Talk:Uranium/Archive 2

Jordan and uranium
This Israeli site: [Jordan uranium] talks about huge uranium mines in Jordan.Agre22 (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Navajo health problems
I came across this article and realized that I know next to nothing about the extent of health problems reported in Navajo uranium miners. Is there a good peer-reviewed source on the topic? 64.9.244.124 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is plenty:

--Stone (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People
 * Lung Cancer in a Nonsmoking Underground Uranium Miner
 * Uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men
 * Navajo Uranium Workers and the Effects of Occupational Illnesses: A Case Study
 * Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer Among Navajo Men in New Mexico and Arizona, 1969 to 1993
 * Lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners.

Mav's edits
Mav, one of the earliest and most respected contributors to this and other articles, removed a passage on this subject:
 * Miners who worked in uranium filled mines have a very high incidence of cancer relative to the rest of the United States population. Though the Navajo workers and families noticed this in the 1950s, bureaucrats dragged their feet, and companies disregarded warnings. The miners, especially the Navajo miners, were kept from receiving compensation for the suffering they went through.

as "uncited" even though the material in question was included in the link cited at the end of the paragraph where it was removed  I reverted  referencing this talk page section. A couple weeks later, Mav again reverted, with the edit comment "remove uncited material again". That edit included a number of trivial, unrelated edits. I intend to replace the substance of the comments and include the sources cited above. 76.254.71.252 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Inline cites are required after the sentence that presents a fact, figure or statement that is likely to get challenged. You can use the ref = name parameter to repeat the same reference (just look at the source text of this article for examples. That said, this material needs some clean-up and condensing before it is put back in the article. Also, the place for it is in the last sub-section of the History section since the production and mining section is about methods, output and the industry, not history. I started some clean-up in the below text. I will be working on this more during the weekend. Please note that I think some mention of this is important for this article to include. We just need to present this in a way that fits with the balance and tone of the rest of the article and complies with Wikipedia's style guidelines and attribution policies. --mav (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh - just realized that that last subsection of the history section needs an overhaul and possible splitting in two. This will be a natural time to include the mining cancer mention. --mav (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Miners who worked in uranium filled mines have a high incidence of cancer relative to the rest of the United States population. The miners were kept from receiving compensation.


 * In 1990 a law was passed known as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA) (Eichstaedt, 1994). The law required $100,000 in "compassion payments" to uranium miners diagnosed with cancer or other respiratory ailments (Eichstaedt, 1994; Benally Sr., 1995). To qualify for compensation, a miner had to prove that s/he had worked in the mines and was now suffering from one of the diseases on the compensation list (Eichstaedt, 1994; Benally Sr. 1995).

How does the removed text not fit within the "balance and tone of the rest of the article"? Do you wish to take issue with the factual accuracy of those statements? At this point I am particularly interested in the removal of the sentence, "Though the Navajo workers and families noticed [increased cancer rates] in the 1950s, bureaucrats dragged their feet, and companies disregarded warnings," which appears verbatim in the originally-cited source. Is there any question about any aspect of the factual accuracy of that sentence? If not, I would ask that the propositions contained therein be included in the article along with the other material which has now been removed a third time. 76.254.71.252 (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This paragraph would be too US centristic! The miners in all Uranium mines world-wide have been poisoned without proper warnings. The SDAG Wismut which mined Uranium for the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union worked at the same level. The workers new that it was dangerous but compensation for illnesses was not on the agenda.--Stone (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't say about SDAG Wismut, but heard about Soviet mines - people worked at really high levels, and many knew, but many (not all) were prosecuted criminals and had little choice. These kind of talks is a good reason for me to move such information to other articles (e.g. on uranium mining) and keep articles on elements free from politics. Materialscientist (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles on elements have to be free from politics? Should arsenic be scrubbed to accurately represent both the pro-poisoning and anti-poisoning points of view, just to maintain neutrality? 99.38.149.63 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an an encyclopedia article, so that is the tone required. There is also too much emphasis on one nation; so we need to strip this to its essentials (something that will be applicable to the USSR as well, for example). Then there is WP:NPOV; phrases such as "dragging their feet" and "disregarded warnings" do not conform to our neutrality policy since it is passing judgement and is not in a disinterested tone. --mav (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed dragging feet to delaying, and there seems to be ample factual basis supporting "disregarded warnings" -- is there any evidence to the contrary? How can saying uranium mining companies disregarded warnings pass judgment or be in an interested tone? Judgment was already passed in 1990 by Congress. The requirement that articles are supposed to be comprehensive, presenting both the pro- and con- points of view achieves neutrality more effectively and with a higher quality encyclopedia than trying to delete only the con- points of view that you think may portray history in a factually uncomfortable light. The latter is base censorship, while the former, including both points of view, is the explicit mandate of the earliest NPOV policies.  I recommend including both the pro-uranium and anti-uranium points of view in this article, and I tried again to present a compromise proposal. 99.60.3.194 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wording is better, but "delayed" and "disregarded" are still value judgments and/or opinions. See the relevant parts of the NPOV policy on that. Also, http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/sdancy.html does not look like a reliable source since there is no indication of editorial oversight or vetting of the material. Not to mention the fact that the Wismut are not even mentioned in that reference. So I removed that sentence. Please do not readd it. Found a great source for the cancer-mining link and used it to add a sentence to back-up the topic sentence about cancer risk. One more sentence about cancer links or other occupational hazards in other parts of the world should be added. --mav (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to replace the deleted text, but I accidentally hit enter too early on the edit summary, I tried to say "rv: per Stone's comment on talk, how can it be US-centric if it's representative of uranium miner cancer rates everywhere else, too?" 99.38.149.63 (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct ? Single source
"The largest single source of uranium ore in the United States was the Colorado Plateau located in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. "

