Talk:Radium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Chemical Properties

What is meant by the comment about the discoloration of radium on exposure to air: "probably" due to nitride formation? Is this an aspect of the chemistry of Ra that has never been investigated? I think the comment should be clarified or removed. Hmoulding 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oxidises or nitrides?

This article contradicts itself. At the top it says that radium blackens in air by oxidation. Lower down it says that it blackens probably (sic) by nitride formation. Macboff 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That may not be a contradiction. Oxidation is governed by electron loss, and needn't (I think, IANAChemist) actually involve oxygen. 81.174.226.229 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Taste?

"Radium was added to food for taste" What does it taste like? (I'm assuming it was in the form of some salt, perhaps like RaCl₂) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaded-view (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy with source

According to the Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1 ton of pitchblende yields 1/7 of a gram of radium, whereas the article states in "Occurences" that a metric ton (a larger amount) yields only .0001 grams of radium. I am updating the article with this information; if it is incorrect, please revert.NotALizard (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right, thanks! The article did say 1 gram per 7 tons originally, but it was changed by an anonymous edit in November 2006, without any source or explanation. It's a bit embarrassing that this wasn't caught until now. Hqb (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tritium

This quote.

Although tritium's beta radiation is potentially dangerous if ingested, it has replaced radium in these applications.

I think it deserves mention that Tritium has a shorter half-life and does not bioaccumulate like Radium does. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.58.1 (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How can beta radiation be ingested?194.72.120.131 (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Small particles emitting beta radiation (dust) can be flying around and ingested. Materialscientist (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence so that it says that tritium is ingested, not beta radiation, and that tritium, not beta radiation replaced radium.Wikimedes (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hotel Radium Photo

Hi Materialscientist - you're right in a sense, the hotel was using the popularity of Radium at the start of the 20th century, as were the toothpaste etc. that is mentioned in the article. I just put the photo there as an illustration of this popularity. The hotel is long since 'dead' and so is the popularity of Radium as a consumer product! However - if you own this article then so be it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deasington (talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles here. This might be an interesting short addition (on the use of radium for business promotion), but if properly described and referenced. Materialscientist (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

References

• Lind, S. C.; Underwood, J. E.; Whittemore, C. F. (1918). Journal of the American Chemical Society. 40 (3): 465. doi:10.1021/ja02236a001. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Parsons, Charles L. (1913). "Our Radium Resources". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 5 (11): 943. doi:10.1021/ie50059a021.
• Rentetzi, Maria (2008). "The U.S. Radium Industry: Industrial In-house Research and the Commercialization of Science". Minerva. 46 (4): 437. doi:10.1007/s11024-008-9111-1.
• Paridaens, Johan; Vanmarcke, Hans (2001). "Radium contamination of the banks of the river Laak as a consequence of the phosphate industry in Belgium". Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 54 (1): 53–60. doi:10.1016/S0265-931X(00)00165-X. PMID 11379074.
• Parsons, Charles (1916). "On the Extraction of Radium, Etc. By the U.S. Bureau of Mines". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 8 (5): 469. doi:10.1021/i500005a024.
• Parsons, Charles (1913). "The Uranium and Radium,Situation". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 5 (5): 356. doi:10.1021/ie50053a001.
• Bishop, H. E. (1923). "The Present Situation in the Radium Industry". Science. 57 (1473): 341–5. doi:10.1126/science.57.1473.341. PMID 17729591.
• Bothwell, Robert (1983). "Radium and Uranium: Evolution of a Company and a Policy". Canadian Historical Review. 64 (2): 127. doi:10.3138/CHR-064-02-01.
• Adams, A (1993). "The origin and early development of the Belgian radium industry". Environment International. 19 (5): 491. doi:10.1016/0160-4120(93)90274-L.
• Carvalho, Fernando P. (2011). "The New Uranium Mining Boom": 3. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22122-4_1. ISBN 978-3-642-22121-7. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• M. Genet (INVITED) (1998-10-01). "Radium: A Miracle Cure!". Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 79 (1–4): 1. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a032367.
• Roqué, Xavier (1997). "Marie curie and the radium industry: A preliminary sketch". History and Technology. 13 (4): 267. doi:10.1080/07341519708581911.
• Rentetzi, Maria (2008). "The U.S. Radium Industry: Industrial In-house Research and the Commercialization of Science". Minerva. 46 (4): 437. doi:10.1007/s11024-008-9111-1.
• "Topics of Current Interest". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 28 (3): 329–331. 1933. PMC 402782. PMID 20319062.
• http://www.cim.org/bulletin/bulletinlive/articles.cfm?Issue_ID=125&Type=1&row=2&Segment_ID=46. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• . JSTOR 986549. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Pratt, R.M (1993). "Review of radium hazards and regulation of radium in industry". Environment International. 19 (5): 475. doi:10.1016/0160-4120(93)90273-K.
• . JSTOR 27814059. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Moore, R. B. (1926). "Commercial Production of Radium, Mesothorium, and Helium". Industrial & Engineering Chemistry. 18 (2): 198. doi:10.1021/ie50194a033.
• Lederman, Manuel (1981). "The early history of radiotherapy: 1895–1939". International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 7 (5): 639. doi:10.1016/0360-3016(81)90379-5.
• Ceranski, Beate (2008). "Tauschwirtschaft, Reputationsökonomie, Bürokratie". NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin. 16 (4): 413. doi:10.1007/s00048-008-0308-z.
• . JSTOR 40173537. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Gschneidnerjr, K (1964). "Advances in Research and Applications". Solid State Physics. 16: 275. doi:10.1016/S0081-1947(08)60518-4. ISBN 9780126077162. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

--Stone (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Glow

Does radium actually glow green, or is that just a myth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.154.174 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Bold textMyth; it glows blue76.174.27.179 (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's move this where it will do more good

This sentence:

The SI unit of radioactivity is the becquerel (Bq), equal to one disintegration per second. The curie is a non-SI unit defined as that amount of radioactive material that has the same disintegration rate as 1 gram of radium-226 (3.7×1010 disintegrations per second, or 37 GBq).[8]

is a nice bit of information that should be on Wikipedia somewhere, but it has no purpose here. Let's move it somewhere where it will do more goo. Poihths (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it is relevant here because the definition of the curie specifically refers to radium-226 (the commonest radium isotope). But I would prefer placing the curie before the becquerel here as the becquerel has nothing to do with radium:

"The curie is a non-SI unit defined as that amount of radioactive material that has the same disintegration rate as 1 gram of radium-226 (3.7×1010 disintegrations per second, or 37 GBq). The SI unit of radioactivity is the becquerel (Bq), equal to one disintegration per second."

Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One can find out all about the curie and the becquerel by simply linking to the respective articles. That's the point of having the internal links, like the one to curie in the History section of the article, where the connection between the unit and the scientist is appropriate. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Cobalt and cesium are not substitutes for radium

Cobalt and cesium are not substitutes for radium. They are gamma emitters; radium is an alpha emitter. Gamma emitters are not used to make luminescent paints. Both of these gamma emitters are more dangerous to handle and work with than radium is. Mention of these two "substitutes" should be deleted from the article. Rwflammang (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Radium was for a long time the only possible radio isotope at all. It was used for radiation therapy and other applications were gamma and beta emitters would be the better choice, but after cobalt and caesium isotopes were available radium fell out of use. Why is there no radium used anywhere anymore, when it is less dangerous? --Stone (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

They are substitutes in a medical sense, where the technical differences are known and respected. They today treat the same problems radium did in the past. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"Recreational use" section seems misnamed

the "Recreational use" section is misnamed, since it focuses entirely on quack uses of radium. Quackery is not a type of recreation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.63.222 (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. let's go with "Commercial use". Change made. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Which ispotope

Which isotope exhibits the radioluminescence of radium? Which was used on the watch dials?--149.217.1.6 (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the radium that glows. It is mixed with activated zinc sulphide, which glows when bombarded with alpha particles. So all of the isotopes and decay products that alpha decay are contributing to the glow. DonPMitchell (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.27.179 (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As to which one would activate ZnS, all of them; in fact the shorter half-life isotopes would no so even more efficiently, though the effect would fade quickly, even if those isotopes could be generated in enough quantity. In fact, any alpha emitter would work; the question is the tradeoff between brightness per quantity used vs speed of decay. Stupid ispotopes. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Marie Curie's death

About the phrase in the article: Handling of radium has since been blamed for Marie Curie's premature death.

I have just read that Marie Curie lived 67 years (1867 – 1934), so that is not such a premature death. Well, she died of leukemia, so my question is: At which point did her death generate a global warning about radiation?

---

a response

"Premature death" is when death occurs earlier than it would have otherwise. a person who died in a car accident at age 120 would still be a "premature death."

Curie died of leukemia and it could've been caused by exposure to radium or other radio active elements, so such speculation, although not fruitful, would still be rationally justified.

She may have lived another twenty-five years or more, but that's also speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.63.222 (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

76.19.63.222 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Michael Christian

"Premature death is when death occurs earlier than it would have otherwise." - This is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.204.129.120 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Isolation of pure radium chloride

The article somehow omits the work undertaken by the Curie's during almost four years from radium detection (1898) to the isolation of 100 miligramms of pure radium chloride in 1902, a process during which they had to make some 45000 fractional crystallizations, with their own hands. None, before or after, has devoted such amount of time and energy in the isolation of a chemical element.

References: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/physics/curie/ http://www.aip.org/history/curie/brief/06_quotes/quotes_08.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.47.182.128 (talk • contribs)

This is covered at Marie_Curie#New_elements, which is linked from this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

By and large this article is pretty good. I recognize that Radium is a bigger challenge to tackle than some of the other elements you've done because of the unique and unfortunate (for our purposes) coincidence of its historical significance and lack of modern research. That said, the article does a good job laying out the physical/chemical/nuclear properties of radium and giving context to those properties--i.e. by the time we get to the discovery section we're equipped to understand how the Curies extracted radium and why it might be found in uranium. That's good and not something you see all the time in articles which mix science and science history.

Thank you! I consciously aimed for that. Yes, it is really unfortunate – it means we have to be somewhat equivocal about the precise properties of Ra, because there haven't been modern experiments to accurately pin them down, and there are multiple conflicting values from the early 20th century. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I will say that I think the historical uses and sections on the development and production of radium could be expanded. Some of my suggestions I've left below as specific notes but there is a surfeit of sourcing (lol) on the production and applications of radium from ~1900-1960. It would be a shame to promote this article without a more comprehensive (or at least better sourced) look at those areas, given that they're one of the reasons radium is as important as it is. I'm happy to do some gophering for sources (especially those on JSTOR, as I have access to that but no access to a university library) if need be and I'm also open to being convinced that this demand is unreasonable for a GA, but I don't think it will be too hard to overcome.

style/layout

• This is up to your discretion (as I'm sure there's a MOS note on where to link that I haven't read), but we link Primordial nuclide in "primordial thorium". It might be better to forego that link for a sentence and link to it when we spell out "primordial radionuclides"
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• "...them is radium-205m, with a half-life of between 130 and 230 milliseconds. All ground states of isotopes from..." I'd say remove the milliseconds wikilink and link ground state
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• "It is 2.7 million times more radioactive than the same molar amount of natural uranium..." Probably don't need to link "uranium" here as we linked to 235 and 238 (the latter twice) in the section.
  • Well, natural uranium is a mix of ²³⁸U, ²³⁵U, and traces of ²³⁴U, so that while the main point is certainly ²³⁸U, the faster decay rate of the other two natural U isotopes should be significant enough that it might misrepresent the source a little to not accentuate that it means natural U. Also, thanks for noting the doubly linked ²³⁸U: cut the second one. Double sharp (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Got it,  Done Protonk (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• this should be converted from a bare link to a citation template

