The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110624132244/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lithium

Talk:Lithium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Lithium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Version 0.5
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon
Nuvola apps edu science.png Chemistry portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Echo      (German)
WikiProject icon Lithium is a featured article on the German Wikipedia. You may be able to improve the article on this project by drawing content, media or references from that article. To get involved with featured articles in other languages, visit WikiProject Echo or its discussion page.
 

Article changed over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 14:58, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 06:27, 20 Jun 2005).

Contents

[edit] LiD *is* the preferred fusion bomb fuel

Lithium deuteride was the fusion fuel of choice in early versions of the hydrogen bomb. When bombarded by neutrons, both 6Li and 7Li produce tritium. Tritium fuses with deuterium in a fusion reaction that is relatively easy to achieve. Although details remain secret, lithium apparently no longer plays a role in modern nuclear weapons, having been replaced entirely for the purpose by tritium, which is lighter and easier to handle than lithium salts.

I find it hard to believe this. LiD is WAY easier _and_ cheaper to produce, handle and store than D/T mix. I'm proposing deletion of this paragrapth. Lithium_deuteride article also does not support this claim.

[edit] No biological role?

I believe Li+ plays a very important, yet poorly understood role in neurotransmission. I'd say that's important.

Anyone know where to look?

ehm.. Why do you believe so ? Actually, lithium is not present in human body even if Li+ helps to stabilize bipolar disorders only because it plays the role of Na+ Emilio 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that, yes, Lithium is important biologically. It absolutely is present in the human body. It's been suggested that humans need it in their diet. There should be a section about this. This is probably the best link I've found: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/14 Mrienstra 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little market?

"There is little market for lithium in its pure metal form and price information is scarce." This seems wrong to me. Lithium metal is widely used in various kinds of batteries, rechargeable and non-rechargeable. Laptops, cameras, you name it. How can it be said that there is "little market" for the metal?

Little market? Compared to steel, yes. Compared to gold, no. Would we say there is little market for gold?

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Lithium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Lithium. Other information was obtained from the sources listed on the main page but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Uh, where did the price information come from? The current text says $300/lb in 1997, but the USGS Minerals Yearbook linked at the bottom says $43.30/lb in 97 and 98. Pretty substantial difference! Depends on where you buy it, I suppose, but what number would be most useful to a general interest reader like me?

The 300$/lb figure is probably for the ultra pure grades available from laboratory suppliers like Aldrich. I expect the variety used in batteries is significantly less pure and less expensive. Anybody have an up-to-date Aldrich catalog to confirm?Badocter 09:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I have found the source for the 300 $/lb price [1]. No indication is made about the purity grade.Badocter 09:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


The price if lithium seems to vary to much to be of much use in an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.49.221.194 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lithium spin

In the CRC Handbook data The Spin of 1H2 is Given as +1, 2He4 is 0, 3Li6 is +1, and 3Li7 is -3/2, and 4Be8 is 0. Does anyone know how this makes sense? WFPMWFPM (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lithium production by neutron capture in stars?

?? Doesn't most Lithium come from the same neutron-capture process that gives rise to Beryllium and Boron? --Anon

No, these three elements are mostly NOT produced by neutron capture in stars. The reason is that what would capturing the neutrons? H-3 has hardly any cross section for neutron capture, and He-4 is even worse (as all nuclides with A=5 are very unstable). So there's no place for a neutron capture process to produce Li, Be, and B to begin. Unless it all happens incredibly fast, anything made breaks down too fast for a new neutron to be captured first. That's why the big bang can do it, but supernovae can't. By and large, Li, Be, and B no produced in the big bang are thought to be produced by cosmic ray spallation (see nucleogenesis). SBHarris 05:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Periodic table image

Why not just do the intuitive thing and link *TableImage.png to the periodic table instead of that Full table link, which adds no actual information? Mkweise 21:34 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

You mean redirect the image page to the periodic table page? That's not a good idea, me thinks. --mav
I was thinking [[Periodic table/Standard Table|Image:Li-TableImage.png]] - won't that work? Well, let's find out: Image:Li-TableImage.png. Mkweise 21:52 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

also the image will hopefully become an image map, when the facilities arrive, for it to become one. -fonzy

Now that would be truly cool, but if that's the plan shouldn't the images be a bit larger? The tip of my mouse pointer is bigger than the cells in the images currently are. Giving the image the full width of the sidebar could make a real difference in navigation accuracy. Mkweise 22:00 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Check out the nav image at http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/Li.html --mav

