Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ck.mitra (talk | contribs)
121 edits
m clarified some misconceptions...
→‎Clutter: new section
(219 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBanners|1=
{{Article history
{{WikiProject Elements|class=FA|importance=Top|old-peer-review}}
{{physics|class=FA|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Mining|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Energy|autotagged=yes|class=FA|importance=high}}
{{WP1.0|class=FA|importance=Top|category=Natsci|VA=yes|WPCD=yes}}
{{V0.5|category = Natsci}}}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1=PR
|action1date=21:11, 21 February 2007
|action1date=21:11, 21 February 2007
Line 19: Line 13:
|action2oldid=112241714
|action2oldid=112241714


|action3=GTC
|maindate=March 19, 2007
|action3date=21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
|currentstatus=FA}}
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Actinides/archive1
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]).
|action3result=promoted
{{Archive box|[[Talk:Uranium/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}


|action4 = FAR
==Reference==
|action4date = 2023-08-05
{{cite journal
|action4link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Uranium/archive1
| title = Depleted and natural uranium: chemistry and toxicological effects
|action4result = demoted
| author = E. S. Craft, A. W. Abu-Qare, M. M. Flaherty, M. C. Garofolo, H. L. Rincavage, M. B. Abou-Donia
|action4oldid = 1167622681
| journal = Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews
| year = 2004
| volume = 7
| issue = 4
| pages = 297 - 317
| doi = 10.1080/10937400490452714}} would be a good reference.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


|action5 = GTR
== Is this correct ? Single source ==
|action5date = 09:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
"The largest single source of uranium ore in the United States was the Colorado Plateau located in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. "
|action5link = Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Actinide/archive1
|action5result = Removed


|maindate=March 19, 2007
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.[[User:Eregli bob|Eregli bob]] 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
|currentstatus=FFA
::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! [[User:SGGH|SGGH]] 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
}}

{{afd-merged-from|Uranium pentaiodide|Uranium pentaiodide|4 June 2021}}
"High-grade ores found in Athabasca Basin deposits in Saskatchewan, Canada can contain up to 70%"-
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
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%? [[User:Ck.mitra|Ck.mitra]] ([[User talk:Ck.mitra|talk]]) 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Elements|importance=Top|1=old-peer-review|vital=yes}}
: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. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 05:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Mining|importance=High}}
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. [[User:Throckmorton Guildersleeve|Throckmorton Guildersleeve]] ([[User talk:Throckmorton Guildersleeve|talk]]) 16:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Energy|importance=High|auto=yes}}

}}
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)
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
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." --[[User:Alpine boarder|Alpine boarder]] ([[User talk:Alpine boarder|talk]]) 10:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 100K
::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.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 5
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)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(730d)
== Nitride ==
|archive = Talk:Uranium/Archive %(counter)d

}}
Please create an article for [[uranium nitride]]. N<sub>2</sub> reacts with U at 700 K, forming UN and UN<sub>2</sub> [[nitride]]s per [http://bovik.org/du/scans/Cotton126.jpg Cotton, Simon (1991) Lanthanides and Actinides. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 126.] [[User:64.0.232.39|64.0.232.39]] 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [[User:75.18.210.218|75.18.210.218]] 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:Except some people in the production of nuclear fuel this type of chemical is simply not used and therefor nobody started one.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

:That reaction is important because it takes place in uranium combustion in air. Here is what [http://www.webelements.com/webelements/compounds/text/U/N3U2-12033839.html WebElements] says:
; uranium nitride
* Formula: U<sub>2</sub>N<sub>3</sub>
* CAS registry number: [12033-83-9]
* Formula weight: 518.078
* Synonyms: uranium nitride, diuranium trinitride
* Colour: dark grey
* Appearance: crystalline solid
* Melting point: 900°C (decomposes to UN)
* Density: 11300 kg m<sup>-3</sup>
''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::*{{cite journal
| title = Fabrication and testing of uranium nitridenext term fuel for space power reactors
| author = R. B. Matthews, K. M. Chidester, C. W. Hoth, R. E. Mason, R. L. Petty
| journal = Journal of Nuclear Materials
| volume = 151
| issue = 3
| year = 1988
| pages = 345
| doi = 10.1016/0022-3115(88)90029-3}} --[[User:Stone|Stone]] 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
::* {{DOI|doi:10.1016/0022-3115(63)90115-6}}-[[User:Stone|Stone]] 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== Some points on the article ==

Well done to mav and the other editors for getting this article to Featured Article Status. <br>
The following was posted on a different page (that is now archived and no replies to the points below were posted) and I'm posting here so people can comment on the points:<br>
[[Uranium#Production and reserves|Production and reserves]] section.
* ''Three million metric ton of uranium ore reserves are known to exist and an additional five billion metric ton of uranium are estimated to be in sea water''
:Both of these statistics need sources.
:There would be more than 3Mt of uranium ore reserves – Olympic Dam alone has 761Mt @ 0.6kg/t U3O8. [http://www.bhpbilliton.com/bb/ourBusinesses/baseMetals/olympicDam.jsp]
:It would be more like 3Mt of mineable U3O8 is known to exist. I don’t think you’ll find a figure for straight uranium.<br>
*Consider changing metric ton to just tonne through out the article. Ton is used for imperial units throughout the article and it would be more readable for metric users to see ‘tonne’.
*''Yellowcake is then generally further refined using nitric acid to create a solution of uranyl nitrate.''
:For this general discussion the step to uranyl nitrate can be skipped and mention of uranium hexafluoride should be mentioned instead.
*I don’t think the picture comment ‘to extract pure uranium’ is what is generally done. Uranium is mainly used as [[Uranium dioxide]] in nuclear reactors. Also 'yellowcake' is not generally the colour in the picture anymore (see below and [[yellowcake]]). I do appreciate that there are few pictures out there but maybe you could change the comment to reflect that this is an historic picture of yellowcake.

