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 |
Is Bismuth's surprising radioactive stability related to it having 126 neutron, a magic number in the shell model theory of nuclei? My high school text agrees, but someone more knowledgable than the shoddy quality of my text should probably express this more coherently. -- postglock 09:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I think what the "nontoxic" statement means to achieve is remove your intuition, in comparison to similar metals, similar applications, especially lead, which is very poisonous, and it's right next to bismuth in the periodic table. In my mind, bismuth belongs in the group of lead, antimony, selenium, tin, arsenic, mercury, etc. type of element group, in decreasing order of "similarity." Of these and most other metals, bismuth shines in the sense that pepto-bismol is a straight bismuth compound you can ingest without any fear. It's hard to think of many other non-biologically significant metal compounds that are similarly nontoxic, yet reactive with stomach acid. Sillybilly 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
How 'non-toxic' do you mean? Anything in excess cause trouble, including water and salt (sodium chloride). If bismuth is 'non-toxic', then it is more in the league with calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium ions (although sodium, potassium, or calcium metals would be extremely dangerous due to the corrosiveness of the metal hydroxides, and any significant imbalance of potassium and magnesium in the blood would be lethal).
What water-soluble or acid-soluble metallic ions (including those of weak metals), are non-toxic? I'm not referring to substances rendered inert due to insolubility (for example, barium sulfate). -- 66.231.41.57 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Most of the discussion here is about semantics, due to the very poor phraseology of the original text. Without changing the intended meaning, I have rephrased the "hevaiest" and "non-toxic" clauses so that they should now be non-controversial. 150.203.69.27 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Dr. A. G. Christy, Dept. Earth & Marine Sciences, Australian National University
Hi. After some reflection I changed back your most recent edit to the above, as I thought the previous version read better (listing the protective equipment in more detail). I note your qualifications from your talk page and your experience as a Wikipedian, and don't want to appear high-handed in reverting the edit. If you disagree with my reverson, I am happy to discuss. Jeendan 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Will someone post the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons of bismuth? And also the mass number? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 ( talk) .
I suggest that this article be re-rated to B-class, given its depth and style. -- Der yck C. 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In russian (USSR) "Popular library of chemical elements" (1977) stated, that bismuth (isotope 209Bi) _is_ decaying with half-period of 2*10^18 years. Please remove that crap about 2003 and France.
Evidence (all in russian):
(1983 edition djvu hard copy) < http://www.rushim.ru/books/obzor/popular-biblioteka2.djvu>
(HTML version of 1977 edition) < http://n-t.org/ri/ps/pb083.htm>
I removed this dead link www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00037810.html. Glad I read it particularly about Pepto-Bismal.-- Dakota ~ ° 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please add the isotope to the table. It says Bi-210m decays into Bi-210, but what is Bi-210?-- Certh ( talk) 10:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The Crystal shown in the chembox under appearance might be "lustrous pink", but as far as I know, bismuth is usually grey. I would like to know if that crystal is pure Bi or some compound. But for all reasonable purposes, I think that the appearance of Bi is grey, or silver, or something to that effect. Ruff Bark away! 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the copper page, it is described as "metallic bronze". Having first hand experience with both metals, copper is a more of a pale pink that reacts within seconds with the air and turn yellow. Bismuth is just like silver but faster reacting, if bismuth is used as a plating material under vacuum (i.e. no air present) it looks just like silver & then will dull to a grey color (with air), then after a few days may develop rainbow effects that silver objects would normally take several years to develop. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.222.186.230 ( talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the references, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bismuth+line, implies it can be toxic. Yes, anything can be toxic in high doses, but since the main article says it's a non-toxic element shouldn't we try to include lethal or damaging dose or the specific way (or ways) this "non-toxic" element can be toxic? Khono ( talk) 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please include information about bismuth encephalopathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.64.253 ( talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that the half-life of bismuth is so long and that decay is therefore a very rare event I would like to ask how it is possible to accurately measure its half life? For example if a reasonable mass of bismuth only has one theoretical atomic decay a year there is a real statistical chance (by random variation) that none or more may occur and so one would surely need to measure over an unfeasible period of time (of unfeasible mass)? Also such a low rate would surely be masked by contamination and background radiation or re-absorption of emitted particles? Could an explanation of the method be added as a link? -- ManInStone 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_18_163/ai_101941095
-- 142.90.99.60 ( talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The 2007 Bismuth Minerals Yearbook chapter will be out in a few months ( today is 2/24/09). Note new 2008-09 bismuth price series, the bismuth (metal) customer-input price on http://customer-inputprices.blogspot.com Bmhtayl ( talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The statement that bismuth is the heaviest of the heavy metals and the only non-toxic comes from [1], however I think it is misleading. For "heaviest", it certainly isn't w.r.t density, but might be w.r.t atomic number for certain definitions of heavy metal (if uranium and thorium are not classified as heavy metals). For "the only non-toxic", it is mentioned that gold is not very toxic either (e.g. in heavy metal and gold).
The page lists the crystal structure as rhombohedral, but it is monoclinic. In a rhombohedral crystal, the unit cell edges are all of equal length. In the monoclinic crystal, the unit cell edges are different lengths. This is the case with bismuth. To verify what I'm saying, go to webelements.com to check the lattice parameters of bismuth and then compare them to the information listed in the wikipedia entry for Bravais Lattices. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.164.238.85 (
talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what is meant by assigning a global warming potential to bismuth, in some weird way? The text in the section on its recyclability and sustainability mentions global warming.. but, *why*? There's no possible reason I can think of that bismuth is involved directly in global warming:
Zaphraud ( talk) 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Check the study in footnote 8. I would agree that global warming as applied to bismuth is a very elastic perhaps peculiar concept. For example, do you go all the way back to mining the lead and tungsten ore, go through lead/tungsten smelting and refining, bismuth separation and refining, or begin somewhere in the middle? "lead-free" study began in the middle. Bmhtayl ( talk) 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
minor problem, but the Diode link under the application section links to a Canadian band's page 03:50, 9 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.173.61 ( talk)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bi-crystal.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 28, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 17:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I added chemical reactions with the metal. I am used to working on simple Wikipedia so please reformat them as needed. Thanks, -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In 1999, my chemistry professor told me that bismuth falls slower in a vacuum than other elements. I found this interesting and over the years have tried to find more information on this. Has anyone have any further information pro or con? 66.55.54.106 ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For objects of different composition to fall with different speeds in a vacuum would be very surprising, because it would be a violation of the weak equivalence principle of general relativity. In the early 1920's Charles F. Brush reported experiments showing that pendulums with bobs of bismuth had significantly shorter periods than similar pendulums of other materials, implying that a bismuth weight would fall faster in a vacuum. However these results could not be reproduced by subsequent researchers (see for example H. Potter, Physical Review, http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.19.187), who found on the contrary that pendulums of many different materials, including bismuth, had equal periods to within experimental error. Many of the more recent experiments have verified the weak equivalence principle to better than one part per billion, so the consensus is that the Brush results were in error. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph it says that bismuth is non radioactive, then that it is radioactive. Can we clean this up? AStudent ( talk) 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In the article it says "Bismuth has classically been considered to be the heaviest naturally occurring stable element". I think that this sentence should be reworded to make it clear in what sense "heaviest" is used. 86.181.169.245 ( talk) 14:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The section on recycling uses "possibly" and "probably" in a manner that doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. I wouldn't know how to begin to fix it so I thought I'd post here and see if anyone else would. Cyrissia ( talk) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The salts of bismuth are sometimes fed to people before abdominal X-ray, to produce a higher contrast, more detailed photo. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "Bismuth appears in the 1660s, from obsolete Ger. Bismuth, Wismut, Wissmuth (early 17c.);"
OED says "wissmuth, the form in which the word first occurs in G. Agricola (1629), " [1]
but elsewhere "bismuth 1660s, from obsolete Ger. Bismuth, also Wismut, Wissmuth (early 17c.), of unknown origin; perhaps a miner's contraction of wis mat "white mass," from O.H.G. hwiz "white." Latinized 1530 by Georgius Agricola (who may have been the first to recognize it as an element) as bisemutum. According to Klein, not from Arabic." [2]
"Bismuth is originally the German name for element 83. The name was originally wismuth or wismut, which is the current form in modern German. The “B” form makes its appearance in the works of 16th century mineralogist Georgius Agricola, who latinized the name as bisemutem. " [3]
Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob vnd Wilhelm Grimm in the entry for "wismut" says: "als bisemutum G. Agricola de re metallica (1530) " and "nach Erdmann schon um 1450 in latinisierter form wismutum " [4]
Georgius Agricola died in 1555. [5]
I hate to say it, but I think the OED is wrong here. I'm changing this to "(early 16c)".
