Talk:Bleach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bleach article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Um...what?

Why does the page have these random images of the wikipedia image in it? also, I'm pretty sure there is an anime called Bleach, so searching for bleach should take one to a disambiguation page 66.175.206.96 05:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While I would rather recommend calling the emergency services, if someone swallowed bleach and you had absolutetly no idea what it was, time is of the essence and showing up to a disambiguation would only serve to confuse one. More so, if it was changed as per the suggestion of the person above to the cartoon...well that would just be ridiculous. Of course there are more sites about the awesome anime show; they're called fansites, but the chemical should be the primary subject one thinks of when the noun is mentioned. The disambig is at the top. Lady BlahDeBlah 15:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and there was already a vote on this too; this is certainly the primary topic when people refer to "bleach." Cool Hand Luke 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Voting is evil. As I said above, this should be a disambig. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And vote or no vote, this is still a fine case of primary topic disambiguation. Disambiguation for the manga is listed at the top of the article. Why is this not acceptable? Cool Hand Luke 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I could ask the same thing. Why is having the manga page here not acceptable? Someone said above that it's "the primary topic" but if you clearly Google "bleach" you will see the results. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And as it also mentions above, the internet does not reflect how a word is used and understood by ordinary people. There are systemic flaws in google results that betray the biases of the internet. A better measure is how a word is used and understood by people. We can determine this by scanning for the word in all published material. How about I do a lexisnexis news search for bleach? Here are the ten most recent cites:
  • 1. Dallas Observer (Texas), January 11, 2007 Thursday, NEWS, 1202 words, Girls Will Be Boys; It's a mixed-up world but who cares?, By Andrea Grimes
... seats for the show. The bleach-blond beauties Christina and ...
  • 2. Hospital Law Weekly, January 11, 2007, EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 595, 614 words, OBSTETRICS; Pregnant women can minimize their risk of becoming infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus
... clean affected surfaces with bleach to ensure that the virus is destroyed. - ...
  • 3. India Business Insight, January 11, 2007 Thursday, A2007011156-137F2-GNW, 255 words, GUJARAT ALL GEARED UP TO TAKE THE LEAD IN BIOTECH SECTOR (ZYDUS CADILA, ALEMBIC, INTAS PHARMA AND AMBALAL SARABHAI ARE FOCUSING ON THE BIOTECHNOLOGY SEGMENT)
... in bio-polishing, bleach clean-up, scouring and ...
  • 4. Inside Bay Area (California), January 11, 2007 Thursday, ARGUS, 821 words, For sale sign worries 'Shangri La' residents, By Matt O'Brien, STAFF WRITER
... frequently come over to bleach the concrete walkway outside their ...
  • 5. Inside Bay Area (California), January 11, 2007 Thursday, REVIEW, 837 words, 'For sale' sign worries mobile home park residents, By Matt O'Brien, STAFF WRITER
... frequently come over to bleach the concrete walkway outside their ...
  • 6. Miami New Times (Florida), January 11, 2007 Thursday, CULTURE; art, 912 words, Thin Tizzy; Daniela Edburg's photographs skewer skinny, By Carlos Suarez De Jesus
... bathrooms by hair bleach. She has also leveled her gun sights ...
  • 7. Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette (Australia), January 11, 2007 Thursday, NEWS; Pg. 3, 153 words, Hunt for rapist continues, BY STACEY KIBBLE
... later asking for bleach to remove his DNA from the crime ...
  • 8. Times-Picayune (New Orleans), January 11, 2007 Thursday, SLIDELL PICAYUNE; Pg. 1, 651 words, Local boy, 9, qualifies for Mensa membership, By Beth Martin, St. Tammany bureau
... better germ killer than bleach, and has served on the Student ...
  • 9. US Fed News, January 11, 2007 Thursday 2:56 AM EST, , 241 words, German Inventor Develops Photographic Chemicals Bundle, US Fed News, Alexandria, Va.
... solutions for a bleach-fixing bath, characterized ...
  • 10. Women's Health Weekly, January 11, 2007, EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 87, 615 words, OBSTETRICS; Pregnant women can minimize their risk of becoming infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus
... clean affected surfaces with bleach to ensure that the virus is destroyed. - ...
As you can see, the traditional use of the word is not going away. Ask the average person what they mean by bleach, and they'll tell you it's the stuff that whitens things. This is a general use encyclopedia, not a pop culture reference. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a quick note; if you use the Japanese wiki, an entry for Bleach will take you straight to the anime. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. There are many pop culture references in wikipedia. A disambiguation seems justified.