Yellowcake is the crude form of U3O8. If the previous step was precipitation using NaOH, it will have some sodium uranate. Using ammonium hydroxide will give ammonium uranate in the crude preparation. These are always minor components. Other minor components are Al, Fe, Pb etc. This is the most commonly traded form of Uranium and hence the purity matters. This product dissolves in nitric acid and there are several steps to get UF6.[[User:Ck.mitra|Ck.mitra]] ([[User talk:Ck.mitra|talk]]) 19:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
*“The resulting mixture, called yellowcake, contains..”. It would be more correct to use “the resulting mixture is U3O8 and is commonly called yellowcake…” The powdered form is not yellow [http://www.riotinto.com/library/reviewmagazine/72/article6-5.aspx], Australia’s second largest producer doesn’t use the term yellowcake [http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=yellowcake&hl=en&num=50&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.bhpbilliton.com&as_rights=&safe=images], their largest producer uses it only once [http://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=yellowcake+site%3Awww.riotinto.com&btnG=Search&meta=], and the worlds largest producer uses the term U3O8 [http://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=u3o8+site%3Awww.cameco.com&btnG=Search&meta=] more than yellowcake [http://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=yellowcake+site%3Awww.cameco.com&meta=].
:And [[Uranium mining]] makes no mention of yellowcake. I guess my point on this one is that general public usage is 'yellowcake' however the mining companies that produce the oxide (where you can go for more info) use U3O8. The section also uses yellowcake and ‘concentrated uranium oxides’ interchangeably when they are describing the same thing - it could be confusing.

::There is a difference between 'yellowcake' and U3O8. U3O8 is a specific chemical compound. 'Yellowcake' is the actual product which comes out of the wet ore process at the mine site, which is shipped elsewhere for refining/enrichment/whatever . As the article says, it about 75% of it consists of the compound U3O8 and the remainder is other substances which are not effectively separated from the U3O8 by the mine site wet process. This percentage obviously would vary depending on the composition of the ore, the process technology, and the sophistication of its control and monitoring system.[[User:Eregli bob|Eregli bob]] 06:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the [[Uranium#Cold War legacy and waste|Cold War legacy and waste]] section, it would be useful to have a sentence on the use of dismantled nuclear warheads for nuclear fuel for power stations. [http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/HEUAgreement2001.pdf] [[Megatons to Megawatts Program]]<br>

For the [[Uranium#Biotic and abiotic|Biotic and abiotic]] section:<br>
*Do we need the sub heading ‘[[Biotic]] and [[abiotic]]’. If so can we mention in the next paragraph which one it is or link to the words some how? I didn’t know what they were – more encompassing words for organic and inorganic? I’ve only checked [[lead]] and [[potassium]] and there is no similar sub headings. Can we remove?
*In reference to ''Its average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million'' do those references really say ''Earth’s crust''. Most reference on the net have ‘Uranium occurs in ''rocks'' in concentrations of 2 to 4 ppm’ [http://www.british-energy.com/opendocument.php?did=536]. If it says rocks in the reference can we change it to the previous sentence. If it is crust then a number closer to 4 maybe correct. [[Crust (geology)|crust]] is made up mainly of basalt (0.5ppm) and granite (4ppm) [http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS03%20Nucl%20Power%20Clmt%20Chng.pdf] [http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=300650&gsessionid=2VQkBqUCSNQ], 4ppm could be reasonable as [[basalt]] is more associated with the earths surface. The 2ppm most likely is a reference to Uranium in soils. Greater than 2.5ppm is ‘high uranium concentrations’ [http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/radon/midwest2.html]. US studies indicate that fertilised soils have 0.8 to 1.2ppm [http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/uranium_and_sulfur/uranium.html] and [http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/uranium_and_sulfur/results_discuss.html]. And I like the quality [http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml] of sites when I run 2ppm [http://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&hl=en&q=uranium+%222+parts+per+million%22&meta=] in google compared to 4ppm [http://www.google.com.au/search?num=50&hl=en&q=uranium+%224+parts+per+million%22&meta=] when looking at soils. So can we remove ‘depending on the reference’ and match the correct words with the correct numbers.
*''(it is recovered commercially from these sources with as little as 0.1% uranium[9]).'' This should be ''with less than 0.1% uranium''. Olympic Dam is mining at 0.6kg/t (0.06%) of U3O8 and if uranium makes up 81% of this compound by weight then they are mining at about 0.05% uranium. This is due to the uranium being a by product (although these days it’s more a co-product) but the life of Olympic Dam will make this statement correct for as long as most of us are alive.
Thanks - [[User:Ctbolt|Ctbolt]] 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::It might also be good for someone to double-check the cited sources. One especially suspicious-looking "fact" (which I deleted) claimed that Israel had one or more above-ground nuclear tests that caused pollution. A reliable source for this would contradict [[Israel and weapons of mass destruction]] and [[Vela Incident]], and indeed, neither Israel nor France (the other country mentioned) is in the "Uranium" section of ''Building Blocks''. Other errors in fact or attribution might be less obvious but just as serious. [[User:Calbaer|Calbaer]] 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::That is no error of attribution; Look at the last paragraph of page 480 of the Emsley reference and look at note 187 on the same page. The note says "Some countries, such as France and Israel, continued above-ground tests in the 1970s and 1980s." Also, removing all mention of nuclear testing from that section was not the greatest way to deal with seeing the odd-looking fact. A better way of dealing with that would have been to comment out 'and Israel' and bring the issue to the talk page (something I did after restoring the removed text). Even books written by a PhD in chemistry and published by Oxford Press can be wrong, however. So if that is the case, then lets work it out here. Hopefully, this is rare error for the reference; I've already had to junk another book-o-elements due to it being filled with incorrect facts (avoid Krebs ''The History and Use of Our Earth's Chemical Elements'' - it is worse than useless). --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry; I read the main text and missed the footnote. Hopefully it is a rare error, but it is a glaring one. I don't know of any other source (this side of conspiracy theorists) who claim that above-ground Israeli nuclear tests are a fact rather than a conjecture or falsehood. [[User:Calbaer|Calbaer]] 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for all the great feedback Ctbolt! Truth is, I'm going to work on some geology articles for a while and won't get back to this article for at least a month. But I do plan to address each of your points and then put the article through another peer review. I do invite anybody and everybody else interested to beat me to it though. :) --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

These three statements seem to be inconsistant when taken together:<br/>
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
"Along with thorium and plutonium, uranium is one of the three fissile elements..."<br/>
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
"The other fissile materials are uranium-235 and uranium-233."<br/>
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
"Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. Although not fissile itself, 232Th will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (233U), which is fissile."<br/>
Perhaps they could be reworded to avoid confusion?

