Chemicals Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

pyrethrin as a weapon/snopes not a reliable reference

Is snopes really not a reliable source? Given that their raison d'être is dealing with controversy, they usually go to considerable length to check their facts lest they risk their reputation as a good place to go when you suspect something might be a myth. I've done a brief search, and can't find anything detailing snopes as a non-reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.48.95 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single source on the site that gives information past that page. It is just words on a page, which can say anything that anyone wants. WP:Verify requires a bit more than that. If you can't chase a subject back further than the original page and there is no research being discussed on the page, then it appears to be conjecture.JSR (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. You're right - there's no reference link to the quoted article or even the title of where it came from. I'm not about to film myself being sprayed in the face with pyrethrin, although common sense + the paragraph below about toxic effects on humans should suggest that the snopes article is probably true! I'll see if I can dig up the original source of the quoted attack on Amish.

misleading statement

Untitled

This statement is very misleading, "The study indicated that mothers of autistic children were twice as likely to have washed a pet dog with a flea shampoo containing pyrethrin while they were pregnant." The study goes on to say the validity of the study could be biased based off the fact that the figures used were self-reported and retro-active. Reference: http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/scientificmeetings/imfar_2008_abstract_autism_risk_household_pesticide.php

The statement should be ammended so it doesn't give the overwhelming impression that autism and pyrethrin use has been proven.

67.128.135.54 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How it works

There is little information here on how pyrethrin works, does it attack nerves in the body or does it attack brain receptors? Which ones, etc. I am unable to locate this data anywhere online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.76.182 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralizer

Is there any known neutralizer to destroy pyrethrin stopping it's effects?

71.112.195.162 (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the difference

The summary says that the two pyrethrins differ in the oxidation state of a single carbon atom. Yet according to the diagrams, they also differ in the number of carbon atoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.94.153 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation?

I am a bit concerned that some of the text in this article may violate copyright laws. Specifically, some of the article is an exact quotation of parts of this article... http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/pyrethrins-ext.html

Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.201.14 (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After carefully reading both articles, I found exactly ONE very small, three-sentence paragraph that was indeed copied word-for-word. Nothing else seems to be plagiarized from the source you listed, or is well paraphrased and properly cited with other sources. This article neither meets the criteria for speedy deletion, nor was there a reasonable justification to blank the whole page. In this case, with such a small portion in violation, you generally just want to delete the infringing content and go on with your day, and then perhaps properly re-write and cite the information from another source (of which there are very, very many). Drake144 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the history and the infringing edit was: 00:28, 9 May 2009 Argeaux2 (talk | contribs) (6,654 bytes)

Drake144 (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you Drake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity assessment

Nanograms or milligrams? I have a problem with this: 'Children who were more highly exposed in personal air samples (≥4.34 ng/m3) scored 3.9 points lower on the Mental Developmental Index than those with lower exposures.' I think it's a typing error and it should be mg instead of ng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.133.188 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Disinsection (layman: aircraft insecticide fumigation)

It should be mentioned in this article that this chemical is the primary one used for aircraft disinsection and that material health concerns wrt this usage have been identified as far back as 1996.

http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr96-3.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.158.45 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]