Talk:Cobalt poisoning

Merge discussion
Cobalt poisoning deserves its own page. Lead poisoning has its own page and that is useful because the breadth of detail within that page could not possibly have been included on the lead page itself. Potters are really at risk from cobalt poisoning and this page (and the links within it) may be useful to potters. Cobalt Chloride is a very common component of chemistry set so this page is also useful to people who's kids may come into contact with cobalt.

The breadth of academic work on the issues particularly the U.K. Poison information service dossier is interesting in its own right and I believe raises important issues in the field of food safety, toxicology and epidemiology.

Joe Conboy (U.K.)

I initially supported merging the articles. I still do, however, not at the expense of cutting any of the information in the article. If the articles aren't merged, I still favor expanding the information in the "Cobalt" article. Lon of Oakdale (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An edit of the article
I've reworded various parts of the article, trying to remove the weasels and some of the unsourced statements. I've also sorted out the citations and removed the statement that cobalt can be injected into the body, since almost anything could be but cobalt isn't quoted as a route of entry by the cited sources.

The section "Method of action" was taken from | one of the UK Poisons Information Service documents now cited in the article; I've added the supporting citations from that document to the article. I've not been able to find out the copyright status of this material — the original document has no copyright information in it that I can see.

I've deleted the entire section "Cobalt poisoning lawsuits", which used to say

"an article by Jeff Zamek]). In most circumstances, these have been unsuccessful because the potters have been unable to prove that the cobalt came from the glaze or they have been unable to establish negligence."

The cited article merely says that there has been 'one' such lawsuit and a single case hardly seems sufficient to justify a whole section. I've also removed the reference to potters being particularly at risk of cobalt poisoning. It was unsourced and the article cited above reports that the potter lost his lawsuit after, among other things, it was shown that his exposure to cobalt and the amount of it in his body was within normal limits for the American population at large. If somebody has cites for "numerous" such lawsuits, please feel free to return the text to the article, with these citations added.

Dricherby (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for locating the copyright issue. Crown copyright in the UK can be a tricky thing. I see no indication here that NPIS publications are free under a license compatible with GFDL, and so I have removed the section. Of course, it can be revised (as the note below indicates), but I think that's probably better left to editors with more familiarity with the subject than I have. Rewording something requires pretty thorough understanding of the material. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copied text attribution
Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Add more details on hip prostheses
I’d appreciate any additional details on how the condition develops as a result of hip replacement 2601:180:C100:C680:69D9:7E5E:18DA:E2DD (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Now, how exactly does one get poisoned by cobalt?
"100 kg person the LD50 would be about 20 grams." That is a lot of cobalt. I wonder if this article should be deleted because it is about nothing. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There are still a lot of people working with cobalt, who might have been exposed to a poisonous amount.
 * And besides, how could good information ever be redundant? On the contrary we should strive to inform ourselves as much as we can. Kath (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything to write about?
Repeating myself: My guess is that cobalt poisoning is a non-issue. Possibly the article was initiated by someone who doesnt understand the meaning of poison. Here is a quote from the article: "The LD50 value for soluble cobalt salts has been estimated to be between 150 and 500 mg/kg. Thus, for a 100 kg person the LD50 would be about 20 grams". --Smokefoot (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, cobalt poisoning is not a non-issue. People still get exposed to poisonous amounts at work.
 * That is also why guessing is not a science. And one of the reasons we should inform ourselves better. Kath (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Beer drinker's cardiomyopathy in the 60s is notable as is the more recent poisoning via hip replacements . Cxbrx (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)