Talk:Diethyl phthalate

NPOV

I've removed the entire section called "Are there possible long-term exposure effects on children? The question remains open." Although some editors have made good efforts to improve this section, I don't think it's salvageable. Asking and answering a rhetorical question in the very title of the section - and then carrying on in the same style throughout, citing sources only to dismiss and argue against them without citation - is original work and completely out of line with Wikipedia's rules. 206.45.170.157 (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diethyl phthalate. 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/20090201134838/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Diethyl_phthalate.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPdf/Diethyl_phthalate.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720210742/http://www.nioz.nl/public/annual_report/2006/baars.pdf to http://www.nioz.nl/public/annual_report/2006/baars.pdf

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) 23:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fiddler crabs?

The mention of inhibition of an enzyme that breaks down chitin in shells of crabs seems weirdly out of place, the following sentence and reference to explain what Chitobiase does even more so. Worse, however, is that it isn't even clear from reading those couple of lines that this is an actual problem (ie either whether it is harmful to crustaceans, especially one which has a natural lifespan of 2 years), something unique to this substance, or why it is relevant. For all I know slowing the breakdown of shell chitin is causing crabs in the wild to live longer by causing their shells to remain thicker. More likely it has never been observed in the wild at all and was the result of some study by marine biologists needing to burn through grant money, like the study that was preventing titanium dioxide paint from being shipped air a while back after researchs found that freshwater dolphins would die after 48 hours if they were forced to swim in a 50% mixture of white paint and water... although that one seemed less like burning grant money and more like a researcher that really, really hated dolphins and just felt like torturing some of them. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I stripped a bunch of weird non-sequitur environmental stuff that isn't particularly important to this article but can still be found in the papers, as well as some that don't seem useful in any case. Intraperitoneal injection into pregnant rats to determine effects of other exposure routes during pregancy is seriously one of the most stupidly designed animal experiments I've ever encountered, and I'm including the studies California used to conclude that malathion should be a listed carcinogen that fed mice and rats daily doses of the stuff as close to LD50 as they could get without killing too many for two years straight and since tumors finally showed up at the end they got "statistically significant" results, much in the same way I could get statistically significant results that it had an LD50 of 0.1ng by prolonging the study to 5 years so there was zero chance of natural survival... I'm not as into torturing small animals for no real reason as these idiots were though so I'd probably just inject them all with high dose fentanyl on day one and put them out of their misery and get my fake results, or just skip the mice entirely and type "mutated newborn mouse photo" into stable diffusion then forge my data a few months later like a proper results-for-pay lab.

The fiddler crab thing also got zapped because I couldn't for the life of me determine what the relevance to anything is. Some expert on fiddler crabs might know enough about their enzyme systems to at least say whether it was even a problem, but I still don't think it's important enough for a chemistry article.

In a shocking development I also added a bunch of information that's actually about uses of the chemical to replace the niche environmental stuff that I removed. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)