Talk:Uranium/Archive 1

Old talk

Caution needs to be exercised in using the words fissile and fissionable.

U-238 is fissionable, and fast fission of U-238 delivers much of the power in three-stage fission-fusion-fission weapons. But it is not fissile, and contributes little to the power of a thermal or near-thermal power reactor (the PWR and BWR are not fully thermalised, owing to the competing need to reduce neutron losses).

U-235 and U-233 are fissile. Andrewa 17:01 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't the atomic weight (somewhere around 210-250 or so) be mentioned in the article? Ilyanep 22:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In the table now. --mav 11:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Question: The text says "Because uranium has such a long radioactive half-life (4.47x109 years for U-238), the total amount of it on Earth stays almost the same." However, this isn't strictly true -- the half-life implies that there's only about half the amount of uranium left of what existed when the Earth was created. --Guan 19:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, that doesn't make much sense, I don't think. I've removed it -- better to omit something like that than to have it be wrong, I think. If someone knows better, please re-insert it. --Fastfission 04:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

This article should probably link to the articles on radiomentirc dating since there are a few radiometric dating methods than measure uranium isotopes--nixie 01:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a small line about it to the "applications" section. --Fastfission 04:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

anl.gov is down right now, so I can't check Fastfission's statement about the hazards of the decay products. However, U238 is an alpha emitter, the next two decay products are beta emitters, leaving U234. The alpha emitters are far more dangerous than beta's because alphas are typically very high energy, and for a given energy they are more damaging. U234 is an alpha, but the next decay product, Th230 has a half life of 80,000 years, so very little of it builds up in human timescales. As for U235, an alpha emitter, the next daughter is a beta emitter, and the next is Th 231 with a half life of 32,500 years, so it doesn't have time to build up. To summarize, the radiation of the parent uranium isotopes are far more hazardous than the daughters. pstudier 02:15, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

From ANL.gov:

Uranium is not considered a chemical carcinogen. A second concern is for uranium deposited in bone, which can lead to bone cancer as a result of the ionizing radiation associated with the radioactive decay products. Uranium has caused reproductive problems in laboratory animals and developmental problems in young animals, but it is not known if these problems exist for humans.

Additionally, the decay series of uranium-238 is not trivial; it is what is responsible for radon gas and its own hazardous daughter products. As I understand it. (I'm not trying to trump up its danger, I'm just trying to get it right). --Fastfission 16:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I tried to say is that in a time scale of less than a few thousand years, the radioactivity of the daughters is insignificant because they don't have time to build up. You won't get significant radon from a piece of uranium in our lifetime. pstudier 21:28, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

So how does that accord with the information from Argonne and the fact that significant amounts of radon gas are emitted by uranium deposits? --Fastfission 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simple: pure, refined uranium is no significant radiation hazard, because it needs time to decay into dangerous daughter products. Natural uranium exists in equilibrium with its daughter products, and therefore poses a slight, but still significant radiation hazard.

The Argonne information conflicts with what the Uranium Information Centre Ltd [1] and others have claimed. My guess is that it is only a minor hazard from the ionizing radiation of uranium. On the other hand, uranium deposits are generally much older than the few hundred thousand years it takes for the daughters to build up to equilibrium. Most obnoxious is radon because it is a gas that travels, and it deposits radioactive daughters Pb214 and Bi214 inside peoples lungs. Back before computer monitors were antistatic coated, one could wipe off the dust and detect Pb214 and the Bi214 with a Geiger counter, and watch it decay away. See Nuclear Electricity for a nice chart of the decay chains for U238 and U235. pstudier 22:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

So who do we go with? Argonne National Lab, or an organization which is funded by uranium miners and whose articles seem to be bent on portraying uranium as harmless? A google search for "uranium bone ionizing radiation site:.gov" seems to imply that there are quite a lot of US government sites out there which report that uranium deposits itself into bone and can be cancer causing.

From ANL.GOV Depleted Uranium, we find that 30mg of uranium will cause Potential irreversible adverse effects. The specific activity of natural uranium is 6.77E-7 Ci/gram. So this 30mg is about 20,000 pCi. From ANL.GOV Uranium, we find that the lifetime cancer risk for ingesting U238 is 7.5E-11 /pCi. I use U238 as the numbers are just a bit less for the other isotopes. So if we eat 30mg of uranium we will get sick but have a lifetime risk of cancer of 1.5E-6, or 1.5 in a million. I would say that the risk of getting cancer by ingesting uranium is insignificant compared to getting sick by chemical poisoning. pstudier 00:54, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

I agree completely with that, but I think stating forcefully that it is not a carcinogen is simply incorrect, whether or not it is a very potent one. I'm aware, of course, that nearly every substance is a carcinogen to some degree, but I believe I once read (I can look this up) that the FDA defines (or maybe just defined) a chemical as a carcinogenic risk if it would cause cancer in 1 out of a million people, so 1.5 would be well within that. Anyway though, I can look that up. I don't remember the exact specification or whether it was in the past tense or not. In any event, I am again not trying to overstate the radioactive dangers of uranium (and I'm aware it is part of a more contentious debate over DU) because it is clear to me anyway that its toxicity dangers are far more likely to have an effect (and, in the case of DU weapons or nuclear weapons, the intended death-causing mechanisms are going to be much more effective than this sort of thing!), but I don't want to under-state it either.--Fastfission 03:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about Uranium is a very weak carcinogen. Chemical toxicity, especially to the kidneys, is a greater health risk than radiological effects. Applies even more so to depleted uranium because it is about half as radioactive. pstudier 23:16, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

A leading encyclopedia has articles on the following four topics

1. Uranium Processing
2. Uranium Series
3. Uranium-234-Uranium-238 Dating
4. Uranium-Thorium-Lead Dating

It would be good if we can show we have the same coverage (by able to redirect this titles to pages containing the same sort of information. Any ideas? Pcb21| Pete 3 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

Melting Point Discrepancy

The info box lists the melting point of uranium as 1405 kelvin or 2912 farenheight. These are rather different temperatures. Even if you try using the value given for kelvin as a celcius figure it's still off. Which one is correct? Icelight 20:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[2] says 1405.3 K and 2070 F, I guess the fahrenheit one is incorrect. --kudz75 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What's a "ton"?

What are the "tons" for U.S. production? I'd guess metric tons, but maybe short tons? Or even long tons, which until at least a few decades ago were used for some mining such as iron ore production in the U.S. Gene Nygaard 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The article says "by the time it is completely fissioned, uranium produces as much electricity as 1500 tons of coal.[2]", without saying how much uranium that produce as much electricity as 1500 tons of coal (the source say one pound), and neither which form of uranium (natural, 2-3% enriched, pure U-235?), I guess the second or what kind of ton.

Cameco

I made a few corrections about the reference to Cameco Corporation. Cameco mines uranium in the Athabasca Basin, not the "Athabaska." In Saskatchewan, it has two operating uranium mines (Rabbit Lake and McArthur River), one mine in development (Cigar Lake), and one mill (Key Lake). jamin24601 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1841?

What is the standard for "isolation" of a metal?