Ranvaig ( talk) 04:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
From de.wikipedia.org
"Der Name des Metalls, der im Deutschen 1390 als wesemut und lat. 1450 als wismutum,[13] 1530 als bisemutum[11] erscheint, kann auf die in einer arabischen Dioskurides-Übersetzung des 9. Jahrhunderts belegte Form b[i]sīmūtīyūn zurückgeführt werden, die selbst wohl eine Transliteration von altgriechisch ψιμύθιον psimýthion ‚Bleiweiß‘ darstellt. Auch Entstellung aus arabisch iṯmid ‚Antimon‘ wurde angenommen; öfters wird außerdem auf die angeblich erste Mutung in der Zeche St. Georgen in der Wiesen bei Schneeberg im Erzgebirge im 15. Jahrhundert verwiesen,[14] oder auf die Variante wis(se)mat, die ‚weiße Masse‘ bedeuten soll.[15]"
Ranvaig ( talk) 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
References
It is multivalanet, having 7 valance electrons,not vtrivalant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.178.155 ( talk) 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tea with toast ( talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. I would like to alert the contributing editors that Ref #25 contains a dead link. Please fix. Thanks, and i look forward to this review! -- Tea with toast (話) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I will put this article on hold until these issues are addressed. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast (話) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Not sure I fully understand what they're trying to say with the statement "only mercury has less thermal conductivity." Probably they mean of the heavy metals, but using Gold as per another example, it has a much lower thermal conductivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etmax ( talk • contribs) 22:31, June 5, 2006.
Wikipedia lists the thermal conductivity of Bi as 7.97 W/mK and 8.30 W/mK for Hg. This indicates that Bi has a lower thermal conductivity than Hg. Are the listed values correct or is the "only mercury has less thermal conductivity" statement correct? The statement is repeated widely on the web. I only found one source of thermal conductivity values that supported it. Ddbaughman ( talk) 15:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bismuth crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 27, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this verbage a bit contradictory?
"Bismuth has few commercial applications, none of which is particularly large. Taking the US as an example, 884 tonnes of bismuth were consumed in 2010, of which 63% went into chemicals (including pharmaceuticals, pigments, and cosmetics), 26% into metallurgical additives for casting and galvanizing,[54] 7% into bismuth alloys, solders and ammunition, and the balance into research and other uses.[45]
Some manufacturers use bismuth as a substitute in equipment for potable water systems such as valves to meet "lead-free" mandates in the U.S. (starts in 2014). This is a fairly large application since it covers all residential and commercial building construction."
( "none of which is particularly large" and "fairly large application" are a bit of a contradiction, IMO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.200.117 ( talk) 06:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
209-Bi is not radioactive Qwh ( talk) 10:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Bismuth is toxic so is Gold Qwh ( talk) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 26, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The aqueous section had always surprised me as Bi salts are notoriously insoluble in anything but strong acid. Wibergs account is from a 1972 paper and was slighly misquoted in any event. I don't think it can stand now that the aqua ion is recognised as Bi(H2O)83+ Axiosaurus ( talk) 07:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a quote concering the existence of BiO+ allegedly from "Godfrey, S. M.; McAuliffe, C. A.; Mackie, A. G.; Pritchard, R. G. (1998). Nicholas C. Norman, ed. Chemistry of arsenic, antimony, and bismuth. Springer. pp. 67–84. ISBN 0-7514-0389-X." can someone with access to the book please check this. I suspect that the book has been misquoted. Axiosaurus ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the primary link to "Pepto-Bismol" (as brand-name) because it is Wikipedia policy to use INN name, not brand-names for pharmaceuticals. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide The brand-name is mentioned later in this article, and that is appropriate. -- Zeamays ( talk) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I find the caption of the bismuth crystal picture "The Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel" not very clear: "Artificially grown bismuth crystal illustrating the stairstep crystal structure, with a 1 cm3 cube of bismuth metal" I could interpret "Artificially grown crystal" in multiple ways. Is it grown in a unnatural crystal form or does it mean that the crystal was grown in a lab? Bonnom ( talk) 13:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that a bismuth compound has replaced lead for the last 10 years or so in Grecian Formula, the famous hair-darkener for men. But this is only done outside the United States. In the United States, the formula still contains lead(II) acetate. Maybe something could be said about that. 66.241.130.86 ( talk) 22:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bismuth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The article says bismuth was discovered to be very slightly radioactive in 2003. Asimov: Inside the Atom (1956) had already said that bismuth was discovered to be very slightly radioactive back then. Was the claim that Asimov cites premature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 ( talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"Scientific literature indicates that some of the compounds of bismuth are less toxic to humans via ingestion compared to other heavy metals (lead, arsenic, antimony, etc.)"
