Talk:Fluorine

Photo

I think the photo of the mineral in the main article is misleading. Fluorine is a gas, and is hard to display, but it's not quite clear enough for a novice that you aren't somehow saying this object is Fluorine (looks like Fluorite to me). If the article really does need a photo or illustration it could be a representation of the Fluorine atom, or perhaps a Fluorine mineral with a proper explanation of its chemical composition and relation to the element Fluorine.

One reason for the lack of a flourine pic is the fact you cannot store it in a clear glass container - flourine will eat a hole right through it. Joeylawn

86.139.168.138 09:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149, DrBob and 152.1.193.xx. Elementbox converted 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:21, 18 Jun 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Fluorine. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed in Fluorine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

Talk

---

Fluorinated carbons are very potent greenhouse gases, much more potent than a similar amount of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide and methane are far more prevalent in the atmosphere. However, the global warming impact of fluorinated carbons is increasing.

Jsdday (talk)jsdday —Preceding comment was added at 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The "dangerous toxin" part is not at all appropriate. In a very real sense everything in the human body can be toxic in excess. The "dangerous" part for fluoride is in dispute due to the low concentrations used in dental health care products and in municipal drinking supplies. Therefore it is not at all appropriate to state, as fact, that it is a dangerous toxin. This is missleading. --mav

There is no known evidence fluorine existItalic text. This is well documented by Fluoride researchers. Currently no government has valid research to support the notion that Fluoride protects against dental cavities, I have viewed the dental records of every 11 to 12 year old in Auckland NZ in 1996 and found that those who lived in fluoridated areas had actually more caries than the non fluoridated areas. I have also viewed government documents that show the Australian and NZ governments know the dangers of Fluoride but for some reason chose to ignore it. Many mayors of local councils have been confronted over this issue and some have voted to have Fluoride banned but where combined water reticulation exists only one council needs to say yes to Fluoride to have the entire water system fluoridated as is the case in Auckland New Zealand. In Melbourne Australia the level of Fluoride was decreased from 1ppm to 0.7ppm as it was found to be toxic, in fact a level of 0.1ppm is ten times more toxic if in the presence of Alum which is used to make water clear. Most people believe that Fluoride is good for their teeth but the truth is published on the net for all to see but most people will never see what I have seen as this information can't be obtained under the freedom of information act but can be obtained by someone who works in parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.237.107 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with stating:

"The fluorine ion fluoride is used in dental health care products and as a controversial additive to some drinking water supplies."

Is it not used in dental health care products? Is it not a controversial additive to some drinking water supplies? --mav

Clutch, there is no reason to delete intros to compound articles here. Introducing all things about an element is provided as part of the framework of this WikiProject. --mav

I don't see a problem with the current version's "The fluorine ion fluoride is used in dental health care products and, controversially, as an additive to some drinking water supplies." Seems a good summary. -- Tarquin 23:42 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

It is not ethical to leave the article in a state that would lead people who don't bother to click the fluoride link into believing that fluoride is harmless to their health. --Clutch 00:05 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

What? The article mentions that fluorides are used used for rat poison and that its use in water supplies is controversial. Whether or not this low concentration use is in fact harmful is a matter of great controversy. --mav

The use of fluoride as a ratpoison is neither controversial, nor is it suitable for the lead paragraph of an article on fluorine. Likewise, neither is any quack medical use of fluoride appropriate for the lead paragraph on fluorine. --Clutch 00:40 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

It is a very major use of this element. And fluoride compounds, not the ion itself, is added to water supplies in order to get fluoride ion to where authorities think it should go. The "quack" statement isn't appropriate here since fluoridation is perscribed by respected government agencies and the majority opinion on its use is still favors the idea that its medicinal effects outweigh deleterious ones. The word "quack" is reserved for fringe thinking. --mav

Two people have so far stated that there is nothing wrong with the wording. Clutch's only response is to call his critics "quacks" and "people without conscience". This is hardly persuasive and only tends to discredit anything Clutch says. --mav

Clutch's lack of understanding of chemistry is showing as sodium fluoride is obviously a compound. --rmhermen, a chemist and one who has worked on flouride analysis for public water systems

Note, nowhere did I refer to sodium fluoride. --Clutch 01:16 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Clutch, stop making personal attacks on Mav, and lying about him being a vandal. That's insane. Between your hateful remarks on Jews, your paraboid comments in regards to fluoride, and your egregiously paranoid and slanderous comments on all social workers, I am seriously beginning to wonder if you suffer from sort of organic problem. Seriously. You need to seriously think about whether your presence here is good for your mental health.

