Talk:Lexan

Untitled 1
I'm the original writer of this article and just wanted to say I'm new to Wikipedia and didn't realize the copyright restrictions of the website. That said, it's nice to know there are such strict content controls for this site. Kudos. I've written a 'stub' to replace it.
 * As the original author of the article, I don't know what 150.202.8.1 is referring to. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Untitled 2
The article "Nalgene plastic may be harmful: Studies show that the popular water bottle may pose serious health risks" by Brenna Doheny, The Daily Barometer, 2004-02-17 mentions "The April 2003 volume of "Current Biology" published a study that cast suspicion on all polycarbonate plastics, including Lexan. The principle author, Dr. Patricia Hunt of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio" and claims that


 * "#7 PC" Polycarbonate plastics, under some circumstances, leaches bisphenol A (BPA)
 * "#5 PP" polypropylene is safe
 * "#4 LDPE" low-density polyethylene is safe
 * "#2 HDPE" high-density polyethylene is safe
 * "#1 PET" polyethylene terephthalate, under some circumstances, leaches DEHA.

Have there been any further studies on this? (Should this information go in the Lexan article, or one of these other articles, or perhaps the plastic article ?) --DavidCary 03:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did some reading at the time of the comment you are responding to, and it seemed clear that the concern was with PC only. The original study was motivated by fertility problems in rats living in PC cages that were subjected to specific cleaning compounds (and presumably rat body wastes and gnawing to get out); that study led to a Consumer Reports article that should not be consulted without attention to the partial retraction that CR made in response to a Nalgene demand. I'm pretty sure there were (at least then) some WP or ext lk(s) (probably the one above, but possibly in this talk-page's article or Nalgene or talk:Nalgene) that helped the start of my research.
 * --Jerzy·t 16:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Untitled 3
Can someone verify that Lexan is the molecule used in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home? DBBell 20:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Untitled 4
I lost a bet today because this article says that lexan contains chlorine! Other sources say that it doesn't. What's the deal?
 * The article is incorrect. While Lexan is produced from phosgene, which contains chlorine, the Lexan molecule does not contain chlorine. I corrected the article to reflect this fact. shoy  18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course Lexan contains chlorine, like most of the polycarbonates (only the processes which do not use Phosgene are halogen-free). Note there is no such thing as the "lexan molecule". Lexan is a brand name, while the molecule is a polycarbonate. Indeed in the polycarbonate there is no chlorine (Cl) but the plastic itselves does contain chlorine; albeit in small quantities (less than 200 ppm). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asterladybug (talk • contribs).

GE Plastics ?
GE Plastics has been bought out by SABIC. The text in the article should reflect that. --71.236.72.132 (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
Why is "(LEXAN)" in the first sentence? If there is a good reason it should be noted, because right now it looks stupid with a lower case spelling followed by an all caps spelling. Wizard191 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and removed it. Wizard191 (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

mechanical properties
I would like to see some information on the weight of Lexan. For example: How much does 1/4" thick Lexan weigh per square foot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelstalker (talk • contribs) 14:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The density of polycarbonate is listed in the polycarbonate page. Wizard191 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why duplicate polycarbonate?
I think that this article should be about the brand name, should be much shorter, and should only include things like the ownership and history of the brand name. Information about the material should only be in the article about about the material: polycarbonate. This is similar to the article about kleenex, for example.Ccrrccrr (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are completely right. Any help with the clean-up is appreciated. Wizard191 (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of use in particular products
Someone added a bunch of info about applications in which Lexan brand polycarbonate has been used. I fail to understand the notability of the use of Lexan brand vs. any other brand in these applications. If that is not of any special importance, this article should be kept short and information about applications of polycarbonate should go in the polycarbonate article.Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The recent addition seems almost like advertisement. Wizard191 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when is two editors a consensus? The historical uses ARE specific to the brand name, just as Jeep branded SUVs have a history quite distinct from generic SUVs. If Kleenex-branded tissues landed on the moon or were used in NFL helmets, it's worth attaching to the brand name, since more people are probably familiar with "Lexan" than "polycarbonate". Bachcell (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For an article like this, there aren't usually many editors it, and even less that will comment, therefore 2 usually does equal a consensus. Wizard191 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether more people are familiar with Lexan or polycarbonate, but we can help people learn that Lexan is a brand of polycarbonate and we have this article point them to the polycarbonate article for discussion of applications. I don't think we need to list what brand of aluminum, stainless steel,etc. was used in the Apollo program.  If there was a specific company's product was used, because of its special characteristics, not shared by other companies offerings, I could see that possibly being notable.  But I don't see why this would be notable.Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)