Talk:Iron/Archive 1

Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers, October 23, 2002. Elementbox converted 14:51, 2 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 22:14, 29 June 2005).

Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory -Iron. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Iron Statistics and Information, USGS Periodic Table - Iron, 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 on the subject page and WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units. -

Talk
"Iron is also the second most abundant (by mass, 34.6%) element making up the Earth" < this is not worded right. At 34.6% it should be the most abundant by mass.

"Iron is also the second most abundant element using mass, making 34.% of the mass of the Earth." I think this should be " Thirty five percent of the Earth's mass is iron, making it the second most abundant element (by mass)." Terri G 17:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So what is the most abundant element ? Silicon ? Siwardio (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Highest binding energy per nucleon apparently belongs to Ni-60, not Fe-56, according to the following website: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin2.html#c1 I have not read the orginal reference: Fewell, M. P., "The Atomic Nuclide with the Highest Mean Binding Energy", Am. J. Phys. 63, July 1995. MAA posted Septemeber 29, 2004 - The last edit changed "lowest energy per nucleon" to "highest binding energy per nucleon". How do chemists/physicists commonly measure binding energy? Is it the energy required to break up the nucleus, or is it the energy stored in the binding?

Personally, I think of low-energy configurations as ones that systems converge to over time, and in that sense I would call iron low energy. Both fusion and fission tend towards iron. AxelBoldt, Saturday, May 4, 2002


 * The binding energy is required to break up the nucles, i. e. to separate all nucleons. 193.171.121.30 23:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Can this be related to stars? Any elaboration on the atomic configuration and such, like is the fact that the fusion of iron doesn't produce energy anymore (such as in the cores of giant stars) - is this related to its magnetic properties? -- Natalinasmpf 13:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to its ferromagnetic properties- being attracted to magnets, etc, that is nothing to do with the stability of the nucleus. In fact gadolinium metal is also ferromagnetic, and that metal (atomic # 64) is far from being the most stable nucleus.   It is an interesting coincidence, though, that three (iron, cobalt, nickel) of the four ferromagnetic metals come close to that point of high nuclear stability.  Walkerma 03:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discovery
discovery of iron? First uses? Christopher Mahan

The information on the page about first uses appears to be wrong, according to academic sources: I don't see how Wikipedia can ignore this article:


 * 'The iron industry in ancient times' Larsson, E Gjuteriet Vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 16-20. 1978

which, although not as recent as some others, still gives an account highly consistent with most later accounts (and it is itself a summary of most of what is known about early iron)...another article:

The Question of Meteoritic versus Smelted Nickel-Rich Iron: Archaeological Evidence and Experimental Results E. Photos World Archaeology, Vol. 20, No. 3, Archaeometallurgy (Feb., 1989), pp. 403-421

Specifically places early iron use - as every archaeologist I'm reading says - in ANATOLIA at around 1500 BC - there are bits of iron offal in Egypt earlier than that - but I can't find any trace of "spearpoints" from Egyptian iron recorded before Anatolia discovered its own source of meteoritic iron. Indeed, IRON in either Sumeria or Egypt (befora Anatolia) is a geologic absurdity - unless of course a new source of meteoritic iron in some place closer to either is discovered. Anyone know of any? I'd sure like to know - because I can't find a single source for this information about "early iron use" in two places known to be without early sources of iron.

-- There's nothing on this page about nutrition, anemia, hemoglobin? --KQ


 * Patience! :) I am working my way here slowly but surely. --mav
 * Eh, sorry. I know you're also short of time.  I didn't mean to pin it on you specifically, BTW; I just meant to point out that it's an area that should be covered (and if I knew more than a short sentence about its role in metabolism, I would have added it myself).  Best, --KQ

Um, this says here that iron rich substances have melting points just over 1270K. Something isn't making sense. If pure iron has a melting point of 1800...that doesn't fit in with the reasoning behind why the Earth has a liquid outer core and a solid mantle. For that reasoning to work, iron rich substances have to have a higher melting point than pure iron...but it says here in this book that they have a melting point of 1270K :<...it further says that pure iron has a lower melting point than iron-rich materials

plz respond on my talk page Lir 00:20 Nov 10, 2002 (UTC)

The chemical reaction CO2 + O2 -> 2CO looks nonsensical to me: by adding oxygen to carbon dioxide, one doesn't get carbon monoxide (which contains fewer oxygen than dioxide). -- dnjansen 22:30 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It should be: C + H2O -> CO + H2. The carbon needs to be very hot. This carbon monoxide / hydrogen mixture is known as 'water gas'; both gases are good reducing agents. Water gas is used commercially to produce hydrogen and in the reduction of iron ore. Some years ago I poured about 500 ml of water into a very hot coke-burning stove; a spectacular blue flame shot out of the open vent at the top of the stove. (R.Geoghegan, 12 Apr. 2006)

Poisonous effects
Might be nice to have a mitigating part about what forms of iron are unlikely to be poisonous (e.g. swllowing a ball bearing). Also mention initiatives to re-introduce iron cooking pots in areaas where iron deficiency is a problem. Rich Farmbrough 15:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe also a mention that most breakfast cereals haivng "100%" of the USRDA of iron don't have it as organic molecules, but in the form of highly indigestable metallic iron shavings? (you can prove this with a NIB magnet)--64.162.10.104 22:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I recall reading a Reader's Digest article about the find that a lot of heart disease was due to excess iron intake which accumulated over the years, and that societies who don't take in as much iron (as compared to societies that eat red meat) don't suffer as much. Don't know its significance or not, since this meant organic molecule intake, but I was wondering how if it should be mentioned. -- Natalinasmpf 13:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nori
I'm in two minds about reverting the Nori (Look Around You) link. It is vaugely related to iron, but not all that encyclopedic. Anyone want to offer a more decisive opinion? Josh Parris &#9993; 01:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite agree, "Nori" isn't worthy of a page of its own. Merged Nori Look Around You and removed the link from iron Zeimusu | (Talk page) 02:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

India
What's the deal with India, under History? It seems like someone added some stuff about India but put that before everything else that was there, making it look like Indians were the first to use iron, when a quick look at the dates mentioned show they weren't. Can someone please fix that? -- tmegapscm 2005-08-08

Biological Effects
"The studies at Brown University think that the real founder of iron was Patrick R. Vermin. Tests are still running."

Eh? minor vandalism? Toby Douglass 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Isotope data
Radioactive isoptope information is incorrect according to the following website: http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/isot.html

Also, this site lists Fe-54 as stable, again in conflict with the wiki article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8062524&dopt=Abstract

(68.100.210.32) 00:36, 3 January 2006


 * Recent reliable data is available from the isotope pages (isotopes of iron etc.), if somebody wants to update the element articles, I haven't gotten around to it yet. Greater than 3.1&times;1022 years seems stable enough. The CRC Handbook is very meticulous with this data about reporting lower limits, other sources may be based on recent evidence that Fe-54 indeed is stable, or they simply use less strict definitions, there is no universally accepted threshold. Femto 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mars Symbol
What's with the Mars symbol? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.6.176.14 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * What about it? The article says "A common alchemical symbol for iron, the metal of weapons, was that of Mars, the god of war." - The alchemical use of this symbol dates back at least to Scheele, see this gif (from ), or more generally . Femto 15:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And there are more connections, some even known or guessed-at, by the ancients. For example, they knew that iron rusts into a red powder, so that's connected with iron. And the planet Mars is also red to the eye, suggesting blood, which is probably why the ancient association of this planet with the god of war and sanguinary dispositions. For this reason an old treatment for anemia was to drink wine in which a sword had been placed to rust. And this worked for the wild reason that AS IT HAPPENS, both blood and Mars are red for the same reason: they both are colored from a sort of iron rust. Bad theories sometimes produce correct results--- this happens again and again in science. S  B Harris 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

El Mutun
While this may be a very large deposit of iron ore, I find the figure of 70% incredible. Is this really right? I note the claim is not made in the linked El Mutun article.

In any event, it should be stated what this percentage is of - workable ore (?). With iron as one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust, the figure cannot relate to that. 62.31.216.81 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Iron a heavy metal?
Isn't calling Iron a "heavy metal" a bit dubious here?67.169.111.11 04:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says Iron is the second most abundant metal on Earth (the first being magnesium), but the magnesium article says that magnesium is 8th most abundant. What gives?

My old chemistry book (General Chemistry - Ninth Edition - page 387) clearly states that "Aluminium is the most abundant metal in the Earth's crust" this is also confirmed by some of my other books (Introduction to Geochemistry - Third Edition - page 589). -- Simon Gjerløv 17.Oct.06

Quick question
How is Iron mined and extracted? Is it by open pit or underground mining?

Pece Kocovski 00:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is mined both in open pit and underground. The Kiruna mine in sweden, was first an open pit mine, but moved underground (in the 1960's i think).Gwissi 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems
Iron is the second most abundant metal on Earth (the first being aluminium)

Definitely not true. Earth contains much more iron than aluminium. Probably somebody who wrote it meant crust not the whole Earth. Siim 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is possible the Earth's inner core consists of a single iron crystal

No, it isn't possible. Siim 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC) According to CMR Fowlers "The Solid Earth", the core consists of a iron-nickel alloy, so this isn't possible. Gwissi 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The large amount of iron in the Earth is thought to create its magnetic field.