RK-the above reference to mental health was a personal attack.

---

fluorine != the fluoride ion, Clutch.

fluorine is not the same as the fluoride ion! fluorine is the element, whilst the fluoride ion is what is most commonly used in toothpaste, in the form of compounds such as sodium fluoride. - User:Mark Ryan

Well from what I remember of Chemistry (and it's been quite awhile) ions don't always act the same as their corresponding elements. I think that's what the person meant? mav? anyone? --KQ

Actually, no, I can answer that myself. Chlorine is highly carcinogenic. Sodium Chloride (salt) is not. So Clutch might want to consider the fluorine/fluroide thing in the same light. --KQ

The ionized form is much more reactive. --mav

Not to mention completely different chemically! Chlorine is completely different to sodium chloride. Just because a compound contains atoms of a particular element, doesn't mean is has similar chemical properties! Compare sodium metal (highly reactive) and sodium chloride (table salt). Don't forget that you can't regularly get an ion on its own. A fluoride ion doesn't come on its own - it must be sodium fluoride, calcium flouride etc. - cations and anions - User:Mark Ryan

Um, that they would be different chemically was my point.  :-) The chlorine/NaCl example was my counterexample to Clutch's belief. --KQ

---

Stopping the edit war by temporarily protecting the page. All further discussion should be directed to the mailing list. --mav

Removed sentence:
The fluorine ion fluoride is used in dental health care products and, controversially, as an additive to some drinking water supplies.

Since Clutch has a problem with this sentence I have removed it for now in order to stop the edit war. I'm unprotecting the page now. --mav

---

Fluoride is added to drinking water. So what? There is a known acceptable amount of fluoride which is healthy for protecting teeth against decay (god, I sound like a Colgate ad). Studies have shown that children brought up in cities where fluoride is added to tap water have better dental health than those children bought up on farms drinking rainwater. Sure, it's probably hamful to your health in large quantities, but that's the point. The concentrations in tap water are quite small. The addition of fluoride ions to tap water is neither controversial nor unpopular here in Australia. - User:Mark Ryan

The good citizenry of the city of Redding, California voted in the latest elections only a month ago to ban the additon of fluoride to the water of their city because it "hasn't been proven to work, and is a poison." In the 1950s, fluoride was controversial because it was said to be a Communist plot to poison good Americans. -- Zoe

Have you been to Redding? It's not exactly high IQ or science aware central. Sorry, I couldn't resist. --mav

The discussion seems to be missing a key point about the controversy regarding flouride in water supplies. Whatever the medical arguments may be, for many people, the core of the problem is that you are medicating people without their permission. And it's not just one or 2 people under extreme circumstances but whole populations. That's why it has been discredited in many places such as The Netherlands. --da.brickbat

---

This edit war has made me curious. I've just done some reading on fluoride. Okay, maybe it could be dangerous, but it's not used as a rat poison. [2] says it straight out:

Is fluoride used as a rat poison? No. Although fluoride in extremely high doses was used as a rat poison before the first World War, it did not work very well

But that's just one little voice in the crowd of hysterical anti-fluoride websites. Rather more convincing is the fact that an extensive discussion on the range of baits available ([3]) doesn't mention it. It's not surprising when you consider the toxicity - 52mg/kg for NaF, compared to 0.27 mg/kg for Brodifacoum (used in "Talon"). In other words, you'd need 200 times as much bait to kill a rat, compared to modern rodenticides. Toxicity data for NaF came from [4] -- Tim Starling

Please change the article accordingly. --mav

I have removed mention of the effectiveness as a rat poison. I have also changed "has been used" to "was used". Are we sure it was in the past, though, and it is not still being used? - Mark Ryan

Good job, Tim. - Mark Ryan

Note that it is used for cockroach poison, see for example [5]. -- Tim Starling

---

Clutch, were you by any chance abused as a child by a social worker named Fluorine?

---

Fluorides are compounds that combine this fluoride ion with some positively charged radical. That is not correct. E.g. Sulfurhexafluoride SF6 does not contain ions nor radicals. Somebody please change it. Malbi

Be bold! Get in there and make some good edits :) Dysprosia 13:02, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was reluctant to think of a wording of my own. ;-) Malbi 20:47, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fluoride means the negative ion of fluorine, F-. Sulfurhexafluoride is not a real fluoride, as it does not contain fluoride ions. However, it shoyuld be ion not radical) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F2Andy (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed text - the only gaseous Uranium salt - describing uranium hexaflouride, I think I can see what that's trying to say but it's not clear what it means, and the naive interpretation (that it's a gas at STP) is just plain wrong. The article on "hex" needs some similar work. Andrewa 00:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel that this page could do with some tidying up.

1. I think it makes more sense to have the history and preparation before the applications and compounds.

Suggested order:

• Notable characteristics
• History
• Preparation and manufacture of elemental fluorine
• Safety
• Applications of elemental fluorine
• Fluorine compounds

Inorganic

Organic

• Applications of fluorine compounds

2. Most of the applications are really application of the compounds, not fluorine itself, and so should be listed after the compounds section. The list reads like anybody who uses fluorine compounds ho passes by has added their bit (I guess two people came by interested in Teflon as it appears twice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by F2Andy (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

fluoridated water/fluoridated everything

Look, the fluoridation of water supplies, dental prods., etc., may seem fine to some, but I'd love to see the data one poster mentioned, showing that children drinking fluoridated water, had stronger teeth. And, even IF that were the case, has anyone ever asked themselves -- "What about the remaining bones in our bodies? Wouldn't fluoride effect them, as well?" But, that's an issue for another time. For now, I only submit the following:

I'm going back forty years, when our water supply was about to be tainted with fluoride. For those of you who weren't around then, concerned mothers actually protested against it! Yes, many of them read the labels on those old containers of rat poison, perhaps, still in the pantry! So, knock Mommy for not having properly disposed of that stuff, long before, but don't suggest that any unbiased studies have shown either: a) a plus for teeth; or, b) a safe solution!

If facts are to be used, then use them! But, don't buy into what the ADA tells you, for instance. They are paid into existence by dentists; dentists like to work on cavities. Follow the money!

Well, then you also shouldn't believe what the ADA tells you about flossing and brushing, either, since they certainly wouldn't be pushing cavity prevention if they were following the money, and thus it follows that flossing and brushing actually CAUSE cavities. But this view of the world is so perverse and paranoid that most of us shrugg it off as mad ravings. I know I do. And I'm not even a dentist. But I do admire dentistry for being (on the whole) more prevention-oriented than medicine. Good for them. SBHarris 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's follow that money, shall we? When the "story" of fluoride as a useful dental hygiene tool came about, it was also during a time when BIG Aluminum manufacture/processing (who may have even had HUGE government contracts at the time!) needed a place to dump a waste product, which was known to be highly toxic! Now, environmental issues were beginning to take center stage, at this time, and BIG Aluminum didn't want the added cost of disposing of that toxin, a major part of which was --you guessed it-- fluoride!

So, the great call went out, "Help us find a place for this poison?" Lo and behold! The dentistry community had some interesting data, from a study they'd done -- one which looked at entire regions where dental decay was non-existent among the population.

One might ask why dentists would even care, but common sense would suggest that these same areas rarely needed a dentist! So, as in any ad campaign strategy, a good salesperson might look for those venues where his product isn't sold, and try to fix that.

But, back to the study...in which a small Texas town was noted to have no cavities, for many generations! And, medical investigators, having been sent to find the reason, concluded that the drinking water of this town, being from a natural mineral spring, was the key.

That most likely being of some relevance, the study failed to go any further, as it should have done. For, as the list of minerals in that water did, indeed, include fluorides, (or, fluorines? -- correct me, you chemists!) there were other trace minerals, as well. Then too, the town consisted of a much inter-related bunch of folks, so the genetic makeup may well have played a part in the dental anomaly being studied.

Aside from the common sense, and the unfinished study, this skewed data presented an interesting solution (pun intended) to the BIG Aluminum problem -- sell the toxin to local water suppliers, to save the children's teeth! Then too, dentists could use the fluoride in office...and toothpaste manufacturers could add it to their product, as well! Not only does that save BIG Aluminum the growing cost of "disposal," but, now even pays the industry to take the toxin off their hands! (Do you pay to have your trash removed? What if the disposal co. paid YOU for it?) And, the local water suppliers can raise the fee to the customer, as well, because of the added cost for the fluoride!

Thus, in every newly fluoridated community, people began to pay for their own poisoning. And, BIG Aluminum has since found many alternative ways to use (dump) that toxin, as well. Teflon, for instance...and the various polymers which are being used more and more, for underground cabling, for instance, and various materials which require strong, wear-resistent sheathing. So, BIG Aluminum was thinking...just in case someone finds the real health issues surrounding fluoridation, and reverses the water boom they've enjoyed, for decades!

Is Aluminum the real culprit here? Not at all! The actual culprits are the medical community, and the government agencies, whose main job is to protect the health and welfare of the public, yet turned a blind-eye...perhaps, even sold out, in order to aid a huge industry, with which it had contractual agreements!

Before any of you again site articles, or note studies, I ask you to also research the deaths from accidental over-dumps of fluoride, which occurred at the water supplier! I ask you to look at the label on your fluoridated toothpaste, and tell me why the warning is there? Again, death has occurred, when young children have so enjoyed the flavoring, that they've ingested too much fluoridated toothpaste than their small bodies could handle! Once more, I ask that you research how fluoride was used to numb the prisoners, being held in Nazi concentration camps, by Adolph Hitler.

I'm not surprised that these issues are harder to research, and less likely to be at the top of any listing. After all, news of a death here and there hardly weighs against the huge pockets of a myriad of now global industries, the public trust given the medical community, at large, and the not-so-candid governments, whose agencies horribly failed their constituency!

Apologies for time constraints, but will list a few articles to get you started...IF you're really interested in the unbiased truth!

http://www.oldworldaviaries.com/text/styles/teflon.html

http://www.nofluoride.com/

http://www.mercola.com/2003/sep/10/water_fluoridation.htm

Above comment added on 2005 July 20 by 216.68.31.194

The above comment is nonsense. According to [6], the US imported 590,000 tonnes of fluorspar in 2005, most of it went to making HF and Aluminum Fluoride. IF fluorine is a waste product, then why does the U.S. import it? pstudier 02:41, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Maybe we started needing more after they started putting it in the water? Just guessing, don't quote me. 208.53.123.204 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read your link, Pstudier? "40,000 tons of fluorosilic acid was recovered from phosphoric acid plants ... fluorosilic acid was used primarily in water fluoridation". Perhaps fluorosilic acid is less cost-effective in industry, as its not as pure, so it is used in water instead. II | (t - c) 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just passing through, not a chemist, like to read the comment pages. Whether fluoridation is good, bad or indifferent is of NO MEANING here. Encyclopedic writing means stating the facts. If there is a page for fluoridation controversy, then that discussion belongs there. This is a chemistry article, not a social page. "Fluoridation exists" We are done. Jjdon (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Color

I am confused about the way the color of the element is stated. The first paragraph says Fluorine is a yellow-green gas, then goes on to say pure Fluorine is pale yellow. Chlorine is yellow-green...

Fluorine is VERY hard to display, because it will eat glass. The picture on this article might have some florine in it, but chances are there are more Silicon Floride molecules attached to the glass. Fluorine does not eat glass, certainly at ambient conditions and when diluted to 50% or below, the reaction with glass "etching" is due to the presence of hydrogen fluoride. Flourine is actually a brownish color... See this picture

I think there is something wrong with the picture, maybe the lighting or the way the picture was taken. Fluorine is pale yellow.

Depends on how much of it the light passes through. It's like yellow food coloring: it looks orange-red in the bottle, but when diluted or smeared on a surface, it looks yellow. I will change the color above the picture to yellowish brown, becuase yellow-green is wrong.--24.16.148.75 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the colour in the first paragraph from yellow green to yellowish brown to match other instances where the colour is mentioned in the article. Thaurisil^t_c 07:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK but it depends on what state your looking at, liquid F₂ Looked orange to me, you need to use something like single crystal saphire tubes to be able to see it in the liquid state and hold the pressure, even at very low tempature it has significant vapor pressure, the other question I would ask is what color is silicon floride? colorless! It depends on concentration, pressure, tempature and so on. Also extremely dry Fluorine, scrubed free of HF doesn not eat glass as fast as one might think98.112.11.160 (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Franz

Rhodium

An interesting sidelight, Rhodium does not react with Fluorine, but will with Chlorine and Oxygen, etc. Very odd as Fluorine forms compounds with most of the other elements.

Rhodium fluorides do in fact exist but can only be produced under the extremely forcing conditions of a pure fluorine atmosphere. Both RhF₃ and RhF₅ have been synthesised in this way by Bartlett et al Inorganic Chemistry (1973) 12, 2640-2644

--CharlieBoy 10:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Argon

A mention of Argon FluoroHydride might be an interesting addition to the article as it is the only known compound of Argon made, even though only stable at cryogenic temperatures only.

Elemental occurrence in nature

Regret I cannot trace the exact reference but I recall from ca. 1980 a textbook commenting that elemental fluorine does in fact turn up on Earth in native form in some fluorspar minerals due to the α-decay of the thorium included with it at formation (presumably we are seeing ThF₄ -> RaF₂ + F₂ + He, the hoped-for RaF₄ not existing even though RnF₄ probably does, as with Xe). Fortunately (according to the textbook concerned), it decomposes atmospheric water vapour before it reaches human noses, leaving behind only the smell of ozone as its signature, benign at the concentrations involved. Dajwilkinson 00:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

why?

i wan to know who discovered it and when?

F-F use

55% for UF6 40% for SF6

Büchner Schliebs Winter Büchel Industrial Organic Chemistry VCH Weinheim 1989.Stone 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to know where does floride come from?

Nealy all of the fuoride is mined as CaF₂

Preparation

"Elemental fluorine is prepared industrially by Moissan's original process: electrolysis of anhydrous HF in which KHF2 has been dissolved to provide enough ions for conduction to take place."

=> I can't make sense of this method of preparation. Who can write the full reaction for me, please? Causesobad --> Talk) 15:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

2H⁺ + 2e^- -> H₂

2F^- -> 2e^- + F₂

Simple electrolysis like that of the production of chlorine, but like aluminium or fluorine electrolysis is not as simple. HF simply does not dissoziate in a big enough numer to have a current flowing in liquide HF, therfor KF is added to get a liquid which is ionic enough for electrolysis. --Stone 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have limited experence contributing to Wiki, so if I did not fallow the rules some how, I'm sorry I'm learning, but I added some detail to this section concerning the story of it's chemical synthesis. I obtained this information directly from Dr. Karl Christe, over several years of working in his lab, and asking him about the story, seeing the talk he actually gave and so on. Also I clearified some other parts that I felt did not realy depicte the process98.112.11.160 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"Franz"

Applications

The applications section could do with a bit of a clean-up. Many of the "chemical uses" seems more like engineering uses, electronics uses, etc. Just because chemistry is required to make the fluorine compound does not mean they are "chemical uses". In my opinion, chemical uses should only include examples where it is used as a chemical! • TheBendster (talk) 20 September 2007, 14:34 (UTC)

I agree, I am going to start removing organofluorine content. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Istope Metals

I was wondering if a metal can become normal after it becomes an istope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.80.140 (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This question is meaningless. Metals (as do all elements) appear in several varieties--these are isotopes. Hydrogen, for instance, has three: Hydrogen-1, with a proton and no neutrons (by far the most common); hydrogen-2, with a proton and one neutron (used in heavy water); and hydrogen-3, with a proton and two neutons (it's radioactive). So metals don't become isotopes, and they can't really become "normal" afterwards. There is no normal.

There are certain types of radioactive decay in which an atom can change from one isotope of a given element to another, I believe, though.

If you weren't talking about isotopes, but about something else, this doesn't help you one bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.247.39 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Basicity of Fluoride

Hydrogen fluoride is a weak acid when dissolved in water. Consequently, fluorides of alkali metals produce basic solutions. A 1M solution (at RT) of NaF in water has a pH of 8.59 (using pKa of HF = 3.12[7]) to a 1M solution of NaOH has a pH of 14.00 (K = infinity) Mandor (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

costs

how much does fluorine cost by tthe kilogram? 74.214.10.45 (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Depends on location, amount, purity, and date (before or after the world economic collapse?). These things vary so wildly for every element,that we don't usually bother to even approximately quantify prices in these articles. SBHarris 03:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate organofluorine content (pharmaceuticals and fluorocarbons) under Uses section

The position described above in applications, and my opinion are identical: "the applications section could do with a bit of a clean-up. Many of the "chemical uses" seems more like engineering uses, electronics uses, etc. Just because chemistry is required to make the fluorine compound does not mean they are "chemical uses". In my opinion, chemical uses should only include examples where it is used as a chemical!" Please note that uses under the chlorine page are vastly weighted towards chlorine itself. Please also note that the chlorine page is locked (probably from higher quality). I favor sharply reducing/eliminating the organofluorine content from the uses section to improve the quality of the article. I made edits to remove this content, but they were reinstated, without any discussion in the Applications section above, where I also commented. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. What we really want is "industrial" applications, not chemical applications. The chemistry should be discussed in a "chemistry" section. Which did exist but was misnamed. See if you like the headers better, now. SBHarris 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better as a temporary measure, but the headers were not my main point. I still think the bulk of the uses are heavily weighted towards organofluorines inappropriately, and it will lead to edits such as the one I am about to do, which I think clutter the page, and distract the reader from the uses of fluorine itself. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I could insert other things, such as how wonderful a surfactant PFOS is, and how wonderfully toxic perfluoroisobutylene is, but I haven't. You don't see the same problem I do? That the page is too heavily weighted to organofluorines instead of fluorine itself? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, take a look at how the other element articles are done-- say nitrogen. We could have chosen to make them entirely about the free element, but instead these articles also include surveys of all the uses and roles of the element and its compounds in nature and technology. I wouldn't object if you split off a section explicitly on uses of elemental fluorine, as has been done in most of the other element articles, of course. And there probably should be a mention of PFOS in the fluorine article, given how widespread its use is, and how much of a problem it's getting to be. I've sprayed it on many a boot, and wonder now how much I breathed, and if it matters. SBHarris 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think a split for a section explicitly on the uses of elemental fluorine is what is needed. Btw, I mentioned PFOS at the bottom of the article under safety of organofluorine compounds. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC) -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Electronegativity image

