Talk:Environmental radioactivity

--Alex 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger of cosmogenic isotope article
Seeing as this environmental radioactivity article is a broad, overview-type article, I don't think it was appropriate to merge the entirety of cosmogenic isotope into this article. Particularly when half the CI article is focused on the geochronologic applications of the nuclides. I don't see the uranium-lead dating article merged into the long lived actinides section. I agree that Be-10, Be-7, Cl-36, etc should be included in "the subject of radioactive materials in man and his environment", but not at the expense of a thorough discussion of them in their own right, in their own article. If I was going to look in Wikipedia for an explanation of what Be-10 is, how it is produced, and why we care about it, I would not expect to end up at environmental radioactivity as the end-all be-all source for that information.

Perhaps a title for the CI article more specific to their applications would be an improvement: Cosmogenic nucide dating, to follow in the style of the other radiometric dating techniques. And a See also link here. For reference, see pre-merger version of cosmogenic isotope. -- BlueCanoe 01:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Main Article
The following is not a proper reference:

"For instance Busby quotes Garland et al. 1989 who reported the plutonium activity in Welsh inter tidal sediments...."

Who is Busby? And what is the paper by Garland et al? Neither are mentioned elsewhere in the article. The proper reference should be direct to Garland et al, and the full reference to that paper should given as a Reference or Further Reading at the end of the article. DMWard 02:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Puinsiltasafunctionofdistance.png
Image:Puinsiltasafunctionofdistance.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the decay rate for Be-10 to be consistent with the latest research of Nishiizumi et al. : Nishiizumi, K., Imamura, M., Caffee, M., Southon, J. R., Finkel, R. C., and McAninch, J., 2007, Absolute calibration of 10Be standards: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, v. 258, p. 403-413 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.136.144 (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
This article was tagged on August 14th as possibly infringing the copyright of this source. A look at the history of the article suggests that the infringement is the other way around. For instance, in the earliest version of the article, here, the lead sentence is similar to the external source. In the section titled "Fission Products", we already have the sentences "Discharges from plants within the nuclear fuel cycle introduce fission products to the environment. See fission products for more detail, one source of these radioisotopes is nuclear fallout from atomic bombs and nuclear accidents such as chernobyl." In the external source, material has been added, but it says, "See fission products for more detail, two sources of these radioisotopes is nuclear fallout from atomic bombs and nuclear accidents such as chernobyl.... Discharges from plants within the nuclear fuel cycle introduce fission products to the environment...." In this version from October of 2008, here, the section "Man Made" had four points and a subpoint and then ended. Two weeks later, a different editor added the phrase "Note that this subject is very contraversal and many groups with extream views exist, for insatnce The Low Level Radiation Campaign has a very different view to that held by BNFL." (Errors in original.) Those errors remained for about three months before a third editor came and corrected it to read as it does at the external source: "Note that this subject tends to be both emotive and controversial, for instance The Low Level Radiation Campaign has a very different view to that held by BNFL." The external source seems to have duplicated the Wikipedia article at some point thereafter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposed with "Background radiation"
The article on Background radiation is longer and more detailed. Some of the stuff here that isn't there, should be moved to it, and this article, which has multiple issues, should be deleted and redirected. S B Harris 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia Browser - I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.16.115 (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would vote against the merger, the page about environmental radioactivity is for a discussion of how radioactivity bahves in the environment it is not a good idea to mix it up with a discussion of the cosmic ray background (cosmic ray induced radioactivity however does come under the remit of environmental radioactivity).Dr Mark Foreman (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Forest and trees.
This aricle analyzes eachnof the components of environmental radioactivity in detail, and is very good in that respect, but what is missing is an overall perspective. I came here looking for a graph plotting the level of background radiation (all sources added together) versus the date by year. One would assume that nuclear bomb testing caused an increase, along with Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other radiation leaks, but there is nothing here about the general level of radioactivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.130.17 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of that is covered in the more general article Background radiation; you might find such a graph in the references there.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  09:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental radioactivity. 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/20061003172608/http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope50/contents.html to http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope50/contents.html

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) 06:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Trinity fallout.png