Talk:Salt/Archive 1

Other types of "salt"?

what about other salts? this only focuses on table salt... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.97.248 (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out NACL isnt even the only table salt this article starts out wrong and goes down hill--69.146.146.25 (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There's enough to say just about table salt that we have this whole article about it. Other kinds or meanings of "salt" are on other pages. That's why the very first line of the article here says:

{{three other uses|common table salt|the chemical properties of salt|sodium chloride|the term 'a salt' as used in chemistry|salt (chemistry)}}

Lots of Wikipedia articles have those sorts of navigation notes. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is very important. Salts are fundamental in Chemistry

popcorn salt

Anyone know what tricalcium phosphate is for? I found this on the ingredients list for Morton's "popcorn salt." Not sure why anyone would need a separate salt for popcorn. --Tokek 04:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Tricalcium phosphate is a strongly hygroscopic chemical that—by absorbing water—helps prevent the salt from caking or forming chunks. At low concentrations it's quite harmless; it's a big part of what bones and teeth are made of, actually. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • Popcorn Salt is extremely fine, perhaps because this makes it stick to the popcorn. (I prefer it at all times to regular, coarser salt, because it seems to taste saltier.) Also, it comes in flavored varieties, such as cheese, garlic, etc. More precise info found here: http://www.amazon.com/Wabash-Valley-Farms-Popcorn-Salt/dp/B00017LF24 (See Product Description paragraph.)69.253.25.5 16:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)KHT

Cayman Sea Salt seems to be an ad: A google date range search (somewhat broken feature) produces only ~250 results before from jan 2000 to jan 2005. There seems to be nothing inherently notable about the salt other than the production technique, which should already be covered.

Also: I'd like to see an article about salt, superstition, and religion. Maybe even a sentence about how ants and certain other insects won't cross a line of salt.

"Human beings have enjoyed canning and artificial refrigeration for a couple of centuries..." - seriously, was this aliens or something. Human beings? come on now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.173.42 (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and cleanup

I've tried to clean up most of the article. I think I've removed most of the pro-sea salt slant while still retaining balance; I welcome further comments. There was some duplication in the article, which I've removed. The history section still needs massaging, however. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unusual Issues

1. Toxicity of edible salt -- What is a dangerous amount of salt to ingest at one time? Is this too strange of a question? I read in Rotten by J.Rotten that 3 big spoons of salt is dangerous. I can't find my copy of the book at this time.

2. In Japan and Korea it can be difficult to find table salt per se. It is very humid for half the year. It is very easy to find soy sauce, however. Salt can typically only be found in the form of soy sauce, in other words. This is more or less hearsay, however; I can't really imagine myself researching this. I suppose a native Asian could sort this question out rather quickly. And, does it belong in this article? I would vote yes.

McDogm 28 Apr 2005 0257 est usa

To answer the first question, the MSDS for sodium chloride shows an oral LDLO of 1000 mg/kg in humans. In other words, the lowest reported lethal dose of salt is 1 gram of salt per kilogram of body weight. For a 70 kg human (about 150 lbs), that's 70 grams of salt...about two or three table spoons taken all at once. On the other hand, that's very much a lower limit. Most people would just find that highly unpleasant, but not fatal. In animal tests, the oral LD50 (the dose required to kill 50% of exposed animals) is up around 3 or 4 grams per kilogram: half a pound of salt. It would be rather difficult to ingest that much salt at once; you'd probably vomit most of it right back up. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given that Japan is surrounded by ocean and Korea nearly so, I would say salt is not rare. Korea makes it own salt via evaporation but 80% of it now comes from China. I assume similarly for Japan. 65.32.175.202 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect part?

I think the part about 'anti-caking agents' must be incorrect: usually salt is more hygroscopic than the anti-caking agent which has limited ability to absorb water anyway. Usually, the mode of action is that of a crystal habit modifier: after absorption AND evaporation of water, salt grains recrystallize forming lumps. The crystal habit modifier - like its name suggests - modifies the crystallization so that no lumps will form.

I have added a bit to the above section along those lines (re. sodium hexacyanoferrate) so it can be supported by a citation, I couldn't find one to support the existing anti-caking bit but have left it in it's "citation needed" state. (I am not an expert on salt, I'm just trying to fill in some of the missing cites.) Samatarou 11:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I've amended is the "only 7% used for food", however I'm not very happy with the result as the two references I found differ by a wide margin, and I'm ont convinced they're talking about the same thing. Similarly it's not clear whether the original author of this section, when talking about "refined salt" meant "food grade" or extracted salt production generally. I have assumed the latter, because AFAICT food grade salt is only normally used for food so the "low percentage" must surely be in relation to all extracted salt not just food grade. However more expert input is needed here. Samatarou 11:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Soldier" has no root in "salt", unlike "salary". See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soldier, even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier#Etymology 31 October 2008

How Vital is Salt in the Diet?

This statement in the article should explain what the deleterious effects of lack of salt are: ". . . The deleterious health effects of the exclusive use of rock salt are similar to the effects of the total lack of salt in one's diet. . . ." Sodium--organically bonded in food molecules, in contrast to inorganic sodium atoms in salt--is available from meat and vegetables in a proper diet.

There is a lack of info on health effects. What info there is is largely from salt manufacturers, and I've made these sources clearer. They may well be right, but more info and more independent sources are needed. Perhaps we should flag the article:

Academics line up to defend salt, from the salt lobby, would be one starting point, though having a handful of academics on side doesn't mean the argument is correct. --Singkong2005 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is indisputable evidence that salt is required (see Sodium-Potassium Pump for an example of how crucial sodium is to cellular metabolic processes. In large quantities, especially if the person has a history of high blood pressure, sodium can aggravate that condition; it should be consumed in lower quantities as advised by a medical professional. However, no reputable medical doctor would say that salt could be safely eliminated from the diet. Nimur 04:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

www.salthealth.org gives information on how essential salt is to life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebsterLiberty (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Density question

What is the density of table salt (in grams per cubic centimeter)?

It's roughly equal to that of pure sodium chloride. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge from History of Edible Salt in the US

Wouldn't that make more sense as a section in this article? Avi 19:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no, that article is too specific to be of any major use. Rather an article on history on edible salt that would deal with human use of salt throughout history would be useful (So, the section should be split up and expanded into an article of its own). Would that article be incorporated into the section, we'd end up with a {{globalize}} tag. An article on salt in history in its broadest sense though is another matter. Scoo 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think: rename History of salt in the United States to History of salt (Trade in there somewhere ??) and merge the history sections of this and Sodium Chloride, Salt into it. i.e. make a History of Salt article from all the pieces? Wizzy 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I came across this again - OK to do this ? Wizzy 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - finished. Wizzy…☎ 14:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Health effects (& how much is too much?)

The Health effects section is filling out a little, which is good. It would be good to address the quantity of what is a healthy amount of salt in the diet. Obviously there would be different viewpoints to describe. --Singkong2005 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel there should be a section of the difference between salt and sodium as discussed in this article: Cooking Light - Sodium I feel people use the two words interchangabley, but should not because salt is only 40% sodium. Calimatthew 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the medical condition of hypernatremia is mentioned but not hyponatremia. I don't fell expert enough to mess with health/medicine stuff but I feel strongly that this should be included. ----69.228.96.138 18:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The study by Nancy Cook is authoratative but examination of the BMJ ref shows the sample, although large, was entirely made up of subjects who were at risk of cardiovascular problems ("high-normals"). Given that the controversy re. low salt tends to hinge on benefits to normal v. "at risk" people, I felt this aspect of the study should be mentioned to ensure the article remains neutral. Samatarou 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Rocks?

The article says one of the few rocks humans eat. This may be a weird question, but what are the other rocks? Astrophil 18:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Chalk (in antacids), perhaps. -- Avi 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same question:-). If the only other "rocks" that we eat are chalk in antacids then it would probally be fair to add a "very" i.e. "Edible salt ... one of the very few rocks humans eat". Also its not clear to me that we "eat" antacids, they are not food, rather we take them, they are medisain.--JK the unwise 10:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A promo on Food TV mentioned salt as the only rock humans eat FWIW Wubb 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to changing the lead to "...the only rock that humans eat"?--JK the unwise 17:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps too categorical - see Pica (disorder). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "...the only rock that is commonly eaten by humans"?--JK the unwise 09:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ice qualifies as a mineral. It probably doesn't qualify as a food, but it is eaten.

Move proposal

I propose a move of this article from Edible salt to Table salt because "table salt" is much more popular. See Google Fight between "edible salt" vs. "table salt". If nobody objects in a week, then I'll tag Table salt for speedy deletion (CSD G6) and move Edible salt there once the admin deletes it. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Table salt is a sub-section that would seem to imply that the article covers edible salts other then table salt.--JK the unwise 09:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The two are not exact synonyms, so a Google fight is irrelevant. Salt used in preservation, curing, or food packing is arguably not 'table salt'. I think the current article title is better. —Michael Z. 2006-03-15 17:24 Z

Support - no they're not exact synonyms, but table salt can be treated as a subsection, and it keeps it simpler. --Singkong2005 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Object - as per JK the unwise and Michael 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Wow, looks good! I did accidentally lose/miss a couple of references and I am glad they have been reinstated. There's one spot I'm a bit confused about, though: [1] I think, now that the article is more balanced, it currently makes a case for the idea that some people need to decrease their salt intake, some need to increase it, and some need not mess with it. Right? This statement sounds to me like it's saying that no one needs to decrease their salt intake. And plus, as an encyclopedia I'm not sure we should be giving direct health advice anyway. ;)

Also, I am wondering if we need all three pictures at the top. Isn't the salt shaker enough? (We also have the single serving package farther down.)

It's been a while since I've edited much (as evidenced by my screwing up the references -- thanks again), so I'm going to be a little less bold than usual and wait a couple of days for comments before doing anything again. If no one says anything, I will change these two things. Jacqui^★ 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jacqui.

• "…some need to increase it…" It's highly unlikely that a typical person in an advanced economy needs to increase intake as you get enough through diet and the body can cope well with any fluctuations. Continual salt deficiency might be a problem in Africa perhaps. Possible new topic?
• What's the exact sentence that's worrying you?
• Wikipedia ahouldn't give health advice because Wikipedia is highly unreliable, particularly on health issues where some contributors have an axe to grind or a commercial interest in a particular viewpoint. The most Wikipedia can do is point people to sources that are reliable.
• Don't have strong views about the photos: they might appeal to children who use WikipediaNunquam Dormio 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Some clarifications:

This is the sentence I was a bit concerned about (please see the above link to see where it occurs): "Salt substitutes are unnecessary though some people might find them helpful." For some people, aren't they necessary? And even if not, doesn't this count as health advice?

BTW, you're talking to a "typical person in an advanced economy" who needed to increase her salt intake. Well, I guess we need to discuss what "typical" is. Is a person with a medical condition, however mild, considered "untypical" somehow? Most people have one medical condition or another, right? Well, some of them have to do with a lack of salt. This is mentioned in the article :) Jacqui^★ 16:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did a lot of editing today. However, while all of the reference numbers work, I think there's something up with the numbering, but unfortunately I can't figure out how to fix it! Jacqui^★ 16:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The named reference needs to precede those that refer to it. So < ref name=yogi >reference details< /ref > first and < ref name=yogi/ > afterwards Nunquam Dormio 17:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - did some editing, added a photo of a chinese salt well brine boiler. BTW - I noticed in the "Unrefined Salts" there are other types of edible unrefined salts missing such as pickling salts (which aren't sea salts) that didn't seem to be included. Phreakster 1998 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In Australia there is no RDI although the UL of 2300mg/day is often quoted mistakenly as the RDI. I have edited the reference to RDI to correct this. The source for existence of RDI (better health Vic.) no longer claims existence of RDI after this was pointed out to them. Tubbytuba (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Iodide or iodate?

Can anybody in US look at the ingredents list and stat which salt is used for iodising? In germany iodate is used.--Stone 13:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed?

Someone really went overboard on citation needed... Do you really need a citation that soy sauce has high salt content? ... lol ... It's the third major ingredient next to water and soy. lol. Makes that section silly.... Oogles 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, somebody really went nuts on this article. We do NOT need a citation to say that salt is commonly put on food! I'm about to go through and remove the more ridiculous ones. Phasmatisnox 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The US uses potassium iodide as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations[2] --Mosatin (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The edibility of salt isn't necessarily relevant. I think its an extraneous addition that was added because Salt was taken. I have moved the Salt page to Salts (chemistry). This page is now free to use Salt, in my opinion.Yeago 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. It looks like sodium chloride covers that particular substance more generally, while edible salt does indeed cover the human consumption aspects. Perhaps it should be titled salt (condiment) or something to reflect that. I'm also not convinced that salts (chemistry) is the right place for that article. The naming conventions advise us to use singular nouns. I could see a case for moving sodium chloride to "salt", but I don't think that's what you're proposing. --Stemonitis 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... looking into it, its rather strange that the Salt (chemistry) article contains a blurb about the history and appearance of salt. That doesn't seem to make any sense. I see a merge tag and hopefully something will happen with that. As for moving Sodium chloride to salt, I see so much overlap between Sodium chloride and Edible salt that I think either way is an improvement. Comparing the two it seems like a good proposal for merge. Sure, let's move sodium chloride.

As for it being singular, that's fine. Someone in the talk page their suggested it. Moreover, the whole article is written in the 'salts' tense. Doesn't matter to me =)Yeago 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support move/merge taking sodium chloride to salt and merging in any useful stuff dfrom edible salt (which strikes me as a really lame name anyway). Mangoe 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The page "Edible salt" has been moved to "Salt" as the result of a related move request. The discussion can be found at Talk:Salt (chemistry). Dekimasuよ! 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

History of edible salt

Isn't the history of edible salt much the same as the history of sodium chloride? Does it make sense to have a blurb about the history of salt in an article that focuses on its dietary uses? Unless of course that history illustrated the diet in history, which it does not. Propose removing history section and putting link to History of salt in the "see also".Yeago 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violation

This has got to go:

According to a finding from a reputed group practicing 'Nature Cure', salt can be linked to most of the diseases in humans. According to its founder Dr. Raju [30] "The salt that we add to taste is roughly from 4000 mg to 25000 mg. Means we are consuming salt many times than required to satisfy the tongue. We do get the natural sodium more than enough through our natural food like fruits, vegetables, milk etc every day, causing no deficiency."

It seems like there have been a lot of editing on this article, so I will not just remove it outright, but I would suggest that one of the regular editors either completely rework that paragraph or remove it. If I do it, I assume it will just be reversed, and I won't return to keep it off the page. This paragraph has poor language, attributes reputability to some unnamed "nature cure" group and seems to state that salt is as good as the root of all bodily evil. This paragraph seems to be pushing some strange fringe salt ideology, and it does not belong on Wikipedia.

128.101.10.146 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Job done. Nunquam Dormio 17:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

12 June 2007

As of 11 June 2007 there was a bias in the article where it stated that salt consumption increases the risk of health problems. That was not enough because it did not specify which types of salt and in which proportions. Salt imbalance is what causes those health problems and salt balance is what prevents them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcampbell422 (talk • contribs).

Many of the changes introduced here make no sense and are completely unfounded (or at least uncited by WP:RS for some non-obvious ideas)...what's a "unilateral" form of a salt, who cares whether what you shake on your food is the same cationic ratio as the human body, etc. This appears to be related to User:Mcampbell422's massively (at this time anyway) WP:OR additions to the page about salinity control. DMacks 05:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A unilateral form of salt is one that is not sufficiently balanced with another form of salt such that a physiological stress upon an organism occurs. Who cares? Everyone cares - or at least their bodies do. Their bodies not only control the overall content of salt in the blood and/or body, they control its balance of different types of salts. When the proportion of different types of salt is less than optimal, stress is placed upon their bodies. If you have information that any of this information is wrong, then by all means delete what I write. If you don't have that information, then don't delete anything. Let's certainly keep the literal definition of salt scientitic. Remember: unless you can prove that: there is original research, there is no neutral point of view, or the information is not verifiable, then don't do anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.195.17.240 (talk)

Sorry, but WP:RS instructs that it is up to the editor who adds info to supply reliable sources for it, not for others who question that info to cite disproof of it. DMacks 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Table salt & sodium chloride

The claim that table salt is 99% NaCl is currently supported by published assays of two brands of salt. These references seem inadequate to support the claim. I have no idea if all the "alternative salt" quackery that used to be on here has any basis, but I'd like to know if table salt is defined as mostly NaCl, or just typically winds up being mostly NaCl. Maybe other brands of table salt aren't the same...? Eleland 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever government branch handles food safety in your jurisdiction will also have set standards for what can be called 'salt' or 'table salt'. This link – while not from a particularly authoritative site – suggests that in the United States the FDA standard is a minimum of 97.5% sodium chloride. (I don't have time to find the actual regulation.) As noted there, the actual purity of salt sold is usually much higher; 99% is definitely not unreasonable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, upon some research, it looks like the Food Chemical Codex standard is probably something like 97.5% with the vast majority of the 2.5% being water. However, I can't actually find a good source for this, just a lot of industry sources that imply it if I put one and one together (aka [[WP:OR#SYN]). Maybe somebody who has access to a university e-library system, or the like, could pull up the relevant standard and add it as a citation? Eleland 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Salt melts at 800°C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.236.78 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Query: on a box of table salt (Windsor, Canada), sugar is listed as an ingredient.

A stove top test (v. a salt w/o sugar) quickly shows that there is a very small amount of sugar in Windsor salt.

Any idea why?

(I've written to Windsor, no reply to date...)

There is an international Codex Alimentarius standard for Food Grade Salt[3] that calls for a minimum of 97% sodium chloride regardless of source of origin.

Dextrose is added to some brands of sugar as an anti-caking agent.

--Mosatin (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Salt is a mineral commonly eaten by humans composed primarily of sodium chloride

Lot's wife? Hardly a mass market then. :) Captain Pedant 08:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Daily intake of salt

I read in John Wiseman's SAS Handbook that 10mg of salt intake is usual per adult/per day. Also, I think that salt intake in Japan is way higher (as they use allot of soy sauce, ...) Perhaps something to look into.

81.246.178.53 (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Way out. A typical adult needs 4g salt / day. See the article. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check on it anyways. I thought that the critics against Macrobiotics were that it featured way too much salt (thus higher than 4g-6g). Also, Japanese people/cuisine uses not only salty ingredients (soy sauce, seaweed, miso, ...) yet they also tend to eat less (which is better), yet which also causes blood pressure to drop. It is thus imperative that they take in much more salt.

As this blood pressure is a very important item to include in the article, I suggest you look into it.

Thanks in advance. KVDP (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Found reference to my claim. It appears that the Japanese eat 12 grams of salt/day. It is mentioned in the book "The Okinawa program" by Willcox, Willcox and Suzuki (page 72). Further reference available from "Okinawa Centenarian Study database; U.S. dietary data from the U.S. cohort of the Seven Countries Study from Keys,A.1980 Seven Countries: A Commonwealth Fund Book. Boston:Harvard University Press.

Note that the Okinawans eat 7 grams/day (Okinawans are said to have "the healthiest diet in the world"; atleast according to the book.

Include in the article, I did quite some trouble by now looking into it myself. KVDP (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

use on roads

where would i go to find out about salt harvesting AND how much of it is used on american roads? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.204.88 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

rock salt SeanCollins (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Typographical mistake

In the history section, second paragraph, third sentence: Pliny was wrongly spelled "Pliney". His name, in English, takes no E.

Fixed. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Another mistake: "Salt disturbance is coating industry" should be "Salt disturbance in coating industry"

Uses other than dietary

This article practically begs for additional content regarding the thousands of other, non-dietary uses of salt. Unfocused 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

potatos and salt

some forms of potatos come from the salt company, this is rather funny, i just thought that you should know *chortal* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.228.241 (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Health and potassium/natrium balance

Nowhere in the article it is found that the balance between potassium and natrium too must be maintained (this can be out of balance due to incorrect eating) See this site, this website and finally this site Include in article. thanks, 81.246.187.104 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a Sodium/Potassium pump in cells. The cells send Sodium ions out of the cytosol, at the same time inputs Potassium to the cytosol, using ATPs the "energetic money of the cell" for that task. See: Sodium/Potassium Pump For that reason, people that have suffered a heart attack are forced to an hyposodic diet (low in Sodium). Also to reduce hypertension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elias (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Salt has been used to preserve food since ancient times

The use to preserve cod fish with salt, meat (pork,beef) were used since long time ago. Refrigerators have been in homes just very recently, xx century. More over there are still many places in the Earth lacking electricity.

It's symbol os Na —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.250.140 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Natron and red salt

Some time ago, I thought I read that in chad, natron and red salt was also produced (for human consumption; or food preservation). perhaps can be included in production section. Not sure what the red salt is, and dont know whether the natron is really harmless could have impurities ?)

Table salt

Table salt is refined salt, which may be as little as 60% or as high as 99% sodium chloride. It usually contains substances that make it free-flowing (anti-caking agents) such as sodium silicoaluminate or magnesium carbonate. Some people also add a desiccant, such as a few grains of uncooked rice, in salt shakers to absorb extra moisture and help break up clumps when anti-caking agents are not enough. Table salt has a particle density of 2.165 g/cm³, and a bulk density (dry, ASTM D 632 gradation) of about 1.154 g/cm³. Its true salt was used especially in Tudor Times it was used to preserve food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.176.122 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

The link under Salt Industry/Salt Institute Sodium Health is dead. It should be replaced with the appropriate page from the Salt Institute's new webpage http://www.saltinstitute.org/Issues-in-focus/Food-salt-health WebsterLiberty (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

History marking the transition from raw to refined salt in the diet. =

Current health concerns about dietary salt intake and the pro-sea-salt movement make the timing of mankind's transition from raw to refined salt important. When people eat raw salt they ingest a mix of the various important dietary electrolytes (and other trace minerals). When people eat refined salt they get much more sodium and much less of the other electrolytes and minerals. We know that iodine deficiency in dietary salt products created health problems and as a result iodine is now added to dietary salt products. Full history of the transition from raw salt to table salt in dietary salt products could help the health industry understand whether that transition is now causing (or amplifying) dietary electrolyte imbalances and/or other mineral deficiencies. Please add such history to this article, or to the "history of salt" article with cross references. Information specific to individual populations worldwide noting when and whether each have transitioned to refined salt in their diet would also help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.189.67 (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I imagine that you refer to a transition between sea salt and mined salt. Is this issue covered in the History of salt page to your satisfaction? Abductive (reasoning) 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable reference for USA ban of salt additive Sodium Ferrocyanide =

Sodium ferrocyanide has been banned in the United States and a similar ban has been discussed in the United Kingdom, but was determined to be unnecessary.[21][22]

The reference for the fact of a ban of sodium ferrocyanide, as a salt additive, in the USA, is a sea-salt retailer's page! http://www.seasalt.co.uk/wisscms-en-198.aspx I can't find any other references for the ban in food, although there is evidence of a ban on its use as a fire-retardant. Pending discussion I'd like to remove the claim of the ban until it can be verified Michaelecyr (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Windsor Table Salt =

One possible reason for invert sugar in windsor table salt in that the glucose in invert sugar is highly, hygroscopic which will prevent caking in a similar manner as rice. Binaryblade (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, dextrose is used as an anti-caking additive in commercial salt. --Terryfirma (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Salt flavor is one of the basic tastes, an important preservative and a popular food seasoning.

It says this in the introduction. It should probably be changed to say something like "Salt flavor is one of the basic tastes. Salt is also an important preservative and a popular food seasoning."75.17.157.194 (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Made a change in the spirit of your request. Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the "Salt" page

{{editsemiprotected}}

I suggest the following improvements/corrections:

under === Salt and health ===,

A) the current link to the Salt Institute is broken; the correct link is Salt Institute [4]

B) Please add the new website specifically devoted to Salt and health - Salthealth [5]

under ===Table salt===,

A) The following statement is incorrect:

"Table salt is refined salt, which may be as little as 60% or as high as 99% sodium chloride.[24][25][26]"

Reference 25 cites an obvious anomaly or an incorrect interpretation. Salt containing only 60% sodium chloride is likely an unrefined sea salt.

The international Codex Alimentarius Standard for Food Grade Salt [6] calls for a minimum of 97% sodium chloride .

Sea salts that do not contain a minimum of 97% sodium chloride do not qualify as Food Grade Salt.

under ==Health effects==

"Many (though not all scientists)[38] believe that excess salt consumption has been linked to:

- exercise-induced asthma.[39] " This has since been discredited by the recent work at Nottingham University [7] which concluded there is no link between salt consumption and asthma.

There is a statement that leads readers to believe that the low salt diets of the Yanomamo Indians results in their low blood pressure. "Some isolated cultures, such as the Yanomami in South America, have been found to consume little salt, possibly an adaptation originated in the predominantly vegetarian diet of human primate ancestors.[49]"

In fact, their low blood pressure has been more closely related to their lack of a D/D genotype. [8] [9]

--Mosatin (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  273° 52' 0" NET   18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note a minor spelling error in the Yanomamo statement: 'However, the low salt diets of the Yanomamo Indians deos not result in their low blood pressure, ....." Should state "Yanomamo Indians does..." --Terryfirma (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

adding refining to "see also

nothing about salt refining there but since most of the salt we are eating is refined it's related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazztone (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Add calcium silicate as an anticaking agent. source 26oz Morton Salt container. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benrush123 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing language

I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris--Rajkiandris (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What is its title there (what is the exact link that should be added)? DMacks (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Salt vs Sodium in the diet

The section "Recommended intake" has an error in the United States suggest intake of salt/sodium. The statement of 2300mg is correct, but the equation is grossly misleading/inaccurate. The Nutrition Facts labels of foods in the US list salt under the heading of "Sodium." If one were to determine the actual amount of elemental sodium this equates to, it would be close to 950mg of elemental sodium. This could also be clarified under the subheading of "Labeling" referenced in a number of FDA sites such as http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm181577.htm which state that the amount of salt contained in foods is labeled as "Sodium" on Nutrition Facts labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.178.233.235 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) This change has been added. Malvolio6 (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong and the preceding comments should be disregarded. Malvolio6 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the label "sodium" includes that element in all its forms (from NaCl, from MSG, from whatever else). Now one can always convert a given amount of Na into the equivalent amount of "salt" (e.g., an exchange rate of X mg MSG to Y mg salt). So either description of the suggested intake could be used (Na or salt), as long as the wording is clear. That is, if the RDA is for Na, then say that and also "equivalent to XX amount of salt". Or if the RDA is for salt, then say that and also "though this does not consider sodium supplied from other ingredients" or something. DMacks (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chanman121, 31 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The current text says:"...making salt one of the oldest, most ubiquitous food seasoning." Make "seasoning" plural.

Chanman121 (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK  Chzz  ►  03:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Another Wikipedia Article Locked up with A Lot Of Total BS in It

Let's see, we learn that salt can be stuffed into bamboo and heated to 2000°C (over a wood fire) even though salt melts and turns into a gas at 800°C and 1400°C, respectively. Additionally, wood and bamboo burn and turned into ash at 2000°C. This encyclopedia article also disparages the "salt industry" for relying upon scientific studies as to the efficacy of salt with iodine. Every time I think about donating again to Wikipedia, I remember it is nothing but a plaything for its moderators and decide to let them support it. I wonder if the wing-nuts who wrote the Wikipedia salt article ever read the sodium chloride one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.22.150 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That temperature sounds crazy no? That's why it has a specific citation, so you can go read the actual article on which the statement is based. If after reading that, you still think the statement is a load of crap, let us know what you find right away! If it's supported by the cite, then you really have no beef with wikipedia on that count.