I removed and questioned the relevance (understanding it adds) of a picture of a F with 9 dots (electrons) around it. While I am not 100% adverse to its presence, I think this article would be much much better served with a 3D looking image that shows the high electronegativity of fluorine. IMHO, that would really add understanding (for consequences of reactivity and on the properties of fluorocarbons in reducing polarizability.) -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Biological section

Because F₂ is so reactive, it shouldn't have a biological role (unless we look up some chemical warfare info or occupational information about exposure). because of this, and because the section has languished for so long (thanks to Stone for adding content but I have now moved that content to organofluorine), i am going to remove the section. the dental stuff is for floride not fluorine. additionally, there are many edits on this talk page that discuss the bias this article has towards organofluorine compounds. it looks like an advertisement for pharmaceutical companies to me. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• So what did you do with this information you deleted? There was no consensus for that. When we say "fluorine" or any other element, we don't mean just the free element-- we include the element as all of its compounds. The "nitrogen cycle" in nature (for example) isn't just about elemental nitrogen. Magnesium metal has no role in biology, but you'll see extensive discussion of the role of magnesium in biology in both the magnesium article and subarticle. Likewise the roles of sodium and potassium in biology. So stop this. The consensus was to isolate elemental sections from the others, not get rid of everything in the article that wasn't about elemental flourine. SBHarris 01:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, you are misleading. the consensus you are referring to is regarding uses and applications. that section does not equal the biological role section. the referenced content on the biological role of organofluorines is at that page. for the dental uses of the fluoride anion look here. I thanked the author for his contributions and it would be nice to see what he thinks. for the bigger issue: you don't think fluorine reads like an ad for pharma after reading the organofluorine page? to be very frank, fluorine is a neutral gas, not a monoatomic anion or an organofluorine. check out the higher quality chlorine article for my inspiration. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Most of the uses given are not pharm uses, and there's a note that the pharm uses are a prime causes of organofluorine buildup in wastewater (which they are). As such, these are all notable. If you go to a hospital, it would be rare for you to escape without being administered some fluororganic, from your anesthetic to your antibiotic.

As to the role of flourine in biology, we don't know what it is, except that Mertz's fluoride-deprived rats were scruffy, puny, and ill. All this is prevented by levels of fluoride far below those added to water supplies for dental reasons. THAT role is almost certainly not meditated via a fluoro-organics (no F-C bonds)l; it's a direct strengthening action of F- on hydroxyappetite salts in enamel. There's now no place in the article where somebody who wants to know about fluorine and biology can find anything. Don't move stuff without links to show where you put it. Organofluorine is not only a non-obvious place for biology, but in the case of teeth it is wrong, and in the case of the rest of biology, nobody KNOWS whether it is right or wrong.

By the way, Chlorine is a rather poor template to use for elements and biology, since nobody has added anything to chlorine (or even much to chloride) to show that they have any roles in biology. It's simply a gap. But I've pointed out the articles on Carbon, Nitrogen, Sodium and so on, that make far better templates for chemical elements and biology. SBHarris 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ok i'm going to let this one cool down i'll be back later. however, please note that i discuss how important fluorine is for pharmaceuticals at the organofluorine page. also, please look at the talk page to trifluoromethyl. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Sbharris is right. The convention followed by all the element articles (that I remember) is to include a section on the biological role (if known), although generally this role involves compounds of the element and not the free element. Same for the uses; in addition to the uses of the free element, we tend to give an overview of the uses of its compounds. The relative weight given to free element vs compound in the uses section can vary from element to element; for example, oxygen focuses largely on uses of the free element, while phosphorus focuses largely on the uses of compounds such as phosphates. IMHO, fluorine should devote substantial attention to the uses of compounds, because otherwise there is practically only one use left: making fluorides. But the reader should see why one would want to make fluorides in the first place, and that needs a discussion of the use of the fluorides themselves. Even if elemental fluorine is not used for making certain fluorides, they can still be included for the same reason as the biological role of compounds. --Itub (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I put the biological role back but left the other edits untouched. Will have a look later!--Stone (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

i renamed it to show that it is compounds. i am about to reword and reinstate the enzyme. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Fluorine also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bio role of fluoride