And yet, "Bleach" is a foreign word in Japanese so clearly they have a different page for the chemical. This is flawed logic. Dismabiguation pages should be used when there are many many things with the same or similar names, or several alternatives of relatively equal significance. Your favorite cartoon is not that important to most people. --Belg4mit 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I Believe a Disambiguation page would be especially helpful, and is a good idea. It doesn't matter whether or not the internet can misconstrue a meaning of a word, but that it is easy to find what you're searching for when you (Intended as "You", the User) browses Wikipedia in search of a topic. If you went on a survey and asked both young and old alike, in person, or on the internet, you'd more than likely get multiple different answers of the meaning of "Bleach", most being primarily either related to the Anime/Manga, or the Chemical. It's not a question of whether or not someone's "favourite cartoon" is important to most people, as one or two skeptics seem to think here, but an Issue of whether the user can find what they are looking for, with the least amount of problems.
Look at it this way: Suppose you are looking for the Anime. That is your intention, and there is no mistaking it. The problem arises when you search for "Bleach"; You are directed to a chemical, which is nothing close to what you wished for, besides a similar name. There aren't many users that would guess the exact URL for the page of the Anime, and they would have a harder time finding it.
Certainly, it is an Anime, and most likely, is not important. You can't ignore that it is indeed significant, however, and that whenever someone searches for "Bleach", there is a good chance they are looking for the Anime/Manga version instead of the Chemical. A disambiguation page is definitely justified, and applicable indeed. It certainly will not hurt either article at all, and can only serve to help all Users.
I hope you've all found my input helpful. I look forward to further discussion. ^^Jwguy 08:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Not everything with multiple meanings justifies a disambiguation on the main article. If you look up monkey, for instance, you're taken straight to the thing most people think of when they hear the word "monkey:" the animal, not the motorcycle or the zodiac sign or anything else named after the animal. Similarly, when you mention the word "bleach" to a random person on the street, odds are far greater that they're going to think of the chemical, not the manga that's named after the chemical. Most people in English-speaking countries just aren't interested in Japanese comics or cartoons and have probably never even heard of the Bleach anime/manga. (Ask people in your neighborhood if you don't believe me). I think it's quite reasonable to expect users to be able to click the link at the top of the page to get to the article they want if they're looking for the manga. Arsivis 08:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Arsivis. Also, personally, when I wiki "Bleach", I'm looking for the Japanese manga series, but most people think of the whitener when they hear the word. Google search really doesn't give acceptable results as people probably don't research bleach (the chemical) all that often, but still, far more think "Clorox" instead of "anime" (face it, anime isn't as popular as you think it is). As it stands, there is a link at the top of the page directing you to the series, so that should really be an acceptable compromise. PeRiDoTs13 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick link for series

since most people that search bleach these days want the series not the chemical ive put a link to it above the dis link to save people a click. this way you still get the "proper" article but saves people with slower connections from having to load the dis page

I've reverted this. I haven't seen anything other than anecdotal evidence that this would be the case. Chris Cunningham 09:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think google search results are strongly indicative of what people search for on google, so I'm not opposed to the header disambig as a kind of search topic disambiguation. I think it also shows an admirable willingness to work with "fanboy" editors.
Of course, google searches do not suggest we should make this page disambiguation, or move the manga article here. If anything, sources like google news show that the traditional definition of bleach is by far the most frequently one used. But since the manga bleach is probably searched more often than the Nirvana album and the band, I don't think it's terrible to put it in the header. Cool Hand Luke 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, you've convinced me. Chris Cunningham 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs fixed

The second section, "types of bleach" is in need of fixing. I don't know if its caused by vandalism, or general editing mistake, but it hass little [['s in it, and the second ¶ ends abruptly. I don't have the time to fix it right now, but maybe somebody else can have a look? Ghostwo 22:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Prior versions of the "Types of Bleach" had a lot more information in them than the current one. The older versions needed a little cleaning but they still had good information in them. --Bdevel 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] color safe bleach

could someone please put in some information about color safe bleach or make an article about it, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Is bleach combustible

Will it catch on fire?

Just don't try it, 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It is a strong oxidizer though. --Belg4mit 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The hazards section

is very difficult to understand. Could someone translate it into normal English, or expand it to provide some more information to us average Joes please? 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is actually fairly "normal english" for a discussion of environmental chemical hazards. You might prefer something like this. --Belg4mit 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanism

Could somebody restore the "How bleaches work" section from here? It was a casualty of 217.77.143.218's "Removed vandalism" on 2007-03-27T10:56:15.--Belg4mit 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] concentration

I'm finding conflicting percentages for household bleach concentration. The clorox MSDS's show a concentration range for ultra clorox that overlaps the concentration of regular clorox and the scented varieties have less. Then the bleach I buy in Korea has 4% on the bottle but I'm not sure if it's by weight or what. --Gbleem 07:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chlorine dioxide or peroxides

chlorine dioxide or peroxides? Which is the paper industry using? --Gbleem 04:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that needs to be flagged. Joseph N Hall 10:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disinfecting agent?

Strangely, the article does not seem to mention bleach's common use as a disinfecting agent.

[edit] Contradiction?

