Talk:Strontium-90/Archive 1

tumbleweeds
I changed the word "spread" to "disperse". Radioactive contamination spreads if tumbleweed plants disperse, meaning plants detach from their roots and roll away, carrying both biomass and accumulated isotopes. The runners and seeds by which other plants spread are of little concern, which is why control efforts focus on tumbleweeds, not on all weeds nor on all plants. --Una Smith (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting paragraph
I'm deleting this paragraph:


 * In the vicinity of nuclear waste and nuclear test sites, strontium-90 also enters the metabolism of plants in lieu of calcium. For example, specimens of chamisa growing in Bayo Canyon, near Los Alamos, New Mexico, exhibit a concentration of radioactive strontium-90 300,000 times higher than normal plants.  Their roots reach into a nuclear waste treatment area that has been closed since 1963; the radioactive shrubs are "indistinguishable from other shrubs without a Geiger counter".  The same happens with the tumbleweed plants at the Hanford Site; "crews armed with pitchforks" are employed to prevent the contaminated plants from dispersing.

...because it reads like an absurd scare piece on a cheap evening news program.

The paragraph has the following problems: 1) Sr90 does not travel from most nuclear waste sites into plant metabolism, since the nuclear waste is not ground up then dispersed in fertile soil; 2) plants around the manhattan proj exhibit Sr90 levels more than 300,000x normal levels because Sr90 is not naturally occurring, therefore almost any amount, no matter how small, will be more than 300,000x higher than "natural" levels; 3) the two quotations imply that there is some terrible danger from Sr90 in plants, and the danger is held at bay only by pitchforks.

The paragraph could be replaced by an informative paragraph with the following information: 1) the amount of Sr90 in various plants surrounding the manhattan project sites; 2) the biological activity of that amount of Sr90 and the EPA limits of Sr90, for comparison; 3) the volume of Sr90 that enters the human food supply, via uptake into grains/fruits/vegetables of Sr90 from decayed tumbleweed plants.Twerges (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

needs epidemiology / health consequences section
Need to add in a section about epidemiology of and health consequences of exposure(s) to Strontium-90. Does it mimic calcium and accumulate in bones, or mimic phosphorus and become distributed throughout the body (muscles more than bones), or other? How is it absorbed? What kinds of toxicities and/or late tumors are caused by such exposure(s)? Lanephil (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in the Applications section
This is currently written in the Applications section:

A set of 85,000 teeth that had been uncovered in storage in 2001 were given to the Radiation and Public Health Project. By tracking the individuals who had participated in the tooth-collection project, the RHPR published results in a 2010 issue of the International Journal of Health Service that showed that those children who later died of cancer before the age of 50 had levels of strontium 90 in their stored baby teeth that was twice the level of those who were still alive at 50.

RPHP is a pseudoscientific organization whose claims have been repeatedly disproved by independent review and subsequent research; their "Tooth Fairy" studies are plagued by serious methodological errors and are in fact nothing more than an anti-nuclear scare attempt. See here:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweenk (talk • contribs) 16:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't be true
The following text in this article cannot be accurate:

"The results of a study of hundreds of thousands of teeth collected by Dr. Louise Reiss and her colleagues as part of the Baby Tooth Survey showed that children born after 1963 had levels of 90Sr in their deciduous teeth that was 50 times higher than that found in children born before the advent of large-scale atomic testing. The findings helped convince U.S. President John F. Kennedy to sign the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the United Kingdom and Soviet Union, which ended the above-ground nuclear weapons testing that placed the greatest amounts of nuclear fallout into the atmosphere."

