Talk:Plutonium/Archive 3

Occurrence thoughts
I've started this section because the sections above (occurence, Occurrence (Cleaned up edit by sebastian barnes), and Occurrence, and References) could be difficult for editors to access. The section structure here needs cleanup.

At first glance the proposed version seems Ok, but there are strange mismatches between the claims and the sources: "Appoximately 1800 tonnes" when source has "1700"; "10.4 tonnes from american testing " when source has "About 10,000 kg" (does not mention American testing). Do those numbers come from more precise sources? I did not look much beyond those mismatches. -84user (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure if reference 3 actually supports the text either. Polyamorph (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I cleaned up the section structure. Polyamorph (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

approx 1800 tonnes because source is 2 years old and goes on to state figure for on going production at 75 tonnes annually,since nuclear reactors are in constant ...production it is impossible to be presice,unless we put a ticking figure here,maybe a more up to date figure is avalible but the IAEA is not the easiest of databanks to access ,as the title of source report shows..it not as if they put these figures on the front page,The 10.4 is from a source ive lost but the argonne source is reliable and does ,thank you,refer to all atmosphere testing,i am correcting editSebastian barnes (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)..... sellafield,the main nuclear production centre in britain served both civil and military demands .data from the rest of the worlds nuclear industries(not usa or russia) is extremely hard to collate,if it exists at all,i think it is appropriate here because the contribution to the occurence of plutonium from the rest of the world is significant and some should be shown here as balanceSebastian barnes (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC) NB..PERSONAL ..I will not have connection for some time,if this version is accepted or needs some more little editing please go ahead without me,many thanks and i will try toxcicity next.some of the anecdotes in this section are completly without citations.respect to allSebastian barnes (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)...clarified ref3,thanks polyamorph[[User:Sebastian barnes|Sebastian barnes] 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

stability characteristic considerations
If we focus on the isotope EE94Pu244 as being nearly the most stable of the unstable plutonium isotopes, we can describe it as consisting of 94 accumulated deuterons plus 56 extra neutrons and with a stability line equation of A = 3Z - 38. Attempts to increase the retained number of excess neutrons in increments of 2 resulted in reduced stability halflifetimes.

Heading Hierarchy
Below the section of "Precautions", there is another heading "Transportation", under which is "Air". It seems to me that this belongs with "Precautions", but since "Transportation" is written the same way as "Precautions", it appears to be a new section. I believe "Transportation" should be deleted where it is, and the heading "Air" should be changed to "Air Transportation". 99.175.102.235 (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

First section
At the end of paragraphis a sentence listing sources of plu,it should include a ref to weapons production facillities suchas http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18640.pdfSebastian barnes (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Should it not be written in the article that one can measure the amount of plutonium 244 in order to more accurately measure the effect of man made radiation as opposed to background or natural radiation as that is different per location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.4.74 (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Plutonium
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Plutonium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "katebr": From Kate Brown (professor):  From Plutonium in the environment:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A request.
I have always understood that plutonium is a heavy metal that has chemically toxic effects in the body (as do mercury and cadmium), independent of its radiological hazards. If it's not too much to ask, could we revise the section on its toxicity to make the distinction between its radiological effects and its chemotoxic effects clearer? As it stands, the two seem quite muddled, and clarification would be healthy for the reader. In particular, if its toxicity is to be compared to nerve gas or cyanide, then it seems a definite case of apples and oranges to base its toxicity in this comparison on its radioactivity rather than its chemical action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.207.101 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014
plutonium is element #93