== LOCK THE PAGE ==
Serious vandalism. Please lock and remove vile photo--[[User:Diablorex|Diablorex]] 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree I was plesently disgusted when i open the link.

* The page was just blanked. Is there some reason this article hasn't been locked? I would have though the defecation picture would have been enough reason. --[[User:Diablorex|Diablorex]] 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

== Floating shock image ==

There's a shock image being superimposed. I suspect it's from a template - could somebody fix it? <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Wo''']][[User:Wooty/b|'''''o''''']][[User:Wooty/Avoid presenting Wikipedia as anything but an encyclopedia|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|'''Woot?''']]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Wooty|'''contribs''']]</small></font> 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

wow someone got rid of it pretty fast

:It's not permanently removed. I removed the template (or templates), it was being transcluded from. When the templates are fixed, please revert. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Wo''']][[User:Wooty/b|'''''o''''']][[User:Wooty/Avoid presenting Wikipedia as anything but an encyclopedia|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|'''Woot?''']]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Wooty|'''contribs''']]</small></font> 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
::The image has been deleted but I still don't know which of the many templates is affected. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|''scribe'']]</span> 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:::yeah, on another note, this article still needs to be locked. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/71.240.228.111|71.240.228.111]] ([[User talk:71.240.228.111|talk]]) 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:::All of them have been removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexneu0 contribs of user that added them]. We don't protect main page articles, either. <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Wo''']][[User:Wooty/b|'''''o''''']][[User:Wooty/Avoid presenting Wikipedia as anything but an encyclopedia|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|'''Woot?''']]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Wooty|'''contribs''']]</small></font> 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Why does this article need over 40 templates anyway? <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|''scribe'']]</span> 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't, really. Why is it using a ton of templates for element boxes when it could be much easier to put them all into one and use series=, blah blah blah? <font color="blue">-[[User:Wooty|'''Wo''']][[User:Wooty/b|'''''o''''']][[User:Wooty/Avoid presenting Wikipedia as anything but an encyclopedia|'''ty''']]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Wooty|'''Woot?''']]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Wooty|'''contribs''']]</small></font> 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Exactly- I'll ask someone who's good with templates if they can narrow down to needing just one template (or at least only a few). <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|''scribe'']]</span> 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::There's a single template called [[Template:Elementbox]] (but it doesn't contain every parameter included in these 40 or so templates), and I've noticed an inconsistency in the chemical element articles on infobox usage. +[[User:A.Ou|A.0u]] 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::FYI, here's a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements#Elementbox_infobox_templates|listing of elementbox infobox templates]]. +[[User:A.Ou|A.0u]] 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

==Twice as dense?==

The top of the article states that Uranium is nearly twice as dense as lead, but if I recall correctly, it is only 65% or so more dense, hardly enough to be considered twice as dense. I changed this on the article, but if by some chance I am wrong, please correct my edit; however, I am fairly certain I'm correct.

[[User:Bobo The Ninja|Ninja!]] 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:It's actually 72 percent, but you're right that it isn't really close to twice as dense. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

::Actually 68%, for the 19.1 given here for solid uranium, vs. 11.24 for lead. The 65% was better than the 72%. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 15:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

::: 69 %, the exact density for Uranium is 19.16 g/cm^3 for room temperature and 11.*34* g/cm^3 for lead. But I propose to change it to "approximately 70%" because the exact density may vary due to the temperature, contaminations and the mixture of isotopes. --[[User:136.172.253.189|136.172.253.189]] 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

::::I agree with 136.172.253.189, the approximation sounds like a good idea due to the variables he/she listed (of course it might just seem like a good idea seeing as how I had already made changes to the article to say 72% and 68%, and I don't want to make another incorrect edit) --[[User:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:#32CD32">LuigiManiac</span>]] | [[User Talk:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:green">Talk</span>]] 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Inspired by the [http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uran Swedish version of the article] I added a parenthesis mentioning that Uranium is not the most dense of all naturally occuring elements, eventhough it has the highest atomic weight. --[[User:Itangalo|Itangalo]] ([[User talk:Itangalo|talk]]) 07:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::It makes more sense to add that statement to the next sentence which already discusses density. In addition there is no contradiction in having the highest atomic weight, but not the highest density, so putting them in the same sentence as an apparent contradiction, is not very sensible. [[User:Kbrose|Kbrose]] ([[User talk:Kbrose|talk]]) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Uranium is almost as dense as gold- but I do not have the exact values and cannot say which is heavier. The heaviest element is osmium. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ck.mitra|Ck.mitra]] ([[User talk:Ck.mitra|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ck.mitra|contribs]]) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Photo should be rotated ==

That photo in the infobox should be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. Someone rotated the original image clockwise and it looks weird, like it is being offered up to heaven or something. 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I laughed so much at the comment that I had to check the photograph out. The metadata for it says it is rotated 180 degrees. Does that just mean the photo is artificially rotated 180 degrees from the original photo, or was the original photo taken with the camera upside down? I wish I could be of more help in this situation. --[[User:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:#32CD32">LuigiManiac</span>]] | [[User Talk:LuigiManiac|<span style="color:green">Talk</span>]] 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:If you haven't already, I'd suggest doing what I did - rotate it yourself. When I did that and rotated it 90 degrees counterclockwise, it popped out at me as the correct orientation. The photographer is standing to the left of the person holding the billet, and the number on the billet is upright. [[User:198.97.67.56|198.97.67.56]] 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

== More vandalism ==

User who made an edit posting a youtube video of someone skating is Skaterdude7732 , I suggest ban or block

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Skaterdude7732&action=edit <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Zxctypo|Zxctypo]] ([[User talk:Zxctypo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zxctypo|contribs]]) 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
== Effects ==
Great job on a difficult subject! I would argue one minor point tho, in the "effects" section: technically strontium-90 and iodine-131 are not decay products, but fission products, and have little or nothing to do with natural or depleted uranium. I'll pass on the earlier reference to radon as a concern during Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; it may be technically true, but any radon dose would have been dwarfed by the other hazards.[[User:71.208.19.3|71.208.19.3]] 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