• Out of curiosity, what are "Mertz' fluoride-deprived rats"? II | (t - c) 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ANSWER: Excuse if I had fluoride confused with the other ultratrace minerals identified in Walter Mertz' rat isolation-chamber experiments at the Long Beach V.A. These were done with ultrapure food elements (like purified amino acids and glucose) and dust filters, and they identified chromium, tin, nickel, vanadium and silicon as needed ultratrace minerals. Selenium had earlier been identified as essential by Schwarz-- perhaps in Mertz' lab. As for the identification of a need for flouride in animal growth, this may be Nielsen's work (see review below). I remember only the photos of very poor-looking rats, which normalized completely when the rats were exposed merely to normal dusty air (all these minerals, including fluoride, are needed in amount far too small to require supplementation-- so this has nothing to do with the water fluoridation issue). Here are some review refs:

1. Proc Nutr Soc. 1974 Dec;33(3):307-13. The newer essential trace elements, chromium, tin, nickel, vanadium and silicon. Mertz W. PMID 4617884

2. Am J Clin Nutr. 1974 May;27(5):515-20. Are nickel, vanadium, silicon, fluorine, and tin essential for man? A review. Nielsen FH, Sandstead HH. PMID 4596029

3. J Nutr. 1996 Sep;126(9 Suppl):2377S-2385S. How should dietary guidance be given for mineral elements with beneficial actions or suspected of being essential? Nielsen FH. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, North Dakota 58202, USA.

The term ultratrace elements, often used to indicate elements with an established, estimated or suspected requirement generally indicated by microgram/, could be applied to at least 20 elements. The quality of experimental evidence for nutritional essentiality varies widely for the ultratrace elements. Thus, although differing dietary guidance is appropriate for these elements, most need increased attention in future editions of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for the following reasons: (1) Increased interest in these elements by the public has been stimulated by the mass media; thus, responsible information about the usefulness of the ultratrace elements for health and well being is needed. (2) Risk assessments and toxicological standards are influenced by the RDAs. Authorative advice is required to prevent standards that obstruct the achievement of beneficial intakes of ultratrace elements. (3) An emerging new paradigm is that the determination of nutritional requirements should include consideration of the total health effects of nutrients, not just their roles in preventing deficiency pathology; some of the ultratrace elements have identified health benefits. Six ultratrace elements, iodine, selenium, manganese, molybdenum, chromium and boron (and cobalt as vitamin B12), merit specific RDAs. The term "estimated safe and adequate daily dietary intakes (ESADDI)" should not be used for any of the other ultratrace elements because of the misleading words "adequate" and "safe". "Apparent beneficial intake (ABI)" seems more appropriate for the elements with beneficial, if not essential, actions that can be extrapolated from animals to humans; these elements include arsenic, fluoride, lithium, nickel, silicon and vanadium. The evidence is too limited or controversial for the remaining ultratrace elements to even provide an ambiguous ABI. The amount found in a healthful diet probably should be a value provided for an appropriate intake for aluminum, bromide, cadmium, germanium, lead, rubidium, and tin. PMID 8811801

SBHarris 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Note how old that Nielsen paper is -- today, the idea that fluorine is an essential trace mineral is not regarded as proven (WHO draft document). That WHO paper cites the Institute of Medicine 2003, but that book they're citing is only on the website for 1997. It also cites a couple other sources. But the WHO document says it should not be cited. Incidentally, I agree with you that this article should briefly discuss fluorine in biology. It looks about right at the moment. II | (t - c) 06:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Fluorine also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead revised Nov 28

I revised the 2nd paragraph to highlight the impact of fluorination on the properties of a breadth of compounds. Previously this paragraph focused on C-F containing species, so I extended the discussion to other elements as well as to the pharma area. Comments welcome, of course.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

good job in taking the focus off of c-f containing compounds. i tweaked it so take a look. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Pharmaceuticals