173.190.148.146 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 21:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, come on. Links to the periodic table abound. I find it difficult to believe that you actually requested reliable sources for such an blanantly erroneous claim, when with trivial application of effort you could have just said, "Um, no, it's element 94. Neptunium is element 93. Here's a link to a periodic table at — to pick a place at random — MIT's website." Was it that you didn't yourself know plutonium's Z-number, and either didn't care or didn't know how to fact-check the claim? It certainly can't have been that it was simply easier not to fact-check it, or else you wouldn't have bothered to reply at all. Or was it — no, I'll be nice; I won't spell it out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.207.101 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Kate Brown's book
Johnfos recently inserted a paragraph in the Hanford section citing Kate Brown's book Plutopia. Unfortunately, he apparently knows little about nuclear physics, and didn't quote the book accurately, unless Kate Brown is also not conversant with nuclear physics. She is quoted as saying “both [Hanford and its Soviet counterpart Mayak] released more than 200 curies of radioactive isotopes into the surrounding environment -- twice the amount expelled in the Chernobyl disaster in each instance”. My sources tell me that the release at Chernobyl ranges from 80 megacuries (the official USSR amount; that's 80 million curies) to 9 gigacuries (the entire reactor fuel, activation and FP load: 9 billion curies). I wonder what she really said in the book? I don't own a copy and hope that johnfos does, and will clean it up. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I would add that the last sentence in the paragraph is POV: "Even today, as pollution threats to health and the environment persist, the government keeps knowledge about the associated risks from the public.[61]" It is an over-generalization about "the government", whoever he is. I imagine that various government agencies can point to copious coverage of the "threats to health and environment", enough to bury everyone feet thick. Sounds to me like an uncited quote from ref 61. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is 200 million curies in the book - web page typo, see, e.g. . Materialscientist (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Easy, easy. Omitting the mega is readily explainable by mistyping and not proofreading; The Holy Shiv of Ockham says you don't have to reach for deep ignorance of nuclear physics to explain it. I'm dead sure that every nuclear physicist alive has flubbed an SI prefix now and then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.207.101 (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased article
This article is very biased, the most outrageous attempt at glorifying the nuclear bomb that I have ever seen. It is only here to convince us that we should lay back and soak up the plutonium, and tries to gloss over the dangers associated with some forms of plutonium. The sources are used to back up that bias. The supposedly peer reviewed articles all seem to somehow show we are on the safe side of the dangers associated with Plutonium. While stopping short of suggesting we should bathe in nuclear power plant waste that contains plutonium 239 we are told again and again that all is well and we should not worry about any safety issues. This whole article is a thinly disguised attempt at rendering a slanted political view that is not in the public interest. It is in short a disgraceful attempt to use Wikipedia pages as a political forum to espouse a particular viewpoint and should be taken down until an unbiased or more balanced view can be presented. The author should at least show some respect for opposing viewpoints on the subject instead of trivializing them, to wit the quote about Ralph Nader.


 * Would it help if we hung "Danger" signs on the article?


 * Plutonium forms a very small division of the fuel used in most power plants. It is not intentionally in the fuel, but trace amounts arise from the neutron activation of the U-238 that is the largest part of most fuel (the only place plutonium plays a larger role is in MOX fuel). So your diatribe about power plant waste is a poorly thought out non-problem.


 * The most of the article reads just like the similar article for tin or antimony does. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what other editors can do, and so the article will continue on. If you have something substantive to add, please be (at least, my) guest, and I will look after my own.


 * Oh, yes, Ralph Nader. Just because Ralph, a lawyer, says that 1 microgram of plutonium will kill you, I'm supposed to post that?  Much wiser people then I have already taken a look at Nader's remark, and determined that he has no basis for making the claim.  No less than Dr. Michio Kaku, himself an unabashed polemicist, but still a trained high-energy physicist, has chimed in of Nader's comment.  He figures a person can support 200 milligrams in their body, and there are some (those "poor, powerless, and sick" people that Eileen Welsome writes about), who carry much more than that in apparent good health.  So, no, we'll not be feting Ralph.  But by all means, go ahead and edit his views in, if you think they'll stand up to scrutiny. BTW, you might actually read Ms Welsome's book to see how real research is handled - she knows how. SkoreKeep (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * May I venture to note that his claim has entered the cultural folklore about plutonium as "common knowledge"? That in itself makes it worthwhile to include it in the article, as a common misconception that wants refuting. Frankly, I'd heard the claim many times before, and knew it was a nuclear-age "old wives' tale", but reading the article today is the first time I ever heard that it originated with Nader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.207.101 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The quote here is an example of a bias and there are other viewpoints on this topic which are valid and deserving of mention but the author merely displays disdain for any view other than his or her own.