This particular article was widely vandalized (not just content disputes) prior to protection, so that had to be stopped. Luckily for you, you can still participate in improving the content if you have actual suggestions...just post some improved content here with a {{editprotected}} tag and admins will be happy to migrate/update the article if your content is supported by cites. Or if not, many others will be happy to tell you exactly what the problem is so you can explain better why your idea is good.

It's unfortunate that the very nature of this project sometimes makes it easy for idiots to make it hard for well-meaning individuals to get articles fixed. DMacks (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would blame wikipedia because you should make sure the citation isn't a load of bullshit before you add it. 98.71.215.29 (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Health benefits and the rising interest in sea salt.

Loss of nutrition by over-processing of foods is a big health topic in general. The rising interest in sea salt as a healthier alternative to table salt shows that the topic is particular relevant to salt. Processing affects salt's health benefits and should be discussed, especially since table salt is something people are being told to eat less of, and especially since there is evidence (or at least claimes) that it is the removal of the minority electrolytes from salt during processing that makes it unhealthy.

Iodine is added to table salt because it disappears from the raw product in the processing and even afterward on the shelf. It is added back, by law to avoid health problems that causes. The requirement to add Iodine was legislated in the US almost 100 years ago as an early effort to protect the integrity of the US food supply. The article mentions that it is added, but does not mention the relation to salt processing and handling.

Magnesium is removed from salt in the processing to create modern table salt. The RDA amount of salt (4g) should have about 150mg of Magnesium. For many people, eating much more than the RDA for salt, the magnesium that they are missing due to salt refinement may equal their entire magnesium RDA. Magnesium is not so easy to replace in our diets. Multi-vitamins try but the quantity is too large for addition to a daily pill. This deficiency causes heart irregularities. It also negatively impacts digestive regularity. Why its addition was not required when the addition of Iodine became required is not clear (to me). Perhaps it is because Magnesium was not removed from salt until more recently. Perhaps it is because at that time its impact on health was unknown. Perhaps it is because the information is not collected and presented in layman's terms as it could be in this Wikipedia entry.

Salt processing also added aluminum as an anti-caking agent to create modern table salt. That is believed that Aluminum has negative health affects. When did the addition of aluminum occur? How large is the quantity? Has the practice been stopped. Now some salts are replacing aluminum with magnesium for anti-caking. At what quantity? Is the quantify large enough to effectively restore the appropriate magnesium levels to table salt?

Discuss the history of processing of salt to get table salt in the United States. When did the removal of magnesium from food salt begin in the United States. Discuss the differences in salt processing around the world as it affects the removal of various nutrients. You might also note, as layman's evidence of a trend, that some health drinks now add electrolytes other than sodium, electrolytes that are in raw salt but now removed from table salt. Gatorade adds Potassium and has well documented evidence that it is more healthful that just adding Sodium. Powerade now adds calcium, potassium and magnesium all of which are electrolytes in raw salt but removed to make table salt. People are discovering that those minority elements in salt are needed together with the sodium for good health.

The absence of this in the current article makes the article much less than the comprehensive, authoritative source it would like to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.189.67 (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Health effects of too much salt?

Alright now I'm not a doctor so you can let me know if I'm wrong but, the reason eating too much salt is supposed to cause high blood pressure is because then your body has to draw more water into your blood vessels to balance everything out right? Well if that's the case then it should only be very temporary since your kidneys filter out excess water and salt. If you chug a bottle of water then you'd probably notice in like an hour you'd be pissing a lot to get rid of that extra water. Right? So if that's the case then normal healthy people shouldn't need to worry about eating too much salt. 98.71.215.29 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

eating too much salt can damage the gums. i know because it happeed to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk • contribs)

However eating elevated levels of salt is something that many people do continuously, rather than once in a while. When they keep adding more salt, beyond the bodies ability to get rid of it, the level of salt remains elevated. Zodon (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Salt as commodity money

Salt is listed number four on the list of forms of commodity money. This article mentions nothing of it. And I am fully ignorant on the matter.--Mátyás (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Salt extraction process be merged with this article. This article is a relevant place for the content, and there is relatively little content in the [other] page. julianmh (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Salt extraction process is not about sodium chloride. It might need improvement, it might need deletion, but it's off topic for this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree as well, template was deleted in [10]. Tinss (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rushilhalflife, 4 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please Change "Ghandi's salt march" to "Gandhi's salt march" in the See Also section. It's a spelling mistake. The name is "Mahatma Gandhi" and not "Mahatma Ghandi". Thank you. Rushilhalflife (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Link removed due to duplication, already in article under 'History' section. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial Comments

This article requires a complete re-edit. Salt is the most common food additive and is a commodity that the public has great interest in. Unfortunately, the common understanding of salt is more a product of myth-information than organized knowledge based upon solid references. Salt has a great many routine applications that consumers face on a daily basis and hence are interested in. I believe the entire page should be reorganized rather than patching up and adding text to a rather limited starting template. --Terryfirma (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unrefined sea salt that is obtained from the seawater, has 84 chemical elements and is much healthier than refined salt.

The above statement is incorrect. There is no clinical evidence that sea salt is healthier than evaporated salt. Furthermore, the term "sea salt" is undefined as far as a standard of identity is concerned. There is no international standard for sea salt. It can vary from 60% t0 99+% depending upon its method of collection and the degree of washing or refinment it goes through. Even the term "unrefined" has little functional meaning in this case because the methods of collection vary and will have an impact upon the composition of the final product. It should be noted that there is an international Codex Alimentarious standard for "Food Grade" salt, which stipulates a minimum of 97% sodium chloride, regardless of the source (rock-mined, solar sea or evaporated solution mined salt). --Terryfirma (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the reference for that fact? Thue | talk 12:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've NPOV-flagged the article, as there seems to be a strong pro-sea-salt, anti-table-salt bias in this article (notice the comments about aluminium: what about the aluminum in sea salt?). -- Anon.

entire coast of the Atlantic was deserted and the whole Europe was thrown into a Dark Age' '. Where is the evidence for this? What *is* the Atlantic coast of Europe - the west coasts of Ireland and Portugal?

Feel free to edit the article in any way you see fit. --Eleassar777 13:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed from the article for fact-checking:

According to the historian Henri Pirenne (Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe), during the High Middle Ages, the entire coast of the Atlantic was deserted and the whole Europe was thrown into a Dark Age of human under-development. It is supposed to be caused mainly by the lack of salt in the human diet, because all salt flats along the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean sea were flooded. The salt famine lasted almost 500 years, and many people died from dehydration and madness. Henri Pirenne claimed that the lack of salt went so far that human flesh was sold on the open-air markets and many people were so crazed that, to replenish their salt, drank blood from the neck artery of the person they had just slain. The rulers of the Medieval Europe grabbed the oportunity and exacted enormous salt taxes.

If true, this would be an astonishing and important part of European history. However, I went to school long after Pirenne's death, and there was nothing in my history books even remotely resembling this; nor have I read anything similar since until now, although I am quite familiar with less dramatic phenomena like salt roads and salt taxes. Was this really Pirenne's view? Does anyone else hold this view? Is there any evidence for this? -- The Anome 13:27, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Looking this up on the Web finds several cites from apparently dubious sources. Still searching for a proper cite. On the other hand, salt famine does seem to be a real concept -- just not this one, apparently. -- The Anome 13:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone give more detail as to how the structure of salt changes when it is heated, and what the effects of this are? --User: 199.46.198.231, 21 Mar 2005

Why is it necessary to have a citation that salt is the most popular food seasoning? I would say that if anything needs editing it is the word popular, rather that requiring a citation. Probably it would be better written to say "salt is the most commonly used food seasoning."D.Tzumli (talk)

salt is one of the most commonly used food seasonings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.25.231 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not a scientist and am barred from changing articles but I wanted to make some points. From my 2007-08 Nature Magazines I remember them saying sodium was the opener of (neuronal?) pain pathways. The early moderns foretold this with their proverb "Quick to the salt, quick to sorrow". OTOH, electrolytes out of balance can put one in the hospital. Also, Yellowstone Park does not use salt on its roads so as to limit vehicle/animal collisions. The sodium bicarbonate article says baking soda can be used for an ecological shampoo, though sodium bicarbonate also has environmental concerns. Virillustre (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the aricle is irrelevant but, the intro sentence to the 20Sep07 Nature article Structure of Acid Sensing Ion Channel 1 reads: "Acid-sensing ion Channels (ASICs) are voltage-independent, proton activated receptors that belong to the epithelial sodium channel/degenerin family of ion channels and are implicated in perception of pain, ischaemia, mechanosensation, learning and memory." Virillustre (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Our ancestors diet was not vegetarian

Humans (and our ancestors) have been hunter gatherers the one million year and meat scavengers for at least three millions years. Vertebrate meat has been part of the diet for at least six million years, and insects for more than 65 millions years. [[11]] [[12]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmalena (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, raw vertebrate meat and insects don't have much salt either. Eyesighter (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Salt's health effects

Some of the health effects of salt seem rather well-established (such as a general association with higher blood pressure), but a few items on this list seem weak or speculative. Specifically, why is osteoporosis included when it's just a single report with a huge limitation ("there are insufficient data to draw firm conclusions")? Similarly, the entries for ulcers and heartburn appear to be based on single studies. I can't find anything more substantive, like a meta-study. WP guidelines state that general or systematic reviews are optimal for making health claims.

Worth removing these? Is there more substantive research demonstrating a link? Organo435 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes agree. We need to keep this controversial topic limited to review articles. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Health concerns

I am sure I heard on Today on Radio Four today (May 5 2011) that recent evidence suggests people with LOW salt intakes may be at increased risk of heart attacks. If any one knows about this, s/he will be welcome to put it in, if s/he can find good sources. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the study [13]. It is a primary research study published in JAMA. Interesting... Not completely sure what to make of it at this point. Will wait for a review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Slanted mention of health effects

As far as I know, some salt intake is required for basic health, but the article seems to be heavily slanted towards the negative health effects. There seems to be little mention of the biological uses for salt in the body. If anyone could expand and update this info it would be appreciated. Irazmus (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is salt bad for our health?

I am pretty sure that something on the news earlier this year (2011) said that salt is not as bad for our health as was at one time believed. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Was that the big ad campaign by the American Salt Council? All those laid-off tobacco copywriters had to find work somewhere. Beware of manipulation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Section: Smelling Salts

This section is completely incorrect. Unfortunately, I don't know how to edit, otherwise I'd fix it. :) It say, and I quote, "Smelling salt is used to bring an unconscious person into consciousness. The main ingredients in smelling salt, in order of amount, are: cow testicle, horse liver, whale sperm, human hair, and cocaine." Can someone fix this?? 24.15.137.97 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Alex24.15.137.97 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That edit was reverted by a bot 3 hours ago, but due to some server glitch, it was still showing up. I have deleted the offensive edit from the article history, and on my PC the vandalism has disappeared. Materialscientist (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Salt/Sodium Chloride Tablets for Athletes/Survival?

I can't seem to find anything in Wikipedia about the salt tablets that used to be common in survival kits. Or anything that describes why salt/sodium is necessary to take as a supplement for sports/survival, etc. Can someone point out where it is and mention it in this article? And mention why it was/is deemed necessary in these situations to take salt/sodium supplements? And specifically the tablets (which are still available). Jimhoward72 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Salt Manufacturers Assoc

It appears there is heavy use of The Salt Manuf Assoc in this article. They are a lobbying organization to promote salt in the UK. Surely there are better sources for the same material. As a source for disputes between adovocacy groups that are mentioned, it would seem the proper place to reference their views, but not elsewhere. Hopefully there are no editors with a conflict of interest editing the article that work for them? Tseliotwave (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unrefined Salt does not = Bitter.

I am sorry but the statement on the wiki page is very incorrect. Unrefined salt has more flavor and if anything is sweeter and is calming to the mind whereas refined salt is a slight brain irritant at least in some people. Salt in fact removes bitter tastes. The idea of bitter salt is like saying bitter sweet, except that salt is way more effective at neutralizing bitterness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingkid (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

Salt section 2.3.1.1

Add paragraph clarifying use of Sugar to stablize iodine in the iodine seciotn and delete the reference to sugar 3 paragraphs on (citation needed)

Paragraph: To stabilize the iodine, a small amount of sugar (in the range of .04%) is frequently added to table salt.

citation: Penn state college of Sgricultural sciences AgSci» Extension» Food Safety» Home Food Preservation» Food Preservation Q & A» Canning and pickling salt http://extension.psu.edu/food-safety/food-preservation/faq/canning-and-pickling-salt

Paul.Andrew.Reilly (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Request: acute effect of one big portion of salty food, e.g. roasted peanuts

I read somewhere that it immediately affects blood flow after a meal containing a lot of sodium. BUT, is this important for health and how much salt per meal is too much?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1361768/Diet-high-salt-Single-salty-meal-reduces-blood-flow-just-30-minutes.html

iherb.com discount code = mop737, $10 OFF! (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Lowering salt intake does not necessarily lead to better health

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt

More and more studies (as well as meta studies and review papers) published in reputable journals are showing that lower salt intake does not lead to better health, even for people with high blood pressure. The meta studies and review papers are showing that, in almost all cases, studies suggesting that we limit salt intake NEVER actually link salt to heart disease. Instead, they link it to a slight increase of blood pressure, which occurs around/above 2,300 mg. While hypertension is correlated with higher rates of heart disease, there is no direct evidence of decreased salt intake leading to lower rates of heart disease. In fact, there have been studies done (one in Italy, for example) showing that people who aggressively treat heart disease with 1,500 mg of salt or less actually end up worse off due to the trade offs of increased insulin resistance, increased levels of triglycerides and changes to various cholesterols associated with low salt intake. There is enough evidence now to, at the very least, suggest that very low (1,500 mg) salt diets may actually hurt people who have had heart attacks. Besides, ignoring everything else, the decrease in blood pressure when lowering salt intake significantly (from a typical diet of 3,500 mg to 1,500 mg, for example) is quite negligible when compared to the decrease in blood pressure due to dietary changes or exercise.

