Talk:Talc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Geology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconTalc is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rocks and minerals (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconTalc is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

How does it actually dry?[edit]

how does it actually dry Hfastedge 08:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


bye thanks for listening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.142.187 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation? / NPOV[edit]

The entire section about cancer risk was taken word-for-word from this site. The information from the site was also horribly biased, misleading, poorly documented, and pseudoscientific. I replaced it with a filler containing links to several abstracts of the research previously provided; a followup would be nice. SReynhout 00:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

This morning I was reading about Talc stunting lung cancer tumor growths...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.200.41 (talk)

Baby powder[edit]

Most baby powder these days seems to be made of cornstarch, not talc. Perhaps having baby powder redirect here is inappropriate? --EngineerScotty 22:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made baby powder a stub now; it no longer redirects here. Aleta 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

bye thanks for listening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.142.187 (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It is classified in the same 2B category in the IARC listing as mobile phones and coffee. According to the IARC website coffee drinking is classified as 3, not as 2B. There is no IARC entry for mobile phones. Gentleman wiki (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Clearly this sentence is inadequate: In loose form, it was one of the most widely used substances known as baby powder, along with corn starch. Should not the sentence, be changed to two sentences: In loose form, it is (in ratio with or without corn starch), one of the most widely used substances known as baby powder. Johnson's baby powder contains talc, according to the company's website, but the company also offers a version made with cornstarch. Nowadays baby powder can depending on the manufacturer be made with cornstarch. This along with a suitable reference of course. I have changed the first sentence today, but not the latter two. Broichmore (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is this page even protected?[edit]

I have an image that I want to add to the page as per the request on Requested Pictures. The image is at the right.

Talcum Powder

I took the picture myself and I think that it can contribute to the article. M@$+@ Ju ~ 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Vsmith 01:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) M@$+@ Ju ~ 02:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

bye thanks for listening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.142.187 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ovarian Tumor claims[edit]

in 1971 researchers found particles of talc embedded in 75 percent of the ovarian tumors studied.

What is the percentage for normal tumors/ovaries? Without this information the statement above is meaningless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoff (talkcontribs) bye thanks for listening

Powder?[edit]

Talcum Powder redirects here, but this page does not describe what talcum powder is. It should. Or Talcum Powder should have it's own page, or it should not redirect here. --illumi 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. --illumi 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC) bye thanks for listening I am inclined to agree. Vorbee (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

laminar talc[edit]

Talc with laminar structure is the most important characteristic that appreciated by paint and coatings industry as well as the polymer industy. Such structure will perform a better covering ability in paint products and enhance the strength of plastics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.19.170.110 (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Metamorphic Minerals?[edit]

This poster claims that since Talc is a mineral it is inappropriate to classify it as metamorphic, is this correct? Talc is a mineral, not a rock, and therefore not metamorphic

If so then this page is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exsuscito (talkcontribs) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification. Talc is considered a metamorphic mineral because it is formed during metamorphism and exists almost entirely within metamorphic rocks. It does not survive in igneous or sedimentary environments. LadyofShalott 00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Asbestiform"[edit]

Does talc contain the 'curly' serpentine fibre-forms (that used by white asbestos [Chrysotile]) after its metamorphasis? What does 'asbestiform' mean? Amphibole specifically?

Would it be incorrect to say:

"However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers non-asbestiform talc, that is, talc which does not contain potentially carcinogenic asbestiform amphibole fibers, to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in cosmetics.

"However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers non-asbestiform talc, that is, talc which does not contain potentially carcinogenic asbestiform amphibole fibers, to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in cosmetics. Talc does contain asbestiform serpentine fibres, like that consisting in chrysotile (white) asbestos."; in an edit?

If 'asbestiform' is a synonym for 'amphibole', then " carcinogenic asbestiform amphibole fibres" is arguably tautolgoical.194.106.220.83 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, amphiboles are not at all the only minerals that may be asbestiform (which refers to a ratio of length to width of the fibers). See chrysotile for the main asbestiform mineral. LadyofShalott 06:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC-name missing[edit]

Can someone add the IUPAC-name? --89.106.42.17 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Important reactions shown by talc[edit]

The page should contain a section with some important chemical reactions shown by talc for a better understanding about its chemical behavior and properties

Saransh1994 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Chemical confusion[edit]

I find these two articles very confusing. The article on French chalk – in the second paragraph – describes chalk as “calcium carbonate”.

Firstly, does this imply that French chalk is a type of chalk? If this seems obvious, see what happens next.

In paragraph 3 it says French chalk was a kind of solic talc (linked to the article Talc). Talc is described as “magnesium silicate”, an entirely different substance from calcium carbonate.

So it appears that chalk is calcium carbonate and talc is magnesium silicate. Why, then, are we suggesting merging the two articles if the two substances are completely different chemically?

And is French chalk a type of chalk (calcium carbonate) or a type of talc (magnesium silicate). If the former, why does the ‘French chalk’ article refer to talc? If the latter, why does it refer to chalk?

Regardless of whether these articles are merged, I think the one of French chalk needs clarifying or rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.138 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing useful to merge from French chalk, the bit about Most tailor's chalk is talc, as is the chalk often used for welding or metalworking. in this article could simply include or French chalk as alt name after tailor's chalk and that would be it. Don't need the incomplete 1818 ref. Just do it :) Vsmith (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So what about French chalk, then?[edit]

French chalk now redirects to this article, but there in no mention of it at all.

In any case, I though French chalk was a type of chalk, which is calcium carbonate (not magnesium silicate). Why is it redirected here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.138 (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

References[edit]

Reference 11 (Skin Cancer) NIOSH Worker Notification Program. Health effects of mining and milling talc..[dead link](historical)

This page is actually live, however it makes no mention of skin cancer? --Owen (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed dead link note and skin cancer link as not supported by refs. Vsmith (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead & Incorrect References[edit]

conclude that some studies have found a link, but other studies have not.[11][12]

[11] [12] point to an article on cancer.org contains no results on any study that suggests a lack of link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.129.236.136 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


Page Merger Discussion: Sterile talc powder[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Sterile talc powder page into Talc Klbrain (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the Sterile talc powder page is an orphaned part of this Talc article. With some of the information being cross-referenced in both articles, e.g. the chemical formula Mg
3
Si
4
O
10
(OH)
2
, I suggest that the orphaned Sterile Talc Powder page should merge into the main Talc page.

Do you support or oppose Sterile talc powder article being merged into Talc article?
Support. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Support. It would fit well under the uses section. Klbrain (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the chemical formula for talcum powder correct?[edit]

I have the following analysis that addresses the reason behind a different chemical formula.
It goes like this:
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orthosilicate-2D-dimensions.png

[SiO₄]⁴⁻ Ortho-Silicate

SiO₂, like CO₂, as a unit molecule, is chemically neutral. As a crystal can achieve lower states of potential energy.

MgSiO₃ ⇌ Mg²⁺ + [SiO₃]²⁻ is chemically neutral.

But pure water is polar and aggressive.

H₂O + Mg²⁺ + [SiO₃]²⁻ ⇌ H₂²⁺ + Mg²⁺ + [SiO₃]²⁻ + O²⁻

In ionic equilibrium, H₂²⁺Mg²⁺[SiO₄]⁴⁻ is now quenched and free from aggression from a water molecule.

But should not yield H₂Mg₃(SiO₃)₄.

 		 		Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Space group[edit]

Per [1], the source giving the space group as C1/c (monoclinic) is from 1934. The recent work gives the space group as C1 (triclinic). I've left it for now, but we need more recent sources for the monoclinic result. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)