content

• "Today, the latter usage is no longer in vogue..." While technically correct (I think), we've got three uses here: nuclear medicine, radioluminescent devices and quakery, so "latter usage" could refer to the last two or just the middle one (or the last, I guess, but that's not the indication I get from the text).
  • Changed to "Today, these former applications are no longer in vogue..."; better? Yes, I meant the last two. Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It's still kinda unclear. This may make the text a bit more bloodless, but would it make sense to say "it's now only used for nuclear medicine" or something like that? I dunno, this is a small issue. Let's call it good for now and worry about the other stuff. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• "At standard temperature and pressure, radium crystallizes in the body-centered cubic structure, like barium..." How about "Like Barium, At standard temperature and pressure, radium crystallizes in the body-centered cubic structure"? That's maybe a bit fiddly but it avoids my having to wonder whether the crystalization is like barium or the bond distance is like barium
  • Changed to "Like barium, radium crystallizes in the body-centered cubic structure at standard temperature and pressure: the radium–radium bond distance is 514.8 picometers."; better? Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • yup. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• When talking about the chemical properties we link to Relativistic quantum chemistry, where for the other (substantially heavier) elements I've reviewed we've linked to Spin–orbit interaction, these seem to be discussing a similar phenomenon. Am I missing a distinction?
  • Nope: the spin-orbit interaction is basically the root cause for relativistic effects in chemistry. It's just that in this article, we don't explain everything from the bottom, because there is still a lot to talk about for Ra's chemistry without going into it. For those substantially heavier elements, we know absolutely nothing about their chemistry, so I went very technical to cover all the predictions that had ever been made about them which I could find. Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Makes perfect sense. Protonk (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• "and "radium" came to refer to all isotopes, not just 226Th." Do we mean 226Ra?
  • LOL! Yes, I meant ²²⁶Ra. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• "They found the radioactive compounds to be very similar to the barium compounds, except that they were more insoluble: this enabled them to separate them out and discover a new element in them, radium." Sort of awkwardly worded. e.g. "them" points to different things as the sentence goes on. We're trying to say a few things: 1. the radioactive compounds were very similar to barium, but 2. they were more insoluble, therefore 3. the compounds could be extracted. 4. That extracted compound was a new element, radium. I'd say split the sentence in two and see if it works better.
  • Changed to "The Curies found the radioactive compounds to be very similar to the barium compounds, except that they were more insoluble. This made it possible for the Curies to separate out the radioactive compounds and discover a new element in them, radium."; better? Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Tritium emits beta radiation which cannot penetrate the skin, rather than the penetrating gamma radiation of radium and is regarded as safer. It has a half-life of 12 years." Coming on the heels of "safer radioactive promethium" I'm not sure about this sentence. First, alpha decay can't really penetrate the skin, both alpha and beta decay are problematic mainly due to ingestion, with alpha decay being more dangerous because the particles do more damage than beta decay. Second, radium emits gamma radiation, not promethium, so the comparison to gamma radiation might explain why tritium replaced radium but not why it replaced promethium (also AFAIK promethium also decays via beta decay).
  • This is actually a more interesting story than I expected it to be at first! Firstly, tritium being safer makes some sense, because the energy released by the beta decay of ¹⁴⁷Pm is an order of magnitude higher than that released by ³H. However, tritium is a gas, so containment is an issue: so Pm is actually still used today for specialist purposes. Ra is also an alpha emitter, and Pm and H's beta emission won't age the phosphors so much. I still haven't found for sure why tritium has completely eclipsed Pm except when the latter is really necessary, but if I had to guess I would say that it's because tritium is easily made in nuclear reactors and can be collected as a byproduct, whereas promethium can't be made as a byproduct – you've got to actively go out and make it. Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, I've tried to make it read that both Pm and T have replaced Ra. This is true, although T is more common than Pm and Pm only gets brought out when it is absolutely needed. I think it's better now. Double sharp (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

sources

• do we have a better source for the naming of radium than this?
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Not required for the GA review but JSTOR 986549 is a fun read and has some color on the early popular history of Radium. Interestingly enough, the article notes that an early popularizer of radium, William Hammer, gave an estimate of ~5 thousand tons of uranium ore to 1 kg of radium. For an estimate offered in 1904, that's not too far off the 1 ton -> 1/7 of a gram.
• The historical applications section runs a while without sources and where it is sourced we reference encyclopedia britannica and vintagewatchstraps.com. I actually like the latter source better than britannica, but I think there's more than enough sourcing available on the historical uses of radium to support or supplant both.
• JSTOR 41821475 might be useful for the early history of the radium industry
• There are a large number of sources on the early medical use of radium. Apparently both the british and the US set up "national radium institutes" and I think there were more applications than cancer treatement (at least to start)

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: I'm doing some further referencing – so far I've got rid of the citation needed tags, but there are still some places that need refs. I'll post again when it's done. In the meantime, I'll have a look through this and see what I can use from here. Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Ping me when you want me to take another look. If you want I can gopher around for some more sources. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: Can you help me gopher around for more sources? Most of the things I usually can find talk more about the chemistry of the element than its history, which is fine in most cases, but for an element like Ra it is really irritating for writing the "history" section. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: OK – now it looks like everything might be sourced – but I will try to look for more sources and make it more watertight. In the meantime, if you find any sources, please add them to the article. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Sorry about not getting back to this. I'll take a look this weekend and add sources and complete the review. Thanks for being patient! Protonk (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

followup gophering

• As I mentioned above, there's the Maria Rentetzi article here. She also wrote a book on the cultural history of radium, full text is available here. I think the book is a pretty solid reference (it's reviewed here so it's not some wildcat ebook.
  • I dunno about most of this. It's a very solid reference, no doubt, but most of it is about the general story of radioactivity, which of course touches on Ra, but Ra is not the focus. I think this would fit much better in an article like history of radioactivity (?! I expected that to be blue). Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • There very much needs to be something like the history of radioactivity. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed there does. (Very much hoping that the redlink is not because we really don't have an article, but because nobody thought of this plausible redirect.) Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• there's a fairly recent article on the history of radium quackery here (that's not full text but you can find a pdf easily by googling).
  • This is such a huge topic! Maybe we should just leave a summary here and put the meat at the article on radioactive quackery. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this the pdf in question? Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Upon re-reading it's mostly about quackery in general. I think I'll look through the sources I've suggested above and make sure that they're focused on radium and try to add some content for those that are. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• ISBN 0549635211 (searchable on google books) has several notes about the early history of radium (including the formation of various radium trusts). I can find specific pages (or screencap them if for whatever reason gbooks changes their mind about viewability)
• this is an older review article, but it has some information on how health information regarding radium propagated within the medical community.

I'll add a bit more later. I think we could probably (eventually) break out a history of radium article and I don't want to recommend that you overload it, but it's so central I figure the above is a good balance. Protonk (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll add these.

P.S. I'm going on an internetless holiday from 13–24 Dec, so if we're (OMG!) still not done by then, I'll try to get everything resolved once I'm back. (And hopefully we will not break the record for the longest GA review.) Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we're in the running for top 10, at least. :)

@Protonk: You know, while improving and creating all those history-of-radium subarticles is a good idea, maybe we can sabotage our aim at the longest GAN record by leaving that to after the review. :-P Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: All right, I'm back – gonna do some work tomorrow (and hopefully wrap this up in time for 2015!). :-) Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

[1] (you might have posted this already?) Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

@Double sharp and Protonk: I don't intend to be rude, but isn't it time to finish up this review? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. This review has been going on for 3 months. If no progress is made within 48 hours I will unfortunately close the review.--Dom497 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am now closing the review.--Dom497 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• . doi:10.1149/1.1837067. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) might be the needed source for the phosphorescent replacements for radium.--Stone (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15831864.html. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) has something on the use in military pilots and children.

Better image

http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/088Ra/Ra.htm --220.245.49.25 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Review by R8R

I have not yet given this a substantial read, just given it a look through. For now, I suggest some reorganization.

The History section is super incomplete. We have like discovery, and isolation, and a random fact about curie. Yet, say, of the three paras of the Production section, at very least two are like actual history (as a side note -- "post-Soviet states" is a vague generalization, and I recommend not to use it when you're not talking about their "post-Soviet-ness." Furthermore, surely not all 15 of them are chief radium producers?). And the Applications section could be renamed Current applications, and the former ones could also be included in the History section if you also follow the chronology (although, I think, we would still need a short subsection mentioning the former applications, but not going into detail, as it does now), and you could get an FA-worthy History section.

Normally, I would suggest the current Chemical subsection belongs to Compounds, and under this subtitle, you better describe the reactivity of radium (one or two paras would be just enough). If you don't like how reactivity is separated from the compounds, you can think of the "Characteristics" title as of "Elementary characteristics" or so, and possibly apply such a change. Or even go with a "Physical characteristics" section comprising Bulk properties, Atomic, and Isotopes (or smth. like that) and a "Chemistry" section discussing both reactivity and compounds. The current format was super useful when these articles were just being shaped. You may say we've grown beyond that at this point if you want to. Making an exception won't kill anyone. (UPD: See zinc.)

A longer review is to follow anytime between now and October 1. If there is no review by then, ping me.--R8R (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

minor changes

This section will describe changes that are not necessarily minor, but just generally not requiring too much work to get done (at least, I expect them to be not to require too much work)

Pretty much as opposed to the changes directly above the section header, which I would recommend to start off with, as they are of much greater importance

In general, it would be great to see some initial response, so I am not confusing your silence for uselessness of this refiew.

Physical

I would focus the attention of the reader of how Ra in the air forms the nitride rather than an oxide, a simple non-trivial interesting thing, I would highlight it a bit, or at least mention that metals normally form oxides in the air, if anything

This may be beyond the GA level, but let's leave it in here. I'd like to know what would actually happen if you expose Ra (say, Ra-226) to fresh air. would it heat the environment much? if put on a wood surface, would Ra burn it? etc. The nitride is like a small episode in the story.

Both values -- I can see three values here?

Are there no atomic scale values available, such as ionization energies or standard electrode potential?

Chemical

See general comments

Isotopes

In this scheme -- in what scheme?

It could not realized that, say, Ra-223 was an isotopes of radium if the term radium did not even apply to it at the moment. You could say, "when it was realized these nuclides were isotopes of the same element, the element was named after the most stable one, 'radium' (radium-226 in current nomenclature)" (is my idea correct, actually?) And you could share this idea with the History section if I am right. I would mention the historical names for the historical isotopes here, and move the "name the element after the most stable isotope" part to the History section.

While a century is equal to 100 years, I would not use the term in contexts not related to us humans. Besides, 1600 is far more than just one century.

"2.7M times more radioactive" is it just the half-lives ratio? If so, does the idea "times more radioactive than" mean only half-lives ratios and is not related to, say, decay energies? To avoid the confusion, I would just rephrase this

A sample of radium metal maintains itself at a higher temperature than its surroundings because of the radiation it emits – alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma rays. -- is this actually correct? My idea was, radioactive stuff is thermally hot because radioactivity transforms some atomic energy into internal energy of the radioactive body

History

As a general note, I strongly recommend applying my advice on the structure of the History section, see above. More advice may be available after that

Occurrence

Why not move it to the Characteristics section?

the isotopes 223Ra, 224Ra, 226Ra, and 228Ra are part of the decay chains -- I already know that. Consider merging Isotopes and Occurrence, as they are so interrelated for this particular element, or just reduce the overlap (yet my choice would be merging the two; the sizes of the both sections are just appropriate)

(half-life 1600 years) -- already mentioned by this point

Because of its relative longevity -- so 1600 yr is long? How much longer than the second longest-lived isotope?

One ton of pitchblende typically yields about one seventh of a gram of radium. -- "yields" as in "contains" or as in "could be mined from"?

89 femtograms -- I suggest avoiding "femto-" and lower prefixes in non-super-scientific contexts (I had to check how much a femtogram actually was)

Extraction & Production

Since most of Production is actually history and should be moved there, the remainder can be easily moved to Extraction. Especially given how unclear why it is necessary to have two section, named Extraction and Production. The words are synonymous.

Even the current Extraction could easily use a para break or two

to remove as much as possible of other compounds -- pretty sure this could be said in half as many words. The whole thing needs a copyedit so badly.

So... I'm told how the Curies did it, and how it was done in 1940 (by the way, what's so special about 1940?), but how is it done today?

Compounds

The section does not read like a text. These are five paras with no interdependence (maybe the last one is okay). Normally, I would suggest making this section as close to that of zinc as possible, but I don't know if there is enough info on radium chemistry. This makes commenting difficult. (Normally, I would research to see what the situation is, but for now, let's just outline the problem.)

Luminescent paint

Last para is hardly about history or uses; it's about precautions and the like, and should be moved there

Commercial use

This and following scetions on hiustroical uses are considerably shoerter than the previous one. I suggest bringing them to the same size (that is, unless you follow the advice in the beginning of the review

Medical use

OK

Current

I suggest adding a phrase like "although radium is being phased out, it still has a number of uses"; by the way, is this a complete list of its current uses?

about 1500 polonium-beryllium neutron sources, with an individual activity of 1,850 Ci (68 TBq), have been used annually in the Soviet Union. -- here you're going into detail for something not related to radium. This possibly could be justified if there was a similar treatment for the same thing with relation to radium, but there isn't. Either don't go here or go there for radium as well (the former seems favorable).

Precautions

I strongly suggest you explain why the whole "gaseousness" of radium is so important and makes it so dangerous; even TV and press recommend to protect yoursel and your home from radon of all radioactive matters. This wouldn't cost you much text space. (UPD: okay, just move the part on it up here)

At the time of the Manhattan Project in 1944 -- and how much is it now?

This was a major breakthrough for science. -- we're not running a tabloid, we can make it not so screaming

if radium was capable of destroying healthy tissue, could it also attack cancerous tissue? -- we're totally not running a tabloid :(

lead

"combines with nitrogen on exposure to air" -> "combines with nitrogen (rather than oxygen) on exposure to air" or the like

When radium decays, ionizing radiation is a product -- this hasn't been mentioned in the text?

I strongly suggest to describe history of rading beyond discovery in the lead in a few sentences.

Currently, other than its use in nuclear medicine, radium has no commercial applications -- I strongly suggest to repeat that in the Applications section

final remarks

@Double sharp: I think we've got enough for now; I am certain the review is a path towards a GA, and even beyond just getting the green plus. Unless I missed something critical (I doubt that), the described changes will provide us with a great article once applied. If your goal is just getting the GA status, some of the comments may be ignored (especially the basic ones), but if you have a bronze star in mind, I suggest completing all of the recommendations, so you won't find yourself with a GA terribly far from the star (and this will also help the reader).--R8R (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hazards

"Exposure to radium, internal or external, can cause cancer and other disorders[.]" Agreed, but isn't there a huge difference between internal and external exposure? I mean, its most common isotope, radium-226, is only moderately radioactive and decays by alpha emission. If they put you in a room with a bar of that, your skin will easily withstand it. Internally though, much of it will accumulate in your body and there it's a bloody nuisance, no matter how slowly it decays. And of course radium-226 decays into radon-222, which you will breathe and therefore will also do internal harm, but even so ingesting 10 grammes of radium is a lot likelier to give you cancer than spending an hour in a room with 10 grammes of radium. So isn't that statement a bit misleading? Steinbach (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Internal contamination is always more dangerous, but radium-226 actually has non-negligible photon emissions as well as some electron emissions. The closest source I have at hand (Delacroix, D.; Guerre, J. P.; Leblanc, P.; Hickman, C. (2002). Radionuclide and Radiation Protection Handbook. Nuclear Technology Publishing. ISBN 1870965876.) states a skin dose rate of 4.8e-02 mSv*h^-1*kBq^-1*cm² for uniform contamination and 8.8e-03 mSv*h^-1*kBq^-1 for a single droplet (FYI it also puts the deep tissue specific gamma at 1.3e-05 mSv*h^-1*MBq^-1 at 30 cm (don't ask me why they used 30 cm instead of 1 m)). Kolbasz (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

list of prominent people treated by Ra

Seems like something we should have to contrast with all the poisonings and deaths, if I can find a few more (I can only remember Debussy). Double sharp (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

put applications in history

I think this is one of the elements that demands a deviation from the standard structure. The reason is that Ra essentially has no applications today, with the exception of Xofigo. Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Radium-E

Here it says : On February 4, 1936 Radium E became the first radioactive element to be made synthetically. On the Technetium page, it says: Technetium was the first element to be artificially produced. (in 1937) One of these statements must be false. Malbi 11:20, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They are one and the same. It was called Radium-E for want of another name, as it resulted from experimentation on radium. Later, when it was isolated and described, it got a formal new name. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Radium E is ²¹⁰Bi, not Tc. I suspect the sentence meant to say "first radioactive isotope" (or perhaps nuclide) rather than element. Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes from reporting at the time (1936 :) i.e. [2] -- Limulus (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, IIRC there was a great deal of confusion in that time between isotopes and elements, because of the competing principles of atomic number and atomic weight as what defined an element. Indeed Ida Tacke-Noddack suggested that the periodic table should be revamped to be founded on the isotopes rather than the elements. Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Red spectrum or green

In the History section, it seems to imply that Barium has a Red spectrum, in fact Sr is Red and Barium is Green :) 88.107.136.221 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)YT2095

Radium discoverer name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Radium was discovered by Marie Sklodowska-Curie and her husband Pierre Curie in 1898. Maria Sklodowska-Curie entire life used Sklodowska as first surname. First paragraph of Marie Sklodowska-Curie also says her real name "Marie Sklodowska-Curie". Moreover her signature visible in the article says "Marie Sklodowska-Curie". This is encyclopedia, source of true, reliable information. When some one has two surnames we use both or first one in shorter version. Saying that "Marie Curie" is "commonly known" is not what people looking for reading encyclopedia like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.149.66 (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule and are likely to be blocked. At least two editors disagree with you. Her full name is provided in her bio article and is, in my opinion, not needed in this article. Her common usage name is Marie Curie and this is acceptable for use in wikipedia. In fact our article on her is named Marie Curie. Polyamorph (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fact that two editors disagree with me doesn't mean that they both have right. Also this has nothing to do with her bio article. It is simple - her name was Marie Sklodowska-Curie. People generally in few countries uses wrong name and medium such Wikipedia should correct this, informing potential Wikipedia visitors that her name is Sklodowska and Curie is addition to her name after she got married with Pierre Curie. I believe that you met in the past with situation, when people used some definiction/name/etc wrongly and reliable information source says something different. We call this being uneducated or falsification of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.149.66 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, two editors agreeing does not necessarily make them right. However, we do work here by consensus and there is no consensus for adding her full name in any article she is referred to in. You were warned to stop reverting on this page. Polyamorph (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not about "full" name or "short" name - this is about of propagation the truth. If you need to use short name use "Marie Sklodowska" without "Currie". You probably would change your mind and opinion if people in the work used incorrect name of famous person that come from your country (your compatriot). I am sure that you would do same as I do. As Wikipedia administrator you should fight with propagation of false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.149.66 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Marie Curie is the name she is most well known by. You can't come to wikipedia to push your individual agenda. The consensus is unfortunamely against you. As I said before, the page Marie Curie details her full name and we link to it. That is enough. Polyamorph (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Melting point

The article states that the melting point of radium is either 700°C or 960°C, and that there is no scientific consensus as to the correct melting point, and that both values are found in sources. I am unable to find any source later than 1926 (which was the International Critical Tables of Numerical Data, Physics, Chemistry and Technology, Volume I) which lists 960°C as being radium's melting point. Every other source I can find says that radium melts at 700°C (or 696°C, but that's splitting hairs a bit compared to the 260° difference between the values in the article). Would anyone disagree with editing the article to list radium's melting point solely as 700°C (and its equivalent in other units) and removing the reference to this apparently non-existent controversy? JMike93 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the value given in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (2009, 89th edition) is 696°C. I suggest we use that value.Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree, where does the number in CRC come from? Kirby is has written a good review on radium which is quoted several times in our article and he doe s give both values for the melting point. I do not belive that any chemist after the glorious radium years were over had enough material to messure the melting point and so there is the 260°C difference. --Stone (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Already for the stable elements there is a lot of disagreement on boiling point values (e.g. quoted values for Nb have varied from 3573 to 5017 K!). The paper linked has indeed brought down the errors from 900% to 10%, but they couldn't do the radioactive elements. Regulations keep tightening and I seriously doubt we will ever get much better data on the melting point of Ra. There is probably still a frozen controversy here, unseen solely because it froze with the regulations. Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The values that Kirby quotes are referenced to articles published in 1910 and 1926! CRC is a pretty rigorous compendium of known physical and chemical properties and they will have checked this! I will search for the actual sources but general references are given in CRC. I don't think it's ridiculous precision if that's the value someone has measured using modern methods, which is comparable to Curie's original 700 deg C value. In any case the CRC handbook is a recognised reliable source for use in chemical info boxes.Polyamorph (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In Melting_points_of_the_elements_(data_page) we give the value 700 deg C from all three sources WEL, CRC and LNG - this is the recommended value to use. I don't then understand why you've chosen to use the higher value which doesn't seem to be reproduced in any other reference literature.Polyamorph (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Also 700 deg C in Kaye and Laby. It would be nice to find the actual reference to the measured 696 value but in any case there is absolutely no mention anywhere in the literature for the higher value other than that ICTND source. I'll change the value to 700 deg C. Polyamorph (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