I was also planning on having a larger version of the image with explanatory text on the image description pages. Not to mention the primary use of these pages - copyright and owner (me) info. --mav

[edit] Probable vandalism details

Perhaps a chemist will review the text of the 'graph below, just in case (hmm, actually, the crimson is not incandescance but a slow flame, right? And is this a safety issue?), but the only edit ever by 66.235.7.213 (as of 12 hours afterward) was adding the question marks to the following:

== Notable Characteristics == ??????????????????????????wahw???
Lithium is the lightest metal and has a density that is only half that of water. Like all alkali metals, Lithium reacts easily in water and does not occur freely in nature due to its activity, nevertheless it is still less reactive than the chemically similar sodium. When placed over a flame, this metal gives off a striking crimson color but when it burns strongly, the flame becomes a brilliant white. This is also an univalent element. --Jerzy 00:36, 2003 Nov 24 (UTC)

Question: Is lithium one of the more reactive metals to H2O?? If it is someone post back.

From my memory of high school chemistry, all the group I metals are highly reactive with water. Lithium reacts similarly to sodium with water.Nbc7 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, SORT of similar. In cold water, there's a clear difference, though lithium metal reacts briskly, swims about in water making hydrogen, and does produce really caustic solution of lithium hydroxide, LiOH. What lithium does not do, is react fast enough in multi-gram quantities in cold water, to blow up. Sodium will blow up, depending on quantity. Also, lithium doesn't ball up and melt in the water reaction (at least not on small scales), mainly due to its higher melting POINT, but also due to it's slower reaction. So all in all, it's WAY less dangerous to put lithium in water than to put sodium in water. Not that we'd like to emphasize this fact too much, but it's the truth. Yes, I speak from direct experience. SBHarris 06:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo problem; precautions

lithium pellets??

This picture does not agree with the precautions text... I suspect the white stuff in the plastic box is not lithium but a lithium compound. 213.51.209.230 12:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect this image also. Lithium tarnishes BLACK in air, so even if it started out as metal, it wouldn't end up white unless perhaps in extremely humid conditions. I've never seen lithium metal coated with white residue. We'd like the provinance of this photo, please! Saying it just came from the government isn't enough. Steve 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

There are now 4 articles that come under the general title of lithium. Is it time to set up a disambiguation page? I would be happy to set it up, but I am unsure of how. Leave the instructions on my talk page and I will take care of it. Sensation002 02:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One already exists at Lithium (disambiguation) and is linked from the top of this article. --mav 15:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang theory

Lithium is one of only three elements - and the only metal - created in the first moments of the Big Bang.

This sentence should be rephrased, as the Big Bang is a theory which, while accepted by many cosmologists, has not been proven. Dforest 07:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Until they are disproven, or superseded by something else, the currently accepted scientific theories are encyclopedic enough. Femto 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a theory and needed to be labeled as such.Badocter 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
All of scientific "knowledge" is theory, but it gets tedious to label it as such. "According to theory, dinosaurs walked around more than 65 million years ago." Do I really have to say that? "According to other theories, Tyrannosaurs didn't make it onto the Ark because of their bad table manners..." Steve 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Not all scientific knowledge is theory -- theory is what we use to fill the gaps in scientific knowledge. In the lead paragraph for "Lithium", is it really that important to note that nothing heavier the berylium was created in the first three minutes of the universe. Maybe we should add it to the lead paragrach of "Hydrogen", "Helium", and "Berylium" while we are at it. Then for "Boron" and all the heavier elements we can note that they were created sometime after the first three minutes. The information is relevent to the entries for cosmological theory, but not it is not appropriate in the lead paragraph of entries for individual elements.


The only scientific knowledge which is NOT theory is that which is true-by-definition, like the fact that humans are mammals. But that kind of "knowledge" is relatively cheap, and it's more knowledge of human culture, language and convention than knowledge of how the universe works. Suppose it had been decided that the platypus wasn't a mammal? Big deal. All the rest is theory. Sometimes it's theory that everybody believes, like the conservation of energy. Or that only nutcases don't believe. Like the conservation of energy. Theory it remains. It could be violated in a major way, any day, so far as we know. Nothing guarantees not. Steve 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From the BBN article: "Without major changes to the Big Bang theory itself, BBN will result in 25% helium-4; about 1% of deuterium; trace amounts of lithium and beryllium; and no other heavy elements, leaving about 74% of H-1" BBN would be most appropriately noted under the helium article as BBN predicts helium levels that are consistent with observation, whereas previous methods significantly underpredicted helium presence, thus BBN passes notability criterion for inclusion in helium article. BBN makes prediction of lithium in only trace amounts, on that basis the statement in the lithium article fails the notability test. I suggest the BBN statement in the lithium article be moved to the helium article.