I understand the disconnect, as much of this research is recent. Even many large organizations, like the FDA, have yet to update their recommendations. I would like to see at least some of this discussed at least, as there is quite a large amount of discussion on low salt intake already, particularly for an article that isn't specifically about health or diet.

2001:1948:414:8:0:0:0:164 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What about the taste?

This article need something about taste and cooking.

why?

Which are the characteristics of salt? and how it affect the body? (not the consecuences, I already understand that, i mean why the body can't absorb all the salt)

how salt affects in the absorbtion of water?

Salt tastes likes saltwater taffee and bannanas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.39.249 (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hypertension (high blood pressure)

Hypertension, i.e. the high blood pressure is also produced by high intake of salt. The same effect is produced by sodium glutamate

Other primates seasoning with salt

In Gibraltar there are monkeys that season potatoes with sea water to salt it, just because it taste better for them. Humans are not the only animals on the Earth that season food.

Salt is used by Jews to eliminate blood from meat (melia)

in religion it is missing that salt is used to eliminate blood from meat, is a law of kashrut. For that reason sea salt is known in the U.S.A. as kosher salt. But as far as I know you can use table salt for that procedure known as melia in hebrew.

Salt is not the same as sodium

The section on Recommended intake says "In the United Kingdom the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) recommended in 2003 that, for a typical adult, the Reference Nutrient Intake (RNI) is 1.6 g salt per day". That is wrong, because the figure given was for sodium, not salt. Elsewhere the section gives figures without bothering to say whether they are meant to refer to sodium or to salt. In order to cut through the confusion, I've rewritten the section in the form of a table, which allows for a cleaner way of comparing figures and clarifies the difference between salt and sodium. --Epipelagic (talk · contribs) 09:40, 1 November 2011 ‎(UTC)

Tree ash as an Ayoreo salt source in the Paraguayan Chaco - Springer

Tree ash as an Ayoreo salt source in the Paraguayan Chaco - Springer. Hope this helps. Komitsuki (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the information to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Salt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Cwmhiraeth

Round 1

Salt is a tremendous topic that everyone knows something about, but few are experts on. It will be a large undertaking to get an article on salt both complete and balanced. I'll level with you: the article will need a lot of work before it attains GA status. But if anyone's up to the task, I figure it's you, Cwmhiraeth. I can't promise to be an easy reviewer for this article, but I can promise to be fair, patient, and consistent. I'll start with the largest issues that will take the most work, and go back through for details once these are addressed. If you disagree with any of my recommendations, let me know and we'll discuss it. I'm not inflexible; like you, my main concern is making the Salt article the best it can be. The lead section will probably need some work, but I don't want to even worry about that until it looks like the article is reasonably complete and the organization is reasonably correct. Lead rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Salt has so much history that it's impossible to cover everything here. Still, there are some important aspects of the history of salt you might want to include. First, the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica claims that for nomadic or hunter/gatherer peoples, salt supplements are not necessary, and they even bluntly claim that "nomads ... never eat salt with their food". People tend to need supplemental salt when they live on cereal, veg, or boiled meats, according to EB. "The habitual use of salt is intimately connected with the advance from nomadic to agricultural life." I don't know how reliable this is, but it is the EB... and if it's true, it's worth a mention (in one's own words). Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Also, salt has been important in pacts and covenants for as long as there's been recorded history, (EB claims "in all ancient civilizations", which can't be right), but this article doesn't mention covenants or contracts at all. It's related to salt in religion, but it's not the same thing. Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) When you mention salt caravan routes, you might want to mention that Herodotus described these routes across Libya back in the 5th century BCE. Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) You mention salt as currency in ancient Rome, but it might help broaden the scope of the article to mention that salt has also been used as money in Ethiopia and Tibet. Further, EB claims that salt is still a luxury available only to the rich in many parts of central Africa. If true, it could be worth mentioning. Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) The "Forms" section is very long and has a lot of sub-levels, and I think a reorganization is needed. Current problems include: "Refined" and "Table salt" are separate subsections, but table salt is a form of refined salt; the "Unrefined" section contains information on unrefined edible salts, but not on unrefined industrial salts; the "Refined" section is mostly information on salt production; etc. In my opinion, there should be a dramatic reorganization. Both "Edible salt" and "Non-dietary uses" should be top-level sections. "Edible salt" can be broken into "Sea salt" (since the current "unrefined" subsection is really about sea salt), "Table salt" (including additives), and "Salt in food" (which would contain salty condiments). (Since the article currently does not mention that salt naturally occurs in many foods, the "Salt in food" would be a good place for that.) There's no need for "Refined" and "Unrefined" sections at all; refinement information belongs in "Production". The "Non-dietary uses" section can also mention that refined salt is used for many purposes (chemical manufacture), though unrefined is used for others (road salting). Done. I have added a bit about the salt present in foods. I would advocate getting rid of the "additives" section heading except that that would lead to a difficulty about where to put "main->Iodized salt". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Excellent. You can continue to have an "additives" subsection, or you could merge it into "table salt" and put {{see also|Iodized salt}} at the top there, if you want. Or if there's a link in the text, that would be good enough, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Many additive subsections are just a few sentences. I would recommend subsections of just "Iodine and iodide", "Anti-caking agents", and "Other additives". Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC) The "History" section summarizes the History of salt article. This is exactly appropriate. I'm surprised that there is no "Health effects of salt" article (it's currently a redirect to "Salt"), but the "Health effects" section is long and detailed, and is the most likely section to suffer controversy or edit wars. A new Health effects of salt article should be made that contains all this information. It can link to related articles such as Salt and cardiovascular disease and Salt therapy (neither of which is currently linked from the "Salt" article), along with Low sodium diet and Iodine deficiency (the latter of which is only mentioned in the "Forms" section of "Salt", not in the health effects), and it can go into as much detail as people will want to add. Then it can be effectively and appropriately summarized in this article, without going into unnecessary detail. That will improve the organization of the article a lot. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC) That's an excellent summary. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC) The "Production" section should contain the information on salt manufacture and refinement currently in the "Refined salt" section. This section should also link to, and use information from, Salt mining, Salt evaporation pond, Alberger process, and Open pan salt making. It's probably worth noting that sea water is 3% salt, which I'll bet you know a lot about at this point. Also, the "Production" section gives information about which countries produce Sodium Chloride, but not edible salt, which is what most of this article is about. (For instance, the U.S. is the largest producer or salt, but produces very little of the world's edible salt.) Mostly done, but not the last point yet. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC) The "Non-dietary uses" section (Main article: Sodium chloride) is far too short, given salt's importance. I've already mentioned ways information can be brought here from other sections. (It should also be moved up to go immediately after "Edible salt".) But further expansion is appropriate. Salt is extremely useful worldwide in preservation, curing, and melting ice, and is used in the manufacture of baking soda, caustic soda, and other chemicals. This section should be greatly expanded from a mere three sentences. Expanded somewhat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC) The "Usage in religion" section feels like a list. Ideally, it should start with some overall statements about salt's use in religious contexts, in a way that feels comprehensive, and yet can be supported factually. Then, examples are very appropriate, but should be given in a way that feels less "listy". Try to focus on a worldwide context, but ignore the less important examples (such as sumo wrestling). By the way, there is already a Salt in the Bible article which may be useful and which probably should be linked. I've added a single introductory sentence and could combine the present short paragraphs into a more coherent whole. However I don't see how the section can fail to be listy if it attempts to be even moderately comprehensive. It doesn't currently include Buddhism, Pueblo or Hopi culture and adding these will make the problem worse. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Yeah, it won't ever be perfect. Just put in whatever information you think is most important, and I'll see if it can't be organized in a pleasing way. (I could imagine, for instance, one paragraph about how many cultures use salt in religious rituals, with examples; then one paragraph about how many religious texts mention salt, with examples; and then a final paragraph about "Many religions use salt in other ways", with miscellany. Just one example of organization that might be more appealing.) So add what you think should be added, and I'll have a go at organizing. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I have rewritten/rearranged the "Usage in religion" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC) The reference formatting is a bit haphazard, currently. When listing the page of a source that supports a given claim, some references (e.g. 4) use the colon notation right there in the footnote. Others (e.g. 1) give the colon notation in the notes section. And others (e.g. 10) give the page number with a "p." specifier. Also, some books and newspaper articles are described in full in the notes, while others are described in full in the references. There are other similar issues. Any standard is fine, so long as the article is consistent. (References are kind of my specialty, and I'll willing to help format them if you like.) Also, although some of the sources are very high quality, others (e.g.) are more questionable. Any help with improving the formatting of references would be splendid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I'm on it. – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Let me know how you wish to proceed. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking this on. I spent some time back in March making various changes and improving the referencing but I didn't really consider the organisational matters you mention above. Coming to an article as an outsider, it doesn't seem quite right to start mauling it around and reorganizing its structure, but now, as part of a GA process, it seems quite appropriate. I'll make a start on the creation of "Health effects of salt", leaving a summary section on its place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC) I'm starting to think this could work! I look forward to seeing how you handle "Forms". – Quadell (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC) This is going so well, that I'm going to start mentioning more minor concerns below. The points above should probably be addressed first, however. – Quadell (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC) We're probably going to have to be more selective about which pictures to include, and where to include them. (They're all legitimately free, it seems.) Which should be the "main" image? I have removed, added and rearranged the images. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I don't like the Onbekende Wereld ref. I think it refers to this book, though it's not clear. Anyway, I think it's a written mention of a TV show. Is a better source available? Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Ref 21 is a dead link. Google returns no hits for "particle density" or "bulk density" at the Salt Institute website. Since the information is very technical and probably not very useful to the reader, I suspect it would be best to simply remove the sentence (and ref). Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC) The "See also" section is for links to related articles that are not linked in the body. If any of the links are already in the article body (or can be incorporated into the article body), that would be better than having them in See also. (I'm a minimalist when it comes to "See also" and "Further reading" sections.) Speaking of which, are the three "Further reading" listings useful? Removed both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) The "Edible salt" supersection would be improved by a short introductory paragraph of a couple sentences. Maybe move the current first sentence of table salt (or some variant) to here? Also, would it be better to have "Health effects" as a subsection of "Edible salt", do you think? I think Health is better kept as a separate section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Okay. – Quadell (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Introductory sentence added to "Edible salt". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) It looks like once the images are selected and the lead is improved, we'll be ready for round two! (Unless there are a few stragglers above that I missed.) – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC) The images are done and I have rewritten much of the lead. How is it now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Excellent, and ready for Round 2. – Quadell (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (Just to let you know what to expect, once the "course grained" issues have been dealt with above, I'll go through for a more "fined grained" review. I expect round 2 will be easier than round 1, and I won't put you through a third round.)

Round 2

Regarding my reviewing style, issues I identify below will be prepended by the number of the relevant GA criterion. As they are resolved, I will cross out the issue number. Comments that are not actionable requirements are not prepended. 6b Although not strictly a GA requirement, it's customary to have a "main image" in the upper right. Would you object to the halite image (or some other image) being moved up? 1b The lead should not include information not present in the body of the article. But these two introductory facts are not mentioned outside the lead: that salt is an "ionic salt" (salt (chemistry)), and that saltiness is one of the basic tastes. I'm not sure where to put this. Would it be best to create a short section called "Chemistry" (main article: Sodium chloride) which summarizes that article in a paragraph and includes these facts? Or would it fit better in an existing section? 1b Rock salt redirects to the halite article, not the salt article, so it should not be bolded. Since the "also known as" clause in the first sentence could be confusing, I would suggest the following for the lead's first sentence. (Feel free to alter as you see fit.) Salt is a chemical substance composed primarily of sodium chloride (NaCl), a chemical compound belonging to the larger class of ionic salts; salt in its natural form as a crystalline mineral it is known as halite. 1b You sometimes use the serial comma (e.g. "across the Mediterranean Sea, along specially built salt roads, and across the Sahara in camel caravans" or "Salzburg, Hallstatt, and Hallein lie within") and sometimes do not (e.g. "in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride, plastics, paper pulp and many other products" or "such as meat, blood and milk"). I like the serial comma, but opinions vary. In a global article like this, either is fine, so long as the choice is consistent throughout the article. If you let me know which you prefer, I can help standardize this. I started going through the article adding serial commas because there were quite a lot there already, but I hate them really and think I will start over again early tomorrow morning (when I will probably avoid edit conflicts) and omit them. As regards consistency, at least some of the article is in American English but I notice that yesterday, Snowmanradio changed "edema" to "oedema". My spellchecker is for British English so any variations from this show up on my edit screen and I am not necessarily aware of American versions of words. Any comments? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) In an article as universal as this, there's no inherent reason to prefer one version of English over another. Since you're the main contributor at this point, if you prefer British English then that's what the article should use. – Quadell (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC) The history section is particularly well-organized. I can think of no improvements to suggest. I boldy reorganized the "Edible salt" section. I felt something about kosher salt should be added, but I couldn't find a place for it, so I made the subsections "table salt", "other forms of salt", and "salt in food". (I also made other, more minor changes.) Just because I'm reviewing this GAN, that doesn't give my edits any special authority, so feel free to disagree... but I think this best conveys the different aspects of edible salt. Let me know if you think a different organization would be more effective. 1a The production section has a sentence beginning "A few common examples include ...", but all this information is above in the "Non-dietary uses" section. I don't think it's needed here too. 1a The final paragraph of "Production" feels like a separate mini-"Production"-section. Some of the material in the final paragraph can be omitted (where it is redundant, e.g. "may be mined conventionally or through the injection of water"), while other facts can be integrated into the other paragraphs. The purification information could be its own paragraph, I suppose, but perhaps it would be best integrated elsewhere in the section. I have made fixes throughout the article for wording and grammar, ranging from extremely-minor to almost-noteworthy. I don't expect any of them to be controversial, but let me know if I'm wrong. 1a In the "Usage in religion" section, the sentence beginning "In Shinto" has an opening parenthesis, but not a closing one. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure where the closing parenthesis should be. 1b Please check the categories. I'm not sure they're the best ones to use. The categories of Halite and Sodium chloride might be useful. I think I have dealt with the above matters. With regard to the "Health effects" section, I have asked Zad68 for help, but if that does not materialise, I propose to rewrite the section from scratch in my userspace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) 2b and 4 (late addition): Some medically-knowledgeable editors have raised concerns about the "Health effects" section, below. We need to make sure that (in the words of the criteria) the text "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each", and that it cites "reliable sources" for statements "likely to be challenged", following "scientific citation guidelines" where appropriate. I will not, however, "[demand] the removal of dead links", "[demand] compliance with [my] favorite MoS pages", or "[require] that all viewpoints be presented as equally valid". Resolved nicely. – Quadell (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   All issues resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All issues resolved.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All issues resolved.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All issues resolved.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am quite impressed with how this article turned out. It passes all our GA criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thorough review. The article has changed quite a bit under your guidance and I learned quite a lot, especially during the last part when we were working on the health effects section which was quite an eye-opener to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional input regarding health effects

