# Talk:Polonium

The introduction states that "[b]esides being radioactive, polonium is extremely toxic".  Yet, its radioactivity is the only harmful aspect discussed in the article.  If polonium is chemically toxic, then the mechanism of the toxicity should be described, if known.  ZFT (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, it's just radiotoxicity. From this article: "[...] not hazardous as long as the alpha particles remain outside the body."
Also, elsewhere: "While some weakly radioactive substances, such as uranium, are also chemical toxicants, more strongly radioactive materials like radium are not, their harmful effects (radiation poisoning) being caused by the ionizing radiation produced by the substance rather than chemical interactions with the substance itself."
And some source which spells it out: "Polonium does not have toxic chemical properties."
The article can definitely be improved to make this clearer. --Klaws (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Added a line to the article to make it clearer. Klaws (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest that there is simply no experiment that can establish whether a highly radioactive substance has no chemical toxicity and I would bet that it is as chemically toxic as a heavy metal like Pb. However, the usual way in which heavy metals are toxic is for them to be used by the body in place of needed elements (Pb is similar to the necessary element zinc) and I don't know how an experiment would show that Po replaces, say, zinc chemically in the body if the organism dies before this uptake can occur or if the radioactivity itself interferes with uptake of the Po. I doubt that the very tiny amounts needed to kill a human (via radiation) would have chemical effects. Even very deadly organic mercury compounds I do not think have a measurable effect at microgram quantities -- I think it requires milligrams even in the case of dimethyl mercury.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.86 (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC) 

It's difficult to find accurate sources, but I'm not sure the current statement is correct and the source provided by @Klaws: (courtesy ping also to @ZFT:) is less than ideal. I can find other sources (although none that I feel are much better than the current one) that suggests polonium is quite significantly chemically toxic, but due to the very small amounts needed for lethal radioactive dose it's chemical toxicity is much less important. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's than ideal, and I am kind of suspicious of the "not chemically toxic" statements. Still, that's what I got from the sources. Selenium and Tellurium are "mildly toxic", as well as Bismuth, so I'd expect Polonium to be at least mildly chemically toxic as well.
Still, very hard to verify, even with 209Po which is about 330 times "less radioactive per second" than 210Po. --Klaws (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

symbol Dalton 42.111.124.42 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"More than one hypothesis exists for how polonium does this; one suggestion is that small clusters of polonium atoms are spalled off by the alpha decay.[citation needed]"
The CN has existed since 2019. Perhaps it's time for deletion.
Rockethead293 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation added. Not the highest quality source (workshop paper), but both the lead author and the venue seem respectable, and it's clearly labelled as a hypothesis. Hqb (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, are those properties based on polonium-208, -209, or -210? 14.52.231.91 (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I would guess 210Po, as it's the most readily available one. Double sharp (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, very likely... :) 14.52.231.91 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, I would rather be interested in the physical properties of 209Po... 129.104.241.27 (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Its chemistry as well, for me! Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)