![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
At first glance this appears to be mythological. I'm not sure if we should use such a story to imply that solid aluminium tools may have been used then. — Paleo Neonate – 19:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the idea of native aluminium. I had no idea. John ( talk) 09:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
John, I just did some initial googling and it appears there are other explanations to this story: it could be glass or the story could be fiction altogether. Would it be okay to restore the story as I added it and then mention these possibilities?-- R8R ( talk) 14:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know the exact location of the "aluminium passage" in Pliny's Natural History? That is, book and chapter number. As Paleoneonate said above, the passage seems reasonably well known and is mentioned, even quoted, in trustworthy sources. Some sources say that it's found in book number XXXV (i.e., 35). However, I was unable to find anything at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D35 after searching with keywords goldsmith, Tiberius and clay. I even expanded my search to books 33 and 34, since they are about metals; I supposed that the number "35" could be a typo. Yet, no match. Likewise, I pasted excerpts of the quote to Google. Quote found here: /info/en/?search=History_of_aluminium#cite_note-3 . Now, some matches of course, but NONE of them to e-texts of classic works. This is very confusing, since finding references to classic texts is usually easy. I would be very interested if someone could find the exact location of the passage in Pliny's work. However, based on the information I have at my use this far, I have to say it is a very real possibility that the passage does not actually exist. 88.112.244.203 ( talk) 13:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Exley is one of the researchers who authored "Aluminium in brain tissue in autism". In a video posted on Youtube he suggested that parents give their children Volvic (mineral water) because the silicic acid in that water can bond with aluminum and help remove aluminum from brain tissue. Parents reported back to Exley that since they started giving their children Volvic mineral water the children's autism symptoms became less severe.
Exley et al analyzed tissue samples from brains that had been removed from dead people. This is just straight-forward tissue analysis, not brain surgery on living people.
Exley reported that he received a direct death threat after the Aluminum...autism article was published. So I am wondering, What is going on here? Why are people getting so flipped out about autopsy reports?
People should be ecstatic that there is a simple and effective treatment for autism: (1) get the aluminum out of children's brains and (2) stop putting aluminum in there in the first place. They could be putting calcium phosphate adjuvant into vaccines instead of aluminum salts.
The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology has been publishing since 1987. It does not look to me like a predatory publisher. It is being published by a federation of five European societies on trace elements and minerals.
You should not refer to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a "quack". He does not practice medicine. He is genuinely concerned about the welfare of America's children. You should not use Wikipedia to demonize him.
Scott Gregory Beach ( talk) 02:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
"He is genuinely concerned about the welfare of America's children"? Then why does he want them to die of preventable diseases? And there is no gorram 'cure'. I should know. Excuse me for my phrasing, but any journal that publishes such patent nonsense deserves to be derided. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/13/utterly-awful-david-gorski-weighs-yet-another-paper-linking-vaccines-autism/ Sumanuil ( talk) 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You wrote, "So what? Autism is genetic".
The paragraph that I added to the article is about the toxicity of aluminum and how aluminum gets into brain tissue. The word "autism" is not used in that paragraph.
I demand that you put that paragraph back into the article.
Scott Gregory Beach ( talk) 02:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It seems to me that many claims about health effects of Al don't meet WP:MEDRS. There has been discussion about it for a long time (outside WP), but not much of a consensus that I have seen. Gah4 ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Gah4: would you please identify the claims in the article that don't meet WP:MEDRS so I could either try to find better sources, or remove them, and possibly change the information in the article.-- R8R ( talk) 19:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed The use of aluminium cookware is the main factor of presence of aluminium in food. [1] . As far as I know, compounds like sodium aluminum sulfate, common in baking powder if not other cooking ingredients, are the usual way to get chemically active aluminum into the body. Because of the protective oxide, the metal isn't so reactive. Gah4 ( talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
References
I noticed that there are 4 instances of the spelling "aluminum" under the section Biology which is not consistent with the rest of the article. I would correct it myself but I am a new user, so I would like to kindly request that a correction be made by someone else. It's a small thing, but it makes a difference. Also, I didn't put this under Talk:Aluminium/Spelling because I wasn't trying to start a discussion or argument about the spelling. Just trying to help. If I am wrong about the consistency, please explain why. Thank you. -- AndyMissed ( talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the following purported PDF link (in the bibliography) to the actual English text of Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, and replaced it instead with a link to the encyclopedia's Wikipedia page. This link does not presently lead to any PDF; instead, it leads to a general page for RUSAL, which unfortunately even contains some promotional material. The link may have worked properly when it was added by R8R at 23:16 on 22 October 2017, but it doesn't work now.
