Talk:Mercury (element)

It is good. Midgley 00:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 12:32, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:33, 14 July 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Mercury. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Magnesium Statistics and Information, from the Elements database (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7

I think something is wrong with atmospheric mercury concentration even minimal 4 ng/L= 4ug/m3 that is way too much comparing to the dose mentioned later 0.7–42 μg/m3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.62.105.82 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.

> converted into SI units

except for the 76 lb flask....

---

The cost of mercury is $3.50 per 1 gram Where did the graph of mercury in Wyoming's Fremont Glacier come from? Paul Studier 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[1], see the image's description page Image:Mercury fremont ice core.png. Femto 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see it hiding in plain sight right under my cursor. Paul Studier 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Question: Just exactly what are the poisonous affects of mercury, and how long does it take to begin actually harming a body, and how?

Mercury and its compounds react with the sulfur atoms in the amino acids in your body, destroying them.

---

Why is the picture sideways? Rmhermen 04:08, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

Please explain how "(along with exaggeration of the actual risk in the media)" is factual in relation to the dangers of broken mercury thermometers? ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ

This has already been discused in the past [2]. Mercury is no more dangerous than acids or petrol if it is handled properly.

Darrien 20:46, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

---

Question: Just how toxic is the mercury used in thermometers?

Junior High School Student 10:48, Feb 14, 2007 (EST)

Answer: Depends on whether you break open the tube and suck out the mercury; or the tube breaks and you eagerly sniff up all the fumes; or it breaks in your hand and mercury gets into the wound. But some people advocate evacuating the entire room and calling a clean-up squad. See Template:Pound link. --Uncle Ed 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Atmospheric mercury pollution

Hi,

Quoting wiki: "Even though it is far less toxic than its compounds, elemental mercury still poses a significant environmental pollution problem due to the fact that mercury forms organic compounds inside of living organisms. Methyl mercury works its way up the food chain, reaching high concentrations among populations of some species such as tuna. Mercury poisoning in humans will result from persistent consumption of tainted foodstuffs."

One information, not included here, could help to clarify things. Gaseous elemental mercury is estimated to have an atmospheric residence time of about one year, making it subject to long-range atmospheric transport over global scales. Deposition fluxes in ecosystems vary according to regional parameters such as precipitation, land characteristics, vicinity of large emission sources and availability of gaseous oxydants.

I'll stop here.

D.D.

disputed

There are not three room temperature elements. Gallium isn't really one of them. There are at least four. Read talk:gold. lysdexia 09:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

gallium liquid at room temp?

I've removed Gallium from the elements liquid at room temp, I don't think 302.91K realy counts as room temperature anymore. Incidentally, Caesium melts at 301.59K, and Francium at even less. --fvw* 02:40, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Yeah, but you really can't attribute bulk characteristics to francium, seeing as how little there is of it on the planet at any given time. It's almost as bad as astatine.

I agree with the above person about francium. Even if it was a liquid, its intense radioactivity would cause it to self-boil.

summaries of UNEP "Global Mercury Assessment"

GreenFacts presents a faithful summary of the "Global Mercury Assessment" of UNEP (2002) at: http://www.greenfacts.org/mercury

It does not comment or add information to the UNEP report, but simply aims to make its content more accessible and understandable for the public (structured as questions and answers in 3 levels of increasing detail).

UNEP itself acknowledged this summary and linked to it at the top of its website, see: http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Report/Final%20Assessment%20report.htm

I would like to know why a link to the summary posted on GreenFacts is not considered appropriate by Wikipedia?

Stephanie Mantell, GreenFacts Publication Manager StephanieM 14:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated all deleted GreenFacts links together with links to the original studies, a clear statement that GreenFacts is an industry lobbying group, and with a link to the GreenFacts article that has details on the GreenFacts strategy. Cacycle 17:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please note that GreenFacts is not an "industry lobbying group" see GreenFacts discussion page. StephanieM 13:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Diamagnetic properies of Mercury

The Diamagnetic properties of Mercury are not metioned. Quite important if one is trying to research how ancient Virmana may actually have flown. mercury reacts with aluminum, if this reaction is subjected to magnetic field what will happen? azim student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.114.3 (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Triggering mercury's expansion and compression attributes

What is the most efficient way to trigger Mercury's expansion and compression? I don't know anything about mercury. I was wondering if would be possible to build a small train powered by the process of mercury expanding and contracting (using the expansion to move the wheels half the way around, and contraction to move them the other half back).

My understanding is that the expansion and compression of mercury in thermometers is caused by thermal expansion. The movement of mercury in barometers is caused by changes in air pressure ("barometric pressure"). (Please tell me if there is *any* other way to cause mercury to expand and contract. All the other ways of expansion and contraction that I know about -- such as piezoelectric effect -- I don't think work with liquid or gaseous mercury, but I would be surprised and delighted to find out I was wrong.) While I suppose that it would be possible to use either of these effects to power a train using mercury, I think other materials would be much more suitable.

• thermal expansion: the traditional steam trains are propelled by the thermal expansion of water; I suppose you could use Shape memory alloy as well.
• The idea of using air pressure to power small mechanical devices is recommended at Self replicating systems and low cost manufacturing: The Broadcast Architecture by Ralph C. Merkle. More details at Acoustic Energy Conversion Processes by Robert A. Freitas Jr.

