Hawkeye7: @Nergaal: @John: @Isambard Kingdom: @DePiep: @YBG:

Copied from the FAC archive. I hope I have everything. I'm not sure if Hawkeye7 and John had any o/s concerns apart from, in the case of John, a request for a ping once ce had concluded.

Lead

• I am pretty sure one of the larger uses of lead is in gigantic capacitors that help stabilize the fluctuations of voltage of electric grids inside cities. Supercapacitor. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Not yet a larger use, but a developing technology, from what I could find. Mentioned in the penultimate para of the Applications/Elemental form section. Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Also was noted: "We also don't need to use the respell template on such a common word". That's about LED for pronunciation. I argued keep (since same-spelled 'to lede' has a different pronunciation, and because this does not seem to be an FA issue but more a personal opinion by John). I mention it here for completeness, check. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

isotopes

• I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts.

We do the talk at the more relevant section, Origin and occurrence (specifically, the In space part).--R8R (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking something more explicit along the lines of "the stable periodic table" ends at Pb/Bi; everything beyond that will eventually decay. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

where?Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's okay as of now. We say that "with its high atomic number, lead is the second-heaviest element whose natural isotopes are regarded as stable," and that's pretty clear to me. I think that even a school student who would bother to read and understand section would look at the sentence "All heavier elements decay" and say, "well, it's already clear, you already said lead was the second heaviest." --R8R (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

chemistry

• what typical test do freshman college courses use to identify lead samples? I can't remember exactly, but there is a standard benchtop test

I have not replied up to this point as I couldn't find it to build an opinion. I still can't. This makes me think it's not a big loss. --R8R (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The closest I can think of is qualitative inorganic analysis (add HCl to precipitate out Pb2+), but that's not for metallic lead. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, ions of lead. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

where? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Techniques for identifying the presence of the Pb2+ ion in water generally rely on the precipitation of lead(II) chloride via the addition of dilute hydrochloric acid. As the chloride is somewhat soluble in water, the precipitation of lead(II) sulfide, via the addition of hydrogen sulfide, is then attempted."--R8R (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

other ox states

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lead(II)_sulfate.jpg is a cool image

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that link got there but I meant to say Galena has really cool looking images. There is nothing cool about boring white powder. Nergaal (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has a few cool images indeed, but these are mostly the mineral rather than the compound. We could take the space-filling unit cell model but we already have a few similar pics (though ask for it again and I won't insist).--R8R (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of this: file:Calcite-Galena-elm56c.jpg. Since it is the main common ore, why not have a picture of it that also looks cool? Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooooh! That's a swish pic. Done: replaced the boring white powder pic. Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no pic of galena currently - the most common ore of Pb. Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

origin

• the table seems a bit random, why were the present entries chosen?

The idea is that all elements are even-numbered; we have mercury as the closest even-numbered element, Th and U, and a few elements of comparable occurrence with a Z of 40--60 to illustrate that lead is indeed quite common for its atomic number.

still seems incredibly random. maybe merge it with the image below it since that one needs a better caption anyways

I adjusted the set of featured elements. Looks better to me now.--R8R (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I get the >=78 choices, but I don't understand why 42, 46, and 50? why not compare it to other Z magic numbers? Also, looking at Elements_abundance-bars.svg I think it would be really important to say explicitly that it is the most aboundadnt element above Z=56? This would come as a natura conclusion from the fact that all ehavier stuff produced in supernova have decayed to enrich the solar system in Pb. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• is the relative abundance in the crust much different from that in the Solar System? Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I prepared some time ago an introductory sentence for this but apparently didn't add the figure itself. Added it now.--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm missing it. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Both figures are there now. Sandbh (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Image caption should say Pb is rightmost-red spot (image is unreadable without zoom) Nergaal (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The image is supposed to be read. This is a scheme, they are meant to be read. Besides, I don't understand what you mean. Lead is the middle row (pretty clear from the image itself).--R8R (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

the problem I am having is that the image is hard to read at that zoom level, so I thought having a pointer in the caption saying where is Pb on that graph would help. Even something like more common than all the elements with Z > ? would help. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "s 0.121 ppb (parts per billion" => so what rough rank does it have among elements? same for in earth, what rough rank? Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

history

• Pls add File:Saturn_symbol.svg somewhere, since for the longest time that was practical symbol for lead. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Added to the alchemy section, in Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• why did the pope declare it forbidden? did they base it on toxicological reasons?

