Talk:Thorotrast
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thorotrast article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Interesting historical topic, but needs work!
[edit]The text as it stands could the be framework for a very interesting article (the relationship to Egas Moniz being particular intriguing) but unfortunately so far no one who really knows the sources seems to have taken an interest in it. Isn't there some pharmacologist or radiologist who can flesh out the story and add sources? EEng (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the statement about Thorotrast being called the most potent carcinogen because the statement is unsourced, and more importantly because there are surely more potent carcinogens, for example more intense alpha-emitters such as the common isotope of radium, Radium-226, which is over a million times more radioactive. The poignant thing about Thorotrast is that because it was so weakly radioactive as to be a negligible risk for acute external exposure, it was considered safe enough to use as a contrast agent, where the exposure is internal and chronic. Maybe Thorotrast is the most potent carcinogen among substances formerly considered harmless, but even radium was initially not recognized as a carcinogen.129.34.20.23 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed cleanup tag
[edit]I agree this is an interesting topic and would love to see it fleshed out further, but for the time being I think the article is concise, clear, and well cited for the claims it makes. Heyinternetman (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)