Talk:List of radioactive nuclides by half-life

Comment[edit]

How can this go?

               days    years

thulium-170 128.6 11.11 polonium-210 138 11.9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.222.63 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're not years, they're megaseconds. Serendi ^pod ous 09:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lose nuclide "Eu-151"[edit]

Where is Eu-151?

Lose nuclide "Eu-151"[edit]

Where is Eu-151? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.202.81 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criterium of notability?[edit]

So... should we add any isotope we find missing here, no matter the obscurity? Jostikas (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one determines the notability of an isotope, so as far as I'm concerned, knock yourself out. Serendi ^pod ous 13:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New ref[edit]

Radioactive isotope table "lists ALL radioactive nuclei with a half-life greater than 1000 years", incorporated in the list above to uranium-236 (23.42 Ma). As said at the top, this list is incomplete, so feel free to incorporate more. The Wikipedia "List of isotopes", which sorts bad on half-life, and this "List of radioactive isotopes by half-life" should be merged.

List of isotopes[edit]

should we merge this to that? ProDuct0339 (talk ♪ Contribbbs) 02:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.. template:Tables of nuclides

Error with iron-60[edit]

This page uses an old value for the half life of iron-60. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iron#Iron-60 Loren Pechtel (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions[edit]

Someone has helpfully added a comment that "23 ys is the time needed to traverse 7 femtometre distance at speed of light, around the diameter of a large Atomic nucleus" - 23 yoctoseconds being the half-life of hydrogen-7. Anyone reading this has got to ask themselves: at what point do you define a nucleus as existing (and start the stop-watch), and at what point do you define it has having broken up (and stop the stop-watch), because in this case the half-life of 7-H is so short that whatever it decays into could hardly get out any faster. Naively, a reader might start to wonder (I am!) whether there's some sort of theoretical minimum imposed by the length of time it takes a bit of a nucleus to get "out" of the nucleus travelling at the speed of light! If you were to shoot a proton at a hypothetical 6-hydrogen nucleus, you could hardly get it to hit the nucleus and emerge again in anything less than 23 yoctoseconds. It feels like defining the half-life of bullet+window based on the idea that this structure existed for a nano-second when you shoot a bullet through a window. In what way did 7-hydrogen actually even exist, before it decayed? Is there any value in someone who knows about such things providing some sort of context on this? I can imagine a lot of confused school-kids reading this table and wondering. Elemimele (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beryllium fix[edit]

Add/change these five isotopes of beryllium:

Be-16 has a half life of 650 yoctoseconds. Be-15 has a half life of 790 yoctoseconds. Be-11m has a half life of 930 yoctoseconds. Be-9m has a half life of 1.25 attoseconds. Be-12m has a half life of 233 nanoseconds.

Data from Isotopes of beryllium. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An addition to beryllium fix[edit]

And also you should look at other isotopes pages and add the isotopes if theyre not on here. Idk how to do it, so you should. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An addition to an addition to beryllium fix[edit]

Or use List of nuclides instead of each and every isotope page 24.115.255.37 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous data for Po-208 fixed[edit]

The half-life value for Polonium-208 in years and 1e6 seconds did not match. The value of about 2.898 years is also reported elsewhere, e.g. the Wikipedia page on Polonium or NuDat 3.0 of NNDC at Brookhaven National Laboritory https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/. But the value in seconds was off by a factor of about 365. Thus, the value in seconds should be about 91.45 * 1e6 seconds. I corrected this by setting the proper units in the table.

Half-life of Os-184?[edit]

The list of isotopes of osmium states that Os-184 is radioactive with a half-life of approximatedly 1.12e+13 years 129.104.241.28 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting question[edit]

Why is seaborgium-263 listed as 1 second while astatine-198m is listed as 1.0 second? Is there a reason for this discrepancy? If not, which one is correct so it can be unified? Bigbrainsoldier (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]