No findings from a study involving "children born after 1963" could have influenced the actions of John F. Kennedy, who died in November 1963. --Tkynerd (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this, based on the NYTimes obit. Long story short, Kennedy saw a preliminary report in '61, and also the kids being looked at were from 1950-1963, so it was a work in progress in '61. Goldenband (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No Gamma Emissions?
Some sources I've seen on using Sr-90 in RTGs mention gamma emissions, yet the article says the isotope and its products don't undergo substantial gamma decay. Are the gamma emissions discussed in the articles I've been reading coming from bremsstrahlung radiation as beta particles are absorbed? (Elustran (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
 * I believe I've seen statements that it is via some secondary mechanism like that, but don't have a reference at hand. Maybe you can research it. --JWB (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * is pure beta. has a single gamma emission at ~2.2 MeV, but of such a low yield (on the order of 10-8) that it can be safely ignored. So yes, the shielding problems come from the bremsstrahlung of 's high-energy betas. Kolbasz (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fission table?
Why does this article have a table of the fission yield of Uranium and Thorium isotopes? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since no one put forth any reason that this article should have a table of the fission yield of Uranium and Thorium isotopes, I deleted it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you revert your edit and reinsert the fission fraction yields.Boundarylayer (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't use wikipedia to try and delude people
The OP was about as insipid as I've seen. If somebody hears about Strontium-90 and goes here to learn, don't have a one line OP that says nothing. The source for the edit (which of course will be contested) is the American EPA, which means there is no reason at all to attempt to beat around the bush. Strontium-90 is the most dangerous part of fallout and reactors, trying to hide that is ridiculous. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia. FX (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the lede of this article has been changed from an article about the isotope Strontium-90, to an article about the biological effects of strontium 90.  Biological effects is useful information to have in the article, but this belongs in the body, it does not belong in the lede. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The main reason, actually the only reason Strontium-90 matters is that it a product of nuclear explosions and nuclear accidents. It's delusional to ignore this, and bury the important definition of the substance. The health effects and dangers are the relevant information concerning the article. FX (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The "definition of the stuff" is that strontium 90 is an isotope, and the Wikipedia article gives its properties. If people are looking at a Wikipedia article, one might assume that they want to know what the properties of strontium 90 are.
 * The statement that "The main reason, actually the only reason Strontium-90 matters is that it a product of nuclear explosions and nuclear accidents" is an opinion. The article should focus on facts.  In any case, though it's a one page article-- it's not "deluding people" to make them scroll down to the very first sentence after the lede to find out that "90Sr is a radioactivity hazard," or the next paragraph after that, stating that it is present in radioactive waste from nuclear reactors and in nuclear fallout from nuclear tests.   Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope of strontium produced by nuclear fission. It has applications in medicine and industry and is an isotope of concern in fallout from nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents." It covers what strontium-90 is, where it comes from, what it is used for, and why it is notable (applications and health concerns). Anything else should go in its respective section. Kolbasz (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Major applications and concerns should be stated in the lead section along with a minimal description - i.e. "this is what it is and why it is notable" (or as WP:MOS puts it: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points"). However, it should be pared down to a bare minimum, with expansions in their respective sections. E.g. something like:


 * I rewrote the lead into a modified version of the above, with some clarifications and corrections - for example, "emitting electrons with energy 0.546 MeV" implies that it emits electrons with a discrete energy of 0.546 MeV per electron instead of the continuous distribution of beta decay. Kolbasz (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved the following sentence out of the lede and into the relevant section (on fallout): "Strontium-90 is not quite as likely as caesium-137 to be released as a part of a nuclear reactor accident because it is much less volatile, but is probably the most dangerous component of the radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon." This is a level of detail that is not appropriate for the lede, but belongs in the detailed discussion. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Source of information about Strontium-90 fallout
Pages 103-120 of this book gives an account of the history and popular discussion around the United States discovery of Strontium-90 in fallout. I thought I would share.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No mention of
The Strontium-90 contamination that occured globally during the testing of Hydrogen bombs or the method by which it passes through cows, into their milk, into the drinker and then finally into their bones? It sounds like this is fairly well established science from the way its being explained on the ABC in their documentary Silent Storm; http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/570045 --Senor Freebie (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Also no mention that strontium 240 times the legal limit has been found in groundwater in Fukishima, why is there such a huge concerted cover up in the mainstream media ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.186.57 (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) A better question would be to ask about the health threats from the coal and methane burning that now substitutes for the much cleaner electricity that the reactors wer producing before the tsunami killed them. The mainstream media, in their fervour to grab the attention of nukiphobes, do an enormous coverup of the poisonous effects of fossil carbon burning, quite apart from the greenhouse gas effects. DaveyHume (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad/Cyclic Source
Reference for decay energy of 0.546 MeV lists Wikipedia article as source for decay energy. Doh! The other source listed in the reference does not give info on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.98.221 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked the references and saw the same thing. I regret that I am unable to provide a better reference, but at least I tagged that claim with a "citation needed" notice. Thanks for pointing this out.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please check validity
Dear reader, please know that i am not fully accustomed to wiki-etiquette. I found this in the /biological effcts/biological activity paragraph:

"***Bioaccumulation, or whatever you call it, is a CHEMICAL process, and will accumulate, Sr90 to EXACTLY the same extent as Sr84, Sr86, Sr87 and Sr88. The entire concept of a specific isotope having a chemical half-life is entirely dubious.***"

I do feel that capitals are only used when so prescribed, i.e. in an acronym or name. When used otherwise they are easily creating the impression of a stating that is not to be questioned.