This section is problematic, arsenic and antimony are acutely toxic because of their chemical similarity to phosphorous which is included ubiquitously across all metabolism of living cells. What is surprising is that bismuth being chemically related isn't as deadly toxic. Its nothing to do with it being heavy that's surprising in relation to arsenic and antimony, both of which are not toxic because of their mass and reaching unmanageable levels in the body etc. -- MattOates ( Ulti) 14:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I have seen videos online that take Pepto-Bismol and take the Bismuth out of it. Can you put that in the article and explain it? I'll send you the link if you need it. Porygon-Z 13:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs)
Every reference I've read on bismuth refers to it as a semimetal ( metalloid), not a "poor metal". In fact, I've never really heard of an scientific use of "poor metal" other than a casual term meaning it's a poor conductor, or not an effective engineering material.
There seems to be an issue with text ovrlapping and coming to close to the "bismite mineral" picture and "Recycling Header". Using Firefox 3.0.11. Not present in IE6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.203.244 ( talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I converted the mixture of text and prices into a Google spreadsheet with a graph: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pE93ibhhw1_grnvBTdEdbVA The graph does not show the dates. I don't know why. I don't know how you would fit it into the article, and I am not sure even where to put this note. ccp
WHO WROTE THIS ARTICLE????????? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.115.166.186 (
talk) 20:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Bismuth is a diamagnetic, it can be use to block Magnet fields. It can be used to make Power (Voltage, current).Take a magnet, Bismuth, and coil of wire. Put the Bismuth between the magnet and coil of periods. By taking a Magnet blocking the field with Bismuth and removing the Bismuth. Now move the Bismuth in and out of the center(Between the Magnet and Coil of wire). Troy Frei
One quick question I can't seem to find in the article. Does the dimagnatism of Bismush continue in hihg temperatres? Does it get stronger or weaker in say, bismuth vapor? Thanks, all the infromation I can find about this is inverably about superconductors. 24.137.78.34 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of etymology, the sentence
seems (to me) to contain several errors. I have more faith in Merriam-Webster.
—
Herbee 21:47, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
The word origin "wismuth" and Anglicized "bismuth" supposedly derived from German "Weisse Masse" is often reported, but unlikely. The more likely explanation is that it is derived from medieval German "wise muth", with the first word having exactly the same meaning as the English word "wise" (contemporary German: "weise"), and "muth" meaning mineral claim, a term that was used in German legal documents for mineral rights until the 19th century. In contemporary German, it is spelled "Mutung", if this ancient word is used at all. 24.77.9.78 ( talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Nuclear systematics - Does the theoretical mass defect come in higher or lower than that which is empirically measured? I can provide the empirical value from Ehmann/Vance or NuDat, and it is -18.2585 MeV. Inquiring minds wish to know.. :-)
-- 24.80.110.173 06:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
imho that is to stupid to include
THE MOST UNPROFESSIONAL, UNMITIGATED, NON-SCIENTIFIC AND ENTITLED GATEKEEPERS HAVE HIJACKED WHAT LITTLE INTEGRITY WIKIPEDIA HAD LEFT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.115.166.186 (
talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2000030398 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.151.159 ( talk) 09:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Over the past decade or two, there's been a small but growing commercial interest in artificially grown bismuth crystals for their aesthetic appeal. I was surprised to find that there is no mention of this under the "Applications" section, despite the fact that if you google "bismuth crystals" or even just "bismuth" you will find that the majority of results returned are commercial links to purchase said crystals for the above mentioned purpose. I was going to add a sentence or two about this to the section, but I've not been able to find any suitable source(s) to cite. So, should I simply post the edit I had in mind with an added "CN" tag, or should I wait until I or someone else finds a suitable source before posting? I'm far from new to Wikipedia, but I don't edit often, so that is why I'm asking first. ProgHead777 ( talk) 03:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Most protocols are the same, however nuance and technique are made proprietary and held as a "trade secret". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.166.186 ( talk) 20:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The text in the end of main uses and the beginning of history is repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epmtunes ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The "citation needed" label, which I removed, was added by a blinkered person who has an established track record of making conceited Wikipedia edits. Anyway, let me explain, for those who are a bit slow, why recycling bismuth used in the applications listed in the article is obviously not practical:
As another example of the economics and practicality of recovering / "recycling" highly diluted / dispersed material, like bismuth-containing cosmetics in sewage water: seawater is known to contain elements like gold, as well as rare earths like dysprosium, yttrium, niobium etc., but the degree of dilution is such that the cost of recovery would typically exceed the value of the material involved, which is why there are no "gold mines" recovering gold e.g. from seawater (or sewage, which is also known to contain gold) 94.225.75.162 ( talk) 11:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
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 |
Is Bismuth's surprising radioactive stability related to it having 126 neutron, a magic number in the shell model theory of nuclei? My high school text agrees, but someone more knowledgable than the shoddy quality of my text should probably express this more coherently. -- postglock 09:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I think what the "nontoxic" statement means to achieve is remove your intuition, in comparison to similar metals, similar applications, especially lead, which is very poisonous, and it's right next to bismuth in the periodic table. In my mind, bismuth belongs in the group of lead, antimony, selenium, tin, arsenic, mercury, etc. type of element group, in decreasing order of "similarity." Of these and most other metals, bismuth shines in the sense that pepto-bismol is a straight bismuth compound you can ingest without any fear. It's hard to think of many other non-biologically significant metal compounds that are similarly nontoxic, yet reactive with stomach acid. Sillybilly 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
How 'non-toxic' do you mean? Anything in excess cause trouble, including water and salt (sodium chloride). If bismuth is 'non-toxic', then it is more in the league with calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium ions (although sodium, potassium, or calcium metals would be extremely dangerous due to the corrosiveness of the metal hydroxides, and any significant imbalance of potassium and magnesium in the blood would be lethal).
What water-soluble or acid-soluble metallic ions (including those of weak metals), are non-toxic? I'm not referring to substances rendered inert due to insolubility (for example, barium sulfate). -- 66.231.41.57 04:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Most of the discussion here is about semantics, due to the very poor phraseology of the original text. Without changing the intended meaning, I have rephrased the "hevaiest" and "non-toxic" clauses so that they should now be non-controversial. 150.203.69.27 06:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Dr. A. G. Christy, Dept. Earth & Marine Sciences, Australian National University
Hi. After some reflection I changed back your most recent edit to the above, as I thought the previous version read better (listing the protective equipment in more detail). I note your qualifications from your talk page and your experience as a Wikipedian, and don't want to appear high-handed in reverting the edit. If you disagree with my reverson, I am happy to discuss. Jeendan 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Will someone post the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons of bismuth? And also the mass number? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 ( talk) .
I suggest that this article be re-rated to B-class, given its depth and style. -- Der yck C. 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In russian (USSR) "Popular library of chemical elements" (1977) stated, that bismuth (isotope 209Bi) _is_ decaying with half-period of 2*10^18 years. Please remove that crap about 2003 and France.
Evidence (all in russian):
(1983 edition djvu hard copy) < http://www.rushim.ru/books/obzor/popular-biblioteka2.djvu>
(HTML version of 1977 edition) < http://n-t.org/ri/ps/pb083.htm>
I removed this dead link www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00037810.html. Glad I read it particularly about Pepto-Bismal.-- Dakota ~ ° 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please add the isotope to the table. It says Bi-210m decays into Bi-210, but what is Bi-210?-- Certh ( talk) 10:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The Crystal shown in the chembox under appearance might be "lustrous pink", but as far as I know, bismuth is usually grey. I would like to know if that crystal is pure Bi or some compound. But for all reasonable purposes, I think that the appearance of Bi is grey, or silver, or something to that effect. Ruff Bark away! 18:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the copper page, it is described as "metallic bronze". Having first hand experience with both metals, copper is a more of a pale pink that reacts within seconds with the air and turn yellow. Bismuth is just like silver but faster reacting, if bismuth is used as a plating material under vacuum (i.e. no air present) it looks just like silver & then will dull to a grey color (with air), then after a few days may develop rainbow effects that silver objects would normally take several years to develop. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.222.186.230 ( talk) 07:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the references, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bismuth+line, implies it can be toxic. Yes, anything can be toxic in high doses, but since the main article says it's a non-toxic element shouldn't we try to include lethal or damaging dose or the specific way (or ways) this "non-toxic" element can be toxic? Khono ( talk) 23:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please include information about bismuth encephalopathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.64.253 ( talk) 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Given that the half-life of bismuth is so long and that decay is therefore a very rare event I would like to ask how it is possible to accurately measure its half life? For example if a reasonable mass of bismuth only has one theoretical atomic decay a year there is a real statistical chance (by random variation) that none or more may occur and so one would surely need to measure over an unfeasible period of time (of unfeasible mass)? Also such a low rate would surely be masked by contamination and background radiation or re-absorption of emitted particles? Could an explanation of the method be added as a link? -- ManInStone 12:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_18_163/ai_101941095
-- 142.90.99.60 ( talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The 2007 Bismuth Minerals Yearbook chapter will be out in a few months ( today is 2/24/09). Note new 2008-09 bismuth price series, the bismuth (metal) customer-input price on http://customer-inputprices.blogspot.com Bmhtayl ( talk) 22:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The statement that bismuth is the heaviest of the heavy metals and the only non-toxic comes from [1], however I think it is misleading. For "heaviest", it certainly isn't w.r.t density, but might be w.r.t atomic number for certain definitions of heavy metal (if uranium and thorium are not classified as heavy metals). For "the only non-toxic", it is mentioned that gold is not very toxic either (e.g. in heavy metal and gold).