:'''S-protect''': The preceding comment is totally off topic and, even from feer of being labeled under [[WP:AGF]], I still consider this to be trolling. Please focus on your subject. If you also wish for people to take you seriously you will create a legitimate user account and provide proper references. Under the present context and with the lack of referencing I haven't a bloodly clue what the heck you are talking about. I have noticed numerous vandalisms in the past to this article. If this does not resolve I will request that this article be fully, or at least semi-protected. If anyone else thinks the same, you have my conditional support to lock down this page. --[[User:CyclePat|CyclePat]] 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, just correction of a technical error. If you don't know the difference between nuclear decay and nuclear fission consult Wikipedia.[[User:165.127.8.254|165.127.8.254]] 21:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:I completely agree with 71.208.19.3 and wish someone would please make the edits described. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:I hate to agree with an anonymous poster, but 71.208.19.3 ''is'' correct about there being a difference between neuclear decay and nuclear fission. The reactors would produce two new elements, possibly Stontium-90 and Iodine-131 although I'll have to check the numbers, those may not be right. The decay process would produce(sure about this part) an [[alpha particle]] and [[Thorium]]. I am definatly dubiuous about the ''radon gas'' release, this may be a confused way to say radioactive steam, which was definatly released.--[[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

::<s>Okay, the radon gas is still not confirmed to have been released, but the decay cycle shown here on the [[Radon#Isotopes|Radon]] indicates that it forms at one point in the uranium decay cycle. As to whether "clouds" of it were released, that's another question. Still looking for confimation on the fission products, ''Possible'' that radon could be a product under the right conditions. This would, however, cast doubt on the Stromium/Iodine part of the information if found to be correct. Half of the paragraph is wrong according the information I have found so far. Just a question of which half.</s>--[[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

::New update, Radon ''is'' produced in reactors, in small quanities, and has a relatively short half life: [[Radon#Occurrence]] It is likely an overstatement to say that ''clouds'' of radon were released, although some was undoubtedly released. It is also important to note that this is a fairly common natually occurring element, which most people encounter daily to some extent. I have found confirmation of the [[Strotium-90]] and [[Iodine-131]] at the [[Fission products (by element)]] page. However, in reading up on the Long Island Power Plant, I discovered that the meltdown was only partial to begin with, and released mainly [[noble gas]]ses. Very little Iodine-131 was released, and it has a half-life of about 8 days. In other words, the reactor got hot, melted a little, and shut down safely while the entire east coast had a panic attack. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was the worst case scenario: a total core meltdown. The reactor was shut down improperly so that the fission reaction suddenly surged and effectivly made it's best attempt at becomming an atomic bomb, breaching the containment dome and releasing clouds of irradiated steam, Iodine-131, and Stromium-90, and yes, a small amount of slighly hazardous radon. (I will be correcting the article in a slightly less sardonic tone =P)--[[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

== Reproductive toxicity ==

1. Is there any peer-reviewed medical publication from the past ten
years that denies the reproductive toxicity of uranium?

2. Are there any Health Physics Society web pages which do not deny
the reproductive toxicity of uranium?

3. Are there any alternative hypotheses for the birth defect
increases in Basrah, U.S., and U.K. troops which have not been ruled
out? [[User:75.35.72.51|75.35.72.51]] 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

:That presumes that other peer-reviewed studies from reputable sources have already established a link between natural/depleted uranium and birth defects/reproductive harm. Should we not start with that? --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

::Sure: "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a reproductive toxicant...." Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie (2001) [http://www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development,"] ''Toxicology and Industrial Health,'' vol. 17, pp. 180-91. "Human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU." Hindin, R.; D. Brugge; B. Panikkar (2005) [http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17 "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective,"] Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

== Neurotoxicity ==

Uranium is a [[neurotoxin]].<ref>W. Briner and J. Murray (2005) "Effects of short-term and long-term depleted uranium exposure on open-field behavior and brain lipid oxidation in rats," '' Neurotoxicology and Teratology'' '''27'''(1):135-44; PMID 15681127.</ref><ref>Monleau, M. ''et al.'' (2005) "Bioaccumulation and behavioural effects of depleted uranium in rats exposed to repeated inhalations," ''Neuroscience Letters,'' vol. 390, pp. 31-6.</ref><ref>Lestaevel, P. ''et al.'' (2005) [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2005.05.002 "The brain is a target organ after acute exposure to depleted uranium"] ''Toxicology,'' '''212,''' 219-226.</ref><ref>Jiang, G.C. and Aschner, M. (2006) "Neurotoxicity of Depleted Uranium: Reasons for Increased Concern," ''Biological Trace Element Research,'' vol. 110(1), pp. 1-18; PMID 16679544.</ref> Please include that fact and place this article in [[:Category:Neurotoxins]]. Thank you. ''[[User:Nrcprm2026|James S.]]'' 13:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
<references />


:Is depleted uranium the same as uranium with respect to neurotoxicity? Those references all refer to depleted uranium. [[User:Starcare|Starcare]] 09:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

::The different isotopes are apparently not toxicologicaly identical.[http://www.setacjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1897%2F06-243R.1] I'm not a biochemist, but I think this is very surprising. Different isotopes of the same element are almost always chemically identical. On the other hand, the isotopic composition of DU and Nat-U is mostly the same U-238. &larr;[[User:BenB4|Ben]]<sup>[[User talk:BenB4|B4]]</sup> 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Uranium is not a neurotoxin. [[Neurotoxins]], as with other [[toxins]], are from biological sources): "A toxin is a poisonous substance produced by living cells or organisms that is active at very low concentrations." Based on the references supplied, it may be neurotoxic. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Reengler|Reengler]] ([[User talk:Reengler|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Reengler|contribs]]) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== At the end of Resources and Reserves -- ==

'''"The frenzy ended as suddenly as it had begun, when the U.S. government stopped purchasing the uranium."''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_reserves] When exactly did the US stop buying uranium? [[User:Brian Pearson|Brian Pearson]] 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