Is this statement correct ? There were hundreds of small Uranium mines operating in the Colorado Plateau region. So how is this a single source. It was multiple sources.Eregli bob 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It could still say 'single source' even if there were multiple mines, because the uranium from all the mines could still all be said to be from the colorado plateau region, which could be lumped together as one source, but yes it could be worded different if what you say is true. Be bold and change it if you can verify it! SGGH 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"High-grade ores found in Athabasca Basin deposits in Saskatchewan, Canada can contain up to 70%"- Is this correct? It does not need any processing then. well, hardly any processing is needed and diluting with rock is a counter productive idea. Perhaps you meant 7%? Ck.mitra (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, official figures are max. 23% on average in certain mines. Still high, and processing is still needed - for purification and reliability (concentrations do fluctuate from rock to rock). I updated the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is a difference between ore and minerals. An ore can contain 70% U3O8 by volume. This should not be confused with a precentage of 235U. It is quite possible for a Canadian mine to have ore that consists of 70% U3O8 in which the "U" consists of the normal 99.2% 238U and 0.7% 235U. This U3O8 would have to still be concentrated and enriched to be able to be used in a light water reactor. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, you are taking U3O8 as the mineral and the mined "rock" as the ore. Whereas it is theoretically possible to have 70% U3O8 in a ore (by the way, the usual percentages for solids are w/w; i.e., 70 gms per 100 gms, in your example and not 70 ml in 100 ml, as you say) it is rare and I have not heard of. The other part is about isotopic concentrations and many large reactors can now burn natural U3O8 pellets (no enrichment needed). chami 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 70% U3O8 ore is rare, but it does happen in the Athabasca Basin. The richer deposits average in the 20% range, however grades within the deposits can get up to 85% U3O8.  Yes, that is 85% U3O8.  Turgan Talk 08:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the Depleted Uranium Projectile really flammable as is mentioned in the military use? I doubt it, but i haven't anything to back it up. "At high impact speed, the density, hardness, and flammability of the projectile enable destruction of heavily armored targets." --Alpine boarder (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uranium as small particles is flammable. On impact the temperature reaches ignition temperature and the kinetic energy leads to total fragmentation of the projectile after it crossed the armour. The text could be a little clearer that it is now, but the effect is described in literature.--Stone (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This is simpler than that. it basically depends on density and hardness. Higher density means greater mass for the same kinetic energy and less air friction. It also means that for the same size, stronger material can have thinner wall and more explosive. What happens on impact is more complex. Sometimes soft materials can deform and cause greater penetration. The spin can also make the projectile act like a drill bit and cause greater damage. A part of the charge is used for the propulsion and a part is the explosive proper (generates high local energy upon impact). These are complex and varies a lot. The ultimate objective is to focus a lot of energy on a small area of the target. I do not think the shell will burn off upon impact. At least it is not designed that way. chami 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nucleosynthesis of uranium in the stars ? Request of a new section
It would be worth to add a new section on the nucleosynthesis of uranium in the stars or supernovae and to explain under what conditions (what type of star ? what minimum star mass ? when ? ... ?) and by what mechanism uranium is produced in the universe. In advance, thank you very much for your contribution. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Peterindelft, 3 December 2010
Please change the reference to my page

{cite web| author = Peter van der Krogt |url = http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/elem/pu.html|title = Elementymology & Elements Multidict|accessdate = 2009-05-05}}

into the new url, which is

http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sym=U

The present link is dead.