Removal of this malfunctioning link is without prejudice to restoration of a properly functioning link to the encyclopedia's full English text if one can be found.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 08:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Cyrus noto3at bulaga and Andy Dingley: I suggest we remove the mention of coins among uses. There are multiple uses this article once had but no longer uses because there is not enough room for them all. That is why only the most important ones are kept. Remember that this is an overview encyclopedia article rather than an extensive handbook.-- R8R ( talk) 10:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for a delay in response, I was away from my computer. I've given this a this a thought and concluded that the present situation is unacceptable because it looks as if the coinage use were supported by a source after "The major uses for aluminium metal are in:" which is put to support all other mentioned uses. So to avoid this confusion, I've removed the coinage part once more. There are many uses of particular significance, this article used to list many of them, but we should apply same criteria for inclusion of all, and the criterion used now is being mentioned in that source as a common use. If there is, however, a source that does explicitly say that a significant percentage of aluminum is used in coinage, we can and probably should have it but only if that is the case.-- R8R ( talk) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Restored the content as there is no consensus for removal. Vsmith ( talk) 14:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I wish best for this article and I presume anyone participating in or watching this discussion does so, too. Right now, the article makes it look like coinage is a major use (compared to the other ones), which, judging from this discussion alone, is doubtful. I will tag the fact needing support as lacking a citation and will try to find any good source for the statement and I'd be grateful if anyone reading this (especially Andy Dingley who is so insistent on keeping coinage in) tried that as well. If no good reference pops up in two weeks, I will (again) remove it, this time the reasoning being more clear to outsiders.-- R8R ( talk) 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The resistivity noted in the quick facts section (28.2 nΩ·m (at 20 °C)) is not consistent with the value found on the Electrical resistivity and conductivity page (26.5 nΩ·m at 20 °C), or other places on the internet like this one. This should probably be fixed, or maybe I'm missing something? -- MasterPrutser ( talk) 11:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Why was the information on corrected lime potential taken out? Ddurant ( talk) 03:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry it took so long for me to reply! The reason I asked why the information was taken out concerning the corrected lime potential is what was replaced is incorrect as I read it. The current information states, "Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acidic soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, in acid soils the concentration of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function.[158][159][160][161]". Aluminium toxicity decreases root growth, not increases it. You can google many research papers that does explain this ( https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=aluminum+toxicity+and+plant+growth&btnG=). As was formerly referenced before the change was made, in the book, One Hundred Harvests Research Branch Agriculture Canada 1886-1986, "For some time, soil scientists have recognized that most acid soils are saturated with aluminum rather than hydrogen ions. The acidity of the soil is therefore a result of hydrolysis of aluminum. Canadian soil scientists, particularly at the Land Resource Research Institute, have studied this phenomenon in relation to the liming of soils. Turner and Clark (98) gained international reputations in 1966 for introducing the concept of "corrected lime potential" to define the degree of base saturation in soils. This became the basis for procedures now used in soil-testing laboratories to determine the "lime requirement" of soils." ( http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/agrican/pubweb/hs270060.asp). I feel this is very important information to include on the Aluminium page as Aluminium has a huge effect on our agriculture. Right now on the page, there is reference that a wheat has become more tolerant, but not enough information on the problem with the soil itself - the acidity of the soil caused by aluminum. Please get back to me with any further questions. Ddurant ( talk) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Haven't really closely read it yet, but from what I just encountered in the news, it appears there is a breakthrough in understanding of Alzheimer's. I need to establish whether aluminum actually is a part of this or not and how recognized the news is in the research community. I can't do it now and probably won't be able to for a while, but this is certainly to be done in the future. (If anyone familiar with the topic could contribute a few words, that would be awesome.) R8R ( talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Since this article uses aluminium for the name of the element, shouldn't it also use the appropriate names for compounds, such as aluminiosilicate? (Even though my spell check wants to correct both of those.) Gah4 ( talk) 17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't the lead say North American English, since it's aluminum in Canada also? 216.8.144.133 ( talk) 13:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Use American English. The American English spelling forms are less idiomatic, less ethnic English, and more consistent. There is an objective way to make comparisons between spellings, and if the voting were done in a organized way, British spellings would be out entirely, simply for being unnecessarily quirky and passé. - ApexUnderground ( talk) 00:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Bulk, in the third paragraph, the first sentence reads "Pure aluminum is quite soft and lacking in strength." Per the spelling convention used in this article, please change this to read "Pure aluminium is quite soft and lacking in strength." All other uses of the spelling "aluminum" in the article are in accordance with the general spelling convention. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 16:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alliminuim. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alliminuim. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Aluminium is spelled aluminium and only aluminium.
Aluminum is paramagnetic [1], not nonmagnetic. I think this should be fixed. 23:30, 21 March 2016 (EET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexterelu ( talk • contribs)
References
I agree. Aluminum is paramagnetic. Therefore, the first sentence contains an error about a basic scientific fact, which does not inspire confidence for the reader in the rest of the article. Someone with access please fix this! 192.195.76.57 ( talk) 20:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The 3rd sentence in the article contains a punctuation error: a comma that should be a semicolon. Uncorrected, it stands as a run-on sentence, which does not inspire the reader's confidence in the article. Could someone with access please fix this? 2600:1702:2FF0:1D00:B8E9:298:AA21:221 ( talk) 02:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The article says: "... because it is non-toxic", without citations. However, research does not indicate aluminium is non toxic.