Is there a general Wikipedia article on "air pressure power" ? --DavidCary 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mercury history

Researching mercury's history turned up an enormous amount of information, and I am thinking about starting a seperate article — whenever I figure out what the title should be. Possibly on its history in medicine alone. The other topics are either fine where they are, or have articles that could have a more in-depth history. I also removed the link to "Los Alamos National Laboratory - Mercury" from the references after finding more detailed sources. I thought I had more to say, but that's it. - LeaMaimone 03:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

methylmercury link

Gene, — I (and presumably TenOfAllTrades too) want this article to use methylmercury, not methyl mercury. Change it back. No, it does not need to be discussed on the talk page of the renamed page, unless you have evidence that "methylmercury" is indeed not the commonly accepted name. Feel free to do so if that is the case. Until then, what could be your reason to insist on a spelling that is different from the name of the page? Femto 14:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Google shows 65,400 hits for "methyl mercury". It shows about 1.8 times as many for "methylmercury".

That shows two different, well-established names.

In such cases, the general Wikipedia rule is to leave it as it is. The burden of arguing for a change lies with the proponents of a change.

In other words, my reversions do not require showing that "methylmercury" is not a generally accepted name; it is your reversions which require a showing that "methyl mercury" is not a generally accepted name. I'd settle for a change in preferred nomenclature by some standards agency if it were explained in the talk page of the renamed article—but that is clearly something we do not have at this time. Gene Nygaard 14:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

And something which we don't need at this time, although desirable. The general Wikipedia rule is to be bold with changes, not that a single person may block changes which are wanted by more than one simply because no references are given. Do you know that "methylmercury" is not IUPAC standard? Do you know that TenOfAllTrades's edit may not be based on such knowledge? Clearly neither spelling is inacceptable. We don't have to justify this edit to you, and you don't have a reason to block it. Femto 17:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mean to cause a tempest in a teapot with the name change. While both terms are used, methylmercury is more common (see Femto's comments) and also the IUPAC standard (PDF). --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I've elaborated on my reasoning at Talk:Methylmercury. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Occurrence in the environment

Seemingly, the anonymous user 137.48.126.86 has some trouble accepting that the US emissions have declined by 85% since 1999 (Line 246), so could someone please cite a source for that, before we get an edit duel? -- Totti ✉ 20:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It is in the link for the changed item. (SEWilco 04:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC))

• "What are the biggest sources of mercury air emissions in the U.S.?"
  • "According to EPA's 1999 National Emissions Inventory, coal-fired electric power plants are the largest source of human-caused mercury air emissions in the U.S. These power plants account for about 40% of total U.S. manmade mercury emissions. Other large sources are industrial boilers (about 10% of U.S. mercury emissions), burning hazardous waste (about 5%), and chlorine production (also about 5%). Burning municipal waste and medical waste was once a larger source of emissions. Today, in response to EPA and state regulations and reductions in mercury use, emissions from these sources have declined 85-90 percent." [3]
    • As a postdoc at the EPA working on reducing mercury emissions from coal fired power plants I can say with certainty that "these sources" in the last sentance refers to the burning of municipal waste and medical waste mentioned in the previous sentence. Taking a look at this Emissions Progress Graph should clear things up.--BCAttwood 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Mercury liquid?

Copied from the Reference Desk:

Mercury is the only metal element that is liquid at room temeratures. Why?

It's melting point is -37.9 °F (= -38.83°C), and its boiling point is 674.11 °F. What is it about this element's atoms, and/or electron layers, that makes it different in this respect from other metails?

The answer has partly to do with the electron configuration of Mercury, and also relativistic effects. The electron configuration of mercury is [Kr] 4d¹⁰ 4f¹⁴ 5s² 5p⁶ 5d¹⁰ 6s². The last shell labeled 6s is completely full, and is noticibly closer to the nucleus than what would be expected if relativistic effects were not taken into account. The combination of these two factors results in rather tightly bound outer shell of electrons for mercury. Hence, mercury cannot form particularly strong metal-metal bonds. The result is an element which is liquid at room temperature. Contrast this with gold and thallium which are right beside mercury on the periodic table, but are solids. Let the reference desk know if you'd like a more detailed explanation, I hope this answers your question! --HappyCamper 1 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Thanks HappyCamper for explaining more clearly than I usually manage! "Relativistic effects" occur in atoms of a high atomic number: the positive charge of the nucleus is so high that some of the electrons in the atoms are moving very fast—fast enough that special relativity has to be taken into account in predicting their movement. This causes a number of changes in the chemistry of the elements concerned, of which the fact that mercury is liquid at room temperature is perhaps the most striking. Physchim62 4 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

You're welcome, Physchim62 :-) You do great edits on Wikipedia too! --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)

One small quibble, if I may: "electrons moving fast". Well, yes the electrons whether acting particle-like or wave-like do have velocity and momentum data associated with them. But while in an orbital (a standing wave) "moving fast" is a poor way to describe a charge that is not doing what charged particles do when they move fast (in a circle - i.e. accelerating). Visualizing a charged particle zipping about the nucleus like a planet around a sun at a relativistic speed is terribly misleading. (Even if expert chemists who don't care about the physics of charged particle movement DO use that heuristic.) 4.250.168.127 23:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty to take the result of this discussion to Group 12 element, thanks all! V8rik 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure I understand but maybe you can point me to a good source. Zn ([Ar] 3d10 4s2) and Cd ([Kr] 4d10 5s2) also have full s and d outer shell. So what gives for Hg. Hg from what I have read here can make amalgams with gold and zinc but I am not sure what kind of bonds these are. Also please give a little bit more about how special relativity comes into play here?