The entire concept of declaring an entire concept entirely dubious without linking to further explanation/citation is entirely dubious.

Further this:

"((( Not plausible. Possible if the Sr90 were the only Strontium in the body. But the much larger amount of natural Strontium makes this impossible. The fact that the parathyroid glands are in the thyroid gland and therefore subject to I131 irradiation is plausible)))"

which is much less offensive, though should still be checked, and if found valid, rephrased to a readable manner and correspondingly linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean1976 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

please check validity
dear reader, please know that i am not fully accustomed to wiki-etiquette. I found this at the end of the /biological effcts/biological activity:

"***Bioaccumulation, or whatever you call it, is a CHEMICAL process, and will accumulate, Sr90 to EXACTLY the same extent as Sr84, Sr86, Sr87 and Sr88. The entire concept of a specific isotope having a chemical half-life is entirely dubious.***"

I do feel that capitals are only used when so prescribed, i.e. in an acronym or name. When used otherwise they are easily creating the impression of a stating that is not to be questioned.

The entire concept of declaring an entire concept dubious without linking to further explanation/citation is entirely dubious.

Further this:

"((( Not plausible. Possible if the Sr90 were the only Strontium in the body. But the much larger amount of natural Strontium makes this impossible. The fact that the parathyroid glands are in the thyroid gland and therefore subject to I131 irradiation is plausible)))"

which is much less offensive, though should still be checked, and if found valid, rephrased to a readable manner and correspondingly linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean1976 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Good catch! Both comments were inappropriate for the article and have been reverted. Kolbasz (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Biological half-life
Thanks Kolbasz,

The issue of the alleged Sr90 half-life has bothered me, and the comment was in frustration at that. I appreciate any suggestions for better solution. It is said that the possibility of Sr90 finding its way into bones and causing cancer contributed to the decision in the early 60s to ban atmospheric nuclear testing. This may or may not be the case, but Sr90, as such does NOT have a chemical half-life specific to the isotope, just a chemical half-life for the element. One author in the Sr90 article has waxed on about various reports on the (chemical) half-life of Sr90, concluding that it might be years or decades. The entire concept is utterly flawed.

Sr90 could conceivably appear in bone in two ways, firstly because the proportion of Strontium relative to Calcium might increase, or the level of Strontium might remain unchanged, but Sr90 will replace Sr 84 86 87 88.

The first is quite definitely impossible. Why? The Sr90 released in say Fukushima represents a significant amount of radiation, but a completely insignificant amount of Strontium. The worst case scenario for Fukushima is 1 PBq of Sr90 & this equals (work backwards) 200gm. So 200gm of Sr90 is released into an ocean that contains 8mg/l Strontium or 8gm/m3 or 8000 tonnes/km3. Less that one part per quintillion.

If the Strontium:Calcium in my bones was 1:10000 yesterday, it will be 1:10000 tomorrow, because the amount of Strontium in the environment has not changed at all, for practical purposes.

The second alternative will occur,and in fact. AND, THE SHORTER THE HALF-LIFE, THE QUICKER IT WILL OCCUR. It takes about 5 half-lives for the Strontium in your bone to equilibriate with the (now-slightly-different), Strontium in the environment. But at equilibrium, it will only equal the level in the background environment. The is, for practical purposes, no mechanism by which Sr90 can accumulate to worrying levels in our bones.