The page lists the crystal structure as rhombohedral, but it is monoclinic. In a rhombohedral crystal, the unit cell edges are all of equal length. In the monoclinic crystal, the unit cell edges are different lengths. This is the case with bismuth. To verify what I'm saying, go to webelements.com to check the lattice parameters of bismuth and then compare them to the information listed in the wikipedia entry for Bravais Lattices. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
128.164.238.85 (
talk) 16:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what is meant by assigning a global warming potential to bismuth, in some weird way? The text in the section on its recyclability and sustainability mentions global warming.. but, *why*? There's no possible reason I can think of that bismuth is involved directly in global warming:
Zaphraud ( talk) 16:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Check the study in footnote 8. I would agree that global warming as applied to bismuth is a very elastic perhaps peculiar concept. For example, do you go all the way back to mining the lead and tungsten ore, go through lead/tungsten smelting and refining, bismuth separation and refining, or begin somewhere in the middle? "lead-free" study began in the middle. Bmhtayl ( talk) 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
minor problem, but the Diode link under the application section links to a Canadian band's page 03:50, 9 September 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.173.61 ( talk)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bi-crystal.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 28, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 17:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I added chemical reactions with the metal. I am used to working on simple Wikipedia so please reformat them as needed. Thanks, -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In 1999, my chemistry professor told me that bismuth falls slower in a vacuum than other elements. I found this interesting and over the years have tried to find more information on this. Has anyone have any further information pro or con? 66.55.54.106 ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For objects of different composition to fall with different speeds in a vacuum would be very surprising, because it would be a violation of the weak equivalence principle of general relativity. In the early 1920's Charles F. Brush reported experiments showing that pendulums with bobs of bismuth had significantly shorter periods than similar pendulums of other materials, implying that a bismuth weight would fall faster in a vacuum. However these results could not be reproduced by subsequent researchers (see for example H. Potter, Physical Review, http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.19.187), who found on the contrary that pendulums of many different materials, including bismuth, had equal periods to within experimental error. Many of the more recent experiments have verified the weak equivalence principle to better than one part per billion, so the consensus is that the Brush results were in error. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph it says that bismuth is non radioactive, then that it is radioactive. Can we clean this up? AStudent ( talk) 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
In the article it says "Bismuth has classically been considered to be the heaviest naturally occurring stable element". I think that this sentence should be reworded to make it clear in what sense "heaviest" is used. 86.181.169.245 ( talk) 14:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The section on recycling uses "possibly" and "probably" in a manner that doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. I wouldn't know how to begin to fix it so I thought I'd post here and see if anyone else would. Cyrissia ( talk) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The salts of bismuth are sometimes fed to people before abdominal X-ray, to produce a higher contrast, more detailed photo. 82.131.210.163 ( talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "Bismuth appears in the 1660s, from obsolete Ger. Bismuth, Wismut, Wissmuth (early 17c.);"
OED says "wissmuth, the form in which the word first occurs in G. Agricola (1629), " [1]
but elsewhere "bismuth 1660s, from obsolete Ger. Bismuth, also Wismut, Wissmuth (early 17c.), of unknown origin; perhaps a miner's contraction of wis mat "white mass," from O.H.G. hwiz "white." Latinized 1530 by Georgius Agricola (who may have been the first to recognize it as an element) as bisemutum. According to Klein, not from Arabic." [2]
"Bismuth is originally the German name for element 83. The name was originally wismuth or wismut, which is the current form in modern German. The “B” form makes its appearance in the works of 16th century mineralogist Georgius Agricola, who latinized the name as bisemutem. " [3]
Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob vnd Wilhelm Grimm in the entry for "wismut" says: "als bisemutum G. Agricola de re metallica (1530) " and "nach Erdmann schon um 1450 in latinisierter form wismutum " [4]
Georgius Agricola died in 1555. [5]
I hate to say it, but I think the OED is wrong here. I'm changing this to "(early 16c)".