Question for anyone.

What is Mercury's natural state?

What do you mean by 'natural state'? As far as the state of occurence, it mostly is found combined with another element such as sulfur or oxygen.

Crustal and oceanic abundance

Re: the recent addition - Extra entry rows can be added to the Elementboxes simply as ordinary Wikitable code (like the critical temperature at hydrogen). Though I think the data is fine where it is right now; a new template would only be necessary if one includes similar data for at least a few other elements. Large-scale additions should be proposed first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. If we can provide an authoritative reference, the terrestrial abundances may well be worth it. What is the source of this particular data? Especially with estimates like this it's important to cite sources. Femto 11:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Origin of data. I googled for mercury abundance, to come up with some average, though some sources may not have proper copyright to get officially cited here, other than under fair use provisions. I almost messed up there. I feel a bit paranoid, especially after reading a slashdot story or some story somewhere about a project trying to find out how data gets here, feels like even google is in on this study to figure out how human body of knowledge trickles into wikipedia.) Here are some hard numbers I came across, with super-proper copyright (once you know the numbers, it's not that hard to find correct copyright sources to back it up, and use fair use provisions to slowly drip back small bits of info into wikipedia. These below are gov't publications, in public domain, and if paid professionals are allowed to excersize fair use on what they cite, why shouldn't we recite what made the transition into public domain by their hand?
  • Crustal: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/sac_nawqa/AGHg.pdf, page 6, Mercury in sediment, "Mercury concentrations above the worldwide average crustal abundance (0.067 mg/g; Cox, 1989) were measured ..."
  • Crustal and oceanic: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1030/pdf/OFR2005_1030_508.pdf, page 13, Mercury General Geochemistry, " Crustal abundance of 0.08 ppm, Soil (0.06 ppm), Limestone (0.04 ppm), Shale (0.02-0.4 ppm), Water (0.07 ppb but this is an old estimate from the late 1970 s and may overestimate the real water abundance)"

Scanning through other publications, such as http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2156/b2156.pdf, or mercury in water chemical testing procedure publications, you can get a feel at just how variable the concentration estimates are, and one significant digit is probably all that we want here. Note: It would be nice to create a template for each element, and even I'd probably pitch in to hunt down numbers. Now from that first citation, Cox, P.A., 1989. The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance, and Distribution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, sounds like has a nice book on this topic, but it probably cannot be reproduced in its entirety here, in the sense that we take all data for all elements, without copyright holder permission. What can be done, just as the USGS articles do, is citing small bits of info, from many different sources, each under fair use provisions. You'd have to completely eliminate all fair use provisions from copyright law to stop info from filtering into wikipedia, or into public domain, and you'd have to request permission to utter or express every single word you ever utter or express, without fair use. Forget freedom of speech, since nothing you know comes from within, as David Hume would tell Descartes, everything comes from without, sensory experience. So, say, you pay for a college education to learn the data that someone else came up with, becoming part of your knowledge, your expertise, are you forever forbidden to disclose it in your general dealings and discussions, and have to run request a permission slip to utter such things as, let's say, Newton's laws, or if that's out of copyright into public domain, then, say, the latest news on superconductivity? It's gonna be very hard to stop wikipedia from growing, it would be a lot easier to assault it with a massive 'denial of service' type attack messing up each article to the point where the enthusiasts give up trying to keep up the repair work. Sillybilly 13:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyright does not apply to facts and factual data. Properly attributed (and not copying anything of creative worth like layout, colors, typographic style etc.) there shouldn't be a problem even with quoting a full table of data from a book on the elements; fair use, fair and square. There may be localized database protection laws on recent data created under 'sweat of brow' (created, as opposed to simply compiled from other sources). Wikipedia as a non-profit educational organization also may likely be exempt from that.

Nine tenths of the copyright law is intimidation (though they're lobbying to change that to full). If you're still paranoid (don't blame ya on that) it would be beneficial not just to quote from one source but to compare from several, like I did at melting points of the elements (data page) for example; if anybody sues, who copied from who? If I find time, I could contribute the Abundance of Elements data from the CRC Handbook to a data page like that.

Should anybody feel some Intellectual Property be infringed by being cited as the source of factual data, I know that the Wikimedia Foundation would see it as a case worth fighting, with good publicity for us and bad publicity for the other side. Femto 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Joan Miró fountain

According to [4] the mercury fountain that is located at the Fundació Joan Miró was designed by Alexander Calder. Could an art-savvy person clear this up? Femto 15:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. --BorgQueen 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Solid mercury

Is mercury still poisonous as a solid? Evan Robidoux 15:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by solid and poisonous. The toxicity of frozen, solid mercury will be no different than the liquid upon ingestion or skin exposure because it will melt pretty quickly (or freeze the exposed area if there is a large amount). The vapor pressure of mercury should be quite a bit lower at temperatures below its melting temperature, so the risk of exposure to mercury vapor from a frozen chunk is less.

