Talk:Samarium

Talk

 * This article is saying Samarium has no significant role in biology. This question on Quora is mentioning Samarium as essential to some enzymes and DNA replication: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-smallest-set-of-atoms-on-Earth-whose-spontaneous-vanishing-could-spell-doom-for-humanity . Specifically 'Flap EndoNuclease 1 (FEN1)' and referring to this article about it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086263/ . What gives?  104.157.233.59 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Online structures of FEN1 include the Sm3+ ions as well. But this is not an area where I am quite knowledgeable, so I still wonder why no one appears to have then proclaimed Sm to be an essential element in a paper. Sm would seem a good candidate among the lanthanides to be so, having two major oxidation states; otherwise we get the La situation when Pr or Nd might replace La without any problems (Ce might be oxidised further). I wonder if you could substitute Eu or Yb. Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I also see Sm sites mentioned here, though not for humans. I really do not know if the Quora answer's inference is justified, since I'm not particularly well-versd in biology. The chemistry point of view would agree that Sm is more plausible as an essential element than most of the lanthanides (Ce would also seem reasonable), since Eu is happier to stay in the +2 state and Yb is significantly smaller. But the trouble is that with such trace amounts, I don't see how one could find the smoking gun of triggering a samarium deficiency, since the trace amounts one absorbs in everything should be enough if my calculations of the amount supposedly needed are right. You'd have to create an environment that's somehow free of all Sm atoms, which would be a massively impractical and pretty much impossible task. The next best thing would be to see Sm there obviously doing something useful (that clause is necessary, as heavy metals like Hg poison you by being there and doing something that is not useful). But I am not sure if what is claimed here qualifies.
 * TL;DR: Interesting! I don't know. Could someone more qualified in biology look over it? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Talk pertaining to the old version of the Samarium entry (prior to conversion to the new standard format) has been archived at Talk:Samarium/Archived.

"Sarmarium" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sarmarium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Isotopes overview
I have removed the Infobox samarium isotopes you recently added. WP:INFOBOXes are especially aimed for article tops, by deseign & content.

I suggest using Isotopes summary in there (see for example). Table is open for improvement, for example which columns to provide.

That said, I find current section not inviting (more a bunch of text, with many symbols). Could the subtopic be devided in one-paragraph-per-isotopes? Or an other major intro for the isotopes? DePiep (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Overly precise, unsourced claim.
@W;ChangingUsername I deleted the following line: It has no source and 4 significant figures in a percentage is extraordinary. If you have a source and an explanation for why this percentage is so precise it can be added back. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Samarium-151 is produced in nuclear fission of uranium with a yield of 0.4203% of all fissions.


 * This data seems to be copied fission product yield; it also contains a lot of other percentages in 4 dp that are equally unsourced. This link says 0.4204 ± 0.0071, which is not the same as 0.4203 stated in the article.  141 Pr  -\ contribs /- 17:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The IAEA tables are themselves opaque. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)