:Government source --
:'''But by 1964, after producing almost 9 million tons of ore valued at $250 million, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that "it is no longer in the interest of the Government to expand production of uranium concentrate." The market was saturated. There were 71 million tons of reserves--enough to satisfy United States needs through the next four years. For the first time, private enterprise was invited to purchase uranium oxide and the AEC put federal buying on hold. During the late 1960s the industry rallied again with mining by large companies for developing nuclear plants. But the furor was never the same. Ostensibly, the uranium boom was over.''' [http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/utahsuraniumboom.html]
:So it seems that the buying is still going on, but there is no 'boom'. [[User:Brian Pearson|Brian Pearson]] 04:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

:: I know that it takes quite a bit of uranium to produce a small amount of weapons grade uranium. I think that this would coincide with the begininng of the nuclear disarmament programs. The atomic energy comission was in charch of the handling and procurement of the uranium for the military, if I remember correctly(don't put that statment into the wiki unless you check it). Just a possiblitity.--[[User:Scorpion451|Scorpion451]] 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

:The boom had to do with the AEC setting an artificially high price on uranium. They stopped doing that in the 1960s because of a number of factors, one of which being they had a lot of uranium already by that point, another of which was that more international uranium sources were found (it wasn't as rare as they had thought), and another is that some of the Korean War era fears about the Soviets taking over the Congo and other major international uranium sources (which sparked the boom period) cooled off a bit. --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] ([[User talk:Fastfission|talk]]) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

== Decay of U-235 upon neutron capture ==

This article states that when uranium-235 is bombarded by a slow neutron it forms a short-lived uranium-236 isotope. The half-life of uranium-236 however is listed as 2.342×10<sup>7</sup> years making it long lived isotope. Also the article on [[Uranium-236]] states that {{quotation|"The fissile isotope uranium-235 which fuels most nuclear reactors will fission after absorbing a thermal neutron about 6/7 of the time. About 1/7 of the time, it merely emits gamma radiation and remains U-236."}}which is different from what this article says. Am I simply overlooking something or is this a contradiction?-[[User:Fiber B|Fiber B]] 02:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over, some of the isotopes do weird things when neutrons start flying. I think that the article you cite may be correct, need to check my books, because it is part of critical mass that fission does not always occur, so the gamma particle thing is right (hence the leaded suits). I'll see what I can find out.--[[User:scorpion451|<span style="color:DarkRed">sco</span><span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">rp</span><span style="color:DarkRed">ion</span>]] [[Farenheit 451|<span style="color:goldenrod">451 </span>]] [[User talk:Scorpion451|rant]] 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

:Okay, He's what I found. The "short lived U-236" is correct. The article is talking about in the middle of a nuclear reaction. The "slow moving" is only relative, we are still referencing ballistic velocities. If it hits just right (about 1/7th of the time) the atom will remain stable but normally it fractures the nucleus, which blows apart. So the U-236 atoms that remain stable are long lived, (hence the radioactive waste problem) but the majority are shattered instantly by the impact, generating two elements from the single nucleus. The [[half life]] only references the normal decay process, in which [[alpha particles]] and [[beta particles]] are shed to reach a stable state.--[[User:scorpion451|<span style="color:DarkRed">sco</span><span style="color:DarkGoldenrod">rp</span><span style="color:DarkRed">ion</span>]] [[Farenheit 451|<span style="color:goldenrod">451 </span>]] [[User talk:Scorpion451|rant]] 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

::Perhaps the quote from the Uranium-236 article should be added here along with a clarification that when U-235 fissions U-236 is momentarily formed in a higher energy state than it can normally exist in, blowing it apart.-[[User:Fiber B|Fiber B]] 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, see [[Talk:Uranium#Halflives|below]]. [[User:Warut|Warut]] ([[User talk:Warut|talk]]) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== SI Units - seek consensus ==

I removed some imperial units from this article a while back and this has now been reverted by mav. I contend that this article is a scientific article and imperial units simply do not belong here (unless it's a direct quote from a source). Wikipedia guidelines state that scientific articles should be SI unless agreed by consensus. I seek others' views on this. [[User:Jim77742|Jim77742]] 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:The values should definitely be ''primarily'' represented in SI units, because that is definitely what scientists use. But if the issue is converting some of those into imperial, I'm not sure that there's a problem. If I don't know what, say, a Kelvin is, why force me to go look it up instead of being nice and giving me a value in units I know? -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

::Converting ''to'' Imperial is not the issue here. The only conversion done was by me to SI. --[[User:Mav|mav]] 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

:The Imperial units that were removed were in fact the data used in the cited source. Also, the relevant MoS guideline, [[WP:UNITS]], says ''nothing'' about using SI units exclusively ''unless'' there is a consensus to do so (which does not apply here, since there is no conversion ''from'' SI units). In fact, it talks a good deal about providing conversions to and from while preferring SI units. Preference ≠ exclusivity. How to properly deal with this exact situation should be discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Imperial vs Metric: Keeping measured values straight in scientific and technical articles]]. --[[User:Mav|mav]] 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
::Oh. Well, if the data is not originally given in SI units, that's different. Conversion introduces some error, so we shouldn't be changing the original data to have units that we like. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 02:45, 26 September 2007 (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. [[User:Warut|Warut]] 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

== contradictory information ==

Under the Resources and reserves section, it states that Australia has the largest reserves at 40% of known, but then in the supply section, it states Canada has the largest at 27.9%.

