Content deleted Content added
Spartan117009 (talk | contribs) |
Solomonfromfinland (talk | contribs) →Clutter: new section Tag: New topic |
||
| (464 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{physics|class=|importance=}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
{{oldpeerreview}}{{WPCD}} |
|||
|action1=PR |
|||
{{Chemical Element|class=B|importance=High}} |
|||
|action1date=21:11, 21 February 2007 |
|||
Article changed over to new [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements]] format by contributors to [[/Temp]] and [[User:Maveric149|mav]] 11:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC). Elementbox converted 10:57, 17 July 2005 by [[User:Femto|Femto]] (previous revision was that of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&oldid=18858888 02:00, 15 July 2005]). |
|||
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Uranium/archive1 |
|||
|action1result=reviewed |
|||
|action1oldid=109812699 |
|||
|action2=FAC |
|||
=== Information Sources === |
|||
|action2date=03:45, 3 March 2007 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uranium |
|||
|action2result=promoted |
|||
|action2oldid=112241714 |
|||
|action3=GTC |
|||
Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements]] but was reformatted and converted into [[SI]] units. |
|||
|action3date=21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Actinides/archive1 |
|||
|action3result=promoted |
|||
|action4 = FAR |
|||
---- |
|||
|action4date = 2023-08-05 |
|||
Caution needs to be exercised in using the words fissile and fissionable. |
|||
|action4link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Uranium/archive1 |
|||
|action4result = demoted |
|||
|action4oldid = 1167622681 |
|||
|action5 = GTR |
|||
U-238 is fissionable, and fast fission of U-238 delivers much of the power in three-stage |
|||
|action5date = 09:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
fission-fusion-fission weapons. But it is not fissile, and contributes little to the power of a thermal or near-thermal power reactor (the PWR and BWR are not fully thermalised, owing to the competing need to reduce neutron losses). |
|||
|action5link = Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Actinide/archive1 |
|||
|action5result = Removed |
|||
|maindate=March 19, 2007 |
|||
U-235 and U-233 are fissile. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 17:01 20 Jun 2003 (UTC) |
|||
|currentstatus=FFA |
|||
}} |
|||
{{afd-merged-from|Uranium pentaiodide|Uranium pentaiodide|4 June 2021}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Elements|importance=Top|1=old-peer-review|vital=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Mining|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=High|auto=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 2 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(730d) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Uranium/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
== Atomic weight should be 238.028906 ±0.00027, not 238.02891 ±0.0003 == |
|||
---- |
|||
We reproduce a rounded figure here from the 2013 CIAAW report, but the 2000 report (https://www.ciaaw.org/pubs/EXER-2000.pdf) included a more precise figure before rounding. I tried to edit the underlying wikidata entry but do not see the changes reflected here. [[User:Anomalistic|Anomalistic]] ([[User talk:Anomalistic|talk]]) 16:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
Shouldn't the atomic weight (somewhere around 210-250 or so) be mentioned in the article? [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep]] 22:03, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
|||
== Physics == |
|||
:In the table now. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 11:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Gy [[User:Abeeb olasupo|Abeeb olasupo]] ([[User talk:Abeeb olasupo|talk]]) 19:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
== Physics == |
|||
Question: The text says "Because uranium has such a long radioactive half-life (4.47x109 years for U-238), the total amount of it on Earth stays almost the same." However, this isn't strictly true -- the half-life implies that there's only about half the amount of uranium left of what existed when the Earth was created. --[[User:Guan|Guan]] 19:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmm, yeah, that doesn't make much sense, I don't think. I've removed it -- better to omit something like that than to have it be wrong, I think. If someone knows better, please re-insert it. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 04:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
This article should probably link to the articles on radiomentirc dating since there are a few radiometric dating methods than measure uranium isotopes--[[User:Petaholmes|nixie]] 01:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:I added a small line about it to the "applications" section. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 04:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Which metal is used for containers that store radioactive sources? Answer in words not symbols. [[User:Abeeb olasupo|Abeeb olasupo]] ([[User talk:Abeeb olasupo|talk]]) 19:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
anl.gov is down right now, so I can't check [[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]]'s statement about the hazards of the decay products. However, U238 is an alpha emitter, the next two decay products are beta emitters, leaving U234. The alpha emitters are far more dangerous than beta's because alphas are typically very high energy, and for a given energy they are more damaging. U234 is an alpha, but the next decay product, Th230 has a half life of 80,000 years, so very little of it builds up in human timescales. As for U235, an alpha emitter, the next daughter is a beta emitter, and the next is Th 231 with a half life of 32,500 years, so it doesn't have time to build up. To summarize, the radiation of the parent uranium isotopes are far more hazardous than the daughters. [[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 02:15, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) |