As a metal from ore, wouldn't it date to antiquated iron-age smelting, for early contact with, say, a 50% refined element -- 1500s? What is the chance that early ore-seekers would come upon rich enough deposits? Nrcprm2026 19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Isotopes

The last two paragraphs of this section look strange. The first is:

Given that the half life of ²³⁵U is considerably shorter than ²³⁸U, the "depleted" uranium is still significantly radioactive, as is the natural uranium after refining.

This reads as a non sequitur. The actual activity of DU will depend on how much ²³⁵U is present, and the relative activities of ²³⁵U and ²³⁸U. Is that what the original author was trying to say, or something else?

The last paragraph begins:

Another way to look at this is as follows: Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) use natural uranium (0.71% fissile material) [...]

This sounds like someone is trying to persuade the reader, or (worse) the author of the preceeding paragraph, as opposed to just laying down the facts.

I recommend they be removed, and perhaps the details on enrichment be left as a simple wikilink. mdf 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Combustion products - refs

Please add full reference information for the sources given in this new section. Vsmith 14:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The section was copied from Uranium trioxide which has full references; I have included it as the main article for the section. --James S. 14:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Which, as the talk page shows, seems to be highly contested. Only James S. seems to be pushing this line. I don't know enough about the topic to know the state of the literature but the fact that it is one person against about three or four makes me very suspicious that it is original research, especially since James seems to be personally involved in trying to petition about these issues in his real life. --Fastfission 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There are other editors supporting my efforts; the controversy was apparent long before I got here. I'm the only one who bothers to go to the library on a regular basis to check facts -- with which there are serious problems on both sides of the debate. Some people are far more anti-DU than I am, believing it is equivalent to the use of nuclear weapons. My edits, which are well-supported with sources from the peer-reviewed and scholarly medical and scientific literature, represent the truth as best as I can determine it. I admit that I am opposed to DU weapons, but I was not in 2004 before I started looking at the question. --James S. 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the dispute one way or another, I'm just pointing out that there is one, and that you seem to be the primary person pushing a particular approach, one clearly linked with a personal agenda, claiming to be pursuing the "truth" (rather than a reflection of the current literature, which is what Wikipedia aspires for itself), which raises my eyebrow a bit as the standard habit of POV-pushers. But I do not claim competency in the subject matter so I'm not arguing one way or another; just pointing out that I'm fairly suspicious. --Fastfission 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The combustion products are verisitiel and strongly depend on the conditions. The main dispute on the UO3 page is not which comustion products occure, but which state they are in. Solid or vapour at standart conditions. --Stone 11:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

After rereading the literature I now state there is no literature on uranium combustion products which states that UO3 is a primary combustion product. Indications are there but no research. Also possible to be a secondary combustion product. --Stone 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about the ²³⁶U half life

The article says that ²³⁶U is "very short lived", yet the half life listed for it is 23 million years. What is going on here? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Decorporation therapies

How about the top five? ... Decorporation therapies are already acknoledged by several authorities as essential for exposure victims, and the correct toxicological response to exposure to the highly-soluble uranyl-laden forms such as UO3(g) and to a lesser extent U3O8(s), is a notable aspect of health and safety concerns. --James S. 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll start:

1. 3,4,3-LIHOPO --James S. 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mitigation therapies

Is anyone interested in substances which decrease lipid oxidation by stimulating cellular production of enzymes such superoxide dismutase and catalase? --James S. 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Spill cleanup

We need a list of the top five plants. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

The bacteria (e.g. deinococcus radiodurans more) mutate so quickly I'm amazed that the plants can even hold on to their chlorophyll patterns, but apparently there are a few of them which are now very good at it. --James S. 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How are spills cordoned off? --James S. 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Largest Exporter

In spite of Australia's huge reserves, Canada remains the largest exporter of uranium ore with mines located in Athabasca basin in northern Saskatchewan. Cameco, the world’s largest, low-cost uranium producer accounting for 18% of the world’s uranium production, operates 3 mines in the area.

I believe that has to be updated now, in light of the deal signed between Australia and China, it (according to the news segment) makes Australia the worlds largest exporter, if i can find a news link that says this and outlines the %'s exported, i will update it, unless someone else can first--Nirvana- 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. Export from Australia to China is not going to start for several years. --Bduke 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually it's only Saskachewan no one else in Canada has any.

Article structure (combustion products)

The article should follow the Article structure guidelines of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Also done in Berylium page wich is th combustion product of F1 race cars.--Stone 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand what Stone is implying here: he is saying the combustion products should not be so "high" in the article. I think the section is important, but since the oxides are under compounds anyway, the compounds section might be a more appropriate spot for that material. Olin 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally, subheadings in the Notable characteristics section are to be avoided, because anything that would be notable enough for this, is also notable enough for a specific section below. Remember, the higher sections are meant to give an overview to people that may have never heard about a subject.

The Summary style inclusion of this matter is the way to go, but its current form makes it look like POV pushing. This main article is not the place to delve into specific cites and equations. More importantly, any content, especially the controversial one, must set its general context first—at which the new addition completely fails! Why would the average reader care about combustion products? Femto 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets put it in a way everybody can understand the hot topic. The user editing the Uranium page and the rest of the controvers articles has a petiion running against DU and because of this he is now in the conquest to put everywhere quotes supporting his view. The point is the Uranium trioxide gas which is the point of controversy now. Several chemist including me have tried to get the stuff to a point where we can agree and not have the feeling of POV pushing. If anybody is realy interested in this conquest to eternety read the talk pages of Talk:Uranium trioxide and Talk:Depleted uranium.--Stone 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. That's unfortunate that this is someone pushing a POV. Since the article has information about tetragons, Gulf war syndrome and uranium oxides (and corresponding links) already without the rather prominent and poorly placed paragraph, would it be horrible to delete it? I know there are some against deletionism, but (as Femto said) this is not summary style in its current form. Or is this going to trigger a huge edit war like at the other pages? Olin 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the arbitration page. Olin 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For my term: The use of depleted uranium is questionable at best. The negative effects are huge. The influence on cell reproduction is there and soluable uranium salts have to stay out of the enviroment. The DU problematic should be mentioned as it is with good source even the Golfwar syndrom has a place on the page. A link to uranium compounds which occure as final combustion products might be good when this articles reached a stable situation.--Stone 06:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the section down--it made no real sense where it was since the properties of the element uranium have not even been discussed. I would also like to see a reference to a primary source (instead of Cotton as a secondary source). Olin 16:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Something is telling me...

I might know that these Periodic Table Of Elements also came out from the video game series, such as the nitrous oxide (NO2) and I've learned these Periodic Table Of elements into an another encyclopedia, but I'll stay with that one. Because it has more information than the other ones. Anything Else (a.k.a.) David 20 April 2006 6:40 PM

Combustion products, again

Nrcprm2026, you asked for discussion on this talk page in one of your revert summaries. It has been discussed. Don't shift the burden of proof. And don't start a revert war all over again.

A see also link always remained. I removed your POV tag. This is not about neutrality. At least for my part this is only about article structure. There still remains the little issue that even the most detailed and valid references are freaking useless when they're detached of any context. Write a summary paragraph that introduces the issue appropriate to a general article, and that links to articles that may explain it further. Femto 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The "see also" link for Gulf War Syndrome remains. The fantasy that Uranium has anything to do with that tragic illness doesn't need 2 links. It's a real shock to see beatnik anti-uranium propaganda shamelessly substituted for actual helpful insight into the real causes of that illness. Give Peace A Chance 19:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Precautions

There is not one single sourced statement in the whole Precautions section! It needs work. Give Peace A Chance 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fully cited now. --mav 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

The article mentions as a point of interest that during the Manhattan project enough uranium was enriched to provide for one bomb, which the article says was the Hiroshima bomb. The article needs to be corrected to reflect the fact that enough uranium was enriched to provide for first the initial Manhattan project tests and then subsequently both the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs.

Trinity and Fat Man were plutonium fueled devices. --DV8 2XL 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Uranium mining

I have trimmed this section down and moved most of the material to the Uranium mining article. It was more or less a merge as that topic was missing what was brought in from this one. --DV8 2XL 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You will probably want to try again. Dan Watts 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

While I was reading and studying the text, I a contradiction. At least, it is how I understand it.

When this was rediscovered, [...] and the local glassmaking industry kept a tight lid on the secret ingredient and its supply as long as it could.

This means that they used the uranium commercially in glass. That company was the first produces

The discovery of the element [...] In 1850 the first commercial use of Uranium in glass was developed by Lloyd & Summerfield of Birmingham, England. [...]

This means that it was first used in glass by Lloyd & Summerfial of Birmingham in England. This company is NOT in Bohemia

please tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a contradiction?

I am new to wikipedia and speak better french, but I am in an english-speeking country. Josellis

The Summerfield mention has been deleted. Please see the text to see if it is OK now. --mav 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

U-233

"233U, an artificial isotope, is used as a reactor fuel in India. It has also been tested in nuclear weapons, but the results were unpromising."

How were they unpromising? Did the nuclear weapon fail upon contact? Was the blast not large enough? Explain further.--71.30.248.202 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention of that was taken out due to a lack of a cite. --mav

Australian Uranium Deposits

The article twice asserts that Australia has 70% of the world's total uranium deposits. This figure needs a reference. The BRW article I cite, as well as the ABS's Year Book Australia 2006, Ch. 16, say that Australia has 40% of the world's low-cost recoverable uranium. I'm not sure how that relates to the 70% figure. I think that, if a citation cannot be given for the 70% figure, it is safer to run with the lower % suitably qualified.

70% figure no longer in the article. Cites added. --mav 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Precautions

Why aren't there any sources or citation in the Precautions section? Some of the information in that section make medical claims. I view these claims with skeptisim.--aceslead 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

fixed. --mav

Featured article push

I would like to start work on this article to push it to FA quality and then put it through the meat grinder at WP:FAC. Other than the obvious need for an expanded lead, many more inline cites and some general clean-up, is there anything that stands out as needing attention? --mav 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hazards

The Uranium#Hazards section needs to be edited as follows:

All isotopes and compounds of uranium are toxic, teratogenic, and radioactive. Some compounds of uranium cause renal damage. Uranyl (UO₂⁺) ions, such as from uranium trioxide or uranyl nitrate and other hexavalent uranium compounds have been shown to cause birth defects and immune system damage. Finely-divided uranium metal presents a fire hazard because uranium is pyrophoric, so small grains will ignite spontaneously in air at room temperature.

The general population is exposed to uranium primarily through food and water; the average daily intake of uranium from food ranges from 0.07 to 1.1 micrograms per day. Uranium can enter the body when it is inhaled or swallowed, or under rare circumstances it may enter through cuts in the skin. Uranium does not absorb through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin, so uranium that is outside the body is much less harmful than it would be if it were inhaled or swallowed.

About half of uranium burning becomes a gaseous vapor fume, composed of uranium dioxide and uranium trioxide gas. The remainder becomes particulate oxides of many molecular varieties, which settle more quickly from the air. (Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles, vol. 2, pp. 819-38, at p. 836.)

James S. 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if I fully concur. WP is not a safety guard. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is better than the text in the article now, which is heavy on subterfuge and apologetics. Stan Ison 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To that I do concur. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup of Uranium#Hazards I note that it was reverted and ask that you please consider replacing the superior version. James S. 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

James are you still pounding away on the deadly uranium gas? How many times do people have to tell you that you need to brush up on your reading skills, because this shit dont exist. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed Survey

Does uranium trioxide gas exist?

• Yes, it is a combustion product comprising about 1/3 of the product of uranium mutitions shrapnel metal fires, per the reference and the information on my user page. I recommend that the Hazards section with the skull-and-crossbones be used, to bring the article in line with those of other toxins. James S. 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

James, anyone in the know, has said that you are full of it on this point. Review talk for a more detailed explanation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Torturous Devastating Cudgel should review Wikipedia:Civility. That said, I found nothing in the referenced Carter and Stewart paper that suggests any uranium trioxide gas generated from combustion persists in the atmosphere for an appreciable length of time before it condenses into particulate form. In any case, drawing safety conclusions from a research article seems like original research, which should be published elsewhere first. If we include safety cautions at all they should be taken directly from recognized safety publications such as government guidelines or material safety sheets. If there is notable controversy about safety, it should be presented as any other controversy, with NOPV and no conclusions drawn. --agr 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reporting OR published elsewhere is not OR. We can say that "the study reports that ... " Use of the toxicity symbol is appropriate if there is any doubt. Judging safety of anything to what the US government thinks is hazardous has not had a good track record. If there is a US government statement we should use it as well. How about international standards? DGG 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Drawing safety conclusions from a research article on the the behavior of materials under certain conditions would be OR. If we say anything about safety, it should be referenced to explicit, recognized sources. If US and, say, EU, standards differ, that is worth noting, but we should not express opinions about the adequacy of either. Adding symbols implies a level of authority. If that symbol is recommended by safety bodies for the substance in question, it might be appropriate, otherwise it would seem to be expressing an opinion.--agr 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because direct responses to this survey were few, I posted a new survey below. It will help more to take the suggested edits to the Hazards section one at a time. James S. 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proof

In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 (PMID 5527739) in particular, section (f) on page 836 indicates that about half of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion measured by those responsible for insuring depleted uranium munitions safety. Volatility of uranium trioxide (a/k/a uranyl oxide) gas can be plotted from Alexander (2005) and Ackermann et al. (1956), resulting in a very large DOF-adjusted R² corresponding to the 95% confidence interval shown. For the burning temperature of the shower-of-sparks which is the result of DU munitions use on hard targets, please see Mouradian and Baker (1963), and in particular figures 4 and 6 on page 392.

Would someone please include the relevant portions of that proof? James S. 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Skull and crossbones

I note this graphic is used in the articles of several other toxic elements, and ask whether it should be used in Uranium, too?

