Talk:Smoke
Someone should put this pic up. I would do it but I don't know how.
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The content of Health effects of wood smoke was merged into Smoke on 24 December 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Possible picture for article
Someone should put this pic up. I would do it but I don't know how.
http://usgsprobe.cr.usgs.gov/images/mosaic.gif
It's volcano smoke particles under an electron microscope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.168.36 (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Video has cooling towers
The large hyperbolic cylinders in the front are not smokestacks, but cooling towers, which emit plain water vapor. --Vuo (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC) -- Agreed. They have been removed Daler (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Etymology of the term
Could we have the etymology of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faro0485 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Todays Edits
No idea how to revert 3 edits so I will rely on someone else's ability. The latest 3 edits damage the article randomly inserting the name of some jpg file. Looks accidental. --91.84.51.237 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In the section "Measurement of smoke", subsection "optical", the text correctly states that the optical detector can be at different angles with respect to the source. In some cases, more smoke results in less light; in other cases it is the opposite. In the case cited, 90 degrees, more smoke results in more light. Feel free to email me: mcnaught at unm dot edu 68.35.150.245 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't smoke a colloid?
If it is, it should probably be mentioned. If it isn't, it seems to have enough colloid properties to explain why it isn't. Shiggity (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Health effects of wood smoke
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To merge, recognizing that there is potential for a separate article in the future. Klbrain (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The page is essentially a duplicate of the paragraph-length section in this article with the same name. Needforspeed888 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, at the moment they're identical. I think a better option would be to reduce the length of the paragraph there and expand this article over time, but if merging eventually turns out to be a better option we can do that. Alec Gargett (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Smoke just isn't about wood smoke and features from other ways of combustion and also including the health effect of those BUT the Health Effects Of Wood Smoke article is basically just wood smoke and its' health effects. I agree with this merge unless there's consensus to do a merge-split into Smoke and Health effects of smoke which could also could be an option, but I guess we should just merge if not. Dawn Lim (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think having a stand-alone article on Health effects of wood smoke or Health effects of smoke would be great but does anyone have time to set it up? If not, then I guess Health effects of smoke should for now become a redirect to Smoke#Health effects of wood smoke. Not there is also quite a bit of content on this topic at wildfire. This could be tidied up as well. EMsmile (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
'Medicinal'
How could you allow a section made by the source cited to persist for a decade and a half? Some people have probably died because you allowed this nonsense to go unchallenged! Explain to me again why editable information is so great? 2600:1700:6801:C10:71F3:20F7:6AEF:1882 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- If only this page had been updated before Darius the Great (522–486 BC) died... oh wait. Editable information tends to be great, but it doesn't improve the ability of people to read. Some people probably died because you were writing this mini-rant instead of taking a walk down a rarely used road during which you would have been witness to a car accident and been able to call emergency services quickly. It's about as likely as anyone dying from smoking syrian rue after reading a section of a page about historical use / ethnopharmacology. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I amended it as a single source is not enough to show whether it is medically useful Chidgk1 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.