If by solid, you mean mercury compounds or amalgams, then the answer is it depends. The toxicity of mercury compound varies widely, although on average I would say they are more toxic. The safety of dental amalgams is debated, although it could probably be said that they are safer than just having the equivalent amount of pure mercury rolling around in one's mouth.BCAttwood 19:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Is (substance) Poisonous?"

Everything is actually Toxic, it all depends on the AMOUNT of substance. Even Water can kill if you drink 7 gallons at once. Mercury metal - you MIGHT get away with holding some in your hand (BUT I DON'T RECCOMEND THAT), BUT Dimethylmercury will kill you if you get even one drop on your skin - see Karen Wetterhahn ....Joeylawn

Elemental mercury is actually quite safe, as it is not very reactive at all. Because of this, mecury metal is only slightly toxic, while vapor is much more harmful. Historically, liquid mercury has been used to treat ileus, since it is a quite heavy liquid that forces its way through the digestive system, opening passage. This is not practiced anymore.

A person can die after drinking only 2 gallons of water. That's about 8 liters. See Template:Pound link. --Uncle Ed 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

Can mercury exist as a gas? Evan Robidoux 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, heat it and/or lower the pressure in a closed container and you can get a true saturated vapor (as opposed to evaporation in air). Femto 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hydrargyrum"

Let's make it clear for once and all:

The expression "hydrargyrum" consists of the following two Greek words:

• "hydor" ("hudôr") for "water" or "liquid" (noun, not adjective)
• "argyros" ("arguros") for "silver" or "of silver"

The correct combination of these words is "hydrargyros" and not "hydrargyron" (which suggests the neuter form) as previously stated. The ending "-um" instead of "-os" emerges from its adaptation into Latin. However, this does not make the word Latin, barely Latinized. The literal translation into Latin would be "aquargentum", which is not used. The correct Latin name is "mercurium" (origin of this is stated in the article).

Also note that classical Latin never uses the letter "y". Words that are often refered to as being Latin and yet contain this letter are either Latinized versions of non-Latin words or not Latin.

So please, leave the statements in the introduction and in the "History" section alone and revert to current state whenever changed, as both of them are to be regarded as correct until proven (explained reasonably) otherwise in here. -- Totti (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mercury Use?

I am looking for information on the use of Mercury for testing Propane. I received a ceramic jug full of Mercury from an elderly person at a Household Hazardous waste disposal site I run, who claimed that his job was to test tankers before acccepting a load of propane at his job in the early 1960's.

Has anyone heard of this?

Got2cjb 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

pressure test of some sort? Propane is pretty unreactive.Geni 20:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He claimed that a drop of Mercury was added to a sample of propane and that it had to freeze before it hit the bottom of the vial.

Mercury

How much Mercury does it take to kill you?

According to the EPA the injestion of 1 to 4 grams of elemental mercury can kill an average size adult. Organic compounds of mercury have varying levels of toxicity; dimethylmercury can kill with just a few drops on the skin (see Karen Wetterhahn). BCAttwood 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mercury shape in water

On the right in the article I see that mercury has a very distinctive shape in air. But in a discussion we had on IRC we were wondering how this shape would be in water. Would it be more spherical, less, or perhaps something totally different? - Dammit 19:59, 26 June 2006

The spherical shape is due to Surface Tension. Imagine forces in the liquid metal pulling the particles inwards . There are also forces pulling the particiles out. This is visible in any liquid, but especially in water where it has a boundary with air. The concave meniscus of water in air in a test tube (that's the bit where the water seems to go upwards and cling to the sides of the test tube) is due to this, I was taught. At the edge of the surface, the water doesn't have enough force to keep it down and facing inwards so the outwards forces win out and this gives rise to the concavity. Mercury in air is really very different, you'll know this if you have seen mercury droplets against a surface. Water droplets tend to cling to the surface, Mercury droplets tend to cling to themselves, which makes for the convex shape. This effect is probably strongly related to the density of the liquid and the density of the surrounding medium, so because water is far more dense than air (but only about 10 times as dense as mercury at room temperature) I would expect the mercury droplet in water to be spherical in nature, but perhaps not quite as spherical as it would be in air. Rosejpalmer 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mercury: use as Medicine in Ayurveda and Homoeopathy

The use of Mercury as medicine is very old in Ayurveda, the Indian system of medicine and also in Homoeopathy. This article does not contain information about this fact.

User:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com 9:45 PM IST 20 August 2006

You probably wouldn't want to use mercury in medicine of any kind unless you were sure that once it entered the body it would do no harm before the patient died anyway. Humans have no way of dealing with ingested mercury. It just goes in there and messes things up and, for the most part, stays there. But I suppose we should document poor medicine, too. European medicine used mercury as a treatment for syphilis, so it isn't just Indian medicine that (perhaps in desperate circumstances) resorted to mercury as a "magic bullet". rosejpalmer.

Mercury as a polish

My sixth grade science teacher, a very old gentleman, mentioned as a kid that his science teacher allowed them to dip/coat their dimes into/with mercury and they would come out, like new; no scratches shiny, etc. Any truth to this? If true how does it affect the dimes alloys-- does it make them stronger or weaker and are they poisenous??