Thanks,

Peter van der Krogt

Peterindelft (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, but different! not linked to U but to Pu .--Stone (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.137.150.141, 15 March 2011
it is not "urine" mutagenicity, but "murine"- namely in mice, in section animal effects. Can you please fix that. 70.137.150.141 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording for "Human exposure"
The article is so neat and well-written that I don't want to edit it directly but I was thinking since the prevailing, popular opinion seems to be that Uranium kills you on spot it could be (in one sentence) added that:

"The weak alpha radiation that Uranium emits poses little health risk since it does not penetrate the skin, however just as other heavy metals (e.g. lead) it does pose a risk of toxicity ingested due to accumulation in tissue. "

...or something along those lines, maybe it could be even included in the lead section, I think it is a relevant piece of information for an uninitiated person. Samarkandas valdnieks (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Specific heat
I noted that the specific heat seems to be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.121.44 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Verified the 27.665 J·mol−1·K−1 value in . See also Heat_capacities_of_the_elements_(data_page)Materialscientist (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation icon does not work
The loudspeaker icon (at the start of the article) does not play. Tried with FF and IE. --193.169.48.48 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutron Moderator Purpose Description Incorrect
This passage:

If these neutrons are absorbed by other uranium-235 nuclei, a nuclear chain reaction occurs that may be explosive unless the reaction is slowed by a neutron moderator, absorbing them.

is not correct. The purpose of the neutron moderator is not to absorb neutrons, but to reduce their kinetic energy. I.e. not to slow the reaction, but to slow the neutrons themselves. The moderator actually serves to increase the reaction-rate.

The cross-section, a measure of the probability of a neutron being absorbed, and subsequently causing fission, in a U-235 nucleus is much higher at low energies, ~5 barns at 1 KeV, than at typical fission-neutron energies ( ~1.5 barns at 2 MeV). See: Neutron cross section

A neutron undergoing elastic collisions with the nuclei of the moderator material transfers some energy to the moderator-nucleus at each collision, reducing its own energy, thereby increasing the cross-section. This allows more neutrons to initiate fission before they escape the fissile assembly. See: Neutron_Moderator

The rate of fission in a chain-reaction is controlled in a reactor with "control rods", made of a neutron-absorbing material such as cadmium. See: Control_rod

Also, it is extremely unlikely (to the point of near impossibility) for even a runaway chain-reaction to cause a nuclear-yield-level explosion in a reactor. Explosions such as those at Chernobyl and Fukushima resulted from the failure of cooling systems, not directly from fission.

I suggest this passage be changed to something like: ''If too many of these neutrons are absorbed by the U-235 nuclei, the chain-reaction will run out of control, damaging the reactor. To prevent this, neutrons are absorbed by control rods, which absorb some of the fission neutrons.''

NGPurves (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct. S  B Harris 15:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

a/an uranium salt
My understanding is that we use "an" before any word starting with a vowel sound even if it doesn't start with a vowel (e.g., an hour) and use "a" before any word starting with a non-vowel (i.e., consonant) sound even if it starts with a vowel (e.g., a university). That's why I choose to use "a uranium salt" rather than "an uranium salt." Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong. Warut 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Warut is correct, the pronounciation is "yoo-rey-nee-uhm", and since "y", in this case, is a consonant, it is indeed "a uranium salt". That concludes this discussion. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DU use as a shield: edit request, under 'Military' subheading
The following sentence, found in the second paragraph under 'applications' in 'military', needs improvement/correction:

...While the metal itself is radioactive, its high density makes it more effective than lead in halting radiation from strong sources such as radium....

The problem being, depleted uranium is not typically used for containment of the type of radiation that results from the decay of radium. Radium predominantly decays by alpha emission. A minute amount of radium is an isotope that decays by weak beta emission. Alphas and weak betas do not require dense heavy shielding. DU is not used for shielding alphas and weak betas. Lead is not even required to shield alphas and weak betas.

70.171.3.221 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)BGriffin

Error in Article
"High-grade ores found in Athabasca Basin deposits in Saskatchewan, Canada can contain up to 70% uranium oxides, and therefore must be diluted with waste rock prior to milling, as the undilute stockpiled ore could become critical and start a nuclear reaction."

No reference is offered for this claim - for good reason. It is false.

