Talk:Lithium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia. |
 |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Article changed over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 14:58, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 06:27, 20 Jun 2005).
Contents |
[edit] No biological role?
I believe Li+ plays a very important, yet poorly understood role in neurotransmission. I'd say that's important.
Anyone know where to look?
[edit] Little market?
"There is little market for lithium in its pure metal form and price information is scarce." This seems wrong to me. Lithium metal is widely used in various kinds of batteries, rechargeable and non-rechargeable. Laptops, cameras, you name it. How can it be said that there is "little market" for the metal?
- Little market? Compared to steel, yes. Compared to gold, no. Would we say there is little market for gold?
[edit] Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Lithium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Lithium. Other information was obtained from the sources listed on the main page but was reformatted and converted into SI units.
Uh, where did the price information come from? The current text says $300/lb in 1997, but the USGS Minerals Yearbook linked at the bottom says $43.30/lb in 97 and 98. Pretty substantial difference! Depends on where you buy it, I suppose, but what number would be most useful to a general interest reader like me?
- The 300$/lb figure is probably for the ultra pure grades available from laboratory suppliers like Aldrich. I expect the variety used in batteries is significantly less pure and less expensive. Anybody have an up-to-date Aldrich catalog to confirm?Badocter 09:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk
?? Doesn't most Lithium come from the same neutron-capture process that gives rise to Beryllium and Boron? --Anon
Why not just do the intuitive thing and link *TableImage.png to the periodic table instead of that Full table link, which adds no actual information? Mkweise 21:34 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
- You mean redirect the image page to the periodic table page? That's not a good idea, me thinks. --mav
-
- I was thinking [[Periodic table/Standard Table|Image:Li-TableImage.png]] - won't that work? Well, let's find out: Image:Li-TableImage.png. Mkweise 21:52 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
also the image will hopefully become an image map, when the facilities arrive, for it to become one. -fonzy
- Now that would be truly cool, but if that's the plan shouldn't the images be a bit larger? The tip of my mouse pointer is bigger than the cells in the images currently are. Giving the image the full width of the sidebar could make a real difference in navigation accuracy. Mkweise 22:00 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
-
- Check out the nav image at http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Li.html --mav
I was also planning on having a larger version of the image with explanatory text on the image description pages. Not to mention the primary use of these pages - copyright and owner (me) info. --mav
[edit] Probable vandalism details
Perhaps a chemist will review the text of the 'graph below, just in case (hmm, actually, the crimson is not incandescance but a slow flame, right? And is this a safety issue?), but the only edit ever by 66.235.7.213 (as of 12 hours afterward) was adding the question marks to the following:
- == Notable Characteristics == ??????????????????????????wahw???
- Lithium is the lightest metal and has a density that is only half that of water. Like all alkali metals, Lithium reacts easily in water and does not occur freely in nature due to its activity, nevertheless it is still less reactive than the chemically similar sodium. When placed over a flame, this metal gives off a striking crimson color but when it burns strongly, the flame becomes a brilliant white. This is also an univalent element. --Jerzy 00:36, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)
Question: Is lithium one of the more reactive metals to H2O?? If it is someone post back.
[edit] Photo problem; precautions
This picture does not agree with the precautions text... I suspect the white stuff in the plastic box is not lithium but a lithium compound. 213.51.209.230 12:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I suspect this image also. Lithium tarnishes BLACK in air, so even if it started out as metal, it wouldn't end up white unless perhaps in extremely humid conditions. I've never seen lithium metal coated with white residue. We'd like the provinance of this photo, please! Saying it just came from the government isn't enough. Steve 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disambiguation
- There are now 4 articles that come under the general title of lithium. Is it time to set up a disambiguation page? I would be happy to set it up, but I am unsure of how. Leave the instructions on my talk page and I will take care of it. Sensation002 02:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- One already exists at Lithium (disambiguation) and is linked from the top of this article. --mav 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Big Bang theory
- Lithium is one of only three elements - and the only metal - created in the first moments of the Big Bang.
