Talk:Tetrachlorodecaoxide

Something's wrong
The diagram of this chemical structure contains four radical anions, one oxygen molecule, and one water molecule, all separated from one another. As a result it is neither stable nor electrically neutral. What's the correct structure? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Chlorine dioxide is an uncharged radical, the chlorite anion is not a radical. It seems that the inventor has found a way to make four negatively charged ions attract each other and stay together, despite the textbook wisdom that attraction requires opposite charges. This is so revolutionary that in fact all textbooks need to be rewritten. Did someone already send the telegram to Stockholm to propose the inventor as a worthy candidate for the Nobel price? Or is this article going to be deleted from Wikipedia as chemical pseudoscience? --24.77.29.129 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Structure
I think the structure of this compound (current image shown) is wrong. The lack of counter ions is an obvious issue but my real concern is the presence of O2 in the mix. The drug is listed for either topical or intravenous use but I'm pretty sure you'd never inject O2 into someone. This leads me to wonder if the structure is in-fact a more complicated chlorine-oxygen cluster but that maybe the structure shown was derived from someone trying a 'get structure from SMILES' command through a chemical editing program. SMILES was never designed for inorganic compounds and it really struggles; you often see things depicted as fragments. Things is, I can't find the structure for Tetrachlorodecaoxide anywhere. Scifinder says it cannot be resolved (not promising) and my access to pharmacology papers is limited. It would be nice if somebody could check. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The presented structure is pretty clearly incorrect. 6 isolated molecules, 4 of them negatively charged, is not a compound.  The same "structure" pops up at pubchem .  The link from the CAS number in the infobox does not yield any hits .  Completely bogus?
 * (There are at least two medical studies purporting to use it and ).
 * I got here from a discussion at WP:medicine Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine.
 * --Wikimedes (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the structure is incorrect and should not be included in the article. However, the CAS# is correct (Common Chemistry is limited to only the 1000 most common chemicals and therefore it is no surprise that there is no listing there).  Chemical Abstracts describes the listing as "a complex inorganic compound with the approximate formula (Cl4O10.H2O)n. Also commonly called TCDO".  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)