|||
:From [http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf ANL.gov]: |
|||
:: Uranium is not considered a chemical carcinogen. A second concern is for uranium deposited in bone, which can lead to bone cancer as a result of the ionizing radiation associated with the radioactive decay products. Uranium has caused reproductive problems in laboratory animals and developmental problems in young animals, but it is not known if these problems exist for humans. |
|||
:Additionally, the decay series of uranium-238 is not trivial; it is what is responsible for [[radon]] gas and its own hazardous daughter products. As I understand it. (I'm not trying to trump up its danger, I'm just trying to get it right). --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 16:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Lead storage containers can be used to store and transport radioactive material. The standard outside and inside finishing is coated lead so there is no exposure to the lead by personnel. A stainless steel finishing is also available to provide a stronger housing. [[User:Rawsar6|Rawsar6]] ([[User talk:Rawsar6|talk]]) 22:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::What I tried to say is that in a time scale of less than a few thousand years, the radioactivity of the daughters is insignificant because they don't have time to build up. You won't get significant radon from a piece of uranium in our lifetime. [[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 21:28, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) |
|||
:::So how does that accord with the information from Argonne and the fact that significant amounts of radon gas are emitted by uranium deposits? --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 22:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::Simple: pure, refined uranium is no significant radiation hazard, because it needs time to decay into dangerous daughter products. Natural uranium exists in equilibrium with its daughter products, and therefore poses a slight, but still significant radiation hazard. |
|||
==Answers.com?== |
|||
:::The Argonne information conflicts with what the Uranium Information Centre Ltd [http://www.uic.com.au/nip53.htm] and others have claimed. My guess is that it is only a minor hazard from the ionizing radiation of uranium. On the other hand, uranium deposits are generally much older than the few hundred thousand years it takes for the daughters to build up to equilibrium. Most obnoxious is radon because it is a gas that travels, and it deposits radioactive daughters Pb214 and Bi214 inside peoples lungs. Back before computer monitors were antistatic coated, one could wipe off the dust and detect Pb214 and the Bi214 with a Geiger counter, and watch it decay away. See [http://www.uic.com.au/neAp2.htm Nuclear Electricity] for a nice chart of the decay chains for U238 and U235. [[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 22:58, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC) |
|||
What is with the references being answer.com? Seems cheesy and is rather indirect. |
|||
::::So who do we go with? Argonne National Lab, or an organization which is funded by uranium miners and whose articles seem to be bent on portraying uranium as harmless? A google search for "uranium bone ionizing radiation site:.gov" seems to imply that there are quite a lot of US government sites out there which report that uranium deposits itself into bone and can be cancer causing. |
|||
From [http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Depleted-Uranium.pdf ANL.GOV Depleted Uranium], we find that 30mg of uranium will cause ''Potential irreversible adverse effects''. The specific activity of natural uranium is 6.77E-7 Ci/gram. So this 30mg is about 20,000 pCi. From [http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/Uranium.pdf ANL.GOV Uranium], we find that the lifetime cancer risk for ingesting U238 is 7.5E-11 /pCi. I use U238 as the numbers are just a bit less for the other isotopes. So if we eat 30mg of uranium we will get sick but have a lifetime risk of cancer of 1.5E-6, or 1.5 in a million. I would say that the risk of getting cancer by ingesting uranium is insignificant compared to getting sick by chemical poisoning. [[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 00:54, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree completely with that, but I think stating forcefully that it is not a carcinogen is simply incorrect, whether or not it is a very potent one. I'm aware, of course, that nearly every substance is a carcinogen to some degree, but I believe I once read (I can look this up) that the FDA defines (or maybe just defined) a chemical as a carcinogenic risk if it would cause cancer in 1 out of a million people, so 1.5 would be well within that. Anyway though, I can look that up. I don't remember the exact specification or whether it was in the past tense or not. In any event, I am again not trying to overstate the radioactive dangers of uranium (and I'm aware it is part of a more contentious debate over DU) because it is clear to me anyway that its toxicity dangers are far more likely to have an effect (and, in the case of DU weapons or nuclear weapons, the ''intended'' death-causing mechanisms are going to be much more effective than this sort of thing!), but I don't want to under-state it either.--[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 03:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::How about ''Uranium is a very weak carcinogen. Chemical toxicity, especially to the kidneys, is a greater health risk than radiological effects.'' Applies even more so to depleted uranium because it is about half as radioactive. [[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 23:16, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC) |
|||