One such example, an article which says aluminium can be possibly rigid, and that high levels of dietary aluminum could is linked to Alzheimer's disease is found at:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/aluminum-foil-cooking#section1 Polytope4D ( talk) 01:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Would it be better to list ranges for the mechanical properties of aluminium (and other elements for that matter) in the infobox as a range rather than specific values? Exact values imply that those values are agreed upon in the scientific community when in reality ranges are often reported, even from a single source. Additionally, what are people's thoughts on adding a separate mechanical properties table with additional properties listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Clemintime ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I notice that these pieces of information is not in the article. So I have written them down so you can add it to the article Although its electrical conductivity is only about 60% that of copper, it is used in electrical transmission lines because of its light weight. It can be deposited on the surface of glass to make mirrors, where a thin layer of aluminium oxide quickly forms and acts as a protective coating. Aluminium oxide is also used to make synthetic rubies and sapphires for lasers. Aluminium can now be produced from clay, but the process is not economically feasible at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild kratts ch ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Might look minor, but Ipreferto Talk this over;
Today, Aluminium#Spelling says :
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990. [1] In 1993, they recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant; [1] the most recent 2005 edition of the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry acknowledges this spelling as well. [2] IUPAC official publications use the -ium spelling as primary but list both where appropriate. [a]
These improvements I sugggest:
- DePiep ( talk) 00:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
References
The infobox has an incorrect IPA transcription of the alternative pronunciation 'aluminum' that is inconsistent with the recording (and, in the same way, with its pronunciation). I could not figure out how to correct it. 01:09, 19 September 2020 User:Alexandre-Jérôme
NASA used Pd-Al metal sandwich ring between stages. The thermal reaction of Aluminum and Palladium separated the stages. Example, Youtube video of Ni plated Al foil started at one corner and reaction spread to length of foil. Aluminum also reacts exothermicly with other metals, possibly a safety heads up. And some issues with powdered metal manufacturing. TaylorLeem ( talk) 02:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
One section at a time. ^_^
Double sharp ( talk) 11:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Since I wrote this section I feel free to criticise myself. XD
Double sharp ( talk) 09:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
What also needs attention is comments in three sections below:
-- R8R ( talk) 11:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
And, of course, the lead section is yet to be written.-- R8R ( talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Aluminum metal is frequently subject to corrosion. The reason for this is typically use of the incorrect alloy, or other errors in design. The article has a brief mention in its Chemistry section; but the topic is important enough to receive a subsection heading, or link to an article that presently doesn't exist. Oaklandguy ( talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Re Aluminum corrosion, a few points. My company tested Hawaiian Air aftermath. (I wish we could add a thread about the "to paint or not to paint" aircraft controversy.) Cracks/porosity in paint at Aluminum surface lead to a hydrochloric acid concentration cell at the point of attack. A few years prior, FAA removed the requirement for surface testing the Aluminum surface metallurgically. That required stripping and repainting the airplane. TaylorLeem ( talk) 03:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Referring to Wiki Corrosion page. The oxide or passivated side is simply the "Oxygen electrode" of the galvanic corrosion of both Iron and Aluminum. The un-Oxygenated crack or under dirt is where the metal erodes. Corrosion that accelerates crack formation at stress point causes premature metal failure. TaylorLeem ( talk) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I notice that these pieces of information is not in the article. So I have written them down so you can add it to the article Although its electrical conductivity is only about 60% that of copper, it is used in electrical transmission lines because of its light weight. It can be deposited on the surface of glass to make mirrors, where a thin layer of aluminium oxide quickly forms and acts as a protective coating. Aluminium oxide is also used to make synthetic rubies and sapphires for lasers. Aluminium can now be produced from clay, but the process is not economically feasible at present. Wild kratts ch ( talk) 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)<ref> "aluminium". pubchem.<ref>
This is the original edit.
@ Nohat: I was going to say that it is best to use the WP:BRD cycle---that is, when undone, discuss that rather not undo back immediately---but I have checked your userpage and it says you're an admin, so I find myself struggling to understand what's happening here. You say my edits were an " unexplained reversion", whereas the opposite is true: I did provide summaries in both of my edits. Presumably neither was clear enough, however, so I'll be happy to clarify both of my edits.
please mind the sequence of derivations and keep it uniform: The word "aluminium" comes from "alumina." The word "alumina" comes from alum. The word "alum" comes from alumen. The word alumen comes from *alu-. These are four sentences, each saying something in the form of "A comes from B." Similar facts, similar structure of sentences. Clear enough. It is hardly beneficial to break that similarity between facts by different structure. If anything, I'd love to hear from you on this.
