Talk:Talc

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

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

message: 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. thumb|Talcum Powder  I took the picture myself and I think that it can contribute to the article. M@$+@ Ju ~ ♠ 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected now. Vsmith 01:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) M@$+@ Ju ~ ♠ 02:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page even protected? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Powder? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  laminar talc 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metamorphic Minerals? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Asbestiform" 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Important reactions shown by talc 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chemical confusion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  So what about French chalk, then? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead & Incorrect References 

message: 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 , I suggest that the orphaned Sterile Talc Powder page should merge into the main Talc page.<BR><BR>
Do you support or oppose Sterile talc powder article being merged into Talc article?<BR>
Support. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Merger Discussion: Sterile talc powder 

message: I have the following analysis that addresses the reason behind a different chemical formula.</br>
It goes like this:</br>
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. </br>
  		 		Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a scientific journal and does not publish original research. Wikipedia articles on scientific and technical topics, such as the mineralogy of talc, must reflect the consensus in reliable sources such as textbooks or peer-reviewed publications. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the chemical formula for talcum powder correct? 

message: Per , the source giving the space group as C1/c (monoclinic) is from 1934. The recent work gives the space group as C (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)
thread_title:  Space group 

message: The page does not make it clear that talc is an organic mineral. Talc is an organic mineral with a molecular weight of 379.26 [Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2].
: Talc is not an organic mineral, as it does not contain carbon. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Talc is an organic mineral