Talk:Thorium/Archive 2

Structure
I wonder what other editors think about the discussion at User talk:John? Basically, there used to be two separate discussions in the article about thorium's nuclear uses, past and potential future. I put them together, which allows some compression and I think is a more logical structure. Is there a better way to do this? --John (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which section and major edits is this about? I looked at your talkpage link, but that was too deep a talk. What do you ask OK for? (and is fine with that? ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion is best followed from the beginning, which is now in John's archives. I am fine with a broader talk on the issue.--R8R (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are the relevant sections:

#1
Hi John! and I are about to submit the article thorium to FAC; all it needs before this happens is a good prose quality check and possibly a copyedit. You've watched over prose quality during some recent chemical element FACs. It would be great and much appreciated if you could handle it for us just prior to, rather than during, the FAC. Would you please help us out?--R8R (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, I will be delighted to take a look. --John (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Splendid; thank you!--R8R (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , : I've finished my first pass. I added a couple of hidden notes querying bits I did not understand. Also, are thorium salts soluble or not? We seem to state both. Otherwise it's looking good. --John (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's response to your notes:
 * Thorium forms a one-atom-thin layer of tungsten. This sentence in the text doesn't say, but is supposed to say that tungsten forms a one-atom-thin layer on thorium.
 * The need to irradiate 232Th with neutrons and process it come before these advantages become real this phrase is supposed to say that while thorium can be advantageous to use, the drawbacks come into play long before the advantages do and the technology needed to deal with these drawbacks is still not developed. I hope these two explanations make it clear now?
 * Generally, thorium salts are poorly soluble. What phrases in the article cause the confusion?--R8R (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fast response. Three clarifications made. I think it's looking good. What do you think? --John (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it looks good to me. Thank you very much!
 * Just to make it clear: what exactly do you mean when you say, "first pass"? Is it "go forth, and I'll later add some minor changes" or is it "another pass just as significant is yet to come"?--R8R (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all, thank you for asking me, it's fun and I've finally had time to read it properly this week. By "first pass", I mean that I have read through the entire article and trimmed out infelicities, redundancies, MoS glitches (though I've not yet looked at references or overlinking) and tried to clarify what was unclear. I'd now probably reflect for a day or two and see if there is anything structural that leaps out. Given the article's length, it's less likely to be a major omission than streamlining what is already there. --John (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked it. I've seen this article too many times lately and can no longer judge if it's up to my usual standard. It seemed good as usual but it felt like I needed a second opinion on this to be sure.
 * Thanks for clarification. I was expecting this kind of a reply but it still felt right to double-check. Then I'll wait for your signal before we can begin the FAC.--R8R (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

#2
Three weeks ago, you said you'd finished the first pass of copyediting on the article. You haven't done anything on the article in a while, so I decided to check if you still intend to. Waiting for the job to be done is fine by me; however, you said just recently you were busy and I just want to make sure this task won't accidentally be overlooked and check if you actually had completed what you wanted by then and simply forgot to mention that.--R8R (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I will have a look tonight. --John (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's looking good, R8R, I think, and is almost ready. I suggest coalescing the two separate sections which discuss thorium's past and potential future use as a nuclear fuel. Having two overlapping sections is unhelpful, and I can't see any other good way of solving it. If you agree this is worth a try, should we merge up the page or down? My feeling is we should merge up. I've run out of time now tonight but we can perhaps finish this tomorrow. --John (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am initially skeptical about this but open-minded in general. I don't yet think this will work: The nuclear part of thorium's history is only noticeable because there was little going on with the element otherwise, that's all. The nuclear perspectives, however, are tremendous (even though questionable). Also, if we merge up, we have essentially a short subsection endeavor a long section; I am initially skeptical about this as well. If we merge down, we lose a part of the element's history. However, while I don't think this will work, I am open to you proving me wrong. So, sure, a try is very welcome.
 * At some point, I considered merging the Nuclear energy section with Applications. But this one does stand out.--R8R (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done that, and I tentatively think it is better. There isn't a huge saving in space (really only a couple of sentences were duplicated) but I think it looks better-organised now. --John (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've checked it, and I'm begging to differ. The History section used to consist of short, 1-2 paras long subsections, and now there is one that takes more then a whole screen. I've taken a moment to think why and I think that the technical part doesn't belong in an overview discussion of history such as ours. (Of the recent stories, you've seen me rewrite the History section of aluminium. As important as the Hall--Heroult process is, I didn't describe it in detail because this is not the material for this section; this will go to Production section. I've checked if it was any different this time with thorium, and I think not.) Watching this, I've come to think history standalone as a listing of events and possibly explanations of what events/considerations led to them.
 * We can ask for a third opinion from Double sharp, the other major author of this article, if I haven't convinced you (we haven't discussed the matter before so it is possible that they'll join your position). I think this will be good regardless so I will, but I wouldn't want you to be surprised so letting you know beforehand.--R8R (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm with R8R this time. To me, discussion of the technical details of Th as a nuclear power source belongs in applications, not in history; the history should just contain discussion of when people started trying to use it as such. I mean, now the applications section contains no mention of Th in nuclear energy at all, which seems a bit off to me. If it has to be in only one place, I think applications is better than history; after all, it's still not used as the main fuel source anywhere yet. Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I did say it was tentative. Do you have a better solution? Because I don't think the option of having two overlapping sections is a good one either. --John (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have given it a thought and I think it's conceptually okay as long as we cover different aspects of the problem (chronology of past events vs. the general principle of work). Different aspects of the general story of an element often overlap to some extent. For instance, lead is known since since antiquity (a history aspect) because it is easily extracted from its ores (a chemistry aspect). The general idea of such a duplication, as you say, is that this nuclear energy idea is a potential use of thorium, and uses go after history even if repeating them (see fluorine: the use for uranium separation is both in History and in Applications). Basically, same here. This nuclear energy has been given so much space because it is very ambitious and because all other uses are vanishing anyway.
 * I hope this makes sense to you. It makes sense to me. I haven't figured what could be done if it doesn't.--R8R (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It does make sense, of course. But I may still think it is clumsy to have stuff spread over two sections like that. Let me think about it some more. --John (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, take your time.--R8R (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion under here for clarity
I am not militant on the issue, but I think I still prefer the version with the sections coalesced; it saves space and presents the story logically and coherently. --John (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For comparison, these are the old and new version of the section in question. The more time comes, the more confident I get on that the new version mixes history of nuclear uses and the description of such uses. The level 4 subsections in History also hint at it very well, I'd say: advantages and disadvantages should not be discussed in History.--R8R (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked at it for the last few days, and I am very much inclined to agree with R8R, so I've split the sections apart. To me, details on how Th could potentially be used for nuclear energy should not be in History. I agree that we are then discussing something we haven't detailed yet, but we can't move History that late either, because then we lose the flow of when the non-radioactivity-related rules were phased out. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.18180590702/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.194.197 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for this! Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thorium. 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/20081204114125/http://www.dae.gov.in/iandm/minesback.htm to http://www.dae.gov.in/iandm/minesback.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) 06:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Warnings flagged by script for refs and notes
Hello. I'm working on a script to facilitate consistency in checks for refs and notes. I have some questions about its output for this article. Some things listed below may be genuine errors, but many may not (e.g., oclc numbers are considered useful but not required). Any comments or feedback would be gratefully accepted & also would be helpful in tweaking the script:
 * Masterton, W. L.; Hurley, C. N.; Neth, E. J. Chemistry: Principles and reactions (7th ed.) has no date.
 * van Spronsen, J. W. (1969). The periodic system of chemical elements. Pub. too early for ISBN; Missing OCLC;
 * Feynman, R.; Leighton, R.; Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Pub. too early for ISBN; Missing OCLC;
 * Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science, Inc. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. pp. 19–20. ISSN 0096-3402. Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date;
 * Hyde, E. K. (1960). The radiochemistry of thorium (PDF). National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 29 September 2017. Missing OCLC;
 * Clayton, D. D. (1968). Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 577–591. ISBN 978-0-226-10953-4. Pub. too early for ISBN; Missing OCLC;
 * Thomson, T. (1831). A System of Chemistry of Inorganic Bodies. 1. Baldwin & Cradock and William Blackwood. p. 475. Missing OCLC;
 * Dana, J. D.; Brush, G. J. (1875). A System of Mineralogy: Descriptive Mineralogy, Comprising the Most Recent Discoveries. John Wiley & Sons. p. 529. Missing OCLC;
 * Selbekk, R. S. (2007). "Morten Thrane Esmark". Store norske leksikon (in Norwegian). Kunnskapsforlaget. Retrieved 16 May 2009. Missing ISBN;
 * Inconsistent use of access dates and archiving on web pages.
 * Some books cited repeatedly but not moved into Bibliography section, e.g. Fontani, M.; Costa, M.; Orna, V. (2014). The Lost Elements: The Periodic Table's Shadow Side. Oxford University Press. p. 73.
 * ASIN uses ISBN for Langford, R. E. (2004). Introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction: Radiological, Chemical, and Biological.
 * Thanks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thorium. 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/20100611152417/http://www.che.uc.edu/jensen/W.%20B.%20Jensen/Reprints/091.%20Zn-Cd-Hg.pdf to http://www.che.uc.edu/jensen/W.%20B.%20Jensen/Reprints/091.%20Zn-Cd-Hg.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) 06:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Incandescent ThO2
if you insist on this dubious blue light, then add more sources explicating specific conditions where may it be a kind of blue. We are, hopefully, not fools to expect a bluish thermal radiation at some 3660 K. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The source does not state any conditions needed for this effect. The paper we cite in the article on candoluminescence (which explains why ThO2 does this; it's ref 132) writes the following: 'Gases in a flame have a high content of free radicals which can release large amounts of energy upon recombination or de-excitation. Materials vary in ability to promote recombination of radicals and one with a high recombination coefficient, other conditions being equal, will attain a higher temperature. ThO2 : Ce is one such catalyst and recombination effects account in part for its high visible emission in the "high-temperature candoluminescence" region'. This seems to be borne out from work as early as 1901, as the article also states that 'Bunte [12, 36] in 1901 found that a hot Welsbach mantle could be kept at “full glow” by exposure to a cold unignited gas--air mixture and concluded that catalytic recombination was an important factor. Bunte also showed that the temperature at which hydrogen and oxygen combine was lowered in the presence of CeO2'. So it seems plausible that for thoria exceptionally candoluminescence can be seen without much sensitivity to conditions because of its catalytic effect. I have added some sentences to the article based on the summary in this source. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again. “When heated” doesn’t explain why presumed “free radicals that appear in high concentration in a flame” are present. Surely does heating ThO2 in the air produce a kind of flame? The reader has to do guesswork after . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the reader has to do guesswork after reading the sources, who give no conditions. The original Wickleder et al. source I used for this statement said only "Lastly, thorium oxide, when heated, produces an intense blue light and mixed with ceria at 1%, produces a more intense white light. It is this property that was the basis for the thoriated gas mantle industry.", as I quoted in my edit summary. I can hardly put in here what they do not write either, especially since as noted above a flame does not seem to be necessary for the effect to be seen with ThO2 + CeO2. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wickleder et al. are authors for an obscure journal, not for an encyclopedia. Well, (almost) all are volunteers here, but undoing my removal of “blue” creates a WP:BURDEN. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wickleder et al. chapter is from a very well-known text on the actinides and transactinides (The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements, whose first edition had Seaborg himself as a coauthor), so not quite an obscure journal. As WP:BURDEN expressly notes: "it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Considering the quote above on "intense blue light", this has been done. I would of course like to have more detail but I have not yet found any sources that actually give it (though of course I will be continuing to look).
 * Pinging R8R as well, who collaborated with me on this article. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, I think has it right. Here's a credible source, it says this, we follow, you can't expect us to do more if we ourselves can't attribute this thought to someone. My understanding is that "free radicals in high concentration" is the needed but sufficient explanation to give the general idea but stay focused on the topic at hand. This is an article on thorium, after all. For similar reasons, we don't need to explain in each article on an element why it passes the flame test the way it does. We could, but not exactly should.--R8R (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Featured
Congratulation to the editors for this achievement.