Only highly pure materials of very exacting design can create a nuclear chain reaction with natural uranium - deuterium (heavy water), carbon (graphite), or beryllium all work but must be extremely pure, as must the uranium (as a metal or oxide). And you can't just mix them together in a pile, it is necessary to create a carefully designed lattice of lumps of uranium separated by moderator. Any reference on nuclear engineering would make this abundantly clear (or any history of nuclear energy).

70.167.155.148 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed it to in order to reduce radiation exposure to workers. I don't have the reference handy, but I read this somewhere. I thing the percentage was 70%, not 20%.

....Only highly pure materials of very exacting design can create a nuclear chain reaction with natural uranium....And you can't just mix them together in a pile, it is necessary to create a carefully designed lattice of lumps of uranium separated by moderator.... This argument is fallacious. Nuclear fission chain reactions have occurred on earth without the careful design or even then current oversight of man. See the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

70.171.3.221 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)BGriffin


 * The argument is not fallacious for TODAY. It would have been falacious billions of years ago. If you would read that link, you'd see that it was easy to make reactors out of any old deposit of uranium only 1.7 billion years ago, when all uranium was 3% U-235 (what we'd call "enriched uranium" today). These days, when natural uranium is only 0.7% U-235, the chance of making an accidently critical reactor out of any natural material, is nil. S  B Harris 22:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I steal a ref off this page?
Hola!

I've been gnawing away at the breeder reactor article for a bit (among other things) and I followed a link from there to here.

Reference 29 on this page is most excellent: So excellent, I want to steal it to use on the breeder page. But there's no 'edit' links anywhere. How do I get into the guts of this thing to grab out that reference?

Thanks for any clue-in!

Morg00 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can't see the edit links that's probably because this page is semi-protected and you aren't an auto confirmed user yet. Try the very top of the page, "view source" should allow you to grab that reference.Reatlas (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I already tried the 'view source' trick, but I'm not too good at html, so I wimped out. I went and read up on auto confirmed. Aha! So, if it's just a matter of waiting a few days, I can do that, no worries. Thanks for the clue-in!

Morg00 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Article needs attention:

In the 'compounds'-'carbonate' section of this article, there is a wikitable that is jacked up....somehow. I went and read the help page on tables, but I'm not super familiar with this formatting. Since this is a featured article, I thought it best to post here. How do I get the attention of a good table editor to came and de-jackify this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morg00 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Lise Meitner
Hi All,

Under the heading of "Fission Research" I would like to see Lise Meitner's name being preceeded by "physicist" as her nephew's name bears the title. As is, the reference implies that she was not.

Thanks, Kclongstocking (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I interpreted the text a bit differently: It seems necessary to to mention that Otto Robert Frisch was a physicist in his own right and not a layman helping his physicist-aunt.
 * In the same paragraph, there is also mention of Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassman, without mentioning their professions. The only other time in the article that someone is designated as a physicist is in the History section, which mentions "physicist Francis Perrin", and the only time in the someone is designated as a chemist is in the Discovery section, which mentions "chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth".  It seems reasonable given the content to mention that Perrin was a physicist rather than a geologist and as a reader I'm marginally interested in knowing the profession of the discoverer of an element (usually a physicist or chemist or some combination).  I'd just as soon leave the "physicist" designations off Meitner, Strassman, Hahn, Fermi, etc. than go through the time and clutter to add them all in, but as long as it's reasonably consistent, my preference is slight.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Supply section outdated
It seems that the supply section is outdated, as it talks about 2009 as future events. Also the information contradicts what is stated in the "production and mining" section. I have no knowledge about uranium at all, and as such I don't feel qualified to edit. Maybe someone else is able? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.157.251.88 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Civilian
Apparently, there is something wrong with the numbers in the first paragraph. From my edition of the 61st "CRC Handbook of chemistry and physics", R.C. Weast, ed. (1981), p. B-45: "One pound of completely fissioned Uranium has the fuel value of over 1500 tons of coal." Not one kg. Taking the fuel value of coal as 24MJ/kg Coal, one arrives at 850 tonnes of coal. Johannes121 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC) this statement, "One kilogram of uranium-235 can theoretically produce about 80 terajoules of energy (8×1013 joules), assuming complete fission; as much energy as 3000 tonnes of coal.", is disinformative, pointed, the ref obscure, N.B.Theoretically there is as much energy in a cup of warm coffee,Sebastian barnes (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

