Talk:Iodised salt

message: Clearly both 'iodized' and 'iodised' are correct ways to spell the word, but the wiki page should use the common spelling, which is 'iodized'.  As a simple test, if you Google the word iodised, you get the message "Did you mean: iodized?".  I am a chemical engineer with a patent in the iodination of halgenated resins and I am well read on the subject of iodination.  I have never seen the term spelled with an S in any source that I would consider to be worthy of reference.
:I went ahead and made your bold header into a level 2 header. I was looking at the archives to see why this article was spelled with an "s" instead of a "z" and it looks like no major contributor took any initiative to change it, and the article creator started it with an "s". But since readers continue to bring it up, then a consensus can be reached. I !vote for the article to be moved to Iodized salt and the article updated to reflect this. But if no one seems to mind, then it's not a biggie. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I did find this in the archive:
Since the subject matter of this article primarily deals with U.S. adoption of iodized salt the title of this article should reflect that. Can anyone explain why this should be the British spelling? 89.159.154.178 (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Further, "iodised" is not actually British. The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary doesn't recommend its use because its both etymologically and phonetically incorrect. Since -ize is both British and American, and phonetically correct, it should be used instead. II | (t - c) 06:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So any other thoughts on a possible move? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

text: One other thought.  It's been something like seven weeks without any opposition.  Why not be bold and do it, already? --Eliyahu S Talk 09:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose name change. To quote from above: "the wiki page should use the common spelling" Says who???  "Common" where???  By those with internet connections???   There is nothing wrong with iodised, except that it bothers some Americans who dont read widely.  The practice of iodisation/iodization is widely used, more prevalently outside of the US, where the default English is English-English, not US-English.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Favor name change. to Iodized salt. As the boxed comment from the Oxford English Dictionary notes, "iodised" is not actually the recommended British spelling, either! So the knee-jerk opposition to "iodized" as being some Americanization (Americanisation??), mystifies me. It's not as though we're discussing aluminium vs. aluminum. SBHarris 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "knee-jerk"?  No, we are in fact not discussing aluminium/aluminum, what is that comment about? Are we trading spelling conventions?--Smokefoot (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, you had to ask. You wrote: "There is nothing wrong with iodised, except that it bothers some Americans who dont read widely." In fact, "iodized" is favored by the O.E.D. which is the premier arbiter of British English spelling, and that fact is mentioned above. So who is it who "isn't reading widely"? I think you just had a reflexive moment when you saw an "ize" vs. "ise" spelling, and didn't realize that this isn't a very good place to make a stand. SBHarris 22:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in any case, taking a stand or not, I changed my vote on the move.  My goal here is really not about English, and not really about following rules of OED, but an attempt to try to propagate iodiniz/sation because the technology is so impactful that rules and duels are less important.  And my guess is that spelling with an "s" leads to marginally greater influence on those needing this info than spelling it with a "z". Extremely convoluted thinking, I know, so I give in.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Is iodised the spelling commonly used in the Commonwealth countries (in spite of the QED)?  If so, then WP:ENGVAR needs to be followed. It is clear, per the MOS, that iodised is the correct spelling for this article if it is the common British spelling. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at the full OED, there is no entry for Iodise, only for Iodize: under the Iodize entry there are examples of use which include both spellings.  The Encyclopædia Britannica also lists the ~ize variant only and not ~ise.  I suspect that because BE avoids the use of ~ize in favour of ~ise, British writers assume that ~ise is correct, when I don't think it is in this instance, IMHO.  Either way, it doesn't matter if the title is ~ise or~ize, the rest of the page is already in BE and so should remain as such as per WP:ENGVAR at the moment, although if the page moves to a “correct” spelling of Iodize then either BE or AE spelling variants could be selected for the rest of the article.--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of iodized on the wiki page

message: I dont think that I have ever seen yellowed iodized salt. The image of iodized salt shown in this article is not representative of the stuff that I eat or have ever seen. The sample looks to me like an old sample NaI, which can appear yellowish. Maybe the image was selected to make some point, but  to me it seems misleading.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of iodized salt is deceptive

message: The Macquarie Dictionary has iodised as the first alternative not iodized. See Salt Matters (Menzies Research Intitute/University of Tasmania, I also have a container of Saxa Iodised Table Salt. -- Paul foord (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No sweat mate, we'll just note it as an alternate Australian spelling. SBHarris 06:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Iodised''' salt is used in Australia in the Macquarie Dictionary, in the Journal Salt Matters, and for iodised table salt  - move should be reverted 