• The section on the technical aspects of the health effects of salt looked amateurish to me, so I have tried to improve it with some copy-editing. Of course, sourcing for medical topics are subject to the higher standards of WP:Medicine. Apart from the higher standards of WP:Medicine, I think that batched references as used here are not suitable for WP:V, so the batch of four references for one reference point may not be suitable. I have asked on members of WP:Medicine to have a look in a message on the WikiProject's talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for your valuable improvements to the "Health effects" section, Snowmanradio! You might be interested in the new Health effects of salt article, which is in a far worse condition. The bundled reference regarding national guidelines was my own edit, and I'm not terribly attached to it; if anyone de-bundles them into separate references, it won't effect the GA nomination. But I will note that the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources recommends "A string of independent citations may also be aesthetically unappealing, so consider bundling them into one." WP:CITEBUNDLE is pretty clear that either option is fine. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"... although others state the risk is minimal for typical western diets." I will be grateful if you could guide me to one of the bundled references, so that I can more easily verify this part of the line. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. (It was originally five references side-by-side in the text, which I simply made into one. I did not read and verify each source.) The entire "health effects" section is an attempt by the nominator to summarize the more verbose information which was moved to Health effects of salt. More information is there, and that article links to secondary sources such as [14] and primary sources such as [15], which includes among its conclusions: "the long-term effects of reduced salt intake on blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in a population with and without hypertension remain undefined". I'm not sure if that can be seen as supporting the statement or not.

Of course the article should give statements that are as accurate as possible about the most up-to-date research on the health effects of salt. Any help you would like to give would be welcome, I'm sure. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Behind the Headlines: Is salt good for you? by NICE explains one newspaper report. The other source is from 2009, and I would think that an newer source could be used. Salt reduction strategy could prevent thousands of deaths from CVD, says NICE, 2013, is by NICE. SIGN also has some evidence that looks convincing. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

NICE is certainly reliable, but the 2009 meta-analysis seems (to this layman) to be based on a wider array of data. It's pretty clear that the previous messy version of "health effects" was the result of a back-and-forth disagreement between "Should people reduce their salt?" partisans. I have no dog in that fight, but I think it's important that the brief summary here give respect to both sides (though only in so far as both sides are actually supported by RSes). I'd feel more comfortable if there were more opinions from medically-knowledgeable people here, and I thank you for leaving the comment at the wikiproject. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The 2009 study is a meta-analysis of 11 trials and SIGN describes a meta-analysis of 28 trials (see under "4.2 Reducing dietary salt" on the linked webpage). Snowman (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• thedea.org is used as a source in the health section, but I am not convinced that it is RS on the Wiki. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  "thedea.org" is someone's self-published website and can't be considered WP:MEDRS. Zad68 02:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  Update. This ref supported the line on acute water intoxication, which did not seem within the scope of the article. I have removed the whole line and the ref. Snowman (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Notes on health from Zad68

section rewritten now so these notes are moot

Quadell asked me to review the health effects section. I looked through about half of it and stopped. I have significant concerns about this section. Overall I mostly do not see the kinds of sources I expect to see to support biomedical information, and I saw at least a few cases where the content was not representing the sources accurately. Salt and health is very well studied and it should be easy to locate top-quality sources. The fact that two of the refs had broken URLs (Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which I fixed, and Safety data for sodium chloride The Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory of Oxford University, which has been taken offline) made me concerned that the sources really were not checked. Safety data for sodium chloride The Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Laboratory of Oxford University - N - this database is shutdown and offline. The effect of high salt consumption on long term health remains to be clarified.(Dumler 2009) - N - Content does not appear to summarize source accurately. Dumler 2009 appears to be talking about about long-term reduced salt intake, in those with high blood pressure. Health conditions associated with high salt intake include a range of cardiovascular diseases(Strazzullo 2009) - Y/N - Supported by the source but in my opinion understates the emphasis the source is giving. Source says "significantly increased risk of stroke and total cardiovascular disease" and "effect sizes are likely to be underestimated". The source is saying the data shows high salt intake has serious negative consequences, and the real severity is likely larger than the data shows. The source is calling for a population-wide reduction in salt intake. SACN - N - reference is from 2003, only used for two effects, can't something more up to date be found? Food Safety Authority of Ireland 2005 - ? - It seems strange to use a food safety organization for biomedical info that should very easily be found in something produced by a national medical organization, and only to pick one fact out of it Salt Australia: Better Health Channel (Australia, Victoria) - Y - updated 2011, non-commercial, funded by national government, looks OK for general info BBC news story "Salt raises 'stomach cancer risk'" - N - popular-press report on ap primary study fails WP:MEDRS Many countries recommend daily maximum and minimum intakes of salt for their citizens, and inclusion of information on the salt content of food products on labels is obligatory in many countries. - unsourced A study in 2009 showed that typical sodium consumption in 33 countries ranged between 2,700 and 4,900 milligrams (0.095 and 0.17 oz) per day. - sourced to McCarron 2009 - N - I don't expect to see a primary source like this to be found in the main article of a WP:SUMMARY-style article group. It might be fine in the subarticle. The main article needs to summarize the most important points, and secondary sources are needed to do that, so I can't imagine how it should be using a primary source like this. At the other extreme, drinking too much water with insufficient salt intake can cause dilution of blood and put a person at risk of water intoxication. - sourced to "thedea.org" - N - NO, this is not a reliable source, I have no idea what this is but it has nothing to do with the United States Drug Enforcement Administration. I also don't like how consuming too much salt--something very, very common in modern diets--is lined up as an equal problem with water intoxication, which is extremely rare. This is a WP:NPOV problem, maybe WP:GEVAL or WP:UNDUE or something like that, they should not be presented as risks of equal concern when in the sourcing they're not shown to be even in the same ballpark. I really think this section needs to be reworked thoroughly before I'd be comfortable listing this article as GA. Zad68 02:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC) The nominator has completely reworked several other sections from scratch, and don't doubt his willingness to do so. But summarizing medical information can be a special challenge. Adhering to the (justifiably) high standards of WP:MEDRS is not a requirement for GA status, but being reasonably accurate and neutral is. We just need to find a 2- or 3-paragraph summary that accurate and sourced reliably. I'm sure any assistance would be appreciated! (Ordinarily we would just summarize the information at Health effects of salt, which is what was attempted, but that article is in such poor state that it turns out to be nearly useless as a starting point.) – Quadell (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I have responded to the above comments made by Zad68 on his talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I'll have a go at giving you a running start on this section, will need a bit of time. Zad68 14:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC) To be on the safe side, I have removed parts of the section, some for the second time in two days. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Suggested sources for health update section rewritten now using these sources Here are my suggestions for sources to use to update the health section. I've tried to do the legwork of identifying and linking to the the best, most up-to-date overview sources you'll need. Unfortunately there's a little bit of controversy out there right now, recently several organizations came out with reports that said there's no extra health benefit for very low-sodium diets. Popular press reports have misinterpreted or misrepresented this, basically saying "Everything you've heard about cutting salt is wrong, there's no benefit!" but that's not right. Right now the average person in a developed nation eats a very high-salt diet, and that's clearly been shown to be unhealthy. Everybody agrees that reducing from high-sodium to moderate-sodium is helpful. What the latest info about the low-sodium diets is that it's not clear there's any additional benefit in maintaining a very low sodium diet as compared to a moderate sodium diet. But as everyone eats high sodium diets, efforts to get people to eat less sodium are still well-supported by the evidence. Overview sources: http://www.cdc.gov/salt http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/dietarysodium.html http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2013/salt_potassium_20130131/en/ - Guidance from the WHO Secondary sources: Strazzullo 2009 Salt intake, stroke, and cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of prospective studies PMID 19934192 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782060 Free accesss to full article online "High salt intake is associated with significantly increased risk of stroke and total cardiovascular disease" IOM 2013 Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence (2013) http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18311 Entire book free online Overview about the dangers of high-sodium diets; surprising new conclusions about the lack of evidence of benefit for low-sodium diets (<1500 mg) ** careful to represent this one accurately Graudal 2011 Effects of low sodium diet versus high sodium diet on blood pressure, renin, aldosterone, catecholamines, cholesterol, and triglyceride PMID 22071811 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004022.pub3/abstract Cochrane - I have access to full article, will email it to you if you'd like "Low salt diets reduced systolic blood pressure by 1% in white people with normal blood pressure and by 3.5% in white people with elevated blood pressure." ... "Therefore we do not know if low salt diets improve or worsen health outcomes." Aburto 2013 Effect of lower sodium intake on health: systematic review and meta-analyses PMID 23558163 http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1326?view=long&pmid=23558163 From the WHO, free full access to article online "High quality evidence in non-acutely ill adults ...The totality of evidence suggests that most people will likely benefit from reducing sodium intake." He 2013 Effect of longer term modest salt reduction on blood pressure: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials PMID 23558162 http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1325?view=long&pmid=23558162 Cochrane - free access to full article online "A modest reduction in salt intake for four or more weeks causes significant and, from a population viewpoint, important falls in blood pressure in both hypertensive and normotensive individuals" NICE 2010 PH25 prevention of cardiovascular disease: quick reference guide http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13024/49274/49274.pdf NICE guidelines are well-respected, free access to full document online "High levels of salt in the diet are linked with high blood pressure which, in turn, can lead to stroke and coronary heart disease. High levels of salt in processed food have a major impact on the total amount consumed by the population." Why not have a go at reviewing and summarizing these sources? I'll provide advice if you'd like. Zad68 15:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Done. Does it meet with your satisfaction? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Diet and health

After some great collaboration, I'm happy with it now, except for one bit of content I could not verify against the source. I've tagged it, can you help me find that so we can clear that up and get rid of that tag? Other than that, looks good. I also moved it up to the section on salt used as food, and made some suggested changes to how the images are done. Feel free to tweak further or undo those. Let me know with a ping if you need anything else! Zad68 17:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

So the article content is "In the United States, 77% of the sodium eaten comes from processed and restaurant foods, 11% from cooking and table use and the rest from what is found naturally in foodstuffs." sourced to www.cdc.gov/salt/food.htm... sorry I just didn't see those states located at that URL, am I just blind or something? Zad68 17:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am just blind, duh, fixing... Zad68 17:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done tag removed, don't mind me. Zad68 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Salt shaker or bottle?

In the Salt#Table_salt section, we've included a picture File:Salt_Bottle.jpg (right) with the caption Salt shaker for personal use. This caption seems to contradict the image's name and it's authors description: A bottle of salt.

Indeed, this image seems to be depicting a container (for salt), but not one with small holes in the top for delicate dispensing onto food, a feature that makes a salt shaker in my book.

I think I can safely state for US Wikipedians that this is not a salt shaker; would someone from another country care to agree? And further, update the caption or picture? A possible caption might be A bottle of salt or a picture of a salt shaker might be File:Salt_shaker.agr.jpg

Teimu.tm (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be right though I thought I could see holes in the lid. In any event, I have replaced the image although the new one is not so aesthetically pleasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I too, noticed those dark voids at the top of the cap. It would be curious design though; I feel like the thickness of the cap and the grain/"splinter-iness" of the wood would be prone to buildup and blockage. Of course, this is just my speculation. Are you, by the way, from somewhere else than the US? Just looking for a another perspective.

I agree with you on the differing aesthetics of the new image. In fact, I think I have found a better one, which I will insert shortly. Apologies to revert your work so quickly here, but I think you'll like this one. Teimu.tm (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm from the UK where salt shakers usually have a single central hole. I'm happy with your new image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Whaaaaat?!? I'd heard Brits drive on the left and talk about "dustbins" and "bangers and mash", but one central salt hole? Totally inexplicable. Did Thatcher put y'all up to that? (I never could understand Thatcher.) – Quadell ^(talk) 11:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The single-hole salt dispenser is not intended to be shaken. Diners dispense a small amount of salt onto the side of their plate, rather than shaking it promiscuously all over their food. See the section on Salt and Pepper here. William Avery (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS

I tagged Türk et al. as a non-wp:MEDRS source because it is a primary publication. It would be better to identify a review that supports the inclusion. That said, there's no assertions being explicitly supported by entries in an "Other publications" list. It might be simply removed. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, removed... I actually do not see the value of the "Other references" section at all. By the time an article is GA, all good identified sources should be being used in the article and not tacked on to a section at the end. My preference would be to delete that list of unused references entirely. Zad68 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, LeadSongDog, and the fix, Zad68. I'm still trying to fully understand the niceties of MEDRS. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of "practice" or "practise" in language localisations

The word "practice" or "practice" is used several times in the article. Please clarify if the word "practice" or "practise" is being used as a verb or a noun for each of its usages? I got the following from the OED website; "In USA English, practice is both the noun and verb; in UK English, practice is the noun and practise the verb", which was originally from Garner's Modern American Usage, by Bryan A. Garner. I think some are nouns, so for complete UK language conversion some of these may need to be changed as well. Comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

English

I have traced the early development of the article and found that at least the first 18 months of its development was in UK English, and that it definitely exceeded stub phase while written in UK English. See WP:RETAIN, which says that "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." Snowman (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• The article on 14 March 2005 at the time of its creation. Article with sections, but no references. Stub template not on article. UK English used.
• As the article was on 14 April 2005 (article 1 month old). Article with sections, many wikilinks, but no references. Stub template not on article. UK English used.
• As the article was on 14 October 2005 (article 6 months old). Article with sections, many wikilinks, illustrations, external links, but no references. Stub template not on article. UK English used.
• As the article was on 14 April 2006 (article 12 months old). Article with sections, many wikilinks, illustrations, external links, but no references. UK English used.
• As the article was on 14 October 2006 (article 18 months old). Article with sections, many wikilinks, illustrations, and references. Probably C class. UK English used.
• As the article was on 14 April 2007 (article 24 months old). Article with sections, many wikilinks, illustrations, and references. Mixture of UK and USA English used.