what about stibium?: precisely what the summary says. The point raised in the added sentence is that ancient names like ferrum and aurum end on -um. Okay. What about stibium, the Latin name for antimony? That runs contrary to the illusion a reader gets from the text that all ancient names ended on -um but not -ium. Also, oxide names don't end on -ite; that suffix is reserved for minerals.-- R8R ( talk) 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
So far, I've been able to find a reference to what is likely meant to be the Swedish criticism: Berzelius published a list of elements in 1811, and he argued elements should have Latin names (including even natrium and kalium). See here; an excerpt from Berzelius's book featuring aluminium, natrium, and kalium can be found here. This publishing was consequential at the day and it looks like it's the most important development when it comes to this spelling problem, and I'll leave out the unidentified French and German criticisms. I have yet to find the confirmation to the idea that the name alum was English and alumina was Latin, and that was why the name for the metal should be derived from the latter.-- R8R ( talk) 13:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@ R8R:Thank you for finding the Berzelius citation. I think that clarifies quite a bit about the Richards claim about "contemporary chemists from France, Germany, and Sweden", which I see you have now excised entirely. I do have a few quibbles with the current state of linguistics citations in the article:
Nohat ( talk) 04:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that this piece of information wasn't there so is it feasible to add this: Aluminium is used to make reflective surfaces and paint. Some string instruments, especially guitars, have aluminum bodies. This piece of information was gotten from Thoughtco link is https://www.thoughtco.com/atomic-number-13-interesting-aluminum-facts-606479 Space chinedu ( talk) 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry found out that the sight is copyrighted Space chinedu ( talk) 05:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kepler-1229b ( talk · contribs) 18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | A rather technical topic. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Sourced. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No apparent plagiarism or copyright violations. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Stable. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass? |
@ Kepler-1229b: Do you have any specific concerns re 1a? Double sharp ( talk) 13:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
So pass? Keresluna ( talk) 18:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Compounds of aluminium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Evidence published in 2015 seems to indicate that for Alzheimer's patients aluminium may act by electrostatically crosslinking[disambiguation needed] proteins thus down regulating genes in the superior temporal gyrus.[176]
The linked study in ref 176 was published in 1989, so the 2015 claim is false. This paragraph is out of line with the rest of the article, therefore I request either this paragraph is deleted or updated to the 1989 year, which is out of date compared to current literature. Electrostatically crosslinking proteins and down regulating genes is a contemptuous claim, not replicated in recent studies. 88.208.96.218 ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently seeing a cite error for CIAAW2013 on this article. Having looked into it this should be supplied by the Aluminium Infobox, but this doesn't appear to be working.
Is this an artifact of the article being locked to me, or does something need to be fixed?
Thanks 89.241.33.89 ( talk) 19:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be two conflicting histories of how the two spellings came about.
Was the term aluminium introduced by Berzelius in 1811, by the summary of Davy's lecture in 1811, or by Young in 1812 (as the 'spelling' section implies)? Note that this section says that Young 'proposed the name' which is easily taken to mean 'invented the name'.
A couple other questions: Did Davy introduce aluminum in 1912? Was that before Young recommended aluminium over aluminum? – Omphaloscope talk 11:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Under section "Biology", subsection "Exposure routes", the following passages said: "Major sources of human oral exposure to aluminium include food (due to its use in food additives, food and beverage packaging, and cooking utensils), drinking water (due to its use in municipal water treatment), and aluminium-containing medications (particularly antacid/antiulcer and buffered aspirin formulations).[191]". Now, it mentioned food additives as among the uses of aluminum. HOWEVER, there is no mention of that under section "Applications", though it is mentioned in a document from that citation 191, authored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Could there be a clarification as to what are the nature of aluminum's uses as food additives? I am kind of hard-pressed to see how this metallic element could be used as a food additive... furthermore, it has no known biological functions as mentioned elsewhere under section "Biology". -- Legion ( talk) 05:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Aluminium(metal) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Aluminium(metal) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The US IPA pronunciation is not in line with the non-IPA pronunciation guide or the audio sample. The <j> needs to be removed in order to make it match. It is correct/consistent in the english wiktionary. I have not found a way to edit this myself, or I would have.-- Amorilinguae ( talk) 20:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Title and name of the eliment is Aluminum. Not aluminium that is nonsense. 71.33.135.25 ( talk) 07:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Aluminium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, but it is produced commercially from the scarce mineral bauxite. Presumably the reason is that it would be too expensive to produce from common starting materials like feldspar or clay. Why? CharlesHBennett ( talk) 09:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aluminum is spelled wrong on this entire page. 2600:8807:2280:490:71BA:B280:6CE:F055 ( talk) 12:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Question: How much greenhouse gas emissions are caused if I buy a thing that's 1 kg of aluminum? Help! I can figure it out from this site for example, https://international-aluminium.org/statistics/primary-aluminium-production/ And I just need somewhat better editing skills to add that into the article. - Also, if I find the total amounts and divide them, that would be OR, so I also need a source that divides emissions / production. Good idea? Thinkadoodle ( talk) 14:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Aluminium expert? ¡Please HELP! I am trying to prepare an article based on the REVEAL model of a large tank of aluminium pellets for Seasonal thermal energy storage) combined with cogeneration and district heating I ask you please to come and play in my sandbox = edit, mess it about and comment on its talk page – thanks and salutations Timpo ( talk) 09:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change: Appearance silvery gray metallic Change to: Appearance shiny gray metallic VeryBigBean ( talk) 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change pronunciation of US/CA spelling from /əˈljuːmɪnəm/ ə-LEW-min-əm to /əˈluːmɪnəm/ ə-LOO-min-əm Ocelots33 ( talk) 01:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Why does the page list the British fanfic spelling as the primary spelling? The official recognized spelling is aluminum and should be recognized as such. 73.237.36.27 ( talk) 17:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
At first glance this appears to be mythological. I'm not sure if we should use such a story to imply that solid aluminium tools may have been used then. — Paleo Neonate – 19:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the idea of native aluminium. I had no idea. John ( talk) 09:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
John, I just did some initial googling and it appears there are other explanations to this story: it could be glass or the story could be fiction altogether. Would it be okay to restore the story as I added it and then mention these possibilities?-- R8R ( talk) 14:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone happen to know the exact location of the "aluminium passage" in Pliny's Natural History? That is, book and chapter number. As Paleoneonate said above, the passage seems reasonably well known and is mentioned, even quoted, in trustworthy sources. Some sources say that it's found in book number XXXV (i.e., 35). However, I was unable to find anything at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D35 after searching with keywords goldsmith, Tiberius and clay. I even expanded my search to books 33 and 34, since they are about metals; I supposed that the number "35" could be a typo. Yet, no match. Likewise, I pasted excerpts of the quote to Google. Quote found here: /info/en/?search=History_of_aluminium#cite_note-3 . Now, some matches of course, but NONE of them to e-texts of classic works. This is very confusing, since finding references to classic texts is usually easy. I would be very interested if someone could find the exact location of the passage in Pliny's work. However, based on the information I have at my use this far, I have to say it is a very real possibility that the passage does not actually exist. 88.112.244.203 ( talk) 13:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Christopher Exley is one of the researchers who authored "Aluminium in brain tissue in autism". In a video posted on Youtube he suggested that parents give their children Volvic (mineral water) because the silicic acid in that water can bond with aluminum and help remove aluminum from brain tissue. Parents reported back to Exley that since they started giving their children Volvic mineral water the children's autism symptoms became less severe.
