Talk:Actinium/Archive 1

Untitled
Article changed over to new WikiProject_Elements format by Mav, Mkweise, and Dwmyers 15:40 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC). Elementbox converted 10:26, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 07:26, 13 July 2005). 07:26, 13 July 2005

Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Actinium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Actinium Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via [http://www.dict.org dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and WikiProject_Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Actinium article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 10:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Toxicity of Actinium 227
The article states, "Actinium-227 is extremely radioactive, and in terms of its potential for radiation induced health effects, actinium-227 is about as dangerous as plutonium. Ingesting even small amounts of actinium-227 would represent a serious health hazard." In fact (not accounting for decay products) Ac 227 is 28400year / 21.7year = 1309 times more radioactive than plutonium 239. Also, its decay products are short lived (the longest is 18 days, much less than the 7*10^8 year half life of plutonium 239). Plutonium 239 emits alpha rays, but Ac 227 and decay products emit alpha, beta, and gamma (?) rays. For this reason, actinium 227 is more dangerous (for the same quantity) than plutonium 239. 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Polonium

Toxicity of Actinium 227
The article states, "Actinium-227 is extremely radioactive, and in terms of its potential for radiation induced health effects, actinium-227 is about as dangerous as plutonium. Ingesting even small amounts of actinium-227 would represent a serious health hazard." In fact (not accounting for decay products) Ac 227 is 28400year / 21.7year = 1309 times more radioactive than plutonium 239. Also, its decay products are short lived (the longest is 18 days, much less than the 7*10^8 year half life of plutonium 239). Plutonium 239 emits alpha rays, but Ac 227 and decay products emit alpha, beta, and gamma (?) rays. For this reason, actinium 227 is more dangerous (for the same quantity) than plutonium 239. 01:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Polonium

File:Actinium_RSC.jpg is used here?
If it is, I can't find it here. DASHBot can be so annoying. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Melting and boiling points
Greenwood and Earnshaw give 817 °C and 2470 °C, which would seem to fit better with the trends down group 3 (Sc: 1539, 2478; Y: 1530, 3264; La: 920, 3420; Ac: 817, 2470). Of course, they do not specialise in the chemistry of the rare radioactives (i.e. all the radioactives except Th, U, and Pu), and so they may very well be wrong in this case. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Actinium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825123745/http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/actinium.pdf to http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/actinium.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

half-life of Ac-227: 21.772 or 21.773 years?
The article contains these two different figures. Nicknicknickandnick (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are very much the same to me, because the measurement accuracy is never that good. Materialscientist (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * May just be a typo. I'll fix it. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to convert the above data into more useful information, you can say that the isotope OE89Ac227 has a base 10 log halflife of 10E6^8.839 seconds and consists of 89 pairs of deuterons plus 49 extra neutrons with 14 of the deuteron pairs having been converted into 7 alpha particles. It is, of course, the first element of the 14 element (14 I say 14!) actinide series, and accordingly should be a cogener of 57La lanthanum. It falls on the stability trend line A = 3Z - 40, and into the 4n + 3 (uranium-actinium series) 0f radioactive materials.WFPM (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the actinides are chemically defined, and so Lr is also defined as an actinide despite not being in the f-block. It is unfortunate that there is no single term for just the f-block actinides (I propose "5f-series"). Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But if you include 103Lr Lawrencium in the actinides, then you wont have the necessary 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 elements needed to complete the next transition series (Up to 112) And you're fouling up the count of that series for no purpose. And 103Lr is the first of that 10 element series. See Talk:Charles Janet.WFPM (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And,of course after you have added the 2 + 4 + 4 +4 = 14 deuterons to the nucleus to make the actinide series additions, there is then no place in the actinide structure addition for an additional deuteron addition. And in this area of the periodic table the incremental growth and dynamic balance of the structure against nuclear structure deficiencies is more important than any chemical affinity properties. So the structural properties are going to have to be paid more attention to.WFPM (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have problems with considering Lr to be both an actinide and a transition metal. Each classification has its own advantages in its own context (the actinide classification for chemistry, and the transition metal classification for physics). Double sharp (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's correct as to the classification problem. But with regard to the real physical entity problem, it is wise to note that the Actinium atom is the first of a new category of deuteron additions to the nucleus, and that the range of this category is 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 14 additional deuterons. And I don't see much chemistry in this combining activity and therefor don't like the confusion that this 15 element actinide listing is causing. So you say TS and I say Charles JanetWFPM (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC) And your efforts to rationalize the 15 element actinide series in the Janet table are a good looking compromise and don't look bad until you get around to try to build an octahedron model of the 15th (103Rf) atom where you're going to find that the 15th (103Rf) deuteron goes on at a different series level,(that of the next 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 element series. Aah se la vie.WFPM (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the nucleus alone, I do in fact consider Lr a transition metal. If you're talking about the chemistry, Lr is an actinide. That is why I prefer to restrict the term "actinide" to chemical usages and use "5f-series" for the nucleus. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (Note from five and a half years later; this was evidently a case of confusion between brain and fingers. Of course 5f refers to the electrons, not the nuclear shells, which have nothing to do with the electron filling order despite WFPM's pet theory!) Double sharp (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You evidently know enough about chemistry for the distinction to make a difference. I don't know enough about chemistry to care. But I can see that 103Lr is structurally the first of the next 10 atomic nuclei. And I need it to go with 104Rf to make up the first 2 of the next 2 + 4 + 4 = 10 series. Incidentally, when you make a model, the appearance is not so much like an octahedron, but rather like more like the image in Zircon, because the 4 sides of the octahedron have a definite thickness of 1 or 2 levels of nuclides, rather than the sharp side edges of the octahedron image.

Claims of no separation from lanthanum date from 1950: are we sure things did not change in 68 years?
The sentence:

"The low natural concentration, and the close similarity of physical and chemical properties to those of lanthanum and other lanthanides, which are always abundant in actinium-bearing ores, render separation of actinium from the ore impractical, and complete separation was never achieved."

is sourced to a 1950 article. Are we sure things did not change in the meantime? For example this, from 1953, claims total chromatographic separation. I don't know if it counts since it is perhaps not a practical method to produce significant amounts of pure actinium, but I suspect in 68 years something has changed. -- cyclopia speak! 07:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Actinium article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 10:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Actinium.jpg