use of natural
First section para 2 "In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%)." inappropriate, use of phrase "in nature i suggest,< Uranium metal obtained from nature consists of three isotopes in these proportions, uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), uranium-234 (0.0054%).> this use is repeated in Enrichment section.Sebastian barnes (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Isotopes... Subheading heading " Natural Concentrations"..?...inexplicable,,and I think redundent 1st para I question the use of natural in this context, it gives the impression that the ore in the ground is pure uranium, it is of course refined before analysis like this apply. N.B.The use of natural in describing uranium is documented in the Nuclear Fission article, it is a specialized meaning ,In the context of Nuc. Physics it defines uranium into unenriched and enriched forms. In this article(Uranium,section, Isotopes) the use of the specialized meaning is not indicated, is inappropriate, is confusingand disinformative for the general public who would assume the commonly understood meaning. see section Production and Mining usable ore is from O.25% to 23%,ALSO "Triuranium octaoxide is (depending on conditions) the most stable compound of uranium and is the form most commonly found in nature." there is then a number of processes "Uranium ore is crushed and rendered into a fine powder and then leached with either an acid or alkali. The leachate is subjected to one of several sequences of precipitation, solvent extraction, and ion exchange. The resulting mixture, called yellowcake, contains at least 75% uranium oxides. Yellowcake is then calcined to remove impurities from the milling process before refining and conversion." i assume the convertion process finally produces what is refered to in isotopes section, and elsewhere in other articles(eg.Nuclear Reactors), as "natural uranium". It is an unfortunate and confusing application of a specialist meaning of the word, i am sure most readers would not appreciate the narrow meaning placed on it by tradition in Nuclear Physics. There is a debate globaly on the meaning of "natural", law suits are pending in the U.S( Con AGRA) but appyling it in this context is streaching the meaning to extremes.Sebastian barnes (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

(In fact, U-235 and U-238 in that ratio is often referred to as a pseudoisotope called "U-nat", where the "nat" stands for "natural" - so you can e.g. specify that a given sample contains, say, "50 Bq/kg of U-nat" without specifying how many Bq/kg each of U-235, U-238 and U-234 there are (the activity concentration of U-234 will be implicit)). For some reason though, someone has added the word "refined" to the opening sentence of natural uranium. I'm fixing that. Kolbasz (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That use of "natural" or "in nature" is perfectly fine - both as general English and as jargon. What you find in nature is unenriched, unirradiated uranium. That has a specific isotopic ratio. That ratio is the same no matter if it's uranium in trace amounts in soil or uranium in highly concentrated ore. The chemical composition does not matter.


 * Agree with Kolbasz. Isotope ratios as found in nature are, by common and understood usage, natural; until changed by enrichment, the isotope ratios are constant regardless of the uranium concentration. Plazak (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by contributors to /Temp and mav 11:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC). Elementbox converted 10:57, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:00, 15 July 2005).
 * (reconstruct sign: -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC) : original sign: Femto (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

OECD Report 2003
OECD 2003: Estimated uranium reserves < 130$/kgU 2.3 mio. t with 1.5 mio. t < 80$/kgU Unconventional uranium reserves from phosphates much higher 22 mio. t and seawater 4000 mio. t with cost for phosphate uranium just about easy already payable 60-100$/kgU! if not done now after to late ! and seawater uranium just 300$/kgU with 2003 datas today with better technology after new reports. Additional 4.5 mio. t thorium reserves and resources known all also usable ! Worldwide used coal has additional 10 000t uranium and 25 000t thorium. 300$/kgU for seawater uranium is economic price already with maybe lower price over new technology see folowwing reports and if U238 breeding to Pu used cheaper/kWh than before so that there is no practical U+Th limit with >10TW >2000(00)years possible using phosppate+sea water uranium, recycling, breeding+thorium.

http://books.google.de/books?ie=UTF-8&id=_-VTQFriX1gC&pg=PP1&printsec=0&lpg=PP1&sig=-mP4HmabXOLgq9uKz4nlm6okz9M&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false OECD REPORT 2003 LINK

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html "In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)" "Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh, i.e. less than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon."

MAYBE Cohan a little wrong with <0.001€/kWh possible using also recycling and convertion factor also calculatable over fission energy of 204MeV - 12MeV neutrinos * atom number for 7g U235 in 1 kg uranium and about 3g for convertion factor about 0.45 wit 0.7 possible and 100$/Ukg actual price with efficiency 50% also < 0.001$/kWh and always with breeding far away from relevance !