Exley et al analyzed tissue samples from brains that had been removed from dead people. This is just straight-forward tissue analysis, not brain surgery on living people.
Exley reported that he received a direct death threat after the Aluminum...autism article was published. So I am wondering, What is going on here? Why are people getting so flipped out about autopsy reports?
People should be ecstatic that there is a simple and effective treatment for autism: (1) get the aluminum out of children's brains and (2) stop putting aluminum in there in the first place. They could be putting calcium phosphate adjuvant into vaccines instead of aluminum salts.
The Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology has been publishing since 1987. It does not look to me like a predatory publisher. It is being published by a federation of five European societies on trace elements and minerals.
You should not refer to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a "quack". He does not practice medicine. He is genuinely concerned about the welfare of America's children. You should not use Wikipedia to demonize him.
Scott Gregory Beach ( talk) 02:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
"He is genuinely concerned about the welfare of America's children"? Then why does he want them to die of preventable diseases? And there is no gorram 'cure'. I should know. Excuse me for my phrasing, but any journal that publishes such patent nonsense deserves to be derided. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/13/utterly-awful-david-gorski-weighs-yet-another-paper-linking-vaccines-autism/ Sumanuil ( talk) 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You wrote, "So what? Autism is genetic".
The paragraph that I added to the article is about the toxicity of aluminum and how aluminum gets into brain tissue. The word "autism" is not used in that paragraph.
I demand that you put that paragraph back into the article.
Scott Gregory Beach ( talk) 02:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It seems to me that many claims about health effects of Al don't meet WP:MEDRS. There has been discussion about it for a long time (outside WP), but not much of a consensus that I have seen. Gah4 ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Gah4: would you please identify the claims in the article that don't meet WP:MEDRS so I could either try to find better sources, or remove them, and possibly change the information in the article.-- R8R ( talk) 19:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed The use of aluminium cookware is the main factor of presence of aluminium in food. [1] . As far as I know, compounds like sodium aluminum sulfate, common in baking powder if not other cooking ingredients, are the usual way to get chemically active aluminum into the body. Because of the protective oxide, the metal isn't so reactive. Gah4 ( talk) 17:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
References
I noticed that there are 4 instances of the spelling "aluminum" under the section Biology which is not consistent with the rest of the article. I would correct it myself but I am a new user, so I would like to kindly request that a correction be made by someone else. It's a small thing, but it makes a difference. Also, I didn't put this under Talk:Aluminium/Spelling because I wasn't trying to start a discussion or argument about the spelling. Just trying to help. If I am wrong about the consistency, please explain why. Thank you. -- AndyMissed ( talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the following purported PDF link (in the bibliography) to the actual English text of Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, and replaced it instead with a link to the encyclopedia's Wikipedia page. This link does not presently lead to any PDF; instead, it leads to a general page for RUSAL, which unfortunately even contains some promotional material. The link may have worked properly when it was added by R8R at 23:16 on 22 October 2017, but it doesn't work now.
Removal of this malfunctioning link is without prejudice to restoration of a properly functioning link to the encyclopedia's full English text if one can be found.