[The metal] does not readily dissolve in most common acids, with the exception of hydrochloric acid, where it dissolves leaving a black insoluble residue of ThO(OH,Cl)H

This sentence does not make sense. Either it dissolves
 * Th +4H+ → Th4+ + 2H2↑

or it does not. If it dissolves, the oxide layer on the metal surface will also dissolve in the acidic solution.
 * ThO2 + 4H+ → Th4+ + 4H2O

When alkali is added to an acidic (HCl) solution of Th(IV), [Th(OH)]3+ is first formed (pK≈9), then precipitation occurs. It is most unlikely that the precipitate is an insoluble /basic hydroxide /oxide /chloride /hydride species, as metal hydrides are not produced under these conditions. Petergans (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this sentence can actually counted as supported by a source. Here's what the source says:


 * Thorium reacts vigorously with hydrochloric acid. The reaction with hydrochloric acid always leaves a certain amount of a black residue (12 to 15%) behind, which was first thought to be ThO2 that was originally present in the metal (Matignon and Delepine, 1901; Meyer, 1908; von Wartenberg, 1909). As discussed in Section 3.7.3, other studies have suggested that a lower‐valent thorium oxide hydrate, ThO·H2O, is formed but it is much more likely that this compound is in fact an oxide hydride containing hydroxide and chloride ions according to ThO(X)H (X -- combination of OH− and Cl−) (von Bolton, 1908; Karstens, 1909, Katzin, 1944,1958; Karabash, 1958; Katzin et al., 1962). This assumption is also supported by mass spectroscopic investigations that show Cl− to be present in the residue(Ackermann and Rauh, 1973a). The reaction of thorium with other acids occurs slowly, with nitric acid even passivation is observed (Smithells, 1922; Schuleret al., 1952).


 * Given this, I don't think we're particularly wrong here, are we?--R8R (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Under Isotopes, I found a slight error; 234U is the parent of 230Th, not 238U.