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20120821-00 http://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=938

BGR must substract recycling cost effort but must add additional energy from recycling for 1 kg uranium with any conversion factor. 12MeV von Elektron-Antineutrinos aus Spaltfragment-Betazerfall sind von 204 MeV abzuziehen. Die Teilchenzahl pro ein Mol Stoffmenge (Avogadro-Konstante) hat den Wert: Ein Mol eines Stoffes enthält also ca. 602 Trilliarden Teilchen dieses Stoffes. 1 mol U235 wiegt etwa 235g. 1 kW·h = 2,25 · 1025 Elektronenvolt. 10g U235 enthalten also ca. 1 mol * 10 / 235 U235 Atome die gespalten jeweils 192 MeV als thermische Energie freisetzten also ca. exakt 218676,3362042553191489361702127 kWh. Bei aktuell ca. 100$/kgU macht das etwa 100/218676=0.045729755$-Cent pro kWh(th) bei 50% Effizienz sind das <0.1$/Cent/kWhe bei aktuell 1 € = 1,2912$ kann Effizienz auch niedriger liegen für <= 0.1€-Cent/kWhe wobei 10g ca. Konversionsfaktor 0.45 entsprechen aber durchaus auch 0.7 sein & dazu Recyclingverlust. Exakt sind auch im Mittel 0,72 % U235 in 1 kg Uran dazu 0,0055 % U234 Spuren von U236 99,27 % U238. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.81.106 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating
Hello, I'm translating the article to Catalan. I think the "Supplies" section should be updated with more recent numbers and some sentences removed/rewritten (ie. "Kazakhstan continues to increase production and may have become the world's largest producer of uranium by 2009" is cleary outdated). Also, and the sentence "The ultimate available uranium is believed to be sufficient for at least the next 85 years" should be rewritten in a way that it is not time-dependant - ie. 85 years from when? Maybe it's better to write "The ultimate available uranium is believed to be sufficient until at least 2090".--Arnaugir (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

native uranium as a mineral
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Uranium. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uraniumsa.org/processing/processing.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Halflives
Are all the entries in the list of isotope halflife good? Contrast U236's entry of 2.342×10^7 y	 with: "Upon bombardment with slow neutrons, its uranium-235 isotope becomes a very short-lived uranium-236 isotope, which immediately divides into two smaller nuclei, releasing nuclear binding energy and more neutrons."Alexlaw65 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "very short-lived uranium-236 isotope" is U-236 in an excited state but the half-life 2.342×107 y is for U-236 at the ground state. Upon absorbing a slow neutron, U-235 will become U-236 in an excited state and immediately undergo fission 82% of the time or de-excite by gamma emission to become U-236 at the ground state the remaining 18% of the time (the numbers are from here). I'll fix the article the best I can. Warut (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The correction is obvious: it should be "uranium-236m", but the shortest way to write it is "236mU" or "236Um". The article does not mention, in the case of "very short-lived uranium-236 isotope", that "uranium-236" is in an isomeric state. And that concludes this discussion. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More likely 236fU as a fission isomer. Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Add something
Possession of up to 15 pounds of natural uranium is legal for private individuals. Please add this to the page. 108.66.232.239 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

How much is legal
I once heard that you can carry only a specified amount of pure uranium in a room before you are caught by law. I checked the article and it has nothing on uranium and the law. If you have anything, please put it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clammybells (talk • contribs) 01:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is 15 pounds. 108.66.232.239 (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Duplicated link in See Also section
Minor book keeping- it lists List of Countries by Uranium Reserves twice in the See Also section. Is there a way to unlock the page and fix that? Chilokver (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Uranium 2+ now known in soluble molecular species
There are now two published examples of uranium in the 2+ oxidation state, as characterized structurally (X-ray) and specatroscopically (NMR, magnetics, etc). I think it is reasonable to change the sentence "A few solid and semi-metallic compounds such as UO and US exist for the formal oxidation state uranium(II), but no simple ions are known to exist in solution for that state." to be current. The two literature examples are: 10.1021/ja406791t (JACS, W.J. Evans) and 10.1002/anie.201402050 (Angewandte, K. Meyer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.7 (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This comment has stood for just under two years. I would like to update the relevant section/sentences soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.178.2 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does Uranium originate ?
I can't find anything about this in the article, there should be an explanation of creation mechanism. Supernovas ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From the "Occurrence" section: "Along with all elements having atomic weights higher than that of iron, it is only naturally formed in supernovae." Primordial thorium and uranium are only produced in the r-process (rapid neutron capture), because the s-process (slow neutron capture) is too slow and cannot pass the gap of instability after bismuth. Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved that info to separate "Origin" subsection to make it easy to find as it was buried in a section covering where it is found. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017
You guys have it all wrong...