Yes. Lead often caused colics. Do you want that in the text?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise it reads incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Not because of the colic but because the wine was regarded as impure. Sandbh (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

what is the problem with impure wine? are you talking about the baptising wine? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh:Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Unsuitable for use in sacred rites. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• what lead compounds were used for whitening faces?

Too many to list, I think. See here--R8R (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think at least White lead should be mentioned. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Where? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance section, para 2: "Lead, notably in the form of Venetian ceruse, was extensively used in cosmetics by Western European aristocracy as whitened faces were regarded as a sign of modesty." Sandbh (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Outside Europe and Asia" can be merged with previous section

These subtitles were not my invention in first place. I liked the story not being torn apart by headers. Nonetheless, if we do use them, I'd want to keep this one. The reason for that would be the content of this paragraph (lead mining in the Americas, Africa, and Australia) differs from the previous one (lead usage in (mostly) medieval and Renaissance Europe).--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Technically you should mention Ancient Egypt uses of lead in cosmetics. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We refer to this in the Pre- and early history section: "The Ancient Egyptians were the first to use lead in cosmetics…" Sandbh (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll specify it's Sub-Saharan Africa we're talking about.--R8R (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Into the modern era" is a bit too artistic

True. Is it bad though? If so, can you suggest an alternative?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just say "Modern Era" or "In Modern Era". Also, remove The from the previous subtitle. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "ountries in Europe and the United States started efforts to reduce the amount of lead that people came into contact with" when was the first significant program?

Depends on what you define as significant. In my view, that is the White Lead convention, which prompted many European countries to ban lead paints for some applications (Ctrl+F "1930" in the text). You may also think of the following fragment as of the answer: "In the UK, Sir Thomas Morrison Legge became the ®rst Medical Inspector of Factories in 1898. A centralized system of factory inspection had been created under the Factories and Workshop Act of 1878, and Legge did pioneering work to implement the Act". I stand by paints, and we mentioned them.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

add it pls. this could be mentioned in the restriction of lead usage section as a "landmark" towards rolling back its use. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent extract. Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "From 1960 to 1990, lead output in ..." and after is a bit TMI; trim this production part since it is present in the next section

I disagree. First of all, 1990 was over 25 years ago; it is history. Second, it's natural to focus a bit more what is common to the contemporary people. Third, there is actually no overlap that I see. Production does not deal with the 1980s; it deals with the 2010s (i.e., the present as opposed to comparably recent past).--R8R (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the first time the text talks about increase of "31%". Up until now it's been only X had largest, Y produced over half, etc. Keep the gist and move extra % to a subarticle. Nergaal (talk)

The idea of percentages is that lead production did not decline despite all the new regulations on it. I put a colon in the end of the previous sentence to demonstrate that.--R8R (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere else you said that stuff shouldn't be in this main article. I think exact changes (besides trends) should be left out of the main para. Just trim those sentences to increase by a third in the Western Block and tripling in the eastern Block. However, starting with mid 20th century, China began industrializing and by 2004 became the largest producer. This had negative health effects like in the west. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Fair point. I think Sandbh's changes were good?--R8R (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• has coal burning in plants been a source of worry for lead poisoning? I would be very surprised it it isn't part of the "clean coal" idea

It has, but apparently mercury is the main heavy metal to worry about. Let's get back to this when we reach the section on environment.--R8R (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

So? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done, in the Environmental, and Restriction etc sections. Sandbh (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• in reference to the previous point: not sure where to put this, but isn't lead a relatively cheap element (because it is easily concentrated?)? I think it's because of this, lead has had many applications. Maybe mention somewhere that lead has been historically relatively accessible/cheap. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We say this in the lead: "Lead is easily extracted from its ores…". Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This one is an excellent suggestion. I'll leave it in bold as a reminder for myself until it's done. That's the kind of thing I would absolutely want to make clear.--R8R (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned this and now satisfied with it.--R8R (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

production

• "Production and consumption of lead is increasing worldwide (due to its use in lead-acid batteries)" this is so vague

It is meant to be vague. This is the first sentence in the section. We proceed to specifics later.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the parenthesis OR or it's from an actual source? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite added. Sandbh (talk) 03:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The top lead producing countries were " when?

Here's some context:

In 2013, 4.74 million metric tons came from primary production and 5.74 million tons from secondary production. The top mining countries for lead in that year were China, Australia, Russia, India, Bolivia, Sweden, North Korea, South Africa, Poland, and Ireland. The top lead producing countries were China, United States, India, South Korea, Germany, Mexico, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Australia.[143]

Is it really unclear?--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Missed that. But you don't need to give out top10 mining if you have a table. Why not give a production table too and trim the text to only major producers. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought about this. Yet there are two considerations:

We don't have data for miners and producers from the same year. The lists mention data from the same year, 2013, to keep the data listed side-by-side, because listing them side by side implies the reader can compare the two sets, and the comparison is only correct when the data is from the same time range.

The most up-to-date data for mining is from 2015. For production, it's only 2013. Removing the 2013 mining data suggests we run into the problem I described above or lose the option of comparing the two sets. Removing the 2015 mining data means we don't list the newest data we have.

Also, two tables side by side don't look nice. Bringing them into one table could be better, but the sets of countries don't match.

That's why it's the way it currently is.--R8R (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The second table doesn't need to be right in the same place. I suggest having it in the section before. Different year is fine. The image is nice, but might as well add a table with numbers too. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agreed with R8R, and with some trimming believe I've mitigated the need to do any more work here. Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "the global per capita stock of lead in use " annual?

What do you mean, "annual stock"?--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood that. It is trying to say the total lead amount divided by the world population is 8 kg / person, but it is said in a pretty convoluted manner. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "a very low percentage of lead," is lead mined as a primary or a secondary ore?

In galena, lead is the primary metal. In basically any other mineral lead is obtained from -- secondary.--R8R (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess my question here is similar to the one below: is the ore mined for lead primarily, or for a set of metals where lead is secondary? since lead is pretty cheap I have hard time imagining they mine the ore for the lead primarily. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

From reading Ullmann's and Kirk-Othmer, there is nothing in these sources suggesting that lead is obtained as a secondary metal. It's traded on the London Metal Exchange, which is no small achievement. It actually costs more per tonne than aluminium. I would've laughed if you'd have said this to me, and done my money. Ullmann's notes that copper byproducts of lead ores are passed to specialized smelters, supporting the notion that Pb is mined for Pb. Kirk-Othmer says that lead is a rare metal but the occurrence of concentrated and easily accessible lead ore deposits is unexpectedly high, and that these are widely distributed through the world, which I guess makes primary lead extraction economical. They also say while concentrations of impurities may be tolerable for some lead applications, the market values encourage separation and recovery. Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a very unexpected find. I suggest mention the rough price of the metal in the production section, and say it is about X or more than X. Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• the text almost implies that Pb is produced more of as a by-product of sulfuric acid and Au/Ag production chain. am I wrong? how much of the bottomline $ do these other products represent

I don't see why you think so but I'll leave this for now to think about it. I believe percentages are beyond the scope of the article.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

my thought here is there a "producer or lead" or the producer makes something and also recovers lead to increase profit? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at the text but, like R8R, was unable to see why you think so. See also my response to your previous question. Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• "silica fluoride" should be linked

Nothing to link to, but I spelled out the formula.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

who cals SiF6 2- a silica fluoride? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is fixed since we only now talk about lead fluorosilicate. Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

biological

• "The main target for lead toxicity in humans is the central nervous system." then "The primary cause of lead's toxicity is its predilection for interfering with the proper functioning of enzymes."

From what I understand, there is no contradiction here.--R8R (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

you mean the enzymes in the second sentence are in CNS or in general? if the latter it reads weird. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Does this lot still look weird? Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "Restriction of lead usage" should have more dates on first ban examples; also, when were lead pipes banned since even in colonial US they seem to be in use

Nobody said anything about banning lead pipes in the U.S. They were, however, subjected to closer attention and government-approved anticorrosion measures. See Lead and Copper Rule.

