Talk:Aluminium silicate

message: The pages make an important distinction:
Aluminosilicates are a group of minerals dominated by aluminum and silicon but possibly including other cations like K, Na, Ca, Fe, or Mg. This is a very large group.
Aluminium silicates are a group of minerals containing only aluminum and silicon. It is a much smaller group.
Consider Zeolites, as seen on https://www.mindat.org/min-4395.html, which are aluminosilicates but not aluminium silicates.
Please keep both pages.
129.72.173.176 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Group/Subgroup Distinction

message: Doesn't aluminum silicate have Al(SiO3)3 as its formula? Silicate is SiO3 with 2- charge.(69.245.43.115 04:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the reference. Also, silicate suggests that the name applies to a broader group of functional groups than just SiO3. Bryan 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page and Aluminosilicate appear very similar and should be merged. I've noticed that mergers have been proposed in the past but there never seems to have been any real discussion about the merits and failings of doing so. Best as I can tell one page is written from a chemistry perspective and the other more from a geology/mineralogy angle but to my chemists eye the content seems very similar. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Aluminium silicate and aluminiosilicate seem to be distinct classes of materials. While the network of aluminium silicates does not show any charges, the aluminosilicate is negatively charged. Thus in aluminosilicates positive counterions (usually alkali/earth alkali) are present (cf. zeolithes).Draqlasice (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal

message: It is mentioned on the wiki page under "types" for aluminium silicate wool (ASW) on the Mineral Wool wiki page but isn't on the aluminium silicate wiki page.
And of course the chinese ebay seller that is selling it said that it was "green" and "safe".
I should know how bad this is, as I just screwed up and probably exposed myself to a carcinogen in close quarters several times after wrongly believing that "aluminium silicate" was NOT carcinogenic when it is. I did google searches for 'aluminium silicate" and this page was the only one that popped up in google, no mention anywhere of it being carcinogenic. You have to instead search for "aluminium silicate wool" before you come across any mention anywhere of it being carcinogenic.
I wrongly installed it in the entire interior of my car as a fireproof substitute for closed cell foam over the top of dynamat noise insulation. I'm now going to have to don a full face resiprator and remove it entirely, using baby wipes to clean the plastic surfaces and mineral turps and tissues/paper towel for all of the metal surfaces. Then decontaminate my clothing and myself.
I need someone to do the research for me, I'm not a chemist or a scientist and clearly I'm a lousy researcher. DO WE have a problem here of aluminium silicate being carcinogenic or not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushHour (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class 2/1B Carcinogen status isn't mentioned anywhere