I have restored the UK English, and as far as I can see this action is not open to dispute. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support UK English, I don't care as long as it's consistent, and in addition to what WP:RETAIN says, generally the last one to do major work on it (like bring it to GA) gets their preferred ENGVAR. Zad68 13:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you actually, as an administrator, allow anyone who does major work (GA or not) on a long established non-stub article to change the spelling variant in direct violation of WP:RETAIN, then you need to be recalled as an administrator ASAP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Even though I am personally more comfortable with American English, Snowmanradio has pretty effectively demonstrated that edits to change the English format of this GA to American English are unwarranted. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Extremely strong oppose This is a completely wrong application of WP:RETAIN. If the article has been US English for over six years, then WP:RETAIN requires it to remain US English. WP:ENGVAR is not, nor was it ever intended to be an excuse to go back many years in history. This is in direct violation of the intent of the MOS. If this is allowed, then all articles with any possible spelling variation is open to dispute at any time, now or at any possible point in the future. FWIW, the very first edit used 'ise' and 'ize', so it had mixed spelling at the very beginning, and it is a damned LIE that the article was UK only at the start. So Snowman, this is very much open to dispute. The only thing you proved is that the article was mixed at creation and six years ago. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Excuse me, if I accidentally missed an occasional USA spelling. I did not initially notice "iodised" was used in the article at the time of its creation, but this may have been a spelling error of this technical word rather than a intended use of USA spelling. Other words in the article at the time of creation are more clearly in UK English. I would rate the article as a stub at the time of its creation, because it does not have any references. I believe that I have convincingly shown by charting its early history above that UK English was predominantly used within the article for its first 18 months and at the time it exceeded Stub standard. It seems clear to me that the default status is UK English and this is not open to dispute. Snowman (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to reread WP:RETAIN which clearly states that once an article has an established spelling, that spelling should not be changed. This article had an established US spelling for a long time (a very long time in Wikipedia time). This article has been on my watch list for many years, and in all that time it used the established US spelling. I believe you have completely missed the point of WP:ENGVAR because it is intended to prevent exactly this type of meaningless dispute. I am only fighting the change because I have several thousand articles on my watchlist due to WP:ENGVAR, and if I turn my back once on an invalid change, then I would no longer have the right to apply WP:ENGVAR on any article. It is a simple matter of being fair in applying the MOS in all cases. If being fair is something that an editor should not do, then I guess I need to stop editing Wikipedia. VMS Mosaic (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone can read WP:RETAIN for themselves, it says; "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." Clearly, UK English was established as the predominant localization during the first 18 months of this article's history. I do not think that there is a dispute here and the consensus appears to be with UK English consistent with the factual observation of the article during its first 18 months; nevertheless, if the language variety was disputed, then the default would be UK English, because UK English was predominantly used in the article when it exceeded Stub class. Snowman (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First, you are factually wrong. All the edits you point to have mixed spelling. One of them is hard to spot the variation, but even in that edit there are at least three US spellings. So, it is factual that UK spelling was not established in the first two years. Secondly, your misinterpretation of WP:RETAIN could easily cause WP:ENGVAR edit warring on 50% or more of all applicable articles because many article beginnings do not match their established state (see User:Zad68's weird statement that anyone can change the spelling if they make a major edit, which would result in the exact opposite of WP:ENGVAR's intent which is to prevent edit warring over spelling). Established in "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary" means as of the current state of the article going back a significant period of time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I made my first two edits to this article in May 2007. They were both WP:ENGVAR edits which changed two words to US English thereby making it consistently US English. Yes, I missed 'goitre', but I thought that was an acceptable US spelling. Also note that a number of terms were glossed with their UK version back then. In any case I have watched the article since May, 2007 and have kept it consistently US English for six years. So now I'm just supposed to turn my head away as a cabal of GA editors change a long established spelling? I don't think so. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole purpose and intent of WP:RETAIN is to avoid time-wasting disputes over "color" vs. "colour" that do not result in any discernable improvement in the article. This is stated clearly in the first two sentences of that section. From the discussion above, there's a case for British English, there's a case for American English, and there's a case for no clear standard ever having been set. Per WP:RETAIN, we are allowed to establish a consensus for a particular ENGVAR through discussion here on this Talk page, and it sounds like we need to do that. We can let this discussion go on for a few more days, and then ask an uninvolved editor to evaluate the consensus. Once that's done, consensus will have been established, the article can be tagged with the appropriate English variety template, and the matter should be settled. Zad68 02:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You appear to at least understand the actual goal of WP:RETAIN, so why is there any dispute? The article has had a consistent established spelling since I made it consistent six years ago per WP:ENGVAR. How is it even possible to claim that the article has ever been consistently UK spelling (until the recent disputed edits) since that has provably never been the case (all claims otherwise are provably false)? As the first (post-stub editor per WP:ENGVAR) editor to claim it consistent per WP:ENGVAR six years ago, I fail to understand how there can be any dispute that the article does not have an established US spelling. But hey, if I'm forced to do a double head turn, so be it. I mean, after all, I'm the only editor I know who specializes in WP:ENGVAR edits on the several thousand articles on my watch list. Have it whatever way your personal non-neutral viewpoints desire because I'm moving on. Being a WP:ENGVAR editor is a damn dirty thankless job (people often get pissed off and no one ever says good job), but it's what I do here because I'm good (neutral, fair, consistent, etc.) at it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A great thing happened

VMS Mosaic, I'm sorry to find out you were away for a while with an illness, I really am. But while you were away, a really great thing happened: An important article you've been watching and working on for a long time, Salt, was taken to GA status. And then another really great thing happened: When the ENGVAR issue was raised, there was near unanimous consensus for one particular ENGVAR. You know that a lot of time can be wasted fighting over that, but that does not have to happen here. All that has to happen for the ENGVAR issue to be settled with unanimous support is for you to support the same ENGVAR all the other editors here who have voiced a definite opinion on the matter are supporting. Won't you please show your support here for the spirit of the policy: to avoid time-wasting disputes that don't result in an improvement to the article? All you have to do is say Yes and we're done with both settling the ENGVAR and the GAR. Zad68 03:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I am getting closer to implementing my remaining option with the first step being both to turn my head away from this gross misuse of WP:ENGVAR and removing the article from my watch list thereby giving someone else the opportunity to monitor the spelling of every single edit for the next six years. I am certain given my six years of having monitored the article that it won't take that much time before the spelling again becomes mixed. I'm just waiting a bit longer in the hope that one or more neutral third parties will come along and actually take an objective look at the evidence. I'd happily go on my merry way if that occurred regardless of the outcome (hey, maybe they actually find an early edit which actually was all UK, or some such). If someone had showed me a single early edit that was all UK, I think I would have caved before things got to WP:FAITH, etc. issues. The thing that bothers me most is not the actual change, but instead the lack of objectivity and neutrality required to have made it in the first place. This disrespect for some of the most basic Wikipedia principals makes me now have no respect for the GA process. I now see that the GA process is little more than a cabal of editors who feel free to violate any Wikipedia rule, policy, guideline or principal for any reason. The sad part is not a single GA editor is willing to show any independence from the herd mentality going on here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure if you're not comfortable just yet coming on board, we can wait a few more days to see if anybody else has any input. Zad68 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Quit patronizing me. I am already fully aware that I'm just one of the shit pump operators in the sub sub sub basement dungeon, while you are one of the corner room overlords on the top floors of the ivory tower. I've operated actual shit pumps in real life and know that the people who do it are unmentionable by the elites on the top floors, at least until the shit backs up and overflows out of the executive wash rooms down the hall to the corner offices. Pumping shit is a damn dirty backbreaking literally thankless job, and yet in spite of the scorn and patronization (oh, be a good little shit pumper and agree with what we tell you to agree with), many of us continue to do it, for God only knows what reason. I know I'm no longer sure why I do do it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We are all volunteers here. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Why should any one continue volunteer work when six years of a volunteer's work is treated as meaningless shit? You need to remember that no volunteer's work is more or less important than your own. Once you realize that, you might actually because an editor capable of neutrality; an editor actually deserving of the respect of other editors. I worked my ass off to earn the respect of the many editors who accept my work without even looking at it. It's a simple matter of trust. Trust which I was not given one iota of a chance to earn in this dispute. Everyone immediately assumed I was wrong without making a meaningful effect to prove me wrong. I was simply wrong by default because I'm not a member of your cabal. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was overly harsh. After eight years of being beaten around the head by other editors with baseball bats, I know that it is extremely hard (one of the most difficult things things any one can do) to totally put aside one's biases given that being biased results in much less baseball bat beating. Being neutral is a thankless task because both sides will eventually come to hate you. It's why I have respect but few friends here, but then I didn't come here to make friends. VMS Mosaic (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

VMS Mosaic: OK, quoting The Untouchables here, Let me pay you the compliment of being blunt. Your gnomish edits to the article are appreciated; your disruptive and confrontational attitude is not. You have developed a role for yourself here on Wikipedia as the ENGVAR enforcer, fine. Like every other editor, you have volunteered for the role you have carved out for yourself. If it brings you joy, keep doing it; if it doesn't, stop doing it. At this article, you need to stop using your own dissatisfaction with the role you have created for yourself as a jumping-off point to disrupt the article. You're the only one here waving the ENGVAR banner, and you're the only one preventing this article from returning to peace and stability. Between your complaining here on the Talk page, the baseless GAR, and your extremely WP:POINT-y article edit summaries, you're being disruptive. My patience is quickly coming to an end, as I am sure is that of others. If it continues for much longer, sanctions will be sought for you per WP:NPA and WP:DISRUPT. I know of three separate administrators who have discussed pursuing sanctions for your behavior here. In my opinion, your best course of action now would be to accept that the ENGVAR matter has been resolved, withdrawn the GAR and move on. As always, it is of course your choice. Zad68 15:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I had already decided my course of action, so your idle threats aren't needed. The remaining thing I want to make clear is that I'm not the one who picked a fight here. I was simply minding my own business performing my usual volunteer function when a bunch of editors (starting with Quadell) attacked me out of the blue for no valid reason. So:

I will remove everything from my watchlist in anyway associated with this artcle as soon as I finish this comment.

I concede nothing other then to agree, that by unanimous consensus, WP:RETAIN does not apply to this article.

Anyone one wanting to contact me in any regard to this must do it on my talk page.

The only time I don't enjoy my work is when I get falsely accused as was done here and/or when I'm forced to use the one option I try never to use (it's why I refused to simply walk away from this fight until now).

If people hate me or dislike me or never thank me, that's no skin off my back. I only mentioned it to point out that you should never forget that there are editors with the required skill set willing to do it in spite of the working conditions.

Yes, I was being extremely pointy in pointing out that it's hard to believe that a GA article is allowed to have such a large number of things needing fixed. I was actually quite surprised because I thought I'd get to make only a few such comments, but instead it finally reached a point were it was absurd to go on making fixes even without smart ass comments.

Adieu. Beam me up, Scotty. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, one of you really should consider fixing the article's mixed spelling which was the one thing I didn't fix last night.

Thank you. Zad68 03:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Article is not stable per WP:GACR

This article is not WP:GACR stable because it is currently subjected to a WP:ENGVAR dispute. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A dispute in which you are involved BTW. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

An actual helpful comment on the dispute would have been appreciated. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

People who has been edit-warring in something so lame should be blocked from editing, or the article be protected, but this article being at WP:GAR, when GAR states to not GAR an article that is in dispute, is less "helpful" than my answer. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What???? That last sentence makes less than no sense. I see nothing like that in WP:GAR. Please point me to what you believe you see in WP:GAR. Again if you have an actual comment which would actually be helpful in anyway in ending this dispute, then please don't hold back on my account. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To dispute you need two, and you are one part involved in the dispute. What people is doing above to decide which EngVar the article should use is a way to end the dispute. Also, you clearly haven't readen WP:GAR instructions. At "Community reassessment: When to use this process:" it is said: "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered." First it was GARed when the dispute was going on, and second it wasn't "instabl[e] for more than a couple of weeks", just a few days. I think that you are looking "for a helpful" answer that helps you to win the dispute, not to end the dispute, which can easily be solved with the article protected or the editors blocked until there's an agreement. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, what I'm looking for is editors who did not do the GA edits causing this dispute. They obviously will never admit they screwed up (having already admitted that the spelling was changed simply because the changing editor was British), so what is needed is neutral third parties. I believe a neutral third party did make some ENGVAR edits, but then declined to get involved on this page. If you can be neutral (i.e., not automatically support editors you have worked with before and put aside your own spelling preference), then I'd welcome your input, but if you do get involved, please do not take anything here (in particular the edits claiming to have established UK spelling) at face value. Please check things out for yourself including the edits made in May 2007. Also note that the dispute was started on my talk page. I know it's far too late for WP:THIRD, and I have no intent on going to the next level. At this point, I believe I have already damaged my health too much over this, so it looks like I need to fall back to my one remaining option.