The following articles on the English Wikipedia link to that graphic: Arsenic, Antimony, Chlorine, Cadmium, Lead, Phosphorus, Thallium, Mercury (element), Poison, and Toxicity. James S. 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, it should be. James S. James S. 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

James, you can have this toxicity symbol in the text if you want, but that is not getting you the toxicity of the gaseous products of uranium you address above in the text. That is a too specific danger, if it is up to me, the whole safety section is going to be cut-down to a bare minimum. WP is not a safety guard, and not a manual. For me a text saying that one should not get uranium, in whichever form, into living tissue, would be more than enough, radiation danger is addressed in other articles, and is named here, and biologic effects of uranium does not include the way of administration. For specific dangers, consult an MSDS. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't a comprehensive article about a toxin include the details surrounding the largest recorded mass exposure? James S. 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an article about a chemical element, not about a toxin. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

False, it's about both. 64.0.232.39 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, this toxicity symbol is an international standard and there are recommendations on various MSDS for when it should be used. An MSDS for uranium metal, or some other authoritative published source, should be cited for its use here. The only one I found via Google, http://www.unitednuclear.com/uraniummsds.htm, did not include use of the symbol. There is, of course, the broader question of whether it should be used at all if Wikipedia can't be systematic about it use.--agr 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think most toxicity is due to uranium salts, not to the metal. Here specifically we should consider whether the toxicity of uranium salts should be addressed in this specific article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the salts, it's the hexavalent ions which are worst, and the metal metabolizes into those uranyl ions. If it is ingested, then not so much is absorbed. So, inhalation is really integral to 90% of the uranium toxicity story. James S. 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is the answer, then. To sum up that statement: inhalation is integral to 90% of the toxicity of the hexavalent uranium ions. This article is about the element, the metal, so the information is not of importance here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's more like 90% of all uranium poisonings involved uranium inhalation in February, 1991, at least until 2003; now it's probably more than 90%. It depends on how many classified metalworkers and metallurgists were exposed. I am just guessing, having grown up around Rocky Flats, I think they only had a few direct accidents, and their few accidental releases didn't contaminate many people, and those they did weren't contaminated very much. So, yes, at this point inhalation toxicology is by far the most notable of all the uranium toxicologies, because U isn't absorbed very well if ingested. I'm guessing the acidic environment of the GI tract will keep it in insoluble dioxide. Can anyone confirm that pH less than 7 promotes the dioxide over the trioxide? James S. 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything is toxic in sufficient quantities -- even oxygen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Electrons

the valence electrons(6) and ending electrions(2) dont match what gives?--Spartan117009 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a clearly defined valence shell becomes pretty much useless beyond the main group and other electrons get involved. Femto 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

and that menas the valence electrons arn't included?--Spartan117009 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean included in the count of the 'outer' 7th shell? Yes, obviously, more than those can be involved in chemical bonds. Femto 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep and well i was working on a project on uranium(powerpoint wise) and so i wanted to know cause im doing a boag's map of the uranium element

Boiling Point

The boiling point is incorrect. Here are the correct temperatures: 3818.0 °C, 4091.15 K, 6904.4 °F. You can find references here and here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gibith (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Those sites don't cite their sources and are not reliable sources themselves. (At least not up to the standard of an encyclopedia. Most collections on the net seem to copy from each other without verification anyway.) Reference is boiling points of the elements (data page). Femto 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Uranus

Just a little comment to improve the text. In the intro you said something like "named after Uranus which was discovered itself only years later". Please specify that you refer to the planet Uranus... Both the element and the planet were named after the greek god... quite evident to all of you, sure, but the text is not 100% neat the way it is...

• Good point. Fixed. --mav 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Desctiption of the Hiroshima bombing...

"The uranium-based Little Boy device became the first nuclear weapon used in anger..."

I think that 'anger' probably describes the attitude of a large portion of the US population toward the nation of Japan during the WWII era, but who in particular was angry when they built the bomb, decided its specific target, or pushed the 'release' button? Perhaps the phrasing could be changed to something more along the lines of "first nuclear weapon used in warfare" to express a more neutral point of view as well as being more historically accurate.

An act of war is objective and verifiable, an act in anger is subjective and debatable.

71.139.40.109 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So noted and fixed. --mav 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference

E. S. Craft, A. W. Abu-Qare, M. M. Flaherty, M. C. Garofolo, H. L. Rincavage, M. B. Abou-Donia (2004). "Depleted and natural uranium: chemistry and toxicological effects". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews. 7 (4): 297–317. doi:10.1080/10937400490452714.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) would be a good reference.--Stone 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nitride

Please create an article for uranium nitride. N₂ reacts with U at 700 K, forming UN and UN₂ nitrides per Cotton, Simon (1991) Lanthanides and Actinides. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 126. 64.0.232.39 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 75.18.210.218 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Except some people in the production of nuclear fuel this type of chemical is simply not used and therefor nobody started one.--Stone 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That reaction is important because it takes place in uranium combustion in air. Here is what WebElements says:

uranium nitride

• Formula: U₂N₃
• CAS registry number: [12033-83-9]
• Formula weight: 518.078
• Synonyms: uranium nitride, diuranium trinitride
• Colour: dark grey
• Appearance: crystalline solid
• Melting point: 900°C (decomposes to UN)
• Density: 11300 kg m^-3

James S. 08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• R. B. Matthews, K. M. Chidester, C. W. Hoth, R. E. Mason, R. L. Petty (1988). "Fabrication and testing of uranium nitridenext term fuel for space power reactors". Journal of Nuclear Materials. 151 (3): 345. doi:10.1016/0022-3115(88)90029-3.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --Stone 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• doi:10.1016/0022-3115(63)90115-6-Stone 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Floating shock image

There's a shock image being superimposed. I suspect it's from a template - could somebody fix it? -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

wow someone got rid of it pretty fast

It's not permanently removed. I removed the template (or templates), it was being transcluded from. When the templates are fixed, please revert. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The image has been deleted but I still don't know which of the many templates is affected. WjBscribe 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, on another note, this article still needs to be locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.228.111 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

All of them have been removed. contribs of user that added them. We don't protect main page articles, either. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article need over 40 templates anyway? WjBscribe 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, really. Why is it using a ton of templates for element boxes when it could be much easier to put them all into one and use series=, blah blah blah? -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly- I'll ask someone who's good with templates if they can narrow down to needing just one template (or at least only a few). WjBscribe 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a single template called Template:Elementbox (but it doesn't contain every parameter included in these 40 or so templates), and I've noticed an inconsistency in the chemical element articles on infobox usage. +A.0u 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, here's a listing of elementbox infobox templates. +A.0u 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

LOCK THE PAGE

Serious vandalism. Please lock and remove vile photo--Diablorex 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree I was plesently disgusted when i open the link.

• The page was just blanked. Is there some reason this article hasn't been locked? I would have though the defecation picture would have been enough reason. --Diablorex 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo should be rotated

That photo in the infobox should be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. Someone rotated the original image clockwise and it looks weird, like it is being offered up to heaven or something. 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I laughed so much at the comment that I had to check the photograph out. The metadata for it says it is rotated 180 degrees. Does that just mean the photo is artificially rotated 180 degrees from the original photo, or was the original photo taken with the camera upside down? I wish I could be of more help in this situation. --LuigiManiac | Talk 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't already, I'd suggest doing what I did - rotate it yourself. When I did that and rotated it 90 degrees counterclockwise, it popped out at me as the correct orientation. The photographer is standing to the left of the person holding the billet, and the number on the billet is upright. 198.97.67.56 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism

User who made an edit posting a youtube video of someone skating is Skaterdude7732 , I suggest ban or block

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Skaterdude7732&action=edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zxctypo (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Reproductive toxicity

1. Is there any peer-reviewed medical publication from the past ten years that denies the reproductive toxicity of uranium?

