Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elements FA‑class Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. 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. Mining FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining 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. Energy FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy 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.
	Uranium is part of the Actinides series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. 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 September 29, 2014 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Archives

Archive 1

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).

(reconstruct sign: -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC) [1]: original sign: Femto (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"High-grade ores found in Athabasca Basin deposits in Saskatchewan, Canada can contain up to 70%"- Is this correct? It does not need any processing then. well, hardly any processing is needed and diluting with rock is a counter productive idea. Perhaps you meant 7%? Ck.mitra (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, official figures are max. 23% on average in certain mines. Still high, and processing is still needed - for purification and reliability (concentrations do fluctuate from rock to rock). I updated the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

In this case, you are taking U3O8 as the mineral and the mined "rock" as the ore. Whereas it is theoretically possible to have 70% U3O8 in a ore (by the way, the usual percentages for solids are w/w; i.e., 70 gms per 100 gms, in your example and not 70 ml in 100 ml, as you say) it is rare and I have not heard of. The other part is about isotopic concentrations and many large reactors can now burn natural U3O8 pellets (no enrichment needed). chami 19:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

70% U₃O₈ ore is rare, but it does happen in the Athabasca Basin. The richer deposits average in the 20% range, however grades within the deposits can get up to 85% U₃O₈. Yes, that is 85% U₃O₈. Turgan ^Talk 08:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Depleted Uranium Projectile really flammable as is mentioned in the military use? I doubt it, but i haven't anything to back it up. "At high impact speed, the density, hardness, and flammability of the projectile enable destruction of heavily armored targets." --Alpine boarder (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium as small particles is flammable. On impact the temperature reaches ignition temperature and the kinetic energy leads to total fragmentation of the projectile after it crossed the armour. The text could be a little clearer that it is now, but the effect is described in literature.--Stone (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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]
• doi:10.1016/0022-3115(63)90115-6-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. [2]

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.

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.Ck.mitra (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• “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 [3], Australia’s second largest producer doesn’t use the term yellowcake [4], their largest producer uses it only once [5], and the worlds largest producer uses the term U3O8 [6] more than yellowcake [7].

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. [8] 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’ [9]. 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) [10] [11], 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’ [12]. US studies indicate that fertilised soils have 0.8 to 1.2ppm [13] and [14]. And I like the quality [15] of sites when I run 2ppm [16] in google compared to 4ppm [17] 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.

• 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]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (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.[18] 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." [19] 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. [20]

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]

Warut is correct, the pronounciation is "yoo-rey-nee-uhm", and since "y", in this case, is a consonant, it is indeed "a uranium salt". That concludes this discussion. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[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]

The correction is obvious: it should be "uranium-236m", but the shortest way to write it is "^236mU" or "²³⁶U_m". The article does not mention, in the case of "very short-lived uranium-236 isotope", that "uranium-236" is in an isomeric state. And that concludes this discussion. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More likely ^236fU as a fission isomer. Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2016 (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%.

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

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

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

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

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]

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 —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]

• 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. Turgan ^Talk 04:43, 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]

There is plenty:

• The History of Uranium Mining and the Navajo People
• Lung Cancer in a Nonsmoking Underground Uranium Miner
• Uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men
• Navajo Uranium Workers and the Effects of Occupational Illnesses: A Case Study
• Uranium Mining and Lung Cancer Among Navajo Men in New Mexico and Arizona, 1969 to 1993
• Lung cancer among Navajo uranium miners.

--Stone (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mav's edits

Mav, one of the earliest and most respected contributors to this and other articles, removed a passage on this subject:

Miners who worked in uranium filled mines have a very high incidence of cancer relative to the rest of the United States population. Though the Navajo workers and families noticed this in the 1950s, bureaucrats dragged their feet, and companies disregarded warnings. The miners, especially the Navajo miners, were kept from receiving compensation for the suffering they went through.[21]

as "uncited" even though the material in question was included in the link cited at the end of the paragraph where it was removed ("Environmental Justice for the Navajo : Uranium Mining in the Southwest". University of Michigan. Retrieved 2009-08-08.) I reverted [22] referencing this talk page section. A couple weeks later, Mav again reverted, with the edit comment "remove uncited material again". That edit included a number of trivial, unrelated edits. I intend to replace the substance of the comments and include the sources cited above. 76.254.71.252 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Miners who worked in uranium filled mines have a high incidence of cancer relative to the rest of the United States population.^[1][2] The miners were kept from receiving compensation.^{[3][2][4][5][6]}

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).^[7]

