Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force/Archive 1

blatant advert
Just to point out the existence of WP:MOSCHEM/SAFE, which has a variety of resources not yet on the list. I'll try to answer some of the questions above as well, based on our experience at WP:CHEMS. Physchim62 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the link! Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed importance assessment guidelines
It would be nice if we could work together to develop a set of guidelines for people who are assessing articles for importance.

I've been tagging/assessing a bunch of toxicology articles, just kind of "feeling it out" as I go along, and these are a rough description of the criteria I've been using so far. These are obviously incomplete and self-contradictory in places, but I hope they can pose as a place to start discussing this:

Anyhow, here's what I've got:
 * Top:
 * Terms central to the study of toxicology, and which cover very broad subject areas: (e.g. toxicology, medical toxicology, poison, toxin, toxicity, venom)
 * High:
 * Widely used terminology that just about every toxicologist would know, but that do not cover as broad a range as terms like toxicology or poison: for example, LD50, cytotoxin, neurotoxin
 * Very common/widely-used chemicals that are highly notable for their toxic effects, and are historically important (e.g. lead, DDT, mercury, arsenic, etc.)
 * Chemistry terminology that is highly relevant to toxicology (e.g. Aromatic compounds, radical (chemistry), etc.)
 * Mid:
 * common/widely-used toxic chemicals which aren't extremely notable for their toxic effects (e.g. Naphthalene)
 * toxic chemicals with notable historical importance, but which are not common/widely-used (e.g. examples: Agent Orange, Zyklon B)
 * Low:
 * terms that only a specialist might know
 * uncommon, non-notable chemicals (e.g. Sea anemone neurotoxin, alpha-Naphthylthiourea, etc.)

Questions:
 * Would carcinogen be in top or high or elsewhere ... why?
 * Would hydrochloric acid go into high or mid or elsewhere ... why?

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have being doing a good job at tagging articles and the above table I think is a good guide. I also tagged a few and basically used a similar methodology. I think High is useful for the major ones as you mentioned like lead, mercury, carbon monoxide, etc; the majority of lesser know toxic chemicals or syndromes of poisoning I just tend to tag as Mid which WP:MED suggests is a subject "notable within its particular specialty", while the relatively obscure toxins were rated as low. Re carcinogen and HCl, I probably would rank carcinogen as Top as it is a major theme of toxicology and HCl as mid as there is a lot more to HCL than just its toxic effects, (chemical burn might rate as high though). M r Bungle |  talk  12:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Carcinogen should be "Top-importance" if only because of its interest to our readers, regardless of its relative importance within the science of toxicology (which is pretty high anyway). I would might have rated HCl as "Low-importance" in toxicological terms, but "Mid" is probably warranted as it is a household chemical. I didn't even realize we had an article on chemical burn! I shall go and look at it now! Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions about project scope

 * Will we provide toxicology expertise for articles like Agent Orange or Love Canal, that are important historical events related to toxic chemicals? Or should we just stick to medicine/chemistry articles?--Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think one could get away from the infamous cases. How does one discuss the Bhopal disaster without mentioning the toxicology of methyl isocyanate? And how does one discuss methyl isocyanate without mentioning the Bhopal disaster? Physchim62 (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was exactly my feeling. I feel that the members of the task force would have a lot to offer to those types of articles, who are probably in dire need of a toxicology expert. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Will we cover important laws/regulations/standards related to toxic chemicals (MSDS sheets, etc.)?--Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the background information is important, both professionally and for the lay reader. The editors of the encyclopedia, as a group, should be able to show that they know the difference between a PEL and a TLV (just to take one example). Physchim62 (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All chemicals are toxic at some level ... where do we draw the line between a chem that does/doesn't belong under the task force? For instance, what about water?--Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One obvious line is "is the substance toxicologically interesting? and if so, why?" Sodium chloride is not toxicologically interesting, even if it can cause skin irritation on handling. Water is not toxicologically interesting, even if inhalation of water is an extremely common cause of death. For me, limonene is toxicologically interesting (at the factoid level) as being carcinogenic for male rats but not for female rats nor for mice of either sex (and that we know why): that's just a factoid, but we can say something about it in an article! All I can say about hydrochloric acid is that, erm, it's a strong mineral acid and, erm, it has all the hazards of a strong mineral acid but, erm, nothing else. You don't teach laboratory safety by taking hydrochloric acid as your example! Physchim62 (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general rule of thumb, if there are no tests/cases/information about use or exposure in humans, then it's not sufficiently (human) medical to be included in the parent project. We don't want to be like The Daily Mail, and engage in a futile quest to classify everything as something that either causes or prevents cancer.  If there's no clinical information about the substance, then it's probably Chemicals instead of WPMED, just like almost all investigational drugs are WPPHARM instead of WikiProject Medicine.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous". I do tend to agree with the above in that it be toxicologically interesting in humans to be relevant to WP:MED, but it is difficult in some situations to decide which articles to tag, for example we could potentially tag toxicological significant spiders like the brown recluse or a number of clinically significant venomous snakes or toxic plants like Water hemlock. For some chemicals it makes it easier if there is a specific poisoning page spun off, i.e. water and water intoxication, although this is not always possible. I also disagree that sodium chloride is not toxicologically interesting ;).     M r Bungle |  talk  12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * touché! ;) But I would say that the toxicology of potassium chloride is more interesting: actually, that's an article which could do with a real toxicologist taking a look at it... Physchim62 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My usual recommendation is: Spend more time improving articles than tagging them.  Most new projects (and task forces) do best by naming the handful of articles that, just off hand, seem to be most important, and actually improving them, rather than trying to produce a comprehensive list of articles that are tagged by the group.  You can tag articles as you happen to run across them.  A group that does little or nothing but tag articles provides no value to the reader or to the encyclopedia.  (Also, tagging articles is very boring work, once the fun of showing off the group's existence has worn off.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, more time should be spent editing than tagging/assessing, but tagging and assessment is an important first step. It allows editors to quickly gather a list of important articles that need work. It's sometimes nice to have a todo list, instead of just getting to things as you think of them. Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Carcinogen
I have re-organised the talk-page for Carinogen wiping most of the griping from the old comments (most of which are dated pre-2008). Can you take a look over it just to see if I've missed anything.Angry Mustelid (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had exactly the same reaction. Looked good initially, then...!Angry Mustelid (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dioxin
I'm just adding a list here of all the articles I have encountered relating to dioxin and dioxin like toxins. You can see clearly that there is a need to have some joined up approach to this complex issue.


 * dioxin
 * Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
 * Polychlorinated biphenyls
 * Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
 * Dibenzofurans
 * Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds
 * 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
 * Toxic equivalent
 * Agent Orange
 * Dioxin Affair
 * Seveso disaster
 * Irish Pork Crisis of 2008
 * Victor Yushchenko
 * PCB Congener List
 * Times Beach, Missouri
 * Love Canal
 * Agent Pink
 * Pollution
 * Chloracne
 * Dioxin controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurbagwaste (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Flame retardantArthurbagwaste (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a few more will come to light, and I'll keep them listed here, mostly for my own reference

It'll be difficult to keep consistency across the breadth of these articles, but at the moment there's a definite need to sort it.