Ranvaig ( talk) 04:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
From de.wikipedia.org
"Der Name des Metalls, der im Deutschen 1390 als wesemut und lat. 1450 als wismutum,[13] 1530 als bisemutum[11] erscheint, kann auf die in einer arabischen Dioskurides-Übersetzung des 9. Jahrhunderts belegte Form b[i]sīmūtīyūn zurückgeführt werden, die selbst wohl eine Transliteration von altgriechisch ψιμύθιον psimýthion ‚Bleiweiß‘ darstellt. Auch Entstellung aus arabisch iṯmid ‚Antimon‘ wurde angenommen; öfters wird außerdem auf die angeblich erste Mutung in der Zeche St. Georgen in der Wiesen bei Schneeberg im Erzgebirge im 15. Jahrhundert verwiesen,[14] oder auf die Variante wis(se)mat, die ‚weiße Masse‘ bedeuten soll.[15]"
Ranvaig ( talk) 06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
References
It is multivalanet, having 7 valance electrons,not vtrivalant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.178.155 ( talk) 18:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tea with toast ( talk · contribs) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. I would like to alert the contributing editors that Ref #25 contains a dead link. Please fix. Thanks, and i look forward to this review! -- Tea with toast (話) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I will put this article on hold until these issues are addressed. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast (話) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Not sure I fully understand what they're trying to say with the statement "only mercury has less thermal conductivity." Probably they mean of the heavy metals, but using Gold as per another example, it has a much lower thermal conductivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etmax ( talk • contribs) 22:31, June 5, 2006.
Wikipedia lists the thermal conductivity of Bi as 7.97 W/mK and 8.30 W/mK for Hg. This indicates that Bi has a lower thermal conductivity than Hg. Are the listed values correct or is the "only mercury has less thermal conductivity" statement correct? The statement is repeated widely on the web. I only found one source of thermal conductivity values that supported it. Ddbaughman ( talk) 15:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bismuth crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 27, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this verbage a bit contradictory?
"Bismuth has few commercial applications, none of which is particularly large. Taking the US as an example, 884 tonnes of bismuth were consumed in 2010, of which 63% went into chemicals (including pharmaceuticals, pigments, and cosmetics), 26% into metallurgical additives for casting and galvanizing,[54] 7% into bismuth alloys, solders and ammunition, and the balance into research and other uses.[45]
Some manufacturers use bismuth as a substitute in equipment for potable water systems such as valves to meet "lead-free" mandates in the U.S. (starts in 2014). This is a fairly large application since it covers all residential and commercial building construction."
( "none of which is particularly large" and "fairly large application" are a bit of a contradiction, IMO) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.200.117 ( talk) 06:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
209-Bi is not radioactive Qwh ( talk) 10:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Bismuth is toxic so is Gold Qwh ( talk) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 26, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The aqueous section had always surprised me as Bi salts are notoriously insoluble in anything but strong acid. Wibergs account is from a 1972 paper and was slighly misquoted in any event. I don't think it can stand now that the aqua ion is recognised as Bi(H2O)83+ Axiosaurus ( talk) 07:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a quote concering the existence of BiO+ allegedly from "Godfrey, S. M.; McAuliffe, C. A.; Mackie, A. G.; Pritchard, R. G. (1998). Nicholas C. Norman, ed. Chemistry of arsenic, antimony, and bismuth. Springer. pp. 67–84. ISBN 0-7514-0389-X." can someone with access to the book please check this. I suspect that the book has been misquoted. Axiosaurus ( talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the primary link to "Pepto-Bismol" (as brand-name) because it is Wikipedia policy to use INN name, not brand-names for pharmaceuticals. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide The brand-name is mentioned later in this article, and that is appropriate. -- Zeamays ( talk) 02:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I find the caption of the bismuth crystal picture "The Wismut Kristall und 1cm3 Wuerfel" not very clear: "Artificially grown bismuth crystal illustrating the stairstep crystal structure, with a 1 cm3 cube of bismuth metal" I could interpret "Artificially grown crystal" in multiple ways. Is it grown in a unnatural crystal form or does it mean that the crystal was grown in a lab? Bonnom ( talk) 13:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that a bismuth compound has replaced lead for the last 10 years or so in Grecian Formula, the famous hair-darkener for men. But this is only done outside the United States. In the United States, the formula still contains lead(II) acetate. Maybe something could be said about that. 66.241.130.86 ( talk) 22:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bismuth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The article says bismuth was discovered to be very slightly radioactive in 2003. Asimov: Inside the Atom (1956) had already said that bismuth was discovered to be very slightly radioactive back then. Was the claim that Asimov cites premature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.232.121 ( talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
"Scientific literature indicates that some of the compounds of bismuth are less toxic to humans via ingestion compared to other heavy metals (lead, arsenic, antimony, etc.)"