This sentence should be rephrased, as the Big Bang is a theory which, while accepted by many cosmologists, has not been proven. Dforest 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Until they are disproven, or superseded by something else, the currently accepted scientific theories are encyclopedic enough. Femto 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- It is a theory and needed to be labeled as such.Badocter 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- All of scientific "knowledge" is theory, but it gets tedious to label it as such. "According to theory, dinosaurs walked around more than 65 million years ago." Do I really have to say that? "According to other theories, Tyrannosaurs didn't make it onto the Ark because of their bad table manners..." Steve 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Not all scientific knowledge is theory -- theory is what we use to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge. In the lead paragraph for "Lithium", is it really that important to note that nothing heavier the berylium was created in the first three minutes of the universe. Maybe we should add it to the lead paragrach of "Hydrogen", "Helium", and "Berylium" while we are at it. Then for "Boron" and all the heavier elements we can note that they were created sometime after the first three minutes. The information is relevent to the entries for cosmological theory, but not it is not appropriate in the lead paragraph of entries for individual elements.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The only scientific knowledge which is NOT theory is that which is true-by-definition, like the fact that humans are mammals. But that kind of "knowledge" is relatively cheap, and it's more knowledge of human culture, language and convention than knowledge of how the universe works. Suppose it had been decided that the platypus wasn't a mammal? Big deal. All the rest is theory. Sometimes it's theory that everybody believes, like the conservation of energy. Or that only nutcases don't believe. Like the conservation of energy. Theory it remains. It could be violated in a major way, any day, so far as we know. Nothing guarantees not. Steve 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
From the BBN article: "Without major changes to the Big Bang theory itself, BBN will result in 25% helium-4; about 1% of deuterium; trace amounts of lithium and beryllium; and no other heavy elements, leaving about 74% of H-1" BBN would be most appropriately noted under the helium article as BBN predicts helium levels that are consistent with observation, whereas previous methods significantly underpredicted helium presence, thus BBN passes notability criterion for inclusion in helium article. BBN makes prediction of lithium in only trace amounts, on that basis the statement in the lithium article fails the notability test. I suggest the BBN statement in the lithium article be moved to the helium article.
- Depends on your point of view. BBN predicts Li in trace amounts, and traces are what he have. Lithium's not important to the big bang, but the big bang is pretty important to lithium. While the total % of the mass of universe made by the BBN into lithium is indeed tiny, as is the % deuterium, it's important from the viewpoint of lithium and deuterium because it's the source of just about all the D and most of the Li that exists. Li, Be and B are all pretty dang rare. Don't you think that's kind of remarkable, given the commonality of the elements that preceeed and follow them? BBN followed by the vagaries of fusion, expains all very neatly.Steve 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- BBN is a facinating topic, however, some of the literature I have read so far also discusses boron production in BBN [2][3][4], so the current statment that lithium is 1 of 4 may itself be inaccurate. There are also have been practical limitations for verifying the predictions of Li, Be, and B [5]. Badocter 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GSK
"the effect of lithium carbonate on patients remained a mystery until Dr. Klein and his colleagues’ at the University of Pennsylvania discovered in 2006 that lithium, a natural salt, deactivated the GSK-3B enzyme."
Is this (above) a description of the 1996 article by Klein and Melton? --JWSchmidt 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paragraph on Human Biology of Lithium Removed
I have removed this paragraph from the end of the "Basic Features" section:
"In humans lithium compounds apparently play no natural biological role, and are considered to be slightly toxic. Humans aside, lithium appears to be an essential trace element for goats, and possibly rats. When used as a drug, blood concentrations of Li+ must be carefully monitored."
Because it seems to directly contradict this information in the Lithium pharmacology article:
"Lithium is widely distributed in the central nervous system and interacts with a number of neurotransmitters and receptors, decreasing noradrenaline release and increasing serotonin synthesis."
And because it is internally contradictory -- "slightly toxic" vs. "must be carefully monitored".
Something accurate on human biology and medications should be written to replace it.
Oh, I changed my mind! The pharmacology article is probably referring to the action of medical lithium after introduction to the body. I have restored the paragraph to this article.
But I am leaving this Talk section here for two issue to be looked into. Is that accurate about humans/goats/rats (seems bizarre a basic element could be part of only some mammalians' biology), and how toxic is the stuff?
[edit] Australia vs Argentina
In "Market trend" section, should "Australia" be changed to "Argentina"? The other parts of this article say that Argentina is the 2nd largest producer. --Sunfish 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the current passage:
Market trend ... Between 2002 and 2005, lithium minerals production rose by 7% per year to reach 18,800 tonnes Li. Chile and Australia account for over 60% of total output.