Earth's magnetic field is generated in the liquid outer core. Earth's magnetic field has very little to do with solid iron compounds in the crust and mantle. Siim 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

--I disagree. The rotation of the solid inner core within the molten outer core sets up a massive electric field, with the corresponding magenetic field. The liquid core alone could not create a magnetic field - it is the rotation of the inner with respect to the outer. The original statement stands. (JPA)


 * Read disputed sentence once again and this time more carefully. Do you really think that it's not leading to misunderstanding? Siim 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it make everyone happy to say Iron is the second most abundant metal in Earth's crust (the first being aluminium) --Xixtas 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be better. Siim 12:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

''It is possible the Earth's inner core consists of a single iron crystal, although it is more likely to be a mixture of iron and nickel. The large amount of iron in the Earth is thought to create its magnetic field.''

I removed these sentences from the article. Siim 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

''Some cosmological models with an open universe predict that there will be a phase where as a result of slow fusion and fission reactions, everything will become red, the colour of rusty iron. ''

I removed this para from the article. It is unsourced, but more importantly, what does it actually mean: The predominant wavelengths of visible light in the universe will be the same wavelengths reflected by oxidised ferric iron ???? Wikid 12:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Annoying remarks abound.
The article needs more sources, but the way this is being handeled by some editor is not the correct way to do this. The article is full of bracketed remarks that challenge contents; not only is this childish (talk of the article should be confined to the talk page) but it makes the article difficult to read and unasthetic. If nobody minds, I'll remove those and replace them with the trusty old [citation needed] tags. Viciouspiggy 11:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. There is a discussion page for just this sort of thing. These bracketed remarks definitely render the article disconcerting. Darentig 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

History
Second paragraph, end of paragraph: I do not think it could be properly said that any particular place was where iron was "invented".

Fourth paragraph, also end of paragraph: Abram and Lot came from Ur of the Chaldeans, not to. Also, can it be said with any certainty that there were two different Urs, or which one was which? Darentig 16:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have an answer to these questions. However, I have moved the text referred to into a new article, the History of Ferrous Metallurgy, to which I will shortly be moiving material form the article on steel.  Peterkingiron 17:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Oppose the merger of the iron production section with blast furnace. It is entirely appropriate to have a brief account of ironmaking in what is essentailly an article on chemistry. However it should not be significantly expanded further, and should perhpas be shortened. Peterkingiron 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The iron production section should remain here and be very brief.  The sectio needs some work anyway.  Dolomite is not magnesium carbonate, it's a mixed Ca-Mg carbonate (I fixed that).  Who keeps saying that blast furnaces operate at 2000 degrees C.  That's way too hot!  Finally, there are other iron production methods commercially practiced besides blast furnace plants.  A significant amount of iron is produced by "direct reduction" processes (i.e. Midrex, HBI, HYL, Fior, etc.). BSMet94 06:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast iron
Some one changed my statemernt that cast iron was not made until the 2nd millenium AD to BC. What I originally put (unfortunately when not logged in) was NOT a mistake. If ytou have reason to believe that I am wrong, please cite a repuatble authority from academic literature, preferably here. Peterkingiron 14:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Iron in biology
Iron is not essential to all living organisms. The classic example is the lactobacilli which can survive in highly iron-deficient breast milk for this reason I'm changing the article to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulyche (talk • contribs).

Humans experience iron toxicity above 20 milligrams of iron for every kilogram of mass [...] This section should be edited to more clearly specify that this as concerning ingested iron, not total iron present in the body.

