Talk:Mercury (element)

message: References for the section on environmental mercury releases come from ~2007, with outdated estimates for the proportion of mercury released by volcanoes vs. human sources and the contributions of different human sources. The 2018 Global Mercury Assessment from the UN Environment Programme is our best recent source of expert-reviewed information on environmental mercury cycling (https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/global-mercury-assessment-2018?_ga=2.114151619.513073068.1660741466-813287979.1634065220). This report states that 10% of mercury emissions are from volcanoes, 30% from current human emissions, and 60% recycling of historical human-driven mercury emissions. Also, the major human source is now thought to be artisanal and small-scale gold mining (38%), stationary combustion of fossil fuels and biomass (24%, primarily from coal burning), non-ferrous metal production (15%), cement production (11%), waste from mercury-added products (7%), ferrous metal production (2%), and other sources (2%). 13:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above points. As part of my PhD work, I recently published a review article summarizing the state of knowledge around this topic (Edwards et al., 2021, Fifty years of volcanic mercury emission research: Knowledge gaps and future directions, Science of the Total Environment, volume 757, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143800). One additional issue is the inset figure from USGS showing Hg spikes in Fremont Glacier ice; this is based off of the results of one 2002 study (Schuster et al., 2002, Atmospheric Mercury Deposition during the Last 270 Years: A Glacial Ice Core Record of Natural and Anthropogenic Sources, Environmental Science & Technology, volume 36, pp. 2303–2310, doi.org/10.1021/es0157503) but a more recent and more robust study has disproven these spikes as being linked to volcanic eruptions; they are in fact anthropogenic signals (Chellman et al., 2017, Reassessment of the Upper Fremont Glacier Ice-Core Chronologies by Synchronizing of Ice-Core-Water Isotopes to a Nearby Tree-Ring Chronology, Environmental Science & Technology, volume 51, pp. 4230–4238, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06574). This reinterpretation has been accepted by the scientific community.
Brockaedwards (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on releases in the environment is outdated 

message: I found this paper from 2017 that seems to have lifted a sentence directly from this page ("Mercury ores usually occur in very young orogenic belts where rock of high density are forced to the crust of the Earth, often in hot springs or other volcanic regions.") The sentence had already been on Wikipedia for 11 years (here's the corresponding original edit) when the paper was published.
Other than being pretty poor form, this plagiarism doesn't affect the main thrust of the paper. The publisher, Elsevier, does a great job of discouraging plagiarism reports, so I won't spend any more time on this. But I thought I'd note it here, and I'll remove the sentence as there doesn't now seem to be a source to back it up.  Tserton (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citogenesis 

message: Obviously the current #History section is terrible. It talks about Qin Shi Huangwhich should really be Shi Huangdi or Qin Shihuang, but that's a whole separate decades-long fight on his talk pagein a weird hypercorrect misuse of pinyin but at least it mentions him. On the other hand, it just drops the ball 500 years in past, imagining that alchemy was a thing people spontaneously got over. At minimum it needs links to Nuck and the guys who continued to apply mercuryincluding self-injectionsin anatomical studies and the people who moved that field forward and finally ended the practice. That all grew out of alchemical ideas but also had its own logic and story. See esp.
* .
which could support the material that needs to be worked into #History, #Historical uses, and #Toxicity. Apparently (i.a.) it was essential in the studies that figured out the existence and main functions of the lymphatic system. — LlywelynII 19:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: An in-depth knowledge about how to process and use Mercury as a 'medicine' for maintaining a healthy body in found in literature dating back to 8th century, in India. Acharya Nagarjuna is considered as the Father of Rasa-Shastra (science of Mercury, or science of metals/minerals). 
For more details: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338208757_USE_OF_PURIFIED_MERCURY_IN_AYURVEDA_AND_ITS_SAFETY_EVALUATION DrArunaIyngrRao (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. Where it cites sources, they are often questionable--including citations to Wikipedia. Heck, the preprint plagiarizes this very article. It happily copy-pastes the abstracts of other papers and regurgitates their conclusions without any critical examination. (For example, this paper concludes that the mercury in herbal blend Arogyavardhini vati is harmless to brain, kidney and liver—but never actually does a measurement of mercury concentration in the mixture. The preprint author blithely cites this paper as an example of the innocuousness of mercury in Ayurvedic preparations.) Finally, the author provides a credulous account of his own father's mercury-based anti-cancer wonder drug--which has failed to succeed in trials. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Processed Mercury is used in Ayurveda (Indian Medical science) immensely 