What happens here is that the nickel/copper or silver exterior of the dime amalgamates with the mercury forming a silvery colored external layer of mercury amalgam. This makes the coin appear to be "clean" and "shiny". In reality, this amalgamated external layer will soon oxidize and turn a dark, relatively ugly color. In addition, the mercury compounds that then form will readily rub off of this "shined" coin contaminating those who contact the coin. Doing this is not reccomended as it makes the coin a portable mercury contaminator. (Jdurg 00:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC))

weapons grade mercury??

This article [5] mentions "weapons-grade" mercury being shipped to Japan from germany in WWII. However, it does not mention what use mercury has as a weapon, and this wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention it either. Anyone know??? - PocklingtonDan 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It presumably refers to mercury intended for the production of blasting caps. Mercury(II) fulminate is briefly mentioned in the compounds section. Femto 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks, I know nothing about chemistry whatsoever. I'll have a ready of the fulminate article you provided the link for. Is this worth mentioning this usage in the article more prominently? It seems as though it must be a fairly major use (or have been a fairly major use in the past) if they were shipping tons of the stuff? - PocklingtonDan 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure worth giving it a little more specific mention. Femto 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion in [[6]] BBC article is that the mercury was going to have a very big impact on the Japanese war effort. This might be just an exaggeration though.--Moonlight Mile 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reclamation of mercury mines

I removed what I believe is a superfluous "the" from the sentence below:

For example, in 1976 the Santa Clara County, California purchased the historic Almaden Quicksilver Mine and proceeded to create a county park on the site, after conducting extensive safety and environmental analysis of the property.

Beneficial biochemistry?

Is there any biochemical process whatsoever in which mercury plays a beneficial role? linas 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Inca gold mining

During the 16th century, Incas mining gold for the Spanish (I don't think they were doing this earlier) used Mercury to bind to gold. The mercury would evaporate and leave the gold behind.

Here's a source: http://toxipedia.org/conf/display/toxipedia/Mercury --Edwin Herdman 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Most mecury found in thermometers doesnt absorb though skin, so its safe that way, but vapors or small cuts or getting into the enviroment is bad! the methlymecury just a few drops can kill within 24 hours, scary

liquid elements

A quote from the beginning of the article:

mercury is one of five elements that are liquid at or near standard room temperature and pressure[1] (the others are the metals caesium, francium, and gallium, and the nonmetal bromine)

Bromine is not a metal, but falls under the classification "halogen" rather than "nonmetal". Right? That should be corrected.

Halogens are a subclass of nonmetals. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, only 80-Hg and 35-Br are marked as being liquid at room temperature on the two versions of the periodic table that I consulted (both on Wikipedia). So either caesium, francium and gallium should be removed from the comment, or several periodic tables on Wikipedia need to be corrected. Neoprote 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your quote from the article is, "one of five elements that are liquid at or near standard temperature." caesium, francium, and gallium are liquid at very near standard temperature (e.g., gallium will melt in the palm of your hand due to body heat. But don't try that experiment with caesium or francium.) Karl Hahn (T) (C) 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken references

The links for references 8,9,12 are broken. Neoprote 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

B-Class

GA class is not part of project assessment scales, and GAs are not tracked by WP Bot 1.0. The assessment level has been set to B class. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The system changed... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cost of the element

I bought this thing from overseas, and I'm unsure whether it has mercury in it as it is able to tell the temperature. But I'm an unsure whether it has mercury content. Daily Rubbings 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mercury reserves

[7] indicates that there are over 100 years of mercury resources so I deleted the paragraph about it running out. Paul Studier 05:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've tried to cleanup the article, trying to group similar ideas, etc. Trimmed the external links as well. If there are any comments, please reply here. There are a few references which are interesting but I cannot find a place for them at the moment. I'm dumping them here so that they won't be lost:

• Kelly, E. (1676). The stone of the philosophers. Transcribed by: L. Roberts. Retrieved April 3, 2005.
• Mercury in Schools. (August 20, 2004). Mercury through the Ages. Retrieved April 5, 2005.

--Rifleman 82 14:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

References

• Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional and Global Scales
• 500 years of mercury production: global annual inventory by region until 2000 and associated emissions
• The Rise and Fall of Mercury: Converting a Resource to Refuse After 500 Years of Mining and Pollution

--Stone 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that there is no common oxidation state for most of the element pages in wikipedia.If anyone have any spare time pls add in the common oxidation states(it is quite inconvient without it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.11.5 (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning

Thank you for this article. I added a citations missing template with this month for a date because the article lead and one or more sections discuss poisoning but have no source for this information. One way is to not discuss poisoning, I suppose. No idea. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mercury is Not a Transition Metal

Mercury is not a transition metal as it does not have partially filled D orbitals. Mercury is properly known only as a d-block metal. Iron, molybdenum, copper, cobalt, etc are transition metals. This is a very important point, I will be changing the article. If you need a source for this statement reference either Miesler and Tarr Inorganic Chemistry or Chapter 18 of Shriver/Atkins Inorganic Chemistry.Whiteknight521 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are some who argue that it can be considered a transition metal due to the existence of mercury tetrafluoride. However, that view is very recent and not necessarily mainstream yet. --Itub (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Use?

