Talk:Corrosive substance
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
I corrected various grammar errors and also removed the section on the caustic spill as being too specific for this article. In addition, I clarified and corrected the "protection" section. It contained dangerously inaccurate information - for example PVC gloves are not very chemically resistant. Delmlsfan (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Destroying?
By "destroy" does it mean that the object contacting the corrosive material destroys it atoms? Or does it mean that it just dissolves, rearranging the molecules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
In the second image caption, please expand the acronym "DOT". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.99.21 (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509024826/http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions/chemistry/sulfuricacid1.html to http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions/chemistry/sulfuricacid1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
{{source check
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Citation needed for: "but people are mostly concerned with its effects on living tissue"?
Hello.
Why is a citation needed for this simple, logic statement?
I think the sentence is logic, because after all:
- Stuff that corrodes living tissues sometimes doesn't corrode other materials, but is it not so frequent for a chemical that corrodes other materials not corroding living tissue. And if is corrodes my skin I won't want to pour that substance onto it or drink the substance, even if it does not corrode other materials. Therefore, we *are* in fact more concerned with living tissue than other materials, and if it appears otherwise then it is because it is unlikely that I would even think about drinking it!
- Why does this third statement need a citation but the previous one doesn't? For example I'm not sure whether "destroy", "damage" or "attack" are the better scientific terms to describe what corrosive means.
- The pictograms clearly indicate that destruction of living tissues is part of the common meaning of "corrosive". That's why it is used as a symbol.
- Is there an official definition by IUPAQ of what means "corrosive"? If the article does not reflect that official definition, then I think it must reflect the most common meaning of the term in day-to-day speech.
Therefore, I don't think it needs a citation. - João Jerónimo (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)