message: The section Releases to the Environment claims that mercury thermometers are use scientifically because of their greater accuracy and working range. I doubt this very much, though "they are more accurate" is common belief of students with little understanding of accuracy or thermometric practice. They certainly don't have the range of electronic thermometers, which can be read to a greater precision than a mercury in glass thermometer. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater accuracy? 

message: Large amount of content has been removed from the page since 15 Nov. I have restored a little of those with two edits  , but there’s likely much more. Eyes please? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large amount of content removed  

message: Hi, I looked around some articles talking about the facts of some chemical elements including Sodium, Potassium, Tungsten and spotted that the heading of the introduction does not follow a normal style of writing. Turnbull has suggested the change to keep it similar and balanced among any others, but I found recently no articles is as unique as this referred. I would hope any editiors willing to remain the original state and follow the Wikipedia's policy about consensus and consistency. Thanks a lot and answer this if you mind and care about. 2405:4802:64C6:ACB0:1DB:2F3:CF1B:D798 (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It looks like someone making the article in the inconsistency. 

message: article currently "cites" the etymology from dictionary.com but intentionally uses misleading wording. "hydrargyrum" came from Latin "hydrargyrus," which came from "hydrargyros," which came from "hydr-" and "argyros". "hydr-" NOT "hydor" as currently falsely stated. the former is a STEM of the later. this doesn't seem conceptually impossible to understand. if the etymology were based on "hydor" instead of "hydr-" as claimed, the word would have been "hydorargyrum," which clearly isn't the case. the STEM "hydr-," NOT the WORD "hydor," is in "hydrargyrum.”
as for sourcing, how about using a more legitimate one: https://www.etymonline.com/word/hydrargyrum#etymonline_v_34465
SollyWIKI (talk) SollyWIKI (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i should specify, this is all in reference to the intro.SollyWIKI (talk) SollyWIKI (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Both dictionary.com and etymonline.com are acceptable sources, according to WikiProject Linguistics. How should the etymology be made more clear in the leading paragraph? If hydr- is the stem derived from hydor, then it's reasonable to state in simple terms that hydrargyrum is derived from the two words hydor and argyros. The full details of the etymology don't need to be included in that opening paragraph - there's a whole section on etymology. Reconrabbit (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  rehashing etymology 

message: Hi,
I would like to propose an addition to the introduction that underscores the severe health threats posed by mercury. I suggest including the following sentence to highlight its extreme toxicity and the potential harm it can cause to critical body systems:
"Mercury, known for its extreme toxicity, is a hazardous element that poses significant threats to the nervous system, immune system, kidneys, and other vital organs."
or just this sentence :
"Mercury is a particularly toxic element that can damage the nervous system, immune system, kidneys, and other organs."
For further reference and a comprehensive understanding of mercury's impact on health, please consider the following sources:
https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2012/460508/
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1382668905000700
Are you in agreement with this modification?
Have a nice day.
OrionGrey Oriongrey (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes to this effect, though a lot of this information is linked under the toxicity section in Mercury poisoning. It was mainly lacking in the opening paragraphs. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercury, recognized for its extreme toxicity, is a hazardous element that poses severe threats to the nervous and immune systems, kidneys, and various other vital organs 

message: The tabulated density data deviate substantially from those listed in a fairly recent edition of the CRC Handbook.  (Similar to the data at .)  Please check.  —DIV (1.144.104.165 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The density is given at r.t. (presumed 20 C). The value given by the 2004 reference differs only by 3 thousandths from Engineering Toolbox. What change is suggested? Reconrabbit 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Density data