Talk:Actinides in the environment

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To do/to mention

The contaminated city/region is the area around the Mayak plant near Chelyabinsk, where storage tanks holding radioactive waste awaiting processing exploded. U and Pu were released but the majority of the contamination seems to be in the form of fission products rather than actinides (ie does it belong in this category) 136.159.234.163 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: fix all of the typos, grammatical errors, and spelling mistakes which make this article look infantile. --Jim Abraham 10:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix them yourself. This article is a work-in-progress, so cosmetic fixes are still lower priority than content for the main editors. --Christopher Thomas 16:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Dear Gang of one,

I think that all four things which you have mentioned are perfectly fitting for this article. I have added some details of the Pu WAK case.

I sure that if you look at the wikipedia pages on nuclear fuel you will get some data about how much Pu/Np/Am was released in the chernobyl fire.

Rocky flats is a good one, plenty of chemistry has been done to probe the chemical nature of the Pu in the soil.

I have no idea about the Siberian contaminated city, what is the name of the place ?

Cadmium

Thorium producing radon in basements

I seem to recall that, in certain parts of the US, the local rocks had high enough thorium content to cause significant amounts of radon to build up in peoples' basements (being an inert gas, it gradually diffused out of the rock once formed as a decay product). If suitable citations can be dug up, this might be worth adding to the "thorium" section of the article. --Christopher Thomas 20:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the level of uranium/thorium/radium in soil and rock can lead to high levels of radon being a problem in houses. I might add some references as a vast amount on radon has been done by the radiochemists.Cadmium

Death by radiation poisoning

Shut up and take a drink from the Revigator. Give Peace A Chance 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite product along these lines was Radithor. At least one person's bones were able to expose photographic plates by the time they finally keeled over... --Christopher Thomas 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the review of Radithor in Scientic Americian, it is a real disgusting freakshow like story. I did a quick calculation using the dose per Bq constants and by my maths the rich guy who drank 1000 bottles got the same internal dose as I would expect from more than 200 g of Pu-239. The thing is that Ra-226 is so very radiotoxic, it makes Pu look like a harmless pussy cat when you compare them gram for gram (or Bq for Bq).Cadmium

I did. I almost lost my lunch. Same as the case of the poor women using radium paint on the dials of aircraft instruments during the War who were trained to lick the brushes to give them a finer point. Descriptions of their deaths are almost unreadable. --DV8 2XL 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the manner of their passing other than the fact that they tended to get breast cancer. Years ago I had to undergo Radiation health and safety training, and the health physics man running the class showed us all a load of the freakshow pictures just before lunch. (I think he might have been trying to put us off our food). The thing which was most gross was the tales he told us about the werid accidents (or occupational exposures) where no photos were taken, also he had a gross out poem about radium poisoning in women. The most gross one I saw was a scrap metal worker who was so burnt that I was unable to work out his race, the stupid award should have gone to a radiographer who put a Ir-192 source in his breast pocket I saw the photos taken of his insides when the medical doctors opened him up to fix him. He had a burn the size of a tea plate on his, and for a time he was sterile.

I have read in the IAEA reports that one british radiographer managed to get a 100 Sv gamma dose to the right hand and a 10 Sv whole body dose. The interesting thing is that the film badges and other physical doseometers recorded a lifetime occupational dose of 100 mSv. I have read the IAEA book about radiography accidents and quite a few radiographers in the book took their film badge off before doing a source recovery. Perhapes they are more scared of their boss and radiological redundancy than the dose.Cadmium

Unfortunately it is the nuclear power industry that has been left with the albatross of this sort of breathtaking stupidity hung around it's neck. --DV8 2XL 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biological halflives

Does anyone know what the biological half life of radium in bone is ? I imagine that it is very long but has anyone got a trustworthy value for it ?Cadmium

Ra / Rn

I have moved the radium and radon material to its own page, this was done to make the page shorter.Cadmium

And anyway they weren't actinides --DV8 2XL 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this link be in the "See also" section of this article to reduce the clutter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AghastAmok (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Radon and radium are not actinides" Is there any good reason why this page even mentions radon and radium? Most elements are not actinides. Mtpaley (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC) They're part of decay chains that start with actinides. --JWB (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Actinides in the environment. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Actinides in the environment. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lignite is not a mineral

Lignite is not a mineral. Please correct it.Eudialytos (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plutonyl

The formula of plutonyl is not PuO2, but PuO₂²⁺.Eudialytos (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]