Talk:Arsenic toxicity

Arsenic has a protective role?? Against what??
This is stated and referenced, both here, and in the arsenic article. It's not enough. While it may be true, it's just to odd to include without a mechanism and some specifics, and also a page number from the book. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. S B Harris 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Question some statements in this
The statement that inorganic arsenic is the most toxic appears to be contradicted by other papers referenced by an EPA document. These references are listed below. If that is the case, then methylation as a pathway for detoxification is definitely questionable (hence the request for such a reference in the article is appropriate).

Le, X. C., Lu, X., Ma, M., Cullen, W. R., Aposhian, H. V., and Zheng, B., (2000). Speciation of key arsenic metabolic intermediates in human urine. Anal. Chem., 72: 5172-5177. 8) Aposhian, H.V., Gurzau, E.S., Le, X. C., Gurzau, A., Healy, S. M., Lu, X., Ma, M.,Yip, L., Zakharyan, R., Maiorino, R. M., Dart, R., Tirus, M. G., Gonzalez-Ramir ez, D., Morgan, D.L., Avram, D., and Aposhian, M. M., (2000). Occurrence of monomethylarson ous acid in urine of humans exposed to inorganic arsenic. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 13: 693-697. 9) Del Razo, L. M., Styblo, M., and Thomas , D. J., (2000). Presented at the 4 th International Confer ence on Arsenic Exposure and Health Effects, San Dieg o, CA, June 18-22, Abstract p 75.

AWS15 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This page needs updating
This detailed information cites references primarily from 2000-2009, and in this fast-moving field where >1,000 scientific papers are published annually with "arsenic" in the title (based on PubMed searches), the information is outdated. Much of this information may still be correct but should not be assumed to be. Also, citations in the text don't always coincide with the correct reference. For example, citation 6 lists a reference that does not discuss health effects.

Sciwriter23 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By Wikipedia Chemistry standards is not bad, thank you very much. This encyclopedia makes no pretense of being newsy or cutting edge.  In fields "where >1,000 scientific papers are published annually" the main chore is keeping the obscure, bloggy, and narrow stuff out so that readers do not come away with an unbalanced viewpoint.  If you are willing to help, you could start by replacing specialized references with more general reviews, perhaps from the past five years.  Wikipedia desperately needs experts who are willing to supply general information, without conflict of interest. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)