Talk:Catalyst poisoning

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rehabilitation edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It wouldn't hurt to add a section on the chemistry and economics of rehabilitating the poisoned catalyst.

Long ago, I was told my an elementary school teacher that fossil fuels were non-renewable: they were impossible to replenish. Surely, I reasoned to myself, she doesn't mean "impossible", or how would they have formed in the first place? Here we have an article engaged in a similar "can't get there from here" stance: a poisoned organism is gone forever, whereas a "poisoned" catalyst can presumably (we leave this unstated) be "depoisoned" by some combination of trouble and expense.

By not completing the cycle, we're engaged in the same abuse of metaphor that suckered my grade three science teacher into making logically preposterous claims in the guise of science and fact.

Step back and consider the children. — MaxEnt 09:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic