Talk:Uranium/Archive 1

message: The info box lists the melting point of uranium as 1405 kelvin or 2912 farenheight. These are rather different temperatures. Even if you try using the value given for kelvin as a celcius figure it's still off. Which one is correct? Icelight 20:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
: says 1405.3 K and 2070 F, I guess the fahrenheit one is incorrect. --kudz75 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting Point Discrepancy 

message: What are the "tons" for U.S. production?  I'd guess metric tons, but maybe short tons?  Or even long tons, which until at least a few decades ago were used for some mining such as iron ore production in the U.S.  Gene Nygaard 03:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's a "ton"?

message: I made a few corrections about the reference to Cameco Corporation.  Cameco mines uranium in the Athabasca Basin, not the "Athabaska."  In Saskatchewan, it has two operating uranium mines (Rabbit Lake and McArthur River), one mine in development (Cigar Lake), and one mill (Key Lake). jamin24601 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cameco

message: What is the standard for "isolation" of a metal?
As a metal from ore, wouldn't it date to antiquated iron-age smelting, for early contact with, say, a 50% refined element -- 1500s?  What is the chance that early ore-seekers would come upon rich enough deposits? Nrcprm2026 19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1841? 

message: The last two paragraphs of this section look strange.  The first is:
Given that the half life of 235U is considerably shorter than 238U, the "depleted" uranium is still significantly radioactive, as is the natural uranium after refining.
This reads as a non sequitur.  The actual activity of DU will depend on how much 235U is present, and the relative activities of 235U and 238U.  Is that what the original author was trying to say, or something else?
The last paragraph begins:
Another way to look at this is as follows:  Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) use natural uranium (0.71% fissile material) [...]
This sounds like someone is trying to persuade the reader, or (worse) the author of the preceeding paragraph, as opposed to just laying down the facts.
I recommend they be removed, and perhaps the details on enrichment be left as a simple wikilink.  mdf 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isotopes

message: Please add full reference information for the sources given in this new section. Vsmith 14:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was copied from Uranium trioxide which has full references; I have included it as the main article for the section. --James S. 14:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Which, as the talk page shows, seems to be highly contested. Only James S. seems to be pushing this line. I don't know enough about the topic to know the state of the literature but the fact that it is one person against about three or four makes me very suspicious that it is original research, especially since James seems to be personally involved in trying to petition about these issues in his real life. --Fastfission 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other editors supporting my efforts; the controversy was apparent long before I got here.  I'm the only one who bothers to go to the library on a regular basis to check facts -- with which there are serious problems on both sides of the debate.  Some people are far more anti-DU than I am, believing it is equivalent to the use of nuclear weapons.  My edits, which are well-supported with sources from the peer-reviewed and scholarly medical and scientific literature, represent the truth as best as I can determine it.  I admit that I am opposed to DU weapons, but I was not in 2004 before I started looking at the question. --James S. 19:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting into the dispute one way or another, I'm just pointing out that there is one, and that you seem to be the primary person pushing a particular approach, one clearly linked with a personal agenda, claiming to be pursuing the "truth" (rather than a reflection of the current literature, which is what Wikipedia aspires for itself), which raises my eyebrow a bit as the standard habit of POV-pushers. But I do not claim competency in the subject matter so I'm not arguing one way or another; just pointing out that I'm fairly suspicious. --Fastfission 19:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The combustion products are verisitiel and strongly depend on the conditions. The main dispute on the UO3 page is not which comustion products occure, but which state they are in. Solid or vapour at standart conditions. --Stone 11:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: After rereading the literature I now state there is no literature on uranium combustion products which states that UO3 is a primary combustion product. Indications are there but no research. Also possible to be a secondary combustion product. --Stone 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combustion products - refs 

message: The article says that 236U is "very short lived", yet the half life listed for it is 23 million years. What is going on here? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the <sup>236</sup>U half life 

message: How about the top five? ... Decorporation therapies are already acknoledged by several authorities as essential for exposure victims, and the correct toxicological response to exposure to the highly-soluble uranyl-laden forms such as UO3(g) and to a lesser extent U3O8(s), is a notable aspect of health and safety concerns. --James S. 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decorporation therapies 

message: Is anyone interested in substances which decrease lipid oxidation by stimulating cellular production of enzymes such superoxide dismutase and catalase? --James S. 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitigation therapies 

message: We need a list of the top five plants.      
 
