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]

Inspired by the 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. --Itangalo (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kbrose (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2008 (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]

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.--Scorpion451 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the radon gas is still not confirmed to have been released, but the decay cycle shown here on the 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.--Scorpion451 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 gasses. 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)--Scorpion451 00:55, 14 July 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 different isotopes are apparently not toxicologicaly identical.[17] 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. ←Ben^B4 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reengler (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The frenzy ended as suddenly as it had begun, when the U.S. government stopped purchasing the uranium." [18] 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. [19]

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

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. --Fastfission (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 2.342×10⁷ years making it long lived isotope. Also the article on Uranium-236 states that

"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?-Fiber B 02:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--scorpion 451 rant 18:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.--scorpion 451 rant 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.-Fiber B 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see below. Warut (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jim77742 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? -Amarkov moo! 02:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --mav 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Amarkov moo! 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that we use "an" before any word starting with a vowel sound even if it doesn't start with a vowel (e.g., an hour) and use "a" before any word starting with a non-vowel (i.e., consonant) sound even if it starts with a vowel (e.g., a university). That's why I choose to use "a uranium salt" rather than "an uranium salt." Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong. Warut 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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%.

204.83.242.232 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).65.83.137.137 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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:

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.

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. Carlwillis (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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. Carlwillis (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the entries in the list of isotope halflife good? Contrast U236's entry of 2.342×10^7 y with: "Upon bombardment with slow neutrons, its uranium-235 isotope becomes a very short-lived uranium-236 isotope, which immediately divides into two smaller nuclei, releasing nuclear binding energy and more neutrons."Alexlaw65 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "very short-lived uranium-236 isotope" is U-236 in an excited state but the half-life 2.342×10⁷ y is for U-236 at the ground state. Upon absorbing a slow neutron, U-235 will become U-236 in an excited state and immediately undergo fission 82% of the time or de-excite by gamma emission to become U-236 at the ground state the remaining 18% of the time (the numbers are from here). I'll fix the article the best I can. Warut (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've once removed the following text which was added by Mikiemike:

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

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

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

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/uraninite in the same sentence. This is weird if not incorrect.

Warut (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTHK123 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Check your sources :|. 70.64.78.207 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would create an article about Uranium market that would include commercialization and prices. --Mac (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 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" :
  • {{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}}
  • dummytext

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Nietzsche61 (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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%.

Per the title, Craft, E., et al. (2004) "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. 69.228.209.24 (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References on effect of uranium on the oral health http://coseinteressanti.altervista.org/Uranium_teeth.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.59.67 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.34.168 (talk) 19:09, 01 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia is incorrect. Australia has only 23% of the world's uranium. (IAEA, Vienna) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.6.182 (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Turgan ^Talk 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.34.168 (talk) 19:09, 01 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Turgan ^Talk 16:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

212.183.134.208 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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."

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. Plazak (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. 72.231.222.145 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. 71.185.33.188 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But some people would call it dull grey, and others silver. Describing what the color is without citing a source clearly violates WP:NOR.72.231.222.145 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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