There's another discussion about the m.p. of radium, here. The Curies' write up of the behaviour of radium at around 700°C is interesting and seems to indicate it was volatizing rather than melting. I think changing the value to 700 deg C is rash, or this value at least deserves a qualifying note. Sandbh (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

In this 1955 paper, Stites et al. give a melting point of 960 deg C, citing Brewer L 1950, National Nuclear Energy Series, IV-19B, McGraw-Hill, New York pp. 28—32, 103–116, 193—207. They go on to say, "In general, the mp of the elements…decrease with increasing atomic number. However, this observation does not appear to be valid for Period 6. The reported mp of radium (960°) is higher than that of barium (717°). We observed a similar anomaly for actinium (1,050°) and lanthanum (887°). Since the mp of of the metals are related to their atomic volumes, the anomalies are probably due to the effect of the lanthanide contraction. The elements affected by the lanthanide contraction are those in Table III below the line [Fr, Ra, Ac, Hf, Th]. In Group IV, the effect of lanthanide contraction is observed in the fifth period. The mp of hafnium (2,327°) is higher than that of zirconium (1,860°). Therefore the mp for actinium shows both a horizontal and vertical relationship to the mp of its neighbouring elements [Ra, La, Th]. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In her 1911 Noble lecture Marie Curie said, "The metal obtained melts at about 700°C, above which temperature it starts to volatilize."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 May 2016‎ (YBG (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC))

OK, but in general we are supposed to use the values given in reference data sources (like CRC, WEL, LNG - all of which give the value ~ 700 deg C). IF they're wrong, then fine but we need to prove it. Do you have access to the Brewer L 1950 reference? I wonder whether they actually measured it or if it all comes down to the one 1926 International Critical Tables of Numerical Data reference. There is a note to say that the value is disputed, I would be happy for this note to include the 960 value and its reference. Polyamorph (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I still tend to distrust general reference books for rare radioactives. By definition they are not specialising in the element and therefore they would tend to parrot each other, just like how the statement that there are no perastatates still keeps going around. The reason why it makes sense to look at very old sources like this about radium is because due to tightening safety regulations, no one has enough radium metal to determine the melting and boiling points properly today, and so anybody quoting a value must be parroting one from elsewhere. Therefore I have reinstated the disagreement in the main body of the article. I suspect it will remain that way for a long time, because nobody really cares about radium today: all the applications are too dangerous, and it's not even chemically that interesting (just Ra²⁺, which behaves very similarly to Ba²⁺). Polonium is more interesting and is somewhat easier to make. Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Just to bring home the point about how little people care about most of these rare radioactives today: Greenwood and Earnshaw cordon off astatine and radon into their little brief sections after the main bodies of the halogen and noble gas chapters, stop mentioning francium and radium after the initial introductory pleasantries, and only make a single mention of actinium chemistry, the formation of the oxychloride, in the group 3 chapter. The actinides up till einsteinium are treated much better, and they really try to talk about polonium in as much detail as selenium and tellurium. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, the note you added to the article is good, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the Ullmann source I have since added explains the sad state of affairs fairly well: "Due to decreasing interest in these rare and difficult-to-handle radioelements [Tc, Pm, Po, At, Rn, Fr, Ra, Ac, Pa], no more investigations of special importance – except of ^99mTc for nuclear medicine – have been done in the last decade and, therefore, no review papers have been published recently." Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(P.S. As another example of this situation; the widely-quoted value of 202 K for the melting point of Rn dates from measurements made in 1909 by Ramsay and Gray (10.1002/anie.201803353), and apparently no future experiments were done ever since to confirm this value. Simulations suggest that it is nonetheless astonishingly accurate.) Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Horrible grammar

"When the mixed sulfate were pure enough they were once more converted to mixed chloride and barium and radium were separated [...]."

That's the kind of awful grammar/punctuation you'll get if you semi-protect articles, IMO, because most people who notice will be blocked from fixing it, but (unlike me?) won't think it merits a dedicated request on the Talk page.
—DIV (1.129.110.237 (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC))

Untitled

Article changed over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by User:maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:10, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 18:51, 10 July 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Radium. Additional text was taken directly from Dict.org (input radium into search field) and USGS Periodic Table - Radium. Other information was obtained from the sources listed on the main page but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

---

Talk

I'm a bit puzzled by the description "Transuranic is (SIC) character". It's not actually transuranic, as everyone who follows this link will know.

Can whatever this means be expressed more clearly, I wonder.Andrewa 18:18 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

The source of this error appears to be the online elements database which has now been corrected. I have deleted the reference to transuranics on this page. It's still not very elegant prose. Andrewa 05:55 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Radioactive Quackery Issue

I'm not sure the Rogers Hotel in Claremore, Oklahoma USA is the best example of radioactive quackery without context, because according to this site there wasn't actually radium in that water. Clearly this was part of the radium quackery, calling anything supposedly medicinal radium, but there needs to be some context to this Dawg161 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

notability

There are many red links for radium compounds that I suspect are not notable. I will probably remove them, unless there is disagreement about them here. Gah4 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"Eka-barium" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Eka-barium. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Eka-barium until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

Please add the following text after "==Modern applications=="

Atomic, molecular, and optical physics research

Radium is seeing increasing use in the field of atomic, molecular, and optical physics. Symmetry breaking forces scale proportional to $Z^{3}$ , which makes radium, the heaviest alkaline earth element, well suited for constraining new physics beyond the standard model. Some radium isotopes, such as radium-225, have octupole deformed parity doublets that enhance sensitivity to charge parity violating new physics by two-to-three orders of magnitude compared to $^{199}$Hg. .

Radium is also promising for a trapped ion optical clock. The radium ion has two subhertz-linewidth transitions from the $7s^{2}S_{1/2}$ ground state that could serve as the clock transition in an optical clock. Additionally, radium could be particularly well suited for a transportable optical clock as all transitions necessary for clock operation can be addressed with direct diode lasers.

Though radium has no stable isotopes, there are eleven radium isotopes with half-lives longer than one minute that could be compared with high precision on a King plot. Isotope shifts could be measured with high precision on either of the radium ion subhertz-linewidth transitions from the ground state, or on the the $^{1}S_{0}$ to $^{3}P_{0}$ intercombination line in neutral radium. The degree of any potential nonlinearities in such a King plot could set bounds on new physics beyond the standard model. Thesheriff212 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done 54nd60x (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

More complete info for radium isolation

I think it is relevant to add that the BIOLOGICAL half-life of 226R is 2.5 years for "whole body" and 5.5 years for bone. This is for living bodies only. This rather brief biological half life is the reason that Mme. Curie's body is not radioactive (and wasn't when she died) - because she spent a lot of time out of the lab before she died. Pierre on the other hand died mid-career; he did not have time for the radiation to leave his body. Thus, his body had decayed to one shin bone and one upper arm bone when exhumed to be placed in the Pantheon.

