Talk:Activated alumina

message: This is absolutely nutty -- fluoridation of water is controversial? Can someone qualified please rewrite this section? 140.180.174.206 05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paging Dr. Strangelove 

message: Fluoridation is controversial in many parts of the United States. (Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1118379,00.html) Indeed, in places like India where well water tends to have toxic levels of fluoride, the drive to eliminate fluoride from drinking water is quite uncontroversial.  However, this article's reference to municipal water being fluoridated to 8 ppm is incorrect.  That level would be highly toxic.  64.81.166.81 03:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy yes, but article needs correction 

message: Most of the text of this article seems to be directly lifted from , which claims a 2002 copyright on the material.  This should either be cited or rewritten to not duplicate the previous link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiterion (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but the rest of the article seems to be lifted straight out of advertising material. It uses odd stilled language, and assumes that the reader is an absolute moron. Even more specifically, a lot of the content is here, which claims a copyright of 2007-2012... --Puellanivis (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism? 

message: The opening paragraph needs to be corrected.  It describes Activated Alumina as "...absorbing water..."  As detailed in the body, Activated Alumina is an ADsorbant.  It adsorbs water from the air.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schumab (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Activated alumina. 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/20081207235312/http://www.evactron.com/backstreaming.html to http://www.evactron.com/backstreaming.html
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) 07:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have only a hunch but do not think it likely that activated alumina is used in prosthetic components.  Most joints require low friction and a porous substance is not.  While Alumina (ceramics) are (often) made with a dense smooth surface and would be well suited to hard wearing low friction surfaces.  I suspect that the Biomaterial section has strayed here from the Alumina universe.
Idyllic press (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumina vs Activated alumina 

message: It appears that someone added and credited a section of the article to a V.K. Chhabra. The edit was made in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Activated_alumina&oldid=542329354) and has more or less been unchanged since. I can only find one reference for anything on this topic, (https://www.iwwa.info/journal-archives?vol-id=MTU3), which is unavailable for access. 
Can someone with expertise into alumina or other sorbents kindly provide a better source? I'd also suggest removing the awkward "lab procedure," which, as is, seems like a bit too deep into the weeds on the topic for such a niche purpose. Atchemey (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  V.K. Chhabra uncited claims