2. Are there any Health Physics Society web pages which do not deny the reproductive toxicity of uranium?

3. Are there any alternative hypotheses for the birth defect increases in Basrah, U.S., and U.K. troops which have not been ruled out? 75.35.72.51 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That presumes that other peer-reviewed studies from reputable sources have already established a link between natural/depleted uranium and birth defects/reproductive harm. Should we not start with that? --mav 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure: "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a reproductive toxicant...." Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie (2001) "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development," Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-91. "Human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." Hindin, R.; D. Brugge; B. Panikkar (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. James S. 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Effects

Great job on a difficult subject! I would argue one minor point tho, in the "effects" section: technically strontium-90 and iodine-131 are not decay products, but fission products, and have little or nothing to do with natural or depleted uranium. I'll pass on the earlier reference to radon as a concern during Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; it may be technically true, but any radon dose would have been dwarfed by the other hazards.71.208.19.3 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

S-protect: The preceding comment is totally off topic and, even from feer of being labeled under WP:AGF, I still consider this to be trolling. Please focus on your subject. If you also wish for people to take you seriously you will create a legitimate user account and provide proper references. Under the present context and with the lack of referencing I haven't a bloodly clue what the heck you are talking about. I have noticed numerous vandalisms in the past to this article. If this does not resolve I will request that this article be fully, or at least semi-protected. If anyone else thinks the same, you have my conditional support to lock down this page. --CyclePat 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, just correction of a technical error. If you don't know the difference between nuclear decay and nuclear fission consult Wikipedia.165.127.8.254 21:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with 71.208.19.3 and wish someone would please make the edits described. James S. 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to agree with an anonymous poster, but 71.208.19.3 is correct about there being a difference between neuclear decay and nuclear fission. The reactors would produce two new elements, possibly Stontium-90 and Iodine-131 although I'll have to check the numbers, those may not be right. The decay process would produce(sure about this part) an alpha particle and Thorium. I am definatly dubiuous about the radon gas release, this may be a confused way to say radioactive steam, which was definatly released.--Scorpion451 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the radon gas is still not confirmed to have been released, but the decay cycle shown here on the Radon indicates that it forms at one point in the uranium decay cycle. As to whether "clouds" of it were released, that's another question. Still looking for confimation on the fission products, Possible that radon could be a product under the right conditions. This would, however, cast doubt on the Stromium/Iodine part of the information if found to be correct. Half of the paragraph is wrong according the information I have found so far. Just a question of which half.--Scorpion451 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New update, Radon is produced in reactors, in small quanities, and has a relatively short half life: Radon#Occurrence It is likely an overstatement to say that clouds of radon were released, although some was undoubtedly released. It is also important to note that this is a fairly common natually occurring element, which most people encounter daily to some extent. I have found confirmation of the Strotium-90 and Iodine-131 at the Fission products (by element) page. However, in reading up on the Long Island Power Plant, I discovered that the meltdown was only partial to begin with, and released mainly noble gasses. Very little Iodine-131 was released, and it has a half-life of about 8 days. In other words, the reactor got hot, melted a little, and shut down safely while the entire east coast had a panic attack. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was the worst case scenario: a total core meltdown. The reactor was shut down improperly so that the fission reaction suddenly surged and effectivly made it's best attempt at becomming an atomic bomb, breaching the containment dome and releasing clouds of irradiated steam, Iodine-131, and Stromium-90, and yes, a small amount of slighly hazardous radon. (I will be correcting the article in a slightly less sardonic tone =P)--Scorpion451 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SI Units - seek consensus

I removed some imperial units from this article a while back and this has now been reverted by mav. I contend that this article is a scientific article and imperial units simply do not belong here (unless it's a direct quote from a source). Wikipedia guidelines state that scientific articles should be SI unless agreed by consensus. I seek others' views on this. Jim77742 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The values should definitely be primarily represented in SI units, because that is definitely what scientists use. But if the issue is converting some of those into imperial, I'm not sure that there's a problem. If I don't know what, say, a Kelvin is, why force me to go look it up instead of being nice and giving me a value in units I know? -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Converting to Imperial is not the issue here. The only conversion done was by me to SI. --mav 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Imperial units that were removed were in fact the data used in the cited source. Also, the relevant MoS guideline, WP:UNITS, says nothing about using SI units exclusively unless there is a consensus to do so (which does not apply here, since there is no conversion from SI units). In fact, it talks a good deal about providing conversions to and from while preferring SI units. Preference ≠ exclusivity. How to properly deal with this exact situation should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Imperial vs Metric: Keeping measured values straight in scientific and technical articles. --mav 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, if the data is not originally given in SI units, that's different. Conversion introduces some error, so we shouldn't be changing the original data to have units that we like. -Amarkov moo! 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

contradictory information

Under the Resources and reserves section, it states that Australia has the largest reserves at 40% of known, but then in the supply section, it states Canada has the largest at 27.9%.

204.83.242.232 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible that both are correct (though citations needed). Actual production is no way the same as reserves. Plantsurfer (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia has the largest reserves of uranium, Canada is the largest producer of uranium. (Uranium mining is banned in some parts of Australia, but can be explored).65.83.137.137 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for edit: fission properties of uranium

I would like to propose a minor change regarding the following text currently in the article:

Along with thorium and plutonium, uranium is one of the three fissile elements, meaning it can easily break apart to become lighter elements.

The fission properties of uranium are of central importance to its principal applications, so it's important to get this point correct. First, I suggest that the mention of thorium here be redacted--none of the natural thorium isotopes are fissile (capable of sustaining nuclear chain reactions). Second, there are many more than just three elements with fissile isotopes (e.g. U-235, Pu-239, Am-241, Np-237, Cf-251, numerous isotopes of curium, and so forth), so the misleading claim of "three fissile elements" should be omitted as well. If I were tasked with rewriting this section, I would say something like:

Uranium-235 has the distinction of being the only naturally-occurring fissile isotope. More-abundant uranium-238 is both fissionable by fast neutrons, and fertile (capable of being transmuted to fissile Pu-239 in a nuclear reactor). An artificial fissile isotope, uranium-233, is also important in nuclear technology and can be produced from natural thorium in a nuclear reactor.

Thoughts on this? Am I being too picky? If it looks good and references are wanted for anything, I will go find some. I should point out that I have a grad degree in nuclear engineering, but a n00b degree in Wikipedia, so handle accordingly. Thanks. Carlwillis (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any complaints about above request, so I edited the page, replacing the excerpt identified above with this:

Many contemporary uses of uranium exploit its unique nuclear properties. Uranium-235 has the distinction of being the only naturally-occurring fissile isotope. Uranium-238 is both fissionable by fast neutrons, and fertile (capable of being transmuted to fissile plutonium-239 in a nuclear reactor). An artificial fissile isotope, uranium-233, can be produced from natural thorium and is also important in nuclear technology.

Let me know what you think about this. It's more accurate than what was there before, but may be too verbose or out-of-place. Carlwillis (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Decay of U-235 upon neutron capture

This article states that when uranium-235 is bombarded by a slow neutron it forms a short-lived uranium-236 isotope. The half-life of uranium-236 however is listed as 2.342×10⁷ years making it long lived isotope. Also the article on Uranium-236 states that

"The fissile isotope uranium-235 which fuels most nuclear reactors will fission after absorbing a thermal neutron about 6/7 of the time. About 1/7 of the time, it merely emits gamma radiation and remains U-236."

which is different from what this article says. Am I simply overlooking something or is this a contradiction?-Fiber B 02:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over, some of the isotopes do weird things when neutrons start flying. I think that the article you cite may be correct, need to check my books, because it is part of critical mass that fission does not always occur, so the gamma particle thing is right (hence the leaded suits). I'll see what I can find out.--scorpion 451 rant 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, He's what I found. The "short lived U-236" is correct. The article is talking about in the middle of a nuclear reaction. The "slow moving" is only relative, we are still referencing ballistic velocities. If it hits just right (about 1/7th of the time) the atom will remain stable but normally it fractures the nucleus, which blows apart. So the U-236 atoms that remain stable are long lived, (hence the radioactive waste problem) but the majority are shattered instantly by the impact, generating two elements from the single nucleus. The half life only references the normal decay process, in which alpha particles and beta particles are shed to reach a stable state.--scorpion 451 rant 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the quote from the Uranium-236 article should be added here along with a clarification that when U-235 fissions U-236 is momentarily formed in a higher energy state than it can normally exist in, blowing it apart.-Fiber B 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, see below. Warut (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Uraninite

I've once removed the following text which was added by Mikiemike:

All [[uraninite]] minerals contain a small amount of radium as a radioactive decay product of uranium.<ref>[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/uraninite]]</ref>

but Mikiemike added back a slightly different text at a slightly different place:

however, in it's natural form, all [[uraninite]] minerals contain a small amount of radium as a radioactive decay product of uranium.<ref>[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/uraninite]]</ref>

Therefore, I'll need to explain why I did so before I remove it again (last time).

• All uranium minerals, not just uraninite, contain radium. There is no need to specifically mention uraninite.
• All daughter nuclides of uranium are present in uranium minerals in secular equilibrium. Radium is just one of those daughter nuclides.
• The most concerned daughter nuclide of uranium is radon, and radon is already mentioned in the sentence nearby.
• There are a link and a reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/uraninite in the same sentence. This is weird if not incorrect.

Warut (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity

Uranium is a neurotoxin. Please include that fact and place this article in Category:Neurotoxins. Thank you. James S. 13:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is depleted uranium the same as uranium with respect to neurotoxicity? Those references all refer to depleted uranium. Starcare 09:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The different isotopes are apparently not toxicologicaly identical.[9] I'm not a biochemist, but I think this is very surprising. Different isotopes of the same element are almost always chemically identical. On the other hand, the isotopic composition of DU and Nat-U is mostly the same U-238. ←Ben^B4 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Uranium is not a neurotoxin. Neurotoxins, as with other toxins, are from biological sources): "A toxin is a poisonous substance produced by living cells or organisms that is active at very low concentrations." Based on the references supplied, it may be neurotoxic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reengler (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Isotopes

I don't know if this is possible or whether there is a reason why this hasn't been done. However, personally I think in the box which shows the different isotopes of the atom, you should be able to click on them to take them to the relevant page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTHK123 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Data mismatch

This article (in the Uranium mining section) states that approx. 25% of the world's uranium is mined in Canada. The Athabasca Basin article states that about 30% of the world's uranium is supplied from mines there. At least one of these must be incorrect (or the margin of error is too large). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. Check your sources :|. 70.64.78.207 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

At the end of Resources and Reserves --

"The frenzy ended as suddenly as it had begun, when the U.S. government stopped purchasing the uranium." [10] When exactly did the US stop buying uranium? Brian Pearson 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Government source --

But by 1964, after producing almost 9 million tons of ore valued at $250 million, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that "it is no longer in the interest of the Government to expand production of uranium concentrate." The market was saturated. There were 71 million tons of reserves--enough to satisfy United States needs through the next four years. For the first time, private enterprise was invited to purchase uranium oxide and the AEC put federal buying on hold. During the late 1960s the industry rallied again with mining by large companies for developing nuclear plants. But the furor was never the same. Ostensibly, the uranium boom was over. [11]

So it seems that the buying is still going on, but there is no 'boom'. Brian Pearson 04:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that it takes quite a bit of uranium to produce a small amount of weapons grade uranium. I think that this would coincide with the begininng of the nuclear disarmament programs. The atomic energy comission was in charch of the handling and procurement of the uranium for the military, if I remember correctly(don't put that statment into the wiki unless you check it). Just a possiblitity.--Scorpion451 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The boom had to do with the AEC setting an artificially high price on uranium. They stopped doing that in the 1960s because of a number of factors, one of which being they had a lot of uranium already by that point, another of which was that more international uranium sources were found (it wasn't as rare as they had thought), and another is that some of the Korean War era fears about the Soviets taking over the Congo and other major international uranium sources (which sparked the boom period) cooled off a bit. --Fastfission (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Market

One would create an article about Uranium market that would include commercialization and prices. --Mac (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "paducah" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/NEWS01/707230416/1008 |title=Lawmakers back plan for Paducah plant work |accessdate=2007-07-23|publisher=Louisville Courier-Journal}}
  • dummytext

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Uranium and Coal

In the Applications/civilian section it is written (with reference) " one kilogram of uranium-235 can theoretically produce about 20 trillion joules of energy (2×10^13 joules); as much energy as 1500 tonnes of coal." I wanted to check the numbers and went to coal where I found that coal energy density was roughly 24 MJ/kg. So 1500 tonnes of coal would theoretically produce... 3.6 10^13 J... as much as 2 10^13? With this coal energy density, 830 tonnes would be a better figure. Or maybe the energy comparison above is done with another referential, but then we should have a clear explanation.Nietzsche61 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

2004 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health article on chemistry and toxicology

Per the title, Craft, E., et al. (2004) "Depleted and Natural Uranium: Chemistry and Toxicological Effects," Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 7(4): 297-317, is pertinent here. Abstract:

Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product from the chemical enrichment of naturally occurring uranium. Natural uranium is comprised of three radioactive isotopes: 238U, 235U, and 234U. This enrichment process reduces the radioactivity of DU to roughly 30% of that of natural uranium. Nonmilitary uses of DU include counterweights in airplanes, shields against radiation in medical radiotherapy units and transport of radioactive isotopes. DU has also been used during wartime in heavy tank armor, armor-piercing bullets, and missiles, due to its desirable chemical properties coupled with its decreased radioactivity. DU weapons are used unreservedly by the armed forces. Chemically and toxicologically, DU behaves similarly to natural uranium metal. Although the effects of DU on human health are not easily discerned, they may be produced by both its chemical and radiological properties. DU can be toxic to many bodily systems, as presented in this review. Most importantly, normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, and heart can be affected by DU exposure. Numerous other systems can also be affected by DU exposure, and these are also reviewed. Despite the prevalence of DU usage in many applications, limited data exist regarding the toxicological consequences on human health. This review focuses on the chemistry, pharmacokinetics, and toxicological effects of depleted and natural uranium on several systems in the mammalian body. A section on risk assessment concludes the review.

