This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

	Uranium is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by contributors to /Temp and mav 11:18, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC). Elementbox converted 10:57, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 02:00, 15 July 2005).

Archives

Archive 1

E. S. Craft, A. W. Abu-Qare, M. M. Flaherty, M. C. Garofolo, H. L. Rincavage, M. B. Abou-Donia (2004). "Depleted and natural uranium: chemistry and toxicological effects". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews. 7 (4): 297–317. doi:10.1080/10937400490452714.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) would be a good reference.--Stone 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this statement correct ? There were hundreds of small Uranium mines operating in the Colorado Plateau region. So how is this a single source. It was multiple sources.Eregli bob 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could still say 'single source' even if there were multiple mines, because the uranium from all the mines could still all be said to be from the colorado plateau region, which could be lumped together as one source, but yes it could be worded different if what you say is true. Be bold and change it if you can verify it! SGGH 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please create an article for uranium nitride. N₂ reacts with U at 700 K, forming UN and UN₂ nitrides per Cotton, Simon (1991) Lanthanides and Actinides. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 126. 64.0.232.39 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 75.18.210.218 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except some people in the production of nuclear fuel this type of chemical is simply not used and therefor nobody started one.--Stone 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reaction is important because it takes place in uranium combustion in air. Here is what WebElements says:

uranium nitride

• Formula: U₂N₃
• 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^-3

James S. 08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• R. B. Matthews, K. M. Chidester, C. W. Hoth, R. E. Mason, R. L. Petty (1988). "Fabrication and testing of uranium nitridenext term fuel for space power reactors". Journal of Nuclear Materials. 151 (3): 345. doi:10.1016/0022-3115(88)90029-3.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --Stone 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Error: Bad DOI specified!-Stone 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to mav and the other editors for getting this article to Featured Article Status.
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:
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. [1]

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.

• 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.
• “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 [2], Australia’s second largest producer doesn’t use the term yellowcake [3], their largest producer uses it only once [4], and the worlds largest producer uses the term U3O8 [5] more than yellowcake [6].

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.Eregli bob 06:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the 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. [7] Megatons to Megawatts Program

For the Biotic and abiotic section:

• 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’ [8]. 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 is made up mainly of basalt (0.5ppm) and granite (4ppm) [9] [10], 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’ [11]. US studies indicate that fertilised soils have 0.8 to 1.2ppm [12] and [13]. And I like the quality [14] of sites when I run 2ppm [15] in google compared to 4ppm [16] 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 - Ctbolt 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Calbaer 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). --mav 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Calbaer 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. :) --mav 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These three statements seem to be inconsistant when taken together:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium "Along with thorium and plutonium, uranium is one of the three fissile elements..."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium "The other fissile materials are uranium-235 and uranium-233."
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."
Perhaps they could be reworded to avoid confusion?

Serious vandalism. Please lock and remove vile photo--Diablorex 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've seen this revolting pervert's own self-images before on wikipedia; he posts them on the featured articles. Is there anything that can be done, banning his IP, or prosecuting under espionage laws? Saw192837 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Diablorex 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a shock image being superimposed. I suspect it's from a template - could somebody fix it? -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been deleted but I still don't know which of the many templates is affected. WjBscribe 02:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, on another note, this article still needs to be locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.228.111 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All of them have been removed. contribs of user that added them. We don't protect main page articles, either. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article need over 40 templates anyway? WjBscribe 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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). WjBscribe 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. +A.0u 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's a listing of elementbox infobox templates. +A.0u 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ninja! 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually 72 percent, but you're right that it isn't really close to twice as dense. -Amarkov moo! 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --136.172.253.189 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) --LuigiManiac | Talk 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --LuigiManiac | Talk 21:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. 198.97.67.56 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zxctypo (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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.71.208.19.3 00:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. --CyclePat 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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? 75.35.72.51 06:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? --mav 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: "A number of studies have shown that natural uranium is a reproductive toxicant...." Arfsten, D.P.; K.R. Still; G.D. Ritchie (2001) "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) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. James S. 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium is a neurotoxin.^[1][2][3][4] Please include that fact and place this article in Category:Neurotoxins. Thank you. James S. 13:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"The frenzy ended as suddenly as it had begun, when the U.S. government stopped purchasing the uranium." [17] When exactly did the US stop buying uranium? Brian Pearson 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. [18]

So it seems that the buying is still going on, but there is no 'boom'. Brian Pearson 04:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. Just a possiblitity.--Scorpion451 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]