Uranium metal reacts with almost all non-metal elements (with the exception of the [[noble gas]]es) and their [[chemical compound|compounds]], with reactivity increasing with temperature.{{cite encyclopedia|title=uranium|encyclopedia=Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia|url=http://'''www.answers.com'''/uranium|publisher=Columbia University Press|edition=6th|access-date=27 September 2008|archive-date=27 July 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727194715/http://'''www.answers.com'''/uranium|url-status=dead}} |
|||
==A leading encyclopedia has articles on the following four topics== |
|||
As little as {{cvt|15|lb}} of uranium-235 can be used to make an atomic bomb.{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security|publisher=The Gale Group, Inc.|title=uranium|url=http://'''www.answers.com'''/uranium|access-date=27 September 2008|archive-date=27 July 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727194715/http://www.answers.com/uranium|url-status=dead}} |
|||
# [[Uranium Processing]] |
|||
# [[Uranium Series]] |
|||
# [[Uranium-234-Uranium-238 Dating]] |
|||
# [[Uranium-Thorium-Lead Dating]] |
|||
He named the newly discovered element after the planet [[Uranus]] (named after the primordial [[Uranus (mythology)|Greek god of the sky]]), which had been discovered eight years earlier by [[William Herschel]].{{cite encyclopedia|edition=4th|title=Uranium|encyclopedia=The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Company|url=http://'''www.answers.com'''/uranium|access-date=15 January 2007|archive-date=27 July 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727194715/http://'''www.answers.com'''/uranium|url-status=dead}} |
|||
It would be good if we can show we have the same coverage (by able to redirect this titles to pages containing the same sort of information. Any ideas? [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 3 July 2005 10:08 (UTC) |
|||
--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 17:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|||
== Melting Point Discrepancy == |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|||
* [[commons:File:Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg|Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-03-25T22:44:09.113725 | Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg --> |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuclear Power Plant 2.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 22:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023 == |
|||
The info box lists the melting point of uranium as 1405 kelvin or 2912 farenheight. These are rather different temperatures. Even if you try using the value given for kelvin as a celcius figure it's still off. Which one is correct? [[User:Icelight|Icelight]] 20:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/U/heat.html] says 1405.3 K and 2070 F, I guess the fahrenheit one is incorrect. --[[User:Kudz75|kudz75]] 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit semi-protected|Uranium|answered=yes}} |
|||
==What's a "ton"?== |
|||
urainum is found in most cheeses [[Special:Contributions/86.13.252.226|86.13.252.226]] ([[User talk:86.13.252.226|talk]]) 11:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Actualcpscm|Actualcpscm]] ([[User talk:Actualcpscm|talk]]) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC) |
|||
"...and poses significant health threat and environmental impact." should be "...and poses a significant health threat..." or "...and poses significant health threats..." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:YSWEISS|YSWEISS]] ([[User talk:YSWEISS#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/YSWEISS|contribs]]) 15:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
What are the "tons" for U.S. production? I'd guess metric tons, but maybe short tons? Or even long tons, which until at least a few decades ago were used for some mining such as iron ore production in the U.S. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
"...The development and deployment of these nuclear reactors continue on a global base as they are powerful sources of CO2-free energy." Should be "The development and deployment of these nuclear reactors continue on a global base as they are powerful sources energy." The fuel cycle of nuclear plants is not CO2-free. Mining, enrichment, and disposal are high CO2 pollutants. Only the operating part of the cycle is free of CO2 emissions. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:1C0:6701:C850:DF0C:A1ED:F89C:E4BC|2601:1C0:6701:C850:DF0C:A1ED:F89C:E4BC]] ([[User talk:2601:1C0:6701:C850:DF0C:A1ED:F89C:E4BC#top|talk]]) 21:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
The article says "by the time it is completely fissioned, uranium produces as much electricity as 1500 tons of coal.[2]", without saying how much uranium that produce as much electricity as 1500 tons of coal (the source say one pound), and neither which form of uranium (natural, 2-3% enriched, pure U-235?), I guess the second or what kind of ton. |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023 == |
|||
==Cameco== |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Uranium|answered=yes}} |
|||
I made a few corrections about the reference to Cameco Corporation. Cameco mines uranium in the Athabasca Basin, not the "Athabaska." In Saskatchewan, it has two operating uranium mines (Rabbit Lake and McArthur River), one mine in development (Cigar Lake), and one mill (Key Lake). [[User:Jamin Cristall|jamin24601]] 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The final sentence in the first paragraph states that uranium can be eaten and is an extremely dense source of calories. This is patently false; uranium is toxic, the energy referred to here is the energy released upon fission and hence not usable by the human body, and the citation used says little if anything to support the statement. Please remove the sentence entirely. [[Special:Contributions/82.0.251.175|82.0.251.175]] ([[User talk:82.0.251.175|talk]]) 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{already done}} by {{u|Praseodymium-141}}; thanks for pointing this out. <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Clutter == |
||
In the article "[[Isotopes of uranium]]", i edited out an astonishing amount of unnecessary verbiage, particularly from the section "Uranium-234". Okay? [[User:Solomonfromfinland|Solomonfromfinland]] ([[User talk:Solomonfromfinland|talk]]) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