[[Special:Contributions/204.83.242.232|204.83.242.232]] ([[User talk:204.83.242.232|talk]]) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible that both are correct (though citations needed). Actual production is no way the same as reserves. [[User:Plantsurfer|Plantsurfer]] ([[User talk:Plantsurfer|talk]]) 10:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia has the largest reserves of uranium, Canada is the largest producer of uranium. (Uranium mining is banned in some parts of Australia, but can be explored).[[Special:Contributions/65.83.137.137|65.83.137.137]] ([[User talk:65.83.137.137|talk]]) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Suggestions for edit: fission properties of uranium ==

I would like to propose a minor change regarding the following text currently in the article:

<blockquote>
Along with thorium and plutonium, uranium is one of the three fissile elements, meaning it can easily break apart to become lighter elements.
</blockquote>

The fission properties of uranium are of central importance to its principal applications, so it's important to get this point correct. First, I suggest that the mention of thorium here be redacted--none of the natural thorium isotopes are fissile (capable of sustaining nuclear chain reactions). Second, there are many more than just three elements with fissile isotopes (e.g. U-235, Pu-239, Am-241, Np-237, Cf-251, numerous isotopes of curium, and so forth), so the misleading claim of "three fissile elements" should be omitted as well. If I were tasked with rewriting this section, I would say something like:

<blockquote>
Uranium-235 has the distinction of being the only naturally-occurring fissile isotope. More-abundant uranium-238 is both fissionable by fast neutrons, and fertile (capable of being transmuted to fissile Pu-239 in a nuclear reactor). An artificial fissile isotope, uranium-233, is also important in nuclear technology and can be produced from natural thorium in a nuclear reactor.
</blockquote>

Thoughts on this? Am I being too picky? If it looks good and references are wanted for anything, I will go find some. I should point out that I have a grad degree in nuclear engineering, but a n00b degree in Wikipedia, so handle accordingly. Thanks. [[User:Carlwillis|Carlwillis]] ([[User talk:Carlwillis|talk]]) 08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:I didn't see any complaints about above request, so I edited the page, replacing the excerpt identified above with this:

:<blockquote>Many contemporary uses of uranium exploit its unique nuclear properties. Uranium-235 has the distinction of being the only naturally-occurring fissile isotope. Uranium-238 is both fissionable by fast neutrons, and fertile (capable of being transmuted to fissile plutonium-239 in a nuclear reactor). An artificial fissile isotope, uranium-233, can be produced from natural thorium and is also important in nuclear technology. </blockquote>

:Let me know what you think about this. It's more accurate than what was there before, but may be too verbose or out-of-place. [[User:Carlwillis|Carlwillis]] ([[User talk:Carlwillis|talk]]) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (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."[[User:Alexlaw65|Alexlaw65]] ([[User talk: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 2.342×10<sup>7</sup> 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 [[Uranium-236#Creation_and_yield|here]]). I'll fix the article the best I can. [[User:Warut|Warut]] ([[User talk:Warut|talk]]) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Uraninite ==

I've once removed the following text which was added by [[User:Mikiemike|Mikiemike]]:

:All <nowiki>[[uraninite]]</nowiki> minerals contain a small amount of radium as a radioactive decay product of uranium.<nowiki><ref>[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/uraninite]]</ref></nowiki>

but Mikiemike added back a slightly different text at a slightly different place:

:however, in it's natural form, all <nowiki>[[uraninite]]</nowiki> minerals contain a small amount of radium as a radioactive decay product of uranium.<nowiki><ref>[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/uraninite]]</ref></nowiki>

Therefore, I'll need to explain why I did so before I remove it again (last time).

*All uranium minerals, not just uraninite, contain radium. There is no need to specifically mention uraninite.
*All daughter nuclides of uranium are present in uranium minerals in secular equilibrium. Radium is just one of those daughter nuclides.
*The most concerned daughter nuclide of uranium is radon, and radon is already mentioned in the sentence nearby.
*There are a link and a reference to <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/uraninite</nowiki> in the same sentence. This is weird if not incorrect.
[[User:Warut|Warut]] ([[User talk:Warut|talk]]) 13:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

== Linking to Isotopes ==

I don't know if this is possible or whether there is a reason why this hasn't been done. However, personally I think in the box which shows the different isotopes of the atom, you should be able to click on them to take them to the relevant page. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheTHK123|TheTHK123]] ([[User talk:TheTHK123|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheTHK123|contribs]]) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Data mismatch ==

This article (in the Uranium mining section) states that approx. 25% of the world's uranium is mined in Canada. The [[Athabasca Basin]] article states that about 30% of the world's uranium is supplied from mines there. At least one of these must be incorrect (or the margin of error is too large). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.126.170.20|206.126.170.20]] ([[User talk:206.126.170.20|talk]]) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Um, no. Check your sources :|. [[Special:Contributions/70.64.78.207|70.64.78.207]] ([[User talk:70.64.78.207|talk]]) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

== Market ==

One would create an article about [[Uranium market]] that would include commercialization and prices. --[[User:Mac|Mac]] ([[User talk:Mac|talk]]) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
== Bot report : Found duplicate references ! ==
In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?useskin=monobook&title=Uranium&redirect=no&oldid=230558621 the last revision I edited], I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
* "paducah" :
** <nowiki>{{cite web|url=http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/NEWS01/707230416/1008 |title=Lawmakers back plan for Paducah plant work |accessdate=2007-07-23|publisher=Louisville Courier-Journal}}</nowiki>
** <nowiki>dummytext</nowiki>
[[User:DumZiBoT|DumZiBoT]] ([[User talk:DumZiBoT|talk]]) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

== Uranium and Coal ==

In the Applications/civilian section it is written (with reference) " one kilogram of uranium-235 can theoretically produce about 20 trillion joules of energy (2×10^13 joules); as much energy as 1500 tonnes of coal." I wanted to check the numbers and went to [[coal]] where I found that coal energy density was roughly 24 MJ/kg. So 1500 tonnes of coal would theoretically produce... 3.6 10^13 J... as much as 2 10^13? With this coal energy density, 830 tonnes would be a better figure. Or maybe the energy comparison above is done with another referential, but then we should have a clear explanation.[[User:Nietzsche61|Nietzsche61]] ([[User talk:Nietzsche61|talk]]) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

== 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).


[[Special:Contributions/70.167.155.148|70.167.155.148]] ([[User talk: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%.