Arthurbagwaste (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you think about making Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds the "hub" for this group of articles (it seems to already be serving this purpose, but is just poorly structured and sourced)? We can then summarize all of the other articles there. See any problems with this? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * it seems that the article Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins is at present more of a hub, as it contains most of the information on dioxin toxicity and contamination incidents, but as the same toxic concerns apply to furans and PCBs then this seems a bit counter-intuitive. I would say this information would be more correctly placed in a general article on dioxin as a toxic group, which Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds could be with a little work.  Also I think there's a case for redirecting searches for "Dioxin" directly to the Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds page, rather than the disambiguation page.  I wouldn't imagine there is much need for the disambiguation as I think the term "dioxin" is most widely understood in terms of the toxic group, rather than chemical species, and a simple subheading could allow those looking for dioxin (chemical) to find their way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurbagwaste (talk • contribs) 08:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds is probably the best “hub”. I am however strongly against redirecting Dioxin there, because this is factually incorrect. --Leyo 09:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I follow that argument but from the user's perspective, I am pretty certain that actual searches for information on 1,2-Dioxin are much, much rarer than searches looking for information on dioxin as an environmental toxin - surely the most logical arrangement is to insert a "This article is related to dioxin as a group of toxic chemicals, for information on 1,2-dioxin go here..." It may be inaccurate in the strictest sense, but I think it will make the information much more useful.  The text of the article can also reflect the difference between dioxin as a chemical name and dioxins as toxins. Either way the current disambiguation page is very poor.  Although, in saying that, if dioxins and dioxin-like compounds is set up as a more useful hub, this might help the Disambiguation page make a lot more sense, i suppose. :-) Arthurbagwaste (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Readers might also learn that “dioxin” is chemically not the correct term for PCDD. The redirect target of Dioxins (plural) might be discussed. BTW: You are invited to improve the disambiguation page Dioxin. --Leyo 10:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * that's true, I can do that! i suppose that's how it works isn't it. Thanks. :) Arthurbagwaste (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Now to work on getting the referenced articles into better shape, there's a lot of contradiction, deviation and inaccuracy in that lot! Arthurbagwaste (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: your changes to dioxin that's really as best I can think of given the current range of articles available to work with, as the others get worked on i think it should make a bit more sense.Arthurbagwaste (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The DAB page now contains too many/too long explanations. Please compare other DAB pages such as Rice (disambiguation), Mercury or Joker. --Leyo 12:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * without the explanations there is no disambiguation, just more ambiguity about what the searcher is looking for. It is this first stop when a user is searching for information on Dioxin that causes the problem - if it points to PCDDs only then it is wrong.  I wonder does this indicate that the information in the 1,2-Dioxin article could be expanded (a little) to act as a first-stop for "Dioxin"?  I noticed than in attempting to clarify the meaning of dioxin, it was necessary to refer to it as a structural moiety rather than a chemical.  This might tidy things up a bit better.

Arthurbagwaste (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Environmental_toxicology
Some feedback would be appreciated here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Toxinology
I am interested in communicating with members of this "task force" as I am prepared to contribute to any and all "toxin(ology)" entries for Wikipedia. I have over 35 years professional experience in toxinology/clinical toxinology. User:toxinoz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxinoz (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars
Maybe someone from this task force can take a look at the recent edit warring at toxicology, toxicity, in vitro toxicology, etc. An expert may be able to help resolve this. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology
This is linked to a question asked in Project Scope, above.

The concerned public willoften come to wikipedia seeking information on the risks of exposure to "chemicals" (often industrial solvents / pesticides). As it curently stands, this issue is a bit of a mess, and there isn't a clear hub which collects this information.

Could the following be merged to deal with the issue of terminology: (feel free to add to this list)
 * xenobiotic (and xenohormone)
 * environmental xenobiotic
 * poison
 * toxicant

I would propose that these all be merged into poison, but that toxicant should perhaps remain, to contrast with toxin (which seems like an artificial distinction to me).

Are these different from a pollutant, and something which is environmentally hazardous?

Some of these entries are due to differences in terminology between those who deal with pesticides, and often focus on environmental exposure and risk, and those in medicine who focus on the risks of deliberate exposure. Indeed, pharmacology doesn't differentiate between a poison and a drug.

It's also complicated by the general usage of the term "chemical" to mean "a substance that I don't like".125.7.63.177 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are kind of big subjects to be putting them all on one page. Perhaps it would make more sense to put a kind of "compare and contrast" section on most of them, so that people can figure out the differences (and also figure out which page they want to be reading).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent organic pollutants
Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 23. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ricin
Being a top concern in America right now, this needs attention quickly! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
I've setup the talk page for archival and added a Talkheader.

Please feel free to modify as you wish.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Scope
I added wikiproject med banners to Talk:Amanita phalloides thinking it belongs here, but the banner was removed by someone who I assume is assessing articles. I would appreciate being notifified when you respond. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has to notify you when anyone responds, if you are interested in a answer you can watch the relevant talk page. It was removed because it does not fall within the scope of the project, the onus is on the project members to decide, if you tag something and it is removed move on, no one owes you an explanation. That being said the active toxin within the fungus you referenced may be a part of the project but not the actual fungus. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This was raised in a more visible thread by Sasata at WT:MED.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 22:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)