As for more dates: what dates are we missing?--R8R (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Like first state/place in the world that banned leaded gasoline? or leaded paint? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. It appears that lead in paint was first phased out for interior used by NLT than 1930. We say in the Modern Era section: "Most European countries banned usage of lead paint—commonly used to this point because of its opacity and water resistance[128]—for interiors by 1930." Leaded gas was first phased out, but only for a few years, in some US cities in the 1920s. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• are there any plans for lead cleanup? where is lead waste being dumped? -- Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Mentioned in the Environmental, and Restriction of lead usage sections. Sandbh (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• "[lead in the] human body is exceeded only by iron and zinc. " should add an average number of mg an average adult has in their body. also, is this problematic in cremations? Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. On cremations, it seems not: "Overall, even with the use of fossil fuels as a heat source, cremation contributes very little to atmospheric, water or soil pollution by metals such as mercury, lead or cadmium; or by green house gases such as carbon dioxide." http://faculty.virginia.edu/metals/cases/huffman1.html

• some images from lead poisoning might be worthwhile adding here -- Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I had a look but I tend to think we have the best image from there already, noting we don't have much room left in this section. Sandbh (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246629/ Nergaal (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite added at end of Effects section. Sandbh (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

reference formatting

• For the Standard atomic weight source the infobox now says "Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW)." R8R Gtrs strongly suggested to leave out the acronym, while I'd keep it in for recognisability. While we are at it, I also am using/introducing, preformatted, this. It is the formal publication.

What is best, both article-wide style and our all-elements style citing? -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I am against a WikiProject-wide formatting. Standardization in each one article is reasonable and desired, but this does not need to be standardized throughout articles. We're not a journal, after all.--R8R (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sit rep

@Nergaal:@Double sharp:@R8R Gtrs:

Hi Nergaal, I believe I've addressed all of your outstanding concerns.

R8R Gtrs, as you would've seen from the FAC chat, I had finished the copy-edit requested by John. Oh, and I've rechecked Hawkeye7's original comments, and I see you had addressed all of these.

So, there it is. We should now check some of the other comments raised at WP FAC talk. I'll also take this opportunity to recheck a few fine points that I noticed in the article in the course of addressing Nergaal's comments. Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

more

I'll list anything not mentioned yet.

• {{cn}} tags; except for one, but we have it separately below
• new production from Ullmann;
• reference correctness;
• anything else?

--R8R (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added, late:

• #Lead (lede/infobox): keep/reject respell "LED" (From FAC, John)

I think we'll keep it; John said it wouldn't make him oppose the nomination

• #reference formatting (infobox) about CIAAW.

I don't know; pending more opinions?--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

--DePiep (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• when ready, ask John to have a look before we go back to FAC

I'll strike this one: John is already here--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• check with Nergaal, and other WP Elements active members re whether they could indicate their support (conditional or unconditional)

This is sort of the last thing chronologically that we will do. Could even do shortly after the FAC begins. This won't influence the progress towards a new FAC.--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• who will do the renomination?

Personally, I don't find this important. Whoever expresses the desire to do so.--R8R (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• no co-nominations. Once person nominates; the other person supports.

I understand; yet I can't help but laugh here.

Generally, if I was not to nominate the article, could I support it as I had done much work here (I am leaning towards no)? Same question for you.--R8R (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you could. Your opinion counts as much as anyone else's. The guidelines say if someone other than the lead editor is the nominator then that person should consult with the lead editor before doing so. If the nomination goes ahead you are effectively indicating your support and, IMO, are entitled to say so. For me this is somewhat moot since I expect I'd nominate my own FA candidates. Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• the last sentence of each paragraph has to end with a citation except for one case, see next point
• fix citation required for surma/antimony

-- Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I have in fact never ever seen a reference for the fact as it is in the article now, but there are smaller facts that could be referenced that sum up into the sentence we have.

