This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between11 January 2019 and17 April 2019. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Stephbender.

This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

GeologyMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-usegeology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit theproject page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Rocks and mineralsHigh‑importance Talc is part ofWikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit theproject page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals High This article has been rated asHigh-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)10:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how does it actually dryHfastedge 08:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bye thanks for listening— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.154.142.187 (talk)19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section about cancer risk was taken word-for-word fromthis site. The information from the site was also horribly biased, misleading, poorly documented, and pseudoscientific. I replaced it with a filler containing links to several abstracts of the research previously provided; a followup would be nice.SReynhout 00:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

This morning I was reading about Talcstunting lung cancer tumor growths...—Precedingunsigned comment added by209.214.200.41 (talk)

Most baby powder these days seems to be made ofcornstarch, not talc. Perhaps havingbaby powder redirect here is inappropriate? --EngineerScotty22:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've madebaby powder a stub now; it no longer redirects here.Aleta08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bye thanks for listening— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.154.142.187 (talk)19:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is classified in the same 2B category in the IARC listing as mobile phones and coffee. According to theIARC website coffee drinking is classified as 3, not as 2B. There is no IARC entry for mobile phones.Gentleman wiki (talk)02:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this sentence is inadequate: In loose form, it was one of the most widely used substances known as baby powder, along with corn starch. Should not the sentence, be changed to two sentences:In loose form, it is (in ratio with or without corn starch), one of the most widely used substances known asbaby powder. Johnson's baby powder contains talc, according to the company's website, but the company also offers a version made with cornstarch. Nowadays baby powder can depending on the manufacturer be made withcornstarch. This along with a suitable reference of course. I have changed the first sentence today, but not the latter two.Broichmore (talk)10:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have an image that I want to add to the page as per the request onRequested Pictures. The image is at the right.

I took the picture myself and I think that it can contribute to the article.M@$+@Ju ~♠01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected now.Vsmith01:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)M@$+@Ju ~♠02:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bye thanks for listening— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.154.142.187 (talk)19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in 1971 researchers found particles of talc embedded in 75 percent of the ovarian tumors studied.

What is the percentage for normal tumors/ovaries? Without this information the statement above is meaningless.—Precedingunsigned comment added byTheJoff (talk •contribs)bye thanks for listening

Talcum Powder redirects here, but this page does not describe what talcum powder is. It should. Or Talcum Powder should have it's own page, or it should not redirect here. --illumi01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. --illumi 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)bye thanks for listeningI am inclined to agree.Vorbee (talk)20:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Talc on the 1st page should be listed as being a CANCER CAUSING SUBSTANCE!!!!!! This is very important to know and now that we do know, cosmetics AND OTHER ITEMS should not be made with talc.— Precedingunsigned comment added byDcherita (talk •contribs)18:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talc with laminar structure is the most important characteristic that appreciated by paint and coatings industry as well as the polymer industy. Such structure will perform a better covering ability in paint products and enhance the strength of plastics.—Precedingunsigned comment added by60.19.170.110 (talk)06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This poster claims that since Talc is a mineral it is inappropriate to classify it as metamorphic, is this correct?Talc is a mineral, not a rock, and therefore not metamorphic

If so then this page is wrong.—Precedingunsigned comment added byExsuscito (talk •contribs)21:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an oversimplification. Talc is considered a metamorphic mineral because it is formed during metamorphism and exists almost entirely within metamorphic rocks. It does not survive in igneous or sedimentary environments.LadyofShalott00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does talc contain the 'curly' serpentine fibre-forms (that used by white asbestos [Chrysotile]) after its metamorphasis? What does 'asbestiform' mean? Amphibole specifically?

Would it be incorrect to say:

"However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers non-asbestiform talc, that is, talc which does not contain potentially carcinogenic asbestiform amphibole fibers, to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in cosmetics.

"However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers non-asbestiform talc, that is, talc which does not contain potentially carcinogenic asbestiform amphibole fibers, to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in cosmetics.Talc does contain asbestiform serpentine fibres, like that consisting in chrysotile (white) asbestos.";in an edit?

If 'asbestiform' is a synonym for 'amphibole', then " carcinogenicasbestiform amphibole fibres" is arguably tautolgoical.194.106.220.83 (talk)22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, amphiboles are not at all the only minerals that may be asbestiform (which refers to a ratio of length to width of the fibers). Seechrysotile for the main asbestiform mineral.LadyofShalott06:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add the IUPAC-name? --89.106.42.17 (talk)21:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page should contain a section with some important chemical reactions shown by talc for a better understanding about its chemical behavior and properties

Saransh1994 (talk)18:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find these two articles very confusing. The article on French chalk – in the second paragraph – describes chalk as “calcium carbonate”.

Firstly, does this imply that French chalk is a type of chalk? If this seems obvious, see what happens next.

In paragraph 3 it says French chalk was a kind of solic talc (linked to the article Talc). Talc is described as “magnesium silicate”, an entirely different substance from calcium carbonate.

So it appears that chalk is calcium carbonate and talc is magnesium silicate. Why, then, are we suggesting merging the two articles if the two substances are completely different chemically?

And is French chalk a type of chalk (calcium carbonate) or a type of talc (magnesium silicate). If the former, why does the ‘French chalk’ article refer to talc? If the latter, why does it refer to chalk?

Regardless of whether these articles are merged, I think the one of French chalk needs clarifying or rewriting.— Precedingunsigned comment added by194.176.105.138 (talk)15:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing useful to merge fromFrench chalk, the bit aboutMost tailor's chalk is talc, as is the chalk often used for welding or metalworking. in this article could simply includeor French chalk as alt name after tailor's chalk and that would be it. Don't need the incomplete 1818 ref. Just do it :)Vsmith (talk)21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French chalk now redirects to this article, but there in no mention of it at all.

In any case, I though French chalk was a type of chalk, which is calcium carbonate (not magnesium silicate). Why is it redirected here?— Precedingunsigned comment added by194.176.105.138 (talk)14:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 11 (Skin Cancer) NIOSH Worker Notification Program. Health effects of mining and milling talc..[dead link](historical)

This page is actually live, however it makes no mention of skin cancer? --Owen (talk)14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed dead link note and skin cancer link as not supported by refs.Vsmith (talk)15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

conclude that some studies have found a link, but other studies have not.[11][12]

[11][12] point to an article on cancer.org contains no results on any study that suggests a lack of link.— Precedingunsigned comment added by150.129.236.136 (talk)19:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following analysis that addresses the reason behind a different chemical formula.
It goes like this:
Reference:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orthosilicate-2D-dimensions.png

[SiO₄]⁴⁻ Ortho-Silicate

SiO₂, like CO₂, as a unit molecule, is chemically neutral. As a crystal can achieve lower states of potential energy.

MgSiO₃ ⇌ Mg²⁺ + [SiO₃]²⁻ is chemically neutral.

But pure water is polar and aggressive.

H₂O + Mg²⁺ + [SiO₃]²⁻ ⇌ H₂²⁺ + Mg²⁺ + [SiO₃]²⁻ + O²⁻

In ionic equilibrium, H₂²⁺Mg²⁺[SiO₄]⁴⁻ is now quenched and free from aggression from a water molecule.

But should not yield H₂Mg₃(SiO₃)₄.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk)13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal model Xemii analitical n/x= n {{ p+q) ^n+1= 2n Academic Marcelius martirosian Autor 202-03-11

Wikipedia is not a scientific journal and does not publish original research. Wikipedia articles on scientific and technical topics, such as the mineralogy of talc, must reflect the consensus in reliable sources such as textbooks or peer-reviewed publications. --Kent G. Budge (talk)15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per[1], the source giving the space group asC1/c (monoclinic) is from 1934. The recent work gives the space group asC1 (triclinic). I've left it for now, but we need more recent sources for the monoclinic result. --Kent G. Budge (talk)06:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page does not make it clear that talc is an organic mineral. Talc is an organic mineral with a molecular weight of 379.26 [Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2].[2]

Talc is not an organic mineral, as it does not contain carbon. -Parejkoj (talk)19:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Physical sciences
• C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
• C-Class Geology articles
• Mid-importance Geology articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Geology articles
• WikiProject Geology articles
• C-Class Rocks and minerals articles
• High-importance Rocks and minerals articles
• High-importance C-Class Rocks and minerals articles
• WikiProject Rocks and minerals articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles