Jump to content

Talk:Americium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by mav 05:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC). Elementbox converted 11:29, 17 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 23:35, 11 July 2005).

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Americium. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table were obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but were reformatted and converted into SI units.

Hardness

what is the hardness of americium? (68.205.206.2)

Sorry, no hard (pun intended) numbers. Expanded the article from CRC Handbook "It appears to be more malleable than uranium or neptunium [...]". Femto 12:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Suggestion

Americium 239 is used in Splinter Cell 1. But I am not going 2 add this as I do not know if this has any place in a science article. --The1exile 18:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 

    I've seen these sorts of things in other articles, under the heading "Fictional Applications", in the Applications section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.130.184 (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Use in nuclear soil moisture gauges

It's use in said gauges might be a valid addition to this article

Ordosingularis 19:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Amount in a smoke detector

Here is a proof that the mass of 0.9 μCi of 241Am (typical amount in a modern smoke detector) is closer to 0.2 μg than 0.2 mg.

The decay rate of a sample of a radionuclide is equal to , where t1/2 is the half-life and N is the number of atoms of that nuclide.

Here the decay rate is 0.9 x 10-6 x 3.7 x 1010 disintegrations per second and t1/2 = 432.2 x 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds. So N = 6.55 x 1014 atoms of 241Am which is equivalent to a mass of N x 241.06 / (6.022 x 1023) = 0.26 x 10-6 g. Warut (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wording

I was concerned about the wording of "...and apparently has the consistency of..." This is supposed to be factual, not speculation. Is there any way to fix this and find a better source on its physical properties? ForestAngel (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible that scientists have only partial data, and that the wording may be trying to express this. However, this point is currently unsourced, so it's hard to tell. --JWB (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For those new to radiochemistry

Nuclei that emit radiation typically also emit a "gamma" ray photon to conserve momentum. The only exception I can think of is Beryllium-8 where Alpha particles (Helium nuclei)are discharged 180 degrees from each other. Same holds true for Beta radiation (electrons or positrons) which also includes the energy of the neutrino particle emitted on conversion of neutron to proton and vice versa. When Alpha or Beta radiation is stopped by an atom (Alpha interact too strongly (charge +2) to penetrate skin, Beta (charge +1 or -1) stopped by Aluminum foil) they emit a photon, typically gamma ray. Mechanisms range from Cherenkov radiation, Bremstraulung, and others. Gamma ray energy is given as a maximum trailing off to zero energy depending on the angle of emmission from the other particle(s).

I use photon inre the reference to 59 KeV Gamma ray because that would be equivalent to ~55KeV X-ray emitted by television set CRT. Has been fatal to canaries. About low end of dental xray strength. Tritium xrays at 18Kev don't penetrate skin. Shjacks45 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Americium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC) This article appears neutral, stable and well-written. I have tried to improve aspects of punctuation, but MOS compliance on stuff like non-breaking spaces is a not a GA criterion - was just doing it to get the article as good as possible.

The article contains some fairly technical information but it appears to me to be written in a very accessible style. Citations need a little work: cites to online sources in some cases lack retrieval dates. The "Public Health Statement for Americium" cite lacks either an author or publisher. Cites 22, 45, 88, 89, and 99 (at present, anyway) lack anything other than a title.

The images generally appear appropriate. I did some quick checking, but I'd hate to be steering this one through FAC in terms of ensuring that the iamges really were free. I also suggest that the non-free use rationale for "File:Americium34.jpg" may not stand up to scrutiny, because I'm not sure it is necessary to show this in pictures rather than in words. Not making it an issue at GAN - just flagging that it might be if ever the article is taken to FAC.

I found the article interesting, and as comprehensive as a layperson can judge it to be. Improving the citations is all that is needed for GA. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. SHould also have mentioned: there is a "clarification needed" tag in the article - I certainly had no idea what was meant by "strong neutron influence" - can an editor take a look? Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I clashed (ec) with Nergaal on references, but would leave this to him (IMO, they are already Ok for GA, but can surely be improved). "strong neutron fluence" there means that a large number of neutrons/(cm² second) is needed for multiple neutron capture, i.e. the isotope which already captured one neutron is in an unstable excited state. It should have enough neutrons around, at that specific time, to capture another, before it decays. This is common knowledge in this field, thus I'm not sure how to clarify this. Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Is high neutron flux a synonym? Nergaal (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I think so, and my dictionary says fluence is sort of obsolete. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, that will do at GAN, thanks for your prompt work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Production method

Americium is produced in nuclear reactors by bombarding uranium or plutonium with neutrons not alpha particles. I suspect that the amount of Am in spent nuclear fuel would depend greatly on the reactor fuel - a reactor using Pu-239 should produce much more Am than a reactor using U-235 or U-233. 208.103.155.157 (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disposal

I've removed the following from the article on the grounds that it's unsourced and, I think, pretty questionable: "For instance in the UK it is permissible to dispose of an americium containing smoke detector by placing it in the dustbin with normal household rubbish, but each filled dustbin is limited to contain not more than one smoke detector." I haven't heard of such a rule, and the "one per dustbin" restriction doesn't sound like the kind of waste disposal regulation that you encounter in the UK. As an electronic device, smoke detectors would presumably be covered by the WEEE Directive in the UK, meaning that you're not meant to put them out with normal rubbish on the grounds that they are waste electronics, regardless of the presence of radioactive material. Does anyone know anything more about disposal regulations for americium smoke detectors? If so, it would be great to have this in the article, all properly sourced of course. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

apparent inconsistency

The article says that americium-241 comes from plutonium-241 by beta decay, but when I look at the plutonium page, I am told that plutonium-241 decays to a uranium isotope.

--Publunch 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Plutonium-241 has two decay modes. By far the dominant decay mode is beta decay, which yields americium-241. There is a tiny (0.002%) probability of alpha decay, which yields uranium-237. The statement on the plutonium page that you refer to has apparently since been removed. Piperh 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

'This element can be produced in kilogram amounts' - how? Do we have to thank our friends at Sellafield for our smoke detectors?

I think so, according to http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/print/americiumprint.html :
"n.Uses: Americium-241 is made in large quantities in nuclear reactors and is available to qualified users in the U.S. and the U.K. It is used as a portable source of X-rays, as a source of ionization for smoke detectors, and as a radioactive glass thickness gauge for the flat-glass industry."
81.31.17.152 01:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC) tygr007

There is another apparent inconsistency in which the text of the article claims that Am-241 emits gamma rays, but the table in the sidebar clearly indicates that it decays by Alpha emission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.180.147 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Most radiodecays also produces gamma, which isn't mentioned. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Americium-241 α decay also produces numerous X-ray/gamma photons with the 13.9 Kev, 17.8 Kev and 59.5 Kev energies being the most probable. Delphwhite (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Natural?

There is a discussion at Talk:Periodic table#Americium is also found in nature, reproduced below. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

<begin copied discussion>

Americium is also found in nature

I am aware that most sources state that the number of elements found in nature is 94 (those with atomic numbers 1-94). However, several other sources raise that number to 95, and include americium (atomic number 95) to those elements found in nature. I hold a copy of "HUTCHINSON GALLUP Info 95" (Hellicon Publishing Ltd., UK, 1994) that states: "Of the [109] known elements, 95 are known to occur in nature (those with atomic numbers 1-95)" (page 459). Another source that includes americium to the elements that are found in nature is "The Free Dictionary by Farlex" that states: "[Americium] occurs in nature in minute quantities in pitchblende and other uranium ores, where it is produced from the decay of neutron-bombarded plutonium, and is the element with the highest atomic number that occurs in nature". This source can be found online here: http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Americium-239 The above quote is reproduced in several other web sites, eg.: http://www.talktalk.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0009901.html Perhaps the confusion arises from two facts: 1) Quantities of americium (and curium) have recently been found in nature as a by-product of the operation of nuclear reactors and nuclear explosions (ref: http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q650.html). This, however, doesn't mean that americium cannot be found as a naturally occurring element as well. 2) Americium was first synthesized in 1944. The fact that it was synthesized before it was discovered as a naturally occurring element should not exclude it from the list of the elements that are found in nature. In fact, technetium and promethium are included in the list, even though they both have been artificially produced before they were found in nature. I would like to have some feedback on the topic. CostaDax (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't access your "offline" sources, but the online one seems in order. So if you're certain of it, just be bold and change the table (Periodic table (standard)) to make Am's "natural occurrence" be "From decay". (Or maybe discuss it on the americium article's talk page as well.)--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