It is also relevant to include the fact that Marie Curie performed the scientific techniques of Separation and Fractional Crystallization on TEN TONS of pitchblende. The information in the article makes no mention of the amount of the pitchblende, and that omission denies the tremendous amount of work that was done. The Separation was the first part; it yielded a liquid of barium and radium. Mme. Curie's task was then to isolate the radium thru Fractional Crystallization. It took her 3000 attempts to finally get 1/2 t of radium crystals from the 10 tons of pitchblende. Radium chloride occurs at the rate of 1 millionth part per 10 tons of, okay, uraninite. The whole process took 3 years, after which she submitted a doctoral thesis about the process to the Sorbonne. The 1911 Nobel Prize was for this contribution to mankind.

I know this is not an article about Marie Curie, but some of the points of the isolation of radium chloride are not really complete. I hope to correct that with these comments.

Sign with 4 tildes? No tildes on my keyboard.... 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Snikpohyduj (talk)

Not done: You're now a semi-confirmed user, so you can make this edit yourself. —Belwine (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 18:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I will be reviewing this article. It's quite big, so it may take a bit of time. Artem.G (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Some initial comments/questions:

• It is the sixth element in group 2 - why not 'In Alkaline earth metal group'?
  • Probably not because its wordy. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• All isotopes of radium are highly radioactive, with the most stable isotope being radium-226 link isotope to th first occurence of the word, not the second
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• When radium decays, ionizing radiation is a product, - should it be 'by-product'?
  • Yes. Changed it.Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Radium is not necessary for living organisms, Biological roles of the elements can be linked here
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• These isotopes nevertheless still have half-lives - link Half-life
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• This was the first discovery of an asymmetric nucleus. - unsourced
  • Done. Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 00:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• uraninite (pitchblende) pitchblende seems to be just an old name of uraninite, why should it be here?
  • Another name of uraninite, for reference. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• The common historical unit for radioactivity, the curie, is based on the radioactivity of 226Ra. - I think that some explanation should be given here; for example something like "the quantity or mass of radium emanation in equilibrium with one gram of radium (element)" (from Curie (unit))
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• A typical self-luminous watch that uses radium paint contains around 1 microgram of radium. duplicated 'radium'.
• yet had not seen fit to protect their employees. - sounds clumsy to me.
  • Fixed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Nobel-winning biologist Hermann Muller - Paul Hermann Müller
  • Already done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• After the isolation of radium by Marie and Pierre Curie from uranium ore from Joachimsthal - is it the same place as Jáchymov?
  • Yes and fixed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• For some time radium availability was low.[58] for what time? Is it important?
  • It is important as the history of availability of radium, and added exact year. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Neither of the deposits is mined for radium but the uranium content makes mining profitable. - unsourced
  • Sourced it. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• If the barium content of the uranium ore is not high enough it is easy to add some to carry the radium. These processes were applied to high grade uranium ores but may not work well with low grade ores - unsourced
  • Sourced. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• The chief radium-producing countries are Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and Russia. and have been used annually in Russia - unlink Slovakia and Russia
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Radium is also promising for a trapped ion optical clock. link to Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks, not optical clock.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• refs are formatted quite differently - for refs that are in sources, it's better to use { {sfn|}} template.
• ref 9 Salutsky, M.L. & Kirby, H.W. THE RADIOCHEMISTRY OF RADIUM, report, December 1, 1964; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1027502/: accessed March 30, 2021), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department. Page 3. - should be reformatted.
• refs 13, 64-72 should be cited properly, as {cite journal}
• but other materials such as polonium are now more common: about 1500 polonium-beryllium neutron sources, with an individual activity of 1,850 Ci (68 TBq), have been used annually in Russia.[81] - the ref is about Litvinenko, and not about neutron sources used in Russia. Also 'now' in this sentence shouldn't be used - use either year, or just remove it as too ambiguous.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Today, the isotope 226Ra is mainly used to form 227Ac by neutron irradiation in a nuclear reactor.[24] - 'Today' usage should be avoided. There are eleven 'todays' in article.
• since thorium and uranium have very long half-lives, these daughters are continually being regenerated by their decay. 'daughter' can be linked to Decay product; also it can probably be good to write what is daughter product.
  • Done. The daughters are already mentioned earlier in the section. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is quite good, and once the issues would be addressed, I would resume this review. I'm putting it on hold for 7 days, please ping me when everything is done or if you have any questions. Artem.G (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, consistent ref formatting is not a requirement of WP:GACR. See footnote 4 of that page, and also Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable. Colin M (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but as per Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Citations: "Text formatting in citations should follow, consistently within an article, an established citation style or system. Options include either of Wikipedia's own template-based Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2, and any other well-recognized citation system." So I think my comments are still applicable. Artem.G (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but the GACR only requires compliance with 5 specific MoS pages, which do not include MOS:TEXT (see WP:GACR 1b and its attached footnote). I'm not saying this isn't good advice, but it's not a condition for GA status. Colin M (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification! You're right, though I never said that this is a requirement. I will be more clear next time, and will add "suggestions" section for such stuff. Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit distracted over the last week, but I see that Keres🌑 made some edits after the review. Though you've nominated that article, I saw that you were not the main author of it. Are you willing to work on it? The article needs copyediting, some stuff I've highlighted in my preliminary review. If you want to work on it, I'll be happy to resume this review after all the issues are solved or discussed here. If not, I think I'll fail it. Artem.G (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

So it's a fail for now. Keres🌑, if you want to bring the article to GA, I think that History, Production, and Modern applications needs copyediting and revision of sources used. The article is not bad, but it's a bit neglected and needs some attention. If it would be done, I think it would pass next review. Artem.G (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

Please update reference 39 URL to https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/collection/radioluminescent/index.html. The current URL sends to a 404 page. Topspinner21 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I also added the relevant section name to the link; otherwise, it doesn't show by default, and you have to click a non-obvious button to actually see the text that's being cited in support of the claim in the article. (The archived copy of the original link also works.) Thanks, Hqb (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Radium/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackFromWisconsin (talk · contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Prior review material

[Note from BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC): this section contains the material from the original review, which was inexplicably deleted; its history is important, and is being restored here:]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'll base this initially off of the previous review, then go from there on the rest of the article. Expect comments within a week. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Keresluna: Just a friendly reminder that the review has started. Wretchskull (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

General Comments

• "Both values are encountered in sources and there is no agreement among scientists as to the true value of the melting point of radium.", I expect to see at minimum two sources here with the different melting points.
  • The ref, Kirby, H. W.; Salutsky, Murrell L. (1964). The Radiochemistry of Radium (PDF). National Academies Press., has two references that claims both melting points. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• "In 2013, it was discovered that the nucleus of radium-224 is pear-shaped. This was the first discovery of an asymmetric nucleus.", This is short and could be expanded. You could explain on the shapes of other nuclei, and expand on how and why 224 is pear shaped.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• (more to come)

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over

Regrettably, JackFromWisconsin will not be able to continue the review. The nomination status is being changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

AnonymousPurpose review

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

---

Great scientific article which covers almost all necessary information about this.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Impeccable spelling and grammar.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   With over 85+ references to all reputable and reliable sites, this article maintains a high level of verifiability, along with having exact dates and times for every single stated period, it is all around great.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This seems to cover all aspects that anyone would ever need to know about the Radium. Along with that, it seems to have exact information about temperatures and interaction periods that help everyone.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article does a good job directly working on maintaining a neutral view, and providing compelling information.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   From what I've seen there has been no issues.