How does the removed text not fit within the "balance and tone of the rest of the article"? Do you wish to take issue with the factual accuracy of those statements? At this point I am particularly interested in the removal of the sentence, "Though the Navajo workers and families noticed [increased cancer rates] in the 1950s, bureaucrats dragged their feet, and companies disregarded warnings," which appears verbatim in the originally-cited source. Is there any question about any aspect of the factual accuracy of that sentence? If not, I would ask that the propositions contained therein be included in the article along with the other material which has now been removed a third time. 76.254.71.252 (talk) 04:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph would be too US centristic! The miners in all Uranium mines world-wide have been poisoned without proper warnings. The SDAG Wismut which mined Uranium for the nuclear weapons of the Soviet Union worked at the same level. The workers new that it was dangerous but compensation for illnesses was not on the agenda.--Stone (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say about SDAG Wismut, but heard about Soviet mines - people worked at really high levels, and many knew, but many (not all) were prosecuted criminals and had little choice. These kind of talks is a good reason for me to move such information to other articles (e.g. on uranium mining) and keep articles on elements free from politics. Materialscientist (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on elements have to be free from politics? Should arsenic be scrubbed to accurately represent both the pro-poisoning and anti-poisoning points of view, just to maintain neutrality? 99.38.149.63 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've changed dragging feet to delaying, and there seems to be ample factual basis supporting "disregarded warnings" -- is there any evidence to the contrary? How can saying uranium mining companies disregarded warnings pass judgment or be in an interested tone? Judgment was already passed in 1990 by Congress. The requirement that articles are supposed to be comprehensive, presenting both the pro- and con- points of view achieves neutrality more effectively and with a higher quality encyclopedia than trying to delete only the con- points of view that you think may portray history in a factually uncomfortable light. The latter is base censorship, while the former, including both points of view, is the explicit mandate of the earliest NPOV policies. I recommend including both the pro-uranium and anti-uranium points of view in this article, and I tried again to present a compromise proposal. 99.60.3.194 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording is better, but "delayed" and "disregarded" are still value judgments and/or opinions. See the relevant parts of the NPOV policy on that. Also, http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/sdancy.html does not look like a reliable source since there is no indication of editorial oversight or vetting of the material. Not to mention the fact that the Wismut are not even mentioned in that reference. So I removed that sentence. Please do not readd it. Found a great source for the cancer-mining link and used it to add a sentence to back-up the topic sentence about cancer risk. One more sentence about cancer links or other occupational hazards in other parts of the world should be added. --mav (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Johannes121 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC) this statement, "One kilogram of uranium-235 can theoretically produce about 80 terajoules of energy (8×1013 joules), assuming complete fission; as much energy as 3000 tonnes of coal.", is disinformative, pointed, the ref obscure, N.B.Theoretically there is as much energy in a cup of warm coffee,Sebastian barnes (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change the reference to my page

{cite web| author = Peter van der Krogt |url = http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/elem/pu.html%7Ctitle = Elementymology & Elements Multidict|accessdate = 2009-05-05}}

into the new url, which is

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

The present link is dead.

Thanks,

Peter van der Krogt

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

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

{{edit semi-protected}} it is not "urine" mutagenicity, but "murine"- namely in mice, in section animal effects. Can you please fix that. 70.137.150.141 (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

"The weak alpha radiation that Uranium emits poses little health risk since it does not penetrate the skin, however just as other heavy metals (e.g. lead) it does pose a risk of toxicity ingested due to accumulation in tissue.^{[example 1]}"

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

I noted that the specific heat seems to be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.121.44 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verified the 27.665 J·mol−1·K−1 value in Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5.. See also Heat_capacities_of_the_elements_(data_page)Materialscientist (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This passage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct. SBHarris 15:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence, found in the second paragraph under 'applications' in 'military', needs improvement/correction:

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

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

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

Hola!

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

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

Thanks for any clue-in!

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

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

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

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

Article needs attention:

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

Hi All,

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

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

I interpreted the text a bit differently: It seems necessary to to mention that Otto Robert Frisch was a physicist in his own right and not a layman helping his physicist-aunt.

In the same paragraph, there is also mention of Enrico Fermi, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassman, without mentioning their professions. The only other time in the article that someone is designated as a physicist is in the History section, which mentions "physicist Francis Perrin", and the only time in the someone is designated as a chemist is in the Discovery section, which mentions "chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth". It seems reasonable given the content to mention that Perrin was a physicist rather than a geologist and as a reader I'm marginally interested in knowing the profession of the discoverer of an element (usually a physicist or chemist or some combination). I'd just as soon leave the "physicist" designations off Meitner, Strassman, Hahn, Fermi, etc. than go through the time and clutter to add them all in, but as long as it's reasonably consistent, my preference is slight.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ziying, Li; Zhizhang, Huang; Xiuzhen, Li; Jian, Guo; Chou, Fan (2015). "The Discovery of Natural Native Uranium and Its Significance". Acta Geologica Sinica - English Edition. 89 (5): 1561–1567. doi:10.1111/1755-6724.12564. ISSN 1000-9515. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uraniumsa.org/processing/processing.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]