message: The statement, Iodide-treated table salt slowly loses its iodine content through the process of oxidation seems dubious to me.  Iodine is an element, it isn't lost or changed through oxidation.  You might get it incorporated into different salts through oxidation, but the Iodine itself hasn't been altered.  The statement needs further explanation.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is true. Iodide is oxidized to elemental iodine, which has a high enough vapor pressure that it simply evaporates into the air and is effectively gone from the salt. Nobody is suggesting that the element disappears. But it is effectively removed from all consideration, and it might AS WELL have disappeared. SBHarris 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  That being said, I'm going to remove the statement, but only because it turns out (upon more careful reading) that this is already explained in the next section (Iodized_salt#Chemistry.2C_biochemistry_and_nutritional_aspects), with an appropriate reference.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please memeber that the stuff you're removing is in the article LEDE/LEAD, where it's perfectly okay to repeat information. One of most important things about iodized salt (if iodides are used) is that it doesn't STAY iodized. Yes, information in leads should be summarized, but then we have the problem that people who don't read any farther than leads are confused because the qualifier statements and full explanations are left out.  You're making this very difficult! SBHarris 17:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iodine lost through oxidation? 

message: I'm reasonably certain wikipedia's policy on the spelling is unless the article refers to country specific topic then the spelling should used should be consistently that of the original author. Therefore if the article was first written as iodised that is how it should have remained.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.168.175 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Original author" only applies where a word is spelled differently in different countries. Per the above discussions, it appears that the "official" spelling is the same in both the US and the Commonwealth. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: iodised

message: The article claims that, over time, the iodide gradually leaves the salt. But I don't believe that's necessarily true. Morton salt has dextrose added to stabilize the iodide, which effectively keeps it in the salt. Why wasn't this mentioned in the article? (I don't know how effective this stabilization is. Does it completely prevent the iodide from leaving? Does it simply slow down the rate of iodine loss? These question need to be considered as well.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of dextrose? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Iodised salt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link archive.org/web/20080325033408/http://www.cerebos.co.za/IodationHints.aspx with https://web.archive.org/20080325033408/http://www.cerebos.co.za:80/IodationHints.aspx on http://www.cerebos.co.za/IodationHints.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have added a short section on Australia regarding the use of Iodized salt. I believe that the references are sufficient but can add further if necessary HaraldW1954 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iodised salt. 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/20110725051037/http://www.micronutrient.org/CMFiles/What%20we%20do/New%20Solutions%20-%20Double%20Fortified%20Salt/DFS-Tech-Breakthrough-to-alleviate-I%26IDD-around-the-world.pdf to http://www.micronutrient.org/CMFiles/What%20we%20do/New%20Solutions%20-%20Double%20Fortified%20Salt/DFS-Tech-Breakthrough-to-alleviate-I%26IDD-around-the-world.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) 01:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Near the bottom of the article there is a quote lifted directly from the abstract of the cited paper which reads, "The study also found a large increase in thyroid-related deaths following the countrywide adoption of iodized salt, which affected mostly older individuals in localities with high prevalence of iodine deficiency."[27]" (emphasis mine).
I do not have access to the cited full article so I cannot check to see if the abstract contains an error but it is counter-intuitive to me that the widespread addition of a micro-nutrient to salt would have been continued if it caused a large increase in deaths.  I'm not making a change because the "increase" word is an accurate quote of the linked abstract but ... really? Rengewwj (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: People that have been iodine-deficient for a long time tend to develop some hyperthyroidism if you restore their iodine intake;  also mentions this sort of thing. It's some very harsh calculus, but we are indeed reaping the benefits. Artoria2e5 🌉 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iodizing caused deaths? 

message: This section includes the following, "In India many people use himalayan rock salt,which it imports from Pakistan . It is also recommended by many intellectuals,as it is a natural form of salt."  Can someone add something to explain what relevance this has to iodised salt?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alant (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Himalayan Rock Salt in the Indian section 

message: "Four inorganic compounds are used as iodide sources, depending on the producer: potassium iodate, potassium iodide, sodium iodate, and sodium iodide."
> Sodium iodate is toxic. I can't find any source saying it's used as an iodine source.
"Salt is an effective vehicle for distributing iodine to the public because it does not spoil and is consumed in more predictable amounts than most other commodities.[citation needed] For example, the concentration of iodine in salt has gradually increased in Switzerland: 3.75 mg/kg in 1952, 7.5 mg/kg in 1962, 15 mg/kg in 1980, 20 mg/kg in 1998, and 25 mg/kg in 2014."
> The "for example" does not make sense. Ok, salt is consumed in predictable amounts. Why does it follow that the Switzerland iodine concentrations has been increasing? Are people eating less salt and therefore need more concentrated iodine? Jgrov8 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have issues with the "Chemistry, biochemistry and nutritional aspects" section