This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on Spring 2007. |
Clearly both 'iodized' and 'iodised' are correct ways to spell the word, but the wiki page should use the common spelling, which is 'iodized'. As a simple test, if you Google the word iodised, you get the message "Did you mean: iodized?". I am a chemical engineer with a patent in the iodination of halgenated resins and I am well read on the subject of iodination. I have never seen the term spelled with an S in any source that I would consider to be worthy of reference.
Since the subject matter of this article primarily deals with U.S. adoption of iodized salt the title of this article should reflect that. Can anyone explain why this should be the British spelling? 89.159.154.178 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv ( talk) 23:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Iodised salt → Iodized salt – As the spelling Iodised Salt is not recognised in either American or British English this should be moved to the existing page Iodized Salt. Schrodinger's cat is alive ( talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont think that I have ever seen yellowed iodized salt. The image of iodized salt shown in this article is not representative of the stuff that I eat or have ever seen. The sample looks to me like an old sample NaI, which can appear yellowish. Maybe the image was selected to make some point, but to me it seems misleading.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The Macquarie Dictionary has iodised as the first alternative not iodized. See Salt Matters (Menzies Research Intitute/University of Tasmania, I also have a container of Saxa Iodised Table Salt. -- Paul foord ( talk) 01:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The statement, Iodide-treated table salt slowly loses its iodine content through the process of oxidation seems dubious to me. Iodine is an element, it isn't lost or changed through oxidation. You might get it incorporated into different salts through oxidation, but the Iodine itself hasn't been altered. The statement needs further explanation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain wikipedia's policy on the spelling is unless the article refers to country specific topic then the spelling should used should be consistently that of the original author. Therefore if the article was first written as iodised that is how it should have remained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.168.175 ( talk) 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. Article is now restored to previous long-standing title, and per ENGVAR, there it shall stay. If we want to override ENGVAR, that will take a pretty strong showing of consensus to do so. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Iodized salt →
Iodised salt – Relisting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Request to revert move made in May, per
WP:ENGVAR. The assumptions made to justify moving this article were incorrect: iodise is a valid spelling in British English, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary does recognize iodise, and iodise/iodize is not an exception to the
-ise spellings that are, on balance, preferred in British English. Additionally, -ise is even more strongly preferred in a number of other Commonwealth countries (for example, see the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language: "New Zealanders like Australians use -ise as in centralise, not -ize").
Some standardized rigour (
talk) 06:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
See Does WP:RETAIN go too far? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The closing admin states, incorrectly: "The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. "
This statement is incorrect because the change in May was not a "change between regional variants of English." The established English variant of this article is British English, and both of the spellings being discussed here are widely used in that variant. Therefore, this is not an ENGVAR issue at all.
Whether the article is at Iodized salt or Iodised salt, the established variant remains the same: British English. What is applicable here is WP:COMMONALITY which states: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." and "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms".
There is no question about whether the -ised for is "less widely distributed" -- clearly it is. The -ized form clearly meets WP:COMMONALITY much better, and the change does not violate ENGVAR. This is essentially the argument made by Powers, and, apparently, ignored (at least not addressed), by the closing admin.
Above, I questioned the closing decision. Now I challenge it. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As to whether iodized and iodised are different words or different spellings of the same word is a matter of semantics and varies by context (in contexts where the emphasis is on spelling, like in Scrabble, for example, they are typically treated as distinct words). Technically, you're correct, but whether that technically correct interpretation applies to the wording in the MOS is not so clear. Hanging on to that distinction is pretty weak.
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether trying to reverse consensus-ignoring decisions is a waste of time.
You have not been involved in this particular RM, but you have crossed paths with me before, and you have seemed to develop a predilection, perhaps subconsciously, for rationalizing positions like this just to disagree with me. No? Well, then, show us where have you agreed with me. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
A secondary point is that COMMONALITY suggests the -ized form be preferred. COMMONALITY states, "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". And for examples of "less widely distributed terms" it uses two different spellings of the same word: "aeroplane" and "airplane", saying that "universally used terms" are preferred to these.
Well, like "aeroplane" and "airplane", "iodised salt" is a "less widely distributed term" (language that suggests a matter of degree, by the way), while "iodized salt" is a "universally used term". Even if you want to seriously pick the nit that it's not actually universally used (because it's apparently practically unused in some Commonwealth countries), let's recognize that the meaning of "universally", like all words, depends on context, and does not necessarily mean "without exception" (e.g., "People universally agree rape is wrong" doesn't mean without exception - our jails are full of exceptions). Further, the language in COMMONALITY itself suggests making these decisions based on degree of compliance with the "less widely distributed" wording.
ENGVAR does not apply here, so GTB's basis for reversing the May move to the -ized form is without foundation. That alone justifies putting the article back to the title where the consensus in May unanimously decided it should be. Further, the -ized spelling complies better with COMMONALITY than does the -ised form. Even if you think that's weak, against the complete absence of argument for having the article at the -ised form, it's still plenty strong, especially in addition to the first point. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I see this as a difficult call, where a good case could be made for either side. I considered the arguments, and I made a call. It's defensible, and the other call would be defensible, too. We could go ten thousand words over either call, if someone just decides they're unhappy enough. Is that a good use of those ten thousand words?
You know - and you do know this from experience - all you have to do is ask me once, and I'll post to AN requesting review of any and every close of mine that's challenged. I'm off to do that now. Thank you. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's my comment: rather than personalize this and go after the closing admin with pitchforks and torches (criminialize vs. criminalise this?), can we not just all get along? And move it back to iodize? The reasons have been stated: "iodized salt" gets 4 times the google hits as "iodised salt" and the ratio of hits for "iodized" vs. "iodised" is even more staggering. Both forms are correct. Both are synonymous. Only "iodized" is phonetic, which makes it better. Thus, I much prefer it. Why would anybody fight for the other? S B H arris 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that your point that iodized salt comes mostly from countries that use the z is stretching that aspect of ENGVAR, but I suppose it can't hurt to mention that, in your actual WP:RM proposal to move it. Why are we wasting time preaching to the choir instead of making an actual proposal? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Can't help but notice this by User:Sbharris England and Australia frankly do not count. The fact that this article was started by an Australian does not count. However, Basil Hetzel, an Australian, appears to have been instrumental in identifying the need for dietary iodine supplementation. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/147428.php Paul foord ( talk) 04:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The article claims that, over time, the iodide gradually leaves the salt. But I don't believe that's necessarily true. Morton salt has dextrose added to stabilize the iodide, which effectively keeps it in the salt. Why wasn't this mentioned in the article? (I don't know how effective this stabilization is. Does it completely prevent the iodide from leaving? Does it simply slow down the rate of iodine loss? These question need to be considered as well.) — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, and maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but... does iodised salt contain "iodide" or "iodine"? The first two lines seem to be at odds with each other. ShadowsGathered ( talk) 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Iodised salt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I have added a short section on Australia regarding the use of Iodized salt. I believe that the references are sufficient but can add further if necessary HaraldW1954 ( talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iodised salt. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Near the bottom of the article there is a quote lifted directly from the abstract of the cited paper which reads, "The study also found a large increase in thyroid-related deaths following the countrywide adoption of iodized salt, which affected mostly older individuals in localities with high prevalence of iodine deficiency."[27]" (emphasis mine).
I do not have access to the cited full article so I cannot check to see if the abstract contains an error but it is counter-intuitive to me that the widespread addition of a micro-nutrient to salt would have been continued if it caused a large increase in deaths. I'm not making a change because the "increase" word is an accurate quote of the linked abstract but ... really? Rengewwj ( talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. I have received and read the original cited paper and, in fact, there was an increase in deaths. It seems that people who had very low iodine intake could develop a fatal over-reaction to the introduction of the tiny amounts of iodine in table salt. Authorities of the time (1920's) in the USA thought that the cost of approx 10k deaths was worth the overall benefit. Strange but true. Rengewwj ( talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This section includes the following, "In India many people use himalayan rock salt,which it imports from Pakistan . It is also recommended by many intellectuals,as it is a natural form of salt." Can someone add something to explain what relevance this has to iodised salt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alant ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
"Four inorganic compounds are used as iodide sources, depending on the producer: potassium iodate, potassium iodide, sodium iodate, and sodium iodide."
> Sodium iodate is toxic. I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source.
"Salt is an effective vehicle for distributing iodine to the public because it does not spoil and is consumed in more predictable amounts than most other commodities. citation needed For example, the concentration of iodine in salt has gradually increased in Switzerland: 3.75 mg/kg in 1952, 7.5 mg/kg in 1962, 15 mg/kg in 1980, 20 mg/kg in 1998, and 25 mg/kg in 2014."
> The "for example" does not make sense. Ok, salt is consumed in predictable amounts. Why does it follow that the Switzerland iodine concentrations has been increasing? Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine? Jgrov8 ( talk) 21:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sodium iodate is toxic.
Basic chemistry dictates that it must be comparable in toxicity to potassium iodide. Like KI, NaI becomes Na+ and I- ions in water. And really we only care about the I-, because living animals have Na+ everywhere.
I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source.
Sodium iodide § Food supplement has a source.
Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine?
They probably are eating less salt (and especially home-cooking salt); this stuff has been mentioned as a risk in assessments of the UK. We do need a source though.
--
Artoria
2e5
🌉 05:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on Spring 2007. |
Clearly both 'iodized' and 'iodised' are correct ways to spell the word, but the wiki page should use the common spelling, which is 'iodized'. As a simple test, if you Google the word iodised, you get the message "Did you mean: iodized?". I am a chemical engineer with a patent in the iodination of halgenated resins and I am well read on the subject of iodination. I have never seen the term spelled with an S in any source that I would consider to be worthy of reference.
Since the subject matter of this article primarily deals with U.S. adoption of iodized salt the title of this article should reflect that. Can anyone explain why this should be the British spelling? 89.159.154.178 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv ( talk) 23:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Iodised salt → Iodized salt – As the spelling Iodised Salt is not recognised in either American or British English this should be moved to the existing page Iodized Salt. Schrodinger's cat is alive ( talk) 12:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I dont think that I have ever seen yellowed iodized salt. The image of iodized salt shown in this article is not representative of the stuff that I eat or have ever seen. The sample looks to me like an old sample NaI, which can appear yellowish. Maybe the image was selected to make some point, but to me it seems misleading.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The Macquarie Dictionary has iodised as the first alternative not iodized. See Salt Matters (Menzies Research Intitute/University of Tasmania, I also have a container of Saxa Iodised Table Salt. -- Paul foord ( talk) 01:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The statement, Iodide-treated table salt slowly loses its iodine content through the process of oxidation seems dubious to me. Iodine is an element, it isn't lost or changed through oxidation. You might get it incorporated into different salts through oxidation, but the Iodine itself hasn't been altered. The statement needs further explanation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm reasonably certain wikipedia's policy on the spelling is unless the article refers to country specific topic then the spelling should used should be consistently that of the original author. Therefore if the article was first written as iodised that is how it should have remained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.168.175 ( talk) 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. Article is now restored to previous long-standing title, and per ENGVAR, there it shall stay. If we want to override ENGVAR, that will take a pretty strong showing of consensus to do so. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Iodized salt →
Iodised salt – Relisting.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Request to revert move made in May, per
WP:ENGVAR. The assumptions made to justify moving this article were incorrect: iodise is a valid spelling in British English, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary does recognize iodise, and iodise/iodize is not an exception to the
-ise spellings that are, on balance, preferred in British English. Additionally, -ise is even more strongly preferred in a number of other Commonwealth countries (for example, see the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language: "New Zealanders like Australians use -ise as in centralise, not -ize").
Some standardized rigour (
talk) 06:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
See Does WP:RETAIN go too far? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The closing admin states, incorrectly: "The move in May was not based on a stronger consensus than that supporting ENGVAR, and was therefore an improper change between regional variants of English. "
This statement is incorrect because the change in May was not a "change between regional variants of English." The established English variant of this article is British English, and both of the spellings being discussed here are widely used in that variant. Therefore, this is not an ENGVAR issue at all.
Whether the article is at Iodized salt or Iodised salt, the established variant remains the same: British English. What is applicable here is WP:COMMONALITY which states: "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." and "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms".
There is no question about whether the -ised for is "less widely distributed" -- clearly it is. The -ized form clearly meets WP:COMMONALITY much better, and the change does not violate ENGVAR. This is essentially the argument made by Powers, and, apparently, ignored (at least not addressed), by the closing admin.
Above, I questioned the closing decision. Now I challenge it. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
As to whether iodized and iodised are different words or different spellings of the same word is a matter of semantics and varies by context (in contexts where the emphasis is on spelling, like in Scrabble, for example, they are typically treated as distinct words). Technically, you're correct, but whether that technically correct interpretation applies to the wording in the MOS is not so clear. Hanging on to that distinction is pretty weak.
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether trying to reverse consensus-ignoring decisions is a waste of time.
You have not been involved in this particular RM, but you have crossed paths with me before, and you have seemed to develop a predilection, perhaps subconsciously, for rationalizing positions like this just to disagree with me. No? Well, then, show us where have you agreed with me. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
A secondary point is that COMMONALITY suggests the -ized form be preferred. COMMONALITY states, "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". And for examples of "less widely distributed terms" it uses two different spellings of the same word: "aeroplane" and "airplane", saying that "universally used terms" are preferred to these.
Well, like "aeroplane" and "airplane", "iodised salt" is a "less widely distributed term" (language that suggests a matter of degree, by the way), while "iodized salt" is a "universally used term". Even if you want to seriously pick the nit that it's not actually universally used (because it's apparently practically unused in some Commonwealth countries), let's recognize that the meaning of "universally", like all words, depends on context, and does not necessarily mean "without exception" (e.g., "People universally agree rape is wrong" doesn't mean without exception - our jails are full of exceptions). Further, the language in COMMONALITY itself suggests making these decisions based on degree of compliance with the "less widely distributed" wording.
ENGVAR does not apply here, so GTB's basis for reversing the May move to the -ized form is without foundation. That alone justifies putting the article back to the title where the consensus in May unanimously decided it should be. Further, the -ized spelling complies better with COMMONALITY than does the -ised form. Even if you think that's weak, against the complete absence of argument for having the article at the -ised form, it's still plenty strong, especially in addition to the first point. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I see this as a difficult call, where a good case could be made for either side. I considered the arguments, and I made a call. It's defensible, and the other call would be defensible, too. We could go ten thousand words over either call, if someone just decides they're unhappy enough. Is that a good use of those ten thousand words?
You know - and you do know this from experience - all you have to do is ask me once, and I'll post to AN requesting review of any and every close of mine that's challenged. I'm off to do that now. Thank you. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's my comment: rather than personalize this and go after the closing admin with pitchforks and torches (criminialize vs. criminalise this?), can we not just all get along? And move it back to iodize? The reasons have been stated: "iodized salt" gets 4 times the google hits as "iodised salt" and the ratio of hits for "iodized" vs. "iodised" is even more staggering. Both forms are correct. Both are synonymous. Only "iodized" is phonetic, which makes it better. Thus, I much prefer it. Why would anybody fight for the other? S B H arris 23:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that your point that iodized salt comes mostly from countries that use the z is stretching that aspect of ENGVAR, but I suppose it can't hurt to mention that, in your actual WP:RM proposal to move it. Why are we wasting time preaching to the choir instead of making an actual proposal? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Can't help but notice this by User:Sbharris England and Australia frankly do not count. The fact that this article was started by an Australian does not count. However, Basil Hetzel, an Australian, appears to have been instrumental in identifying the need for dietary iodine supplementation. See http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/147428.php Paul foord ( talk) 04:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The article claims that, over time, the iodide gradually leaves the salt. But I don't believe that's necessarily true. Morton salt has dextrose added to stabilize the iodide, which effectively keeps it in the salt. Why wasn't this mentioned in the article? (I don't know how effective this stabilization is. Does it completely prevent the iodide from leaving? Does it simply slow down the rate of iodine loss? These question need to be considered as well.) — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, and maybe this has been addressed elsewhere, but... does iodised salt contain "iodide" or "iodine"? The first two lines seem to be at odds with each other. ShadowsGathered ( talk) 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Iodised salt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I have added a short section on Australia regarding the use of Iodized salt. I believe that the references are sufficient but can add further if necessary HaraldW1954 ( talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iodised salt. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Near the bottom of the article there is a quote lifted directly from the abstract of the cited paper which reads, "The study also found a large increase in thyroid-related deaths following the countrywide adoption of iodized salt, which affected mostly older individuals in localities with high prevalence of iodine deficiency."[27]" (emphasis mine).
I do not have access to the cited full article so I cannot check to see if the abstract contains an error but it is counter-intuitive to me that the widespread addition of a micro-nutrient to salt would have been continued if it caused a large increase in deaths. I'm not making a change because the "increase" word is an accurate quote of the linked abstract but ... really? Rengewwj ( talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. I have received and read the original cited paper and, in fact, there was an increase in deaths. It seems that people who had very low iodine intake could develop a fatal over-reaction to the introduction of the tiny amounts of iodine in table salt. Authorities of the time (1920's) in the USA thought that the cost of approx 10k deaths was worth the overall benefit. Strange but true. Rengewwj ( talk) 15:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This section includes the following, "In India many people use himalayan rock salt,which it imports from Pakistan . It is also recommended by many intellectuals,as it is a natural form of salt." Can someone add something to explain what relevance this has to iodised salt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alant ( talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
"Four inorganic compounds are used as iodide sources, depending on the producer: potassium iodate, potassium iodide, sodium iodate, and sodium iodide."
> Sodium iodate is toxic. I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source.
"Salt is an effective vehicle for distributing iodine to the public because it does not spoil and is consumed in more predictable amounts than most other commodities. citation needed For example, the concentration of iodine in salt has gradually increased in Switzerland: 3.75 mg/kg in 1952, 7.5 mg/kg in 1962, 15 mg/kg in 1980, 20 mg/kg in 1998, and 25 mg/kg in 2014."
> The "for example" does not make sense. Ok, salt is consumed in predictable amounts. Why does it follow that the Switzerland iodine concentrations has been increasing? Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine? Jgrov8 ( talk) 21:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sodium iodate is toxic.
Basic chemistry dictates that it must be comparable in toxicity to potassium iodide. Like KI, NaI becomes Na+ and I- ions in water. And really we only care about the I-, because living animals have Na+ everywhere.
I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source.
Sodium iodide § Food supplement has a source.
Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine?
They probably are eating less salt (and especially home-cooking salt); this stuff has been mentioned as a risk in assessments of the UK. We do need a source though.
--
Artoria
2e5
🌉 05:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)