This section is problematic, arsenic and antimony are acutely toxic because of their chemical similarity to phosphorous which is included ubiquitously across all metabolism of living cells. What is surprising is that bismuth being chemically related isn't as deadly toxic. Its nothing to do with it being heavy that's surprising in relation to arsenic and antimony, both of which are not toxic because of their mass and reaching unmanageable levels in the body etc. -- MattOates ( Ulti) 14:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I have seen videos online that take Pepto-Bismol and take the Bismuth out of it. Can you put that in the article and explain it? I'll send you the link if you need it. Porygon-Z 13:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs)
Every reference I've read on bismuth refers to it as a semimetal ( metalloid), not a "poor metal". In fact, I've never really heard of an scientific use of "poor metal" other than a casual term meaning it's a poor conductor, or not an effective engineering material.
There seems to be an issue with text ovrlapping and coming to close to the "bismite mineral" picture and "Recycling Header". Using Firefox 3.0.11. Not present in IE6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.203.244 ( talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I converted the mixture of text and prices into a Google spreadsheet with a graph: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pE93ibhhw1_grnvBTdEdbVA The graph does not show the dates. I don't know why. I don't know how you would fit it into the article, and I am not sure even where to put this note. ccp
WHO WROTE THIS ARTICLE????????? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.115.166.186 (
talk) 20:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Bismuth is a diamagnetic, it can be use to block Magnet fields. It can be used to make Power (Voltage, current).Take a magnet, Bismuth, and coil of wire. Put the Bismuth between the magnet and coil of periods. By taking a Magnet blocking the field with Bismuth and removing the Bismuth. Now move the Bismuth in and out of the center(Between the Magnet and Coil of wire). Troy Frei
One quick question I can't seem to find in the article. Does the dimagnatism of Bismush continue in hihg temperatres? Does it get stronger or weaker in say, bismuth vapor? Thanks, all the infromation I can find about this is inverably about superconductors. 24.137.78.34 11:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
On the subject of etymology, the sentence
seems (to me) to contain several errors. I have more faith in Merriam-Webster.
—
Herbee 21:47, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
The word origin "wismuth" and Anglicized "bismuth" supposedly derived from German "Weisse Masse" is often reported, but unlikely. The more likely explanation is that it is derived from medieval German "wise muth", with the first word having exactly the same meaning as the English word "wise" (contemporary German: "weise"), and "muth" meaning mineral claim, a term that was used in German legal documents for mineral rights until the 19th century. In contemporary German, it is spelled "Mutung", if this ancient word is used at all. 24.77.9.78 ( talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Nuclear systematics - Does the theoretical mass defect come in higher or lower than that which is empirically measured? I can provide the empirical value from Ehmann/Vance or NuDat, and it is -18.2585 MeV. Inquiring minds wish to know.. :-)
-- 24.80.110.173 06:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
imho that is to stupid to include
THE MOST UNPROFESSIONAL, UNMITIGATED, NON-SCIENTIFIC AND ENTITLED GATEKEEPERS HAVE HIJACKED WHAT LITTLE INTEGRITY WIKIPEDIA HAD LEFT. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.115.166.186 (
talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ChiCTR2000030398 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.151.159 ( talk) 09:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Over the past decade or two, there's been a small but growing commercial interest in artificially grown bismuth crystals for their aesthetic appeal. I was surprised to find that there is no mention of this under the "Applications" section, despite the fact that if you google "bismuth crystals" or even just "bismuth" you will find that the majority of results returned are commercial links to purchase said crystals for the above mentioned purpose. I was going to add a sentence or two about this to the section, but I've not been able to find any suitable source(s) to cite. So, should I simply post the edit I had in mind with an added "CN" tag, or should I wait until I or someone else finds a suitable source before posting? I'm far from new to Wikipedia, but I don't edit often, so that is why I'm asking first. ProgHead777 ( talk) 03:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Most protocols are the same, however nuance and technique are made proprietary and held as a "trade secret". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.166.186 ( talk) 20:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The text in the end of main uses and the beginning of history is repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epmtunes ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The "citation needed" label, which I removed, was added by a blinkered person who has an established track record of making conceited Wikipedia edits. Anyway, let me explain, for those who are a bit slow, why recycling bismuth used in the applications listed in the article is obviously not practical:
As another example of the economics and practicality of recovering / "recycling" highly diluted / dispersed material, like bismuth-containing cosmetics in sewage water: seawater is known to contain elements like gold, as well as rare earths like dysprosium, yttrium, niobium etc., but the degree of dilution is such that the cost of recovery would typically exceed the value of the material involved, which is why there are no "gold mines" recovering gold e.g. from seawater (or sewage, which is also known to contain gold) 94.225.75.162 ( talk) 11:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)