Depends on your point of view. BBN predicts Li in trace amounts, and traces are what he have. Lithium's not important to the big bang, but the big bang is pretty important to lithium. While the total % of the mass of universe made by the BBN into lithium is indeed tiny, as is the % deuterium, it's important from the viewpoint of lithium and deuterium because it's the source of just about all the D and most of the Li that exists. Li, Be and B are all pretty dang rare. Don't you think that's kind of remarkable, given the commonality of the elements that preceeed and follow them? BBN followed by the vagaries of fusion, expains all very neatly.Steve 04:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
BBN is a facinating topic, however, some of the literature I have read so far also discusses boron production in BBN [2][3][4], so the current statment that lithium is 1 of 4 may itself be inaccurate. There are also have been practical limitations for verifying the predictions of Li, Be, and B [5]. Badocter 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the correct proportions of hydrogen, helium, and lithium are one of the greatest successes of the Big Bang model, and no other theory has even attempted to explain the existence and abundences of elements beyond hydrogen. Maybe the sentence could be rephrased to reflect the role of lithium abundances in winning over pretty much the entire profession of cosmology to working within the framework of the Big Bang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] GSK

"the effect of lithium carbonate on patients remained a mystery until Dr. Klein and his colleagues’ at the University of Pennsylvania discovered in 2006 that lithium, a natural salt, deactivated the GSK-3B enzyme."

Is this (above) a description of the 1996 article by Klein and Melton? --JWSchmidt 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph on Human Biology of Lithium Removed

I have removed this paragraph from the end of the "Basic Features" section:


"In humans lithium compounds apparently play no natural biological role, and are considered to be slightly toxic. Humans aside, lithium appears to be an essential trace element for goats, and possibly rats. When used as a drug, blood concentrations of Li+ must be carefully monitored."


Because it seems to directly contradict this information in the Lithium pharmacology article:

"Lithium is widely distributed in the central nervous system and interacts with a number of neurotransmitters and receptors, decreasing noradrenaline release and increasing serotonin synthesis."


And because it is internally contradictory -- "slightly toxic" vs. "must be carefully monitored".


Something accurate on human biology and medications should be written to replace it.

Oh, I changed my mind! The pharmacology article is probably referring to the action of medical lithium after introduction to the body. I have restored the paragraph to this article.

But I am leaving this Talk section here for two issue to be looked into. Is that accurate about humans/goats/rats (seems bizarre a basic element could be part of only some mammalians' biology), and how toxic is the stuff?

Lithium Carbonate Extended release 300 mgs is my current perscription, check it out on a canadian drug site. Dj_cereal_killer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.67.1 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Australia vs Argentina

In "Market trend" section, should "Australia" be changed to "Argentina"? other parts of this article say that Argentina is the 2nd largest producer. --Sunfish 03:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the current passage:

Market trend ... Between 2002 and 2005, lithium minerals production rose by 7% per year to reach 18,800 tonnes Li. Chile and Australia account for over 60% of total output.

[edit] Lithium needs

What would we do if lithium runs out we'll die! So please do not waste it and as for the war in Iraq I think since they killed tons of people that when Iraqies buy lithium that should pay alot extra. Offensiveandconfusing 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard on the BBC that Bolivia has the most resources of this future important element (for rechargeable batteries, etc). Is this true? 212.43.22.1 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Owen Price

[edit] Lithium Price is messed up

The price of lithium is way tooooooo high think it should be world $10 per 20lbs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.42.112 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

We probably should not even be discussing prices at all in these element articles, since they fluctuate, are supplier dependent, and very, very bulk and especially purity dependent. So much so that there really isn't any even ballpark answer. SBHarris 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

~~What about the boiling and melting point? In my opinion those are very important things!~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.76.114 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lithium pricing and geological availability information is very important and many wikipedia users will want to have that information. At least some historic price chart, or some link to places people can follow to find out current price quote will be helpful. I am unable to provide that information. Can some one in the know help improve it? Silverbach (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uthium

A web search for "uthium", for example this on Google, will throw up many hits. On closer examination, it will be seen that the vast majority of these hits are in web documents created by optical character recognition and that the word should be "Lithium" but the "Li" have been recognised as "U". - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Alas, if this is your own observation and hypothesis (which I think very likely correct), it's still original and we can't use it. Would make a good addition to one of the demi-trivia sections, like "lithium references in pop-culture." SBHarris 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Echeat.com?!