== 2004 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health article on chemistry and toxicology ==

Per the title, Craft, E., ''et al.'' (2004) [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a714111273&fulltext=713240928 "Depleted and Natural Uranium: Chemistry and Toxicological Effects,"] ''Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health'' '''7'''(4): 297-317, is pertinent here. Abstract:

:Depleted uranium (DU) is a by-product from the chemical enrichment of naturally occurring uranium. Natural uranium is comprised of three radioactive isotopes: 238U, 235U, and 234U. This enrichment process reduces the radioactivity of DU to roughly 30% of that of natural uranium. Nonmilitary uses of DU include counterweights in airplanes, shields against radiation in medical radiotherapy units and transport of radioactive isotopes. DU has also been used during wartime in heavy tank armor, armor-piercing bullets, and missiles, due to its desirable chemical properties coupled with its decreased radioactivity. DU weapons are used unreservedly by the armed forces. Chemically and toxicologically, DU behaves similarly to natural uranium metal. Although the effects of DU on human health are not easily discerned, they may be produced by both its chemical and radiological properties. DU can be toxic to many bodily systems, as presented in this review. Most importantly, normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, and heart can be affected by DU exposure. Numerous other systems can also be affected by DU exposure, and these are also reviewed. Despite the prevalence of DU usage in many applications, limited data exist regarding the toxicological consequences on human health. This review focuses on the chemistry, pharmacokinetics, and toxicological effects of depleted and natural uranium on several systems in the mammalian body. A section on risk assessment concludes the review.

The full text is available at the link above. [[Special:Contributions/69.228.209.24|69.228.209.24]] ([[User talk:69.228.209.24|talk]]) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

==Uranium Teeth==
American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association Specification no. 52 for uranium content in dental porcelain and porcelain teeth. Council on Dental Materials and Devices. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979 May;98(5):755-7.

Caruso C, Crapisi S, Conz A. [Determination of the uranium content of dental porcelains and of porcelain teeth] G Stomatol Ortognatodonzia. 1984 Oct-Dec;3(4):720-1.

Sairenji E, Söremark R, Noguchi K, Shimizu M, Moberg LE. Uranium content in porcelain denture teeth and in porcelain powders for ceramic crowns. Acta Odontol Scand. 1982;40(5):333-9

Sairenji E, Moriwaki K, Shimizu M, Noguchi K. Estimation of radiation dose from porcelain teeth containing uranium compound.
J Dent Res. 1980 Jul;59(7):1136-40

http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/59/7/1136

Sairenji E, Söremark R, Noguchi K, Shimizu M, Moberg LE. Uranium content in porcelain denture teeth and in porcelain powders for ceramic crowns. Acta Odontol Scand. 1982;40(5):333-9.

Sairenji E, Moriwaki K, Shimizu M, Noguchi K. Determination of uranium in porcelain teeth by the fission track method.
J Nihon Univ Sch Dent. 1977 Dec;19 (4):159-64.

Sairenji E, Moriwaki K, Shimizu M, Noguchi K, Anzai I, Ikeda N. Determination of uranium content in dental porcelains by means of the fission track method and estimation of radiation dose to oral mucosa by radioactive elements. Health Phys. 1980 Apr;38(4):483-92.

Pujadas Bigi MM, Lemlich L, Mandalunis PM, Ubios AM. Exposure to oral uranyl nitrate delays tooth eruption and development.
Health Phys. 2003 Feb;84(2):163-9.

Pujadas Bigi MM, Ubios AM. Catch-up of delayed tooth eruption associated with uranium intoxication. Health Phys. 2007 Apr;92(4):345-8.

D. R. PEPLINSKI, W. T. WOZNIAK, and J. B. MOSER Spectral Studies of New Luminophors for Dental Porcelain J Dent Res (59)9:1501-1506, September 1980

WEAVER, J.N. Alpha and Beta Adsorbed Doses from Uranium in Porcelain Teeth, J Dent Res 55(B):501, 1976

Päivi Kurttio, Hannu Komulainen, Aila Leino, Laina Salonen, Anssi Auvinen, and Heikki Saha Bone as a Possible Target of Chemical Toxicity of Natural Uranium in Drinking Water Environ Health Perspect 113:68–72 (2005).

IAEA-TECDOC-1331 Use of electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry with tooth enamel for retrospective dose assessment
International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, December 2002

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1331_web.pdf

Systemic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and Byproduct
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research June 2001

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1717/nureg-1717.pdf
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.21.59.67|79.21.59.67]] ([[User talk:79.21.59.67|talk]]) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Australia "Reserve" clarification ==
I'm currently doing a paper on Uranium in Australia, and I think some of the information on wikipedia is incorrect, like Australia doesnt have 40% of the uranium like wikipedia says, the source of the information is also unreliable. The Australian government department - ABARE - lists Australia as having 24%. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.167.34.168|58.167.34.168]] ([[User talk:58.167.34.168|talk]]) 19:09, 01 December 2008 (UTC)</span>

:I agree. Wikipedia is incorrect. Australia has only 23% of the world's uranium. (IAEA, Vienna) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.3.6.182|85.3.6.182]] ([[User talk:85.3.6.182|talk]]) 09:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Please include links to sources in discussions so that others can follow-up and verify the information, ESPECIALLY if you change the article to reflect your sources. Properly citing the info in the article is also a very good practice. [[User:Turgan|Turgan]] <sup>[[User talk:Turgan|Talk]]</sup> 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


== Mining Distibution Map ==


== Atomic weight should be 238.028906 ±0.00027, not 238.02891 ±0.0003 ==
The map showing the Mines in Australia is wrong. All of the Uranium mines are in Western Australia. The pattern that the map shows is actually exactly the same for iron, aluminium and copper. Whoever makes these maps should take greater care in the accuracy <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.167.34.168|58.167.34.168]] ([[User talk:58.167.34.168|talk]]) 19:09, 01 December 2008 (UTC)</span>


:If you look closely at these maps, and read the captions, you will realize they do not represent mine locations at all, for ANY country, and were never meant to. They are indicating production levels for each country as related to the top producing country for that commodity. [[User:Turgan|Turgan]] <sup>[[User talk:Turgan|Talk]]</sup> 16:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
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)


== Another error ==
== Physics ==


[[Special:Contributions/212.183.134.208|212.183.134.208]] ([[User talk:212.183.134.208|talk]]) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Gy [[User:Abeeb olasupo|Abeeb olasupo]] ([[User talk:Abeeb olasupo|talk]]) 19:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


== Physics ==
Under "Pre-discovery use", the article states:
"Starting in the late Middle Ages, pitchblende was extracted from the Habsburg silver mines in Joachimsthal, Bohemia (now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic) and was used as a coloring agent in the local glassmaking industry.[13] In the early 19th century, the world's only known source of uranium ores were these old mines."