We can quote how this word "surma" comes from AD ~3000 from South Asia and how those modern languages of a clearly later origin (Tajik, Mongolian, Russian, etc.) have the same word as well. Perhaps it's also easy to find they borrowed it from a different language. The Russian word comes from either Crimean Tatar or Turkish word for "kohl," for example.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I see this section has been deleted for the time being, which is what I had in mind for it. Sandbh (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"The originally South Asian surma—"galena" in English—spread across Asia with that meaning, and gave its name to antimony in a number of Central Asian languages, and in Russian.[citation needed]" -- I am referring to this sentence; as of now, it's still in the article.--R8R (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh! I was looking in the wrong section. Sandbh (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, that one's fixed, and I even managed to add some Russian to it. Sandbh (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: How's the list of things needing to be done looking now? Sandbh (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I saw a while ago that I'd been pinged but I have come to no longer look for pings as I find them in my watchlist edits anyway. I'll change my habits so that pings work as expected.

I'll check the list shortly.--R8R (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

missed?

• so where is the explanation for plumbum? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reconstructed the old section which had a little more material (more text is also good there so that I don't have too much white space because of the {{-}} template at the end of that section). However, I think that will be there should be enough. This is English Wiki and I think we should stick to English.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude, what does Pb mean? Nergaal (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's a short extract from the mentioned newly re-added text: "This word is related to the Latin plumbum, which gave the element its chemical symbol Pb." Is the current text not enough?--R8R (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: Do you understand now why I asked origin/etymology of plumbum to be explained? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, not quite. Why?--R8R (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Plumbum gave the symbol Pb. There isn't another word for the origin of the symbol itself. Therefore, the etymology for the origin of the chosen symbol is, for all intended purposes, as relevant as the etymology of name of the element itself. . Nergaal (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. We had that actually back then too (in a note), so I thought it would be something else. Nonetheless, I'm glad we figured it out.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• still not really happy with the X-ray uses explanation. Asides from price, what makes Pb better than say Al or Bi? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll look for a good answer.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's good that you asked for it. I now know why (see Lead shielding and this site). To be added.--R8R (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I added what The Naked Scientists say about it. Despite the saucy name, they are actually run or supported by Cambridge, so this must be okay as a a source.--R8R (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Lead has no biological role" => maybe say no proven bio role? I remember somewhere people guessing it could have functions. Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted. Done.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• is lead of any worry in fish? if yes/no, how does this compare to Hg? and why? Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll look for it.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A brief look into this yielded the following results:

• Mercury is the most concerning element of all for a specific reason. According to doi:10.1016/j.envint.2013.05.005, "Mercury is an element of special concern because its inorganic form is biologically transformed in aquatic environments into methylmercury (MeHg), a lipophilic organic compound that bioaccumulates and biomagnifies as it moves up the aquatic food chain (Carrasco et al., 2011; Gewurtz et al., 2011; Jaeger et al., 2009). As a result, human populations with a traditionally elevated dietary intake have the highest potential exposure to MeHg and are at an increased risk for developing neurotoxic effects. This is a particularly important issue for children, pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers (Jedrychowski et al., 2007; Ramón et al., 2008, 2011)." This makes me want to restrain from comparing mercury to lead in the body (again, because this is an overview article on lead and the complete explanation is more about mercury than lead).
• According to the same article, most species have low median amounts of lead. So low that most samples had levels below the level of detection. There is one fish species that had a high amount of lead in it but a detailed analysis shows that it must be due to geographical reasons. However, "despite these low concentrations, twenty fish and five crustacean samples (5.15% of the total samples studied) exceeded the ML set by the EC for both foodstuffs."
• According to this book, lead accumulates in bones and soft tissues are not particularly affected. Only nearby industrial waters affect this.
• The same book says the primary source of lead contamination is the content of lead in seawater.

I have yet to think if this all is worth a mention and if so, what should be highlighted.--R8R (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: I just checked and it seems to me there is no proper place in this article as it currently is for this to fit in nicely. I am open to suggestions, though; do you think we should add it and if so, where?

• I am still surprised how come there is soo much Pb in the body. How come there is so much of it, instead of say Cu, or other 3d metals that are way more aboundant? Is it more volatile compounds therefore get inside the body more? I am sure we use other heavy metals way more than Pb, so I still have a hard time understanding how come so much gets into the body.