I can't really see where the contradiction tags are refering to in the 'Other Bleaches' section. After a bit of reading I'd guess it's the line: 'This can result in formation of dioxins, and the paper industry has begun to use peroxides instead.' coming after 'Chlorine dioxide is used for the bleaching of wood pulp, fats and oils, cellulose, flour, textiles, beeswax, and in a number of other industries' and as this first statement doesn't seem to have references and messes up an otherwise clear section I'm removing it, and the contradiction tag. If anyone agrees with the statement perhaps they can rewrite it into the section a bit more concisely. Mickthefish 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crofting

There is no mention of the early methods of bleaching cloth as in bleachcrofts or crofting. --jmb 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hazards (synthesis?)

Resolved.

Mdbrownmsw 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"A problem with chlorine is that it reacts with organic material to form trihalomethanes like chloroform, which is a well known carcinogen.[improper synthesis?]"

Posssibly true. Not sourced. More to the point, this article is about bleach. We need a reliable source saying something along the lines of "A problem with (type of bleach(es) being discussed) is that they can release chlorine, which reacts..." As it now stands, the statement also fits into the article on table salt.

"However, the use of elemental chlorine in industrial processes such as paper bleaching, with its attendant production of organochlorine-persistent organic pollutants (including dioxins), does not have any benefits."

Again, possibly true, not sourced and is a discussion of elemental chlorine.

"Chlorine is a respiratory irritant.[improper synthesis?]"

Again, possibly true, not sourced and is a discussion of elemental chlorine.

Mdbrownmsw 15:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the section and added in sourced reactions demonstrating the hazards of bleach. Hopefully, this is a little better. --Ratiocinate (t • c) 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
MUCH better. Thanks! Mdbrownmsw 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

Looks like the first sentence of the article needs to be changed. Spammer edited it.

Kanscrx 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Kanscrx

[edit] First sentence

Looks like the first sentence of the article needs to be changed. Spammer edited it.

Kanscrx 20:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The hazards section (mixing bleach and ammonia)

The information on mixing bleach and ammonia in the hazards section looks pretty wrong. Does NaONH3 even exist? 24.16.207.122 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry escapes me (along with the continued popularity of Paris Hilton). That said, h2g2 says yes to the existance of NaONH3. Then again, you get what you pay for. Another wiki-type site (that I just closed -- oops) says the reaction in question is highly unlikely in urine due to low (or was it high?) pH.

Mdbrownmsw 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammonia and sodium hypochlorite react to form a number of products, depending on the temperature, concentration, and how they are mixed. The main reaction is chlorination of ammonia, first giving chloramine (NH2Cl), then NHCl2 and finally nitrogen trichloride (NCl3). These materials are very irritating to eyes and lungs and are toxic above certain concentrations. It is also possible to get chlorine and hydrazine H2N-NH2 Silverchemist 06:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In light of this, should the H2G2 site still be a reference? 24.16.207.122 09:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

h2g2 is essentially a wiki site. As a result, it is NOT a reliable source. I've pulled the cite. I think any reliable source we find will state that bleach + ammonia = really bad idea. The issues still calling for sourcing (IMO) are:
  • What are the likely and possible products of a bleach + ammonia reaction? I think we also need to find cites discussing reactions of household bleach, as opposed to just sodium hypochlorite.
  • Since ammonia is common in urine and bleach is often used to "clean" anything perceived as "nasty", are there any likely or possible products there that are of concern? (One site discussed bleach + urea, but I doubt most households are likely to be mixing straight NaOCl with straight urea.
  • This section originally had a broad, unsourced statement about "some" users avoiding use of bleach due to "hazards". I'm looking for reliable sources discussing reasons to avoid &/or limit bleach use (maybe messing up the balance of a septic system?), as well as reliable sources discussing uses where bleach is the agent of choice (it seems lots use diluted bleach to "disinfect" virtually everything - kitchen/bath floors & countertops, plastic kids' toys, cutting boards, etc.)
  • "Household bleach" is such a commonly used chemical that I really think this article needs significantly more content. Should the bits about industrial bleaches, sun bleaching, etc. be moved to other articles and referenced with links?
Mdbrownmsw 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry

The chemistry section and the mechanism section are redundant. The current chemistry section does not describe the mechanism of bleaching, but only describes the reaction of chlorine and water. This has little to do with the chemistry of bleaching. HokieJC (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] drinking bleach?

This is the first I've heard of people drinking bleach to increase sexual prowess. I've heard about people doing it to beat drug tests however. I took that part out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.252.111 (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that, but I've heard things like "make her drink bleach", or seen the use of a spray-bottle of bleach into the mouth to punish people (Hard Candy). Is this just coincidence, or is bleach a common ad-hoc torture implement? Scott Paeth (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History needed

Who invented bleach? How long have humans used bleach? Etc., Tpellman (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] racist

Chowfonsin (a user), has been making racist remarks. Has he been taken "care" of? Yojimbo501 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uh...

So, someone seems to have left a fat tag on the intro, and I don't have an account, so I can't seem to find a way to edit that. Anyone care to do the honors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.105.222 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

could someone please tell me how to make hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite into some kind of jelly looklike? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.253.4 (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)