What is the standard for "isolation" of a metal? |
|||
As a metal from ore, wouldn't it date to antiquated iron-age smelting, for early contact with, say, a 50% refined element -- 1500s? What is the chance that early ore-seekers would come upon rich enough deposits? [[User:Nrcprm2026|Nrcprm2026]] 19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Isotopes== |
|||
The last two paragraphs of this section look strange. The first is: |
|||
''Given that the half life of <sup>235</sup>U is considerably shorter than <sup>238</sup>U, the "depleted" uranium is still significantly radioactive, as is the natural uranium after refining.'' |
|||
This reads as a non sequitur. The actual activity of DU will depend on how much <sup>235</sup>U is present, and the relative activities of <sup>235</sup>U and <sup>238</sup>U. Is that what the original author was trying to say, or something else? |
|||
The last paragraph begins: |
|||
''Another way to look at this is as follows: [[Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor]]s (PHWR) use natural uranium (0.71% fissile material) [...]'' |
|||
This sounds like someone is trying to persuade the reader, or (worse) the author of the preceeding paragraph, as opposed to just laying down the facts. |
|||
I recommend they be removed, and perhaps the details on enrichment be left as a simple wikilink. [[User:Mdf|mdf]] 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Combustion products - refs == |
|||
Please add full reference information for the sources given in this new section. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 14:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:The section was copied from [[Uranium trioxide]] which has full references; I have included it as the main article for the section. --''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 14:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Which, as the talk page shows, seems to be highly contested. Only James S. seems to be pushing this line. I don't know enough about the topic to know the state of the literature but the fact that it is one person against about three or four makes me very suspicious that it is original research, especially since James seems to be personally involved in trying to petition about these issues in his real life. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::There are other editors supporting my efforts; the controversy was apparent long before I got here. I'm the only one who bothers to go to the library on a regular basis to check facts -- with which there are serious problems on both sides of the debate. Some people are far more anti-DU than I am, believing it is equivalent to the use of nuclear weapons. My edits, which are well-supported with sources from the peer-reviewed and scholarly medical and scientific literature, represent the truth as best as I can determine it. I admit that I am opposed to DU weapons, but I was not in 2004 before I started looking at the question. --''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm not getting into the dispute one way or another, I'm just pointing out that there ''is'' one, and that you seem to be the primary person pushing a particular approach, one clearly linked with a personal agenda, claiming to be pursuing the "truth" (rather than a reflection of the current literature, which is what Wikipedia aspires for itself), which raises my eyebrow a bit as the standard habit of POV-pushers. But I do not claim competency in the subject matter so I'm not arguing one way or another; just pointing out that I'm fairly suspicious. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::The combustion products are verisitiel and strongly depend on the conditions. The main dispute on the UO3 page is not which comustion products occure, but which state they are in. Solid or vapour at standart conditions. --[[User:Stone|Stone]] 11:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::After rereading the literature I now state there is no literature on uranium combustion products which states that UO3 is a primary combustion product. Indications are there but no research. Also possible to be a secondary combustion product. --[[User:Stone|Stone]] 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Question about the <sup>236</sup>U half life == |
|||
The article says that <sup>236</sup>U is "very short lived", yet the half life listed for it is 23 million years. What is going on here? [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 14:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Decorporation therapies == |
|||
How about the top five? ... Decorporation therapies are already acknoledged by several authorities as essential for exposure victims, and the correct toxicological response to exposure to the highly-soluble uranyl-laden forms such as UO3(g) and to a lesser extent U3O8(s), is a notable aspect of health and safety concerns. --''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I'll start: |
|||
# 3,4,3-LIHOPO --''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 05:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Mitigation therapies == |
|||
Is anyone interested in [http://www.protandim.com/how-protandim-works.htm substances which decrease lipid oxidation] by stimulating cellular production of enzymes such [[superoxide dismutase]] and [[catalase]]? --''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Spill cleanup == |
|||
We need a list of the top five plants. [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jun00/soil0600.htm] [http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jun00/form0600.htm] [http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_80807.htm] [http://www.uraweb.org/reports/anrc9803.pdf] [http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:-TmLbYa1ytwJ:www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lrpcd/rr/introphy.htm] |
|||
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=uranium+phytoremediation] |
|||