"The "hot particle" theory in which a particle of plutonium dust radiates a localized spot of lung tissue has been tested and found false—such particles are more mobile than originally thought and toxicity is not measurably increased due to particulate form." The source given for this statement is &lt;ref>http://russp.org/BLC-3.html http://russp.org/BLC-3.html which can't be accessed but is supposedly written, to judge by the web page that does come up, from an avowed nuclear power sympathizer who wishes us all to side with his political views on nuclear power. Bernard L Cohen, the supposed author, has been marginalized for his statements about nuclear waste being good for one's health.


 * You really think this is an exoneration of plutonium? The fact that it passes through the lungs and into the blood stream, to eventually lodge chemically in a bone?  If you have problems looking up a source, then challenge it on the page and rewrite the section, if you can support it, and let's determine if it's just your internet-foo that is the problem. Oh, and once again, plutonium and nuclear waste are two distinct things that you seem to confuse easily. SkoreKeep (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There are other broken links as well. The web page at Note 94 no longer exists and should be removed from the references-or was it put in to make the list of sources look all that more impressive? Thaddeus0720 (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The page certainly existed when it was referenced. The fact that it doesn't exist now doesn't change the fact that the statement is supported. Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer it to be entirely rewritten to suit your hunches, rather than openly and constructively edited over several years by thousands of independent fact-checkers? Bobathon71 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The objectivity in this 'featured' and 'critical' (not to mention locked entry) is lacking. Based on the discussion here, it is unlikely to improve within this entry. Most of the safety discussion in the article should be deleted and re-directed elsewhere. For a bit of improvement, please add a mention and link to the Wikipedia entry for 'Linear no-threshold model' for a fuller and better discussion of these issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.24.170 (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please explain how and where the article is biased. For the most part, the article seems to be factual. Despair is really a pretty poor substitute for putting truth in the article, and bitching in despair is just fruitless. Come on and challenge that which you disagree with, and we'll have it out, if that's how it has to be. As for mention of LNT, and therefore also hormesis I assume, since that is the directly opposing view) I will essay something on it. If you find it in error, then by all means correct it.  One needs both ying and yang, and by no means am I above learning new things; just make sure it's adequately supported, 'cause I get techy if it isn't. SkoreKeep (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just compare the entry for another element, say arsenic. See how all the references are to peer reviewed literature or actual health authorities?  Now look at the references in this entry.  Interest groups (on various sides) and nuclear research labs.  Can you not see?  It is not OK to say 'take it apart piece by piece' when the entire edifice is rotten.  If you cannot see that, you should let someone else deal with this.  This should not be within Wikipedia's quality standards for articles of admitted importance.  Take out the moral umbrage and make it factual and boring...like tin or antimony.  If a separate entry is in order for health controversy, fine.  But let the UN or EPA (the statutory authority) be the primary source here.  Or scientific journals, maybe ones concerned with health or biological sciences?  This is bad sourcing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I need to add that someone with a background in poisons needs to address the aspects of plutonium toxicity apart from the radioactive. I suspect that it is not appreaciably worse than arsenic, for example, as a heavy metal toxin, and that the radioactive aspect overshadows the chemical toxicity, but I don't have an organic chem or public health background, and I think that is what is needed.SkoreKeep (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

US Centred
This article is too US centred. It contains phrases such as "the nation's", etc.220.245.49.25 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in the infobox
Hi,

At Naming is written « after minor planet Pluto, itself a newly coined name ». But the (as-this-time-)planet Pluto name comes from the god Pluto (see Pluto) and not at all a « newly coined name ».

Cdlt, V IGNERON * discut. 10:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct, but the naming of plutonium (AN=94, synthesized 1940) followed from the planet, in keeping with the names of the formerly discovered and named elements uranium (AN=92) and neptunium (AN=93, discovered 1939).  The planets were of course named for the figures in Greek/Roman mythology, Uranus in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have edited the infobox to read here instead "after dwarf planet Pluto, itself named after classical god of the underworld Pluto". Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticality potential
the first phrase" toxcity issues aside" is redundentjumblymamba (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

FAR?
An editor has suggested that this article may need to undergo a featured article review, citing in particular the cleanup tags present in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find one inconsequential drive-by tag and one rather trivial  tag in the entire article. None of which have been clarified on the talk page or even an edit summary. Kolbasz (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been bold and have removed the tags. I don't think clarification is needed and agree that the "globalize" tag should have been followed-up by the tagger here. Graham Beards (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, please ask the editor to raise the concerns here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of uncited text; is anyone addressing it? It is time for the FAR to be reinstated. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to address as many of them as I can over the next few days. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'll have to retract that statement: things are getting a bit heated in WP's coverage of polytopes... Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this many weeks in, with uncited text, the FAR needs to be taken off hold and listed so others can re-evaluate. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Deutrons
"Plutonium (specifically, plutonium-238) was first produced and isolated on December 14, 1940, and chemically identified on February 23, 1941, by ... by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch (150 cm) cyclotron.." is incorrect - Plutonium was produced by neutron bombardment of uranium. The neutrons were produced by deutron bombardment of a beryllium target in the cyclotron. Sentence is also unclear, mixing production/isolation/identification. Rtombs (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * states something different:

"The uranium sample that ultimately yielded element 94 was bombarded with deuterons in the Berkeley 60-inch cyclotron on 14 December 1940." --Stone (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)



"238 92U + 2 1H --> 238 93 Np + 1 0n + 1 0n " --Stone (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The title of the seaborg paper looks a lot different to the text we have now in the article. --Stone (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hawkeye. Another original source is Phys Rev v57 p1185 [] Rtombs (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I undid the changes. Even the new given reference states for the 14. December that a deuteron beam was used. To search for element 94. The proved that if you use the beryllium you only get element 93.--Stone (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you'll get Pu alright; the Np will decay in short order to Pu-239. This is the reaction that occurs in a reactor. But deuterons will work too; you'll just get Pu-238 instead. That's what had me confused. I'm convinced that you're correct, and that deuterons were used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Right and wrong, You get Np wich decays to a Pu which has a comparable long have-life which was not visible in the decay of the Np. So they only found Np. To get Pu they used heavier artillery. Do you want to have the 1941 publication?--Stone (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your offer. I already have it. As you say deuterium was the heavy artillery of the cyclotroneers. It could be accelerated just as easily as protons, but packed twice the punch. Oliphant gave them the heavy water, and a technique for turning it to gas and back. We know that Np decays to Pu, and we know its half life is about 2 days. But in 1940, they had two new elements of completely unknown physical and chemical properties. So it was a pretty awesome achievement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two consecutive articles named "Radioactive Element 94 from Deuterons on Uranium" in Phys.Rev. (who would a thunk it?) The one given in the article had the right author list but the wrong page, Bibcode and DOI for the correct reference by content--these instead referenced the second article which is more about the chemistry of the products. Juan Riley (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Plutonium. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://russp.org/BLC-3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Critically-Lacking Information for this Entry
I apologize for both LACK of savvy/knowledge to introduce the changes needed here & time to learn HOW to NAVIGATE within Wikipedia beyond the basic edits but, I find that this entry is FUNDAMENTALLY LACKING in ETYMOLOGICAL input, indicating that the origin of this element comes from the Greek language's name of the planet Pluto (see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=plutonium+etymology&oq=plutonium+etymology&aqs=chrome..69i57.3415j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 & http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=plutonium)-information reference to which should be made, at the very least, by using this link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plutonium & that it may suggest/refer to Ancient Greek's term for: the Gate of Hell (see here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/plutos-gate-hierapolis-plutonium-gate-to-hell-hierapolis_n_2994297.html).