<end copied discussion>

Thanks, Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure about this because 239Pu (which is what's usually meant by "neutron-bombarded plutonium") decays to 235U, not 239Am (which in fact decays to 239Pu). If they meant 244Pu, the only other natural isotope of plutonium, it does not decay to Am either, but to 240U and (occasionally) 244Cm. That creates:

244Pu --> 244Cm --> 240Pu* --> 236U --> 232Th and the rest is the beaten track of the thorium (4n) series.

*Or 240Pu --> 206Hg --> 206Tl --> 206Pb.

So if these (doubtlessly extremely rare) chains do happen, then only curium (Z = 96) would be naturally produced, not americium (Z = 95) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This has also been posted at Talk:Curium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
R8R Gtrs points out that 239Pu + 2 n → 241Pu → 241Am is possible (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11#Americium and curium). However, "The Free Dictionary by Farlex" states that the naturally occuring isotope is 239Am and not 241Am. Double sharp (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Americium. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk

I am not sure how to add titles to the references.

Ref. 1 ACTINIDE(III)/LANTHANIDE(III) PARTITIONING USING n-Pr-BTP AS EXTRACTANT: EXTRACTION KINETICS AND EXTRACTION TEST IN A HOLLOW FIBER MODULE

Ref 2 SANEX-BTP PROCESS DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

Ref 3 EFFECTIVE ACTINIDE(III)-LANTHANIDE(III) SEPARATION IN MINIATURE HOLLOW FIBRE MODULES

Ref 4 The coordination chemistry of 1,2,4-triazinyl bipyridines with lanthanide(III) elements – implications for the partitioning of americium(III)

Ref 5 Separation Studies of /f/-Elements

old. -15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Americium. 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) 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Americium. 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) 09:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Organometallic complexes

A recent article (https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2017/SC/C7SC00034K#!divAbstract) which shows for the first time single crystal structures of actinide tris-C5H5 complexes, suggests that AmCp3 is not likely to exist as presented in the organometallic section of this article.

I would suggest that the language is amended to indicate that stoichiometrically the complex is likely AmCp3, however the paper referenced merely equivocates the IR spectrum of their AmCp3 material with that of PuCp3, which was also not characterized extensively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.7 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

What can alpha particles go through?

Can I put americium in a plastic bag and will i be safe? Porygon-Z 16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to seek specific advice on safe handling of radioactive material.--agr (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Where can i go then? Porygon-Z 15:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)
The US EPA website offers several resources. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal-guidance-radiation-protection.--agr (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The page does not exist. Try again? Porygon-Z 13:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/federal-guidance-radiation-protection (without the dashes) --agr (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't give me new info. Though it does help to understand it. Does Am emit only alpha particle throughout its half life? Porygon-Z 18:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)
The Health concerns section of this article addresses your question. The talk page is for discussions on improving the article, not for providing personalized advice.—agr (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
More websites for new info! Right? Porygon-Z 13:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Half-Life

I have noticed that you didn't put the longest lasting half life of Americium like all the other superheavy elements. Could you fix that please? Porygon-Z 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)
@Porygon-Z474: The 7370-year half-life of the most stable isotope, 243Am, is given in the infobox and the article text. I'm not sure what exactly needs fixing. ComplexRational (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
You mention in other article related to this topic The most stable isotope is this with a half life of this. I don't see that here.Porygon-Z 12:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Porygon-Z474: I did a slight rewrite, it now clearly says that 243Am is the longest-lived with a half-life 7,370 years. Does this address your concern? ComplexRational (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes it looks much better now thank you.Porygon-Z 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

Unsafe?

How much Am is considered dangerous in a container(not lead)? What containers (Again, no lead) can I put it in to be the safest? Porygon-Z (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Americium/Archive_1&oldid=1181596383"