Vandalism
"and thus the heaviest elements which do not require a supernova or similarly cataclysmic event for formation. Iron and nickel are therefore the most abundant metals in metallic meteorites and in the dense-metal cores of planets such as Earth." This, obviously, doesn't sound correct. Someone please revert this. There is probably more throughout the article, I haven't looked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.30.165 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't see what exactly is wrong with that, but if you do, do some additional research and go ahead, why don't you? :) Iridos 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, it's completely true. Elements heavier than those two require events such as Supernovae in which to be formed. --86.153.208.73 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds fine to me. - Ketchup Krew   Heinz 57! 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Iron as a food additive
"reduced iron" (which is a commen item on the ingredient list for foods containing e.g. "enriched" wheat) links to this article, but it is never mentioned within it. When researching on the topic, I found this http://food.oregonstate.edu/c/fe.html about the ingredient "reduced iron" - it indeed is elemental iron added to the food (which is amazing for me - I've never seen elemental iron added to food in Europe). Any ideas how this information could be added to the article (or would it belong into a different article?) Iridos 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * oh well, put a sentence in about it. Iridos 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To do list
I would oppose substantial expansion of the history section. I cut this down very considerably when I created history of ferrous metallurgy by merging a section from here with others from related articles. If you think I cut it too much, by all means add a few more sentences based on the content of that article (whose medieval and later sections are well-sourced). I am hoping that an expert can sort out the prehistoric part (which I cannot). Iron Age is (or should essentially be) about a prehistoric period. When I came to this there were a mass of different articles, often with conflicting statements. I have done my best to sort these out and to remove erroneous statements, but I do not have time to research and verify the sources on prehistoric iron. The history of iron is largely concerned with metallurgy and metallurgical processes. These are many and usually complicated by the fact that ores are usually impure. I would counsel against putting too much in what is essentially a chemical article.

The author of the 'To do list' is right to highlight that the smelting section under iron ore and production section here are similar. They are also similar to a section in blast furnace. I am not sure where they belong. Note also ironworks, which I have converted into a general article, seeking to draw together as many articles as possible on processes in iron metallurgy; also smelting. The statements about impurities under iron ore certainly need to appear somewhere, but I am not sure where. I come to this issue as a historian of the iron industry with an economic history perspective. Peterkingiron 18:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

in an arsenic iron test, if the sample fails the test are ferric and ferrous iron found in the test explain please?(Snddempsey 12:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Missing sections: (ferro)magnetism and ions
An article about iron can't be remotely complete without a section about ferromagentism. Also the different iron ions and their properties are missing. Dan Gluck 13:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ferromagnetism or Paramagnetism?
Is it possible that iron is actually not ferromagnetic, but paramagnetic? For any of you whom work with electronics, you probably know that the 'soft' iron cores used in electromagnets retain no magnetic charge once the field is removed, even if sustained for long periods of time or an attempt is made to magnetise the iron. It is only pure iron that exhibits this property - a steel core, which is 'hard' in such terms, essentially becomes magnetised after the first use and cannot be turned on and off (Turning it on or off simply increases and decreases the strength of the magnetic field, repsectively, unless the poles are swapped.). Therefore, according to the definitions of ferromagnetism and paramagnetism:

Steel is ferromagnetic. Iron is paramagnetic.