One of your references is www.echeat.com?! Are you nuts?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by It Is Me Here (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name?

Why is it called "lithium"?


I'm just editing your comment to reply: It is called that b/c Berzelius (Arfvedson's partner) named it after the Greek word lithos (which means stone). The reason for this is b/c it is one of the few Alkali metals to have been discovered in a stone rather than liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.3.237 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References

Three of the references listed at the bottom are red-linked. Can someone update the refs or find new ones? spider1224 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC) --98.235.122.228 (talk)luis —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

There are no articles for the journals but the refs are OK.--Stone (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cryogenic lithium

I removed this :

The proportion of the different crystalline states is temperature-dependent. On cryogenic cooling lithium at atmospheric pressure, the crystalline state which first predominates is fcc, followed by bcc, followed by 9R hex at the coldest temperatures. On heating solid lithium from deep cryogenic temperatures, the property known as heat of reversion will cause a crystalline state transition from 9R hex to bcc, which absorbs heat and causes cooling. In warming at cryogenic temperatures, there is thus a region of negative specific heat in lithium crystals, due to this state change. "ref" some paper by DOUGLAS L. MARTIN circa 1956 "/ref"

Firstly would this be better suited to an article on or relating to heat of reversion, with a link from lithium.

Secondly lithium has many properties - why is this notable.

Thridly referenced as "some paper by DOUGLAS L. MARTIN circa 1956" - is this a joke? I found http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v1/i12/p447_1 but cant read it.

Also is "heat of reversion" a well used term - there are terms associated with phase changes - as described - but I have not heard "reversion heat" - also most phase changes on warming require heat - eg melting, boiling etc - why is this so special that it must be mentioned?

Also the article seemed to be saying that hexagonal was the same as rhombohedral as it linked from rhombohedral to hexangonal in a wiki link. I changed this. Can someone check what remains in the properties section please.77.86.67.245 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Also

Also can someone confirm of deny the use of cadmium lithium alloys in high strength aircraft parts - this seems the most unlikely thing as the references I can find seem to say that the alloys are very low melting and neither metal is noted for its strength..77.86.67.245 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The alloys are Aluminium bassed and contain lithium, cadmium and copper. If this sentence is not 100% clear I will change it.--Stone (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes please - any online references as well - I've looked and looked - all I can find is "lithium cadmium alloys for uranium extraction" and similar.FengRail (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
RTC added cadmium 18:39, 19 December 2002 and I could only find something about the aluminium alloys containing copper lithium zirconium and silver [[6]] so we should get rid of the cadmium I think.--Stone (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also can someone check "According to theory, lithium was one of the very few elements synthesized in the Big Bang; its abundance is now vastly less than that predicted by theory" is this still true ie has the theories or measurements changed - should it read something like "the abundance of lithium has vastly decreased from the amount predicted to be present after the big bang" or something - I really don't know I'm not an astrophysicist.77.86.67.245 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is less Li than you'd think from it being #3 after H and He (which make up most of the universe). In general, lighter elements are more common. Still, there isn't even as much Li as has been calculated from it being formed in the Big Bang, which suggests that it's burned in stars faster than it can be made there. SBHarris 06:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I'm asking - I'm asking whether the current state of knowledge gives a discrepancy between theory and measurements - its clear that there was a descrepancy in the past. But some of the new papers suggest that that problem has been solved - though I can't be certain.77.86.67.245 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

--Stone (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lithium in Hale telescope mirror

I have added a "citation needed" flag to the statement that "Lithium is sometimes used in glasses and ceramics including the glass for the 200-inch (5.08 m) telescope at Mt. Palomar." The article on the Hale telescope claims that the mirror was made of Pyrex glass cast by Corning, and the article on Pyrex does not mention lithium or any of its compounds as a component of Pyrex. Maybe the Hale telescope mirror was a special case with an unusual composition because of its size, but I've not been able to turn up any reference to this with a reasonable amount of searching. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piperh (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact is copied from the CRC Handbook and should be true, but might be obsolete. Materialscientist (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not trust the CRC book with those facts after I had was able to prove them wrong in the case that scandium is the blue color in sapphires.--Stone (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
They might be wrong on science (e.g. the cause of blue color in sapphires was speculated and they picked that up), and obsolete. I think there is some truth that Li was used in that telescope, but I'm not sure it was in the mirror, and removed that bit. I added a ref on that (and will add a few more in other parts shortly - the article should be in a better shape). Materialscientist (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Alarmist "Peak Lithium" paragraph removed