DaveyHume (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an error. The important thing is that 230Th occurs in the decay chain of 238U (and the term "daughter" can refer to the whole decay chain as it does here), because that is one of the two primordial U isotopes in nature. 234U is not important here as it only occurs in secular equilibrium with its much longer-lived progenitor, just like 230Th does. Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Supported: 'Daughter' is indeed a term for elements in the decay chain. I made a very small addition that Thorium also have been used in some broadcast radio tubes. And very nearly added the fact that such tubes seem to have turned up in Chinese built audiophile amplifiers. But I caught myself on the latter matter, if someone feel that piece of information to be relevant you might double check on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/845_(vacuum_tube) that this information is correct plus any online ad for YAQIN MS-650B Tube Amplifier which show that the tube using Thorium might be in current use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.128.46 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I did recently find this about the reaction of uranium with water (thorium should be similar). Apparently some hydride formation takes place because the H2 liberated by the reaction with water then directly reacts with the uranium metal. Double sharp (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Anachronism
"Up to the late 19th century, chemists unanimously agreed that thorium and uranium were analogous to hafnium and tungsten". Hafnium wasn't discovered until 1923 so maybe this should be changed to:"Up to the late 19th century, chemists unanimously agreed that thorium and uranium were analogous to eka-zirconium and tungsten".150.227.15.253 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I corrected this to read "... were the heaviest members of group 4 and group 6 respectively", which is reflected in 19th-century periodic tables. ComplexRational (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Radioactive elements
Article currently reads in part On Earth, thorium and uranium are the only significantly radioactive elements that still occur naturally in large quantities as primordial elements. Note the piping to primordial nuclide from primordial elements.

The whole concept of a radioactive element rather than a radioactive nuclide is dubious. Is potassium a radioactive element? It is radioactive enough to account for much of the Earth's radioactivity, and nearly all of your own. But most potassium is not radioactive. Andrewa (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "significantly radioactive elements" could be reworded to "elements with no stable isotopes". It's true that every element has radioactive isotopes, yet the term "radioactive element" is still in widespread use for elements with no stable isotopes, though it would perhaps be less ambiguous to use the latter wording. Complex / Rational  12:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a great improvement.
 * Done. Complex / Rational  15:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that the term "radioactive element" is still in widespread use for elements with no stable isotopes (my emphasis) but is it in such use in reliable sources? Or is it just a matter of folklore? Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are numerous recently-published peer-reviewed articles that use the term "radioactive element". However, a few of them also use the term to mean "radioisotope" (e.g., the radioactive element Cs-137), in which case clarity is still called for. Complex / Rational  15:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Examples?
 * It's disappointing that they use the term radioactive element when you think they mean "radioisotope" and when they really seem to mean radionuclide. Cs-137 is a nuclide and a radionuclide and a radioisotope, but it is an isotope of Cesium. Just to refer to it as a radioisotope is careless. And surely Cesium itself would not be considered a radioactive element , any more than Potassium would be despite the importance of Potassium-40.
 * Many people do say radioisotope when they mean radionuclide or even radiopharmeceutical. But surely, we would not regard such sources as reliable sources so far as this terminology goes? In fact radioisotope, radionuclide and radiopharmeceutical are three different things, and the fact that they are often confused in some sources should not lead us to repeat their error. A source can be reliable for some information but not for other information.
 * Looking forward to your sources. Note that Wikipedia is not itself regarded as a reliable source, and in the case of those articles linked to above, perhaps that is just as well. Andrewa (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I understand, radioisotope and radionuclide are generally used interchangeably to refer to any unstable nuclide; at best, the difference would be similar to that between isotope and nuclide, i.e., whether they are of the same element. However, radiopharmeceutical unambiguously refers to drugs containing radioactive nuclides, and I don't see how it would be confused with the other two; even if it's used to refer to the bare nuclide (not technically correct), we would still only be dealing with a small subset of radionuclides.
 * The terminology used on Wikipedia should reflect the consensus of what is considered correct among reliable sources. Any potential mistakes can be rectified by simply following such a consensus in our article, citing other sources as appropriate. Of course Wikipedia should not blindly quote another source and propagate mistakes.
 * Here are several examples (this list is far from exhaustive) of usage:
 * – original discovery of plutonium, "radioactive element 94"
 * – some terminology confusion
 * – more of the same; perhaps in geology a looser definition is used
 * – although Phyiscs Today is not a peer-reviewed journal, it is the official magazine of the American Institute of Physics; the abstract calls radium a radioactive element
 * – about promethium, also uses the term "exclusively radioactive element"
 * – specifically names thorium and uranium as radioactive elements (alongside non-radioactive rare earth metals)
 * Complex / Rational 22:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)