The bacteria (e.g. [http://web.umr.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2000/Deinococcus_radiodurans.html ''deinococcus radiodurans''] [http://www.jgi.doe.gov/sequencing/why/microbesseq.html more]) mutate so quickly I'm amazed that the plants can even hold on to their [[chlorophyll]] patterns, but apparently there are a few of them which are now very good at it. --''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
How are spills cordoned off? --''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Largest Exporter == |
|||
''In spite of Australia's huge reserves, Canada remains the largest exporter of uranium ore with mines located in Athabasca basin in northern Saskatchewan. Cameco, the world’s largest, low-cost uranium producer accounting for 18% of the world’s uranium production, operates 3 mines in the area.'' |
|||
I believe that has to be updated now, in light of the deal signed between Australia and China, it (according to the news segment) makes Australia the worlds largest exporter, if i can find a news link that says this and outlines the %'s exported, i will update it, unless someone else can first--[[User:Nirvana-|Nirvana-]] 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Hold on. Export from Australia to China is not going to start for several years. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] 21:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Actually it's only Saskachewan no one else in Canada has any. |
|||
==Article structure (combustion products)== |
|||
The article should follow the Article structure guidelines of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Also done in Berylium page wich is th combustion product of F1 race cars.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I understand what Stone is implying here: he is saying the combustion products should not be so "high" in the article. I think the section is important, but since the oxides are under compounds anyway, the compounds section might be a more appropriate spot for that material. [[User:Olin|Olin]] 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Generally, subheadings in the ''Notable characteristics'' section are to be avoided, because anything that would be notable enough for this, is also notable enough for a specific section below. Remember, the higher sections are meant to give an overview to people that may have never heard about a subject. |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Summary style|Summary style]] inclusion of this matter is the way to go, but its current form makes it look like POV pushing. This main article is not the place to delve into specific cites and equations. More importantly, any content, especially the controversial one, must set its general context first—at which the new addition completely fails! Why would the average reader care about combustion products? [[User:Femto|Femto]] 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Lets put it in a way everybody can understand the hot topic. The user editing the Uranium page and the rest of the controvers articles has a petiion running against DU and because of this he is now in the conquest to put everywhere quotes supporting his view. The point is the Uranium trioxide gas which is the point of controversy now. Several chemist including me have tried to get the stuff to a point where we can agree and not have the feeling of POV pushing. If anybody is realy interested in this conquest to eternety read the talk pages of [[Talk:Uranium trioxide]] and [[Talk:Depleted uranium]].--[[User:Stone|Stone]] 11:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh. That's unfortunate that this is someone pushing a POV. Since the article has information about tetragons, [[Gulf war syndrome]] and uranium oxides (and corresponding links) already without the rather prominent and poorly placed paragraph, would it be horrible to delete it? I know there are some against deletionism, but (as Femto said) this is not [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]] in its current form. Or is this going to trigger a huge edit war like at the other pages? [[User:Olin|Olin]] 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Also the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium|arbitration page]]. [[User:Olin|Olin]] 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::For my term: The use of depleted uranium is questionable at best. The negative effects are huge. The influence on cell reproduction is there and soluable uranium salts have to stay out of the enviroment. The DU problematic should be mentioned as it is with good source even the Golfwar syndrom has a place on the page. A link to uranium compounds which occure as final combustion products might be good when this articles reached a stable situation.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] 06:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I moved the section down--it made no real sense where it was since the properties of the [[chemical element|element]] uranium have not even been discussed. I would also like to see a reference to a primary source (instead of Cotton as a secondary source). [[User:Olin|Olin]] 16:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Something is telling me...== |
|||
I might know that these Periodic Table Of Elements also came out from the video game series, such as the nitrous oxide (NO2) and I've learned these Periodic Table Of elements into an another encyclopedia, but I'll stay with that one. Because it has more information than the other ones. [[User:Anything Else|Anything Else]] (a.k.a.) David 20 April 2006 6:40 PM |
|||
== Combustion products, again == |
|||
Nrcprm2026, you asked for discussion on this talk page in one of your revert summaries. It has been discussed. Don't shift the burden of proof. And don't start a revert war all over again. |
|||