FWIW, I used to believe that putting a ENGVAR template on the talk pages of articles with obviously well established spelling was a waste of time, but I now realize I have been putting far too much trust in other editors/administrators to do the right thing. From now on I will add the template to all articles I do ENGVAR edits on. Lastly, I apologize for letting my frustration boil over. It just seriously makes me wonder why I spent six years making and keeping this article consistently US for apparently no reason. Wikipedia was total chaos in regard to variant spelling in articles when I first started editing. Most articles I inspected back then had variants even within sentences. That chaos is now long gone, but it required some epic edit wars to bring that about. Epic wars that I'm no longer up to. Salt will no doubt return to chaos over the next few years once I stop watching it unless/until another editor steps up to the plate and makes the commitment to review the spelling used in every single edit. I know from eight years of experience that very few editors are willing to put in the required work on even just a few articles. It's a thankless job, obviously. Some of the editors involved in the multi-year (I think it lasted over four years before finally ending with a whimper) Propene ENGVAR dispute still hate my guts. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not you are correct about the application of WP:RETAIN, this article was listed as GA on Oct. 18, two weeks ago, and at that time there was no sign of any ENGVAR edit-warring dispute, or any other edit-warring. There is absolutely no basis to challenge the GA status of this article based on this. Zad68 02:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria." An article undergoing edit warring does not satisfy the good article criteria because it is not stable. What part of that do you fail to understand? Do I need to put it in caps? Put it in smaller words? Maybe you could try reading it while moving your lips? VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The stability is requiered at the moment of the GA nomination, not when it is already a WP:GA. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is now resolved per the above discussion. Zad68 03:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

British English vs. American

At the beginning of this month, this article was substantially reorganized and rewritten by User:Cwmhiraeth as part of an exhaustive GA nomination. Since Cwmhiraeth is British, she used British spelling throughout, as discussed at the GA review. (Other improvements by User:Snowmanradio helped to maintain consistent UK spelling when the summary of health effects was overhauled.)

Since then, User:VMS Mosaic has taken in upon his/herself to change many (though not all) spellings to American English, in contravention of MOS:RETAIN, which says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." Unfortunately, this is becoming a revert war on an important GA. VMS Mosaic, what justification could you have for making this change? And does anyone else thing this unilateral switch to American English is warranted? – Quadell ^(talk) 23:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RETAIN, the article uses American English. There is nothing in WP:ENGVAR which permits the spelling to change due to a reorg or rewrite. Nothing what-so-ever, not even a GA review or any other kind of review. Having looked at the GA review comments, I couldn't find any discussion of changing the spelling. Please point me to where it was discussed. The citizenship of any editor has zero significance here. I missed one uncommon word (that I know of) when I reverted the spelling. I correctly left 'aluminium' as UK per WP:ALUM. I have made many thousands of WP:ENGVAR edits over nearly eight years and rarely receive any argument because I have always tried to apply my edits fairly, so I take serious offense at being falsely accused. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is now resolved per discussion below. Zad68 03:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Health effects

We have a review of RCTs that does not find benefit in hard end points (death) and possibly harm in those with heart failure [16]. And we have a review of cohort studies and RCTs that does find an association with benefit in hard end points [17]. All seem to agree that there are benefits in BP.

Some find that low salt increase cholesterold [18] while others do not [19] Difficult to sumamrize. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What's an RCT? HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Randomized controlled trial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

clarify diet and health section?

I think the diet and health section needs to be clarified or simplified. In particular, these sentences seem unrelated and read like a laundry list of recent research results. I think they could be deleted.

Direct evidence; however, is unclear if a low salt diet affects overall or cardiovascular related deaths.[56] In adults and children with no acute illness, a decrease in the intake of sodium from the typical high levels reduces blood pressure.[54][57] A low salt diet results in a greater improvement in blood pressure in those with hypertension than in those without.[58]

72.53.140.84 (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Toby Dylan Hocking

It is complicated and the evidence is not clear. There are different types of evidence. Some show a potential benefit. Others do not. So yes we need both.

Hypertension is by the way a surrogate marker. What people really care about is if they will die earlier or have a heart attack. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

2000mg = 2g not 5g

its in the 3rd paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.148.233 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. I removed that sentence, which was uncited, and am placing it here until someone can find a citation as to which is correct, 2,000 mg or 5,000 mg. Invertzoo (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have restored it. Please have a read of WP:LEAD. And maybe read the article here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

The article says:
"Some of the earliest evidence of salt processing dates to around 6,000 years ago"
It should be
"Some of the earliest evidence of salt processing dates to around 8,000 years ago"
since throughout the article there are multiple references to the earliest documented salt processing activities dating back to 6000 BC.

Making the math, gives us: approx. 6000BC + approx. 2000AD = approx. 8000 years ago

Thanks

Ny cs2 (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done 6000BC was referenced (but I haven't checked it), and 6000 years ago wasn't. -- haminoon (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage in religion

"In one of the hadiths recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah, the Islamic Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said that: "Salt is the master of your food. God sent down four blessings from the sky – fire, water, iron and salt""

This not true, this hadith was fabricated. Please remove this sentence because all Muslim scholar said "prophet Muhammad did not say such things like that. Indeed it was fabricated"<1></1>

<1></1> The Fatawa's of Shaikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (12/252). Mahsol (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources

• http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1311989
  • Is this the study cited here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/06/more-scientists-doubt-salt-is-as-bad-for-you-as-the-government-says/

User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes

A few issues with these changes

• This is supported by a 2003 source. This is too old "Using less sodium is key to keeping blood pressure at a healthy level."
• Why was this 2014 Cochrane review removed "The effects of recommending decreasing sodium intake are not entirely clear."
  • Because the result of the study was "This review sets out to assess whether intensive support and encouragement to cut down on salt in foods, and substituting low-sodium salt, reduces the risk of death or cardiovascular disease." which would support " there is insufficient power to confirm clinically important effects of dietary advice and salt substitution on cardiovascular mortality in normotensive or hypertensive populations" but not "The effects of recommending decreasing sodium intake are not entirely clear."
  • It does not address the effect of less sodium but the effect of "dietary advice and salt substitution" User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree should be given less weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it could be included in an article on nutritional counseling. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Why was this 2011 review removed "Direct evidence, however, is unclear if a low salt diet affects overall or cardiovascular related deaths."
  • The 2014 review is an updated version of the 2011 review and is about the same thing, nutritional counseling, not the effects of a low-sodium diet. The information "Direct evidence, however, is unclear if a low salt diet affects overall or cardiovascular related deaths." is not one of the conclusion of the review. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the plain language conclusion, "This review set out to assess whether intensive support and encouragement to cut down on salt in foods reduced the risk of death or cardiovascular disease. This advice did reduce the amount of salt eaten which led to a small reduction in blood pressure by six months. There was not enough information to detect the expected effects on deaths and cardiovascular disease predicted by the blood pressure reductions found" As you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes you are indeed correct User:Fred Bauder. I have re removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• And why was this removed "In those with heart failure a very low sodium diet may be worse than a diet with slightly more salt."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 Cochrane review states "Despite collating more event data than previous systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there is insufficient power to confirm clinically important effects of dietary advice and salt substitution on cardiovascular mortality in normotensive or hypertensive populations." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems with that one source do not justify a wholesale rollback, Please read Adler, AJ; Taylor, F; Martin, N; Gottlieb, S; Taylor, RS; Ebrahim, S (18 December 2014). "Reduced dietary salt for the prevention of cardiovascular disease". The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 12: CD009217. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009217.pub3. PMID 25519688. It has to do with the effectiveness of individualized dietary counseling, a subject which is too fine grained for this small section in the article on salt .User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There were a number of issues. Agree that the Cochrane review is about "recommendations" rather than actually lowering salt intake which are two different things. Moved it lower in that paragraph.

Have added in the 2010 recommendations. We do not need the 2005 US recommendation as they are old, same with the 2003 paper. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"In those with heart failure a very low sodium diet may be worse than a diet with slightly more salt." may be somewhere in that source, but this

Despite efforts over the past several decades to reduce sodium intake in the United States, adults still consume an average of 3,400 mg of sodium every day. A number of scientific bodies and professional health organizations, including the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association, support reducing dietary sodium intake. These organizations support a common goal to reduce daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams and further reduce intake to 1,500 mg among persons who are 51 years of age and older and those of any age who are African-American or have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease.

A substantial body of evidence supports these efforts to reduce sodium intake. This evidence links excessive dietary sodium to high blood pressure, a surrogate marker for cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, and cardiac-related mortality. However, concerns have been raised that a low sodium intake may adversely affect certain risk factors, including blood lipids and insulin resistance, and thus potentially increase risk of heart disease and stroke. In fact, several recent reports have challenged sodium reduction in the population as a strategy to reduce this risk.

Sodium Intake in Populations recognizes the limitations of the available evidence, and explains that there is no consistent evidence to support an association between sodium intake and either a beneficial or adverse effect on most direct health outcomes other than some CVD outcomes (including stroke and CVD mortality) and all-cause mortality. Some evidence suggested that decreasing sodium intake could possibly reduce the risk of gastric cancer. However, the evidence was too limited to conclude the converseâ€"that higher sodium intake could possibly increase the risk of gastric cancer. Interpreting these findings was particularly challenging because most studies were conducted outside the United States in populations consuming much higher levels of sodium than those consumed in this country. Sodium Intake in Populations is a summary of the findings and conclusions on evidence for associations between sodium intake and risk of CVD-related events and mortality,

is a summary of the book, see http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18311/sodium-intake-in-populations-assessment-of-evidence User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 recommendation will be out soon. They should clarify if recent research casting any doubt on the effectiveness of reducing sodium intake has traction in terms of general recommendations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The fine-grained considerations with respect to doubt as to the effectiveness or even dangers of reduced sodium belong in Salt and cardiovascular disease. Here where the general information that reduced sodium reduces hypertension and associated bad outcomes needs to be plainly stated, they are out of place and confuse the issue. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 recommendations are here [20] Chapter 6 has the overview of the evidence for salt. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder I think I have restored most of your changes based on the 2015 guideline. Appologies for the revert I misread the Cochrane review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. From the 2015 recommendations:

Individuals who would benefit from blood pressure lowering (i.e., those with prehypertension or hypertension), should rely on the recommendations in the 2013 AHA/ACC Lifestyle Guideline. These include: lowering sodium intake in general; or consuming no more than 2,400 mg of sodium/day; or lowering sodium intake to 1,500 mg per day for even greater reduction in blood pressure; or lowering sodium intake by at least 1,000 mg per day even if the goals of 2,400 or 1,500 mg per day cannot be met.

I think the language "those with prehypertension or hypertension" is key. Cautions directed at the general population is pointless. Most can put salt on their ice cream without significantly affecting their health. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The WHO still says "recommends that all adults should consume less than 2,000 mg of sodium" Feel free to adjust Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Old sources

We should be using sources from the last 3 to 5 years typically. 2002 is definitely too old and 2008 is a little too old.

This removed: <block> However, the long held belief that a high-salt diet raises the risk of cardio-vascular disease is coming under scrutiny. More recently, dietary salt was demonstrated to attenuate nitric oxide production. Nitric oxide (NO) contributes to vessel homeostasis by inhibiting vascular smooth muscle contraction and growth, platelet aggregation, and leukocyte adhesion to the endothelium. </block>

The second ref is also a small primary source. We should be using secondary sources. And it cannot be "more recently" when all the other sources are newer than this.

ALso "However, the effects of recommending decreasing sodium intake are not entirely clear." was changed to "Despite these recommendations, the effects of decreasing sodium intake are not entirely clear." which is not what the source says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

References

First section, last para

2,000 mg is 2 grams, not 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.146.147.106 (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

History section and the idea that 'salary' derives from Roman soldiers being paid in salt

This somewhat contradicts Wikipedia's own entry on the word:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary#Salarium -- "the Latin word salarium linked employment, salt, and soldiers, but the exact link is not very clear"

The reference there is to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=salary but see also the OED website:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/salary -- "Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French salarie, from Latin salarium, originally denoting a Roman soldier's allowance to buy salt, from sal 'salt'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.162.71 (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Processed food

I noticed that "processed food" in the Diet and health section isn't wikilinked, and then I noticed that there is no article with that title to wikilink to anyway. I wondered if it would be better to point to Food processing or Convenience food, and I decided to read the reference to see how it defined "processed food". But the reference link doesn't work. Should that whole sentence be replaced with some more precise wording and a new reference? — Muéro^(talk/c) 16:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Production of Salt

The section of this article seems to predominantly concern the amount of production by region of salt. I would think majority of people would like to know which different methods are used to produce salt. In essence there are three ways: Mining, Evaporation and Solar - These methods go by different terms depending on English preferences. Evaporation involves various different methods that may or may not be patented; as in the Alberger Process Salt, desired in typically fast food restaurants as it tastes saltier and dissolves more readily by weight than other comparable salt. 80.5.219.60 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Low Sodium Salt

There should maybe a mention to and/or simple link addressing Salt vs Low Sodium Salt 80.5.219.60 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The topic of using a substitute for sodium chloride (NaCl) that does not use sodium (Na) is mentioned in Health effects of salt, which is wikilinked at the top of the Diet and health section. This page, Salt, is specifically about sodium chloride (NaCl), and therefore does not go into detail about other edible substances with a similar taste. — Muéro^(talk/c) 19:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Salt. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.virtualvienna.net/columns/billie/hallstatt/hallstatt.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.epikouria.com/issue3/article6-things.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2016

Grammatical error: Under "History" change "Humans have always tended to build communities either around source of salt, or where they can trade for it." to "Humans have always tended to build communities either around sources of salt, or where they can trade for it." Plural agreement between "communities" and "sources." !-- End request --> Pseudojuice (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! DMacks (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Either way, this statement is questionable. Most human settlements are not arranged around obvious sources of salt. Rather, salt is transported some distance to where it's needed. Humans tend to settle around water, for some reason, and water often contains salt, but it's a stretch to say they settle around salt! Much more important are a source of fresh water and availability of land. I suggest removing this statement, or greatly reducing its certainty!Doc.Ian (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Title

I request that this article be retitled as Salt (Common). this would parallel the broader article Salt (Chemistry). In scientific terms, table salt (NaCl) is just one of many different forms of salt, and to give it the unqualified title is incorrect.Doc.Ian (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Salinity should be displayed in permilles

"the open ocean has about 35 grams (1.2 oz) of solids per litre, a salinity of 3.5%" should be "3.5‰" instea of "3.5%".