— Syrenka V ( talk) 08:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Cyrus noto3at bulaga and Andy Dingley: I suggest we remove the mention of coins among uses. There are multiple uses this article once had but no longer uses because there is not enough room for them all. That is why only the most important ones are kept. Remember that this is an overview encyclopedia article rather than an extensive handbook.-- R8R ( talk) 10:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for a delay in response, I was away from my computer. I've given this a this a thought and concluded that the present situation is unacceptable because it looks as if the coinage use were supported by a source after "The major uses for aluminium metal are in:" which is put to support all other mentioned uses. So to avoid this confusion, I've removed the coinage part once more. There are many uses of particular significance, this article used to list many of them, but we should apply same criteria for inclusion of all, and the criterion used now is being mentioned in that source as a common use. If there is, however, a source that does explicitly say that a significant percentage of aluminum is used in coinage, we can and probably should have it but only if that is the case.-- R8R ( talk) 21:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Restored the content as there is no consensus for removal. Vsmith ( talk) 14:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I wish best for this article and I presume anyone participating in or watching this discussion does so, too. Right now, the article makes it look like coinage is a major use (compared to the other ones), which, judging from this discussion alone, is doubtful. I will tag the fact needing support as lacking a citation and will try to find any good source for the statement and I'd be grateful if anyone reading this (especially Andy Dingley who is so insistent on keeping coinage in) tried that as well. If no good reference pops up in two weeks, I will (again) remove it, this time the reasoning being more clear to outsiders.-- R8R ( talk) 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The resistivity noted in the quick facts section (28.2 nΩ·m (at 20 °C)) is not consistent with the value found on the Electrical resistivity and conductivity page (26.5 nΩ·m at 20 °C), or other places on the internet like this one. This should probably be fixed, or maybe I'm missing something? -- MasterPrutser ( talk) 11:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Why was the information on corrected lime potential taken out? Ddurant ( talk) 03:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry it took so long for me to reply! The reason I asked why the information was taken out concerning the corrected lime potential is what was replaced is incorrect as I read it. The current information states, "Aluminium is primary among the factors that reduce plant growth on acidic soils. Although it is generally harmless to plant growth in pH-neutral soils, in acid soils the concentration of toxic Al3+ cations increases and disturbs root growth and function.[158][159][160][161]". Aluminium toxicity decreases root growth, not increases it. You can google many research papers that does explain this ( https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=aluminum+toxicity+and+plant+growth&btnG=). As was formerly referenced before the change was made, in the book, One Hundred Harvests Research Branch Agriculture Canada 1886-1986, "For some time, soil scientists have recognized that most acid soils are saturated with aluminum rather than hydrogen ions. The acidity of the soil is therefore a result of hydrolysis of aluminum. Canadian soil scientists, particularly at the Land Resource Research Institute, have studied this phenomenon in relation to the liming of soils. Turner and Clark (98) gained international reputations in 1966 for introducing the concept of "corrected lime potential" to define the degree of base saturation in soils. This became the basis for procedures now used in soil-testing laboratories to determine the "lime requirement" of soils." ( http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/301/ic/cdc/agrican/pubweb/hs270060.asp). I feel this is very important information to include on the Aluminium page as Aluminium has a huge effect on our agriculture. Right now on the page, there is reference that a wheat has become more tolerant, but not enough information on the problem with the soil itself - the acidity of the soil caused by aluminum. Please get back to me with any further questions. Ddurant ( talk) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Haven't really closely read it yet, but from what I just encountered in the news, it appears there is a breakthrough in understanding of Alzheimer's. I need to establish whether aluminum actually is a part of this or not and how recognized the news is in the research community. I can't do it now and probably won't be able to for a while, but this is certainly to be done in the future. (If anyone familiar with the topic could contribute a few words, that would be awesome.) R8R ( talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Since this article uses aluminium for the name of the element, shouldn't it also use the appropriate names for compounds, such as aluminiosilicate? (Even though my spell check wants to correct both of those.) Gah4 ( talk) 17:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Shouldn't the lead say North American English, since it's aluminum in Canada also? 216.8.144.133 ( talk) 13:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Use American English. The American English spelling forms are less idiomatic, less ethnic English, and more consistent. There is an objective way to make comparisons between spellings, and if the voting were done in a organized way, British spellings would be out entirely, simply for being unnecessarily quirky and passé. - ApexUnderground ( talk) 00:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section Bulk, in the third paragraph, the first sentence reads "Pure aluminum is quite soft and lacking in strength." Per the spelling convention used in this article, please change this to read "Pure aluminium is quite soft and lacking in strength." All other uses of the spelling "aluminum" in the article are in accordance with the general spelling convention. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 16:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alliminuim. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alliminuim. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Aluminium is spelled aluminium and only aluminium.
Aluminum is paramagnetic [1], not nonmagnetic. I think this should be fixed. 23:30, 21 March 2016 (EET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexterelu ( talk • contribs)
References
I agree. Aluminum is paramagnetic. Therefore, the first sentence contains an error about a basic scientific fact, which does not inspire confidence for the reader in the rest of the article. Someone with access please fix this! 192.195.76.57 ( talk) 20:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The 3rd sentence in the article contains a punctuation error: a comma that should be a semicolon. Uncorrected, it stands as a run-on sentence, which does not inspire the reader's confidence in the article. Could someone with access please fix this? 2600:1702:2FF0:1D00:B8E9:298:AA21:221 ( talk) 02:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The article says: "... because it is non-toxic", without citations. However, research does not indicate aluminium is non toxic.
