Talk:Radon

format
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 19:37, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 18:59, 10 July 2005).

Information Sources
Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Radon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Radon the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units. --

the Name Radon
Guys -

One thing. I was on Marie Curie's wiki page and it said that she named two elements - polonium and radium. In this article it says that someone else named radium. Who can verify?

Emission spectra?
Doesn't it seem strange that the emission spectra of and  almost look the exact same, but with a difference of a few extra lines? I haven't looked into the sources or databases for these spectra, so I don't know how accurate these spectra are. I've noticed some potential red flags regarding accuracy of these emission spectra images: the images were uploaded in 2013, and the author credits this program which mentions "spectrum data for nearly all the elements from Hydrogen to Uranium," which contradicts that author's uploads of transuranic emission spectra up to.

I don't have any background knowledge on atomic physics research to say much else, so I'd like to hear your comments. Nrco0e (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked it against the pictures, but NIST has data: Rn spectral lines, Ra spectral lines. And NIST does indeed have data up to Es. Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See Infobox element/symbol-to-spectral-lines-image for image data central. AFAIK, we have them up to and including Es, and showing in its infobox. This ok then?
 * I cannot say anything about correctness of Ra, Rd. I'm waiting for any conclusion.


 * Some images are missing: Hg, At, Fr. Now added to the (mainspace) table. Should there be a clarifying text?
 * In general, I think the setup of all these images could be improved: now the full spectrum background is too overwhelming.
 * -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

An image of Radon for this article perhaps?
A few months ago, I stumbled across a website which provided images for some of the heavy actinide elements' images on Wikipedia. What I found on the website is an image of the element Radon. It seems like the gas was encased in a glass tube and there's only 1 reference at the bottom of the page, stating that the image was taken from a book. [Http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/086Rn/Rn.htm http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/086Rn/Rn.htm]

So I emailed the creator of the website - Mark Kness - about this image. He replied: "Looking at my cell[ul]ose-book version, I note the comment: 'Radioactive radon was placed on a background of zinc sulphide, thus causing it to slow with a yellow-green light'. The radon does seem to be enclosed in a glass tube. The green glow is from the ZnS, which is excited by the radiation from radon (and perhaps radon daughters), it is not directly from radon itself. I did not have anything to do with preparing this sample, so I can't really provide more details than that." And I was wondering if this image could be added to the infobox in the Radon article? SupercriticalXenon (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly not coming with the right license to use it here, and if it doesn't even show radon itself then I don't see why we would want to add it. Sometimes there is just no good image of things. --mfb (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph is repetitively redundant.
Oof. Half-life of 3.8 days is said three times. Part of the decay chain of U-238 and Th-232 is said twice. Being very rare is said twice. Will be around for billions more years is said twice. Decay chain ending in lead is said three times. This carries into the second paragraph a bit where being a decay product of uranium is mentioned again. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)