I'm not sure if it deserves entry in a scientific article, but under "Applications" wouldn't it be prudent to at least mention that some prize fighters (boxing) injected mercury into their gloves before a match, essentially making them filled with metal. (with obvious advantages) I didn't add it into the article b/c I'm not sure of a specific incident, but but if anyone ha heard of this, please elaborate. Fultron89 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would need a citation to a published reliable source. Do you have any references that could be used as evidence of this application? - Neparis (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of an episode of the TV show "CSI", where this happened. It has never happened in real life because it would be impractical. For one thing, boxing gloves are not designed to contain liquids, and in ordinary use -- ordinary use for boxing gloves involves heavy impacts -- the mercury would leak out almost immediately. For another, making the boxing gloves heavier would be a disadvantage to the fighter wearing them, since it would both tire his arms faster and increase the chance of damage to his hands. Fumblebruschi (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dangers overstated?

We had a thermometer break in our house about 15 years ago when I was a kid, and I played around with the mercury on the floor for around 10 minutes. From stories my dad has told me, he messed about with mercury quite a lot as a youth. I also have mercury fillings. As far as I can tell, none of us has suffered in the slightest. Yet from the article, it gives the impression that mercury is REALLY dangerous stuff, like cyanide or something. I'm not saying its not completely safe, but is it really any more dangerous than other common chemicals, like bleach, petrol and so on? -OOPSIE- (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In a way, perhaps the dangers are overstated. Mercury itself is certainly not going to kill you within minutes like cyanide might. Millions of people have played with mercury a few times or had mercury fillings and survived (but note that there is a reported case of 4- to 6-year-old kids who were poisoned after playing with mercury "for a few weeks"[8]). On the other hand, mercury can accumulate in the body and have nasty effects in the long term, which in a way makes it worse than bleach or petrol. This is especially important in the case of occupational or long-term exposure, and is the reason for using less toxic alternatives whenever possible. I'm talking about the pure element here, note that some compounds such as dimethyl mercury are much more toxic than mercury itself. --Itub (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A note on fillings - it's bound in an amalgam that means the actual exposure of the body to mercury is incredibly minute. As Itub says, it depends on what kind of mercury you're talking about, but also exposure.

Also, who is to say you haven't suffered? Perhaps everyone with fillings is a small number of IQ points below those with non-mercury? I say this tongue-in-cheek and not as an insult; we can never use personal experience to make strong statements on wikipedia. For stuff like danger and toxicity, WP:MEDRS applies. Final point - Mad hatter disease. Though you do raise some good points, do you/others think that the dangers of mercury poisoning could be clarified a bit more to show it's a chronic problem with little acute toxicity? WLU (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can mercury cause cancer?

It doesn't state whether mercury is a carcinogen or not in the article, or on mercury poisoning. --72.230.46.168 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote IARC [9]:

1. There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of mercury and mercury compounds.
2. There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of metallic mercury.
3. There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of mercuric chloride.
4. There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of methylmercury chloride.

Perhaps a brief mention of the animal data could be added, but as for the human data, the convention in articles is generally to avoid stating properties of a substance for which insufficient evidence exists. - Neparis (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This quote is false

I know for a fact that quote from text:

"Many former ores in Italy, Slovenia, the United States and Mexico which once produced a large proportion of the world's supply have now been completely mined out."

Is false for Slovenia. Idria mine here was not closed because it was mined out but because price of Mercury drastically fell in 1980s. It was similair in mines of Almadén Spain.

Quote from Wikipedia Alamaden article:

"In 2000, the mines closed due to the fall of the price of mercury in the international market, caused to the fall of its demand. However, Almadén still has one of the world's biggest reservoirs of mercury. A museum has been built, including visit to the mines (areas from 16th to 20th century)."

I don't know for other parts mentioned, I just suspect same happened there so I've rewriten only part for Spain and Slovenia.

Mercury compounds Hg2 2+ is never Hg+

Lots of web sites say that mercury(I) compounds are always Hg2 2+, never Hg+, but Wikipedia talks about this nowhere. Anyone know the reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Diatomic mercury gas?

I guess "normal" mercury vapor is monoatomic? But since the Hg-Hg bond exists in e.g. calomel, is it possible to have an electrically neutral Hg₂ molecule, or even a gas consisting of Hg₂? 84.238.113.244 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, mercury doesn't form covalent bonds with itself unless it is oxidized first. In a way, mercury acts a bit like a noble gas without the p orbitals. Mercury vapor is monatomic, unless you count the relatively unstable dimers that form due to van der Waals forces. (But note that even helium can dimerize to some extent if you count those!) --Itub (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Metals liquid at r.t.p.

"mercury is one of five metals that are liquid at or near room temperature and pressure" I believe that you need to add a sixth. NaK alloy is too: OK it is an alloy but the elemental nature of the five metals mentioned is not specified in the article.

