Talk:Polonium

Chemically toxic?
The introduction states that "[b]esides being radioactive, polonium is extremely toxic". Yet, its radioactivity is the only harmful aspect discussed in the article. If polonium is chemically toxic, then the mechanism of the toxicity should be described, if known. ZFT (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it's just radiotoxicity. From this article: "[...] not hazardous as long as the alpha particles remain outside the body."
 * Also, elsewhere: "While some weakly radioactive substances, such as uranium, are also chemical toxicants, more strongly radioactive materials like radium are not, their harmful effects (radiation poisoning) being caused by the ionizing radiation produced by the substance rather than chemical interactions with the substance itself."
 * And some source which spells it out: "Polonium does not have toxic chemical properties."
 * The article can definitely be improved to make this clearer. --Klaws (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Added a line to the article to make it clearer. Klaws (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that there is simply no experiment that can establish whether a highly radioactive substance has no chemical toxicity and I would bet that it is as chemically toxic as a heavy metal like Pb. However, the usual way in which heavy metals are toxic is for them to be used by the body in place of needed elements (Pb is similar to the necessary element zinc) and I don't know how an experiment would show that Po replaces, say, zinc chemically in the body if the organism dies before this uptake can occur or if the radioactivity itself interferes with uptake of the Po. I doubt that the very tiny amounts needed to kill a human (via radiation) would have chemical effects. Even very deadly organic mercury compounds I do not think have a measurable effect at microgram quantities -- I think it requires milligrams even in the case of dimethyl mercury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.86 (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to find accurate sources, but I'm not sure the current statement is correct and the source provided by (courtesy ping also to ) is less than ideal. I can find other sources (although none that I feel are much better than the current one) that suggests polonium is quite significantly chemically toxic, but due to the very small amounts needed for lethal radioactive dose it's chemical toxicity is much less important. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it's than ideal, and I am kind of suspicious of the "not chemically toxic" statements. Still, that's what I got from the sources. Selenium and Tellurium are "mildly toxic", as well as Bismuth, so I'd expect Polonium to be at least mildly chemically toxic as well.
 * Still, very hard to verify, even with 209Po which is about 330 times "less radioactive per second" than 210Po. --Klaws (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"Radio-tellurium" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radio-tellurium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Atomic radius
In February 202.142.183.148 added to article this discussion of some peculiarities of Polonium's atomic radius. Today it was partially removed by 116.71.4.85. I decided to remove the remainder of the text, as I could not find a source which confirms that Polonium is breaking radius trend in its period. Additionally I can't find the exact radiuses cited for lead and bismuth (154pm) and polonium (167pm) on elements' pages nor on Atomic radii of the elements (data page). On the other hand, this text really looks as if someone knew what they were writing, so maybe it could be verified and salvaged... – attomir (talk &#124; contribs) 22:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pb 6p is not half-filled, as the text claims. Actually the ordering here has a p-orbital split, so Tl and Pb fill one p1/2 orbital first, then electrons go in p3/2 for Bi through Rn. 6s16p3 for Pb as claimed is kind of unlikely, inert pair effect stabilises the 6s2 lone pair (Pb prefers the +2 state to the +4 state, even in organometallics like PbEt4 6s is mostly nonbonding MO). The covalent radius of Po does not look terribly trend-breaking (Tl 144 pm, Pb 144 pm, Bi 151 pm, Po 145 pm, At 147 pm, Rn 142 pm). Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Symbol Dalton
symbol Dalton 42.111.124.42 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Citation Needed since 2019
"More than one hypothesis exists for how polonium does this; one suggestion is that small clusters of polonium atoms are spalled off by the alpha decay.[citation needed]"

The CN has existed since 2019. Perhaps it's time for deletion. Rockethead293 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Citation added. Not the highest quality source (workshop paper), but both the lead author and the venue seem respectable, and it's clearly labelled as a hypothesis. Hqb (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)