I'll look for it.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If I remember that correctly, the problem is that lead that comes into the body stays in it for a long time (we mention something about lead mimicking calcium and being stored in bones). I'll check that and add to the main text whenever I can.--R8R (talk) 08:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the reason is that Pb bioaccumulates. W is about as common, but doesn't stay in the body very long (which is good; if not it might cause problems, since Mo is just above it and is essential). Even Th is not so bad, since most of it just passes through you (the problem is that the little that stays keeps throwing off alphas). Hg and Tl are like Pb in that they stay in you, but are rarer, so they don't show up as commonly. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I see we essentially had it there already, but I reworded it to make this thesis clearer nonetheless.--R8R (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I left comments above to where I thought there might still be work needed. Nergaal (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. I'll look for answers to your questions later. (I want to say this will happen soon but I may be busy until April.)--R8R (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• One more: we need to clarify what "submerged fuel combustion or injection" is.--R8R (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Or do we? All words are understandable to an English speaker and there's no unusual meaning here.--R8R (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Maintain the new referencing style: a few new refs stand out.--R8R (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments re copyedit

@Dank: First and foremost, I am grateful for you taking your time. This has been actually helpful so far (it's not just blind politeness, I actually mean it) and pointed me at the text again.

• • Glad to hear it. First off: I did a bad job with some of my edits, sorry about that. In general, reviewers and FAC coords are looking for responses on the review page itself (and I often don't watchlist the article), but I'm happy to reply here. - Dank (push to talk)

I've got some minor issues. I can't fit all of these in an edit summary, so I'll describe it for now and we'll see tomorrow what we should do about it, if that's okay.

• "How about this?" The phrase "Lead has 82 protons" is redundant since we've had a reference to the "lead's atomic number of 82". The atomic number shows how many protons there are in element's nuclei; this practically defines a chemical element. So if an atom has 82 protons, then it's a lead atom. If more or less, then it's a different element. (For example, oxygen has 8, aluminum has 13, iron has 26, and so forth.) If you think we should specify this somehow, I gladly will, as I generally like having my texts accessible to most people.
  • Aware of this; I had tunnel vision and missed the "82" in the preceding sentence. I gave it another whack.
• "especially stable nucleus" -- (note to self) shortly mention in a note what's so special about this stability

• "Very few organolead(II) compounds are known, even when starting with inorganic lead(II) reactants." -- it reads like an incomplete sentence, doesn't it? I mean, I understand it, but still?
  • Fixed I hope.
• "gave its name to antimony (сурьма) in Russian." Russian is cool, but the point is that Russian is just one of examples, and there are more. The text used to say something like "in a number of Central Asian languages as well as Russian," but it's hard to find a cool reference for this without having to cite dictionaries on these individual languages, so I decided to keep the largest language (in terms of native speakers); still, there are more.
  • Reverted.
• "potentially knocking it out from its atom" -- I see why you removed it from there; can't blame you for doing so. The thing is, however, there once was an explanation on why this is important. The high atomic number of lead ensures that many electrons will be too hard to be kicked away. It requires some fixed for each atom and electron amount of energy to remove the electron from its atom; the electron can't absorb more than the energy required to kick it out (let's put it this way). Lead is difficult takes so much energy to get an electron kicked away that its one of its electrons (this applies not to all of them, but to many) can actually absorb all of this energy while still remaining in the atom. This whole energy absorption is important because radioactivity is basically too densely concentrated energy (that's a radical simplification, too, but let's put it this way) and that's what makes it so dangerous. I'm leaving this as a note to self to get it back in.--R8R (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The paragraph is: "The high density and atomic number of lead, combined with its relatively low cost, malleability, and low melting point, helped establish it as a radiation shielding material. A gamma ray, for example, can be absorbed by an electron. The high density of lead means that lead atoms are densely packed and the electron density is high; the high atomic number means there are many electrons per atom. In its molten form, it has been used as a coolant for lead-cooled fast reactors." The point of this paragraph is that lead can absorb a lot of gamma rays. The point you're making seems like a separate point, one that might make more sense in a note or another paragraph.
  • I saw what happened in the last FAC and didn't want that to happen again. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I reconsidered the need and I think the text is good now as a brief description.--R8R (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Flint

Should we mention Flint and the lead water crisis somewhere on here? BorisTheOversizedSpider (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

We used to have Flint water crisis in See also; we used to have many links there but now they're gone (I don't remember why). Feel free to add the link there if you want to.--R8R (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Era

I thought it was too subtle an issue to be even bothered with, but apparently with these reverts and re-reverts we could have a discussion. I myself used "BC" originally (unaware of the "BCE" connotation) and wrote it this way. Then it was hinted at me during the second FAC we could use BCE instead in a science article like this one. I learned the acronym and decided it was indeed more appropriate for us in a natural science article to use "BCE". Today, CouncilConnect traced this back to the olden days and set up the old dating system again.

I believe we should decide this in a civil manner. WP:ERA says, "Do not change the established era style in an article unless [emphasis added] there are reasons specific to its content." Also, that same rule says, "BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas." (So this hints generally that BCE/CE seem to be reasonable here.) But most importantly, it was me who undid my own actions and I support the change; hardly anyone is offended by it and we lose zero information.

The rule suggests a discussion before a change, which I am initiating. @CouncilConnect, DePiep, and Mevagiss:--R8R (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The change was discussed, in the FAC2 (see 'Other') no less. The BCE notation therefor is genuinely accepted & is part of its FA status version. I suggest someone could revert to the R8R/FA version. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There was no justification for changing the era status during FA process as this is quite irrelevant to the quality of the article. There is no reason to change to using BCE if "some texts" do, as many texts (and the vast majority of chemistry texts) do not. Two months ago is not the "olden days". Opinions and preferences are not excuses for changing the era setting. It is not more appropriate in a natural science article as there are NO reasons within its content that could possibly impinge on the choice of era convention. The WP:ERA is clear that it should be left as it was originally--CouncilConnect (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed, there is a good reason. I don't see why a FAC would only cover "quality of the article" (not "being stable" for example); this is an argument you just made up. The editors involved in the FAC clearly found consensus about this. Natural science is culturally neutral. Don't know where you got the "older days" quote from, but in science this can refer to centuries old texts. It is not up to you to reopen a discussion (by questioning its content) that concluded correctly & with consensus. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Twice CouncilConnect reverted only referring only to WP:ERA as the "original era setting" [5], [6]. Mevagiss did the same [7]. Now that it was pointed out the the required discussion did take place, CouncilConnect is putting up a crippled and post-consensus argumentation. Mevagiss did not return, so far. In short: the discussion is not (and cannot be) invalidated this way. -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The first use of an era abbreviation appears to date back to 2008, in this edit, when User:Stone used the BC notation. If so, BC should presumably remain so? Sandbh (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That was the point brought in by CouncilConnect and Mevagiss, per WP:ERA. However, in the FAC2, 'Other' discussion consensus was reached to change into BCE. This too is per WP:ERA. But now, after-conclusion and after its FA promotion, CouncilConnect tries to invalidate that discussion with newly constructed arguments here. Sure that is not good process. -DePiep (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and exists to provide a free, high-quality resource for its readers. The decision was made a long time ago to switch to BCE on article quality grounds. I can't remember if I was part of that discussion, but I support it. Lead is a culturally neutral topic and predates Christianity. I support retaining BCE as the peer-reviewed consensus version. --John (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is and was no good reason to substitute BCE for BC, whatever the discussion, because there are no objective reasons for doing so. It is to stay as it was originally set. It's as simple as that.--Mevagiss (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Er, no. That isn't how it works. --John (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, not at all. See WP:ERA clearly recognizing the possibility of such arguments: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." Notice that John referred to the content as to the reason for this change, as well as I do. The rule itself recognizes this argument: "BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas."--R8R (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mevagiss "whatever the discussion" you say? Are you serious? Orr are you just trying to post-argue while you initially did not know about that discussion? -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose reasons given are specious as BCE is irrelevant to science topics. Other articles on elements such as Gold, Mercury and Tin use the BC, obviously because no one is convinced by any reason to change. Lead is to stay as it was and stay in step with other articles.--CouncilConnect (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please also do not call a suggestion from one editor that was then carried out by another, a consensus. That is described by a different word. Thank you.--CouncilConnect (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to "oppose", CouncilConnect. The discussion is not reopened, or redone. The discussion was closed & concluded as part of a FAC. Also, I again ask you why you didn't change your opinion in this after you were notified of that discussion. And wrt the other elements you mention: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, that is exactly an example of a consensus---in this case, a consensus between two editors. (The other editor that carried out the change---myself---stated he approved that.)--R8R (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