One such example, an article which says aluminium can be possibly rigid, and that high levels of dietary aluminum could is linked to Alzheimer's disease is found at:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/aluminum-foil-cooking#section1 Polytope4D ( talk) 01:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Would it be better to list ranges for the mechanical properties of aluminium (and other elements for that matter) in the infobox as a range rather than specific values? Exact values imply that those values are agreed upon in the scientific community when in reality ranges are often reported, even from a single source. Additionally, what are people's thoughts on adding a separate mechanical properties table with additional properties listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Clemintime ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I notice that these pieces of information is not in the article. So I have written them down so you can add it to the article Although its electrical conductivity is only about 60% that of copper, it is used in electrical transmission lines because of its light weight. It can be deposited on the surface of glass to make mirrors, where a thin layer of aluminium oxide quickly forms and acts as a protective coating. Aluminium oxide is also used to make synthetic rubies and sapphires for lasers. Aluminium can now be produced from clay, but the process is not economically feasible at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild kratts ch ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Might look minor, but Ipreferto Talk this over;
Today, Aluminium#Spelling says :
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990. [1] In 1993, they recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant; [1] the most recent 2005 edition of the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry acknowledges this spelling as well. [2] IUPAC official publications use the -ium spelling as primary but list both where appropriate. [a]
These improvements I sugggest:
- DePiep ( talk) 00:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
References
The infobox has an incorrect IPA transcription of the alternative pronunciation 'aluminum' that is inconsistent with the recording (and, in the same way, with its pronunciation). I could not figure out how to correct it. 01:09, 19 September 2020 User:Alexandre-Jérôme
NASA used Pd-Al metal sandwich ring between stages. The thermal reaction of Aluminum and Palladium separated the stages. Example, Youtube video of Ni plated Al foil started at one corner and reaction spread to length of foil. Aluminum also reacts exothermicly with other metals, possibly a safety heads up. And some issues with powdered metal manufacturing. TaylorLeem ( talk) 02:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
One section at a time. ^_^
Double sharp ( talk) 11:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Since I wrote this section I feel free to criticise myself. XD
Double sharp ( talk) 09:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
What also needs attention is comments in three sections below:
-- R8R ( talk) 11:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
And, of course, the lead section is yet to be written.-- R8R ( talk) 10:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Aluminum metal is frequently subject to corrosion. The reason for this is typically use of the incorrect alloy, or other errors in design. The article has a brief mention in its Chemistry section; but the topic is important enough to receive a subsection heading, or link to an article that presently doesn't exist. Oaklandguy ( talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Re Aluminum corrosion, a few points. My company tested Hawaiian Air aftermath. (I wish we could add a thread about the "to paint or not to paint" aircraft controversy.) Cracks/porosity in paint at Aluminum surface lead to a hydrochloric acid concentration cell at the point of attack. A few years prior, FAA removed the requirement for surface testing the Aluminum surface metallurgically. That required stripping and repainting the airplane. TaylorLeem ( talk) 03:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Referring to Wiki Corrosion page. The oxide or passivated side is simply the "Oxygen electrode" of the galvanic corrosion of both Iron and Aluminum. The un-Oxygenated crack or under dirt is where the metal erodes. Corrosion that accelerates crack formation at stress point causes premature metal failure. TaylorLeem ( talk) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I notice that these pieces of information is not in the article. So I have written them down so you can add it to the article Although its electrical conductivity is only about 60% that of copper, it is used in electrical transmission lines because of its light weight. It can be deposited on the surface of glass to make mirrors, where a thin layer of aluminium oxide quickly forms and acts as a protective coating. Aluminium oxide is also used to make synthetic rubies and sapphires for lasers. Aluminium can now be produced from clay, but the process is not economically feasible at present. Wild kratts ch ( talk) 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)<ref> "aluminium". pubchem.<ref>
This is the original edit.
@ Nohat: I was going to say that it is best to use the WP:BRD cycle---that is, when undone, discuss that rather not undo back immediately---but I have checked your userpage and it says you're an admin, so I find myself struggling to understand what's happening here. You say my edits were an " unexplained reversion", whereas the opposite is true: I did provide summaries in both of my edits. Presumably neither was clear enough, however, so I'll be happy to clarify both of my edits.
please mind the sequence of derivations and keep it uniform: The word "aluminium" comes from "alumina." The word "alumina" comes from alum. The word "alum" comes from alumen. The word alumen comes from *alu-. These are four sentences, each saying something in the form of "A comes from B." Similar facts, similar structure of sentences. Clear enough. It is hardly beneficial to break that similarity between facts by different structure. If anything, I'd love to hear from you on this.