The bacteria (e.g. deinococcus radiodurans more) mutate so quickly I'm amazed that the plants can even hold on to their chlorophyll patterns, but apparently there are a few of them which are now very good at it.  --James S. 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spill cleanup 

message: In spite of Australia's huge reserves, Canada remains the largest exporter of uranium ore with mines located in Athabasca basin in northern Saskatchewan. Cameco, the world’s largest, low-cost uranium producer accounting for 18% of the world’s uranium production, operates 3 mines in the area.
I believe that has to be updated now, in light of the deal signed between Australia and China, it (according to the news segment) makes Australia the worlds largest exporter, if i can find a news link that says this and outlines the %'s exported, i will update it, unless someone else can first--Nirvana- 07:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Exporter 

message: The article should follow the Article structure guidelines of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Also done in Berylium page wich is th combustion product of F1 race cars.--Stone 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what Stone is implying here: he is saying the combustion products should not be so "high" in the article.  I think the section is important, but since the oxides are under compounds anyway, the compounds section might be a more appropriate spot for that material. Olin 21:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh.  That's unfortunate that this is someone pushing a POV.  Since the article has information about tetragons, Gulf war syndrome and uranium oxides (and corresponding links) already without the rather prominent and poorly placed paragraph, would it be horrible to delete it? I know there are some against deletionism, but (as Femto said) this is not summary style in its current form.  Or is this going to trigger a huge edit war like at the other pages? Olin 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the arbitration page. Olin 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For my term: The use of depleted uranium is questionable at best. The negative effects are huge. The influence on cell reproduction is there and soluable uranium salts have to stay out of the enviroment. The DU problematic should be mentioned as it is with good source even the Golfwar syndrom has a place on the page. A link to uranium compounds which occure as final combustion products might be good when this articles reached a stable situation.--Stone 06:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved the section down--it made no real sense where it was since the properties of the element uranium have not even been discussed.  I would also like to see a reference to a primary source (instead of Cotton as a secondary source). Olin 16:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article structure (combustion products)

message: Nrcprm2026, you asked for discussion on this talk page in one of your revert summaries. It has been discussed. Don't shift the burden of proof. And don't start a revert war all over again.
A see also link always remained. I removed your POV tag. This is not about neutrality. At least for my part this is only about article structure. There still remains the little issue that even the most detailed and valid references are freaking useless when they're detached of any context. Write a summary paragraph that introduces the issue appropriate to a general article, and that links to articles that may explain it further. Femto 19:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combustion products, again 

message: There is not one single sourced statement in the whole Precautions section!  It needs work.  Give Peace A Chance 03:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully cited now. --mav 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Precautions

message: The article mentions as a point of interest that during the Manhattan project enough uranium was enriched to provide for one bomb, which the article says was the Hiroshima bomb. The article needs to be corrected to reflect the fact that enough uranium was enriched to provide for first the initial Manhattan project tests and then subsequently both the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs.
:Trinity and Fat Man were plutonium fueled devices. --DV8 2XL 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accuracy 

message: I have trimmed this section down and moved most of the material to the Uranium mining article. It was more or less a merge as that topic was missing what was brought in from this one. --DV8 2XL 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will probably want to try again. Dan Watts 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium mining 

message: While I was reading and studying the text, I a contradiction. At least, it is how I understand it.
When this was rediscovered, [...] and the local glassmaking industry kept a tight lid on the secret ingredient and its supply as long as it could.
This means that they used the uranium commercially in glass. That company was the first produces
The discovery of the element [...] In 1850 the first commercial use of Uranium in glass was developed by Lloyd & Summerfield of Birmingham, England. [...]
This means that it was first used in glass by Lloyd & Summerfial of Birmingham in England. This company is NOT in Bohemia
please tell me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a contradiction?
I am new to wikipedia and speak better french, but I am in an english-speeking country. Josellis
:The Summerfield mention has been deleted. Please see the text to see if it is OK now. --mav 15:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The article twice asserts that Australia has 70% of the world's total uranium deposits. This figure needs a reference. The BRW article I cite, as well as the ABS's Year Book Australia 2006, Ch. 16, say that Australia has 40% of the world's low-cost recoverable uranium. I'm not sure how that relates to the 70% figure. I think that, if a citation cannot be given for the 70% figure, it is safer to run with the lower % suitably qualified.
:70% figure no longer in the article. Cites added. --mav 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Uranium Deposits 

message: I would like to start work on this article to push it to FA quality and then put it through the meat grinder at WP:FAC. Other than the obvious need for an expanded lead, many more inline cites and some general clean-up, is there anything that stands out as needing attention? --mav 17:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article push 

message: The Uranium#Hazards section needs to be edited as follows:
All isotopes and compounds of uranium are toxic, teratogenic, and radioactive. Some compounds of uranium cause renal damage.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150-c2.pdf Uranyl (UO2+) ions, such as from uranium trioxide or uranyl nitrate and other hexavalent uranium compounds have been shown to cause birth defects and immune system damage. Finely-divided uranium metal presents a fire hazard because uranium is pyrophoric, so small grains will ignite spontaneously in air at room temperature.
The general population is exposed to uranium primarily through food and water; the average daily intake of uranium from food ranges from 0.07 to 1.1 micrograms per day. Uranium can enter the body when it is inhaled or swallowed, or under rare circumstances it may enter through cuts in the skin. Uranium does not absorb through the skin, and alpha particles released by uranium cannot penetrate the skin, so uranium that is outside the body is much less harmful than it would be if it were inhaled or swallowed. 
About half of uranium burning becomes a gaseous vapor fume, composed of uranium dioxide and uranium trioxide gas. The remainder becomes particulate oxides of many molecular varieties, which settle more quickly from the air. (Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles, vol. 2, pp. 819-38, at p. 836.)
James S. 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if I fully concur.  WP is not a safety guard.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it is better than the text in the article now, which is heavy on subterfuge and apologetics. Stan Ison 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To that I do concur.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: James are you still pounding away on the deadly uranium gas? How many times do people have to tell you that you need to brush up on your reading skills, because this shit dont exist. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  James, anyone in the know, has said that you are full of it on this point. Review talk for a more detailed explanation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Torturous Devastating Cudgel should review Wikipedia:Civility. That said, I found nothing in the referenced Carter and Stewart paper that suggests any uranium trioxide gas generated from combustion persists in the atmosphere for an appreciable length of time before it condenses into particulate form. In any case, drawing safety conclusions from a research article seems like original research, which should be published elsewhere first. If we include safety cautions at all they should be taken directly from recognized safety publications such as government guidelines or material safety sheets. If there is notable controversy about safety, it should be presented as any other controversy, with NOPV and no conclusions drawn. --agr 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reporting OR published elsewhere is not OR. We can say that "the study reports that ... "   Use of the toxicity symbol is appropriate if there is any doubt. Judging safety of anything to what the US government thinks is hazardous has not had a  good track record. If there is a US government statement we should use it as well. How about international standards?  DGG 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Drawing safety conclusions from a research article on the the behavior of materials under certain conditions would be OR. If we say anything about safety, it should be referenced to explicit, recognized sources. If US and, say, EU, standards differ, that is worth noting, but we should not express opinions about the adequacy of either.  Adding symbols implies a level of authority. If that symbol is recommended by safety bodies for the substance in question, it might be appropriate, otherwise it would seem to be expressing an opinion.--agr 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazards 

message: Does uranium trioxide gas exist?
* Yes, it is a combustion product comprising about 1/3 of the product of uranium mutitions shrapnel metal fires, per the reference and the information on my user page. I recommend that the Hazards section with the skull-and-crossbones be used, to bring the article in line with those of other toxins. James S. 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  James, anyone in the know, has said that you are full of it on this point. Review talk for a more detailed explanation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Torturous Devastating Cudgel should review Wikipedia:Civility. That said, I found nothing in the referenced Carter and Stewart paper that suggests any uranium trioxide gas generated from combustion persists in the atmosphere for an appreciable length of time before it condenses into particulate form. In any case, drawing safety conclusions from a research article seems like original research, which should be published elsewhere first. If we include safety cautions at all they should be taken directly from recognized safety publications such as government guidelines or material safety sheets. If there is notable controversy about safety, it should be presented as any other controversy, with NOPV and no conclusions drawn. --agr 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reporting OR published elsewhere is not OR. We can say that "the study reports that ... "   Use of the toxicity symbol is appropriate if there is any doubt. Judging safety of anything to what the US government thinks is hazardous has not had a  good track record. If there is a US government statement we should use it as well. How about international standards?  DGG 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Drawing safety conclusions from a research article on the the behavior of materials under certain conditions would be OR. If we say anything about safety, it should be referenced to explicit, recognized sources. If US and, say, EU, standards differ, that is worth noting, but we should not express opinions about the adequacy of either.  Adding symbols implies a level of authority. If that symbol is recommended by safety bodies for the substance in question, it might be appropriate, otherwise it would seem to be expressing an opinion.--agr 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed Survey 

message: In Carter, R.F. and K. Stewart (1970) "On the oxide fume formed by the combustion of plutonium and uranium" Inhaled Particles 2:819-38 () in particular, section (f) on page 836 indicates that about half of burning uranium goes into a gaseous vapor fume, instead of the aerosol particulates which have thus far been the only portion measured by those responsible for insuring depleted uranium munitions safety.  Volatility of uranium trioxide (a/k/a uranyl oxide) gas can be plotted from Alexander (2005) and Ackermann et al. (1956), resulting in a very large DOF-adjusted R2 corresponding to the 95% confidence interval shown. For the burning temperature of the shower-of-sparks which is the result of DU munitions use on hard targets, please see Mouradian and Baker (1963), and in particular figures 4 and 6 on page 392.  
Would someone please include the relevant portions of that proof? James S. 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof 

message: I note this graphic is used in the articles of several other toxic elements, and ask whether it should be used in Uranium, too? 
The following articles on the English Wikipedia link to that graphic: Arsenic, Antimony, Chlorine, Cadmium, Lead, Phosphorus, Thallium, Mercury (element), Poison, and Toxicity. James S. 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James, you can have this toxicity symbol in the text if you want, but that is not getting you the toxicity of the gaseous products of uranium you address above in the text.  That is a too specific danger, if it is up to me, the whole safety section is going to be cut-down to a bare minimum.  WP is not a safety guard, and not a manual.  For me a text saying that one should not get uranium, in whichever form, into living tissue, would be more than enough, radiation danger is addressed in other articles, and is named here, and biologic effects of uranium does not include the way of administration.  For specific dangers, consult an MSDS.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't a comprehensive article about a toxin include the details surrounding the largest recorded mass exposure? James S. 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an article about a chemical element, not about a toxin.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False, it's about both. 64.0.232.39 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point.  I think most toxicity is due to uranium salts, not to the metal.  Here specifically we should consider whether the toxicity of uranium salts should be addressed in this specific article.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the salts, it's the hexavalent ions which are worst, and the metal metabolizes into those uranyl ions.  If it is ingested, then not so much is absorbed.  So, inhalation is really integral to 90% of the uranium toxicity story. James S. 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is the answer, then.  To sum up that statement: inhalation is integral to 90% of the toxicity of the hexavalent uranium ions.  This article is about the element, the metal, so the information is not of importance here.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's more like 90% of all uranium poisonings involved uranium inhalation in February, 1991, at least until 2003; now it's probably more than 90%.  It depends on how many classified metalworkers and metallurgists were exposed. I am just guessing, having grown up around Rocky Flats, I think they only had a few direct accidents, and their few accidental releases didn't contaminate many people, and those they did weren't contaminated very much.  So, yes, at this point inhalation toxicology is by far the most notable of all the uranium toxicologies, because U isn't absorbed very well if ingested. I'm guessing the acidic environment of the GI tract will keep it in insoluble dioxide.  Can anyone confirm that pH less than 7 promotes the dioxide over the trioxide? James S. 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything is toxic in sufficient quantities --  even oxygen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull and crossbones 

message: *Yes, it should be. James S. James S. 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James, you can have this toxicity symbol in the text if you want, but that is not getting you the toxicity of the gaseous products of uranium you address above in the text.  That is a too specific danger, if it is up to me, the whole safety section is going to be cut-down to a bare minimum.  WP is not a safety guard, and not a manual.  For me a text saying that one should not get uranium, in whichever form, into living tissue, would be more than enough, radiation danger is addressed in other articles, and is named here, and biologic effects of uranium does not include the way of administration.  For specific dangers, consult an MSDS.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't a comprehensive article about a toxin include the details surrounding the largest recorded mass exposure? James S. 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an article about a chemical element, not about a toxin.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False, it's about both. 64.0.232.39 05:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point.  I think most toxicity is due to uranium salts, not to the metal.  Here specifically we should consider whether the toxicity of uranium salts should be addressed in this specific article.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the salts, it's the hexavalent ions which are worst, and the metal metabolizes into those uranyl ions.  If it is ingested, then not so much is absorbed.  So, inhalation is really integral to 90% of the uranium toxicity story. James S. 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is the answer, then.  To sum up that statement: inhalation is integral to 90% of the toxicity of the hexavalent uranium ions.  This article is about the element, the metal, so the information is not of importance here.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's more like 90% of all uranium poisonings involved uranium inhalation in February, 1991, at least until 2003; now it's probably more than 90%.  It depends on how many classified metalworkers and metallurgists were exposed. I am just guessing, having grown up around Rocky Flats, I think they only had a few direct accidents, and their few accidental releases didn't contaminate many people, and those they did weren't contaminated very much.  So, yes, at this point inhalation toxicology is by far the most notable of all the uranium toxicologies, because U isn't absorbed very well if ingested. I'm guessing the acidic environment of the GI tract will keep it in insoluble dioxide.  Can anyone confirm that pH less than 7 promotes the dioxide over the trioxide? James S. 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Everything is toxic in sufficient quantities --  even oxygen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: the valence electrons(6) and ending electrions(2) dont match what gives?--Spartan117009 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of a clearly defined valence shell becomes pretty much useless beyond the main group and other electrons get involved. Femto 16:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and that menas the valence electrons arn't included?--Spartan117009 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean included in the count of the 'outer' 7th shell? Yes, obviously, more than those can be involved in chemical bonds. Femto 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrons 

message: The boiling point is incorrect. Here are the correct temperatures: 3818.0 °C, 4091.15 K, 6904.4 °F. You can find references here and here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gibith (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sites don't cite their sources and are not reliable sources themselves. (At least not up to the standard of an encyclopedia. Most collections on the net seem to copy from each other without verification anyway.) Reference is boiling points of the elements (data page). Femto 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boiling Point 

message: Just a little comment to improve the text. In the intro you said something like "named after Uranus which was discovered itself only years later". Please specify that you refer to the planet Uranus... Both the element and the planet were named after the greek god... quite evident to all of you, sure, but the text is not 100% neat the way it is...
*Good point. Fixed. --mav 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranus 

message: "The uranium-based Little Boy device became the first nuclear weapon used in anger..."
I think that 'anger' probably describes the attitude of a large portion of the US population toward the nation of Japan during the WWII era, but who in particular was angry when they built the bomb, decided its specific target, or pushed the 'release' button?  Perhaps the phrasing could be changed to something more along the lines of "first nuclear weapon used in warfare" to express a more neutral point of view as well as being more historically accurate.  
An act of war is objective and verifiable, an act in anger is subjective and debatable.
71.139.40.109 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So noted and fixed. --mav 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desctiption of the Hiroshima bombing... 

message: would be a good reference.--Stone 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: * --Stone 11:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * -Stone 11:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitride 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Why does this article need over 40 templates anyway? WjBscribe 02:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: FYI, here's a listing of elementbox infobox templates. +A.0u 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floating shock image 

message: Serious vandalism. Please lock and remove vile photo--Diablorex 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOCK THE PAGE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photo should be rotated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reproductive toxicity 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Effects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Converting to Imperial is not the issue here. The only conversion done was by me to SI. --mav 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SI Units - seek consensus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  contradictory information 

message: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Decay of U-235 upon neutron capture 

message: 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.[]
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.[]
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)
thread_title:  Uraninite 

message: Uranium is a neurotoxin.W. Briner and J. Murray (2005) "Effects of short-term and long-term depleted uranium exposure on open-field behavior and brain lipid oxidation in rats,"  Neurotoxicology and Teratology 27(1):135-44; .Monleau, M. et al. (2005) "Bioaccumulation and behavioural effects of depleted uranium in rats exposed to repeated inhalations," Neuroscience Letters, vol. 390, pp. 31-6.Lestaevel, P. et al. (2005) "The brain is a target organ after acute exposure to depleted uranium" Toxicology, 212, 219-226.Jiang, G.C. and Aschner, M. (2006) "Neurotoxicity of Depleted Uranium: Reasons for Increased Concern," Biological Trace Element Research, vol. 110(1), pp. 1-18; .  Please include that fact and place this article in :Category:Neurotoxins.  Thank you.  James S. 13:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The different isotopes are apparently not toxicologicaly  identical. 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. ←BenB4 03:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurotoxicity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linking to Isotopes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Um, no. Check your sources :|. 70.64.78.207 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data mismatch 

message: One would create an article about Uranium market that would include commercialization and prices. --Mac (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market 

message: 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" :
** 
** dummytext
DumZiBoT (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uranium and Coal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2004 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health article on chemistry and toxicology 

message: 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)
thread_title: Uranium Teeth

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mining Distibution Map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Australia "Reserve" clarification 

message: 212.183.134.208 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another error 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  ¨Silvery-grey?¨ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Twice as dense?