CouncilConnect once more reverted, now saying "no consensus demonstrated" [8]. Another argument shift. CouncilConnect, this is going to look like edit warring. The fact that you did not know about or did not look for the discussion is no reason at all. I strongly suggest you undo this revert (i.e., back into "BCE") to comply with the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

The file c:File:Swarovski flacon.JPG has been nominated for deletion on Commons 
Reason: All these jewels are very probably copyrighted to the artists that created them. We need an authorisation by Swarovski to publish them. 
Deletion request: link 

Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC).

Peer reviewed version

I have a minor concern about the WikiJournal of Science template at the top of the References section. The link and DOI number both lead to a Wikiversity page which can be edited by anyone, so there is no guarantee that the current version has actually been peer-reviewed in its entirety. It seems that a link to the static PDF version would be more appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 15:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits re lead phaseout

[9] @109.92.242.11: First and foremost, please please please, if you are reverted, never revert back. Should your edit be reverted, please start a discussion on an article's talk page. This principle is known as BRD: be Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not BRRD or BRRRRRRRRRD. Start the discussion immediately after the first revert. Discussion is king.

As for "not all bullets contain lead": of course not all bullets contain lead. We live in a world where not all cheese contains milk, I reckon. I'll try to emphasize how only those products that contain lead that humans get in contact with are considered bad. If you find yourself in disagreement, please do not revert. You can explain what's wrong here and we can respectfully discuss it.--R8R (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to include something what should look like "However, many countries still allow the sale of products that expose humans to lead, including lead-based paints, some types of bullets, fireworks, and brass taps". Just to be more detailed and kind of neutral. We agree in general. Thank you 109.92.242.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Or to be like this "However, many countries still allow the sale of various products that expose humans to lead, including some types of paints, bullets, fireworks, and brass taps". 109.92.242.11 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Your second version is just fine, except I don't understand the need for the word "various": in that part of the sentence, it adds no meaning to the text. I'll use that (without the word "various").--R8R (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Quick notes after revisiting edits since December 2018

• There's a {{cn}} tag;
• Newly added sources on toxicity needs supervision and, if okay, formatting.--R8R (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

All done.--R8R (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Important paper

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30025-2/fulltext

Key quote:

  Although we cannot exclude residual confounding, we estimate that about 400 000 deaths are
  attributable to lead exposure every year in the USA, of which 250 000 are from cardiovascular
  disease. Concentrations of lead in blood lower than 5 μg/dL (<0·24 μmol/L) are an important, but
  largely ignored, risk factor for death in the USA, particularly from cardiovascular disease. 

If this paper is valid - and I think it is - we are looking at 1000-deaths/day in the USA alone.. number one cause of preventable death. A self inflicted genocide. ( more deaths than the feared Covid-19 - every day - every year). A relative risk that needs to be addressed.

Observations that support this paper - it is thought that CAD (CVD) was rare before lead exposure soared. Increased CAD - now that lead is out of gas and paint - CAD is decreasing. Blood lead levels in children is 1/2 of what it was - still much to high.

I'm going to let someone else figure out how to put this in the article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Bio-availability

I did a lot of work looking for information on the bio-availability of different forms of lead - I don't think these vital studies have been done!

Not knowing the bio-availability differences of say - white lead, tetra-ethyl lead, solder-dross, solder, or pure metallic lead, etc. puts a lot of people at needless risk. I think white-lead and tetra-ethyl lead are particularly absorb able - but where are such papers? Strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"LEad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LEad. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I need to know if it's lead in this bottle

It's in a form in different parts of the bottle we shake it it forms in little piles in the bottom of the bottle but when it's finished it's 6 piles NOWHERE else 50.229.59.42 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, and we do not have enough information to answer your quewstion. Sorry. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)