Talk:Chlordane

message: Trying to get a proper line drawing going for this article. According to WikiProject Chemistry - structure drawing stereochemistry for racemates should be "depicted as undefined (straight and not wavy nor wedged bonds". Does this apply to diastereomers too? I notice my edit was removed so I'm guessing it's not. Should I just add wavy bonds to all the stereocenters?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The plague (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may read in the article, chlordane is a complex mixture. Hence, it cannot be depicted by a single structure. --Leyo 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Line Drawing

message: There was a warning on "This Old House" about not using Chlordane. They say an alternative chemical is "Fiprinel", I don't know if I'm spelling that correctly though.
Fipronil. Joeylawn 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Oxychlordane is a product of decomposition of chlordanes, more information is here:
http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.31129.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.173.17 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxychlordane

message: The CAS RN might be incorrect. The US EPA use 12789-03-6 for Chlordane (Technical). +mt 19:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, the US EPA also use 57-74-9, so who can say. +mt 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: CAS RN

message: Shouldn't the unit for nanogram per cubic meter be ng/m3 instead of ng/M3? Jojofunny123 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Effects 

message: Chlordane was discovered by Julius Hyman in 1945 while working at Velsicol. Should this be mentioned here? See reference, as well as other places on web.--Tgschaef (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finder credit 

message: I added the remediation section and several different attempted methods.asciiman (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Remediation

message: This statement: "Depending on the site of home treatment, the indoor air levels of chlordane can still exceed the Minimal Risks Levels (MRLs) for both cancer and chronic disease by orders of magnitude," is misleading, alarmist and not strictly true. MRLs are not based on cancer effects. They are also not to be considered "action levels" nor "clean up levels." See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp. Reference #7 was published 20 years ago, but this statement might be taken to imply that there are dangerous levels of Chlordane in American homes today. There may be, but a reference from 1994 is not sufficient evidence to suggest this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.201.80.80 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #7 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Chlordane's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "PGCH":
From Carbon tetrachloride: 
From DDT: 
From Carbofuran: 
From Calcium arsenate: 
From Mevinphos: 
From Toxaphene: 
From 1,2-Dichloroethane: 
From Phorate: 
From Monocrotophos: 
From 1,1-Dichloroethane: 
From Carbaryl: 
From 1,2-Dichlorobenzene: 
From Diazinon: 
From 1,4-Dichlorobenzene: 
From Malathion: 
From Naled: 
From Disulfoton: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Chlordane]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chlordane. 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/20120614234405/http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/FactSheet/Pesticide/fs11.chlordane.cfm to http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/Pesticide/fs11.chlordane.cfm
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) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not see such edit by Racassidy54 as anything problematic. Referencing to PLOS seem to be appropriate. Why revert? My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a lot of problematic edits in that single diff ranging from COI, manual of style issues, and especially WP:MEDRS (the editor is now topic banned). The particular PLOS source though was a primary source, which is discouraged by WP:MEDRS. We typically want things like review articles in peer-reviewed journals instead (like I left in the remaining health section). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that using scientific reviews is better, althogh WP:RS does not forbid using peer reviewed research papers. But my main question is different: how on the Earth a sourced edit that provides more info about  harmful effects of a chemical can be interpreted as a proof of WP:COI? What COI? My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The COI aspect related to RCassidy was discussed a bit here and here, but that's getting into behavior discussion. The short is that they were citing their own publications (search Cassidy in the diffs), and also selling chlordane related detection products on their own website. Unless I missed something, those pieces have been cleaned up though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  to User: My very best wishes: 10294 articles and reports discuss chlordane as of today, according to Chemical Abstracts.  How many  of these primary references do you want to include, a mere 1%, i.e. 100 citations?  Hence WP:SECONDARY or even WP:TERTIARY.Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The review paper A review on endocrine disruptors and their possible impacts on human health may be considered using in the section on health effects. --Leyo 23:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: COI - thanks, I see but not convinced. I also do not think that peer reviewed publications in scientific journals are Primary sources. But all of that is moot because the user was already topic banned. My very best wishes (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits