Talk:Nitrous oxide

N2O synthetic routes (informing instability)
Some time before(1yr or so) i can read one more synthetic rote to N2O

2NaNO2 + 2S =(Reaction in formamide(possible DMF also suitable) giving 100% yield after 30mins at 80C)=> N2O + Na2S2O3

Even when(if) stupid users(f.e. goverment controllers censores prohibiting even classics of Russian literature now, and nitrogen oxides too) of other coutries Wikipedias can(allows) erase reactions for fun "because of "no info-sources mentioned"" - you must not(nope you never did) never loose painkillers(preparing rote and so) - even in cosmic space — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJiva (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC) ?(didn't understand, what problems with signature, when i am logged in as IamJiva(i can see it red colour(?) nick name ir upper right screen coner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamJiva (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Safe high?
"Recreational users often misperceive nitrous oxide as a route to a "safe high", and are unaware of its potential for causing neurological damage." I think there are some problems with this. We are saying the same thing twice for a start, and what are the quotes for? Are they scare quotes? Worst of all, are we saying in Wikipedia's voice that nitrous is not a relatively safe way to get high? There is no absolute safety in life, but I know if I heard my teenage daughter had tried nitrous I would be far less worried than if she had tried methamphetamine or regularly drank alcohol, or smoked tobacco. My opinion is not entirely an uninformed one; I am influenced by my knowledge of e.g. Nutt et all, 2007 in which nitrous is not even mentioned. Indeed, given that it is still widely used in a clinical setting, this makes sense. We need to take a nuanced position that matches the sources. Do we? John (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What we have is correct as verified by the source. It's not a "safe high" and thinking so is an error, it says. An old source which does not mention nitrous oxide is irrelevant to current scientific knowledge about it. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm. See, I work in a job where I do health and safety and risk assessments every day. What are the quotes for? If it's important enough to state that this is not a safe high, what would be a safe high? Or even a "safe high"? Risk can only ever be relative. Is nitrous a relatively safe high? This would be a better direction to go on a neutral encyclopedia article, in my opinion. John (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The quotation marks are to identify the "safe high" concept as per the source. NPOV comes from reflecting quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But what even is a "safe high"? Here's a 2014 paper looking at N2O's neurotoxicity. The worst it says is that "N2O is not as harmless as some might believe". I think language like this might be a fairer way to go. But let's lose the scare quotes, please. John (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're "scare quotes" and a 2014 article is outdated. Worries about NO2 damaging young people have been building since then in the primary literature (e.g.) which we cannot cite per WP:MEDRS. The secondary source we do cite is however a good reflection of the current knowledge, and Wikipedia fairly relays that. You are basically saying you have a personal take on this, but of course that's completely irrelevant to the job of writing a decent encyclopedia article. Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My "personal take" on this is based on a close reading of the best sources and a lifetime working with young people and teenagers who love to experiment with all sorts of substances. And you are basically saying that it is important to say N2O (not NO2!) is not something that you don't know what it means and is unlikely to exist, and that it's important to keep this because of primary sources that cannot be used in the article. Right? John (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying to achieve NPOV we should reflect the WP:BESTSOURCES accurately. We're doing that. Bon courage (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Self Contradiction?
After all the information about toxicity, the properties section describes N2O as non-toxic. And this is what appears in the Googl extract PhysicistQuery (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Removed, since chemistry sources are not reliable for biomedical claims. Bon courage (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this article locked? (Edit attempts always time out).
Basically the subject line. I'm wondering if this article is locked for some reason. I'm trying to update the "Recreational Use" section to specify that the potential for neurotoxicity requires long-term extended use (generally >= multiple months of heavy daily use) not just a single occurrence of excessive use AND is caused by Vitamin B-12 deficiency NOT the N2O directly itself. How it's currently written is both scientifically inaccurate and reads kinda like pro-drug war propaganda.

My edit would have been ↓

"excessive use for an excessive period (generally multiple months or longer) has the potential to cause neurological harm through causing Vitamin B12 deficiency which, if left untreated (using external B12 supplementation and ideally abstinence as well), can result in permanent neurological damage." Cooe (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Even weirder is that when I go to edit the article now the changes I tried to make automatically show up on the editing page & preview like they were successfully applied when they obviously weren't... (As they don't actually show up when you open/read the article normally). 🤷 Makes absolutely no sense at all lol. Cooe (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell it is not locked. Try clearing your browser cache - if that does not work suggest you ask helpdesk Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The History section is a bit misleading
There is no mention of the fact that experiencing nitrous oxide’s euphoric effects were the original intended use. The possible medical applications followed shortly after an early tester inhaled the gas. Experienced a minor accident but felt no pain. pretty fascinating stuff.

source: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajplung.00206.2014 Mkips (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)