The cited source does not qualify as reliable by Wikipedia guidelines. Meridian Research International is a one-man operation founded by William Tahil, the author of the report. I can find no indication of his qualifications, and his report cites no sources. At least one geologist has called his reports on peak lithium alarmist and ludicrous: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesa (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This kind of one-guy's opinion POV-pushing thing in a very general article like this, is the very kind of thing which is damaging for an encyclopedia, which should carry only generally agreed-on facts (of which there are plenty on lithium!). We rely on skeptical editors to find stuff like this eventually, but it stays too long as is, if it sounds even halfway reasonable. Anyhow, good job. SBHarris 09:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense sentence

In the Properties section it reads, "Like other alkali metals, lithium has a single weakly held valence electron which it will readily lose to form a cation (low ionisation energy); also indicated by the element's low electronegativity."

This doesn't make sense grammatically. The part saying "Low ionisation energy" is insterted as if it's a definition for "cation." I can't tell what it's doing there; it needs a separate sentence. "also indicated by the element's low electronegativity" also doesn't relate grammatically to the sentence it's attached to. There need either to be three separate sentences, or at least two, perhaps with the third part joined by some needed explanation. I'll wait for someone who understands all these subjects properly to straighten this mess out, but if that doesn't happen I'll just chop everything out after "cation." Cheers. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moar science

I added information about some other sources of lithium (which are important in meteorites): early solar system 7Be and 10Be decay, carbon star formation (maybe seen in presolar SiCs?), cosmic rays (makes both 6Li and 7Li, and solar wind (6Li is preferred fusion fuel). O' course most is Big bang related. 72.207.248.117 (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Afghanistan from Lithium table?

I realize that large reserves of lithium have been identified, but is it really necessary to add Afghanistan to the table of lithium mine production and reserves? There is only speculation available as to how much lithium is actually in reserve, which is not listed on the table, and there currently no lithium mining operations in place. I argue, then, that Afghanistan currently has no place on the table of lithium mines and reserves. However, I suggest that it instead be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.33.212 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Driveby note from GAN

I'd suggest removing the article from GAN for now. It needs a thorough copyedit for clarity and flow. Some examples:

Good luck, East of Borschov 12:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I quickfixed some obvious problems, and think the nomination can be mended in a short time, but agree that a proper copyedit would be appropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:

"Lithium" is not always a metal. In these articles, as in the standard literature, when we refer to an element, it's not always as the uncombined element. Potassium is an essential nutrient, for example, but not potassium metal. There is a "nitrogen cycle," but nitrogen is not elemental in all of it, and so on.

Some elements are more stable than others, just as some chairs are more stable than others. Stability is not a binary thing in ordinary life for nearly anything you consider stable, so why the nitpicking? More stable means "farther from the unstable point." There is a difference between a barely-stable thing and a very-stable thing. And if you think not, gook luck with your next trip to the hospital.

There are plenty of functions in living organism that aren't vital functions. The hair of your eyelashes and inside your nose serves no vital function, but it certainly serves a function. There are elements like this (Br comes to mind). One can easily tell if an element serves a vital function by depriving animals of it and seeing if they get ill or die. If the element serves some minor function like bromine or nose hair, that's not so easy. And there are elements that serve no function we know of, vital or not, like Al or Be. They are not like hair but more like (say) freckles. Of sourse there is some lithium in all organisms, just as there is some of all elements on Earth in all organisms (it just depends on how hard you look). But what do you do with elements that are concentrated in organisms? Does that mean they are vital or even used? No. Selenium is a good example of a nutrient that is concentrated by some plants that don't need it in any greater quantities (an they do just fine in selenium-poor soils). Do you want us to name the sea organisms that concentrate lithium? One of them? All known? What purpose would this level of detail serve?