Permille is x parts per thousand, 35 grams is 3.5 permilles of a 1000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granitosaurus (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

Mslewin2 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

6% or 17%

One paragraph says 6% of world salt production is used in food, the next says 17%. What is the correct number? Heaviside glow (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ought to mention the ideal salt intake

According to Professor Graham MacGregor speaking on the BBC Radio4 programme The Life Scientific today the 25th. April 2017, the ideal salt intake per day is half a gram (which as I understand it is already found in natural unprocessed foods without needing any addition), that more salt intake than this is unhealthy as it increases blood pressure both in the short term and as people age, that this is killing a huge number of people, that about half the daily excess salt intake comes from bread, and that the food industry is resisting reductions of salt in processed foods as it gives cheap food some taste and helps bulk it out with water. The programme can be listened to or downloaded here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08n2ltq

As the programme webpage says, in the UK "As a nation we now eat thirty thousand tonnes less salt each year than we did fifteen years ago, saving the NHS a staggering £1.5 billion per year. Blood pressure lies at the heart of this huge saving and, as Graham explains to Jim al-Khalili, blood pressure is not a natural consequence of ageing. High blood pressure is simply a consequence of too much salt."

In my opinion the current article as written suggests that salt is good and healthy, when it is now well known that too much salt in the diet is harmful. The six grams a day is an achievable target to aim at in reducing current salt intakes, but Professor MacGregor says the optimal is half a gram.

Edit: if there is an article for Added sugar, then maybe there should also be an article for Added salt. 92.3.67.158 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent radio, BTW. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This is garbage science. Prior to WWII, people ate 3 times as much salt as they do now, because they ate a lot of salted preserved meat and fish. Yet there was no drop in the cardiovascular death rate with the advent of refrigeration. Similarly, the rate of cardiovascular disease has climbed in the years since WWII, but the per capita salt intake has remained exactly the same. Heaviside glow (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You need some sort of basis to make that comparison. The amount of physical labor has decreased and output of salt via that route has decreased (as well as the benefits and penalties accrued by that route.)JSR (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-salt forces are using unscientific hand-waving to demonize salt. Heaviside glow (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I also agree that it is good to include the ideal salt intake for both men and women Malcolm Mak (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes I also agree that it is good to include the ideal salt intake for both men and women Malcolm Mak (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Salt. 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/20111124114738/http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/12-linind/salt.htm to http://www.igg.org.uk/gansg/12-linind/salt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103050102/http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/supplements/documents/akj_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/supplements/documents/akj_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211210829/http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/HE/HE-625.html to http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/HE/HE-625.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030618234222/http://www.roskill.com/reports/salt to http://www.roskill.com/reports/salt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150916191933/http://www.amoxtli.org/cuezali/festivals.html to http://www.amoxtli.org/cuezali/festivals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140314070618/http://www.cargill.com/salt/about/historyofsalt/religion/ to http://www.cargill.com/salt/about/historyofsalt/religion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Salt. 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/20140927063741/http://www.mortonsalt.com/faqs/food-salt-faqs to http://www.mortonsalt.com/faqs/food-salt-faqs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100919163713/http://www.saltinstitute.org/Articles-references/References-on-salt-issues/References-on-salt-issues/References-on-food-salt-health-issues to http://www.saltinstitute.org/Articles-references/References-on-salt-issues/References-on-salt-issues/References-on-food-salt-health-issues
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518063044/https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph25/resources/guidance-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease-pdf to https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph25/resources/guidance-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease-pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603153544/http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scan/out70_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scan/out70_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

White man

The history section contains two mentions of "white" man/men. I propose that this be replaced by "European colonisers". Any objections? Attic Salt (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I did this. Attic Salt (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Imagine if you said something like "black man". That would be labeled as racist and the outrage would know no bounds. It would go ****directly**** to Reddit and Twitter and there would be massive boycotts and all kinds of controversy spun up all over the internet. 69.65.87.245 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

People write more controversial stuff on WP all the time. It gets noticed and adjusted all the time. Most people are pretty mature around here. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Other reading

Moved from the article as extraneous sources for archiving; WP:ELNO; WP:NOTTEXTBOOK; WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Some sources are outdated, from primary research or alternative medicine. --Zefr (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Books

• Barber, Elizabeth Wayland (1999). The Mummies of Ürümchi. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-32019-7. OCLC 48426519. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Carusi, Cristina (2008). Il sale nel mondo greco, VI a.C.-III d.C.: luoghi di produzione, circolazione commerciale, regimi di sfruttamento nel contesto del Mediterraneo antico [Salt in the Greek World, from the Sixth Century BC to the Third Century AD: Places of Production, Circulation, and Commercial Exploitation Schemes in the Ancient Mediterranean] (in Spanish). Edipuglia. ISBN 9788872285428. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dalton, Dennis (1996). "Introduction to Civil Disobedience". Mahatma Gandhi: Selected Political Writings. Hackett Publishing Company. pp. 71–73. ISBN 0-87220-330-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kurlansky, Mark (2002). Salt: A World History. New York: Walker & Co. ISBN 0-8027-1373-4. OCLC 48573453. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Livingston, James V. (2005). Agriculture and soil pollution: new research. Nova Publishers. ISBN 1-59454-310-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• McGee, Harold (2004). On Food and Cooking (2nd ed.). Scribner. ISBN 9781416556374. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Multhauf, Robert (1996). Neptune's Gift. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0801854699.
• Shahidi, Fereidoon; Shi, John; Ho, Chi-Tang (2005). Asian functional foods. Boca Raton: CRC Press. ISBN 0-8247-5855-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Other publications

• Caldwell, J. H.; Schaller, K. L.; Lasher, R. S.; Peles, E.; Levinson, S. R. (2000). "Sodium channel Nav1.6 is localized at nodes of Ranvier, dendrites, and synapses". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 97 (10): 5616–20. doi:10.1073/pnas.090034797. PMC 25877. PMID 10779552. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Dumler, F. (2009). "Dietary Sodium Intake and Arterial Blood Pressure". Journal of Renal Nutrition. 19 (1): 57–60. doi:10.1053/j.jrn.2008.10.006. PMID 19121772. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Feldman, S. R. (2005). "Sodium Chloride". Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. doi:10.1002/0471238961.1915040902051820.a01.pub2. ISBN 0471238961. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kostick, Dennis S. (1 November 2011). "Salt" (PDF). 2010 Minerals Yearbook. U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 12 March 2013. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Markel, H. (1987). ""When it rains it pours": Endemic goiter, iodized salt, and David Murray Cowie, MD". American Journal of Public Health. 77 (2): 219–229. doi:10.2105/AJPH.77.2.219. PMC 1646845. PMID 3541654. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• McCarron, D. A.; Geerling, J. C.; Kazaks, A. G.; Stern, J. S. (2009). "Can Dietary Sodium Intake Be Modified by Public Policy?". Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 4 (11): 1878–1882. doi:10.2215/CJN.04660709. PMID 19833911. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Millero, F. J.; Feistel, R.; Wright, D. G.; McDougall, T. J. (2008). "The composition of Standard Seawater and the definition of the Reference-Composition Salinity Scale". Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers. 55: 50. doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2007.10.001. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Potassium- and sodium ferrocyanides (PDF) (Technical report). European Commission: Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition. 3 December 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 June 2016. {{cite tech report}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Schmeda-Hirschmann, G. (1994). "Tree ash as an Ayoreo salt source in the Paraguayan Chaco". Economic Botany. 48 (2): 159–162. doi:10.1007/BF02908207. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Selwitz, R. H.; Ismail, A. I.; Pitts, N. B. (2007). "Dental caries". The Lancet. 369 (9555): 51–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60031-2. PMID 17208642. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Strazzullo, P.; d'Elia, L.; Kandala, N. -B.; Cappuccio, F. P. (2009). "Salt intake, stroke, and cardiovascular disease: Meta-analysis of prospective studies". BMJ. 339: b4567. doi:10.1136/bmj.b4567. PMC 2782060. PMID 19934192. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Vaidya, B.; Chakera; Pearce (2011). "Treatment for primary hypothyroidism: Current approaches and future possibilities". Drug Design, Development and Therapy. 6: 1–11. doi:10.2147/DDDT.S12894. PMC 3267517. PMID 22291465. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Weller, Olivier; Dumitroaia, Gheorghe (December 2005). "The earliest salt production in the world: an early Neolithic exploitation in Poiana Slatinei-Lunca, Romania". Antiquity. 79 (306). {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Weller, Olivier; Brigand, Robin; Nuninger, Laure (2008). Spatial Analysis of Salt Springs Exploration in Moldavian Pre-Carpatic Prehistory (Romania) (PDF). Spatial dynamics of settlement and natural resources: toward an integrated analysis over the long term from Prehistory to Middle Ages. University of Burgundy, Dijon, 23–25 June. ArchæDyn. {{cite conference}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Westphal, G.; Kristen, G.; Wegener, W.; Ambatiello, P.; Geyer, H.; Epron, B.; Bonal, C.; Steinhauser, G.; Götzfried, F. (2010). "Sodium Chloride". Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. doi:10.1002/14356007.a24_317.pub4. ISBN 3527306730. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Health benefits?

There are claims that metastudies show no danger from usual levels of salt consumption, e.g., at https://drmicozzi.com/why-cutting-salt-just-doesnt-cut-it . Are these claims legit? If so, the article's health/diet section needs to be re-written. 87.247.35.226 (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Healing edit

Respected Wikipedia members

Felt the need to add few advantages of Salt in healing in this article. These old traditional practices are simple and can bring needed change in health. OmAmenAmin (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The edit was removed as spam from unreliable sources. Please understand WP:MEDRS as the guide for choosing high-quality sources on topics of human health. --Zefr (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

yetis fetus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.86.70.237 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

"Halophile organisms giving a red colour"

Please replace "giving" with "give" because there's no need for a gerund in this image caption. Thank you. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The current caption reads: "...halophile organisms give it a red colour." That is correct as is. --Zefr (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the caption says "Sea salt evaporation pond at Walvis Bay. Halophile organisms giving a red colour" There is no "it" and this caption is distinctly not correct as is. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. --Zefr (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2019

"In 2013, total world production of salt was 264 million tonnes, the top five producers being China (71 million), the United States (40 million), India (18 million), Germany (12 million) and Canada (11 million)."

I am a new user, so I apologize if this is the wrong format for such a request. I noticed under the Production heading for the Salt article the data quoted, "In 2013, total world production of salt was 264 million tonnes, the top five producers being China (71 million), the United States (40 million), India (18 million), Germany (12 million) and Canada (11 million).[80]" has since been updated in 2018. A more updated statistic might read "In 2018, total world production of salt was 300 million tonnes, the top five producers being China (68 million), the United States (42 million), India (29 million), Germany (13 million), and Canada (13 million). The source for these figures is the same as the one being used in the article, but is instead the most recent report. B4Gack (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done The figures have been updated. The top 5 producers were changed to the top 6, as the #4 position was a tie between Germany and Canada (both at 13 million), with a difference of only 1 million between those two countries and Australia (at 12 million).  Spintendo  20:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit

I would like to be able to edit this entry please. It is lacking on many points. CatoDeMontaigne (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to propose specific edits here and someone who has the ability will take care of it. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

"Is it also used as cookware, in salt lamps and in spas."

Is and it are transposed. Vigo~enwiki (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction

The first sentences under Non-dietary uses and Production are very much in conflict, these either need comparing by source or to be resolved by some higher quality source. --SgtLion (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC) ........................................................ I know little more about sodium consumption than is contained in this article, but I strongly object to the following sentence: "This evidence shows that while those with hypertension should primarily focus on reducing sodium to recommended levels, all groups should seek to maintain a healthy level of sodium intake of between 4 and 5 grams a day." For those with hypertension, what is the recommended level? "All groups" can consume between 4 and 5 grams a day. Does that mean that those with hypertension can consume between 4 and 5 grams a day? That sentence is so horribly written and self-contradictory as to boggle the mind.184.180.87.188 (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It has a bigger problem than that- "The World Health Organization recommends that adults should consume less than 2,000 mg of sodium, equivalent to 5 grams of salt per day" - This is so obviously incorrect it's not funny, for anyone that actually knows their weights and measures (2,000 mg = 2 Grams, NOT 5 Grams). This needs to be rewritten in such a way as for it to make sense.108.235.248.227 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not funny, but it is correct. Salt is approximately 40% sodium by mass (Na:Cl = 22.99:35.45), so 5 g of salt will contain about 2,000 mg of sodium. Certes (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove [sic, did they mean salt?]

There's a mistaken note near the end of the "Edible salt" section. Looking at the original citation [76], it is clear that they didn't mean salt. This note should be removed. RMP360 (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yinghao Li.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What is salt is it a sodium or natrium

Idk what it is and wanna know if its a sodium or natrium1 197.229.140.105 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

→WP:Reference desk. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Animal tissues

"There is more salt in animal tissues, such as meat, blood, and milk, than in plant tissues."

Do blood and milk count as animal tissues? --Xarm Endris (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Blood does. Milk is a secretion. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

salt in Judaism

The paragraph about dipping bread in salt after kiddush, is misleading. kiddush is made on generally made on wine. only after the kiddush and drinking, the hands are washed, then a blessing is made on the bread, the bread is cut and dipped in salt. 2600:1700:9128:6510:65E4:253A:C28:B992 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)