The full text is available at the link above. 69.228.209.24 (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Uranium Teeth

American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification no. 52 for uranium content in dental porcelain and porcelain teeth. Council on Dental Materials and Devices. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979 May;98(5):755-7.

Caruso C, Crapisi S, Conz A. [Determination of the uranium content of dental porcelains and of porcelain teeth] G Stomatol Ortognatodonzia. 1984 Oct-Dec;3(4):720-1.

Sairenji E, Söremark R, Noguchi K, Shimizu M, Moberg LE. Uranium content in porcelain denture teeth and in porcelain powders for ceramic crowns. Acta Odontol Scand. 1982;40(5):333-9

Sairenji E, Moriwaki K, Shimizu M, Noguchi K. Estimation of radiation dose from porcelain teeth containing uranium compound. J Dent Res. 1980 Jul;59(7):1136-40

http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/7/1136

Sairenji E, Söremark R, Noguchi K, Shimizu M, Moberg LE. Uranium content in porcelain denture teeth and in porcelain powders for ceramic crowns. Acta Odontol Scand. 1982;40(5):333-9.

Sairenji E, Moriwaki K, Shimizu M, Noguchi K. Determination of uranium in porcelain teeth by the fission track method. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent. 1977 Dec;19 (4):159-64.

Sairenji E, Moriwaki K, Shimizu M, Noguchi K, Anzai I, Ikeda N. Determination of uranium content in dental porcelains by means of the fission track method and estimation of radiation dose to oral mucosa by radioactive elements. Health Phys. 1980 Apr;38(4):483-92.

Pujadas Bigi MM, Lemlich L, Mandalunis PM, Ubios AM. Exposure to oral uranyl nitrate delays tooth eruption and development. Health Phys. 2003 Feb;84(2):163-9.

Pujadas Bigi MM, Ubios AM. Catch-up of delayed tooth eruption associated with uranium intoxication. Health Phys. 2007 Apr;92(4):345-8.

D. R. PEPLINSKI, W. T. WOZNIAK, and J. B. MOSER Spectral Studies of New Luminophors for Dental Porcelain J Dent Res (59)9:1501-1506, September 1980

WEAVER, J.N. Alpha and Beta Adsorbed Doses from Uranium in Porcelain Teeth, J Dent Res 55(B):501, 1976

Päivi Kurttio, Hannu Komulainen, Aila Leino, Laina Salonen, Anssi Auvinen, and Heikki Saha Bone as a Possible Target of Chemical Toxicity of Natural Uranium in Drinking Water Environ Health Perspect 113:68–72 (2005).

IAEA-TECDOC-1331 Use of electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry with tooth enamel for retrospective dose assessment International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, December 2002

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1331_web.pdf

Systemic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research June 2001

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1717/nureg-1717.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.59.67 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mining Distibution Map

The map showing the Mines in Australia is wrong. All of the Uranium mines are in Western Australia. The pattern that the map shows is actually exactly the same for iron, aluminium and copper. Whoever makes these maps should take greater care in the accuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.34.168 (talk) 19:09, 01 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely at these maps, and read the captions, you will realize they do not represent mine locations at all, for ANY country, and were never meant to. They are indicating production levels for each country as related to the top producing country for that commodity. Turgan ^Talk 16:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Australia "Reserve" clarification

I'm currently doing a paper on Uranium in Australia, and I think some of the information on wikipedia is incorrect, like Australia doesnt have 40% of the uranium like wikipedia says, the source of the information is also unreliable. The Australian government department - ABARE - lists Australia as having 24%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.34.168 (talk) 19:09, 01 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is incorrect. Australia has only 23% of the world's uranium. (IAEA, Vienna) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.6.182 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please include links to sources in discussions so that others can follow-up and verify the information, ESPECIALLY if you change the article to reflect your sources. Properly citing the info in the article is also a very good practice. Turgan ^Talk 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Another error

212.183.134.208 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Under "Pre-discovery use", the article states: "Starting in the late Middle Ages, pitchblende was extracted from the Habsburg silver mines in Joachimsthal, Bohemia (now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic) and was used as a coloring agent in the local glassmaking industry.[13] In the early 19th century, the world's only known source of uranium ores were these old mines."

I read here: http://www.cornwall-calling.co.uk/mines/illogan/east-pool-agar.htm that uranium was mined in cornwall in the 1870s. I'm not sure whether that particular article would be appropriate to cite, perhaps there is more information elsewhere.

Uranium mining started in Cornwall in 1873 (see United Kingdom in Uranium mining), and at Central City, USA in 1872 (see Uranium mining in Colorado), but this does not contradict the statement that Bohemia was the only source in the early 19th century. Plazak (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

¨Silvery-grey?¨

This article lists the color of uranium as silvery-grey. Not only is this subjective, but it falls under original research. Unless someone can find a source, this should be removed immediately. 72.231.222.145 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove that statement unless it is dubious. Considering that there is a photo of silvery-grey uranium right in the article, I don't think any reasonable person is going to object. 71.185.33.188 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But some people would call it dull grey, and others silver. Describing what the color is without citing a source clearly violates WP:NOR.72.231.222.145 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• In it's purest form uranium is silvery-white to silvery-grey. When you have more oxides and impurities present, the colour darkens and dulls. As this is easily verifiable from sources alredy listed, one would be hard pressed to call it original research. Citing specific statements only really becomes an issue if they are questionable, obscure, or not already commonly accepted. Otherwise every single statement in every single article would need a source listed. Turgan ^Talk 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Twice as dense?

The top of the article states that Uranium is nearly twice as dense as lead, but if I recall correctly, it is only 65% or so more dense, hardly enough to be considered twice as dense. I changed this on the article, but if by some chance I am wrong, please correct my edit; however, I am fairly certain I'm correct.

Ninja! 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually 72 percent, but you're right that it isn't really close to twice as dense. -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually 68%, for the 19.1 given here for solid uranium, vs. 11.24 for lead. The 65% was better than the 72%. Gene Nygaard 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

69 %, the exact density for Uranium is 19.16 g/cm^3 for room temperature and 11.*34* g/cm^3 for lead. But I propose to change it to "approximately 70%" because the exact density may vary due to the temperature, contaminations and the mixture of isotopes. --136.172.253.189 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 136.172.253.189, the approximation sounds like a good idea due to the variables he/she listed (of course it might just seem like a good idea seeing as how I had already made changes to the article to say 72% and 68%, and I don't want to make another incorrect edit) --LuigiManiac | Talk 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by the Swedish version of the article I added a parenthesis mentioning that Uranium is not the most dense of all naturally occuring elements, eventhough it has the highest atomic weight. --Itangalo (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes more sense to add that statement to the next sentence which already discusses density. In addition there is no contradiction in having the highest atomic weight, but not the highest density, so putting them in the same sentence as an apparent contradiction, is not very sensible. Kbrose (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Uranium is almost as dense as gold- but I do not have the exact values and cannot say which is heavier. The heaviest element is osmium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Some points on the article

Well done to mav and the other editors for getting this article to Featured Article Status.
The following was posted on a different page (that is now archived and no replies to the points below were posted) and I'm posting here so people can comment on the points:
Production and reserves section.