Go to 0:09 in the following video for the REAL definition of Uranium: https://twitter.com/tonyposnanski/status/832329218629521408 71.220.20.63 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  06:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017
Barifi (talk)

According to Dr Donald Trump's definition,"Uranium is this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things."


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  08:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017
Can we edit this article to add President Trump’s definition of Uranium to include, “Uranium is nuclear weapons and other things”? 214.3.17.38 (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see the responses of the relatively same edit request. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  14:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017
" Its the Thing called nuclear weapons and other things" Donald j Trump on uranium press conference Feb 16 2017 Magiktheprodigy (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 08:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017
Should be edited to include where Uranium was discovered, the article already lists date of discovery and by whom, it should include location. 165.29.122.157 (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2017‎
 * Please clarify what you want added. The article already says it was discovered in the lab in Berlin.  RudolfRed (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Uranium. 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/20160307160941/http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/Thorium.pdf to http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/thorium.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226091803/https://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm to https://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923135135/http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.pdf to http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/amdc/nubase/Nubase2003.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) 22:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Uranium. 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/20070427084707/http://ie.lbl.gov/toi/nucSearch.asp to http://ie.lbl.gov/toi/nucSearch.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120401000958/http://www.hlchina.com/gmastatement.html to http://www.hlchina.com/gmastatement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929153029/http://www.kemi.kth.se/medusa/ to http://www.kemi.kth.se/medusa/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130113114319/http://www.wise-uranium.org/dhap991.html to http://www.wise-uranium.org/dhap991.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917020215/http://www.opticsjournal.com/dlp.htm to http://www.opticsjournal.com/dlp.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928164044/http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs27uran.htm to http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs27uran.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) 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uranium. 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/20090113013838/http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=717292 to http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=717292

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) 09:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uranium. 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/20070410165316/http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html to http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

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) 09:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Decay chains
Hi

in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Natural_concentrations there are several links that suggest to link to a description of the actual decay chain: "The decay series of 235U, which is called the actinium series, ...." "Uranium-234, which is a member of the uranium series (the decay chain of uranium-238), ..." But all three link in these sentences end in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_series That is frustrating if you actually want to see the decay chain.

Please change this. No, I can't. I'm in a rush.2A02:8108:88C0:3E8:B4E7:1316:67A:F1D7 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

damn it. forgot the headline. Also here in this sentence: ", decaying through the "Uranium Series" of nuclear decay, " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:88C0:3E8:B4E7:1316:67A:F1D7 (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a header for this. The decay series article includes all four actinide decay chains; I have changed the links to point directly to the relevant sections. Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

19 June 2018
Hi (sorry if I do something wrong; I'm new here) This is just a very small request and it's not that big of a deal but I noticed it and think it should be changed so people don't get confused. At the start, it says "It is a silvery-white metal...", but later in the box thing under General properties in the Appearance section it says "silvery grey metal...". Uranium is actually a silvery-grey metal so the second sentence should change from "It is a silvery-white metal in the actinide series of the periodic table." to "It is a silvery-grey metal... ". I don't think this needs sources... (am I right??) --Mshe40 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Radioactivity
The article states, in all its content, the radioactivity of the element and the use of it. But beside its radioactivity I suppose that it has also physical, chemical properties. Is it that way that with whichever other element it "associates" the radioactivity will not disappear?

145.129.136.48 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, all uranium compounds are radioactive because they contain radioactive uranium atoms. Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Origin section is 20 years out of date
"Along with all elements having atomic weights higher than that of iron, uranium is only naturally formed in supernovae." The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA, et al., have claimed now for decades that elements heavier than iron did not form via supernovae. The NAS with NASA published Eleven Science Questions for the New Century with questions #10, "How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?". Why did they ask this (contrary to the certainty of our WP article)? First, there are insufficient neutrons in a supernova to create a large quantity of neutron-rich heavy elements. Second, telescopes looking at actual supernovas do not detect the heavy element spectral emissions that they should if they had been created there. The current favored theory is neutron star collisions or neutron star black hole collisions. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. The article indeed was misleading in this sense, as r-process nucleosynthesis can occur either in supernovae or neutron star mergers. I amended the article to account for this, and I may expand upon it later. ComplexRational (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick ComplexRational. I noted that you had edited the article. Based on your edit you think it reasonable to leave supernovae in there. The few sources I've read omit that as a possibility. But, I'm not an expert and I'm happy to see some progress on this. Thanks! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2019
2405:205:500D:E2DA:A9D5:80E:89D6:369A (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC) is this legal to search about uranium235
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"Uraniam" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uraniam. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020
On the Uranium wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium), under the section "Biotic and abiotic". Following this sentence "Some bacteria, such as Shewanella putrefaciens, Geobacter metallireducens and some strains of Burkholderia fungorum, use uranium for their growth and convert U(VI) to U(IV).[59][60]" I believe you should add this sentence: "Recent work suggests that this reduction from U(VI) to U(IV) proceeds via a U(V) intermediate in microbial systems [A][B]."