what about stibium?: precisely what the summary says. The point raised in the added sentence is that ancient names like ferrum and aurum end on -um. Okay. What about stibium, the Latin name for antimony? That runs contrary to the illusion a reader gets from the text that all ancient names ended on -um but not -ium. Also, oxide names don't end on -ite; that suffix is reserved for minerals.-- R8R ( talk) 16:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
So far, I've been able to find a reference to what is likely meant to be the Swedish criticism: Berzelius published a list of elements in 1811, and he argued elements should have Latin names (including even natrium and kalium). See here; an excerpt from Berzelius's book featuring aluminium, natrium, and kalium can be found here. This publishing was consequential at the day and it looks like it's the most important development when it comes to this spelling problem, and I'll leave out the unidentified French and German criticisms. I have yet to find the confirmation to the idea that the name alum was English and alumina was Latin, and that was why the name for the metal should be derived from the latter.-- R8R ( talk) 13:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@ R8R:Thank you for finding the Berzelius citation. I think that clarifies quite a bit about the Richards claim about "contemporary chemists from France, Germany, and Sweden", which I see you have now excised entirely. I do have a few quibbles with the current state of linguistics citations in the article:
Nohat ( talk) 04:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that this piece of information wasn't there so is it feasible to add this: Aluminium is used to make reflective surfaces and paint. Some string instruments, especially guitars, have aluminum bodies. This piece of information was gotten from Thoughtco link is https://www.thoughtco.com/atomic-number-13-interesting-aluminum-facts-606479 Space chinedu ( talk) 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry found out that the sight is copyrighted Space chinedu ( talk) 05:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kepler-1229b ( talk · contribs) 18:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | A rather technical topic. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Sourced. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No apparent plagiarism or copyright violations. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Stable. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass? |
@ Kepler-1229b: Do you have any specific concerns re 1a? Double sharp ( talk) 13:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
So pass? Keresluna ( talk) 18:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Compounds of aluminium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Evidence published in 2015 seems to indicate that for Alzheimer's patients aluminium may act by electrostatically crosslinking[disambiguation needed] proteins thus down regulating genes in the superior temporal gyrus.[176]
The linked study in ref 176 was published in 1989, so the 2015 claim is false. This paragraph is out of line with the rest of the article, therefore I request either this paragraph is deleted or updated to the 1989 year, which is out of date compared to current literature. Electrostatically crosslinking proteins and down regulating genes is a contemptuous claim, not replicated in recent studies. 88.208.96.218 ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently seeing a cite error for CIAAW2013 on this article. Having looked into it this should be supplied by the Aluminium Infobox, but this doesn't appear to be working.
Is this an artifact of the article being locked to me, or does something need to be fixed?
Thanks 89.241.33.89 ( talk) 19:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be two conflicting histories of how the two spellings came about.
Was the term aluminium introduced by Berzelius in 1811, by the summary of Davy's lecture in 1811, or by Young in 1812 (as the 'spelling' section implies)? Note that this section says that Young 'proposed the name' which is easily taken to mean 'invented the name'.
A couple other questions: Did Davy introduce aluminum in 1912? Was that before Young recommended aluminium over aluminum? – Omphaloscope talk 11:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Under section "Biology", subsection "Exposure routes", the following passages said: "Major sources of human oral exposure to aluminium include food (due to its use in food additives, food and beverage packaging, and cooking utensils), drinking water (due to its use in municipal water treatment), and aluminium-containing medications (particularly antacid/antiulcer and buffered aspirin formulations).[191]". Now, it mentioned food additives as among the uses of aluminum. HOWEVER, there is no mention of that under section "Applications", though it is mentioned in a document from that citation 191, authored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Could there be a clarification as to what are the nature of aluminum's uses as food additives? I am kind of hard-pressed to see how this metallic element could be used as a food additive... furthermore, it has no known biological functions as mentioned elsewhere under section "Biology". -- Legion ( talk) 05:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Aluminium(metal) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Aluminium(metal) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
The US IPA pronunciation is not in line with the non-IPA pronunciation guide or the audio sample. The <j> needs to be removed in order to make it match. It is correct/consistent in the english wiktionary. I have not found a way to edit this myself, or I would have.-- Amorilinguae ( talk) 20:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Title and name of the eliment is Aluminum. Not aluminium that is nonsense. 71.33.135.25 ( talk) 07:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Aluminium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, but it is produced commercially from the scarce mineral bauxite. Presumably the reason is that it would be too expensive to produce from common starting materials like feldspar or clay. Why? CharlesHBennett ( talk) 09:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aluminum is spelled wrong on this entire page. 2600:8807:2280:490:71BA:B280:6CE:F055 ( talk) 12:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Question: How much greenhouse gas emissions are caused if I buy a thing that's 1 kg of aluminum? Help! I can figure it out from this site for example, https://international-aluminium.org/statistics/primary-aluminium-production/ And I just need somewhat better editing skills to add that into the article. - Also, if I find the total amounts and divide them, that would be OR, so I also need a source that divides emissions / production. Good idea? Thinkadoodle ( talk) 14:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Aluminium expert? ¡Please HELP! I am trying to prepare an article based on the REVEAL model of a large tank of aluminium pellets for Seasonal thermal energy storage) combined with cogeneration and district heating I ask you please to come and play in my sandbox = edit, mess it about and comment on its talk page – thanks and salutations Timpo ( talk) 09:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change: Appearance silvery gray metallic Change to: Appearance shiny gray metallic VeryBigBean ( talk) 08:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Aluminium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change pronunciation of US/CA spelling from /əˈljuːmɪnəm/ ə-LEW-min-əm to /əˈluːmɪnəm/ ə-LOO-min-əm Ocelots33 ( talk) 01:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Why does the page list the British fanfic spelling as the primary spelling? The official recognized spelling is aluminum and should be recognized as such. 73.237.36.27 ( talk) 17:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).