Talk:Corrosive substance

Untitled

I corrected various grammar errors and also removed the section on the caustic spill as being too specific for this article. In addition, I clarified and corrected the "protection" section. It contained dangerously inaccurate information - for example PVC gloves are not very chemically resistant. Delmlsfan (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Destroying?

By "destroy" does it mean that the object contacting the corrosive material destroys it atoms? Or does it mean that it just dissolves, rearranging the molecules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Unclear caption

In the second image caption, please expand the acronym "DOT". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.99.21 (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corrosive substance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509024826/http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions/chemistry/sulfuricacid1.html to http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions/chemistry/sulfuricacid1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed for: "but people are mostly concerned with its effects on living tissue"?

Hello.

Why is a citation needed for this simple, logic statement?

I think the sentence is logic, because after all:

1. Stuff that corrodes living tissues sometimes doesn't corrode other materials, but is it not so frequent for a chemical that corrodes other materials not corroding living tissue. And if is corrodes my skin I won't want to pour that substance onto it or drink the substance, even if it does not corrode other materials. Therefore, we *are* in fact more concerned with living tissue than other materials, and if it appears otherwise then it is because it is unlikely that I would even think about drinking it!
2. Why does this third statement need a citation but the previous one doesn't? For example I'm not sure whether "destroy", "damage" or "attack" are the better scientific terms to describe what corrosive means.
3. The pictograms clearly indicate that destruction of living tissues is part of the common meaning of "corrosive". That's why it is used as a symbol.
4. Is there an official definition by IUPAQ of what means "corrosive"? If the article does not reflect that official definition, then I think it must reflect the most common meaning of the term in day-to-day speech.

Therefore, I don't think it needs a citation. - João Jerónimo (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)