Using the following references: [A] https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05285, [B] https://doi.org/10.1021/es048232b ,

Thank you 109.181.50.28 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done And thank you for providing the references. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pourbaix diagrams
Under pourbaix diagrams there are two diagrams that are pH/fraction which shouldn´t be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:5128:557:C665:6995:304B (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The production and mining section graphs are 10y out of date
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Production_and_mining Does anyone have good sources about the aggregated worldwide production/mining of Uranium which can help in updating it? I could (re)make the graph if I have the numbers. :-)

EnergyIntel (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Black light?
Doesn't uranium show up naturally under a black light, or is that just for Uranium glass? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Uranium itself is not fluorescent, but glass with uranyl nitrate in it is. CassandraRC7 (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Ranking as Vital Article
I was wondering why Uranium is NOT ranked among the top 1000 vital articles altough it seems to be in excellent condition. Oil, Gas, Coal is but not Uranium. Although it is a major Energy source in many countries. I don't know yet how this is decided so it might be a noob question but I'd love to see the reasoning. For the ranking see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Current_total_(1,001_articles)

EnergyIntel (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Uranium is a level four vital article, and nuclear power is a level three vital article like coal. CassandraRC7 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image alt-text needs copyediting
The description in the image alt-text says the gloves are brown, but they're orange. Was whoever wrote this colorblind or have I stumbled on another "gold dress" scenario? There's also a minor typo. I would fix all that myself, but I don't know how to edit that text. --JDspeeder1 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
I am reviewing this very old FA as part of WP:URFA/2020, an effort to determine whether old featured articles still meet the featured article criteria. The original nominator at FAC has not edited in years, the article has not been updated and has not kept up with standards, the readable prose size is 40% larger than the version that passed FAC (meaning there is a good deal of unvetted content), and I'm leaving a notice that a Featured article review is needed at WP:FARGIVEN. Reviewing this version: Similar is found everywhere one looks; a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed here, along with prose checking and a MOS tuneup; this is just a starter list. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several unaddressed items on this talk page.
 * There is MOS:SANDWICHing and a general jamup of images.
 * There is considerable text that has not been updated since the 2006 FAC, sample only: It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of uranium exists in ore reserves that are economically viable at US$59 per lb of uranium,[76] while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction).[77] Prices went from about $10/lb in May 2003 to $138/lb in July 2007. This has caused a big increase in spending on exploration,[76] with US$200 million being spent worldwide in 2005, a 54% increase on the previous year.[77]
 * The Supplies section has been tagged as needing update for five years.
 * There is uncited text.
 * There are short choppy one-sentence paras, eg here.
 * See also needs pruning.
 * There are incomplete citations (all citations need a publisher, websites need a last access date)
 * There is serious overlinking (you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to see dup links)
 * There are WP:MEDRS issues, eg Uranium miners have a higher incidence of cancer. An excess risk of lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners, for example, has been documented and linked to their occupation.[52]
 * There are dead links, eg "uranium". Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group, Inc.
 * Cited to 2001 ... still true ? The gas centrifuge process, where gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) is separated by the difference in molecular weight between 235UF6 and 238UF6 using high-speed centrifuges, is the cheapest and leading enrichment process.[30]

This page incorrect to credit Oppenheimer over truth.
This page Gives way to much credit to Oppenheimer who hade little to do with much of the splitting of the atom, fusion, or the development of the a-bomb or the Maud/ Manhattan project.

Fact.

A team run by Ernest Rutherford & Marcus Oliphant split the atom.

It was Marcus Oliphant of Australia who was the main person responsible for the creation of the Manhattan project & the A-bomb.

“Oliphant also formed part of the MAUD Committee, which reported in July 1941, that an atomic bomb was not only feasible, but might be produced as early as 1943. Oliphant was instrumental in spreading the word of this finding in the United States, thereby starting what became the Manhattan Project. Later in the war, he worked on it with his friend Ernest Lawrence at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, developing electromagnetic isotope separation, which provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant

Ernest Rutherford

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

Also Australia has control of around 40% of the worlds supply of uranium.

I really think it’s important to be accurate on a page like this. 49.178.191.57 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Diuranium" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Diuranium and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 01:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)