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

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

   All images and media seem to be sourced from the Wikipedia Commons or a reputable site, so it's all clear.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Amazing article, covers all information possible about Radium and it's properties. AnonymousPurpose (talk · contribs) 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

New review needed

Above review voided per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_reviewer_assessment (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Darcyisverycute review

@Keresluna: Hello, I will try to take over the review from JackFromWisconsin. Not 100% sure if I should make a GA4 subpage or keep using this one, please let me know or change it if it matters. Expect the review later today/tomorrow. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Darcyisverycute, please continue to use this page for your review. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

General feedback

• A number of chemicals are missing wikilinks: 237Np, and the isotopes on the density chain description. Only need a wikilink for its first usage. I can see from the chemistry section onward they are wikilinked well.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 07:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• 9 instances of use "today". One instance of "currently". Would be more accurate to say when the practice started (eg. for today they are extracted only from ..., or if it is potentially likely to change use the "as of" template (eg. Today, 226Ra is considered to be the most toxic of the quantity radioelements, ....
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Seems fine. Content was copied in the past to a couple of other sites which earwig flagged.

Lead

• Currently: Use the "As of" template instead.
• formerly: Better to specify a date range here instead.
• in vogue: figure of speech, (I have never heard of this expression before for example) -- better to just say "fashionable"
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 07:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Summarise applications in the "modern applications" section which have overtaken historical applications, eg. industrial radiography.

Bulk properties

• congener barium -> congener, barium: Try to separate two wikilinked expressions with something not wikilinked, or else it looks like a single link without hovering/selecting it.
• A quick glance suggests that the boiling point is also a contentious value; for example this source claims a boiling point of 1140C different to what is currently in the article's infobox and description: [3] and this source suggests the boiling point is uncertain too: https://www.britannica.com/science/radium. Would be good idea to indicate this too and if possible, expand on reasons for the controversy.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Isotopes

• 237Np -> The neptunium isotope 237Np: Referring to single elements it seems more clear to name it first to unfamiliar readers.
• All other known radium isotopes: How many? Maybe better to say "The remaining x known radium isotopes..."
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

History

• It has 6 images, and on 1920x1080 these are overflowing into the "production" section. I think this is a bit too many for that section to the point of disrupting readability, given not all the images are mentioned in text. Not sure how they could better be split up without removing a couple, though. Might ask for advice about this.
• For the image File:Památník_objevu_radia_v_Jáchymově.jpg, I question if the statue is notable enough compared to say, Monument to the X-ray and Radium Martyrs of All Nations which already has an english wikipedia article. Maybe [4] could use translation too, making that page is not required to pass review though. Not sure if it is notable enough to include at all as an image.

• Their exposure to radium caused serious health effects which included sores, anemia, and bone cancer. This is because the body treats radium as calcium and deposits it in the bones, where radioactivity degrades marrow and can mutate bone cells. This level of detail more likely belongs in the hazards section where it isn't covered. The hazards section already has one case study, maybe all the case studies of hazards should go in the hazards section? I think, either keep all the case studies in the hazards section, or rewrite it so it only describes health effects.
  • Done. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 01:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Modern applications

• Add wikilink for standard model of particle physics, discuss alternative models radium has been used to study.
• Would be good if there was a see also template for where this is discussed in more detail, if such an article exists.
• What is a king plot? Maybe this is obvious to natural scientists, but not to me. If possible an image would help.
• The isotope 223Ra (under the trade name Xofigo) was approved by... Xofigo is not 223Ra, according to citation 76 it also contains sodium chloride and other ingredients.
• bony metastases: could use wikilink to bone metastases or use WP:SS to Radium-223.
• Atomic, molecular, and optical physics research: Remove subsection title since it's the only one, and pretty wordy.

Added wikilink, there is no article where this is discussed in more detail, added image for king plot, added ref for xofigo, added wiklink, and removed subsection.Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hazards

• Are there more modern regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or similar organisations for exposure limits? If there isn't, say that too.
• was set at 0.1 micrograms of ingested radium. Can you mark a page number for this? I was not able to verify it in the first few pages of citation 82. Same for a couple other large books.
  • Found at page 238 of ref 83, and information added. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Kirby et al. citations: Is it referring to this citation?

Salutsky, M.L. & Kirby, H.W. THE RADIOCHEMISTRY OF RADIUM, report, December 1, 1964; United States, University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.

I am not exactly an expert on wikipedia citations, but shouldn't the shorthand cite be in a different section using a special template, as described here and in this article example? The House of Flowers (TV series) There are a few styles to choose from there.

On second look I now notice that the shorthand forms are from the bibliography section. Did not realise that at first. So please make a separate section and the appropriate templates for both the Kirby and Greenwood books. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation checks

• No problem: 9, 13, 27, 58
• Minor issue: 76 (see above)
• Need page number: 82, 35, 28

* Still doing this

Reconsidering feedback from previous reviews

• So it's a fail for now. Keres🌑, if you want to bring the article to GA, I think that History, Production, and Modern applications needs copyediting and revision of sources used. The article is not bad, but it's a bit neglected and needs some attention. If it would be done, I think it would pass next review. Artem.G I agree the article is very good, still a few things to change as per my feedback. As far as I can tell copyediting is fine now, as for expanding/revising sources I am still reviewing this and will edit that in along with a review result in a day or two.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Putting the review on hold for issues to be fixed. Will look at it again in a week. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Keresluna: Been a bit over a week, I can see some things have been fixed and but I'm not sure about the timeframe for the rest of my recommended changes. If you think you can make the rest of the changes within a week or so I'll keep the review on hold until then, otherwise I'll probably have to fail it. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Keresluna: I'm going to fail the review now. Feel free to open it again when you are able to spend more time on it, and I'm happy to pass when above things are fixed. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)