Talk:Hydrogen peroxide
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hydrogen peroxide 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 |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | Hydrogen peroxide was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
H2O2 as Virucide
[edit]Article says "H2O2 demonstrates broad-spectrum efficacy against viruses, bacteria, yeasts, and bacterial spores.[69][70]" - Hm, not so fast, or only in specific cases, which need more detailing.
Ref 1: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jhin.2020.10.003 - "In conclusion, there is no scientific evidence supporting the indication of hydrogen peroxide mouthwash for control of the viral load regarding SARS-CoV-2 or any other viruses in saliva."
Ref 2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33299988/ - Says "Both 5% (v/v) Colgate Peroxyl and 5% (v/v) povidone-iodine inactivated virus effectively" - which doesn't fit other findings, however it's a different mixture, etc.
Ref 3: https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9781118425831.ch9 - e.g. "H2O2 is found to be resistent against Poliovirus"
Information was added to Virucide too. KR,
17387349L8764 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- The dose makes the poison. Humans and viruses seems to be able to tolerate 5% solutions, but for sterilization of surfaces (which is what the paragraph is discussing) you might use up to 30%. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
alternative medicine practises
[edit]So, regarding the uses of hydrogen peroxide as an alternative medicine. It's hard to determine how common the practise is, but I feel that it warrants mentioning. If it is included then we need to say what people are doing with it and why - otherwise we're not describing the practise. WP:MEDRS compliant medical assessments of those activates of that can obviously follow - but sources describing the beliefs themselves will probably be fringe, because it's a fringe belief. I'm not sure how to get around that. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is it covered in non-fringe reliable sources? If so, great. But if it's nonsense we're taking it upon ourselves to excavate then WP:VALIDity would be a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- My intent was merely to say why people did this. Explanation need not be validation. There did seem some virtue in linking back to a fringe source; as that's where the 'why' originates. I'm not sure if the reasoning is covered much in reputable sources, those mostly focus on the provable facts of the practice. I suppose I can look. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- My question is: is this something that good sources discuss? Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary publication. What I'd want to see is a source discussing why people use/promote Hydrogen peroxide as an altmed treatment. Perhaps this? Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well I think that source actually illustrates my point: a focus on outcomes rather than the beliefs that lead to them. I've no real experience editing alt-med material, but surely such questions have come up before. Is there's a taskforce? I do see your point but I'm not sure how swayed I am by it - if an explanation isn't given elsewhere then it shouldn't be given here either? --Project Osprey (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's the point of WP:VALID - fringe ideas shouldn't be covered except through a contextualizing rational lens. The place to get more input is WP:FT/N. Surely somebody has written about the false claims made for Hydrogen peroxide? (Add this looks more promising.)Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I had aimed for context when I first wrote the section. My reasoning as a narrative was something like:
- "Why would someone drink hydrogen peroxide?" - "Because they think it might fight cancer"
- "Okay, but why would they think that?" - "Well, unfortunately, because of things that can be made to sound reasonable: phagocytes over-generalised, the Warburg hypothesis told backwards"
- The second paragraph, which you have left, picks at those points but you have removed the context that framed them, so now it doesn't make a lot of sense. Hence my reverting your edit.--Project Osprey (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- This non-primary reference[1] explicitly covers the phenomenon of hydrogen peroxide consumption and may help put it in context. I'm unsure whether Skeptical Inquirer is considered reliable; not mentioned in WP:RSP and I cannot find a doi or references to this article, so use your judgement. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think at the moment I'm just trying to determine if explaining the reasons behind its alt-heath use is allowed by WP:VALID and beyond that, if it's wanted. If not then much of the section needs to be re-written. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- This non-primary reference[1] explicitly covers the phenomenon of hydrogen peroxide consumption and may help put it in context. I'm unsure whether Skeptical Inquirer is considered reliable; not mentioned in WP:RSP and I cannot find a doi or references to this article, so use your judgement. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I had aimed for context when I first wrote the section. My reasoning as a narrative was something like:
- I think that's the point of WP:VALID - fringe ideas shouldn't be covered except through a contextualizing rational lens. The place to get more input is WP:FT/N. Surely somebody has written about the false claims made for Hydrogen peroxide? (Add this looks more promising.)Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Well I think that source actually illustrates my point: a focus on outcomes rather than the beliefs that lead to them. I've no real experience editing alt-med material, but surely such questions have come up before. Is there's a taskforce? I do see your point but I'm not sure how swayed I am by it - if an explanation isn't given elsewhere then it shouldn't be given here either? --Project Osprey (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- My question is: is this something that good sources discuss? Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary publication. What I'd want to see is a source discussing why people use/promote Hydrogen peroxide as an altmed treatment. Perhaps this? Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- My intent was merely to say why people did this. Explanation need not be validation. There did seem some virtue in linking back to a fringe source; as that's where the 'why' originates. I'm not sure if the reasoning is covered much in reputable sources, those mostly focus on the provable facts of the practice. I suppose I can look. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the SBM source[1] was fine for this? I'll do it myself if I get the time ... Alexbrn (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Allen, John M. (2000). "The Pseudoscience of Oxygen Therapy" (PDF). Skeptical Inquirer. 24 (1).
Inhaling hydrogen peroxide to prevent COVID-19
[edit]So apparently this is a thing now: https://community.aafa.org/blog/danger-don-t-nebulize-hydrogen-peroxide-and-breathe-it-to-try-to-treat-or-prevent-covid-19
A concerning and dangerous trend is circulating on social media channels like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok. People are breathing in hydrogen peroxide through nebulizers to try to prevent or treat COVID-19.
141.77.225.60 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Editing, refs removed
[edit]Always tricky removing references, so here is what I have removed or soon will, together with explanations:
- Penney WG, Sutherland GB (1934). "The theory of the structure of hydrogen peroxide and hydrazine". Journal of Chemical Physics. 2 (8): 492–498. Bibcode:1934JChPh...2..492P. doi:10.1063/1.1749518. Penney WG, Sutherland GB (1934). "A note on the structure of H2O2 and H4N2 with particular reference to electric moments and free rotation". Transactions of the Faraday Society. 30: 898–902. doi:10.1039/tf934300898b.
- presumably info from 1934 is obsolete and no one cares.
- Housecroft CE, Sharpe AG (2005). Inorganic Chemistry(2nd ed.). Pearson Prentice-Hall. p. 444. ISBN 0130-39913-2.
- Combined two refs to the same book
- Kröger M (1989). "History". Chemie in unserer Zeit. 23: 34–35. doi:10.1002/ciuz.19890230106.
- Its just a letter to an editor.
- Cooper A (12 January 2005). "A Prescription for Death?". CBS News. Archived from the original on 17 July 2007. Retrieved 7 July 2007.
- dead
- Bernstein C, Johns V (April 1989). "Sexual reproduction as a response to H2O2 damage in Schizosaccharomyces pombe". Journal of Bacteriology. 171 (4): 1893–7. doi:10.1128/jb.171.4.1893-1897.1989. PMC 209837. PMID 2703462.
- specialized. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
"Agua oxigenada" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Agua oxigenada has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 8 § Agua oxigenada until a consensus is reached. PleaseStand (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)