Instead of listing pharmaceuticals, the article should provide context, and mention, IMHO, three to five drugs at most. The organofluorine compounds page says "the carbon–fluorine bond increases the probability of having a successful drug by about a factor of ten.[4] An estimated one fifth of pharmaceuticals, and 30-40 percent of agrichemicals are organofluorines, including several of the top drugs.[4]" Also, IMHO, providing lists without context is a form of punishment to readers. This concept is established on the Talk:Trifluoromethyl page. I propose that this article should follow that lead and eliminate the bulk of drugs listed without context. Comments? Any favorites that people can not live without mentioning? -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the dental and medical uses section? I don' think it's excessive at all; largely it lifts classes of fluorinated chemicals. The SSRIs section could be trimmed by just noting the exception, but in general I think it is encyclopedic to note the major classes of medical/dental chemicals which are fluorinated. II | (t - c) 05:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that mentioning major specific drugs is good and might even be expanded. Most readers are not really interested in F₂, is my guess, but in F-containing things. In general, mentioning specific examples enliven generalities. But all of these sprawling articles are helped by periodic copy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. You both raise some good issues. However, fluorine's incorporation into drugs is more of a gamble, than a coherent example that provides a meaningful case study in pharmacology, as this source shows: "Fluorinated groups are isosteres of many common substituents, and fluorine can play various roles in affecting activity. "Every time you see a biologically active molecule that has fluorine in it, it could be in there for a different reason.""[8] So, IMHO, it is not encyclopedic to provide an overview in structural pharmacological classes (especially when I guess that people come to this page because fluorine is on the periodic table.) Just the mere mention that fluorine is pervasive in drugs implies inclusion in a broad range of pharmacological classes, and if the reader wants to learn more about those distinctions, IMHO, think they should look elsewhere. (And yes, the listing in the SSRIs section is what tipped me over the edge.) Comments concerns?

All drugs, natural or otherwise, are "gambles." And I suspect that, as you say, "fluorine can play various roles in affecting activity." (as if activity is one function). All substituents in all bioactive compounds are gambles - some make money, some dont, some make people healthy in the short run, some dont, some are lead to chronic problems, .... The aspect of the fluorine that has been awkward or at least time consuming within Wikipedia is the that fluorine (and especially fluoride - see NaF) particularly alarms segments of the population. One could imagine that people would collectively be worried about other elements (like arsenic), but fluorine is the champion whipping boy of the periodic table within Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lethal dose

Fluoride ions are toxic: the lethal dose of sodium fluoride for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g.[17]

From Fluoride_poisoning

Potentially fatal dose = 5 mg of fluoride per kg of bodyweight.

5mg * 70 = 350mg so why 5-10 g? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.62.213 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the reference for that "potentially fatal dose" to see exactly what they mean. It looks like a number taken out of context by anti-fluoridation activists. It's not the same to say "it will probably kill you", which I think is true of the 5-10 g figure, than saying "it may have arguably killed someone once". "Real" numbers for lethal doses need to include a probability (something that is much better estimated for test animals such as rats than for humans for obvious reasons). --Itub (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Half life of fluorine in the body?

How does the body get rid of fluorine / fluoride? How does fluorine leave the body? How long does it take? Where does fluorine reside in the body? Does it get into the bone? Does fluorine inhibit growth? Just really curious :)Nunamiut (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many kinds of fluorine compounds. Fluoride, the anion that seems to drive people into fits of "conspiracitis," is highly soluble in water and is eliminated as are virtually all species, in urine. The key question is how fluoride and fluorine compounds are retained and what they do while in residence. Some of these biomedical themes are discussed very carefully in water fluoridation. A large number of pharmaceuticals contain fluorine (e.g. paxil, prozac, cipro) and you can check those articles. For the most part the associated C-F bonds are inert so it just comes along for the ride. Wikipedia would strongly welcome some general reference to the half-life of various fluorine compounds in the body. Just steer clear of the rabid antifluoridation literature which is guided by preordained conclusions. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Lock?

Is there an edit lock on this page? I know I'm editing anonymously, but I've never been locked out of editing unless there was a bit on top about a temporary lock... If there is a lock, maybe someone with admin-type privileges could post a bit at the top to that effect? If it's because this IP edited without signing in a few times, then nevermind. Ignore me. 199.99.251.85 (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Disregard that comment entirely. I didn't see the padlock. Why is there sometimes a large notice, and other times just the little padlock?

199.99.251.85 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugliness one presumes. It's of little interest (or relevance) to most readers that an article is persistently vandalised, so adding a large, ugly tag is unnecessary. Articles are sometimes locked because of genuine (or plausible) content issues, but reading this article's history, this isn't one of them. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)