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)
I read here: http://www.cornwall-calling.co.uk/mines/illogan/east-pool-agar.htm that uranium was mined in cornwall in the 1870s. I'm not sure whether that particular article would be appropriate to cite, perhaps there is more information elsewhere.
:Uranium mining started in Cornwall in 1873 (see United Kingdom in [[Uranium mining]]), and at Central City, USA in 1872 (see [[Uranium mining in Colorado]]), but this does not contradict the statement that Bohemia was the only source in the '''early''' 19th century. [[User:Plazak|Plazak]] ([[User talk:Plazak|talk]]) 17:25, 9 January 2009 (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)


== ¨Silvery-grey?¨ ==
==Answers.com?==
What is with the references being answer.com? Seems cheesy and is rather indirect.
This article lists the color of uranium as silvery-grey. Not only is this subjective, but it falls under original research. Unless someone can find a source, this should be removed immediately. [[Special:Contributions/72.231.222.145|72.231.222.145]] ([[User talk:72.231.222.145|talk]]) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:There's no reason to remove that statement unless it is dubious. Considering that there is a photo of silvery-grey uranium right in the article, I don't think any reasonable person is going to object. [[Special:Contributions/71.185.33.188|71.185.33.188]] ([[User talk:71.185.33.188|talk]]) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::But some people would call it dull grey, and others silver. Describing what the color is without citing a source clearly violates [[WP:NOR]].[[Special:Contributions/72.231.222.145|72.231.222.145]] ([[User talk:72.231.222.145|talk]]) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
::*In it's purest form uranium is silvery-white to silvery-grey. When you have more oxides and impurities present, the colour darkens and dulls. As this is easily verifiable from sources alredy listed, one would be hard pressed to call it original research. Citing specific statements only really becomes an issue if they are questionable, obscure, or not already commonly accepted. Otherwise every single statement in every single article would need a source listed. [[User:Turgan|Turgan]] <sup>[[User talk:Turgan|Talk]]</sup> 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


== Navajo health problems ==


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}}
I came across [http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4248 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? [[Special:Contributions/64.9.244.124|64.9.244.124]] ([[User talk:64.9.244.124|talk]]) 03:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:There is plenty:
*[http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/9/1410 The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People]
*[http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p305-309mulloy/mulloy-full.html Lung Cancer in a Nonsmoking Underground Uranium Miner]
*[http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/23/1481 Uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men]
*[http://sfaa.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,8,11;journal,65,231;linkingpublicationresults,1:113218,1 Navajo Uranium Workers and the Effects of Occupational Illnesses: A Case Study]
*[http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200003000-00008.htm Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer Among Navajo Men in New Mexico and Arizona, 1969 to 1993]
*[http://www.chestjournal.org/content/81/4/449.abstract Lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners.]
--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


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}}
=== Mav's edits ===
[[User:Mav|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.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&diff=319175800&oldid=318927573]
as "uncited" even though the material in question was included in the link cited at the end of the paragraph where it was removed ({{cite news|publisher=University of Michigan|accessdate=2009-08-08|url=http://www.umich.edu/%7Esnre492/sdancy.html|title=Environmental Justice for the Navajo : Uranium Mining in the Southwest}}) I reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&diff=next&oldid=319175800] referencing this talk page section. A couple weeks later, Mav again reverted, with the edit comment "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&diff=321839532&oldid=321496652 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. [[Special:Contributions/76.254.71.252|76.254.71.252]] ([[User talk:76.254.71.252|talk]]) 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


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}}
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. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 03:11, 29 October 2009 (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 ==
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. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 03:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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 ==
:Miners who worked in uranium filled mines have a high incidence of cancer relative to the rest of the United States population.<ref name="NavajoMining">[http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/9/1410 The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People]</ref><ref name="CancerNavajoMen">{{cite journal|title=Uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6717538|journal=New England Journal of Medicine|author=Samet JM, Kutvirt DM, Waxweiler RJ, Key CR.|date=7 June 1984|page=310(23):1481-4}}</ref> The miners were kept from receiving compensation.<ref>[http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p305-309mulloy/mulloy-full.html Lung Cancer in a Nonsmoking Underground Uranium Miner]</ref><ref name="CancerNavajoMen"/><ref> [http://sfaa.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,8,11;journal,65,231;linkingpublicationresults,1:113218,1 Navajo Uranium Workers and the Effects of Occupational Illnesses: A Case Study]</ref><ref> [http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/abstract.00043764-200003000-00008.htm Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer Among Navajo Men in New Mexico and Arizona, 1969 to 1993]</ref><ref>[http://www.chestjournal.org/content/81/4/449.abstract Lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners.]</ref>


{{Edit semi-protected|Uranium|answered=yes}}
: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).<ref>{{cite news|publisher=University of Michigan|accessdate=2009-08-08|url=http://www.umich.edu/%7Esnre492/sdancy.html|title=Environmental Justice for the Navajo : Uranium Mining in the Southwest}}</ref>
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">—&nbsp;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-->
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. [[Special:Contributions/76.254.71.252|76.254.71.252]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/99.38.149.63|99.38.149.63]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 01:45, 30 October 2009 (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">—&nbsp;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-->
: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. [[Special:Contributions/99.60.3.194|99.60.3.194]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RS|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. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 08:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023 ==
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?" [[Special:Contributions/99.38.149.63|99.38.149.63]] ([[User talk:99.38.149.63|talk]]) 02:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Uranium|answered=yes}}
==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#Energy_density]], one arrives at 850 tonnes of coal. [[User:Johannes121|Johannes121]] ([[User talk:Johannes121|talk]]) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (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)


==Jordan and uranium==
== 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)
This [[Israel]]i site: [[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256037277754&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Jordan uranium]] talks about huge uranium mines in [[Jordan]].[[User:Agre22|Agre22]] ([[User talk:Agre22|talk]]) 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Revision as of 05:54, 29 March 2024

Former featured articleUranium 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 3, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
September 29, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
August 5, 2023Featured article reviewDemoted
February 15, 2024Good topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

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)[reply]

Physics

Gy Abeeb olasupo (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Already done by Praseodymium-141; thanks for pointing this out. Complex/Rational 13:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uranium&diff=1216124048&oldid=367270136

Leave a Reply