You assistance in skillfully adding this missing information & "make it happen" is greatly appreciated! :)

AK63 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Connecting the two would be original synthesis, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Plutonium was named after the planet, and we have reliable sources backing that up. Kolbasz (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit Sept 8, 2016
In the subsection "Toxicity", recommended edit for clarity - "Ingestion or inhalation of large amounts may cause acute radiation poisoning and death; however no human is known to have died because of inhaling or ingesting plutonium"
 * Insert "specifically" after "known to have died". - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And that improves the sentence how? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The heaviest
I removed a phrase in the article that stated that plutonium "is also the heaviest element to occur in nature." Depending on what you mean by "nature", it is likely that there were heavier elements on Earth early in its history from the primordial collection built in the star(s) which seeded the gasses that became our solar system; it is just about certain there were in the gasses and dust itself when they were seeded. It may be the heaviest that survived in trace amounts down to the present. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there must have been 247Cm and its granddaughter 243Am in the early years of history of our planet. Currently it makes itself known as an excess of 235U in trivalent minerals which would normally not contain uranium, which is predominantly tetravalent or hexavalent. Double sharp (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I notice that Hawkeye7 has thanked me for this edit, here is a link to a study that sets an upper limit of 0.003 for the abundance of 247Cm (half-life 1.6×107 a) relative to its daughter 235U in the early Solar System. In a sense, our view of the actinides is somewhat obscured by the fact that the only ones the average chemist can obtain are Th and U. Their chemistry is not so characteristic of the actinides in general, but gets thought of as "standard actinide behaviour" because it's hard to get the others. Cm is a more representative one, but good luck getting any, because we don't have a way to produce the quasi-stable isotope 247Cm pure in large quantities yet. (Nor do we have a way of producing 244Pu, too. If we could, maybe Pu and Cm would be as accessible to the average chemist as Th and U currently are. I don't say Np because 237Np is fissile, so it would be under as tight restrictions as 239Pu, the most commonly used Pu isotope. That would be extremely interesting to provide two more data points: maybe then we could actually see the trend in the actinides from Th to Lr of increasing reactivity in the metallic state, which is the exact opposite of the lanthanide trend from Ce to Lu.) Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to add link to related library of documents
Request that you add [Annotated bibliography of plutonium from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues http://alsos.wlu.edu/qsearch.aspx?browse=science/Plutonium] to the links section. Thanks Frank Settle Fasettle1937 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

✅ I put this in, but other editors might have opinions on this (and other links). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested edit: +2 oxidation state
At the time of this writing (20 April, 2017), the plutonium article does not include mention of the +2 oxidation state. This state had not been observed with any degree of stability until recently when a complex consisting of three trimethylsylil substituted cyclopentadienyl rings acting ligands holding plutonium in the +2 oxidation state was observed. The synthesis of this complex along with an experimentally measured UV/Vis/NIR spectrum was published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on the 24th of February, 2017. I'm requesting that the section on chemical properties be updated to include this discovery along with the respective citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetanotherchemguy (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cohen's vs Nader
Comes Silverbach with a refutation of Cohen's argument against Ralph Nader's famous statement about the potency of plutonium as a radiation poison in the body. The refutation is based on two presumed errors in Cohan's arguments. I have nothing to say about these problems without a lot more investigation of the sited references, and applying them both to Cohen's arguments is far outside my field. The notable thing is that there is no reference for such an application in this case, so I think the additional paragraph needs an expert in the field stating that Cohen made a mistake in his presentation in Kaku's book that needs to be rectified. Until I see such from a qualified person, I'm going to have to revert the change. SkoreKeep (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is what my refute is based on, which is reasonable. In Cohen's calculation in chapter 13 of his online book A Nuclear Option, he used, quote: "Estimates by BEIR, UNSCEAR, and ICRP give a risk of about 5x10-7 lung cancers per millirad of alpha particle exposure." The correct unit is millirem according to Overview of radiological dose and risk accessment page 9, quote: "Dose-to-Risk Conversion Factor for Cancer Mortality = 5×10-2 per person-Sv". As 1 Sv is 100 rems per page 3, alpha particles, the risk factor is 5x10-7 per milliram. Since 1 millirad is 20 milliram, Cohen under-estimated the risk factor by 20 times due to the mistaken unit he used. Silverbach (talk)


 * Cohen further stated: "We calculate the dose to the lung from a trillionth of a pound of plutonium residing there for 2 years." and "Since only 15% on what is inhaled spends this 2 years in the lung,23". Thus he further under-estimated the risk by 1/15% times and 40 years/20 years = 20 times. Cohen's 2 years of body stay time is inconsistent with the Wikipedia page's own claim "Plutonium absorbed by the body is excreted very slowly" a bit early in the section, and has no scientific basis. Thus for fair calculation, inhaled plutonium is assumed to stay and they stay for the remainder of lifetime, which averages 40 years. Thus consider all the mistakes Cohen made, he under-estimated the cancer risk by 20x40/(0.15x2) = 2667 times. His 2 million cancers number would have been 5.33 billion instead. Silverbach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Silverbach, once again I state that I have not the expertise in radiation medicine to judge your argument. My fear is that you personally may be misjudging the argument as well, even as you declare your argument "reasonable".  This encyclopedia is not here for you to be exercising your own personal expertise in the argument; it is for authoritative opinion to be engaged.  The rules covering this are in WP:NOR, an explanation that original research by an editor is not allowed, that all content must be referenced by known authority, as embodied in peer-reviewed scientific research.  You apparently don't have a reference from an expert in the field, about these conclusions drawn on Cohen's (who is a recognized expert) criticism of Nader (a very questionable expert on the subject matter).  If you do, bring it forth; your word alone that the arguments are "reasonable" or valid is not enough.  Please do not again bring this forward until you have such documentation.  SkoreKeep (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me state it very clearly: I did not attempt to publish my own research here. I merely pointed out Cohen's mistake of using the wrong unit etc. You do not have to be an expert to realize that he used 5x10-7 lung cancers per millirad when the correct unit is per millirem according to IAEA, an authoritative source I quoted. See above. That makes a 20 times difference. You really do not need to be an expert to spot elementary mistakes like wrong unit or wrong math. Another authoritative source is on the very same Wiki page it stated "Plutonium absorbed by the body is excreted very slowly", which directly contradict Cohen's assumption that plutonium stays in the body for only 2 years. You cannot have contradicting statements within the same Wiki page. I am familiar with the field enough to call myself an expert. You do not need to be an expert but you have to respect logic and common sense. Regrettably by repeatedly reverting my correction of the wrong information, you diminished the value of Wikipedia as an accurate information source. Silverbach (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2017
Under "History" please change discovery of nuclear fission date from 1939 to 1938. Also, Otto Hahn should be named first, rather than his assistant Strassmann. 2605:A601:538:F501:8C58:C008:F11C:55FC (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done although I was a bit iffy about this. The manuscript announcing the discovery was sent in 1938, but only published in January 1939. Parcly  Taxel  02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plutonium. 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/20150226085238/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/safety/solar.pdf to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/safety/solar.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) 19:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Plutonium. 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/20110324074934/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-nuke-yucca_frimar06,0,2557502.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-nuke-yucca_frimar06,0,2557502.story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224204033/http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/DE99001330.pdf to http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/DE99001330.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) 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plutonium. 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/20090203203853/http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm to https://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm

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) 07:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plutonium. 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/20060320153404/http://ncsp.llnl.gov/ncset/Module10.pdf to http://ncsp.llnl.gov/ncset/Module10.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Uranium+displays+rare+type+of+radioactivity.-a011701241a