Some others of your suggestions I agree with, but again it's nitpicking to say it's confusing that a free element is "very reactive," although the least rective of its group. It's easy to see how both statments can be true at the same time. I can have a fast car, but at the same time it might be the slowest car at the racetrack. Is that confusing? SBHarris 19:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Medical section

Have been added. I wanted to have a look if this is useful. --Stone (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Toolbox
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lithium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shenhemu (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This reads like a real good article, but let me check for details. Will try to finish asap. -- Shenhemu (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has been peer reviewed in 2007, was nearly GA then and has constantly improved ever since. One external link is broken at Ref 46 (Johan August Arfwedson) but already the web archive link next to it. Thumbs up! -- Shenhemu (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Any issues? Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No issues at all from my viewpoint. Passed GA and listed there. Shenhemu (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] False informtion on Lithium (disambiguation) having no Vital Biological Function.

Lithium is the Mineral Responsible for Biologically Balancing Bi-Polar Manic depression and is Administered by Doctors for Suicide Prevention.

Would you please revise this false information.

I applogize for the textbooks that will have to be re-written.

Sincerely,

Aaron D. Pearl Patient Harborview Medical Center Psyciatric Program / Seattle,Wa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.6.197 (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request from 216.12.24.106, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Lithium article is not up-to-date. There are many references and other things that Lithium is used for that is not mentioned. Please do.

216.12.24.106 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Baseball Watcher 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Applications section seems inconsistent with reality

Here is the summary of applications of Li from Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry: "About 25% of the lithium produced is used in the lubrication industry, 25% in the aluminum industry, 25% in the enamel, glass, and ceramic industries, and the rest for miscellaneous uses ..." Not sure why Ullmann's makes no mention of the battery aspect, probably because the battery industry consumes such a small amount of the 40,000 tons of lithium carbonate (equivalent) produced annually. Here is the listing from our Wiki article:

==Applications==
===Electrical and electronics===
"In the later years of the 20th century lithium became important as an anode material. Used in lithium-ion battery ..."
===Medicine===
"Lithium salts were used during the 19th century to treat gout. Lithium salts such as lithium carbonate ..."
===Chemical and industrial===
"Lithium is also used in the pharmaceutical and fine-chemical industry in the manufacture of organolithium reagents .."
===Nuclear===
"Lithium-6 is valued as a source material for tritium production and as a neutron absorber in nuclear fusion.."
===Other uses===
"Lithium fluoride, artificially grown as crystal, is clear and transparent and often used in specialist optics for .."

Not to sound too sarcastic, but all of the applications listed in the Wiki article would be considered miscellaneous and none of the real major applications are highlighted in subcategories. My guess is that the current predicament is an accretion of the biases and favorites of editors (such as the fascination with nuclear weapons, a theme that pervades many Wiki-element articles). I confess to biases with my editing, so I am not blaming anyone. But we should probably "rediagonalize" this section so that the article inform readers what lithium is really used for.

I looked at the German version, which won an award as a good goodness. It suffers from similar issues. Both the English and German articles have inexplicably large sections on medicinal aspect, a microscopic use. The medicine section should probably be reduced to a few sentences, as it appears to violate WP:UNDUE.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC) --Smokefoot (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC) The y-axis should not say "per million Si atoms" since Si itself is located at 1 million on the y-axis instead of at 10 to the zero power (1). So the chart actually depicts absolute abundance rather than abundance relative to Si. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.233.118 (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Standard

While the term "gold standard" is pretty commonly used to mean something is the best, it may not be the best term to describe another elemental metal. It looks like the infromation was used from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20825264 I'm sure most people will understand, but I think it sounds pretty odd. It would be like saying that Ford is the Cadillac of cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.62.83 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Fisison Reactions, WTF?

This sentence: "they can be used in fission reactions as well as fusion reactions of nuclear devices" does not make any sense. The fusion reaction part is fine, but what is this about fission? Who wrote this? It sounds like you might have been talking about boosted thermonuclear weapons, but the way the sentence is phrased now implies that the lithium atoms can fission and release energy, which is obviously not true. IDK112 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You might try reading the article:

Lithium is also used as a source for alpha particles, or helium nuclei. When 7Li is bombarded by accelerated protons 8Be is formed, which undergoes spontaneous fission to form two alpha particles. This was the first man-made nuclear reaction, produced by Cockroft and Walton in 1929.[1]

This is not a common type of fission, to be sure. But it has the charm of being the first to be discovered. Which is why it's here. I agree that it's rare enough that it should not appear in the lead without some reference to its historicity, to avoid the kind of confusion in readers you're having. SBHarris 01:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lithium"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.