Mercury spillage

The section with the title "Mercury spillage in St. Andrew's School, Parañaque, Philippines" is given undue weight in this article, in my opinion, and should be deleted. If we had such a coverage every time some mercury gets spilled, this article would be huge and wouldn't be about mercury anymore. I've even spilled mercury myself--it didn't make the news, but I remember seeing other mercury spills on the local news in several occasions. However, the local news also tend to carry stories of the sort "cat rescued by firemen from local tree!", and yet we don't need to include such types of stories in the article about cats. --Itub (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. That was my first impulse, but decided to chop some of the details and blank refs while I gave it some thought. Seems the incident might be written up in an article on the school in question if it exists. Hg thermometers and other instruments were commonly used in schools as recently as 25 years ago and breakage/spills were not uncommon. Mercury spill kits were offered by the science supply catalogues and a lab experiment guide from the seventies has a student experiment on heating HgO in an open test tube to produce hot liquid mercury. Picture that in a lab with a dozen teams of students playing with the fun product. Vsmith (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing per non-notability. Vsmith (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you made the page easier to understand, in case someone in Elementary or Middle school wants to do a project on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinofinatic (talk • contribs) 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC definition for transition metals

NOTE: This section is transcluded so the widest-possible number of people can comment

I've been auditing the nav images in element articles to fix wrong neutron counts and giving Lu and Lr the lanthanoid and actinoid coloring, respectively. Part way through, I started to review our definitions for element categories to check them against IUPAC's provisional recommendations. See IUPAC Red Book IR-3.6 GROUPS OF ELEMENTS. Turns out that their specific definition for transition metal deviates from ours in a somewhat embarrassing way:

• IUPAC defines transition metals specifically as being those elements in groups 3 to 11. This excludes the group 12 elements!

ED NOTE: Turns out, that IUPAC's approved recommendations define transition metals as either the set of elements in groups 3 to 12 (our current set-up) or the set of elements from 3 to 11 (the set-up in the below table).

Fixing this results in somewhat modified periodic tables (Note, that the expanded 'Other metal' category includes all the post-transition metals plus aluminium):

Table showing the more IUPAC consistent element categories

So, before I finish my audit and fix of the nav images, I'd like to know if I should fix group 12 to be consistent with the provisional IUPAC definition of transition metals. OR should we wait for IUPAC to come out with the final-updated Red Book (comment period ends at the end of 2008)? I'm putting my audit and update of the nav images on hold until we figure this out. --mav (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how many agree to this definition so waiting would be ok. Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked one of my college chemistry textbooks and it agrees with IUPAC. If this definition for transition metals is already widespread, then we may not need to wait for IUPAC's final revision of the Red Book. On the other hand, the updated document may impact other parts of the table and / or nav images. I'm simply not sure how or when we should proceed. --mav (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the comment period ended in 2004, according to the root of the file you quoted. The text approved in 2005 was (p. 51):

The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements.

As far as I'm aware, there are no new inorganic recommendations planned for four or five years or so (until they get round to sorting out inorganic Preferred IUPAC names). Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I saw this and assumed it also applied to the inorganic nomenclature. My bad. I also remember something about unfilled d-suborbitals as part of the definition, which also excludes group 12 elements (with a complication with at least one Hg compound). --mav (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of this term has always been a problem- whether to base the classification on chemistry or atom electron configuration. I was taught at school (1942 Sherwood Taylor text book) that the transition metals did not include Cu group and Zn group - only then to be told at university that Cu was a transition metal. IMO we should go with current IUPAC - that definition has been around for at least 40 years (Cotton and Wilkinson 2d edition 1966)- it leaves a little problem of colouring in and explaining the position of Zn group which is neither main group nor transition metal, but is in the d block according to our chart- although the chart conflicts with the definition in the article (sic "..highest energy electron is in a d orbital") which would seem to exclude both copper (3d10 4s1) and zinc (3d10 4s2) - if our list of electron configurations is right. Best of luck.--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The current IUPAC definition (quoted above) gives us freedom to include group 12 or not. Let's not forget that Cotton & Wilkinson doesn't class scandium and yttrium as transition metals either, on chemical grounds. Greenwood and Earnshaw agrees with our current classification except for lanthanum and actinium, which they (correctly in my view) class as transition metals. I seem to remember that the edition of Sherwood Taylor that you quote classes thorium and uranium as transition metals and, in the case of thorium ([Rn] 7s² 5d²), a naive or dogmatic application of the electron configuration criterion would force us to do the same! Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO IUPAC does not clearly define the matter, that's why such a long discussion is needed. My experience is very close to the Axiosaurus' one. The first simple definition refers to empty d orbitals at the elemental state whereas at university I was taught that it's more useful to include group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au) as well because they form ions having empty d orbitals - that is the Cotton Wilkinson definition. This is supported by their behaviour, for instance because they can form coloured complex as the other transition metals. I've never heard that the 12th group (Zn, Cd, Hg) can be included in the transition metals because their behaviour, i.e as catalist, is completely different than the others due to their full d shell. Most of my teachers would have marked as a serious mistake. Cotton Wilkinson (III edition, 1972) includes Scandium and Yttrium between the transition metals. Chemical behaviour should prevail as even Mendeleev based and actually built the periodic table on this characteristic. Some authors try to bridge this describing group 3-12 as d block. Please do not be misled by the shape of the periodic table or, worse, by aestetics issues. Chemistry is an experimental science and sometimes cannot be oversimplyfied. --Avogadro-I (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that our periodic tables have too many colors and that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we got rid of most of them. But I'm afraid I'm in the minority. --Itub (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But the table is so purty with the colors! And we'd have one less thing to argue about discuss - that would be boring. ;) --mav (talk)