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) 05:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Synthetic
Comes Erudite Manatee with an edit to point out that plutonium is a synthetic element. Sorry, but the half life of Pu-244 is long enough that there was the bare possibility that some existed on Earth from the primordial accretion. Its half life is 80 million years, so in 4.5 billion years it was reduced by a factor of 2^50, and while that makes it miniscule, it's not quite zero. It all depends on how much was in the initial dust cloud. If there was only a mole (just over a half-pound) of it in the original Earth, there is still about 55 million atoms left whiling their time away here; all other isotopes of primordial plutonium are probably completely decayed. Perhaps this needs to be explained in the article. SkoreKeep (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is explained under "Occurrence", actually. The trouble is that while you can do the calculation, and see that there ought to be some primordial 244Pu around, no one has succeeded in incontrovertibly detecting any of it. (146Sm has an even worse problem; there should be milligrams left in the crust, which isn't possible for any conceivable experiment to find.) We have nevertheless found live interstellar 244Pu on the sea floor, but haven't found live primordial 244Pu sequestered in minerals.
 * I'm inclined to consider questions of whether something is synthetic or not rather pointless pedantry for such elements anyway, so thank you for removing it. Otherwise you get into silly debates, such as whether astatine and curium are synthetic. (The former occurs on Earth today, as a daughter of natural uranium, but in such small quantities that if you want it the only practical way is synthesis; the latter doesn't occur on Earth today, but there is strong evidence that it used to from an excess of its daughter 235U, and hence that it's made in the r-process.) Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018
The introduction of what is the electrical resistivity is out of context. I propose to eliminate the phrase "Resistivity is a measure of how strongly a material opposes the flow of electric current." and provide a link to "Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity" in the next phrase. YakBizzarro (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is not problematic for the article to provide additional context by defining electrical resistivity, as opposed to directing readers to a link. I don't believe eliminating the phrase would be an improvement. This sentence was in the article when it was reviewed and promoted to a featured article, so clearly the reviewers did not find the sentence problematic either. Altamel (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

"...most of whom were industrial workers..."
WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING??? 70.29.99.120 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right. Allcaps is in place, even. I have deleted that phrase. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticality potential
Plutonium in solution is more likely to form a critical mass than the solid form due to moderation by the hydrogen in water.[10]

Umm i think this is misstated. Believe this should say "LESS" likely to form critical mass when moderated as an aqueous solution vs a solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.58.160 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Plutonium in Solution, and Neutron Moderation
The assumption that a solution of a plutonium compound must be aqueous is no longer valid. The phrase "plutonium in solution" needs to become "plutonium in aqueous solution". In a molten salt reactor, plutonium would be dissolved as a tetra- or hexa- fluoride or -chloride, in a very hot molten alkali fluoride or chloride as the solvent. Neutron moderation makes a huge difference to the idea of "critical mass". Neutrons at thermal speeds are much more easily captured than fast ones. Carbon nuclei and hydrogen nuclei are quite good at taking energy from neutrons. In his book "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman" Richard Feynman does indeed point out the danger that aqueous solutions of fissile actinides - in this instance enriched uranium nitrates - can far more easily attain critical mass than the same amount of solid oxide or metal. Two containers of aqueous solution separated by a wall could add up to a critical mass with moderated neutrons! The danger to personnel is from the neutrons, not necessarily an explosion. Bombs are usually made with isotopically pure fissile metal. But a reactor can use a mere 3.6% of the fissile isotope, as pellets in zirconium cylinders, surrounded by water to moderate the neutrons. The plutonium production reactors used natural metallic uranium, carbon in the form of very pure graphite, and water as a coolant, to create a state of "criticality" enough for the fission-produced neutrons from fissile 235_U, which is only 0.7% of the uranium, to be slowed down enough to be captured by other fissile nuclei in a chain reaction stable and productive enough to provide extra neutrons to be captured by the 238_U and produce ultimately 239_Pu. Carbon nuclei are quite good neutron moderators, and do not capture neutrons as much as hydrogen nuclei, protons, do. DaveyHume (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request 15 October 2019
A redlink in the L3 section "Air" in fact has an article. Thus: may the redlink Statens strålevern please be piped to Statens strålevern. Thanks.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to our articles, it's actually the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority. I've redirected Statens strålevern to there, so it's no longer a red link. Thnanks, NiciVampireHeart</b> 17:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 20:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Differentiation Between the Human Effect and the Element
Most elements' top-summary before the TOC is as to their elementality--the fact that they are a building block, although no longer indivisible for a long time, of nature. The final para of the summary of plutonium gets too deep into human elements, and elevates human effect too far. To say that plutonium was part of one of the only fission explosives ever deployed is fair, for that is a notable use of plutonium. To tread further into the uses of radioactides in warfare and the potentiality of it exceeds the criteria for a pre-TOC summary.