Xander T. 01:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Iron is a ferromagnet. The problem is as follows. Any piece of iron is actually an aggregate of many many tiny crystals. Each of the crystals is a magnet, each magnetized in another direction. Therefore, totally the piece of iron is not magnetized. When you apply an external magnetic field, the little cristals rotate a bit so that the direction of their magnetization is somewhat more towards that of the external field, giving a paramagnetic-like effect. When you turn off the external magnetic field, fluctuations due to temperature gradually rotate the crystals randomally so that their total magnetization is zero again (I think that if the external magnetic field is large enough, some residual magnetization may still be left).
 * However, If you warm the iron beyond some temperature (called "critical temperature", I believe it's around 800 degrees Celsius), the small crystals lose their magnetic properties, a phenomenon known as phase transition. If you then put some external magnetic field, and cool the iron very slowly, it is supposed to become a large, enduring magnet. Dan Gluck 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Physicists talking about iron always refer to "soft iron". Can some one explian this term, relating it to metallurgical descriptions of iron, such as pig iron, cast iron, wrought iron, etc.?  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't mean physically soft. It has very, very little to do with metallurgy. It means it doesn't retain a magnetic field when another is applied and then removed. Xander T. (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noted that pure iron seems to keep a residual field much less than the impure stuff. Its magnetic properties seem to imply that its halfway between the definitions for ferromagnetism and paramagnetism - paramagnetism notes thermal motion causes the spins to become randomly oriented in the absence of an applied magnetic field, as per the article. If this is an instantaneous effect, it should be noted in the article. I don't know how long it takes for iron to lose its magnetic field, but I do know that it's pretty fast. I'm not sure 'gradually' is the right word to be using. Xander T. (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tenth or forth most abundant element in the Universe?
There seems to be a disagreement between iron's place in the most abundant element's list. In this article it says that iron is the tenth most abundant element, but when I went to the abundant element page, it says that Iron is the FORTH most abundant element in the universe. Someone should see which one of these if in error and get them straight. This seems to be complicated by the fact that the abundant element page doesn't seem to have a reference to check on. User:Dilcoe
 * Actually it's the sixth there, but I don't know what's correct. Dan Gluck 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Iron is about the 11th in universe (atom %), a little less than Argon. It's the 4th by weight % in the reachable crust, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere, but about the 6th or 7th by atomic %. It's happenstance also about the 4th by weight % in the crust only. These statements are from the (Swedish! Sorry!) standard university chemistry book "Allmän och oorganisk kemi", Gunnar Hägg, ISBN 91-20-03706-6. It might be a little outdated, but the values have probably not changed very much. I think that iron being 10th in universe is realistic, if it's the FOURTH then it might be by weight %, otherwise it is not a number that regards the universal abundance.  Said: Rursus   ☻   22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting
An obvious and overtly vandalizing edit was preceeded by several less obvious edits by the same user. The edits were primarily related to statistics and other things that I lack the expertise to judge. However, given the obviousness of the vandalism at the end, I went ahead and reverted the whole set of edits. Lordjeff06 14:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done. I think the last worthwhile edit was that by metalxzxz on 28 September.  Peterkingiron 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Extraction
The priduction of iron from iron ore section is unbalanced. It says far too much about blast furnaces, which make a solution of carbon in iron, not pure iron. It says far too little about steel, which is probably the most widely used ferrous commodity, or about wrought iron - commercially pure iron, but not now made commercially. However, we have another section duplicating this (and with formatting issues that I do not understand). These need to be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of slag in agriculture
I have tagged this "fact", as I suspect that there is an error in it. Blast furnace slag is certainly used for roadmaking; it can also be used to make glass, but the ironmakers are unwilling to produce a slag of a sufficiently consistent quality for the glass industry to be happy using it or green bottles. However, the only iron slag that I have heard of being used in agriculture is "basic slag", which is a bye-product of one of the late 19th century steelmaking processes. Can somebody clarify this? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To do list (again)
This article is primarily about iron as a chemical element. It is one of the most abundant on earth and a very important one commercially. This means that there is a lot that could be written about it, but it is important that this article should not be cluttered with a lot of unnecessary detail. Accordingly
 * I would oppose a full merger of iron ore with this article.
 * I would oppose the expansion of any history section here. Iron Age is an unsatisfactory article, which is a hotchpotch, requiring the attention of an expert.  It confuses two issues - the arrival of iron in a particular region, and the archaeological period for whcih the term is also used.  However, there is a much fuller article, the History of ferrous metallurgy.  However, there is plenty of well-written material in blast furnace, steel, steelmaking, wrought iron, bloomery, etc.  There is also a disambiguation page ironworks.  Possibly some of these need to be better linked to this article, but that is all.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

iron
iron has a boiling point melting point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.245.89 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It has.  Said: Rursus   ☻   22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

semi protection
I think a permanent semi-protection should be considered. Before, it seemed like half of the edits made were vandalism by an IP, and the other half was other users reverting them. There has been no vandalism since the protection 6 days ago. It seems like a good idea. --  Ketchup Krew   Heinz 57! 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Beta is not considerated an allotropic form of iron
The allotropic forms of the iron are just the alpha, gamma, and delta forms. The beta form is not considerated an allotropic form as it has the same crystal structure of the alpha form; it's just the alpha form with different magnetic properties. Kiam (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming
I would like to remove the line "that is generally agreed by climatologists to cause global warming" from the article. Since this is potentially controversial, I wanted to have an opportunity for discussion before making the edit. It is my position that this statement does not belong in an article about iron. It is not my intent to have a debate on the merits or lack thereof for global warming, but just to discuss if this statement actually belongs in THIS article. Lon of Oakdale (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I think it would be better to remove the paragraph altogether and add a limited version in the "Iron compounds" section. The paragraph isn't as much about iron or even an iron compound than it is about global warming and an effort to sequester carbon dioxide. I won't take any action toward editing until after the weekend (possibly much later) to allow time for comments. Lon of Oakdale (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section is misplaced. I also think it should be pared down so that it ends here: "...thereby counteracting the greenhouse effect." Wizard191 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Change made. I'm still considering paring it down further.  I want to remove the last sentence or at least end it at the words "carbon dioxide".  As everything here is, this is a work-in-progress.  Take another look and see if you agree it should be trimmed more.  Lon of Oakdale (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can probably remove the last sentence; it still seems out of place. Wizard191 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed this discussion, but support the outcome. It is important that wide-ranging articles such as this one on iron the element do not become cluttered up with peripheral issues.  Even if the subject is an important one, it should be dealt with briefly and cross-referred to another article, where the detail can appear.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. It looks fairly reasonable to me. I'm done, unless someone else thinks it needs to be refined. Lon of Oakdale (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)