Great feedback - thanks for finding the the current recommendations. Looks like IUPAC is giving us some leeway in the definition of transition metals in the approved recommendations. That means that our current table does not conflict with IUPAC. That is all I was worried about. We should therefore leave well-enough alone. We can revisit this if/when IUPAC comes up with a more rigorous definition. But I welcome anybody else to comment just in case we have missed anything. Again - Thank you everybody! --mav (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my own opinion is that it's one of those debates that creates more heat than useful work! Physchim62 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) allows us to go againt IUPAC occasionally, when circumstances demand it! Physchim62 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I may be getting in here a little late, but I just wanted to note that in post-transition metal, it claims that the IUPAC definition for transition metals is in conflict with it self. Based upon what I've read here, that doesn't seem to be the case any more. I think it needs to be cleaned up to match the above conclusions. --Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: first time we get the chance, we should try to get rid of the color differenciation between actinoids and lanthanoids. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why and what would replace it? --mav (talk)

does not add enough information, and within the TMs, the variations in chemistry are larger than those between Ac and Ln's. Any of the two colors used now would be fine, or some random mix of the two too. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The actinides and lanthanides are distinct enough for us to label them as separate element categories. That combined with the lack of consensus on what is an inner transition tells me that we should leave well enough alone. --mav (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercury is considered a transition element under both IUPAC definitions now, because the compound HgF₄ has been synthesized in 2007, giving Hg a d⁸ electron configuration. Should this be incorporated in the table and the article? Kumorifox (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that mercury is a transition metal due to the observation of HgF4 under exotic conditions. See the article on HgF4 for details. --Itub (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing suggestion to Merge d-block and Transition metal

Well I showed up 3 months too late for the fun, but I based on what I read, I am removing the suggestion to merge these two articles. No change in IUPAC recommendations will ever alter Periodic table (by blocks). The blocks must have a number of columns corresponding to the number of electrons that a full subshell can hold. So the d-block must occupy groups 3-12. This is a man-made oversimplification because the chemistry and even the ground state electrons in Periodic_table_(electron_configurations) are messier than the blockiness, but that's ok. Oversimplifications are important because they make reality interesting. "Transition metal" on the other hand, is a convention, not an oversimplification. One bunch of folks call some elements "Transition metals" and another bunch of folks don't, and IUPAC says that's ok. When the most recent IUPAC book says "the elements of group 12 are not always included," they mean not always included in the transition metals. Group 12 has to be in the d-block because if it weren't, then the d-block would only hold 9 columns, meaning 9 electrons maximum in the d-subshell and Kimmie, the cute new 22-year old high-school chemistry teacher, would cry because even the oversimplifications would be too complex to teach, and angry mobs of high school boys who love Kimmie would grab torches and pitchforks and attack IUPAC folks and Wikipedia editors for making Kimmie cry. So that's why d-block and Transition metal should not be merged even though IUPAC says they -can- contain the same elements. By the way, Inner transition element and f-block should also be separate articles for the same reason. Conventions and oversimplifications are very, very different. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I'm glad to see you editing again. :) --mav (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Kimmie is wrong, too bad I say. (^_^) Other than that, I agree they should remain separate articles (though that's probably because I am of the firm opinion that the d-block and the transition metals should be different groups). Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Bloody Units

ARGH! I was looking up thermal expansion coefficents and densities! your units for mercury, water, ethanal etc are all over the place, can't you go thought them and convert them to the SI or something? Units of alpha for water are per kelvin, but fore mercury it's micrometer meters per kelvin. And densities in g/ml are generally not useful.

~Xec19 Xec19 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

713 832 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.218 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed copyright violation

I removed the following paragraph:

More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood and approximately 630,000 newborns are born every year at risk. The United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ estimates that every year, more than one in six children could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb.

This is taken verbatim from [10] and [11] does not allow copying except for personal use. This is interesting and alarming information, but this is a partisan website. It would be worthwhile to track down the actual source of these statistics and verify that they are accurate. EPA reports would also actually not be copyrighted. -- Beland (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Applications section cleanup

This section is very confusing. It has three lists, a main one, a "Miscellaneous uses" one, and a "Historical uses" one. In the main list, many of the sentences say mercury "was" used in a particular way, but it's unclear why or when or if that's no longer the case. It would be useful to know if there are any legal efforts to reduce each of these uses. Many of these items are also unreferenced. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Error that may need correcting or verification

Quote: Of these, only mercury is liquid at standard conditions for temperature and pressure with the melting point of −38.83°C and the boiling point of 356.73°C, making it one of the narrowest liquid range of any metals. That would make it the broadest range wouldn't it? Rubi-Wan-Kenobi (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No. For example iron has a lequid range of over 1000°.Geni 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Towards a global ban on Mercury

To include in article[12] MaxPont (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I just went on a tear and reworked the lede. I changed very little content but reworded some and moved things around quite a bit. I think it reads better now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

whatever :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.223.137 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive and the image

1. Can someone with know-how please archive inactive threads?

2. Can someone increase the size of the infobox image by 1/3 or so? Its awfully small at the moment.

--Pstanton (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Uses in spectroscopy

The spectral lines of mercury are very useful for calibration of monochromators used in spectroscopy. Some of the strongest peaks should probably be mentioned along with links to more information on the subject. NIST has some good data http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/mercurytable2.htm http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Handbook/Tables/mercurytable3.htm 173.23.196.176 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)