I therefore feel that the entire concept of a (chemical) half-life for Sr90 is dubious and I would like to delete it everywhere. (It's on several pages, nuclear testing, Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc.) But somehow it is folklore, and I doubt that I can debunk this particular piece of folklore just by editing a few pages. So whether it's deleted, qualified or we link it to my summary on why I think it's bullshit, I'm open to suggestions,

Graeme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources "debunking" biological/effective half-lives of radionuclides (well established concepts in radiation protection and the basis for committed dose calculations)? If not, it would be original research, which is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. Kolbasz (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just reviewed the so-called references for the alleged (chemical) half-life of Strontium-90. I have been unable to find anyone who has ever tried to measure it, the references are high school science projects and newspaper articles. As I have stated, the concept is absurd, a bit like a flat earth, it's impossible for practical purposes. For example the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope says "Large effects on nuclear properties, but its effect on chemical properties is negligible for most elements"
 * "Because the chemical behavior of an atom is largely determined by its electronic structure, different isotopes exhibit nearly identical chemical behavior." "almost indistinguishable physical and chemical properties"


 * There really is NO chemical process that can separate different isotopes of the same element (Hydrogen is an exception), hence the need for centrifuges to separate U235 from U238. There are absolutely no examples where the isotope ratio in biological tissues is markedly different from that in the background environment. If Strontium represent 1 ppt in the background environment, it's inevitable that it will represent 1 ppt in biological tissues. This is as fundamental to chemistry as the periodic table. With no disrespect intended, the concept that chemical properties of different isotopes of the same element are identical, is basic High School Chemistry. If you have any doubts, please check it with a practicing scientist, I'm sure there must be many on the wikipedia editing team who have a university education in Chemistry, Biochemistry or Physics.Graemem56 (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

petabecquerels /Fukushima/ Biological activity/
"estimated at 0.1-1PBq." The article correctly, I presume, gives the equivalent quantity of the isotope in mg. But the phraseology should be that "150mg of Sr-90 releases one PBq of radiation." The becquerel is the rate at which atoms of the sample are decaying, per second. It is even the rate at which the isotope is disappearing. More lurid scare stories about the Fukushima incident write about trillions of Bq and would call one PBq a thousand trillion Bq. But it's like counting the number of dangerous vehicles on a road in miles per hour, or rather nanometres per second. 90 gm. of Sr-90 is 602.2 thousand million million million atoms.DaveyHume (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC) DaveyHume (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say sounds reasonable enough. Can I help you change something, or can you direct me to what you want changed? The general way to do this on Wikipedia is to find a source with information, summarize that information in Wikipedia, then put a citation to the original source at the beginning. If you are just rewording information from an already cited source then then the citation can stand. Message me or message here if I can help with something.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

to Bluerasberry Thank you. I hold that to describe a quantity of a radioactive isotope in Bq is equivalent to wild exaggeration, as the becquerel is such a small unit.DaveyHume (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC) First off, a given mass of a given nuclide doesn't "release" a certain amount of radioactivity. It is radioactive and releases radiation (a release of radioactivity is an established term that means an emission of radioactive material into the environment). Second, activity is how you specify amounts of radioactive materials - in guidelines and regulations, in research papers, on source and shipping labels, and in radiation protection in general. While mass and activity are technically equivalent in that you can convert between the two using a known specific activity, activity is the one that carries the most relevant information - and the specific activity is only valid for a given nuclide in a given chemical form. 1 Bq of Sr-90 will emit the same amount of radiation whether it's in the form of elemental strontium, strontium oxide, strontium hydroxide or strontium titanate. For radiation protection purposes, the mass simply isn't relevant. Kolbasz (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No.

It seems to me that in that case, radioactivity is an imprecise and misleading term. If I'm talking about a nanogram of caesium, I don't care what it's combined with.DaveyHume (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That said, the section the sentence was quoted from is in need of cleanup, and not just for wanton cruelty to SI. There might be some WP:OR/WP:SYN going on, with statements sourced to Wikipedia itself. It'll probably be a couple of days before I'll have the time to have a proper look myself though. Kolbasz (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr Kwon
The whole thing about Dr. Kwon and his team is unnecessary and amounts to an over-complicated explanation of how RTGs actually work. I have read his paper he is not doing what is claimed here. UncertaintyPrinciple1 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've boldly removed the entire section, as both the previous and current versions read a like press release. In addition, the product does not seem notable enough for inclusion. Kolbasz (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Pop culture reference to Nuka-cola Fallout series?
In fallout lore this is the "secret" ingredient to Nuka Cola's quantum. Why someone would drink Strontium-90 is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.78.3 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)