• Three million metric ton of uranium ore reserves are known to exist and an additional five billion metric ton of uranium are estimated to be in sea water

Both of these statistics need sources.

There would be more than 3Mt of uranium ore reserves – Olympic Dam alone has 761Mt @ 0.6kg/t U3O8. [12]

It would be more like 3Mt of mineable U3O8 is known to exist. I don’t think you’ll find a figure for straight uranium.

• Consider changing metric ton to just tonne through out the article. Ton is used for imperial units throughout the article and it would be more readable for metric users to see ‘tonne’.
• Yellowcake is then generally further refined using nitric acid to create a solution of uranyl nitrate.

For this general discussion the step to uranyl nitrate can be skipped and mention of uranium hexafluoride should be mentioned instead.

• I don’t think the picture comment ‘to extract pure uranium’ is what is generally done. Uranium is mainly used as Uranium dioxide in nuclear reactors. Also 'yellowcake' is not generally the colour in the picture anymore (see below and yellowcake). I do appreciate that there are few pictures out there but maybe you could change the comment to reflect that this is an historic picture of yellowcake.

Yellowcake is the crude form of U3O8. If the previous step was precipitation using NaOH, it will have some sodium uranate. Using ammonium hydroxide will give ammonium uranate in the crude preparation. These are always minor components. Other minor components are Al, Fe, Pb etc. This is the most commonly traded form of Uranium and hence the purity matters. This product dissolves in nitric acid and there are several steps to get UF6.Ck.mitra (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• “The resulting mixture, called yellowcake, contains..”. It would be more correct to use “the resulting mixture is U3O8 and is commonly called yellowcake…” The powdered form is not yellow [13], Australia’s second largest producer doesn’t use the term yellowcake [14], their largest producer uses it only once [15], and the worlds largest producer uses the term U3O8 [16] more than yellowcake [17].

And Uranium mining makes no mention of yellowcake. I guess my point on this one is that general public usage is 'yellowcake' however the mining companies that produce the oxide (where you can go for more info) use U3O8. The section also uses yellowcake and ‘concentrated uranium oxides’ interchangeably when they are describing the same thing - it could be confusing.

There is a difference between 'yellowcake' and U3O8. U3O8 is a specific chemical compound. 'Yellowcake' is the actual product which comes out of the wet ore process at the mine site, which is shipped elsewhere for refining/enrichment/whatever . As the article says, it about 75% of it consists of the compound U3O8 and the remainder is other substances which are not effectively separated from the U3O8 by the mine site wet process. This percentage obviously would vary depending on the composition of the ore, the process technology, and the sophistication of its control and monitoring system.Eregli bob 06:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the Cold War legacy and waste section, it would be useful to have a sentence on the use of dismantled nuclear warheads for nuclear fuel for power stations. [18] Megatons to Megawatts Program

For the Biotic and abiotic section:

• Do we need the sub heading ‘Biotic and abiotic’. If so can we mention in the next paragraph which one it is or link to the words some how? I didn’t know what they were – more encompassing words for organic and inorganic? I’ve only checked lead and potassium and there is no similar sub headings. Can we remove?
• In reference to Its average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million do those references really say Earth’s crust. Most reference on the net have ‘Uranium occurs in rocks in concentrations of 2 to 4 ppm’ [19]. If it says rocks in the reference can we change it to the previous sentence. If it is crust then a number closer to 4 maybe correct. crust is made up mainly of basalt (0.5ppm) and granite (4ppm) [20] [21], 4ppm could be reasonable as basalt is more associated with the earths surface. The 2ppm most likely is a reference to Uranium in soils. Greater than 2.5ppm is ‘high uranium concentrations’ [22]. US studies indicate that fertilised soils have 0.8 to 1.2ppm [23] and [24]. And I like the quality [25] of sites when I run 2ppm [26] in google compared to 4ppm [27] when looking at soils. So can we remove ‘depending on the reference’ and match the correct words with the correct numbers.
• (it is recovered commercially from these sources with as little as 0.1% uranium[9]). This should be with less than 0.1% uranium. Olympic Dam is mining at 0.6kg/t (0.06%) of U3O8 and if uranium makes up 81% of this compound by weight then they are mining at about 0.05% uranium. This is due to the uranium being a by product (although these days it’s more a co-product) but the life of Olympic Dam will make this statement correct for as long as most of us are alive.

Thanks - Ctbolt 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It might also be good for someone to double-check the cited sources. One especially suspicious-looking "fact" (which I deleted) claimed that Israel had one or more above-ground nuclear tests that caused pollution. A reliable source for this would contradict Israel and weapons of mass destruction and Vela Incident, and indeed, neither Israel nor France (the other country mentioned) is in the "Uranium" section of Building Blocks. Other errors in fact or attribution might be less obvious but just as serious. Calbaer 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is no error of attribution; Look at the last paragraph of page 480 of the Emsley reference and look at note 187 on the same page. The note says "Some countries, such as France and Israel, continued above-ground tests in the 1970s and 1980s." Also, removing all mention of nuclear testing from that section was not the greatest way to deal with seeing the odd-looking fact. A better way of dealing with that would have been to comment out 'and Israel' and bring the issue to the talk page (something I did after restoring the removed text). Even books written by a PhD in chemistry and published by Oxford Press can be wrong, however. So if that is the case, then lets work it out here. Hopefully, this is rare error for the reference; I've already had to junk another book-o-elements due to it being filled with incorrect facts (avoid Krebs The History and Use of Our Earth's Chemical Elements - it is worse than useless). --mav 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I read the main text and missed the footnote. Hopefully it is a rare error, but it is a glaring one. I don't know of any other source (this side of conspiracy theorists) who claim that above-ground Israeli nuclear tests are a fact rather than a conjecture or falsehood. Calbaer 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great feedback Ctbolt! Truth is, I'm going to work on some geology articles for a while and won't get back to this article for at least a month. But I do plan to address each of your points and then put the article through another peer review. I do invite anybody and everybody else interested to beat me to it though. :) --mav 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

These three statements seem to be inconsistant when taken together:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium "Along with thorium and plutonium, uranium is one of the three fissile elements..."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium "The other fissile materials are uranium-235 and uranium-233."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium "Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. Although not fissile itself, 232Th will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (233U), which is fissile."
Perhaps they could be reworded to avoid confusion?

Donald Trump Defines What Uranium Is

You guys have it all wrong...

Go to 0:09 in the following video for the REAL definition of Uranium: https://twitter.com/tonyposnanski/status/832329218629521408