A ''see also'' link always remained. I removed your POV tag. This is not about neutrality. At least for my part this is only about article structure. There still remains the little issue that even the most detailed and valid references are freaking useless when they're detached of any context. Write a summary paragraph that introduces the issue appropriate to a general article, and that links to articles that may explain it further. [[User:Femto|Femto]] 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The "see also" link for Gulf War Syndrome remains. The fantasy that Uranium has anything to do with that tragic illness doesn't need 2 links. It's a real shock to see beatnik anti-uranium propaganda shamelessly substituted for actual helpful insight into the real causes of that illness. [[User:Give Peace A Chance|Give Peace A Chance]] 19:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Precautions== |
|||
There is not one single sourced statement in the whole Precautions section! It needs work. [[User:Give Peace A Chance|Give Peace A Chance]] 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Historical accuracy == |
|||
The article mentions as a point of interest that during the Manhattan project enough uranium was enriched to provide for one bomb, which the article says was the Hiroshima bomb. The article needs to be corrected to reflect the fact that enough uranium was enriched to provide for first the initial Manhattan project tests and then subsequently both the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs. |
|||
:Trinity and Fat Man were plutonium fueled devices. --[[User:DV8 2XL|DV8 2XL]] 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Uranium mining == |
|||
I have trimmed this section down and moved most of the material to the [[Uranium mining]] article. It was more or less a merge as that topic was missing what was brought in from this one. --[[User:DV8 2XL|DV8 2XL]] 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:You will probably want to try again. [[User:Wdanwatts|Dan Watts]] 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Contradiction == |
|||
While I was reading and studying the text, I a contradiction. At least, it is how I understand it. |
|||
''When this was rediscovered, [...] and the local glassmaking industry kept a tight lid on the secret ingredient and its supply as long as it could.'' |
|||
This means that they used the uranium commercially in glass. That company was the first produces |
|||
''The discovery of the element [...] In 1850 the first commercial use of Uranium in glass was developed by Lloyd & Summerfield of Birmingham, England. [...]'' |
|||
This means that it was first used in glass by Lloyd & Summerfial of Birmingham in England. This company is NOT in Bohemia |
|||
please tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a contradiction? |
|||
I am new to wikipedia and speak better french, but I am in an english-speeking country. [[User:Josellis|Josellis]] |
|||
== U-233 == |
|||
"233U, an artificial isotope, is used as a reactor fuel in India. It has also been tested in nuclear weapons, but the results were unpromising." |
|||
How were they unpromising? Did the nuclear weapon fail upon contact? Was the blast not large enough? Explain further.--[[User:71.30.248.202|71.30.248.202]] 22:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Australian Uranium Deposits == |
|||
The article twice asserts that Australia has 70% of the world's total uranium deposits. This figure needs a reference. The ''BRW'' article I cite, as well as the ABS's ''Year Book Australia 2006'', Ch. 16, say that Australia has 40% of the world's low-cost recoverable uranium. I'm not sure how that relates to the 70% figure. I think that, if a citation cannot be given for the 70% figure, it is safer to run with the lower % suitably qualified. |
|||
== Precautions == |
|||
Why aren't there any sources or citation in the Precautions section? Some of the information in that section make medical claims. I view these claims with skeptisim.--[[User:Aces lead|aceslead]] 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Featured article push == |
|||
I would like to start work on this article to push it to FA quality and then put it through the meat grinder at [[WP:FAC]]. Other than the obvious need for an expanded lead, many more inline cites and some general clean-up, is there anything that stands out as needing attention? --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Hazards == |
|||
The [[Uranium#Hazards]] section needs to be edited as follows: |
|||
[[Image:Skull and crossbones.svg|left|80px]] |
|||
All isotopes and compounds of uranium are toxic, [[Teratogenesis|teratogenic]], and radioactive. Some compounds of uranium cause [[renal]] damage.<ref>http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150-c2.pdf</ref> Uranyl (UO<sub>2</sub><sup>+</sup>) ions, such as from [[uranium trioxide]] or uranyl nitrate and other hexavalent uranium compounds have been shown to cause birth defects and immune system damage. Finely-divided uranium metal presents a fire hazard because uranium is [[pyrophoric]], so small grains will ignite spontaneously in air at room temperature. |
|||
The general population is exposed to uranium primarily through food and water; the average daily intake of uranium from food ranges from 0.07 to 1.1 micrograms per day. Uranium can enter the body when it is inhaled or swallowed, or under rare circumstances it may enter through cuts in the [[skin]]. Uranium does not absorb through the skin, and [[alpha particle]]s released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin, so uranium that is outside the body is much less harmful than it would be if it were inhaled or swallowed. |
|||
About half of uranium burning becomes a gaseous vapor fume, composed of [[uranium dioxide]] and [[uranium trioxide]] gas. The remainder becomes particulate oxides of many molecular varieties, which settle more quickly from the air. (Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) [http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium"] ''Inhaled Particles,'' vol. 2, pp. 819-38, at p. 836.) |
|||
''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I am not sure if I fully concur. WP is [[WP:NOT|not a safety guard]]. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I would say it is better than the text in the article now, which is heavy on subterfuge and apologetics. [[User:Stan Ison|Stan Ison]] 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::To that I do concur. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&diff=99818313&oldid=99814077 cleanup] of [[Uranium#Hazards]] I note that it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&diff=99874551&oldid=99870510 reverted] and ask that you please consider replacing the superior version. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: James are you still pounding away on the deadly uranium gas? How many times do people have to tell you that you need to brush up on your reading skills, because this shit dont exist. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== Closed Survey === |
|||
Does [[uranium trioxide]] gas exist? |
|||
* Yes, it is a combustion product comprising about 1/3 of the product of uranium mutitions shrapnel metal fires, per the reference and the information on my user page. I recommend that the Hazards section with the skull-and-crossbones be used, to bring the article in line with those of other toxins. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: James, anyone in the know, has said that you are full of it on this point. Review talk for a more detailed explanation. [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: [[User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] should review [[Wikipedia:Civility]]. That said, I found nothing in the referenced Carter and Stewart paper that suggests any uranium trioxide gas generated from combustion persists in the atmosphere for an appreciable length of time before it condenses into particulate form. In any case, drawing safety conclusions from a research article seems like original research, which should be published elsewhere first. If we include safety cautions at all they should be taken directly from recognized safety publications such as government guidelines or material safety sheets. If there is notable controversy about safety, it should be presented as any other controversy, with NOPV and no conclusions drawn. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Reporting OR published elsewhere is not OR. We can say that "the study reports that ... " Use of the toxicity symbol is appropriate if there is any doubt. Judging safety of anything to what the US government thinks is hazardous has not had a good track record. If there is a US government statement we should use it as well. How about international standards? '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Drawing safety conclusions from a research article on the the behavior of materials under certain conditions would be OR. If we say anything about safety, it should be referenced to explicit, recognized sources. If US and, say, EU, standards differ, that is worth noting, but we should not express opinions about the adequacy of either. Adding symbols implies a level of authority. If that symbol is recommended by safety bodies for the substance in question, it might be appropriate, otherwise it would seem to be expressing an opinion.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Because direct responses to this survey were few, I posted a new survey below. It will help more to take the suggested edits to the Hazards section one at a time. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== Proof === |
|||
In [http://www.bovik.org/du/CarterStewart.pdf Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38] (PMID 5527739) in particular, section (f) on page 836 indicates that about half of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion measured by those responsible for insuring [[depleted uranium]] munitions safety. Volatility of [[uranium trioxide]] (a/k/a [[uranyl]] oxide) gas can be plotted from [http://www.bovik.org/du/Alexander2005.pdf Alexander (2005)] and [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1743156 Ackermann et al. (1956)], resulting in [http://www.bovik.org/du/vol_uo3g.png a very large DOF-adjusted R<sup>2</sup> corresponding to the 95% confidence interval shown.] For the burning temperature of the shower-of-sparks which is the result of DU munitions use on hard targets, please see [http://bovik.org/du/scans/mb-388.jpg Mouradian and Baker (1963)], and in particular [http://bovik.org/du/scans/mb-392.jpg figures 4 and 6 on page 392.] |
|||
Would someone please include the relevant portions of that proof? ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Skull and crossbones == |
|||
[[Image:Skull and crossbones.svg|left|80px]] |
|||
I note this graphic is used in the articles of several other toxic elements, and ask whether it should be used in [[Uranium]], too? |
|||
The following articles on the English Wikipedia link to that graphic: Arsenic, Antimony, Chlorine, Cadmium, Lead, Phosphorus, Thallium, Mercury (element), Poison, and Toxicity. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== Survey === |
|||
*Yes, it should be. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:James, you can have this toxicity symbol in the text if you want, but that is not getting you the toxicity of the gaseous products of uranium you address above in the text. That is a too specific danger, if it is up to me, the whole safety section is going to be cut-down to a bare minimum. WP is [[wp:not|not]] a safety guard, and not a manual. For me a text saying that one should not get uranium, in whichever form, into living tissue, would be more than enough, radiation danger is addressed in other articles, and is named here, and biologic effects of uranium does not include the way of administration. For specific dangers, consult an [[MSDS]]. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Shouldn't a comprehensive article about a toxin include the details surrounding the largest recorded mass exposure? ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::It is an article about a chemical element, not about a toxin. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