In short, Pu should get Al or Cu treatment. It's an element, not a weapon. Or the Wiki treatment of As or Rn, where the inherent radioactivity is acknowledged and whatever human treatment of it waits for below. Can we not at least agree the elements themselves, as encyclopedically recorded, deserve only what they themselves do at a physical and chemical level? If more is needed, Radium provides a fine example of how to explain briefly and cross-reference a human interaction -- Marie Curie won two Nobel Prizes, after all, and her husband Pierre one. Those humans' articles in Wiki record their illustrious histories and tragic losses, but Wiki ought not (and as of this note does not) lard the entries of the many elements they and she discovered with their tragedies above the proverbial fold (referring to newspapers' fold between the top and bottom half of the broadsheet, where the top is the more esteemed). The elements of the universe persisted before and will persist beyond human interaction, and it is arrogant and anthropocentric to record what an element's effect has on humans (as opposed to radioactivity in general) as an introductory paragraph.

Reference to a discoverer is part of an element's history in human knowledge. Reference to an element's current usage by humanity is a reasonable part of an article on it. Allowing the prospective usage of an element to overshadow its fundamental nature places too much shrift in the present as opposed to the long past and indefinite future.

Citizen Sunshine (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Highest element in nature"
Plutonium is the highest element to occur *on earth*, but the claim in the opening section contradicts the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przybylski's_Star, which claims elements up to Einsteinium (atomic number 99) in a stellar spectrum. I'm no physicist, but these can't both be true. 135.180.132.137 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Elements such as Es may be observed in Przybylski's Star because they are continuously produced by neutron capture processes. The number of "seed nuclei" in stars is much higher than on Earth's surface (also, denser elements sink inside the Earth), and the conditions to sustain fusion or neutron-capture processes do not exist on Earth.
 * The few neutron captures that occur on Earth (e.g., free neutrons emitted during spontaneous fission that are then captured by other nuclei) produce trace quantities of Np and Pu, but produce heavier elements so rarely that their abundance is virtually zero, as the mechanism and conditions (seed nuclei, available neutrons, temperature, etc.) do not exist here. This is also why Pu is more readily observed in stars and the interstellar medium than on Earth, and loosely related to why some other elements are much rarer on Earth. There are other physical processes also at play, but long story short, there's no reason the abundance of elements on Earth should exactly reflect the abundance of elements in the cosmos. ComplexRational (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023
Change deuteron to neutron. 207.99.213.120 (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ "Deuteron" is correct at every occurrence in the article. Complex / Rational  16:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
In the “in popular culture” section, karate kid 3 also mentions plutonium. Please add that movie to the list 207.112.55.238 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.scripts.com/script/the_karate_kid,_part_iii_20569
 * would this source be sufficient? 207.112.55.238 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023
Please add the template to the top of the "In popular culture" section. 31.44.227.148 (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Removed the section wholesale. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Pandering to ignorance
remove "not to be confused with polonium." The axe article does not say "not to be confused with chisel." wiki does not need to pander to ignorance. 2600:1000:B142:B742:21CA:9B07:83EF:89CA (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Plutonium and polonium are both radioactive chemical elements with similar-sounding names to those unfamiliar with the subject. Axe and chisel, on the other hand, sound nothing alike, so there's no reason they'd be confused for spelling. ComplexRational (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Right. Because I might mix up my polonium with my plutonium. So silly. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Funny how Britannica does not mention Polonium in the Plutonium article. Maybe because the two are not related? 2600:1000:B14B:3287:3882:BDF1:C6F8:A080 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/science/plutonium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B14B:3287:3882:BDF1:C6F8:A080 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)