Talk:Strontium/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Strontium. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Disputed

The article states that the power released by strontium 90 is 0.46 watts per gram. However, according to [1], it is 0.93 watts per gram. Polonium 21:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/conghand/inpower.htm which gives a similar value of 0.921 W/g specific power for pure strontium-90. Femto 11:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

HELP from historians

someone who knows history well please add material to the effect that Strontium 90 was ddiscovered in cow's milk in the 1960s and that the Atomic Energy Commission twisted itself into pretzeline configurations to cover up the fact that radiation from atomic testing was polluting a great many americans.

Try:

U.S. FDA. Total Diet Study: A. Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 Content. B. Nutrient Content. C. Pesticide Content. JAOAC 46(4). 1963.
Consumers Union. The milk all of us drink-- and the fallout. Consumer Reports, pp. 102-111. March 1959.
Consumers Union. Strontium-90 in the total diet. Consumer Reports, pp. 5-6. January 1960a.
Consumers Union. Fallout in our milk...a follow- up report. Consumer Reports, pp. 64-70. February 1960b.
Consumers Union. Strontium-90 in the total diet. Consumer Reports, pp. 289-293. June 1960c.
Consumers Union. A follow-up study on Strontium-90 in the total diet. Consumer Reports, pp. 547-549. October 1961.

The whole story is in these articles. --DV8 2XL 15:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page to expressly learn about the whole milk with Sr90 thing (though I'm not the original poster). If you're familiar with the situation, I think it could be a useful addition to the page. Matt Deres 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

William Cruickshank

Why no mention of him as co-discoverer? JackofOz 08:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing content

The article needs to look at pure metal (rather than strontium compound) sources.aiaz 18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)74.98.191.27 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Yes - this article needs a complete rewrite to focus on strontium metal & its alloys. Currently it is misleading. The strontium compound information should be moved.aiaz 18:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 74.98.191.27 20:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, some of the elements have sections which are split, 'applications' and 'compounds'. It does indeed feel like there are quite some applications of the metal missing, could you add some? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone forward and split the applications section into a applications section (for applications of the metal, and a compounds-section. Can you expand the applications section, that is not my speciality? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Specific Mass

In solid state the s.g. is 2.6 g·cm−3 and in liquid state 6.980 g·cm−3 ? Does it really contract 2.5 times ? Possibly wrong data... S k a t e b i k e r 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct value according to the "Density of Liquid Elements" table in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is 2.375 g/cm³. The value 6.980 g/cm³ is the liquid density of tin (Sn), the adjacent element in the same table. The article now has the correct value. Piperh 20:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Strontium in drinking water

Is the strontium found in mineral waters such as Gerolsteiner stable or radioactive (toxic)? Badagnani (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk

Near the bottom of the article it is mentioned "However, their long-term safety and efficacy have never been evaluated on humans using large-scale medical trials. Such compounds should not be administered to humans before further studies are conducted." Having recently read an article relating to double blind human tests of stontium intake I am left with the impression that the first sentence is out of date. The magazine was something about bone health. Sorry that I can't recall the name. The second sentence seems to be a value's statement, and therefore I consider it out of place on wikipedia. My two bits worth.

Y'know, these element articles look very messy now. I cleaned this one up just as an example. The way it looked before, the external link dominated the page. Wikipedia isn't a web directory (see what Wikipedia is not): we shouldn't just send people to other pages when we will want to include that same information here!

I like it -- only problem, is that it will take a couple of hours to convert all the elements to the new format.(which I am not up to at the moment) maveric149

By the way, could someone find out whether the listed .gov pages (here, e.g.) are public domain? If so, let's use them! --LMS

I also whould like to know if the LANL pages are public domain (the lack of a copyright notice, along with the general rule that federaly funded documents are in the public domain, leads me to think that this is so - which is why I choose to link to LANL) maveric149

In general, I prefer to use horizontal rules (lines) only to separate multiple separate articles which appear under the same name; see Krypton for an example. Of course, once the multiple articles become very large, it is probably better to split the article in two; but this is often not really necessary with "little" things. -BD

Sounds good to me. Just need the time to implement it. maveric149

BTW I just emailed the person at LANL responsible for the periodic table there. In the email I asked about the copyright status of the webpages. Hope to get an answer on this soon. maveric149

The reason I added the links to the LANL webpages, was to ensure that if someone looked up say, Indium, they got more than "A chemical element, in the periodic table. Indium has the symbol In and atom number 49". So the links act as a stop-gap until the articles mature past stub status. Also, it is my hope that the LANL webpages are in the public domain, so having links to it would expedite the fleshing out process. Then, "External Link(s)" could be changed to "Source Document(s)". maveric149 .

The LANL pages were created by Robert Husted while he was employed at LANL. LANL is operated by the University of California, but is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy; works created by their employees in furtherance of their duties are therefore not subject to copyright. We should be able to use this material directly without permission or attribution of any kind--we (US taxpayers) already paid for it; it belongs to us. --LDC

I was born Canada in 1946, the first official year of the Baby Boomers. I vividly remember news reports of hydrogen bombs being exploded in the 1950s by the Americans and the USSR which released Strontium 90 into the atmosphere over the Northern Hemisphere. This was readily absorbed by cows in the place of calcium and contaminated ordinary milk products. It still worries me today. Anyone have any knowledge of the long-term negative effects of Strontium 90 in human bone? -- Coasting

Ok, I have this science project and I'm supposed to do it on strontium. One of the things you're supposed to have is it's classifications. Can someone help me? I can't really figure out what it is.

/* Talk */ There is discrepancy between density at melting point property of Strontium. Which one is right?? Page "Densities of the elements (data page)" states Density, liquid phase 6.980 g/cm³ but On the main page for element Dencity at melting point stated 2.37 g/cm³ guliaka (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Culture Reference

I'm not sure of a good way to wedge in a culture reference here. (Strontium is mentioned to be the isotope in Fallout 3 that's featured in Nuka-Cola Quantum.)24.151.133.95 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Occurence?

The section on occurence lists a number of countries where Strontium is extracted, (and the intro section says that it was first found in Scotland). Then right at the end of the section it says "The largest commercially exploited deposits are in England". This does not gel with the rest of the article, and seems unlikely. I have found references to commercial extraction in South Gloucestershire 9http://www.sgmrg.co.uk/celestine.php) but that seems to indicate that the deposits were not large and are now worked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.33.68 (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Right deleted the last sentence, USGS gives good list where strontium is mined. --Stone (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice to find that mav added that line in February 2002 diff. This a long time for an error to stay in an articel, but now its gone.--Stone (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECORDS? Nergaal (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Deposits of celestite in Gloucestershire, the United Kingdom, represented the main source of the world supply from 1884 to 1941 and provided up to 90% of the world strontium supply from Strontium. doi:10.1002/0471238961.192018150809020. might be a good source for that fact, although it is outdated.--Stone (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

assessment

Lead

The lead is to short and does not give a overview.
- Longer.

Characteristics

Very short with only one source for all the facts.
- Longer now.
Physical properties are not given.
Is it different to calcium or barium? Which of the two neighbors is more similar?

History

Why does the history section end in 1941?
- Bit longer now, ending in 1960s.

Occurrence

There might be more to say and a comparison with Ca and Ba would be nice. Why is Ba easier to find although less abundant?
better and includes Ca in seawater.

Production

Where the heck is this section?
- Appeared.
  - C₂?

Isotopes

Some of the medical part in the isotopes section should be in the applications section.
SNAP (isotope battery) can also merge with the applications section.

Applications

The applications mentioned above are not mentioned here!

Radioactive strontium isotopes

Why is this in the compound section?

General critics

I only say otolith and acantharians.
I always thought there are radiolarian or diatoms using that stuff?
A biology section is missing.
- Much better now.

--Stone (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

- .--Stone (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrectly categorised applications

The second half of the section under the header "Uses for radioactive strontium" is incorrectly located. It talks about naturally occurring strontium replacing calcium in bone and how this can be used for matching bone remains to a location. That is a use for the natural, non radioactive strontium. It shouldn't be listed under radioactive uses. Likewise the paragraph fowling that talks about 87Sr/86Sr ratios and how they can be used in geological studies. This again is not a radioactive use. Shouldn't these paragraphs be moved up the page under the genereal "Applications" heading. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right.

Done. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Chernobyl

Someone has inserted a sentence "The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated a vast area with 90Sr." in the Isotopes section. There is no citation for this insertion. Sr90 is not listed as a major released contaminant in the Chernobyl disaster article. Although strontium-90 is undoubtedly produced in nuclear fission, it's the volatile fission products such as iodine and cesium that are mostly released to be dispersed at a distance, while the refractory products such as strontium oxide are released as particulates that settle quickly or are retained in the corium melt. There is substantial release of strontium-90 in a thermonuclear explosion, because the much higher temperature volatilizes the more refractory materials. The article concludes that contamination by strontium-90 was limited to the immediate area surrounding Chernobyl. 24.108.28.165 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed to:

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated about 30 000 km² with greater than 10 kBq/m² with ⁹⁰Sr.

"Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impact, 2002 update; Chapter I - The site and accident sequence" (PDF). OECD-NEA. 2002. Retrieved 2015-06-03.

--Stone (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Strontium/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*The history section needs to mentione several people also involved in the discovery!--Stone (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Health and safety issues

In the section Biological role subsection Effect on the human body the second and third paragraphs look problematic. The second paragraph reads like an advertizement for the oesteoporisis drug strontium ranelate. Since we already have an entire article about this drug, this looks a little much. Next, it doesn't mention that this is considered a dangerous drug for use as a last resort. In the US, it's not even allowed. In the EU, the maximum allowed dosage was first reduced to 680 mg, then it was restricted for use a last resort drug. (European Medicines Agency - Protelos - trade name of strontium ranelate)

The next paragraph seems to about the use of strontium as a nutritional supplement, but without mention how controversial it is. "Studies indicate a lack of undesirable side-effects.[72][73][74][75][76][77]" If you're taking strontium, you need to be under the supervision of a physician. The Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 doesn't mention strontium or any dosage. It just authorizes the FDA to set upper safe limits for ingredients in nutritional supplements, even when the substance has no health value. Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was rather surprised to see all that glowing text, too. Like, with all this confetti, where is the Nobel prize? I should have tagged it. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 02:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a rather more sane review. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I~~t burns in air to produce..~~ ~~- not clear what "It" refers to given previous sentence~~

Done Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

~~Besides the simple oxide SrO, the peroxide SrO2 and yellow superoxide Sr(O2)2 are also known~~ ~~- "are known" seems a bit perfunctory - would help if some brief notes on rarity/how made added for the two extra compounds~~

Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

~~Any info on the superoxide? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)~~

Not that I could find. The one source I found that mentions it could only detect it through ESR spectroscopy. Since KO₂ is already a potent explosive, and Sr²⁺ is smaller and more highly charged than K⁺, I think I can see why this is the case. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

~~I don't get any feel for what Organostrontium compounds actually are or why they are notable.~~

Better? Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated about 30,000 km2 with greater than 10 kBq/m2 with 90Sr. _ I'd a dd a footnote trying to relate this number to upper limit of safe exposure

This may be a problem. First of all, the units don't match: for radiation doses, you want the sievert, not the becquerel. Secondly, even if you were to try to calculate from this, it may not be a reasonable assumption to make that the ⁹⁰Sr is uniformly distributed: for instance SrCl₂ is soluble and will hence be mobile, but SrCO₃ will not be so. Perhaps a better comparison would be that it makes up 5% of all the ⁹⁰Sr we have released into the environment? Double sharp (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

~~Yes, just something to give it some context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)~~

Done Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

~~Updated figures in production would be good.~~

Updated to 2014. Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

~~In the Applications section, I'd move material on the decline of CRT to sentence 2 in opening para as it's pretty precipitous and notable.~~

Done Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Its uncontrolled presence in bones can cause.. - "uncontrolled" is possibly redundant?

Removed. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Would be good to provide a link or exact source location for File:World Strontium Production 2014.svg

Done Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please format all reference dates the same way.

Done Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- great, well done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Weird Units

SI units like Thermal Expansion are given here in micrometer/meter/Kelvin. They should be reduced to 1/K .

It means that strontium expands 22.5 micrometres per metre upon a one-Kelvin rise in temperature at 298 K. I suppose it could be reduced to 10⁻⁶ K⁻¹, though spelling the ratio out may be useful. Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)