As I understand it, this toxicity symbol is an international standard and there are recommendations on various MSDS for when it should be used. An MSDS for uranium metal, or some other authoritative published source, should be cited for its use here. The only one I found via Google, http://www.unitednuclear.com/uraniummsds.htm, did not include use of the symbol. There is, of course, the broader question of whether it should be used at all if Wikipedia can't be systematic about it use.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] 14:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Good point. I think most toxicity is due to uranium salts, not to the metal. Here specifically we should consider whether the toxicity of uranium salts should be addressed in this specific article. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not the salts, it's the hexavalent ions which are worst, and the metal metabolizes into those [[uranyl]] ions. If it is ingested, then not so much is absorbed. So, inhalation is really integral to 90% of the uranium toxicity story. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I guess this is the answer, then. To sum up that statement: inhalation is integral to 90% of the toxicity of the hexavalent uranium ions. This article is about the element, the metal, so the information is not of importance here. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Electrons == |
|||
the valence electrons(6) and ending electrions(2) dont match what gives?--[[User:Spartan117009|Spartan117009]] 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The idea of a clearly defined valence shell becomes pretty much useless beyond the main group and other electrons get involved. [[User:Femto|Femto]] 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::and that menas the valence electrons arn't included?--[[User:Spartan117009|Spartan117009]] 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:You mean included in the count of the 'outer' 7th shell? Yes, obviously, more than those can be involved in chemical bonds. [[User:Femto|Femto]] 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Yep and well i was working on a project on uranium(powerpoint wise) and so i wanted to know cause im doing a boag's map of the uranium element |
|||
Revision as of 05:54, 29 March 2024
 | Uranium is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Atomic weight should be 238.028906 ±0.00027, not 238.02891 ±0.0003
We reproduce a rounded figure here from the 2013 CIAAW report, but the 2000 report (https://www.ciaaw.org/pubs/EXER-2000.pdf) included a more precise figure before rounding. I tried to edit the underlying wikidata entry but do not see the changes reflected here. Anomalistic (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Physics
Gy Abeeb olasupo (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Physics
Which metal is used for containers that store radioactive sources? Answer in words not symbols. Abeeb olasupo (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Lead storage containers can be used to store and transport radioactive material. The standard outside and inside finishing is coated lead so there is no exposure to the lead by personnel. A stainless steel finishing is also available to provide a stronger housing. Rawsar6 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Answers.com?
What is with the references being answer.com? Seems cheesy and is rather indirect.
Uranium metal reacts with almost all non-metal elements (with the exception of the noble gases) and their compounds, with reactivity increasing with temperature.www.answers.com/uranium "uranium". Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (6th ed.). Columbia University Press. Archived from [http://www.answers.com/uranium the original] on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help)
As little as 15 lb (6.8 kg) of uranium-235 can be used to make an atomic bomb."uranium". Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. The Gale Group, Inc. Archived from [http://www.answers.com/uranium the original] on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 27 September 2008. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help)
He named the newly discovered element after the planet Uranus (named after the primordial Greek god of the sky), which had been discovered eight years earlier by William Herschel.www.answers.com/uranium "Uranium". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company. Archived from [http://www.answers.com/uranium the original] on 27 July 2011. Retrieved 15 January 2007. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help)
--Smokefoot (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023
urainum is found in most cheeses 86.13.252.226 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
"...and poses significant health threat and environmental impact." should be "...and poses a significant health threat..." or "...and poses significant health threats..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWEISS (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"...The development and deployment of these nuclear reactors continue on a global base as they are powerful sources of CO2-free energy." Should be "The development and deployment of these nuclear reactors continue on a global base as they are powerful sources energy." The fuel cycle of nuclear plants is not CO2-free. Mining, enrichment, and disposal are high CO2 pollutants. Only the operating part of the cycle is free of CO2 emissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6701:C850:DF0C:A1ED:F89C:E4BC (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023
The final sentence in the first paragraph states that uranium can be eaten and is an extremely dense source of calories. This is patently false; uranium is toxic, the energy referred to here is the energy released upon fission and hence not usable by the human body, and the citation used says little if anything to support the statement. Please remove the sentence entirely. 82.0.251.175 (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Already done by Praseodymium-141; thanks for pointing this out. Complex/Rational 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Clutter
In the article "Isotopes of uranium", i edited out an astonishing amount of unnecessary verbiage, particularly from the section "Uranium-234". Okay? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)