Talk:Drano

message: I'm surprised it's not mentioned once in the article. --Rykoshet 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hi-Fi Murders are now mentioned.  They are listed in the "See also" section.  Thanks.  (64.252.124.238 (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi-Fi Murders 

message: Could someone add a part about it being toxic. It's a very dangerous cleaner. 24.69.67.173 07:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The chemical components are mentioned, and their own toxicity is apparent in those articles. Also it's further mentioned that this brand has been used as a murder weapon. 216.82.142.13 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: This drain cleaner contains hydroxide and aluminum turnings, which react exothermically to form hydrogen gas and sodium aluminite.  Because of perceived dangers with the evolution of hydrogen gas, the cleaner also contains nominal amounts of sodium nitrate to reduce the hydrogen gas to ammonia.  However, in practice, hydrogen gas is evolved (there are articles about using it to fill balloons), and no odor of ammonia is detectable.  Hydrogen gas diffuses very rapidly, and slow evolution of small amounts do not pose an ignition hazard unless there are extraordinary circumstances.  In point of fact, a drain is much more likely to contain methane gas from biological processes than hydrogen gas from drain cleaner usage.
This is a case where a savy marketing and legal department make a claim (no danger of ignition) that is true but misleading.
The question is, should this be discussed in this article, or anywhere else for that matter? Norm Reitzel (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably good to mention it. You seem to know more about the topic than I do, and I suggest you get some references and add this info. 216.82.142.13 (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing hype 

message: This article is currently called "Drāno", and uses this spelling throughout. However, it seems to me that the macron over the A is simply part of the trademarked logo, and not actually part of the brand name (see What's in a nAME(cq)? for the distinction between logos and names). For evidence supporting my position, I give the official Drano site, which never uses the macron except in the actual logo. Unless there's an objection in the next few days, I'm going to move the article to "Drano" and change everything to the macron-less spelling. —Bkell (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Article moved. —Bkell (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Drāno" vs. "Drano" 

message: I don't know enough science to be sure but there must be some experts who can confirm or deny the chemistry here. 
I have a query with "sodium hydroxide removes the Al2O3 surface layer on the aluminium allowing it to react with water".   Isn't the aluminium actually reacting with the hydroxide ion, and not water? 
I have a query with "react with water to produce nascent hydrogen, which is a powerful reducing agent". I note from the relevent article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nascent_hydrogen) that this is monoatomic hydrogen!  Wouldn't that be highly reactive, I can't imagine that existing for very long or in more than miniscule quantities. 
I also have a query with "The nascent hydrogen reduces nitrate ion to ammonia".  Does hydrogen gas react with aqueous nitrate solutions? I thought it didn't.  Isn't it more likely that aluminium metal is being oxidised by nitrate ions?  Nitrate is a powerful oxidiser.
And yet another query with "The water and sodium ions then regenerate sodium hydroxide and nascent hydrogen".  Water and sodium ions do nothing of the sort... if you dissolve table salt in water you have water and sodium ions, they don't make corrosive sodium hydroxide and production of monoatomic hydrogen is even less likely I think!!!  Fountainofignorance (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the chemistry correct? 

message: The article implies that the 1970 Earth Day sparked this.  It appears in the chloroflurocarbon article that 1973 was the earliest it was suggested and nothing really happened until at least 1989.  Should probably rewrite without a reference. Autkm (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth Day in 1970 

message: Sewage treatment plants use bacteria to break down "gunk". Surely Drano kills bacteria? So if everybody flushes a pint of Drano, what happens down at the plant, do they just dump in another box of bio-bact? Do they just start discharging raw sewage into the river? Is there so much water that no amount of Drano could be significant? Is there a concern? That's what went thru my head reading this article. People get worked up about dumping a quart of motor oil on the soil. And what happens if people with a septic tank use Drano.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.214.66 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Damage 

message: I'm not clear about the need for the dire warning at the start of the article that claims, "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject."
Why?  
An expert on what?  
Drano?  Are there such people?  
An expert on drains?  Would that be a professional plumber?  
Is there reason to believe that the plumbing claims made in the article -- as advanced by the manufactures of Drano, and proven in the field for more tha 100 years, are in error?
An expert on chemistry?  Why?  
The chemistry given in the article is essentially correct from a high school/basic college chemistry point of view.  No doubt an expert professional chemist could discourse for pages on the various stoichiometric reactions involved in clearing a blocked drain with Drano (which would differ with the specific contents of each particular drain under consideration), but is that  level of analysis really necessary in an article about a common household product?
Would an article on toy balloons, then, require lengthy discourses on the history of the rubber trade, and the organic chemistry of latex?
There are some points mentioned in discussions above, that could stand to be cleaned up.  Other than that, I don't see that this article requires "expert" attention, and recommend that the warning notice at the beginning be removed.
67.206.162.105 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What/Why "Expert"?

message: This statement is full of all kinds of problems, but I only left a "citation needed" as I don't have a reference to make the change.  I know for a fact that some bleaches are sold (even in Wal-Mart) with a different concentration than 5% and 10%, and that in water and wastewater treatment, we have an 'availability' number that makes more sense.  The reason is because something like CaCl2O2 is entirely different from NaOCl or HOCl or even Cl2, for example.  The same concentration of different compounds have a different effective amount of chlorine available to disinfect.  Some bleaches aren't even based on Chlorine, either!BTW, the '5%' bleach bottles are actually listed as slightly more than 5%, so this number was rounded down and imprecise, anyways.  More fuzzy numbers!  Well, with a reference, we can correct this article.  Have fun!  73.181.82.26 (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  5% and 10% bleach? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Drano. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527042214/http://www.ftc.gov/os/annualreports/ar1993.pdf to http://www3.ftc.gov/os/annualreports/ar1993.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified